SYLLABUS (FALL 2005)

OB-7303: Section 001

RESEARCH METHODS

Instructor: Dr. Orlando C. Richard

Class: Tuesday; 2-4:45PM
Office: SOM 2.901
Phone: 9)883-4073
E- mail: pretty@utdallas.edu and orgbevocr@aol.com
Office Hours: By appointment

Objectives

Research Methods is a cross-disciplinary seminar that examines issues related to

the conduct of social/behavioral research in laboratory and field settings. The purpose is
to enha nce and reinforce your knowledge and understanding of the various steps in the
research process. Hence, it is anticipated that students will develop skills needed to
formulate research questions, develop a plan or design for answering those questions,
implement the plan and evaluate. Students will be exposed to a number of research
strategies and issues. Obviously, different strategies will be more relevant to some
disciplines than others; nevertheless, a broader view of the research process will allow
you to identify the strengths and weaknesses of empirical research efforts inside and
outside of your respective disciplines. Thus, not only will you improve your skills as a
researcher, but you will also become a better consumer of research. While this is not a
statistics course, certain topics (e.g., measurement and experimental design) are
inextricably tied to statistical analysis. Hence, a basic understanding of statistics (e.g.,
correlation and regression) is assumed.

Tentative Course Outline

The course is divided into 15 modules. Required readings for each module come
from Kerlinger & Lee (2000) Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th Edition, and a set
of articles.

1. SCIENTIFIC METHOD—LOGICAL EMPIRICIST VIEW (August 23rd)

Behling, O. 1980. The case for the natural science model for research in organizational
behavior and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 5: 483-490.

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 3-14

2. A: ROLE OF THEORY

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 15-20

B: ROLE OF DATA: DATASET OVERVIEW FOR EXERCISES AND PAPER

3. EMPIRICAL RELEVANCE (August 30th )

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 23-37; 275-300

Chandler, G.H., & Lyon, D.W. 2001. Issues of research design and construct
measurement in entrepreneurship: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Summer, 101-113.

Venkatraman, N. 1989. Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct,

dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35: 942+

4. CONSTRUCT COMPLEXITY (GUEST SPEAKER-GREGORY DESS)

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 39-60

Osigweh, C.A.B. 1989. Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy of

Management Review, 14: 579-594.

Lumpkin, G. T., and Dess, G.G. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation
construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21: 135-172.

5. CAUSAL EXPLANATION AND THEORY TESTING (September 6th )

Venkatraman, N. 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and
statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14: 423-444.

Earley, P.C., & Mosakowski, E. 2000. Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test
of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 26-49.

Delery, J., & Doty, H. 1996. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource
management: Universalistic, contingency, and configurational perspectives. Academy of
Management Journal, 39: 802-835.

Raver, J.L., & Gelfand, M.J. 2005. Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual
harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal,
48: 387-400.

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 863-888

6. MEASUREMENT—RELIABILITY (September 13th )

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 641-663

Peter, J.P. 1979. Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing
practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16: 6-17.
Rust, R.T., & Cooil, B. 1994. Reliability measures for qualitative data: Theory and
implications. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 1-14. (skim only)

Lievens, F. 2001. Assessing training strategies and their effects on accuracy, interrater
reliability, and discriminant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 255-264.

7. MEASUREMENT—VALIDITY (September 20th )

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 665-686

Peter, J.P. 1981. Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 133-145.

Churchill, G. A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing

constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16: 64-76.

Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., & Schroeder, R.G. 1989. An instrument for measuring the
critical factors of quality mana gement. Decision Sciences, 20: 810-829. (skim only)

Linn, V., Graham, J.W., and Dienesch, R.M. 1994. Organizational citizenship behavior:
Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,
37: 765-802.

EXAM 1: (September 27th)

VALIDITY and RELIABILITY RESULTS (October 4, 2005)

8. RESEARCH DESIGN—GENERAL PURPOSE (GUEST SPEAKER-DAVINA

VORA: TOPIC, Ropes to Know Session along with Q & A) (October 11th )

Speaker’s paper to be distributed

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 449-464; 465-479

Scott, W. E. 1975. The development of knowledge in organizational behavior and human

performance. Decision Sciences, 6: 142-165. (skim only)

Melesky, T. 1991. The mechanics of the Ph.D. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
27: 441-451.

9. RESEARC H DESIGN—INTERNAL VALIDITY (October 18th )

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 475-478

10. RESEARCH DESIGN—EXTERNAL VALIDITY AND CLASS DEBATE

Berkowitz, P.M. 1982. External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to the
criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37: 245-257.

Dipboye, R., & Flanagan, M. 1979. Are findings in the field more generalizable than in
the laboratory. American Psychologist, 34: 141-150.

Gordon, M., Slade, L., & Schmitt, N. 1986. The “science of the sophomore” revisited:
From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11: 191-207.

Gordon, M., Slade, L., & Schmitt, N. 1987. Student guinea pigs: Porcine predictors and
particularistic phenomena. Academy of Management Review, 12: 160-163.

Greenburg, J. 1987. The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight.
Academy of Management Review, 12: 157-159.

Mook, D.G. 1983. In defense of external validity. American Psychologist, 38: 379-387.

11. QUASI-EXPERIMENTATION (October 25th )

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 535-550

Greenburg, J. 1996. “Forgive Me, I’m New”: Three experimental demonstrations of the
effects of attempts to excuse poor performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 66: 165-178.

12. CONDUCTING RESEARCH AND GROUP PROJECT WORK (November 1st )

Daft, R.L. 1983. Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy of Management
Review, 4: 539-546.

Daft, R. L. 1985. Why I recommended that your manuscript be rejected and what you
can do about it. Organization Science, Chapter 12, 193-209.

13. NONEXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS (GUEST SPEAKER SEUNG-HYUN LEE)

(November 8th )

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 557-570

Scandura, T.A., & Williams, E.A. 2000. Research methodology in management: Current
practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal,
43(6): 1248-1264.

Selected manuscripts from Management Faculty

14. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH & ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES (November
15th )

Kerlinger & Lee, pp. 588-595

Evered, R. & Louis, M. 1981. Alternative perspectives to organizational sciences:

“Inquiry from the inside” and “Inquiry from the outside.” Academy of Management
Review, 6: 385-395.

Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. 1980. The case for qualitative research. Academy of
Management Review, 5: 491-500.

Steffy, B.D., & Grimes, A.J. 1986. A critical theory of organizational science. Academy
of Management Review, 11: 322-336. (optional)

15. MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES AND CLASS PAPER DISCUSSION (November

22nd)

Gioia, D.A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy
of Management Review, 15: 584-602.

Hassard, J. 1991. Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: A case study.

Organizational Studies, 12(2): 275-299.

Jick, T. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 24:602-611.

COURSE PAPER AND PRESENTATION: (November 29th)

TAKE HOME EXAM 2 DUE: (December 4th AT 2PM)

Course Requirements

The course grade comprises an in-class mid-term (20%), a take- home final exam
(20%), and a course paper (50%). The paper should be a maximum of 20 typewritten
double-spaced pages. Finally, class participation in the form of facilitation, discussion
and group critiques of published research (10%) will be evaluated.

Guidelines for Course Paper

Philosophy. This paper is not merely a class exercise. Students in the course
should revise their papers for submission to a conference and/or quality journal.

Option I: Construct Paper.

Co-authored works are not acceptable for the construct paper. Topics should fall within
divisions of the Academy of Management in which a formal course is not offered here
(e.g., social issues management, international organizational behavior, international
human resource management, management education, gender and diversity, management
history, health management, organization communication). This will force you to
explore outside literature that is tangent to your interest but has not been directly offered
in your curriculum.

Choose a construc t that is controversial, novel or capable of being defined (constitutional

or operational) in different ways (e.g., cultural intelligence, top management team
heterogeneity).

How is the construct defined and measured? What has been done to establish the
reliability and validity of any existing measures?

If the construct has existed for some time, address the development and evolution of the
construct. How has the definition and measurement of the construct (e.g., leadership)
changed since it was first proposed?

Discuss the implications of using different forms (constitutional or operational) of the

construct. For example, do research results change when different forms of the construct
are used?

What is the current status of the construct? How does it relate to other constructs or
phenomena in your area of interest? Does it have any utility in predicting, explaining, or
integrating those phenomena?

What does the future hold for the scientific utility of the construct? What changes are
needed? What do you propose to do differently?

For a traditional example of a “construct paper” see: Bourgeois, L.J. 1981. On the
measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6: 29-39.

For a more recent example, see: Lumpkin & Dess, 1995, Academy of Management
Review.

Option II: Individual or Team Research Paper. Please use the following
format:

1. Introduction (with purpose and overview of study)

a. problems, issues
b. motivational purpose
c. usefulness for academics and practitioners
2. Review of the Literature

3. Theory and Hypotheses

 a. Identify gap in the literature
b. Provide research questions or hypotheses tested
c. Visual depiction if useful

4. Methodology (with research Design and Sample, variable Measures, statistical

analysis employed)

5. Results and Discussion

For a recent example of format, see: Richard et al., 2004, Academy of Management
Journal.

Paper Requirements

1. Please use the citation and reference formats found in the Academy of Management
Review or Academy of Management Journal.

2. Maximum of 30 pages including references (not tables and figures).

3. Discuss your topic with me by OCT 7

4. An outline of your paper is due NOV 1

5. Written presentation and Oral document DUE DATE: November 29, 2005

Important Dates

EXAM 1: SEPTEMBER 27 @ 2:00PM

COURSE PAPER AND PRESENTATION: NOVEMBER 29 @ 2:00PM

FINAL EXAM: SUNDAY, DECEMBER 4 @ 2:00PM