Kim, Sijun Korea University

Source: http://empiricalquestion.blogspot.kr/2010/04/personality-word-cloud.html

Correspondence: Sijun Kim ialfykorea@gmail.com (M.S. student, Korea University Business School)

I acknowledge that Wonsuk Tae, Seoyoung Byun, and Yongwook Lee gave developmental comments to these slides and that Giwon Kim and other Kwanjeong Mensches paid attention to my presentation.

Contents

0. Introduction:

1. How to “read” a (empirical) research paper in social science

2. What is (not) theory?

3. How to “write” a (empirical) research paper in social science

4. How to write “less badly”?

5. Conclusion: we learn “from” and “with” the others

0. INTRODUCTION (1/2)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (0/15)

Curiosity does not always result in research

I have never understood why our trade values, but rarely teaches, nonfiction writing. In my nearly 30 years at universities, I have seen a lot of very talented people fail because they couldn't, or didn't, write.

Source: Munger, Michael. 2010. ―10 Tips on How to Write Less Badly‖. http://chronicle.com/article/10-Tips-on-How-to-Write-Less/124268/

After 4-year undergraduate courses

After 2-year graduate coursework with bunch of

reading assignments

Do we know what research is really like?

Do we know how to conduct a less-bad, if not really good, research?

When it comes to “research”… Is the situation any better?

NOT every student has an opportunity of On-the-Job-Training. Nonetheless, curiosity of the “disadvantaged” also has “POTENTIALS”.

0. INTRODUCTION (2/2)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (0/15)

Purpose of the next 15 slides

Part 1.

1. Present how a research paper is composed.

2. Show how to read a paper most effectively/efficiently.

Part 2.

1. Explain what theory is (not).

Part 3.

1. Introduce a guideline of academic writing (AMJ Editorials).

2. Summarize 10 recommendations to write less badly.

NOTICE: This presentation is ONLY the tip of an iceberg. I strongly recommend you to approach primary sources that I cited.

1. HOW TO READ A PAPER? (1/3)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (1/15)

How a paper is composed…

Abstract SUMMARY of a whole paper

Introduction 1) Derivation of RESEARCH QUESTION 2) Another summary for some disciplines

Literature Review & Hypotheses

Relevant previous research (NOT ENUMERATION), THEORETICAL derivation of testable IDEAS

Methods & Results

1) How my ideas are ACTUALLY TESTED 2) How my RESEARCH QUESTION is ―solved‖

Conclusion Similar to abstract, but more COMPREHENSIVE

Discussion EXPLANATION of research FINDINGS

1. HOW TO READ A PAPER? (2/3)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (2/15)

Where gold mine is located…

First sentence

Figure

Table

A is B. There are numerous

examples. For instance, C

exemplifies this sensemaking

process. In addition, D is also explained by the frame. Some people argue I‘m wrong but I disagree. In this sense, I am sure that B contains A.

Trait

Context

Motivation Attitude

B P-value

IV .25 .003**

IV x MO .11 .045*

R-square .33

Example Structure

A approach Samsung Vertical

B approach Apple Horizontal

C approach Google Network

Source: Kim, Suhkyung. ―논문 잘 읽는 법‖, http://www.slideshare.net/suhkyungbud/ss-27192478

Italicized words

1. HOW TO READ A PAPER? (3/3)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (3/15)

Know your purpose

1. I want to know the flow of literature

Focus on Literature Review and Discussion Consider reading Review papers and Meta-analyses.

2. I want to know “operationalization” and testing process

Focus on Methods and Results

3. I want to know what was found out

Focus on Hypotheses, Results, and Conclusion

4. I want to read “explorative, provocative” articles

Consider reading Conceptual or Inductive (Qualitative) papers

Here I acknowledge that the contents of this slide are greatly influenced by dialogues with Dr. Hack Soo Kim and Prof. Jinhee Choi, both from Korea University Business School.

2. WHAT IS (NOT) THEORY? (1/3)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (4/15)

Theory: Statement of Relationships

G E N E R A L I Z A B I L I T Y

Constructs Constructs

Variables Variables

Propositions

Hypotheses

Boundary: Assumptions about values, time, and space WHO, WHEN, WHERE

Source: Bacharach. 1989. ―Organizational Theories‖. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 496-515. Whetten. 1989. ―What constitutes a theoretical contribution? AMR, 14(4) 490-495.

WHAT

HOW

“WHY” is not here, but it exists everywhere and is the QUINTESSENCE.

2. WHAT IS (NOT) THEORY? (2/3)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (5/15)

What theory is not

Source: Sutton & Staw. 1995. ―What theory is not‖. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384. Bacharach. 1989. ―Organizational Theories‖. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 496-515.

References per se

Data per se

List of variables, constructs per se

Diagrams, typologies per se

Metaphors per se

Citing a lot of articles itself IS NOT A THEORY.

Presenting fancy data itself IS NOT A THEORY.

Talking about a lot of concepts itself IS NOT A THEORY.

Enumerating a lot of relationships itself IS NOT A THEORY.

Introducing analogy itself IS NOT A THEORY.

2. WHAT IS (NOT) THEORY? (3/3)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (6/15)

How theoretical contribution is evaluated…

Falsifiability Utility

Validity Scope

1. What’s new? 4. Well done?

2. So what? 5. Done well?

3. Why so? 6. Why now? & 7. Who cares?

Source: Bacharach. 1989. ―Organizational Theories‖. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 496-515. Whetten. 1989. ―What constitutes a theoretical contribution? AMR, 14(4) 490-495.

Whetten’s 7 criteria

Bacharach’s 2 criteria

Regarding ‗falsifiability‘, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Regarding ‗validity‘, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)

3. HOW TO WRITE A PAPER? (1/5)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (7/15)

Topic Choice

Source: Colquitt & George. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 1: Topic Choice. AMJ, 54(3): 432-435.

Taking on “GRAND CHALLENGES” Significance

CHANGING the conversation Novelty

Catching and holding ATTENTION Curiosity

Casting a WIDER net Scope

Insights for PRACTICE Actionability

You don’t have to satisfy ALL the criteria since it is too strict. Yet, try to satisfy as many as possible or some criteria significantly.

3. HOW TO WRITE A PAPER? (2/5)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (8/15)

Setting the Hook

Source: Grant & Pollock 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the Hook. AMJ, 54(5): 873-879.

Average 10 TIMES ☞ for WHAT? = “Rewrite” Introduction

Product

1) Who cares?: What‘s the topic and why is it interesting?

2) What do we know, what don’t we know, and so what?: What have already been known and what have been unaddressed?

3) What will we learn?: How does the study change, challenge, advance scholar‘s understanding?

Examples

1) Consensus creation or Consensus destruction

2) Consensus creation followed by consensus destruction

3) Grounding readers in the situation

4) Citing a recognizable excerpt at the beginning of the introduction

3. HOW TO WRITE A PAPER? (3/5)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (9/15)

Setting the Hook (continued)

Source: Grant & Pollock 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the Hook. AMJ, 54(5): 873-879.

Requirements

1) Eye-catching title (get your article searched by Google Scholar)

2) Clear direction, clear identification of “gaps”, or problems

3) Active voice

4) Succinctness

5) Situating the study to cumulative literature

6) Good storytelling

Common Mistakes

1) Failing to motivate and problematize

2) Lack of focus

3) Overpromising

3. HOW TO WRITE A PAPER? (4/5)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (10/15)

Hypotheses, Methods, and Results

1. Common pitfalls in hypotheses building

1) Not engaging prior research (only enumeration) 2) Using multiple theories without encompassing coherence

(fragmented theorizing) 3) Lack of specificity 4) Stating the obvious

2. Essential points in method selection, analysis description

1) Matching research question and design: Using cross-sectional data for causal relationships? CEO research with students sample? ☞ If you‘re doing experiments, be noticed that you may not change research design once you‘ve submitted the manuscript

2) Use appropriate measures and control relevant variables. 3) Be complete, clear, and credible.

Source: Bono & McNamara. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 2: Research Design. AMJ, 54(4): 657-660. Sparraowe & Mayer. 2012. Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding Hypotheses. AMJ, 54(6). Zhang & Shaw. 2012. Publishing in AMJ—Part 5: Crafting Methods and Results. AMJ, 55(1).

3. HOW TO WRITE A PAPER? (5/5)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (11/15)

Discussion and other issues

1. Common pitfalls in discussion writing

1) Rehashing results 2) Meandering 3) Overreaching

Discussion is not only “an ending” but also “a beginning”

2. Other important issues

Read “Plagiarism Policies and Screening at AMJ” written by Jason Colquitt

Plagiarism

Read “Data Overlap Policies at AMJ” written by Jason Colquitt

Data Overlapping

Read “Crafting References in AMJ Submissions” written by Jason Colquitt

Crafting References

Read “Publishing in AMJ for Non-U.S. Authors” written by Gerard George

Int’l Publication

Source: Geletkanycz & Tepper. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 6: Discussing the implications, 55(2).

4. HOW TO WRITE “LESS BADLY” (1/2)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (12/15)

10 Recommendations

Writing is an EXERCISE. (shitty first draft needed) 1

Set goals based on OUTPUT, not input. 2

Find a VOICE; don‘t just get published. 3

Give yourself TIME. 4

Everyone‘s UNWRITTEN work is BRILLIANT. 5

―It's easier to write when you're INTERESTED in what you're writing about.‖

―Writing can be MAGIC, if you give yourself time, because you can PRODUCE, in the mind of some other person distant from you in space or even time, an IMAGE of the ideas that exist IN ONLY YOUR MIND.‖

―If you don't feel like ‗inadequate, stupid, and tired‘, then you aren't working hard enough.‖

Source: Munger, Michael. 2010. ―10 Tips on How to Write Less Badly‖. http://chronicle.com/article/10-Tips-on-How-to-Write-Less/124268/

4. HOW TO WRITE “LESS BADLY” (2/2)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (13/15)

10 Recommendations (continued)

Pick a PUZZLE. 6

WRITE, then squeeze other things in. 7

Your most profound thoughts are often WRONG. 9

"X and Y start with SAME assumptions but reach OPPOSING conclusions. How?"

"Here are three problems that all seem DIFFERENT. Surprisingly, all are the SAME problem, in disguise. I'll tell you why."

"Theory predicts [something]. But we observe [something ELSE]. Is the THEORY WRONG, or is there SOME OTHER FACTOR we have left out?"

NOT ALL of your thoughts are profound. 8

Edit your work, OVER AND OVER. 10

Source: Munger, Michael. 2010. ―10 Tips on How to Write Less Badly‖. http://chronicle.com/article/10-Tips-on-How-to-Write-Less/124268/

5. CONCLUSION (1/2)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (14/15)

We learn from and “with” the others

Most of what gets studied in the management world is what I've heard called "putting old wine in new bottles". That's not to say that there's NOTHING new about it — just that it's not 100% novel. (And, of course, we haven't even touched on whether the research is interesting!)

The academic independence is good, but not exclusively. We learn from others and with others.

An excerpt from an email written by Eric Neuman at the University of Illinois

Not knowing one‘s research interests is very common among aspiring graduate students. After all, how can you know what you want to study until you know more about the field?

Everyone struggles with this, even veteran researchers who have much more experience than me. Keep reading and brainstorming with others – that is how new ideas are sparked.

An excerpt from an email written by Crystal Farh at Michigan State University

Both of the abovementioned professors allowed me to quote their words in each email.

5. CONCLUSION (2/2)

2014.1.18 Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University (15/15)

From simple curiosity to research

PARSIMONY Try your best to “fully” express your idea with “fewest” words that incur no misinterpretation.

Occam‘s razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony

DETAILEDNESS Admit that academic works need in-depth description on what are key research questions and how they are dealt with logically.

CUMULATIVENESS Stand on the shoulders of giants (Isaac Newton)

“Face your curiosity directly and you will be motivated to find answers.”

Correspondence: Sijun Kim ialfykorea@gmail.com (M.S. student, Korea University Business School)

I acknowledge that Wonsuk Tae, Seoyoung Byun, and Yongwook Lee gave developmental comments to these slides and that Giwon Kim and other Kwanjeong Mensches paid attention to my presentation.