Response To “Are Management Scholars the Best Scholars in the History of the World?”

by Gautam Ahuja I thank Myles for providing a very nice starting point for an interesting debate here. Let me present a different perspective. First, a novel theoretical contribution does not imply a complete new theory. Indeed most published papers with a theoretical contribution provide only a nuance or conditioningRead More

Teaching Generalizability to Both Undergraduate and Doctoral Students

by Lori Rosenkopf Determining how and when empirical results are generalizable is critical to increase the impact of academic research. It is also a valuable thinking skill for non-academics. Hence, we need to build this skill into our educational offerings at all levels. Since doctoral students are academics in training,Read More

Novelty is Overrated

by Connie Helfat Murray Davis’ classic 1971 article “That’s Interesting!” asserts that a theory must be interesting to be considered great. He goes on to say that all interesting theories challenge routinely held assumptions. By implication, counterintuitive theories, which by their definition deviate from common assumptions, are far more likelyRead More

Response to “From Quasi-Replication to Generalization”

by Phanish Puranam Lori and Dan's post "From Quasi-Replication to Generalization: Making 'Basis Variables' Visible" gives us a nice way to think about generalization in terms of “basis variables”.  I’d like to extend their thought with a complementary way of thinking about generalization using machine learning (ML) techniques. Generalization canRead More

Are Management Scholars the Best Scholars in the History of the World?

by Myles Shaver I ask this question because the requirement or norm of many of our high-quality journals that all papers must advance a novel theoretical contribution implies the answer is yes. This requirement or norm means the first test of a theory (in the case of an empirical paperRead More