Doing Science in a Weird Way

Recently, I joined an exciting webinar by the tile "Supporting Young Researchers" and then remembered Davis’s (1971) article “That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology” and how I believe it might have ruined and influence a generation of Management Researchers.

Management researchers consider this work seminal and a foundation for management research. After its publication, an intriguing research advocacy emerged. Science suggests that Davis's claim that compelling theories must be captivating is flawed. Interestingness is not desirable in a good scientific theory, so it has little importance in science. Overemphasising interestingness can also have adverse effects. These include promoting unorthodox scientific methods, post-hoc hypothesis development, discouraging replication studies, neglecting fundamental researcher responsibilities, and degrading doctoral education.

What was Davis’s argument?

In my conversations with several colleagues, they all remembered Davis's main point that a theory must be interesting or counterintuitive. The colleagues in question probably approached the lengthy document casually or were familiar with the central assertion without reading the paper in its entirety. Unfortunately, academic research requires us to evaluate Davis's claim by assessing his reasoning and supporting evidence before accepting it. A thorough paper analysis may change one's opinion of the author's arguments.

Obsession with research being Interesting:

Interestingness may not be valuable in scientific research, but it has advantages, as mentioned. For instance, compelling theories and discoveries can attract researchers and help entrepreneurship compete for scarce resources. However, encouraging interesting research causes adverse effects.

Davi’s audience-driven approach is unheard of in the history of science (Tsang, 2022), and there are three key issues I see with this:

1. It may be challenging to create a proposition that captivates a significant portion, if not all, of an audience. Davis recognises that both non-experts and experts may hold different and indistinct assumptions about a subject, making it challenging to identify universally compelling propositions (Davis, p. 329). Management researchers often want their papers to be accessible worldwide. Audience diversity is multifaceted. Take culture as an example for you, if you don't mind. A proposition that contradicts an individualistic assumption may match a collectivist assumption. Davis claims that different audience segments have different assumptions about a topic, resulting in different perspectives. His audience-centric approach is impractical, he admits.
2. Second, and more importantly, this approach does not match scientific research methods. Scientific research can be phenomenon-driven, which aims to explain, or problem-driven, which aims to solve, or both. Davis' audience-focused approach is unprecedented in scientific history. Isaacson's 2008 work covers relativity's development. Davis's criteria show that Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's psychology and management research and theory are intriguing. The researchers did not initially set out to challenge human cognition's rationality (Lewis, 2017). In conclusion, these esteemed scientists ignored their audience's assumptions.
3. Unfortunately, some management scholars adhere to Davis's audience-driven approach. The individual's suggestion affects management research. According to Van de Ven (2007, p. 111), engaging and understanding the audience is essential to presenting intriguing theories. This understanding allows researchers to select and present hypotheses that match audience assumptions. Davis's method is unsuitable for scientific research. Beginning research by examining the assumptions held by various audience segments to develop an intriguing theory or theoretical proposition may not be logical (even ignoring the potential futility due to these segments' diversity). Such actions will not help scientific inquiry elucidate phenomena or solve problems. Having an intriguing theory is an unintended consequence and should never be the goal.

Does this undermine Doctoral education?

As a first-year student in my DBA journey and reading various studies like Bartunek et al., established a correlation between interesting research and the production of "genuinely pertinent knowledge." This perspective is puzzling to me as the distinction between interesting research, as defined by Davis, and relevant research is significant to my eyes.

It's not uncommon for papers to be rejected because “their hypotheses and related findings were not interesting, counterintuitive, or novel enough”. For me, this is not a fundamental problem as i am not pursuing my DBA studies for this reason, but I can see how colleagues could find this a reason to lose interest in their doctoral studies.

Davis's article inspired management researchers after him. According to Davis, the phenomenon under consideration is intriguing because it challenges the idea that a highly impactful article must have excellent writing and other qualities. Davis makes many mistakes in his argument, as far as i can see.

The critique is notable because it shows Davis's influence on many management researchers who believe a well-written article should be interesting. However, my critique challenges this intuition by arguing that interest should not measure article quality. Interestingness has little importance in science, but overemphasising it can lead to unorthodox scientific methods.

Since the essence of science shows that interestingness has little scientific value, the research advocacy that has garnered attention appears to be driven by emotion rather than science.

Instead, I want to dispel the myth that management research is driven by theory, proposition, or empirical interest. My argument is that management is a social science.

A captivating management narrative is more likely to sell than a mundane one. As management scholars, we must ask: Does this fit our business's core? This article discusses the evolution of research advocacy and its adverse effects, which outweigh its benefits.

This unfortunate event hinders our efforts to establish management as a scientific field. From an optimistic perspective, this advocacy raises the question of its origins, prompting collective introspection. This introspection is intended to prevent future mistakes.

#advocacy #scientificresearch #theory #hypothesis #dba #phd