"Sormak ya da Sormamak": Yönetim ve Organizasyon Alanında İlginç Kuramsal Katkı Arayışı ve Araştırma Sorusunun Rolü

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı ilginç kuramsal katkı sağlama potansiyeli açısından araştırma sorusunun önemini vurgulamak ve bu potansiyele sahip araştırma sorularının nasıl geliştirilebileceğine ilişkin kavramsal düzeyde öneriler sunmaktır. Yürütülen araştırmalar alanyazına dayalı olarak araştırma sorusu geliştirme girişimlerinde yaygın olarak kullanılan geleneksel yöntemlerin ilginç kuramsal katkı sağlama konusundaki yetersizliği noktasında birleşmekte ve araştırma sorusu geliştirme konusunda daha yenilikçi yaklaşımlara olan ihtiyaca dikkat çekmektedir. Bu çalışma kapsamında araştırma sorusu geliştirme konusunda geleneksel baskın yaklaşım olarak kabul edilen dolgulama yaklaşımının yol açtığı açmazdan hareketle daha yenilikçi olduğu düşünülen sorunsallaştırma yaklaşımı ilginç kuramsal katkı sağlama konusunda alternatif bir yol olarak önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Kuramsal Katkı
• Araştırma Sorusu
• Dolgulama Yaklaşımı
• Sorunsallaştırma Yaklaşımı
• Yönetim ve Organizasyon

“To ask, or not to ask…”: In Search of Interesting Theoretical Contribution in the Field of Management and Organization Studies and the Role of Research Question

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to underscore the potential importance of research question for providing interesting theoretical contribution and confer guidance on how research questions having that potential can be developed. Recent studies agreed upon the fact that prevalent methods used for developing research questions are failing to provide interesting theoretical contribution and called for the need on more innovative approaches. Embarking from the dilemma caused by gap-spotting -traditional research question development approach- problematization which is said to be more innovative, is offered as an alternative way for developing research questions for providing interesting theoretical contribution.

Keywords

• Research Question
• Theoretical Contribution
• Gap-Spotting Approach
• Problematization Approach
• Management and Organization Studies

References

1. Adler, Nancy. J. ve Hans Hansen (2012), “Daring to Care: Scholarship that Supports the Courage of Our Convictions”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 21 (2): 128-139.
2. Adler, Paul. S. ve Seok-Woo Kwon (2002), “Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept”, Academy of Management Review, 27 (1): 17-40.
3. Alvesson, Mats (2012), “Do We Have Something to Say? From Re-search to Roi-search and Back Again”, Organization, 20 (1): 79-90.
4. Alvesson, Mats ve Yiannis Gabriel (2013), “Beyond Formulaic Research: In Praise of Greater Diversity in Organizational Research and Publications”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12 (2): 245-263.
5. Alvesson, Mats ve Jörgen Sandberg (2013), Constructing Research Questions: Doing Interesting Research (London: Sage).
6. Alvesson, Mats ve Jörgen Sandberg (2014), “Habitat and Habitus: Boxed-in versus Box-Breaking Research”, Organization Studies, 35 (7): 967-987.
7. Bacharach, Samuel B. (1989), “Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation”, Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 496-515.
8. Balaban, Utku (2014), “Commentary on Secrets of Economics Editors: An Unintended Ethnography of Economics”, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, 8 (1): 1-13.

9. Barley, Stephen R. (2006), “When I Write My Masterpiece: Thoughts on What Makes a Paper Interesting”, Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1): 16-20.
10. Bartunek, Jean M, Sara L. Rynes ve R. Duane Ireland (2006), “What Makes Management Research Interesting, and Why Does It Matter?”, Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1): 9-15.
11. Bedeian, Arthur G. (1996), “Improving the Journal Review Process: The Question of Ghostwriting”, American Psychologist, 51 (11): 1189-1189.
12. Bedeian, Arthur G. (2003), “The Manuscript Review Process: The Proper Roles of Authors, Referees, and Editors”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 12 (4): 331-338.
13. Bedeian, Arthur G. (2004), “The Gift of Professional Maturity”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3 (1): 92-98.
14. Bem, Daryl (1995), “Writing a Review Article for Psychological Bulletin”, Psychological Bulletin, 1 (2): 172-177.
15. Benner, Mary J. ve Michael L. Tushman (2003), “Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited”, Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 238-256.
16. Berkman, Ümit. (1987), “Amme İdaresi Dergisi‟nde Yayınlanan Makaleler ve Türk Yönetim Bilimi”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 4 (20): 19-42.
17. Bryman, Alan (2008), Social Research Methods, 3 rd Edition, (New York: Oxford University Press).
18. Campanario, Miguel (1993), “Consolation for the Scientist: Sometimes It is Hard to Publish Papers That Are Later Highly-Cited”, Social Studies of Science, 23 (2): 342-362.
19. Charmaz, Kathy (2006), Constructing Grounded Theory (London: Sage).
20. Clarke, Caroline, David Knights ve Carol Jarvis. (2012), “A Labour of Love? Academics in Business Schools”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28 (1): 5-15.
21. Corley, Kevin G. ve Dennis A. Gioia (2011), “Building Theory about Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?”, Academy of Management Review, 36 (1): 12- 32.
22. Courpasson, David. (2013), “On the Erosion of “Passionate Scholarship””, Organization Studies, 34 (9): 1243-1249.
23. Daft, Richard. L. ve Arie Y. Lewin (1990), “Can Organization Studies Begin to Break Out of the Normal Science Straightjacket? An Editorial Essay”, Organization Science, 1 (1): 1-9.
24. Davis, Murray S. (1971), “That‟s Interesting: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology”, Philosophy of Social Science, 4 (1): 309-344.
25. Davis, Murray S. (1986), “„That‟s Classic!‟ The Phenomenology and Rhetoric of Successful Social Theories”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 16 (3): 285-301.
26. Davis, Murray S. (1999), “Aphorisms and Clichés: The Generation and Dissipation of Conceptual Charisma”, Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 245-269.
27. Ehrenreich, Barbara (2009), Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America & The World (London: Granta).
28. Feyerabend, Paul (1975/2010), Against Method 4th Edition (London: Verso). Flyvbjerg, Bent (2001), Making Social Science Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
29. Gabriel, Yiannis (2010), “Organization Studies: A Space for Ideas, Identities and Agonies”, Organization Studies, 31 (6): 757-775.
30. Grey, Christopher (2010), “Organizing Studies: Publications, Politics and Polemic”, Organization Studies, 31 (6): 677-694.
31. Judge, Timothy A., Daniel M .Cable, Amy E. Colbert ve Sara L. Rynes (2007), “What Causes a Management Article to be Cited: Article, Author, or Journal?”, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3): 491-506.
32. Kamata, Satoshi (1973/1984), Japan in the Passing Lane (London: Unwin) (Çev. Tatsuru Akimoto).
33. Koontz, Harold (1961), “The Management Theory Jungle”, The Journal of the Academy of Management, 4 (3): 174-188.
34. Koontz, Harold (1980), “The Management Theory Jungle Revisited”, The Academy of Management Review, 5 (2): 175-187.
35. Kilduff, Martin (2006), “Editor‟s Comments: Publishing Theory”, Academy of Management Review, 31 (2): 252-255.
36. Kipping, Matthias, Behlül Üsdiken ve Nuria Puig (2004), “Imitation, Tension, Hybridization: Multiple “Americanization” of Management Education in Mediterranean Europe,” Journal of Management Inquiry, 13 (2): 98-108.
37. Klein, Naomi (2000/2010), No Logo (New York: Picador).
38. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962/2012), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 50th Anniversary Edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
39. Leblebici, Hüseyin, Gerald R. Salancik, Anne Copay ve Tom King (1991), “Institutional Change and the Transformation of Interorganizational Fields: An Organizational History of the U.S. Radio Broadcasting Industry”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (3): 333-363.
40. Leblebici, Hüseyin (1996), “The Act of Reviewing and Being a Reviewer”, Frost, J. Peter ve M. Susan Taylor (Eds.), Rhythms of Academic Life: Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage): 269-274.
41. Locke, Karen ve Karen Golden-Biddle (1997), “Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and „Problematizing‟ in Organizational Studies”, Academy of Management Journal, 40 (5): 1023-1062.
42. Locke, Robert ve J. C. Spender (2011), Confronting Managerialism: How the Business Elite and Their Schools Threw Our Lives Out of Balance (UK: Zed Books).
43. Luyendijk, Joris (2015), Swimming with Sharks: My Journey into the World of the Bankers (London: Guardian Faber).
44. March, James G. (2005), “Parochialism in the Evolution of a Research Community: The Case of Organization Studies”, Management and Organization Review, 1 (1): 5-22.
45. Maxwell, Joseph A. (2012), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage).
46. McCloskey, Deirde N. (1983), “The Rhetoric of Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, 21 (2): 480-517.
47. Miller, Robert Lee ve John D. Brewer (2003), The A-Z of Social Research (London: Sage). Mingers, John ve Hugh Willmott (2012), “Taylorizing Business School Research: On the “One Best Way” Performative Effects of Journal Ranking Lists”, Human Relations, 66 (8): 1051- 1073.
48. Nahapiet, Janine ve Sumantra Ghoshal (1998), “Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage”, Academy of Management Review, 23 (2): 242-266.
49. Oliver, Christine (1991), “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes”, Academy of Management Review, 16 (1): 145-179.
50. Özen, Şükrü (2001), “Türk Yönetim/Organizasyon Yazınında Yöntem Sorunu: Kongre Bildirileri Üzerine Bir İnceleme”, Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1 (1): 89- 118.
51. Özen, Şükrü (2002), “Türkiye‟deki Örgütler/Yönetim Araştırmalarında Törensel Görgülcülük Sorunu”, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2 (2): 5-31.
52. Özkal-Sayan, İpek ve Azmi Küçük (2012), “Türkiye‟de Kamu Personeli İstihdamında Dönüşüm: Sağlık Bakanlığı Örneği”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 67 (1): 171-203.
53. Parker, Martin (2002), Against Management (Cambridge: Polity).
54. Parker, Martin (2014), “University, Ltd: Changing a Business School”, Organization, 21 (2): 281- 292.
55. Parole, Pietro Della Briotta, Raj Kumar Pan, Rumi Ghosh, Bernardo A. Huberman, Kimmo Kaski., Santo Fortunato (2015), “Attention Decay in Science”, Journal of Informetrics, 9 (4): 734- 745.
56. Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1993), “Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable”, Academy of Management Review, 18 (4): 599-620.
57. Pfeffer, Jeffrey (2007), “A Modest Proposal: How We Might Change the Process and Product of Managerial Research”, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6): 1334-1345.
58. Prichard, Craig (2012), “All the Lonely Papers, Where Do They All Belong?”, Organization, 20 (1): 143-150.
59. Raelin, Joseph A. (2008), “Refereeing the Game of Peer Review”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7 (1): 124-129.
60. Rynes, Sara L. (2005), “From the Editors: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead”, Academy of Management Journal, 48 (1): 9-15.
61. Rynes, Sara L. ve Debra L. Shapiro (2005), “Aacdemy of Management Journal Editors‟ Forum - Public Policy and the Public Interest: What If We Mattered More?”, Academy of Management Journal, 48 (6): 925-927.
62. Rynes, Sara L. (2006a), “„Getting on Board‟ with AMJ: Balancing Quality and Innovation in the Review Process”, Academy of Management Journal, 49 (6): 1097-1102.
63. Rynes, Sara L. (2006b), “Making the Most of the Review Process: Lessons from Award-Winning Authors”, Academy of Management Journal, 49 (2): 189-190.
64. Sandberg, Jörgen ve Mats Alvesson (2010), “Ways of Constructing Research Questions: GapSpotting or Problematization?”, Organization, 18 (1): 23-44.
65. Sandberg, Jörgen ve Haridimos Tsoukas (2011), “Grasping the Logic of Practice: Theorizing through Practical Rationality”, Academy of Management Review, 36 (2): 338-360.
66. Starbuck, William H (2003), “Turning Lemons into Lemonade: Where is the Value in Peer Reviews?”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 12 (4): 344-351.
67. Shepherd, Dean A. ve Kathleen M. Sutcliffe (2011), “Inductive Top-Down Theorizing: A Source of New Theories of Organizations”, Academy of Management Review, 36 (2): 361-380.
68. Suddaby, Roy, Cynthia Hardy ve Quy Nguyen Huy (2011), “Introduction to Special Topic Forum: Where Are The New Theories of Organization?”, Academy of Management Review, 36 (2): 236-246.
69. Trevino, Linda K. (2008), “Editor‟s Comments: Why Review? Because Reviewing is a Professional Responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, 33 (1): 8-10.
70. Tsang, Eric W. K. ve Bruno S. Frey (2007), “The As-Is Journal Review Process: Let Authors Own Their Ideas”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6 (1): 128-136.
71. Üsdiken, Behlül ve Yorgo Pasadeos (1992), “Türkiye‟de Yayınlanan Yönetimle İlgili Makalelerdeki Atıflar Üzerine Bir İnceleme”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 25 (2): 107-134.
72. Üsdiken, Behlül ve Yorgo Pasadeos (1993), “Türkiye‟de Örgütler ve Yönetim Yazını”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 26 (2): 73-93.
73. Üsdiken, Behlül ve Önder Çetin (2001), “From Betriebwirtschatslehre to Human Relations: Turkish Management Literature Before and After the Second World War”, Business History, 43 (2): 99-124.
74. Üsdiken, Behlül (2004), “Exporting Managerial Knowledge to the Outpost: Penetration of “Human Relations” into Turkish Academia, 1950-1965”, Management Learning, 35 (3): 255-270.
75. Üsdiken, Behlül ve Wasti, Arzu S. (2009), “Preaching, Teaching and Researching at the Periphery: Academic Management Literature in Turkey, 1970-1999”, Organization Studies, 30 (10): 1063-1082.
76. Walliman, Nicholas (2006), Social Research Methods (London: Sage).
77. Weick, Karl E. (1989), “Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination”, Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 516-531.
78. Weick, Karl E. (1995), “What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3): 385-390.
79. Weick, Karl E. (2001), “Gapping the Relevance Bridge: Fashions Meet Fundamentals in Management Research”, British Journal of Management, 12 (1): 71-75.
80. Wellington, Jerry ve Jon Nixon (2005), “Shaping the Field: The Role of Academic Journal Editors in the Construction of education as a Field of Study”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26 (5): 643-655.
81. Whetten, David A. (1989), “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?”, Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 490-495.
82. Willmott, Hugh C. (2011), “Journal List Fetishism and the Perversion of Scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS List”, Organization, 18 (4): 429-442.
83. Yalçintaş, Altuğ (2013), “The Problem of Epistemic Cost: Why Do Economists Not Change Their Minds (About the „Coase Theorem‟)?”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 72 (5): 1131-1157.
84. Yücesan-Özdemir, Gamze (2014), İnatçı Köstebek: Çağrı Merkezlerinde Gençlik, Sınıf ve Direniş (İstanbul: Yordam).