.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Pursuing Failure
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1177/1094428109356114.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
The field of organizational studies contains an eclectic collection of theories with underspecified ranges. Although the assortment of theories enriches the field, it also renders it less coherent. We argue that the field could increase its coherence if more of us followed a strategy of pursuing failure by (a) identifying the tacit assumptions embedded in theories, (b) discovering the boundaries beyond which theories do not hold, (c) conducting competitive tests between theories, and (d) adopting research methods that seek to explain counterexamples. We present these separate tactics as mutually supporting elements of an overall approach that emphasizes the value of long-term theory development. We describe how this approach could serve as a useful counterbalance to researchers' valuable efforts to build new theories, identify barriers to the pursuit of failure, and anticipate several ways in which our suggestion may be wrong or misunderstood.
Keywords:
research design
strong inference
theory development
boundary conditions
contests and counterexamples
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
IF:
7.6
Papers:
883
Citations:
1.4W