Tag Archives: Featured

Congrats to 2017 Research Methods Division Award Winners

The Research Methods Division presented awards at the 2017 Academy of Management Annual Meeting, held in Atlanta, GA. You can also click here to find a full list of Research Methods Division Award Winners.

Sage Publications/RMD Distinguished Career Award
Chester Arthur Schriesheim, University of Miami

Sage Publications/RMD/CARMA/Lawrence R. James Early Career Award
George C. Banks, University of North Carolina at Charlotte


Sage Publications/Robert McDonald Advancement of Organizational Research Methodology Award
“Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology”
Published in Organizational Research Methods (2012);16, 15-31.
Dennis A. Gioia, Penn State University
Kevin G. Corley, Arizona State University
Aimee L. Hamilton, University of Denver

SAGE/RMD Best Division Paper Award
“Insufficient Effort Responding as a Meaningful Construct and Partial Function of Latent Aggression”
Justin A. DeSimone, University of Alabama
Kristl Davison, University of Memphis
Jeremy Lee Schoen, University of Mississippi
Mark N. Bing, University of Mississippi

SAGE/RMD Best Division Student Paper Award
“When ANOVA Gets It Wrong: A Re-Introduction of the Regression Discontinuity Design”
Nicolas Bastardoz, University of Lausanne

2017 RM Division Election Results

The results of the 2017 Research Methods Division elections are in. Members selected Zhen Zhang as Program Chair-elect and Stan Gully as Representative-at-Large.

We are saddened to note that Stan Gully recently passed away. His work on behalf of the research methods community, and to the Academy of Management as a whole, over the years has been extraordinary. Stan was a great influence on many scholars in the field in many ways, and his contributions will live on.

AOM 2016 RM Division Award-Winning Papers

Congratulations to the following award-winning papers for the 2016 Academy of Management Annual Conference.

Sage/RMD Best Division Paper Award Winner

Dichotomizing Network Data Can Change the Meaning of Actor Centrality, by Noah Eisenkraft (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)

Monday, August 8, 9:45 pm – 11:15 pm, Anaheim Convention Center, 304A 

This paper explores the consequences of calculating actor centrality-how connected actors are to the other members of a larger group-with dichotomized network data. I argue that the meaning of actor centrality may change when researchers convert valued network data into a binary network. Data from eight archival data sets suggests that centrality describes overall connectedness when the network is dichotomized at a low cut point-e.g., when even acquaintances count as ties-but transforms into a measure of cliquishness/relationship exclusivity when the network is dichotomized at a high cut point–e.g., when friends, but not acquaintances, count as ties. Researchers who dichotomize network data may unknowingly use centrality estimates that do not map onto their theoretical construct of interest. Link to this paper’s session here.

SAGE/RMD Best Division Student Paper Award Winner

A Critical Note on the Prevalent Use of the Standard Deviation as Diversity Measure, by Kim De Meulenaere (KU Leuven)

Monday, August 8, 9:45 pm – 11:15 pm, Anaheim Convention Center, 304A 

This study gives serious consideration to the prevalent use of the standard deviation (SD) to measure diversity. Whereas prior literature has argued that diversity is not a unitary construct but can be conceptualized as separation, variety, or disparity-all engendering fundamentally different effects-, so far diversity scholars have largely used one measure, SD, to operationalize each of these different types of diversity when studying continuous, and in particular ratio-scale, variables. This study carefully scrutinizes the behavior of SD and argues that it is not appropriate to measure either separation, or variety, or disparity. We introduce a framework of alternative operationalizations that align well with the different conceptualizations of diversity-i.e., the polarization index (Pol) for separation, Blau’s heterogeneity index (Blau) for variety, and the Gini index (Gini) for disparity. Using a sample of 5,892 Belgian firm observations (2008-2011) and taking the example of age diversity, we illustrate empirically the overlaps and differences between SD, Pol, Blau, and Gini, as well as their differential effects on a firm-level outcome variable: labor productivity. Link to this paper’s session here.

2016 Research Methods Doctoral Student and Early Career Faculty Consortium

Invitation to Participate

Research Methods Division 2016 Doctoral Student and Early Career Faculty Consortium

With support from Center for the Advancement of Research Methods and Analysis (CARMA)

Overview: The consortium is a virtual, real-time, and participative opportunity to interact with leading scholars and methodologists across three perspectives: macro-quantitative, micro-quantitative and qualitative. The timeline of the consortium is provided below.


June 1 (3:30-4:30 PM EST) Orientation
June 8 (3:30-5:00 PM EST) Getting access to data-innovative ideas about how to get data
June 15 (3:30-5:00 PM EST) Hints and tips for managing large research projects/dissertation
June 22
(2:00-2:50 PM EST)
(3:00-3:50 PM EST)
(4:00-4:50 PM EST)
Hot Topics
Micro-quantitative topic: Best vs. Actual Practices
Qualitative topic: Qualitative comparative analysis
Macro-quantitative topic: Endogeneity
June 29 (3:30-5:00 PM EST) Responding to reviewers
August (Time TBD) Consortium reception at AOM

Panelists:  Larry Williams, Jeff Edwards, James LeBreton, Hettie Richardson, Kris Byron, Mike Mannor, Talya Bauer, Tim Quigley, Ernest O’Boyle, Aaron Hill, Michael Withers, and many more!

Key Benefits: (1) Opportunity to learn from and interact with leading scholars and methodologists; (2) all sessions (except the consortium reception) occur outside of the AOM conference time frame; (3) online participation; and (4) no rule limiting the number of participants per school for this consortium (e.g., we may accept multiple doctoral students and faculty members from the same program).

Who Can Apply? Anyone interested in research methodology can apply, especially (1) doctoral students seeking deepening expertise in research methodology; and (2) junior faculty seeking professional development. All participants will require a computer and a good Internet connection.

Do I Need to Be a Methods Researcher to Participate? No! The consortium is open to researchers of all areas who wish to strengthen and develop their methodological skills.

Do I Need to Be a Member of the Research Methods Division to Participate? Yes. If you are not currently a member of the RM Division, you can pledge to join the RM Division when you next renew your Academy of Management Membership. You can either change your two divisions to include RMD or you can add an additional division membership for only $11. Information on adding a division can be found at this link.

How to Apply? Use the following link to complete the application process by April 17, 2016:

Link to Application System

During the application process, you will be asked to upload your CV and a short bio (less than one page) that includes any specific interests in research methods. If the above link does not work for you, you can email your application materials to Kris Byron (RMDcon2016@gmail.com) by April 17, 2016.

Consortium Coordinator – Kris Byron
Macro Track Chair – Craig Crossland
Micro Track Chair – Jose Cortina
Qualitative Track Chair – Karen Jansen
CARMA – Larry Williams
Student Representatives: Kyle Bradley, Jonathan Keeney, Yihao Liu