SYLLABUS (FALL 2007)

MAS-6V00-001
RESEARCH METHODS

Instructor: Dr. Lívia Markóczy

Class: Wednesdays 13:00-15:45
Office: SOM 2.206
Phone: 972-883-4828
E-mail: livia.markoczy@utdallas.edu
Office Hours: By appointment

Course pre-requisites
Being enrolled to the Ph.D program.

Course Description

The aim of this course is to lay the foundations for good empirical research in the
social sciences and to introduce students to the assumptions and logic underlying social
research. Students become acquainted with a variety of approaches to research design,
and are helped to develop their own research projects and to evaluate the products of
empirical research.

Students learning objectives/outcomes

By the end of the course, you should be able to:

a) plan a program of research, including the following steps:
♦ framing the research question,
♦ developing the research substantively and theoretically,
♦ integrating what is already known (the extant literature) and developing new
hypotheses,
♦ designing a study to test these hypotheses, and
♦ designing data collection methods and measures that accurately reflect the study
design and the theory; and
b) critique research done by others, covering all five points above.

Course Requirements

You are required to do all required readings, attend all classes, and participate
actively in discussions. To make sure that students meet these requirements they will be
surprise quizzes throughout the term on the readings.

Over the course of the semester, you will develop a research question and design three
empirical studies to answer this research question. You will submit this research
proposal (assignment) in three parts, spread out over the course of the semester. These
include:

1
 1. Research question, theory, hypotheses and sampling: 5-6 pages, due
week 8.
2. Qualitative/case study design and survey: 4-5 pages, due week 11.
3. Experimental design: 3-4 pages, due week 13.

I will read each assignment and offer constructive criticism. You will be expected to
revise all three parts of the research proposal based on my feedback and classroom
discussion, link the parts together into a single, coherent document, and submit this
document – your research proposal – at the beginning of week 15.

Grading

I will review the three proposals that are described above and offer constructively critical
comments. But I will not assign grades to these initial assignments. Instead, I will grade
the complete research proposal that you submit on week 15. In addition I will grade you
on class participation and on the surprise quizzes.

Your grade for the course will be determined as follows:

Research proposal: 70%
Class participation: 15%
Quizzes: 15%

Required textbook:
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Edition
(paperback). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 0-226-45808-3

In addition all the readings that are listed below are required readings unless it is
specified otherwise.

COURSE OUTLINE

1. August 22: Introduction To Social Science Research

Topics covered:
- What are we doing this semester? What are the goals of this course?
- What is scientific method and why do we need it?

Required reading:

Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How we know what so isn’t. The fallibility of human reason in
everyday life. The Free Press. New York. pp: 29-72

How Science Works by David Goodstein, Cal Tech.

http://methods.fullerton.edu/chapter1.html

2
2. August 29: Progress in Science

Topics covered
♦ How does science evolve?
♦ Does organization science need to be more paradigmatic?

Required reading:

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Edition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Chapters 2-5 (pp. 10-51).

Pfeffer, Jeffrey 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm

development as a dependable variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 4,
599-621

Albert A. Cannella, Jr.; Ramona L. Paetzold. 1993. Pfeffer's Barriers to the Advance of
Organizational Science: A Rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19, 2,
331-341

Chet C. Miller. 2006. Peer Review In The Organizational And Management Sciences:
Prevalence And Effects Of Reviewer Hostility, Bias, And Dissensus. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 3, 425-43.

3. September 5: Theory

Topics covered:
- Why do we need a theory to guide our research?
- What are the attributes of a good theory?

Required reading
Sutton, Robert I. & Staw, Barry M. 1995. What a Theory is Not, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 3, 371-384,

Weick, Karl E. 1995. What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 3, 385-390,

DiMaggio, Paul J. 1995. Comments on "What Theory is Not". Administrative Science

Quarterly, 40, 3, 391-397

Whetten, David A. 1989. What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of

Management Review, 14, 4, 490- 496

3
Recommended reading:

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Edition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Chapters 6-13 (pp. 52-173).

4. September 12: Theory Testing

Topics covered
♦ How can we test for cause-and-effect relationships?
♦ How can we evaluate our theories?
♦ Can theories become self-fulfilling?

Required Reading

Jonathan Baron: 2000. Thinking and deciding. Third edition. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge. Chapter 7. pp: 149-171

Ferraro, Fabrizio; Pfeffer, Jeffrey; Sutton, Robert I.. 2005. Economics language and
assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management
Review, 30, 1, 8-24.

Bazerman, Max H., 2005. Conducting Influential Research: The Need for Prescriptive
Implications. Academy of Management Review, 30, 1, 25-31

Ferraro, Fabrizio; Pfeffer, Jeffrey; Sutton, Robert I. 2005. Prescriptions are not enough.
Academy of Management Review, 30, 1, 32-35

5.September 19: Rigor – Relevance

Topics covered:
• Is rigor and relevance in conflict?
• What is interesting research?

Required reading:

Davis, M. S. 1971. That is interesting. Philosophy of Social Sciences 1: 309-344

Baldridge, David C.; Floyd, Steven W.; Markóczy, Lívia. 2004. Are managers from mars
and academicians from Venus? Toward an understanding of the relationship
between academic quality and practical relevance. Strategic Management
Journal, 25, 11, 1063-1074.

4
Shapiro, Debra l.; Kirkman, Bradley l.; Courtney, Hugh G. 2007. Perceived causes and
solutions of the translation problem in management research Academy of
Management Journal, 5, 2, 249-266.

Staw, Barry M. 1983. Repairs on the road to relevance and rigor. In L.L. Cummings
and P.J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the Organizational Sciences. Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin.

6. September 26: Measurement, Validity, and Reliability

Topics covered
♦ How do we know that our measures of theoretical constructs are valid? (internal
validity, construct validity, external validity)
♦ How do we develop reliable measures? (reliability)

Required Reading

Shadish, W. R., Thomas D Cook and Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and
Quasy-Experimental design for generalized causal interference. Houghton
Mifflin: Boston. Chapter 2-Chapter 3. Pp. 33-103.

Scandura, Terri A.; Williams, Ethlyn A.. 2000. Research Methodology in Management:
Current Practices, Trends, and Implications for Future Research. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 6, 1248-1264.

7. October 3: Sample selection bias

Topic covered
♦ Sample selection bias
♦ The endogeneity problem and how to deal with it

Required readings:

Shaver, M. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance:

Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44: 571-585.

Hitt, M., Bierman, L., Uhlenbruck, K., & Shimizu, K. (2006). ‘The importance of
resources in the internationalization of professional service firms: The good, the
bad, and the ugly’, Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1137-1157.

5
Lee, S., Makhija, M., & Paik, Y. 2008. The value of real options investments under
abnormal uncertainty: the case of the Korean economic crisis, Journal of World
Business, forthcoming (Ask for copies from the instructor)

Lee, S., Oh, K., & Eden, L. 2007. A residual contract theory or bribery. Working paper
(Ask for copies from the instructor)

Recommended:

Heckman, J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrica, 47: 153-
161.

Sartori, Anne E. 2003. An estimator for some binary-outcome selection models without
exclusion restrictions, Political Analysis, 11:111-138.

8. October 10: Consultation on Individual Papers

Due the beginning of this week: paper #1: Research question, theory, hypotheses and
sampling.

9. October 17: Varieties of Research Design I: Qualitative Research and Case

Studies

Topics covered
♦ What is ethnography (participant observation, open-ended interviews)?
♦ What can we learn from ethnography that we can’t learn from other research
designs?
♦ How does research that is primarily inductive differ, in practice, from research
that is primarily deductive?
♦ How does the use of qualitative data differ from the use of quantitative data?
♦ What are the strengths and weaknesses of case studies?

Required Reading
Morgan, Gareth; Smircich, Linda. 1980. The Case for Qualitative Research. Academy of
Management Review, 5, 4, 491-501

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of
Management Review, 14 Issue 4, 532-551

Rynes, Sara L 2007. Academy of Management Journal Editor’s Forum on Rich Research,
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1, 13-13

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.; Graebner, Melissa E. 2007. Theory Building from Cases:
Opportunities and Challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1, 25-32.

6
10. October 24: Varieties of Research Design III: Surveys

Topics covered
♦ What does it take to construct and conduct good surveys?
♦ What are structured interviews and how can I conduct them?
♦ What are the strengths and weaknesses of these research designs?

Required Reading
Bryman, Alan. 1989. Research Methods in Organization Sciences. Unwin Hyman:
London, Chapter 4. pp. 104-134

Dillman, Don A. 1991. The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review
of Sociology, 17: 225-249.

Brockner, Joel, Steven Grover, Thomas Reed, Rocki DeWitt, and Michael O’Malley.
1987. Survivors’ reactions to layoffs: We get by with a little help for our friends.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 526-541.

Recommended reading

Markoczy, Livia. 2007. Utilitarians are not always fair and the fair are not always
utilitarian. Forthcoming in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology

11. October 31: Varieties of Research Design IV: Computational models

Due at the beginning of class: paper #2: Qualitative design and survey design

Topic covered
♦ The usefulness of computational models in organization science
♦ The validity of computational models

Required Reading

Burton, R. M., B. Obel. 1995. The validity of computational models in organizations

science: From model realism to purpose of the model. Computational and
Mathematical Organization Theory 1 57-71.

Burton, R. M. 2004. Computational laboratories for Organization Science: Questions,

Validity and Docking. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 9,
91-108.

Lee, Jeho and Harrison, Richard J. 2001. Innovation and industry bifurcation. The
evolution of R&D strategy, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(1), 2001.

7
12. November 7: Varieties of Research Design V: Laboratory Experiments

Topic covered
♦ What are the features of good laboratory experiments?
♦ What are the biggest problems with laboratory experiments? How do you solve
them?

Required Reading:

Rachel Croson. 2002. Why and how to experiment: Methodologies from Experimental
Economics. Working paper (Ask for copies from the Instructor).

Rachel Croson. 2005. The method of experimental economics. International

Negotiation. 10. 131-148.

Rachel Croson. 2005. Theories of commitment, altruism and reciprocity: Evidence from
linear public good games. Economic Inquiry. 45. 2. 199-216.

Haleblian, John, Livia Markoczy, & Gerry McNamara. 2007. The influence of core self-
evaluation on strategic decisions. Working paper. (Ask instructor for a copy).

13. November 14: Conducting and Publishing Research

Due at the beginning of class: paper #3, experimental design and computational design.

Topics covered:
- How can you maximize your chances to have your paper published in a top tier
journal?

Required reading:
Daft, Richard L. 1985. Why I recommended that your manuscript be rejected and what
you can do about it. In Larry L. Cummings and Peter J. Frost, eds., Publishing in
the Organizational Sciences: 193-209. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Kilduff, Martin 2006. Editor's Comments: Publishing Theory, Academy of Management

Review, 31, 2, 252-255.

Kilduff, Martin, 2007. Editor’s comment. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1, 8-8.

Rynes, Sara L. 2006. Making the Most of the Review Process: Lessons from Award-
Winning Authors. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 2, 189-190.

8
Agarwal, Rajshree; Echambadi, Raj; Franco, Sarkar, M. B. 2006. Reap Rewards:
Maximizing Benefits From Reviewer Comments. Academy of Management
Journal, 49, 2, 191-196

Bem, Daryl J. 1995. Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin.; Psychological
Bulletin, 118, 2, 172-177.

November 21: Paper Presentations

Students should be prepared to critique each others papers and presentations

15. November 28: Take home exam

Revised project papers are due