Engaging in Non-empirical Research: A Road to Successful Publication

1. Engaging in Non-empirical Research: A Road to Successful Publication Jia Wang, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief, HRDR

2. Getting to Know You… • Who are you? • Why are you here? • What do you expect to take away from this session? • Have you published in HRDR?

3. Session Goals • To provide a learning platform for you to learn how to improve your ability to write and critique publishable non-empirical research articles. • To enable sharing of success tips and pitfalls based on your experience with writing and publishing. • To stimulate your interest in publishing non-empirical work in HRDR..

4. Agenda • Value/purpose of non-empirical research articles • Types of non-empirical research • Tips for creating publishable non-empirical research articles • Guidelines for Publishing in HRDR

5. What is non-empirical research ? • Any research that does not require researchers to go to the field to collect data (first-hand, empirical evidence) • This definition excludes: • Quantitative studies • Qualitativestudies • Mixed research methods studies

6. Values and Purpose of Non-Empirical Research What is your experience with non-empirical research? • Why did you choose non-empirical instead of empirical research? • What type(s) of non-empirical research did you conduct? • Do you have a specific research example to share?

7. Types of Non-Empirical Research • Literature review • Conceptual research • Theory-building research • Critical research • The most common types of papers submitted to HRDR are: • Integrative Literature Review • Conceptual/Theoretical Papers

8. Types of Literature Review

9. Narrative Review • Depends on the author’s selection • Search is conducted in any database • Selection criteria are not specified • Literature review is not replicable

10. Example: Narrative Review “Confucian values: A review of the Literature and Implications for International HRD” Purpose(a) to examine the core characteristics of Confucian-based culture in relation to organizations, and (b) to unfold how these Confucian values may affect management practices in China. Research Questions • What values of Confucian-based culture are relevant to organizational management in Asia, particularly in China? • How do these cultural values affect organization and management practices in China? • What are the cultural implications for human resource development? Wang, J., Wang, G. G., Ruona, W. E. A., & Rojewski, J. W. (2005). Confucian values: A review of the literature and implications for international HRD. Human Resource Development International, 8(3), 311-326.

11. Scoping Review • A process of mapping rapidly the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available • Purpose • To examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity. • To determine the value for undertaking a full systematic review. • To summarize and disseminate research findings. • To identify research gaps in the existing literature Arksey & O’Malley, 2005

12. Example: A Scoping Review “What Are Scoping Studies?A Review of the Nursing Literature” Purpose To evaluate the status of scoping studies undertaken within the field of nursing. • identify the extent, range and nature of scoping studies in the nursing literature; • explore the processes used to undertake scoping; • identify the quality, utility and position of scoping within the hierarchy of research evidence. Method Section “An interpretative scoping literature review methodology based on the framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) is used (Fig. 2). This method follows a narrative synthesis approach that is particularly suited to the appraisal of a contrasting body of studies that are principally qualitative in nature. It is based on an iterative, conceptual and interpretative approach that emphasizes the importance of developing a critique based on the relevance, credibility and contribution of evidence rather than by rigidly determined methodological considerations of analysis and synthesis…” Davis, K., & Drey, N., & Gould, D. (2009). What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(10), 1386-1400.

13. Integrative/Systematic Review • A form of research that can stand alone • Scientific approach to review • Search of literature is comprehensive • Selection criteria are specified • Literature review is replicable

14. Systematic Review as a Methodology Has a methods section that clearly outlines: • Where the literature was found • When the search was conducted • Who conducted the search • How the literature was found • How many articles appeared from each combination of keywords and the final account of included articles • Why some articles were chosen for inclusion over others Jamie Callahan, 2010

15. Example: Systematic Review “Action Learning Research: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework” Purpose “This study uses a systematic literature review process to determine the current state of scholarly literature on action learning and to explore the relative balance between action and learning within the literature identified. Four main research questions are as follows: • What scholarly articles on action learning were published from 2000 to 2007? • What are key themes from extant action learning literature? • To what extent are action and/or learning emphasized or balanced in the action learning literature identified? • To what extent is the overall quality of action learning studies evaluated in terms of key methodological traits?” Selection Criteria “For inclusion in this review, articles had to be (a) published in peer-reviewed journals, (b) published between January 2000 and December 2007, and (c) empirical studies that either involved human subjects or reported research findings. Among the total of 353 articles identified using the keyword search, studies containing editorials, non–research-based cases and reflective reports (using an “I” perspective), and conceptual articles were excluded. Only 50 (14%) of the identified studies met these selection criteria.” Cho, Y., & Egan, T. M. (2009). Action learning research: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 8(4), 431-462.

16. Meta-analysis • “conducting research about previous research” • Use statistical approaches to derive a pooled estimate closest to the unknown common truth. • Can only proceed if we are able to identify a common statistical measure shared among studies (effect size) • Results are generalizable. • The precision and accuracy of estimates can be improved as more data is used. • Inconsistency of results across studies can be quantified and analyzed. • Moderators can be included to explain variation between studies.

17. Example: Meta-analysis A Meta-analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium Purpose “summarizes the numerous studies published since Hom and Griffeth’s (1995) review including all studies conducted during the past decade. Given 500 correlations from 42 studies in the 1990s, this updated meta-analysis may change Hom and Griffeth’s meta-analytic estimates. Going beyond Hom and Griffeth’s review (Hom & Griffeth, 1995), we further specify various moderators of antecedent-turnover relationships. This earlier meta-analysis only carried out omnibus moderator tests without pinpointing which moderators underlie the pervasive variability in antecedent-turnover correlations (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).” Method Study Sources …if all of the following conditions were met: • actual turnover (rather than quit intentions) was assessed; • the study used a predictive design that collects predictor measures before turnover occurrence; • turnover was measured at the individual level of analysis. Meta-Analytical Procedure The meta-analysis was conducted with Hunter and Schmidt’s formulas (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A Meta-analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488.

18. To Sum it Up Future Need: conceptual exploration offoundations of the field; critique of existing theories, theory-building; historical works; and research methodological articles

19. Writing for Publication: A Few Tips • Critically assess your own work to ensure the quality. • Seek feedback from multiple sources. • Know your audience. • Study the journal of your target!

20. Writing for Publication: A Few Tips • Critically assess your own work for quality. • Seek feedback from multiple sources. • Know your audience. • Study the journal of your target!

21. Evaluation Criterion #1 Research problem and purpose are is clearly stated. Significance of the problem is well justified. • Did you make a compelling statement of the problem or need for this research? • Did you present the purpose explicitly?

22. Evaluation Criterion #2 Research questions address important issues. • Are the questions meaningful or relevant to the topic of your interest? • Do answers to these questions have a potential to make new contributions to the current knowledge base? • Were the questions formulated and presented with clarity?

23. Evaluation Criterion #3 Research is well grounded in previous work. • Did you demonstrate a solid understanding of the literature by including all relevant and most important literature related to the topic? • What theory/theories or conceptual frameworks did you present to support the research or explain the problem?

24. Evaluation Criterion #4 Research methodology is the best for addressing research problem and questions. Data collection and analysis methods demonstrate rigor. • Is the research design appropriate to address the research problem and questions? • Were the data collection and analysis completed using appropriate and robust methods?

25. Evaluation Criterion #5 Results/Findings are derived logically and/or conceptually from the research methods. • Are the results/findings an appropriate reflection of the methods used and the data collected? • Did the results/findings answer the research questions? • Were the results/findings reported with logic and clarity?

26. Evaluation Criterion #6 Conclusions are well supported by the research. • Were the conclusions derived from the results/findings? • Are the conclusions appropriate given the research problem and questions? • Did you consider limitations of the research?

27. Evaluation Criterion #7 Research contributes important, new knowledge. • Did you derive theoretical, research, and practical implications from the results/findings? • Did you address the ‘so what’ question clearly and adequately?

28. Evaluation Criterion #8 Quality of writing is high. • Was the research presented in a clear, logical and scholarly manner? • Did you tell a consistent and convincing story? • Did you follow journal style and format requirements?

29. Seeking Feedback • Expert feedback • Non-expert feedback • Focused feedback • Feedback at different writing stages

30. Publishing in HRDR • HRDR Review Process • HRDR Review Criteria • Manuscript Submission Guidelines

31. HRDR Review Process • Vetting by the Editorial Office to ensure that the manuscript conforms to HRDR’sguidelines. • Review by the Editor-in-Chief who decides whether to send the article out for external review. • Once approved by the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor is assigned to the manuscript. • Three reviewers are selected and invited to review the manuscript. • Decision on the manuscript is then made based on reviewers’ feedback. • Associate Editors consolidate the feedback. • Editor-in-Chief writes the decision letter and send it to the author(s).

32. HRDR Review Criteria • Need/Importance of the topic • Appropriateness for HRDR • Critical Analysis/ Well grounded in previous work • Contribution to existing body of language • Provocativeness and fruitfulness • Quality of writing

33. HRDR Manuscript Guidelines • Papers whose central focus is empirical findings, including empirical method and design are not considered for publication in HRDR. • Authors should prepare manuscripts in accordance with the guidelines of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 6th ed.). • Title page should include the full title, primary author's name, institutional affiliation, address, telephone number, fax number, and the E-mail addresses (only) and a short bio of all other authors for future correspondence.

34. More Guidelines • Abstract of approximately 150 words. • Text of the manuscript should be double-spaced. • No author identification should appear anywhere in the manuscript other than on the title page. • Manuscripts should be no longer than 30 double-spaced pages, excluding references and figures. • Use nondiscriminatory language. • Include a cover letter stating that the manuscript is the author's original work, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere at the time it is submitted.

35. Useful Resources • Antonakis, J., Bartardox, N., Liu, Y., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2014). What makes articles highly cited? The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 152-179. • Callahan, J. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9(3), 300-304. • Callahan, J. L. (2014). Writing literature reviews: A reprise and update. Human Resource Development Review, 13(3), 271-275. • Cropanzano, R. (2009). Writing nonempirical articles for Journal of Management: General thoughts and suggestions. Journal of Management, 35, 1304-1311. • Fulmer, I. S. (2012). Editor’s comments: The craft of writing theory articles—variety and similarity in AMR. Academy of Management Review, 37, 327-331. • Gilson, L. L, & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127 –130. • Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120-130. • Short, J. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35, 1312-1317. • Storberg‐Walker, J., & Chermack, T. J. (2007). Four methods for completing the conceptual development phase of applied theory building research in HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(4), 499-524. • Storberg‐Walker, J. (2003). Comparison of the Dubin, Lynham, and Van de Ven theory-building research methods and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 2, 211-222. • Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. • Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404-428.

36. Look forward to receiving your manuscripts to HRDR!