TY - JOUR
T1 - Creative destruction in science
AU - Hiring Decisions Forecasting Collaboration
AU - Tierney, Warren
AU - Hardy, Jay H.
AU - Ebersole, Charles R.
AU - Leavitt, Keith
AU - Viganola, Domenico
AU - Clemente, Elena Giulia
AU - Gordon, Michael
AU - Dreber, Anna
AU - Johannesson, Magnus
AU - Pfeiffer, Thomas
AU - Uhlmann, Eric Luis
AU - Abraham, Ajay T.
AU - Adamkovic, Matus
AU - Adam-Troian, Jais
AU - Anand, Rahul
AU - Arbeau, Kelly J.
AU - Awtrey, Eli C.
AU - Azar, Ofer
AU - Bahník, Štěpán
AU - Baník, Gabriel
AU - Barbosa Mendes, Ana
AU - Barger, Michael M.
AU - Baskin, Ernest
AU - Bavolar, Jozef
AU - Berkers, Ruud M.W.J.
AU - Besco, Randy
AU - Białek, Michał
AU - Bishop, Michael M.
AU - Bonache, Helena
AU - Boufkhed, Sabah
AU - Brandt, Mark J.
AU - Butterfield, Max E.
AU - Byrd, Nick
AU - Caton, Neil R.
AU - Ceynar, Michelle L.
AU - Corcoran, Mike
AU - Costello, Thomas H.
AU - Cramblet Alvarez, Leslie D.
AU - Cummins, Jamie
AU - Curry, Oliver S.
AU - Daniels, David P.
AU - Daskalo, Lea L.
AU - Daum-Avital, Liora
AU - Day, Martin V.
AU - Deeg, Matthew D.
AU - Dennehy, Tara C.
AU - Dietl, Erik
AU - Friedmann, Enav
AU - Reggev, Niv
AU - Zultan, Roi
N1 - Funding Information:
Eric Luis Uhlmann is grateful for an R&D grant from INSEAD in support of this research. Anna Dreber is grateful for generous financial support from the Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation (Svenska Handelsbankens Forskningsstiftelser), the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation and the Marcus and Marianne Wallenberg Foundation (Anna Dreber is a Wallenberg Scholar), and the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s)
PY - 2020/11/1
Y1 - 2020/11/1
N2 - Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents’ reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement: It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void— reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement: The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article.
AB - Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents’ reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement: It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void— reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement: The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article.
KW - Conceptual replication
KW - Cultural differences
KW - Direct replication
KW - Falsification
KW - Gender discrimination
KW - Hiring decisions
KW - Protestant work ethic
KW - Replication
KW - Theory pruning
KW - Theory testing
KW - Work values
KW - Work-family conflict
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091752463&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.07.002
DO - 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.07.002
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85091752463
SN - 0749-5978
VL - 161
SP - 291
EP - 309
JO - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
JF - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
ER -