Abstract
As inductive research has moved from the fringe to the mainstream, it not only has come to look more like deductive research, but has started to look more formulaic as well (i.e. standards, templates, checklists). The very thing that makes inductive research unique is its ability to challenge what is known and to do so creatively. The question, thus, needs to be asked: why does inductive research continue to become more formulaic when many inductive editors, reviewers, and authors celebrate novelty and creativity? We believe it is because reviewers and editors find it difficult to judge “quality” when there is no guidebook. The quality of science-based research is easier to judge than creative inductive research, which is often assumed to be in the “eye of the beholder.” From our SO!apbox, we tackle this challenge head-on by asking: what is “quality inductive research” when we loosen the science-based methodological straightjacket so as to deliver the novelty and creativity promised by inductive methods? In this editorial, we explore how editors can judge quality inductive research and offer innovative editorial practices that can help to foster creative inductive research.
Keywords
Ten years ago, Bansal and Corley (2011) argued in an Academy of Management Journal editorial that the age of qualitative inductive research had arrived. We argued that researchers should no longer complain that inductive research was difficult to publish, as there was a significant and growing presence of inductive research in high-quality journals. This trend has only strengthened in the last decade. There is now depth in the pool of researchers, reviewers, and editors focusing on inductive research.
However, in an effort to gain traction, inductive research has become increasingly formulaic, taking on much of the systematic analyses of hypothetico-deductive research. Reviewers and editors assume inductive research is of higher quality when it follows specific protocols, such as the Eisenhardt method, the Gioia method, Langley’s temporal bracketing (Gehman et al., 2018; Pratt et al., 2020), and others (Köhler et al., 2018). The quality of a manuscript is judged by its ability to build on the precedence set by other successful inductive researchers. And yet, the hallmark of inductive research is its novelty—its ability to push the boundaries of what is known and illustrate the empirical context creatively. Inductive research has the ability to question the questions being asked and generate answers never before considered. It has the ability to illuminate the dark spaces not yet explored.
In our 2011 editorial, we called for more novelty from qualitative inductive research. This point was punctuated further in another Academy of Management Journal editorial by Bansal et al. (2018) who offered specific ideas on how novel and creative inductive research could offer “new ways of seeing.” In doing so, inductive research could help to advance one important goal of organizational scholarship: to improve our lived experience in organizations and society.
The question needs to be asked: why does inductive research continue to become more formulaic when many inductive editors, reviewers, and authors, like ourselves, celebrate novelty and creativity? We believe it is because “quality” is difficult to judge when there is no guidebook or boilerplate. If the quality of inductive research truly is in the “eye of the beholder,” then the science-based orientation of our discipline is subverting this agenda.
From our SO!apbox, we tackle this challenge head on by asking: how can editors judge “quality inductive research” when the science-based methodological straightjacket is loosened so as to deliver the novelty and creativity promised by inductive methods?
We draw on the collective experiences of the three authors. Corley and Bansal have considerable experience as associate and deputy editors of qualitative inductive research (3 years and 6 years, respectively) at the Academy of Management Journal, while Yu is a doctoral student seeking to publish research that pushes the methodological boundaries of qualitative research.
We contend that authors, reviewers, and editors should not determine “quality” by what has worked before (i.e. standards, templates, checklists), but rather by the detailed, rich, and authentic presentation of novel insights into complex phenomena. Above all, inductive research must say something insightful and important about management and organizations and present novel ways of empirically examining those phenomena. Inductive researchers must not lose that part of their work. They should not be just ticking boxes or following precedence. Ultimately, inductive researchers must capture the reviewers’ and editors’ imagination by conveying the importance of the questions being answered, the thickness of the data, rich descriptions, and the quality of the writing. These are the merits that are unique to inductive research and must be embraced and valued.
Inductive research is more than “science”
Much of management and organizational scholarship has been built on the principles of science, which creates knowledge by combining empirical observations with logical arguments. Through systematic observations and logical arguments (i.e. logical positivism or logical empiricism), scholars deduce generalizable principles or theory through a shared language. Knowledge is then built incrementally by hypothesizing and testing extensions to existing theory. For example, if deductive researchers spot a unicorn in among horses, they will try to model the likelihood that unicorns will appear in other herds. They will test emerging hypotheses systematically in different contexts to determine the boundary conditions of the model or theory. Most natural and physical sciences, and much of the social sciences, apply these principles. The empirical world is “out there” to be discovered. Good “quality” science then is objective (unbiased), valid (representative), and reliable (replicable).
This approach to knowledge is path-dependent because it builds new knowledge on the old. Consequently, new knowledge can bury the assumptions made when developing the original knowledge. The assumptions become immutable truths protected by the disciplines’ gatekeepers. This path dependence has proven to be very useful in the natural and physical sciences, given the assumed objectivity of the natural world.
Inductive research, however, assumes a wider philosophical mandate. Inductive research is motivated not by incremental, stepwise empirical improvements along a particular path, but by new, unanticipated, context-rich empirical observations. The researcher aims not to assess the likelihood of phenomena, but to explain the presence of a unique phenomenon. In other words, an inductive researcher would be interested in explaining how and why a unicorn appeared among horses, when unicorns have never before been seen. The anomaly of a unicorn is what stimulates insights, not just for unicorns, but for horses more generally. The unicorn does not simply falsify a hypothesis, it induces a new line of inquiry—one that is explorative, accommodates non-numerical data, and opens new ways of seeing all horses and their habitat.
Organizational studies are driven by at least latent, if not explicit, motivations to understand and improve organizations and the world around us. Addressing an important empirical puzzle has the potential to reconcile inconsistencies in our understanding of a problem that matters or impacts the world in a positive way. As organizational researchers, we have a critical role to play in solving some of the most pressing real-world problems in our time by developing deep theoretical insights that arise from a specific empirical context and can be abstracted to multiple contexts. We see a lot of hope that our field can make real-world impact through inductive research that uncovers unexplored landscapes. It provides us the chance to move research from the realm of testing to the realm of generating questions from empirical observations; from the realm of science to the realm of arts, philosophy, and humanities. In this way, the exploratory nature of inductive research has the opportunity to challenge existing paradigms, question the assumptions on which deductive research often rests, and improve organizations and the world around us.
Editors (and reviewers) at our top management and organization journals, however, have begun inadvertently seeking equivalent markers of science-like rigor to assess the quality of inductive research. Instead of recognizing the potential for inductive research to extend our understanding of the world beyond the formulaic boundaries of science, editors and reviewers have reflexively applied science-like standards of rigor to all types of organizational research. Perhaps this rise in the use of templates or boilerplates is not that surprising given the uncertainties that surround judging inductive research (Pratt et al., 2019). Assuming both the author and the editor/reviewer see that template as legitimate, a template reduces the uncertainty about the rigor of a manuscript. Authors no longer need to worry about the preferences of the editor/reviewer and the editor/reviewer has a clear basis for judging quality. Thus, a template removes considerable burden from the reviewer or the editor in judging rigor and from the author in projecting rigor.
Although templates have increased the appeal of inductive research to a broader audience, we believe they are having several detrimental effects. First, authors feel the need to lock themselves into pre-existing approaches and/or systematic analyses to please editors and reviewers, which often leads to papers with only incremental advancements. Publishing in our top journals can be a high-stakes endeavor with elevated risks and rewards, especially for inductive researchers who often invest considerable time collecting and analyzing data. This heavy investment makes inductive researchers sometimes compliant to the demands of editors and reviewers, succumbing to the requests to apply the accepted templates in order to get the paper accepted.
Second, editors and reviewers may inadvertently reject good quality inductive papers that offer important insights that can advance knowledge, but that do not conform to methodological templates. On one hand, editors who believe the templates represent a “quality bar to be cleared” may reject inductive papers that use unique or different approaches on the basis that they are not rigorous enough (i.e. do not conform to the standards set by previously published papers). Rejecting insightful papers limits the type of inductive research that appears in our journals, thus reinforcing the perception that there is a “right way” to conduct inductive research. On the other hand, authors who legitimately used an approach represented by one of the templates may receive a rejection decision from editors who are pushing back against the use of templates. These are also errors in judgment (rejecting insightful papers) and serve to muddy the waters about what is considered good quality research in our scholarly community.
Ironically, then, the very tools and techniques developed to advance the legitimacy of inductive research in the past have begun to constrain its progress. The basis for determining quality has shifted away from insight and novelty (i.e. “this tells us something we didn’t know previously, so it has value”) to technical prowess and rigor (i.e. “this emulates other published methods, so it must be good”). As editors and reviewers look to templates as shorthand for quality, authors are increasingly asked to show detailed coding structures and methods are seen as complete only if they follow a systematic, repeatable process. Not surprisingly, these norms have restricted the range of inductive research being published, limiting both the practice and the theoretical domains to which inductive researchers seek to contribute. It is no wonder that inductive researchers often feel disenfranchised when their seemingly important, yet novel research is rejected. So, inductive researchers have fallen into line, applying methodological templates under protest or in a post hoc manner to justify rather than generate ideas.
Thus, while the inductive research community at large celebrates the growth and wide acceptance of its research in top journals, many authors are frustrated. They are unable to express their creativity or publish research that gives voice to marginalized ideas because their approach has not systematically coded and analyzed the data or does not build on prior mainstream methodological approaches.
In this essay, we suggest that high-quality inductive research should not be determined by what has worked before, but rather by a set of key attributes that reflect the potential of the research to advance knowledge by being novel, important, and executed well. We describe these attributes in more detail below; first, through a narrative of how we believe editors should approach the assessment of an inductive manuscript and, second, through a detailed discussion of innovative practices we believe can improve how editors (and reviewers) judge inductive research.
A window into an editor’s decision process
To illustrate the challenges of judging inductive research, we relied on our collective experiences to generate a generalized narrative of an editorial decision process. 1 In doing so, we hope to reveal the tensions editors experience between rigor and novelty, as well as how we often handle those tensions. Many editorials guide authors through the dos and don’ts in the writing or reviewing of inductive qualitative manuscripts (e.g. Bansal & Corley, 2012; Pratt, 2009; Weick, 1996). Here, we shift the lens from authors to editors to reveal the challenges that editors confront in judging quality in novel inductive research.
Original submission—first editorial decision
As I sit down to look at the accumulated evidence for this manuscript, made complete when the final review for the paper was received, I remind myself of why I chose to be a journal editor: I want to help loosen the straightjacket that constrains inductive research and publish important theoretical insights that change the way researchers see management and organizations. I’ve been advocating for some time that the most impactful organizational journals have fallen into the trap of choosing rigor and defensibility over importance and novelty. In my editorial term, I want to move the needle. After reading over the manuscript and skimming the three reviews, including the private reviewer comments justifying suggested courses of action, I realize this will not be an easy decision. The three reviewers disagree with each other on their assessment of the manuscript and it is in a domain with which I am unfamiliar. My quick read of the manuscript revealed some areas that are well done and offer potential impact, but I saw several areas of potential concern too. . . . Okay, I have now read the paper carefully. I wanted to make my own assessment, before being influenced by the reviewers’ opinions. I wanted to see if the paper has “magic.” You know, that “oh wow, that’s cool” feeling. And, this one does. The empirical story the authors tell is powerful and rich. In fact, I read the Findings section from front to back without taking my eyes off the page. And, they left me with a puzzle in the data that had me asking “how is that possible?” Unfortunately, the manuscript doesn’t really develop new theory. It just seems to fall off a cliff at the end. Plus, there are potential problems with how their methods are described and the overall writing is not that great. Clearly, the paper is currently all about the hook and the data. Digging into the reviews, I now see that the reviewers are divided about their impressions of the paper, which will make this decision hard—and even more so because it’s outside of my own research domain. The two editorial board members I invited as reviewers are pessimistic about the paper. One has serious concerns about the methodological approach and literature review (Reviewer 2) and has recommended rejection. The other (Reviewer 3) sees promise in the data, but questions the methods, sees little potential for a significant theoretical contribution and has recommended a “high risk” revise and resubmit. The ad-hoc reviewer I asked to review the paper (Reviewer 1), who has considerable knowledge of the theoretical domain, likes the paper a lot and recommends an optimistic revise and resubmit.
As authors, we have seen editors deal with this scenario in a number of ways. One of the less conscientious ways is to simply reject the paper because the reviews are “messy” and it would take the editor considerable effort to help the authors achieve something acceptable. Or, perhaps, to give a revision decision based on a quasi-vote count (because two of the reviewers recommended revision) and telling the authors to follow the reviewers’ feedback before resubmitting. But editorial work, especially in the better journals, is not simply a matter of counting votes or taking the path of least resistance. It is a craft. Good editorial work is conscientious, focused on development that requires time and effort from the editor, and provides authors the greatest chance at fulfilling the promise that inductive research holds.
I know I am the ultimate decision maker and it is up to me to use my accumulated expertise to determine if this manuscript can be turned into something useful for other scholars. I reflect on whether the authors would come back with something interesting to read and can make a positive impact on the field if I offer a revision. I put the paper aside for a day, as I want to reflect on the decision. . . . I have decided to offer the authors an opportunity to revise the paper, clearly highlighting to them that they have too much going on in the theory and no clear conclusion. I will also make it clear that a successful revision requires a more significant theoretical contribution. I will flag the concerns that Reviewers 2 and 3 raised about the methods, but signal to the authors that there is methodological latitude. I have to ride a fine line between appreciating the service that reviewers offer and recognizing that I do not agree with all reviewers’ comments. I sincerely hope the authors are sufficiently experienced to read what is in my letter and not feel tightly constrained by the reviewers’ comments. I start by writing out the headings for the reviews: weak theoretical motivation, too many constructs and theoretical threads, insufficient theoretical development, and methods concerns. I then pull in the reviewers’ comments to support these categories, but I draw less on Reviewers 2 and 3 when I speak about the methods concerns. Essentially, I’m offering my own review of the paper, drawing heavily from the reviewers’ insights that resonate with me.
Most editors of inductive research we know err on the side of offering a revision in the first round. In our collective experience, we see higher first revision rates for inductive research and lower revision rates on second revisions, relative to deductive papers. Inductive editors want to see what authors can do if given the chance to revise a paper. Yet, reviewers often do not share the same predispositions. Reviewers often judge the first submission based on papers that they see published in the journal, which have already benefited from multiple revisions. As a result of these reference points, reviewers tend to favor rigor over novelty. A good editor will be able to see into the potential of the paper, based on its content and the quality of the comments made by reviewers.
Revised submission—second editorial decision
In judging a revised version of the manuscript, the editor’s mindset shifts. The authors have been given a chance to revise based on reviewer feedback and editorial guidance, so the editorial question now becomes “what did the authors do with their opportunity?”
It’s been 8 months since I saw this paper, so I don’t remember much about it. This time, I start the decision process by reading the authors’ responses to my editorial letter followed by a close reading of the paper. I know every editor does things differently, but this works for me. I want to see if the authors responded to my feedback and if the paper has improved significantly. There’s no point in offering another revision if the authors have not taken the paper a good distance forward or if they are too far from the finish line. I really do not like rejecting papers after this current decision, so I move from the developmental mindset of my previous decision to an evaluation one in this decision. It’s not about potential anymore; it’s about significantly realizing that potential—did they follow through on that “oh wow, that’s cool” promise? Unlike the last draft, where I looked for novelty and creativity, I am now looking to see if they can empirically support the novelty and creativity.
This second review is a make-or-break point in the revision process. Papers need to show significant improvement and the ability to understand and respond to reviewers. Even if the paper has potential, it cannot proceed in the process if it has improved only incrementally, as editors need to protect the limited resources of a journal (editor time, number of reviewers, competition for journal space). And rejecting a paper moving too slowly at this stage is likely best for the authors too, as a late-stage rejection or many brutal revisions can be demoralizing. A paper is rejected at this stage if the endgame is not in sight, so the authors can move expediently to another journal:
To the authors’ credit, the revised paper shows significant improvement. The paper is clearly better and I still love the narrative in the findings. The authors have found a way to keep the empirical puzzle interesting while also tightening the theoretical story. Reviewer 3 is beginning to come around to the potential theoretical contributions of the findings, but wants the authors to continue to refine the literature review. Reviewer 2 continues to believe the methodological approach is flawed. I see where she is coming from, but I believe this reviewer is too concerned about templates and is not seeing the quality of the data and the constructivist paradigm from which the authors are writing. Again, I will gently signal in my decision letter that while Reviewer 2’s comments are valid, the authors are not obliged to code the data as prescribed by Reviewer 2 as long as they indicate why they haven’t. The writing continues to be a problem throughout. Nevertheless, I decide to give the authors another chance to revise the paper and have the reviewers provide further comment because I think it is important the improvement process move forward with feedback beyond just mine. In my mind, the paper has turned a corner and a conditional acceptance decision is now the authors’ to lose. If they improve the paper again and respond well to our feedback, I know this paper will not only be publishable, but will also become an impactful read for the journal’s audience. I begin drafting my decision letter accordingly.
Innovating the review process for inductive research
It is not surprising that editing and reviewing inductive manuscripts take unique, craftmanship-like skills. Editors who are used to judging deductive research are not always well-equipped to judge inductive research. There are a few things more frustrating for inductive researchers than to receive a rejection letter written by an editor who primarily handles deductive research. Even if the decision was valid, the researcher will inevitably wonder if the handling editor fully understood the research, especially one involving novel inductive methods.
The good news is that there has been growing bench strength in the number of inductive scholars who can serve as editors and reviewers. It is not surprising, then, that journals increasingly appoint editors and reviewers who exclusively handle inductive manuscripts. Unfortunately, while many inductive editors call for novelty in submitted manuscripts, most review processes do not provide an experience in which novelty can flourish. They resort to already-published research as templates to signal quality. We argue it is not enough just to pick inductive scholars as editors and reviewers to handle inductive research; journals must also significantly innovate the editorial and review process.
To begin looking for the basis for that innovation, we sought examples where the review process engendered novelty in inductive research. We examined the review processes of several papers in which we were involved, as well as the review experiences of other editors and authors who had positive experiences. The table below provides four exemplars to illustrate how the review process can help foster novel quality inductive research (see also Lê and Schmid, 2020; Pratt et al., 2019). Our intent is not to privilege these articles as the ideal way to edit and review inductive research (and certainly not to suggest their methods and structures become new templates), but merely to provide exemplars of the novelty that can be nurtured through the review process.
Table 1 represents the Exemplars that illustrate reviewing novel quality inductive research.
Exemplars that illustrate reviewing novel quality inductive research.
Below, we take the combined insights developed from our own editorial experiences (reflected in the editor narrative) and the experiences in our exemplar table (interviews with editors and authors) to develop a set of practices we believe journal editors should utilize in working with inductive papers. Our intent here, first and foremost, is to drive innovative editorial behavior in the review process. We hope, secondarily, to inspire reviewers and authors to think differently—in these ways or others—so they too begin to approach the review and editorial process differently in the future.
Focus on the “wow” when judging the first submission, add additional criteria when judging subsequent submissions
The most important suggestion we have to offer, reflected in both our editor narrative and the exemplar papers, makes explicit the evaluation criteria for the first submission. The idea that inductive research should “wow” the reader is certainly not new; however, the idea that focusing on the potential for a “wow” in the first submission should be the top priority is new. Currently, editors often use the same criteria for each manuscript draft submitted. We want to be explicit on the importance of the potential for the paper to be interesting and important: first and foremost, the manuscript should have the promise to eventually wow the reader, regardless of the methods that were used or how they are described.
Editors should not rely on a strict notion of rigor to move forward with an invitation to revise an original submission. Doing so risks the editor limiting the pool of papers to only formulaic papers and limiting the authors’ degrees of freedom. Editors can focus on rigor and help to develop the craftmanship of papers during the next stage of the review process; it is difficult, however, for editors to make a paper interesting and important if that potential is not already there.
Retain the authors’ voice
The authors’ own voice is essential to “wow” readers, even if the paper is imperfect. By the authors’ voice, we mean the spark in the paper that makes it different from other papers. Similar to a piece of art (e.g. literature, painting, music, dancing, or film), a good inductive study allows the readers to hear unique creators’ voices in their work. Too often, reviewers (and sometimes editors) attempt to mold a paper to their own voice. However frustrating this might be for any writer, it is even more frustrating for inductive authors given that the researcher is central in seeing, interpreting, and constructing the research phenomenon in the paper.
Editors should provide latitude for authors to authentically express themselves. Authors often feel that the way to publish in a journal is to conform to an existing or familiar style of writing. Yet, every researcher has their unique way of engaging the world and expressing themselves, shaped by their own experiences, cultural and educational backgrounds, and intellectual heritage. Their uniqueness should be celebrated if they can communicate their insights in such a way that exposes deep insight into a phenomenon that are transferable across contexts. Advocating for authenticity reduces the potential burden for the authors to fit into an existing way of writing (e.g. imposing methods post hoc to mimic what has worked or twisting their findings to join a given theory) or to apply a certain style of language.
Editors need to ride a fine line between allowing authors to retain their voice and following the journal’s editorial guidelines. One way to do this is for editors to make it clear when there are non-negotiable issues—hygiene factors so to speak—versus suggestions or even questions. It is important for editors to offer clear, candid guidance on what is strong about the manuscript and what needs to be changed, especially when the editor feels the revision is high risk. This guidance should also clearly signal where there is risk in a revision effort, which can be as divergent as poor craftmanship, unclear if there are enough data, shaky theoretical contribution, or insufficient reviewer support.
Expand the variety of paper structures
We believe editors should encourage non-traditional paper structures when considering inductive research. One of the most obvious, if undiscussed, examples of inductive research conforming to the rules and expectations of positivistic science is found in the structure of published papers. Look at any of our top management and organizational journals and you will likely find a paper structure that looks more or less like this: Introduction, Literature Review (in some form), Methods, Results/Findings, Discussion/Implications. This structure fits a deductive, objective approach to science where the empirics are wholly driven by extant theory.
Inductive scholars have conformed to this structure for the sake of building legitimacy in a largely deductive research paradigm (objective science). Inductive research, however, often does not follow a common linear path. So, why should the structure of inductive papers look like the structure of deductive papers? Given the breadth of the paradigms and methodologies over which inductive research can spread, the norms around paper structure need to be relaxed so a more representative telling of the research can be expressed in the paper.
By explicitly stating that inductive papers can follow the structure best suited to telling the empirical story as it unfolded, journal editors can take a highly visible and significant step toward freeing inductive researchers from the strictures of positivist science. The downstream implications of a move like this would also provide for more varied inductive papers, thus increasing the chances of inductive research being judged on different and more appropriate criteria.
Initiate a dialogue between editors and authors when necessary
Given the novelty of inductive research, there is sometimes ambiguity in the manuscript and reviewers’ and editor’s comments in reaction to the manuscript. Editors and reviewers can only judge what they see in the manuscript, yet there may be much more behind the manuscript that they cannot see that could help inform a decision. There could be more data available than what is described; there may be an unusual empirical story that is not yet expressed well; or there might be opportunities to reposition or deepen the theorizing that is not yet explicit.
Dialogue can help to reveal opportunities to develop work or clear up these ambiguities to realize the full potential of a manuscript. A conversation between the editor and authors can help editors see opportunities they might have missed and authors to better understand the expectations of editors so as to better find a path forward. One of the authors we spoke to who is also an experienced editor commented, “Almost by default, the qualitative review process should have a kind of dialogue nature where you [the authors] engage with the reviewers and editor. But in reality, that’s often not the case.”
We recognize that such dialogue potentially opens up acrimony and takes editors’ time when there is already so much time they invest. But, the opportunity to dialogue will likely lead to more papers being successfully published, which will save editors time in the end. We advocate editors initiate a dialogue with authors in the review process for two major reasons: so editors can better hear authors and authors can better hear editors.
Editors can “hear” the authors
In our interviews, the authors expressed frustration when they felt the editor and reviewers did not understand what they were trying to do in a paper. Not surprisingly, they also expressed a strong desire to be heard and valued during the review process. Authors were most discouraged when they assumed editors were listening with preexisting biases, especially toward papers with unconventional methods and/or structures. For example, when the paper does not appear like what has worked before, the decision might be made before the paper is fully assessed.
Alternatively, editors can listen in a way that is open to different paths, so they do not just hear “what is” but also hear what the authors believe “could be.” Such listening is not uncommon in artistic creation, where outstanding movie directors and music conductors uncover the fullest potential of actors, actresses, and musicians by listening to the performers with open hearts and minds. Editors should listen in a way to let the authors’ own strength come out. By engaging with authors directly, we believe editors can help to bring to the fore the novelty and creativity endemic to inductive research and set up a more informed assessment.
Authors can “hear” editors
Even though authors see a thin bright line between a rejection and revision decision, editors often see the line as quite wide and gray. Experienced editors can quickly identify the papers that should be rejected: the manuscript lacks sufficient data, the theorizing is very thin, or the manuscript has no potential “wow.” Many papers, however, require editors to exercise professional judgment and expertise (Corley and Schinoff, 2017).
A dialogue between the editor and authors in the review process can help authors to understand what the editor intended to communicate through the decision letter. For instance, a dialogue could provide more detailed reasons for a revision request being “high risk.” Authors, especially inexperienced ones, often do not know how to judge this decision and end up completely rewriting the manuscript, proverbially throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not only does this place a heavy workload on authors, but the revision is also often rejected because the changes are so dramatic and in the wrong direction. A dialogue between editors and authors can be both an efficient and effective way to communicate the message.
Iterate revision ideas through short memos
When companies innovate a new product or product ideas, they increasingly iterate the product through a series of prototypes, or sample versions of the new product, to help engage with potential customers and generate learning before committing a large portion of time and money into launching the final version of the product. We see a potential to apply the principle of prototyping into our journal review process for inductive papers: when getting a revise and resubmit decision, authors can iterate research memos with the editor and reviewers before writing up the next full manuscript.
The typical way for authors to work through an inductive paper when they get a revise and resubmit decision is to fix the issues raised by the editor and reviewers without consulting the editor. But, there is often a lot of second-guessing and hand-wringing. Authors often guess incorrectly and can take turns that go completely wrong. One author we spoke with recommended that some papers go through a process of prototyping, in which authors write short research memos that allow the review team to find common ground before the authors spend too much time writing a full manuscript that is going in the wrong direction. Another set of authors from the table explained how it worked in their review process:
When we got the decision letter, we could see a few directions that the paper could go next. The most effective and fastest innovation for that process is that we fleshed out ideas in a few one or two-page memos and iterated with the editor to see what worked . . . We did the iteration over 3 weeks, including a 45-minute Zoom call and a few email exchanges. One of the memos resonated with all of us (authors, reviewers, and editors). It helped us see what was clear and what was the theoretical gap.
Ultimately, iterating with memos can save time for everybody in the review process by helping authors draw out the novelty and “wow” in the paper more quickly. If the authors cannot show significant potential for improvement or the ability to understand and respond to reviewers, the editors can terminate the process. Or, if authors do not feel that the editor or reviewers are taking them in an acceptable direction, the authors can withdraw from the process and move quickly to another journal. In particular, this innovation can help junior scholars to move more quickly through the review process, which is critical before tenure decisions are cast.
Some caveats about these innovative practices
Despite the potential advantages of generating dialogue and using iterative memos, editors should be mindful when considering how to apply these new practices. First, an editor’s time is limited, so generating dialogue or using memos should not be done with all submissions. We suggest focusing on those papers where the potential for impact is high, when reviewer suggestions are contradictory, or when authors have not taken their revisions far enough but the potential for impact still exists. As well, authors should also be encouraged to ask for such dialogue when they feel the revision request will take their paper in an uncomfortable direction.
Given that this approach places more burden on editors, we recognize that editors might then offer fewer revisions by focusing on those papers that have the highest potential. We do not believe this is a problem, given the amount of time authors, reviewers, and editors spend revising papers that are rejected after the first round. As well, such a process of dialogue is not unheard of, as it is often used in major grant applications. Breaking down some of the walls between editors and authors will challenge the norms of the profession, but doing so will also likely generate more impactful research, more quickly.
Finally, it is important to recognize that simply generating dialogue and using memos alone will not lead to novelty; after all, those practices could be used to guide authors to produce conventional or template-based papers as well. Thus, editors must advocate for novelty when using these practices and make deliberate efforts to allow authors to express their voice. Relatedly, editors need to continue to hold high professional ethics and outstanding judgment in implementing these practices, as too much dialogue or over-use of memos could be seen as an editor taking too heavy of a hand with the manuscript.
Conclusion
Institutional theorists study the institutionalizing of processes and structures, as ideas move from the periphery to the mainstream. In the process, innovations become normalized and internally homogenized. As inductive research has moved from the fringe to the mainstream, it not only has come to look more like deductive research, but it has started to look more formulaic. Yet, the very thing that makes inductive research unique is its ability to challenge what is known and to do so creatively. It is critical for inductive researchers to maintain that ambition and for editors and reviewers to loosen the straightjacket to permit a greater range of what is considered good quality. Only then will we truly fulfill the ambition of inductive management and organizational research that enriches people’s lives by impacting the organizations in which they live and work.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
Author biographies
), a growing network of over 35,000 followers from management research and practice, and the Ivey Innovation Learning Lab, which helps businesses create value for themselves and society simultaneously over the long term. Address: Ivey Business School, Western University, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada. [email: