Prof.

Moses Acquaah, PhD

Bryan School of Business and Economics
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
USA

UC Louvain, Belgium
September 24, 2024
 Workshop Outline

1. Writing the Introduction and Setting the

Hook
2. Research Design Issues
3. Theory and Hypotheses Development
4. Crafting the Methods and Results
5. Discussing the Implications of Study and
Concluding
1. INTRODUCTION & SETTING THE
HOOK
— Research papers are like first dates: FIRST IMPRESSIONS
MATTER.
— An introduction to a research paper determines whether
readers will continue reading it.
— An introduction presents the essentials of a study
— Identifies the conversation the researcher is joining (Huff,
1999)
— Explains what the study contributes; and
— Articulates how the researcher intends to accomplish his/her
goals.
— An introduction should “set the hook” and help readers to
fully recognize and appreciate what the research has to
offer and intrigue them enough to read further.
 INTRODUCTION & SETTING THE
HOOK
— Effective introductions answer three questions:
1. Who cares? Why is the topic or research question(s)
interesting and important to theory development and
practice (society)?
2. What do we know, what don’t we know, and so what?
What key theoretical perspectives and empirical findings
have already informed the topic or research question(s)?
What major unaddressed questions or issues does this
research address, and why does it need to be addressed?
3. What will we learn? How does the research fundamentally
change, challenge, or advance scholars understanding in
your chosen field?
 INTRODUCTION & SETTING THE
HOOK
— Who cares?
— Highlight why the research study’s topic matter for both
theory and practice (society)
— Types of hooks for opening a research study
1. Use of provocative quotation or vignette from popular media
to engage reader. Example, “Consumers are demanding
quality products but are not willing to pay for it.”
2. Highlighting trends in “Main Street” (recent changes at the
workplace or broader social & economic environment that is
impacting business) or the “Ivory Tower” (corporate
executive suites).
3. Describe trend in the academic literature and identify
limitations or contradictions.
INTRODUCTION & SETTING THE HOOK
— What do we know, what don’t we know, and so
what?
— Identifies the conversation the study is joining, where
the gaps are, and why they gaps need to be studied.
— Called “establishing and problematizing” the field
(Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997)
— Establishing the field – involves (a) entering two different
conversations and bridging them; (b) describing how ongoing
conversation needs to go forward; or (c) presenting competing
perspectives & how it would be resolved.
— Problematizing the field – involves convincing readers that
knowledge about a topic (a) is incomplete and needs to be
developed further; (b) is inadequate by failing to incorporate
important perspectives; or all together inaccurate.
INTRODUCTION & SETTING THE HOOK
— What will we learn?
— Preview of research’s contribution – how you
change, challenge or advance the topic you’re
working on
— Two most important ways of framing a contribution
according to Hollenbeck (2008) are:
— Consensus shifting – identify widely held
assumptions, proceed to challenge them, and describe
the implications for ongoing research
— Consensus creating – show a lack on consensus in the
literature and either clarify the lines of debate or
resolve the conflict.
INTRODUCTION & SETTING THE HOOK
— What should the length of the introduction
be?
— Recommendation is 3-5 paragraphs (Barney,
2020)
— Three paragraphs when purpose and contribution is in
the same paragraph
— Structure
— First paragraph – importance of study
— Second paragraph – gaps, inconsistencies, and
controversies
— Third paragraph – purpose of study
— Fourth (& fifth) -- Contributions
INTRODUCTION & SETTING THE HOOK
— What should the length of the introduction be?
— Approximately one and a half manuscript pages (about 3
pages double spacing) (Barney, 2020)
— “The issue here is not just a page and a half; it is about being a
disciplined writer who knows exactly what the paper is (and is
not about), and keeps the paper focused on answering that
question” (p. 151)
— Don’t reinvent the wheel, use an exemplar
— There are several examples of introductions from high quality
journals (in your academic field)
INTRODUCTION & SETTING THE HOOK
— Common mistakes in writing an introduction
(Barney, 2020)
— First paragraph literature reviews
— Putting entire literature review in first paragraph
— Second paragraph summaries of theoretical and
empirical arguments
— Paragraph is very long (usually a page or more)
— Most of the content is repeated in the theory section
— Third paragraph summaries of theoretical and empirical
arguments
— Detailed argumentation (theoretical or empirical)
— Focus on methods and statistical analysis
2. RESEARCH DESIGN
— Choosing the appropriate design is critical to the
success of any research paper or study
— Design of a study cannot be altered after the research
— Weaknesses attributed to research design cannot be
corrected when asked to revise by a journal
— Issues to consider during the research design phase
1. Matching research questions and design
2. Measurement and operational issues (i.e., construct
validity)
3. Model specification
RESEARCH DESIGN
— Matching research questions and design
(a) Cross-sectional (CS) data vs longitudinal,
panel, or experimental data
— CS design cannot be used with research questions that
deals with causality or change (e.g., “The effects of
HR practices in reducing employee turnover”)
— Many or perhaps most research questions in business
implicitly address issues of change and/or causality.
— Cross-sectional data is appropriate for studies
examining associations or just relationships
— Any study that involves mediation implies causal
associations, and cross-sectional design or data
cannot be used for such a study
RESEARCH DESIGN
— Matching research questions and design
(b) Inappropriate samples and procedures
— Most organizational research studies use convenience
samples, simulated business situations, or artificial
tasks
— Certain samples (e.g., executives or students) or
procedures are inherently better than others
— E.g., experimental research on executive selection
decision should not use students with limited work
experience.
RESEARCH DESIGN
— Measurement and operationalization
(a) Inappropriate adaptation of existing measures
— Collecting data from field and the problem of survey
length
— Eliminating items from existing survey should be
supported with validity evidence
— Include new or substantially altered items in the
research and sometimes compare its validity with
original items
RESEARCH DESIGN
— Measurement and operationalization
(b) Inappropriate application of existing measures
— Using existing measures to assess completely different
constructs (e.g., organizational legitimacy, reputation
or status)
— Need to establish both uniqueness of new constructs,
and they relates to existing constructs
(c) Common method variance
— Problems of rater effects, item effects & context effects.
RESEARCH DESIGN
— Model specification
— Important to include key controls and mediating
variable in specifying a theoretical model
— Proper inclusion of control variables
— Control variables should meet three conditions for inclusion
(Becker, 2005; James, 1980)
1. Strong theoretical or empirical evidence that the controls are
correlated with the dependent variable.
2. Strong expectation that the controls are correlated with the
hypothesized independent variable(s)
3. Strong logical reason that the control variables are not the
central variables in the study – hypothesized or mediators
— Proper inclusion and operationalization of mediators
3. DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES
— Hypotheses are developed from theory, which is a
critical part of any research project.
— The primary purpose of a theory section is to ground
hypotheses. This is to:
1. Position the hypotheses in relation to related research
or literature;
2. Develop a clear, logical argument explaining why the
core variables or processes are related in the proposed
fashion; and
3. Create a sense of coherence in the relationships among
the variables and processes in the proposed model.
DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES
— Making use of prior research
— A key element of creating a strong theory section is to find a
clear theoretically driven narrative – not merely a literature
review
— Maintain a delicate balance between engaging previous
research and carefully developing one’s own novel insights.
— Avoid “argument by citation” – citing any remotely relevant paper
— Build a compelling logic based on explanatory logic using
citations to illustrate various elements of the logic of one’s own
argument (Sutton & Staw, 1995)
— Alternatively, avoid focusing exclusively on the argument and
ignoring previous related research
DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES
— Making use of prior research
— A key to covering prior research effectively is to engage
the underlying theoretical narrative that is the
foundation for past empirical research – but not the
empirical research themselves.
— Start with the arguments themselves as an organizing
structure for the ideas
— Try and write the “Theory and Hypotheses” section without a
single citation to previous research
— Check whether it is clear, consistent & persuasive on its own
— Then incorporate prior work, and explain how your work
complements or challenges that work
DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES
— Making use of prior research
— By the time readers arrive at an effectively
grounded hypotheses, the theory section should
have created the point that the:
1. Hypothesis is not a surprise (i.e., the arguments
prior to the hypothesis clearly led to the specific
prediction)
2. Readers understand clearly why the constructs
are associated
DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES
— Developing a clear, logical argument
— Readers usually maintain an attitude of healthy
skepticism about hypotheses and it is the
researcher’s job to convince them about the logic
that supports them.
— A hypothesis, simply, is a claim the Y, a dependent
variable, is systematically related to X, an
independent variable.
DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES
— Developing a clear, logical argument
— Substantiate hypotheses – Alternative ways of doing it
— Link a hypothesis to a similar logical relationship that is
central tenet of an established theory or conceptual
framework – merely referencing the theory/conceptual
framework is not sufficient
— Offer empirical evidence supporting claims similar to what the
hypothesis states.
— Focus on how the hypothesized relationship occurs by
crafting a narrative that describes the role of intervening
states and/or processes
— Identify boundary conditions that explicitly explains the
relevance of the proposed relationships (e.g., contexts –
national cultures, industries, etc.).
DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES
— Developing a clear logical argument
— Utilizing multiple theories
— Different theories can be a source of novel insights
into a variety of issues and may be from the same area
(e.g., resource-based view of the firm, social capital
theory, transactions cost economics).
— Explain the need for each additional theory to avoid
the impression that the theories are being combined
ad hoc
DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES
— Developing a clear logical argument
— Utilizing multiple theories
— Ways of combining theories
— Pitting one theory against the other through competing
hypotheses
— Explain when and why one theory should take
precedence over the other – conditions under which
predictions from each theory is more appropriate
— Seek more integration between theories by articulating
how the different theories are complementary (e.g.,
integrating RBV and TCE to explain corporate
diversification)
DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES
— Creating coherence in the relationships
— Explain why one has chosen a specific set of
explanatory variables over others
— Explain how the set of chosen variables fit together
in a way that creates a strong and coherent
theoretical contribution.
— The proposed hypotheses should be linked in a way
that creates an overall contribution to the topic.
DEVELOPING THE HYPOTHESES
— Creating coherence in the relationships
— Stating the obvious hypothesis or making a claim
that is common knowledge, though true, is usually
seen as trivial
— What matters is that
— a clear, overarching research question drives the
hypotheses;
— one explains clearly by drawing on the underlying
theoretical and empirical work on the research topic;
and
— one explains how the explanatory variables come
together.
 4. CRAFTING THE METHODS AND
RESULTS
— The purpose of the methods and results section is to report
to readers:
1. How and why the data were obtained; and
2. How the data were analyzed and what was found
— Effective presentation of the methods and results can
have a crucial impact on the extent to which a researcher
can convince readers that his/her theoretical arguments
(or parts of them) are supported.
— It also send positive signal about the diligence, reliability
and dependability of the researcher
— Both methods and results sections should follow the
three C’s – completeness, clarity, and credibility.
METHODS
— Completeness
— A researcher should provide a complete
— descriptions of the ways they obtained the data
(e.g., how participants were contacted, where data
was obtained, kinds of encouragements were used
to solicit participation, & who reported the
information for different constructs of model);
— operationalizations of the constructs that they used;
and
— Types of analyses that they conducted
METHODS
— Completeness
— Irrespective of type of data (primary or archival), for the
sake of completeness:
— Researchers should disclose the how’s, what, and why of
the research procedures (including an Appendix with full
list of measures)
— Allow readers to evaluate the pros and cons of the approach
taken
— Provide sufficient information that would allow someone to
replicate the study and get the same or similar results, if
he/she uses exactly the same procedure and data.
METHODS
— Clarity
— It is important to explain clearly how the data for a research
project was obtained
— Useful to adapt measures from other studies but it must be clearly
reporting how the measures were adapted.
— Variable coding should also be justified
— Credibility
— Address why a particular sample was chosen
— Always summarize the conceptual definition of a construct
before describing the measure used for it
— Explain why a particular operationalization was used
(especially, outcome variables).
— Justify model specification and data analysis approaches.
RESULTS
— Completeness
— Always include a table which summarizes the descriptive
statistics and correlation analysis.
— Specify the unit of analysis
— Individual, Group, Business unit, Firm, Industry; or Country
— Clearly specify the sample size and the DV used in each
model if different variables are used in different models.
— Clarity
— Always relate the results to the hypotheses
— Do not link the results to hypotheses in the Discussion section
— Do not prematurely discuss the implications of the results in the
Results section
RESULTS
— Clarity
— Suggested format is “Hypothesis X suggests that ……….. We
find that ….. in model K in Table Z”
— Report the results associated with the hypotheses in order,
beginning with Hypothesis 1 and continuing sequentially to
the last hypothesis.
— If your results do not support your hypotheses, do not “sweep
them under the rug”
— It may be due to inadequate theorizing (e.g., direction of hypotheses
are incorrect or there may be alternative arguments and predictions)
— It may be a great opportunity for new critical thinking about
relationships
— All results – significant or not, supporting or contrary to
hypotheses – should be addressed directly and clearly.
RESULTS
— Credibility
— Credibility of the results could be enhanced by doing the
following:
— Demonstrate to readers why your interpretation of the
results are correct (e.g., signs of main and interaction
effects).
— Its always better to plot significant interaction effects
— Could also check whether the simple slopes are statistically
significant
— Present results from supplementary analyses and robustness
checks if possible
— Use alternative methods and/or model specifications, and
measurements of constructs.
5. DISCUSSING THE IMPLICATIONS
— Discussion sections consists of several dimensions
— Theoretical implications
— Practical/managerial implications
— Research limitations
— Future research
— Provides opportunities for researchers to
— Strengthen study’s message an in the process convince
readers of the study’s importance or value
— Embed the study more fully in the existing literature,
and the potential to shape the future direction of the
conversation.
DISCUSSING THE IMPLICATIONS
— Theoretical implications
— Discussion of theoretical implication could be
enhanced by looking at it as
— An ending – discussions help to bring closure to the
study, clarifying is major contribution and reflecting
on the future direction
— A new beginning – help to modify contemporary
theoretical understanding, bringing to light new and
valuable ideas
DISCUSSING THE IMPLICATIONS
— Theoretical implications – an ending
— An effective discussion section should revisit the
study’s original theoretical motivation
— Means of effecting an orderly completion – ensures
that researchers deliver on their study’s early promise
and thus answer the underlying question(s).
— Affords the mean to address the so what question in a
clear and comprehensive manner.
— Affords a synthesis of the studies empirical findings –
examine the findings of the hypotheses in an
integrative and aggregate fashion.
DISCUSSING THE IMPLICATIONS
— Theoretical implications – a new beginning
— Provide opportunity for a logical interpretation of
findings
— Delve into observed relationships and ask the why question
— Explore more fully the underlying mechanisms and processes
— Contrasting the findings with earlier results often
provides the opportunity to develop meaningful
theoretical distinctions.
— Explore the path that led to discovery of study’s findings
— Unsupported hypotheses should be give equal attention as
they provide meaningful insight useful for theoretical
development.
DISCUSSING THE IMPLICATIONS
— Common Pitfalls
— Rehashing the results
— Explain why the findings are important and how they change the
conversation that the research joins
— Avoid reviewing the results or what emerged in the study
— Meandering
— A narrative references numerous theoretical implications, where
some or all of which seem disconnected fro each other, the paper’s
“hook”, and/or the paper’s theoretical development.
— Focus on what the findings mean collectively

— Overreaching
— Deriving sweeping conclusions that outstrip the findings from the
data
— Treat theoretical implications as an afterthought
References
— From the Editors Series on Publishing in AMJ Parts 2-6
1. Bono, J. E., & McNamara, G. (2011). From the Editors: Publishing in AMJ – Part 2:
Research Design. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 657-660.
2. Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. (2011). From the Editors: Publishing in AMJ – Part 3:
Setting the Hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 873-879.
3. Sparrowe, R.T., & Mayer, K.J. (2011). From the Editors: Publishing in AMJ –
Part 4: Grounding the Hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6),
1098-1102.
4. Zhang, Y., & Shaw, J. (2012). From the Editors: Publishing in AMJ – Part 5:
Crafting the Methods and Results. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 8-
12.
5. Geletkanycz, M., & Tepper, B. J. (2012). From the Editors: Publishing in AMJ – Part
6: Discussing the Implications. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 256-260.
— Barney, J. B. (2020). Positioning papers for publication. In Wright, M., Ketchen, D.
J., & Clark, T. (2020), How to get published in best management journals (2nd
Edition). Edward Elger, Cheltenham, U.K.
— Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. (2020). Simple rules, templates, and heuristics! An
attempt to deconstruct the craft of writing an Entrepreneurship paper.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(3): 371-390.