IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v57y2020i6p1246-1271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Dialectical Interrogation in Review Studies: Theorizing from What We See Rather Than What We Have Already Seen

Author

Listed:
  • Christina Hoon
  • Alina M. Baluch

Abstract

Review‐centric works receive increasing attention for generating insightful contributions to management and organization studies. Despite this, the literature on theory building has taken little note of their place in the theorizing process. This deserves attention, however, given the challenges reviews face in theorizing in the absence of new empirical observations. Accordingly, these works run the risk of merely summarizing ‘what we have already seen’, instead of ‘maximizing what we see’. Drawing on the strategies of theorizing from similarities and theorizing from anomalies, we propose dialectical interrogation as a critical step in theorizing through which review scholars imaginatively engage in a back and forth inquiry between the phenomenal world of a given field and existing theory. By analysing selected review studies from top management journals, we reveal that theorizing outcomes occur through two ways of dialectical interrogation (consolidative and disruptive). We contribute by demonstrating that review scholars can enter into powerful theorizing through the consolidative or disruptive interrogation of the review data with extant theory to detect emergence and novelty alongside puzzles, conflicts and paradoxes. Dialectical interrogation can address the shortcomings of current theorizing in review‐centric works and bears potential for advancing theories of management and organization studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina Hoon & Alina M. Baluch, 2020. "The Role of Dialectical Interrogation in Review Studies: Theorizing from What We See Rather Than What We Have Already Seen," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(6), pages 1246-1271, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:57:y:2020:i:6:p:1246-1271
    DOI: 10.1111/joms.12543
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12543
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joms.12543?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cynthia A. Lengnick‐Hall & James A. Wolff, 1999. "Similarities and contradictions in the core logic of three strategy research streams," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(12), pages 1109-1132, December.
    2. Lex Donaldson & Jane Qiu & Ben Nanfeng Luo, 2013. "For Rigour in Organizational Management Theory Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 153-172, January.
    3. Herman Aguinis & Jeffrey R. Edwards, 2014. "Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 143-174, January.
    4. Mats Alvesson & Jörgen Sandberg, 2013. "Has Management Studies Lost Its Way? Ideas for More Imaginative and Innovative Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 128-152, January.
    5. Brian K. Boyd & Steve Gove & Michael A. Hitt, 2005. "Construct measurement in strategic management research: illusion or reality?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 239-257, March.
    6. Shaker A. Zahra & Lance R. Newey, 2009. "Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science: Theory‐Building at the Intersection of Disciplines and/or Fields," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(6), pages 1059-1075, September.
    7. Nuzhat Haneef, 2013. "Empirical research consolidation: a generic overview and a classification scheme for methods," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 383-410, January.
    8. Gerardo Patriotta, 2017. "Crafting Papers for Publication: Novelty and Convention in Academic Writing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 747-759, July.
    9. Stefanie Habersang & Jill Küberling‐Jost & Markus Reihlen & Christoph Seckler, 2019. "A Process Perspective on Organizational Failure: A Qualitative Meta‐Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 19-56, January.
    10. D. Ravasi & A. Canato, 2013. "How do I know who you think you are? A review of research methods on organizational identity," Post-Print hal-00845428, HAL.
    11. James G. Combs & T. Russell Crook & Andreas Rauch, 2019. "Meta‐Analytic Research in Management: Contemporary Approaches, Unresolved Controversies, and Rising Standards," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 1-18, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christofi, Michael, 2024. "The role of chief digital officer: Critical insights into an emerging field and road map for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. Stefano Amato & Rodrigo Basco & Nicola Lattanzi, 2022. "Contextualizing employment outcomes in family business research: current findings and future research avenues," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 531-604, June.
    3. Anne Heider & Marcel Hülsbeck & Leopold Schlenk-Barnsdorf, 2022. "The role of family firm specific resources in innovation: an integrative literature review and framework," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 483-530, June.
    4. Scazziota, Vanessa & Serra, Fernando & Sarkar, Soumodip & Guerrazzi, Luiz, 2023. "The antecedents of entrepreneurial action: A meta-synthesis on effectuation and bricolage," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(PA).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kotapati Srinivasa Reddy, 2015. "Beating the Odds! Build theory from emerging markets phenomenon and the emergence of case study research—A “Test-Tube” typology," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1037225-103, December.
    2. Mats Alvesson & Jörgen Sandberg, 2020. "The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s Argument for Integrative Reviews," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(6), pages 1290-1304, September.
    3. Christopher Wickert & Corinne Post & Jonathan P. Doh & John E. Prescott & Andrea Prencipe, 2021. "Management Research that Makes a Difference: Broadening the Meaning of Impact," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 297-320, March.
    4. Christopher Hansen & Holger Steinmetz & Jörn Block, 2022. "How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Andrew Corbett & Joep Cornelissen & Andrew Delios & Bill Harley, 2013. "Strategizing and Operating Through Our Values: JMS at 50," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1349-1357, December.
    6. Sarkar, Soumodip & Mateus, Sara, 2022. "Value creation using minimal resources – A meta-synthesis of frugal innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    7. Shen, Lei & Shi, Qingyue & Parida, Vinit & Jovanovic, Marin, 2024. "Ecosystem orchestration practices for industrial firms: A qualitative meta-analysis, framework development and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    8. Albachiara Boffelli & Malin Johansson, 2020. "What do we want to know about reshoring? Towards a comprehensive framework based on a meta-synthesis," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 53-69, June.
    9. Davies, Andrew & Manning, Stephan & Söderlund, Jonas, 2018. "When neighboring disciplines fail to learn from each other: The case of innovation and project management research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 965-979.
    10. Sarkar, Soumodip & Mateus, Sara, 2022. "Doing more with less - How frugal innovations can contribute to improving healthcare systems," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    11. Jacques-Bernard Gauthier & Lavagnon Ika, 2022. "The rigor-relevance gap in Project Management research: It's time to stop the lament and think and act reflexively," Working Papers hal-03563085, HAL.
    12. Laubengaier, Désirée A. & Cagliano, Raffaella & Canterino, Filomena, 2022. "It Takes Two to Tango: Analyzing the Relationship between Technological and Administrative Process Innovations in Industry 4.0," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Andrew Corbett & Joep Cornelissen & Andrew Delios & Bill Harley, 2014. "Variety, Novelty, and Perceptions of Scholarship in Research on Management and Organizations: An Appeal for Ambidextrous Scholarship," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 3-18, January.
    14. Brian K. Boyd, 2018. "Paradigm development in Chinese management research: The role of research methodology," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 805-827, September.
    15. Ayamga, Matthew & Annosi, Maria Carmela & Kassahun, Ayalew & Dolfsma, Wilfred & Tekinerdogan, Bedir, 2024. "Adaptive organizational responses to varied types of failures: Empirical insights from technology providers in Ghana," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    16. Julia VINCENT PONROY & Patrick LÊ & Camille PRADIES, 2019. "In a Family Way? A Model of Family Firm Identity Maintenance by Non-Family Members," Working Papers 2019-015, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    17. Gavin M Schwarz & Karin Sanders & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2020. "In the driving seat: Executive’s perceived control over environment," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(2), pages 317-342, May.
    18. Daniel Arturo Cernas Ortiz & Patricia Mercado Salgado & Filadelfo León Cázares, 2018. "Satisfacción laboral y compromiso organizacional: prueba de equivalencia de medición entre México y Estados Unidos," Contaduría y Administración, Accounting and Management, vol. 63(2), pages 168-191, Abril-Jun.
    19. Jolien Roelandt & Petra Andries & Mirjam Knockaert, 2022. "The contribution of board experience to opportunity development in high-tech ventures," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 1627-1645, March.
    20. Joep P. Cornelissen & Rodolphe Durand, 2014. "Moving Forward: Developing Theoretical Contributions in Management Studies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(6), pages 995-1022, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:57:y:2020:i:6:p:1246-1271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.