IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v21y2010i3p781-797.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perspective---Open to Negotiation: Phenomenological Assumptions and Knowledge Dissemination

Author

Listed:
  • Corinne Bendersky

    (Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095)

  • Kathleen L. McGinn

    (Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

Phenomenological assumptions---assumptions about the fundamental qualities of the phenomenon being studied and how it relates to the environment in which it occurs---affect the dissemination of knowledge from subfields to the broader field of study. Micro-process research in organizational studies rests on implicit phenomenological assumptions that vary in the extent to which micro-processes are viewed as parts of larger systems. We suggest that phenomenological assumptions linking micro-processes to organizational contexts highlight the relevance of micro-process research findings to broader organizational questions and therefore increase the likelihood that the findings will disseminate to the larger field of organizational research. We test this assertion by analyzing studies of negotiation published in top peer-reviewed management, psychology, sociology, and industrial relations journals from 1990 to 2005. Our findings reveal a continuum of open systems to closed systems phenomenological assumptions in negotiation research. Analysis of the citation rates of the articles in our data set by non-negotiation organizational research indicates that more open systems assumptions increase the likelihood that a negotiation article will be cited in organizational studies, after controlling for other, previously identified effects on citation rates. Our findings suggest that subfields can increase the impact they have on the broader intellectual discourse by situating their phenomena in rich contexts that illuminate the connections between their findings and questions of interest to the broader field.

Suggested Citation

  • Corinne Bendersky & Kathleen L. McGinn, 2010. "Perspective---Open to Negotiation: Phenomenological Assumptions and Knowledge Dissemination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 781-797, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:21:y:2010:i:3:p:781-797
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0487
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1090.0487?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. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    2. Kray, Laura J. & Galinsky, Adam D. & Thompson, Leigh, 2002. "Reversing the Gender Gap in Negotiations: An Exploration of Stereotype Regeneration," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 386-410, March.
    3. Jennifer A. Chatman & Francis J. Flynn, 2005. "Full-Cycle Micro-Organizational Behavior Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 434-447, August.
    4. Deborah Dougherty, 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 179-202, May.
    5. Mary Ann Glynn, 2000. "When Cymbals Become Symbols: Conflict Over Organizational Identity Within a Symphony Orchestra," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 285-298, June.
    6. Mark Granovetter, 2005. "The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 33-50, Winter.
    7. Gerald F. Davis & Christopher Marquis, 2005. "Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 332-343, August.
    8. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    9. S. Stremersch & I. Verniers & C. Verhoef, 2006. "The Quest for Citations: Drivers of Article Impact," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/422, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    10. Joanne Martin, 1990. "Deconstructing Organizational Taboos: The Suppression of Gender Conflict in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 339-359, November.
    11. Michelle Gittelman, 2007. "Does Geography Matter for Science-Based Firms? Epistemic Communities and the Geography of Research and Patenting in Biotechnology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 724-741, August.
    12. Katherine C. Kellogg & Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates, 2006. "Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 22-44, February.
    13. Mie Augier & James G. March & Bilian Ni Sullivan, 2005. "Notes on the Evolution of a Research Community: Organization Studies in Anglophone North America, 1945–2000," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 85-95, February.
    14. Alfred Kieser & Lars Leiner, 2009. "Why the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research Is Unbridgeable," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 516-533, May.
    15. White, Sally Blount & Neale, Margaret A., 1994. "The Role of Negotiator Aspirations and Settlement Expectancies in Bargaining Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 303-317, February.
    16. Rik Pieters & Hans Baumgartner, 2002. "Who Talks to Whom? Intra- and Interdisciplinary Communication of Economics Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 483-509, June.
    17. Biehl, Markus & Kim, Henry & Wade, Michael, 2006. "Relationships among the academic business disciplines: a multi-method citation analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 359-371, August.
    18. Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Moag, Joseph & Bazerman, Max H., 1999. "The Negotiation Matching Process: Relationships and Partner Selection," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 252-283, December.
    19. Piet Verschuren, 2001. "Holism versus Reductionism in Modern Social Science Research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 389-405, November.
    20. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    21. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, 1997. "New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195114348.
    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. Sandra Brosnan & David O’Donnell & Philip O’Regan, 2019. "A performative exploration of the lifeworlds of human capital and financial capital: an intellectual capital case vignette," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(2), pages 321-344, June.
    2. Dejun Tony Kong & Robert B. Lount & Mara Olekalns & Donald L. Ferrin, 2017. "Advancing the scientific understanding of trust in the contexts of negotiations and repeated bargaining," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 15-21, January.

    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. Sylvain Lenfle & Jonas Söderlund, 2019. "Large-Scale Innovative Projects as Temporary Trading Zones: Toward an Interlanguage Theory," Post-Print hal-02390158, HAL.
    2. Ann Majchrzak & Philip H. B. More & Samer Faraj, 2012. "Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 951-970, August.
    3. Caccamo, Marta & Pittino, Daniel & Tell, Fredrik, 2023. "Boundary objects, knowledge integration, and innovation management: A systematic review of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    4. William C. Barley, 2015. "Anticipatory Work: How the Need to Represent Knowledge Across Boundaries Shapes Work Practices Within Them," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1612-1628, December.
    5. Mark Dodgson & David M. Gann & Ammon Salter, 2007. "“In Case of Fire, Please Use the Elevator”: Simulation Technology and Organization in Fire Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 849-864, October.
    6. Haselsteiner, Julia, 2022. "Unraveling the Process of Knowledge Integration in Agile Product Development Teams," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 7(2), pages 354-389.
    7. Victor P. Seidel & Siobhán O’Mahony, 2014. "Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 691-712, June.
    8. Marco Tortoriello & Ray Reagans & Bill McEvily, 2012. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1024-1039, August.
    9. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    10. Massimo G. Colombo & Massimiliano Guerini & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra & Andrea Bonaccorsi, 2022. "The “first match” between high-tech entrepreneurial ventures and universities: the role of founders’ social ties," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 270-306, February.
    11. Hilda Bø Lyng & Eric Christian Brun, 2018. "Knowledge Transition: A Conceptual Model of Knowledge Transfer for Cross-Industry Innovation," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(05), pages 1-23, October.
    12. Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran, 2018. "Theory into practice, practice to theory: Action research in method development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(3), pages 1145-1155.
    13. Paula Jarzabkowski & Sarah Kaplan, 2015. "Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 537-558, April.
    14. Johann Piet Hausberg & Peter S. H. Leeflang, 2019. "Absorbing Integration: Empirical Evidence On The Mediating Role Of Absorptive Capacity Between Functional-/Cross-Functional Integration And Innovation Performance," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(06), pages 1-37, August.
    15. Caroline A. Bartel & Raghu Garud, 2009. "The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 107-117, February.
    16. Paul M. Leonardi, 2011. "Innovation Blindness: Culture, Frames, and Cross-Boundary Problem Construction in the Development of New Technology Concepts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 347-369, April.
    17. Cacciatori, Eugenia, 2008. "Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1591-1601, October.
    18. Hall, Matthew & Mikes, Anette & Millo, Yuval, 2015. "How do risk managers become influential?: a field study of toolmaking in two financial institutions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60485, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Järvi, Kati & Almpanopoulou, Argyro & Ritala, Paavo, 2018. "Organization of knowledge ecosystems: Prefigurative and partial forms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1523-1537.
    20. Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, 2007. "Developing Issue-Selling Effectiveness over Time: Issue Selling as Resourcing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 560-577, August.

    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:inm:ororsc:v:21:y:2010:i:3:p:781-797. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.