|Course name||Graduate seminar: PhD Seminar: Phenomenon-Driven Theory Development|
|Current number of participants||8|
|expected number of participants||15|
|Home institute||Prof. Dr. Jan Muntermann - Financial Data Analytics|
|Courses type||Graduate seminar in category Teaching|
|First date||Wed., 21.06.2023 09:00 - 18:00, Room: (Vortragsraum Bibliothek)|
DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP: Each student will be designated as “discussion leader” for multiple class sessions (dependent on course enrollment). The requirements are to lead the session and summarize briefly (because all students will have read) 45 minutes maximum – the key points/issues of the required readings and to “kick off” the general discussion. In particular, the discussion leader should (1) highlight the key themes/issues across the assigned and supplemental readings rather than summarize each reading; and (2) develop some questions or points for class discussion. The discussion leader will also help the class to explore some of the research issues the leader feels are important to the topic. I may deviate from these issues where necessary to address other important aspects on the topic. The discussion leader prepares a brief synthesis for his/her colleagues to guide the discussion. The synthesis will be provided to all seminar participants prior to the session. Your synthesis should be posted at least two days before the class you are leading.
CLASS PARTICIPATION: There are assigned readings. Some readings students will access themselves; others will be made available using an online platform designed to encourage engagement with the materials and your classmates. Students will be given instructions during our first class about how to access these readings. Students are expected to contribute to all the seminar discussions. Preparation for each class session by demonstrating that content has been read will significantly determine each student’s ability to fulfill this requirement. Even if a student is not the discussion leader, they should still be ready to share their thoughts on the integration, evaluation and extension of the readings. This should include discussion of the research question or issues being addressed and purpose of the article: The important ideas, concepts, theories, methods, results, and conclusions for each article.
THEORY PRESENTATION: You are expected prepare a presentation of a potential theory development paper related to you own PhD project. You should draw on your in-depth understanding of a novel yet poorly understood phenomenon and incorporate rich examples. Alternatively, you should draw on primary data collected and analyzed with methods for inductive theory development discussed in this course. Either way, the presentation should establish the phenomenon as a foundation for developing a theory that is relevant and timely. The quality expectation is that the presentation works as a draft for later submission to a leading journal, such as Academy of Management Review or Academy of Management Journal. The quality and the originality of the presented theory as well as the process of coming up with the theory will be valued in assessing the paper. The envisioned paper should make original contributions to a well-specified literature.
|Online/Digitale Veranstaltung||Veranstaltung wird in Präsenz abgehalten.|
Alvesson, M. and D. Kärreman (2007). "Constructing Mystery: Empirical Matters in Theory Development." Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1265-1281.
Alvesson, M. G. and J. Sandberg (2011). "Generating Research Questions Through Problematization." Academy of Management Review 36(2): 247-271.
Bacharach, S., B. (1989). "Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation." Academy of Management Review 14(4): 496-515.
Barley, S. R. (2006). "When I Write My Masterpiece: Thoughts on What Makes a Paper Interesting." Academy of Management Journal 49(1): 16-20.
Barney, J. (2018). Editor’s Comments: Positioning a Theory Paper for Publication. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 345-348
Berente, N., Seidel, S., and Safadi, H. 2019. "Data-Driven Computationally Intensive Theory Development," Information Systems Research (30:1), pp. 50-64.
Bergh, D. D. (2003). "From the Editors: Thinking Strategically about Contribution." Academy of Management Journal 46(2): 135-136.
Bundy, J., A. J. Shipp and S. Brickson 2022. “Demystifying and Normalizing the Psychological Experience of Writing for AMR: A Qualitative Analysis of the Highs, Lows, and Suggested Coping Strategies,” Academy of Management Review, 47(3), 341-357.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London, SAGE Publications.
Corley, K. G. and D. A. Gioia (2011). "Building Theory About Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?" Academy of Management Review 36(1): 12-32.
Corneliessen, J. (2017). "Developing propositions, a process model or typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate." Academy of Management Review 42(1): 1-9.
DiMaggio, P. (1995). "Comments on "What Theory is Not"." Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3): 391-397.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). "Building Theories from Case Study Research." Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). "Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic." The Academy of Management Review 16(3): 620-627.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and M. E. Graebner (2007). "Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges." The Academy of Management Journal 50(1): 25-32.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2021). "What is the Eisenhardt Method, really?" Strategic Organization 19(1): 147-160.
Feldman, D. C. (2004). "What are We Talking About When We Talk About Theory?" Journal of Management 30(5): 565-567.
Fisher, G., K. Mayer, and S. Morris (2021). “From the Editors—Phenomenon-Based Theorizing” Academy of Management Review 46(4): 631-639.
Glaser, B. G. and A. Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, California, Sociology Press.
Gioia, D. A., et al. (2013). "Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on Gioia Methodology." Organizational Research Methods 16(1): 15-31.
Grant, A. M. and T. G. Pollock (2011). "PUBLISHING IN AMJ-PART 3: SETTING THE HOOK." Academy of Management Journal 54(5): 873-879.
Gregor, S. (2006). "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems." MIS Quarterly 30(3): 611-642.
Gregory, R. W., and Henfridsson, O. 2021. "Bridging Art and Science: Phenomenon-Driven Theorizing," Journal of Association for Information Systems (22).
Gregory, R. W. and J. Muntermann (2014). "Heuristic Theorizing: Proactively Generating Design Theories." Information Systems Research 25(3): 639-653.
Gregory, R. W., et al. (2021). "The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Data Network Effects for Creating User Value." Academy of Management Review 46(3): 1-18.
Grodal, S., et al. (2021). "Achieving Rigor in Qualitative Analysis: The Role of Active Categorization in Theory Building." Academy of Management Review 46(3): 591-612.
Johns, G. (2006). "The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior." The Academy of Management Review 31(2): 386.
Lange, D. and M. D. Pfarrer (2017). "Editors’ Comments: Sense and Structure—The Core Building Blocks of an AMR Article." Academy of Management Journal 42(3): 407-416.
Langley, A. (1999). "Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data." Academy of Management Review 24(4): 691-710.
Makadok, R. (2022). “From the Editors: Guidance for AMR Authors about Making Formal Theory Accessible,” Academy of Management Review 47(2): 193-205.
Makadok, R., R. Burton, and J. Barney. (2018). “A practical guide for making theory contributions in strategic management,” Strategic Management Journal 39(6): 1530-1545.
Pentland, B. T. (1999). "Building process theory with narrative: from description to explanation." Academy of Management Review 24(4): 711-724.
Rynes, S. (2002). "From the Editors: Some Reflections on Contribution." Academy of Management Journal 45(2): 311-313.
Sein, M. K., et al. (2011). "Action Design Research." MIS Quarterly 35(1): 37-56.
Shepherd, D. A. and K. M. Sutcliffe (2011). "Inductive Top-Down Theorizing: A Source of New Theories or Organization." Academy of Management Review 36(2): 361-380.
Suddaby, R. (2006). "From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not." The Academy of Management Journal 49(4): 633-642.
Suddaby, R. (2010). "Editor’s Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization." The Academy of Management Review 35(3): 356-357.
Sutton, R. I. and B. M. Staw (1995). "What Theory is Not." Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3): 371-384.
Thatcher, S. M. B. and G. Fisher (2022). "From the Editors—The Nuts and Bolts of Writing a Theory Paper: A Practical Guide to Getting Started." Academy of Management Review 47(1): 1-8.
Tsoukas, H. (1991). "The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations." The Academy of Management Review 14(4): 551-561.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. New York, Oxford University Press.
Walsh, I., et al. (2015). "What Grounded Theory Is … A Critically Reflective Conversation Among Scholars." Organizational Research Methods 18(4): 581-599.
Weick, K. E. (1995). "What Theory is not, Theorizing is." Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3): 385-390.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). "What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?" Academy of Management Review 14(4): 490-494.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Los Angeles, Sage.