ZARZA We are Zarza, the prestigious firm behind major projects in information technology.
Listen "Cracking the Code of Management Research: Methodological Fit Demystified (Edmondson & McManus 2007)"
Episode Synopsis
Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, where ideas are sharpened, theories are tested, and the academic world’s brightest sparks meet the curious minds hungry to understand them. I’m your host, and today, we’re diving into a paper that’s less about answers and more about how we ask the questions—a cornerstone of great research.
Our focus? The landmark article “Methodological Fit in Management Field Research” by Amy C. Edmondson and Stacy E. McManus, published in October 2007 in the prestigious Academy of Management Review—a journal so elite, it sits proudly among the Financial Times’ FT50, the gold-standard list of the world’s top business journals. Now, if you’ve ever wondered why some studies feel like perfectly fitted puzzle pieces while others clatter like mismatched gears, this paper is your roadmap. Edmondson, a titan in organizational psychology (you might know her groundbreaking work on psychological safety), teams up with McManus to tackle a question that haunts every researcher: How do you align your methods with your mission?
They argue that methodological fit—that elusive harmony between research questions, prior work, design, and theory—isn’t just a nicety. It’s the lifeblood of credible, impactful research. Using a contingency framework, they map when to go qualitative, when to go quantitative, and when to blend the two. Picture this: nascent theories demand the rich textures of interviews, mature theories thrive on hard data, and the messy middle? That’s where hybrid approaches shine.
But here’s the kicker—what if poor methodological fit isn’t just a rookie mistake but a silent killer of brilliant ideas? And in a world obsessed with “mixed methods,” are we mixing wisely… or recklessly?
Before we unpack this, a huge thanks to Amy C. Edmondson, Stacy E. McManus, and the Academy of Management for publishing this gem in their FT50-tier journal. Your work isn’t just academic—it’s a lifeline for researchers navigating the fog of fieldwork.
To our listeners: If you’re craving more deep dives into the ideas shaping business, management, and beyond, hit subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, YouTube’s Weekend Researcher channel, or find us on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts. Every click fuels this journey through the frontiers of knowledge.
So, grab your notebooks, fellow thinkers. Let’s ask the uncomfortable question: In the race to publish, are we sacrificing fit for speed? And what might we lose along the way?
Reference
Edmondson, A. C., & Mcmanus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159361
Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher
Support us on Patreon
https://patreon.com/weekendresearcher
Our focus? The landmark article “Methodological Fit in Management Field Research” by Amy C. Edmondson and Stacy E. McManus, published in October 2007 in the prestigious Academy of Management Review—a journal so elite, it sits proudly among the Financial Times’ FT50, the gold-standard list of the world’s top business journals. Now, if you’ve ever wondered why some studies feel like perfectly fitted puzzle pieces while others clatter like mismatched gears, this paper is your roadmap. Edmondson, a titan in organizational psychology (you might know her groundbreaking work on psychological safety), teams up with McManus to tackle a question that haunts every researcher: How do you align your methods with your mission?
They argue that methodological fit—that elusive harmony between research questions, prior work, design, and theory—isn’t just a nicety. It’s the lifeblood of credible, impactful research. Using a contingency framework, they map when to go qualitative, when to go quantitative, and when to blend the two. Picture this: nascent theories demand the rich textures of interviews, mature theories thrive on hard data, and the messy middle? That’s where hybrid approaches shine.
But here’s the kicker—what if poor methodological fit isn’t just a rookie mistake but a silent killer of brilliant ideas? And in a world obsessed with “mixed methods,” are we mixing wisely… or recklessly?
Before we unpack this, a huge thanks to Amy C. Edmondson, Stacy E. McManus, and the Academy of Management for publishing this gem in their FT50-tier journal. Your work isn’t just academic—it’s a lifeline for researchers navigating the fog of fieldwork.
To our listeners: If you’re craving more deep dives into the ideas shaping business, management, and beyond, hit subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, YouTube’s Weekend Researcher channel, or find us on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts. Every click fuels this journey through the frontiers of knowledge.
So, grab your notebooks, fellow thinkers. Let’s ask the uncomfortable question: In the race to publish, are we sacrificing fit for speed? And what might we lose along the way?
Reference
Edmondson, A. C., & Mcmanus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159361
Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher
Support us on Patreon
https://patreon.com/weekendresearcher
In God we trust