Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:30:52.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Else Are We Missing? Additional Issues Associated With Sample Misrepresentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Justin A. DeSimone
Justin A. DeSimone*
Affiliation:
Organizational Leadership and Human Resources, University of Cincinnati
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Justin A. DeSimone, University of Cincinnati, Organizational Leadership and Human Resources, Edwards ONE, ML0376, Room 4130G, Cincinnati, OH 45221. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two recent focal articles in this journal have addressed issues related to sample selection and generalizability of results (Bergman & Jean, 2016; Landers & Behrend, 2015). If Bergman and Jean are correct, gone are the days of the Hawthorne studies in which research focused on the majority of the human workforce: the working class. Instead, researchers are allegedly two to three times as likely to exclusively sample managers as they are to exclusively sample workers. Assuming this is true, Bergman and Jean are correct to address why this occurs and how it may impact the field. However, there are two critical issues that must be considered alongside these questions: ongoing changes in how work is conducted and temporal trends in work. A consideration of these issues should yield additional insights that may supplement the recommendations made by Bergman and Jean.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 129 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amis, J. M., & Silk, M. L. (2008). The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 456–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496–515.Google Scholar
Bergman, M. E., & Jean, V. A. (2016). Where have all the “workers” gone? A critical analysis of the unrepresentativeness of our samples relative to the labor market in the industrial–organizational psychology literature. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Theory and Practice, 9, 84–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. (2014). Beware the next big thing: Before you adopt a new management idea, figure out if it's right for you. Harvard Business Review, 92, 50–57.Google Scholar
Brazeal, D. V., & Herbert, T. T. (1999). The genesis of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2011). Assessing “good” qualitative research in the work psychology field: A narrative analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 633–650.Google Scholar
Cooper, C. L. (1999). Can we live with the changing nature of work? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 569–572.Google Scholar
Davis-Blake, A., & Broschak, J. P. (2009). Outsourcing and the changing nature of work. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 321–340.Google Scholar
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & McGee, J. E. (1999). Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure, and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 85–102.Google Scholar
Domberger, S., Jensen, P. H., & Stonecash, R. E. (2002). Examining the magnitude and sources of cost savings associated with outsourcing. Public Performance and Management Review, 26, 148–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBrin, A. J. (1991). Comparison of the job satisfaction and productivity of telecommuters versus in-house employees: A research note on work in progress. Psychological Reports, 68, 1223–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairlie, R. W. (2014). Kauffman index of entrepreneurial activity: 1996–2013. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.Google Scholar
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1524–1541.Google Scholar
Golden, T. (2007). Co-workers who telework and the impact on those in the office: Understanding the implications of virtual work for co-worker satisfaction and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 60, 1641–1667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.Google Scholar
Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 224–235.Google Scholar
Harms, P. D., & DeSimone, J. A. (2015). Caution! MTurk workers ahead—Fines doubled. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Theory and Practice, 8, 183–190.Google Scholar
Herschel, R. T., & Andrews, P. H. (1997). Ethical implications of technological advances on business communication. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 160–170.Google Scholar
Holcomb, T. R., & Hitt, M. A. (2007). Toward a model of strategic outsourcing. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 464–481.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E. (1980). Test validation for 12,000 jobs: An application of synthetic validity and validity generalization to the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, DC: U.S. Employment Service.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 29, 440–458.Google Scholar
Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Theory and Practice, 8, 142–164.Google Scholar
Landry, B. J. L., Mahesh, S., & Hartman, S. (2005). The changing nature of work in the age of e-business. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 132–144.Google Scholar
Lee, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161–187.Google Scholar
Manz, C. C., Shipper, F., & Stewart, G. L. (2009). Everyone a team leader: Shared influence at W. L. Gore & Associates. Organizational Dynamics, 38, 239–244.Google Scholar
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.Google Scholar
Stange, K. C., Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (2006). Publishing multimethod research. Annals of Family Medicine, 4, 292–294.Google Scholar
Whitney, D. E. (1986). Real robots do need jigs. Harvard Business Review, 64, 110–116.Google Scholar
WorldatWork. (2011). Telework 2011: A WorldatWork special report. Retrieved from http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=53034 Google Scholar