追求卓越 • 灵感之源 • 学术责任• 奉献精神

新闻资讯

2026年IACMR 研究方法工作坊阅读材料

上海财经大学

2026.6.28-7.2

June 29 (MON)

Lecture 1: The Spirit and Ethics of Science (Xiao-Ping Chen)

  1. 徐淑英, & 李绪红. (2023). 科学研究：目的、过程、价值观与责任. 载于陈晓萍与沈伟（主编）, 组织与管理研究的实证方法（第4版，第1章）. IACMR组织与管理书系. [PDF] 
  2. Chen, X. P. (2025). Why do we need phenomenon-based indigenous Chinese management research? An evolution of theories perspective. Management and Organization Review, 21(3), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2025.22 [PDF]

Lecture 2: Philosophy of Social Science and Management Research (Tao Wang)

  1. McIntyre, L. (2015). The attack on truth: We have entered an age of willful ignorance. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(38), B10-B12. [PDF]
  2. Bunge, M. (1996). Finding philosophy in social science. Yale University Press. (Introduction: Why philosophy?, pp. 1–12) [PDF]
  3. Deutsch, D. (2011). The beginning of infinity: Explanations that transform the world. Penguin UK. (Chapter 1: The reach of explanations, pp. 1–33) [PDF]
  4. Della Porta, D., & Keating, M. (2008). How many approaches in the social sciences? An epistemological introduction. In D. Della Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective (pp. 19–39). Cambridge University Press. [PDF]
  5. Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1983). Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 245–273. [PDF]
  6. Astley, W. G. (1985). Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 497-513. [PDF]
  7. Reihlen, M., & Schoeneborn, D. (2022). The epistemology of management: An introduction. In C. Neesham, S. Segal, & N. G. McLaren (Eds.), Handbook of philosophy of management (pp. 17–37). Springer. [PDF]

Lecture 3: Developing Theory and Hypotheses (Xu Huang)

  1. Muñoz, P., & Otero, C. (2025). Managers and public hospital performance. American Economic Review, 115(11), 4040–4074. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20240615. [PDF]
  2. Stanton, C. T., & Thomas, C. (2025). Who benefits from online gig economy platforms? American Economic Review, 115(6), 1857–1895. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20221189 [PDF]
  3. Sun, S., Li, Z. A., Foo, M.-D., Zhou, J., & Lu, J. G. (2025). How and for whom using generative AI affects creativity: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0001296[PDF]
  4. Hoffmann, F., & Vladimirov, V. (2025). Worker runs. The Journal of Finance, 80(2), 937–979. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13424 [PDF]
  5. Aksoy, O., & Szekely, A. (2025). Making sense of honor killings. American Sociological Review, 90(3), 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224251324504 [PDF]
  6. Gagliardi, L., & Sorenson, O. (2025). Entrepreneurship and gentrification. Organization Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2024.18920 [PDF]

June 30 (TUES)

Lecture 4: Theory-Driven Construct Measurement (Eric Zhao)

  1. Zhao, E. Y., Fisher, G., Lounsbury, M., & Miller, D. (2017). Optimal distinctiveness: Broadening the interface between institutional theory and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 93–113.  [PDF]
  2. Zhao, E. Y., & Glynn, M. A. (2022). Optimal distinctiveness: On being the same and different. Organization Theory, 3, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221079340 [PDF]
  3. 赵雁飞. (2025). 最优区分理论是如何炼成的？——缘起、发展与影响. 管理学研究. [PDF]

Lecture 5: Experimental Research (Xin Wei)

Core Readings

  1. Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845 [PDF]
  2. Highhouse, S. (2009). Designing experiments that generalize. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3), 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300396 [PDF]
  3. Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation: Why-to, when-to, and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 653–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108320737 [PDF]
  4. Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005 [PDF]
  5. Tong, S., Jia, N., Luo, X., & Fang, Z. (2021). The Janus face of artificial intelligence feedback: Deployment versus disclosure effects on employee performance. Strategic Management Journal, 42(9), 1600–1631. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3322 [PDF]
  6. Tang, P. M., Koopman, J., Mai, K. M., De Cremer, D., Zhang, J. H., Reynders, P., Ng, C. T. S., & Chen, I.-H. (2023). No person is an island: Unpacking the work and after-work consequences of interacting with artificial intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(11), 1766–1789. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001103 [PDF]

Supplementary Readings (Optimal)

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

Lecture 6: Survey Research (Jian Liang)

  1. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. [PDF]
  2. Lambert, L. S., & Newman, D. A. (2023). Construct development and validation in three practical steps: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 26(4), 574–607. [PDF]
  3. Stantcheva, S. (2023). How to run surveys: A guide to creating your own identifying variation and revealing the invisible. Annual Review of Economics, 15, 205–234. [PDF]
  4. Caza, B. B., Reid, E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Granger, S. (2022). Working on my own: Measuring the challenges of gig work. Human Relations, 75(11), 2122–2159. [PDF]
  5. Van Quaquebeke, N., Salem, M., van Dijke, M., & Wenzel, R. (2022). Conducting organizational survey and experimental research online: From convenient to ambitious in study designs, recruiting, and data quality. Organizational Psychology Review, 12, 268–305. [PDF]
  6. Price, M., Hidalgo, J. E., Kim, J. N., Legrand, A. C., Brier, Z. M. F., van Stolk-Cooke, K., et al. (2024). The cyborg method: A method to identify fraudulent responses from crowdsourced data. Computers in Human Behavior, 157, Article 108253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108253 [PDF]

July 1 (WED)

Lecture 7: Field Experiment (Jasmine Jia Hu)

  1. Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju032[PDF]
  2. Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 655–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251[PDF]
  3. Eden, D. (2017). Field experiments in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 91–122. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062400[PDF]
  4. Grant, A. M., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). It’s not all about me: Motivating hand hygiene among health care professionals by focusing on patients. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1494–1499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611419172[PDF]
  5. Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation: Why-to, when-to, and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 653–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108320737[PDF]
  6. Hu, J. (Jasmine), Kim, D., & Lanaj, K. (2024). The benefits of reflecting on gratitude received at home for leaders at work: Insights from three field experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(9), 1461–1488. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001194[PDF]
  7. Lanaj, K., Foulk, T. A., & Erez, A. (2019). Energizing leaders via self-reflection: A within-person field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000350[PDF]
  8. List, J. A. (2011). Why economists should conduct field experiments and 14 tips for pulling one off. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.3.3[PDF]

Lecture 8: Longitudinal Analysis, Endogeneity and Causal Inference (Han Jiang)

暂无资料

Lecture 9: Meta Analysis (Kaifeng Jiang)

  1. 姜铠丰, & 胡佳. 元分析研究法. [PDF]
  2. Morris, S. B. (2023). Meta-analysis in organizational research: A guide to methodological options. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 225–259. [PDF]

July 2 (THUR)

Lecture 10: Multi-level Research: Micro (Wu Liu)

Please make sure to read in the order as listed.

  1. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). [PDF]
  2. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. [PDF]
  3. Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Culpepper, S. A. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1490–1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478188 [PDF]
  4. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. [PDF]
  5. Bliese, P. D., Maltarich, M. A., & Hendricks, J. L. (2018). Back to basics with mixed-effects models: Nine take-away points. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9491-z [PDF]

Lecture 11: Qualitative Research (Runtian Jing)

  1. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. [PDF]
  2. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34. [PDF]
  3. 井润田, & 孙璇. (2021). 实证主义vs.诠释主义：两种经典案例研究范式的比较与启示. 管理世界, 37(3), 198–216. [PDF]
  4. 井润田, 程生强, & 王文静. (2023). 探索“风口法则”的理论智慧：基于案例诠释和情景实验的混合研究. 管理世界, 39(10), 169–188. [PDF]