Call for Papers-Special Issue on Experiments in Organizational Theory

References

• Ariely D, Norton MI (2007) Psychology and experimental economics. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 16(6):336–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Audia PG, Locke EA, Smith KG (2000) The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Acad. Management J. 43(5):837–853.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J (2006) Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization 13(5):653–676.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum JAC, Amburgey TL (2002) Organizational ecology. Baum JAC, ed. Companion to Organizations (Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom), 304–326.Google Scholar
• Bitektine A, Haack P (2015) The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Acad. Management Rev. 40(1):49–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bitektine A, Miller D (2015) Methods, theories, data, and the social dynamics of organizational research. J. Management Inquiry 24(2):115–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bitektine A, Lucas J, Schilke O (2018) Institutions under a microscope: Experimental methods in institutional theory. Bryman A, Buchanan DA, eds. Unconventional Methodology in Organization and Management Research (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom), 147–167.Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Lakhani KR (2016) Innovation experiments: Researching technical advance, knowledge production, and the design of supporting institutions. Innovation Policy Econom. 16(1):135–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brewer MB (1985) Experimental research and social policy: Must it be rigor vs. relevance? J. Soc. Issues 41(4):159–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Dreber A, Forsell E, Ho T-H, Huber J, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, et al. (2016) Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351(6280):1433–1436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of Social Theory (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Correll SJ, Ridgeway CL, Zuckerman EW, Jank S, Jordan-Bloch S, Nakagawa S (2017) It’s the conventional thought that counts: How third-order inference produces status advantage. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 82(2):297–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Anand J, Agarwal R (2007) Using experiments in corporate strategy research. Eur. Management Rev. 4(3):173–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fang C (2012) Organizational learning as credit assignment: A model and two experiments. Organ. Sci. 23(6):1717–1732.Link, Google Scholar
• Faraj S, Jarvenpaa SL, Majchrzak A (2011) Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1224–1239.Link, Google Scholar
• Felin T, Foss NJ, Ployhart RE (2015) The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Acad. Management Ann. 9(1):575–632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Felin T, Foss NJ, Heimeriks KH, Madsen TL (2012) Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. J. Management Stud. 49(8):1351–1374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fine GA, Elsbach KD (2000) Ethnography and experiment in social psychological theory building: Tactics for integrating qualitative field data with quantitative laboratory data. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 36(1):51–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fine GA, Hallett T (2014) Group cultures and the everyday life of organizations: Interaction orders and meso-analysis. Organ. Stud. 35(12):1773–1792.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fréchette GR (2015) Laboratory experiments: Professionals vs. students. Fréchette GR, Schotter A, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom), 360–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fréchette GR (2016) Experimental economics across subject populations. Kagel JH, Roth AE, eds. The Handbook of Experimental Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 435–480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gavetti G, Levinthal D, Ocasio W (2007) Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie school’s past, present, and reconstructing for the future. Organ. Sci. 18(3):523–536.Link, Google Scholar
• Glaser VL, Fast NJ, Harmon DJ, Green S (2016) Institutional frame switching: How institutional logics shape individual action. Res. Sociol. Organ. 48A:35–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hafenbrädl S, Waeger D (2017) Ideology and the micro-foundations of CSR: Why executives believe in the business case for CSR and how this affects their CSR engagements. Acad. Management J. 60(4):1582–1606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harmon DJ, Kim PH, Mayer KJ (2015) Breaking the letter vs. spirit of the law: How the interpretation of contract violations affects trust and the management of relationships. Strategic Management J. 36(4):497–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kovács B, Carroll GR, Lehman DW (2014) Authenticity and consumer value ratings: Empirical tests from the restaurant domain. Organ. Sci. 25(2):458–478.Link, Google Scholar
• Lant TK, Montgomery DB (1992) Simulation games as a research method for studying strategic decision making: The case of MARKSTRAT. Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Laureiro-Martínez D, Brusoni S (2018) Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision-making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers. Strategic Management J. 39(4):1031–1058.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laureiro-Martínez D, Brusoni S, Canessa N, Zollo M (2015) Understanding the exploration-exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strategic Management J. 36(3):319–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad. Management Ann. 4(1):109–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine SS, Prietula MJ (2014) Open collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance. Organ. Sci. 25(5):1414–1433.Link, Google Scholar
• Levine SS, Bernard M, Nagel R (2017) Strategic intelligence: The cognitive capability to anticipate competitor behavior. Strategic Management J. 38(12):2390–2423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine SS, Apfelbaum EP, Bernard M, Bartelt VL, Zajac EJ, Stark D (2014) Ethnic diversity deflates price bubbles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(52):18524–18529.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt SD, List JA (2009) Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future. Eur. Econom. Rev. 53(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mason W, Suri S (2012) Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44(1):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1949) On sociological theories of the middle range. Merton RK, ed. Social Theory and Social Structure (Free Press, Glencoe, IL), 39–53.Google Scholar
• Raaijmakers A, Vermeulen P, Meeus M, Zietsma C (2015) I need time! Exploring pathways to compliance under institutional complexity. Acad. Management J. 58(1):85–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reypens C, Levine SS (2017) To grasp cognition in action, combine behavioral experiments with protocol analysis. Galavan RJ, Sund KJ, Hodgkinson GP, eds. Methodological Challenges and Advances in Managerial and Organizational Cognition (Emerald, Bingley, UK), 123–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilke O (2018) A micro-institutional inquiry into resistance to environmental pressures. Acad. Management J. 61(4):1431–1466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith EB, Rand W (2018) Simulating macro-level effects from micro-level observations. Management Sci. 64(11):5405–5421.Link, Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W, Lounsbury M (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA (2016) The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. Amer. Statistician 70(2):129–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1967) Organizations in the laboratory. Vroom VH, ed. Methods of Organizational Research (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA), 1–56.Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Zajac EJ (2013) A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):607–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wollersheim J, Heimeriks KH (2016) Dynamic capabilities and their characteristic qualities: Insights from a laboratory experiment. Organ. Sci. 27(2):233–248.Link, Google Scholar
• Zelditch M (1980) Can you really study an army in a laboratory? Etzioni A, Lehman EW, eds. A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations, 3rd ed. (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York), 528–539.Google Scholar
• Zucker LG (1977) The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 42(5):726–743.Crossref, Google Scholar