What is I-O?

In this issue, Thomas Becker will be sharing the results of an informal study he conducted of the topics that have been covered recently in the top I-O journals. The results provide a good indication of whats hot and whats not in our research domain. 

A Mostly Informal Analysis of Our Marketplace of Ideas

Thomas Becker
University of Delaware

The purposes of my guest appearance in Peters column are to inform readers of how intensely I-O topics have been studied recently and (for those looking for research ideas) to suggest how they might use this information. First, though, let me give you a little background. During grad school at Ohio State, I felt that I had a good handle on the topics of I-O. Our faculty (predominantly, Rich Klimoski, Bob Billings, and Bob Vance) made sure of that by requiring us to read an ungodly amount of material from the top journals. After I graduated, I focused on my key interests (mostly employee commitment) and other research projects and, for the most part, confined my reading to whatever I was working on. The result was that I knew a lot about a few things but felt out of touch with the field overall.

Now Im on sabbatical. In anticipating this enviable condition, this past summer I decided to get back in touch with the topics of I-O. As a major part of this effort, I read the abstracts of all articles appearing in the six major journals (AMJ, AMR, OBHDP, ASQ, JAP, and Personnel Psychology) for the period 1/1/01 through 6/1/02. For my purposes, this was I-Os current marketplace of ideas. As I read the abstracts, I created categories for classifying the articles. In pigeonholing my readings, I limited myself to four categories per article. As the categories grew in number and size, I developed subcategories for many of the larger classes. Within any given category, I did not include an article in more than one subcategory. In contrast to categories, the subcategories represent smaller research streams within and, in some cases, across categories. For example, personality was studied so widely that it earned multiple subcategories under the category of individual differences and additional subcategories under the performance and motivation categories.

The result of all this was 50 categories, 14 with subcategories. In preparation for this column, I counted the number of articles in each category and subcategory. The results are reported in Table 1.

A few caveats about the process and results: 

• This classification scheme is entirely mine, based on my attempt to make sense of the myriad topics about which I was reading. You may have created a different typology.
• I chose the above decision rules (e.g., number of categories in which an article can be put) based in part on time concerns. I wanted to finish the project over the summer and have time to work on other things. Different decision rules would likely produce different results, as would classifying the articles based on reading whole articles or on an electronic search.
• In several cases, I identified a category rather late in the process and may have failed to classify some articles accordingly. I dont believe this happened often, but in the table Ive put an asterisk next to such categories.
• Some topics (e.g. individual differences) were widely distributed across journals, while others (e.g., decision making) were more narrowly published (e.g., in OBHDP). So, frequency of publication (e.g., in one journal) may not correspond to likelihood of publication (e.g., based on a greater number of potential outlets).

So, whats hot in the field? Well, this depends on what we mean by hot. If a hot topic is one that reflects lots of recent publications, then Table 1 rank orders topics from hottest to coldest. (Note that due to ties, the 50 categories comprise 31 places.) The table suggests that individual differences, performance, decision making, teams, and motivation are scorching (as they probably have been for years). The subcategories provide a bit more information: affect and core self-evaluations are especially hot individual differences; the personalityperformance link is burning; team process and performance are off the dial; and the roles of attributions, empowerment, goals, and personality in motivation are still warm. I was interested to note some convergence of the findings in Table 1 with the results of Peters informal survey reported in the April 2002 TIP. Among the hot topics he identified were statistical tools (included in my table as a subcategory of 11th-placed research issues and methods), employee well-being (10th in the table), new recruitment and selection methods (6th in the table), and affect (under 1st place individual differences).

On the ice-cold side, at the very bottom of Table 1 is research on contingent workers, downsizing, drugs, job analysis, socialization, and theft, with one associated pub each. And there are two handfuls of topics with only 2-4 pubs each. 

_________________________________________________________________
Note. Frequencies are based upon my manual classification resulting from reading all abstracts in the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Personnel Psychology. Bolded frequencies are the numbers of articles per category, and nonbolded frequencies are the numbers per subcategory. Asterisks next to a category indicate that I identified that category late in my analysis and, hence, am less certain that all relevant articles are included in the corresponding frequency. 

For readers who are not looking for research topics, thats the end of the story. I would simply add that if youre ever feeling out of touch with the field, you might consider doing a similar summer read-and-classify project. However, primarily for my junior colleagues who may be trying to decide what to study next, Id like to make a few comments. (See Campbell, Daft, & Hulin, 1982, for more on this issue.) First, if you love one or more of the hot topics or already have something promising going, then by all means carry on. If not, consider focusing on a more underresearched topic. Some of these topics may be cold because they were heavily studied in the past and we know a good deal about them. For other topics (e.g., socialization, theft, drugs), reasons for the lack of attention are unclear; certainly its not because we know all about them or they are unimportant. Perhaps it is difficult to access or collect data on some of these topics. For instance, socialization research typically requires that a large number of organizational newcomers be studied longitudinally. In our publish-or-perish world, the length of time necessary to do this research well can be a liability. As other examples, accurate information on theft may be hard to come by and data on drug use may be deemed highly sensitive by management. At any rate, if you can overcome these difficulties you may be able to make a name for yourself by doing high-quality work in one of these areas.

Second, there are probably some up-and-coming topics whose frequencies dont reflect their status. These include trust, social capital, networks, and perceived organizational support. I dont recommend that you chase research fads, so read some of this work and decide for yourself whether it is a fad or if its a rapidly emerging topic with substance. If its the latter and you can get in on the ground floor, then you could become Dr. Contingent Worker (or whatever) just in time for tenure!

In keeping with Hot Topic #1, the preferred style of choosing a research direction may depend upon ones personality. For instance, based upon a nonvalidated and nonmutually exclusive trilogy of traits:

For the risk-averse: You might try the follow the herd approach by doing research on one of the hot topics in the table. A variation is the follow their lead approach where you wait until someone asks you to do research and then you do it on the topic they want. Of course, neither of these strategies is risk free; in fact, I believe being risk-averse can in general be quite risky.

For the daring: You might try random selection (e.g., close your eyes and point to any old category in Table 1) or the importation method, where you create a new category or subcategory by bringing in theory or research from an area way outside I-O. Id recommend the first only in cases of desperation or experimentation. The second is probably a post-tenure strategy.

For the rational: Youve probably already figured this out, but you might try choosing a topic based on your personal interests and values, using the table to help you choose among these. Or, within the context of your interests and values, you could use the table to help identify gaps of knowledge within the areas in which youre interested.

One question I have not addressed is the following: Are we studying what we ought to be studying? Well, thats for each of us to decide for him- or herself. Many I-O psychologists contribute to both the supply (as journal authors) and demand (as readers, reviewers, editors) sides of the equation, and our intellectual market reflects our values accordingly. I will say that it would be great to have more input from our practitioner colleagues regarding what topics are of most significance for them and their employers. This could then be factored into the demand component to ensure that research fads and trends arent overwhelming our marketplace of ideas.

Have an enjoyable and productive fall! And if you have any comments on this column you can e-mail me at beckert@be.udel.edu.

Reference

     Campbell, J., Daft, R. L., & Hulin, C. L. (1982). What to study: Generating and developing research questions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.