Presenters: Larry Williams, Virginia Commonwealth U.; Ernest O’Boyle, Virginia Commonwealth U.

Friday, August 8, 2008

A key aspect of the use of latent variable methods is the process through which the adequacy of a model is determined. The purpose of this PDW is to review the proper use and interpretation of goodness of fit indices. The PDW will include three major components. First, the empirical research supporting threshold values will be reviewed, and emphasis will be placed on what indices reveal, and do not reveal, about a model that is under consideration. Second, fit indices that focus on the structural component of a model will be reviewed and demonstrated. Finally, consideration will be given as to how fit indices should be used in conjunction with other diagnostic information in an optimal approach to model evaluation. Four types of individuals stand to benefit from this PDW. First, researchers interested in a structured presentation to update their general skill sets. Second, faculty and students without formal training in SEM who are looking to fill gaps in their knowledge of SEM. Third, individuals who are currently working on an SEM paper since issues related to judging model fit frequently come up during the manuscript review process. Finally, ad-hoc reviewers who face the challenging task of judging SEM latent variable models in papers they evaluate can benefit from a technical update that can help them identify good models among those that they review.

Presenters: Daniel S. Halgin, Boston College; Rich DeJordy, Boston College

Friday August 8, 2008

This workshop is designed as a comprehensive introduction to ego network analysis, beginning by positioning ego network analysis in the larger fields of social science and network analysis and working through research designs and analysis using E-NET (Borgatti, 2007), a software package designed specifically for the analysis of ego networks. Ego network analysis combines many of the benefits of traditional case-based social science with the relational philosophy of network analysis. As such, it: Employs dyadic and relational variables (e.g., heterogeneity, homophily); Overcomes some data collection challenges in traditional network analysis; and can draw upon larger numbers of egos (cases) to improve statistical power. These unique characteristics of ego-based network analysis allow researchers to investigate new phenomenon and ask new research questions. Ego-based network analysis is at the core of some of the most exciting and visible work in networks (e.g., Ron Burt’s work on Brokerage and Closure. This interactive workshop offers a nuts-to-bolts tutorial on: 1.) When and why to use ego network analysis; 2.) Research design considerations; 3.) Data collection & representation; and 4.) Ego network data analysis using E-NET. All participants will be provided with evaluation software necessary to participate in the workshop free of charge. We expect participants to bring their laptops to the workshop in order to participate in the hands-on portion of the workshop. All participants are invited to bring their own dataset as well, as time will be devoted to helping individuals analyze their own data during the hands-on portion of the workshop. Participants should bring their laptops and datasets. Pre-registration is required. To register, please visit https://secure.aomonline.org/PDWReg. The deadline to register is July 11, 2008.

Presenters: Henry Savall, ISEOR, U. of Lyon; Veronique Zardet, ISEOR, U. of Lyon; Marc Bonnet, ISEOR, U. of Lyon; Michel Peron, ISEOR, U. of Paris Sorbonne

 Saturday, August 9, 2008

The qualimetrics research methodology is based on a peacemaking attempt aimed at acknowledging the inescapable interaction between the quantitativist and the qualitativist research methods. Indeed, it recognizes that the essence of information processed over the course of the scientific development of knowledge is simultaneously qualitative (expressed in key words) and quantitative (expressed in key numbers) and mathematically processed. The qualimetric modelization enables researchers to bring out the diversity which is intrinsic to the complex object studied by the researcher in the field of management science.

Presenters: Ann Langley,  HEC Montreal; Andrew H. Van de Ven,  U. of Minnesota; M. Scott Poole, U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Robert A Burgelman, Stanford U.; Mark de Rond, Cambridge U.; Clive Smallman, Lincoln U.; Paula Jarzabkowski, Aston Business School; Andrew M Pettigrew, U. of Bath; Kevin Dooley, Arizona State U.

Saturday, August 9, 2008 

Presenters: Paula Marie O'Kane, U. of Ulster; Martin McCracken, U. of Ulster, Jordanstown; Anand Narasimhan, IMD

 Saturday August 9, 2008

This Professional Development Workshop is designed to give participants the opportunity to explore the role of Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) within their research agenda. The Academy has, in recent years, placed a growing level of emphasis on qualitative data and its role in Business and Management research. Therefore, this workshop will enable participants to learn from experienced CAQDAS users and discuss with them how and in what ways they could utilize qualitative analysis software in their own research. Emphasis will be placed upon gained a balanced view of CAQDAS, its benefits and its pitfalls, as well as engaging participants in a discussion of their needs. In this sense, participants will be encouraged to think about what aspects of the software may be appropriate to their own research. The discussion of various analysis techniques (such as grounded theory, content analysis, etc.) in relation to the use of CAQDAS will also enable the participants to explore their methodological paradigms and how these fit with the use of analysis software. A brief demonstration of one of the software tools (NVivo 8) will facilitate a greater understanding of the potential of CAQDAS.

Presenters: James M. LeBreton, Purdue U.; Jenell Lynn-Senter Wittmer, The U. of Toledo

Saturday August 9, 2008

The use of interrater reliability (IRR) and interrater agreement (IRA) indices has increased dramatically during the last 20 years. This popularity is due, in part, to the increased role multilevel modeling techniques such as hierarchical linear modeling and multilevel structural equation modeling play in organizational research. Specifically, IRR and IRA indices are often used to justify combining lower-level data (e.g., individual climate perceptions) to create a higher-level aggregate variable (e.g., shared psychological climate). The purpose of this workshop is to expose researchers to various issues surrounding the use of common IRR and IRA indices. Our hope is this discussion will serve as a guide for researchers new to these indices and to help expand research possibilities to those already using these indices. Our workshop has three main objectives. First, we will synthesize and integrate various definitional issues concerning the concepts of IRR and IRA. Second, we will provide answers to some of the more common questions associated with using these indices in organizational research (e.g., what are reasonable cut-offs for interrater agreement indices, how many raters are needed to estimate interrater reliability, what should I do when estimates of interrater agreement and interrater reliability are inconsistent?). Finally, we will demonstrate the principles discussed via a hands-on tutorial. The purpose of the last objective is to provide new researchers with concrete examples that will enable them to integrate their conceptual grasp of IRR and IRA with the technical skills necessary to answer their research questions (i.e., guidance using SPSS software).

Presenter: Jeffrey R.  Edwards, U. of North Carolina

Saturday August 9, 2008

This session will present a framework for integrating moderation and mediation using moderated regression analysis and path analysis. This framework clarifies how moderator variables influence the paths that constitute the direct, indirect, and total effects of mediated models. The framework will be empirically demonstrated and compared to existing approaches for combining moderation and mediation. Participants are encouraged to bring their own data for discussion and application.

Presenters: Robert P. Gephart, U. of Alberta; David M Boje, New Mexico State U.; Hans Hansen, Texas Tech U.; Karen D Locke, College of William and Mary; Michael Pratt, Boston College; John Van Maanen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sunday August 10, 2008

Presenters: Ruth V. Aguilera, U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Peer C. Fiss, U. of Southern California; Thomas Greckhamer, Louisiana State U.; Rodney Lacey, U. of California, Davis; Vilmos F. Misangyi, Pennsylvania State U.

Building on last year's highly successful PDW with about 70 attendants, the objectives of this workshop are to again introduce participants to Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), a cutting edge methodology that is increasingly winning attention in management research. The workshop brings together a variety of scholars who have extensive experience working with set-theoretic methods such as QCA. We demonstrate how analysis using QCA proceeds for novices and offer practical advice for those already working with QCA. The PDW also aims to develop a community of researchers doing qualitative comparative analysis across a variety topics in organizations and strategy research. Pre-registration is strongly encouraged to get materials in advance. To register, please send an email to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Presenters: Philip L. Roth, Clemson U.; Gordon W Cheung, Chinese U. of Hong Kong; Mark Gavin, Oklahoma State U.; Mark a Griffin, U. of Sheffield; Lisa Schurer Lambert, Georgia State U.; Daniel A. Newman, Texas A&M U.; Jodi S. Goodman, U. of Connecticut; Ryan D. Zimmerman, Texas A&M U.; Herman Aguinis, U. of Colorado, Denver; Robert J. Vandenberg, U. of Georgia; Michael J. Burke; Tulane U.

This is a uniquely interactive session that is designed to meet Academy members’ needs. The format involves having experts on topics such as Structural Equation Modeling, Hierarchical Linear Modeling, multilevel research, regression/correlation, mediators/moderators, measurement, and meta-analysis available to help doctoral students, faculty members, and other academy members with their research questions. Typically, the session is very informal as it is composed of many smaller conversations in which experts talk with academy members one-on-one or in small groups (depending upon member needs). Academy members might bring questions involving how to match an analytic strategy to a given research question or how certain research methods contribute to understanding of various management phenomena. New doctoral students, advanced doctoral students, faculty members, and all academy members are welcome!

Presenters: Raza A Mir, William Paterson U.; Andrew B. Hargadon, U. of California, Davis; Sanjay Jain, San Francisco State U.; Amy C. Edmondson, Harvard U.; Christopher B. Bingham, U. of Maryland; Diana Sharpe; Monmouth U.

 Sunday August 10, 2008

In this workshop, we will use the metaphor of cooking to describe the act of qualitative research. The metaphor is apt on several counts. First, like the labor of cooking, qualitative research is often "feminized" in the management academy. Unlike the more valorized research methods that use quantitative data, qualitative methods are often consigned to the periphery of academic research. Second, quite like cooking, qualitative research requires a lot of thought, initial preparation, improvisation, and waiting for diverse elements to mix. Also, just like a meal, the acceptance and appreciation of qualitative research often depends on the style in which it is presented. In the proposed session, we will have four participants, discussing various aspects of qualitative research. They will discuss the pre-fieldwork aspects of the qualitative research process including philosphical conundrums associated with inquiry (“Preparing the ingredients"), as well as the actual act of fieldwork (“Lighting the fire"). Time will also be set aside to discuss the act of data analysis, and making sense of qualitative data (“Simmer and stew"), as well as the publication of papers based on qualitative research ("Setting the table").