26.08.

16

KTU Sommer School – Social Sciences

Publication Strategies
Writing scholarly11papers
Prof. Dr. Dietmar Grichnik
University of St.Gallen
Institute of Technology Management
Chair for Entrepreneurship
Dufourstrasse 40a
CH 9000 St. Gallen
dietmar.grichnik@unisg.ch

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik

An Introductory Thank You

I would like to thank

• Franz Kellermanns, University of Tennessee
• Kim Eddleston, Northeastern University
• Carlo Salvato, Bocconi University
• Thomas Zellweger
for providing large parts of this presentation.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 2

1
 26.08.16

When writing

Who is your main

stakeholder?

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 3

What are YOU (truly)

interested in ?

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 4

2
 26.08.16

If YOU don’t find it

interesting,
why should your audience do
?

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 5

Your fundamental interests and type of scholarship

What do you want to do? Scholarship of…

§ Discovery (research) Will be the focus of my presentation

§ Integration (synthesis)
§ Practice (application)
§ Teaching (pedagogy)
(Scholarship Reconsidered, Ernest Boyer, 1990)
… has an impact on….
§ WHAT do you want to publish (Content)?
§ WHERE should you publish (Outlet)?
§ HOW to publish (Publishing strategy)?
§ WHEN to publish (Timing)?

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 6

3
 26.08.16

Writing for research / discovery

We write for intellectual curiosity (Research Questions)

Whetten, AMR,1989 Highly commended article

Types of scholarly papers:

§ Literature review paper (Go to original sources)
§ Theory development paper (logical incremental extensions)
§ Empirical paper (logical incremental extensions with
theory/hypothesis testing)
§ Practitioner Paper (translation of research)

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 7

Writing for research / discovery

What’s your next “big thing”

(and what makes it interesting …)?

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 8

4
 26.08.16

What do we find interesting in our colleagues’ work?

Nominate up to three empirical articles related to your

field of research from any academic journal that your
regard as particularly interesting.

Describe why you see them as interesting:

§ 1 sentence
§ 3 keywords

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 9

What is a good research article

1. Counterintuitive
2. New Theory / Finding
3. Impact
4. Practical implications
5. Quality
6. Well written

Bartunek, Rynes & Ireland, 2006

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 10

Bartunek, Rynes & Ireland, 2006

5
 26.08.16

Counterintuitive (1/6)

§ Challenges established theory

§ Goes against folk wisdom or consultant wisdom
§ Creates an “aha” moment

“This paper flew in the face of conventional wisdom

and demonstrated that ‘conventional wisdom’ was
based on a very biased view of what had been done.”

Bartunek, Rynes & Ireland, 2006

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 11

New Theory / Finding (2/6)

§ Creates new theory “The study provides

§ Synthesizes previous insightful theory
theories development
§ Integrates multiple to account specifically for
perspectives nationality-based
§ Comes up with an diversity effects which
important finding are then verified through
three different studies.”

Bartunek, Rynes & Ireland, 2006

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 12

6
 26.08.16

Impact (3/6)

§ Stimulates new “This classic paper

empirical or theoretical obviously made a huge
work impact on the field,
§ Has been cited or stimulating hundreds of
quoted a lot empirical papers and
§ Has opened avenues further theoretical
for research in a new development.”
areas

Bartunek, Rynes & Ireland, 2006

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 13

Practical Implications (4/6)

§ Generates usable “The article also

knowledge in the seemed to have
“real world” important implications
§ Addresses a subject for managers of any
that is very relevant organization at or near
to the real world the top.”

Bartunek, Rynes & Ireland, 2006

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 14

7
 26.08.16

Quality 5/6

Includes at least one of the “The data are qualitative, collected

following: by lengthy interviews and participant
§ well-crafted theory observation.
§ good technical or methods job Cluster analysis is used to identify
§ good fit of data and theory different types.
§ sophisticated methodology; Extensive significance testing and
§ great sample rigorous quantitative validation
§ makes the complex look simple procedures provide a template for
and elegant any researcher employing this
method.
This is followed by the presentation
of qualitative data in support of each
type, providing
further insight.”

Bartunek, Rynes & Ireland, 2006

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 15

A few thoughts about quality

§ Authors should contribute to theory that is relevant to

their fields.
§ They can do that by drawing on theories from outside
the field, but in doing so, our understanding of the
field must be advanced.
§ In addition … authors may contribute to those
theories from outside the field—in essence returning
the borrowed theories to our sister disciplines but
returning them in an improved version”.

adapted from Reay & Whetten, 2011

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 16

8
 26.08.16

What quality is not…

§ In a relatively new area of research scholars can be tempted to

construct crude tests of established organizational theory,
asking, “Does it work the same way here?”
§ For example, basic questions may be, “Do theories about
motivation hold in Chinese firms?”
§ Simply demonstrating that mainstream organizational theory
works or does not work as expected in a certain setting is not a
contribution to theory.
§ It is only if established organizational theory
• does not hold when we expect that it should
• or holds, when we expect that it should not
• and authors can explain the unexpected results that a cross-
context comparison can make a theoretical contribution”.
adapted from Reay & Whetten, 2011

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 17

Causal linkages as important ingredients of

theoretical contributions

§ Theory based scholarship often comes in the form of new

independent or mediating variables.
§ See Notes by AMJ editors in 2010/2011/2012

§ An example: Monitoring

Top management
Individual-level Company
perceptions of psychological
ownership for the firm Entrepreneurial Performance
Behavior
(in absence of legal
ownership)
Sieger, Zellweger & Aquino, forthcom ing
Journal of M anagem ent Studies

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 18

9
 26.08.16

Good writing (6/6)

§ Scientific integrity does not require you to lead
readers through all your blind paths that led nowhere.
You are not writing a personal journey of discovery.
§ This is prose – not poetry!
§ Accuracy and clarity (fuzzy writing shows fuzzy
thinking).
§ So your grandmother can understand it.
§ Simple and direct, no rambling on.
§ Consistent use of well-defined terminology.
§ It is not a novel with subplots, flashbacks, and literary
allusions, but a short story with a simple linear
narrative line.

§ If readers / reviewers do not understand if for a lack of

clarity, they are always right, always !

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 19

Good writing (6/6)

“Hourglass” style:
à begin with broad general statements
à narrow to the more specific aspects of the study
à broaden out again to more general at the end.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 20

10
 26.08.16

Some thoughts about the writing process

Theory first or data first?
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.
Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit
facts.” - Arthur Conan Doyle. “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes"

Option Description Strength Weakness

Theory first Develop sophisticated
theoretical reasoning and
then do empirical analysis.
Data first Start with data mining and
plug theory on top of data
Indepth understanding
of current literature
early on in research
process
Have a story at hands
that «works» early in
the process
Empirical reality often much more
complex than first theoretical
reasoning; data limitations limit
theoretical considerations
Often limited novelty, replicates
existing studies

What article should I write?

1. The article I planned to write when I designed the study?
2. The article that makes the most sense now that I have seen the results?
Rarely the same, correct answer is 2, results are often very humbling…

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 21

Some thoughts about the writing process

Incremental development

Alternative path: incremental development

1. Start with a look into the literature, talk to practicioners, come up
with a new idea
2. Validate the idea with a small / limited data set at hands, look at
correlations, pairwise T-tests
3. Tentatively talk to colleagues and practitioners about the general
logic. Do they to buy it?
4. Take a closer look at the literature, develop a more nuanced
theoretical model.
5. Test your idea on the data, if needed collect new data
6. Refine your theoretical model
7. Craft a story with a consistent red thread

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 22

11
 26.08.16

A more structured approach about the writing process

1st step: Find articles that you like published in top journals (regardless
of content). Use these as templates to organize your work.
nd
2 step: Conduct a comprehensive literature review, know what the
field knows and where gaps are.
3rd step: Find yourself a theory.
4th step: Develop hypotheses (that can be supported by the chosen
theory).
th
5 step: Write up findings based on convention.
6th step: Get friendly feedback from people who matter.
7th step: Proof read the manuscript 20 times, then give it to a copy-
editor and then submit the paper.
8th step: Keep you fingers crossed for an R&R. J

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 23

Good writing
Choice of Outlet and ongoing conversations
Publishing is about conversing / communicating with others
interested in similar ideas
Highly commended
Ann Huff, Writing for Scholarly Publications, 1999 small book

Which conversation do I want to join?

Absorb the landscape and vocabulary
§ What are they talking about?
§ In which language are they talking?
Join the conversation
§ You need to speak the language they are speaking.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 24

12
 26.08.16

Good writing:
Sections of an article

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 25

Sections of an Article
Introduction (4 paragraphs only!)
§ General content
§ Identify the gap in the literature
§ How your paper addresses the gap
§ Contribution - grab reader’s attention
Literature Review
§ If you draw on multiple literature streams, synthesize.
Hypothesis Development
§ If you can’t draw it, it is probably too complex.
§ Be sure you know if you argue moderation or mediation.
Analyses
1. Conventions
2. Check with experts – in-person, through writings

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 26

13
 26.08.16

Sections of an Article
Findings (reporting conventions)
1. Deconstruct the sections
2. Only report findings, do not comment here
Discussion
1. Review the findings
2. List implications for other research streams
3. State/Restate the contribution
4. One step back (scope issues, assumptions – limitations). Reviewers
know that your work has limitations, hiding them does not help.
5. Dreams (Future Research) ….wouldn’t it be nice if …….
6. Conclusion Paragraph
References
1. Tables and Figures follow the reference section

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 27

Introduction

1. Tell the reader where you are going. This is not a mystery novel!
2. Don’t be overly critical of past research – “build” on previous work.
3. Make clear to what literature / discussion you are contributing to.
4. Use key citations early in the papers (these authors will likely be picked
as reviewers)
5. Those you criticize are likely to be reviewers.
6. Criticism is catching. Reviewers are more critical when authors are
critical.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 28

14
 26.08.16

Introduction: The research question

1. What is the one research question? It should be obvious early in

the paper.
2. Why is it important to ask this question?
3. Question should be theory driven.
4. Don’t digress from research question.
5. Ask yourself, “Does this information inform my research question?”
If not, dump it.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 29

Introduction: The research question

1. What do we know about this question from previous research?

2. Are there inconsistent findings and what would account for them?
3. What is missing from our understanding and why is it important?
4. A lack of research is not a sufficient justification for doing research.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 30

15
 26.08.16

Powerful Introductions to Papers

By Will Mitchell, Associate Editor, SMJ
§ Paragraph 1: Four sentences
– S1 - Issue: What question does the paper address?
– S2- Literature & conventional wisdom: What scholars have considered this issue & what
conclusion have they reached?
– S3- Hole: What unanswered questions remain in the literature you have cited above?
– S4- Contribution: What argument will this paper develop that fills part of the hole in S3. The people
you cite in S2 & S3 should find the argument intriguing.
§ Paragraph 2: Baseline framing and contributions
– Literature: What literatures contribute to your logic? Why are they relevant?
– Predictions: What are your primary predictions, including your summary logic?
– Contribution: What is novel about how your arguments contribute to addressing the issue you
identified in S1 & to the literatures from which you draw?
§ After the two paragraphs, two aspects of your paper should be clear
– Readers: Know what you are studying, which literatures you are drawing from, & what is novel
about your contribution.
– Editors: Know the most relevant reviewers for the paper.
§ Overall: Decide who you want to talk to -- Frame the work in a way that these scholars find your
question interesting, your answer novel, your logic compelling, & your analysis reliable

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 31

Applying Will Mitchell’s advice…

Let us assume you want to write a paper about

the concept of Entrepreneurial Orientation at the
network level. You would like to introduce that
concept to the literature.

How would you structure your introduction…?

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 32

16
 26.08.16

Developing Hypotheses

Reviewers: “Hypotheses need further development.”

1. Must follow logically from theory used to justify them.

Typically theory will precede hypothesis.

2. Include previous findings, but they are not sufficient justification

for hypotheses.

3. Consider your results, but don’t let results dictate hypotheses.

4. Avoid obvious hypotheses. Is there any reason to believe this

hypothesis might not be confirmed?

5. Try to find a series of arguments (ideally at least three) that

support your central claim.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 33

Methods

§ Provide enough detail so that study can be replicated.

§ Check journal format for typical headings.
§ Describe how you did study in a logical (often sequential)
manner.
§ Reviewers often ask for more information about sample.
§ How did you get from the total population of firms down to the
sample you are working with?
§ What are the strengths and weaknesses of your data?
§ Provide easily recognized and remembered labels (don’t use
abbreviations or acronyms).
§ Include examples of actual measurement items. Referencing a
previous study is not sufficient.
§ Give your reader a feel for what it’s like to be a participant in the
study.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 34

17
 26.08.16

Results

§ Provide the results in a logical fashion – usually following the

order of the hypotheses.
§ All results presented in tables need not be repeated in text.
Highlight important results. Note confirmation (or not) of
hypotheses.
§ Do not interpret or discuss implications of results – this is for the
Discussion section.
§ No need to repeat theoretical reasons for hypotheses.
§ Ideally, use different measures to validate your study
§ Address biases: social desirability, single source, self-selection,
endogeneity
§ Keep this section rather short.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 35

Discussion

§ A brief overview of findings is useful, but not a repeat of

Results section or theory from Introduction.
§ Interpret results taking into account alternative
explanations.
§ What do we learn theoretically?
§ Be sure to include discussion of why a hypothesis was not
confirmed.
§ Include all limitations. This does not weaken your study,
but adds to your credibility as a researcher.
§ Future directions for research often derive from limitations.
§ Some journals will ask for “Implications for Managers.”
What are the practical implications suggested by your
results?
§ Be careful not to “go beyond” your data and results. In this
section OK to “speculate” or “suggest.”

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 36

18
 26.08.16

Conclusion

§ Bring the reader back to the research question – concluding

with a larger and richer view of the problem.
§ Leave the reader with food for thought.
§ Provide closure – go back to introduction to wrap things up
§ Short paragraph

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 37

Now, that I have written it ….

§ Edit, Edit, Edit! Sloppy writing signals sloppy research to

reviewers. The best writers labor over each sentence.

§ Get critical review from colleagues before submitting.

- Most people are polite.
- Ask them to suggest what a critical reviewer might find wrong.
- Ask colleagues to suggest sections that are not clear. The
reader is always right when it comes to clarity.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 38

19
 26.08.16

The miserable journey of one of my papers

….. On Situated Entrepreneurial Cognition

§ Rejected at AMR twice.

§ 2.5 year process, high frustration
§ Accepted at International Journal of
Management Review.
§ Now higly ranked.
§ Prepared ground for paper and keynotes
presented at the most presticious
Management Conferences.

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 39

Publishing in Journals
….. Few things we have learned

CONTENT trumps Style

§ But then without style content does not get aired either!
NEED vs. GAP research question
§ Need trumps gap, but hard to identify
First one to do so….. temptation
§ Knowledge builds in incremental steps
§ Just one step along the knowledge pathway
Avoid Exciting Distractions
§ Remain anchored to the Research Question
§ Deliver on your promise
Tough Critical Reviewer & Demanding Editor are your friends
§ It’s your name, remember, not theirs at stake

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 40

20
 26.08.16

Publishing in Journals
….. Few things we have learned
BEWARE of…
§ Self-Citation (SC) syndrome
§ Fashionable Method (FM) virus
§ Pet Analytical Method (PAM) infection

Reviewing as career development strategy

§ Learn about
Ongoing conversations
Language
§ Learn from others’ mistakes
§ Silently build (or destroy oops!) your name
ONE name human limitation
§ Saying YES or NO
NO is fine ….. BUT saying YES, doing NO is not!
§ Delivering on TIME + HIGH QUALITY is critical

KTU Som m er School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietm ar Grichnik 41

Prof. Dr. Dietmar Grichnik

Professor of Entrepreneurship
Institute of Technology Management,
University of St.Gallen

Contact: dietmar.grichnik@unisg.ch
Connect: ch.linkedin.com/in/dgrichnik/
Look for: www.ent.unisg.ch

KTU Sommer School 2016 – Social Sciences – © Prof. Dr. Dietmar Grichnik 42

21