The First 20 Years of Organizational Research Methods: Trajectory, Impact, and Predictions for the Future

27Citations
Citations of this article
157Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

We analyze the trajectory of Organizational Research Methods (ORM) during the first 20 years of its existence (i.e., 1998-2017). First, beginning with the inaugural volume, we review the editorials to create a qualitative account regarding ORM’s journey as narrated by the journal’s leaders in their own voices. Second, we examine the composition of the five senior editorial teams (i.e., editors and associate editors), including their qualitative-quantitative, micro-macro, and disciplinary orientation, as well as the types of articles published by ORM along the qualitative-quantitative and micro-macro distinctions. Third, we describe the 27 feature topics (i.e., set of articles addressing a common issue) published by ORM. Fourth, we offer information regarding ORM’s impact and influence based on impact factor data, journal lists, and other indicators (e.g., ORM articles that have received awards from professional organizations, most cited ORM articles out of a total of 484). Fifth, we identify the most frequently published ORM authors (and their disciplinary background) out of a total of 884 who have published at least one article. Finally, we discuss implications and outline opportunities and challenges as well as possible future directions for ORM. Overall, our review and analysis of the first 20 years of ORM allowed us to create a historical record for future generations, gain qualitative and quantitative insights into ORM’s trajectory and its impact and influence over time, and make predictions for the future of the journal and, more broadly, research on methodological issues.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Villamor, I. (2019). The First 20 Years of Organizational Research Methods: Trajectory, Impact, and Predictions for the Future. Organizational Research Methods, 22(2), 463–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118786564

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free