Research Traditions and Theorising in (Human Resources) Management

Abstract

Research question: Why do research traditions affect theorising in management scholarship, and how do they affect research evaluation? Motivation: Management research is often described as methodologically plural, but variation in theory construction and evaluation lies deeper than method choice alone. What's New: The article develops the concepts of research environment and epistemological fit to explain how research traditions become operative in ordinary scholarly judgement. So What: The epistemological fit perspective helps authors and reviewers distinguish internal weakness from cross-tradition disagreement, especially when work travels between local research environments and international journals. Idea: Research traditions shape what becomes a research problem, which types of theorising are admissible, which methods are regarded as appropriate, and how contribution is judged. Data: The paper is a conceptual reconstruction of a recent philosophy-of-science synthesis in management research, supported by selected management and HRM literature. Findings: Research traditions operate through research environments: operative forms of traditions that shape what can be formulated, justified, and recognised as contribution. Contribution: The article contributes a conceptual account of theory construction and evaluation in plural management scholarship.