CALL FOR PAPERS
Organizational Research Methods
http://orm.sagepub.com
SPECIAL FEATURE TOPIC ISSUE ON
COMMON METHOD VARIANCE IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
Common method variance (CMV), also known as mono-method bias, is often
mentioned in lists of criticisms by reviewers of submitted manuscripts,
particularly when those manuscripts report results from self-report surveys.
The idea of CMV is that the method itself serves as a source of variation
among observed scores, and that two or more variables assessed with the same
method will share variance due to method rather than construct of interest.
CMV thus would serve as a methodological artifact that might render observed
relationships among variables to be partially or even entirely spurious. The
presumption, therefore, is that theoretical inferences from the observed
relationships are suspect. Despite the widespread beliefs about CMV among
journal reviewers and researchers, and the publication of some papers on the
topic in the researcher literature, there remains little consensus about its
existence and if present, its true effects.
The primary goal of the issue is to raise the level of discourse so that
reviewers' comments are more precise and thoughtful and researchers'
research designs address likely biases instead of merely trying to explain
away CMV. We are seeking manuscripts that deal with CMV from a variety of
perspectives including:
1. The precise conceptual and/or mathematical definitions of CMV.
2. Whether and under what conditions does CMV as defined truly exist
and how does one know that to be the case,
a. What are the design issues?
b. What are the measurement issues?
c. What are the analysis issues?
d. What are the interpretation issues?
3. Assuming an existence, how and under what conditions it might or
might not affect measurement and observed relationships among variables --
that is, how much CMV must be present and under what conditions to
absolutely render inferences meaningless or questionable.
4. Assuming an impact,
a. What strategies may be undertaken both before and/or after data
collection to deal with it?
b. What evidence exists to prove the effectiveness of such strategies?
5. Are there differential impacts given the type of hypothesis testing
analysis (i.e., traditional regression using means to operationalize
constructs vs. an SEM approach with constructs operationalized through
measurement models).
6. While the above are empirical in nature, we also encourage attempts
to develop a better theoretical explication of CMV including its
antecedents, consequents, and mechanisms of operation.
The list above is not exhaustive. Collectively, therefore, we invite
empirical and conceptual papers, and when empirical using either real or
simulated data or both. Again, the goal here is to raise the level of
discourse about CMV and what it represents by providing the readership with
a strong sense of the nature and severity of the underlying issues, the
conditions that make it more or less severe, what strategies may be
undertaken to deal with the issues prior to and after data collection, and
how to best design studies that allow for reasonably conclusive tests of
hypotheses.. Doing so will provide an informed basis from which to judge
whether CMV is present and how bad it is, and perhaps put a halt to the
blanket use of the CMV excuse by researchers and readers/reviewers as an
automatic reaction to manuscripts using self-report measures.
All papers will undergo the standard double-blind Organizational Research
Methods review process and must meet the standards of the Organizational
Research Methods, Editorial Policy Statement (see
http://orm.sagepub.com).
All articles published in this feature topic must make strong contributions
to improving our understanding of CMV.
The guest editors for this special issue are Michael Brannick
(
mbrannic@luna.cas.usf.edu) and Paul Spector (
spector@shell.cas.usf.edu) at
the University of South Florida.
Please submit manuscripts to the special feature through the Organizational
Research Methods manuscript central portal
(http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orm). Be sure to indicate in the cover
letter that you are submitting the paper for the feature topic on common
method variance. To be considered, manuscripts must be submitted on or
before midnight (Eastern Standard Time) July 10, 2009.
--------------------------
Robert J. Vandenberg
Terry College of Business
Department of Management
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-6256
Voice: 706-542-3720 (Brooks: Tues.-Thurs.-Fri) or
706-542-4328 (Ramsey: Mon.-Weds.)
Fax: 706-542-3743
Home: 706-310-0906
Terry College:
http://www.terry.uga.edu
Department of Management:
http://www.terry.uga.edu/management/
Editor-in-Chief, Organizational Research Methods --
http://orm.sagepub.com
Fellow, Institute for Behavioral Research --
http://www.ibr.uga.edu/
Fellow and Short Course Instructor, Center for the Advancement of Research
Methods and Analysis --
http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/carma/
Lisa Schurer Lambert
J. Mack Robinson College of Business
Georgia State University
35 Broad Street, Room 1003
Atlanta GA 30303-4014
Phone: 404.413.7536
Fax: 404.413.7571
Email:
lisalambert@gsu.edu
_______________________________________________________________________
To send a message to the list, send your email to
SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
_______________________________________________________________________
Visit the SIM Division website at:
http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________
If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at:
http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1