I present the slides about what research is like, how it is conducted, and how to conduct it. I hope these slides would be helpful to those who want to know what research really is and to read a guideline on writing a paper. Notice: This is not a primary but secondary product, as I am dependent on the other people's works such as editorials, articles, and webpages.

1. Kim, Sijun
Korea University
Source: http://empiricalquestion.blogspot.kr/2010/04/personality-word-cloud.html

2. Correspondence: Sijun Kim ialfykorea@gmail.com (M.S. student, Korea University Business School)
I acknowledge that Wonsuk Tae, Seoyoung Byun, and Yongwook Lee gave developmental comments to
these slides and that Giwon Kim and other Kwanjeong Mensches paid attention to my presentation.

3. Contents
0.
Introduction:
1.
How to “read” a (empirical) research paper in social science
2.
What is (not) theory?
3.
How to “write” a (empirical) research paper in social science
4.
How to write “less badly”?
5.
Conclusion: we learn “from” and “with” the others

4. 0.
INTRODUCTION (1/2)
Curiosity does not always result in research
I have never understood why our trade values, but rarely teaches, nonfiction writing.
In my nearly 30 years at universities, I have seen a lot of very talented people fail
because they couldn't, or didn't, write.
Source: Munger, Michael. 2010. ―10 Tips on How to Write Less Badly‖. http://chronicle.com/article/10Tips-on-How-to-Write-Less/124268/
When it comes to “research”… Is the situation any better?
After 4-year undergraduate
courses
After 2-year graduate
coursework with bunch of
reading assignments
Do we know what research is really like?
Do we know how to conduct a less-bad, if not
really good, research?
NOT every student has an opportunity of On-the-Job-Training.
Nonetheless, curiosity of the “disadvantaged” also has “POTENTIALS”.
2014.1.18
(0/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

5. 0.
INTRODUCTION (2/2)
Purpose of the next 15 slides
Part 1.
1. Present how a research paper is composed.
2. Show how to read a paper most effectively/efficiently.
Part 2.
1. Explain what theory is (not).
Part 3.
1. Introduce a guideline of academic writing (AMJ Editorials).
2. Summarize 10 recommendations to write less badly.
NOTICE: This presentation is ONLY the tip of an iceberg.
I strongly recommend you to approach primary sources that I cited.
2014.1.18
(0/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

6. 1.
HOW TO READ A PAPER? (1/3)
How a paper is composed…
Abstract
SUMMARY of a whole paper
1) Derivation of RESEARCH QUESTION
2) Another summary for some disciplines
Introduction
Literature Review
& Hypotheses
Relevant previous research (NOT ENUMERATION),
THEORETICAL derivation of testable IDEAS
Methods &
Results
Discussion
EXPLANATION of research FINDINGS
Conclusion
2014.1.18
1) How my ideas are ACTUALLY TESTED
2) How my RESEARCH QUESTION is ―solved‖
Similar to abstract, but more COMPREHENSIVE
(1/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

7. 1.
HOW TO READ A PAPER? (2/3)
Where gold mine is located…
A is B. There are numerous
examples. For instance, C
exemplifies this sensemaking
process. In addition, D is also
explained by the frame. Some
people argue I‘m wrong but I
disagree. In this sense, I am sure
that B contains First sentence
A.
Figure
Context
Trait
Motivation
Attitude
Italicized words
Table
Example
Structure
B
P-value
A approach
Samsung
Vertical
IV
.25
.003**
B approach
Apple
Horizontal
IV x MO
.11
.045*
C approach
Google
Network
R-square
.33
Source: Kim, Suhkyung. ―논문 잘 읽는 법‖, http://www.slideshare.net/suhkyungbud/ss-27192478
2014.1.18
(2/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

8. 1.
HOW TO READ A PAPER? (3/3)
Know your purpose
1. I want to know the flow of literature
Focus on Literature Review and Discussion
Consider reading Review papers and Meta-analyses.
2. I want to know “operationalization” and testing process
Focus on Methods and Results
3. I want to know what was found out
Focus on Hypotheses, Results, and Conclusion
4. I want to read “explorative, provocative” articles
Consider reading Conceptual or Inductive (Qualitative) papers
Here I acknowledge that the contents of this slide are greatly influenced by dialogues with
Dr. Hack Soo Kim and Prof. Jinhee Choi, both from Korea University Business School.
2014.1.18
(3/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

9. 2.
WHAT IS (NOT) THEORY? (1/3)
Theory: Statement of Relationships
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
I
Z
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Boundary: Assumptions about values, time, and space
WHO, WHEN, WHERE
WHAT
Constructs
Variables
HOW
Propositions
Hypotheses
Constructs
Variables
“WHY” is not here, but it exists everywhere and is the QUINTESSENCE.
Source: Bacharach. 1989. ―Organizational Theories‖. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 496-515.
Whetten. 1989. ―What constitutes a theoretical contribution? AMR, 14(4) 490-495.
2014.1.18
(4/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

10. 2.
WHAT IS (NOT) THEORY? (2/3)
What theory is not
References per se
Citing a lot of articles itself IS NOT A THEORY.
Data per se
Presenting fancy data itself IS NOT A THEORY.
List of variables,
constructs per se
Diagrams, typologies
per se
Metaphors per se
Talking about a lot of concepts itself
IS NOT A THEORY.
Enumerating a lot of relationships itself
IS NOT A THEORY.
Introducing analogy itself IS NOT A THEORY.
Source: Sutton & Staw. 1995. ―What theory is not‖. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384.
Bacharach. 1989. ―Organizational Theories‖. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 496-515.
2014.1.18
(5/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

11. 2.
WHAT IS (NOT) THEORY? (3/3)
How theoretical contribution is evaluated…
Bacharach’s 2 criteria
Falsifiability
Utility
Validity
Scope
Regarding ‗falsifiability‘, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Regarding ‗validity‘, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)
Whetten’s 7 criteria
1. What’s new?
4. Well done?
2. So what?
5. Done well?
3. Why so?
6. Why now? &
7. Who cares?
Source: Bacharach. 1989. ―Organizational Theories‖. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 496-515.
Whetten. 1989. ―What constitutes a theoretical contribution? AMR, 14(4) 490-495.
2014.1.18
(6/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

12. 3.
HOW TO WRITE A PAPER? (1/5)
Topic Choice
Significance
Taking on “GRAND CHALLENGES”
Novelty
CHANGING the conversation
Curiosity
Catching and holding ATTENTION
Scope
Casting a WIDER net
Actionability
Insights for PRACTICE
You don’t have to satisfy ALL the criteria since it is too strict.
Yet, try to satisfy as many as possible or some criteria significantly.
Source: Colquitt & George. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 1: Topic Choice. AMJ, 54(3): 432-435.
2014.1.18
(7/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

13. 3.
HOW TO WRITE A PAPER? (2/5)
Setting the Hook
Average 10 TIMES ☞ for WHAT? = “Rewrite” Introduction
Product
1) Who cares?: What‘s the topic and why is it interesting?
2) What do we know, what don’t we know, and so what?:
What have already been known and what have been unaddressed?
3) What will we learn?:
How does the study change, challenge, advance scholar‘s understanding?
Examples
1) Consensus creation or Consensus destruction
2) Consensus creation followed by consensus destruction
3) Grounding readers in the situation
4) Citing a recognizable excerpt at the beginning of the introduction
Source: Grant & Pollock 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the Hook. AMJ, 54(5): 873-879.
2014.1.18
(8/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

14. 3.
HOW TO WRITE A PAPER? (3/5)
Setting the Hook (continued)
Requirements
1) Eye-catching title (get your article searched by Google Scholar)
2) Clear direction, clear identification of “gaps”, or problems
3) Active voice
4) Succinctness
5) Situating the study to cumulative literature
6) Good storytelling
Common Mistakes
1) Failing to motivate and problematize
2) Lack of focus
3) Overpromising
Source: Grant & Pollock 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the Hook. AMJ, 54(5): 873-879.
2014.1.18
(9/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

15. 3.
HOW TO WRITE A PAPER? (4/5)
Hypotheses, Methods, and Results
1. Common pitfalls in hypotheses building
1) Not engaging prior research (only enumeration)
2) Using multiple theories without encompassing coherence
(fragmented theorizing)
3) Lack of specificity
4) Stating the obvious
2. Essential points in method selection, analysis description
1) Matching research question and design:
Using cross-sectional data for causal relationships?
CEO research with students sample?
☞ If you‘re doing experiments, be noticed that you may not change
research design once you‘ve submitted the manuscript
2) Use appropriate measures and control relevant variables.
3) Be complete, clear, and credible.
Source: Bono & McNamara. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 2: Research Design. AMJ, 54(4): 657-660.
Sparraowe & Mayer. 2012. Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding Hypotheses. AMJ, 54(6).
Zhang & Shaw. 2012. Publishing in AMJ—Part 5: Crafting Methods and Results. AMJ, 55(1).
2014.1.18
(10/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

16. 3.
HOW TO WRITE A PAPER? (5/5)
Discussion and other issues
1. Common pitfalls in discussion writing
1) Rehashing results
2) Meandering
3) Overreaching
Discussion is not only “an ending”
but also “a beginning”
Source: Geletkanycz & Tepper. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 6: Discussing the implications, 55(2).
2. Other important issues
Plagiarism
Data
Overlapping
Read “Plagiarism Policies and Screening at AMJ”
written by Jason Colquitt
Read “Data Overlap Policies at AMJ”
written by Jason Colquitt
Crafting
References
Read “Crafting References in AMJ Submissions”
Int’l
Publication
Read “Publishing in AMJ for Non-U.S. Authors”
2014.1.18
written by Jason Colquitt
written by Gerard George
(11/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

17. 4.
HOW TO WRITE “LESS BADLY” (1/2)
10 Recommendations
1
Writing is an EXERCISE. (shitty first draft needed)
2
Set goals based on OUTPUT, not input.
3
Find a VOICE; don‘t just get published.
―It's easier to write when you're INTERESTED in what you're writing about.‖
4
Give yourself TIME.
―Writing can be MAGIC, if you give yourself time, because you can
PRODUCE, in the mind of some other person distant from you in space
or even time, an IMAGE of the ideas that exist IN ONLY YOUR MIND.‖
5
Everyone‘s UNWRITTEN work is BRILLIANT.
―If you don't feel like ‗inadequate, stupid, and tired‘, then you aren't
working hard enough.‖
Source: Munger, Michael. 2010. ―10 Tips on How to Write Less Badly‖. http://chronicle.com/article/10Tips-on-How-to-Write-Less/124268/
2014.1.18
(12/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

18. 4.
HOW TO WRITE “LESS BADLY” (2/2)
10 Recommendations (continued)
6
Pick a PUZZLE.
"X and Y start with SAME assumptions but reach OPPOSING conclusions. How?"
"Here are three problems that all seem DIFFERENT. Surprisingly, all are the SAME problem,
in disguise. I'll tell you why."
"Theory predicts [something]. But we observe [something ELSE]. Is the THEORY WRONG, or
is there SOME OTHER FACTOR we have left out?"
7
WRITE, then squeeze other things in.
8
NOT ALL of your thoughts are profound.
9
Your most profound thoughts are often WRONG.
10
Edit your work, OVER AND OVER.
Source: Munger, Michael. 2010. ―10 Tips on How to Write Less Badly‖. http://chronicle.com/article/10Tips-on-How-to-Write-Less/124268/
2014.1.18
(13/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

19. 5.
CONCLUSION (1/2)
We learn from and “with” the others
Most of what gets studied in the management world is what I've heard called
"putting old wine in new bottles". That's not to say that there's NOTHING new
about it — just that it's not 100% novel.
(And, of course, we haven't even touched on whether the research is interesting!)
The academic independence is good, but not exclusively.
We learn from others and with others.
An excerpt from an email written by Eric Neuman at the University of Illinois
Not knowing one‘s research interests is very common among aspiring graduate
students. After all, how can you know what you want to study until you know
more about the field?
Everyone struggles with this, even veteran researchers who have much more
experience than me. Keep reading and brainstorming with others – that is how
new ideas are sparked.
An excerpt from an email written by Crystal Farh at Michigan State University
Both of the abovementioned professors allowed me to quote their words in each email.
2014.1.18
(14/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

20. 5.
CONCLUSION (2/2)
From simple curiosity to research
Try your best to “fully” express your idea with
“fewest” words that incur no misinterpretation.
PARSIMONY
Occam‘s razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony
DETAILEDNESS
CUMULATIVENESS
Admit that academic works need in-depth
description on what are key research questions and
how they are dealt with logically.
Stand on the shoulders of giants (Isaac Newton)
“Face your curiosity directly and you will be motivated to find answers.”
2014.1.18
(15/15)
Kwanjeong Winter Seminar @Ewha Woman‘s University

21. Correspondence: Sijun Kim ialfykorea@gmail.com (M.S. student, Korea University Business School)
I acknowledge that Wonsuk Tae, Seoyoung Byun, and Yongwook Lee gave developmental comments to
these slides and that Giwon Kim and other Kwanjeong Mensches paid attention to my presentation.