Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Creative destruction in science

  • Hiring Decisions Forecasting Collaboration
  • INSEAD
  • Northern Illinois University
  • Oregon State University
  • University of Virginia
  • World Bank
  • Stockholm School of Economics
  • Massey University
  • University of Innsbruck
  • Seattle University
  • University of Presov
  • American University of Sharjah
  • Aarhus University
  • Trinity Western University
  • University of Cincinnati
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
  • Prague College of Psychosocial Studies
  • KU Leuven
  • University of Georgia
  • Saint Josephs University
  • Pavol Jozef Šafárik University
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences
  • University of Toronto
  • University of Wrocław
  • University of La Laguna
  • King's College London
  • Tilburg University
  • Point Loma Nazarene University
  • Stevens Institute of Technology
  • University of Queensland
  • Pacific Lutheran University
  • University of Missouri
  • Emory University
  • University of Denver
  • Ghent University
  • University of Oxford
  • National University of Singapore
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland
  • University of Kansas
  • University of British Columbia
  • Loughborough University
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Kozminski University
  • Singapore Management University
  • Higher School of Economics
  • University of Birmingham
  • University of Amsterdam
  • Trinity College Dublin
  • University of Groningen
  • University of Alberta
  • Universidade Federal de Sergipe
  • Macquarie University
  • Yale University
  • Kingston University
  • ESCP Business School
  • University of New Hampshire
  • University of Navarra
  • Harvard University
  • University of Alabama
  • Louisiana State University
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • Toulouse School of Economics
  • TU Dortmund University
  • Loyola University Chicago
  • Lund University
  • University of Kassel
  • University of California at Berkeley
  • University of Alicante
  • University of Essex
  • Palacký University Olomouc
  • Faculty of Arts
  • University in Košice
  • University of Otago
  • Tulane University
  • University of Vienna
  • University of Konstanz
  • University of Rijeka
  • Linköping University
  • Eindhoven University of Technology
  • University of Warwick
  • York University Toronto
  • University of Würzburg
  • Pharmaceutical Product Development
  • Georgia Southern University
  • University of Insubria
  • University of Washington
  • University of Houston
  • BI Norwegian Business School
  • University of Limerick
  • University of Geneva
  • Maastricht University
  • Umeå University
  • Ono Academic College
  • Cornell University
  • The University of Auckland
  • Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Martir
  • Central Queensland University
  • Stockholm University
  • Poznań University of Economics and Business
  • Cardiff University
  • PSB Paris School of Business
  • Pennsylvania State University
  • University of Silesia in Katowice
  • University of Copenhagen
  • University of Regina
  • Technion-Israel Institute of Technology
  • California State University Fresno
  • Radboud University Nijmegen
  • University of California at Santa Barbara
  • University of Chittagong
  • Healthy Minds Innovations, Inc
  • Florida State University
  • Charles University
  • University of Cambridge
  • Carnegie Mellon University
  • University College Dublin
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • Technische Universität Dresden
  • University of Southern Denmark
  • Ariel University
  • University of Toledo
  • Early Warning Services
  • Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
  • International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX
  • Fordham University
  • University of Sheffield
  • De Montfort University
  • University of Bergen
  • Western Kentucky University
  • University of Utah
  • The University of Hong Kong
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Sami Shamoon Academic College of Engineering
  • University of Arkansas
  • University of Waterloo
  • Ohio State University
  • SUNY Albany
  • RWTH Aachen University
  • University of Plymouth
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Development
  • University of Stirling
  • Simon Fraser University
  • University of California at Los Angeles
  • University of Dayton
  • Sewanee: The University of the South
  • Grenoble Ecole de Management

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

49 Scopus citations

Abstract

Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents’ reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement: It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void— reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement: The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)291-309
Number of pages19
JournalOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Volume161
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2020
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s)

Funding

Eric Luis Uhlmann is grateful for an R&D grant from INSEAD in support of this research. Anna Dreber is grateful for generous financial support from the Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation (Svenska Handelsbankens Forskningsstiftelser), the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation and the Marcus and Marianne Wallenberg Foundation (Anna Dreber is a Wallenberg Scholar), and the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences.

Funders
Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation
Svenska Handelsbankens Forskningsstiftelser
Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences
Institut Européen d'Administration des Affaires
Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation

    UN SDGs

    This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

    1. SDG 5 - Gender Equality
      SDG 5 Gender Equality

    Keywords

    • Conceptual replication
    • Cultural differences
    • Direct replication
    • Falsification
    • Gender discrimination
    • Hiring decisions
    • Protestant work ethic
    • Replication
    • Theory pruning
    • Theory testing
    • Work values
    • Work-family conflict

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Creative destruction in science'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this