Human Resource Management Review
Special Issue Call for Papers
Construct Clarity in Human Resource Management Research
Guest Editors:
Dr. John E. Delery, University of Arkansas, jdelery@walton.uark.edu
Dr. Howard J. Klein, The Ohio State University, klein.12@osu.edu
Background and Rationale for this Special Issue.
Clear, concise construct definitions are fundamental for effective theory building and the accumulation of knowledge through research. Without tight conceptual definitions, it is difficult to clearly explicate the nomological network around that construct or prevent unnecessary construct contamination, proliferation and redundancy. It also becomes difficult to develop or validate sound measures that operationalize those constructs with the appropriate content domain, level of analysis, degree of specificity, and dimensionality without clearly specified construct definitions. The problem of poorly defined constructs is not unique to Human Resource Management (HRM), but it has also not received the attention in HRM that it has in other literatures.
In the strategic HRM literature there are numerous constructs that have only been loosely defined or so poorly defined that measures often vary greatly from one study to the next. For example, researchers have focused on "selective staffing" "the use of valid selection devices" "the percentage of the workforce given a pre-employment test" and "the percentage of skilled workers" when examining specific selection practices and in all of these cases, similar discussions are provided of the underlying construct purportedly being studied. "Bundles" of practices is another example, with various terms to discuss these bundles (e.g., "high performance work systems" "high commitment work systems," "high involvement work systems") with clear distinctions drawn between those terms by some authors and the various terms used interchangeably by others. Construct clarity concerns are not limited to the macro HR literature. Performance is a variable relevant at all levels that, while receiving more attention than most, is still often poorly defined and operationalized. At the micro level, measures of effort, engagement, recruitment sources, and socialization are examples of constructs that are defined and measured with great variability. These are just illustrative examples as there are numerous other concepts in need of more precise construct definition and then valid measurement.
The aim of this Special Issue is to provide a forum on construct clarity in HRM research. For this issue, authors are invited to submit articles that (a) offer insights into this key aspect of theory building, (b) highlight issues in the literature that stem from ill defined constructs, and/or (c) propose new, integrative, or refined definitions for key HRM constructs. The following are some illustrative ways manuscripts could contribute to this forum. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list and many other issues could be explored within the theme of this special issue.
· Critique the existing definition(s) of a construct and propose an alternative definition that addresses those concerns.
· Make the case that a current construct should be separated into distinct constructs or, alternatively, that constructs that have been treated separately should really be considered as a single, perhaps multidimensional construct.
· Clarify the nomological network around a key HRM construct.
· Propose a new construct. Manuscripts doing so should provide a clear theoretical need for the construct, a clear conceptual definition, and make a strong case for the value added to the literature above and beyond existing constructs.
· Summarize the available construct validity evidence available in the literature for a measure of a HRM construct with recommendations for the refinement and or use of that measure.
· Evaluate or comment on the state of construct development within HRM.
· Suggest a new approach or perspective relating to construct development and/or construct validation within HRM.
Manuscript Submission and Review Process
· This call is open and competitive. Papers submitted for this special issue will go through a standard double-blind review process to ensure relevance and quality (contributors should expect to be a reviewer of others' papers to generate a more integrated volume).
· Authors should prepare manuscripts in accordance with HRMR style and submission guidelines, published at the back of every issue or on the HRMR website.
· For the actual submission of manuscripts, do not use the Elsevier website. Instead, email completed manuscripts in a Word-compatible format directly to guest editor, John Delery (jdelery@walton.uark.edu).
1. Delete all author identification from the primary document (e.g., cover page, author note). Prior work by the authors need not be removed from the manuscript (i.e., self-citations and references should not be omitted or redacted).
2. Attach a separate complete title page with the paper title and complete affiliation and contact information for all authors (names, titles, affiliations, mailing addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and fax numbers).
3. Please clearly identify your submission in the email subject line "HRMR-Special Issue".
· The deadline for submitting manuscripts is Monday, January 25, 2010.
The editors of this special issue are happy to answer any questions or discuss initial ideas for papers, and can be contacted directly at the email addresses above.