Rigor in Interdisciplinary Research: Finding Common Ground

Matthew  A. Eichler,

Rigor in Interdisciplinary Research: Finding Common Ground

Discipline: Education

Abstract:

Rigor, as a general term applied to academic interdisciplinary research, takes into consideration the overall quality of the research study in context. As researchers and consumers of research, we have an obligation to understand current conceptions of research quality including the concepts of validity and reliability. Further, in understanding the production of high quality quantitative research, statistical software is not a key factor, as long as the statistical software being utilized is one of a variety of packages understood to produce reliable results. In fact, institutions may want to seek out free or low cost software package alternatives that will produce the same results as more expensive software packages for budgetary consideration.

References:

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. R. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Brink, Y., & Louw, Q. A. (2012). Clinical instruments: Reliability and validity critical appraisal. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18 (6), 1126-1132.
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297-312.
Colliver, J. A., Conlee, M. J., & Verhulst, S. J. (2012). From test validity to construct validity … and back? Medical Education, 46, 366-371.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Girden, E. R., & Kabacoff, R. I. (2011). Evaluating research articles from start to finish (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 775-782.
Hambrick, D. C. (1994). 1993 presidential address: What if the academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 11-16.
Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measures. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company.
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151-160.
Lee, A. S. (1999). Rigor and relevance in MIS research: Beyond the approach of positivism alone. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 29-33.
MacFarland, T. W. (2014). Introduction to data analysis and graphical presentation in biostatistics with R: Statistics in the large. Cham, Germany: Springer.
McMillan, J. H., & Wergin, J. F. (2006). Understanding and evaluating educational research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Pyrczak, F. (2005). Evaluating research in academic journals: A practical guide to realistic evaluation (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Robey, D. & Markus, M. L. (1998). Beyond rigor and relevance: Producing consumable research about information systems. Information Resources Management Journal, 11(1), 7-15.
Shrivastava, P. (1987). Rigor and practical usefulness of research in strategic management. Strategic management journal, 8, 77-92.
Vermueulen, F. (2005). On rigor and relevance: Fostering dialectic progress in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 978-982.