Business and Management INK

What’s Wrong with Writing and Publishing Interesting Academic Articles?

November 10, 2021 3535
Lemur showing surprised reaction
Interestingness (or counterintuitiveness or novelty), by itself, is not a virtue of a good scientific theory and thus has little value in science argues Eric Tsang. (Photo: (Joenomias) Menno de Jong/Pixabay)

Today, Eric W.K. Tsang at the Jindal School of Management at the University of Texas at Dallas offers a brief reflection on his article “That’s Interesting! A Flawed Article Has Influenced Generations of Management Researchers” appearing in the Journal of Management Inquiry. He asks if the pursuit of “interestingness” poisons, to an extent, management research.

My answer to the question “What’s wrong with writing and publishing interesting academic articles?” is that there is nothing wrong assuming that interestingness does not trump other more important attributes of an article. Unfortunately this assumption often does not hold in the management discipline given the current interestingness advocacy.

The advocacy originated from Murray Davis’s 1971 article “That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology” published in Philosophy of the Social Sciences. He promoted the idea that great theories have to be interesting in the sense that they provide counterintuitive arguments: “What seems to be X is in reality non-X,” or “What is accepted as X is actually non-X” (p. 313). His target audience was sociologists. Yet it turned out that management researchers have been most enthusiastic about adopting his idea, as indicated by the fact that among all the disciplines, management is the one that has provided the largest number of citations to his paper. Not only management authors but also journal editors have cited and embraced Davis’s idea. One of my colleagues included Davis’s paper as a required reading in his doctoral seminar.

As a seasoned management researcher, the advocacy caught me by surprise and motivated me to write my article. The problem of the advocacy is that most, if not all, management researchers consider themselves doing science, but interestingness (or counterintuitiveness or novelty) is not a virtue of a good scientific theory and thus has little value in science. There are two main objectives of scientific research, namely explaining and problem solving. Both objectives are only remotely related to interestingness. Regarding the objective of finding an explanation, whether a theory is interesting is simply irrelevant; what is relevant is whether the theory can provide a satisfactory explanation of a phenomenon. As to the other objective concerning problem solving, the current COVID-19 pandemic is a great example. Scientists in various countries are working day and night to deal with the epidemic and don’t have the luxury of thinking about the interestingness of their findings. In fact, in this kind of emergency, does anyone really care about interestingness?

Instead of helping the field of management research to progress, the obsession with interestingness has at least five detrimental consequences—promoting an improper way of doing science, encouraging post hoc hypothesis development, discouraging replication studies, ignoring the proper duties of a researcher, and undermining doctoral education. Although my target audience is management researchers, these consequences will occur in any social science discipline where a strong interestingness advocacy exists. I hope my article will help to highlight the downside of the advocacy and prevent it from spreading.

Eric Tsang is Dallas World Salute Distinguished Professor and Professor, Organizations, Strategy and International Management at the Naveen Jindal School of Management at The University of Texas at Dallas.

View all posts by Eric Tsang

Related Articles

Examining How Open Research Affects Vulnerable Participants
Impact
July 8, 2025

Examining How Open Research Affects Vulnerable Participants

Read Now
Closing the Gender Pay Gap: Why Intermediaries Matter
Business and Management INK
June 18, 2025

Closing the Gender Pay Gap: Why Intermediaries Matter

Read Now
Valentin-Yves Mudimbe, 1941-2025: The Philosopher on the ‘Invention’ of Africa
Impact
May 7, 2025

Valentin-Yves Mudimbe, 1941-2025: The Philosopher on the ‘Invention’ of Africa

Read Now
Christopher Jencks, 1936-2025: An Innovative Voice on Inequality
Impact
May 1, 2025

Christopher Jencks, 1936-2025: An Innovative Voice on Inequality

Read Now
From Isolation to Impact: Tackling the Emotional Toll of Ethnographic Research in Business and Society

From Isolation to Impact: Tackling the Emotional Toll of Ethnographic Research in Business and Society

In this article, Lorenzo Skade discusses the emotional difficulties encountered by early-career researchers involved in ethnographic studies within the business and society […]

Read Now
“Everything Not Saved Will Be Lost.” –Nintendo “Quit Screen” Message

“Everything Not Saved Will Be Lost.” –Nintendo “Quit Screen” Message

In this post, authors Richard F.J. Haans and Marc J. Mertens reflect on the inspiration behind their research article, “The Internet Never […]

Read Now
Author Reflections on Intraorganizational Developmental Networks

Author Reflections on Intraorganizational Developmental Networks

In this post, Andrew Dhaenens, a lecturer in the School of Management & Governance at the University of New South Wales Sydney, […]

Read Now
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rachel Hale

Your reflection prompts me to compare it to discussions about the difference between blue skies and problem-based research.