Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T23:37:49.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What If We Took Researchers' Workplace Decisions Seriously? Mundane Incentives Versus Intellectual Merit in the Selection of Research Topics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Terry Connolly
Terry Connolly*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
*
E-mail: Connolly@u.arizona.edu, Address: Department of Management and Organizations, The Eller College, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 452 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chubin, D. E., & Connolly, T. (1982). Research trails and science policies: Local and extra-local negotiation of scientific work. In Elias, N., Martins, H., & Whitley, R. (Eds.), Scientific establishments and hierarchies. Sociology of the sciences (Vol. 6, pp. 293–311). Dordrecht/Boston: D. Reidel. Google Scholar
Dalal, R. S., Bonaccio, S., Highhouse, S., Ilgen, D., Mohammed, S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2010). What if industrial–organizational psychology decided to take workplace decisions seriously? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 386–405.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962/1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar