{"title":"与“真正的”团队合作的挑战:第二部分简介","authors":"Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin","doi":"10.1177/2041386620923165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We introduce the next two papers in our running special section on the challenges studying modern teams—those that may not have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, or members who belong only to that single team. Our perspective is that many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct, so rather than further exploiting our traditional approaches, the field should explore new or different ways to analyze the team experience. Thus, in these special sections, we present theoretical arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. This installment presents two papers that should enrich researchers’ sophistication in their ontological assumptions about teams. They are excellent complements to each other, as both are about questions of meaning and both have clear methodological implications for research design, but one zooms in to the nature of teams and the other zooms out to the nature of knowledge itself.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"57 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620923165","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The challenges of working with “real” teams: Introduction to the second installment\",\"authors\":\"Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2041386620923165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We introduce the next two papers in our running special section on the challenges studying modern teams—those that may not have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, or members who belong only to that single team. Our perspective is that many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct, so rather than further exploiting our traditional approaches, the field should explore new or different ways to analyze the team experience. Thus, in these special sections, we present theoretical arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. This installment presents two papers that should enrich researchers’ sophistication in their ontological assumptions about teams. They are excellent complements to each other, as both are about questions of meaning and both have clear methodological implications for research design, but one zooms in to the nature of teams and the other zooms out to the nature of knowledge itself.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"57 - 61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620923165\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620923165\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620923165","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
The challenges of working with “real” teams: Introduction to the second installment
We introduce the next two papers in our running special section on the challenges studying modern teams—those that may not have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, or members who belong only to that single team. Our perspective is that many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct, so rather than further exploiting our traditional approaches, the field should explore new or different ways to analyze the team experience. Thus, in these special sections, we present theoretical arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. This installment presents two papers that should enrich researchers’ sophistication in their ontological assumptions about teams. They are excellent complements to each other, as both are about questions of meaning and both have clear methodological implications for research design, but one zooms in to the nature of teams and the other zooms out to the nature of knowledge itself.
期刊介绍:
Organizational Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by SAGE in partnership with the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology. Organizational Psychology Review’s unique aim is to publish original conceptual work and meta-analyses in the field of organizational psychology (broadly defined to include applied psychology, industrial psychology, occupational psychology, organizational behavior, personnel psychology, and work psychology).Articles accepted for publication in Organizational Psychology Review will have the potential to have a major impact on research and practice in organizational psychology. They will offer analyses worth citing, worth following up on in primary research, and worth considering as a basis for applied managerial practice. As such, these should be contributions that move beyond straight forward reviews of the existing literature by developing new theory and insights. At the same time, however, they should be well-grounded in the state of the art and the empirical knowledge base, providing a good mix of a firm empirical and theoretical basis and exciting new ideas.