Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (2)
Departments, institutes and facilities
Document Type
- Article (2)
Year of publication
- 2022 (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Guzzo et al. (Reference Guzzo, Schneider and Nalbantian2022) argue that open science practices may marginalize inductive and abductive research and preclude leveraging big data for scientific research. We share their assessment that the hypothetico-deductive paradigm has limitations (see also Staw, Reference Staw2016) and that big data provide grand opportunities (see also Oswald et al., Reference Oswald, Behrend, Putka and Sinar2020). However, we arrive at very different conclusions. Rather than opposing open science practices that build on a hypothetico-deductive paradigm, we should take initiative to do open science in a way compatible with the very nature of our discipline, namely by incorporating ambiguity and inductive decision-making. In this commentary, we (a) argue that inductive elements are necessary for research in naturalistic field settings across different stages of the research process, (b) discuss some misconceptions of open science practices that hide or discourage inductive elements, and (c) propose that field researchers can take ownership of open science in a way that embraces ambiguity and induction. We use an example research study to illustrate our points.
Introduction: Recovery experiences have thus far been portrayed as experiences that simply “happen” to people. However, recovery can also be understood from a crafting perspective; that is, individuals may proactively shape their work and non-work activities to recover from stress, satisfy their psychological needs, and achieve optimal functioning.
Materials and Methods: In my talk, I will present the theoretical basis of needs-based crafting based on a conceptual review of the literature. Moreover, I will present empirical findings on the validation of a newly developed off-job crafting scale.
Results: In five sub studies, we found that off-job crafting was related to optimal functioning over time. Moreover, the newly developed off-job crafting scale had good convergent and discriminant validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
Conclusions: Theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that needs-based crafting can enhance optimal functioning in different life domains and support people in performing their work duties sustainably. Proactive attempts to achieve better recovery through needs satisfaction may be beneficial in an intensified and continually changing and challenging working life. Our line of research provides important avenues for organizational research and practices regarding recovery and needs satisfaction occurring at work and outside work.