The quest for novelty

• Author: Thomas G. Reio
• Date: 01 September 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21409
• Published date: 01 September 2020

EDITORIAL

The quest for novelty

Novelty is one of the hallmarks of an emerging, healthy field. Indeed, novel research is arguably one of the mecha-

nisms for keeping things refreshing and interesting in the social sciences. Novel and creative research is essential

because it serves to expand the knowledge useful for refining and fueling new understandings. When examining the

Table of Contents for an issue of Human Resource Development Quarterly, it should thus reflect the cutting edge of

novel and creative research in our field. Novel and creative contributions include the presentation of new ideas,

insights, perspectives, and research that support theoretical, conceptual, empirical, and practical advancements. Like-

wise, novel and creative research designs and methods support the testing of research questions and hypotheses

and employ research methods in heretofore untested cross-cultural settings, for example, useful for theory building

and testing. As editor, consequently, the quest for novelty and the new understandings it entails should be always

on one's mind.

Notwithstanding, there is scholarly tension between seeking to publish novel and creative research versus repli-

cation research. Schmidt (2009) defines replication research as “a method of verification of a scientific finding by

repeating a certain procedure”and theorizes that it is fundamental because it is a means of verifying facts within the

empirical sciences (p. 92). Similarly, Makel and Plucker (2014) note that “replication is one of the building blocks of

science”and argue that direct replication studies are just as important as novel and creative studies to move a field

forward (p. 305). Other researchers may wonder, however, whether replication research is really research at all

because it may not be sufficiently creative or innovative to warrant publication in top research journals, especially

because it may or may not be telling us much more than what we already knew (Schmidt, 2009). Makel and

Plucker (2014) posit a number of issues with a focus on novel research that includes: publishing bias toward positive

results, low reliability among peer reviewers, hypothesizing after results are known, misuse of statistical tests and

results, overreliance on null hypothesis testing, the file drawer problem of nonpublished studies with negative or

mixed results, and data peeking. Makel and Plucker (2014) decry how editors, reviewers, and researchers in general

tend to favor the novel and creative research contribution at the peril of compromising rigor and solid social science

research. Both Schmidt (2009) and Makel and Plucker (2014), unfortunately, speak mostly to experimental research

rather than the vast majority of research conducted in the social sciences, that is, nonexperimental research. One

wonders how one might reasonably replicate qualitative, mixed-method, or observational research. If replication

research is so necessary, and certainly, it is, we need scholarly direction as to how precisely one should replicate all

types of research.

With this being said, what is the correct balance for publishing novel and creative versus replication research?

Again, there is little guidance besides the notion that more replication research should be published for the sake of

moving the field forward through verified facts. Thus, with that being said, as Editor, I am calling for more replication

research as we truly need to have more balance in the types of research we publish. However, there should be and

will continue to be a strong emphasis on publishing novel and creative research that has utility in the Human

Resource Development Quarterly. Of course, we need this type of research in the first place if there is to be follow-up,

replication research. It is hard to fathom how being curious and open to new ideas; building and testing new theories;

DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21409

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2020;31:247–248. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrdq 247