This message is posted for Jeffrey Vancouver, Ohio University.
Subject: Computational Modeling Workshop: Call for Proposals
Interested in learning how to create computational models of interest to applied psychology, management, or organizational science?
Ohio University, under the direction of Dr. Jeffrey B. Vancouver and sponsored by the National Science Foundation, will be hosting a conference and workshop on computational modeling October 23-25th, 2015. The conference, held on the first day, will include distinguished and experienced computational modelers in psychology and organizational science. The workshops, held on day two and three, will train individuals to create computational models in a system dynamics platform (i.e., Vensim) or an agent-based modeling platform (i.e., NetLogo). On the final day, workshop attendees will begin to build their own computational models with the help of expert instructors and conference participants.
Following this three day experience, attendees are expected to return home and continue to work on their models, interacting with expert trainers as needed, for approximately two months; at which time attendees will present their models and results related to the models to the other workshop attendees in a conference call. Finally, attendees will be asked to disseminate their model in some scholarly outlet (e.g. for publication, conference submission). Toward that end, we are negotiating with the SIOP Frontiers Book Series organizers to have a computational modeling edited volume that would include some workshop participant projects.
This notice is a call to submit proposals for one of those two workshops.
Those selected to attend (~10) will have their travel and stay covered by the conference. There will be limited space for additional attendees as well.
If you would like to be reimbursed for attending this workshop, please submit a short (2 page, single spaced, 12-pt font) proposals for a modeling idea to oucompmodel@gmail.com by June 30th for guaranteed review.
Requirements for the proposals:
A statement on the topic/phenomena/theory to be modeled and its importance for science or society.
A statement on the value of a computational model with regards to this topic/phenomena/theory.
A description of the nature of the proposed model. Note that most computational models are derived from or instantiations of existing verbal (i.e., natural language) theories or path models (e.g., structural equation models). They can also derive from qualitative observations of processes. Often these existing descriptions speak of feedback or dynamic processes, making a systems dynamics modeling approach possibly appropriate. Alternatively, the theories may talk about emergent or cross-level processes, making an agent-based modeling approach possibly appropriate.
A statement about the submitter's qualifications. That is, individuals with coursework or experience in advanced mathematics, computer science, or engineering will be considered more favorably, though these are not requirements. Evidence of a deep understanding of processes in a particular phenomenon will also be highly valued.
To facilitate an understanding of the kinds of projects that might be conducive to computational modeling, references are provided below (see esp. Fioretti, 2012 and Weinhardt & Vancouver, 2012).
References
Adner, R., Polos, L., Ryall, M., & Sorenson, O. (2009). The case for formal theory. The Academy of Management Review, 34, 201-208.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Diederich, A. (2010). Cognitive modeling. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Carley, K. M. (2002). Computational organizational science and organizational engineering. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 10, 253-269.
Coen, C. A. & Maritan, C. A. (2011). Investing in capacities: The dynamics of resource allocation.Organization Science, 22, 99-117.
Coen, C. A. (2006). Seeking the comparative advantage: The dynamics of individual cooperation in single vs. multiple-team environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 145-159.
Coen, C. A. (2013). Relative performance and implicit incentives in the intergroup prisoner's dilemma.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 181-190.
Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods.The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 480-499.
Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2010). Computational models as aids to better reasoning in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 329-335.
Fioretti, G. (2012). Agent-based simulation models in organizational science. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 227-242.
Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Seitz, S. T. (1996). Mathematical/computational modeling of organizational withdrawal processes: Benefits, methods, and results. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 14, 91-142.
Harrison, J. R., Lin, Z., Carroll, G. R., & Carley, K. M. (2007). Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1229-1245.
Kennedy, D. M. & McComb, S. A. (2014). When teams shift among processes: Insights from simulation and optimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 784-815.
Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing Multilevel Research Design Capturing the Dynamics of Emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 581-615.
Patrashkova, R. R. & McComb, S. A. (2004). Exploring why more communication is not better: Insights from a computational model of cross-functional teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 83-114.
Sastry, M. A. (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change.Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 237-275.
Vancouver, J. B., Putka, D. J., & Scherbaum, C. A. (2005). Testing a computational model of the goal-level effect: An example of a neglected methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 8(1), 100-127.
Vancouver, J.B., & Scherbaum, C.A. (2008). Do we self-regulate actions or perceptions? A test of two computational models. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 14, 1-22.
Vancouver, J. B., Tamanini, K. B., & Yoder, R. J. (2010b). Using dynamic computational models to reconnect theory and research: Socialization by the proactive newcomer as example. Journal of Management, 36(3), 764-793.
Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J. M., & Schmidt, A. M. (2010a). A formal, computational theory of multiple-goal pursuit: Integrating goal-choice and goal-striving processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 985-1008.
Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J.M., Vigo, R (2014). Change one can believe in: Adding learning to a computational model of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processing, 124, 56-74.
Weinhardt, J. M. & Vancouver, J. B. (2012). Computational models and organizational psychology: Opportunities abound. Organizational Psychology Review, 2, 267-292.
Vancouver, J.B., & Weinhardt, J.M., (2012). Modeling the mind and the milieu: Computational modeling for micro-level organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 602-623.
See also our websites at: http://sites.google.com/site/motivationmodeling/home
and http://www.ohioupsychology.com/Research-Lab-Index.html?lab=22
Please pass on this call for proposal to other interested parties.