Assessing Cumulative Evidence within ‘Macro’ Research: Why Meta‐Analysis Should be Preferred Over Vote Counting

James G. Combs, David J. Ketchen, Jr, T. Russell Crook and Philip L. Roth

Journal of Management Studies, 2011, vol. 48, issue 1, 178-197

Abstract: Understanding the conclusions a body of evidence offers involves accumulating findings. Two recent articles used vote counting to assess the evidence related to important macro theories: transaction cost theory and resource-based theory. Each concluded that its focal theory is not well supported. In contrast, recent meta‐analyses of the same theories concluded that both are strongly supported. We explain why macro researchers should trust the findings of meta‐analyses but not those of vote counts. A direct implication is that researchers interested in advancing transaction cost and resource‐based theories need to build upon the meta‐analytic evidence. A broader implication is that, as the preferred method for accumulating evidence, meta‐analysis can be a catalyst for the re‐evaluation of established theories and the development of new theory.

Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (23)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00899.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:48:y:2011:i:1:p:178-197

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... s.asp?ref=00022-2380

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Management Studies is currently edited by Timothy Clark, Steven W. Floyd and Mike Wright

More articles in Journal of Management Studies from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().