Apologies for cross-listings
Reminder:
Call for Papers on a Special Issue of the Review of Managerial Science
Evidence-based Strategic Management (EbSM)
Submission Deadline: March 10, 2013
Guest Editors:
Andreas Bausch, University of Giessen, Germany
Markus Fitza, Texas A&M University, USA
Background
Driven by namable advocates and programmatic publications in leading
academic and practitioner-oriented management journals (Rousseau, 2006;
Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006), evidence-based management is gaining more and
more attention. In essence, the notion of evidence-based management
stands for the need for improved decision-making quality in management
practice. Corporate decision-makers ought to improve decision-making by
drawing on best available information.
“In many cases, the facts about what works are out there – so why don’t
managers use them?” (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006).
However, evidence-based management goes beyond this claim. There has
been much debate on the knowledge-doing gap, all too often seen to be
unbridgeable (Kieser & Leiner, 2009). But what is at the core of
evidence-based management is the explicit emphasis on the need for
systematic summaries of decision-relevant research to generate evidence
and actionable knowledge. In this context, evidence means the best
summary of knowledge based on multiple sources of information. Thus,
evidence in this sense goes not only beyond individual experiences but
also beyond knowledge provided by single empirical studies (Frese et
al., 2012).
“Through evidence-based management, practicing managers develop into
experts who make organizational decisions informed by social science and
organizational research – part of the zeitgeist moving professional
decisions away from personal preference and unsystematic experience
toward those based on the best available scientific evidence.”
(Rousseau, 2006).
We think it is time to let Evidence-based Strategic Management (EbSM)
become an important part of this emergent development. After four
decades of research resulting in a strong theory base which is eclectic
in nature, and yielding substantial empirical knowledge (Hoskisson et
al., 1999; Nag, Hambrick & Chen, 2007), the field of strategic
management is especially appropriate for the evidence-based approach.
With several thousand primary empirical studies there is a natural need
for research synthesis. At the same time, it can be recognized that
individual studies and replications conducted in similar areas of
inquiry often produce conflicting results. Differences, for example, in
research methods, measures, samples and time span induce some
variability in the relationship of interest. Accordingly, an integration
of these studies may yield some summary conclusion and a comprehensive
view on the true nature of specific cause-and-effect relations,
including the influence of moderating variables.
In light of the need of cumulative knowledge, meta-analytical approaches
play a central role in evidence-based management. Meta-analysis is a
systematic and quantitative review of the scientific literature
delivering a valid overall picture of relationships between variables
(Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). It allows us to integrate existing studies as
it examines how strong certain relationships really are and how much we
can trust the methodological rigor of a body of research. Because of
this, meta-analytical approaches can generate results of greater
validity than traditional narrative reviews and vote-counting methods.
Strategic management researchers make increasing use of meta-analysis to
quantitatively integrate entire lines of research. The number of paper
presentations at major international conferences is rising, and so is
the number of publications in high-ranked journals. With a number of
more than 40 meta-analyses published on issues of strategic management
such as diversification (e.g., Palich, Cardinal & Miller, 2000; Bausch &
Pils, 2009), internationalization (e.g., Bausch & Krist, 2007; Kirca et
al., 2012), innovation (e.g., Damanpour, 1991; Rosenbusch, Brinckmann &
Bausch, 2011), and mergers & acquisitions (e.g., King et al., 2004;
Homberg, Rost & Osterloh, 2009), we believe to have reached a tipping
point to establish what we call Evidence-based Strategic Management (EbSM).
The goal of this special issue is to stimulate authors to further
develop EbSM – to explore options and limitations in applying
evidence-based approaches from medicine and other areas to the field of
Strategic Management. The special issue will undoubtedly have a focus on
meta-analysis. However, any submission that examines how good empirical
evidence for practical and theoretical questions can be tracked,
aggregated and evaluated will be welcome.
Potential Research Questions and Contributions
We hope to spur research contributions related to how strategic
management research continues to pursue knowledge accumulation and
evidence-based approaches. The following are illustrative, rather than
exhaustive research questions that would fit very well this special issue:
What constitutes evidence in strategic management research and what
types of evidence can be differentiated?
Which meta-analytic evidence does exist regarding issues in strategy
process and strategy content research? (We encourage meta-analyses and
other systematic reviews on strategic management issues)
How can meta-analytic evidence inform evidence-based best practice in
strategic management and what are similarities and differences compared
to other forms of reviews? (We encourage contributions considering
methodological issues associated with primary and secondary empirical
research in the field of strategic management)
As randomized controlled trials (RCT) or even the review of RCTs are
the “gold standard” in evidence-based medicine, how is it possible to
apply intervention research? (We encourage experimental studies and
vignette studies on strategic management issues)
What methodologies can be used in evidence-based strategic management?
What can we learn from evidence-based approaches in other fields? Does
the context of strategic management require changes to the methodology
used in other fields?
References
Bausch, A. and Krist, M. (2007). The effect of context related
moderators on the internationalization-performance relationship:
Evidence from meta-analysis. Management International Review, 47, Issue
3, p. 1-29.
Bausch, A. and Pils, F. (2009). Product diversification strategy and
financial performance: meta-analytic evidence on causality and construct
multidimensionality, Review of Managerial Science, 3, 157-190.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of
Effects of Determinants and Moderators. The Academy of Management
Journal, 34, 555-590.
Frese, M., Bausch, A., Schmidt, P., Rauch, A. and Kabst, R. (2012).
Evidence-based Entrepreneurship: Cumulative science, action principles,
and bridging the gap between science and practice. Foundations and
Trends in Entrepreneurship, 8, 1-62.
Homberg, F., Rost, K. and Osterloh, M. (2009). Do synergies exist in
related acquisitions? A meta-analysis of acquisition studies. Review of
Managerial Science, 3, 75-116.
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan, W. P. and Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and
research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of
Management, 25, 417-456.
Hunter, J. A. and Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of Meta-Analysis:
Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
2nd edition.
Kieser, A. and Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in
management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46,
516-533.
King, D. R. , Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M. and Covin, J. G. (2004).
Meta-analyses of post-acquisition performance: Indications of
unidentified moderators. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 187-200.
Kirca, A. H., Roth, K., Hult, T. M. and Cavusgil, S. T. (2012). The role
of context in the multinationality-performance relationship: A
meta-analytic review. Global Strategy Journal, 2, 108-121.
Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C. and Chen, M.-J. (2007). What is strategic
management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of
the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 935-955.
Palich, L., Cardinal, L. B. and Miller, C. C. (2000). Curvilinearity in
the diversfication-performance-linkage: An examination of over three
decades of research. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 155-174.
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. I. (2006). Evidence-based Management. Harvard
Business Review, 84, 63-74.
Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2006). Meta-analyses as a tool for developing
entrepreneurship research and theory. Advances in Entrepreneurship,
Innovation, and economic Growth, 9, 29-51.
Rosseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as evidence-based
management? Academy of Management Review, 31, 256-269.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J. and Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation
always beneficial? Towards a contextual understanding of the
relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs, Journal of
Business Venturing, 26, 441-457.
Submission Instructions
The deadline for submissions is March 10, 2013. To learn more about the
Review of Managerial Science, including additional information on the
submission process, please visit the RMS website at:
www.springer.com/business+%26+management/journal/11846
More Information
For further information, please contact the special issue editors:
Andreas Bausch, University of Giessen
(
andreas.bausch@wirtschaft.uni-giessen.de)
Markus Fitza, Texas A&M University (
mfitza@mays.tamu.edu)
Or, the Editor-In-Chief of the RMS, Wolfgang Kürsten.
The RMS is published by Springer and has been founded in 2007. It is
included in the SSCI Index since 2011.