--- Apologies for cross-posting ----
Dear fellow BPS listserve members,
please find below (and attached) an invitation to submit manuscripts
for a special issue on Evidence based Strategic Management (EbSM)
of the Review of Managerial Science.
Call for Papers on a Special Issue of the Review of Managerial Science
Evidence-based Strategic Management (EbSM)
Submission Deadline: <st1:date year="2013" day="10" month="3">March 10, 2013</st1:date>
Guest Editors:
Andreas Bausch, <st1:place><st1:city>University of Giessen</st1:city>, <st1:country-region>Germany</st1:country-region></st1:place>
Markus Fitza, <st1:place><st1:city>Texas A&M University</st1:city>, <st1:country-region>USA</st1:country-region></st1:place>
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 <st1:place><st1:placetype>Academy</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename>Management</st1:placename></st1:place> 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. <st1:place><st1:city>Thousand Oaks</st1:city>, <st1:state>CA</st1:state></st1:place>: 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. , <st1:city><st1:place>Dalton</st1:place></st1:city>, 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? <st1:place><st1:placetype>Academy</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename>Management</st1:placename></st1:place> 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 <st1:date year="2013" day="10" month="3">March 10, 2013</st1:date>. 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 <st1:city><st1:place>Giessen</st1:place></st1:city> (andreas.bausch@wirtschaft.uni-giessen.de)
Markus Fitza, <st1:place><st1:placename>Texas</st1:placename> <st1:placename>A&M</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>University</st1:placetype></st1:place> (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.
-- Markus Fitza Assistant Professor Texas A&M University Mays Business School Department of Management 420 Wehner Building College Station, Texas 77843-4221 USA E: markusfitza@tamu.edu