Rarely pure and never simple: Assessing cumulative evidence in strategic management

Abstract

As empirical evidence in strategy has accumulated, scholars have shown increasing interest in assessing the empirical record of leading theories. Two methods of assessment have figured prominently: vote counting and meta-analysis. Recently, critics have denounced the former in favor of the latter. While meta-analysis is certainly a powerful assessment tool, we argue that both vote counting and meta-analysis are characterized by certain strengths and weaknesses and that these methods should be seen as complementary means of understanding bodies of empirical evidence. We provide guidance regarding when to employ each method and how to improve the process of cumulative assessment.