Abstract
I highlight why taking causal identification seriously is important for the study of strategy and organizations. Nevertheless, the nature of the questions that are central to our field and the nature of the data we have to answer these questions complicates doing so. Because of this, I suggest that we explicitly consider identification as an issue that can be addressed only through a cumulative body of empirical research. I outline current research norms and practices that impede adopting this approach and recommend a set of actions to help overcome these norms and practices.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1244-1256 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Journal of Management |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue number | 7 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Sep 1 2020 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:Comments from Mary Benner, Tim Simcoe, Joel Waldfogel, and participants at the NSF-UF Workshop on Robust and Reliable Research in the Science of Organizations helped me develop and refine these ideas. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers, Gwendolyn Lee, and Mo Wang for their constructive comments and encouragement.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2019.
Keywords
- causality
- endogeneity
- identification
- research design
- research practices