Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings

By D. Bergh, Herman Aguinis. 2017

165 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Information Systems and Management, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f080707257357048fd573a0e8bcc2d51a333e65c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

1. A. Solarino
2. Markku V. J. Maula
3. Martin Kenney
4. Ben R. Martin
5. Mario Biagioli
6. John P. Walsh
7. W. Stam
8. Tal Yarkoni

In Information Systems and Management

1. A. Solarino
2. Martin Kenney
3. Ben R. Martin
4. Mario Biagioli
5. John P. Walsh
6. Markku V. J. Maula
7. W. Stam
8. Jeffrey Heer

In Safety Research

1. A. Solarino
2. Martin Kenney
3. Ben R. Martin
4. Mario Biagioli
5. John P. Walsh
6. Markku V. J. Maula
7. W. Stam
8. Jeffrey Heer

Citations in the corpus

• Best Practices in Data Collection and Preparation: Recommendations for Reviewers, Editors, and Authors (2019, background): “Organizational research is currently facing a credibility challenge due to the documented inability to reproduce published research (Bergh et al., 2017; Butler, Delaney, & Spoelstra, 2017; Byington & Felps, 2017).”
• Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment (2019, methodology): “Similarly, Bergh et al. (2017) emphasize the importance of reproducibility as a first check on the validity of scientific claims.”
• Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research (2019, background): “The field of business and management is not immune to these concerns (Bergh et al., 2017; Starbuck, 2016).”
• Cross‐Country Determinants of Early‐Stage Necessity and Opportunity‐Motivated Entrepreneurship: Accounting for Model Uncertainty (2018, unknown): “Recent research has also pointed to a parallel credibility concern in strategic management journals as well (Bergh et al. 2017).”
• Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants (2019, methodology): “But, because these issues have to date been limited to quantitative research (Aguinis et al., 2017; Bergh et al., 2017) and “statistical results” (Bettis, Ethiraj, et al., 2016, p. 2194), we expanded the discussion of transparency and replicability to the domain of qualitative methods.”
• Same data, different conclusions: Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis (2021, background): “The overall rate of problems identified is not surprising since scientific errors are quite common (Bakker & Wicherts, 2011; Bergh et al., 2017; Rohrer et al., in press).”