Evidence-Based Management in “Macro” Areas: The Case of Strategic Management (original) (raw)
Related papers
Evidence-Based Management: Foundations, Development, Controversies and Future
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
We review the recent development of evidence-based management (EBMgt), tracing its origins to longstanding gaps between research and practice, discrepant findings across studies, and the emergence of evidence-based medicine (EBMed). We provide a definition of EBMgt and review four foundational articles advocating its use. We then review categories of articles that comprise the EBMgt canon: advocacy articles, essays or perspectives, teaching-related, empirical, reviews, and critiques and responses. Critiques include political, epistemological, and methodological issues directly pertinent to EBMgt as well as broader concerns about the scholarly research base on which EBMgt depends. Our suggestions for future research emphasize, first and foremost, increasing the production of high-quality empirical studies in EBMgt. Topics of particular interest include research co-creation by academics and practitioners, process and outcome studies of EBMgt implementations, and practitioners’ use of ...
Evidence-Based Management: The Use of Meta-analysis in Business Studies
International Journal of Academic Management Science Research (IJAMSR), 2021
This study seeks to provide a big picture of meta-analytic activity in Business Studies. The analysis of the publications in Web of Knowledge (WOK)-Business Economics area (BE)-and of the articles published in the Top-10 journals in Business Management area, according to Journal Citation Report de Thomson Reuters (JCR, 2015), show an important and growing up meta-analytic activity in this domain, as well as an unequal interest in this kind of research among the Top-10 journals. It is also observed a lack of guides or standards about meta-analysis in this field of knowledge. The practical implication of this study is to identify the terminology used to facilitate future bibliographic searches, as well as to show new approaches and research gaps in this field.
PharmacoEconomics, 2014
Objective To evaluate the impact of using two evidencesynthesis paradigms, pairwise meta-analysis (PMA) vs. network meta-analysis (NMA), on the expected value of information (EVI) outcomes, using pharmacotherapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a case study. Methods Bayesian random-effects PMAs were performed for each pharmacotherapy vs. placebo, and a Bayesian random-effects NMA was performed combining both placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials. Both provided comparative rate ratio (RR) estimates between each pharmacotherapy vs. placebo. A Markov model was developed to project costs and qualityadjusted life-years of five commonly used treatments for chronic obsructive pulmonary disorder. RRs for the treatment effect compared with placebo derived using PMA and NMA were used alongside values from the literature to populate the model. In addition to standard cost-effectiveness outputs, we calculated and compared the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and the expected value of partial perfect information (EV-PPI) for treatment effects, for comparisons that included all or a subset of treatments. Results The network of evidence included five different treatments, compared in 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which in total included 28,172 individuals. The cost-effectiveness outcomes were similar between the two evidence-synthesis paradigms. The individual EVPI for all treatments was Can$1,262 for PMA-based analyses and Can$572 for NMA-based analyses. For all comparisons involving two, three, or four treatments, the comparison with the highest EVPI was different between the two methods. Similarly, the choice of PMA or NMA had resulted in substantially different EVPPI rankings. Conclusion Our case study shows that the choice of PMA or NMA can have significant effects on the EVI results. Under comparable conditions, the incorporation of more evidence in the NMA most likely increases the precision of estimates and therefore is likely to result in lower EVI outcomes. As our study demonstrates, the difference in EVI outcomes can be substantial, potentially affecting the decision to conduct research and the design of future research.
The Academy of Management Annals, 2008
It is the nature of the object that determines the form of its possible science (Bhaskar, 1998, p. 3). Uncertain knowledge is better than ignorance (Mitchell, 2000, p. 9) This chapter is motivated by the failure of Management and Organizational Science (MOS) to date to make full effective use of its available research evidence. Failure to make effective use of scientific evidence is a problem both management scholars and practitioners face. Effective use of evidence, as we employ the term here, means to assemble and interpret a body of primary studies relevant to a question of fact, and then take appropriate action based upon the conclusions drawn. For science, appropriate action might be to direct subsequent research efforts elsewhere if the science is clear, or to recommend a new tact if findings are inconclusive. For practice, appropriate action might begin with a summary of key findings to share with educators, thought leaders, consultants, and the broader practice community. Unfortunately, bodies of evidence in MOS are seldom assembled or interpreted in the systematic fashion needed to permit their confident use. A systematic review of the full body of evidence is the key first step in formulating a science-based conclusion. In consequence at present, neither the MOS scholar nor the practitioner can readily claim to be well-informed. This lapse has many causes. Two are central to our failure to use MOS evidence well: 1) overvaluing novelty to the detriment of accumulating convergent findings and 2) the general absence of systematic research syntheses. These two causes are intertwined in that as we shall show, use of research syntheses ties closely with how a field gauges the value of its research. This chapter's subject, the systematic research synthesis, is not to be confused with a conventional literature review, its less systematic, non-representative counterpart. Systematic research syntheses assemble, analyze and interpret a comprehensive body of evidence in a highly reflective fashion according to six evidentiary criteria we describe. The why, what, and how of research synthesis in MOS is this chapter's focus.
EBM: evidence to practice and practice to evidence
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2008
The purpose of this paper is to explore new perspectives about difficulties academicians may have communicating with clinicians, obtaining subjects, and gaining compliance for their research. Sackett et al 1 defined evidence-based medicine (EBM) as an integration of best research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values. However, Guyatt et al 2 places clinical observation and experience last in the evidence hierarchy with the randomized controlled trial held as the standard for clinical intervention. The hierarchical discourse of medical knowledge produces opposition rather than collaboration between researcher, clinician, and patient. Foucault gave new perspectives describing how power circulates through individuals within organizational discourse. 3 Drawing on literature and experience, this paper describes how the hierarchical model of power in the research community obstructs new areas of knowledge, and how clinicians create resistance. Alleviating perceptions of dominance and creating connections produces cohesion within medical communities.
Journal of Management, 2011
The authors content analyzed 196 meta-analyses including 5,581 effect-size estimates published in assess the presumed effects of each of 21 methodological choices and judgment calls on substantive conclusions. Results indicate that, overall, the various meta-analytic methodological choices available and judgment calls involved in the conduct of a meta-analysis have little impact on the resulting magnitude of the meta-analytically derived effect sizes. Thus, the present study, based on actual meta-analyses, casts doubt on previous warnings, primarily based on selective case studies, that judgment calls have an important impact on substantive conclusions. The authors also tested the fit of a multivariate model that includes relationships among Downloaded from 6 Journal of Management / January 2011 theory-building and theory-testing goals, obtained effect sizes, year of publication of the metaanalysis, and scholarly impact (i.e., citations per year). Results indicate that the more a meta-analysis attempts to test an existing theory, the larger the number of citations, whereas the more a meta-analysis attempts to build new theory, the lower the number of citations. Also, in support of scientific particularism, as opposed to scientific universalism, the magnitude of the derived effects is not related to the extent to which a meta-analysis is cited. Taken together, the results provide a comprehensive data-based understanding of how meta-analytic reviews are conducted and the implications of these practices for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact.
EBM: Evidence to practice & practice to evidence
2015
The purpose of this paper is to explore new perspectives about difficulties academicians may have communicating with clinicians, obtaining subjects, and gaining compliance for their research. Sackett et al1 defined evidence-based medicine (EBM) as an integration of best research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values. However, Guyatt et al2 places clinical observation and experience last in the evidence hierarchy with the randomized controlled trial held as the standard for clinical intervention. The hierarchical discourse of medical knowledge produces opposition rather than collaboration between researcher, clinician, and patient. Foucault gave new perspectives describing how power circulates through individuals within organizational discourse.3 Drawing on literature and experience, this paper describes how the hierarchical model of power in the research community obstructs new areas of knowledge, and how clinicians create resistance. Alleviating perceptions of dominance ...