Nothnagel Empirical Research within Resource-Based Theory
1. Auflage 2008
ISBN: 978-3-8349-9830-9
Verlag: Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Gabler
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark
A Meta-Analysis of the Central Propositions
E-Book, Englisch, 308 Seiten, Web PDF
Reihe: Business and Economics
ISBN: 978-3-8349-9830-9
Verlag: Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Gabler
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark
Katja Nothnagel evaluates this growing body of empirical research in resource-based theory. She starts out by deriving six central propositions and then examines how these propositions have been tested empirically. Over 190 empirical resource-based papers are identified. The results of this work are evaluated through a narrative review, vote counting as well as the use of a meta-analysis. The results suggest that substantial progress has been made within the empirical part of RBT: (a) various operationalization examples on the propositions’ central constructs prove that testing RBT propositions is possible; (b) vote counting results indicate an overall positive significant impact of resources on performance with negligible results in the opposite direction of the theory; and (c) meta-analysis results show significant positive relationships. The author concludes, however, that more research is needed regarding the factor market conditions and the operationalization of resource conditions.
Zielgruppe
Research
Weitere Infos & Material
The Central Propositions of Resource-based Theory.- Review of Empirical Research within RBT.- RBT: Vote Counting and Meta-Analysis.- Methodological Challenges regarding RBT.- Conclusion and Future Research Agenda.
4.2.2 Advantages of Meta-Analyses (S. 184-185)
If there is already a large number of heterogeneous findings within empirical research, integrating such findings seem to offer a more fruitful approach than conducting another primary study. Through integrating such research, one can evaluate the overall effect as well as identify reasons for differences within the primary studies. Thus, the value of empirical research within RBT can be extremely improved if it enables its readers to conclude on generalizations, and such generalizations are best based on meta-analyses.
Compared with other methods for summarizing and integrating empirical results, metaanalyses are extensively standardized and systematized, and one of the most salient ways to quantitatively synthesize research findings. Whereas literature reviews group studies and consider them together, only meta-analyses treat a group of studies as a data set from which to derive a general and numerical estimate of the strength of a relationship. Each individual step and specification of meta-analyses needs to be documented and open to scrutiny, which facilitates higher objectivity. Hence, the research summarizing process is explicit and systematic, so the reader can assess the author’s assumptions, procedures, evidence, and conclusions.
Moreover, meta-analyses exactly quantify the proposed relationship, while they also allow identifying interactions between dependent and independent variables and test new hypotheses. So, beyond overcoming difficulties associated with single primary studies (e.g., sampling error or measurement error), meta-analyses also enable researchers to synthesize the findings of those studies and test hypotheses that were not testable before. And due to high levels of systematization and quantification, meta-analyses enable the handling of many primary studies.
Single primary studies have distortions, such as sampling errors, which can not be corrected. Also, within empirical primary studies researchers often use Fisher theory-tests where 95% high faults of type number two with false hypotheses null are not detected. Here, the use of effect sizes allows quantifying the direction and the magnitude of the effect while also conducting a significance test. The use of confidence intervals inform about the significance of the results but also, contrary to primary studies’ p-value, about the allowable specifications of the dependent variable regarding the underlying level of significance. Furthermore, non-significant results on the level of the individual study can result in significant results on the level of the meta-analysis.
Through broader secured results and acknowledgement of moderating variables, metaanalyses can identify gaps within the present empirical literature. Also, the findings of metaanalyses can raise new theoretical questions for future research and point out the best directions for further theory development. Moreover, research areas can be identified that do not need further empirical exploration, which helps allocating rare resources within the empirical research field of primary surveys.
4.2.3 Criticism of Meta-Analyses
Even though meta-analyses overcome most of the weaknesses of secondary analyses, they are the subject of some criticism. Most of the critics dement the following five problems: (1) garbage-in-garbage-out, (2) publication bias (file-drawer problem), (3) apples and oranges, (4) dependence of primary results, and (5) high operating expenses (time and effort). The first problem, garbage-in-garbage-out, refers to the accusation that meta-analyses tend to integrate qualitative, high-grade methodological studies with lower quality studies with the same importance.
