Seven principles of effective replication studies: strengthening the evidence base of management research

摘要

Management research is often obsessed with novelty or originality. This is understandable and in line with most other academic disciplines. Novel findings are more interesting and can have a huge impact on management theory and practice. However, novelty as a sine qua non criterion is accompanied by serious threats to both the academic community and management practice. The academic community is increasingly concerned that many of these novel findings might be nonreplicable artifacts. Consequently, there is a plethora of results in the literature that might not constitute any knowledge, thus threatening the credibility and practical usefulness of management research. Replication studies, which we define as studies that put published empirical results to an additional empirical test, are needed for the discipline to develop in a meaningful way and close the theory practice gap. To be fair, the claim that most published management research is false or nonreplicable is probably an exaggeration. However, without replication in particular, the social sciences (like management research) are vulnerable to overestimating effect sizes (Camerer et al. 2018). While in management research it is uncommon to conduct explicit replication studies, many original findings are replicated implicitly. These findings may be shown as control variables models only before the authors proceed to their own empirical contribution, such as a moderation effect based on the (replicated) direct effect. Nevertheless, more explicit replications would be useful to aid efforts in synthesizing and aggregating available knowledge and will help to put the academic discussion on a solid foundation of empirical evidence.