Contingency hypotheses in strategic management research : Use, disuse, or misuse?

Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews (RGC: 21, 22, 62)62_Review of books or of software (or similar publications/items)Not applicablepeer-review

82 Scopus Citations
View graph of relations

Author(s)

  • Brian K. Boyd
  • Katalin Takacs Haynes
  • Michael A. Hitt
  • Donald D. Bergh
  • David J. Ketchen Jr.

Detail(s)

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)278-313
Journal / PublicationJournal of Management
Volume38
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2012
Externally publishedYes

Abstract

The answer to many strategic management research questions is often summarized as "It depends." Faced with the marginal results of many main effect hypothesis tests of one variable on another variable, strategy researchers began developing contingency hypotheses that explored more nuanced relationships involving multiple variables. Herein, the authors examine the development of contingency thinking in strategic management via a review of all empirical articles published in Strategic Management Journal from its inception in 1980 through 2009. Using Venkatraman's framework, they identify all contingency studies within this sample. Their analysis reveals that, while contingency hypotheses are becoming more common, there is less diversity in the way the effects are tested. Additionally, while the framing of contingency hypotheses has become more sophisticated over time, there remain many opportunities for methodological improvements. Based on this content analysis, the authors offer both theoretical and methodological guidelines for future strategic management studies. © Southern Management Association 2012.

Research Area(s)

  • contingency theory, research methods, strategic management

Citation Format(s)

Contingency hypotheses in strategic management research : Use, disuse, or misuse? / Boyd, Brian K.; Haynes, Katalin Takacs; Hitt, Michael A.; Bergh, Donald D.; Ketchen Jr., David J.

In: Journal of Management, Vol. 38, No. 1, 01.2012, p. 278-313.

Research output: Journal Publications and Reviews (RGC: 21, 22, 62)62_Review of books or of software (or similar publications/items)Not applicablepeer-review