IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v3y1982i3p213-225.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why sacrifice rigour for relevance? A proposal for combining laboratory and field research in strategic management

Author

Listed:
  • Charles R. Schwenk

Abstract

Two of the most common objections to laboratory research in strategic management are presented and critically evaluated. Commonly accepted normative models of the research process in strategic management are based on the assumption that field research is appropriate in an emerging field and that laboratory research is only appropriate after sufficient field research has been done. The alternative normative model for research in strategic management presented in this paper involves the simultaneous use of laboratory and field methodologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles R. Schwenk, 1982. "Why sacrifice rigour for relevance? A proposal for combining laboratory and field research in strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 213-225, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:3:y:1982:i:3:p:213-225
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250030304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250030304
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.4250030304?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefan Linder, 2016. "Fostering strategic renewal: monetary incentives, merit-based promotions, and engagement in autonomous strategic action," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 251-280, May.
    2. Rieger, Verena & Klarmann, Martin, 2022. "The effect of cooperative team culture on innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1256-1271.
    3. Lorenz Graf-Vlachy, 2019. "Like student like manager? Using student subjects in managerial debiasing research," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 347-376, April.
    4. Sophie Florian & Philip Meissner & Torsten Wulf & Xian Xu & Philip Yang, 2024. "When We Are Happy, We Are the Same—Emotions as a Boundary Condition for the Impact of Cultural Differences on Strategic Decisions," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 329-356, September.
    5. Michalisin, Michael D. & Karau, Steven J. & Tangpong, Charnchai, 2004. "The effects of performance and team cohesion on attribution: a longitudinal simulation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(10), pages 1108-1115, October.
    6. Marcin Awdziej & Jolanta Tkaczyk, 2016. "Simulation Business Games in the Research of Marketing Managers’ Decision Making Process," International Conference on Marketing and Business Development Journal, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 2(1), pages 82-90, July.
    7. Michelle BergadaÀ & Raymond-Alain ThiÉtart, 1997. "Stradin: A Strategic Dynamic and Interactive Decision-Making Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 61-75, January.
    8. James Derbyshire & Mandeep Dhami & Ian Belton & Dilek Önkal, 2023. "The value of experiments in futures and foresight science as illustrated by the case of scenario planning," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:3:y:1982:i:3:p:213-225. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.