1. Causal identification through a cumulative body of research
J. Myles Shaver
University of Minnesota

2. Main point
Taking causal identification seriously in strategy research is important to do but difficult.
Why is it difficult?
We study organizations that that are complex
We study outcomes that have many determinants
We study organizations where actors purposely manage to these outcomes
We – as a field – need to define our approach to this issue
Rather than importing it from other social science disciplines
Key to advancing credible answers to important questions

3. Cynical view of current trends
Endogeneity or identification police
Who have no novel ideas so they only care about technical minutiae vs
Novel theoretical contribution crew
Who are not technically well trained and afraid of taking their ideas to real tests

4. My view
It is necessary to think about causal identification as a goal for a ‘cumulative body of research’
And individual papers as steps that help advance us
Better reflects the reality of what we study and the desire not have empirical solutions determine the questions we study
However, implementing this approach requires that we redefine research norms in our field
Especially within our journals

5. Thinking of causal identification as a cumulative body of research
No one paper will provide a definitive answer
We should welcome papers that advance our understanding of causal effects related to important questions
Many different research approaches will be needed
We can – and should – use all of the tools at our disposal
‘Overturning’ prior findings is part of the scientific process
A solid statement at one point in time given the literature, data, and methods might not stand up to the advances in the literature, data, and methods.

6. Current research norms/assumptions
All papers need novel theoretical contributions
One paper provides “the” answer
We must be the best scholars in the history of the world
All previous research results are equally-well identified
Revisiting previous results is all about detecting academic fraud or incompetence

7. Why do we do strategy research?
Help inform managers with how to deal with important and complex problems?
Then understanding the levers that managers have to change outcomes is central to our activities or
Create a self-perpetuating industry where we continually derive new theories or find clever identification to meaningless questions in a quest to publish more papers

8. Or stated a little more fairly
Is getting better-supported and more credible answers to important questions more important than
only looking for novel explanations?
only looking for tight identification?