We believe that all strategy and organization (SO) scholars should be able to decide for themselves whether to specialize in certain parts of the knowledge cycle or adopt a broader, multi-method view on the scientific process. In a situation of methodological pluralism, individuals might choose to contribute to the construction of new administrative theories by means of qualitative works like case studies, ethnographies, biographies, or grounded theory studies (e.g. Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). Others could then specialize in testing these theories by means of experiments, surveys or longitudinal econometric studies (e.g. Lewis-Beck, 1987–2004). Again, others could combine both approaches, in Herculean attempts to conduct high-impact, integrative research with the potential to change the way we understand the field as a whole.

Additional Metadata
Keywords business research, business schools, strategy and organization
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127005050030, hdl.handle.net/1765/11593
Series ERIM Article Series (EAS)
Journal Strategic Organization
Citation
Heugens, P.P.M.A.R, & Mol, M.J. (2005). So you call that research? Mending methodological biases in strategy and organization departments of top business schools. Strategic Organization, 117–128. doi:10.1177/1476127005050030