IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp8705.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Field Experiments in Strategy Research

Author

Listed:
  • Chatterji, Aaron K.

    () (Duke University)

  • Findley, Michael

    () (University of Texas at Austin)

  • Jensen, Nathan M.

    () (George Washington University)

  • Meier, Stephan

    () (Columbia University)

  • Nielson, Daniel

    () (Brigham Young University)

Abstract

Strategy research often aims to empirically establish a causal relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable such as firm performance. For many important strategy research questions, however, traditional empirical techniques are not sufficient to establish causal effects with high confidence. We propose that field experiments have potential to be used more widely in strategy research, leveraging methodological innovations from other disciplines to address persistent puzzles in the literature. We first review the advantages and disadvantages of using field experiments to answer questions in strategy. We define two types of experiments, "strategy field experiments" and "process field experiments," and present an original example of each variety. The first study explores the liability of foreignness and the second study tests theories regarding corporate culture.

Suggested Citation

  • Chatterji, Aaron K. & Findley, Michael & Jensen, Nathan M. & Meier, Stephan & Nielson, Daniel, 2014. "Field Experiments in Strategy Research," IZA Discussion Papers 8705, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp8705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp8705.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angus Deaton, 2010. "Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 424-455, June.
    2. Nicholas Bloom & Luis Garicano & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2014. "The Distinct Effects of Information Technology and Communication Technology on Firm Organization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 2859-2885, December.
    3. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    4. Jens Ludwig & Jeffrey R. Kling & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2011. "Mechanism Experiments and Policy Evaluations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 17-38, Summer.
    5. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    6. Oriana Bandiera & Iwan Barankay & Imran Rasul, 2011. "Field Experiments with Firms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 63-82, Summer.
    7. Lynch, John G, Jr, 1983. " The Role of External Validity in Theoretical Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 109-111, June.
    8. Raghuram G. Rajan & Julie Wulf, 2006. "The Flattening Firm: Evidence from Panel Data on the Changing Nature of Corporate Hierarchies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 759-773, November.
    9. Calder, Bobby J & Phillips, Lynn W & Tybout, Alice M, 1982. " The Concept of External Validity," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 240-244, December.
    10. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, Elsevier.
    11. French, Kenneth R & Poterba, James M, 1991. "Investor Diversification and International Equity Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 222-226, May.
    12. Dean Karlan & Jonathan Zinman, 2009. "Observing Unobservables: Identifying Information Asymmetries With a Consumer Credit Field Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(6), pages 1993-2008, November.
    13. Abhijit V. Banerjee & Esther Duflo, 2009. "The Experimental Approach to Development Economics," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 151-178, May.
    14. Bruno S. Frey & Iris Bohnet, 1999. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 335-339, March.
    15. Lynch, John G, Jr, 1982. " On the External Validity of Experiments in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 225-239, December.
    16. Zaheer, Srilata, 2002. "The liability of foreignness, redux: a commentary," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 351-358.
    17. repec:feb:artefa:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    19. Lorenz Goette & David Huffman & Stephan Meier & Matthias Sutter, 2012. "Competition Between Organizational Groups: Its Impact on Altruistic and Antisocial Motivations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 948-960, May.
    20. Xinshu Zhao & John G. Lynch & Qimei Chen, 2010. "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 197-206, August.
    21. Guilhem Bascle, 2008. "Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research," Post-Print hal-00576795, HAL.
    22. Robert Gibbons & Rebecca Henderson, 2012. "Relational Contracts and Organizational Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1350-1364, October.
    23. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1996. "What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 502-518, October.
    24. Hutchinson, J Wesley & Kamakura, Wagner A & Lynch, John G, Jr, 2000. " Unobserved Heterogeneity as an Alternative Explanation for "Reversal" Effects in Behavioral Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 324-344, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hunt Allcott & Richard L. Sweeney, 2017. "The Role of Sales Agents in Information Disclosure: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 21-39, January.
    2. repec:pal:jintbs:v:48:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1057_s41267-016-0047-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Hönl, Andreas & Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Risk attribution theory: An exploratory conceptualization of individual choice under uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 20-27.
    4. repec:bla:jscmgt:v:53:y:2017:i:4:p:37-66 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    field experiments; research methods; culture; liability of foreignness; foreign direct investment; strategy research; corporate culture;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iza:izadps:dp8705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Fallak). General contact details of provider: http://www.iza.org .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.