| 书目名称 | Empirical Research within Resource-Based Theory | | 副标题 | A Meta-Analysis of t | | 编辑 | Katja Nothnagel | | 视频video | | | 丛书名称 | Strategisches Kompetenz-Management | | 图书封面 |  | | 描述 | In the last ten years, the Resource-Based View (RBV) has become an important theoretical approach in strategic management. Concurrently, or at least since the contribution of Priem/Butler, there has been an increase in criticism of the theoretical and empirical power of the RBV. In this context Katja Nothnagel identifies three main deficiencies in the present discussion on the RBV: 1. An inadequate understanding of the central constructs and the empirically revisable hypotheses of the RBV. 2. An insufficient comprehension regarding the state of the art of the empirical research on the RBV and therefore of the empirical power of the RBV. 3. An inadequate systematic in respect to the methodical problems and the evaluation of alternative methods of research. This is the starting point of Katja Nothnagel’s thesis, in that she aims to contribute to the elimination of all three deficiencies. Firstly, she concentrates on the ten most important theoretical publications on the RBV and thus identifies the three central constructs: resources, performance, and markets. These three central constructs are described in detail and defined. This represents an essential step in the establishment of | | 出版日期 | Book 2008 | | 关键词 | Resource conditions; Resource-based Theory; Strategische Ressourcen; Strategisches Management; Wettbewer | | 版次 | 1 | | doi | https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9830-9 | | isbn_softcover | 978-3-8349-0921-3 | | isbn_ebook | 978-3-8349-9830-9 | | copyright | Gabler Verlag | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Wiesbaden 2008 |
| 1 |
Front Matter |
|
|
Abstract
|
| 2 |
,Introduction, |
|
|
Abstract
Looking at resource-based theory (hereafter RBT) within the literature of the past two decades, the importance of firm resources for gaining sustainable competitive advantages and rents seems no longer questionable.. The literature provides a number of protruding theoretical papers,. as well as numerous empirical studies.. Yet, the heated debate still continues whether RBT can even be considered a theory.. Basically, opponents are questioning the empirical testability of its core tenets, also known as the tautology criticism: critics argue that the theory’s primary assertions are true by definition, i.e., the theoretical constructs are defined in ways that are . and therefore not empirically testable.. The following exchange illustrates this argument:
|
| 3 |
,The Central Propositions of Resource-based Theory, |
|
|
Abstract
According to Sutton and Staw (1995), building a theory is a complex process and there is still a lack of agreement amongst scholars on what theory is and should be.. Varied interpretations can be found whether a model or a framework equates a theory or whether being falsifiable is seen as a sine qua non for the very existence of a theory.. As Merton (1967) asserts:.Following Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986), several theories can be found within strategic management, all basically trying to explain firm performance, to clarify performance differences between firms and to give prescriptive implications on how to gain competitive advantages and, hence, sustainable performance.. Recently, in trying to accomplish these objectives, there has been a shift of perspective: before, researchers were focusing on firmexternal factors, whereas now firm-internal factors (i.e., resources) come to the fore. The emergence of this resource-based perspective has also triggered a new discussion within strategic management on the subject of what theory is and what it is not. Participants are basically arguing whether this resource-based perspective currently known as the resourcebased . (RBV) can actual
|
| 4 |
,Review of Empirical Research within RBT, |
|
|
Abstract
As outlined in chapter 2, the importance of firm resources for gaining rents, i.e., the RBT, seems no longer questionable in theory, but empirical evidence on its role in strategic management is still in progress. In other words, RBT has become theoretically established in strategic management, yet, the question where we empirically stand is still to be resolved.. Whether the central propositions of RBT withstand — overall — empirical testing is still a question unanswered, as is the query whether these empirical results might even revise RBT in general.
|
| 5 |
,RBT: Vote Counting and Meta-Analysis, |
|
|
Abstract
Following Godfrey and Hill (1995), RBT must survive rigorous empirical testing before one could refer to it as a sufficiently supported theory.. After having analyzed the operationalizations of the theory’s central constructs and propositions within the 192 empirical papers, the following chapter thus emphasizes the empirical corroboration of RBT in terms of its overall statistical significance regarding the empirical results. Accordingly, chapter 4 further attends to the second deficit identified within this dissertation: the lack of understanding towards the empirical validation of RBT is addressed by integrating the empirical results.
|
| 6 |
,Methodological Challenges regarding RBT, |
|
|
Abstract
Hoskisson et al. (1999) assert that the research methods applied within empirical tests of RBT in the past, overall, do not seem to be suitable for the task at hand. The authors argue that it is due to the emphasis on the idiosyncratic nature of a firm’s resources and capabilities that empirical testing of RBT faces great challenges.. As previously outlined in chapter 2.3, the power of RBT in explaining sustainable performance is based upon strategic resources, i.e., on valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources, which are, in part, by their nature unobservable (e.g., tacit knowledge, organizational culture).. As a result, empirical testing of these unobservable resources and their effects on firm performance seems to be difficult. “Regarding these challenges, the need for a multiplicity of methods to identify, measure, and understand firm resources is increasing. Empirically we have some understanding of the . in many cases but now need to extend our methodology so we can know . as well.”
|
| 7 |
,Conclusion and Future Research Agenda, |
|
|
Abstract
The introductory chapter of this dissertation outlined the continuously heated debate of whether RBT can in fact be considered a theory, with critics basically questioning the empirical testability of RBT. Throughout this dissertation, it became obvious that RBT is — and has been — empirically testable. To make this argument, I addressed and cleared each of the three main research deficits of RBT in this respect: (1) the lack of understanding towards RBT’s central empirically testable propositions; (2) the lack of understanding towards the empirical validation of RBT, i.e., no thorough efforts towards the accumulation and integration of research findings; and (3) the lack of systematically addressing the methodological problems, and evaluating a broader basis of more suitable methods. In the following, I will conclude on the main findings, while also outlining implications for RBT. In addition, I will discuss the dissertation’s limitations as well as provide a future research agenda for resource-based research, both theoretically and empirically.
|
| 8 |
Back Matter |
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
发表于 2025-3-21 20:04:40
