Assessing Cumulative Evidence within ‘Macro’ Research: Why Meta-Analysis Should be Preferred Over Vote Counting

Abstract

Understanding the conclusions a body of evidence offers involves accumulating findings. Two recent articles used vote counting to assess the evidence related to important macro theories: transaction cost theory and resource-based theory. Each concluded that its focal theory is not well supported. In contrast, recent meta‐analyses of the same theories concluded that both are strongly supported. We explain why macro researchers should trust the findings of meta‐analyses but not those of vote counts. A direct implication is that researchers interested in advancing transaction cost and resource‐based theories need to build upon the meta‐analytic evidence. A broader implication is that, as the preferred method for accumulating evidence, meta‐analysis can be a catalyst for the re‐evaluation of established theories and the development of new theory.