Sandeep Devanatha Pillai, Brent Goldfarb, David Kirsch
Research SummaryMany strategy studies implicitly rely upon inference to the best explanation (IBE) or modern abduction. We leverage recent work in the philosophy of science to consider how we arrive at “best” explanations, explanations that are lovely, in the sense that they are useful, general, and provide meaning, and likely, in the sense that they are close to the truth. Interpretation of observational results requires an understanding of context that statistical analysis alone cannot provide. At that point of encounter, historical methods—hermeneutics, contextualization and source criticism—can improve IBE by helping scholars (1) generate new candidate explanations and (2) systematically judge, privilege, and balance the explanatory virtues that constitute the loveliness and likeliness of explanations.Managerial SummaryMany strategy studies iteratively use data and theory to inference to the best explanation of observed phenomena. We leverage recent work in the philosophy of science to consider how we arrive at best explanations that are useful, general, provide meaning, and, at the same time, are close to the truth. Interpreting observational results requires an understanding of the context that statistical analysis alone cannot provide. At that point of encounter, methodological tools from the field of history can improve the process of determining the best explanation by helping scholars (1) generate new candidate explanations and (2) systematically judge and privilege explanations.
{"title":"Lovely and likely: Using historical methods to improve inference to the best explanation in strategy","authors":"Sandeep Devanatha Pillai, Brent Goldfarb, David Kirsch","doi":"10.1002/smj.3593","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3593","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryMany strategy studies implicitly rely upon inference to the best explanation (IBE) or modern abduction. We leverage recent work in the philosophy of science to consider how we arrive at “best” explanations, explanations that are lovely, in the sense that they are useful, general, and provide meaning, and likely, in the sense that they are close to the truth. Interpretation of observational results requires an understanding of context that statistical analysis alone cannot provide. At that point of encounter, historical methods—hermeneutics, contextualization and source criticism—can improve IBE by helping scholars (1) generate new candidate explanations and (2) systematically judge, privilege, and balance the explanatory virtues that constitute the loveliness and likeliness of explanations.Managerial SummaryMany strategy studies iteratively use data and theory to inference to the best explanation of observed phenomena. We leverage recent work in the philosophy of science to consider how we arrive at best explanations that are useful, general, provide meaning, and, at the same time, are close to the truth. Interpreting observational results requires an understanding of the context that statistical analysis alone cannot provide. At that point of encounter, methodological tools from the field of history can improve the process of determining the best explanation by helping scholars (1) generate new candidate explanations and (2) systematically judge and privilege explanations.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140045868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryThis article examines whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance reform reduced the gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) entrepreneurship. I argue that the ACA mitigated mobility constraints imposed by employer‐provided health insurance and encouraged entrepreneurship with important contingencies: effects were limited to women because of gender differences in supply‐side cost reduction and demand‐side health insurance needs and were specific to women in STEM (vs. non‐STEM) entrepreneurship because of the human and financial capital needed to navigate insurance markets. Leveraging the ACA quasi‐experiment, I find consistent evidence of a reduced gender gap in STEM entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, the effects were driven by increased STEM entrepreneurship for married women founding unincorporated businesses. Qualitative interview insights and empirical findings provide explanations for these patterns.Managerial SummaryThis study examines whether the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) entrepreneurial gender gap can be reduced by institutional factors mitigating labor market mobility constraints imposed by employer‐provided work benefits. Through the lens of the US ACA reform, I find that broadened access to more affordable health insurance in the alternative individual insurance markets disproportionately encouraged female (vs. male) STEM (vs. non‐STEM) entrepreneurship, thus reducing the STEM entrepreneurial gender gap. Contrary to common assumptions, this effect is driven by married (vs. unmarried) women and is in unincorporated (vs. incorporated) self‐employment. The findings help discern which groups benefit from policy efforts to promote diversity in STEM entrepreneurship and imply that the effectiveness of employer‐provided work benefits as retention tools is dependent on various worker characteristics.
{"title":"Gender gap in STEM entrepreneurship: Effects of the Affordable Care Act reform","authors":"Jiayi Bao","doi":"10.1002/smj.3594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3594","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis article examines whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance reform reduced the gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) entrepreneurship. I argue that the ACA mitigated mobility constraints imposed by employer‐provided health insurance and encouraged entrepreneurship with important contingencies: effects were limited to women because of gender differences in supply‐side cost reduction and demand‐side health insurance needs and were specific to women in STEM (vs. non‐STEM) entrepreneurship because of the human and financial capital needed to navigate insurance markets. Leveraging the ACA quasi‐experiment, I find consistent evidence of a reduced gender gap in STEM entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, the effects were driven by increased STEM entrepreneurship for married women founding unincorporated businesses. Qualitative interview insights and empirical findings provide explanations for these patterns.Managerial SummaryThis study examines whether the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) entrepreneurial gender gap can be reduced by institutional factors mitigating labor market mobility constraints imposed by employer‐provided work benefits. Through the lens of the US ACA reform, I find that broadened access to more affordable health insurance in the alternative individual insurance markets disproportionately encouraged female (vs. male) STEM (vs. non‐STEM) entrepreneurship, thus reducing the STEM entrepreneurial gender gap. Contrary to common assumptions, this effect is driven by married (vs. unmarried) women and is in unincorporated (vs. incorporated) self‐employment. The findings help discern which groups benefit from policy efforts to promote diversity in STEM entrepreneurship and imply that the effectiveness of employer‐provided work benefits as retention tools is dependent on various worker characteristics.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140047774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>The original article to which this Erratum refers was published in <i>Strategic Management Journal</i>. Vol. 44, Issue 3, pp. 737–777, 2023. DOI: 10.1002/smj.3460</p>