Towards Stronger Causal Claims in Management Research: Causal Triangulation Instead of Causal Identification

This article addresses widespread concerns about the reliability and strength of many causal claims made in management research. We first critically review the three prevalent forms of theorizing used to identify causal relationships in this field, i.e., propositional, configurational, and process approaches to causation. Highlighting the strengths and limitations of these approaches, we show that while no single approach is sufficient by itself as the basis for robust causal claims, researchers can nonetheless enhance and strengthen claims significantly by combining approaches and thus subjecting them to multiple criteria for drawing robust inferences. We emphasize the risks of continuing with narrow monolithic approaches, using examples of weak claims to show how these could have been strengthened (or abandoned) if the researchers had followed our proposed model of causal triangulation. Finally, we elucidate the practical benefits for management researchers and stakeholders in society of adopting this theoretically pluralistic approach to causation.

Automated summary

This article examines concerns regarding the reliability and strength of causal claims in management research. It critiques three prevalent forms of theorizing - propositional, configurational, and process approaches - used to identify causal relationships in this field. It argues that while no single approach is sufficient on its own for robust causal claims, combining approaches and subjecting them to multiple criteria can significantly enhance and strengthen claims. The article highlights the risks of narrow monolithic approaches and proposes a model of causal triangulation for strengthening causal claims.