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

P>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.