Methodological rigor of corporate governance studies: A review and recommendations for future studies

• Date: 01 November 2017
• Published date: 01 November 2017
• Author: Angelo M. Solarino,Brian K. Boyd,Steve Gove
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12208

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Methodological rigor of corporate governance studies: A

review and recommendations for future studies

Brian K. Boyd

1

|Steve Gove

2

|Angelo M. Solarino

3

1

City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

2

University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont,

USA

3

Leeds University Business School, United

Kingdom

Correspondence

Brian K. Boyd, City University of Hong Kong.

Email: bkboyd@cityu.edu.hk

Abstract

Manuscript Type: Article/Review

Research Question/Issue: This study presents the results of a longitudinal content analysis

of governance articles published in both CGIR and other leading management outlets. Our aim

with this review is to identify problematic areas, as well as opportunities to improve the

methodological rigor of governance studies.

Research Findings/Insights: We examine key design aspects of corporate governance arti-

cles. We identify and compare trends (1) over time and (2) across publishing outlets. Specifically

examined are the geographic scope of samples, design characteristics (i.e., single‐versus multi‐

year data, the use of archival, survey, experimental, and qualitative designs, data sources, and reli-

ance on concurrent versus longitudinal data), survey response rates and the use of tests for non‐

response bias, the statistical analysis techniques used, reporting of results (number and propor-

tion of hypotheses supported, non‐significant, and counter‐significant, use of statistical power

analysis, reporting of descriptive statistics and correlations, use and significance of control vari-

ables, and endogeneity controls), and the sophistication of the models tests (i.e., mediation and

moderation).

Theoretical/Academic Implications: Based on the results of the review, recommendations

for academic researchers are offered in the following areas: (1) designing theoretical tests which

both incorporate and go beyond main effects; (2) evaluating a research design's analytical param-

eters on an a priori basis to maximize reliability, validity, and the potential for publication; (3)

incorporating assessment of sensitivity and robustness checks into the analysis; and (4) compre-

hensive reporting of results including post hoc power analysis, complete and expanded correlation

matrix(es), reporting and assessing counter‐results, and avoiding HARKing.

KEYWORDS

Corporate Governance, Boards of Directors, Methodology, Research Design, Statistical Analysis

1|INTRODUCTION

This year, Corporate Governance: An International Review (CGIR)

publishes its 25th volume. This silver anniversary offers a unique

opportunity to assess the state of the corporate governance field.

While previous reviews have assessed the state of the corporate

governance research from a theoretical perspective (e.g. Daily, Dalton,

& Cannella, 2003; Filatotchev & Boyd, 2009; Hambrick, Werder, &

Zajac, 2008) assessing methodology provides further insight into how

the field has matured over time. Academic fields and disciplines

advance in two interrelated ways: the nature and sophistication of

the questions being addressed, and the techniques employed to

explore those questions (Kuhn, 1967) –i.e., theory and methods.

Consequently, a content analysis of corporate governance methodol-

ogy is a critical complement to prior reviews of theory.

Indeed, the research topics and methods within a field are not fully

independent, but rather are recursive: Addressing new questions may

require the development of new methods and measures. Conse-

quently, the availability of analytic tools often constrains the types of

questions that can be asked. For example, if a researcher's statistical

arsenal includes only linear regression, then contingency effects such

as moderation and mediation may not be considered when framing

DOI: 10.1111/corg.12208

384 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Corp Govern Int Rev. 2017;25:384–396.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/corg