| name | amj-methods |
| description | Use when the research design and method are the bottleneck for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — matching design (archival, survey, experiment, multi-method, field) and level of analysis to the theoretical question. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation or validity checks (amj-data-analysis). |
Research Design & Methods (amj-methods)
When to trigger
- The design may not match the theory's level, timing, or causal claim
- Data are single-source, single-wave, and self-reported (common-method bias risk)
- The theory is causal but the design is cross-sectional/correlational
- Constructs lack established, validated measures
- A reviewer says "the design cannot test this hypothesis" or "endogeneity is unaddressed"
Match the design to the question
AMJ explicitly welcomes all empirical methods — qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, meta-analytic, and mixed. The bar is fit and rigor, not a single preferred method, and qualitative designs are held to an equally demanding standard (the Eisenhardt multiple-case approach and the Gioia methodology for grounded qualitative rigor are the field's reference points).
| Theoretical claim | Design that earns it |
|---|
| Causal effect of a manipulable cause | Experiment (lab/field/online), or natural experiment |
| Process unfolding over time | Multi-wave panel; longitudinal/lagged design |
| Firm/strategy outcomes from archival cause | Panel archival with fixed effects + endogeneity strategy |
| Cross-level mechanism (e.g., team→indiv.) | Multilevel/nested data with HLM-appropriate structure |
| Rich, novel, or contested phenomenon | Qualitative or multi-method (often paired with a study 2) |
