This topic sparks a growing debate among established scholars across various domains. Most well-established scholars tend to view replication research as a waste of time, often arguing that Validation is NOT New and likely not publishable. However, in recent years the tide has been changing, with various academics and Journals starting to encourage more replication research, with the intent to solidify what we know, so that it provides the foundation for future theory development. In this text, I aim to give some additional information that might be valuable to early career researchers (particularly PhD students), and anyone else curious about replication research.
What is Replication Research?
Upon reflection, the natural starting point is to explain what is meant by replication research, and how this differs from that which scholars often refer to as “novel research”. My interpretation is that there generally are three types of replication research, as shown below.
| Pure Replication | Exact (or as close to exact as possible) replication of the original study. |
| Constructive Replication | Replicating the original study but improving one or more of the methodological aspects. To provide for a more robust re-examination of the original study. |
| Replication and Extension | Replicating and extending often entails replicating the original study but extending it to a different context or by adding to/improving the original theoretical framework. |
Whichever type of replication you consider doing depends greatly on the study which you aim to replicate, and on your intentions for doing so. If you intend to help solidify the body of knowledge within your domain, a pure (or quasi) replication of the original paper is the way to go. This is because the boundaries tend to become blurred between a replication and extension and novel research since all novel research (especially in the social sciences) is to some extent a replication of prior literature.
Choosing which study to replicate?
Choosing the right (or an appropriate) study to replicate is probably the most important part of conducting a replication study. Because if we aim to solidify the foundation of previous knowledge, we need to ask ourselves the following questions.
- Where do the foundations come from?
- How do I argue the need for replicating the study?
The first question is not as easy as it may sound. For most, they would flock to the studies that are considered “seminal” within their respective fields. Likely the most common ways people endeavor to find these papers are to go look for the most cited papers in the most highly ranked journals. However, this approach has some pitfalls that one needs to be aware of. For instance, just because a paper has the most citations it does not necessarily mean that it has had the greatest impact. Citation counts often follow trending topics and the trendier the topic the more conflated the citation counts may be. The next concern is choosing the most appropriate database for determining citation counts with the most popular being Google Scholar, CrossRef, and Scopus, all with differing results. Therefore, identifying seminal papers based on citation counts only provides for the relative impact of papers and requires further and more careful consideration.
After doing your due diligence in identifying the papers that have most likely had the greatest impact in your domain, one needs to consider why replicating the study is even necessary. Because the odds are that multiple studies fit into this “seminal” category, and how does one argue for replicating one instead of the others? Well, there are two common avenues one could consider in addition to arguing for the paper’s relative impact (citation count).
| Arguing why the replication would be valuable in today’s context. |
| Highlighting a part of the theoretical framework that might not hold in today’s context. |
Even though the attitude toward replication research is changing, it does not necessarily mean it will be easier to publish. One would argue that the difficulty of publishing replication research has been the main reason why most scholars tend to shy away from replicating prior studies. However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel, with some journals launching special issues using pre-registration to motivate scholars to conduct more replication research.
Replication as an opportunity for PhD students.
Reflecting on the challenges that PhD students face in today’s academic environment, it’s becoming more important to play the “academic game”, which essentially means you need to publish well and do so frequently. For most PhD students it’s really difficult to publish well while still graduating on time. For these students, I recommend seriously considering replication research as a starting point for their academic journey. This is because conducting a replication study as your “first” article provides you with the opportunity to explore the literature and sharpen up your methodological skills and analyses while not losing too much of your precious time. This might be particularly helpful for students struggling to identify a topic or specific research question, to get the wheels in motion.
Therefore, since Academic Journals are increasingly looking for more replication research, I urge Ph.D. students and early career researchers to seriously consider this largely untapped avenue for publication. In addition to the personal benefits, conducting replication research will likely also help your domain solidify the foundation on which prior knowledge is built, which is a net benefit for the field and would reflect well on your reputation.
If you want to read more about replication research, have a look at the following papers to get you started.
Articles
Bettis, R. A., Helfat, C. E., & Shaver, J. M. (2016). The necessity, logic, and forms of replication. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2193-2203.
Gattiker, T. F., Hartmann, J., Wynstra, F., Pagell, M., Cantor, D., Yan, T., & Tate, W. (2022). Testing the shoulders of giants—Replication research using registered reports. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 58(3), 89-94.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks