We review the literature on evidence-based best practices on how to enhance methodological transparency, which is the degree of detail and disclosure about the specific steps, decisions, and judgment calls made during a scientific study. We conceptualize lack of transparency as a "research performance problem" because it masks fraudulent acts, serious errors, and questionable research practices, and therefore precludes inferential and results reproducibility. Our recommendations for authors provide guidance on how to increase transparency at each stage of the research process: (1) theory, (2) design, (3) measurement, (4) analysis, and (5) reporting of results. We also offer recommendations for journal editors, reviewers, and publishers on how to motivate authors to be more transparent. We group these recommendations into the following categories: (1) manuscript submission forms requiring authors to certify they have taken actions to enhance transparency, (2) manuscript evaluation forms including additional items to encourage reviewers to assess the degree of transparency, and (3) review process improvements to enhance transparency. Taken together, our recommendations provide a resource for doctoral education and training; researchers conducting empirical studies; journal editors and reviewers evaluating submissions; and journals, publishers, and professional organizations interested in enhancing the credibility and trustworthiness of research. Ravi S. Ramani and Nawaf Alabduljader contributed equally to this work. We thank Daan van Knippenberg, Sharon K. Parker, and two anonymous Academy of Management Annals reviewers for highly constructive feedback on previous drafts. Also, we thank P. Knight Campbell for his assistance with the literature review and data collection during the initial stages of our project. A previous version of this article was presented at the

We categorized and content-analyzed 168 methodological literature reviews published in 42 management and applied psychology journals. First, our categorization uncovered that the majority of published reviews (i.e., 85.10%) belong in three categories (i.e., critical, narrative, and descriptive reviews), which points to opportunities and promising directions for additional types of methodological literature reviews in the future (e.g., meta-analytic and umbrella reviews). Second, our content analysis uncovered implicit features of published methodological literature reviews. Based on the results of our content analysis, we created a checklist of actionable recommendations regarding 10 components to include to enhance a methodological literature review’s thoroughness, clarity, and ultimately, usefulness. Third, we describe choices and judgment calls in published reviews and provide detailed explications of exemplars that illustrate how those choices and judgment calls can be made explicit. Overall, our article offers recommendations that are useful for three methodological literature review stakeholder groups: producers (i.e., potential authors), evaluators (i.e., journal editors and reviewers), and users (i.e., substantive researchers interested in learning about a particular methodological issue and individuals tasked with training the next generation of scholars).

No abstract

Purpose Social entrepreneurship courses are among the fastest growing category of course offerings to entrepreneurship students (Brock and Kim, 2011) because both high growth potential- and steady growth-social ventures can create value and help solve social issues effectively and efficiently. As knowledge disseminators, entrepreneurship educators are in prime position to develop the knowledge, skills and abilities of students, which, in turn, increases their intentions to start a social venture and their ability to manage and grow their venture. Students gain an understanding about the role of entrepreneurship in addressing social opportunities, as well as knowledge related to starting, managing and growing social entrepreneurship ventures. This paper is divided into three parts. First, the authors broadly discuss the concept of social entrepreneurship. Second, the authors present an overview of the field of social entrepreneurship education (SEE) and its evolution. Finally, the authors supplement this review with an analytical examination of SEE, in which the authors present results of a cross-country analysis survey of over 200 entrepreneurship education programs in the USA and Canada. This paper aims to present information about: student enrollment in social entrepreneurship courses in comparison to other entrepreneurship courses; the frequency of offering social entrepreneurship courses and programs compared to other entrepreneurship courses and programs; and future trends in SEE. The results revealed a strong demand for social entrepreneurship from students, room for improvement in terms of the supply of course offerings, and a strong belief in the continued growth of social entrepreneurship. The authors conclude with suggestions about the future of SEE. Design/methodology/approach Analysis of secondary data derived from the oldest and most-frequently cited sources regarding entrepreneurship education in the USA and a novel data set examining entrepreneurship education in Canada. Both data sets were collected using an online self-report survey. Findings Demand for SEE continues to rise in both the USA and Canada. However, course and program offerings have not kept pace. Prominent trends in social entrepreneurship such as cross-campus programs and addressing the evolving demographics of students in higher education institutions need more attention. Originality/value A cross-cultural study of SEE that provides a high-level view of the state of the field today. In addition, the paper outlines the potential of the field of knowledge management for the future of SEE.

No abstract