Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The large increase in the average sample size of team studies published in premier management journals over the past decade is concerning. A strict focus on large samples suppresses the study of many teams, particularly less prominent ones; for example, teams in small or medium-sized enterprises, teams in unique contexts, teams containing underrepresented minorities, and teams adopting new technologies. It also impedes our collective understanding of teams by devaluing work relying on philosophies of science that do not prioritize large samples. Large samples allow positivists to establish relationships between constructs. Yet, contextualized, rich data from as few as just one team can help constructivists uncover lived experiences or could be studied by critical realists to identify mechanisms underlying social systems of active agents. In this paper, we review how these three philosophies of science view sample size, addressing how and when small samples are beneficial. Importantly, research from all three traditions is necessary to build an in-depth, practical understanding of teams. We also describe five specific ways small sample research can contribute to team science and lay out four general recommendations for assessing the value of sample size in team research. Throughout, we maintain that scientific progress is collective and pluralistic. A sole reliance on large samples threatens this goal.
Kane et al. (Sat,) studied this question.