Research with secondary data: Different matching methods and does it matter.

Our review of all SMJ studies of the last six years reveals that 63 percent use multiple secondary databases, but only 11 percent report how the connections between these databases were made. This limits our knowledge of how information across secondary databases can be combined and restricts the possibilities for replicating these studies. In this paper, we report on four different methods of matching firm-specific data across secondary databases. Through a replication study, we show that empirical results differ based on the matching method used. Additionally, we contribute to the body of knowledge about the effects of different inter-organizational relationships on firms’ innovative performance. This paper should support researchers, reviewers, and editors in making better-informed decisions about how different secondary databases can be matched.