qualitative research in international business example

Putting qualitative international business research in context(s)

• Open access
• Published: 23 November 2021
• Volume 53 , pages 27–38, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• A. Rebecca Reuber 1 &
• Eileen Fischer 2  

8276 Accesses

22 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The Welch et al. (J Int Bus Stud 42(5):740–762, 2011) JIBS Decade Award-winning article highlights the importance of the contextualization of international business research that is based on qualitative research methods. In this commentary, we build on their foundation and develop further the role of contextualization, in terms of the international business phenomena under study, contemporaneous conversations about qualitative research methods, and the situatedness of individual papers within the broader research process. Our remarks are largely targeted to authors submitting international business papers based on qualitative research, and to the gatekeepers – editors and reviewers – assessing them, and we provide some guidance with respect to these three dimensions of context.

L’article de Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki et Paavilainen-Mäntymäki’s (2011) - lauréat du JIBS Decade Award - met en lumière l’importance de la contextualisation dans la recherche en affaires internationales basée sur les méthodes qualitatives. Dans ce commentaire, nous nous appuyons sur leur fondement et développons davantage le rôle de la contextualisation, plus spécifiquement, les trois dimensions du contexte, à savoir le contexte du phénomène d’affaires internationales à l’étude, le contexte des conversations contemporaines sur les méthodes de recherche qualitative, et la contextualisation des papiers particuliers dans le processus de recherche plus large. La cible principale de nos remarques est double : d’abord, elles s’adressent aux auteurs qui soumettent les articles portés sur les affaires internationales et basés sur la recherche qualitative ; ensuite, elles sont aussi destinées aux gardiens - éditeurs et évaluateurs - en charge de les évaluer. Nous apportons également quelques orientations liées à ces trois dimensions du contexte.

El artículo ganador del premio de la Década de JIBS de Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki y Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (2011) resalta la importancia de la contextualización de la investigación en negocios internacionales que se basa en métodos de investigación cualitativos. En este comentario, nos basamos en sus fundamentos y desarrollamos aún más el papel de la contextualización, en términos de los fenómenos de negocios internacionales que se estudian, las conversaciones contemporáneas sobre los métodos de investigación cualitativa y donde se sitúan los artículos individuales en el proceso de investigación más amplio. Nuestras aportaciones se dirigen en gran medida a los autores que presentan trabajos sobre negocios internacionales basados en investigación cualitativa, y a los controladores de acceso (editores y evaluadores) en la evaluación de estos, y damos algunas orientaciones con respecto a estas tres dimensiones del contexto.

O artigo vencedor do JIBS Decade Award de Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (2011) destaca a importância da contextualização da pesquisa de negócios internacionais que se baseia em métodos qualitativos de pesquisa. Neste comentário, desenvolvemos a partir de sua base e desenvolvemos ainda mais o papel da contextualização, em termos dos fenômenos de negócios internacionais em estudo, conversas contemporâneas sobre métodos de pesquisa qualitativa e a situação de artigos individuais dentro do processo de pesquisa mais amplo. Nossos comentários são amplamente direcionados a autores que enviam artigos de negócios internacionais com base em pesquisa qualitativa e aos gatekeepers - editores e revisores - que os avaliam, e fornecemos algumas orientações com relação a essas três dimensões de contexto.

Welch、Piekkari、Plakoyiannaki 和 Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (2011 年) 的JIBS 十年获奖文章强调了基于定性研究方法的国际商务研究情境化的重要性。在这篇评论中, 我们就所研究的国际商务现象、定性研究方法的同期对话和更广泛的研究过程中个别论文的定位, 在他们的基础上进一步开发了情境化的作用。我们的评论主要针对的是提交基于定性研究的国际商务论文的作者和对这些论文进行评估的看门人——编辑和审稿人, 我们就情境的这三个维度提供了指导。

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

INTRODUCTION

More than a decade ago, Catherine Welch, Rebecca Piekkari, Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki and Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki looked over the landscape of qualitative international business (IB) research and found it wanting. They believed there was a dearth of choices in methodological approaches to qualitative research, which led to limited diversity in methods and, more seriously, to a paucity of theoretical insights being generated. As a response, they developed a typology of approaches to case study research and published it in the article “Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research” (Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2011 ). This article (hereafter referred to as WPPP) has received the 2021 JIBS Decade Award, and we are honored to be invited to write a commentary on it ten years after it was published.

The Decade Award recognizes the most influential paper published in JIBS in a given year, and the selection committee articulated three main reasons for the influence of WPPP. It has been highly and widely cited. It initiated a much-needed discussion about making and articulating explicit and consistent methods-related choices that raised the quality expectations of authors and reviewers. And it emphasized the importance of contextualization in IB theory developed through qualitative research, which is what we focus on in this commentary. These are important and impactful outcomes to celebrate.

In this commentary we extend their discussion by highlighting three aspects of the contextualization of IB research. First, we examine the contextualization of the international business phenomena under study. Second, we consider the context in which papers are written, in terms of contemporaneous conversations about qualitative research methods. Third, we discuss the situatedness of individual papers within the broader research process. Our remarks are largely targeted to authors submitting IB papers based on qualitative research, and to the gatekeepers – editors and reviewers – assessing them, and we provide some guidance with respect to these three dimensions of context. Before our discussion of context, however, we first make some preliminary remarks on the WPPP typology.

THE TYPOLOGY

Despite the importance of WPPP, we disagree with some aspects of it, as is a normal part of scholarly discussions. In particular, we have some reservations about the typology itself. We believe that it mischaracterizes certain case-oriented research methods, particularly those associated with Eisenhardt ( 1989 ) and Yin ( 2009 ); for a more recent discussion of case methods, see Eisenhardt ( 2020 , 2021 ) and Gehman, Glaser, Eisenhardt, Gioia, Langley, and Corley ( 2018 ). We are also confused by WPPP’s notions of the transferability of findings based on qualitative methods because the distinctions they make do not seem to be mutually exclusive. For example, “generalization to population” (associated with inductive theory building), “generalization to theory” (associated with natural experiments), and “contingent and limited generalization” (associated with contextualized explanations) (Welch et al., 2011 : 745) seem simultaneously true of much qualitative research because the relevant population and extant literature are bounded. Finally, even though WPPP state that they aim to increase research plurality rather than to advocate for a particular approach, it is difficult not to see the WPPP typology (as depicted on p. 750) as a normative framework when one quadrant is labeled “weak, weak” and another quadrant is labeled “strong, strong” on qualities argued to be good. We find it particularly difficult to understand the denigration of induction, given that qualitative research is widely seen to be based on both inductive and abductive reasoning; see a discussion of this in two disciplines important to IB, management (Grodal, Anteby, & Holm, 2020 ; Harley & Cornelissen, 2020 ; Van Maanen, Sørensen, & Mitchell, 2007 ) and marketing (Dolbec, Fischer, & Canniford, 2021 ).

Given these misgivings, when we started to write this commentary, we sought to understand how the WPPP typology has been used in subsequent IB scholarship. It is not possible to assess whether WPPP has increased IB research plurality, because a “before” base rate does not exist. Instead, we followed the approach used by Lerman, Mmbaga, and Smith ( 2020 ) who studied how the ideas in Langley’s ( 1999 ) article on process data analysis were applied in subsequent research, and examined how WPPP ideas were applied in the JIBS articles that cite it. We found that while a few authors correctly classify their research according to the WPPP typology, more do so incorrectly or inconsistently, and some authors reference the article incorrectly. For example, some suggest that it recommends building theory inductively, which it does not. However, the majority of papers reference WPPP with what Lerman et al ( 2020 ) refer to as a “cursory nod.” These cursory nods are general statements, such as assertions that case studies are dominant in qualitative IB research or that case studies are well suited for theory development. The high rate of cursory nods seems characteristic of highly cited articles in general (see Aguilera & Grøgaard, 2019 ; Lerman et al., 2020 ). More specifically, given the paucity of authoritative references on qualitative methods in IB in 2011, we believe that cursory nods to WPPP played an important role in legitimating qualitative research in general, and case studies in particular, when authors submitted an article or when reviewers requested methods-related justification. Thus, we do not view cursory nods negatively. Rather, we see them as pointing to claims that need to be legitimated. We return to this point later in the commentary. From this investigation, we found that the most references to WPPP relate to the contextualization of IB theory, which supported our interest in this aspect of the article. It is to this that we now turn.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCH

WPPP note that contextualization of theory is particularly important in IB research given the diversity of national contexts (Welch et al., 2011 : 741). It is therefore unsurprising that papers embracing the contextualization of IB phenomena have been influential in the field. To illustrate this influence, Table 1 lists the last ten Decade Award-winning articles in JIBS . It is evident from their titles that most of the articles are explicitly context-oriented and even a quick reading of the remaining papers reveals strong contextual undertones. Collectively, these award-winning papers span context conceptualized as: culture (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006 ; Shenkar, 2001 ; Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010 ); business networks (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009 ); institutions (Brouthers, 2002 ; Jackson & Deeg, 2008 ; Meyer & Peng, 2005 ); countries (Buckley, Clegg, Cross, Liu, Voss, & Zheng, 2007 ; Minbaeva, Fitzsimmons, & Brewster, 2003 ); and industries (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004 ). Table 1 also provides an excerpt from a commentary written about each award-wining article. These excerpts show that when scholars discussed the articles a decade after they had been published, they were calling for even greater scope and/or depth of contextualization. Context is not the only notion discussed in these articles and commentaries, of course, but it is invariably an important part of the discussion.

These Decade Award-winning articles are either conceptual or based on quantitative data, and the primary emphasis is on contextual differences ; specifically, the papers focus on how and why outcomes vary across contexts. The articles are consistent with the assertion that “exploring the contingency effects of contextual differences on specific relations is central to the field of IB” (Beugelsdijk, Kostova, & Roth, 2017 : 38). WPPP suggest that context can play a broader role in qualitative IB research methods and we agree. In the paragraphs that follow, we attempt to advance this agenda by examining the concept of context more closely. Guidelines relevant to the three aspects of context discussed in this commentary are shown in Table 2 .

THE CONTEXT OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PHENOMENA BEING STUDIED

A distinction we find useful is the difference between a paper’s empirical context and the theoretical concepts it can reveal. A case can be an empirical unit (e.g., the European sales division of a large multinational company) and also an instance of a theoretical category (e.g., an instance of subsidiary role evolution), to draw on Balogun, Jarzabkowski, and Vaara ( 2011 ) as an example. Cases as empirical units exist independently and are “found,” while researchers construct or “make” the claim that empirical cases can be used to learn (more) about certain theoretical constructs (see Ragin, 1992 ). Categorization therefore underlies the coupling of the empirical case and the theoretical construct (Cornelissen, Höllerer, & Seidl, 2021 ; Grodal et al., 2020 ). The value of an empirical case as an instance of a theoretical category is based on how it expands understandings of the theoretical conversation about the focal category (Walton, 1992 ). Keeping in mind this distinction between an empirical case context and theoretical constructs that can be abstracted from the empirical case can help authors in crafting contextualized papers and reviewers in assessing them.

Selecting Research Sites as Empirical Contexts

As WPPP assert, authors need to embed the theoretical explanations offered in a paper in the study’s empirical context. Thus, the selection of research sites is the bedrock on which the theoretical explanation rests, and we’re surprised that WPPP does not discuss this issue. Specific research sites and informants should be selected to ensure that the focal phenomenon can be observed in a manner which facilitates theoretic insights. Various approaches to doing this can be observed in papers published in JIBS .

One approach prioritizes contextual contingencies and attention to variance. The researcher can “bake” variance into the selection of empirical cases, in order to be able to explain the effects of different contextual conditions on outcomes. For example, Geary and Aguzzoli ( 2016 ) varied the institutional and organizational conditions of subsidiaries within a single Brazilian multinational enterprise (MNE) (the empirical context) and explained variation in HRM practices by the power relations and institutional change they faced (the theoretical matter of interest).

A second approach prioritizes theoretical or literal replication (Yin, 2009 : 54) rather than variance. The researcher can identify the gap in the conversation related to the theoretical construct in the literature and select a set of research sites (empirical cases) where the theoretical phenomenon is most likely to be observed. Multiple cases are selected to achieve theoretical saturation: the point at which the analytical categories of the phenomenon are well specified and further data gathering is unlikely to yield little new to the conceptualizations (Corbin & Strauss, 2008 : 263). For example, Monaghan and Tippmann ( 2018 ) selected MNEs selling software (the empirical context) to explain how companies multinationalize rapidly due to pressures for early market domination (the theoretical matter of interest).

A third approach prioritizes confrontation with existing theory. The researcher can select an empirical case that is known a priori to be at odds with current theoretical explanations (see Siggelkow, 2007 ). Jonsson and Foss ( 2011 ) followed this approach when they studied the retailer IKEA (the empirical context). While then-current theory on replication strategy emphasized the cost of deviating from precise replication (Winter & Szulanski, 2001 ), IKEA was known to be successful in combining replication with increasing local adaptation (the theoretical matter of interest). The purpose of the research was to extend existing theory on replication strategy by explaining how the company was able to do so.

This discussion shows that there are multiple ways for qualitative researchers to select empirical cases to develop explanations for new theoretical categories. At a fundamental level they should recognize the difference between an empirical context and the theoretical constructs that it may be an instance of, and the importance of selecting empirical cases based on theoretical considerations. Authors need a strong grounding in prior literature to do this well, to ensure that they are attuned to the theoretical implications of different empirical contextual features and recognize that some empirical contexts are likely to be richer in this respect than others. In papers undergoing review, authors should provide, and gatekeepers should insist on, an explanation of the theoretical constructs that are focal, and how they justify the selection of empirical research sites and informants. And once the empirical findings have been presented, authors should provide an explanation in the other direction, from the empirical context to the theoretical constructs, to show how their study has changed our collective understanding of the focal theoretical conversation.

Selecting Analytical Boundaries to Define Theoretical Constructs

Qualitative IB researchers have discretion over how they embed the empirical context in the theoretical explanations they provide through their research, but regardless of the approach they use, they can use only a small proportion of the empirical contextual conditions characterizing research sites and informants. Askegaard and Linnet ( 2011 ) point out that any particular empirical context is multidimensional, involving culture, nationality, geography, history, temporality, materiality, and so on. And Johns ( 2006 ) illustrates that the manifestation of a particular contextual feature can vary by salience and impact. Thus, any empirical research setting is characterized by a myriad of contextual features. In order to avoid particularism, where cases are incomparable because they are contextually unique, an analytical decision for authors is to select which of the contextual conditions characterizing the setting is relevant to the theoretical story they are telling in their paper (Askegaard & Linnet, 2011 ). In embedding their empirical study in a particular theoretical conversation, they are disconnecting it from other theoretical conversations, thereby articulating the basis on which their findings can be compared with those of other studies.

This suggests that delineating the boundary conditions (Busse, Kach, & Wagner, 2017 ) of the explanations provided by their study is an important task for authors, as WPPP assert. Tenzer, Pudelko, and Harzing ( 2014 ) provide an illustration of such delineation. To focus on variance in the theoretical phenomenon of interest (trust formation in multinational teams), they kept home country and industry constant. The authors recognized that the boundedness of the empirical context might constrain the transferability of their theoretical insights to other empirical contexts. Accordingly, they cautioned that “our findings are specific to our case companies of the Germany automotive industry, and care needs to be taken when transferring them to MNTs [multinational teams] in other corporations, home countries and industries” (Tenzer et al., 2014 : 530). Failure to specify boundary conditions may lead to misleading foundations for future research. For example, a decade after their study on knowledge transfers in international acquisitions was published, Birkinshaw, Bresman, and Nobel ( 2010 : 24) observed that the Swedish MNEs they studied were different than other MNEs and so their study “ended up putting forth a very ‘Swedish’ view of the world” that might not be reflected in a study of American or Japanese MNEs. Here the empirical context of the paper remains stable over time, but the authors have reinterpreted the theoretical transferability of the study with the passage of time.

THE CONTEXT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS

When authors write empirical papers, they often rely on authoritative methods-related references to justify their choices. This suggests that a second facet of context relevant to the plural ways in which qualitative IB researchers can theorize is the evolution of understandings about what constitutes good practice, or even “best practice.” Eisenhardt ( 2021 ) reminds us that methods-related discussions are always embedded in an institutional context, and that what is considered appropriate or advisable when it comes to gathering, analyzing, and writing up findings changes over time, and may be specific to certain fields (such as IB) or journals (such as JIBS ) at a particular point in time.

To put WPPP into its institutional context then, it is important to consider what methodological conversations and controversies about the conduct of qualitative research were current when WPPP was published in 2011. At that time, papers based on qualitative research in general, and qualitative case study research in particular, were increasingly being published in the broader field of management with which IB intersects; indeed, in the decade between 2000 and 2010, there were as many qualitative papers published in management journals as in the prior two decades combined (Bluhm, Harman, Lee, & Mitchell, 2011 ). Moreover, qualitative research was being recognized for the caliber of its contributions, with papers reliant on qualitative methods frequently being rated as offering the most novel and counter-intuitive theories (e.g., Bartunek, Rynes, & Ireland, 2006 ).

Within the field of IB at the time WPPP was published, then, qualitative research was in the process of gaining legitimacy, and it was becoming more likely that it would be published in JIBS . Yet barriers to publishing qualitative research persist, at least in part because reviewers have difficulty assessing the quality of this type of work (Pratt, 2009 ). And it seems that within the field of IB, authors who choose to conduct qualitative research are sometimes compelled to justify having done so. For example, the introduction to the methods section in Jonsson & Foss ( 2011 ) (which appeared in the same special issue as WPPP) begins with a defense of “small-N research designs” (by which they appear to mean any kind of qualitative research based on a small number of case studies). In part, it reads as follows:

Small-N research designs are often regarded as somewhat suspect, as heavy sample bias implies problems of external validity …. However, a basic lack of knowledge about which variables matter, how they are causally related, etc., often warrants small-N samples … [A]s Dyer and Wilkins ( 1991 : 617) explain, if executed well, case studies can be extremely powerful [when] authors have described general phenomenon so well that others have little difficulty seeing the same phenomenon in their own experience and research ….. Such [well-executed cases] are successful in terms of identifying generative mechanisms that other researchers can recognize in the cases they investigate (Jonsson & Foss, 2011 : 1083–1084).

Regardless of whether these lines were included in the original submission or whether the authors added them during the review process, they appear to suggest that, at that time, qualitative research struggled for acceptance, and was still regarded by some as “somewhat suspect.”

In their prevailing institutional context, then, it is not surprising that WPPP sought to systematize the craft of conducting qualitative research in general, and case studies in particular. Their efforts to delineate terminology and differentiate among types of case studies can be seen as offering guidance to qualitative researchers to help them improve their chances of conducting high quality work and ultimately navigating the review process successfully. This same goal can be discerned in work published in the broader field of management, both prior to and during the same time period, that offered “templates” (Langley & Abdallah, 2011 ) for conducting different kinds of qualitative research. Chief among these were Eisenhardt’s ( 1989 ) articulation of the multiple case study method, Langley’s tutorial on process theorizing ( 1999 ), and Gioia’s grounded theory inspired approach to data analysis (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013 ). Though it was not necessarily the explicit intent of these authors (see Gehman et al., 2018 ), each of these templates offered aspiring qualitative researchers advice on how to craft a contribution that would not only be theoretically novel, but that would also be regarded as conforming to a credible genre of qualitative research by reviewers at a time when “boilerplates” (Pratt, 2009 ) were in scarce supply.

These reflections on the institutional context a decade ago raise questions about emerging aspects of the institutional context for qualitative research in international business today. Two striking trends are worth noting, given our goal of helping authors who seek to publish qualitative work, and gatekeepers who handle qualitative submissions to IB journals. The first of these trends, perhaps paradoxically, is a turn against templates of the type that have become popularized. Although templates have helped to de-mystify the qualitative research process for scholars and offer some methodological coherence, leading figures among the qualitative methods cognoscenti have begun to advocate moving away from the use of methodological templates both in conducting, and reporting on the conduct of, qualitative research (e.g., Corley, Bansal, & Yu, 2021 : Eisenhardt, 2021 ; Eisenhardt, Graebner, & Sonenshein, 2016 ; Harley & Cornelissen, 2020 ; Pratt, Sonenshein, & Feldman, 2020b ; Reay, Zafar, Monteiro, & Glaser, 2019 ).

There are multiple reasons for this “anti-template” turn. Seasoned qualitative researchers are observing that templates encourage formulaic, oversimplified approaches to conducting and reporting on the conduct of qualitative research that often violate the very spirit in which the original templates were proposed (e.g., Eisenhardt et al., 2016 ; Harley & Cornelissen, 2020 ; Pratt et al., 2020b ). This arises in part because novice qualitative researchers fail to realize that templates cannot and should not fully specify how data collection or analysis should be undertaken. Moreover, close adherence to templates can restrict the methodological approaches to a much narrower set than is ideal, and may inhibit researchers from using appropriate, if less common, forms of qualitative data analysis (for example, narrative analysis, Pratt et al., 2020b ). And templates can stifle novelty and creativity both in the approach to analyzing data, and in the theories that result (Corley et al., 2021 ). While these template-based approaches may reassure (some) reviewers that qualitative research has been done rigorously, leading methodologists reject this view, and argue that the standardization associated with templates must be resisted lest “rigor” give way to “rigor mortis” (Eisenhardt et al., 2016 ) and excessive conformity result in dull and uninspiring scholarship (Harley & Cornelissen, 2020 ; Reay et al, 2019 ).

The second trend of note is a decoupling of calls for transparency from those for replicability in qualitative research (e.g., Monroe, 2018 ; Pratt, Kaplan, & Whittington, 2020a ). The “replication crisis” in experimental psychology has led some to suggest that in order for qualitative research to be transparent, it needs be replicable. This argument is flawed, however, on ontological, epistemological, and ethical grounds.

Ontologically, the notion that research should be replicable assumes that reality is static and unchanging. However, most qualitative research is anchored in an assumption that reality is not fixed and unchanging but rather is continuously changing and contextually contingent in complex ways. Epistemologically, the notion that research procedures can be fully determined in advance based on a priori hypotheses, while often applicable to experimental research, is inapplicable for qualitative research; qualitative research is not based on deductively testing hypotheses but is typically guided by a mixture of induction and abduction, which can only be realized if qualitative researchers are open to amending their research procedures based on insights they glean during data collection and analysis (Pratt et al., 2020a , 2020b ). This is why pre-registration of studies is inappropriate for qualitative work (Pham & Oh, 2021 ). Ethically, certain procedures advocated for ensuring the replicability of experimental research can be inappropriate for qualitative research. In particular, calls that suggest that replicability will only be possible with full transparency in the form of public sharing of data fail to recognize that much qualitative data cannot be de-identified, and that it would therefore be unethical to store such data in public repositories (Monroe, 2018 ). Interview transcripts are difficult if not impossible to strip of all identifying information, and the same is often true of field notes. As Pratt et al. ( 2020a : 8) note, most ethics review boards would deem it inappropriate to share interviews in a publicly accessible archive because “doing so could allow members of the public, including those in power over the interviewee, to know the identity of the interviewee.”

Arguments against applying a replicability logic to qualitative research have gained such traction that a recent JIBS editorial declares: “Replication as a quality-related criterion is especially relevant for quantitative research, but rarely applicable to qualitative research …. For qualitative research, the rich reporting of evidence inside the article can assist the reader in verifying quality” (Beugelsdijk, van Witteloostuijn, & Meyer, 2020 ). As this statement suggests, the current consensus is that one of the best means of ensuring transparency in qualitative research is to include ample data within articles to support whatever theoretical claims are made (e.g., Jarzabkowski, Langley, & Nigam, 2021 ). Qualitative researchers also concur that transparency is aided by clearly describing and explaining the rationale behind methodological choices as they evolve over the course of a research project (e.g., Pratt et al., 2020b ).

Taking into account the evolving institutional context facing qualitative IB researchers, it appears that – relative to the era when WPPP was published – there may be less need for authors to justify the very use of qualitative data. What they will need to be ever-more concerned with is explaining with clarity and detail the data they have collected and the specific approaches they have used in analyzing it. While the familiar templates are likely to serve some researchers’ purposes, authors will want to ensure that they are not adopting them automatically or inappropriately. And they will need to be transparent in revealing and justifying the choices that have guided the research process.

Gatekeepers, for their part, will need to be ever mindful that qualitative research crosses ontological boundaries (Eisenhardt, 2020 ; Pratt et al., 2020a ) and should encourage methodological creativity rather than insisting on template conformity (Corley et al., 2021 ). At the same time, we believe gatekeepers should not automatically censor or discourage work that deploys familiar templates; let us not swing the anti-template pendulum that far! We would also encourage gatekeepers to refrain from policing some practices in favor of others. Although the WPPP typology may have led some to regard induction as a weak route to developing causal explanations that are well contextualized, there is no consensus on this view. We therefore encourage gatekeepers to recognize that researchers are bricoleurs whose approaches to developing theories should and will vary (see Denzin & Lincoln, 2000 ; Pratt et al., 2020b ). Focusing on the quality of the insights developed, rather than on rigid rules or favored practices for developing theory, should only enhance the caliber of the contributions made by qualitative IB scholars.

THE CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH PROCESS

Yet another way in which the notion of context applies to qualitative IB research relates to the contextualization of a particular paper within the research process. Often qualitative research endeavors are sprawling in nature: they are typically conducted over multiple years; they frequently involve multiple collaborators located in different regions or countries; those collaborators are normally engaged in other projects at the same time; and they are undergoing personal transitions (having children, losing parents) as well as professional ones (becoming tenured, taking on administrative posts, or moving from one university to another). In our experience, it is not unusual for research projects to span much of a decade once the phenomenon of interest has been identified, taking into account applying for funding, selecting the data to be collected, gathering and analyzing it, producing manuscripts and going through review processes.

Specific papers associated with a project also have peripatetic journeys. They might begin life as a conference submission or invited research presentation, be revised based on feedback, targeted to a specific journal, revised based on reviewer feedback, accepted at the original journal or redirected to a new journal following rejection, and eventually find a home after many rounds of reviewer feedback and revision. The time span from original submission to final acceptance of a qualitative research paper obviously varies greatly, but in our experience, it is rare for this process to conclude in less than a two-year period and it frequently takes longer than three.

Contextually, how does all this matter? First, consider how the contexts for research projects change over their life spans. For example, over the course of a multi-year data collection exercise, some of the very characteristics of the empirical context that drove the choice of cases (see our first point above) can evolve or be abruptly disrupted. And while this may create an opportunity for studying process or disruption, it means that the rationale for original choices may no longer hold. Another contextual factor that can change is the availability of data sources: key informants can change jobs, pass away, or simply change their mind about cooperating. Archival data sources such as speciality blogs or news aggregators can cease publication. Firms can go out of business, be purchased, or be jolted by unforeseeable external shocks, such as pandemics. Of course, the skilled qualitative researcher learns to pivot and adapt, but this may mean that the originally intended scope and goals of the project cease to be viable, and that new ones must be identified.

Yet another “moving part” in the contextual field of a given project is the theoretical conversation (or conversations) which the project is intended to join, extend, or revolutionize. Those conversations rarely stand still. And as new papers are published by other research teams that advance the targeted conversation, contributions originally envisioned at the outset of a project can be eclipsed or rendered incremental.

Researchers themselves are moving parts and can change over the course of a project. For example, over time different aspects of the data may capture their attention, and new collaborators may bring new interpretations. With so much in motion, the original design choices in any given project are rarely intact by the project’s conclusion.

Next, consider the context associated with particular papers. In the course of their journey through a review process (or processes), qualitative research papers often change dramatically owing to repeated rounds of review team feedback. Given the evolving context of reviewer feedback, authors of qualitative papers may need to: rethink what theoretical category their empirical phenomenon belongs to; revise their research questions; join different theoretical conversations than those originally envisioned; redo data analysis; collect additional data; and/or fundamentally reposition the paper’s theoretical contribution (cf., Corley et al., 2021 ).

Our experience also leads us to observe that data themselves might be regarded as part of the context that matters in a research project, or in writing a particular paper. Johns ( 1991 ) has noted that any data that is collected may be “constrained” in ways not anticipated by those collecting it. In our experience as qualitative researchers, it is not uncommon to find that the data that has been or can be collected for a particular case may stop short of allowing us to fully examine processes or patterns we intuitively believe should be present. Conceptual insights may be inspired by our knowledge of the empirical context and the data we have collected but not directly supported by the data itself. This means that qualitative researchers are often grappling not just with the question “what is this an instance of?” but also the question “what is this an instance of that my data can explain and that hasn’t been explained by the literature?”

What do these aspects of context mean for qualitative researchers? First, they mean that researchers should not imagine that research design choices can all (or even mostly) be made in advance. Articles that implicitly suggest that the choice of a specific approach to collecting and analyzing case data is a one point-in-time decision are not well aligned to the realities of conducting qualitative research. While WPPP’s four quadrant typology might distinguish different types of cases after the fact, this should not be taken to imply that researchers can make, and stick with, initial articulations about what kind of case studies they will conduct. Given the evolution of research projects and research papers, research designs will continue to change over the life of projects and particular papers. The contingent, unfolding nature of qualitative research projects and papers should not be regarded as a barrier to quality, but as something that can make good research even better. For example, the Bresman, Birkinshaw, & Nobel ( 1999 ) paper, winner of the JIBS Decade Award in 2009, was the result of combining insights from two different research projects (Birkinshaw et al., 2010 ). This is but one illustration of the emergent nature of research design. We encourage qualitative researchers to acknowledge emergent design choices in their methods section both on initial submission and as review processes evolve.

In parallel, we encourage gatekeepers to foster fuller transparency in the research design descriptions in manuscripts they review. In particular, gatekeepers should recognize and be tolerant of the fact that the justification of the selection of empirical cases may well be an after-the-fact justification versus an a priori one. In general, gatekeepers should anticipate that researchers whose work they are reviewing will have faced shifting contexts in the course of their research and will have had to adapt accordingly. Jarzabkowski et al. ( 2021 : 72) have noted that that the appraisal of qualitative research (and indeed of research in general) needs to strike a balance between accountability and professionalism. Accountability directs us to expect that researchers’ actions and decisions are disclosed and well justified, while professionalism directs us to recognize that our fellow professionals need – and can be trusted – to have space for judgement and discretion. We whole-heartedly agree. And we believe that this insight should lead to us to encourage disclosure of, and adjudicate even-handedly, idiosyncratic twists and turns in the research designs of the papers we review.

We congratulate Catherine Welch, Rebecca Piekkari, Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki and Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki on receiving the 2021 Decade Award for writing the most influential paper published in JIBS in 2011. We acknowledge and appreciate the important role they have played in helping to legitimate qualitative research in IB. We hope that our reflections on their work will help to legitimate these methods further. Even more, we hope that our discussion of the various ways that context can be considered when using qualitative methods will help to advance an ever more plural future for international business research.

Aguilera, R. V., & Grøgaard, B. 2019. The dubious role of institutions in international business: A road forward. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(1): 20–35.

Google Scholar  

Askegaard, S., & Linnet, J. T. 2011. Towards an epistemology of consumer culture theory: Phenomenology and the context of context. Marketing Theory, 11(4): 381–404.

Balogun, J., Jarzabkowski, P., & Vaara, E. 2011. Selling, resistance and reconciliation: A critical discursive approach to subsidiary role evolution in MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(6): 765–786.

Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. 2006. What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 9–15.

Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2017. An overview of Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in international business since 2006. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(1): 30–47.

Beugelsdijk, S., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Meyer, K. E. 2020. A new approach to data access and research transparency (DART). Journal of International Business Studies, 3(2): 887–905.

Birkinshaw, J., Bresman, H., & Nobel, R. 2010. Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions: A retrospective. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(1): 21–26.

Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 2011. Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8): 1866–1891.

Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J. M., & Nobel, R. 1999. Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4): 439–462.

Brouthers, K. D. 2002. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 203–221.

Buckley, P. J., Clegg, L. J., Cross, A. R., Liu, X., Voss, H., & Zheng, P. 2007. The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 499–518.

Busse, C., Kach, A. P., & Wagner, S. M. 2017. Boundary conditions: What they are, how to explore them, why we need them, and when to consider them. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4): 574–609.

Caligiuri, P. 2014. Many moving parts: Factors influencing the effectiveness of HRM practices designed to improve knowledge transfer within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1): 63–72.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . London: Sage Publications.

Corley, K., Bansal, P., & Yu, H. 2021. An editorial perspective on judging the quality of inductive research when the methodological straightjacket is loosened. Strategic Organization, 19(1): 161–175.

Cornelissen, J., Höllerer, M. A., & Seidl, D. 2021. What theory is and can be: Forms of theorizing in organizational scholarship. Organization Theory, 2: 1–9.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. 2000. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research : 1–28. London: Sage.

Dolbec, P., Fischer, E., & Canniford, R. 2021. Something old, something new: Enabled theorizing in qualitative marketing research”. Marketing Theory, 21(4): 443–461.

Dyer Jr, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review , 16(3): 613–619.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 2020. Theorizing from cases: A commentary. In L. Eden, B. B. Nielsen, & A. Verbeke (Eds.), Research methods in international business : 221–227. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 2021. What is the Eisenhardt method, really? Strategic Organization, 19(1): 147–160.

Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E., & Sonenshein, S. 2016. Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4): 1113–1123.

Geary, J., & Aguzzoli, R. 2016. Miners, politics and institutional caryatids: Accounting for the transfer of HRM practices in the Brazilian multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8): 968–996.

Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. 2018. Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3): 284–300.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15–31.

Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. 2020. Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building. Academy of Management Review. . https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0482 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Harley, B., & Cornelissen, J. 2020. Rigor with or without templates? The pursuit of methodological rigor in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods. . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120937786 .

Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 540–561.

Jarzabkowski, P., Langley, A., & Nigam, A. 2021. Navigating the tensions of quality in qualitative research. Strategic Organization, 19(1): 70–80.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1411–1431.

Johns, G. 1991. Substantive and methodological constraints on behavior and attitudes in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49(1): 80–104.

Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 386–408.

Jonsson, A., & Foss, N. J. 2011. International expansion through flexible replication: Learning from the internationalization experience of IKEA. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(9): 1079–1102.

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2006. A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3): 285–320.

Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2004. Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2): 124–141.

Kostova, T., & Hult, G. T. M. 2016. Meyer and Peng’s 2005 article as a foundation for an expanded and refined international business research agenda: Context, organizations, and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(1): 23–32.

Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 691–710.

Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. 2011. Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 6: 201–235.

Lerman, M. P., Mmbaga, N., & Smith, A. 2020. Tracing ideas from Langley (1999): Exemplars, adaptations, considerations, and overlooked. Organizational Research Methods. . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120915510 .

Li, J., & Fleury, M. R. T. L. 2020. Overcoming the liability of outsidership for emerging market MNs: A capability-building perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(1): 23–37.

Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6): 600–621.

Minbaeva, D., Fitzsimmons, S., & Brewster, C. 2021. Beyond the double-edged sword of cultural diversity in teams: Progress, critique, and next steps. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(1): 45–55.

Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Björkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. 2003. MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6): 586–599.

Monaghan, S., & Tippmann, E. 2018. Becoming a multinational enterprise: Using industry recipes to achieve rapid multinationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(4): 473–495.

Monroe, K. R. 2018. The rush to transparency: DA-RT and the potential dangers for qualitative research. Perspectives on Politics, 16(1): 141–148.

Pham, M. T., & Oh, T. T. 2021. Preregistration is neither sufficient nor necessary for good science. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1): 163–176.

Pratt, M. G. 2009. For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5): 857–862.

Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. 2020a. Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1): 1–19.

Pratt, M. G., Sonenshein, S., & Feldman, M. S. 2020b. Moving beyond templates: A bricolage approach to conducting trustworthy qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods. . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120927466 .

Ragin, C. 1992. “Casing” and the process of social inquiry. In C. Ragin, & H. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring foundations of social inquiry: 217–226 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ravamurti, R., & Hillemann, J. 2018. What is “Chinese” about Chinese multinationals? Journal of International Business Studies, 49(1): 34–48.

Reay, T., Zafar, A., Monteiro, P., & Glaser, V. 2019. Presenting findings from qualitative research: One size does not fit all! Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 59: 201–216.

Shaver, J. M. 2013. Do we really need more entry mode studies? Journal of International Business Studies, 44(1): 23–27.

Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 519–535.

Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 20–24.

Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. 2010. Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 690–709.

Tenzer, H., Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A. W. 2014. The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5): 508–535.

Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. 2007. The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1145–1154.

Walton, J. 1992. Making the theoretical case. In C. C. Ragin, & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry: 121–138 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mantymaki, E. 2011. Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 740–762.

Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. 2001. Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6): 730–743.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). London: Sage.

Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M. S., & Nachum, L. 2012. Distance without direction: Restoring credibility to a much-loved construct. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1): 18–27.

Zander, I., McDougall-Covin, P., & Rose, E. L. 2015. Born globals and international business: Evolution of a field of research. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1): 27–35.

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Tima Bansal, Kathy Eisenhardt, Sinéad Monaghan, Innan Sasaki, and Esther Tippmann for their insights on earlier drafts of this commentary. We are grateful for the financial support of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

A. Rebecca Reuber

Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada

Eileen Fischer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Rebecca Reuber .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Alain Verbeke, Editor-in-Chief, 4 August 2021. This article was single-blind reviewed.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Reuber, A.R., Fischer, E. Putting qualitative international business research in context(s). J Int Bus Stud 53 , 27–38 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00478-3

Download citation

Received : 30 June 2021

Accepted : 04 August 2021

Published : 23 November 2021

Issue Date : February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00478-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• case theoretic approaches
• qualitative research
• theory-method intersection
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Show search form Hide search form
• Quick links
• Staff search
• Search Search --> Websites Staff search Start search

Qualitative Research in International Business

Qualitative research (e.g. case study, interviews, ethnography, visual inquiry) permits to analyze events “from the inside out”, allowing a conceptualization from the standpoints of the actors at work. Qualitative research, with its emphasis on precise and ‘thick’ descriptions, captures the complex nature of rich life experiences and yields a nuanced understanding of social realities, drawing attention to processes, meaning patterns and structural features.

In the field of International Business, qualitative research is thus appropriate for opening the “black box” of organisational processes, helping to explore “how” and “why” firms internationalise. Qualitative studies indeed play a critical role to interpret and understand in depth the complex plurality of contexts- e.g. spatial, temporal, cultural, institutional, geographic and economic – that organisations encounter when operating beyond domestic borders. It is interesting to explore on how qualitative research can move the field of International Business forward by building, enriching and testing relevant theories.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Language: English | French | Spanish | Portuguese | Chinese

Research methods in international business: The challenge of complexity

Lorraine eden.

1 Department of Management, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, TAMU 4221, College Station, TX 77843-4221 USA

Bo Bernhard Nielsen

2 Discipline of International Business, The University of Sydney Business School, Abercrombie Building H70, Corner Abercrombie Street and Codrington St, Darlington, NSW 2006 Australia

3 Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School, Kilevej 14, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark

International business (IB) research is designed to explore and explain the inherent complexity of international business, which arises from the multiplicity of entities, multiplexity of interactions, and dynamism of the global economic system. To analyze this complexity, IB scholars have developed four research lenses: difference, distance, diversity, and disparity. These four lenses on complexity have created not only unique research opportunities for IB scholarship but also unique research methodological challenges. We therefore view complexity as the underlying cause of the unique methodological challenges facing international business research. We offer several recommendations to help IB scholars embrace this complexity and conduct reliable, interesting, and practically relevant research.

Résumé

La recherche en international business (IB) est conçue pour explorer et expliquer la complexité inhérente aux affaires internationales qui découle de la multiplicité des entités, de la multiplexité des interactions et du dynamisme du système économique mondial. Pour analyser cette complexité, les chercheurs en IB ont développé quatre optiques de recherche - différence, distance, diversité et disparité - qui créent non seulement des opportunités de recherche uniques pour les chercheurs en IB, mais aussi des défis méthodologiques uniques de recherche. Par conséquent, nous considérons la complexité comme la cause sous-jacente des défis méthodologiques uniques auxquels est confrontée la recherche en international business . Nous proposons plusieurs recommandations pour aider les chercheurs en IB à appréhender cette complexité et à mener des recherches fiables, intéressantes et pertinentes sur le plan pratique.

La investigación en negocios internacionales está diseñada para explorar y explicar la complejidad inherente a los negocios internacionales, la cual surge de la multiplicidad de entidades, multiplejidad de interacciones y dinamismos del sistema económico global. Para analizar esta complejidad, los académicos de negocios internacionales han desarrollado cuatro lentes de investigación -diferencia, distancia, diversidad y disparidad- que crean no solamente oportunidades de investigación únicas para el conocimiento académico de negocios internacionales, pero también retos metodológicos de investigación únicos. Por lo tanto, vemos la complejidad como la causa subyacente de los retos metodológicos únicos enfrentados en la investigación de negocios internacionales . Ofrecemos varias recomendaciones para ayudar a los académicos de negocios internacionales a adoptar esta complejidad y llevar a cabo investigaciones confiables, interesantes y prácticamente relevantes.

A pesquisa em negócios internacionais (IB) é projetada para explorar e explicar a complexidade inerente aos negócios internacionais, que surge da multiplicidade de entidades, multiplexidade de interações e dinamismo do sistema econômico global. Para analisar essa complexidade, acadêmicos de IB desenvolveram quatro lentes de pesquisa - diferença, distância, diversidade e disparidade - que criam não apenas oportunidades de pesquisa exclusivas para a pesquisa em IB, mas também exclusivos desafios metodológicos de pesquisa. Portanto, vemos a complexidade como a causa subjacente dos desafios metodológicos únicos enfrentados pela pesquisa em negócios internacionais . Oferecemos várias recomendações para ajudar acadêmicos de IB a abraçar essa complexidade e conduzir pesquisas confiáveis, interessantes e relevantes na prática.

抽象

国际商务(IB)研究旨在探索和解释由实体多样性、互动多元复杂性和全球经济体系动态性引起的国际商业内在的复杂性。为了分析这种复杂性, IB学者开发了四个研究视角, 即差异、距离、多样化和不均衡视角, 这不仅为IB理论创造了独特的研究机会, 而且带来研究方法上独特的挑战。我们因此将复杂性视为国际商务研究所面临的独特的方法论挑战的根本原因。我们提出了一些建议, 以帮助IB学者拥抱这种复杂性并进行可靠的、有趣的和切实的研究。

INTRODUCTION

It is a well-accepted fact that high-quality research methods are a necessary building block for strong scholarship in international business (IB) research. Many scholars have written about the methodological challenges that can bedevil scholarship in IB and other disciplines and have recommended best practices for dealing with these challenges. For example, see the wide variety of methodology challenges discussed in Eden, Nielsen and Verbeke ( 2020 ) and recent papers by Aguinis and co-authors (Aguinis, Cascio & Ramani, 2017 ; Aguinis, Hill & Bailey, 2019 ; Aguinis, Ramani & Alabduljader, 2018 ; Bergh, Sharp, Aguinis & Li, 2017 ).

The new JIBS Point article by Aguinis, Ramani and Cascio ( 2020 ) follows in this tradition, providing a useful analysis of the “four most pervasive contemporary methodological choices faced by international business (IB) researchers.” Our interest lies in the unique aspects of IB research and thus our paper is designed to serve as a Counterpoint and complement to their JIBS Point article. We argue that IB research questions are designed to explore and explain the inherent complexity of the global economy, which is generated by three factors: multiplicity of entities (i.e., number and variety of actors, industries, countries, institutions, etc.), multiplexity of interactions (i.e., number and variety of ties or relationships among these entities), and dynamism over time (i.e., changing nature of the international business system). To analyze the complexity of the IB system, scholars have developed four lenses of research, which we refer to as the “four D’s” (difference, distance, diversity, and disparity). These four lenses on complexity have created unique research opportunities for IB scholars but have also presented unique research methodology problems. We therefore argue that complexity is the underlying cause of the unique methodological problems facing international business research.

Our Counterpoint article first highlights Aguinis et al.’s ( 2020 ) helpful advice for improving the quality of IB research and discusses some of the article’s limitations. We then turn to developing our thesis on the complexity of IB research, the four research lenses that can be used to analyze complexity, their resulting methodological problems, and proposed methodology solutions.

A BRIEF ASSESSMENT OF AGUINIS ET AL. ( 2020 )

Contributions.

Aguinis et al.’s ( 2020 ) article on challenges and recommended best practices in IB research methodology is a welcome addition to the literature on this topic. The authors identified the most pervasive methodological challenges faced by IB researchers by counting the self-reported research methodology problems in the 43 empirical articles published in the 2018 volume of the Journal of International Business Studies ( JIBS ). Using this method, Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) identified four methodological challenges (percentage of JIBS articles in brackets): psychometrically deficient measures (73%), idiosyncratic samples or contexts (62%), less-than-ideal research designs (62%), and insufficient evidence about causal relations (8%). The authors explored each challenge and proposed some solutions.

The most frequently mentioned challenge (in almost three-quarters of the JIBS articles) was that the measures used were psychometrically deficient; i.g., the measures did not fully capture the construct or were not sufficiently reliable. Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) proposed three solutions. IB scholars should: (1) determine whether the measure has been used previously to represent a different construct and, if so, demonstrate why their conceptualization is appropriate; (2) specify whether the construct is reflective or formative and, depending on the answer, apply the appropriate analytical technique; and (3) use multiple indicators to measure the construct.

The second and third challenges were reported in identical percentages of JIBS papers (62.2%), suggesting that JIBS authors coupled the two challenges together. Examples of the second challenge, idiosyncratic samples or contexts, included testing IB theories in a single country or market or during a particular time period. Solutions proposed by Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) were to (1) treat the sample as an opportunity to go deeper, rather than as a limitation, and (2) choose unique or extreme samples or contexts. The third challenge, less-than-ideal research designs, involved questions such as multiple levels of analysis and common method variance. Recommended solutions were to (1) use Big Data to create unique insights and (2) leverage Big Data techniques to re-analyze currently available data.

The fourth challenge, insufficient evidence to infer causal relations, was reported by very few JIBS authors. Those who mentioned this issue referenced comments regarding distinguishing causality from correlation and the inability of current research methods to answer causality. To address this issue, Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) proposed that JIBS authors use (1) quasi-experimental designs and (2) necessary-conditions analysis.

Limitations

The JIBS Point article by Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) addresses important methodological issues. The article, however, suffers from at least three limitations, which we discuss below.

First, only one year of JIBS (2018) empirical articles was analyzed. While there is no reason to think that 2018 was an outlier year, there would have been several benefits to analyzing a longitudinal dataset. Longitudinal data allow for a more informed discussion of the limitations over time (and hence potential changes/evolutions) and provide potentially deeper insights into the importance of these limitations.

Table  1 provides some information on the general types of research methods employed by JIBS authors during the first 50 years of the journal. Of the 1265 empirical articles, nearly 30% (372 articles) were published in the most recent decade (2010–2019). Most of these 372 articles (86%) used quantitative methods (archival or survey); another 9% used qualitative methods; and the remainder (5%) used mixed methods. Clearly evident over the 50-year time period are the shifts in the relative importance of different research methods. Notable has been the growing importance of archival methods, which almost doubled from 37% as a proportion of all JIBS empirical papers in the 1970s to 62% in the 2010s, and the decline of survey methods, which fell by almost half (from 40% to 24%) of empirical papers over the same years. Papers using qualitative methods fell from 16% in the 1970s to a low of 3% in the 1990s and have now rebounded to 9% in the 2010s.

Table 1

Distribution of JIBS articles by research methodology, 1970–2019.

Source : Authors’ calculations based on data provided by Nielsen et al. ( 2020 )

Italicized numbers represent share of the total

a This table only includes JIBS publications using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. The table excludes articles that are, for example, conceptual, theoretical, or editorial in nature.

It is therefore possible that examining one year rather than several years may have affected the relative shares of methods used and the resulting methodological challenges, or at least the frequencies of reports, identified in Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ). For example, the relatively low percentage given to challenge #4 (inference of causality) may have been due to the few survey papers in JIBS that year. Following the example of Brutus, Aguinis, and Wassmer ( 2013 ), which according to the authors was influential for their article methodologically, we conclude that at least five and preferably 10 years of data would have been helpful for understanding why JIBS authors identified particular research challenges and not others.

A second limitation is that the method used by Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) was counting self-reports by JIBS authors. This is problematic for several reasons. First, the simple yardstick used (counting zero or one for whether the authors of a JIBS article mentioned a methods problem or not) is a coarse measure and not very informative. For example, it would have been useful to know whether, after having listed a methodological problem, the JIBS authors also explained whether and how they tried (or did not try) to address the problem. Second, the JIBS authors’ own assessment of the problem would have been helpful. Did they see the methodological challenge as material (i.e., could it have substantially affected the outcome of the paper) and, if so, did they assess what the likely impact would have been? Third, perhaps the JIBS authors may have gone further and identified in their paper why they had not addressed the challenge (e.g., they saw the issue as non-material, appropriate data did not exist at this point in time, or there was no method available to handle this particular problem). Fourth, a deeper analysis could have looked at whether there really was a problem or not, in other words, did the JIBS authors list too many or too few problems? Lastly, JIBS authors know they are expected to have a Discussion section where they discuss the limitations of their paper (e.g., Aguinis and his co-authors also follow this convention). Were the JIBS authors simply “checking the box” in their Limitations section? In sum, a comprehensive analysis of the research methodology problems in current JIBS articles would have benefitted from a much deeper assessment of the original JIBS articles. Given the focus on a single year and resulting limited number of articles (43), the “case study” approach (Aguinis et al., 2020 ) to analyzing JIBS methodological challenges falls somewhat short of meeting its goals.

A third and perhaps the most important limitation of Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) from our perspective is that their four identified core research methodology issues are not unique to IB research. While the percentages may differ across disciplines (see their discussion regarding Brutus et al.’s ( 2013 ) assessment of management journal articles), the identified methodological problems and proposed solutions appear to be common across business and psychology journals rather than unique to IB research. The authors acknowledge this, noting that they used JIBS as a case study: “Secondly, our focus on recent JIBS articles is not intended to target this journal, or more broadly, the field of IB. For example, authors of articles published in Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Strategic Management Journal (SMJ), Journal of Management (JOM), and Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) have identified some of the challenges also referred to by JIBS authors” (Aguinis et al., 2020 ).

Self-reports by JIBS authors in 2018, as identified in Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ), suggest that IB research currently faces four major methodological challenges: measures, samples, research design, and causality. We applaud the authors’ efforts to address these important issues but have some concerns about the methods used in their paper and the lack of adequate attention to contextual influences resulting from the complexity of IB phenomena. Moreover, some of their challenges and solutions appear to be “micro” in nature, focusing on issues that may present major problems for scholars engaged in predominantly quantitative (survey) studies with particular psychometric properties (e.g., reflective versus formative measures and multiple versus single indicators to measure constructs). We conclude that their article makes a valuable contribution but should be treated with caution and recommend that IB scholars read both the JIBS Point and Counterpoint articles together.

Other Studies

For comparison purposes, we searched for other studies that have used methods similar to Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) and Brutus et al. ( 2013 ) to identify methodology challenges relevant to IB research. We highlight two below and also acknowledge Andersen and Skaates ( 2004 ).

Peterson ( 2004 ) examined the research methods used in 124 international management (IM) articles published in three journals ( JIBS , AMJ, and Administrative Sciences Quarterly (ASQ) ) between 1990 and 1999. His analysis identified five methodological concerns in IM research: (1) non-representative or within-country samples, (2) limited data sources (only one or two countries), (3) lack of author diversity (one or two authors from the same country), (4) lack of examination of cross-cultural/national differences, and (5) excessive reliance on one research method (typically correlations and regressions), so that neither causality and nuances could be addressed. His proposed five solutions, respectively, were: (1) samples drawn from the whole country, (2) larger sample populations with more countries over at least 5–10 years, (3) cross-national research teams that meet periodically, (4) the use of standardized survey and research methods across countries, and (5) the use of multiple (mixed) research methods.

A second comparative study is Coviello and Jones ( 2004 ), which used content analysis to examine 55 articles on international entrepreneurship (IE) published in ten business journals (including JIBS ) between 1989 and 2002. The authors assessed the articles in terms of four methods issues: (1) time frame and content, (2) sample, (3) data collection and analysis, and (4) cross-national equivalence. Their key criticisms were that most articles involved static cross-country or cross-industry comparisons, had inconsistent definitions and measures of key variables, used idiosyncratic samples that led to results that were difficult to generalize, and did not capture complex processes well. Coviello and Jones ( 2004 ) argued that these methodological problems were inherent in the complexities involved in doing IE research. The authors concluded that IE scholars needed to take a multidisciplinary approach, adopt dynamic research designs that integrated positivist and interpretivist methodologies, and incorporate time as a key dimension.

Both Peterson ( 2004 ) and Coviello and Jones ( 2004 ) highlight similar complexities involved in doing IB research, despite their focus on different disciplines (management vs. entrepreneurship). Both articles stress that core methodological problems are caused by differences and diversities in cultures and contexts that are dynamic not static in nature. We concur with their assessment and go further to argue below that complexity is the underlying source of the unique methodological challenges faced by international business scholars .

THE COMPLEXITY OF IB RESEARCH

We of course agree with Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) that IB researchers face many methodological problems and choices. Our interest lies, however, less in the commonalities of these problems with other disciplines and more with the unique methodological concerns that are specifically “IB”; i.e., caused by research questions and cross-border contexts typically studied by IB scholars and published in JIBS , some of which are highlighted in Peterson ( 2004 ) and Coviello and Jones ( 2004 ).

Complexity in IB Research

We start with a simple metaphor explaining why IB is different from mainstream disciplines like management and psychology. Eden ( 2008 ) suggested that a helpful way to understand IB research is to conceptualize a matrix where the columns are the disciplines or functional areas of business (e.g., management, entrepreneurship, finance) and the rows are the topics typically covered in these disciplines (e.g., markets, firm strategy, performance, international). IB research can therefore be viewed as the “international” row that cuts across the “discipline” columns.

Eden ( 2008 ) argued that JIBS researchers are boundary-spanners; they emphasize the adjective “international” over the noun of their particular discipline or university department. Implicit in this approach is the insight that IB researchers are not only engaged in studying business in cross-border contexts but also in cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary contexts. The domain of IB research is, in effect, a big umbrella covering the international/cross-border aspects of all business disciplines. Thus, IM and IE can be viewed as subfields of IB (see also discussions in Eden, Dai and Li ( 2010 ) on IM and IB and in Verbeke & Ciravegna ( 2018 ) on IE and IB).

The variety and breadth of research topics in the IB domain is therefore huge, ambitious, and challenging (Table  2 ). As a result, there is an inherent complexity to IB research that is different from domestically focused scholarship, and the research methodology challenges faced by IB researchers should not be simply conflated with methodological issues facing scholars in mainstream disciplines.

Table 2

The domain of international business studies.

Source : Eden ( 2008 : 3)

We believe there are three key sources to the complexity of IB research, which we illustrate in Figure ​ Figure1: 1 : multiplicity, multiplexity, and dynamism. The first source of complexity is the multiplicity (i.e., the number and variety) of entities (e.g., actors, industries, countries, contexts, cultures, institutions) in the global economic system. While often pictured as a dyad (home versus foreign), in reality most IB studies involve multiple actors in multiple countries in multiple contexts. Multiplicity creates both opportunities and problems for IB research; see, for example, the discussions in Buckley and Casson ( 2001 ), Peterson ( 2004 ), Coviello and Jones ( 2004 ), and Teagarden, Von Glinow and Mellahi ( 2018 ).

The complexity of international business research.

Multiplicity, which Buckley and Casson ( 2001 ) refer to as “combinatorial complexity”, can be addressed in many ways. Buckley and Casson recommend using parsimony and simplifying, rational-actor techniques such as real options and game theory; they provide several examples of how these techniques can be used to analyze problems such as mode of entry and location choice. Applying rational-actor economics to multiplicity has clear benefits but also some costs (Samuels, 1995 ). Other possible approaches focus more on how cross-border activities exacerbate the joint challenges of managing bounded rationality, unreliability, and investments in specific assets. Here conceptual tools from comparative institutional analysis and empirical tools such as fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, as well as a variety of multi-level analysis tools, can be helpful (see Eden et al. ( 2020 ) for discussions of appropriate techniques).

The second factor contributing to complexity of the global economy and thus of IB research is the multiplexity of interactions (the number and variety of relationships and interdependencies) among these entities, which Buckley and Casson ( 2001 ) refer to as “organic complexity.” IB scholars have studied multiplexity for many years in contexts such as the MNE’s inter- and intra-organizational networks, buyer–supplier networks using lean production technologies, and international strategic alliances (Cuypers, Ertug, Cantwell, Zaheer & Kilduff, 2020 ). Multiplexity is created when there are “networks of networks” (D’Agostino & Scala, 2014 ), generating systemic problems such as cross-level effects, feedback loops, diffusion, and contagion. See, for example, Cardillo et al.’s ( 2013 ) analysis of the multiplexity of the international air transportation network and Gemmetto et al.’s ( 2016 ) study of the relationships and interdependencies of world trade flows; both papers use network theory to analyze the multiplexity of cross-border flows.

Buckley and Casson ( 2001 ) argues that rational actor approaches can be used to address multiplexity, pointing to information costs, dynamic optimization, real options, and game theory as appropriate techniques for handling the dynamism of the IB system. Other approaches to multiplexity include fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, multi-level analysis techniques, and qualitative research (Eden et al., 2020 ; D’Agostino & Scala, 2014 ; Ferriani, Fonti & Corrado, 2012 ).

The third factor generating complexity for IB research is the global economy’s inherent dynamism (dynamics over time). By dynamism, we mean the various ways that time and history can affect a system such as trends, hysteresis, business cycles, crises, and other instabilities. The dynamism of the international business system generates risk, uncertainty, volatility, and ambiguity, providing both challenges and opportunities for decision-makers. Many scholars have stressed the importance of history and time to IB research (e.g., Jones & Khanna, 2006 ; Coviello & Jones, 2004 ; Eden, 2009 ). Bringing dynamism into IB research can be done using a variety of research methods, including longitudinal case studies, real options approaches, event studies, and event history analysis. Each of these approaches also raises its own methodology challenges, some of which are discussed in Eden et al. ( 2020 ).

Four Research Lenses on Complexity

To analyze the complexity of the international business system, IB scholars have developed four research lenses, which we refer to as the “four D’s” (difference, distance, diversity, and disparity) and illustrate in Figure ​ Figure1. 1 . The first – “Difference” – involves the relatively simple matter of comparing how “here” is different from “there” (e.g., cross-border comparisons of domestic with foreign). Early research in IB (e.g., the Ownership-Location-Internalization (OLI) paradigm) focused on the differences that businesses faced when they crossed national borders and one still regularly hears IB research referred to as “cross-border” or “cross-cultural” studies. The focus of “Difference” is on the border as a metaphor for separating “here” (the known or us) from “there” (the unknown or them). Research on topics varying from offshore production to liability of foreignness to insiders and outsiders all share this crossing-a-border “Difference” lens.

“Distance” became a second important research lens for IB scholars after the introduction of new datasets and metrics that could be used to measure the cultural and institutional distances between countries. Early users of Hofstede’s ( 1980 ) cultural dimensions, for example, explored the impact of cultural distance on foreign mode of entry (e.g., Kogut & Singh, 1988 ). Distance studies, using these new datasets and metrics, have been a dominant theme of IB research for nearly 30 years (see reviews in Beugelsdijk, Ambos & Nell ( 2018 ) and Maseland, Dow & Steel ( 2018 )).

“Diversity” – the third “D” – is a newer focus of IB researchers interested in exploring, for example, varieties of capitalism and variations within and across countries (see also Stahl, Tung, Kostova & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2016 ). Diversity pays attention to the multiplicity of actors and networks and the multiplexity of their interactions. Diversity is inherent in multiplexity and may involve new research metrics and methods. Dai, Eden and Beamish ( 2013 ), for example, show how Coulombe’s Law can be used to calculate the dynamic exposure faced by a foreign subsidiary surrounded by multiple war zones of different sizes at different distances and points of time. Peterson, Arregle and Martin ( 2012 ) provides a useful introduction to multilevel models that can be used to analyze diversity issues.

We believe that the fourth “D” – “Disparity” – is on the horizon and will become an important topic for IB researchers in the 2020s and 2030s. The call for IB researchers to engage more with global societal challenges (Buckley, Doh & Benischke, 2017 ), the growing importance of the new group Responsible Research in Business and Management ( http://www.rrbm.network ), and the launch of the Journal of International Business Policy , all suggest more attention is being paid by IB scholars to the massive inequalities that exist across and within countries. The current global pandemic caused by COVID-19 is likely to exacerbate these cross-country disparities. We predict that more IB research in the future will examine the role that international business plays in society, in both ameliorating and exacerbating disparity and inequality, bringing their own research methodology challenges (Schlegelmilch & Szöcs, 2020 ; Crane, Henriques & Husted, 2018 ).

We therefore conclude that complexity – generated by the multiplicity of entities, multiplexity of interactions, and dynamism of the global economy - is the underlying cause of the unique methodological challenges facing international business research. The four lenses on complexity – difference, distance, diversity, and disparity – offer unique research challenges and opportunities for IB scholars and, as a result, have also presented them with unique research methodology problems, to which we now turn.

COPING WITH THE COMPLEXITY OF IB RESEARCH

We view complexity as the keyword that best captures IB research; that is, what it means to put the adjective “international” together with the noun “business” in the matrix that defines the “IB” field. Below we discuss the implications of complexity for the methodology challenges facing IB scholars. We organize these challenges according to the timeline of a typical IB research process, building on Nielsen, Eden and Verbeke ( 2020 ): (1) problem definition and research question, (2) research design and data collection, and (3) data analysis and interpretation of results. In each phase, we focus on the complexity issues that are prevalent and/or unique to IB research, the methodology challenges they pose, and recommend possible solutions (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ).

Phase 1: Problem Definition and Research Question

In Phase 1, the researcher or research team must identify and define the problem and question(s) that will drive the project. Here, we see at least three methodological challenges.

Defining the research problem

IB requires attention to both the similarities and differences between and across domestic and foreign operations at multiple levels of analysis (e.g., firm, industry, country). Isolating the international (cross-border) aspects of a study requires a deep understanding of domestic and foreign environments. Thus, both the multiplicity of actors and multiplexity of interactions create complexity in defining the research problem. We suggest that looking at the research problem through the lenses of the “four D’s” (difference, distance, diversity, and disparity) can provide an fruitful avenue for attending to the complex set of issues across multiple contextual dimensions, including setting, unit, location, and time.

The (non)equivalency of concepts and theories used in different contexts

Much IB research involves applying “standard” theories (e.g., internalization, transaction cost economics, resource-based view) to particular types of firms. However, the assumptions of these theories and their applicability are likely to vary across countries. IB scholars need to identify and account explicitly for contextual influences and their potential impacts on the design and interpretation of outcomes of their study. Contextual issues are critical for determining the boundaries within which particular theories may be applicable. Studies of state ownership, for example, may yield very different results when the state-owned multinationals are from China, Norway or Brazil, given the different institutional contexts of these countries. Once again, an explicit focus on the sources of complexity may help IB researchers discern how, why, where, and when concepts and theories are equivalent (or not) in different contexts.

Promising too much and delivering too little

While most scholars start with a “big” research question (e.g., how distance or diversity affects a particular MNE strategy), in practice, their empirical study is much more narrowly defined. IB scholars may end up overestimating the generalizability of their results, leading to exaggerated claims that “promise too much.” Selection of the research question should drive the data collection and choice of methodology stages, and the way the results are reported and interpreted, not the other way around.

Phase 2: Research Design and Data Collection

In the second stage where researchers are engaged in research design and data collection, there are at least three core methodological challenges.

Appropriateness of the sample

IB scholars typically prefer to use data from secondary sources such as national and international (e.g., US and UN) statistical agencies and private firms (e.g., Thomson Reuters, Standard & Poor’s). However, particularly in developing countries, such data sources are either not available or are often of questionable quality. Moreover, IB researchers often assume implicitly that all sampled entities within-country share the same characteristics, with differences existing only across countries. This assumption may be wishful thinking as differences within countries (especially between rural and city areas in developing countries) may be larger than across countries, as noted by Peterson ( 2004 ). When the samples are inadequate, of course, the results will be problematic. Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) identified idiosyncratic samples and contexts as a methodological concern in 62% of their sampled JIBS articles. We contend that a stronger focus on understanding the types of complexity during data collection may help prevent inadequate sampling in IB studies.

Appropriateness of the sample size

Typically, studies that examine the impact of independent variable X on the dependent variable Y must hold constant other variables that can also affect Y. Less attention is paid, however, to X itself. In an international context differences in X across countries may have many facets. For example, studying the influence of institutional distance (X) on the MNE’s mode of entry choice (Y) requires unbundling institutional distance into different components, which may warrant a large sample size or more careful sample selection.

Avoiding non-sampling errors

Large multi-country datasets constructed from responses to governmental and private surveys are attractive to IB researchers because these datasets offer the opportunity to test IB research questions on much larger cross-country and cross-cultural samples. These datasets however can be problematic for IB research. First, more often the “breadth” (number of countries and number of constructs) of multi-country/culture surveys far exceeds their “depth” (number of years). Many may be single year surveys, raising reliability issues. Second, multi-country datasets – even when constructed with care – may be prone to non-sampling errors. Low measure reliability, for example, can arise from differences in assessment methods used “on the ground” across countries. Differences in how various cultures understand different constructs (e.g., what “gender equality” means) are also a problem. To this end, Chidlow, Ghauri, Yeniyurt and Cavusgil ( 2015 ) reported that establishment of translation equivalence in cross-cultural studies remains sparse with regards to whether (a) the instrument used to collect the required data is translated appropriately across different cultures and (b) the data collection procedures are comparable across different cultures. A third challenge is that IB researchers may be either unaware (or choose to ignore) changes in methods and sources used by national and international agencies to collect and publish their datasets. Lacking in-depth knowledge of a dataset raises the likelihood of its misuse and misinterpretation of the results.

In sum, non-sampling errors may bedevil IB research simply because IB research questions do not “travel well” cross-nationally and cross-culturally due to multiplicity, multiplexity, and dynamism. One solution to the problem of possible measurement non-equivalence is to test for this issue before using the datasets. Nielsen et al. ( 2020 ) provides examples of statistical methods that can test for measurement equivalence on a cross-national/cultural basis. Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) provides more generic examples of how data collection and research design challenges may be dealt with; for example, they focus on the potential virtues of Big Data, though such approaches should be used carefully so they do not confound rather than resolve non-sampling errors in IB research.

Phase 3: Data Analysis and Interpretation of Results

IB scholars also face special issues when they are engaged in data analysis and interpretation of results. We briefly discuss three research methodology challenges which can be added to the more general issue of establishing causality (across contexts, levels, and time) raised by Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ).

Addressing anomalies and inconsistencies

Outliers and other anomalies and inconsistencies may be more prevalent in multi-country than in single country studies due to the complexity of IB research. Rare events and asymmetric, long-tailed distributions may be more prevalent in international settings, necessitating research methods designed to handle these anomalies (Andriani & McKelvey, 2007 ). For instance, ignoring the “elephant in the room” (e.g., the dominance of one country such as China or the United States in a multi-country dataset) can lead to erroneous conclusions based on Gaussian averages (e.g., about the average scale and scope of internationalization). Moreover, as datasets span multiple countries and contexts – often relying on combining data sources from different entities and countries – the likelihood of errors due to anomalies and inconsistencies in data collection methods, cleaning, and handling, including translational and equivalence issues, increases. IB researchers must take appropriate steps to correct for such biases, for example, by using investigator triangulation  ex ante  during data collection and  ex post  during analysis and reporting (Nielsen et al., 2020 ).

Choosing the level(s) of theory, data, and analysis

IB studies, as we have stressed above, involve multiplicity and multiplexity. They are typically not only multi-country and multi-context but also multi-level. Employees are nested (and may be cross-nested) within subunits of an MNE (e.g., parent, regional headquarters, plants, branches, subsidiaries); the MNE itself is cross-nested within multiple national and institutional contexts depending on its global footprint. Thus, studying an MNE – let alone a comparison across MNEs – is an exercise in studying and understanding multi-level heterogeneity (individual, plant, firm, industry, country) as well as cross-nested embeddedness at each of these levels (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2010 ). Not surprisingly, determining the “right” level or levels of theory, data, and analysis needed to address a particular research question is not easy. An extension of this research problem arises from ecological fallacies where a construct developed for use at one level of analysis (e.g., country) is used at a different level (e.g., firm), without attention paid to the possible consequences. The “four D’s” may provide useful lenses through which to examine the multiplicity and multiplexity inherent in issues of levels of theory, data, and analysis, that give rise to additional layers of interdependence and nesting.

Avoiding personal bias in interpreting and reporting results

We all “see through our own lenses.” IB researchers, given their interest in the four D’s, are likely to be more contextually aware than domestically focused but are still likely to suffer from personal and institutional biases. Working with diverse teams of scholars from other countries, cultures, and disciplines can help reduce the influence of personal biases. Multi-country/cultural research teams can also provide benefits to IB research by improving the ability of concepts and theories to “travel” across countries, as argued in Peterson ( 2004 ).

CONCLUSION: WORDS TO LIVE BY

We agree with Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) that IB scholarship suffers from methodological challenges. IB research, by its nature, involves a high degree of complexity generated by the multiplicity, multiplexity, and dynamism of the global economy. IB scholars can use the four D’s (difference, distance, diversity, and disparity) as useful lenses for understanding and analyzing this complexity. Complexity, of course, is one of the reasons that so many scholars study IB research questions but it also brings a set of methodological challenges unique to IB research.

We end with four pieces of advice that we hope provide useful guidance for IB researchers. We note that these guiding principles are complementary to the solutions proposed in Aguinis et al. ( 2020 ) and to our methodology recommendations above.

Learn to Live with (and Embrace) Complexity in Research Design

Complexity is a word that strikes fear and dread into the heart of most researchers; the more complex the problem, the more difficult the research tasks that lie ahead. We argue that IB researchers must learn to live with (and embrace) complexity. They must be comfortable with the multiplicity, multiplexity, and dynamism that characterize the global economy. Deconstructing a research question to examine its complexity through the lens of one or more of the four D’s (difference, distance, diversity, and disparity) is, we argue, critically important for developing interesting, useful, and impactful research. Using these lenses can help the IB researcher understand how multiple parameters affect his or her variable(s) of interest, often in non-linear and interdependent ways. As a result, relying on secondary data sources and conventional research methods such as OLS regression are likely to be insufficient or inappropriate to understand the complexity of IB research. Rather, embracing complexity naturally leads to more experimental research designs, as well as mixed methods, and/or multilevel analyses. Research designs that explicitly acknowledge complexity are likely to better answer the “big” questions that IB faces now and in the future.

Use Triangulation Actively to Increase Rigor and Relevance

Looking at a phenomenon or issue from multiple angles – not the least methodological – can address the biases, errors, and limitations introduced by any single approach (Denzin, 1978 ; Jick, 1979 ). Most of the IB-specific challenges we have raised above can be directly addressed by incorporating various types of triangulation strategies into the research design. For instance, theoretical triangulation may lead to new research questions by juxtaposing different theoretical perspectives. Similarly, data source and data collection triangulation may be seen as “an opportunity to go deeper, rather than as a limitation” (Aguinis et al., 2020 ) while also increasing sample reliability and reducing non-equivalence biases. Analytical triangulation helps ensure validity and reliability of results by comparing and contrasting results using multiple analytical techniques. Investigator triangulation may reduce personal biases in both data collection, analysis, and interpretation processes (Nielsen et al., 2020 ). Indeed, we would argue that the four D’s (difference, distance, diversity, and disparity) may best be attended to by carefully building triangulation into the research design process.

Exercise Due Diligence and Good Judgment

IB researchers should spend time, up front, understanding their research question and their unit of analysis, mapping and graphing the hypothesized relationships among their variables, and taking account of previously theorized relationships. Investment in building a thorough understanding of the research problem will help point the way to the most appropriate research method(s) and technique(s) for tackling the problem. Rules of thumb as to what constitutes an “acceptable” methodological approach are a poor substitute for the due diligence necessary to enable the researcher to exercise his or her good scholarly judgment. This piece of advice also requires IB researchers to have a good command of the available different research methods, of where they work well and where they do not.

Engage in Ethical and Responsible Research Practices

There have been many articles on best practices in responsible research, including several by Herman Aguinis that are particularly appropriate for IB researchers (Aguinis et al., 2017 , 2018 , 2019 ; Bergh et al., 2017 ). In addition, Anne Tsui and colleagues have been actively encouraging business and management scholars to join RRBM (Responsible Research in Business and Management; https://www.rrbm.network ) and adopt RRBM best practices for their research. The editors of JIBS have also led the way for many years in articulating best ethical and responsible practices for IB research, e.g., through the AIB Journals Code of Ethics, JIBS editorials at https://www.palgrave.com/gp/journal/41267/volumes-issues/editorials , and the new JIBS Special Collections books, in particular, Research Methods in International Business (Eden et al., 2020 ). We conclude that “ethical” and “responsible” are good words to live by. Words that when practiced by the global community of IB scholars will build knowledge for a more prosperous, just, and sustainable world.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Alain Verbeke and Stewart Miller for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Alain Verbeke, Editor-in-Chief, 4 September 2020. This article was single-blind reviewed.

Qualitative Research in International Business

While there are clear merits associated with quantitative methods, the multi-cultural, multi-dimensional and dynamic nature of the field of IB lends itself to a broad range of research methodologies, qualitative methods being one of them. In order to understand the complexities of emergent and evolving phenomena scattered over distance, and the differentiated contexts typical to many topics under investigation in IB, it is often inappropriate to engage in large-scale, cross-sectional studies or reductionist methods in the absence of well-developed theory. Rather, thick description, exploratory research and comparative case analysis that focus on inductive theory building and hypotheses generation may be more suitable.

Related Papers

Journal of International Business Studies

Mary Yoko Brannen

Management International Review

Rebecca Piekkari

Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa

Jefferson Monticelli , Cyntia Calixto , Silvio L de Vasconcellos

Pervez Ghauri

The Open Business Journal

Professor Emeritus Kim-Shyan Fam

Michael R Hyman

IB knowledge development is assessed via a survey of 1686 articles published from 1992 to 2002 in six influential IB serials. Specifically, this survey identifies (1) prolific authors and their institutions, (2) author demographics and collaborations, (3) major research streams and recent discipline evolution, and (4) research designs and statistical methods used. Such inquiry can reveal the current state of IB research, and suggest editorial mandates and future research directions.

neilslough.com

Neil Slough

International Business Review

Peter J. Buckley

Miguel Escobar Santana

RELATED PAPERS

frank herfert

Revista Brasileira de Medicina de Família e Comunidade

MARIA INEZ PADULA ANDERSON

The Lancet. Neurology

Georgios Hadjigeorgiou

BMC Nutrition

Rafael Rodríguez Martínez-Conde

Holistik Jurnal Kesehatan

Wahyudi Hidayat

Archives of Biological Sciences

Tijana Nikolic

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

Andrey P Jivkov

2015 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering

Khalid Alghamdi

Journal of Medical Entomology

Philip Samuel

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science

Mohamed Radid

Feminisms in Movement

Juliana González Villamizar

Andrea Bugeja

Water Supply

Raziyeh Farmani

Jurist-Diction

Anggi Caecariatna

Frontiers in Microbiology

Jessica Wonderen

Journal of the science of food and agriculture

Yulia Borsuk

Acta Mechanica

Armando Soares

Technology Innovation Management Review

Stoyan Tanev

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024