Author:
Cerar Jelena,Nell Phillip C.,Reiche B. Sebastian
Abstract
AbstractComplementing Nielsen and colleagues’ (2020) analysis of methodological trends in the Journal of International Business Studies over the past 50 years, we examine similar data on methods published in a wider range of leading international business (IB) journals. Our analysis shows a clear decline of studies based on primary data relative to secondary data, and a persistently low level of individual-level studies among the growing body of research using secondary data across all IB journals considered. We discuss the main mechanisms driving these trends and identify the problems of IB’s increasing exposure to the risks inherent in secondary data. We also discuss the implications related to neglecting individual-level data for theory advancement in IB, such as a disregard for novel secondary data opportunities at the individual level and the risk of reduced theoretical pluralism. In doing so, we substantially extend the debate initiated by Nielsen and colleagues (2020).
Funder
Vienna University of Economics and Business
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Strategy and Management,Economics and Econometrics,General Business, Management and Accounting,Business and International Management
Reference41 articles.
1. Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. 2019. Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8): 1291–1315.
2. Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. 2018. What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1): 83–110.
3. Aguinis, H., Cascio, W. F., & Ramani, R. S. 2017. Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis: International business is not immune. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(6): 653–663.
4. Aguinis, H., Cummings, C., Ramani, R. S., & Cummings, T. G. 2020. “An A is an A”: The new bottom line for valuing academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1): 135–154.
5. Ambos, B., & Håkanson, L. 2014. The concept of distance in international management research. Journal of International Management, 20(1): 1–7.
Cited by
28 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献