Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and innovation research – the rise of a method

  • Sascha KrausEmail author
  • Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano
  • Miriam Schüssler


This article reviews and critically examines 77 journal articles published from 2005 to 2016 on the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) applied in business and management research on the fields of entrepreneurship and innovation research. The findings reveal that the number of fsQCA applications has sharply increased during the past few years. Stemming from the systematic literature review, core aspects dealing with firm performance and innovation are identified. Ultimately, we provide promising areas with future potential for the application of fsQCA such as the elaboration of the antecedents leading to business model innovation.


Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis fsQCA Method Overview Application Business and management Entrepreneurship Innovation Research 


  1. Aguilera-Caracuel, J., Fedriani, E. M., & Delgado-Márquez, B. L. (2014). Institutional distance among country influences and environmental performance standardization in multinational enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 67(11), 2385–2392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, R. G., Filatotchev, I., & Aguilera, R. V. (2014). Corporate governance and investors' perceptions of foreign ipo value: An institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beynon, M. J., Jones, P., & Pickernell, D. (2016). Country-based comparison analysis using fsQCA investigating entrepreneurial attitudes and activity. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1271–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouncken, R. B., Plüschke, B. D., Pesch, R., & Kraus, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation in vertical alliances: Joint product innovation and learning from allies. Review of Managerial Science, 10(2)381–409.Google Scholar
  5. Castro, G. M.-d., Delgado-verde, M., Amores-salvadó, J., & Navas-lópez, J. E. (2013). Linking human, technological, and relational assets to technological innovation: Exploring a new approach. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(2), 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandra Balodi, K., & Prabhu, J. (2014). Causal recipes for high performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 20(6), 542–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, M.-L., & Cheng, C.-F. (2014). How balance theory explains high-tech professionals' solutions of enhancing job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 2008–2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaparro-Peláez, J., Agudo-Peregrina, Á. F., & Pascual-Miguel, F. J. (2016). Conjoint analysis of drivers and inhibitors of e-commerce adoption. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1277–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng, C.-F., Chang, M.-L., & Li, C.-S. (2013). Configural paths to successful product innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2561–2573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chesbrough, H. W. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chia-Wen, C., Ting-Hsiang, T., & Woodside, A. G. (2013). Configural algorithms of patient satisfaction, participation in diagnostics, and treatment decisions' influences on hospital loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(2), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coduras, A., Clemente, J. A., & Ruiz, J. (2016). A novel application of fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to GEM data. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1265–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, B., & Glaesser, J. (2010). Using case-based approaches to analyse large datasets: A comparison of Ragin’s fsQCA and fuzzy cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Covin, J. G., Eggers, F., Kraus, S., Cheng, C.-F., & Chang, M.-L. (2016). Marketing-related resources and radical innovativeness in family and non-family firms: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Research, in press. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.069.
  15. Crilly, D. (2011). Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational enterprise: A mid-range theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 694–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crilly, D., Zollo, M., & Hansen, M. T. (2012). Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. The Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1429–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dai, C.-Y., & Huang, D.-H. (2015). Causal complexities to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial instruction. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 894–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long Range Planning, 47(6), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denk, T., & Lehtinen, S. (2014). Contextual analyses with QCA-methods. Quality and Quantity, 48(6), 3475–3487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Domenech, J., Escamilla, R., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2016). Explaining knowledge-intensive activities from a regional perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1301–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 370–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. El Sawy, O. A., Malhotra, A., YoungKi, P., & Pavlou, P. A. (2010). Seeking the configurations of digital Ecodynamics: It takes three to tango. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 835–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fan, D., & Zhu, C. J. (2014). How do Chinese multinationals perceive factors affecting the integration-responsiveness framework? International Journal of Emerging Markets, 9(2), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C. I., & Kraus, S. (2017). Entrepreneurship research: Mapping intellectual structures and research trends. Review of Managerial Science. doi: 10.1007/s11846-017-0242-3.
  25. Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ford, L. R., Seers, A., & Neumann, J. (2013). Honoring complexity. Management Research Review, 36(7), 644–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frambach, R. T., Fiss, P. C., & Ingenbleek, P. T. M. (2016). How important is customer orientation for firm performance? A fuzzy set analysis of orientations, strategies, and environments. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1428–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2014). Configurational paths to organizational innovation: Qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1285–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garcia-Castro, R., & Aguilera, R. V. (2014). Family involvement in business and financial performance: A set-theoretic cross-national inquiry. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garcia-Castro, R., & Casasola, M. J. (2011). A set-theoretic analysis of the components of family involvement in publicly listed and major unlisted firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(1), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. García-Castro, R., Aguilera, R. V., & Ariño, M. A. (2013). Bundles of firm corporate governance practices: A fuzzy set analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(4), 390–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gast, J., Filser, M., Gundolf, K., & Kraus, S. (2015). Coopetition research: Towards a better understanding of past trends and future directions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 24(4), 492–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 35(1), 83–111.Google Scholar
  35. Gonçalves, H. M., Lourenço, T. F., & Silva, G. M. (2016). Green buying behavior and the theory of consumption values: A fuzzy-set approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1484–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. González-Cruz, T. F., & Cruz-Ros, S. (2016). When does family involvement produce superior performance in SME family business? Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1452–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., & Lacey, R. (2008). Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 695–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Häge, F. M. (2007). Constructivism, fuzzy sets and (very) small-N: Revisiting the conditions for communicative action. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 512–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hai, D. P., Roig-Dobón, S., & Sánchez-García, J. L. (2016). Innovative governance from public policy unities. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1524–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harms, R., Kraus, S., & Reschke, C. H. (2007). Configurations of new ventures in entrepreneurship research - contributions and research gaps. Management Research News, 30(9), 661–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harms, R., Kraus, S., & Schwarz, E. (2009). The suitability of the configuration approach in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(1), 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Henik, E. (2015). Understanding whistle-blowing: A set-theoretic approach. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 442–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ho, H., & Lu, R. (2015). Performance implications of marketing exploitation and exploration: Moderating role of supplier collaboration. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1026–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Huang, C.-W., & Huarng, K.-H. (2015). Evaluating the performance of biotechnology companies by causal recipes. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 851–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Huarng, K.-H. (2015). Configural theory for ICT development. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 748–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Iseke, A., Kocks, B., Schneider, M. R., & Schulze-Bentrop, C. (2015). Cross-cutting organizational and demographic divides and the performance of research and development teams: Two wrongs can make a right. R&D Management, 45(1), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jenson, I., Leith, P., Doyle, R., West, J., & Miles, M. P. (2016). Testing innovation systems theory using qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1283–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Joshi, A., Son, J., & Roh, H. (2015). When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1516–1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kask, J., & Linton, G. (2013). Business mating: When start-ups get it right. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(5), 511–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kent, R. A. (2005). Cases as configurations: Using combinatorial and fuzzy logic to analyse marketing data. International Journal of Market Research, 47(2), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kent, R. A., & Argouslidis, P. C. (2005). Shaping business decisions using fuzzy-set analysis: Service elimination decisions. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(5/6), 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kraus, S., Brem, A., Schüssler, M., Schüssler, F., & Niemand, T. (2017). Innovative born Globals: Investigating the influence of their business models on international performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(1)1–54.Google Scholar
  53. Kraus, S., Mensching, H., Calabrò, A., Cheng, C.-F., & Filser, M. (2016). Family firm internationalization: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Research 69,(11)5473–5478.Google Scholar
  54. Kraus, S., Richter, C., Brem, A., Cheng, C.-F., & Chan, M.-L. (2016c). Strategies for reward-based crowdfunding campaigns. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1(1), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kuckertz, A., Berger, E. S. C., & Mpeqa, A. (2016). The more the merrier? Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1288–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kulins, C., Leonardy, H., & Weber, C. (2016). A configurational approach in business model design. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1437–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kvist, J. (2007). Fuzzy set ideal type analysis. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 474–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Leischnig, A., & Kasper-Brauer, K. (2015). Employee adaptive behavior in service enactments. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Leischnig, A., & Kasper-Brauer, K. (2016). How to sell in diverse markets? A two-level approach to industry factors and selling factors for explaining firm profitability. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1307–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Leischnig, A., Geigenmueller, A., & Lohmann, S. (2014). On the role of alliance management capability, organizational compatibility, and interaction quality in interorganizational technology transfer. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1049–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lisboa, A., Skarmeas, D., & Saridakis, C. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation pathways to performance: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1319–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for Society: A typology of social Entrepreneuring models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Marx, A., & van Hootegem, G. (2007). Comparative configurational case analysis of ergonomic injuries. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 522–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mas-Verdú, F., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2015). Firm survival: The role of incubators and business characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mayrhofer, W. (2009). Groping in the dark? Recent contributions to progress in interpretative research - a review. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 23(2), 166–182.Google Scholar
  66. Mendel, J. M., & Korjani, M. M. (2013). Theoretical aspects of fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Information Sciences, 237(0), 137–161.Google Scholar
  67. Meuer, J. (2014). Archetypes of inter-firm relations in the implementation of management innovation: A set-theoretic study in China’s biopharmaceutical industry. Organization Studies (01708406), 35(1), 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mikalef, P., Pateli, A., Batenburg, R. S., & Wetering, R. v. d. (2015). Purchasing alignment under multiple contingencies: A configuration theory approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(4), 625–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Misangyi, V. F., & Acharya, A. G. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1681–1705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mozas-Moral, A., Moral-Pajares, E., Medina-Viruel, M. J., & Bernal-Jurado, E. (2016). Manager's educational background and ICT use as antecedents of export decisions: A crisp set QCA analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1333–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mugler, J., Frank, H., Lueger, M., & Korunka, C. (2003). The entrepreneurial personality in the context of resources, environment, and the startup process. A Configuration Approach. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
  72. Muñoz, P., & Kibler, E. (2016). Institutional complexity and social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1314–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nair, L. B., & Gibbert, M. (2016). Analyzing inconsistent cases in management fsQCA studies: A methodological manifesto. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1464–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Navarro, S., Llinares, C., & Garzon, D. (2016). Exploring the relationship between co-creation and satisfaction using QCA. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1336–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ni, N., Egri, C., Lo, C., & Lin, C. Y.-y. (2015). Patterns of corporate responsibility practices for high financial performance: Evidence from three Chinese societies. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M., & McDougall-Covin, P. (2012). Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: Business models for new technology-based firms. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(3), 337–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ospina-Delgado, J., & Zorio-Grima, A. (2016). Innovation at universities: A fuzzy-set approach for MOOC-intensiveness. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1325–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ott, U. F., & Kimura, Y. (2016). A set-theoretic analysis of negotiations in Japanese MNEs: Opening up the black box. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1294–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Peltoniemi, M. (2014). How do the determinants of firm survival change in the course of the industry life cycle? A fuzzy-set analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(2), 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Prado, A. M., & Woodside, A. (2015). Deepening understanding of certification adoption and non-adoption of international-supplier ethical standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Primc, K., & Cater, T. (2015). Environmental proactivity and firm performance: A fuzzy-set analysis. Management Decision, 53(3), 648–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pustovrh, A., & Jaklic, M. (2014). National innovation policies in the eu: A fuzzy-set analysis. Economic and Business Review for Central and South - Eastern Europe, 16(1), 39–62.Google Scholar
  83. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  84. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  85. Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ragin, C. C. (2008a). Measurement versus calibration: A set-theoretic approach. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 174–198). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Ragin, C. C. (2008b). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ragin, C. C. (2008c). User's guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis.
  89. Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurative comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 87–121). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rigtering, C., Kraus, S., Eggers, F., & Jensen, S. H. (2014). A comparative analysis of the entrepreneurial orientation/growth relationship in service firms and manufacturing firms. Service Industries Journal, 34(4), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rihoux, B., Álamos-Concha, P., Bol, D., Marx, A., & Rezsöhazy, I. (2013). From niche to mainstream method? A comprehensive mapping of QCA applications in journal articles from 1984 to 2011. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Roig-Tierno, N., Huarng, K.-H., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016). Qualitative comparative analysis: Crisp and fuzzy sets in business and management. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1261–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rubinson, C. (2013). Contradictions in fsQCA. Quality and Quantity, 47(5), 2847–2867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schneider, M. R., & Eggert, A. (2014). Embracing complex causality with the QCA method: An invitation. Journal of Business Market Management, 7(1), 312–328.Google Scholar
  95. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social science: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Schneider, M. R., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. (2010). Mapping the institutional Capital of High-Tech Firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 246–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Semrau, T., Ambos, T. C., & Kraus, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance across societal cultures. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1928–1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Shang-Yung, Y., & Song-Ching, F. (2014). An exploration on the business model of social enterprises owned by Chinese entrepreneurs in Taiwan. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 4(10), 1275–1289.Google Scholar
  99. Shipley, M. F., Johnson, M., Pointer, L., & Yankov, N. (2013). A fuzzy attractiveness of market entry (FAME) model for market selection decisions. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(4), 597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Skarmeas, D., Leonidou, C. N., & Saridakis, C. (2014). Examining the role of CSR skepticism using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1796–1805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 448–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Stanko, M. A., & Olleros, X. (2013). Industry growth and the knowledge spillover regime: Does outsourcing harm innovativeness but help profit? Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2007–2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Stokke, O. S. (2007). Qualitative comparative analysis, shaming, and international regime effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Straub, D., Rai, A., & Klein, R. (2004). Measuring firm performance at the network level: A Nomology of the business impact of digital supply networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1), 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Svejenova, S., Planellas, M., & Vives, L. (2010). An individual business model in the making: A Chef’s quest for creative freedom. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 408–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tho, N. D., & Trang, N. T. M. (2015). Can knowledge be transferred from business schools to business organizations through in-service training students? SEM and fsQCA findings. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1332–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tóth, Z., Thiesbrummel, C., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2015). Understanding configurations of relational attractiveness of the customer firm using fuzzy set QCA. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 723–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Trimi, S., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2012). Business model innovation in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(4), 449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Valliere, D., Na, N., & Wise, S. (2008). Prior relationships and M&a Exit Valuations: A set-theoretic approach. Journal of Private Equity, 11(2), 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wang, D. H.-M., Yu, T. H.-K., & Chiang, C.-H. (2016). Exploring the value relevance of corporate reputation: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1329–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Woodside, A. G. (2010). Bridging the chasm between survey and case study research: Research methods for achieving generalization, accuracy, and complexity. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Woodside, A. G. (2011). Responding to the severe limitations of cross-sectional surveys: Commenting on Rong and Wilkinson’s perspectives. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 19(3), 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463–472.Google Scholar
  115. Woodside, A. G. (2014). Embrace•perform•model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495–2503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Woodside, A. G., & Baxter, R. (2013). Achieving accuracy, generalization-to-contexts, and complexity in theories of business-to-business decision processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(3), 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Woodside, A. G., & Zhang, M. (2013). Cultural diversity and marketing transactions: Are market integration, large community size, and world religions necessary for fairness in ephemeral exchanges? Psychology & Marketing, 30(3), 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Woodside, A. G., Ko, E., & Huan, T. C. (2012). The new logic in building isomorphic theory of management decision realities. Management Decision, 50(5), 765–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Wu, C.-W. (2015). Antecedents of franchise strategy and performance. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1581–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wu, C.-W., & Huarng, K.-H. (2015). Global entrepreneurship and innovation in management. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 743–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wu, P.-L., Yeh, S.-S., Huan, T.-C., & Woodside, A. G. (2014). Applying complexity theory to deepen service dominant logic: Configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of professional services for personal transformations. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1647–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Yen, S.-Y., Tseng, T.-H., & Fan, S.-C. (2014). Exploring sufficiency conditions for entrepreneurial environment and counseling activities on entrepreneurial performance. International Business Research, 7(7), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sascha Kraus
    • 1
    Email author
  • Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano
    • 2
  • Miriam Schüssler
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of EntrepreneurshipUniversity of LiechtensteinVaduzLiechtenstein
  2. 2.Facultad de Economía, Campus de los NaranjosUniversitat de ValènciaValènciaSpain

Personalised recommendations