Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 740–762 | Cite as

Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research

  • Catherine Welch
  • Rebecca Piekkari
  • Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki
  • Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki
Article

Abstract

The literature on case studies, both in the field of international business (IB) and in the social sciences more generally, has tended to focus on the methods of data production and analysis suited to this research strategy. In contrast, in this paper we investigate methods of theorising from case studies. We seek to understand how case researchers theorise, and how future IB research might utilise case studies for theorising. By means of a qualitative content analysis of case studies published in Journal of International Business Studies, Academy of Management Journal and Journal of Management Studies, we construct a typology of theorising from case studies. Two dimensions of the case study, namely causal explanation and contextualisation, form the basis for our typology. We distinguish four methods of theorising – inductive theory-building, interpretive sensemaking, natural experiment and contextualised explanation – only the first of which has been widely used in JIBS in the period that we investigate. On the basis of our own qualitative analysis, we show the limitations of inductive theory-building, and argue that greater utilisation of the other methods of theorising would enhance the case study's explanatory power and potential for contextualisation. We argue for a more pluralist future for IB research.

Keywords

case theoretic approaches secondary data source theory–method intersection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Snejina Michailova, Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Kalle Pajunen, Kristina Rolin, Ben Tipton, Denice Welch, Lawrence Welch, Ian Wilkinson and Yorgos Zotos for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript; as well as students in our PhD case research classes at Aalto University and University of Sydney. Particular thanks are due to Geoff Easton and Ricardo Morais, who have been responsible for our interest in critical realism. Early versions of the paper benefited from feedback at the 2009 European International Business Academy annual conference, and at Academy of Management symposia in 2009 and 2010. We are extremely grateful for the constructive and thoughtful guidance provided by Mary Yoko Brannen as special issue editor, as well as the anonymous JIBS reviewers.

References

  1. Abbott, A. 1997. Of time and space: The contemporary relevance of the Chicago school. Social Forces, 75 (4): 1149–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, A. 1998. The causal devolution. Sociological Methods Research, 27 (2): 148–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackroyd, S., & Fleetwood, S. (Eds) 2000. Realist perspectives on management and organisations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bamberger, P. 2008. Beyond contextualization: Using context theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (5): 839–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbour, R. 2001. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322 (May 5): 1115–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barry, J., Chandler, J., & Clark, H. 2001. Between the ivory tower and the academic assembly line. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (1): 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bengtsson, L., Elg, U., & Lind, J.-I. 1997. Bridging the transatlantic publishing gap: How North American reviewers evaluate European idiographic research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13 (4): 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benjamin, O., & Goclaw, R. 2005. Narrating the power of non-standard employment: The case of the Israeli public sector. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (4): 737–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berelson, B. 1971. Content analysis in communication research, (2nd ed.) Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Beverland, M. B. 2005. Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (5): 1003–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhaskar, R. 1998. The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences, (3rd ed.) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Blair, J. D., & Hunt, J. G. 1986. Getting inside the head of the management researcher one more time: Context-free and context-specific orientations in research. Journal of Management, 12 (2): 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonoma, T. V. 1985. Case research in marketing: Opportunities, problems, and a process. Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (2): 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boxall, P., & Steeneveld, M. 1999. Human resource strategy and competitive advantage: A longitudinal study of engineering consultancies. Journal of Management Studies, 36 (4): 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brady, H. E. 2008. Causation and explanation in social science. In B. Steffenmeier, H.E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds), The Oxford handbook of political methodology: 217–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Brannen, M. Y., & Doz, Y. 2010. From a distance and detached to up close and personal: Bridging strategic and cross-cultural perspectives in international management research and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26 (3): 236–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Büchel, B. 2000. Framework of joint venture development: Theory-building through qualitative research. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (5): 637–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buck, T., & Shahrim, A. 2005. The translation of corporate governance changes across national cultures: The case of Germany. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (1): 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Byrne, D. 2009. Case-based methods: Why we need them; what they are; how to do them. In D. Byrne & C.C. Ragin (Eds), The Sage handbook of case-based methods: 1–10. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Calhoun, C. 1998. Explanation in historical sociology: Narrative, general theory, and historically specific theory. American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3): 846–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. 1991. The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level approach. In B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 13): 55–110. Stanford: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  22. Child, J. 2000. Theorizing about organization cross-nationally. In J.L.C. Cheng & R.B. Peterson (Eds), Advances in international comparative management, (Vol. 13): 27–75. Stanford: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  23. Chreim, S. 2005. The continuity–change duality in narrative texts of organizational identity. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (3): 567–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chung, C. 2001. Markets, culture and institutions: The emergence of large business groups in Taiwan, 1950s–1970s. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (5): 719–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Clark, E., & Soulsby, A. 1999. The adoption of the multi-divisional form in large Czech enterprises: The role of economic, institutional and strategic choice factors. Journal of Management Studies, 36 (4): 535–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clark, T., & Wright, M. 2007. Reviewing journal rankings and revisiting peer reviews: Editorial perspectives. Journal on Management Studies, 44 (4): 612–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Collier, A. 1994. Critical realism: An introduction to Roy Bhaskar's philosophy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  28. Collier, A. 2005. Critical realism. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others: 327–345. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Collinson, S., & Rugman, A. M. 2008. The regional nature of Japanese multinational business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (2): 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Côté, L., Langley, A., & Pasquero, J. 1999. Acquisition strategy and dominant logic in an engineering firm. Journal of Management Studies, 36 (7): 919–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Coupland, C., & Brown, A. D. 2004. Constructing organizational identities on the web: A case study of Royal Dutch/Shell. Journal of Management Studies, 41 (8): 1325–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Coviello, N. E. 2006. The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (5): 713–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. 2002. Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Danis, W. M., & Parkhe, A. 2002. Hungarian–Western partnerships: A grounded theoretical model of integration processes and outcomes. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (3): 423–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. De Boer, M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 1999. Managing organizational knowledge integration in the emerging multimedia complex. Journal of Management Studies, 36 (3): 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Denis, J-L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. 2001. The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4): 809–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Pineault, M. 2000. Becoming a leader in a complex organization. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (8): 1063–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dick, P., & Cassell, C. 2002. Barriers to managing diversity in a UK constabulary: The role of discourse. Journal of Management Studies, 39 (7): 953–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Duriau, V. J., Reger, R., & Pfarrer, M. D. 2007. A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10 (5): 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Eckstein, H. 2000. Case study and theory in political science. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds), Case study method: 119–164. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 532–550.Google Scholar
  42. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1991. Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16 (3): 620–627.Google Scholar
  43. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1): 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Elger, T. 2010. Critical realism. In A.J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds), Encyclopedia of case study research, (Vol. 1): 253–557. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Elliott, J. 2005. Using narratives in social research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Faems, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A., & van Looy, B. 2008. Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: Connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (6): 1053–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Farjoun, M. 2002. The dialectics of institutional development in emerging and turbulent fields: The history of pricing conventions in the on-line database industry. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (5): 848–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. 1991. A case for the case study. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  49. Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2): 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. 2004. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Gephart, R. 2004. From the editors: Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4): 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gerring, J. 2007a. Case study research: Principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Gerring, J. 2007b. The mechanismic worldview: Thinking inside the box. British Journal of Political Science, 38: 161–179.Google Scholar
  54. Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  55. Gilbert, C. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5): 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Halfpenny, P. 1982. Positivism and sociology: Explaining social life. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  57. Hall, P. A. 2006. Systematic process analysis: When and how to use it. European Management Review, 3 (1): 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Harvey, J., Pettigrew, A., & Ferlie, E. 2002. The determinants of research group performance: Towards mode 2? Journal of Management Studies, 39 (6): 747–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. 2001. Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4): 755–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hill, S., Martin, R., & Harris, M. 2000. Decentralization, integration and the post-bureaucratic organization: The case of R&D. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (4): 563–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hillebrand, B., Kok, R. A. W., & Biemans, W. G. 2001. Theory-testing using case studies: A comment on Johnston, Leach, and Liu. Industrial Marketing Management, 30 (8): 651–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hodgson, D. 2002. Disciplining the professional: The case of project management. Journal of Management Studies, 39 (6): 803–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Howells, J. 2002. The response of old technology incumbents to technological competition: Does the sailing ship effect exist? Journal of Management Studies, 39 (7): 887–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9): 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Jack, G. A., Calás, M. B., Nkomo, S. M., & Peltonen, T. 2008. Critique and international management: An uneasy relationship? Academy of Management Review, 33 (4): 870–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Jacobides, M. G. 2005. Industry change through vertical disintegration: How and why markets emerged in mortgage banking. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3): 465–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31 (2): 386–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. 2000. Understanding management research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Cross, R. L., & Yan, A. 2003. Sources of fidelity in purposive organizational change: Lessons from a re-engineering case. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (7): 1837–1870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kakkuri-Knuutila, M. L., Lukka, K., & Kuorikoski, J. 2008. Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33 (2–3): 267–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., & Waters, C. K. (Eds) 2006. Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  72. Kolbe, R. H., & Burnett, M. S. 1991. Content analysis research: An examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (2): 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology, (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. Lawson, T. 2003. Reorienting economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Lee, A. S. 1989. Case studies as natural experiments. Human Relations, 42 (2): 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Leonard-Barton, D. 1990. A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1 (3): 248–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  78. Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. 2006. What's new in new forms of organizing? On the construction of gender in project-based work. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (4): 841–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (5): 1023–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Maguire, S., & Phillips, N. 2008. Citibankers at Citigroup: A study of the loss of institutional trust after a merger. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (2): 372–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. 2006. A tale of two cultures: Contrasting qualitative and quantitative research. Political Analysis, 14 (3): 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. 2003. Orchestral manoeuvres in the dark: Understanding failure in organizational strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (1): 109–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Maritan, C. A. 2001. Capital investment as investing in organizational capabilities: An empirically grounded process model. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (3): 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Markóczy, L. 2000. National culture and strategic change in belief formation. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (3): 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. McCabe, D. 2000. Factory innovations and management machinations: The productive and repressive relations of power. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (7): 931–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. McInerney, P.-B. 2008. Showdown at Kykuit: Field-configuring events as loci for conventionalizing accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (6): 1089–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. 1994. Qatative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  88. Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (4): 605–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Mota, J., & Castro, L. M. 2004. A capabilities perspective on the evolution of firm boundaries: A comparative case example from the Portuguese moulds industry. Journal of Management Studies, 41 (2): 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ng, W., & de Cock, C. 2002. Battle in the boardroom: A discursive perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 39 (1): 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Noda, T., & Collis, D. J. 2001. The evolution of intraindustry firm heterogeneity: Insights from a process study. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4): 897–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Noon, M., Jenkins, S., & Lucio, M. M. 2000. Fads, techniques and control: The competing agendas of TPM and TECEX at the Royal Mail (UK). Journal of Management Studies, 37 (4): 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Noorderhaven, N. G. 2004. Hermeneutic methodology and international business research. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business: 84–108. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  94. Nummela, N., & Hurmerinta-Peltomäki, L. 2006. Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review, 46 (4): 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Nutt, P. C. 2000. Decision-making success in public, private and the third sector organizations: Finding sector dependent best practice. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (1): 77–108.Google Scholar
  96. Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. 2002. Organizational culture: A ten year, two-phase study of change in the UK food retailing sector. Journal of Management Studies, 39 (5): 673–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ogbonna, E., & Wilkinson, B. 2003. The false promise of organizational culture change: A case study of middle managers in grocery retailing. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (5): 1151–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. O’Mahoney, J. 2007. The diffusion of management innovations: The possibilities and limitations of memetics. Journal of Management Studies, 44 (8): 1324–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Orr, R. J., & Scott, W. R. 2008. Institutional exceptions on global projects: A process model. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (4): 562–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Outhwaite, W. 1987. New philosophies of social science: Realism, hermeneutics and critical theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Pajunen, K. 2006. Stakeholder influences in organizational survival. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (6): 1261–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Perlow, L. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Repenning, N. P. 2002. The speed trap: Exploring the relationship between decision making and temporal context. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (5): 931–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Piekkari, R., Welch, C., & Paavilainen, E. 2009. The case study as disciplinary convention: Evidence from international business journals. Organizational Research Methods, 12 (3): 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. 1999. Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27 (3): 258–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Prasad, P. 2005. Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  106. Pratt, M. 2009. From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up and (reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (5): 856–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. 2006. Constructing professional identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (2): 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Ragin, C. C. 2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  109. Ragin, C. C. 2009. Reflection of casing and case-oriented research. In D. Byrne & C.C. Ragin (Eds), The Sage handbook of case-based methods: 522–534. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Ram, M. 1999. Managing consultants in a small firm: A case study. Journal of Management Studies, 36 (6): 875–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. 2006. Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (3): 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Redding, G. 2005. The thick description and comparison of societal systems of capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (2): 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Reed, M. 2005. Reflections on the “realist turn” in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (8): 1621–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds) 2009. Configurational comparative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  115. Roberts, C. 1996. The logic of historical explanation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  116. Rodrigues, S., & Child, J. 2008. The development of corporate identity: A political perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (5): 885–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Ruben, D. H. 1990. Explaining explanation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. 2000. Data management and analysis methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research, (2nd ed.) 769–802. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  120. Salaman, G., & Storey, J. 2002. Managers’ theories about the process of innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 39 (2): 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Sayer, A. 1992. Method in social science: A realist approach, (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  122. Sayer, A. 2000. Realism and social science. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Shah, S., & Corley, K. G. 2006. Building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (8): 1821–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Shapiro, D. L., Von Glinow, M. A., & Xiao, Z. 2007. Toward polycontextually sensitive research methods. Management and Organization Review, 3 (1): 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Sminia, H. 2003. The failure of the Sport7 TV-channel: Controversies in a business network. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (7): 1621–1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Stake, R. E. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  127. Stake, R. E. 2005. Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research, (3rd ed.) 443–466. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  128. Stiles, P. 2001. The impact of the board on strategy: An empirical examination. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (5): 627–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Suddaby, R. 2006. From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4): 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Taylor, B. 1999. Patterns of control within Japanese manufacturing plants in China: Doubts about Japanization in Asia. Journal of Management Studies, 36 (6): 853–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Tolich, M., Kenney, M., & Biggart, N. 1999. Managing the managers: Japanese management strategies in the USA. Journal of Management Studies, 36 (5): 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Tsoukas, H. 1989. The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 551–561.Google Scholar
  133. Tsui, A. S. 2004. Contributing to global management knowledge: A case for high quality indigenous research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21 (4): 491–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Tsui, A. S. 2006. Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 2 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Tsui, A. S. 2007. From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6): 1353–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Van Maanen, J. 1995. Fear and loathing in organization studies. Organization Science, 6 (6): 687–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Watson, T., & Watson, D. 1999. Human resourcing in practice: Managing employment issues in the university. Journal of Management Studies, 36 (4): 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. West, J. 2008. Commercializing open science: Deep space communications as the lead market for Shannon Theory, 1960–73. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (8): 1506–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Whetten, D. A. 2009. An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Reviews, 5 (1): 29–55.Google Scholar
  140. White, S., & Liu, X. 2001. Transition trajectories for market structure and firm strategy in China. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (1): 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Wilkinson, B., Gamble, J., Humphrey, J., Morris, J., & Anthony, D. 2001. The new international division of labour in Asian electronics: Work organization and human resources in Japan and Malaysia. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (5): 675–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Wolcott, H. F. 2001. Writing up qualitative research, (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  143. Wong, P. L.-K., & Ellis, P. 2002. Social ties and partner identification in Sino-Hong Kong international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (2): 265–289.Google Scholar
  144. Yakura, E. K. 2002. Charting time: Timelines as temporal boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (5): 956–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Yardley, L. 2000. Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health, 15 (2): 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research, (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Welch
    • 1
  • Rebecca Piekkari
    • 2
  • Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki
    • 3
  • Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business, Discipline of International Business, The University of SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Management and International BusinessSchool of Economics, Aalto UniversityFinland
  3. 3.Department of Business AdministrationSchool of Economics, Aristotle's University of ThessalonikiGreece
  4. 4.Department of MarketingTurku University, School of EconomicsFinland

Personalised recommendations