Abstract
We seek to complement and extend the article by Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (J Int Bus Stud 42:740–762, 2011), winner of the 2021 JIBS Decade Award, which advanced knowledge on case-based theory development in international business (IB). Similarly, we examine dimensions of scholarly inquiry across qualitative and quantitative research, using inductive and deductive approaches. Recent years have featured unprecedented growth in the volume and availability of data from diverse national contexts, offering novel opportunities for innovative research. Accordingly, we build on the logic of Welch et al. (2011) not only to elaborate on but also to call for a more pluralistic view of data and methodology. We advocate using a wider range of data and advanced methods in IB research, framed at the appropriate stage of theory development. We examine the interplay among theory, research design, data, and analytical technique, highlighting the role of data in methodological pluralism. While IB scholars have favored confirmatory approaches in deductive theory building, we argue for more exploratory research using both qualitative and quantitative data. We develop a contingency framework that highlights the stages of theory development, across the nexus of exploratory/confirmatory and qualitative/quantitative approaches, to guide empirical scholarship. We conclude by calling for triangulation and adopting the most appropriate combination of theory, research design, data, and analytical technique, to develop theory in IB research.
Résumé
Nous visons à compléter et à étendre l'article de Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (2011), lauréat du 2021 JIBS Decade Award, lequel a fait progresser les connaissances sur le développement de la théorie fondé sur les cas dans le domaine des affaires internationales (International Business - IB). De même, nous examinons les dimensions des recherches qualitatives et quantitatives, menées dans des approches inductives et déductives. Ces dernières années ont été marquées par une croissance sans précédent du volume et de la disponibilité des données provenant de divers contextes nationaux, offrant de nouvelles opportunités pour la recherche innovante. Par conséquent, nous nous appuyons sur la logique de Welch et al. (2011) non seulement pour développer, mais aussi pour appeler à une vision plus pluraliste des données et de la méthodologie. Nous préconisons l'utilisation d'un plus large éventail de données et de méthodes avancées dans la recherche en IB, élaborées au stade approprié du développement de la théorie. Nous examinons l'interaction entre la théorie, la conception de la recherche, les données et la technique analytique tout en soulignant le rôle des données dans le pluralisme méthodologique. Alors que les chercheurs en IB ont privilégié les approches confirmatoires dans l'élaboration déductive de la théorie, nous plaidons en faveur d'une recherche plus exploratoire utilisant à la fois des données qualitatives et quantitatives. Dans le but de guider la recherche empirique, nous développons un cadre contingent qui met en lumière les étapes du développement de la théorie à travers le nœud des approches exploratoires/confirmatoires et qualitatives/quantitatives. Nous concluons par un appel à la triangulation et à l’adoption de la combinaison la plus appropriée entre la théorie, la conception de la recherche, les données et la technique analytique, nécessaires pour développer la théorie dans la recherche en IB.
Resumen
Buscamos complementar y ampliar el artículo de Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki y Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, ganador del Premio de la Década de JIBS en el 2021, el cual avanza el conocimiento sobre el desarrollo de la teoría basada en casos en los negocios internacionales (IB por sus siglas en inglés). De igual manera, examinamos las dimensiones de la investigación académica a través de la investigación cualitativa y cuantitativa, usando enfoques inductivos y deductivos. En los últimos años se ha producido un crecimiento sin precedentes en el volumen y disponibilidad de datos de diversos contextos nacionales, lo que ofrece oportunidades novedosas para investigación innovadora. Por consiguiente, nos basamos en la lógica de Welch y sus colaboradores (2011) no sólo para explicar en mayo detalle sino también para hacer un llamado a una visión más pluralista de los datos y la metodología. Abogamos por usar una amplia gama de datos y métodos avanzados en la investigación de negocios internacionales, enmarcados en la interacción entre la teoría y el diseño de la investigación, los datos y la técnica analítica, destacando el papel de los datos en el pluralismo metodológico. Mientras que los estudiosos de negocios internacionales han favorecido los enfoques confirmatorios en la construcción de la teoría deductiva, nosotros sugerimos una investigación más exploratoria usando tantos datos cualitativos como cuantitativos. Desarrollamos un marco de contingencia que resalta las etapas del desarrollo de teorías, a través del nexo de los enfoques exploratorios/confirmatorio y cualitativo/cuantitativo, para guiar la erudición empírica. Concluimos haciendo un llamado para la triangulación y la adopción la más apropiada combinación de teoría, diseño de investigación, datos y técnica analítica para desarrollar la teoría en la investigación en negocios internacionales.
Resumo
Procuramos complementar e estender o artigo de Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki e Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (2011), vencedor do JIBS Decade Award 2021, que avançou o conhecimento sobre o desenvolvimento da teoria baseada em casos em negócios internacionais (IB). Da mesma forma, examinamos as dimensões da investigação acadêmica na pesquisa qualitativa e quantitativa, usando abordagens indutivas e dedutivas. Nos últimos anos, houve um crescimento sem precedentes no volume e na disponibilidade de dados de diversos contextos nacionais, oferecendo novas oportunidades para pesquisas inovadoras. Por conseguinte, nos baseamos na lógica de Welch et al. (2011) não apenas para elaborar, mas também para demandar uma visão mais pluralista de dados e metodologia. Defendemos o uso de uma gama mais ampla de dados e métodos avançados na pesquisa de IB, ajustados ao apropriado estágio de desenvolvimento de teoria. Examinamos a interação entre teoria, desenho de pesquisa, dados e técnica analítica, destacando o papel dos dados no pluralismo metodológico. Embora acadêmicos de IB tenham favorecido abordagens confirmatórias na construção de teorias dedutivas, defendemos mais pesquisas exploratórias usando dados qualitativos e quantitativos. Desenvolvemos um modelo de contingência que destaca os estágios de desenvolvimento da teoria, através do nexo de abordagens exploratórias/confirmatórias e qualitativas/quantitativas, para nortear a pesquisa empírica. Concluímos pedindo a triangulação e adotando a combinação mais apropriada de teoria, desenho de pesquisa, dados e técnica analítica para desenvolver teoria na pesquisa de IB.
摘要
我们寻求补充和拓展 Welch、Piekkari、Plakoyiannaki 和 Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (2011 年) 荣获2021 年 JIBS 十年奖的文章, 该文推进了国际商务 (IB) 基于案例的理论发展的知识。 同样, 我们用归纳和演绎方法检查定性和定量研究中学术探究的维度。 近年来, 来自不同国家情境的数据量和可用性空前增长, 为有创意的研究提供了新机会。因此, 我们在 Welch 等人 (2011) 的逻辑基础上, 不仅详细阐述而且呼吁对数据和方法论的更加多元化的观点。 我们提倡在 IB 研究中使用更广泛的数据和先进的方法, 在理论发展的适当阶段提出来。我们考察了理论、研究设计、数据和分析技术之间的相互作用, 强调数据在方法论多元化中的作用。 虽然 IB 学者推崇在演绎的理论构建中采用验证性方法, 但我们主张使用定性和定量数据进行更多探索性的研究。 我们开发了一个应急框架, 突出理论发展的各个阶段, 跨越探索性/验证性和定性/定量方法的联系, 来指导实证研究。最后, 我们呼吁用三角互证法, 并采用理论、研究设计、数据和分析技术的最合适的组合, 来发展 IB 研究的理论。
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Source: Based on Nielsen et al. (2020b).

Source: Based on Nielsen et al. (2020b).

Source: The authors.

Source: The authors.

Source: The authors.
REFERENCES
Alexander, J., & Tate, M. 1999. Web wisdom: How to evaluate and create information on the web. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aronova, E., von Oertzen, C., & Sepkoski, D. 2017. Introduction: Historicizing big data. The History of Science Society, 32(1): 1–17.
Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. 2014. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1): 569–595.
Babones, S. 2016. Interpretive quantitative methods for the social sciences. Sociology, 50(3): 453–469.
Barker, J. R. 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 408–437.
Beugelsdijk, S., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Meyer, K. E. 2020. The evolving rules of data management in the publication process: Data Access and Research Transparency (DART). Journal of International Business Studies, 51(6): 887–905.
Bogen, J., & Woodward, J. 1988. Saving the phenomena. The Philosophical Review., 97(3): 303–352.
Bouchard, T. 1976. Unobtrusive measures: An inventory of uses. Sociological Methods and Research, 4: 267–300.
Bouter, L., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B., & ter Riert, G. 2016. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: Results from a survey among participants of four world conferences on research integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1: 17.
Brannen, J. (Ed.). 2017. Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. New York: Routledge.
Breiman, L. 2001. Statistical modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Statistical Science, 16(3): 199–231.
Brock, J.K.-U. 2003. The “power” of international business research. Journal of International Business Studies., 34: 90–99.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). 2007. The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
Buckley, P. J., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. 2017. Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 1045–1064.
Cai, L., & Zhu, Y. 2015. The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era. Data Science Journal, 14(2): 1–10.
Chen, H., Chiang, R., & Storey, V. 2012. Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4): 1165–1188.
Chidlow, A., Ghauri, P., Yeniyurt, S., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2015. Establishing rigor in mail-survey procedures in international business research. Journal of World Business, 50(1): 26–35.
Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. 2014. Translation in cross-language international business research: Beyond equivalence. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5): 562–582.
Comte, A. 1859. The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte.
Comte A. 1844/1957. A general view of positivism. Trans. Bridges J.H. New York: Robert Speller and Sons.
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Andersson, U., Brannen, M. Y., Nielsen, B., & Reuber, R. 2016. From the Editors: Can I trust your findings? Ruling out alternative explanations in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8): 881–897.
Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. 2014. Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40: 55–75.
Denzin, N. 1978. The Research Act (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Eden, L., Nielsen, B., & Verbeke, A. 2020. Research methods in international business. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Edmondson, A., & McManus, S. 2007. Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1155–1179.
Ellis, P., & D. 2010. Effect sizes and the interpretation of research results in international business. Journal of International Business Studies., 41: 1581–1588.
Frizzo-Barker, J., Chow-White, P., Mozafari, M., & Ha, D. 2016. An empirical study of the rise of big data in business scholarship. International Journal of Information Management, 36(3): 403–413.
George, G., Osinga, E., Lavie, D., & Scott, B. 2016. Big data and data science methods for management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1493–1507.
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2003. An introduction to the philosophy of science: Theory and reality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hartung, F. E. 1945. The social function of positivism. Philosophy of Science., 12(2): 120–133.
Hassan, N., & Mingers, J. 2018. Reinterpreting the Kuhnian paradigm in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(7): 568–599.
Hempel, C. 1970. Aspects of scientific explanation. Free Press.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., Griffith, D. A., Finnegan, C. A., Gonzalez-Padron, T., Harmancioglu, N., et al. 2008. Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business research: Assessment and guidelines. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6): 1027–1044.
Hurmerinta-Peltomäki, L., & Nummela, N. 2006. Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review, 46(4): 439–459.
Jick, T. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 602–611.
Kuhn, T. 2012. The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leonelli, S. 2015. What counts as scientific data? A relational framework. Philosophy of Science, 82(5): 810–821.
Masterman, M. 1970. The nature of a paradigm. In I. Latakos, & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge: 59–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mees-Buss, J., Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. 2020. From templates to heuristics: How and why to more beyond the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods.. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120967716.
Meyer, K., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. 2011. Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 235–252.
Miller, S., Welch, C., Chidlow, A., Nielsen, B., Pegoraro, D., & Karafyllia, M. 2021. The adoption challenge: An analysis of research methods in JIBS. AIB Insights, (forthcoming): https://doi.org/10.46697/001c.23472
Minbaeva, D. 2016. Contextualizing the individual in international management research: Black boxes, comfort zones and a future research agenda. European Journal of International Management, 10(1): 95–104.
Miyake, T. 2015. Reference models: Using models to turn data into evidence. Philosophy of Science., 82: 822–832.
Morgan, M., & Morrison, M. 1999. Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nagel, E. 1979. The structure of science. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Nielsen, B., Eden, L., & Verbeke, A. 2020a. Research methods in international business: Challenges and advances. In B. Nielsen, L. Eden, & A. Verbeke (Eds.), Research methods in international business: 3–41. Cham. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nielsen, B., Welch, C., Chidlow, A., Miller, S., Aguzzoli, R., Gardner, E., Karafyllia, M., & Pegoraro, D. 2020b. Fifty years of methodological trends in JIBS: Why future IB research needs more triangulation. Journal of International Business Studies, 51: 1478–1499.
Perlow, L. A. 1999. The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 57–81.
Popper, K. 1957. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Oxford: Routledge.
Poulis, K., Poulis, E., & Plakoyiannaki, E. 2013. The role of context in case study selection: An international business perspective. International Business Review, 22(1): 304–314.
Ratner, B. 2017. Statistical and machine-learning data-mining: Techniques for better predictve modelling and analysis of big data (3rd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.
Reynolds, P. 1971. A primer in theory construction. Allyn and Bacon.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. 1975. Primer of methods for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. 2019. Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Sekaran, U. 1983. Methodological and theoretical issues and advancements in cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2): 61–73.
Ströing, P. 2018. Data, evidence, and explanatory power. Philosophy of Science, 85: 422–441.
Sayer, A. 1992. Method in social science: A realist approach (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Tukey, J. W. 1977. Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Vakarelov, O. K. 2012. The information medium. Philosophy and Technology, 25(1): 47–65.
Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. 2006. Crossing language boundaries: Qualitative interviewing in international business. Management International Review., 46(4): 417–437.
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2020. Reflections. In L. Eden, B. Nielsen, & A. Verbeke (Eds.), Research methods in international business: 229–233. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2011. Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42: 740–762.
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2022. Reconciling theory and context: How the case study can set a new agenda for IB research. Journal of International Business Studies, forthcoming.
Whetten, D. 2009. An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management Organization Review, 5(1): 29–35.
Woodward, J. 2011. Data and phenomena: A restatement and defence. Synthese, 182: 165–179.
Woodward, J. 2000. Data, phenomena, and reality. Philosophy of Science, 67: S162–S179.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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, 23 August 2021.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Knight, G., Chidlow, A. & Minbaeva, D. Methodological fit for empirical research in international business: A contingency framework. J Int Bus Stud 53, 39–52 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00476-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00476-5
Keywords
- methodological fit
- methodological pluralism
- theory
- quantitative data
- qualitative data