Empirical Analysis of Escalation of Commitment in Internationalization Process Decision-Making

  • Björn Röber
Chapter
Part of the MIR Series in International Business book series (MIRSIB)

Abstract

Up to this point, the present study has dealt with the identification as well as with the development of the research problem. In order to analyze bounded rationality in internationalization processes, the present fourth chapter will attempt to identify the display of escalation of commitment in internationalization decision-making empirically. The here-applied structural setup of the study (first the problem identification and development, then the empirical analysis) can be considered as a standard procedure in research processes. With regard to the empirical analysis, the following Sect. 4.1 will outline the applied methodological approach for the present study. This is necessary because a sound empirical analysis requires a closer look at the selection of the underlying research methodology. Section 4.2 is dedicated to the quantitative-empirical analysis of the research problem, and Sect. 4.3 presents a qualitative-empirical illustration of this study’s subject.

References

  1. Angerer, T., Foscht, T., & Swoboda, B. (2006). Mixed Methods – Ein neuerer Zugang in der empirischen Marketingforschung. der markt, 45(3), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K. A. (2003). Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(6), 871–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2011). Mulivariate Analysemethoden (13th ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.Google Scholar
  5. Bianchi, C. C., & Ostale, E. (2006). Lessons learned from unsuccessful internationalization attempts: Examples of multinational retailers in Chile. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanco Ramírez, G. (2016). Case studies. In C. Marshall & G. B. Rossman (Eds.), Designing qualitative research (6th ed., pp. 19–20). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (4th ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brake, A. (2009). Schriftliche Befragung. In S. Kühl, P. Strodtholz, & A. Taffertshofer (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung (pp. 392–412). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckley, P. J., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. (2007). Do managers behave the way theory suggests? A choice-theoretic examination of foreign direct investment location decision-making. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(7), 1069–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3), 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cameron, R., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2011). The acceptance of mixed methods in business and management research. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 19(3), 256–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 45–68). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1988). A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioural research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(3), 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dost, J. R. (2014). Produktionsverlagerungen deutscher Unternehmen nach China: Eine neo-institutionalistische Perspektive. Lohmar: Josef Eul Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  19. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eschweiler, M., Evanschitzky, H., & Woisetschläger, D. (2007). Laborexperimente in der Marketingwissenschaft: Bestandsaufnahme und Leitfaden bei varianzanalytischen Auswertungen (Working Paper No. 45). Förderkreis für Industriegütermarketing e.V. an der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster (Ed.).Google Scholar
  22. Falk, A., & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326(5952), 535–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fisch, J. H., & Oesterle, M. -J. (2003). Exploring the globalization of German MNCs with the complex spread and diversity measure. Schmalenbach Business Review, 55(1), 2–21.Google Scholar
  24. Fisher, R. A. (1966). The design of experiments (8th ed.). New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
  25. Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Foerstl, K., Kirchoff, J. F., & Bals, L. (2016). Reshoring and insourcing: Drivers and future research directions. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 46(5), 492–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forsgren, M. (2002). The concept of learning in the Uppsala internationalization process model: A critical review. International Business Review, 11(3), 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 775–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  32. Homburg, C. (2012). Marketingmanagement. Strategie – Instrumente – Umsetzung – Unternehmensführung (4th ed.). Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  33. Huber, F., Meyer, F., & Lenzen, M. (2014). Grundlagen der Varianzanalyse. Wiesbaden: Gabler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hurmerinta-Peltomäki, L., & Nummela, N. (2006). Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review, 46(4), 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hutzschenreuter, T., Pedersen, T., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). The role of path dependency and managerial intentionality: A perspective on international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(7), 1055–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm – A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keselman, H. J., Huberty, C. J., Lix, L. M., Olejnik, S., Cribbie, R. A., Donahue, B., et al. (1998). Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 350–386.Google Scholar
  41. Kinkel, S., & Maloca, S. (2009). Drivers and antecedents of manufacturing offshoring and backshoring – A German perspective. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 15(3), 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kobrak, C., & Oesterle, M.-J. (1999). Nationalism and internationalism in corporate governance: The case of Daimier Chrysler. In Entreprises et Histoire (Vol. 21, pp. 70–89).Google Scholar
  43. Kühl, S. (2009). Experiment. In S. Kühl, P. Strodtholz, & A. Taffertshofer (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung (pp. 534–557). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Langer, T. (2007). Experimentelle Forschung. In R. Köhler, H.-U. Küpper, & A. Pfingsten (Eds.), Handwörterbuch der Betriebswirtschaft (col. 421–430). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.Google Scholar
  46. Lawrence, B. S. (1997). Perspective – The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leigh, J. H., & Kinnear, T. C. (1980). On interaction classification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 841–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Manning, W. G., Newhouse, J. P., Duan, N., Keeler, E. B., & Leibowitz, A. (1987). Health insurance and the demand for medical care: Evidence from a randomized experiment. The American Economic Review, 77(3), 251–277.Google Scholar
  50. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Mayring, P. (2001). Combination and integration of qualitative and quantitative analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung (FQS), 2(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  52. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Oesterle, M.-J., Schick, E. M., & Lang, E.-M. (2011). Daimler trucks in India – Foreign market entry modes and location decisions. In J. Zentes, B. Swoboda, & D. Morschett (Eds.), Fallstudien zum Internationalen Management (4th ed., pp. 192–210). Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  54. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Pauwels, P., & Matthyssens, P. (2004). The architecture of multiple case study research in international business. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 125–143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  56. Petersen, B., Pedersen, T., & Sharma, D. D. (2003). The role of knowledge in firms’ internationalization process: Wherefrom and whereto. In A. Blomstermo & D. D. Sharma (Eds.), Learning in the internationalization process of firms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  57. Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 450–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reeb, D., Sakakibara, M., & Mahmood, I. P. (2012). Endogeneity in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3), 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1949). Management and the worker: An account of a research program conducted by the western electric company. Chicago: Hawthorne Works. 9th Print, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  62. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schram, A. (2005). Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  65. Starr, M. A. (2012). Qualitative and mixed-methods research in economics: Surprising growth, promising future. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(2), 238–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Statista. (2016). Ranking of the most circulated financial and business newspapers in Germany for the first quarter of 2016. Accessed June 19, 2016, from http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/271298/umfrage/verkaufte-auflage-der-wirtschaftsmaga-zine-in-deutschland/
  67. Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Staw, B. M. (2010). The trouble with JDM: Some limitations to the influence of JDM on organizational research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(4), 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thomas, R. W. (2011). When student samples make sense in logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(3), 287–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(2), 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wiso. (2016). Die Online-Datenbank für Studium und Wissenschaft. Accessed June 17, 2016, from https://www.wiso-net.de/popup/ueber_wiso
  73. Woodside, A. G. (2010). Case study research: Theory, methods, practice. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  74. Yang, Z., Wang, X., & Su, C. (2006). A review of research methodologies in international business. International Business Review, 15(6), 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  76. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  77. Zellmer-Bruhn, M., Caligiuri, P., & Thomas, D. C. (2016). Experimental designs in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(4), 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Björn Röber
    • 1
  1. 1.University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations