The Adoption Challenge: An Analysis of Research Methods in JIBS

Abstract

This study introduces the concepts of translational distance and complexity distance to explain challenges to adoption of research methods in JIBS. We examine three analytical techniques and data collection approaches: (1) Heckman models, (2) ethnographic studies, and (3) data collection equivalence procedures in survey-based research. We note that progress has been made to reduce translational and complexity distance for analytical techniques. However, concerns remain for data collection equivalence and ethnography as IB scholars are using increasingly advanced analytical techniques on less credible data.

Paradigms in Qualitative IB Research: Trends, Analysis and Recommendations

“…We confirm that the positivist/(post)positivist paradigm continues to dominate qualitative IB research. Among three alternative paradigms, we reveal that interpretivism has a delayed adoption, while social constructivism and critical realism have low delayed adoption (Miller et al, 2021). Moreover, we found differences in data collection techniques, methods and research questions between the dominant and alternative paradigms.…”

“…With an abundance of research opportunities conducive to alternative paradigms, the IB community needs to work steadfastly to decrease costs as well as reduce translational distance and complexity distance (Miller et al, 2021). 10 We contend that the academy leadership needs to promote/support adoption of alternative paradigms, particularly through editors and reviewers; offer qualitative methods training; and establish policies that help scholars to publish research that uses alternative paradigms.…”

“…Miller et al, (2021: 1) defined translational distance as "the degree of perceived applicability, an innovation developed in one scholarly field has for a different scholarly field" and complexity distance as "the degree of perceived difficulty associated with a given methodological innovation (e.g., data collection and analytical technique) compared to existing applications within a given scholarly field".…”

Methodological fit for empirical research in international business: A contingency framework

“…Previously, scholars have highlighted substantial gaps in the quality of, and focus on, the methodological domain in IB research. They pointed to challenges related to research design (e.g., Bouter, Tijdink, Axelsen, Martinson, & ter Riert, 2016), data appropriateness (e.g., Nielsen, Eden, & Verbeke, 2020a), exploratory versus confirmatory goals (e.g., Hurmerinta-Peltomäki & Nummela, 2006), data collection (e.g., Chidlow, Plakoyiannaki, & Welch, 2014;Chidlow, Ghauri, Yeniyurt, & Cavusgil, 2015;Miller, Welch, Chidlow, Nielsen, Pegoraro, & Karafyllia, 2021), data quality (e.g., Welch & Piekkari, 2006), measurement (e.g., Davidov et al, 2014), reporting on findings (e.g., Aguinis & Vandenberg, 2014), and ensuring the validity of data analysis and ultimate research findings (e.g., Nielsen, et al, 2020a). Recent studies highlight deficiencies in the choice and implementation of methods and the quality of data (e.g., Beugelsdijk, van Witteloostuijn, & Meyer, 2020;Cuervo-Cazurra, Andersson, Brannen, Nielsen, & Reuber, 2016;Nielsen et al, 2020b).…”

“…Recent studies highlight deficiencies in the choice and implementation of methods and the quality of data (e.g., Beugelsdijk, van Witteloostuijn, & Meyer, 2020;Cuervo-Cazurra, Andersson, Brannen, Nielsen, & Reuber, 2016;Nielsen et al, 2020b). IB scholars struggle with gaining access to suitable data, representativeness of target populations, conceptual and translation equivalence, construct validity, and reliability, among others (Bouter et al, 2016;Chidlow et al, 2014;Chidlow et al, 2015;Miller et al, 2021;Eden, Nielsen, & Verbeke, 2020). As a result, scholars often do not benefit from the richness of global context and fail to use context heterogeneity as a source for theorising (Whetten, 2009;Minbaeva, 2016).…”