Paradigms in Qualitative IB Research: Trends, Analysis and Recommendations

IF 3.9 3区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Management International Review Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1007/s11575-024-00529-5
Roberta Aguzzoli, Jorge Lengler, Stewart R. Miller, Agnieszka Chidlow
{"title":"Paradigms in Qualitative IB Research: Trends, Analysis and Recommendations","authors":"Roberta Aguzzoli, Jorge Lengler, Stewart R. Miller, Agnieszka Chidlow","doi":"10.1007/s11575-024-00529-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper examines trends, challenges and opportunities in terms of research methodologies in qualitative IB research. In particular, it examines trends for the dominant (positivism/(post)positivism) paradigm versus alternative paradigms (i.e., social constructivism, critical realism and interpretivism) and provides a comparative analysis of data collection and methods. Using mixed methods to collect and analyze data on qualitative articles published in <i>International Business Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business, and Management International Review</i>, we examine trends and differences between the dominant and alternative paradigms and use qualitative content analysis to investigate how alternative paradigm papers are conceptualized and presented. Moreover, we interview authors of non-positivist papers to gain in-depth understanding of the findings. We reveal differences across the paradigms and provide evidence of paradigmatic fit between methods and data collection techniques for the dominant paradigm, but more variation for alternative paradigms. Lastly, we provide prescriptions for IB scholars in terms of methodology diversity and how complex IB phenomena can be pursued vis-a-vis alternative paradigms.</p>","PeriodicalId":51434,"journal":{"name":"Management International Review","volume":"529 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management International Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-024-00529-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines trends, challenges and opportunities in terms of research methodologies in qualitative IB research. In particular, it examines trends for the dominant (positivism/(post)positivism) paradigm versus alternative paradigms (i.e., social constructivism, critical realism and interpretivism) and provides a comparative analysis of data collection and methods. Using mixed methods to collect and analyze data on qualitative articles published in International Business Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business, and Management International Review, we examine trends and differences between the dominant and alternative paradigms and use qualitative content analysis to investigate how alternative paradigm papers are conceptualized and presented. Moreover, we interview authors of non-positivist papers to gain in-depth understanding of the findings. We reveal differences across the paradigms and provide evidence of paradigmatic fit between methods and data collection techniques for the dominant paradigm, but more variation for alternative paradigms. Lastly, we provide prescriptions for IB scholars in terms of methodology diversity and how complex IB phenomena can be pursued vis-a-vis alternative paradigms.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
定性 IB 研究范式:趋势、分析和建议
本文探讨了国际基础结构定性研究方法的趋势、挑战和机遇。特别是,本文探讨了主导范式(实证主义/(后)实证主义)与替代范式(即社会建构主义、批判现实主义和解释学)的发展趋势,并对数据收集和方法进行了比较分析。我们采用混合方法收集和分析了《国际商业评论》、《国际商业研究杂志》、《世界商业杂志》和《国际管理评论》上发表的定性文章的数据,研究了主流范式和替代范式之间的趋势和差异,并采用定性内容分析法研究了替代范式论文是如何概念化和呈现的。此外,我们还采访了非实证主义论文的作者,以深入了解研究结果。我们揭示了不同范式之间的差异,并提供证据表明,主流范式的方法和数据收集技术之间存在范式契合,而替代范式则存在更多差异。最后,我们为国际基础结构学者提供了方法多样性方面的建议,以及如何在替代范式中研究复杂的国际基础结构现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.60%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Management International Review publishes research-based articles that reflect significant advances in the key areas of International Management. Its target audience consists of scholars in International Business Administration. Management International Review is a double-blind refereed journal that aims at the advancement and dissemination of research in the fields of International Management. The scope of the journal comprises International Business, Cross-Cultural Management, and Comparative Management. The journal publishes research that builds or extends International Management theory so that it can contribute to International Management practice. Management International Review welcomes both theoretical and empirical work. Original papers are invited that are based on a solid theoretical basis and a rigorous methodology. In the area of empirical studies, the journal publishes both quantitative and qualitative research. To be published in Management International Review, a paper must make strong contributions and highlight the significance of those contributions to the field of International Management. The editors are especially interested in manuscripts that break new ground rather than papers that make only incremental contributions. Management International Review publishes articles and research notes. Every year, six issues are published. On average, two of these issues are Focused Issues, which concentrate on a specific subfield of International Management.
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Strategic Orientations on the Born Globals’ Export Performance: An Ambidexterity Approach Strangers in a Strange Land: Legitimacy Formation by Polish Multinationals Venturing into Sub-Saharan Africa Market or Community? An Institutional Logics Interpretation of how MNE Subsidiaries Respond to Mandated Social Innovation in India MNCs’ Corporate Social Innovation in Emerging Markets: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Boundary Conditions Social Innovation and the Financial Risk of EMNCs - The Contingent Role of Institutional Legitimacy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1