Improving the credibility of case study research in international business studies and beyond: a simple fix for a serious problem

IF 2.2 4区 管理学 Q3 BUSINESS Multinational Business Review Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1108/mbr-04-2024-0061
Trevor Buck, Mehdi Boussebaa
{"title":"Improving the credibility of case study research in international business studies and beyond: a simple fix for a serious problem","authors":"Trevor Buck, Mehdi Boussebaa","doi":"10.1108/mbr-04-2024-0061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The field of international business (IB) formally welcomes and frequently calls for case study research, but the proportion of case study papers appearing in IB journals remains very small. This paper aims to support efforts to redress this imbalance by addressing an overlooked yet critical issue: the (mis)use of tenses when theorizing from case study findings. The authors reveal a pervasive use of the present tense and argue that this leads to decontextualization and, in turn, over-generalization. The paper also suggests ways in which this problem may be avoided in the future, thereby improving the credibility and status of case-based research and helping to de-marginalise it within IB.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>A qualitative content analysis was applied to all (2,627) papers published between 2011 and 2021 in four leading IB journals. In total, 171 case study papers were identified over these 11 years, and a deeper content analysis was then performed to measure the extent of decontextualization/over-generalization implied by the inappropriate use of the present tense in the discussion and theorisation of research findings.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>This study found that, out of 171 case study papers identified, 141 (82.5%) provided at least two instances of over-generalization as implied by the misuse of the present tense. However, some of these papers were found to feature statements that could be claimed to mitigate such inappropriate generalization. These mitigating factors included the repeated use of adverbial phrases denoting context and the use of a “propositional style” that clearly distinguished contextual findings from speculative, decontextualized generalizations. Nevertheless, 71 of the 171 (41.5%) papers still demonstrated inappropriate generalization, even after allowing for mitigating factors.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This study reveals a problematic writing practice and one which has arguably significantly contributed to the “decontextualization” problem critiqued in IB and management studies more broadly. The study also offers further insights into how decontextualization might be avoided, arguing that this problem would be significantly reduced if tenses were used appropriately in discussing and theorizing case study findings. Additionally, the study highlights the continued marginalization of qualitative research methods in IB and reinforces calls to address it.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":46630,"journal":{"name":"Multinational Business Review","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multinational Business Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mbr-04-2024-0061","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The field of international business (IB) formally welcomes and frequently calls for case study research, but the proportion of case study papers appearing in IB journals remains very small. This paper aims to support efforts to redress this imbalance by addressing an overlooked yet critical issue: the (mis)use of tenses when theorizing from case study findings. The authors reveal a pervasive use of the present tense and argue that this leads to decontextualization and, in turn, over-generalization. The paper also suggests ways in which this problem may be avoided in the future, thereby improving the credibility and status of case-based research and helping to de-marginalise it within IB.

Design/methodology/approach

A qualitative content analysis was applied to all (2,627) papers published between 2011 and 2021 in four leading IB journals. In total, 171 case study papers were identified over these 11 years, and a deeper content analysis was then performed to measure the extent of decontextualization/over-generalization implied by the inappropriate use of the present tense in the discussion and theorisation of research findings.

Findings

This study found that, out of 171 case study papers identified, 141 (82.5%) provided at least two instances of over-generalization as implied by the misuse of the present tense. However, some of these papers were found to feature statements that could be claimed to mitigate such inappropriate generalization. These mitigating factors included the repeated use of adverbial phrases denoting context and the use of a “propositional style” that clearly distinguished contextual findings from speculative, decontextualized generalizations. Nevertheless, 71 of the 171 (41.5%) papers still demonstrated inappropriate generalization, even after allowing for mitigating factors.

Originality/value

This study reveals a problematic writing practice and one which has arguably significantly contributed to the “decontextualization” problem critiqued in IB and management studies more broadly. The study also offers further insights into how decontextualization might be avoided, arguing that this problem would be significantly reduced if tenses were used appropriately in discussing and theorizing case study findings. Additionally, the study highlights the continued marginalization of qualitative research methods in IB and reinforces calls to address it.

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
提高案例研究在国际商务研究及其他领域的可信度:解决严重问题的简单方法
目的国际商务(IB)领域正式欢迎并经常呼吁开展案例研究,但在 IB 期刊上发表的案例研究论文所占比例仍然很小。本文旨在通过解决一个被忽视但却至关重要的问题--根据案例研究结果进行理论分析时(错误)使用时态--来支持纠正这种不平衡的努力。作者揭示了现在时态的普遍使用,并认为这会导致脱离语境,进而导致过度概括。本文还提出了今后避免这一问题的方法,从而提高了基于案例的研究的可信度和地位,并有助于使其在国际文凭组织中不再边缘化。 设计/方法/途径 对 2011 年至 2021 年间在四种主要国际文凭组织期刊上发表的所有论文(2627 篇)进行了定性内容分析。在这 11 年中,共发现了 171 篇案例研究论文,然后进行了更深入的内容分析,以衡量在讨论和理论化研究成果时不恰当使用现在时所隐含的去语境化/过度概括化的程度。研究结果本研究发现,在所发现的 171 篇案例研究论文中,141 篇(82.5%)至少有两处存在滥用现在时所隐含的过度概括化现象。不过,在这些论文中,也有一些论文的语句可以减轻这种不恰当的概括。这些缓解因素包括反复使用表示背景的副词短语和使用 "命题风格",以明确区分根据背景得出的结论和推测性的、脱离背景的概括。尽管如此,171 篇论文中有 71 篇(41.5%)仍然表现出了不恰当的概括,即使考虑到了减轻影响的因素。 原创性/价值 本研究揭示了一种有问题的写作方法,可以说这种方法在很大程度上导致了国际文凭研究和更广泛的管理研究中所批评的 "脱离语境 "问题。本研究还就如何避免 "去语境化 "提出了进一步的见解,认为如果在讨论案例研究结果并将其理论化时恰当地使用时态,就会大大减少 "去语境化 "问题。此外,本研究还强调了定性研究方法在国际管理学中继续被边缘化的问题,并进一步呼吁解决这一问题。
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
5.40
自引率
14.80%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Multinational Business Review publishes high quality and innovative peer-review research on the strategy, organization and performance of multinational enterprise (MNE), international business history, geography of international business, and the impact of international business on economic growth and development. The journal encourages papers that are cross-disciplinary in nature, and that address new and important issues in international business. Multinational Business Review also promotes research on under-represented regions such as Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and South East Asia and their MNEs, as well as under-studied topics such as the role of trade, investment and other public policies. Specific topics of interest include innovation and entrepreneurship in an international context; corporate governance and ownership; social, environmental and political risk; the role of multilateral institutions; and the nature of emerging market multinationals. The title seeks strong conceptual studies, contributing to the advancement of theories and frameworks, and sound empirical work, whether qualitative or quantitative, suggesting managerial, economic or government policy recommendations. The journal encourages replication studies that contribute to our understanding of the reliability and validity of current knowledge. Finally, Multinational Business Review welcomes proposals for perspectives pieces that offer critical and challenging viewpoints; surveys of the literature particularly those that use new and innovative bibliometric methods; and special issues on topics of relevance to Multinational Business Review.
期刊最新文献
Open strategy and the multinational firm Improving the credibility of case study research in international business studies and beyond: a simple fix for a serious problem Ownership share in cross-border acquisitions: does high-tech status of the target matter? Future directions of R&D internationalization in international business Home country influence in cross-border mergers and acquisitions by emerging market firms: a systematic review
×
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