With Apologies for
Cross-Posting)
Call for Journal of
World Business
Special Issue
Contextualizing
Research:
Rigor and Relevance
Guest
Editors: Mary
B. Teagarden, Mary Ann Von Glinow and Kamel Mellahi
Deadline:
1 November
2015
Contextualizing
international
business research to achieve research rigor and practical
relevance is a
challenge faced by all sub-disciplines within the IB domain.
Contextualizing IB research focuses on the big question, 'How do
we identify
and integrate context into our IB research?' and a corollary,
'Why should we
identify and integrate context into our IB research?' We seek
submissions for
this special issue that explore the implications of context for
IB theory
building, research design and methodology including
methodological approaches
to build more robust IB theories; articles that focus on the
conceptualization
and meaning of context; and limitations of contextualization.
Additionally,
submissions that demonstrate novel methodological approaches for
integrating context
into IB theory building are welcome.
When
Peter Buckley
(2002) questioned the distinctiveness of IB research, he
responded to his own
question and argued for more integration of culture, more use of
comparative
studies and of distinctive methods in IB research. Many argue
contextual
dimensions are what differentiate domestic research from
international business
and international management research (Buckley, 2002; Child,
2009; Oesterle
& Wolf, 2011). Oesterle and Wolf (2011) raised the question,
'how
international are our international journals?' And concluded
that context
was not adequately or at best modestly addressed in most of our
research. We
concur.
Despite
the urging of
thought leaders in IB for more contextualization, our approaches
to contextualization
appear limited, for example, focusing on categorical data or
concepts like
country or nationality (Von Glinow & Shenkar, 1994). They
are static
since our methods do not appear to be changing despite calls to
do so (Buckley,
2002; Child, 2009; Teagarden, et al. 1995). Perhaps, most
importantly, the
scope of IB is expanding dramatically and our research
contextualization
appears inadequate, given the shift in business from the United
States and
Europe toward more 'exotic' emerging markets in Asia, Latin
America and Africa
with more pronounced differences in business and cultural
environments.
For our IB research to remain relevant we must more adequately
contextualize
our theory building.
Contextualization
has
been viewed through many lenses, and at multiple levels of
analysis. While
focusing on theory building, Whetten (2009) and Tsui (2004)
differentiate
context-specific and context-bound theory development, and Child
(2009)
discusses an 'outside in' versus 'inside out' perspective of
contextualization.
Von Glinow, Shapiro and Brett (2004) and Shapiro, Von Glinow and
Xiao (2007)
suggest a more complex perspective when they contrast 'single
contextuality'
with 'polycontextuality' or the multiple and qualitatively
different contexts
embedded within one another. Each of these studies acknowledges
that
context is important in IB theory building and each offer
prescriptive
recommendations for incorporating context.
Strategists
and
behaviorists assert that location, one form of context, has an
impact on theory
(Gelfend, Erez & Aycan, 2007; Ricart et al., 2004; Rugman
& Verbeke,
2001; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Khanna (2002) explores
institutions
and institutional voids in locations. Ghemawat (2001, 2003)
examines country
differences and offers the CAGE (Culture, Administrative,
Geographic and
Economic) framework to guide analysis. Ghemawat (2007) argues
that
despite globalization, there are significant locational
differences that must
be considered. Cheng (1994) suggests that context-embedded
research ought to
include '…a nation's social, cultural, legal, and economic
variables as
predictors and organizational attributes as dependent variables.
Enright (2002)
urges the use of multilevel analysis including supranational,
macro, meso,
micro and firm levels in the integration of location into
competitive strategy.
House and colleagues (2004) in their seminal GLOBE study
discuss
societies and their impact on leadership. Von Glinow and
colleagues (2002
a, 2002 b) and Von Glinow & Teagarden (1988, 1990) identify
locational
influences on human resource management best practices. Shapiro
and colleagues
(2007) identify numerous contextual variables, including
location, that address
the multiple and qualitatively different contextual variables
that influence
understanding behavior in China. Regardless of sub-discipline,
there is
ample opportunity to contribute to the IB research
contextualization dialog.
Given
the magnitude
of possible contexts, researchers are challenged to comprehend
the contextual
and polycontextual dynamics in a limited number of cultures or
societies. Tsui
(2004) argues for inside-out, context specific indigenous
research, and this
represents one possible solution to the context challenge.
Teagarden and
Schotter (2013) and Enright (2002) argue for the importance of
multilevel
analysis to contextualize research and provide a deeper
understanding of
phenomena. Teagarden and colleagues (1995) suggest that
team-based
comparative-management studies provide the collective
understanding to contextualize
and make sense of multiple contexts in a single research
project. There
have been numerous examples that demonstrate the effectiveness
of this latter
approach (House, et al., 2004; Von Glinow, Teagarden &
Drost, 2002a,
2002b). This highlights the opportunity to question the research
methods
currently used to contextualize IB research.
The list
of topics
below is merely suggestive of the range of topics appropriate
for the Special
Issue, which ideally seeks inputs from scholars across a number
of disciplines
related to conducting research on organizational, institutional
and
environmental contexts. Through contributions to this special
issue, we aspire
to expand the boundaries of rigor and relevance in international
business
research.
Contributors
are
invited to submit manuscripts focus on topics and themes such
as:
· How important is context
to conducting
IB research?
· What are the various
methodological
approaches used to measure context?
· How does indigenous
research help us
uncover multiple contexts?
· What is context-embedded
research, and
why is it important?
· What role do
institutions and
institutional voids play in establishing context in IB research?
· How does the use (or
abuse) of context
affect rigor or relevance in our theory development?
· How does the use of
context help us
expand theory in IB?
· What research methods
are most
appropriate to uncovering the different and multiple contexts
that underlie
most international settings?
We encourage submissions that address the
above –
and other relevant topics – designed to shed light on the
current and potential
role of context in IB. Submissions are welcome and encouraged
from all
methodological traditions and especially those that may be
particularly suited
to this overall topic.
Submission
process:
By November 1, 2015, authors should submit their
manuscripts
online via the new Journal of World Business EES
submission
system. The link for submitting manuscript is:http://ees.elsevier.com/jwb.
To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified
for
consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that
authors select ‘SI:
Contextualizing Research’ when they reach the “Article
Type” step in the
submission process
Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Journal
of
World Business Guide for Authors available at
http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-world-business/1090-9516/guide-for-authors.
All
submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal of World
Business’s blind review process.
We may organize a workshop designed to facilitate the
development of
papers. Authors of manuscripts that have progressed through the
revision
process will be invited to it. Presentation at the workshop is
neither a
requirement for nor a promise of final acceptance of the paper
in the Special
Issue.
Questions about the Special Issue may be directed to the
guest editors:
Mary B. Teagarden, Thunderbird School of Management,
Arizona State
University, USA ([log in to unmask])
Mary Ann Von Glinow, Florida International University,
USA ([log in to unmask])
Kamel
Mellahi,
Warwick Business School, UK ([log in to unmask])
References:
Buckley,
P.J. (2002)
'Is the international business research agenda running out of
steam?',Journal
of International Business Studies, 33(2): 365-373.
Cheng,
J.L.C. (1994)
'On the concept of universal knowledge in organization science:
implications
for cross-national research', Management Science, 40:
162-168.
Child,
J. (2009)
'Context, Comparison, and methodology in Chinese Management
Research',Management
and Organization Review, 5(1): 57-73.
Enright,
M.J. (2002)
'Globalization, regionalization, and the knowledge-based economy
in Hong
Kong. In J.H. Dunning (ed.) Regions, Globalization and the
Knowledge-based Economy, Oxford University Press: Oxford,
pp. 381-406.
Gelfend,
M.J., Erez,
M.and Aycan, Z. (2007) 'Cross-cultural organizational
behavior', Annual
Review of Psychology, 58: 479-514.
Ghemawat,
P. (2001)
'Distance still matters', Harvard Business Review, 79(8),
September: 137-147.
Ghemawat,
P. (2003)
'Semiglobalization and international business strategy', Journal
of
International Business Studies, 34(2): 138-152.
Ghemawat,
P. (2007)
'Why the world isn't flat', Foreign Policy, March-April:
54-60.
House,
R. J., Hanges,
P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004) Culture,
Leadership
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage.
Khanna,
T.
(2000) Local Institutions and Global Strategy, Harvard
Business
School: Boston, Harvard Business School Note No. 702-475.
Oesterle,
M.J. and
Wolf, J.M. (2011) '50 years of MIR and IB/IM research; an
inventory and some
suggestions for the fields development', Management
International
Review, 51: 735-757.
Ricart,
J.E.,
Enright, M.J., Ghemawat, P., Hart, S.L., and Khanna, T. (2004)
'New frontiers
in international strategy', Journal of International Business
Studies,
35: 175-200.
Rousseau,
D.M. and
Fried, Y. (2001) 'Location, location, location: contextualizing
organizational
research', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 1-13.
Rugman,
A.M. and
Verbeke, A. (2001) 'Subsidiary-specific advantages in
multinational
enterprises', Strategic Management Journal, 23(3):
237-250.
Shapiro,
D.L., Von
Glinow, M.A. and Xiao Z. (2007) 'Toward polycontextually
sensitive research
methods', Management and Organization Review, 3(1):
129-152.
Shenkar,
O. and Von
Glinow, M.A. (1994) 'Paradoxes of organizational theory and
research: using the
case of China to illustrate national contingency', Management
Science,
40: 56-71.
Teagarden,
M.B. and
Schotter, A. (2013) 'Favor prevalence in emerging markets: a
multi-level
analysis of social capital', Asia Pacific Journal of
Management,
30(2): 447-460.
Teagarden, M.B., M.A. Von
Glinow, D.
Bowen, C. Frayne, S. Nason, P. Huo, J. Milliman, M.C. Butler,
M.E. Arias, N.H.
Kim, H. Scullion, K.B. Lowe & E. Drost (1995). Toward
building a theory of
comparative management research methodology: An idiographic case
study of the
best international human resources management project. Academy of Management
Journal, 38(5),
pp. 1261-1287.
Tsui,
A.S. (2004)
'Contributing to global management knowledge: a case for high
quality
indigenous research', Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
21:
491-513.
Von
Glinow, M.A. and
Teagarden, M.B. (2009) 'The future of Chinese management
research: rigor and
relevance redux', Management and Organization Review,
5(1): 75-89.
Von Glinow, M.A. and
Teagarden M.B. (1990). 'Contextual determinants
of human
resource management effectiveness in international cooperative
alliances:
evidence from the People's Republic of China', International
Human Resource Management Review, 1: 75-93.
Von
Glinow, M.A. and
Teagarden M.B. (1988). 'The transfer of human resource
management technology in
Sino-U.S. cooperative ventures: problems and solutions', Human
Resource
Management, 27(2), Summer: 201-229.
Von
Glinow, M.A,
Drost, E. & Teagarden, M.B. (2002a). 'Converging on
IHRM Best
Practices: Lessons Learned from a Globally-Distributed
Consortium on Theory and
Practice', Human Resource Management,
Special Issue,
41(1), pp. 123-140.
Von Glinow, M.A, Drost, E.
&
Teagarden, M.B. (2002b). Converging on IHRM Best
Practices: Lessons
Learned from a Globally-Distributed Consortium on Theory and
Practice. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resource Management, Special Issue,
40 (1), pp. 123-140.
Whetten,
D. (2009)
'An examination between context and theory applied to the study
of
organizations in China', Management and Organization Review,
5(1):
29-55.