Abstract
A number of distinguished scholars believe that for theory development to occur within a field, qualitative research must precede quantitative research in order for the field to progress toward maturity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the international management literature from 1991-2007 to ascertain current levels of use of qualitative, quantitative, conceptual and joint (quantitative and qualitative) research methods in the field. Results indicate scholars employ quantitative methods more than qualitative methods. The implications of these findings for future theory development and the generation of context relevant international management knowledge are discussed.
Highlights
International management developed as an academic field from the broader umbrella field of international business and is recognised as subfield in its own right (Jack, Calás, Nkomo, & Peltonen, forthcoming; Shenkar, (2004))
Qualitative research methodologies were least evident in the Management International Review (15.24 per cent), the Asia Pacific Journal of Management (12.95 per cent) and the Journal of International Business Studies (9.39 per cent)
Articles employing quantitative methods were dominant in only one journal (Journal of International Business Studies) of the five journals surveyed over the sixteen year period
Summary
International management developed as an academic field from the broader umbrella field of international business and is recognised as subfield in its own right (Jack, Calás, Nkomo, & Peltonen, forthcoming; Shenkar, (2004)). One of the consistent themes in international management has been the need to build management theory that reflects the unique reality of different cultures and contexts in the global business environment (Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; Doktor, Tung & Von Glinow, 1991; Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, 2001; Lewis, 2000). Despite this call, evidence, exists that the majority of management theories is still formulated in North America or Western Europe and exported abroad (Gregerson, Morrison & Black, 1998; Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta 2004; Kirkman & Law, 2005; Lewis, 2000; Peterson, 2004; Tsui, 2004; Westwood & Linstead, 2001). A number of scholars have challenged the assumption that management theories formulated in one country are applicable universally, and have demonstrated in their research that management theories applicable in one country cannot be generalised directly to other countries (e.g. House et al, 2004; Javidan, Stahl, Brodbeck & Wilderom, 2005)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
