Search

Complementing Nielsen and colleagues’ (2020) analysis of methodological trends in the Journal of International Business Studies over the past 50 years, we examine similar data on methods published in a wider range of leading international business (IB) journals. Our analysis shows a clear decline of studies based on primary data relative to secondary data, and a persistently low level of individual-level studies among the growing body of research using secondary data across all IB journals considered. We discuss the main mechanisms driving these trends and identify the problems of IB’s increasing exposure to the risks inherent in secondary data. We also discuss the implications related to neglecting individual-level data for theory advancement in IB, such as a disregard for novel secondary data opportunities at the individual level and the risk of reduced theoretical pluralism. In doing so, we substantially extend the debate initiated by Nielsen and colleagues (2020).

We analyze methodological trends in empirical research in JIBS from 1970-2019. Our results point to the prevalence of the following patterns: there has been an increase in the use of (1) large-scale longitudinal, cross-national datasets, (2) complex analytical techniques, including the incorporation of multiple analytical techniques within the same study, but (3) a decline in the diversity of methods in use. We relate these trends to the underlying social, technical, and communicative conventions in the journal during the 50-year period. The observed patterns are consistent with theory that posits scientific fields entrench a dominant paradigm over time, resulting in a restricted set of methodological options being selected. Such restrictions jeopardize the quality of research because the study of any phenomenon requires the use of multiple methodological procedures to avoid the systematic biases, errors, omissions, and limitations introduced by any single option. Therefore, we propose the use of triangulation as a strategy for building methodological alternatives into research designs. Institutionalization of this principle in the field of international business has the potential to enhance both the rigor and scope of inquiry of future research.