Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconciling theory and context: How the case study can set a new agenda for international business research

  • Retrospective
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In our Decade Award-winning article from 2011 we argued that it is not possible to explain social phenomena without consideration of their contexts. However, a persistent assumption in international business (IB) is that theories should be context-free. This affects the methodological choices we make, favoring the inductive theory-building approach to theorizing from case studies. In 2011, we proposed an alternative – contextualized explanations – that in our view better utilizes the main strength of the case study: reconciling theory and context. In this Retrospective, we further develop our original argument that context is essential, and not a hindrance, to theorizing, as well as elaborate on how decontextualization impoverishes theoretical insights. In order to achieve contextualized explanation, we offer four alternatives: process research, historical research, the extended case method, and configurational theorizing. We argue that, for the IB field to take contextualization seriously, we need an open debate about what theory is and how we produce it. We hope this paper will broaden the scope of our discussion from the need for methodological pluralism to the need for theoretical pluralism, thereby setting a new agenda for future IB research.

Résumé

Notre article - lauréat du 2011 JIBS Decade Award - a argumenté qu'il n'était pas possible d'expliquer pleinement les phénomènes sociaux sans tenir compte de leurs contextes. Néanmoins, il existe une supposition persistante dans la recherche en affaires internationales (International Business - IB) selon laquelle les résultats doivent être acontextuels. Cela influe sur les choix méthodologiques que nous faisons dans la construction théorique, privilégiant l'approche inductive de la théorisation fondée sur les études de cas. En 2011, nous avons proposé une alternative - les explications contextualisées – laquelle exploite, à notre avis, mieux la force principale de l'étude de cas : concilier la théorie avec le contexte. Dans cette rétrospective, nous développons davantage notre argument original selon lequel le contexte est essentiel, et non un obstacle, à la théorisation, et nous expliquons comment la décontextualisation appauvrit les connaissances théoriques. Afin d'arriver à une explication contextualisée, nous proposons quatre alternatives: la recherche de processus, la recherche historique, la méthode des cas étendue et la théorisation configurationnelle. Nous argumentons que pour que le domaine de l'IB se préoccupe sérieusement de la contextualisation, nous avons besoin d'un débat ouvert sur ce qu'est la théorie et comment nous la produisons. Nous espérons que cet article élargira la portée de notre discussion, de la nécessité du pluralisme méthodologique à celle du pluralisme théorique, établissant ainsi un nouvel agenda pour de futures recherches en IB.

Resumen

Nuestro artículo del 2021, galardonado con el premio de la década, sostenía que no es posible explicar del todo los fenómenos sociales sin tener en consideración sus contextos. Sin embargo, una suposición persistente en negocios internacionales es que los hallazgos deben estar libre de contexto. Esto afecta las elecciones metodológicas que hacemos favoreciendo el enfoque inductivo de construcción teórica para teorizar a partir de estudios de casos. En el 2011 propusimos una alternativa – explicaciones contextualizadas – que en nuestra opinión utiliza mejor las principales fortalezas del estudio de caso: reconciliar la teoría y el contexto. En esta Retrospectiva, seguimos desarrollando nuestro argumento original de que el contexto es esencial, y no un impedimento para teorizar, así como elaboramos sobre cómo la descontextualización empobrece los conocimientos teóricos. Para lograr una explicación contextualizada ofrecemos cuatro alternativas: la investigación de procesos, la investigación histórica, el método de caso ampliado y la teorización configuracional. Sostenemos que para que el campo de negocios internacionales tome seriamente la contextualización, necesitamos un debate abierto sobre qué es la teoría y cómo la producimos. Esperamos que este artículo amplíe el alcance de nuestra discusión desde la necesidad de pluralismo metodológico y a la necesidad de pluralismo teóricos, de esa manera establecer una nueva agenda para la investigación futura sobre negocios internacionales.

Resumo

Nosso artigo de 2011 premiado com o decade award argumentou que não é possível explicar completamente fenômenos sociais sem considerar seus contextos. No entanto, uma suposição persistente em negócios internacionais (IB) é que descobertas devem ser independentes do contexto. Isso afeta as escolhas metodológicas que fazemos, favorecendo a abordagem indutiva de construção de teoria para teorizar a partir de estudos de caso. Em 2011, propusemos uma alternativa - explicações contextualizadas - que, a nosso ver, melhor aproveita a principal força do estudo de caso: reconciliar teoria e contexto. Nesta Retrospectiva, desenvolvemos ainda mais nosso argumento original de que o contexto é essencial, e não um obstáculo, para a teorização, bem como elaboramos sobre como a descontextualização empobrece insights teóricos. Para alcançar a explicação contextualizada, oferecemos quatro alternativas: pesquisa de processos, pesquisa histórica, o método do caso estendido e teorização configuracional. Argumentamos que, para o campo do IB levar a sério contextualização, precisamos de um debate aberto sobre o que é a teoria e como a produzimos. Esperamos que este artigo amplie o escopo de nossa discussão da necessidade de pluralismo metodológico para a necessidade de pluralismo teórico, estabelecendo assim uma nova agenda para pesquisas futuras em IB.

摘要

我们 2011 年的十年获奖文章认为, 如果不考虑情境就不可能完全解释社会现象。然而, 国际商务 (IB) 的一个执着的假设是, 研究发现应与情境无关。这影响了我们对方法论的选择, 让我们偏爱归纳式创建理论的方法, 而不是从案例研究中进行理论化。我们在2011 年提出了另一种选择, 即情境化解释, 我们认为它更好地利用了案例研究的主要优势: 协调理论和情境。在本回顾中, 我们进一步发展了我们的原始论点, 即情境是理论化的必要条件, 而不是障碍, 并详细阐述了去情境化如何削弱理论洞见。为了实现情境化解释, 我们提供了四种选择: 过程研究、历史研究、扩展案例法和配置理论化。我们认为, 要使IB 领域认真对待情境化, 我们就需要就什么是理论以及我们如何创建理论进行公开辩论。我们希望, 这篇论文将我们的讨论范围从对方法论的多元化的需要拓展到对理论的多元化的需要, 从而为未来的 IB 研究设定一个新的议程。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Source: Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, JIBS (2011, p. 750).

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abend, G. 2008. The meaning of ‘theory.’ Sociological Theory, 26(2): 173–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aharoni, Y. 2011. Fifty years of case research in international business: The power of outliers and black swans. In R. Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds.), Rethinking the case study in international business and management research: 41–54. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aranda, A. M., Sele, K., Etchanchu, H., Guyt, J. Y., & Vaara, E. 2021. From big data to rich theory: Integrating critical discourse analysis with structural topic modeling. European Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyres, N. S., De Massis, A., Foss, N. J., Frattini, F., Jones, G., & Silverman, B. S. 2020. History-informed strategy research: The promise of history and historical research methods in advancing strategy scholarship. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3): 343–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avgerou, C. 2019. Contextual explanation: Alternative approaches and persistent challenges. Management Information System Quarterly, 43(3): 977–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger, P. 2008. From the editors beyond contextualization: Using context theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5): 839–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barata, D. 2010. The extended case method. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research: 375–376. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beamish, P. W., & Hasse, V. C. 2022 forthcoming. The importance of rare events and outliers in global strategy research. Global Strategy Journal, Decade Special Issue.

  • Beer, M., Boselie, P., & Brewster, C. 2015. Back to the future: Implications for the field of HRM of the multi-stakeholder perspective proposed 30 years ago. Human Resource Management, 54(3): 427–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berns, J. P., Gondo, M., & Sellar, C. 2021. Whole country-of-origin network development abroad. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(3): 479–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjerregaard, T., & Klitmøller, A. 2016. Conflictual practice sharing in the MNC: A theory of practice approach. Organization Studies, 37(9): 1271–1295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boje, D. M., Haley, U. C., & Saylors, R. 2016. Antenarratives of organizational change: The microstoria of Burger King’s storytelling in space, time and strategic context. Human Relations, 69(2): 391–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A., & Buchanan, D. A. 2018. ‘Not another survey’: The value of unconventional methods. In A. Bryman, & D. A. Buchanan (Eds.), Unconventional methodology in organization and management research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucheli, M., & Salvaj, E. 2018. Political connections, the liability of foreignness, and legitimacy: A business historical analysis of multinationals’ strategies in Chile. Global Strategy Journal, 8(3): 399–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J. 2016. Historical research approaches to the analysis of internationalisation. Management International Review, 56(6): 879–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J. 2020. The role of history in international business: Evidence, research practices, methods and theory. British Journal of Management, 32(3): 797–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Chapman, M., Clegg, J., & Gajewska-De Mattos, H. 2014. A linguistic and philosophical analysis of emic and etic and their use in international business research. Management International Review, 54(3): 307–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. 2017. Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1045–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1): 4–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. 2009. The extended case method: Four countries, four decades, four great transformations, and one theoretical tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M., Burton, A., Arnett, A., Fox, K., Gamson, J., Gartrell, N., & Ui, S. 1991. Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. 2011. Bridging history and reductionism: A key role for longitudinal qualitative research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 591–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busse, C., Kach, A. P., & Wagner, S. M. 2017. Boundary conditions: What they are, how to explore them, why we need them, and when to consider them. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4): 574–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprar, D., Devinney, T., Kirkman, B., & Caligiuri, P. 2015. Conceptualizing and measuring culture in international business and management: From challenges to potential solutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9): 1011–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casson, M. 2021. Personal communication, 14 July.

  • Chandra, Y., & Wilkinson, I. F. 2017. Firm internationalization from a network-centric complex-systems perspective. Journal of World Business, 52(5): 691–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. E. 2005. Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloutier, C., & Langley, A. 2020. What makes a process theoretical contribution? Organization Theory, 1(1): 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, B., Glaesser, J., Gomm, R., & Hammersley, M. 2012. Challenging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Explorations in case-focused causal analysis. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen, J. P. 2017. Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: Why the explanatory potential of quality research should be harnessed rather than suppressed. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3): 368–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen, J., Höllerer, M. A., & Seidl, D. 2021. What theory is and can be: Forms of theorizing in organizational scholarship. Organization Theory, 2(3): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corner, A. J., Liu, L. A., & Bird, A. 2021. Intercultural competencies for emerging markets: A contextualized approach. International Business Review, 30(3): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corvellec, H. 2013. What is theory? Answers from social and cultural sciences. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crasnow, S. 2015. Natural experiments and pluralism in political science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 45(4–5): 424–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, D. 2011. Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational enterprise: A mid-range theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 694–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darendeli, I. S., & Hill, T. L. 2016. Uncovering the complex relationships between political risk and MNE firm legitimacy: Insights from Libya. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(1): 68–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R. M., & Martinsons, M. G. 2016. Context is king! Considering particularism in research design and reporting. Journal of Information Technology, 31(3): 241–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. C. 2013. Editors’ comments: Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38(3): 325–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delios, A. 2017. The death and rebirth (?) of international business research. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3): 391–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7): 553–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. 2014. “Systematic combining”: A decade later. Journal of Business Research, 67(6): 1277–1284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, T. 2012. Natural experiments in the social sciences: a design-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 613–619.

  • Easton, G. 2010. Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1): 118–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, L., & Nielsen, B. B. 2020. Research methods in international business: The challenge of complexity. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(9): 1609–1620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 2021. What is the Eisenhardt method, really? Strategic Organization, 19(1): 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, T., Svystunova, L., Almond, P., Kern, P., Kim, K., & Tregaskis, O. 2021. Whither national subsidiaries? The need to refocus international management research on structures and processes that matter. Journal of International Business Studies.. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00437-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fainshmidt, S., Judge, W. Q., Aguilera, R. V., & Smith, A. 2018. Varieties of institutional systems: A contextual taxonomy of understudied countries. Journal of World Business, 53(3): 307–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fainshmidt, S., Witt, M. A., Aguilera, R. V., & Verbeke, A. 2020. The contributions of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 51: 455–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueira-de-Lemos, F., & Hadjikhani, A. 2014. Internationalization processes in stable and unstable market conditions: Towards a model of commitment decisions in dynamic environments. Journal of World Business, 49(3): 332–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P. C. 2009. Case studies and the configurational analysis of organizational phenomena. In D. Byrne, & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-based methods: 424–440. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fridenson, P. 2008. Business history and history. In G. G. Jones, & J. Zetlin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business history: 9–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnari, S., Crilly, D., Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. 2021. Capturing causal complexity: Heuristics for configurational theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46: 778–799. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, J. L. 2002. The landscape of history: How historians map the past. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, J. 2010. Transferring organizational practices and the dynamics of hybridization: Japanese retail multinationals in China. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4): 705–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geary, J., & Aguzzoli, R. 2016. Miners, politics and institutional caryatids: Accounting for the transfer of HRM practices in the Brazilian multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8): 968–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. 2016. Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6): 1880–1895.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbert, M., Nair, L. B., Weiss, M., & Hoegl, M. 2021. Using outliers for theory building. Organizational Research Methods, 24(1): 172–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. 2006. The nature of theory in information systems. Management Information System Research Quarterly, 30(3): 611–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisar-Kassé, K. 2004. The role of negative personal experiences in cross-cultural case study research: Failure or opportunity? In R. Marschan-Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business: 144–161. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, E. 2017. Case theory in business and management. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez-Huerter, O. G., Moon, J., Gold, S., & Chapple, W. 2020. Micro-processes of translation in the transfer of practices from MNE headquarters to foreign subsidiaries: The role of subsidiary translators. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(3): 389–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, M. R., & Cummings, J. N. 2015. Barriers to knowledge seeking within MNC teams: Which differences matter most? Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1): 36–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haley, U. C., & Boje, D. M. 2014. Storytelling the internationalization of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(9): 1115–1132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Härtel, C. E. J., & O’Connor, J. M. 2014. Contextualizing research: Putting context back into organizational behavior research. Journal of Management and Organization, 20(4): 417–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. 2001/1927. Being and time. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

  • Hong, W., Chan, F. K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. 2014. A framework and guidelines for context-specific theorizing in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 25(1): 111–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., Helfen, M., Kaplan, R., Kirsch, A., & Lohmeyer, N. 2019. The problem of de-contextualization in organization and management research. In T. B. Zilber, J. M. Amis, & J. Mair (Eds.), The production of managerial knowledge and organizational theory: New approaches to writing, producing and consuming theory: 21–42. Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, M., & Kalinic, I. 2016. Acceleration and deceleration in the internationalization process of the firm. Management International Review, 56(6): 827–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, G. 2017. Reflections on the 2016 Decade Award: Incorporating context in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 42(4): 577–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipping, M., Wadhwani, R. D., & Bucheli, M. 2014. Analyzing and interpreting historical sources: A basic methodology. In M. Bucheli, & R. D. Wadhwani (Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods: 305–329. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klag, M., & Langley, A. 2013. Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15: 149–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koselleck, R. 2004. Futures past: On the semantics of historical time. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kouamé, S., & Langley, A. 2018. Relating microprocesses to macro-outcomes in qualitative strategy process and practice research. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3): 559–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van De Ven, A. 2013. Process studies of change in organization and management: unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lê, J. K., & Schmid, T. 2020. The practice of innovating research methods. Organizational Research Methods.. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepore, J. 2001. Historians who love too much: Reflections on microhistory and biography. The Journal of American History, 88(1): 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., Chen, Y. R., & Blader, S. L. 2016. Where is context? Advancing status research with a contextual value perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36: 185–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livne-Tarandach, R., Hawbaker, B., Lahneman Boren, B., & Jones, C. 2015. Qualitative comparative analysis: Opportunities for case-based research. In K. D. Elsbach, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research: Innovative pathways and methods: 156–167. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubinski, C. 2018. From ‘history as told’ to ‘history as experienced’: Contextualizing the uses of the past. Organization Studies, 39(12): 1785–1809.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, P. G., & Durepos, G. 2021. A call to practice context in management and organization studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30(1): 74–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mees-Buss, J., Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. 2022. From templates to heuristics. How and why to move beyond the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120967716.

  • Michailova, S. 2011. Contextualizing in International Business research: Why do we need more of it and how can we be better at it? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(1): 129–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millstein, R. L. 2019. Types of experiments and causal process tracing: What happened on the Kaibab Plateau in the 1920s. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 78: 98–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P., & C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. 2017. Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1): 255–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. 2011. Reflections on the macro-politics of micro-politics. In C. Dörrenbächer, & M. Geppert (Eds.), Politics and power in the multinational corporation: The role of institutions, interests and identities: 415–436. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nell, P. C., Kappen, P., & Laamanen, T. 2017. Reconceptualising hierarchies: The disaggregation and dispersion of headquarters in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(8): 1121–1143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, B. B., Welch, C., Chidlow, A., Miller, S. R., Aguzzoli, R., Gardner, E., Karafyllia, M., & Pegoraro, D. 2020. Fifty years of methodological trends in JIBS: Why future IB research needs more triangulation. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(9): 1478–1499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. 2002. It’s about time: Temporal structuring in organizations. Organization Science, 13(6): 684–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, E., Morley, M. J., & Brewster, C. 2021. Contextual approaches to human resource management: An introduction. In E. Parry, M. J. Morley, & C. Brewster (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of contextual approaches to human resource management: 1–25. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B. T. 1999. Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 711–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organizational Science, 1(3): 267–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. 1997. What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4): 337–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. 2017. The case study in management research: Beyond the positivist legacy of Eisenhardt and Yin? In C. Cassell, A. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: 345–358. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piekkari, R., Welch, C., & Paavilainen, E. 2009. The case study as disciplinary convention: Evidence from international business journals. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3): 567–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plakoyiannaki, E., Wei, T., & Prashantham, S. 2019. Rethinking qualitative scholarship in emerging markets: Researching theorizing and reporting. Management and Organization Review, 15(2): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt, J. 1992. Case study in American methodological thought. Current Sociology, 40(1): 14–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, P. 2005. Crafting qualitative research: Working in the post-positivist traditions. Armonk: ME Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning social inquiry, fuzzy sets and beyond. London: University Press of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. 2009. Reflections on casing and case-oriented research. In D. Byrne, & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of case-based methods: 522–534. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. 2014/1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Oakland: University of California Press.

  • Ravasi, D., Rindova, V., & Stigliani, I. 2018. History, material memory and the temporality of identity construction. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5): 1523–1555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redding, G. 2005. The thick description and comparison of societal systems of capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(2): 123–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. 2004. Memory, history, forgetting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, P., Buciuni, G., Giblin, M., & Andersson, U. 2020. Subsidiary upgrading and global value chain governance in the multinational enterprise. Global Strategy Journal, 10(3): 496–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saka-Helmhout, A. 2011. Comparative historical analysis in international management research. In R. Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds.), Rethinking the case study in international business research: 383–407. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saka-Helmhout, A., Chappin, M., & Vermeulen, P. 2020. Multiple paths to firm innovation in sub-Saharan Africa: How informal institutions matter. Organization Studies, 41(11): 1551–1575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. 2021. Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2): 487–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., Loacker, B., & Alvesson, M. 2015. Conceptions of process in organization and management: The case of organizational identity. In A. Garud, B. Simpson, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The emergence of novelty in organizations (perspectives on process organization studies): 318–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. 2012. Interpretative research design. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sewell, W. H., Jr. 2005. Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenkar, O. 2012. Beyond cultural distance: Switching to a friction lens in the study of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1): 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., & Suddaby, R. 2017. Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of Management, 43(1): 59–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sminia, H., & de Rond, M. 2012. Context and action in the transformation of strategy scholarship. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7): 1329–1349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. 1985. Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of Management Review, 10(4): 724–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., & Tung, R. 2015. Towards a more balanced treatment of culture in international business studies: The need for positive cross-cultural scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(4): 391–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teagarden, M. B., Von Glinow, M. A., & Mellahi, K. 2018. Contextualizing international business research: Enhancing rigor and relevance. Journal of World Business, 53(3): 303–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., & Meyers, K. 2015. The anatomy of the case study. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thunnissen, M., Boselie, P., & Fruytier, B. 2013. Talent management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4): 326–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K. 2013. Case study methodology: Causal explanation, contextualization, and theorizing. Journal of International Management, 19(2): 195–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. 1989. The validity of idiographic explanations. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 551–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. 2009. Craving for generality and small-N studies: A Wittgensteinian approach towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies’. In D. A. Buchanan, & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods: 285–301. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. 2017. Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2): 132–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas H., Chia R. (2013) Introduction: Why philosophy matters to organization theory. In H. Tsoukas & R. Chia (Eds.), Philosophy and organization theory, vol. 32 (pp. 1-21).

  • Van Maanen, J., Sorensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. 2007. The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1145–1154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadham, H., & Warren, R. C. 2014. Telling organizational tales: The extended case method in practice. Organizational Research Methods, 17(1): 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadhwani, R. D. 2016. Entrepreneurship in historical context: Using history to develop theory and understand process. In F. Welter, & W. B. Gartner (Eds.), A research agenda for entrepreneurship and context: 65–78. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadhwani, R. D., & Decker, S. 2017. Clio’s toolkit: The practice of historical methods in organizational research. In R. Mir, & S. Jain (Eds.), The Routledge companion to qualitative research in organization. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadhwani, R. D., Suddaby, R., Mordhorst, M., & Popp, A. 2018. History as organizing: Uses of the past in organization studies. Organization Studies, 39(12): 1663–1683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., Clegg, J., Gajewska-De Mattos, H., & Buckley, P. 2020. The role of emotions in intercultural business communication: Language standardization in the context of international knowledge transfer. Journal of World Business, 55(6): 100973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. 2005. The experience of theorizing: Sensemaking as a topic and resource. In K. G. Smith, & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development: 394–413. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2011. Theorizing from case studies: Towards a pluralist future of international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 740–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welter, F. 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1): 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welter, F., Baker, T., & Wirsching, K. 2019. Three waves and counting: The rising tide of contextualization in entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 52(2): 319–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welter, F., Gartner, W. B., & Wright, M. 2016. The context of contextualising research. In F. Welter, & W. B. Gartner (Eds.), A research agenda for entrepreneurship and context: 1–15. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt, M. A., Fainschmidt, S., & Aguilera, R. V. 2021. Our board, our rules: Nonconformity to global corporate governance norms. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211022726.

  • Yates, J. 2014. Understanding historical methods in organization studies. In M. Bucheli, & R. D. Wadhwani (Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods: 265–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. 2014. Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. 2011. Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4): 67–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. G. 2014. Contextualization and the advancement of entrepreneurship research. International Small Business Journal, 32(5): 479–500.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Ruth Aguilera, Roberta Aguzzoli, Peter Buckley, Mark Casson, Tamer Cavusgil, Stephanie Decker, Jacqueline Mees-Buss, Duc Nguyen, Ursula Ott, Paul Ryan, John Tull and Eleanor Westney for helping us develop this paper. We also thank Giulia Galizzi, Hanna Mersdorf and Henrietta Sykäri for their valuable research assistance. We acknowledge the help of Anne Hoekman in providing useful information about the JIBS special issue on qualitative research in IB. We thank the two anonymous reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief Alain Verbeke for constructive feedback during the review process. We also wish to thank all the PhD classes we have taught, that have formed a stimulating environment for developing our ideas. Finally, we honour the memory of Stephen Young† for his encouragement and support during the 15-year period we have been writing about the case study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. *Authors’ names in alphabetical order signaling equal contribution.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sydney Business School, Abercrombie Building, Corner Abercrombie Street and Codrington Street, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Catherine Welch

  2. School of Business, Department of Management Studies, Aalto University, Ekonominaukio 1, 02150, Espoo, Finland

    Catherine Welch & Rebecca Piekkari

  3. School of Economics, Department of Marketing and International Business, University of Turku, Rehtorinpellonkatu 3, 20500, Turku, Finland

    Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki

  4. Department of Marketing and International Business, Faculty of Business, Economics and Statistics, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki

Authors
  1. Catherine Welch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Piekkari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Welch.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Alain Verbeke, Editor-in-Chief, 23 August 2021. This article was single-blind reviewed.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Welch, C., Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E., Piekkari, R. et al. Reconciling theory and context: How the case study can set a new agenda for international business research. J Int Bus Stud 53, 4–26 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00484-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00484-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation