Innovation in international business research: a call for multiple paradigms

Abstract

Scholars disagree on IB's domain and future prescription, yet agree that research will engage topics dealing with dynamic change and hard-to-explain phenomena. This paper builds on these views, endorsing a multiparadigmatic perspective that complements IB's scientific and humanist paradigms with that of chaos theory. The latter, we argue, is instrumental in studying the non-normal patterns of nonlinear, far-from-equilibrium systems. We illustrate our ideas in the context of NGOs. Journal of International Business Studies (2008) 39, 1081–1090. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400400

Strategy, location, and the conceptual metamorphosis of the MNE

“…Modeling the increasing complexity of global contexts 'requires a more coevolutionary and interdisciplinary approach to understanding the composition of location advantages, and their interaction with the O(wnership) and I(nternalisation) strategies of firms' (Dunning, 2009: 30). The need for convergence/ combination of disciplines and methods (Cantwell and Brannen, 2011) should be mirrored in a wider range of paradigms and methodological tools that can provide scholars with a more comprehensive understanding of complex events, but also highlight 'the contradictions and interdependence of ideas in ways that foster the creative tension necessary to provoke innovative research' (Sullivan andDaniels, 2008: 1088). Economic geography-benefitting from both powerful geography-based tools and behavioral approaches to the experience of placeand business history-relying on the understanding of how businesses operated in the past and why they succeeded or failed-among many frameworks, certainly have a lot to offer to researchers in global strategy.…”

The role of interpretation in the internationalization of smaller Brazilian firms

“…Put differently, we assert the need to move internationalization theorizing beyond the positivist position that considers reality and person as objective and independent domains. Here we join the plea for an ontological and epistemological renewal in the field (Sullivan, 1998;Sullivan & Daniels, 2008;Toyne & Nigh, 1998). What is envisioned here is that at the same time reality is dependent upon subjective interpretation, it is also objective in the sense that it is inter-subjectively negotiated, shared and sustained (Berger & Luckmann, 1966;Sandberg & Targama, 2007).…”

The evolution of the international business field: a scientometric investigation of articles published in its premier journal

“…Suggests a refocus on one or more 'big questions', distinguishing between general theory and special theories, to defend rigour at all costs, and greater emphasis on theory-driven research Sullivan and Daniels (2008) Thought piece Primary challenge is to generate intellectual innovations that make IBs ideas relevant to a larger audience Greater paradigmatic scope is called for; scientific and humanistic approaches should be complemented with those sensitive to nonlinear systems and non-normal probability distributions Griffith et al (2008) Empirical (112 articles from 6 journals; expert opinion) Major themes from 1996-2006 showed persistence of mainstream IB issues; firm-related topics prevail; performance and management of the firm is an overarching theme of importance Topics proposed for future research are more diverse, richer in terms of number of constructs, but remain enterprise and performance focused overview of the entire period introduces this analysis. Discussion follows with concluding remarks.…”

“…Terpstra (1973), for example, early on called for more interdisciplinary collaborations between scholars in IB and non-business fields-a call later echoed and elaborated by Dymsza (1984), 1 Dunning (1989), Wright and Ricks (1994), Shenkar (2004) and Sullivan and Daniels (2008), among others. Shenkar (2004) observed, however, that many calls for interdisciplinarity limit themselves to the business disciplines, a point also reflected in empirical assessments of disciplinary influences (e.g., Chandy and Williams 1994;Inkpen and Beamish 1994), and he deplored the more recent ''convergence and imitation'' by IB scholars of the ''simplistic tools used by strategy'' which are ''ill-equipped to handle the challenges of the global economy'' (Shenkar 2004, p. 167).…”