From the Editors: Explaining theoretical relationships in international business research: Focusing on the arrows, NOT the boxes

Distinctive features of articles accepted by the Journal of International Business Studies are that they are multidisciplinary in scope and interdisciplinary in content and methodology, and they make a substantial theoretical contribution to international business studies. Failure to meet this last requirement is an often cited reason given by reviewers for article rejection. Sometimes reviewers mean that a manuscript does not conform to the dominant paradigm, in that it is not the next logical step in the study of a phenomenon, or they mean that there is little if any integration of several theories used to explain a phenomenon. However, perhaps the most common underlying meaning when reviewers cite “lack of a theoretical contribution” for rejection is that the nature of the relationships proposed is not well explained. While the first two meanings may be influenced by the specific discipline or methodology involved, this final one is not. In this editorial we provide a set of guidelines that authors can use to ensure that their paper meets the standard of explaining the logic of the relationships they propose.

[1]  K. Eisenhardt Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic , 1991 .

[2]  G. Johnson The essential impact of context on organizational behavior , 2006 .

[3]  D. Chan Functional Relations among Constructs in the Same Content Domain at Different Levels of Analysis: A Typology of Composition Models , 1998 .

[4]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  What Theory is Not , 1995 .

[5]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[6]  T. Kostova,et al.  The Use of the Multinational Corporation as a Research Context , 2003 .

[7]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions , 1999 .

[8]  Gareth R. Jones,et al.  The Role of Affect in Cross-Cultural Negotiations , 1998 .

[9]  K. Weick What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is , 1995 .

[10]  Daniel C. Feldman What are We Talking About When We Talk About Theory? , 2004 .

[11]  Mary Yoko Brannen,et al.  When Mickey Loses Face: Recontextualization, Semantic Fit, and the Semiotics of Foreignness , 2004 .

[12]  M. Peterson,et al.  Organizational behavior in multinational organizations , 2007 .

[13]  Howard B. Lee,et al.  Foundations of Behavioral Research , 1973 .

[14]  M. Forsgren Theories of the Multinational Firm: A Multidimensional Creature in the Global Economy , 2008 .

[15]  David M. Reeb,et al.  Internationalization and Firm Risk: An Upstream-Downstream Hypothesis , 2000 .

[16]  Samuel B. Bacharach,et al.  Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation , 1989 .

[17]  Trish Reay,et al.  What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution in Family Business? , 2011 .

[18]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research , 2011 .

[19]  C. Brodsky The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research , 1968 .

[20]  Joseph E. McGrath,et al.  Dilemmatics: The Study of Research Choices and Dilemmas , 1981 .

[21]  Ma. de la Natividad Jiménez Salas,et al.  The Conduct of Inquiry , 1967 .