Call for special issue paper: Contextualizing Research: Rigor and Relevance

Call for Journal of World Business Special Issue

Contextualizing Research: Rigor and Relevance

Guest Editors: Mary B. Teagarden, Mary Ann Von Glinow and Kamel Mellahi

Deadline: 1 November 2015

Contextualizing international business research to achieve research rigor and practical relevance is a challenge faced by all sub-disciplines within the IB domain. Contextualizing IB research focuses on the big question, 'How do we identify and integrate context into our IB research?' and a corollary, 'Why should we identify and integrate context into our IB research?' We seek submissions for this special issue that explore the implications of context for IB theory building, research design and methodology including methodological approaches to build more robust IB theories; articles that focus on the conceptualization and meaning of context; and limitations of contextualization. Additionally, submissions that demonstrate novel methodological approaches for integrating context into IB theory building are welcome.

When Peter Buckley (2002) questioned the distinctiveness of IB research, he responded to his own question and argued for more integration of culture, more use of comparative studies and of distinctive methods in IB research. Many argue contextual dimensions are what differentiate domestic research from international business and international management research (Buckley, 2002; Child, 2009; Oesterle & Wolf, 2011). Oesterle and Wolf (2011) raised the question, 'how international are our international journals?' And concluded that context was not adequately or at best modestly addressed in most of our research. We concur.

Despite the urging of thought leaders in IB for more contextualization, our approaches to contextualization appear limited, for example, focusing on categorical data or concepts like country or nationality (Von Glinow & Shenkar, 1994). They are static since our methods do not appear to be changing despite calls to do so (Buckley, 2002; Child, 2009; Teagarden, et al. 1995). Perhaps, most importantly, the scope of IB is expanding dramatically and our research contextualization appears inadequate, given the shift in business from the United States and Europe toward more 'exotic' emerging markets in Asia, Latin America and Africa with more pronounced differences in business and cultural environments. For our IB research to remain relevant we must more adequately contextualize our theory building.

Contextualization has been viewed through many lenses, and at multiple levels of analysis. While focusing on theory building, Whetten (2009) and Tsui (2004) differentiate context-specific and context-bound theory development, and Child (2009) discusses an 'outside in' versus 'inside out' perspective of contextualization. Von Glinow, Shapiro and Brett (2004) and Shapiro, Von Glinow and Xiao (2007) suggest a more complex perspective when they contrast 'single contextuality' with 'polycontextuality' or the multiple and qualitatively different contexts embedded within one another. Each of these studies acknowledges that context is important in IB theory building and each offer prescriptive recommendations for incorporating context.

Strategists and behaviorists assert that location, one form of context, has an impact on theory (Gelfend, Erez & Aycan, 2007; Ricart et al., 2004; Rugman & Verbeke, 2001; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Khanna (2002) explores institutions and institutional voids in locations. Ghemawat (2001, 2003) examines country differences and offers the CAGE (Culture, Administrative, Geographic and Economic) framework to guide analysis. Ghemawat (2007) argues that despite globalization, there are significant locational differences that must be considered. Cheng (1994) suggests that context-embedded research ought to include '…a nation's social, cultural, legal, and economic variables as predictors and organizational attributes as dependent variables. Enright (2002) urges the use of multilevel analysis including supranational, macro, meso, micro and firm levels in the integration of location into competitive strategy. House and colleagues (2004) in their seminal GLOBE study discuss societies and their impact on leadership. Von Glinow and colleagues (2002 a, 2002 b) and Von Glinow & Teagarden (1988, 1990) identify locational influences on human resource management best practices. Shapiro and colleagues (2007) identify numerous contextual variables, including location, that address the multiple and qualitatively different contextual variables that influence understanding behavior in China. Regardless of sub-discipline, there is ample opportunity to contribute to the IB research contextualization dialog.

Given the magnitude of possible contexts, researchers are challenged to comprehend the contextual and polycontextual dynamics in a limited number of cultures or societies. Tsui (2004) argues for inside-out, context specific indigenous research, and this represents one possible solution to the context challenge. Teagarden and Schotter (2013) and Enright (2002) argue for the importance of multilevel analysis to contextualize research and provide a deeper understanding of phenomena. Teagarden and colleagues (1995) suggest that team-based comparative-management studies provide the collective understanding to contextualize and make sense of multiple contexts in a single research project. There have been numerous examples that demonstrate the effectiveness of this latter approach (House, et al., 2004; Von Glinow, Teagarden & Drost, 2002a, 2002b). This highlights the opportunity to question the research methods currently used to contextualize IB research.

The list of topics below is merely suggestive of the range of topics appropriate for the Special Issue, which ideally seeks inputs from scholars across a number of disciplines related to conducting research on organizational, institutional and environmental contexts. Through contributions to this special issue, we aspire to expand the boundaries of rigor and relevance in international business research.


Contributors are invited to submit manuscripts focus on topics and themes such as:

• · How important is context to conducting IB research?
• · What are the various methodological approaches used to measure context?
• · How does indigenous research help us uncover multiple contexts?
• · What is context-embedded research, and why is it important?
• · What role do institutions and institutional voids play in establishing context in IB research?
• · How does the use (or abuse) of context affect rigor or relevance in our theory development?
• · How does the use of context help us expand theory in IB?
• · What research methods are most appropriate to uncovering the different and multiple contexts that underlie most international settings?

Submission process:

By November 1, 2015, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the new Journal of World Business EES submission system. The link for submitting manuscript is: http://ees.elsevier.com/jwb.

To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘SI: Contextualizing Research’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process

Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Journal of World Business Guide for Authors available at http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-world-business/1090-9516/guide-for-authors. All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal of World Business’s blind review process.

We may organize a workshop designed to facilitate the development of papers. Authors of manuscripts that have progressed through the revision process will be invited to it. Presentation at the workshop is neither a requirement for nor a promise of final acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue.

Questions about the Special Issue may be directed to the guest editors:

• Mary B. Teagarden, Thunderbird School of Management, Arizona State University, USA (mary.teagarden@asu.edu)
• Mary Ann Von Glinow, Florida International University, USA (vonglino@fiu.edu)
• Kamel Mellahi, Warwick Business School, UK (Kamel.Mellahi@wbs.ac.uk)

References:

• Buckley, P.J. (2002) 'Is the international business research agenda running out of steam?', Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 365-373.
• Cheng, J.L.C. (1994) 'On the concept of universal knowledge in organization science: implications for cross-national research', Management Science, 40: 162-168.
• Child, J. (2009) 'Context, Comparison, and methodology in Chinese Management Research', Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 57-73.
• Enright, M.J. (2002) 'Globalization, regionalization, and the knowledge-based economy in Hong Kong. In J.H. Dunning (ed.) Regions, Globalization and the Knowledge-based Economy, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 381-406.
• Gelfend, M.J., Erez, M.and Aycan, Z. (2007) 'Cross-cultural organizational behavior', Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 479-514.
• Ghemawat, P. (2001) 'Distance still matters', Harvard Business Review, 79(8), September: 137-147.
• Ghemawat, P. (2003) 'Semiglobalization and international business strategy', Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 138-152.
• Ghemawat, P. (2007) 'Why the world isn't flat', Foreign Policy, March-April: 54-60.
• House, R. J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004) Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage.
• Khanna, T. (2000) Local Institutions and Global Strategy, Harvard Business School: Boston, Harvard Business School Note No. 702-475.
• Oesterle, M.J. and Wolf, J.M. (2011) '50 years of MIR and IB/IM research; an inventory and some suggestions for the fields development',Management International Review, 51: 735-757.
• Ricart, J.E., Enright, M.J., Ghemawat, P., Hart, S.L., and Khanna, T. (2004) 'New frontiers in international strategy', Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 175-200.
• Rousseau, D.M. and Fried, Y. (2001) 'Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational research', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 1-13.
• Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (2001) 'Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises', Strategic Management Journal, 23(3): 237-250.
• Shapiro, D.L., Von Glinow, M.A. and Xiao Z. (2007) 'Toward polycontextually sensitive research methods', Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 129-152.
• Shenkar, O. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1994) 'Paradoxes of organizational theory and research: using the case of China to illustrate national contingency', Management Science, 40: 56-71.
• Teagarden, M.B. and Schotter, A. (2013) 'Favor prevalence in emerging markets: a multi-level analysis of social capital', Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(2): 447-460.
• Teagarden, M.B., M.A. Von Glinow, D. Bowen, C. Frayne, S. Nason, P. Huo, J. Milliman, M.C. Butler, M.E. Arias, N.H. Kim, H. Scullion and K.B. Lowe (1995). 'Toward building a theory of comparative management research methodology: An idiographic case study of the best international human resources management project', Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1261-1287.
• Tsui, A.S. (2004) 'Contributing to global management knowledge: a case for high quality indigenous research', Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21: 491-513.
• Von Glinow, M.A. and Teagarden, M.B. (2009) 'The future of Chinese management research: rigor and relevance redux', Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 75-89.
• Von Glinow, M.A. and Teagarden M.B. (1990). 'Contextual determinants of human resource management effectiveness in international cooperative alliances: evidence from the People's Republic of China', International Human Resource Management Review, 1: 75-93.
• Von Glinow, M.A. and Teagarden M.B. (1988). 'The transfer of human resource management technology in Sino-U.S. cooperative ventures: problems and solutions', Human Resource Management, 27(2), Summer: 201-229.
• Von Glinow, M.A, Teagarden, M.B. and Drost E. (2002a). 'Converging on IHRM best practices: lessons learned from a globally-distributed consortium on theory and practice', Human Resource Management, Special Issue, 41(1): 123-140.
• Von Glinow, M.A, Teagarden, M.B. and Drost E. (2002b). 'Converging on IHRM best practices: lessons learned from a globally-distributed consortium on theory and practice', Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource Management, Special Issue, 40 (1): 123-140.
• Whetten, D. (2009) 'An examination between context and theory applied to the study of organizations in China', Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 29-55.

Call for Journal Special Issue:heory Building Surrounding Sustainable Supply Chain Management

Journal of Supply Chain Management (JSCM)

A Special Topic Forum (STF) Dedicated to “Theory Building Surrounding Sustainable Supply Chain Management”

Guest Editors:

• Gideon Markman, Colorado State University
• Dan Krause, Colorado State University

The area of social and environmental sustainability attracts scholars from diverse disciplines (e.g., supply chain, management, finance, accounting, marketing, political science, sociology, economics, management, etc. to name a few). Such cross-disciplinary effort is needed because although many scholars link sustainability to discrete business activities—inbound and outbound logistics, processes and operations, finished products and customer interface, distribution channels, and services—we do not have an overarching, integrative theory of sustainability.

For example, some suggest a “green to be seen” perspective—that consumers are willing to pay extra forsustainable offerings but only if clear status incentives are associated with such purchases (Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh, 2010). Others note that because a shift towards sustainable practices is costly and disruptive of firms’ functions, green management matters, but only if it yields higher profits (Siegel, 2009). If companies can charge premium prices (and consumers are willing to pay more) for sustainable products, but only when such purchases enhance buyers’ reputation or firms’ bottom line, what are the implications for products, services, and operations that are less observable or less augmentative of financial performance? Indeed, some companies, such as Apple, decline to name their suppliers and the provenance of raw materials (The Guardian, 2013). When companies follow a policy of non-disclosure of suppliers, materials, and practices, do they worry that transparency—including the touting of ethical supply chain practices—reveals their competitive secrets to rivals? Are they simply attempting to hide unethical practices? Or, are there other reasons?

Regardless of the motivation, it is increasingly apparent that choices and considerations of sustainability are critical in most if not all business functions. Despite the importance of sustainability, not every scholar, manager, or company agrees on the conceptual connections among and drivers of sustainability and SCM. Part of the problem is insufficient theory.

Supply chain scholars are perhaps among the most qualified to develop a theory of sustainability because they observe firms’ entire value chains. Such scholarship analyzes how firms combine raw inputs from disparate suppliers; how inputs are processed and augmented into outputs; and how such outputs are then sold to customers. This also means that supply chain scholars can keenly appreciate how even seemingly inconsequential choices in early value-chain activities can trigger cascading effects that bring a smooth-running operation to a grinding halt with negative consequences—e.g., undermining the reputation of a single firm, or worse, ravaging entire industries (e.g., the tobacco industry).

Such examples, and scores of insightful studies in diverse disciplines, corroborate the need—in fact, an opportunity—to develop an overarching, integrative theory of sustainability. Hence, this STF is a platform for scholars to showcase their best conceptual research on sustainability, and hopefully, its impact on operations and supply chain management. The STF might appear broad—encompassing sustainability, ethics, CSR, and of course, supply chain management—but the focus on theory papers (which encompass both pure conceptual theory building and qualitative methodologies such as inductive case studies) rather than deductive, big data, “empirical” research does narrow the scope.

We are particularly interested in “edgy” manuscripts that would yield conceptual platforms, open up new research frontiers, or offer new insights that significantly enrich discussion and discourse as well as those that unpack important, timeless, yet revelatory topics. We dare contributors to think outside the traditional “research sandbox" and to feature radical, controversial, novel, useful, and non-obvious conceptual lenses—even if notfully grounded in well-validated empirical studies. Of course, manuscripts can't be merely descriptive; a strong effort to build a theoretical foundation is still needed. The STF hopes to energize the field by featuring contributions that extend existing knowledge, challenge research dogmas, cross disciplinary boundaries, and reveal what we otherwise had not conceived about sustainability.

To echo others and apply their logic to the STF, a good theory would offer a causal story about the nature of sustainability, as well as on its antecedents, drivers, and consequences (Sutton & Staw, 1995). Laced with a set of convincing and logically interconnected arguments, a theory of sustainability might also burrow into micro-processes, laterally into neighboring conceptual arenas (e.g., ethics), or in an upward direction, tying itself to broader social or environmental outcomes and events. Indeed, a theory of sustainability might have implications that we have not seen, including inferences that run counter to prevalent expectations. Weick (1995) notes that a good theory explains, predicts, and delights; we will be delighted to receive manuscripts that feature a theory that explains and predicts social and/or environmental supply chain sustainability.

The STF and review process will favor scholarly work that breaks away from “gradualism” in order to shed light on both big conceptual questions and on significant and practical problems that are related to the topical area. Consistent with the JSCM ethos, the final manuscripts—collectively and individually—will have to make strong theoretical contributions.

Submission process and guidelines:

• Papers will be reviewed following the JSCM double-blind review process. Papers should be submittedbetween December 15, 2014 and the January 15, 2015 deadline via the Journal's online submission platform (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jscm). Please note in the cover letter that the submission is for theSpecial Topic Forum on Theory Building Surrounding Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Papers should be prepared using the JSCM Guidelines.
• Questions can be addressed to the guest editors:
• Gideon Markman (gideon.markman@colostate.edu)
• Dan Krause (dan.krause@business.colostate.edu). 
• The editors welcome informal enquiries related to proposed topics.

Special Issue Workshop: To help authors advance their manuscripts, a Special Issue Workshop will be held in May 2015 in Denver, Colorado (to co-occur with the Sustainability, Ethics, and Entrepreneurship—SEE—Conference). Authors of R&R manuscripts will be invited to present and discuss their papers during the workshop, but presentation at the workshop does not guarantee acceptance of papers for publication in JSCM. Attending the workshop is not a precondition for acceptance into the STF.

References:

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., & Van den Bergh, B. 2010. Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98: 392–404.
Monbiot, G., 2013. Why is Apple so shifty about how it makes the iPhone? The Guardian.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/23/apple-shifty-about-making-iphone (last accessed - December 25, 2013).
Siegel, D.S. 2009. Green management matters only if it yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective. Academy of Management Perspective, 23:5-16.



Further info:
Gideon D. Markman
Associate Professor of Strategy, Innovation, & Entrepreneurship
Dept. of Management
Colorado State University
218 Rockwell Hall
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1275
USA
Office: 970.491.7154
Fax: 970.491.3522
E-Mail 1: gideon.markman@colostate.edu
E-Mail 2: gid.markman@gmail.com