Fifty years of methodological trends in JIBS: why future IB research needs more triangulation

Bo Nielsen, Catherine Welch, Agnieszka (Aggie) Chidlow, Stewart Miller, Roberta Arguzzoli, Emma Gardner, Maria Karafyllia, Diletta Pegoraro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
432 Downloads (Pure)


We analyze methodological trends in empirical research in JIBS from 1970 to 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 future inquiry.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1478-1499
Number of pages22
JournalJournal of International Business Studies
Issue number9
Early online date26 Oct 2020
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2020


  • triangulation
  • transparency
  • analytical rigour
  • methodological rigor
  • Evolution


Dive into the research topics of 'Fifty years of methodological trends in JIBS: why future IB research needs more triangulation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this