Methodological fit for empirical research in international business: a contingency framework

We seek to complement and extend the article by Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (J Int Bus Stud 42:740–762, 2011), winner of the 2021 JIBS Decade Award, which advanced knowledge on case-based theory development in international business (IB). Similarly, we examine dimensions of scholarly inquiry across qualitative and quantitative research, using inductive and deductive approaches. Recent years have featured unprecedented growth in the volume and availability of data from diverse national contexts, offering novel opportunities for innovative research. Accordingly, we build on the logic of Welch et al. (2011) not only to elaborate on but also to call for a more pluralistic view of data and methodology. We advocate using a wider range of data and advanced methods in IB research, framed at the appropriate stage of theory development. We examine the interplay among theory, research design, data, and analytical technique, highlighting the role of data in methodological pluralism. While IB scholars have favored confirmatory approaches in deductive theory building, we argue for more exploratory research using both qualitative and quantitative data. We develop a contingency framework that highlights the stages of theory development, across the nexus of exploratory/confirmatory and qualitative/quantitative approaches, to guide empirical scholarship. We conclude by calling for triangulation and adopting the most appropriate combination of theory, research design, data, and analytical technique, to develop theory in IB research.

CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE: This paper makes a major conceptual and methodological contribution to international business (IB) scholarship by introducing a contingency-based framework of methodological fit. It advances understanding of how research questions, theoretical assumptions, contextual conditions, and empirical methods should be aligned to produce robust and meaningful IB research. By explicitly linking research design choices to the distinctive characteristics of IB phenomena - such as cross-border complexity, multi-level analysis, and contextual heterogeneity - the paper provides a structured foundation for improving theory development and empirical validity in IB research.

ORIGINALITY: While methodological fit has been discussed in management research, this paper is original in developing the first IB-specific contingency framework that systematically maps research questions and theoretical assumptions onto appropriate empirical designs and methods. Rather than promoting a single “best” methodology, it offers a pluralistic yet rigorous approach tailored to the complexity of IB research contexts. The paper bridges long-standing methodological divides (quantitative vs qualitative; variance vs process models) in a way that had not previously been achieved in IB scholarship.

SIGNIFICANCE: The paper is highly significant for IB scholarship as it sets clear standards for evaluating research quality, originality, and contribution. It directly informs how IB research is designed, reviewed, published, and taught, with particular relevance for doctoral training, editorial decision-making, and peer review. By improving methodological alignment, the framework enhances the credibility and cumulative nature of IB research, thereby strengthening the evidence base used by policymakers and practitioners engaging with international business issues.

RIGOUR: The paper demonstrates strong conceptual rigour through systematic synthesis of IB theory, methodological literature, and empirical exemplars. The contingency framework is logically developed, clearly articulated, and analytically robust, offering precise guidance on research design choices across diverse IB contexts. Its conceptual clarity and internal coherence enable replication and application across a wide range of empirical settings, ensuring methodological robustness without sacrificing theoretical ambition.

LINK TO MY IMPACT: This output is central to my impact on responsible research governance and research culture in IB. By promoting methodological transparency, appropriateness, and pluralism, the paper supports responsible knowledge production that underpins policy-relevant and SDG-aligned research. The framework has direct implications for doctoral education, editorial standards, and institutional research evaluation practices, reinforcing my leadership in shaping global norms for rigorous, ethical, and impactful IB research.