Paradigms in Qualitative IB Research: Trends, Analysis and Recommendations

Roberta Aguzzoli, Jorge Lengler, Stewart R. Miller*, Agnieszka Chidlow

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This paper examines trends, challenges and opportunities in terms of research methodologies in qualitative IB research. In particular, it examines trends for the dominant (positivism/(post)positivism) paradigm versus alternative paradigms (i.e., social constructivism, critical realism and interpretivism) and provides a comparative analysis of data collection and methods. Using mixed methods to collect and analyze data on qualitative articles published in International Business Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business, and Management International Review, we examine trends and differences between the dominant and alternative paradigms and use qualitative content analysis to investigate how alternative paradigm papers are conceptualized and presented. Moreover, we interview authors of non-positivist papers to gain in-depth understanding of the findings. We reveal differences across the paradigms and provide evidence of paradigmatic fit between methods and data collection techniques for the dominant paradigm, but more variation for alternative paradigms. Lastly, we provide prescriptions for IB scholars in terms of methodology diversity and how complex IB phenomena can be pursued vis-a-vis alternative paradigms.

Original languageEnglish
JournalManagement International Review
Early online date28 Mar 2024
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 28 Mar 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.

Keywords

  • Alternative paradigms
  • Philosophy of science
  • Qualitative methods
  • Research methodology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Business and International Management
  • Strategy and Management

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Paradigms in Qualitative IB Research: Trends, Analysis and Recommendations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this