Is IE Research Legitimate? Nicole Coviello Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada University of Turku, Finland

Hambrick and Chen (2008): My question: Approach: New academic fields are advanced through the process of differentiation, mobilization and legitimacy building My question: Is IE ‘legitimate’? Approach: Assess all IE articles (1989-2012) relative to a set of criteria from Hambrick and Chen (2008) Extend Coviello, Jones and McDougall-Covin (in press) See also Jones et al. (JBV 2011), Coviello et al (JBV 2011), Galkina (2013)

1. Is IE ‘intellectually persuasive’? Numerous high profile awards: 2000 AMJ Best Paper Award 2000: Zahra, Ireland and Hitt 2004 JIBS Decade Award: Oviatt and McDougall (1994) 2014 JIBS Decade Award: Knight and Cavusgil (2004) Journal of International Marketing ‘Thorelli Award’: Jones (1999), Knight (2000), Burgel and Murray (2000), Moen and Servais (2002), Chetty and Campbell-Hunt (2004) Numerous papers in ‘top 10’ lists of strong journals Academy of International Business Conference 2014: 19 sessions; tied for largest area of interest

But… Damaging reviews of IE (e.g. Keupp and Gassmann 2009) Powerful critics in parent disciplines: E.g. Rugman et al (2011) argue there is little or no robust empirical evidence of ‘born global’ firms Lack of visibility in key conferences: Babson 2014: 236 papers; only 15 IE (6%) AoM 2014 110 paper/symposium sessions on Entrepreneurship; only 4 IE (1%) 72 paper/symposium sessions on International Management; 0 IE; 1 PDW

2. Does IE emulate acceptable norms and styles? IE published in top journals and outside parent disciplines 2010-2012 (n = 248) AMJ 1 JIBS 9 ETP 13 JIMgt 3 ERD 4 JIMktg 7 IBR 18 JMS 2 IMM JSBM IMR JWB 8 ISBJ SBE JBR SEJ JBV SMJ 44% in strong journals Only 13% in the strongest journals

What I see as an editor? Qualitative studies Survey studies Demand for robust data collection and analysis procedures & detail often not met Papers are: very descriptive atheoretical Survey studies Authors re-label constructs across papers Inadequate reporting of how measures are adopted, adapted or developed Inadequate recognition of how retained items change the meaning of a construct

Survey and database studies Mismanagement of papers emerging from a single database Authors slicing data too thinly Reliance on questionable proxies Inconsistent or confused used of terms Examples? Writing that states or implies: BG = INV Studying older firms that happened to internationalize early …but calling them BGs Using the term ‘global’ when ‘international’ or ‘regional’ is more appropriate Using the term ‘rapid’ when ‘early’ is more appropriate

What does this suggest? Element Criteria IE Legitimacy Building Intellectual persuasion ? Emulation of norms and styles of adjacent established fields X

Implications? Improve legitimacy through visibility We are informed by (e.g.) entrepreneurship as well as IB Be visible at key conferences beyond AIB (e.g. Babson, AoM) Improve legitimacy through methodological decisions: Thoroughly apply best-practice qualitative methods Use, report and interpret measures carefully and correctly Adopt best-practice when managing large data bases Improve legitimacy through careful use of IE terminology