Journal of World Business 53 (2018) 303–306

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of World Business

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwb

Contextualizing international business research: Enhancing rigor and T

relevance
⁎
Mary B. Teagardena, , Mary Ann Von Glinowb, Kamel Mellahic
a
Professor of Global Strategy, Thunderbird School of Global Management at Arizona State University, United States
b
Knight Ridder Eminent Scholar Chair in International Management, Florida International University, United States
c
Professor of Strategic Management, Warwick Business School, Warwick University, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Context differentiates international business (IB) from traditional Business research. Along with many IB
Context scholars, we argue that context should be much more adequately emphasized in IB research. Location differences
Contextualization are commonly ignored; complexity and polycomplexity–and other levels of analysis issues–are rarely ac-
International business research knowledged; and the relevance of models and theory developed in Western contexts is not adequately questioned
National culture
or explored. This paper suggests contextualization guidelines for scholars to enhance the rigor of their research
Location
and to make their IB research more relevant for practitioners. In conclusion we suggest solutions for closing rigor
Complexity and polycomplexity
Research rigor and relevance and relevance gaps in IB research by enhancing contextualization.

1. Introduction
Peter Buckley, a luminary in the field of international business,
challenged the distinctiveness of international business (IB) research
(2002). Buckley argued for more integration of culture, more use of
comparative studies and distinctive methods in IB research. Others join
this argument and assert that contextual dynamics are what differ-
entiate domestic research from international business and international
management research (Child, 2009; Gligor, Esmark, & Gölgeci, 2016;
Oesterle & Wolf, 2011; Shenkar and Von Glinow, 1994; Von Glinow and
Teagarden, 1990, 2009 Von Glinow & Teagarden, 1990, 2009). We
argue that more attention should be given to context in IB research to
enhance the rigor of our research, and to increase its relevance. Some
assert that context is not adequately, or at best modestly addressed in
most of our IB research (Oesterle & Wolf, 2011; Doh, 2015). We concur.
Despite the urging of thought leaders in IB for more contextualiza-
tion, our approaches to contextualization are relatively limited. Most IB
research focuses on categorical data or concepts like country or na-
tionality (Shenkar and Von Glinow, 1994). Superficial efforts to con-
textualize are better than nothing, but fall short of ensuring the degree
of contextualization needed to ensure rigorous and relevant IB research.
IB research is frequently executed from an ‘outsider looking in’ per-
spective (Teagarden et al., 1995; Tsui, 2004) which limits full under-
standing of a research subject, and the researcher's ability to fully
contextualize the research or interpret its relevance.
IB research often ignores the role that location plays in sensemaking
when interpreting research (Ghemawat, 2001; Rousseau & Fried, 2001).
IB scholars commonly overlook or fail to acknowledge the complexity
and polycontextuality inherent in IB settings (Shapiro, Von
Glinow, & Xiao, 2007). The research designs used by IB scholars have
remained fairly static–they do not appear to be changing significantly
or fast enough despite many calls to do so (Buckley, 2002; Child, 2009;
Doh, 2017; Teagarden et al., 1995). This Special Issue provides the
opportunity to begin to close this gap.
At the same time the gap in IB research is becoming more evident,
the scope of IB is expanding and changing dramatically. In light of the
shift in business from United States and European based contexts to-
ward more ‘exotic' emerging markets, IB's current research con-
textualization appears inadequate. Asian, Latin American and African
markets exhibit more pronounced differences–or as Ghemawat (2001)
would say, distances–in business, cultural and contextual environments
than were previously encountered in the traditional Western contexts
where much of our IB research derives. It is not clear that IB models and
theory developed in traditional Western contexts are relevant or apply
in the same way in these more ‘exotic' contexts (Von
Glinow & Teagarden, 2009). For our IB research to remain relevant we
must more adequately contextualize our theory building to capture this
variance and uncover differences that make a difference in traditional
non-Western contexts. Several of the articles in this Special Issue pro-
vide excellent examples of rich contextualization.
Contextualization identifies boundary conditions or limitations
surrounding the generalizability of our IB research findings.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Mary.Teagarden@thunderbird.asu.edu (M.B. Teagarden), vonglino@fiu.edu (M.A. Von Glinow), Kamel.Mellahi@wbs.ac.uk (K. Mellahi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.09.001
Received 2 September 2017; Accepted 5 September 2017
Available online 23 September 2017
1090-9516/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.
M.B. Teagarden et al.
Table 1
International Business Research Contextualization Guidelines.
Contextualization Guidelines
1. Does context matter in this research? Is the subject of the research ‘context-specific' or ‘context-bound’?
2. Is the subject embedded in a monocontext or in a polycontext (in multiple and qualitatively different embedded contexts)?
3. Is the best perspective for enhancing rigor and generalizability an ‘outside in' or an ‘inside out' perspective?
4. Does the research incorporate or consider the appropriate levels of analysis (e.g. supranational, macro, meso, micro, firm, and individual levels as appropriate)?
5. Are the locations in which the subject occurs described with sufficient richness to support generalizability claims or limitations?
Mathematics, chemistry and physics require the specification of
boundary conditions in solving problems and presenting findings. This
is basically the specification of conditions, parameters or boundaries
under which the finding can be generalized. We agree with those who
criticize the growing “physics envy” or overt quantification en-
croaching on the IB research domain (Collinson, 2017;
Thomas & Wilson, 2011). Qualitative research often provides the best
approach for providing rich contextualization. Given that context is a
key differentiator of IB research, a more thorough specification of that
context would contribute to the robustness of our research contribu-
tions. The paucity of boundary condition specification, or the weak
specification in most IB research, undermines or constrains robust IB
theory development.
We suggest the following contextualization guidelines be considered
as part of IB research project design (Table 1).
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
sought submissions for this Special Issue that explored the implications
of context for IB theory building, research design and methodology
including methodological approaches that enable us to build more ro-
bust IB theories; articles that focused on the conceptualization and
meaning of context; and those that identified the limitations of con-
textualization. Additionally, we sought submissions that demonstrated
novel methodological approaches for integrating context into IB theory
building. Contextualizing IB research to achieve research rigor and
practical relevance is a challenge faced by all sub-disciplines within the
IB domain. The research presented in this Special Issue responds to the
questions we have raised–not all studies have applied all of our
guidelines, nor is this necessary. However, taken as a whole we find
excellent examples of each in this Special Issue. Through the con-
tributions to this Special Issue, we aspire to expand the boundaries of
rigor and relevance in IB research through our focus on con-
textualization.
2. Current approaches to IB research contextualization
Despite our observation that contextualization of research is under
represented in IB research, there are contributions in this area. Context
in IB research has been implicitly and explicitly viewed through a
variety of lenses, and at multiple levels of analysis. Focusing on theory
development, Whetten (2009) and Tsui (2004) differentiate context-
specific and context-bound theory development. They surface a very
fundamental question, “When does context matter in IB research? Is the
subject of the research ‘context-specific' or ‘context-bound”?
For other scholars it is more complex. They contrast ‘mono-
contextuality’ with ‘polycontextuality', or the multiple and qualitatively
different contexts embedded within one another (Shapiro et al., 2007;
Von Glinow et al., 2004). Cheng (1994:165), for example, suggests that
context-embedded research ought to include '…a nation's social, cul-
tural, legal, and economic variables as predictors and organizational
attributes as dependent variables. Shapiro et al. (2007), for example,
identify numerous contextual variables, including location, that address
the multiple and qualitatively different contextual variables that in-
fluence understanding behavior in China. This takes us to a second
304
Journal of World Business 53 (2018) 303–306
important question, “Is the research subject embedded in a single
context or in multiple different embedded contexts, either of which
need to be specified to support rigor and generalizability?"
Another line of thinking about contextualization focuses on the re-
searcher conducting the research's perspective. Child (2009) discusses
an ‘outside in' versus ‘inside out' perspective of contextualization. In
earlier work, Tsui (2004) argues for inside-out, context specific in-
digenous research, especially in understudied locations. Her perspective
represents one potential response to the contextualization challenge,
and presumes insiders are ‘experts'–most likely true in significantly
understudied locations.
Given the magnitude of possible contexts, researchers are chal-
lenged to comprehend the contextual and polycontextual dynamics in a
very limited number of cultures or societies. A team-based comparative-
management research approach, that can be thought of as similar to
multivariate analysis, is one way to provide the collective under-
standing needed to contextualize and make sense of multiple possible
contexts in which a single multi-country research project is embedded
(Teagarden et al., 1995). There have been numerous examples that
demonstrate the effectiveness of the team-based approach (Bond,
Leung, & Au, 2004; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004;
Von Glinow, Teagarden & Drost, 2002a2002b). This highlights the op-
portunity to question the research methods and perspective used to
contextualize IB research, and raises a third important set of questions,
“Is this research being executed from the appropriate perspective? Is
the best perspective for enhancing rigor and generalizability an ‘outside
in' or an ‘inside out' design?"
Scholars have identified level of analysis as important for under-
standing IB dynamics (Enright, 2002; Gammeltoft, Barnard, & Madhok,
2010; Ricart, Enright, Ghemawat, Hart, & Khanna, 2004;
Teagarden & Schotter, 2013). Teagarden and Schotter (2013) and
Enright (2002) argue for the importance of multilevel analysis to con-
textualize research and provide a deeper understanding and framing of
phenomena. Each of these studies acknowledges that context is im-
portant in IB theory building and each offer prescriptive re-
commendations for incorporating context. Enright (2002), for example
urges the use of multilevel analysis in IB research including suprana-
tional, macro, meso, micro and firm levels in the integration of location
into competitive strategy. This line of thought raises a fourth important
question, “Does the research include incorporation of the appropriate
and sufficient levels of analysis."
IB Strategists and behaviorists assert that location, one form of
context, has an impact on theory (Gelfend, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Ricart
et al., 2004; Rousseau & Fried, 2001; Rugman & Verbeke, 2001).
Khanna (2000) 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 in
IB. For example, scholars have identified locational influences on
human resource management best practices (Von Glinow & Teagarden,
1988, 1990; Von Glinow et al., 2002a, 2002b). The seminal GLOBE
study identifies societies–another form of location and their impact on
leadership (House et al., 2004). Studies like these surface the reality
that in IB context varies by location and influences theory and practice
M.B. Teagarden et al.
differently as the location changes. This raises a fifth important ques-
tion, are descriptions or explanations of the locations in which the re-
search subject occurs described with sufficient richness to support
generalizability claims or limitations?
3. Contextualization guideline application examples in the special
issue
Contributors to this Special Issue conducted research in a variety of
locations–South Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and North
America. They used a variety of research designs and methods–surveys,
interviews, comparative case studies, for example. Qualitative analysis
dominated in the submissions, and the manuscripts that ended up in
this Special Issue, although it was not used exclusively. Through the
publication of this Special Issue and its presentation of novel frame-
works and new analytic tools, our hope is that researchers will have a
less difficult time incorporating context into their projects. Ultimately
seven papers were accepted and we now summarise those papers.
Fainshmidt, Judge, Aguilera, and Smith (2017) present a theoretical
framework to capture the diverse and unique institutional context of
understudied economies in Africa, Middle East, East Europe, Latin
America, and Asia. While focusing on the institutional level of analysis,
their framework also incorporates a multiple levels of analysis ap-
proach–including state, financial markets, human capital, social capital,
and corporate governance institutions–to develop institutional profiles
of 68 economies. This analysis enables these scholars to identify a
comprehensive and up-to-date taxonomy of seven types of institutional
systems operating throughout the global economy. They call the ty-
pology “Varieties of Institutional Systems” and it is a contextualization
framework that other scholars can use to contextualize their IB re-
search.
Fowler, Gajewska-De Mattos, and Chapman (2017) examine the
contextual boundaries of the strategic adaptation model through the
exploration of the model's basic assumptions of low power distance and
bottom-up management style. They do so in an East Asian organiza-
tional context. They compare and provide thick description of the va-
lues that support strategic adaptation in each location. Their analysis
led to identification of a ‘top down' model of adaptation that relies on
informed, but authoritarian decision-making at the behest of top
management–values that are opposite the original model assumptions.
This context-specific research demonstrates that at least for some
models, context matters when exploring the boundaries of a research
subject.
Luo explores how emerging market firms create unique competitive
advantage in global competition using composition-based logic. This
research provides an “insider-out” perspective using survey data from
201 emerging market firms, and the researcher's own ‘insider' expertise
and experience. Luo discusses working conditions– including strategic
resource-seeking motivation, subsidiary autonomy delegation, and
cross-border sharing systems–that fortify the outcome of the composi-
tion. He argues that “a composition-based lens provides a new under-
standing of why and how emerging market businesses can survive in
international competition for some period of time without possessing
traditionally defined monopolistic advantages.”
Schotter, Buchel and Vashchilko (Lukoianova) (2017) present an
interactive visualization methodology for aiding researcher develop-
ment of contextual insights during the exploratory phases of IB re-
search. The authors suggest, "…that applying interactive visualization
early on improves contextualization by means of simultaneous dynamic
representations of various phenomena and their respective properties
and relationships, even for phenomena that have been widely re-
searched…" This tool promises to reshape the way context is drawn out
and understood by researchers, thus enabling a richer discussion of
context and a deeper understanding of the multiple levels of analysis in
which the research subject is embedded or that might impact the re-
search subject.
305
Journal of World Business 53 (2018) 303–306
Bidault, de la Torre, Zanakis, and Ring (2017) found that context is
as important as demography in determining executive's willingness to
rely on trust (WTRT) when entering collaborative ventures where both
partners were at risk. These scholars examined how a diverse sample of
712 executives from several countries, industries and backgrounds.
They tested for the impact of contextual and demographic conditions on
three dimensions of trust–integrity, reliability, and benevolence. They
confirmed differences in WTRT between nationalities. They also found
that several contextual variables mediate this impact. They found that
different nationalities treat three dimensions of trust differently as they
are shown to be time dependent. This research demonstrates the con-
tribution that incorporating multiple levels of analysis can lead to dis-
covery of polycontextual influences on the research subject, thus pro-
viding a more fine-tuned understanding of the research subject.
Khan, Rao-Nicholson, and Tarba (2017) studied the motivation of
suppliers in Pakistan that work with leading Japanese and Chinese
motorcycle assemblers in their global value chains to understand the
local suppliers' motivations. They argue that local firms do so to counter
the negative impact of weak institutions found in late liberalizing
economies, in particular, on innovation. Through their qualitative
analysis, they find that in adverse economic situations, the local context
can only sustain exploitative innovation. Local suppliers are motivated
to develop international networks to counter this challenge. This bal-
ancing strategy helps local suppliers circumvent the negative influences
of home country conditions on their development of exploratory in-
novations. This study highlights the importance of global networks as a
balancing strategy for creating exploratory innovations by firms in a
late liberalizing economy. This context-bound research illustrates clear
boundary conditions–late liberalizing economies that have weak in-
stitutions.
Dau (2017) uses data from the largest Latin American companies to
study how MNEs learn through their choice of entry mode and sub-
sidiary network configuration, and how they use this knowledge to
increase their responsiveness to pro-market reforms in their home
country. He finds evidence for a positive moderating effect of equity
international joint ventures, international acquisitions, and subsidiary
network centrality closeness on the relationship between reforms and
profitability. Dau's research illustrates the contribution that con-
textualization makes in theory building.
4. Recommendations
Reflecting on our experience curating this Special Issue, and from
the IB literature that focuses on contextualization and theory building,
we identified some persistent rigor and relevance gaps in IB research
contextualization.
4.1. Construct clarification
Top among these is a need for more precision in construct definition
when incorporating ‘context' in a research project. Ideally the research
would explicitly discuss how context is operationalized in the project. A
more fine-grained definition of context is needed. We propose differ-
entiating micro-context or microfoundations (Foss, Felin, and Ployhart,
2015) of context, a focus on behaviors and culture from Macro-context,
a focus on the institutional context (Peng, Sun, Pinkham, & Chen,
2009). Fainshmidt et al. (2017), in this Special Issue provide a frame-
work to help explain institutional context in understudied economies in
Africa, Middle East, East Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Luo’s (2017)
composition-based perspective challenges the traditionally defined
monopolistic advantages perspective through examination of emerging
market businesses. Each of these studies clearly defined context or the
role of context to develop novel findings or approaches for under-
standing IB phenomenon.
M.B. Teagarden et al.
4.2. Boundary condition specification
There is a need for more emphasis on boundary condition specifi-
cation in our IB research to identify the generalizability of the work.
Specification of boundary conditions surrounding the research project
should be explicitly discussed. Specifically, the conclusions should
discuss the limitations of generalizability of the research presented.
Fowler et al. (2017) illustrate the limits of generalizability on the
dominant strategic adaptation model. They did so through testing the
model in East Asian settings where the dominant model's limitations
were readily apparent. Schotter et al. (2017) introduce interactive vi-
sualization as a methodology for generating contextual insights during
the exploratory phases of IB research projects. This tool will enable
scholars to explore the boundary conditions of their research early in
their projects. These studies provided example of boundary specifica-
tion or tools for identifying boundaries that can lead to more robust
contributions by IB scholars.
4.3. Identification of the influence of and the role of context in theory
development and theory building
Is context a moderator variable? Is context as a moderator–does it
explain why or how our theory works? Bidault et al. (2017) demon-
strated that context mediates trust and is as important as demography
in explaining an executive's willingness to trust in risky alliances. Dau
(2017) provides evidence for a positive moderating effect of equity
international joint ventures, international acquisitions, and subsidiary
network centrality closeness on the relationship between country re-
forms and corporate profitability. Khan et al. (2017) study innovation
in a late liberalizing context and find
that engagement in global networks help circumvent the negative
influence of home institutional factors in late liberalizing economies on
developing exploratory innovations. These studies demonstrated that
context matters, especially in IB research.
5. Conclusions
A thank you is due to the dozens of authors who submitted their
work for possible inclusion in this Special Issue. We winnowed down
these manuscripts through the traditional blind review process. The
manuscripts included in this Special Issue are the ones that were posi-
tively reviewed by JWB reviewers and by the Special Issue guest edi-
tors. We are pleased that we can bring these fine articles to you and
thankful that we had such a rich pool from which to draw. We also
thank the JWB editorial support staff for assisting us as we navigated
the review system. Your work is sincerely appreciated. We would be
remiss if we did not also express our appreciation to Jonathan Doh and
his editorial team for selecting us to Guest Edit this Special Issue. Our
hope is this issue's collection of articles will enable IB scholars to think
more critically and execute in a more sophisticated manner regarding
the role of context in their research design, execution and application.
References
Bidault, F., de la Torre, J. R., Zanakis, S. H., & Smith Ring, P. (2017). Willingness to rely
on trust in global business collaborations: Contest vs. demography. Journal of World
Business. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.08.001.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Au, A. R. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and
their correlates across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 548–570.
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 re-
search. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 57–73.
Collinson, S. (2017). The declining relevance and legitimacy of IB scholarship in a world
that really needs it. AIB Insights, 17(2), 7–10.
Dau, L. A. (2017). Contextualizing international learning: The moderating effects of mode
306
Journal of World Business 53 (2018) 303–306
of entry and subsidiary networks on the relationship between reforms and profit-
ability. Journal of World Business. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.10.005.
Doh, J. (2017). From the Editor: Why we need phenomenon-based research in interna-
tional business. Journal of World Business, 50(4), 609–611.
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 (pp. 381–406). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fainshmidt, S., Judge, W. Q., Aguilera, R. V., & Smith, A. (2017). Varieties of institutional
systems: A contextual taxonomy for the understudied regions of the global economy.
Journal of World Business. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.05.003.
Foss, N., Felin, T., & Ployhart, R. (2015). Microfoundations for management research.
Academy of Management Annals, 9, 575–632.
Fowler, R., Gajewska-De Mattos, H., & Chapman, M. (2017). Adapting adaptation:
Expanding adaptive strategy theory to account for the East Asian business context.
Journal of World Business. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.06.008.
Gammeltoft, P., Barnard, H., & Madhok, A. (2010). Emerging multinationals: Emerging
theory: Macro- and micro level perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies,
16, 95–101.
Gelfend, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.
Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review, 79(September (8)),
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, 54–60.
Gligor, D. M., Esmark, C. L., & Gölgeci, I. (2016). Building international business theory:
A grounded theory approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(1), 93–111.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.
Khan, Z., Rao-Nicholson, R., & Tarba, S. Y. (2017). Global Networks as a mode of balance
for exploratory innovation in late liberalizing economies. Journal of World Business.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.10.002.
Khanna, T. (2000). Local institutions and global strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School
[Harvard Business School Note No. 702-475].
Luo, Y. (2017). Contextualizing international strategy by emerging market firms: A
composition-Based approach. Journal of World Business. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jwb.2017.01.007.
Oesterle, M. J., & 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.
Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The institution-based view as a
third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 4, 63–81.
Ricart, J. E., Enright, M. J., Ghemawat, P., Hart, S. L., & Khanna, T. (2004). New frontiers
in international strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 175–200.
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location: Location: contextualizing orga-
nizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1–13.
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational
enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 23(3), 237–250.
Schotter, A., Buchel, O., & Vashchilko (Lukoianova), T. (2017). Interactive visualization
for research contextualization in international business. Journal of World Business.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.01.006.
Shapiro, D. L., Von Glinow, M. A., & Xiao, Z. (2007). Toward polycontextually sensitive
research methods. Management and Organization Review, 3(1), 129–152.
Shenkar, O., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1994). Paradoxes of organizational theory and re-
search: Using the case of China to illustrate national contingency. Management
Science, 40, 56–71.
Teagarden, M. B., & 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., Von Glinow, M. A., Bowen, D., Frayne, C., Nason, S., Huo, V., et al.
(1995). Toward building a theory of comparative management research metho-
dology: An idiographic case study of the best international human resources man-
agement project. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1261–1287.
Thomas, H., & & Wilson, A. D. (2011). ‘Physics envy’, cognitive legitimacy or practical
relevance: Dilemmas in the evolution of management research. British Journal of
Management, 22, 443–456.
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., & Teagarden, M. B. (1988). The transfer of human resource man-
agement technology in Sino-U.S. cooperative ventures: Problems and solutions.
Human Resource Management, 27(Summer (2)), 201–229.
Von Glinow, M. A., & Teagarden, M. B. (1990). Contextual determinants of human re-
source 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., & Teagarden, M. B. (2009). The future of Chinese management re-
search: Rigor and relevance redux. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 75–89.
Von Glinow, M. A., Drost, E., & Teagarden, M. B. (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., Drost, E., & Teagarden, M. B. (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.
Von Glinow, M. A., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (2004). Can we talk, and should we?
Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management Review,
29(4), 578–592.
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.