Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • Thirdly we provide some statistical findings related to IB r

    2018-10-25

    Thirdly, we provide some statistical findings related to IB research. For example, Piekkari et al. (2009, pp. 574–575) find that case-based articles appeared in four IB journals (International Business Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business, and Management International Review) between 1995 and 2005 have significantly increased by 513% (135) compared to the period 1975–1994 (22). From this observation, one may understand the importance of case method and its contribution to the IB field. By contrast, they also find that empirical-based articles that appeared during 1995–2005 dominate by 727 (56.5%) compared to case studies 135 (10.5%) out of the total number of 1,287 published articles. Collinson and Rugman (2010) conduct a bibliometric analysis of articles in management during 2004–2009 and report that case selection bias include (a) the bias towards US firms [North American firms account for 70% (68%) of the total 5060 hits in 2004 (2009), followed by European for 20% (21%), and Asia–Pacific for 9% (10%)]; (b) the bias towards large firms; (c) the bias towards manufacturing firms [e.g., service firms were under-represented in terms of article hits compared to manufacturing firms]; (d) the bias towards firms that hold KB-R7943 mesylate positions in important industries; (e) the bias towards firms that have been in existence for a long time; (f) the bias towards firms with a strong, recognizable brand; and (g) the bias towards global and bi-regional firms. Conversely, Ketchen, Boyd, and Bergh (2008, p. 646) review the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) between 1980 and 2004, and find dramatic growth both in the volume of articles devoted to strategy topics and “in the use of empirical methods”. Albeit, we notice that SMJ has published so far very few case-based papers compared to any other journal in M&A field. Lastly, when we draw attention to the use of multiple case method in IB journals, multiple case studies clearly predominated (98 vs. 37 single case studies), and 32% of them used a maximum of 10 cases (Piekkari et al., 2009, p. 580). Later studies, for instance, by Bengtsson and Larsson (2012) mention that there is significant evidence of high-impact single M&A case studies, there still seems to be a tendency of multi-cases having a greater impact due to the benefit of cross-case comparisons and external validity.
    Summary of earlier studies using case method in M&A research We survey M&A, entry-mode and internationalization research publications over the last two decades (up to July-2015). The literature survey is mainly emphasized to online journal publications. To accomplish this task, we deeply search various leading publishers׳ sites (e.g., Elsevier, Emerald, John Wiley, Sage, Springer) and Google Scholar. We find 93 journal articles that used case research method for different purposes in different institutional settings (Table 1, Fig. 2). This critical survey unveils that 66 (71%) articles focused on developed markets while 27 (29%) examined emerging markets; single (multiple) case based studies were found to be 44 (46), and remaining three used survey and interview method; 47 (50%) articles performed case analysis, followed by theory testing and development 33 (36%), empirical analysis 6 (7%), survey and interview 4 (4%) and case survey 3 (3%). Further, 56 articles used interview and archival sources as a data collection method, followed by archival data 25, empirical data 7, and survey and archival data 5. Further, industry- and journal-specific analysis shows exciting findings. It is also observed that a small number of studies examined pre-acquisition issues in cross-border deals compared to post-acquisition matters. The findings infer that application of CSR in cross-border M&A research at the pre-acquisition stage is emergent and thrust, for instance, motives of developed-market firms that intend to acquire firms in developing countries, and determinants of emerging market multinationals acquiring firms in developed markets.