Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/10419/333221 Authors:
Delios, Andrew
Hu, Tianyou
Yu, Shu
Zhou, Nan
Ahsan, Faisal M.
Bahl, Mona
Bai, Tao
Basu, Madhurima
Bathula, Hanoku
Batsakis, Georgios
Carneiro, Jorge
Chakravarty, Dwarka
Chen, Danyang
Chen, Weihong
Chen, Ying-Yu
Dau, Luis Alfonso
Deng, Shu
Dikova, Desislava
Fan, Xiaomin
Gada, Viswa Prasad
Huang, Dongdong
Kim, Hyun Gon
Kim, Kyungjoong
Kubíček, Aleš
Li, Chengguang
Li, Wen Helena
Li, Yi
Li, Yuanyuan
Lien, Yung-Chih
Liu, Huanchen
Liu, Wei
Ljubownikow, Grigorij
Louis Vincent, Racheal
Machek, Ondřej
Manocha, Parul
Matsumoto, Yoichi
Mumi, Atthaphon
Niu, Chao
Nuruzzaman, N.
Panicker, Vidya Sukumara
Parboteeah, K. Praveen
Qiao, Wei
Qiao, Xiaole
Sethuram, Shyamala
Shen, Ao
Shi, Lei
Sinani, Evis
Sivakumar, Sandeep
Soon, Pei-Shan
Stallkamp, Maximilian
Tinits, Priit
Tolstoy, Daniel
Tumasjan, Andranik
Varshney, Mayank
Velez-Calle, Andres
Wagner, Chris
Wang, Peng
Wang, Xingang
Wang, Yong
Wen, Liang
Wu, Tao
Yadav, Sandeep
Yan, Jiaju
Yang, Jing Yu
Zhang, Megan
Zhang, Weihao
Zhang, Yameng
Zhao, Yang
Uhlmann, Eric
Hu, Tianyou
Yu, Shu
Zhou, Nan
Ahsan, Faisal M.
Bahl, Mona
Bai, Tao
Basu, Madhurima
Bathula, Hanoku
Batsakis, Georgios
Carneiro, Jorge
Chakravarty, Dwarka
Chen, Danyang
Chen, Weihong
Chen, Ying-Yu
Dau, Luis Alfonso
Deng, Shu
Dikova, Desislava
Fan, Xiaomin
Gada, Viswa Prasad
Huang, Dongdong
Kim, Hyun Gon
Kim, Kyungjoong
Kubíček, Aleš
Li, Chengguang
Li, Wen Helena
Li, Yi
Li, Yuanyuan
Lien, Yung-Chih
Liu, Huanchen
Liu, Wei
Ljubownikow, Grigorij
Louis Vincent, Racheal
Machek, Ondřej
Manocha, Parul
Matsumoto, Yoichi
Mumi, Atthaphon
Niu, Chao
Nuruzzaman, N.
Panicker, Vidya Sukumara
Parboteeah, K. Praveen
Qiao, Wei
Qiao, Xiaole
Sethuram, Shyamala
Shen, Ao
Shi, Lei
Sinani, Evis
Sivakumar, Sandeep
Soon, Pei-Shan
Stallkamp, Maximilian
Tinits, Priit
Tolstoy, Daniel
Tumasjan, Andranik
Varshney, Mayank
Velez-Calle, Andres
Wagner, Chris
Wang, Peng
Wang, Xingang
Wang, Yong
Wen, Liang
Wu, Tao
Yadav, Sandeep
Yan, Jiaju
Yang, Jing Yu
Zhang, Megan
Zhang, Weihao
Zhang, Yameng
Zhao, Yang
Uhlmann, Eric
Year of Publication:
2025
Citation:
[Journal:] Journal of International Business Studies [ISSN:] 1478-6990 [Volume:] 56 [Issue:] 9 [Publisher:] Palgrave Macmillan UK [Place:] London [Year:] 2025 [Pages:] 1102-1124
Publisher:
Palgrave Macmillan UK, London
Abstract:
In this crowdsourced initiative, 57 independent analysts used the same longitudinal dataset to address four major empirical questions in international business. For all four research questions, different analysts obtained substantial estimates in opposite directions, meaning that they could have drawn any conclusion at all had they conducted the project alone. Aggregating across the results obtained by different analysts pointed to an overall answer for two of the four research questions, although for one of the two questions, the evidence was more suggestive than conclusive. That said, the variability in results was not simply random, and could in some cases be meaningfully explained. Choices regarding how to operationalize variables played an important role in determining the empirical results, and expert analysts were more likely to report large positive effects. Rather than exhibiting a bias to confirm their pre-existing beliefs, analysts appeared to rationally update their beliefs considering the evidence. Overall, these findings empirically demonstrate the role of subjective researcher choices in shaping results in international business research yet also show that it is still possible to draw meaningful conclusions in science. We advocate for an open science of international business in which the consequences of subjective analytic choices are rendered as transparent as possible. - Plain language summary: This article explores the challenges of subjectivity and variability in scientific research, particularly in international business studies. Researchers often face pressures that can lead to biased results, such as "p-hacking," where data is manipulated to achieve desired outcomes. This study investigates how subjective choices in data analysis affect research findings. The authors organized a mass collaboration to examine four key questions in international business, focusing on the relationships between entry modes, intangible assets, policy uncertainty, and firm performance. The study highlights the importance of context and subjective choices in shaping research outcomes. This article used a crowdsourced approach, involving 57 researchers from various countries, to analyze a common dataset of Japanese firms' foreign subsidiaries. The researchers independently tested four research questions using different analytical methods. This approach, known as "many analysts," allows for a diverse range of perspectives and methodologies. The study aimed to determine whether different analysts would reach the same conclusions when given the same data and research questions. The researchers used various statistical models and examined how different operationalizations of variables affected the results. The study also assessed the impact of analysts' expertise and beliefs on their findings. The results revealed significant variability in the estimates provided by different analysts, with no two analysts using the same approach. This variability highlights the challenge of subjectivity in scientific research. The study found that the choice of variables and the analysts' expertise significantly influenced the results. Despite the variability, the study identified some directional effects for two of the four research questions. The authors conclude that subjectivity is an inherent part of scientific inquiry, but meaningful inferences are still possible. They advocate for open science practices, such as data sharing and transparency, to improve the reliability of research findings. Future implications include the need for more crowd-based research initiatives and the development of strategies to manage variability in scientific research. This text was initially drafted using artificial intelligence, then reviewed by the author(s) to ensure accuracy .
Subjects:
Crowdsourcing
Many analysts
Open science
Entry mode strategy
Multinational firms
Many analysts
Open science
Entry mode strategy
Multinational firms
Persistent Identifier of the first edition:
Document Type:
Article
Document Version:
Published Version
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:
File
Description
Size
Format
Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
