Search results

The field of international business (IB) formally welcomes and frequently calls for case study research, but the proportion of case study papers appearing in IB journals remains very small. This paper aims to support efforts to redress this imbalance by addressing an overlooked yet critical issue: the (mis)use of tenses when theorizing from case study findings. The authors reveal a pervasive use of the present tense and argue that this leads to decontextualization and, in turn, over-generalization. The paper also suggests ways in which this problem may be avoided in the future, thereby improving the credibility and status of case-based research and helping to de-marginalise it within IB.

A qualitative content analysis was applied to all (2,627) papers published between 2011 and 2021 in four leading IB journals. In total, 171 case study papers were identified over these 11 years, and a deeper content analysis was then performed to measure the extent of decontextualization/over-generalization implied by the inappropriate use of the present tense in the discussion and theorisation of research findings.

This study found that, out of 171 case study papers identified, 141 (82.5%) provided at least two instances of over-generalization as implied by the misuse of the present tense. However, some of these papers were found to feature statements that could be claimed to mitigate such inappropriate generalization. These mitigating factors included the repeated use of adverbial phrases denoting context and the use of a “propositional style” that clearly distinguished contextual findings from speculative, decontextualized generalizations. Nevertheless, 71 of the 171 (41.5%) papers still demonstrated inappropriate generalization, even after allowing for mitigating factors.

This study reveals a problematic writing practice and one which has arguably significantly contributed to the “decontextualization” problem critiqued in IB and management studies more broadly. The study also offers further insights into how decontextualization might be avoided, arguing that this problem would be significantly reduced if tenses were used appropriately in discussing and theorizing case study findings. Additionally, the study highlights the continued marginalization of qualitative research methods in IB and reinforces calls to address it.

This study aims to explore the ways in which management scholars affiliated with Peruvian universities navigate the tensions between global expectations and local realities in their research practices, drawing on their capitals and habitus.

Drawing on Bourdieu’s field theory, the authors analyse 25 in-depth interviews and a unique database of academic publications in the business and management field from 2000 to 2022. The analysis identifies the positions scholars occupy within the Peruvian management field and examines the factors influencing their research practices.

The authors find that the Peruvian management field is complex and unequal, where actors have different positions and interests, but are all influenced by a logic of academic dependency on the Global North. The authors identify three main positions held by scholars: transnational dominators, who accumulate greater resources and ignore local debates; dominated adaptors, who unsuccessfully try to imitate the dominant logic; and isolated innovators, who critique the dominant model but lack institutional support to develop alternatives.

This research presents an analysis of the Peruvian management field, a site often overlooked in international business studies. By examining scholarly practices, the authors reveal how academic inequalities are reproduced by the forces of globalization. The study underscores the urgent need for greater acknowledgement of regionally informed research, advocating for a more inclusive and diverse understanding in the field of management research.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for evaluating the relationship between China and Peru, drawing on dependency theory, against the backdrop of China’s explicit policies towards foreign direct investment. It seeks to transcend traditional interpretations of this relationship in the literature that focuses on China as either hegemon or a South–South partner to Latin American countries to highlight a more nuanced relationship.

The paper adopts a case study approach, focusing on China in Peru. The authors examine three areas of traditional, strategic and emerging industries drawing from Chinese national policies, reviewing these against characteristics of dependency: control of production, heterogeneity of actors, transfer of knowledge and delinking.

The authors find that Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) in Peru demonstrates mixed motives and collectively operates as an ambiguous player. Chinese firms appear to be willing to work with various actors, but this engagement does not translate into a decolonial development alternative in the absence of a Peruvian political will to delink and Chinese willingness to actively transfer control of production and knowledge.

This paper contributes to existing literature on China in Latin America by evaluating Chinese outward FDI in Peru against China’s strategic aims in terms of a re-evaluation of dependency theory.