The insights from the crowd: Drawing inferences from many approaches to key empirical questions in international business

• 成果类型: Article
• 署名作者: 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; Kubicek, Ales; Li, Chengguang; Li, Wen Helena; Li, Yi; Li, Yuanyuan; Lien, Yung-Chih; Liu, Huanchen; Liu, Wei; Ljubownikow, Grigorij; Louis Vincent, Racheal; Machek, Ondrej; 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
• 署名单位: National University of Singapore; University of Macau; Tongji University; XLRI -Xavier School of Management; Illinois State University; University of Queensland; University of Auckland; American College of Greece; Brunel University; California State University System; San Diego State University; Shanghai University of Finance & Economics; Guangxi University; National Dong Hwa University; Northeastern University; University of Mississippi; Vienna University of Economics & Business; Nanjing University of Science & Technology; Glasgow Caledonian University; Nankai University; Rutgers University System; Rutgers University New Brunswick; Prague University of Economics & Business; Technical University of Munich; University of Technology Sydney; University of Sydney; California State University System; California State University Los Angeles; National Taiwan University; Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics; Qingdao University; Monash University; Monash University Malaysia; University of Alabama System; University of Alabama Birmingham; Keio University; Mahasarakham University; National Institute of Development Administration - Thailand; City University of Hong Kong; University of Manchester; Loughborough University; University of Wisconsin System; University of Wisconsin Whitewater; Xiamen University; Chang'an University; City University of New York (CUNY) System; Baruch College (CUNY); Xidian University; University of International Business & Economics; Copenhagen Business School; Indian Institute of Management (IIM System); Indian Institute of Management Raipur; Sunway University; University of North Carolina; East Carolina University; Stockholm School of Economics; Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz; Indian Institute of Management (IIM System); Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad; Universidad EAFIT; Southwest Jiaotong University; Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University; The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen; Indian Institute of Management (IIM System); Indian Institute of Management Bangalore; Baylor University; University of Sydney; Northwest Normal University - China; INSEAD Business School
• 刊物名称: JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0047-2506
• DOI: 10.1057/s41267-025-00808-9
• 发表日期: 2025
• 关键词: ENTRY MODE CHOICE; JAPANESE FIRMS; direct-investment; uncertainty; performance; reproducibility; PSYCHOLOGY; KNOWLEDGE; strategy; survival

摘要

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. Dans cette initiative participative, 57 analystes ind & eacute;pendants ont utilis & eacute; le m & ecirc;me ensemble de donn & eacute;es longitudinales pour r & eacute;pondre & agrave; quatre questions empiriques majeures en affaires internationales. Pour chacune des quatre questions de recherche, diff & eacute;rents analystes ont obtenu des estimations substantielles allant dans des directions oppos & eacute;es, ce qui signifie qu'ils auraient pu tirer n'importe quelle conclusion s'ils avaient men & eacute; le projet seuls. L'agr & eacute;gation des r & eacute;sultats obtenus par diff & eacute;rents analystes a permis de d & eacute;gager une r & eacute;ponse globale pour 2 des 4 questions de recherche, bien que pour l'une des deux questions, les preuves & eacute;taient davantage suggestives que concluantes. Cela dit, la variabilit & eacute; des r & eacute;sultats n'& eacute;tait pas simplement al & eacute;atoire et pouvait, dans certains cas, & ecirc;tre expliqu & eacute;e de mani & egrave;re significative. Les choix concernant la mani & egrave;re d'op & eacute;rationnaliser les variables ont jou & eacute; un r & ocirc;le important dans la d & eacute;termination des r & eacute;sultats empiriques, et les analystes experts & eacute;taient plus susceptibles de rapporter des effets positifs importants. Plut & ocirc;t que de montrer un biais confirmant leurs croyances pr & eacute;existantes, les analystes semblaient mettre & agrave; jour leurs croyances de mani & egrave;re rationnelle en tenant compte des preuves. Dans l'ensemble, ces r & eacute;sultats d & eacute;montrent empiriquement le r & ocirc;le des choix subjectifs des chercheurs dans la formation des r & eacute;sultats des recherches en affaires internationales, tout en montrant qu'il est encore possible de tirer des conclusions significatives en science. Nous plaidons pour une science ouverte des affaires internationales, dans laquelle les cons & eacute;quences des choix analytiques subjectifs sont rendues aussi transparentes que possible. En esta iniciativa de investigaci & oacute;n colaborativa masiva, 57 analistas independientes utilizaron el mismo conjunto de datos longitudinal para abordar cuatro preguntas emp & iacute;ricas principales en el & aacute;mbito de los negocios internacionales. Para las cuatro preguntas de investigaci & oacute;n, diferentes analistas obtuvieron estimaciones sustanciales en direcciones opuestas, lo que significa que podr & iacute;an haber llegado a cualquier conclusi & oacute;n si hubieran realizado el proyecto de manera individual. Al agregar los resultados obtenidos por los diferentes analistas se apunt & oacute; hacia una respuesta general para 2 de las 4 preguntas de investigaci & oacute;n, aunque para una de estas dos preguntas la evidencia fue m & aacute;s sugestiva que concluyente. Dicho esto, la variabilidad en los resultados no fue simplemente aleatoria y, en algunos casos, pudo explicarse de manera significativa. Las decisiones respecto a la operacionalizaci & oacute;n de las variables desempe & ntilde;aron un papel fundamental en la determinaci & oacute;n de los resultados emp & iacute;ricos, y los analistas expertos ten & iacute;an m & aacute;s probabilidades de reportar efectos positivos de gran magnitud. En lugar de mostrar un sesgo para confirmar sus creencias preexistentes, los analistas parecieron actualizar racionalmente sus creencias considerando la evidencia. En general, estos hallazgos demuestran emp & iacute;ricamente el papel de las decisiones subjetivas de los investigadores en la configuraci & oacute;n de los resultados en la investigaci & oacute;n de negocios internacionales, pero tambi & eacute;n muestran que a & uacute;n es posible obtener conclusiones significativas en la ciencia. Abogamos por una ciencia abierta en el & aacute;mbito de los negocios internacionales, en la que las consecuencias de las decisiones anal & iacute;ticas subjetivas se hagan lo m & aacute;s transparentes posible. Nesta iniciativa colaborativa, 57 analistas independentes utilizaram o mesmo conjunto de dados longitudinais para abordar quatro grandes quest & otilde;es emp & iacute;ricas em neg & oacute;cios internacionais. Para todas as quatro perguntas de pesquisa, diferentes analistas obtiveram estimativas substanciais em dire & ccedil;& otilde;es opostas, o que significa que poderiam ter chegado a qualquer conclus & atilde;o caso tivessem conduzido tal projeto sozinhos. A agrega & ccedil;& atilde;o dos resultados obtidos por diferentes analistas apontou para uma resposta geral em 2 das 4 quest & otilde;es de pesquisa, embora, para uma dessas duas quest & otilde;es, as evid & ecirc;ncias fossem mais sugestivas do que conclusivas. Dito isso, a variabilidade nos resultados n & atilde;o foi simplesmente aleat & oacute;ria e, em alguns casos, p & ocirc;de ser explicada de forma significativa. Escolhas relacionadas a como operacionalizar vari & aacute;veis desempenharam um papel importante na determina & ccedil;& atilde;o dos resultados emp & iacute;ricos, e analistas especialistas tiveram maior probabilidade de relatar efeitos positivos significativos. Em vez de exibirem um vi & eacute;s para confirmar suas cren & ccedil;as pr & eacute;-existentes, analistas aparentemente atualizaram racionalmente suas cren & ccedil;as considerando as evid & ecirc;ncias. De forma geral, esses achados demonstram empiricamente o papel de escolhas subjetivas de pesquisadores na forma & ccedil;& atilde;o de resultados em pesquisas de neg & oacute;cios internacionais, mas tamb & eacute;m mostram que ainda & eacute; poss & iacute;vel tirar conclus & otilde;es significativas na ci & ecirc;ncia. Defendemos uma ci & ecirc;ncia aberta em neg & oacute;cios internacionais na qual as consequ & ecirc;ncias das escolhas anal & iacute;ticas subjetivas sejam tornadas o mais transparentes poss & iacute;vel. (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), 57(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic),(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).