This document provides a literature review and analysis of six articles from the Journal of International Business Studies regarding the use of context and contextualization in international management research. The summary analyzes how the articles consider context at different levels and categorizes them based on the type of international management context studied. It finds that while some articles attempt to take context into account, most research is still developed from a North American perspective with little consideration for other cultural contexts.

1. INTBUS 702 | Research in
International Management
Assignment One | Context & Contextualization in
International Business Research
JIBS Review | Vol 39, Issue 4, June 2008
Semester Two | August 18, 2008
Jess Maher
3328773

2. 2Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
The use of context & contextualization in International
Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
Jess Maher (3328773)
Considering a business environment which is increasingly more global in interactions it is
interesting to consider that there is still so little balance between the sources of models &
frameworks which are commonly implemented in International Management (IM) & its research. As
early as the eighties, Hofstede (1980) reported the ‘US is the largest producer & exporter of
management theories’. Boyaciggiler & Adler (1991) state that ‘cultural values of the US underlie and
fundamentally framed management research’.
Boddewyn (1997) describes how IM ‘accentuates that business occurs in an environment that
has an economic dimension, a sociocultural dimension and a political dimension and all of these
environmental dimensions have a significant influence on conduct of a business’ (cited in Martinez &
Toyne, 2000). Yet recent literacy reviews as referenced by Tsui (2007) ‘reveal that knowledge about
management outside North America is still lacking’. Hofstede (1980) accounted the lack of reference
to Freud in management when compared to psychology to him being Austrian which gave him a
different contextual reference to later US counterparts.
”Change the context and the entity itself is different, it realizes another of its
infinite potentialities. It becomes something different. Something more.”
(Gummerson, 2006, as cited in Michaliova, 2008)
Rousseau & Fried (2001) described context as ‘a set of factors, when considered together, can
sometimes yield a more interpretable and theoretically interesting pattern than any of the factors
would show in isolation’.Context has the ability to influence the nature of study & research results as
‘context drives how phenomena are perceived and abstracted at conceptual level’ (Cai, 2007 as cited
in Michaliova, 2008). Considering the power of context to alter the perception, application &
effectiveness of research & models developed ‘IM researchers haven’t taken context seriously’ (Tsui,
2007). Studying and reporting context within research methods allows a more authentic
communication and assists researchers in better conveying the applications of their research
(Michailova, 2008).
Boyaciller & Adler (1991) accuse American theorists of demonstrating “contextual parochialism”
by ‘not being sufficiently aware of non-US contexts, models & values, they have displayed ignorance
of others ways’ (p263). This ignorance may also be argued or perceived as North America having an
ethnocentric perspective, Triandis (1983) suggests that one way to overcome such ethnocentrism is
by making ‘isomorphic attributions’ for the behaviour or understanding which is being expressed,
requiring adopting the perspective of the party expressing or experiencing it. However, if
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One

3. 3Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
‘management research’s convergence on the North American research paradigm’ (Tsui, 2004) is due
to “contextual parochialism” (Boyaciller & Adler, 1991) is it not time for researchers to take this on
board and start to attempt to correct some of the possibly negative effects of such ignorance?
Contextualization involves understanding the context of the research which is being undertaken
or as Edmondson (1999) states, ‘exploiting context’ (as cited in Tsui, 2007). Whetten (2002)
describes the “contextualization of general knowledge” as ‘showing the limits of the general
knowledge that exists in the literature’. This again highlights the concern that this ‘knowledge is
essentially based on US findings & research’ (Tsui, 2004), this convergence of management towards
the North American research paradigm, was later termed by Tsui (2007) as a “homogenizing
tendency”.
There is still some debate over the way to best deal with context & contextualization in IM and
there are degrees of which researchers have considered context within their methods. In order to
gage how the current IM research and literature is applying this understanding & bringing context to
the forefront, I have considered six different articles from June, 2008 39(4) edition of the Journal of
International Business Studies (JIBS). The articles have been reviewed and the application of
contextualized research has been critically assessed (attached as Appendix A & B are the Article
Review Sheet & Supporting detail respectively).
Cuervo-Cazurra (2008) is a prime example of the kind of North American research that is taken
specifically from a US point of view whilst attempting to take a universalist approach to the research
& methods discussed. The term “abroad” used in the title, refers to, within the context of the text,
any nation or culture external to the US. It is arguable that any concern for context has been made in
the development, execution & analysis of the research in this article as so little concern for the social
& organizational levels of context.
There are levels of analysis in which context can be considered by researchers, ranging from
individual to society at large (Michailova, 2008). Orr & Scott (2008) consider the context within
which MNE’s operate on a number of levels; national (host government policies & processes),
industry (trust among firms in same sector), organization (firm-level decisions) and attempted to
consider group & individual levels of context analysis using Scott’s 3 categories of institutional
elements. While this article appears to taking a somewhat balanced approach, the considerations of
context refer to the context of managing MNE’s rather than the specific contexts within which
MNE’s operate.
Kostova (1999) outlines the same level format when considering the contextual complexity in
analysis when considering transferring strategic organisational practise which has been broken into
three levels; social, organisational & relational. The social context refers to the institutional
differences between the countries of the parent company & of receipt unit (Kostova, 1999). Jackson
& Deeg (2008) considers context mainly on this level, taking concern mainly for areas such as
governance & business systems differences between contexts. The organizational context refers to
the organisational culture of the recipient unit (Kostova, 1999), which is shown consideration for in
Luk, et, al., (2008) and Domadenik, et, al., (2008).The relational context refers to past relationships
between parent company & receipt unit as perceived by the members of the transfer collation at the
recipient unit is perceived by the members of the transfer collation at the receipt unit (Kostova,
1999).
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One

4. 4Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
The reviewed articles have been categorized based on Ricks (1985) & Werner’s (2002)
descriptions of IM which includes three types; MNE context, comparative & foreign domestic studies
(as cited in Tsui, 2007). This categorisation is due to Tsui’s (2004) statement that ‘contextualized
research must be indigenous as it requires a deep knowledge of the local context’. Of the eleven
articles in the JIBS June, 2008 issue, five were categorized as Type One; within the MNE context
(three of which have been reviewed). Orr & Scott (2008) fits within this category; stating a limitation
to their research is that the ‘host countries perspective was largely ignored’.
The way in which each of these articles considers context has been explored in accordance with
Tsui’s (2004) model developed to describe the different ways contextualized research could add to
Global Management knowledge (Figure 1.0). The top contributing layer to Global Knowledge
Management (GKM) in Tsui’s (2004) model consist of two kinds of contextualized research, Context-
Embedded & Context-Specific research, otherwise referred to as Indigenous or Foreign Domestic
studies (Tsui, 2004). Such research is culture specific and considers behaviour from within the
context it occurs (Tsui, 2007) Werner, 2002),
unique from context-bounded research in Figure 1.0 | Managing Context in Global Management Knowledge
that it more often takes what is commonly
referred to in anthropology as an Emic
perspective (Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel,
1999).
Apposing the Emic perspective is that of
Etic, ‘which studies behaviour from outside
the system, examining more than one
culture for common elements (Triandis &
Marin, 1983). This approach is more aligned
to that of context-embedded research or
comparative studies such as those of Retrieved from Tsui (2004) Contributing to Global Management Knowledge: A Case for High Quality
(Capelleras, Mole, Greene, & Storey, 2007; Indigenous Research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(4)
Luk, et al., 2008). As stated by Michailova (2004) ‘Indigenous research is important and valuable, but
there are disadvantages of collecting data in culturally familiar environments’. This emphasizes the
strong argument for adapting both an Emic and Etic perspective in research (Triandis, 2006; Triandis
& Marin, 1983), however with a clearly overwhelming majority of management research coming
from the US (Boyaciggiler & Adler, 1991; Triandis & Marin, 1983) it is difficult to find this balance.
Context specific research provides the advantage of being able to understand the differing
histories, religions & social structures in varying nations, which is especially important when the
economic structure & contexts differ drastically from that of North American or Western European
locations (Tsui, 2004). From the June 2008 JIBS issue, several articles completed comparative studies
of contexts, neither one of which being the US (Capelleras, et al., 2007; Clougherty & Grajek, 2008;
Coeurderoy & Murray, 2008; Luk, et al., 2008)however only one “context specific” study is presented
(Domadenik, Prasnikar, & Svejnar, 2008). Such research is widely regarded as lacking from the field
of IM (Tsui, 2004, 2007; Whetten, 2002) however, Werner & Brouthers (2002) state that it is ‘JIBS
editorial policy not to classify foreign domestic research in the field of IM’(as cited in Michailova,
2008).
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One

5. 5Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
The results from context-specific research utilise a further level of contextualization by making
explicit such connections to the global literature in a context-specific research in two ways, by
making the familiar appear more novel or by making the novel appear familiar. By making the novel
appear familiar, researchers use familiar constructs & conceptualizations, measures & methods to
describe context-specific phenomena (Whetten, 2002). These studies ‘involves the highest level of
contextualization and aim to understand & explain local phenomena aided by existing literature’
(Tsui, 2007). Luk, et. al., (2008), demonstrates highly contextualized methods by using existing
literature about the benefits of social capital (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Bourdieu, 1984, West &
Anderson, 1996) in conjunction with culture specific research & literature about the indigenous
Chinese construct “gunaxi” which influences behaviour & interactions (Park & Lou, 2001; Peng &
Lou, 2000; Adler & Kwon, 2002) to develop a unique model of the benefits of social capital in
relation to organizational effectiveness.
By making the familiar appear novel, researchers use novel observations & opportunities for
research to inform current perspectives & attract interest (Whetten, 2002). Domadenik, et. al.,
(2008) explores the Slovenian economy by applying context-specific empirical research to develop a
framework for corporate adjustment & restructure in a transition economy. This level of deep
contextualization helps add to the body of GMK as Slovenia is one of the more successful &
economically advanced transition economies (Domadenik, et al., 2008) which is representative of
the current nature of developing economies.
Context-embedded research ‘uses context as a primary explanatory variable’ (Tsui, 2004) in
either an independent or variable manner. Whetten (2002) refers to this kind of research as context
sensitive when ‘generally accepted Western theories or research are applied or tested within the
particular business context & culture’. Completing such context-embedded research involves the
process of implement such research involves drawing samples for a new context or population to
replicate, generalise or extend information available from the existing literature & research (Tsui,
2004).
Further following Tsui’s framework (Figure 1.0), the results from context-embedded research
utilise a further level of contextualization to provide either context bounded or context-free models
or knowledge. Context-bound models are those which have applied what Tsang & Kwan (1997) refer
to as an empirical generalization, which feature context (in this case culture) as an independent
variable (as cited in Tsui, 2004). Capelleras et, al., (2008) utilises this method of research by taking
existing frameworks from the literature to compare entrepreneurship between the UK & Spain using
the legislative & regulatory context as the main independent variable.
Context-free models are those which have applied generalisation and further extension, they
can applicable to any social, cultural or political context and use culture as a moderator (Tsui, 2004).
In my review, these models appear more difficult to come by Jackson & Deeg (2008) attempted to
achieve a context-fee model of areas in which IM should focus contextual efforts. This process is
described as ‘deep contextualization; by identifying how context enhances or modifies
understanding of a common phenomenon across contexts’(Tsui, 2007).
If it is accepted that context is important in adding meaning (Bowen & De Clercq, 2007;
Boyaciggiler & Adler, 1991; Hofstede, 1980; Martinez & Toyne, 2000; Rousseau & Fried, 2001; Tsui,
2004, 2007; Tsui & Lau, 2002; Whetten, 2002), then is the explicit variation in histories, religions,
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One

6. 6Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
politics and social structures across varying nations really going to be able to be assimilated into
models developed from a specific contextual reference? Tsui (2007) stated that ‘it should not be
assumed that the concept of “servant leadership” with deep roots in Christian values can be
applicable to a context with deep Confucian values or a “high-power-distance” culture’ (p1357). This
would suggest that by attempting to assimilate the intentions, meanings, values & culture into an
existing framework from their own contextual perspective is going to be ineffective. When the
context external to the US has been ignored for so long, new models, research & ideas are required;
the US has a responsibility to adapt their approach to IM in order to at least be able to make
educated isomorphic attributions about other cultures.
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One

7. 7Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
References
Boddewyn, J (1999), The domain of International Management, Journal of International Management, 5; 3-14
Bowen, H. P., & De Clercq, D. (2007). Institutional context and the allocation of entrepreneurial effort. Journal of
International Business Studies, 39(4), 747-767.
Boyaciggiler, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The Parochial dinosaur: organizational science in a global context. The
Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 262-291.
Capelleras, J.-L., Mole, K. F., Greene, F. J., & Storey, D. J. (2007). Do more heavily regulated economies have
poorer performing new ventures? Evidence from Britain and Spain. Journal of International Business
Studies, 39(4), 688-704.
Clougherty, J. A., & Grajek, M. (2008). The impact of ISO 9000 diffusion on trade and FDI: A new institutional
analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 613-633.
Coeurderoy, R., & Murray, G. (2008). Regulatory environments and the location decision: evidence from the
early foreign market entries of new-technology-based firms. Journal of International Business Studies,
39(4), 670-687.
Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2008). The effectiveness of laws against bribery abroad. Journal of International Business
Studies, 39(4), 634-651.
Domadenik, P., Prasnikar, J., & Svejnar, J. (2008). Restructuring of firms in transition: ownership, institutions and
openness to trade. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 725-746.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, Leadership & Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad? [Article].
Organisational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.
Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. The
Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 308-325.
Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. (2008). Comparing capitalisms: understanding institutional diversity and its implications
for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 540-561.
Luk, C. L., Yau, O. H. M., Sin, L. Y. M., Tse, A. C. B., Chow, R. P. M., & Lee, J. S. Y. (2008). The effects of social
capital and organizational innovativeness in different institutional contexts. Journal of International
Business Studies, 39(4), 589-612.
Martinez, Z. L., & Toyne, B. (2000). What is International Management & what is it's domain?
Journal of International Management, 6(1), 11-28.
Michailova, S. (2008). Session 4: Context & Contextualization in IB & IM Research. Unpublished Lecture
University of Auckland.
Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside & outside: integrating emic & etic
insights about culture & justice judgement Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781-798.
Orr, R. J., & Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutional exceptions on global projects: a process model. Journal of
International Business Studies, 39(4), 562-588.
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational research. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, pp. 1-13
Triandis, H. C. (2006). Cultural Intelligence in Organizations. Group & Organization Management
31(1), 20-26.
Triandis, H. C., & Marin, G. (1983). Etic plus emic verse pseudoetic: a test of a basic assumption of
contemporary cross-cultural psychology Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14(4), 489-500.
Tsui, A. S. (2004). Contributing to Global Management Knowledge: A Case for High Quality Indigenous
Research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(4), 491-513.
Tsui, A. S. (2007). From Homogenization to Pluralism : International management research in the Academy and
beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1353.
Tsui, A. S., & Lau, C.-M. (Eds.). (2002). The Management of Enterprises in the People's Republic of China.
Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Whetten, D. A. (2002). Constructing cross-context scholary conversations. In A. S. Tsui & C.-M. Lau (Eds.), The
Management of Enterprises in the People's Republic of China (pp. 30-48). Massachusetts: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One

8. 8Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One

9. 9Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One

10. 10Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One

11. 11Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One

12. 12Context & Contextualization in International Management; Journal of International Business Studies article review
Jess Maher (3328773) | INTBUS702 Assignment One