Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the pervasive problem of a lack of replication studies in international business based on van Witteloostuijn’s (2016) commentary “What happened to Popperian Falsification?”
Design/methodology/approachThe author presents two short case studies from her own research, one in which no replication studies took place, and one in which a replication study was conducted shortly after the original study was published.
FindingsThe author shows how the lack of replication in the first case study example resulted in the creation of research myths, whereas the judicious replication in her second case study strengthened arguments for a new – less biased – measure of research performance. The author also discusses why most journals in the field are not open to replication studies and provides recommendations on how to move forward.
Originality/valueUsing two real-life case studies provides a vivid illustration of the problems created by a lack of replications and illustrates the benefits of good replication studies.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 563-568 |
| Journal | Cross Cultural & Strategic Management |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Journal rankings
- International business management
- Research methodology
- Expatriate failure
- Replication studies
- Research metrics