From the Editors: How to write articles that are relevant to practice

Journal of International Business Studies

Volumn 44, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 285-289

  Cuervo Cazurra, Alvaro ^a   Caligiuri, Paula ^b   Andersson, Ulf ^b   Brannen, Mary Yoko ^b  

^a NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

international business; practice; relevance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877964978     PISSN: 00472506     EISSN: 14786990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2013.17     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Bello, D. C., & Kostova, T. 2012. Conducting high impact international business research: The role of theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(6): 537-543.
2. Bello, D., Leung, K., Radebaugh, L., Tung, R. L., & van Witteloostuijn, A. 2009. Student samples in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3): 361-364.
3. Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. 2011. From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 573-581.
4. Cantwell, J., & Brannen, M. Y. 2011. Positioning JIBS as an interdisciplinary journal. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(1): 1-9.
5. Chang, S. J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. 2010. Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 178-184.
6. Cheng, J. C. C., Henisz,W. J., Roth, K., & Swaminathan, A. 2009. Advancing interdisciplinary research in the field of international business: Prospects, issues and challenges. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7): 1070-1074.
7. Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 2008. Rigor and relevance in organization studies: Idea migration and academic journal evolution. Organization Science, 19(1): 177-183.
8. Ellis, P. 2010. Effect sizes and the interpretation of research results in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9): 1581-1588.
9. Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Education and Learning, 4(1): 75-91.
10. Gulati, R. 2007. Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 775-782.
11. McCloskey, D. N., & Ziliak, S. T. 1996. The standard error of regressions. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(1): 97-114.
12. Peterson, M. F., Arregle, J. L., & Martin, X. 2012. Multilevel models in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(5): 451-457.
13. Reeb, D., Sakakibara, M., & Mahmood, I. P. 2012. Endogeneity in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3): 211-218.
14. Thomas, D. C., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Brannen, M. Y. 2011. Explaining theoretical relationships in international business research: Focusing on the arrows, NOT the boxes. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(9): 1073-1078.
15. Ziliak, S. T., & McCloskey, D. N. 2004. Size matters: The standard error of regressions in the American Economic Review. Journal of Socio-Economics, 33(5): 527-546.