Abstract
I present three points to complement the issues raised by Reeb, Sakakibara and Mahmood (Journal of International Business Studies 43 (3): 211–218, 2012). First, accounting for endogeneity (i.e., attempting to establish causal identification) requires that we expend effort in thinking through rival theories to the theories we wish to test. Second, because approaches to account for endogeneity have limitations, it is important that we view accounting for endogeneity as an effort accomplished through a cumulative body of research. Finally, access to more or ‘big’ data will not solve this issue in its own right.
Reeb, D., M. Sakakibara, and I.P. Mahmood. 2012. Endogeneity in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 43 (3): 211–218.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Across social science disciplines, many authors comment on the importance and research strategies to establish causal identification—including economics (e.g., Angrist and Pischke, 2010), political science (e.g., Samii 2016), sociology (e.g., Gangl 2010), psychology (e.g., Rohrer, 2018), and management and organizations (e.g., Shaver forthcoming).
- 2.
Shaver (forthcoming) notes that research design choices as described in RSM are only a subset of tools we have to help establish causal identification. Other tools include measurement and interpretation.
- 3.
Endogeneity biases are not small-sample biases—they hold asymptotically.
References
Angrist, J.D., and J.S. Pischke. 2010. The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics. Journal of Economic Perspectives 24 (2): 3–30.
Berry, H., and A. Kaul. 2016. Replicating the multinationality-performance relationship: Is there an S-curve? Strategic Management Journal 37: 2275–2290.
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., U. Andersson, M.Y. Brannen, B.B. Nielsen, and A.R. Reuber. 2016. Can I trust your findings? Ruling out alternative explanations in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 47 (8): 881–897.
Gangl, M. 2010. Casual inference in sociological research. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 21–47.
Reeb, D., M. Sakakibara, and I.P. Mahmood. 2012. Endogeneity in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 43 (3): 211–218.
Rohrer, J. M. 2018. Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1 (1): 27–42.
Samii, C. 2016. Causal empiricism in quantitative research. The Journal of Politics 78 (3): 941–955.
Shaver, J.M. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science 44 (4): 571–585.
———. forthcoming. Causal identification through a cumulative body of research in the study of strategy and organizations. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319846272.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shaver, J.M. (2020). Endogeneity in International Business Research: A Commentary. In: Eden, L., Nielsen, B.B., Verbeke, A. (eds) Research Methods in International Business. JIBS Special Collections. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22113-3_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22113-3_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22112-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22113-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)