Discussion and conclusion

Abstract

In the previous two chapters, offshoring behavior of European sponsor firms and Indian CROs was tested based on existing hypotheses. To close the research cycle and contribute to theory improvement, survey and case study results are now contrasted to existing offshore and growth theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Eisenhardt, 1989; Christensen and Sundahl, 2001, Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Whenever hypotheses could not be validated, the researcher examines anomalies in greater detail and tries to explain unexpected behavior (Christensen and Sundahl, 2001). Due to the combination of survey and case studies, each dataset stands as an indivictual experiment and fulfils Eisenhardt and Graebner’s replication logic (2007), while on the other hand offering various offshoring perspectives, from European sponsor to Asian CRO. With regards to structure, each hypothesis is discussed independently and supported by empirical evidence for each construct. As effective research involves pattern-matching “between theory and data”, it is “crucial to write the underlying theoretical arguments that provide the logical link between the constructs within a proposition” (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007, p. 29). The analysis closes with theoretical saturation, i.e. the process ends when “marginal improvement becomes small” and the prime goals are accomplished (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 545).