Patterns in Management Research: An Analysis of US American, European and German Approaches

Transcription

1 Patterns in Management Research: An Analysis of US American, European and Approaches Kurt Matzler Associate Professor Birgit Renzl Assistant Professor Department of General and Tourism Management, University of Innsbruck/Austria Universitätsstrasse 15, 600 Innsbruck/Austria, Abstract. Several studies found significant differences between the US American and European management research. Since these studies included only journals published in English language, particularities of management research are not taken into consideration. In this study a comparative content analysis of all articles in the leading four US American, European (in English language) and management journals published in 000 was conducted. The following items were analyzed: research patterns (theoretical versus empirical; and if empirical, nomothetic or idiographic), purpose and data collection methods, and collaborative behavior of authors (international cooperation, national and cooperation within the same university) in the respective geographic areas. On all these variables, clear differences were found. Key words: publication, management research, research paradigm

2 Introduction In attending management conferences and reading management journals differences between US American and European management research become obvious. Intuitively, the American research paradigm is often described as quantitative, theory testing and the European approach as qualitative, theory developing. In fact, empirical studies confirm different research patterns (e.g. Collin et al. 1996, Dreyer, Blackmon and Voss, 000, Bengtsson 001). US American management research follows a nomothetic research approach, i.e. predominantly quantitative analysis of a small number of variables measured within a large sample focusing on theory testing. On the contrary, the European approach pursues an idiographic research approach characterized by a qualitative, multi-aspect in-depth study of a small number of cases. These differences are mainly attributed to the incentive schemes of the market (Berardo, 1989, Collin et al. 1996). Researchers who comply with the dominating paradigm in the respective market are more likely to be successful and promoted. Other differences between European and US American research patterns found in previous studies relate to data collection methods in quantitative and qualitative studies, the purpose of empirical studies (hypothesis development, descriptive studies, theory testing), the purpose of theoretical work (theory overview versus theory development), and collaborative behavior of authors (frequency of co-authored articles, national and international cooperation). However, since these studies include only publications in English language, particularities of management research are not taken into consideration. As a consequence, little is known about research patterns and paradigms. The objective of this paper therefore is to shed light on management research patterns and to compare it with the American and (English) European approach. Objectives Hermann Simon, in an article published in 199, accused management research of suffering from a black hole-syndrome (Simon, 199): It received substantial information from outside, but did not communicate to the outside. Simon believed that research output was largely unknown to the international academic community and called for a dramatic change towards more international integration. In their article, Making and Measuring Reputations, Baden-Fuller, Ravazzolo and Schweizer (000) presented a ranking of European business schools and university departments on the basis of their published work in top quality international management journals. As for the -speaking countries, the results are rather disappointing: None of the business schools or university departments made it to the top thirty-eight. The number of publications in leading international journals is not worth mentioning. As a consequence, the international scientific community is practically unaware of what is done in the speaking countries.

3 A previous study in research in strategic management found two characteristics which distinguishes it from American research: a preference for broad issues and conceptual work (Matzler et al., 001). This observation is consistent with the European research tradition (Collin et al., 1996 and Bengtsson, 001) which focuses on theory development rather than on narrow theory testing based on large scale empirical studies. As, however, most leading international journals require empirical content it becomes evident that researchers share of publications must necessarily be small and their standing within the international academic community weak. This study, though, included only strategic management articles and it is not clear, whether these findings apply for general management research. Collin et al. (1996) argue that US American researchers are more obliged to cooperate in order to enhance the quantity of their publications as publications in refereed journals is regarded as extremely important. A number of factors might have influenced collaborative behavior of European researchers (Bengtsson, 001). The European Union promotes and finances collaborations between researchers of different countries, an increasing number of conferences facilitates interaction and new information technologies render exchange of ideas more efficient and easier to manage. The question is, whether researchers collaborate to the same extent as their European and US American colleagues and to what extent to collaborate on a national or international level. To sum up, the purpose of this paper is to analyze management research in three respects: (a) research methodology, i.e. theoretical versus empirical work, (b) if empirical, whether a quantitative or a qualitative approach was applied, and (c) collaborative behavior, the frequency of co-authored publications. Research Method In order to analyze management research compared with US American and the so called European management research a content analysis of the leading management journals of each geographic area in the year 000 was undertaken. From each region four journals were selected. The selection of the US journals was based on the impact factors of the Social Science Citation Index. European management journals were taken from Collin et al. s study (1996). In order to embrace the relatively important Scandinavian market (see Baden-Fuller et al. s research ranking of European business schools, 000), we decided to include the Scandinavian Journal of Management which replaced Human Relations form Collin et al. s list. Objective measures of journal quality such as citation counts were not available in management research because the Social Citation Index contains only one single journal. Therefore, the selection was based on their reputation. The journals were taken from a ranking based on a study measuring quality and reputation as perceived by scholars (Matzler et al., 001).

4 The four journals in the -speaking were, in order of their reputation Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis (BfuP), Die Betriebswirtschaft (DBW), Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB), Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (ZfbF). The four European journals were the British Journal of Management (BJM), Journal of Management Studies (JMS), Organization Studies (OS), Scandinavian Journal of Management (SJM) and from the US American market we included Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Academy of Management Review (AMR), Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ), and the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ). Publications were coded according to the following items. Firstly, the articles were screened for authorship, one single author or collaborative work between two or more authors within one university, national or international cooperation respectively. We also distinguished between authors from the scientific community and practitioners. Then, the articles were classified concerning research methodology, either pure theoretical work or empirical analyses were included. Within the theoretical work we distinguished between theory review versus theory development. Accordingly, the articles including empirical work were classified into three categories theory/hypotheses development, descriptive, theory/hypotheses testing, and methods used. Regarding methods used, we made a distinction between predominantly quantitative (archival studies, survey, experiments, meta analyses) and predominately qualitative research (case studies, research). Results interviews, experiments, document analyses, action The study comprised a total of 51 articles, of which 167 articles account for the area, 17 for the European and 09 for the US-American (see table 1). Table 1. Number of articles in management journals (000) Journal Articles Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis (BfuP) Die Betriebswirtschaft (DBW) 9 Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB) 6 Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (ZfbF) 4 Total 167 British Journal of Management (BJM) 1 Journal of Management Studies (JMS) 49 Organization Studies (OS) 6 Scandinavian Journal of Management (SJM) 1 Total European 17 Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) 7 Academy of Management Review (AMR) 44 Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) 4 Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) 69 Total US American 09 Total 51 4

5 Methodological Issues Regarding research methodology significant differences were found (see table ). As expected, US American research is dominated by empirical studies. More than seventy percent of the published articles are of empirical nature, the share in European journals is somewhat lower (67%). The majority (58,7%) of the articles in the management journal are purely theoretical, thus supporting Matzler et al. s (001) finding in strategic management research. Table. Theoretical versus empirical articles European US American Theoretical (58,7%) (,8%) (8,%) Empirical Total 0 (9,4%) 11 (60,6%) (41,%) (67,%) (71,8%) Total χ² value: 9,40, p< 0,001 Going into more detail within theoretical articles it is revealed that Theory Review is significantly more common in management journals (1,4 %) than in European (, %) and US American (5,1 %) management journals. Table. Theoretical articles: Theory review and theory development European US American Theory Review 1 1 Theory Development χ² value: 14,57, p< 0,001 (1,4%) 77 (78,6%) (,%) 44 (97,8%) (5,1%) 56 (94,9%) Total 5 (1,4%) 177 (87,6%) Considering empirical work, quantitative research holds the majority in all three areas analysed and accounts for 88,7 % in the US American journals (see table 4). European journals are more mixed in their research orientation; 6% of the empirical articles are quantitative and 46,7% are of a qualitative nature. Interestingly, journals are ranking right in between of US American and European journals (78, % quantitative studies). In some of the empirical studies, of course, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were found. In this case, the article was categorized according to the predominating approach, e.g. when an exploratory study was undertaken as a basis of a quantitative study. Only when the 5

6 qualitative and quantitative studies were considered equitable, two entries were allowed. This, for example, was the case when two separate studies were undertaken. These results confirm Collin et al. s (1996) and Bengtsson s findings. US American research is mainly nomothetic and European research more balanced but rather idiographic. management research seems not to fit neither into the American nor into the European approach. Most articles are theoretical, if empirical studies are undertaken they are predominately quantitative. Table 4. Qualitative versus quantitative studies Qualitative 15 (1,7%) Quantitative 54 (78,%) *** p< 0,001 European US American 4 17 (46,7%) (11,%) 57 1 (6,0%) (88,7%) 75 (4,1%) 44 (78,5%) 6,***,07*** Another significant difference is related to the purpose of empirical studies (table 5). In journals, descriptive articles held the majority (5, %) whereas American empirical work is dominated by hypothesis testing (88,7%). European journals seem to be more balanced. Again, management research is significantly different from European and US American research patterns. Table 5. Empirical studies Purpose Hypothesis development (,9%) Descriptive 6 (5,%) Hypothesis test 1 (44,9%) *** p< 0,001 European US American 15 (,9%) (10,0%) 0 (,6%) (1,%) 40 1 (4,5%) (88,7%) 9 (1,5%) 68 (1,9%) 04 (65,6%) 17,58*** 80,*** 68,8*** Table 6 reports the four most frequently used sources of data collection methods in quantitative studies in the three geographic areas. If two or more different methods were used only the primary method was coded. Multiple entries were only allowed, when two or more different data collection methods were considered equally important, e.g. when two independent empirical studies with different methods were undertaken. 6

7 Archival data and surveys are the most applied methods within the quantitative studies in all three areas. Although no significant differences are found when the areas are considered together, some clear differences appear on a two-by-two comparison. In almost 50% of the US American articles archival data is used as the primary source of data compared to less than 40% in European and journals. Surveys are the preferred method of data collection in European journals (over 60%). Table 6. Quantitative studies Data collection European US American Archival Data 1 66 (7,5%) (9,7%) (49,6%) Survey (5,6%) (61,%) (5,6%) Experiment 1 (,6%) (1,7%) (1,5%) Metaanalysis - - (1,5%) n.s. = not significant 110 (44,5%) 16 (55,1%) 5 (,0%) (0,8%),07 n.s. 1,15 n.s. 0,88 n.s. 1,7 n.s. Significant differences are also found in the data collection method of qualitative studies (table 7). Case studies account for 94,1 % in the area compared to 65, % in the European and 55,6 % in the US American management journals. Authors of articles in European journals seem to be the most flexible in data collection methods. researchers rely mostly on case studies if they conduct qualitative research. Table 7. Qualitative studies Data collection European US American Action Research - 1 (4,1%) (5,6%) Case Study (94,1%) (65,%) (55,6%) Document/Content - 6 Analysis (1,%) (11,1%) Interviews (5,9%) (,7%) (7,8%) ** p<0,05 * p< 0,10 n.s. = not significant 0,87 n.s. 10 6,85** 8,6 n.s. 4,70* 7

8 To sum up, on all the variables related to research methodology analysed in this study management research differs significantly from European and US American research. It does neither fit into the American nor into the European research tradition. Therefore, one cannot speak of a European research tradition per se. There obviously are clear differences between the geographic areas. Collaboration It is generally believed that the quantity of articles in refereed journals is considered more important for the career in America (see also Collin et al., 1996). Several studies found that American researchers are the most productive in terms number of articles published in refereed journals (e.g. Engwall, 1996). Therefore, American researchers are more inclined to collaborate in order to enhance the number of publications. As a consequence, one can expect a higher number of co-authored articles in US American journals (Collin et al., 1996). In fact, collaboration, according to the results of our study, is found more frequently in US American journals, where less than 0% of the articles are written by only one author (Table 8). The average number of authors account for,5 in US American, 1,87 in European and 1,69 in accordingly. Thus, in management research there is few coauthorship (47, % of the articles are written by one single author). Table 8. Co-authored articles European US American One author (47,%) (44,5%) (19,6%) Co-authored (50,6%) Average number of 1,69 authors (S.D.) (0,77) t-value, vs. European : 1,8, p<0.10 t-value, vs. US American : 6,54, p<0.001 χ² value: 8,15, p< 0,001 (55,5%) 1,87 (0,91) (80,4%),5 (0,90) Total 181 (5,%) (64,7%) 1,97 (0,90) Analyzing co-authorship on the international, national and university level there are significant differences to be found. Despite the fact, that some EU programs are designed to enhance international collaboration, European and especially articles with international co-authorship are far behind the articles published in US journals. One could expect, however, that if authors collaborate internationally they publish their work in English journals. Surprisingly, only five articles written by authors were found in the international journals (4 of them co-authored with international partners). 8

9 In total, most cooperation is at the national and university level across all three geographic areas (0,6 % and 9, % of all articles respectively). In management research, the highest level of cooperation is at the university level (7,1 % of all articles selected). Whereas in European cooperation within university and national cooperation (4,8 % and 7,7 %) are most common, US American researchers predominantly collaborate on the national level (49, %). The figures on the international cooperation across the geographic areas selected, illustrate that in the area only 1,8 % of the total articles are co-authored on an international basis compared with 1,4 % in the European and,0 % in the US-American area. Table 9. Cooperation on an international, national, within university level, and with practitioners percentage of total articles International Cooperation National Cooperation Cooperation within universities Cooperation with practitioners * p<0,05 *** p< 0,001 (1,8%) 16 (9,6%) 6 (7,1%) 19 (11,4%) European US American (1,4%) (,0%) 8 10 (7,7%) (49,%) 4 54 (4,8%) (5,8%) (,%) (1,4%) 68 (1,%) 157 (0,6%) 150 (9,%) 5 (4,9%) 6,9*** 69,61*** 7,48*,69*** Concerning co-authorship with practitioners involved, the figures in management research (11,4 % of the total of articles) are considerably higher than in the European (, %) and US-American (1,4 %) area (table 9). Furthermore, as table 10 shows, in European and US-American journals there always is an academic involved (100 %), whereas in journals approximately 10 % of the articles are authored by practitioners. Table 10. Authors academics and practitioners Practitioners 6 (1,6%) Academics 149 (89,%) *** p< 0,001 European US American (,%) (1,4%) (100%) (100%) 4 (8,%) ,5%) 58,94*** 8,65*** 9

10 Conclusion In this paper we analyzed management research concerning research patterns and collaborative behavior of the authors. Significant differences were found on the following variables (see also Table 11): Theoretical versus empirical nature of the article Purpose of theoretical articles (theory review versus theory development) Purpose of empirical articles (hypothesis development and descriptive studies versus hypothesis testing) Methods used in quantitative studies Methods used in qualitative studies Number of co-authored articles Collaboration (international, national and university level) Collaboration with practitioners. Tab. 11. Key characteristics of management research Item European US Share of empirical articles Low High High Share of theory review Low Very low Very low Share of qualitative empirical studies Low High Very low Empirical hypothesis development Very low Low Very low Descriptive empirical studies High Low Very low Hypothesis testing High High Very high Use of Archival data Low Low High Surveys High Very high High Experiments Very low Very low Very low Use of cases in qualitative studies Very high High High Use of interviews in qualitative studies Very low High High Other methods in qualitative studies Very low Rather high Low Number of co-authored articles Rather high Rather high Very high International cooperation Extremely low Very low Low Cooperation between universities Very low Low High Cooperation within universities High Low Low Cooperation with practitioners Low Extremely low Extremely low 10

11 To conclude, in terms of methodology management research differs significantly from the US American and the so-called European approach. researchers have a preference for theory development, publishing a very high number of purely conceptual articles. If, however, empirical studies are undertaken they are of a quantitative nature. But, in contrast to the US American approach, a relatively high number of these articles are descriptive. Furthermore, US American and European researchers are frequently collaborating on an international and national level. In management research the majority of published research is carried out by one single author and international collaborations and collaborations between different universities are relatively rare. If articles are co-authored, researchers prefer collaboration within the same department or university. References Baden-Fuller, C., F. Ravazzolo, and T. Schweizer (000). Making and Measuring Reputations. The Research Ranking of European Business Schools, Long Range Planning,, Bengtsson, L. (001), European and American Management Research The Nomothetic and Idiographic Research Methodology Divide, Paper presented at the EURAM founding conference in Barcelona, April 0 th 001. Berardo, F. M. (1989), Scientific Norms and Research Publication Issues and Professional Ethics, Sociological Inquiry, 59, Collin, S.-O., U. Johansson, K. Svensson K. and P.-O. Ulvenblad (1996). Market Segmentation in Scientific Publications: Research Patterns in American vs European Management, 7, Drejer, A., K. Blackmon, Chr. Voss (000). Worlds Apart? A Look at the Operations Management Are in the US, UK and Scandinavia, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 16, Engwall, L. (1996). The Vikings versus the World: An Examination of Nordic Business Research, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 1, No. 4, Matzler, K., H. H. Hinterhuber, H. Pechlaner and J. Geier (001). Ein Ranking deutschsprachiger Fachzeitschriften der Allgemeinen Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft 1, Matzler, K., Hans H. Hinterhuber, St. A. Friedrich, and Heinz K. Stahl (001). Research in Strategic Management: Core Issues and Future Directions, Paper presented at the EURAM founding conference in Barcelona, April 0 th 001. Simon, H. (199). Die deutsche Betriebswirtschaftslehre im internationalen Wettbewerb ein Schwarzes Loch?, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft,