International Relationship Marketing: Intellectual Foundations and Avenues for Further Research

Transcription

1 International Relationship Marketing: Intellectual Foundations and Avenues for Further Research Saeed Samiee, Brian R. Chabowski, and G. Tomas M. Hult ABSTRACT Relationship marketing is a central and important tenet in marketing thought, and considerable research effort in the discipline has been devoted to examining various facets o f relationship marketing, resulting in a large body o f knowledge. In this study, the authors specifically focus on the international dimension o f the relationship marketing literature and use citation and cocitation data to identify and unfold its intellectual foundations. The goal is to provide new and meaningful avenues for further research using the knowledge structure on which international relationship marketing stands. The examination o f the literature spans more than 40 years, divided into three time periods that permit detection o f longitudinal trends as well as meaningful visual representations o f the cocitation data. Overall, the authors survey 29 key publications and identify 3,509 articles that include 230,684 citations, examining the data for , , and to unfold research possibilities. Drawing on the analysis o f emergent multidimensional scaling results, the authors discuss potential international relationship marketing research incorporating social relations and networking, new ventures, internationalization, trust and commitment, tacit knowledge, and cultural values. Keywords: international relationship marketing, cocitation analysis, multidimensional scaling, intellectual foundation Research has long advocated the critical importance of relationships between firms and their customers (Drucker 1954). Understandably, exchange relationships between suppliers and customers have been a central concern in marketing thought (Alderson 1965), representing the embodiment of a customer orientation philosophy (Fournier, Dobscha, and Mick 1998). Well-managed business relationships are essential in part because of the cost advantages associated with keeping a current customer relative to the cost of winning new accounts (Blattberg and Deighton 1996; Ritter and Andersen 2014; Tatikonda 2013). The verac- Saeed Samiee is Collins Professor of Marketing and International Business, Collins College of Business, University of Tulsa ( samiee@utulsa.edu). Brian R. Chabowski is Associate Professor of Marketing, Collins College of Business, University of Tulsa ( brian-chabowski@utulsa.edu). G. Tomas M. Hult is Professor and the Byington Endowed Chair and Director of the International Business Center, The Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University ( hult@broad.msu.edu). Bulent Menguc served as associate editor for this article. ity of a focus on relational exchange has also been validated by empirical research demonstrating enhanced financial performance in firms maintaining strong interfirm relationships (Palmatier et al. 2006; Reichheld 1993). It is thus not surprising that much scholarly research in marketing has been devoted to developing a better understanding of the drivers, consequences, and management of marketing relationships.1 The prominence of international relationship marketing (IRM) in academia also reflects its significance in the marketplace. As firms work to establish an international market presence, researchers are interested in developing a better understanding of the resultant relationships, particularly within the context of exporter-importer interactions and channel relations. Indeed, the examination of interactions between buyers and sellers is among Journal of International Marketing 2015, American Marketing Association Vol. 23, No. 4, 2015, pp ISSN X (print) (electronic) International Relationship M arketing 1

2 the oldest research streams in international business (IB), and the significant body of IRM knowledge is a testament to its resilience as a topic of inquiry over time (e.g., Leonidou et al. 2014; Samaha, Beck, and Palmatier 2014). In addition, firms gravitate toward IRM because of its practical dimensions. Real and perceived distance between markets places added significance on developing and nurturing quality relationships to reduce potential real and perceived costs to the firm when doing business in uncharted territories (Leonidou et al. 2014). Furthermore, there is greater divergence in environmental imperatives internationally, and stronger relationships can help reduce or eliminate difficulties associated with marketing in diverse environments. In particular, in markets abroad, firms must face different sets of local and international competitors, thus placing added emphasis on relationship marketing across national boundaries. A specific research focus on IRM commenced in the 1980s. For example, the International Marketing and Purchasing group was formed and subsequently published its cross-national collaborative research book on the topic (Hakansson 1982). To date, the IRM body of knowledge consists of thousands of publications that examine various aspects of the exchange between international buyers and sellers. Furthermore, the volume of scholarly articles has increased sharply during the past four decades. Given this very large body of literature, a systematic examination of knowledge structure within the IRM stream can accommodate future research paths and help further solidify the area. Barnes et al. (2010) highlight IRM as among the topics within international marketing that need greater research attention. Although several review studies have been published (e.g., Leonidou et al. 2014), these efforts are not aimed at providing analyses that unfold IRM s knowledge structure to holistically provide new paths to future research undertakings. Literature review articles are necessary and illuminating because they integrate and summarize results across the literature, period, and/or a focused IRM topic on the basis of which research recommendation might be rendered; however, they do not try to identify and map the field s knowledge structure. Rather than reporting specific IRM findings, we aim to identify the foundational scholarly influences on the field s development and how they might be interrelated. The relative influence of an article on the discipline, whether specifically in the IRM domain or otherwise, is dependent on its citation frequency in the area under investigation that is, the more heavily a given work is cited in IRM, the greater its influence on the development of the field. Therefore, our objective in this study is to map and unfold the relative positions of each influential work on the discipline and analyze the intellectual foundations of the IRM literature, with the ultimate goal of revealing its knowledge structure. It is frequently the case that the knowledge structure underlying a given field consists of multiple disparate dimensions. The identification and the mapping of IRM s knowledge components will assist in proposing new research streams, thus contributing to theory development and furthering the field. In this sense, the study aims to integrate an otherwise disparate IRM literature and, by extension, international marketing. Because the field has evolved significantly since its beginnings, we divide the data into three time periods, thus affording us the opportunity to examine its progress over time. The use of the term relationship in conjunction with marketing denotes more than a connection with a buyer or supplier (i.e., a transaction-based exchange); however, relationship marketing lacks a unique definition, and numerous definitions are in use (e.g., Harker 1999). For the purposes of this study, we leverage the common ground as a broad definition for relationship marketing, that is, the pursuit of caring associations and continuity, which are essential and integral parts of ongoing business (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Dorsch, Swanson, and Kelley 1998; Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh 1987; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988). Because caring and continuity may be achieved in countless ways, the relationship marketing literature has developed into a broad and deep body of knowledge. Some studies have focused on a few specific measures of interest (e.g., Conway and Swift 2000; Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh 1987), whereas others incorporate a large set of constructs (e.g., Morgan and Hunt 1994; Samaha, Beck, and Palmatier 2014). Accordingly, as research in this stream has evolved, a rich set of constructs has been considered and examined as antecedents, moderators, mediators, and outcomes within the context of numerous models. Key antecedents and dimensions investigated within relationship marketing include trust (credibility and behavioral), commitment, shared values, cooperation, information sharing, relationship investment, relationship quality, reciprocity, reputation, relationship satisfaction, relationship assistance, and performance (e.g., customer profitability, retention, loyalty). As would be expected given the broad nature of relationship marketing and the range of constructs that 2 Journal of International Marketing

3 might be tapped in a given study, coupled with research interest in resolving specific issues, the emergent models tend to be disparate and lack a common base or overarching theory. Indeed, Harker (1999) refers to the relationship marketing literature as a melting pot of theories and paradigms. Over time, these constructs and patterns have been extended to IRM investigations. In addition, the international context has enabled researchers to leverage national culture in comparative cross-cultural relationship marketing studies, leading to further broadening of the field. Two central constructs in the relationship marketing literature, trust and commitment, have played a pivotal role in international marketing research as well. Indeed, the contexts of international joint ventures and exporting have provided ample opportunity to evaluate the role of interorganizational relationships in a crossnational setting (Griffith, Myers, and Harvey 2006; Griffith, Zeybek, and O Brien 2001; Lages, Silva, and Styles 2009; Leonidou et al. 2014; Styles and Hersch 2005). Sensitivity to the business environment and the stages of a relationship enables firms to bond and develop an orientation that includes communication, empathy, shared values, trust, and reciprocity (Dong, Tse, and Hung 2010; LaBahn and Harich 1997; Rodriguez and Wilson 2002; Sin et al. 2005). When a firm takes this approach, the ability to trust a partner can improve relationship learning and commitment and thus strengthen the relationship (Griffith, Myers, and Harvey 2006; Jean, Sinkovics, and Kim 2010; Lee and Dawes 2005). Research has found that the development of these relational capabilities positively influences both relationship and financial performance and provides considerable evidence of their importance (Lages, Silva, and Styles 2009; Leonidou et al. 2014). Beyond the components and constructs used to investigate relationship marketing, the IRM literature, in line with its domestic counterpart, has addressed several overarching topics. Chief among these are relationship governance and control and relationship quality, which have been the subject of multiple investigations over time. Recent noteworthy examples of publications addressing these IRM issues include an examination of gaining social acceptance and legitimacy when doing business in foreign institutional environments (Yang, Su, and Fam 2012). The study asserts that firms in international markets can gain acceptance by designing means of governance to deal with foreign institutions and improve performance. Ju, Zhao, and Wang (2014) examine manufacturers use of relational governance to manage relationships with international distributors. The authors investigate how there are the limits to the positive effects of relational governance on export performance and demonstrate an inverted U-shaped relationship between channel governance and export performance. Taking a different approach, Bello, Katsikeas, and Robson (2010) investigate the case of dealing with selfserving partners in international marketing alliances. The authors report that reliance on the partner s self-control as a means of relational governance reinforces accommodation, thus encouraging the relational partner to reciprocate. Notably, they also find that high overt monitoring as a means of relational control, as opposed to reliance on the partner s self-control, produces even better results. Recognizing that multinational corporation subsidiaries are formed as independent entities in host markets that serve as channel partners working with local distributors in accessing international markets, Grewal et al. (2013) examine multinational corporation governance and control of internal relationships and subsidiary-distributor performance. The study assesses performance attributes and mechanisms deployed by subsidiaries to control host market distributors. Beyond governance and control issues, researchers have also expended much scholarly effort to investigate the influences of relationship quality in international markets. Recent examples include Barnes et al. s (2015) examination of the roles of trust and relationship quality among firms in terms of the consequences of interpersonal attributes on financial performance. The study setting is Hong Kong importers that do business with exporters from six Western firms. In this environment, the authors assert the influence of trust in enhancing relationship quality and that superior performance results from critical components of relationship quality: cooperation, commitment, and satisfaction. Taking a different approach, Ozdemir and Hewett (2010) argue that the importance of relationship and service quality is enhanced by increased collectivism insofar as behavioral intentions are concerned. Their study further asserts that relationships are not moderated by collectivism in low-social interaction situations. Given the ubiquitous nature of relationships in business, and as is evident from the range of constructs and contexts used to study the topic, the literature addressing marketing relationships has developed into a broad and deep body of knowledge. However, our interest centers only on relationships with nondomestic (e.g., crossnational, international) entities that may be within the context of various modes of market entry (e.g., exporting/ International R elationship M arketing 3

4 importing), with the aim of investigating one or more aspects of buyer-seller relationships. Although we follow a broad-based approach in searching the literature, it is noteworthy that cross-border relationships tend to be with businesses rather than individual consumers, which substantially limits our focus to business-tobusiness exchanges. As we discuss in the Method section, we rely on a single comprehensive database to extract relevant publications using a set of pertinent keywords in IRM research. In the next section, we discuss the development of knowledge domains and their progression. Then, we present an overview of our method and introduce the results of our study. Subsequently, we present a discussion of possible research directions and close with key contributions and conclusions for future consideration. INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF BODIES OF KNOWLEDGE Scholarly developments in a discipline are either directly or indirectly dependent on the preceding available knowledge (Kuhn 1996). Knowledge, in turn, is encoded in a given area s body of research, which serves as the repository for the vast proportion of accessible information for the field. Thus, contributions to a particular field are based on the literature accessed and used to conduct each investigation (Hoffman and Holbrook 1993). As such, works referenced in a study make up its intellectual foundation. A comprehensive review of all references used by works in a particular discipline allows for the unfolding of its underlying knowledge structure (Culnan, O Reilly, and Chatman 1990; Smith 1981). By extension, the impact of a given intellectual contribution to a discipline is dependent on its usage frequency in other research, with the more highly cited works considered more influential in shaping the field. Consequently, highly cited publications define the major thrusts and the foundation of the domain. Citation and cocitation analyses are distinct from literature reviews in several ways. Whereas the former permit a departure from the immediate area of interest to determine key influences on the discipline being examined, the latter generally stay within the topic of interest in this case, IRM. Furthermore, there is greater subjectivity in literature reviews because the researcher selects the key parameters driving the study (e.g., the specific topic within the domain, journals surveyed, time period covered in the study). Although in citation and cocitation analyses the researcher initially controls, for example, the journals to be surveyed and the time period examined, the data from the citations used in the selected published studies typically span many decades (i.e., the time period may not be truncated) and may come from any journal, book, or other source. Importantly, citation and cocitation analyses permit the researcher to include large amounts of data that would be very difficult or impossible to manage through typical reviews (Archambault and Gagne 2004). The coverage and comprehensiveness of the Web of Science (WOS) database, which covers the vast majority of electronically available journals (approximately 10,000 publications), is also noteworthy and provides access to a breadth of information difficult to achieve in a literature review. The relationships between the works in a discipline are represented by overlap between the works cited in each article. Collectively, cocitations across the highly cited publications within IRM characterize the field s foundations. Prior research has examined IRM with contentanalytical reviews (e.g., Leonidou et al. 2014) and has rendered research recommendations on the basis of the reported findings. However, in this study we take a different approach by examining citation and cocitation data to unfold the foundations of the IRM domain using metric multidimensional scaling (MDS). This creates the foundation on which we make research recommendations. Although unraveling the intellectual foundation of IRM is in itself illuminating for guiding future projects, by accomplishing this, we also respond to calls for increased conceptual development in marketing (Mac- Innis 2011; Yadav 2010). METHOD The initial stage of the process of unfolding the intellectual foundations of IRM research involved a survey of the literature. From this survey, we developed a set of pertinent keywords related to predominant themes that appeared in relationship marketing studies across national boundaries to draw data from the WOS database (Chabowski, Mena, and Gonzalez-Padron 2011; Cornelius, Landstrom, and Persson 2006; Schildt, Zahra, and Sillanpaa 2006).2 Our list of keywords was comprehensive and included a wide array of terms including international, relationship marketing, global, foreign, cross-national, cross-cultural, relation, export, import, governance, dependence, exchange, inter-firm, interdependence, dyadic, buyer, seller, supplier, opportunism, cooperation, trust, commitment, conflict, power, reciprocity, norms, and asset speci- 4 Journal of International Marketing

5 ficity. 3 In extracting the pertinent data from the WOS database for this investigation, we searched for four aspects of a peer-reviewed document to determine whether the document would qualify for our study: publication title, abstract, keywords, and reference identifiers (Thomson Reuters 2009). We retained an article when any keyword in our list was included in any one of these four fields. We did not include book reviews, editorials, or other indirect research records to gain a better understanding of IRM as a domain. To cast a wide net and enhance the scope of this study, we searched 29 key marketing, management, and international business journals.4 The search identified 3,509 published articles with 230,684 total citations. As a result, a wide array of topics related to the concept of IRM were included in the study. However, because influences on a broad field such as IRM can make radical shifts over time, cohesive and meaningful results are more likely to emerge by examining specific periods. Multiple time periods can also show longitudinal development of the IRM; therefore, following Chabowski, Hult, and Mena (2011), we divided the data into time periods of ten years each. This proved possible beginning in 1994, the publication year of Morgan and Hunt s (1994) seminal article on relationship marketing, and allowed for two distinct tenyear time periods: (the intermediate period) and (the late period). The periods preceding 1994 proved challenging in that the data were insufficient in previous decades to present the origins of IRM research in ten-year increments. To ameliorate this situation, we combined the data to form a single period spanning (the origination period). The resulting citation and article distribution followed: 7,436 citations in 212 articles during ; 50,715 citations in 969 articles during ; and 172,533 citations in 2,328 articles during The data were purified and coded for analysis. We used citation counts to determine the most influential publications in each of the three time periods. We developed a cocitation matrix for each period and used metric MDS to assess the data (Burt 1983; McCain 1990). Because MDS is the most widely used technique for developing spatial configurations of cocitation data, it was deemed appropriate for this study.5 In addition to producing more interpretable solutions, it permits the identification of research groups and achieves greater precision than other methods (Alba and Moore 1983; Tsai and Wu 2010; Wasserman and Faust 1994). As a general rule, 25 publications in a cocitation model return a fair or good model (Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro 2004). This study adhered to this norm and, after accounting for equal citations, included 26 publications in , 27 publications in , and 25 publications in Thus, the citation data for each of these three time periods were converted to cocitation data for further analysis, which enabled us to evaluate each model s goodness-of-fit. All three periods had a good model fit: the stress values for the , , and time periods were.09,.08, and.10, respectively (Kruskal 1964; Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro 2004). Cocitation data are relational in nature. As such, the more times two publications are cited together, the higher the likelihood of a relationship between them. The result is that the spatial distance between items in the MDS results provides the basis for grouping publications into a relational network (McCain 1986; Scott 2000). Following established protocol in cocitation studies to provide meaning and interpretability to the results, we used a standardized Euclidean distance threshold of.25 to form research groups in the IRM data (Chabowski, Mena, and Gonzalez-Padron 2011; Hair et al. 1998; McCain 1986; Small 1999; Tsai and Wu 2010). This approach formed groups of two publications as well as research cliques a heightened form of research group that includes three or more publications (Alba and Moore 1983; Wasserman and Faust 1994). As a result, this established the basis for determining and examining the nature of IRM research as a relational network (Borgatti et al. 2009). The terms used for each research group were substantiated by the content of the cited publications as well as the content of the citing articles in our database. To show the development of the IRM domain over time (Cornelius, Landstrom, and Persson 2006; Kuhn 1996), we identified common publications across time periods to note the growth or reduction of specific research topics. Taken together, this renders the opportunity to evaluate the IRM knowledge structure in further detail. We next examine the results of the cocitation analyses and provide details regarding the intellectual foundation of IRM as a research area. RESULTS In this section, we provide an overview of this study s results for the three time periods considered: (the origination period), (the intermediate period), and (the late period). We then provide a longitudinal overview of the research area by (1) indicating the research groups that dissipated and International Relationship M arketing 5

6 emerged independently and (2) presenting the research groups that persisted during the study. These aspects of the study provide considerable detail on which to base the ensuing Discussion section. Knowledge Structure of IRM Research, As Figure 1 shows, we identified eight research groups in the origination period of the study. These groups can be classified as three unconnected groups of two influential publications (Groups 1, 2, and 6), two sets of related groups with two groups each (Groups 3, 4, 7, and 8), and one research clique (Group 5). As a whole, these research groups indicate an illustration of IRM research during the time period. The focus on transaction cost economics and the product cycle (Group 1) is indicative of a general perspective at this early point that research was specific to the firm. This can be noted in the dyadic nature of this group across an industry or product s life (Teece 1986; Vernon 1966). Figure 1. IRM Intellectual Foundation: Notes: Stress value =.09; standardized Euclidean distance s.25; boldfaced lines indicate a research clique. Research groups meet the Euclidean distance prerequisite and are connected with a line (e.g., V3 and V I7 are in Group 7; V3 and V I9 are in Group 8; V2, V7, and V12 have distances of ss.25 and are all members of Group 5). VI = Aharoni (1966); V2 = Anderson and Narus (1990); V3 = Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989); V4 = Buckley and Casson (1976); V5 = Caves (1982); V6 = Cyert and March (1963); V7 = Frazier, Gill, and Kale (1989); V8 = Ghoshal (1987); V9 = Giddy and Dufey (1975); V10 = Harrigan (1985); V I1 = Hofstede (1980); V12 = Kale (1986); V13 = March and Simon (1958); V14 = Ohmae (1985); V15 = Pfeffer and Salancik (1978); V16 = Porter (1980); V17 = Porter (1985); V18 = Porter (1986); V19 = Porter (1990); V20 = Prahalad and Doz (1987); V21 = Rugman (1981); V22 = Stopford and Wells (1972); V23 = Teece (1986); V24 = Vernon (1966); V25 = Williamson (1975); V26 = Williamson (1985). Group 1 (V23 and V24): Transaction Cost Economics and the Product Cycle; Group 2 (V4 and V6): Behavioral Theory and the Multinational Enterprise; Group 3 (V21 and V22): Multinational Organization, Ownership, and Operations; Group 4 (V5 and V21): Economic Activity and the Multinational Enterprise; Group 5 (V2, V7, and V12): Perceptions and Influence in Distribution Channels; Group 6 (VI6 and V20): Multinational Competitive Strategy; Group 7 (V3 and V17): International Management and Competition; Group 8 (V3 and V I9): International Management and National Advantage. 6 Journal of International Marketing

7 Still, the topic of behavioral theory and the multinational enterprise (Group 2) provides a different approach in that it acknowledges the behavior of firms as critical. In this perspective, firms and managers recognize the imperfections of the market and firm as important in their decisions (Buckley and Casson 1976; Cyert and March 1963). Examining the multinational enterprise (MNE) is another important aspect of this time period, as evidenced by research emphasizing multinational organization, ownership, and operations (Group 3) as well as economic activity and the MNE (Group 4). Grounded in an internal perspective of the multinational (Rugman 1981), one facet of research takes a managerial approach (Stopford and Wells 1972), whereas the other has an economics perspective (Caves 1982). As the only research clique in this initial period, the emphasis on perceptions and influence in distribution channels (Group 5) is indicative of the marketing-specific topics that persisted for the duration of this study. Indeed, by evaluating the interrelationships between manufacturers and distributors at this stage, this research provides a noteworthy glimpse into the importance of marketing managers insights (Anderson and Narus 1990; Frazier, Gill, and Kale 1989; Kale 1986). Contrasting this approach, multinational competitive strategy focuses much more on the firm (Group 6). As a result, insights regarding measuring and evaluating the competitiveness of the MNE support the perspective that comparative analysis in some form is worthwhile in understanding the firm and its relationship with the external environment (Porter 1980; Prahalad and Doz 1987). Knowledge Structure of IRM Research, For the intermediate period of this study, Figure 2 indicates 14 research groups. These groups can be classified into four unconnected groups of two influential publications (Groups 1, 5, 6, and 7), a chain of three groups of two influential publications (Groups 2-4), and a set of related groups that span a wide area (Groups 8-13) and include two research cliques (Groups 8 and 12). Taken together, these groups provide an understanding of IRM research during The introduction of topics related to firm resources and competitiveness (Group 1) indicates a shift in research during this period. Indeed, because this shift represents a focus on the firm itself, this research group shows the relevance of its resources in developing relationships (Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984). Another generalized topic highlights an emphasis on the importance of national culture and entry mode (Groups 2-4). Because this represents the nature of a firm s interaction with the country in which it is entering, the entry mode decision establishes relationships that can range from interpersonal to those embedded in contracts such that the firm can develop its knowledge base further (Hofstede 1980; Johanson and Vahlne 1977; Kogut and Singh 1988; Williamson 1985). The notion of entry mode is extended even further with a focus on foreign entry and transaction costs (Group 5). Taking a different approach, this emphasis relates to the trade.-offs in control and resource commitment that are inherent to entering a new market (Anderson and Gatignon 1986; Gatignon and Anderson 1988). In contrast, an emphasis on commitment and trust in channel relationships (Group 6) provides an idea of the cooperative research topics during this period. Rather than the firm remaining as the focal point, the importance of the marketing channel begins to emerge as a critical theme (Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh 1987; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Taken further, the relevance of joint venture learning and strategy (Group 7) indicates a shift toward research on the direct interaction of firms in an international environment (Killing 1983; Parkhe 1991). Anchored by an emphasis on interorganizational trust, power, and control (Group 12), the range of topics included in this focus relate to joint venture and partnership learning (Group 8); strategic alliance trust and competition (Group 9); interorganizational power, structure, and cooperation (Group 11); and joint venture control and performance (Group 13). Together, and based on IRM research emphasizing joint ventures (e.g., Calantone and Zhao 2001; Griffith, Zeybek, and O Brien 2001; Lin and Germain 1999), this research demonstrates that mutual firm interaction was a critical perspective for this period. Knowledge Structure of IRM Research, As Figure 3 shows, 12 research groups emerged in the final period of this study. Taken together, they can be noted as four unconnected groups of two influential publications (Groups 1, 2, 12, and 13), one set of related groups with two groups each (Groups 7 and 8), one chain of three connected groups (Groups 9-11), and another chain of four connected research groups (Groups 3-6). These constitute a representation of the IRM literature for the time period. The emphasis on resource dependence and social relations (Group 1) indicates the continued importance of International Relationship Marketing 7

8 Figure 2. IRM Intellectual Foundation: V3 V7 V24 V21 Group 1 i V2 V22 V2S O V4 V19 V14 O Group 6 VS V18 V6 Notes: Stress value =.08; standardized Euclidean distance s.25; boldfaced lines indicate a research clique. Research groups meet the Euclidean distance prerequisite and are connected with a line (e.g., VI and V6 are in Group 4; V ll and V17 are in Group 3; V9, V10, and V16 have distances of ^.25 and are all members of Group 8). VI = Anderson and Gatignon (1986); V2 = Barney (1991); V3 = Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989); V4 = Cavusgil and Zou (1994); V5 = Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh (1987); V6 = Gatignon and Anderson (1988); V7 = Geringer and Hebert (1989); V8 = Gulati (1995); V9 = Hamel (1991); V10 = Hennart (1988); V ll = Hofstede (1980); V12 = Inkpen and Beamish (1997); V13 = Johanson and Vahlne (1977); V14 = Johanson and Vahlne (1990); V15 = Killing (1983); V16 = Kogut (1988); V17 = Kogut and Singh (1988); V18 = Morgan and Hunt (1994); V19 = Parkhe (1991); V20 = Parkhe (1993); V21 = Pfeffer and Salancik (1978); V22 = Porter (1980); V23 = Ring and Van De Ven (1994); V24 = Wernerfelt (1984); V25 = Williamson (1975); V26 = Williamson (1985); V27 = Yan and Gray (1994). Group 1 (V2 and V24): Firm Resources and Competitiveness; Group 2 (V17 and V26): National Culture, Entry Mode, and Relational Contracting; Group 3 (V ll and V17): National Cultural Values and Entry Mode Choice; Group 4 (V ll and V13): National Cultural Values and the Internationalization Process; Group 5 (VI and V6): Foreign Entry and Transaction Costs; Group 6 (V5 and V18): Commitment and Trust in Channel Relationships; Group 7 (V15 and V19): Joint Venture Learning and Strategy; Group 8 (V9, V10, and V16): Joint Venture and Partnership Learning; Group 9 (V8 and V9): Strategic Alliance Trust and Competition; Group 10 (V20 and V23): Interorganizational Relationship Structure and Processes; Group 11 (V12 and V20): Interorganizational Power, Structure, and Cooperation; Group 12 (V8, V12, and V27): Interorganizational Trust, Power, and Control; Group 13 (V7 and V27): Joint Venture Control and Performance. interorganizational relationships in the IRM literature. This is noted in the dual need for firms and employees to develop interpersonal relationships and obtain external resources to survive (Granovetter 1985; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). This perspective advances with the continued relevance of topics related to interorganizational commitment and trust (Group 2). By emphasizing the importance of the marketing channel in an overall structure, the antecedents and consequences of the relationship can be better understood (Dyer and Singh 1998; Morgan and Hunt 1994). We also note a chain of research groups, as illustrated by Borgatti et al. (2009), that relates to firm resources and capabilities (Groups 3-6). This set of groups focuses on resources, dynamic capabilities, competitive advantage, knowledge, learning, and combinative capabilities and provides a critical 8 Journal of International Marketing

9 Figure 3. IRM Intellectual Foundation: Notes: Stress value =.10; standardized Euclidean distance s.25. Research groups meet the Euclidean distance prerequisite and are connected with a line (e.g., VI and V22 are in Group 4; V22 and V23 are in Group 3; V2 and V25 have distances of rs.25 and are members of Group 11). VI = Barney (1991); V2 = Buckley and Casson (1976); V3 = Cavusgil and Zou (1994); V4 = Cohen and Levinthal (1990); V5 = DiMaggio and Powell (1983); V6 = Dyer and Singh (1998); V7 = Granovetter (1985); V8 = Hitt, Hoskisson, and Kim (1997); V9 = Hofstede (1980); V10 = Hofstede (2001); V I1 = Hoskisson et al. (2000); V12 = Johanson and Vahlne (1977); V13 = Johanson and Vahlne (1990); V14 = Kogut and Singh (1988); V15 = Kogut and Zander (1992); V16 = Kogut and Zander (1993); V17 = Morgan and Hunt (1994); V18 = North (1990); V19 = Oviatt and McDougall (1994); V20 = Penrose (1959); V21 = Pfeffer and Salancik (1978); V22 = Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997); V23 = Wernerfelt (1984); V24 = Williamson (1985); V25 = Zaheer (1995). Group 1 (V7 and V21): Resource Dependence and Social Relations; Group 2 (V6 and V17): Interorganizational Commitment and Trust; Group 3 (V22 and V23): Firm Resources and Dynamic Capabilities; Group 4 (VI and V22): Firm Resources, Dynamic Capabilities, and Competitive Advantage; Group 5 (VI and V4): Firm Resources, Learning, and Competitive Advantage; Group 6 (V4 and V15): Knowledge, Learning, and Combinative Capabilities; Group 7 (V13 and V19): Internationalization and New Ventures; Group 8 (V13 and V20): Internationalization and Firm Growth; Group 9 (V12 and V16): Internationalization and Knowledge Development; Group 10 (V2 and V16): Knowledge in the Multinational Enterprise; Group 11 (V2 and V25): Foreignness and the Multinational Enterprise; Group 12 (V5 and V18): Institutional and Structural Change; Group 13 (V9 and V14): Cultural Values and Entry Mode. understanding of these topics influence in the IRM literature (Barney 1991; Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Kogut and Zander 1992; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997; Wernerfelt 1984). Relating back to topics focusing on relationships, the appearance of internationalization and new ventures (Group 7) and internationalization and firm growth (Group 8) indicates the continued internal and external commitments of the firm. Centered on the importance of the Uppsala model of internationalization (Johanson and Vahlne 1990), two branches that emerge emphasize continued company improvement and competitiveness (Penrose 1959) as well as the importance of small startups (Oviatt and McDougall 1994) in an increasingly international marketplace. Anchored by a research group providing insights on knowledge in the MNE (Group 10), two distinct facets (Groups 9 and 11) are International Relationship M arketing 9

10 related to this important issue in IRM research. One aspect focuses on the critical nature of knowledge development in the internationalization process (Johanson and Vahlne 1977; Kogut and Zander 1993), while the other emphasizes the existence of a foreignness liability that MNEs sometimes face in developing relationships (Buckley and Casson 1976; Zaheer 1995). We also note the importance of institutional and structural change (Group 12) as a research topic. The emergence of this topic relates to the implication that firms must change to remain competitive even if the inclination is to maintain operations and procedures as formerly or currently implemented (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; North 1990). Finally, we found a focus on cultural values and entry mode (Group 13) in the results, which indicates the sustained importance of these themes in the IRM literature. Drawing on the tenet that cultural differences can influence a company s entry decision into a country, this topic has a more central role than other topics during this period (Hofstede 1980; Kogut and Singh 1988). Knowledge Structure Development of IRM Research The longitudinal nature of this study provides us the opportunity to assess the IRM literature for its duration as a topic of research. Next, we pair influential publications across time periods to determine the longevity of specific research groups. Therefore, for cases in which an influential publication was absent from a research group in a previous or subsequent time period, research groups could not be linked to indicate knowledge structure development. As such, the first subsection focuses on research groups that independently dissipated or emerged during our study. The second subsection provides an overview of the sustained development of research groups, consistent with our approach to determine research longevity. Taken together, these subsections provide a thorough understanding of the nature of IRM research for the duration of this study. Dissipated and Emergent Research Groups. Given the firm-specific topics prevalent in the period, it is noteworthy that nearly all research groups in this initial period did not have a successor research group in subsequent periods as the IRM field evolved.6 As such, topics such as transaction cost economics and the product (life) cycle (Group 1); multinational organization, ownership, and operations (Group 3); economic activity and the MNE (Group 4); multinational competitive strategy (Group 6); international management and competition (Group 7); and international management and national advantage (Group 8) lacked commonality with later periods. Even topics that relate to the marketing channel, such as perceptions and influence in distribution channels (Group 5), had no direct association with subsequent periods. The cooperative topics that emerged in the period indicate a general shift in the IRM literature. Indeed, the appearance of a wide variety of research groups emphasizing channel and interorganizational relationships as well as joint ventures provide a clear view of this trend. As such, themes such as commitment and trust in channel relationships (Group 6); joint venture learning and strategy (Group 7); joint venture and partnership learning (Group 8); strategic alliance trust and competition (Group 9); interorganizational relationship structure and processes (Group 10); interorganizational power, structure, and cooperation (Group 11); interorganizational trust, power, and control (Group 12); and joint venture control and performance (Group 13) were part of an overall introduction to the multifaceted nature of firms relating to one another. This explicit focus on joint ventures and interorganizational relationships quickly became visible in this period, but this trend dissipated, as we did not find related influential research groups in the next period. In contrast to the previous two periods, the period finds a balance between the overarching focus on firms or interorganizational relationships. More directly, we note this in the groups that appeared during this final period. Indeed, research on knowledge, learning, and combinative capabilities (Group 6); institutional and structural change (Group 12); and cultural values and entry mode (Group 13) indicates the relevance of both units of analysis in the IRM literature. Sustained Research Group Development. As Figure 4 shows, sustained knowledge structure development is apparent across this study. The enduring importance of the MNE is present in the shift of focus from behavioral theory and the MNE during the period (Buckley and Casson 1976; Cyert and March 1963) to topics related to knowledge (Kogut and Zander 1993) and foreignness (Zaheer 1995) in Of the six trends indicated, five take place between the and periods. First, the role of commitment and trust in channel relationships during the intermediate period (Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh 1987; Morgan and Hunt 1994) developed to have a more generalizable thrust by focusing on interorganizational commitment and trust (Dyer and Singh 1998; Morgan and Hunt 10 Journal of International Marketing

11 Figure 4. IRM in Transition Behavioral Theory and the Multinational Enterprise Knowledge in the Multinational Enterprise Foreignness and the Multinational Enterprise Commitment and Trust in Channel Relationships Interorgan izational Commitment and Trust Firm Resources, Dynamic Capabilities, and Competitive Advantage Firm Resources and Competitiveness ^ Firm Resources and Dynamic Capabilities Firm Resources, Teaming, and Competitive Advantage National Culture, Entry Mode, and Relational Contracting National Cultural Values and Entry Mode Choice National Cultural Values and the Internationalization Process Cultural Values and Entry Mode Internationalization and Knowledge Development 1994). Second, rather than emphasizing only firm resources and competitiveness, as was the case in (Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984), this research expanded to emphasize dynamic capabilities, learning, and competitive advantage in (Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997). Next, even though there was considerable research emphasizing national culture, entry mode choice, and relational contracting in the middle period (Kogut and Singh 1988; Williamson 1985), this contracted in the last period to examine explicitly cultural values and entry mode (Hofstede 1980; Kogut and Singh 1988). Finally, the relevance of the internationalization process is considerable in IRM, as it altered from its focus on national cultural values during (Hofstede 1980) to an emphasis on knowledge development in (Johanson and Vahlne 1977; Kogut and Zander 1993). Overall, the general advancement of these six trends during our longitudinal analysis provides a clear view of the dual importance of both firm- and interorganizational- International Relationship Marketing 11

12 specific topics in this domain. In addition, it indicates a considerable basis for the continued importance of IRM research. DISCUSSION Our main goal in this investigation was to unfold the knowledge structure on which IRM has evolved by identifying key contributions (i.e., the most frequently cited published works) in this area in three time periods. We also provide a longitudinal view of the most influential published IRM articles. Furthermore, for each of the three periods, we indicate a distinct configuration that demonstrates the relative position of each contribution, reflecting the cocitation pattern in the field; closely situated published works demonstrate more frequent cocitation and a greater likelihood that both will be references in a single study. This reflects greater complementarity and integration of topics. Works situated further apart have not been cited together in the literature as much, reflecting research gaps in the field. The absence of cocitation among groups constitutes the basis for developing opportunities for future studies. In this section, we examine potential research directions using the MDS results of the most recent period. Further research in a discipline is often either directly or indirectly related to previously published works in that field (Hoffman and Holbrook 1993; Kuhn 1996; Maclnnis 2011). To offer new opportunities for researchers, we adopt the position that significant gaps in a network create weak ties or institutional voids from which novel ideas may result (Borgatti and Halgin 2011; Burt 1992; Granovetter 1973). We apply this perspective to the knowledge structure of IRM research. By using distant research groups as the basis for developing new research ideas, our goal is to complement current researchers work and offer five unique opportunities that hitherto have not been fully examined in the IRM literature. We used the cocitation data as support to identify specific, infrequently cited works as a basis for this process. In addition, drawing on their position in IRM s knowledge structure, we propose topics relating to social relations, new ventures, internationalization, trust and commitment, tacit knowledge, and cultural values. Next, we discuss these research possibilities in greater detail. First, the relationship between social relations (Granovetter 1985) and new ventures (Oviatt and McDougall 1994) has not been explored to a great extent. A few studies in the international marketing literature have investigated these topics (Chandra, Styles, and Wilkinson 2012; Evers, Andersson, and Hannibal 2012), but they have not explicitly focused on the topic of social relations. Indeed, it is not surprising that research on new ventures emerged in our results, because of its relation to the internationalization literature. Because the gradual internationalization model has been widely used in exporting research, this topic is particularly relevant to IRM. Research to date in the social relations and new ventures area has discussed the nature of personal and interfirm networks (Manolova, Manev, and Gyoshev 2010; Pla-Barber and Escriba-Esteve 2006), but the combination of these two disparate research topics requires more attention. For example, a significant research question relates to the precise composition of international new ventures social network structure. Do they use a series of strong or weak ties to be successful? Are there other factors in social network configurations that must be considered? Indeed, Oviatt and McDougall s (1994) typology of international new ventures includes four forms of new ventures: export/import start-up, multinational trader, geographically focused start-up, and global start-up. As such, an examination into the social relations of each type of international new venture can provide insight into successful as well as mediocre social networks in each context. The second opportunity for furthering the IRM field arises from a shortage of research focusing on social relations (Granovetter 1985) and internationalization (Johanson and Vahlne 1990). Indeed, international marketing studies have examined internationalization and exporting in a variety of contexts, including small countries (Brouthers et al. 2009). Still, previous research has emphasized the importance of taking a network perspective in examining internationalization (Johanson and Vahlne 2009; Kontinen and Ojala 2011), but the widespread linkage of these two concepts has yet to be accomplished. As such, there must be much greater emphasis on the internationalizing firm s relation to the network as a whole. Specifically, there are at least three facets of a network that internationalizing firms should consider: (1) network tie type (formal, informal, and intermediary), (2) network tie strength (strong and weak), and (3) network activity (reactive and proactive) (Kontinen and Ojala 2011). How do these considerations relate to the development of market knowledge as per the Uppsala model? Indeed, are there specific network tie types, strengths, or activities that can shed light on relationships with suppliers, customers, and competitors? There is little doubt that, to develop a strategy, the firm must use its time and effort in the network effectively. As such, the goal of this research opportunity is to examine how the different facets of a network 12 Journal of International Marketing

13 approach can accelerate or inhibit the internationalization process and change aspects of it. The third research opportunity arises from the combination of two distinct topics relating to trust and commitment (Morgan and Hunt 1994) and foreignness (Zaheer 1995). Previous international marketing research has examined relationship marketing activities (e.g., Sichtmann and Von Selasinsky 2010). However, acknowledged as a disorienting precursor in attempts to establish trust, the psychic distance that exists in conditions of foreignness makes the possibility of interfirm cooperation difficult to achieve (Johanson and Vahlne 2009; Obadia 2013). Therefore, researchers should evaluate how trust and commitment are developed in conditions of foreignness. Because shared values are minimal in such a context, does the growth of trust and commitment result from a firm-wide emphasis or individual initiatives linked together over time? Given that Morgan and Hunt (1994) describe supplier, lateral, buyer, and internal partnerships in their commitment-trust model, the various distinct types of partnerships could produce different results. Thus, a more sustained analysis of foreignness must be performed in the context of the development of trust and commitment between international channel partners. Our fourth research direction involves relating trust and commitment (Morgan and Hunt 1994) more directly with the development of tacit knowledge (Kogut and Zander 1993). Indeed, relationship capabilities have been related to performance in prior international marketing studies (e.g., Lages, Silva, and Styles 2009). Furthermore, previous research has indicated that trust building and learning are interorganizational processes that can lead to a more advantageous network position (Vahlne and Johanson 2013). In addition, trust and commitment have been proposed as antecedents of knowledge-related resources (Chang, Cheng, and Wu 2012; Griffith, Myers, and Harvey 2006; Nielsen 2005). However, little research has examined the relation of trust and commitment to the components of knowledge development as tested by Kogut and Zander (1993). Specifically, examining the relationship between trust and commitment and the codifiability, complexity, and teachability of knowledge seems to be a most relevant topic. Is the trust-commitment relationship enhanced on the basis of knowledge codifiability, complexity, or teachability? Or are these aspects of knowledge a prerequisite to establishing trust at the outset of a relationship? Indeed, there may be different requirements across the types of international channel partnerships (supplier, lateral, buyer, and internal). As such, this topic provides considerable opportunity for further research. The final research direction integrates the disparate topics of cultural values (Hofstede 1980) and new ventures (Oviatt and McDougall 1994). Although some studies have observed the nature of social ties and business networks within the context of foreign market entry choices (Blomstermo, Sharma, and Sallis 2006; Fan and Phan 2007; Ibeh and Kasem 2011), little research has examined the role of cultural values in international new ventures. Scholars have examined culture and distance within the international marketing literature to some degree (Dow and Larimo 2009). However, given Oviatt and McDougall s (1994) four types of new ventures (export/import start-up, multinational trader, geographically focused start-up, and global start-up), there seem to be opportunities to relate each type to Hofstede s (1980) cultural value measures. Specifically, differences in international new venture practices could be examined across the power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, and individualism-collectivism measures. Which types of cultures produce more export/import as opposed to global start-ups? Which cultures produce the most successful new ventures? Are there specific cultural values that are inherent in these successes? Thus, a more detailed assessment of cultural values and new ventures offers many opportunities for researchers. CONTRIBUTIONS The main goal of this research was to unfold IRM s knowledge structure and to provide future research directions by identifying otherwise hidden research gaps within the field. As a rule, citation and cocitation analyses lend themselves to charting future scholarly undertakings, thus making such an analysis a valuable tool for theory development. Managerial applications and implications are generally derived from the proposed future studies. Next, we elaborate on contributions emerging from this study. Our results provide evidence regarding significant changes in the IRM knowledge structure across the three periods under investigation. For the formative years of development, the origination period, we identified eight knowledge groups (see Figure 1). Though not a major influence in the intermediate period, only one group from the origination period (i.e., Group 2) demonstrated resilience and played a key knowledgebuilding role in the third period. We note that, unlike the influential groups during the first period, there was greater reliance in the third period on knowledge groups representing the IRM literature during the second International Relationship M arketing 13

14 period (see Figure 4). As indicated in Kuhn s (1996) approach regarding the development of intellectual domains, the stable transition from the second to the third period is indicative of greater maturity in the field. The differences across time periods demonstrate the dynamic nature of fields of inquiry; as areas develop, newer information, concepts, and constructs are introduced and integrated in the field. This process leads to greater sophistication and complexity in the discipline over time, and although some early seminal works may continue to be used, newer publications offer the latest and often essential knowledge for deeper and finergrained analyses. Furthermore, by virtue of building on existing knowledge, newer contributions tend to contain key findings and arguments presented in early contributions. In addition, some early contributions make a major impact and become de facto axioms in the field. As these principles are widely adopted, they become the status quo for the field and, thus, it is unnecessary for further research to reference the obvious. A representative example in this regard is Levitt s (1983) seminal work regarding the globalization of markets. It is further noteworthy that in the early stages of a field s development, the process of creating additional new knowledge tends to be slower; however, as knowledge accumulates in the field, the process tends to accelerate. Nevertheless, change will continue to occur as researchers enter the field with newer perspectives and as knowledge accumulates in subsidiary fields. These processes gradually moderate and dampen researchers reliance on early information. Foundational investigations, such as bibliometric studies, by nature accommodate theory building. Thus, an important contribution of this study is that of combining disparate areas within IRM (and, conceivably, the broader international marketing field) with resultant theory development and advancement. To this end, this study has uncovered influential works and areas that have helped shape IRM. Indeed, the research recommendations in the Discussion section are aimed at advancing theory. Recent works in international marketing have made significant contributions to our understanding of a range of topics that serve as underpinnings for the IRM literature. Trust, in particular, has been the subject of numerous investigations and an integral component of numerous models in IRM studies. As Figure 3 illustrates, Group 2 (interorganizational commitment and trust) is relatively isolated from all other groups, indicating that the topic has not been noticeably extended and integrated into such areas as liability of foreignness and the MNE. For example, although trust, commitment, and foreignness have been integrated with the process of internationalization to some extent (e.g., Johanson and Vahlne 2009), they have yet to be integrated into a unified IRM model, thus providing an opportunity to extend and improve existing views of internationalization. Likewise, international studies of distribution channels typically bypass the notion of foreignness, which can improve our understanding of how international channels evolve and function. For example, a study by Johnston et al. (2012) examines the determinants of joint action in international channels and assesses the moderating role of psychic distance. Because foreignness has been the center of attention in IB research and a major knowledge base contributing to the IRM literature, incorporating foreignness in future IRM studies of channel actions would help propel the field forward. Likewise, a study by Khojastehpour and Johns (2014) conceptually incorporates two disparate areas shown in Figure 3 (i.e., internationalization and trust and commitment from the perspective of IRM); however, the additional foreignness dimension in future studies would advance IRM along an important dimension. These examples provide a small sample of how future research undertakings can extend and enhance current works and views of relationship marketing in international settings. In the Discussion section, our examination of the latest MDS results provides a range of novel possibilities for new directions in IRM research (Figure 3). Finally, it is noteworthy that well-managed marketing relationships are recognized as sources of competitive advantage for the firm (Samiee and Walters 2003; Wathne and Heide 2004). Indeed, the popularity and the importance of customer relationship management to firms lies in its potential for gaining greater competitive advantage. In particular, marketing relationships are even more critical in IB because of the difficulties associated with developing, nurturing, and maintaining such relationships. Cultural, geographic, and linguistic distances contribute to both real and perceived difficulties associated with international customer and supplier interactions (Leonidou et al. 2014). Regardless of the mode of market entry, developing a relationship with a potential stakeholder is a critical step for the firm and, indeed, a source of competitive advantage. CONCLUSIONS We use citation and cocitation analysis in this study to identify the current intellectual foundations and the 14 Journal of International Marketing

15 structure of published works in IRM research. Relationship marketing is a fundamental concept in marketing thought, and not surprisingly, it has been interpreted by researchers and has evolved differently over time. However, the central theme of relational exchange remains a common thread in the literature (Conway and Swift 2000; Dorsch, Swanson, and Kelley 1998; Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh 1987; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Thus, the foundations of the IRM literature might be viewed as disparate, with a range of topics influencing and shaping the outcome. The most frequently referenced IRM contributions and manners in which they are cocited provide new insights into the field s knowledge structure that differ from and complement literature reviews and meta-analyses. Given the range of contributions influencing the field, ordinary reviews cannot easily handle the large number of publications, identify influential topics, or integrate them to unfold the field s foundation. For this reason, review studies of IRM tend to be relatively focused (e.g., Conway and Swift 2000; Leonidou et al. 2014). The disparate and dynamic nature of the IRM literature guided us to consider citations in the field over time, thus resulting in more meaningful MDS configurations and enabling us to propose relevant and timely topical recommendations. Furthermore, although IRM is an extension of the broader relationship marketing literature, its origins are also inherently intertwined with firms efforts to expand internationally in disparate environments in which many firms do not command the necessary fine-grained knowledge or the control required to succeed. Thus, the identification and maintenance of quality relationships with channel partners and customers abroad is often central in exporting and other market entry modes. The shifts in the patterns of influences over time on IRM are evident in Figure 4. Accordingly, we divided the IRM data into three time periods, each of which resulted in a different spatial configuration and was separately analyzed. From the emergent analyses, we suggested research possibilities to nurture the IRM field in new directions. The proposed new research directions resulted from our examination of the most influential publications and corresponding topical groups that have guided the IRM domain since Typically, advances in scholarship are directly or indirectly dependent on a field s past developments, with later contributions integrating new concepts and ideas from other fields into the research stream. Cocitation analysis captures the evolutionary foundations of such external influences. However, a critical component of any research project is the investigator who designs and helps shape the outcome. Researchers novel ideas also clearly set the tone for further development. This implies that although citation and cocitation analyses are enriching in their ability to evaluate a large number of publications and permitting integrated solutions, they inherently cannot predict future influences on the field. As is the case with literature review studies, this is to be expected. Although many research opportunities are plausible from an examination of Figures 1-3, and remaining mindful of the dynamic nature of IRM, we advance five key research themes from the latest period under investigation. First, we propose two research themes tied to social relations and new ventures. Despite the interest in addressing various facets of social issues in the broader IB and international marketing literature streams, the influence of social ties on internationalization and international new ventures has not been examined in detail and offers fertile grounds to further IRM research. There is a void in the literature regarding social networks within international new ventures and the influence of network characteristics on progress and outcomes in these ventures. Next, the effects of foreignness on two central constructs in relationship marketing, trust and commitment, demands close research scrutiny. Indeed, this research theme might be expanded to include additional constructs of importance to IRM that go beyond our resultant spatial solution for the latest period (e.g., shared values, relationship investment, information sharing, relationship quality). Furthermore, our proposal to explore the relationship between tacit knowledge and trust and commitment themes offers additional research opportunities to expand the IRM domain. Finally, the influences of culture, cultural values, and international new ventures require research attention and thus provide new areas for exploration. The paucity of IRM research incorporating culture was expressed more than a decade ago (e.g., Samiee and Walters 2003); however, such calls have remained largely unanswered. Our study reveals unexplored IRM dimensions, but the importance of expanding the field s depth through dyadic IRM studies should be underscored. By definition, relationships are two-way and transitive. Thus, more meaningful conclusions emerge from an examination of issues of interest from both perspectives. In addition, dyadic investigations can reveal aspects of IRM that may not surface by examining a single node. The relationship marketing literature contains a range of domestically focused dyadic studies (e.g., Heide and International Relationship Marketing 15

16 John 1992; Heide, Wathne, and Rokkan 2007; John and Reve 1982); however, there is a paucity of dyadic IRM studies. Furthermore, most IRM research is unidirectional (e.g., Bianchi and Saleh 2010), with more studies investigating downstream relationships with customers (see, e.g., Das 2009). To increase the breadth of future investigations, holistic examinations of both upstream and downstream directions are also in order. We are mindful that future scholarly developments are uncharted, and IRM may add new and unpredictable dimensions. However, we remain confident that prior knowledge in a field is influential for its future. As such, the unfolding of the intellectual foundations of the IRM literature in this study reveals important hidden research dimensions that researchers should pursue. NOTES 1. See, for example, focused review studies by Athanasopoulou (2009), Das (2009), Palmatier et al. (2006), Payne and Holt (1999), and Vieira, Winklhofer, and Ennew (2014). Likewise, Journal of Relationship Marketing has published numerous reviews of various aspects of the relationship marketing literature. 2. International relationship marketing publications are authored by people who possess relevant knowledge regarding their projects; therefore, their choice of keywords captures the essence and core of their articles. Because our initial search for keywords was comprehensive, it is reasonable to expect that they collectively represent the IRM literature. An alternative approach used in some research is to conduct a survey of authors as experts whose publications on the topic under investigation have been heavily cited to seek their direct input regarding appropriate keywords (e.g., Chabowski, Samiee, and Hult 2013). 3. Exact syntax is available from the authors on request. 4. The journals included in the study consist of Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, British Journal o f Management, California Management Review, (Columbia) Journal of World Business, Decision Sciences, European Journal of Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, International Business Review, International Marketing Review, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Business, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Journal of Business Research, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of International Marketing, Journal o f Management, Journal o f Management Studies, Journal o f Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Journal o f Retailing, Long Range Planning, Management International Review, Management Science, Marketing Science, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal. 5. Other techniques, such as hierarchical cluster analysis and factor analysis, may also be used to analyze cocitation data. Metric MDS remains a common tool for analyzing cocitation data because it produces more meaningful configurations (Hair et al. 1998). 6. All fields of inquiry are dynamic and change with time. Although older contributions provide the foundation for newer research, only the most influential works are carried forward as foundational. Newer fields, such as relationship marketing, are more likely to encounter radical changes in their foundations. That is, newer fields are more likely to change direction and focus, thus leading to radical change in the foundational works on which new contributions are made. REFERENCES Aharoni, Yair (1966), The Foreign Investment Decision Process. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. Alba, Richard D. and Gwen Moore (1983), Elite Social Circles, in Applied Network Analysis, Ronald S. Burt and Michael J. Minor, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Alderson, Wroe (1965), Dynamic Marketing Behavior. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Anderson, Erin and Hubert Gatignon (1986), Model of Foreign Entry: A Transaction Cost Analysis and Propositions, Journal o f International Business Studies, 17 (3), Anderson, James C. and James A. Narus (1990), A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships, Journal o f Marketing, 54 (January), Archambault, Eric and Etienne Vignola Gagne (2004), The Use o f Bibliometrics in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Montreal: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Athanasopoulou, Pinelopi (2009), Relationship Quality: A Critical Literature Review and Research Agenda, European Journal o f Marketing, 43 (5/6), Journal of International Marketing