The insights from the crowd: Drawing inferences from many approaches to key empirical questions in international business

Journal: Journal of International Business Studies 

This article explores the challenges of subjectivity and variability in scientific research, particularly in international business studies. Researchers often face pressures that can lead to biased results, such as ‘p-hacking’, where data is manipulated to achieve desired outcomes. This study investigates how subjective choices in data analysis affect research findings. The authors organized a mass collaboration to examine four key questions in international business, focusing on the relationships between entry modes, intangible assets, policy uncertainty and firm performance. The study highlights the importance of context and subjective choices in shaping research outcomes.

This article used a crowdsourced approach, involving 57 researchers from various countries, to analyze a common dataset of Japanese firms’ foreign subsidiaries. The researchers independently tested four research questions using different analytical methods. This approach, known as ‘many analysts’, allows for a diverse range of perspectives and methodologies. The study aimed to determine whether different analysts would reach the same conclusions when given the same data and research questions. The researchers used various statistical models and examined how different operationalizations of variables affected the results. The study also assessed the impact of analysts’ expertise and beliefs on their findings.

The results revealed significant variability in the estimates provided by different analysts, with no two analysts using the same approach. This variability highlights the challenge of subjectivity in scientific research. The study found that the choice of variables and the analysts’ expertise significantly influenced the results. Despite the variability, the study identified some directional effects for two of the four research questions. The authors conclude that subjectivity is an inherent part of scientific inquiry, but meaningful inferences are still possible. They advocate for open science practices, such as data sharing and transparency, to improve the reliability of research findings. Future implications include the need for more crowd-based research initiatives and the development of strategies to manage variability in scientific research.