INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE
RESEARCH
c.j.brewster@henley.reading.ac.uk
NUI Galway, Institute for Business, Social Sciences and Public Policy
20 June 2012
Suggested agenda
INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE RESEARCH
•(a disclaimer…)
•Issues in international research
•Issues in publishing international research
1
Why?
• Its fun
• It enhances understanding
• It challenges stereotypes, and best-practice
managerialism
• Its publishable
Issues in International research
• Funding
• Research teams
• Management of teams
• Language(s)
• Research methods
• Longitudinal issues
2
Issues in publishing international
research
• Strategies
• True science
• Journals
• Processes
Key issue for publishing
comparative research in the “top”
journals
Universalist vs Contextual Paradigms
• the Universalistic paradigm
– theory
– methodology
• the Contextual paradigm
– theory
– methodology
• other paradigms
Brewster, C. (1999) "Different Paradigms in Strategic HRM: questions raised by comparative research" in Wright,
P., Dyer, L., Boudreau, J. and Milkovich, G. (eds), Research in Personnel and HRM, JAI Press Inc,
Greenwich, Connecticut pp 213-238.
3
Conducting international
comparative research
Thank you!
and good luck!
c.j.brewster@henley.reading.ac.uk
4
Selected Publications
Books:
•
Brewster, C. and Mayrhofer, W., (eds) (2012) A Handbook of Research into
Comparative Human Resource Management Practice. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham
•
Brewster, C., Carey, L., Dowling, P., Grobler, P., Holland, P. and Warnich, S.
Contemporary Issues in Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive
Advantage (4th edition), Oxford University Press, South Africa, Cape Town
•
Brewster, C. Sparrow, P. Vernon. G. and Houldsworth, L. (2011) International
Human Resource Management. (3rd edition), CIPD, Wimbledon
Chapters:
•
Brewster, C. and Mayrhofer, W. (2009) Comparative HRM: the debates and the
evidence. In Collings, D.C. and Wood, G. (eds) Human Resource Management: a
critical approach. Routledge, London (278-295)
•
Sparrow, P., Brewster, C. and Ligthart, P. (2009) Globalizing Human Resource
Management: examining the role of networks. in Sparrow, P. (ed) Handbook of
International Human Resource Management: integrating people, process and
context. Wiley, Chichester (363-388)
Selected Publications (continued)
Articles:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mayrhofer, W., Brewster, C., Morley, M. and Ledolter, J. (2011) Hearing a
Different drummer? Evidence of convergence in European HRM Human Resource
Management Review 21 (1): 50-67
Croucher, R. Brookes, M., Wood, G. and Brewster, C. (2010) Context, strategy
and financial participation: A comparative analysis. Human Relations 63: 835-855
Makela, K and Brewster C. (2009) interpersonal relationships as conduits of
interunit interaction within multinationals: how well do different types of
relationships work? Human Resource Management 48, (4): 591-614
Brewster, C., Wood, G. and Brookes, M. (2008) Similarity, Isomorphism or
Duality: recent survey evidence on the HRM policies of Multinational Corporations
British Journal of Management 19 (4): 320-342
Mayrhofer, W. and Brewster, C. (2005) “European Human Resource
Management: researching developments over time” Management Revue 16, (1):
36-62
Brewster, C., Sparrow, P. and Harris, H. (2004) The Role of the Human Resource
Management Function in Internationalisation Human Resources and Employment
Review 2, (2): 68-75
5
Academics to publish research in journals
• ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide
– Several different journal quality ranking schemes exist
(e.g. Warwick 2003, Imperial 2004, Cranfield 2009)
– Henley Business School to use the Association of Business
Schools (ABS) Academic Journal Quality Guide
– Journals classified into four main categories (1, 2, 3 and 4)
– ‘N’ category for new journals
– Number of journals included in 2009 was 1,039
– Classification of journals based on a mixture of:
• peer review
• citation impact scores
• editorial judgement
12
6
ABS Journal Quality Standards
Quality
rating
Meaning
4*
Publish the most original and best executed
research
Example
No. and % in ABS
Guide
108 (10.5%)
Journal of International Business Studies
3*
Publish original and well executed research
papers and are highly regarded
252 (24.4%)
Management International Review
2*
Publish original research of an acceptable
standard
386 (37.4%)
International Business Review
1*
These journals, in general, publish research of a
recognised standard
287 (27.8%)
Global Business Review
Sources: Kelly, A, Morris, H, Rowlinson, M & Harvey, C (2009) Academic Journal Quality Guide, Version 3. Introduction: Context, Purpose and Method.
Association of Business Schools; Kelly, A, Morris, H, Rowlinson, M & Harvey, C (2009) Academic Journal Quality Guide. Subject Area Listing.
Association of Business Schools [www.the-abs.org.uk accessed July 2009]
13
Why comparative?
Universalist vs Contextual Paradigms
• the Universalistic paradigm
– theory
– methodology
• the Contextual paradigm
– theory
– methodology
• other paradigms
Brewster, C. (1999) "Different Paradigms in Strategic HRM: questions raised by
comparative research" in Wright, P., Dyer, L., Boudreau, J. and Milkovich, G.
(eds), Research in Personnel and HRM, JAI Press Inc, Greenwich, Connecticut
pp 213-238.
7
Getting Published:
writers’ workshop
Chris Brewster
Professor of International Human Resource Management
Henley Management College
Getting Published: a guide
1. what and why?
2. when?
3. where?
4. how?
5. who?
8
1. what and why publish?
• good research
• good practice; good test
• credibility (doctorate/ career)
• profile for your institution
• contacts
• …and it’s fun
what to publish?
• Publishers generally look for something that is:
– fresh (new topic; new location; new debate);
• (but note “following a thread”)
– committed (an argument);
– readable;
– coherent;
– fits their style/ uses their journal
9
2. When to publish
• When you have something to say….
– A new summary of what is known (review)
– New information (most journals; practitioner and general
press)
– A new methodology (specialist journal)
– A new analysis or contribution to theory (top journals)
3. Where to publish?
• TOP journals
• Middle-ranking journals
• Practitioner journals, etc
• (Special Issues)
• Advantages and disadvantages of each?
• Strategy and Priorities
10
TOP management academic journals
(that publish OB/HRM texts)
Administrative Science Quarterly
Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Review
Organization Science
Strategic Management Journal
Human Resource Management
Journal of Occupational Psychology
Organization Studies
Journal of Organization Behaviour
Journal of Management
Human Relations
International Journal of HRM
Management and Organization Review
Journal of Management Inquiry
International Studies of Man. & Org.
’A’
’A-/B+’
’B(+)’
Publishing in the TOP journals
 target the manuscript: references, writing style and
formalities & language (use language editor!)
 the introduction and the concluding discussions are very
important ==> what did it tell us? so what? where should we
go from here?
 a good paper is extremely disciplined: what’s key? don’t
jump around; tell a story (models?) and stick to it; work on
the structure
 discuss your procedures, but don’t give them a stick to beat
you with…
 don’t be amateurish: using straw men, overly negative view
of the literature, use of underlining or exclamation marks,
exaggerations
 cite own work rarely: only that in established outlets (and
then only key ones)
 keep improving the paper: get lots of feedback, present it at
seminars, role play yourself how reviewers may perceive the
paper, show it to “friends”, etc
11
What reviewers in the
TOP journals look for…
• Overall criteria: Significance of the (potential)
contribution
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
challenge to accepted wisdom in the field
contribution to theory development
contribution to empirical base
contribution to practice
Adequate review of the existing literature?
Adequate research design?
Appropriateness of analytical procedures?
Insightful Discussion section?
Implications - so what?
Limitations?
Writing craft?
Rules of the game
• Publish or perish
• There is a home for every decent manuscript
• Target every manuscript to a specific outlet (which
journal? book chapter?)
• You want to be read, not just published
• Play to your strengths
• Well-written manuscripts are in the minority
• Argumentation is the key. Rhetoric matters
• Grow a thick skin. It is all personal but you can’t take
it personally
• Just do it!
12
A publications strategy
• Work on your own: write down your own publications
strategy
• then explain your strategy to your team: listen to and
ask questions about your colleague(s) publications
strategy.
4. How to publish
IF you have something to say, the rest is just
technique:
• Read the journals;
• Use all levels of journal - try the easier ones first;
- or start at the top for good
reviews
•
•
•
•
Do as they tell you;
Practice;
Ask for help; (friends; academics; experts)
Be brave/ Learn
13
(Papers from PhDs)
• Carving out papers by editing your PhD
– It shows!
– A good idea to co-author with an experienced researcher
who has published in good journals
• Writing a paper from a new structure
– essential!
• Scope
– Don’t try to cram too much into one paper
– But dangers of ‘salami slicing’
Targeting the Journal
• Subject area, aims and scope of journal
• Has journal had papers before on this topic?
• Style of journal
– Quantitative vs Qualitative
– Theory vs Empirical vs Applied
• Level of journal
– See listings of journal quality
– Your view on quality of paper
– “If you are not getting rejected, you are aiming too low”
Donald Siegel [Editor JTT, Assoc Ed, JBV]
14
Submitting to Journal
• Make sure it’s ‘polished’
–
–
–
–
–
If not polished, looks sloppy and send wrong signal
especially, references and correct style
abstract &/or Executive Summary
number the pages
get rid of track changes and internal notes to yourself!
• Submit to ONE journal at a time!!!
• Submission letter
– Be brief!
Submitting to Journal
• Read the papers in the journal
– cite papers on your topic
– cited authors may be your reviewers
– see structure and framing of papers
• “We went through previous AMJ papers line-by-line. We
identified standard phrasing and framing” Frans van den
Bosch [Erasmus University, published in AMJ 2006]
– Follow style guidelines
15
Title and Abstract
• Title should be clear: obvious what it is about.
• (generally avoid “clever” titles)
• Abstract: as they tell you
• Topic; theory; methodology; results; meaning
Introduction and Framing
• What’s the novel [Theoretical and Empirical] contribution?
• “That’s interesting” (Davis, 1971)
– Disconfirm some of existing assumptions
– Addressing observed puzzles
• AMJ survey (Bartunek, et al. 2006)
– A paper most interesting if is counter-intuitive
– Quality of research and importance of research question
• What’s the research gap & why important to fill?
16
Introduction and
Framing (ii)
• Consensus-challenging research vs ‘filling-in-the-potholes’
– Seeking to bring a new theoretical lens to an established
area
• important to demonstrate the shortcomings of existing
approaches and how the new lens causes us to see a
topic quite differently.
– Opening up a new topic not addressed before.
• Such work may be published in more prestigious journals
only once its validity has been established
• Avoid saying paper is exploratory
• Be explicit about research question
[and how you arrive at it]
• State your contribution[s]
– Contribution to general [theory]
Hypotheses development
• Literature and theoretical framework
– Focus the literature review on the issues to be covered
– Clear and justified theory
– Integration of theories can be advantage but avoid too
many
• Hypothesis development
– Have an overall framework upfront to the reader knows
how things fit together => Draw a diagram
– Use theory to develop hypotheses not previous
empirical studies
– Avoid replicative and uninteresting hypotheses
– Hypotheses need to connect to the theoretical
framework
• Can put others in control variables
17
•
Methodology
Data and method
–
Sample and method
•
•
Why this sample and method?
Up to date data
–
Cross-section vs longitudinal
–
Archival vs questionnaire
–
–
–
–
–
Hand-collected vs off the shelf
Differentiation; multiple sources..
Multi-levels
Mixed methods
Data preparation
•
•
•
•
•
Endogeneity; causality vs association…
‘quality’ of measures; derivation of research instrument; low response rates…
Response bias and representativeness tests
Reliability, validity, common method bias, inter-rater reliability
Variable definitions
–
•
Connection between theory and measures
» Cf. ‘proxies’ in some disciplines
Brief descriptives; correlation matrix, means and standard deviations
Analysis and Results
• Results and Analysis
– Be concise and structure in line with H’s
– Save discussion for later
– Management journals tend to go for models with
clearer justified measures not use of different proxies
– Build up from controls to final model showing
significance of incremental R2
– Top journals tend to frown on 10% sig. levels
18
Discussion and Conclusions
• Discussion
– Summarize findings; link results to literature – what is
surprising?
– Don’t go beyond your findings
– Implications for management
– Limitations (not at the end!) and further research
• Conclusions
– Emphasize contribution
•
•
•
•
References
Journal style and completeness
Footnotes [minimize]
Tables & Figures
Your priority article
• How will you turn your “priority article plans”
into a submission?
• “10% inspiration; 90% perspiration”:
– Think strategically
– Do your homework
– Stick at it (mentor?)
• Work on your own: then share the results with
your team
19
g
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
y
p
Title reflects content
Readability
Length/ words
Proper citations/ referencing
Physical presentation
Headings
References (style and number)
Tables and Figures
Sending off your script: practical
Do:
• Look at back copies of the Journal
• Check the latest copy for requirements
• Include a short covering letter “selling” your
manuscript
• Get an internal/ friend/ expert to review first
Don’t:
• Send off and hope for the best
• Send if you can’t be bothered to meet the
requirements
Remember:
• Journals get thousands…
20
Paper Submitted
Send for Review
Reject
Reject
Major mods.
Minor mods.
Return
Accept
Revise and resubmit
Reject
Rewrite
Accept
Publish
The Review Process
• Editor
• 2/3 blind Reviews
– remember them when writing…
• Editor’s Decision and letter
• (3 months)
• You can push..but it often does not help
21
Resubmitting
• Say thank you! Be nice…
• 85%+ of work submitted to top journals is rejected!
• All top authors have high rejection rates – if you
don’t: you are not a top author…
sometimes frustrating but also interesting & rewarding:
researching is publishing!
• revising your paper:
– address explicitly all comments by the reviewers in a
separate letter
– take all comments seriously and show appreciation
– be responsive: but you don’t have to accept everything!
– You do have to accept the editor’s comments!
– try to engage the reviewers
– negotiate with the editor if necessary: new reviewers?
– revise and resubmit quickly (but not too quickly)
5. Who to write with
• Why share the glory?
• Why share the work?
• Someone more or less experienced?
• Where from?
• What skills do they bring?
• How similar are your views?
• How well can you work together?
22
A writing strategy
• Work in (new) teams:
• identify five good things to do when writing articles;
• and five things to avoid.
Getting Published: a guide
Good Luck!
Chris Brewster,
Professor of International Human Resource Management,
Henley Management College, UK
chris.brewster@henleymc.ac.uk
23
Submission and review of draft article
• Submission process varies from journal to journal:
– guidelines often available from publishers’ websites
• Blind peer review carried out by two or more researchers active
in the field:
– designed to be both developmental and judgmental in nature
– feedback indicates whether the article is publishable in its
current form; how it should be revised; if it should be
submitted to another publication; or not published at all
– submission, review and revision process may take as long
as 18 months to 2 years
47
Quality of draft articles submitted
• The quote below is one of many that demonstrate the importance
of submitting a high-quality draft, and indicates that poorly
presented material is less likely to be accepted, or may take
longer to be accepted, for publication
'The findings reported in a paper may be cutting edge, but poor
language quality – including errors in grammar, spelling or
language and usage – could delay publication or could lead to
outright rejection of a paper preventing the research getting the
attention it deserves.’
(Source: Elsevier website http://elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/languageediting)
48
24
It’s Getting More Competitive Out
Trend in Submissions to JMS
700
600
500
400
Number
300
200
100
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
•
•
•
•
How low are acceptance rates in top journals?
Journal of Management Studies
Desk rejects over 50%
30% rejected after first full review
Acceptance rate c7%
=> ….and some other top journals have even higher
rejection rates
• => importance of getting over hurdle [1] to be sent out for
review and maximize chances of getting over hurdle [2] to
Revise and Resubmit, probably best you can hope for
25
Journal of Management Studies
Reasons for Reject
• Stage 1 Initial submission
–
–
–
–
–
–
Fit between subject and scope of journal
Nature of contribution
Rigour of methods
Novelty of findings
Extent of contribution
General presentation
• Stage 2 – First review
–
–
–
–
–
Theoretically weak
Poor description of methods / inappropriate methods
Lack of integration
Lack of novelty
Weak contribution
JMS Reasons for Reject After Review
[based on 270 papers in 2003-2004]
Reason
#
%
Lack of contribution
248
92
Failure to develop
theoretical contribution
Fatal flaws in methods
205
76
189
70
Deficiencies in analysis
156
58
26
Cultural and Institutional
explanations of differences
• the Cultural explanation
• the Institutional explanation
–
–
–
–
–
neo-institutionalism;
legal systems;
political systems;
VoC;
regulationist
• the meaning of words
27
Varieties of Capitalism
• Liberal Market Economies
• Co-ordinated Market Economies
Hall and Soskice, 2001
Nordic economies (Flexicurity
economies)
Mediterranean economies
Transitional Economies (CEE)
Whitley, 1999; Amable, 2003;
Varieties of Capitalism
• and what about:
–
–
–
–
Communist/Capitalist states?
Transition states?
African states?
Latin American states?
Jackson and Deeg 2006
28
Convergence vs Divergence
• convergence theories
– market-led/US
– institutional/European
(world vs regional?)
• “divergence” theories
• maybe it’s a bit of each…
Mayrhofer, W. and Brewster, C. (2005) “European Human Resource Management: researching developments over time”
Management Revue 16, (1): 36-62
Directional Convergence:
trends
E
X
T
E
N
T
TIME
29
Final Divergence
E
X
T
E
N
T
TIME
How?
• Collaboration
• Value of teams
• Team management
• Data collection/ response rates
• Rules and requirements
• Publication
30
Example findings: data
• Cranet – academic HRM specialist in each of over
50 countries
• Consecutive CRANET surveys on International
Strategic Human Resource Management: 1991,
1995, 1999/2000, 2004/5, 2009/10 (separate sample
frames) (http://www.CRANET.org )
• Postal questionnaire for the senior HRM specialist
of organisations (>100 employees); all sectors;
translated into local language; full population
survey in most cases/ samples in larger countries
61
Examples – some findings
• Country; size; sector all matter – generally in that
order (not for training)
• There are common trends – there is very little sign
of final convergence
• MNCs are different – but not very different
• Varieties of capitalism (especially Amable) works
fairly well in Europe
• Role of HRM department varies with country
31
Conclusions
• Practically:
– Standardisation/ differentiation paradox
• Theoretically:
– Legitimation seems to be important
– What price “best practice” HRM or management
generally?
– and…?
Conducting international
comparative research
Questions?
Comments?
Chris Brewster
Professor of International HRM,
Henley Business School, University of Reading, UK
20 June 2012
32