Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

acceptedVersion

Publication Date

7-2024

Abstract

Despite growing calls for a greater internationalization of management research, the discipline still struggles with the challenge of integrating diverse national contexts. While recent decades have seen a change toward a more equitable treatment of all national contexts, the belief that research conducted outside the United States is less generalizable remains strong. In this research note, we explore the general perceptions of what is considered a “typical” study context by associating them with authors' variable tendencies to report threats to external validity. Using a sample of 400 papers from seven top-tier management journals, we find that research based on non-US data tends to report more external validity threats, which makes it appear less generalizable. While the belief that the US constitutes a “typical” study context is shared by both US and non-US author teams, non-US co-authors tend to exhibit a relatively stronger bias against the generalizability of non-US samples in their studies. Collectively, our results contribute to the literature on external validity threats, generalizability, and biases in peer review, while also responding to recent calls for a more diverse and inclusive management research program.

Keywords

Biases in peer review, Empirical context, External validity, Generalizability

Discipline

International Business | Strategic Management Policy

Research Areas

Strategy and Organisation

Publication

Research Policy

Volume

53

First Page

1

Last Page

10

ISSN

0048-7333

Identifier

10.1016/j.respol.2024.105020

Publisher

Elsevier

Copyright Owner and License

Authors

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105020

Download

Share

COinS