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

Abstract In this crowdsourced initiative, 57 independent analysts used the same longitudinal dataset to address four major empirical questions in international business. For all four research questions, different analysts obtained substantial estimates in opposite directions, meaning that they could have drawn any conclusion at all had they conducted the project alone. Aggregating across the results obtained by different analysts pointed to an overall answer for two of the four research questions, although for one of the two questions, the evidence was more suggestive than conclusive. That said, the variability in results was not simply random, and could in some cases be meaningfully explained. Choices regarding how to operationalize variables played an important role in determining the empirical results, and expert analysts were more likely to report large positive effects. Rather than exhibiting a bias to confirm their pre-existing beliefs, analysts appeared to rationally update their beliefs considering the evidence. Overall, these findings empirically demonstrate the role of subjective researcher choices in shaping results in international business research yet also show that it is still possible to draw meaningful conclusions in science. We advocate for an open science of international business in which the consequences of subjective analytic choices are rendered as transparent as possible.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of International Business Studies
Published
2025-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-025-00808-9
Citations
1
Primary Topic
International Business and FDI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.23

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Chengguang Li, N. Nuruzzaman, Kyungjoong Kim, Eric Luis Uhlmann et al.
1 citations
Journal of International Business Studies
International Business and FDI
2.23
article

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

Chengguang Li, N. Nuruzzaman, Kyungjoong Kim, Eric Luis Uhlmann, Atthaphon Mumi, Jiaju Yan, Tianyou Hu, Dwarka Chakravarty, Xiaodong Qiao, Maximilian Stallkamp, Andrés Vélez‐Calle, Yung-Chih Lien, Xingang Wang, Parul Manocha, Ondřej Machek, Shu Deng, K. Praveen Parboteeah, Jorge Carneiro, Hanoku Bathula, Dongdong Huang, Andranik Tumasjan, H. Liu, Yameng Zhang, Peng Wang, Tao Bai, Grigorij Ljubownikow, Daniel Tolstoy, Priit Tinits, Sandeep Yadav, Liang Wen, Ao Shen, Georgios Batsakis, Viswa Prasad Gada, Aleš Kubíček, Yong Wang, Vidya Sukumara Panicker, Luis Alfonso Dau, Chris Wagner, Evis Sinani, Megan Zhang, Mayank Varshney, Sandeep Sivakumar, Pei‐Shan Soon, Tao Wu, Faisal Mohammad Ahsan, Xiaomin Fan, Desislava Dikova, Wei Qiao, Andrew Delios, Yuanyuan Li, Li Yi, Wei Liu, Chao Niu, Danyang Chen, Yingyu Chen, Lei Shi, Yang Zhao, Weihao Zhang, Wen Li, Jing Yu Yang, Weihong Chen, Hyun Gon Kim, Shyamala Sethuram, N. Zhou, R. Vincent, Mona Bahl, Yoichi Matsumoto, Shu Yu, Madhurima Basu
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract In this crowdsourced initiative, 57 independent analysts used the same longitudinal dataset to address four major empirical questions in international business. For all four research questions, different analysts obtained substantial estimates in opposite directions, meaning that they could have drawn any conclusion at all had they conducted the project alone. Aggregating across the results obtained by different analysts pointed to an overall answer for two of the four research questions, although for one of the two questions, the evidence was more suggestive than conclusive. That said, the variability in results was not simply random, and could in some cases be meaningfully explained. Choices regarding how to operationalize variables played an important role in determining the empirical results, and expert analysts were more likely to report large positive effects. Rather than exhibiting a bias to confirm their pre-existing beliefs, analysts appeared to rationally update their beliefs considering the evidence. Overall, these findings empirically demonstrate the role of subjective researcher choices in shaping results in international business research yet also show that it is still possible to draw meaningful conclusions in science. We advocate for an open science of international business in which the consequences of subjective analytic choices are rendered as transparent as possible.

Journal of International Business StudiesVol. 56(9)
Vienna University of Economics and Business (AT), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), Federal Institute of São Paulo (BR), Qingdao University (CN), Northwest Missouri State University (US), Indian Institute of Management Raipur (IN), University of Technology Sydney (AU), Monash University Malaysia (MY), Tongji University (CN), Mahasarakham University (TH), Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques (FR), Northeastern University (US), The University of Sydney (AU), SRI International (US), Hong Kong Baptist University (HK), Baruch College (US), University of International Business and Economics (CN), Xidian University (CN), Guangxi University (CN), Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IN), University of Auckland (NZ), Baylor University (US), The University of Queensland (AU), National University of Singapore (SG), National Taiwan University (TW), City University of Hong Kong (HK), Stockholm School of Economics (SE), Copenhagen Business School (DK), Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (CN), University of Wisconsin–Whitewater (US), East Carolina University (US), Xiamen University (CN), Glasgow Caledonian University (GB), Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE), Keio University (JP), University of Macau (MO), Nankai University (CN), Symbiosis International University (IN), Chang'an University (CN), San Diego State University (US), California State University Los Angeles (US), Loughborough College (GB), University of Manchester (GB), Xavier School of Management (IN), University of Alabama at Birmingham (US), National Dong Hwa University (TW), Prague University of Economics and Business (CZ), Nanjing University of Science and Technology (CN), University of Mississippi (US), Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (CN), Suzhou Research Institute (CN), INSEAD (SG), Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IN), Illinois State University (US), Southwest Jiaotong University (CN), Brunel University of London (GB), Technical University of Munich (DE), Northwest Normal University (CN), Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (CN), Sunway University (MY), Universidad EAFIT (CO), Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (CN)
Old Dominion University, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Jinan University, Universidade de Macau, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Universität Paderborn
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
International Business and FDI
2.23
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.