Critique of Quantitative Methods Journal Paper Order Instructions: The second assessment is an individual 2000 word essay entitled ‘Critique of Quantitative Methods Journal Paper’ and represents 60% of the total assessment for this course.

This assignment builds on your weekly seminar papers for discussion and is concerned with critically evaluating and interpreting a business and management journal article that adopts quantitative methodology.

You are asked to interpret and evaluate the following journal paper attached to this assignment:

Edwards, Tony, Sanchez-Mangas, Rocio, Belanger, Jacques and McDonnell, Anthony, (2015), Why are Some Subsidiaries of Multinationals the Source of Novel Practices while Others Are Not? National, Corporate and Functional Influences, British Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 146-162.

Areas for discussion within the essay are:

? Introduction: Key research gaps that the paper is trying to fill
? Brief description of current theory and empirical research illustrating incoherencies, inconsistencies and uncertainties
? The nature of sample used in the study and an appraisal of its fit for the research question as well as its shortcomings
? The major part of your paper (at least 1000 words) is to describe the most significant statistics in the paper and what they mean
? Conclusions: Discuss how the researchers could have done the study differently. Here I’m looking for your creative thinking especially linked to seminar discussions of other papers during this course.

I would like you to appraise the journal article in your own words rather than copying material straight from the paper or purely paraphrasing it. This will show me that you have thought about the paper deeply and developed your own understanding. This exercise is aimed at helping you deconstruct quantitative journal articles and develop a reflexive critique towards future articles you may read on your undergraduate programme.

This is the first time I am using this service and I hope I will get grade A guaranteed and please don’t go over 2000 word count and I will receive essay back when I have requested for it back.

Critique of Quantitative Methods Journal Paper Sample Answer

Critique of Quantitative Methods Journal Paper

Introduction

Edwards, T., Sanchez-Mangas, R., Belanger, J & McDonnell, A. (2015). Why are Some Subsidiaries of Multinationals the Source of Novel Practices while Others Are Not? National, Corporate and Functional Influences, British Journal of Management, 26: 146-162.

Transitional corporations are usually thought to be shifting toward network forms where their subsidiaries assume major roles and share practices with the rest of the firm. Continual national diversity in the context where companies operate offers the chance for multinational corporations to make the most of local patterns of unique practices and spread them globally (Cantwell & Zhang, 2010). A multinational corporation is understood as a company that has a workforce of at least 500 workers globally with a minimum of 100 within the host nation (Holtbrugge & Mohr, 2011).

In the article, Edwards et al. (2015) point out that the existing literature has 2 major gaps. In theory, the existing literature generates only the most fundamental comprehension of the way that national contexts shape the position of multinational corporation subsidiaries to instigate diffusion. Empirically, the authors point out that there are somewhat few researches which differentiate between the different directions that diffusions could take, and among the studies that actually do, there is hardly any quantitative evidence with regard to the factors that retard or foster reverse diffusion or employ data from several nations. This journal article by Edwards et al. (2015) help in filling these gaps in existing literature by exploring the way the national context of the subsidiary produces disparity in the potential for the subsidiaries to instigate diffusion in multinational corporations by analyzing representative, unique, cross-country data.

Reverse diffusion basically refers to the diffusion of human resources practices from the overseas operations of multinational corporations to the rest of the company. It is called reverse diffusion since the direction of diffusion is actually inverted from the one that is the primary focus on research in relation to multinational corporations (Edwards, 2011). In the article, Edwards et al. (2015) consider the national context’s role together with other explanations for disparity in the occurrence of reverse diffusion and maintain that the functional, corporate and national contexts all matter, illustrating the advantages in taking on a multiple, instead of a single factor explanation. In particular, actors at the subsidiary level who instigate diffusion are placed differentially by the authors in accordance with their national context, their position in corporate structures, as well as the degree to which the human resources function is globally networked. The authors studied 4 countries including Britain, Spain, Ireland and Canada, which all have significant characteristics which make them interesting contexts for investigating reverse diffusion.

An approach commonly utilized to analyze transfer within multinational corporations is focused on the concept of institutional distance, which measures the extent of dissimilarity between the cognitive, normative and regulative aspects of institutions across borders and has been utilized in explaining the reasons as to why transfer does or does not take place between 2 nations (Hill, Hwang & Kim, 2010). The aim of Edwards et al. (2015) in the article is to compare the degree to which 4 different nations contain donor units, and therefore rather than focusing on the institutional distance approach, they assume an eclectic approach employing 3 bodies of theory. The first body of theory pertains to the position of each of the 4 nations within the main flows of cross-border economic activity, especially foreign direct investment. The second body of theory is focused on how multinational corporations are fragmenting their activities across different nations bringing about production which is globally integrated. The third body of theory is concerned with how the human resources function is typified by effective networks which can transfer various practices across the company. Edwards et al. (2015) take each of these bodies of theory one after another and build hypothesis from each. The authors develop a number of hypotheses including H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a, H2b, H2c and H3.

Sample used

This article is derived from an innovative project employing parallel, comparative national surveys of multinational corporations that operate in 4 nations where the research instrument was developed cooperatively. Each of the surveys was based upon the most far-reaching list of multinational corporation developed so far in each country (Edwards et al., 2015). The sample comprised a total of 883 foreign-owned multinational corporations: 247 in Spain, 214 in Ireland, 165 in Canada and 258 in the United Kingdom. The senior-most human resources official in each of the subsidiaries took part in the survey. On the whole, the sample size of the over 880 multinational companies is satisfactory as it allowed the researchers to collect comprehensive data that could be generalized. The high number of participants also ensures that the surveys actually have an extremely high level of representativeness. Furthermore, this sample size allows the researchers to collate sufficient empirical evidence with regard to the degree to which subsidiaries of multinational companies input or introduce new practices into the rest of the firm. The sample size allows the researchers to effectively explore this within the field of human resources (HR) by analysing a distinctive international data set in 4 different host nations. As such, the sample size effectively fits the research question.

Most significant statistics in the paper

In the study, Edwards et al. (2015) constructed dependent variables from questions which asked the study participants whether or not the subsidiary of the multinational corporation has introduced some novel practices in areas which have been adopted elsewhere in the multinational firm: Code 0 = No, Code 1 = Yes. The authors asked this question regarding employee consultation and Training and Development (T&D), and these 2 comprise the study’s dependent variables (DVs). These 2 DVs offer an important contrast in 2 ways. Firstly, the significance of Training and Development in developing capabilities, especially the capability of producing and absorbing implicit knowledge, could make this issue more strategic compared to consultation given that higher management levels could be involved in creating policy (Edwards et al., 2015). Secondly, the limits of the host nation institutional setting are more distinct and clear with regard to consultation practices, which show that they could come across more significant institutional hindrances to diffusion. As a result, these 2 facets of Human Resource Management practice present a crucial test of whether or not these factors explain disparity in the diffusion of various human resources practices (Edwards, 2011). The explanatory variables in the study comprised the following: integrated production, country dummies, skills, human resources network intensity, and controls (Edwards et al., 2015).

The findings of the study are provided as descriptive statistics. The pattern for the DVs indicates that Training and Development practices are more frequently diffused from the subsidiaries in comparison to consultation practices. The researchers also found that for both consultation practices and Training and Development practices, the United Kingdom subsidiaries are most commonly the source of novel practices adopted in other places followed by subsidiaries in Canada, Ireland and Spain (Edwards et al., 2015). With regard to the explanatory variables, there are some resemblances throughout the 4 host nations; that is, trading links between the subsidiaries of the multinational corporation and the rest of the company comprise nearly 50 percent of all subsidiaries in each host nation. The other similarity across the 4 host nations is that the low skill group is in fact the most common in each of the countries. Nonetheless, the extent to which the subsidiary is entrenched in human resource networks is different, with subsidiaries in Canada more frequently having linkages to parts of the human resources function in other host nations and the subsidiaries in Spain least frequently.

The researchers carried out binary logistic regression on the 2 DVs, the reverse diffusion of Training and Development and consultation practices. Using list-wise deletion, the N drops to 741 and 738 from 883 in the 2 models. The average partial effects, significance levels, standard errors and coefficients of all the variables as well as the fit statistics of the models are clearly illustrated in tabular form by the authors of the article.     Subsidiaries in the United Kingdom are very much more probable to be source of reverse diffusion for both consultation and Training and Development than Irish and Spanish subsidiaries, whereas there are no big differences between Britain and Canada, a finding that actually supports hypotheses 1c, 1b and 1a (Edwards et al., 2015). On average, the likelihood that the subsidiaries in Spain and Ireland introduce novel practices in Training and Development is 17% and 15% respectively lower than the subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, while the figures are 9% and 7% points lower for consultation practices.

In addition, the impact of trading connections is significant and consistent in both models, with subsidiaries that act as recipients and suppliers of services and components more probable to be the sources of reverse diffusion (Birkinshaw & Hood, 2013). On average, the likelihood that intermediate skill and high skill subsidiaries offer Training and Development practices is 14% and 9% respectively higher than in low skill subsidiaries. With regard to the impact of human resource network intensity, Edwards et al. (2015) learned that having various types of networking has a significant and positive effect on the 2 models, which in fact supports Hypothesis 3. Furthermore, making use of one more facet of human resource networking is related to an average increase of five percent in the likelihood that the subsidiaries offer novel Training and Development practices. The corresponding figure for consultation is three percent (Edwards et al., 2015; Minbaeva, 2010). As a result, in the two models, the higher the intensity of the human resource networks, the greater the likelihood of reverse diffusion.

It is notable that the distinctive nature of the cross-national research design, in particular the representative and all-inclusive aspects of the surveys in addition to the strongly coordinated process where they were created and executed, has served to position the authors of the article to go past what other researchers investigating the reverse diffusion of Human Resource Management practices have managed to do (Quintanilla et al., 2010). The results demonstrate that some multinational corporation subsidiaries actually assist the parent company to employ a varied locational portfolio of abilities in human resources. In assuming an approach with the use of several factors, the authors followed a deep-rooted tradition in this extensive field. It is worth mentioning that eclectic approaches have been employed in the international business field in explaining why business organizations expand internationally and their choice of mode of entry (Doz, Santos & Williamson, 2011; Thory, 2011).

By utilizing a strong data set that covers a broad variety of nations, Edwards et al. (2015) have extended the understanding of the different influences which are believed to affect the reverse diffusion of human resource practices which have originated from earlier, more exploratory research studies. Regarding the country effect, earlier research studies have given emphasis to the significance of the national context of the nation of origin in shaping the hurdles to reverse diffusion (Gunniglr & McGuire, 2011; Yang, Mudambi & Meyer, 2012). Moreover, other researchers have demonstrated that the perceptions of executives in high ranks within the company of the host institutional context condition the capacity of subsidiaries to produce interest in their practices (Whitley, 2010; Michailova & Mustaffa, 2012). The authors of the article have extended this understanding of the role played by country context by focusing on the host nation’s position in the international economy. The capacity of subsidiaries to wield influence over human resource practices diffused throughout multinational corporations is shaped by the position of their economy in the international environment (Hill, Hwang & Kim, 2010; Yang, Mudambi & Meyer, 2012).

Critique of Quantitative Methods Journal Paper Conclusion

On the whole, this article contributes greatly to the understanding of the reverse diffusion of human resource practices. The researchers applied eclectic approach and utilized various bodies of theory in developing expectations with regard to the influence of somewhat dissimilar factors. The authors have clearly demonstrated that multiple factor explanations are needed in order to gain a proper understanding of the factors which retard or promote the diffusion of HR practices in transnational firms. Functional, corporate and national contexts are crucial and they all matter. In particular, the subsidiary actors who try to instigate diffusion are differentially positioned in accordance with their place in corporate structure, their national context, as well as the degree to which HR function is globally networked (Pudelko & Harzing, 2012).

In spite of everything, the researchers could have carried out the research study differently so as to avoid the limitations inherent in the present study. Even though the researchers took appropriate measures to reduce Common Method Variance and measurement error from employing a single participant, they could have pursued the matching of participants between the subsidiaries and company headquarters in the same company. In the study, there is a possibility that there is some disparity within the subsidiaries in terms of the source of the diffused practices. It might be that some sorts of operating unit, or some parts of countries, are more commonly the origin of practices that are diffused. To explore this, Edwards et al. (2015) could have employed a design which would have allowed for comparisons to be made between the sites of multi-site subsidiaries.

Critique of Quantitative Methods Journal Paper References

Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. (2013). Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Academies of Management Review, 23(4): 773-795

Cantwell, J., & Zhang, Y. (2010). The innovative multinational firm: The dispersion of creativity and its implications for the firm and for world development. In Collinson, S., & Morgan, G. Images of Multinational Firm. Chichester: Wiley.

Doz, Y., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. (2011). From global to metanational. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Edwards, T. (2010). Multinationals, labour management and the process of reverse diffusion: A case study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(1): 696-709

Edwards, T. (2011). The nature of international integration and human resource policies in multinational companies. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(3): 483-498.

Edwards, T., Sanchez-Mangas, R., Belanger, J & McDonnell, A. (2015). Why are Some Subsidiaries of Multinationals the Source of Novel Practices while Others Are Not? National, Corporate and Functional Influences, British Journal of Management, 26: 146-162.

Gunniglr, P., & McGuire, D. (2011). Why Ireland? A qualitative review of the factors influencing the location of US multinationals in Ireland with particular reference to the impact of labour issues. Economic and Social Review, 32(12): 43-67

Hill, C. W., Hwang, P., & Kim, W. (2010). An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry mode. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5): 117-128

Holtbrugge, D., & Mohr, A. (2011). Subsidiary interdependencies and international human resource management practices in German MNCs: A resource-based view. Management International Review, 51(5): 508-521.

Michailova, S., & Mustaffa, Z. (2012). Subsidiary knowledge flows in multinational corporations: Research accomplishments, gaps and opportunities. Journal of World Business, 47(2): 383-396

Minbaeva, D. (2010). Knowledge transfer in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 47(6): 567-593

Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A. (2012). Country-of-origin, localization, or dominance effect? An empirical investigation of HRM practices in foreign subsidiaries. Human Resource Management, 46(6): 535-559.

Thory, K. (2011). The internationalization of HRM through reverse transfer: Two case studies of French multinationals in Scotland. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(4): 54-71

Whitley, R. (2010). The multinational firm as a distinct organizational form. Chichester: Wiley.

Quintanilla, J., Belizon, M., Sanchez, R., & Susaeta, L. (2010). Employment practices of multinational companies in Spain. Survey Report, Madrid: IESE Business School, University of Navarro.

Yang, Q., Mudambi, R., & Meyer, M. (2012). Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in multinational corporations. Journal of Management, 34(2): 882