Research Methods in International Business

Please read the two given documents:

1. Quant essay dataset.xlsx,
2. Quantitative research design.pdf
and write a 2,000-word essay on quantitative research design and data analysis.

Your assignment should:

 Evaluate the choice of measurement for the dependent variable (IJV survival) in the
study. Propose and justify an alternative measurement;
 Evaluate the use of secondary data in the study;
 Use SPSS to provide up to 6 graphical illustrations on the key variables/relationships
in the Quant essay dataset, e.g., bar chart, pie chart, histogram, boxplot, and scatter
plot and describe them;
 Use SPSS to conduct analysis on descriptive statistics and correlation, and interpret
the results;
 Use SPSS to conduct linear regression analysis to test the six hypotheses (in
Quantitative research design.pdf), and interpret the results;
 Finish with a conclusion which brings together the key arguments that inform the
research questions;
Task 1

The process of IJV involves two or more firms from different countries to

collaborate in creating an independent business unit by contributing their

resources (Culpan 2002). The perception about Cross Culture, which identify the

business norms and values among nations, backgrounds and ethnicities, makes

connection to recognize the business and societal environment.

The existing complications between international joint ventures (IJVs), a number

of features are required to be studied and understand the survival of IJVs. In the

past few years, researchers mainly discovered the following factors affecting the

survival of IJV, mainly including culture (Makino et al., 2007; Meschi and

Riccio, 2008), country risk (Meschi and Riccio, 2008; Kim 8 and Kim, 2018),

previous experience (Mohr, et al., 2016; Ott et al., 2019), control (Li et al., 2013;
Pajunen and Fang, 2013; Mohr, et al., 2016; Ott et al., 2019), trust (Ertug et al.,

2013; Pajunen and Fang, 2013; Calhoun and Harnowo, 2015; Khalid and Ali,

2017; Vaidya, 2018) and so on. Among them, three factors have been

emphasized by many scholars: culture; trust; and control.

The most methodologically supported quantification of national culture (NC) was

formulated by Hofstede. The measurement of IJV survival is based upon using

different kinds of variable like Power Distance Index (PDI) focuses on the degree

of equality or inequality between people in a country’s society. When PDI is

high, hierarchy in organizational relationships is accepted. In low PDI case, there

is equality in organization and participatory decision making.

Observation taken of studies through quantitative research are empirical,

including in cultural distance of the countries which have low longevity and

performance variables, as well as the estimation techniques and model

specification, a wide range of conclusion can be drawn. What about the IJV's

inherent pressures as it works in a country with high economic and political

instability and distinct cultural characteristics? In the context of developing

countries, where country-level variables are extremely important, this relation

needs to be re-examined. It needs to be investigated further, not just in terms of

the individual effect of national distance and country risk, as well as the

combined effect of these factors on IJV survival.

Task 2: Evaluation of Secondary Data

The quantitative data.xlx describes the two sets of countries data, by examining

the different dimension related to cross – culture differences on IJV survival, it

has been determined that every factor differently impact on the country IJV rate

of survival. Hofstede distinguishes the cultures on the basis of following

dimensions: individualism versus, collectivism, power distance, uncertainty

avoidance, masculinity versus femininity, and long-term versus short-term

orientation.

The formulas for index calculation is used to calculate the content questions from

the six dimensions. Scale for questions are 1 to 5. Any standard statistical

computer program will calculate mean scores on five point scales (Hofstede).

The all dimensions index values are categorized as low and high which indicates

the dimensions of culture, and assess their impact on a business settings. The

impacts are shown as below:

LOW DIMENSION HIGH

EGALITARIAN POWER DISTANCE EMBRACES
HEIRARHCY
COLLECTIVIST COLLECTIVISMVS INDIVIDUALIST
INDVIDUISLISM

COMFORTABLE WITH UNCERTANITY AVOIDANCE UNCOMFERTABLE

UNCERTANITY INDEX WITH UNCERTAINTITY

NURTURE IMPORTAN FEMININITY VS MASCULINITY POWER IMPORTANT

TRADITIONAL AND SHORT TERM VS LONG TERM FUTURISTIC AND
SHORT TERM ORIENTATION LONG TERM

NORMATIVE REPRESSION RESTRAINT VS INDULDENCE SATISFACTION IS

GOOD
Low and high values shows to which extent or degree the dimension index values

have an impact on IJV survival.

Task 3: Graphical illustration

Figure: 01

In this section the box plot determine the spread of data to the dependent and

independent variables.
In Figure 1, the skewness is negative, showing that the data are appear skewed.

To some amount the boxplot reflects this: the upper whisker is considerably

longer than the down, indicating that the smaller values are more spread among

the acquirers and targets. It is cleared from graph that overall Longevity between

the countries has a high level of domination around at 1314 to (q1) to 2600 (q3).

One outlier also is pointing out in this boxplot.

Figure 2:

In this section, scatter plots were created to make a basic interpretation of

relations between the dependent variable of Longevity and three main

independent variables: Power Distance (PD), Individualism (IND), and

Masculinity (MAS).
According to Figure 2, the scatter plot shows a weak degree of negative non-

linear association between Longevity and Power Distance. It indicates that lower

the Power Distance between target and acquirer the higher the Longevity value.

Figure 3:
In Figure 3, the dependent variable (Longevity) plotted against Independent

Variable (Individualism). This Figure shows a low negative non-linear

correlation therefore, the low individualism between target and acquirer the

higher the Longevity.

Figure 4:

Figure 4 displays a positive non-linear correlation between our dependent

(Longevity) and independent variable (Masculinity). The independent variable

has a moderate relationship with longevity.

Figure 5:
Figure 5 let us to visualize the distribution of data in Power Distance. The longer

whisker on the upper side shows us that there may be larger variance in Power

Distance values. The data in the graph is negatively skewed. The overall

concentration of data in the figure is from 6 (q1) to 33 (q3).

Figure 6:
Figure 6 plot the data for our independent variable individualism, here our

median is 22 with q1 = 7 and q3 = 45. Here the median is closer to the bottom

and having a shorter whisker to the end box, so the distribution is positively

skewed. The high whisker indicates the high index scores between acquirer and

target having a greater individualism

Task 4: Descriptive analysis & Correlation

In this section descriptive statistics will used to describe some of the basic features of

the data in a dataset. It gives us summary of our independent and independent

variables. Together with graphic analysis (box plot and scatter diagrams), it gives us

quantitative analysis for the measurement of data.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1

LONGEVITY DISTANCEIN DISTANCEM DISTANCEU

(DAYS) DISTANCEPD D AS A DISTANCELTO DISTANCEINDUL

N Valid 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 2019.68 21.75 28.36 16.46 26.21 26.63 22.75

Median 1807.00 21.50 22.00 11.00 22.00 22.50 22.00

Std. 951.294 16.310 23.537 15.724 17.559 17.186 11.662

Deviation

Variance 904959.786 266.009 553.979 247.235 308.317 295.366 136.009

Table 1 is a descriptive analysis of all variables, it focus on means, Median, Std.

Deviation and Variance. There are 56 samples in total for descriptive analysis.

All mean values for the variables are positive. We see that Longevity has mean

2019.68 days, when changing to years it equals to 5.53 years. The standard

deviation allows us to take out some conclusions about specific scores in our

distribution. Besides, ‘standard deviation’ indicates that all variables except

‘individualism’ have less than 20, so data points tends to be close to the mean.
 Table 2:

Correlations
LONGEV
ITY DISTAN DISTAN DISTANC DISTAN DISTAN DISTANC
(DAYS) CEPD CEIND EMAS CEUA CELTO EINDUL
LONGEVITY Pearson 1 -.106 -.222 .024 -.029 -.174 -.524**
(DAYS) Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .438 .100 .860 .833 .199 .000
N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
DISTANCEPD Pearson -.106 1 .635** -.032 .109 .109 .335*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .438 .000 .813 .425 .424 .012
N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
DISTANCEIND Pearson -.222 .635** 1 -.138 .161 .224 .405**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .100 .000 .312 .235 .096 .002
N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
DISTANCEMAS Pearson .024 -.032 -.138 1 .160 .210 -.152
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .860 .813 .312 .239 .121 .263
N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
DISTANCEUA Pearson -.029 .109 .161 .160 1 .131 .046
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .833 .425 .235 .239 .337 .735
N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
DISTANCELTO Pearson -.174 .109 .224 .210 .131 1 .242
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .199 .424 .096 .121 .337 .073
N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
** * **
DISTANCEINDUL Pearson -.524 .335 .405 -.152 .046 .242 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .012 .002 .263 .735 .073
N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 2 shows us Pearson Coefficient of Correlation, it determines to measure

how strong a relationship is between two variables. Here Longevity and Power

Distance have a weak negative correlation as the correlation coefficient is equal

to -0.106. Longevity and Individualism which has -0.222 indicates a very weak

negative correlation. Masculinity and Longevity have a weak positive correlation

with a coefficient of .024. A weak and positive correlation between dependent

and independent variables increase our testing to the hypothesis. The impacts of

other independent variables ‘Uncertainty avoidance’, ‘long-term orientation’ also

have negative relationship on Longevity respectively as (r=-.029, -.174).

‘Indulgence’ has a large negative and significant to the longevity with value r = -

0.524.
 Task 5 - Linear Regression

Linear regression analysis is conducting in the essay to determine the

associations between the DV and the IVs.

Table 3 – Linear Regression

Variable Model-I Model-II Model-III Model-IV Model-V Model-VI Model-VII Model-VIII

Constant 1867.683 2092.078 1851.926 1768.229 2111.436 2889.687 2169.627 2776.414

(175.690) (302.037) (214.412) (284.888) (254.459) (287.161) (234.081) (402.185)

Rule of law 330.799 357.772 331.067 356.494 321.620 235.578 368.771 268.582
(173.146) (175.908) (174.786) (183.753) (172.104) (152.666) (170.241) (173.988)

Economy -190.046 -337.685 -194.295 -208.084 -148.159 -250.092 -286.021 -153.415

(308.373) (348.535) (312.964) (313.357) (307.914) (269.272) (305.319) (328.955)

Power distance -8.066 8.274

(8.824) (10.644)

Masculinity 1.065 -4.678

(8.146) (7.861)

Uncertainty 3.402 4.787

avoidance (7.634) (7.187)

long-term -9.635 -1.877

orientation (7.321) (7.252)

Indulgence -40.658 -38.868

(9.663) (11.432)

Individualism -10.049 -6.163

(5.301) (7.030)

N 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

R2 0.071 0.085 0.017 0.074 0.101 0.307 0.131 0.328

Table 3 shows us eight different Models, Model I is the base model using two

control variables with the effect of longevity. The control variable rule of is

positive but insignificant effect on Longevity at .05 level. Beside economy has

negative but significant effect on Longevity.

Hypothesis 1 (H1) predicts that differences in IJV partners’ power distance

scores negatively affect IJV survival. To test this, we infer from table 3, Model II

the Power Distance size (b= -8.066) is not significant at (p=0.365). Therefore, H1

is not supported and we accept null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2 (H2) indicates that difference in IJV partners’ masculinity scores

positively affects IJV survival. In model-III, the masculinity (b= 1.065, p=0.896)

is not significant and its coefficient is positive indicating that the greater the

difference in masculinity, the lower IJV survival. So H2 is accepted.

Hypothesis 3 (H3) refers the differences in IJV partners’ individualism scores

negatively affects IJV survival. Model VII scores (b=-10.049 and p=.064) is not

significant. Null hypothesis is not rejected.

Hypothesis 4 (H4) indicates that Differences in IJV partners’ uncertainty

avoidance scores negatively affect IJV survival. Model IV shows us (b= 3.402

and p= .658) is not significant. Null hypothesis is not rejected.

Model V long term orientation (b= -9.635 at p= .194) is not significant and

Model V1, indulgence (b=-40.658 at p=000) is significant so null hypothesis H6

is rejected.

Table 3 demonstrates that we are unable to support beside (Indulgence, only

variable significant) each of our hypothesis as this models used to test them are

statistically insignificant.
Task 6: Conclusion

We can conclude from this study to our question that ‘impact of partner cross-

cultural differences on IJV survival’: ‘Cross-Cultural differences will negatively

impact of IJV survival’. The hypothesis is not supported. We also calculated in

Model VIII including all variables but explained only (21.3% adjusted R Square)

of the variance in Longevity meaning 78.7% data might be unexplained.

Only H6 is supported which is only 20% of the data which is less to determine

the positive impact on IJV survival. Although our scatter plots and correlation

suggest our understandings that the association between dependent and

independent variable is weak and statistically insignificant.

Moreover, the selected measure of IJV survival might be one point to this failure

since Longevity may not be the best ratio to measure the survival of IJV, IJV can

be measure by profit and sales proportion.

References

Arsalan Ahmed, Z. P. (28th May, 2009). CORPORATE CULTURE IN AN

INTERNATIONAL JOINT VENTURE. MASTER THESIS - EFO705,

14,15,16.

Beliz ÖZORHON, H. A. (December 2017). Investigation of the Effect of Cultural

Fit in International. Digest 2017,.

Geert Hofstede, M. M. (May 2013). VALUES SURVEY MODULE 2013. Geert

Hofstede BV, 6-9.

Michael Nippa, J. J. (2019). On the future of international joint venture. Journal of

International Business Studies (2019) 50, 555–597.

Oever, K. v. (2009-2010). Causes of international joint venture instability:. ANR:

S545493, 13-26.

Avny, G. & Anderson, A. 2008. Organizational culture, national culture and

performance in international joint ventures based in Israel. International Journal

of Business and Globalization, 2(2): 133-145.

Brown, L., Rugman, A. & Verbeke, A. 1989. Japanese joint ventures with

western multinationals: Synthesizing the economic and cultural explanations of

failure. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 6 (2): 225-242.

Drogendijk, R. & Slangen, A. 2006. Hofstede, Schwartz, or managerial

perceptions? The effects of different cultural distance measures on establishment

mode choices by multinational enterprises. International Business Review, 15(4):

361-380.

Kim, Y. & Gray, S. 2009. An assessment of alternative empirical measures of

cultural distance: Evidence from the republic of Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of

Management, 26: 55-74