Assessing the methodological differences between Brazilian journals and top journals in strategy

Abstract

Purpose: Our study compares methodological procedures of Brazilian papers with those of papers published in AMJ, OS, ASQ, JMS and SMJ in field of strategy from 2006 to 2015. Originality/value: Our study 1. identifies and describes methodological differences, offering a benchmark to improve future studies; 2. starts a discussion about the reasons those differences exist and their implications towards advancing the field of strategy; and 3. suggests forms of overcoming the current constraints and improving the quality of our research. Design/methodology/approach: Based on a systematic review, we analyzed ten Brazilian journals with the highest impact factor and five top journals. The search yielded a final sample of 1294 empirical papers. The data was analyzed through content analysis, for which our coding schema contained three dimensions: research design, measurement, and analytic approach. Findings: We found some methodological differences that may characterize Brazilian papers as testers and top journals as expanders, reinforcing results found by other studies, concerning the necessity of developing the Brazilian strategy field to be more competitive with the international field at large. Therefore, we concluded that it is desirable to improve our research methods as a field and possibly to overcome methodological differences, helping not only to develop theories but also to consider the Brazilian reality.