Perceived context typicality and beliefs in the generalizability of management research findings

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.