The Methodology Used in This Study

Many previous IJV studies have been conducted using the quantitative method (Beamish and Inkpen, 1995; Glaister and Buckley, 1996; Sim and Ali, 2000; Luo et al., 2001; Pangarkar and Lee, 2001; Yan and Gray, 2001; Luo, 2002; Pothukuchi et al., 2002). Other scholars, however (Perks and Sanderson, 2000; Jiang, 2001; Salk and Shenkar, 2001), use the qualitative method to explore IJV phenomena, particularly where these relate to cultural issues, partner negotiation, organisational behaviour, partner interaction, and so forth. As already mentioned, the choice of research methodology will depend on the purpose or focus of the study. The quantitative method seems to be chosen where variables can be quantified and a set of their relationships are statistically analysed. Moreover, this method generally involves a large sample that can lead to generalisation of the results of the studies to the population from which the samples are drawn (Creswell, 1994). On the other hand, the qualitative method seems to be adopted if researchers want to undertake an in-depth investigation of a specific, small-scale sample in order to examine closely the specific phenomena of their studies.

Neuman (2003) too asserts that the criteria for choosing appropriate research methods are greatly dependent on the goals and objectives of the study. As regards the objectives of this study, the present researcher has investigated the characteristics of the activity, distribution, and trends of international joint ventures in Thailand and, more generally, in

the ASEAN4 countries. This means there is a need to describe the pattern, distribution, and trends of IJV activity in Thailand statistically. Moreover, the content of one of the primary sources of the study, the BOI dataset, is quantitative data obtained from a large number of IJV firms. This consists of the business name of the IJVs, their mailing address and contact telephone number, their industrial sector, the nationality of their foreign parent company or companies, and the proportion of the equity shares in the IJV. Data of this kind calls for a method which can statistically group, combine, describe, and analyse the distribution of data.

The same applies to other objectives of this study: to determine the strategic motives of IJV parent companies in forming IJVs, and to identify factors which affect location choice decisions by foreign firms considering IJV formation; to examine the contributions which parent companies provide to IJVs and analyse the relationship between these and the characteristics of IJV operation in the context of Thailand; to assess IJV performance and analyse the determinants influencing it in Thailand as a developing country. Here too a method is needed which can establish a series of relationship between variables, describe the trend of relationships, and quantify a set of variables to be measured; for example, the relationship between the determinants and IJV performance. The method must also enable the researcher to generalise from the representativeness of the selected samples to the population of the study. In other words, measurable and quantifiable variables are the fundamental topics of this research.

As discussed in the previous section: the present researcher has followed the positivist/quantifiable approach because of the nature of this research and in order to fulfil the objectives identified.

The approach of this study is unlikely to build theory, or to work with qualitative data and use a variety of data collection methods in order to provide differing perspectives on phenomena. Instead, the present researcher attempts to translate theoretical concepts into measurable categories and variables (operationalisation) in order to gain the accuracy needed to enable generalisation to the characteristics of a wider population of the groups sampled, with the intention of testing theories. From the present researcher’s point of

view, the positivist/quantifiable approach can explain social phenomena in a valid, reliable, and systematic manner. Accordingly, taking account of the characteristics of the dataset and the need to fulfil the aim and objectives of this study, the method chosen for conducting this research is the quantitative method.

It needs to be acknowledged that the present researcher’s approach does have limitations. Firstly, certain aspects of the phenomena under investigation are not objective but come from interpretation of social action; for example, negotiation between the IJV parent companies, the strategic motives of companies in forming IJVs, the contribution of the parent companies to the IJVs, and so forth. Secondly, the “objective” approach, by following a rigorous and quantifiable research method such as a questionnaire, may seek to elicit opinions from which respondents are unwilling to convey. Thirdly, by following this approach, the present researcher is prevented from undertaking an in-depth investigation into IJV activity in the ASEAN4 context of Thailand, which the qualitative method would enable (since the creation of IJVs comes from interaction between the IJV parent companies). In this respect, the interpretivist/qualitative approach would be likely to provide deeper knowledge and understanding of certain aspects of the IJV phenomenon in Thailand.

However, on balance, since this study is exploratory, and given the characteristics of the data of the study (the BOI dataset and survey data are quantitative), the quantitative approach has been preferred. It is hoped that future research on this topic may employ a qualitative approach in order to get a more rounded and complete picture of IJV activity in Thailand and other ASEAN4 countries. This would be a valuable supplement to the knowledge resulting from the present study.