Knight and Cavusgil’s Journal of International Business Studies Decade Award-winning article offers numerous contributions to international business research. As one example, it advances cross-disciplinary conversation about entrepreneurial internationalization. A critical review of their study reveals, however, that certain findings require reinterpretation. This commentary does so, discussing the resultant implications and the question of when it is (in)appropriate to use the term “born global”. Parts of Knight and Cavusgil are then used as a foundation to identify research questions at the level of the firm. Finally, points from Cavusgil and Knight’s retrospective are used to argue that we need greater understanding of the individual(s) that are central to the firm’s internationalization behavior. Suggestions for research are made by drawing on concepts and theory from the entrepreneurship, innovation and psychology literatures.

Discusses issues, types, and calculations for inter-rater reliability. Seventeen measures of association for observer reliability (interobserver agreement) are reviewed and computational formulas are given in a common notational system. An empirical comparison of 10 of these measures is made over a range of potential reliability check results.

Over the years, various observers of health geography have sought to ‘divide’ the sub-discipline mainly along theoretical lines or to argue for a broadening of its theoretical base. Paralleling the growing theoretical pluralism within health geography has been a growing methodological pluralism. As in other parts of human geography, health geographers have embraced historical research, quantitative and qualitative methods, and computer mapping and geographic information science (GIS). Analyzing recent contributions by health geographers, the question I seek to answer is whether the growing theoretical and methodological pluralism has paradoxically led to increasing divisions in the topics of study based mainly, but not solely, on what methods are employed in the research. While there are topical overlaps (e.g. quantitative and qualitative studies of particular vulnerable groups), it is less obvious as to how research using one methodology is informing research using the other methodology.

The recognition of the cultural place as a powerfully important influence in development immediately suggests that there is no "one" important thing, and that development is multiply determined in cultural context. All of the influences which usually come to mind are important in every cultural place. Developmentally sensitive and appropriate interac¬tions are indeed crucial, ,for example, but the existence of those dyadic interactions is due to 'the 'everyday cultural routine of life and to shared understandings which surround and scaffold them. Self-understanding and esteem are important as well, but culturally provided settings and their meanings make these possible. Attachment and trust are important, but how do infants and Children experience strangers and learn whom to trust? Ethnography brings the importance of the cultural place to the center of attention, transforming it from ground to figure. An important goal of ethnographic research is to describe and understand the cultural place and its influence on the everyday lives of its members. Whatever one's opinions are about epistemological and methodological concerns regarding ethnographically derived knowledge (and there surely are such concerns, as for all methods), the remarkable findings from ethnographic work re¬garding the varying cultural tools children use to develop in cultural places throughout the world alone provide sufficient reason for ethnography's deep incorporation into developmental work. The chapters in this section offer interesting findings and their own models for how to integrate ethnography into developmental research. My comments on the chapters take advantage of their work to develop some general points about fieldwork and ethnography. First and foremost, eth¬nography and fieldwork get the researcher out into the cultural place of children and families. Once there, many ways of doing ethnography are possible and are illustrated in these chapters. Second, "methodocentrism,” the exclusive use of one method and fear of others, should be resisted as illustrated by these chapters. It is not plausible that any important question in developmental studies can be answered with a single method. Ethnography can and should be complementary with other methods. I suggest a way to talk about research methods different than the iconic qualitative/quantitative contrast, which seems to encourage polarizing discourse and is in any case not very useful or accurate. Third, ethnography is not limited only to early exploratory stages of research and to description of local meanings. It can and should be question driven; it provides valid evidence to test against our models of the world; and it produces findings, as these chapters demonstrate. Next, I suggest that ethnography is to the developmental sciences as siblings or cousins are to one another—a part of the same broad lineage in the naturalistic traditions of the social sciences. John Modell imagines ethnography and development as two fascinated and mutually dangerous lovers. Both metaphors are probably appropriate at times. Finally, I suggest that a number of salutary things would happier if fieldwork in another cultural place, like learning statistics, was a normal, expected part of every developmentalist's qualitative and mixed methods research training.

Positions mixed methods as natural complement to traditional qualitative and quantitative research, to present pragmatism as attractive philosophical for mixed methods research, and provide framework for designing and conducting mixed methods research. In doing this, we briefly review the paradigm “wars” and incompatibility thesis, we show some commonalities between quantitative and qualitative research, we explain the tenets of pragmatism, we explain the fundamental principle of mixed research and how to apply it, we provide specific sets of designs for the two major types of mixed methods research (mixed-model designs and mixed-method designs), and, finally, we explain mixed methods research as following (recursively) an eight-step process.

Low-skilled women in the 1990s took widely different paths in trying to support their children. Some held good jobs with growth potential, some cycled in and out of low-paying jobs, some worked part time, and others stayed out of the labor force entirely. Scholars have closely analyzed the economic consequences of these varied trajectories, but little qualitative or mixed method research has focused on the consequences of a mother’s career path on her children’s development. Making It Work, edited by Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Thomas Weisner, and Edward Lowe, looks past the economic statistics to illustrate how different employment trajectories affect the social and emotional lives of poor women and their children. Making It Work examines Milwaukee’s New Hope program, an experiment testing the effectiveness of an anti-poverty initiative that provided health and child care subsidies, wage supplements, and other services to full-time low-wage workers. Employing parent surveys, teacher reports, child assessment measures, ethnographic studies, and state administrative records, Making It Work provides a detailed picture of how a mother’s work trajectory affects her, her family, and her children’s school performance, social behavior, and expectations for the future. Rashmita Mistry and Edward D. Lowe find that increases in a mother’s income were linked to higher school performance in her children. Without large financial worries, mothers gained extra confidence in their ability to parent, which translated into better test scores and higher teacher appraisals for their children. JoAnn Hsueh finds that the children of women with erratic work schedules and non-standard hours—conditions endemic to the low-skilled labor market—exhibited higher levels of anxiety and depression. Conversely, Noemi Enchautegui-de-Jesus, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, and Vonnie McLoyd discover that better job quality predicted lower levels of acting-out and withdrawal among children. Perhaps most surprisingly, Anna Gassman-Pines, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, and Sandra Nay note that as wages for these workers rose, so did their marriage rates, suggesting that those worried about family values should also be concerned with alleviating poverty in America. It is too simplistic to say that parental work is either “good” or “bad” for children. Making It Work gives a nuanced view of how job quality, flexibility, and wages are of the utmost importance for the well-being of low-income parents and children.Looks past the economic statistics to illustrate how different employment trajectories affect the social and emotional lives of poor women and their children.

"Practical, accessible, careful and interesting, this...revised volume brings the subject up-to-date and explains, in bite sized chunks, the "how's" and "why's" of modern day geographical study...[It] brings together physical and human approaches again in a new synthesis." - Danny Dorling, Professor of Geography, University of Oxford Key Methods in Geography is the perfect introductory companion, providing an overview of qualitative and quantitative methods for human and physical geography.

This volume provides concise and accessible guidance on how to conduct qualitative research in human geography. It gives particular emphasis to examples drawn from social/cultural geography, perhaps the most vibrant area of inquiry in human geography over the past decade

This methods paper contributes to the recent proliferation of methodological innovation aimed at nurturing research encounters and exchanges that facilitate in-depth insights into people's everyday practices and routine place encounters. By drawing on the experiences of an interpretive study seeking to situate people's green space wellbeing practices within their daily lives, we suggest value in using personalised maps – produced using participant accelerometer (physical activity) and Global Positioning System (GPS) data – alongside in-depth and mobile ‘go-along’ qualitative interview approaches. After introducing the study and the methods adopted, the paper discusses three opportunities offered by this mixed method approach to contribute a more nuanced, contextualised understanding of participants' green space experiences. These include: (a) the benefits of engaging participants in the interpretation of their own practices; (b) the value of using maps to provide a visual aid to discussion about the importance of participants' routine, often pre-reflective practices; and (c) the production of a layered appreciation of participants' local green and blue space wellbeing experiences. Used in combination, such methods have the potential to provide a more comprehensive picture of how current green space experiences, be they infrequent and meaningful, or more routine and habitual, are shaped by everyday individual agency, life circumstances and past place experiences.

Systematic reviews conducted using either meta-analysis or meta-synthesis are well established methodological procedures for combining data and results across different quantitative or qualitative studies. Recently, a third option for systematic reviews has emerged. Systematic mixed studies reviews combine data and results across quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies. An important challenge is how to integrate the quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies. Here, we introduce the concept of “meta-integration”. Our overarching aim is to define and illustrate the novel concept of meta-integration as applied to convergent systematic mixed studies reviews using examples from our research on parental self-perception and autism spectrum disorder. Specifically, we present a typology for meta-integration procedures at two levels, both basic and advanced meta-integration. Three models, namely, basic convergent meta-integration, basic convergent qualitative meta-integration, and basic convergent quantitative meta-integration, combine quantitative and qualitative studies. Three additional models, namely, advanced convergent qualitative meta-integration, advanced convergent qualitative meta-integration, and advanced convergent quantitative meta-integration, combine quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies. The models generally follow six steps: (1) categorize data sources; (2) transform the data; (3) conduct intra-method synthesis; (4) conduct inter-method synthesis and/or integration; (5) organize results and assess fit; and (6) draw final conclusions. One basic and one advanced model do not involve data transformation. These models for conducting convergent meta-integration in systematic mixed studies reviews provide guidance for researchers to apply rigorous and coherent methodology. Following these procedures can substantively improve the quality of systematic reviews seeking to use quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies.