Methodological issues in expatriate studies and future directions

Advancement in a field is linked to the rigour and relevance of its research (Aguinis and Edwards, 2014; Scandura and Williams, 2000). Indeed, the methodologies used in research studies directly affect the validity and generalizability of the results obtained (Aguinis and Edwards, 2014; Mitchell, 1985; Scandura and Williams, 2000). The field of human resource management (HRM) has recently seen an increase in the number of research studies into long-term (that is, more than a year) skilled (that is, usually holding at least a bachelor’s degree) international mobility. Recent reviews in HRM, international HRM (IHRM), international business (IB), international management (IM) and management confirm an ongoing and substantial empirical interest in the most common form: international assignees or assigned expatriates (e.g., Dabic et al., 2013; Harvey and Moeller, 2009; Lin et al., 2012; Shaffer et al., 2012; Takeuchi, 2010). Increasingly, self-initiated expatriates (e.g., Doherty, 2013; Dorsch et al., 2013; Shaffer et al., 2012; Vaiman et al., 2015) and skilled migrants (e.g., Al Ariss and Crowley-Henry, 2013; Al Ariss et al., 2012; Findlay and Cranston, 2015; Guo and Al Ariss, 2015; Syed, 2008) are also attracting empirical interest in HRM. The aim of this chapter is to compare the research methods employed in studies of the three forms of long-term skilled international mobility to assess any systematic patterns that may differentially influence their results.