Firm International Experience in Global Markets: A Systematic Literature Review and Reconceptualization

The expansion of any scientific research field relies on a standardized shared language among scholars who have an initial consensus about the essence of its concepts. Such agreements are highly critical for basic concepts rooted in diverse parts of the literature, such as firm-level international experience (IE). Without IE, it is nearly impossible to analyze any aspect of a firm's international strategies and activities (e.g., Chen and Hsu 2010; Chiao, Lo, and Yu 2010; Evans, Mavondo, and Bridson 2008; Gençtürk and Kotabe 2001; Gregory, Karavdic, and Zou 2007; Hultman, Katsikeas, and Robson 2011). However, despite the importance of this concept, the literature is fragmented because of diversified IE conceptualizations.

The problem stems from the diversity of fundamental assumptions underlying the approaches to IE conceptualization and the lack of a unified understanding of the notion of experience. For example, most studies conceptualize IE as a unidimensional time-based concept, homogenizing it with age (e.g., Brouthers et al. 2009). However, this approach neglects the interactions between a social entity and its surroundings, equalizing “being” with “experiencing” and validating gaining experience with persistence, which is inadequate to explain the process of experiencing. Another common approach emphasizes diversity in the environment as a generator of experience (e.g., Hortinha, Lages, and Lages 2011). This approach is also inadequate because it separates the social entity from the environment and neglects its interaction with its surroundings, which equalizes the experiences of all attendees in a specific place, regardless of how they live in that environment. Another approach relies on the interaction between the social entity and its environment (e.g., Bortoluzzi et al. 2014), but this method ignores the benefits of previous approaches. To overcome these inadequacies, some scholars employ a multidimensional approach to IE conceptualization. However, the lack of a robust foundation to explain the notion of experience and its dimensions has resulted in diversified multidimensional approaches that often have nothing in common and neglect one another's benefits (e.g., compare Chiao, Lo, and Yu 2010; Evans, Mavondo, and Bridson 2008).

Diversified conceptualizations question the rationale behind the relationships between concepts, rendering the literature inconclusive and impractical (Zou and Cavusgil 2002). This undermines theory building, hinders theory enhancement, and decreases the generalizability and comparability of empirical knowledge (Aspelund, Madsen, and Moen 2007; Hansen, Shrader, and Monllor 2011). Marketing literature requires a unified and consistent conceptualization for each construct to prevent conflicting findings and provide integrated practical implications (Zou, Taylor, and Osland 1998). Numerous articles note this emergence and call for a more comprehensive IE conceptualization (e.g., Brouthers, O’Donnell, and Hadjimarcou 2005).

Solving this critical problem necessitates a comprehensive IE conceptualization that stems from a robust theoretical foundation and an inclusive literature review, which is the main aim of this article. However, the literature does specify a similar attempt. As the only review focused on firm-level IE over the past two decades, Clarke, Tamaschke, and Liesch (2013) suggest that different conceptualizations of IE might not necessarily be conceptually contradictory. Each approach may consider only one aspect (dimension) of a multifaceted construct, and combining the approaches can provide a more comprehensive conceptualization. Clarke, Tamaschke, and Liesch’s proposed IE conceptualization rests on this logic; however, the result suffers from some inadequacies. They jeopardize the generalizability of the outcomes by restricting the research context to the IE–performance relationship, and the study lacks a clear definition of the central concept (experience) and an analysis of its dynamics. Moreover, Clarke, Tamaschke, and Liesch analyze IE only at its general level, neglecting other levels of analysis such as entry mode experience. Finally, some critical dimensions of experience are not clearly emphasized, such as the impact of failed attempts and repetition. Nevertheless, I leverage their contribution to integrate the IE dimensions.

From these problems, I developed the following research questions:

RQ₁: What is the concept of experience, and how can we employ its philosophical principles to define IE?

Thus, I make the following contributions: I enhance the progress made by previous reviews, clarify neglected dimensions that few punctilious authors have employed, synthesize new IE dimensions on the basis of Dewey's philosophy, and propose a new IE conceptualization that is highly practical for all domains of international marketing, business, management, and entrepreneurship. This is a critical step in unifying the literature and enhancing the generalizability and comparability of future empirical findings. This outcome is also beneficial for future studies on related topics such as experiential knowledge and learning management.

Theoretical Background

Methodology

A systematic literature review (SLR) is an efficient scientific tool designed to bring generalizable and logical derivations by compiling and consolidating extant valid knowledge (Christofi, Vrontis, and Cadogan 2019; Mulrow 1994). High-quality SLRs contain at least six unique specifications: transparency, replicability, bias minimization, comprehensiveness, scientific logic, and rigorous accuracy (Butler et al. 2016; Phillips et al. 2015; Podgorodnichenko, Edgar, and McAndrew 2020; Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart 2003). Thus, building on previous SLR methods (e.g., Christofi, Vrontis, and Cadogan 2019; Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart 2003), I developed an eight-stage plan to meet the required qualifications: (1) define the aim of the research question, (2) design the search string, (3) select data sources, (4) develop inclusion and exclusion criteria, (5) refine the literature, (6) extract data, (7) present reports, and (8) synthesize meaningful outcomes.

As expressed in the research questions, I must recognize extant approaches to IE conceptualization in the literature. This question justifies the selection of SLR to obtain comprehensive data on how IE is employed in the literature. From the concepts employed in the “Theoretical Background” section, a preliminary investigation of IE-related literature reviews, empirical studies, and suggestions from other scholars, I selected a set of keywords. These keywords focus exclusively on the notion of experience, separating it from similar yet different concepts such as experiential learning and experiential knowledge. Additionally, I included similar terms and synonymous jargon commonly used in the literature due to dissimilarities in applied terminology to define IE. Eventually, I combined these terms to design a comprehensive search string, as presented in Web Appendix A. I conducted the search twice, and I conducted the final search on January 2, 2022, to update the outcome. The search string targeted titles, abstracts, and keywords of the studies (e.g., Christofi, Vrontis, and Cadogan 2019).

Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) are prioritized as databases for the SLR because of the quality of their search processes, the extent of validly indexed journals, and the reliability of their results (Rocha and Pinheiro 2021). Despite critics of Google Scholar (GS) (e.g., Mingers and Lipitakis 2010), it is included as the third database for two reasons. First, GS has been revealed to act as a suitable complementary database for SLR because of its vast and diverse journal coverage (e.g., Dinh and Calabrò 2019). Second, experience is one of the most commonly used control variables in literature. However, authors usually do not mention control variables in their keywords and abstracts, although they conceptualize control variables in detail in the variable sections (e.g., Brouthers, Nakos, and Dimitratos 2015; Dasí, Iborra, and Safón 2015). These studies could not be found using the usual search processes within Scopus and WOS. Accordingly, because GS can search the body of articles and find studies that use IE as a control variable, it is necessary to include it.

Figure 1 illustrates this process. However, I must address some points. First, journals from all realms of international business, marketing, entrepreneurship, and management are included to provide comprehensive and generalizable findings applicable to all these fields of research. Second, because of the inadequacy of GS filters, I imported the first 999 English results (the highest number observable in GS) to EndNote to check if they met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, high-quality articles were defined as those published in journals indexed in either the top two quartiles of Journal Citation Reports ¹ (e.g., Strike, Michel, and Kammerlander 2018) or the top quartile of Scimago Journal Rankings ² for 2019 or 2020 (e.g., Scott-Young, Georgy, and Grisinger 2019).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The Systematic Literature Review Process.

Consequently, 306 articles remained in the final sample. For the next step, I deeply perused the articles to extract four parts: the IE conceptualization, the employed measurement method, the theoretical explanation and core reasoning behind the IE conceptualization or operationalization, and any expressed limitations concerning the employed approaches to IE. All extracted sentences were coded inductively, and the resulting codes were grouped. Accordingly, eight categories (i.e., groups of codes) were created. Each category represents a distinct approach employed by at least one study to conceptualize IE. The eight categories are presented in Table 1. The following section explains the results. However, for brevity, a parsimonious approach is taken; reports concerning the list of IE definitions, the evolvement paths of the approaches, and influential articles on these paths are presented in Web Appendices B and C.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Approaches to IE Conceptualization in the Literature.

	Approach to Experience	Percentage of International Marketing Studies	Percentage of All Studies	Common Expressions	Examples of Operationalization Methods
1	Presence-based approach	1.7%	6.7%	Having an international market Having a specific entry mode	Binary measure of whether the firm has made any exports to date (Cumming, Fischer, and Peridis 2015)
2	Time-based approach	65.5%	48.7%	Number of years of operating abroad Number of years of maintaining a specific operation mode	Number of years of selling products outside the home country (Brouthers et al. 2009) Number of years since the first FDI (Chen and Hsu 2010)
3	Location-based approach	3.5%	2.3%	Number of firm’s operating markets	Number of markets the newly founded business unit was operating in (Hutzschenreuter et al. 2016)
4	Distance-based approach	0%	.3%	Difference between markets Psychic distance	Distance between Spain and the firm’s host country (García-García, García-Canal, and Guillén 2017) Average cultural distance of previous international endeavors of the firm (Oehme and Bort 2015)
5	Exchanges-based approach	3.5%	3.4%	Percentage of international sales	Percentage of international sales within the total sales of a firm (Bortoluzzi et al. 2014)
6	Commitment-based approach	1.7%	.3%	Amount of investments Involving personnel The ratio of overseas subsidiaries	Number of prior FDIs the multinational enterprise invested in the host country (Zeng et al. 2013a) Amount of foreign investments a venture capital firm made in the previous five years (Li, Vertinsky, and Li 2014) The ratio of the number of overseas subsidiaries to total subsidiaries (Wei et al. 2020)
7	Repetition-based approach	0%	11.5%	Number of previous similar activities such as mergers and acquisitions, alliances, FDIs, and so on	Number of previous international alliances the firm has been involved in (Robson et al. 2019)
8	Combinations of approaches	24.1%	26.8%	Time and locations	Years of foreign operations and the number of countries entered (Brouthers and Nakos 2005)
				Time and exchanges	Years of exporting and the number of export transactions (Gençtürk and Kotabe 2001)
				Time and commitments	Years of foreign operations and number of involved managers (Argouslidis and Indounas 2010)
				Locations and distance	Countries entered and diversity of entry modes (Johanson and Martín 2015).
				Exchanges and commitments	The ratio of foreign sales, assets, fixed assets, and employees (Chiao, Lo, and Yu 2010)
				Exchanges and locations	The percentage of international sales and the number of countries entered (Hohenthal 2006)
				Locations and commitments	Countries entered and the number of foreign equity investments (Kuo et al. 2012).
				Time, locations, and distance	Years of international operations, the number of countries, and the degree of similarity between them (Evangelista and Mac 2016).
				Time, locations, and exchanges	Years of international operations, percentage of international sales, and the number of markets (Hultman, Katsikeas, and Robson 2011)
				Time, locations, exchanges, and commitments	Years of international operations, percentage of international sales, number of countries entered, and number of subsidiaries in these countries (Myloni, Harzing, and Mirza 2007).

Results

The most evident issue in the literature is the lack of a comprehensive definition of experience. Most definitions focus only on the international aspect of the concept, neglecting the notion of experience. “Experience gained from foreign markets” is a common example highly employed in the marketing literature (e.g., Clarke, Tamaschke, and Liesch 2013; Gregory, Karavdic, and Zou 2007). Moreover, few studies define experience as the amount of knowledge a firm gains. The interchangeable usage of the terms “experiential knowledge” and “international experience” is not rare in the literature, although they are conceptually different. Experience is recognized as what makes (experiential) knowledge through the (experiential) learning process (Eriksson et al. 1997; Hutzschenreuter et al. 2016; Petersen, Pedersen, and Lyles 2008; Sandberg 2014). Experience has no linear relationship with knowledge (Barkema and Drogendijk 2007; Yelle 1979) or learning (Anand, Mulotte, and Ren 2016) because not all experiences are learned and codified into knowledge (Dewey [1938] 1997). Similarly, concepts such as “vicarious experiences” are not actually experiences in their philosophical essence. As proposed in the “Theoretical Background” section, experience stems from a situation. However, vicarious IE is achieved by observing other firms’ behaviors in specific international situations. Because the observer is separate from the process of experiencing, vicarious experience is more of a learning process than an actual experience.

Some studies define experience as a dimension of presence and exposure to international markets. For example, IE is defined as “the extensions, spread, and duration of presence in different countries” (Castellani and Zanfei 2004, pp. 447–48). Such definitions rely heavily on the operationalization aspect of the concept, indicating how the concept should be assessed. Terms such as “intensity” (e.g., Hohenthal 2006) and “diversity” (e.g., Hohenthal, Johanson, and Johanson 2014) imply the foreign sales ratio and number of markets, as operationalized in some definitions. However, the following definitions are closer to the notion of experience. Swoboda, Elsner, and Olejnik (2015) define IE as the degree of involvement in foreign market activities, and Pehrsson (2008) highlights the degree of familiarity. Such definitions contain a closer approach to the philosophical principles of experience, attempting to enlighten the true notion of experience. A list of these definitions is provided in Web Appendix B.

Concerning the analysis levels of IE, it was found that both marketing and business literature are highly focused on global levels of general and entry mode–specific situations. International marketing–specific situations are highly neglected at both the regional and global levels, demonstrating vast room for future empirical research. Table 2 demonstrates the focus of the marketing and business literature on the levels of international situations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

The Focus of IE Research Concerning International Situations in Marketing Studies Versus All Studies.

	Regional	Global
General situations	3.3% of marketing studies	44.6% of marketing studies
	8.9% of all studies	30.8% of all studies
Entry mode–specific situations	0% of marketing studies	50.4% of marketing studies
	8.9% of all studies	49.7% of all studies
International marketing–specific situations	0% of marketing studies	1.7% of marketing studies
	.6% of all studies	1.1% of all studies

In the next step, it is essential to report how the concept of international experience is conceptualized. As mentioned in the “Methodology” section, I observed eight approaches to IE conceptualization in the literature. Table 1 presents these approaches. As depicted in Column 2 of Table 1, seven of these approaches are distinct, whereas the eighth approach demonstrates a common method for combining the other seven approaches. Columns 3 and 4 illustrate how common these approaches are within the domains of international marketing and business, respectively. Column 5 lists common codes in the first seven categories. These phrases demonstrate how the approaches are commonly described in the literature. The exhibition of these phrases in Row 8 is unnecessary because it entails combinations of other rows. Thus, I provide some common examples of combinations. Column 6 provides examples of studies that employ these approaches, which are discussed briefly in this section.

The first approach (i.e., presence-based approach) to IE conceptualization is the only approach that observes experience as a static notion that emerges the moment a social entity encounters an incident. The basic assumption underlying this approach attenuates IE to an incident that can change the firm entirely. Therefore, IE does not increase but emerges entirely as the firm becomes international. This approach accepts the environment as a precondition for gaining experience. However, it neglects the dynamics of the situation and overlooks the enrichment of experience. The common operationalization method of this approach, which is the binary question of whether the firm has ever operated abroad, is inadequate to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the level of IE. It is a bipolar approach that divides firms into two groups: experienced and inexperienced. Accordingly, all international firms are considered equally experienced, with no difference in what they have faced in the international markets.

The second approach (i.e., time-based approach) is the most common in the literature and asserts that the longer a firm stays in a specific market, the more experience it gains. Therefore, it is commonly operationalized by counting the years of a firm’s presence in a specific environment. This approach considers IE to be a dynamic resource that can be accumulated if the social entity remains in an environment. The basic assumption underlying this approach is that a firm's environment constantly changes to generate new situations. Thus, it is logical to admit that persistence in changing environments and maintaining business in various situations can provide experience. Nevertheless, this approach is not adequate for evaluating IE. Equating presence with experience causes negligence of the firm's activity in the market. Active and temporarily inactive firms are often evaluated equally as long as they are present in the market. It is mainly because the type and amount of activity is inherently neglected in this approach. For example, temporary exporters and equity-based entrants are considered equally experienced in this approach.

The third approach (i.e., location-based approach) states that experience stems from the specification of the environment, so changing locations increases the experience of the firm. In this approach, IE is commonly operationalized by the number of locations a firm has faced (e.g., the number of countries). The basic assumption underlying this approach emphasizes locations as the main element that generates experience in different situations. Regardless of how long the firm has been operating in a market, the entry provides experience because the firm has encountered a new situation. Therefore, in contrast with the time-based approach, it is not important to consider if the firm’s markets are currently closed or temporarily inactive. However, this approach is also inadequate because it separates the firm from its markets and neglects its participation level. Moreover, the distances between markets are also ignored, meaning that firms operating in an equal number of markets gain similar experiences regardless of how much they are involved or how much difference they perceive in these markets.

The fourth approach (i.e., distance-based approach) admits that different locations provide experience, but its basic assumption emphasizes the perception of differences between these locations. In other words, the more a firm perceives differences between markets, the more it gains experience from operating in them. Similar or proximate markets have more specifications in common with the home market, and the firm is familiar with most upcoming situations. In contrast, highly different markets are unfamiliar and can provide new experiences. Reliable frameworks and indices are commonly used to evaluate these differences and operationalize this approach (e.g., García-García, García-Canal, and Guillén 2017). However, this approach is also inadequate. It neglects that experience resulting from a specific distant market is not gained equally, even for compatriot firms, because of differences in duration, type, and number of activities.

The fifth approach (i.e., exchanges-based approach) states that the more a firm engages in commercial exchanges with its market (e.g., sales), the more it gains experience. This approach is based on the assumption that higher sales levels lead a firm to encounter new situations concerning new customers, a new diversity of priorities in the market, new sales channels with divergent potentials, new advertisements, and new sales promotion methods (Gaur, Ma, and Ding 2018; Lukas, Whitwell, and Hill 2007). Accordingly, firms that sell more will have more experience, and these experiences may help them increase sales. However, this approach is too concentrated on interactions, neglecting specifications related to both the firm and its environment. For example, this approach ignores that an equal number of sales among firms may provide different levels of experience if the customers are culturally different or if different types of sales processes have been conducted.

The sixth approach (i.e., commitment-based approach) emphasizes a firm's commitment to international markets as the main source of IE. The basic assumption underlying this approach is that escalations in commitments will increase the friction between the firm and its environment, resulting in new priorities and situations that emerge from new activities. Because commitment is commonly conceptualized by the amount of investment, this approach is often evaluated by measuring the increase in any international investment, from properties to human resources. However, this approach is also focused on the interaction between the firm and its markets. It neglects environmental specifications, whereas similar investments in divergent markets provide different amounts of experience. Moreover, this approach ignores the duration through which investments can result in actual business situations.

The seventh approach (i.e., repetition-based approach) follows a simple yet basic assumption: experience results from the repetition of a specific behavior. Continuous behaviors provide deep experiences resulting from familiarity with stimuli and related interactions in a specific chain of situations. This approach is widely employed for entry mode experiences and is operationalized by the number of previous specific entries (e.g., Zakaria, Fernandez, and Schneper 2017). Those who have repeated a behavior encounter more detailed situations and gain more experience from that behavior. This approach, however, ignores the context and interactions. It is inadequate because it lacks all the benefits of other approaches.

The inherent inadequacies of the seven approaches have led numerous researchers to believe that IE is a multidimensional construct, and a comprehensive assessment of IE will be obtained only through a proper combination of these approaches (e.g., Brouthers and Nakos 2005; Hutzschenreuter et al. 2016). In other words, none of the seven approaches are invalid for assessing IE; however, they evaluate only an aspect of experience. Accordingly, combining these approaches can overcome their inadequacies and build a more comprehensive approach to IE (Clarke, Tamaschke, and Liesch 2013). The eighth approach relies on this assumption. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the combination of these approaches. Table 1 presents some examples of various combinations that have been employed to conceptualize IE. As indicated in the table, the combinations involve no more than four dimensions. This shortage stems from a lack of a comprehensive review to demonstrate all employed dimensions and a lack of a robust framework to validate the adherence of these dimensions. These are the two critical issues that this article addresses. In the following section, I follow the eighth approach and build on the framework extracted from Dewey's theory to integrate the literature.

Discussion

A New Approach to IE Conceptualization and Operationalization

In previous sections, I build on Dewey’s theory of experience to argue that any conceptualization of experience should entail its basic principles. Furthermore, I highlight the logic emphasized by Clarke, Tamaschke, and Liesch (2013) and employed by numerous empirical studies (i.e., the eighth approach) to argue that combining different approaches to IE can provide a more comprehensive conceptualization. In what follows, I integrate the approaches, justify them on the basis of Dewey’s principles of experience, and combine them to propose a more comprehensive IE conceptualization. The results entail seven dimensions: length, breadth, depth, intensity, diversity, complexity, and echo. This outcome is a critical step in integrating the literature. It should be noted that, as the definition of IE and all approaches rely on the assumption that the firm is internationalized, the inclusion of the first approach in the following analysis is unnecessary.

Spatiotemporality and IE length and breadth (integrating the first principle with the second and third approaches)

Spatiotemporality indicates that gaining experience depends on the duration of one's presence in a given situation. The second approach basically indicates the same for firms’ experiences in international markets. Time enables a firm to face more situations, digest the resulting experiences, evaluate them, turn them into knowledge, and rectify its future behavior (Bruneel, Clarysse, and Autio 2018; Hohenthal, Johanson, and Johanson 2014). This enables the firm to internalize lessons learned from experiences and improve its progress by manipulating future experiences (Camisón and Villar-López 2010; Hohenthal, Johanson, and Johanson 2014; Petersen, Pedersen, and Lyles 2008). Although the time dimension has also been labeled “internationalization duration” or “internationalization age,” I call it “IE length” because it demonstrates the period in which a firm faces international situations.

Spatiotemporality also implies that the number of locations increases with experience. The third approach indicates the same for firms’ experiences in international markets. Firms with similar IE lengths differ in the number of markets they face. International firms operating in more markets are more experienced in handling different situations and proposing divergent practical solutions (Zahra, Ireland, and Hitt 2000; Zhang et al. 2010). Increasing the number of markets motivates comparisons between situations and reactions, ultimately generating generalizable experiential knowledge (Evangelista and Mac 2016; Hohenthal, Johanson, and Johanson 2014). Because a considerable share of the knowledge gained by IE is transferable and applicable at different times and locations (Camisón and Villar-López 2010; Welch and Welch 1996), firms with more markets are more likely to choose the best responses to various environmental stimuli (Hohenthal, Johanson, and Johanson 2014). “IE breadth” implies the number of different markets the firm operates in, which might not necessarily be geographically different.

Habit and IE diversity and complexity (integrating the second principle with the fourth approach)

Habit and the fourth approach are both dependent on the degree of diversity among situations. This may stem from the degree of dissimilarity between the markets or the firm's activities. Although both are possible according to the notion of experience, the former is more common in the literature. More diverse markets lead firms to face new challenges in upcoming situations. Overcoming these challenges provides valuable experiences that are useful in similar environments. Such enhancements decrease psychic distance and increase the firm's tendency to prioritize operating in similar markets (Eriksson et al. 1997). Thus, more distant and diverse markets provide richer experiences (Westjohn and Magnusson 2017). This logic justifies concepts such as cultural distance experience (e.g., Oehme and Bort 2015) and proximate market experience (e.g., Zeng et al. 2013b).

Diversity can also imply the degree of difference between a firm's processes and routines. In other words, complexity within a firm provides experience. I previously argued that every experience is also an experience of different facets of ourselves (Landgrebe 1973; Russon 2003). Diversified activities (complexity) provide a richer understanding of ourselves, making us more experienced for upcoming events. Firms with diversified entries are more likely to enter and handle different environments (Casillas and Moreno-Menéndez 2014; Hutzschenreuter et al. 2016). Similarly, diversified processes and activities (e.g., products and marketing activities) differentiate similar mode entrants in terms of experience gained (Luo and Peng 1999). “IE diversity” can be operationalized by any index that measures institutional differences between markets, and “IE complexity” can be operationalized by measuring differences in entry modes, products, marketing, and/or production processes in foreign markets.

Involvement and IE intensity and depth (integrating the third principle with the fifth and sixth approaches)

The more a firm is involved in its environment, the more experience it gains from it. A firm's existence in foreign markets without any specific or temporarily suspended activity provides no experience (Petersen, Pedersen, and Lyles 2008). The principle of involvement is observed in the literature through the exchange-based (“IE intensity”) and commitment-based (“IE depth”) approaches:

1. Depth implies that an increase in the volume of investments (e.g., foreign assets) makes the firm more deeply involved in its environment. Highly committed firms face more situations and learn deeper lessons than less committed firms (Casillas and Moreno-Menéndez 2014). Highly committed firms gain experiences that less committed firms will eventually seek to learn from (Akbar et al. 2018; Hayward 2002).

2. Intensity emphasizes the volume of the firm's business interactions in foreign markets (e.g., exchanges with customers, suppliers). Firms exchanging more within the same market gain more experience, learn more, and increase their success rate (Camisón and Villar-López 2010; Chetty, Eriksson, and Lindbergh 2006; Luo and Peng 1999).

IE depth is a broader concept than entry mode escalation because it can include any type of investment, such as an increase in the number of international staff. Similarly, IE intensity is a broader concept than internationalization intensity because it also includes all interactions the firm has along its value chain in the foreign market. Increasing involvement through either of these methods provides valuable experiences because problems and issues affecting various stakeholders increase as business activities and investments increase (Casillas and Moreno-Menéndez 2014; Chetty, Eriksson, and Lindbergh 2006). IE depth can be operationalized as the ratio of foreign investments to total investments, and IE intensity can be operationalized as the ratio of a firm's international exchanges along its foreign value chain to total exchanges.

Continuity and IE echo (integrating the fourth principle with the seventh approach)

Aligned with the principle of continuity, the seventh approach highlights the effects of repeating one behavior. Firms are inclined to repeat experienced behaviors that provide tangible feedback (Collins et al. 2009; Pehrsson 2020). This repetition increases a firm's familiarity with related situations, reduces uncertainty, enhances efficiency in practice, and increases the success rate (Casillas and Moreno-Menéndez 2014; Nadolska and Barkema 2007). These benefits are gained regardless of the (perceived) results of the experience (Argote and Miron-Spektor 2011). In other words, success and failure are valuable experiences that benefit the firm. Firms learn from these experiences and use the lessons learned to rectify capabilities, decisions, and future behaviors (Guler and Guillén 2010; Robson et al. 2019).

“IE echo” implies that although repeating an action may lead to success or failure, the nature of repetition provides experience regardless of the results. Experiences stemming from failed attempts to enter one market may lead to a successful entry into a similar market. Similarly, experience stemming from business shutdowns in various foreign markets may improve a firm's operations in future branches. It is logical, but the literature has rarely observed that failed attempts and currently closed branches are counted.

The seven dimensions integrate the approaches employed in 306 high-quality articles within Dewey’s theory of experience and provide a comprehensive IE conceptualization. Although any experience at any level of analysis entails these dimensions, it is necessary to provide some operationalization guidelines. I discuss this topic in the next section.

Figure 2 summarizes the discussion. The outer circle demonstrates experience with its four basic principles. The inner circle illustrates the international aspect of experience and its seven dimensions. The position of the inner circle within the outer circle implies the emergence of IE conceptualization from the notion of experience. Moreover, the arrangement of the dimensions demonstrates how each IE dimension is derived from the corresponding basic principle.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

A Model for Experience and International Experience.

Guidelines for Operationalization

Concepts are context based, and their operationalization depends on the specifications of the sample and research. Although the presented IE conceptualization aims to unify the literature, contextualizing the concept during its operationalization should not be neglected. In this section, I discuss two main issues that should be considered during IE operationalization. First, the operationalization of the concept is determined by its analysis level within the international situation typology. Second, not all dimensions are equally important in every study. The value of each IE dimension depends on the study's context and the specifications of the investigated firms. I explain this purpose further.

Before investigating the notion of experience, it is essential to determine its position within the international situation typology. Concepts such as the “Asia FDI experience” necessitate a different form of operationalization than concepts such as “foreign market experience.” The operationalization of the seven dimensions should be coordinated with the position of the concept within the international situation typology. Moreover, scholars may find various indicators to assess each dimension within every typology level. Thus, I present Table 3 to demonstrate the common indicators employed in the literature for the operationalization of each dimension. Although providing a detailed approach to the operationalization of IE requires a comprehensive meta-analysis or empirical research, this report can be a good start to enhance the process. To better help future empirical and quantitative research, the examples provided in Table 3 are from studies that combine multiple dimensions.

Although the best step is to obtain sufficient data to assess all IE dimensions, that is often difficult. There are always some limitations concerning the availability of data for authors working with archival data sets. Thus, when such shortages are observable, I suggest focusing on the specific aspects of IE and naming the concept accordingly. For example, spatiotemporal IE demonstrates that the research only reflects data concerning time and the number of markets. Similarly, it is better to name the concept “IE length” instead of “IE” when the number of years are the only data available. “IE echo and breadth” fits better when the only data available are the number of previous attempts and markets. “Habitual IE,” “repetitive IE,” and “involving IE” demonstrate that gaining data on other dimensions and achieving a comprehensive conceptualization was impossible. Therefore, the scholar has been forced to focus on only one aspect of IE. Consistent naming, definition, and conceptualization of IE help integrate empirical findings, enhance the validity of future meta-analyses, and provide consistency for implications.

The value of each dimension depends strongly on the firm’s and industry's specifications. For example, IE depth or breadth is more critical than IE length for entrepreneurial firms and young born globals. These firms are often younger than five years; thus, IE length might not differentiate these firms as effectively as other IE dimensions. Similarly, the value of each IE dimension depends strongly on the industry's specifications such as technology, levels of uncertainty, the complexity of products, and the rate of change. For example, firms in the furniture industry and firms in the information technology and robotics industries do not gain similar volumes of experience over time. In addition, IE breadth and echo may play a more critical role in manufacturing firms than service firms. Moreover, an increase in sales may provide more IE for apparel firms than software firms. Thus, it is crucial to employ approaches such as categorization, weighting, and so on during the operationalization of IE.

The duration of foreign operations’ temporary shutdowns should be excluded in the assessment of IE length.

For firms that have escalated their presence mode, previous modes should also be considered because of the differences in entry mode–specific situations.

Short-term successful or unsuccessful foreign projects also provide valuable regional IE.

Studies often apply firm age and IE as control variables in empirical research. However, employing both concepts may be tautological for born globals or international new ventures. I recommend removing firm age in favor of keeping IE operationalization concrete.

CEO IE could be included for exporting microsized entrepreneurial firms because the decision-making systems of these firms rely entirely on CEOs. This dependency decreases as a firm grows.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Examples for Operationalization of Different Dimensions of IE.

Dimension	The Most Common Indicators Used to Assess the Dimension	Additional Recommendations	Global
			General	Entry Mode Specific (e.g., FDI)	International Marketing Specific(e.g., Advertising)
Length	Number of years	Temporary shutdowns should be excluded	Duration of operating internationally (e.g., how many years has the firm been internationalized?)	Years of operating with the specific entry mode internationally (e.g., how many years has the firm conducted FDI in foreign markets?)	Years of conducting the specific marketing task internationally (e.g., how many years has the firm conducted international advertising?)
Breadtha	Number of markets	It can also be differentiated on the basis of non- geographically different markets, especially when the concept is measured at a regional level	Number of markets worldwide (e.g., how many markets has the firm operated in worldwide?)	Number of markets entered using a specific entry mode (e.g., how many markets has the firm entered using FDI?)	Number of markets the task is conducted in (e.g., in how many markets has the firm conducted its advertising strategies?)
Depthb	International assets to total assets	The ratio should entail all international investments of the firm	Ratio of international investments worldwide (e.g., what is ratio of all international investments to total investments?)	Ratio of international investments using a specific entry mode (e.g., what is ratio of FDI investments worldwide to total investments?)	Ratio of international investment used to conduct the task (e.g., what is ratio of investments in foreign advertising to total investments?)
Intensityb	International sales to total sales	The ratio should entail all international transactions of the firm across its value chain	Ratio of international transactions worldwide (e.g., what is the ratio of transactions worldwide to total transactions?)	Ratio of transactions acquired through a specific entry mode (e.g., what is the ratio of FDI-related transactions to total transactions?)	Ratio of transactions acquired as a result of the task (e.g., what is the ratio of transactions of international advertising to total transactions?)
Diversityc	Common indices such as Heritage, Globe, Hofstede, and so on	It can be restricted to a specific institutional difference depending on the context of the study	The degree of difference between markets (e.g., how diverse are the markets of the firm?)	The degree of difference between markets entered using a specific entry mode (e.g., how diverse are the markets the firm has FDI in?)	The degree of difference between markets the task is conducted in (e.g., how diverse are the markets the firm is advertising in?)
Complexityd	Number of different products	It should include processes and ongoing entry modes	The degree of difference between the firm’s entry modes and activities (e.g., how diverse are the activities of the firm worldwide?)	The degree of difference between the activities within the specific entry mode worldwide (e.g., how diverse are the processes within the firm’s FDIs?)	The degree of complexity within the task (e.g., how complex are the international advertising activities?)
Echo	Number of previous attempts	It should include both successful and failed attempts	Number of previous entries including both failures and successes (e.g., how many entries does the firm have so far, including active or terminated ones?)	Number of previously failed and successful entries using the specific entry mode (e.g., how many FDIs does the firm have so far, including active or terminated ones?)	Number of previous attempts in conducting the task (e.g., how many international advertising projects does the firm have so far, including active or terminated ones?)

^aDepending on the research context, the index of differentiation might not be geographical.

^bFinancial measures constitute these measurements.

^cValid international indices or a subjective assessment of IE using the Likert scale can be used for this measure.

^dNumerous types of entries, products, and processes can be used. The importance of each element depends on the study's context.

Notes: This table provides examples of the operationalization of IE at the global level. A similar approach can be adopted at the regional level; however, the scope should be limited to a specific region. One crucial point is that the IE breadth and diversity at the regional level indicate nongeographically different markets within the region.

Conclusion and Other Future Research Avenues

There is little disagreement among scholars about the importance of experience's role in the firm's path toward international markets. However, a critical disagreement is observable in the literature about the essence of this notion and how it should be conceptualized comprehensively. This inconsistency has led authors to observe this notion from various angles, resulting in numerous valuable empirical findings that are not generalizable or comparable. As conceptualizing such a complex concept necessitates a deep analysis of its roots and essence, a wider perspective is necessary to solve the problem and provide a consensus among scholars.

In this article, I employ Dewey's basic groundwork, compile extant approaches to IE conceptualization, and integrate the thoughts to propose a comprehensive IE conceptualization. I build a framework on the basis of philosophy and fill it with extant marketing, business, entrepreneurship, and management approaches. The results entail extant methods while standing on the shoulders of philosophical principles.

My new IE conceptualization enhances the theory in multiple ways. First, it emphasizes situations as the origin of experiences. Analyzing IE on the basis of the situation is a novel approach in the literature. Second, it entails a philosophical groundwork to validate each dimension, as previous reviews lacked such a robust foundation. Third, I introduced new dimensions for IE, as previous conceptualizations of IE do not observe more than four dimensions. This contribution significantly enhances the theorization of experience and provides multiple future research avenues. Thus, this article takes multiple critical steps to reduce confusion in the literature, prohibit contradictions in empirical findings, and integrate the literature by providing a comprehensive, generalizable conceptualization.

Nevertheless, this article also makes other contributions. First, by providing a comprehensive typology of international situations, a new approach to analyzing various levels of IE is presented. Accordingly, a new step is adopted to diversify the concepts that indicate various aspects of IE. Moreover, this article illustrates the state of IE in marketing literature, demonstrating the locus of attention, and determining which IE levels should be investigated further. Although international marketing literature is replete with empirical studies that employ IE in its general global form, I found that international marketing literature has neglected lower levels of analysis. Generally, the concept of international marketing experience (IME) appears to be emphasized less in the marketing literature. Searching for IME in Scopus and WOS provided relatively few results that were mostly irrelevant. Marketing scholars should investigate the experiences resulting from international marketing strategies and activities. However, these topics have been examined by only a few international business studies. International marketing–specific situations include various types of experiences resulting from customer attraction and retention, planning, pricing, advertising, delivery, services, and so on. These experiences could be investigated separately or integrated within the concept of IME. IME is about the friction between the firm and its customers. Future studies could focus on this concept or its individual elements to expand knowledge of the effects of experience resulting from international marketing activities. I should add that any conceptualization of IME or its constituent elements entails the seven dimensions presented in this article.

Although this article is embedded in the context of marketing, it provides practical contributions to all fields of research. It is obvious that IE research is highly appealing to all domains of international marketing, business, entrepreneurship, and management. I took two steps to provide generalizable findings that are usable and practical for all research fields. First, I included articles published in all four domains. Second, I analyzed the notion of IE regardless of the domains’ specifications. Accordingly, the resulting model can be used for all the domains.

Finally, my endeavor provides a valuable research avenue for future investigations. First, the philosophical framework deduced from Dewey's philosophy could act as a robust foundation to investigate similar concepts such as managerial experience, marketing teams’ experiences, firms’ industry or domestic experience, and so on. Second, the presented conceptualization of IE could help researchers investigate critical concepts, such as experiential knowledge and learning, because it could provide a comprehensive approach to the sources from which a firm can gain the required information and the processes through which the firm can better codify these sources into experiential knowledge. Third, although IE has multiple dimensions, it would be interesting to determine how different firms in divergent contexts benefit from each dimension. As emphasized in the previous section, the operationalization of IE should be contextualized with respect to firm type, industry specifications, and so on. Different firms and industries stress each dimension of IE differently. Thus, future empirical research can provide fruitful insights by investigating these weights and demonstrating the divergent roles of each dimension in different contexts. Finally, as knowledge expands and there is no limit to investigating any concept, future IE-focused reviews could build on the groundwork presented in this article and provide an updated approach to different forms of IE.

Supplemental Material