The Unique Value of Yin-Yang Balancing: A Critical Response

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 321-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Ping Li
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Management Research ◽  
Chinese Management ◽  
Indigenous Management ◽  
Critical Response ◽  
Yin Yang ◽  
Cognitive Frame ◽  
Positive Perspective ◽  
The Common

I welcome any well-informed debate over the unique value of Yin-Yang as a cognitive frame in the development of Chinese indigenous management research. The commentary by Xin Li to engage in a debate is timely. Xin Li and I share the same premise that ‘we need indigenous Chinese management research to offer new insights and contribute to the development of truly universal theories’ (Li, X., 2014: 8). That is the common ground upon which we can debate over how best to engage in indigenous research with confidence in balance so as to avoid both overconfidence and under-confidence.Where we depart from the above common ground is our different perspectives about the value of the Yin-Yang frame. Xin Li challenges my positive perspective on the unique value of the Yin-Yang frame on several dimensions. First, he characterizes my perspective as ‘both/and’ in sharp contrast to Aristotle’s ‘either/or’ logic. Second, he characterizes my perspective as arguing that ‘Yin-Yang thinking is superior to other logical systems and philosophies’ (Li, X., 2014: 8). Third, he implies that my perspective on the Yin-Yang frame is essentially a claim that ‘Westerners cannot think in a non-either/or way’ (Li, X., 2014: 8). Fourth, the above challenges are based upon his basic claim that the Yin-Yang frame is just one form of dialectical framing (Li, X., 2014). Based on these claims, Xin Li warns against the ‘danger of overconfidence’ among Chinese management scholars (Li, X., 2014: 8).

The Road More Popular versus the Road Less Travelled: An ‘Insider's’ Perspective of Advancing Chinese Management Research

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bor-Shiuan Cheng ◽  
An-Chih Wang ◽  
Min-Ping Huang
Keyword(s):  
Theory Development ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Management Theory ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Management Research ◽  
Empirical Examination ◽  
Chinese Management ◽  
Indigenous Management ◽  
The Road

To complement Barney and Zhang's as well as Whetten's articles in this issue of Management and Organization Review, we offer ways to develop indigenous management theory to explain unique Chinese management phenomena. We first briefly review the imbalance of developing theories of Chinese management versus developing Chinese theories of management in Chinese research societies. We then describe a five-step research process that uses an indigenous research approach to theory development: discovery of interesting phenomena, field observations, construction of the theoretical framework, empirical examination, and theory refinement. This process may be useful not only in the Chinese context, but also in any other context. We identify several challenges in both Chinese and international academic societies that must be overcome to facilitate learning across the two approaches proposed by Barney and Zhang: the need for high quality journals in the Chinese language, international journals' efforts to ease the imbalance between the two approaches, and collaboration between Chinese and Western management schools.

Indigenous Management Research in China from an Engaged Scholarship Perspective

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew H. Van de Ven ◽  
Runtian Jing
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Theoretical Knowledge ◽  
Management Research ◽  
Engaged Scholarship ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Specific Knowledge ◽  
Chinese Management ◽  
Indigenous Management ◽  
Cultural Boundaries

This commentary discusses the four articles in this special MOR issue on indigenous management research in China. It begins by recognizing the importance of indigenous research not only for understanding the specific knowledge of local phenomena, but also for advancing general theoretical knowledge across cultural boundaries. Challenging to undertake, we propose a method of engaged scholarship for conducting indigenous research. The four articles in this special issue provide good examples of applying principles of engaged scholarship in their indigenous Chinese management studies.

Introduction to the Special Research Forum— Public Policy and Management Research: Finding the Common Ground

2009 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 1088-1100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Kochan ◽  
Mauro F. Guillen ◽  
Larry W. Hunter ◽  
Siobhan O'Mahony
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Research Finding ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Management Research ◽  
The Common

Can Yin-Yang Guide Chinese Indigenous Management Research?

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Li
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Philosophy ◽  
Ancient Greece ◽  
The Other ◽  
Management Research ◽  
The West ◽  
Complementarity Principle ◽  
Indigenous Management ◽  
True Value ◽  
Yin Yang ◽  
Compare And Contrast

In this article, I argue that it is misleading to dichotomize the West as being either/or and the East as being both/and. The West has thought dialectically since ancient Greece. I offer a typology to compare and contrast three dialectical or non-either/or logical systems or ways of thinking: Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, Hegel's dialectic, and Niels Bohr's complementarity principle, as well as Aristotle's formal (either/or) logic. I show that the four logical systems have differences and similarities and show that Westerners can and do think dialectically. I also argue that Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, while useful and powerful in some situations, is not always superior to the other logical systems and philosophies. My purpose is to alert Chinese management scholars to the dangers of overconfidence and to stimulate discussion and debate on the true value of Yin-Yang in particular and the promotion of Chinese indigenous management research in general. To that end, I present my opinion on the merits and drawbacks of Yin-Yang and posit that it may inspire but cannot guide Chinese indigenous management research because Chinese philosophy lacks a well-defined methodology and operationalizable methods.

Contextualizing or decontextualizing? The peril of using Western social capital scales in China

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherry L. Avery ◽  
Judy Y. Sun ◽  
Patricia M. Swafford ◽  
Edmund L. Prater
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Master Of Business Administration ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Management Research ◽  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Chinese Context ◽  
Chinese Management ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Post Hoc

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to promote Chinese indigenous research by examining a case in which adopting social capital (SC) scales developed in the Western context for Chinese samples can decontextualize inter-firm guanxi management in the Chinese context. Design/methodology/approach – Adopting the existing Western scales to measure SC, we collected data from Chinese executives participating in executive master of business administration programs on buyer–supplier relationship. Using the same items and data source, we identified post hoc factors representing guanxi dimensions. Ordinary least squared regressions were used for both guanxi and SC dimensions to test the hypotheses. Findings – Our analysis showed that Chinese natives responded to the Western SC items according to their understanding and mindsets rooted in guanxi. This was evidenced by the results from the post hoc-derived guanxi dimensions with the same data, which show better regression results for the hypotheses tested, although the construct validity was comparable. Adopting Western SC measurement scales deconceptualized the intricate Chinese context and inter-firm interactions. Research limitations/implications – It is inappropriate to borrow Western-developed scales for Chinese HRM research due to intricate differences in contexts. Doing so may run the risk of ignoring the Chinese context regarding the mechanisms and processes of complex human interactions, although it may produce superficial results consistent with the Western literature. Developing indigenous measurement scales should be considered not only as a preference but also as a requirement for Chinese management research. Originality/value – We empirically compared the difference between Western-developed measurement scales and a Chinese indigenous construct, as well as their impact on relationship management in relation to indigenous Chinese management research.

The Semantics of Evidentials

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Murray
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Formal Semantics ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

This book gives a compositional, truth‐conditional, crosslinguistic semantics for evidentials set in a theory of the semantics for sentential mood. Central to this semantics is a proposal about a distinction between what propositional content is at‐issue, roughly primary or proffered, and what content is not‐at‐issue. Evidentials contribute not‐at‐issue content, more specifically what I will call a not‐at‐issue restriction. In addition, evidentials can affect the level of commitment a sentence makes to the main proposition, contributed by sentential mood. Building on recent work in the formal semantics of evidentials and related phenomena, the proposed semantics does not appeal to separate dimensions of illocutionary meaning. Instead, I argue that all sentences make three contributions: at‐issue content, not‐at‐issue content, and an illocutionary relation. At‐issue content is presented, made available for subsequent anaphora, but is not directly added to the common ground. Not‐at‐issue content directly updates the common ground. The illocutionary relation uses the at‐issue content to impose structure on the common ground, which, depending on the clause type (e.g., declarative, interrogative), can trigger further updates. Empirical support for this proposal comes from Cheyenne (Algonquian, primary data from the author’s fieldwork), English, and a wide variety of languages that have been discussed in the literature on evidentials.

Can Groups Assert That P?

2019 ◽  
pp. 326-344
Author(s):  
Deborah Tollefsen
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Single Individual ◽  
Constitutive Rule ◽  
The Past ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Common ◽  
Declarative Statement ◽  
John Macfarlane

When a group or institution issues a declarative statement, what sort of speech act is this? Is it the assertion of a single individual (perhaps the group’s spokesperson or leader) or the assertion of all or most of the group members? Or is there a sense in which the group itself asserts that p? If assertion is a speech act, then who is the actor in the case of group assertion? These are the questions this chapter aims to address. Whether groups themselves can make assertions or whether a group of individuals can jointly assert that p depends, in part, on what sort of speech act assertion is. The literature on assertion has burgeoned over the past few years, and there is a great deal of debate regarding the nature of assertion. John MacFarlane has helpfully identified four theories of assertion. Following Sandy Goldberg, we can call these the attitudinal account, the constitutive rule account, the common-ground account, and the commitment account. I shall consider what group assertion might look like under each of these accounts and doing so will help us to examine some of the accounts of group assertion (often presented as theories of group testimony) on offer. I shall argue that, of the four accounts, the commitment account can best be extended to make sense of group assertion in all its various forms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document