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.

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.

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).

Indigenous Research on Chinese Management: What and How

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Ping Li ◽  
Kwok Leung ◽  
Chao C. Chen ◽  
Jar-Der Luo
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Engaged Scholarship ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Chinese Management ◽  
Methodological Approaches

We attempt to provide a definition and a typology of indigenous research on Chinese management as well as outline the general methodological approaches for this type of research. We also present an integrative summary of the four articles included in this special issue and show how they illustrate our definition and typology of indigenous research on Chinese management, as well as the various methodological approaches we advocate. Further, we introduce a commentary on the four articles from the perspective of engaged scholarship, and also three additional articles included in this issue. Finally, we conclude with our suggestions for future indigenous research.

scholarly journals MOR Special Issue: Indigenous Management Research in China

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 431-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwok Leung ◽  
China Peter Ping Li ◽  
Chao C. Chen ◽  
Jar-Der Luo
Keyword(s):  
Management Research ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Indigenous Management

scholarly journals Approaches to Scale Development in Chinese Management Research

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiing-Lih Farh ◽  
Albert A. Cannella ◽  
Cynthia Lee
Keyword(s):  
Scale Development ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Management Research ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Chinese Management ◽  
Cultural Specificity

We classify survey scales or measures currently used in Chinese management research along two dimensions - the source of the scale and expectations about its cultural specificity. Based on these two dimensions, we differentiate four approaches to scale development: translation, adaptation, de-contextualization, and contextualization. We describe the key assumptions, strengths and limitations of each approach and their roles in Chinese management research. We illustrate the four approaches by commenting on the five articles in this special issue.

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.

scholarly journals MOR Special Issue: Indigenous Management Research in China

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-166
Author(s):  
Kwok Leung ◽  
Peter Ping Li ◽  
Chao C. Chen ◽  
Jar-Der Luo
Keyword(s):  
Management Research ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Indigenous Management

scholarly journals MOR Special Issue: Indigenous Management Research in China

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-288
Author(s):  
Kwok Leung ◽  
Peter Ping Li ◽  
Chao C. Chen ◽  
Jar-Der Luo
Keyword(s):  
Management Research ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Indigenous Management
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document