Cross-cultural management research is done in both the positivist and the interpretive paradigms. Calls are repeatedly made to consider this diversity, thus asking for more multiparadigm research, which is both challenging and methodologically vague. This article proposes a clear method for a bi-paradigm study leading to theory development. Multiparadigm studies present challenges that are first explained and then addressed with the strategy of interplay. The authors assert that interplay is a paradigmatic conversation that respects and builds upon the connections and differences between paradigm's components used by Kuhn to stress continuity and change during scientific revolutions. With the Kulturstandard method, the authors illustrate the feasibility of interplay between the positivist and the interpretive paradigms. Interplay is reached by first conducting analyses in their respective paradigms. Then, in light of each other, they reveal mutually enriching themes that lead to a shift of attention toward a venue of interplay. This venue is then explored to investigate its respectful consideration of the paradigms and how it contributes to theory. The authors conclude by underscoring the methodological contributions of this article to multiparadigm research.

Cross-cultural management research is often confined to the positivist tradition, which is archetypically illustrated by the seminal work of Hofstede. However, this gives an incomplete overview of the field to which three additional research paradigms contribute: interpretivist, postmodern, and critical. Our ambition is to raise awareness of the presence of multiple paradigms in cross-cultural management research. This meta-theoretical positioning allows researchers to consider the insights and contributions from the different paradigms. We aim to achieve this by presenting a brief overview of the state of the field in each paradigm, thus, stressing areas of studies that enrich our understanding of the interaction between culture and management (at the national, organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels). We then highlight the specific contributions of these four paradigms, drawing especially upon the postmodern and critical works, as they have been repeatedly overlooked in reviews. The article concludes by mentioning how more interactions between the paradigms can be developed and can lead to further knowledge development.

Cross-cultural management research made an international breakthrough from a macro-comparative perspective with the seminal work of Hofstede. The main purpose of early research in this field was to put forward the idea that culture had an influence on organizations, business and management. Yet, by now, the awareness that culture and cultural differences play their role has become a part of the organizational and managerial body of knowledge. Hence, the current question to be investigated is how exactly cultureor the perception of cultural differencesbecomes important and meaningful in complex and often paradoxical situations. This question is based on the understanding that the cultural context of every given situation, interaction or organization might be characterized by multiple elements, dormant or salient cultural identities, complex and fluid processes of meaning making and more. This special issue contributes to this new development in the field of cross-cultural management. Many scholars have asked that other factors than national culture be considered (Holden et al., 2015; Sackmann, 1997; Tsui et al., 2007), giving the impression of a search for the exhaustive list of variables influencing international and intercultural interactions. In contrast to the latter, we do not see context as an accumulation of different factors but rather as intertwined dynamic complexities, of which power is an important factor. It means that, rather than the search for even more influencing factors, it is the investigation of how these factors are interconnected and how power relationships take part in this combination that becomes of interest. In other words, we wish to stress the point that power manifests itself in multiple, context-specific ways which need to be investigated critically.

No abstract

Critical perspectives on cross-cultural management (CCM) are increasingly present in our research community; however, they are spread over multiple research fields (e.g., international business, International Human Resource Management (IHRM), diversity, and gender and/or race studies). Critical researchers tend to have agendas and foci that address topics others consider beyond CCM's scope, such as gender in intercultural training, religion in the multi-cultural workplace, or the relationship between CCM knowledge and the military. We intend to sketch here the contours of this stream of research we call critical CCM and to clarify the broadly shared research studies' agenda. By using Burrell and Morgan (1979) matrix and stressing critical studies' inspirations in two paradigms, radical structuralism and radical humanism, we propose a paradigmatic positioning of the studies. Subsequently, we articulate Critical CCM research agenda around denaturalization, reflexivity, and emancipation. We conclude by asserting a critical performative agenda in a dialog with practitioners. In brief, our ambition is to specifically outline Critical CCM research and show its emergent contribution to CCM research.

International human resource management has become a mature discipline in the last 30 years. As a sub-discipline of social sciences, international human resource management is characterised by paradigmatic divisions. The aim of this review article is to map the presence of three dominant social science paradigms in the field. Four major journals which publish relevant studies of international human resource management have been analysed in order to give an overview of the paradigmatic state of play. After investigating 1649 articles, it is evident that positivist studies prevail, whereas constructivist works are in a minority. Critical approaches to international human resource management are largely absent in these journals. This paper presents examples of each type of research and explains the decisive characteristics of each paradigm. Finally, future directions are outlined: (1) more paradigm reflexivity is required, (2) non-mainstream (namely, constructivist and even critical) research is needed, and (3) new paradigmatic directions are recommended. Newly introduced paradigms or multiparadigm studies should be undertaken.

No abstract

PurposeThis paper seeks to explore the migration dynamics that have characterized Chinese immigration in Budapest and the migrants' understanding of their own position in relation to the Chinese diaspora. The paper also aims to discuss the interaction of the local economy and resources of the Chinese migrants to form viable network communities.Design/methodology/approachThe ideas of market embeddedness and the critical role of market opportunities are critically evaluated in the context of local practices. The paper seeks to show that the “new” entrepreneur is an active and creative social actor able to utilize, mobilize and control resources in different countries to achieve business opportunities and growth for him/herself.FindingsIt is shown that globalization has spawned “new” transnational spaces and enabled migrant Chinese entrepreneurs to thrive and grow their businesses. This is a new trend and clearly suggests that a qualitatively different migration trajectory is evolving; and theoretically, analysts of globalization and entrepreneurial development have to better account for the different trajectories of entrepreneurial forms.Originality/valueThe paper suggests that this “new” migrant entrepreneurship trend is qualitatively different and marks a “new” development and it is a consequence of economic globalization and the transnationalization of business and economic activities.