Cross-cultural management research: Topics, paradigms, and methods—A journal-based longitudinal analysis between 2001 and 2018

Abstract

Cross-cultural management (CCM) research comprises a variety of disciplines with different thematic, paradigmatic, and methodological assumptions. Since there has been no systematic analysis of the development of topics, paradigms, and methods, this article draws a landscape of these analyzing 777 articles published in two leading journals between 2001 and 2018. Results show that corporate culture, human resource management, and cultural dimensions are main topics in CCM and that positivist and quantitative papers outweigh interpretive and qualitative articles. We examine a convergence of the positivist and interpretive paradigm in 2016 and 2017, what might indicate a possible upcoming paradigmatic shift in CCM. However, positivist articles rise again since 2017. Using computer-aided tools, this study serves as a basis for future literature reviews.

Diversity-orientierte Führung – Erfolgsfaktor im Mint-Bereich?

“…Es wird betont, dass Nachwuchs-Führungskräfte die Anforderungen interkultureller Führung K oft nicht erfüllen und einen nicht unproblematischen Try-and-Error Prozess durchlaufen, bis sie störungsfrei arbeiten können. Dies entspricht auch den branchenübergreifenden Beobachtungen von Barmeyer et al (2019). Ein zentrales Ergebnis dieser Studie ist daher, dass sowohl von Unternehmens-wie von Universitätsseite eine stärkere Berücksichtigung von kultureller Vielfalt erforderlich ist, um den Anforderungen der kulturell heterogenen Gesellschaft entsprechen zu können.…”

Intercultural business education

“…Cultural difference frameworks (as described above) within the social science, positivist approach have prevailed in intercultural communication management/business training, education, and research (Barmeyer et al 2019). They provide new entrants with 'tools' to make sense of culturally new phenomena, and with 'rules' about how to communicate with potential clients and colleagues from other places and backgrounds.…”

Learning from multi-paradigmatic sensitivity in cross-cultural management? Empirical and theoretical considerations

“…In crosscultural management research and practice, the dominance of a mostly quantitativeso-called functionalistparadigm (concepts of Hofstede, 2001, or House et al, 2004, as well as a hermetically rigid concept of culture, is clearly given priority (Barmeyer et al, 2019b;Fang, 2012). Other researchers confirm this dominance (Barmeyer et al, 2019a;Primecz, 2020) and plead for an opening of the research field towards more comprehensive paradigmatic studies (Bjerregaard et al, 2009;Boyacigiller et al, 2004;Primecz et al, 2009;Pudelko et al, 2015;Sackmann and Phillips, 2004). A few examples extend this picture: in 2009 the International Journal of Cross Cultural Management published a special issue, 'Cross-cultural management research: Contributions from various paradigms' (Volume 9, Number 3), with six articles consciously selected from different paradigms.…”