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

Abstract

Paradigms are basic assumptions about how social reality is perceived, understood and explained. Whereas most research is based on a single paradigm, few empirical papers show the advantages of using multiple paradigms within a study. This article pleads for multi-paradigm studies in cross-cultural management research in order to reach a more multifaceted representation of cultural phenomena. This is particularly consistent with the field of cross-cultural management, because it would be ethnocentric to consider intercultural situations only from one perspective, usually that of one’s own culture. The argument corresponds to the ambition of cross-cultural management to respect and adopt multiple (cultural) perspectives and, analogously, to achieve a ‘paradigmatic ethnorelativism’. Based on an intercultural situation, and therefore going beyond meta-theoretical reasoning, this article demonstrates multi-paradigmatic sensitivity in terms of the functionalist, interpretive and critical paradigms. The use of these theoretical concepts leads to multiple angles and a less ‘ethnocentric’ position, and hence to more nuanced knowledge creation with regard to the intercultural situation. The ‘blind spots’ of each paradigm, but also their complementarities, are discussed. Consequently, this article raises theoretical and practical implications for cross-cultural management by offering a way to a richer understanding of intercultural situations through openness to different paradigms.

Should counter-narratives be our output in cross-cultural management scholarship?

“…This does not relate to a particular paradigm or methodology. Yet I would call it 'critical' in the way that all scholarship should be critical to a certain degree, but not as a paradigm in the way Grosskopf and Barmeyer (2021) perceive it. Good social science scholarship does not relate to the status quo.…”

“…It is at these different hierarchical levels that different social scientific paradigms focus. For example, in this issue of International Journal of Cross Cultural Management Grosskopf and Barmeyer (2021) describe three distinct paradigms: functionalist, interpretive and critical. They argue for multi-paradigm research.…”

“…Yet there is much overlap here between the three paradigms that makes me question the usefulness of such paradigmatic distinctions. I laud the approach taken by Grosskopf and Barmeyer (2021) in arguing for a multi-paradigm approach to research. Yet, I believe a focus on a counter-narrative outcome of cross-cultural management research may diminish the distinction between these paradigms while achieving the same goal that Grosskopf and Barmeyer (2021) and others have proposed.…”

A Black-Box yet To Be Opened: Multi-level Processes During Migrants’ Organizational Socialization

“…In sum, interdisciplinarity and sensitivity to different research paradigms (Grosskopf & Barmeyer, 2021) may create complementarities and synergies for findings. It is thus possible to gain a more comprehensive picture of the problem or the phenomena in question and to gain insights that would not have been obtained with concepts from only one research direction.…”

Organizations and migrant integration: Towards a multiparadigm narrative approach

“…The multiple perspectives adopted in past research reflect disparate and, some could argue, incommensurable paradigmatic traditions, and this paradigm plurality can be seen as a weakness for proponents of accumulative knowledge (Pfeffer, 1993). Other scholars have argued that developing a sensitivity for different paradigms (Gephart, 2004; Grosskopf and Barmeyer, 2021; Lincoln et al, 2018; Patel, 2017) and even combining multiple paradigms within a study is a strength because it allows for multiple foci, questions, interpretations, and perspectives that can enrich comprehension of social phenomena (Gagnon et al, 2022; Manroop, 2017; Patel, 2017; Primecz, 2020; Romani et al, 2011; Sanchez et al, 2022). This particularly applies to the complex issues of migration and migrants’ integration experiences, which often raise heated debates, with multiple political and economic issues at stake (Brettell and Hollifield, 2021; Patel, 2017; Sandberg and Alvesson, 2021).…”