On the paradoxical balancing of panaceaism and particularism within the field of management learning

Abstract

Besides commenting on the papers selected for this special issue, we include a brief reflexive account of our journey in compiling this special issue, and report how we were struck by the de-coupling between our own local practices, on the one hand, and the global concepts that are familiar in management learning, on the other. We pose some general questions about the representability and transportability of knowledge for management learning that has been developed in one context to other contexts around the world. We ask whether the so-called universalist theories are generally applicable, or whether they need to be applied differently by managers and educators, tailored to their local situations. We inquire whether management educators should embrace cultural relativism and deliberately craft theories that are intended only for local applicability. We consider whether a kind of \u27glocalization\u27, or absorption of global ideas into local contexts while honouring core features of the host culture, might be achieved. We call for further research into the conditions for user-centred translation in management education

‘Pedagogy as Translation’: Extending the Horizons of Translation Theory

“…Indications as to how these issues could be addressed more effectively emanate from Currie () and Örtenblad et al . (). Currie argues that instructors should be more reflexive about the underlying ethnocentrism of management models and engage in a critique of universal assumptions underpinning models.…”

“…; Fougère and Moulettes ; Joy and Poonamallee ; Mellahi ; Neal and Finlay ; Örtenblad et al . ; Sturdy and Gabriel ; Westwood ). Many of these critiques cite contextual bias, ethnocentrism and presumed universalism as major hurdles to cross‐culturally sensitive curriculum.…”

“…() provide an explicit bridge between translation theory and issues concerning management learning by calling for ‘research into the conditions for “user‐centred translation” in management education’ (Örtenblad et al . , p. 147) and contending that ‘user‐centred translation’ could be adopted and supported as an interactive pedagogy to assist students to learn to become ‘independent translators’. They believe that such a pedagogy ‘could transform the theories that we teach from tablets of prescriptive truth to glocal mirrors for self‐reflection and for group reflexivity’ (Örtenblad et al .…”

“…We construct a guide to rationally calculated translation (Røvik , , ; Hong ) by synthesizing some important themes and dimensions from translation theory with the cross‐cultural management learning literature (Currie ; Joy and Poonamallee ; Mellahi ; Örtenblad et al . ), along with literature on critical management education (Dehler et al . ).…”

Interlingual translation and the transfer of value-infused practices: An in-depth qualitative exploration

“…This process of theoretical enrichment has, in challenging the validity of diffusion theory (Ortenblad et al, 2011), supported a view of knowledge transfer as comprising a 'social and interactive process, rooted in spatial and relational proximity' (Lam, 2008: 298). A further important and related outcome has been that the process of translation has come to be viewed as an important tool for analysing how knowledge is socially disembedded from one organizational location and reembedded in a potentially transformed manner in another Sandström, 2008, 2010;Becker-Ritterspach et al, 2010).…”