Culture studies in the field of international business research: A tale of two paradigms

Vorm, Werner; Li, Xin; Jakobsen, Michael; Xie, Piehong Working Paper Culture studies in the field of international business research: A tale of two paradigms Copenhagen Discussion Papers, No. 2015-53 Provided in Cooperation with: Asia Research Community (ARC), Copenhagen Business School (CBS) Suggested Citation: Vorm, Werner; Li, Xin; Jakobsen, Michael; Xie, Piehong (2015) : Culture studies in the field of international business research: A tale of two paradigms, Copenhagen Discussion Papers, No. 2015-53, Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Asia Research Centre (ARC), Frederiksberg, https://hdl.handle.net/10398/9257 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/208651 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 53 2015 November Culture studies in the field of international business research: A tale of two paradigms Verner Worm, Xin Li, Michael Jakobsen, Peihong Xie ©Copyright is held by the author or authors of each Discussion Paper. Copenhagen Discussion Papers cannot be republished, reprinted, or reproduced in any format without the permission of the paper's author or authors. Note: The views expressed in each paper are those of the author or authors of the paper. They do not represent the views of the Asia Research Centre or Copenhagen Business School. Editor of the Copenhagen Discussion Papers: Associate Professor Michael Jakobsen Asia Research Centre Copenhagen Business School Porcelænshaven 24 DK-2000 Frederiksberg Denmark Tel.: (+45) 3815 3396 Email: [email protected] www.cbs.dk/arc 1 Culture studies in the field of international business research: A tale of two paradigms Verner Worm Asia Research Centre Department of International Economics and Management Copenhagen Business School Denmark [email protected] Xin Li Asia Research Centre Department of International Economics and Management Copenhagen Business School Denmark [email protected] Michael Jakobsen Asia Research Centre Department of International Economics and Management Copenhagen Business School Denmark [email protected] Peihong Xie School of Management, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics China [email protected] 29 June 2015 2 Abstract Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to describe the status of culture studies within the field of international business research, and to examine how two main paradigms – essentialism and social constructivism – relate to the discourse in this field. We analyze the main points of the two paradigms, and discuss how the relationship between them has evolved. Findings - We show that essentialism and social constructivism have a paradoxical relationship. They seem to be mutually exclusive, yet each offers unique insights into the notion of culture. Both are necessary for a complete understanding of culture, yet they cannot be integrated in any normal sense. We see the relationship between the two paradigms as paradoxical: that is, we see them as ontologically complementary yet epistemologically incommensurable. Taking inspiration from Bohr’s principle of complementarity, we understand the two competing paradigms of culture studies as both necessary and yet as incompatible. Research limitations - Future research should help to improve the conceptual clarity with which the relationship between the two paradigms is portrayed here, thereby enhancing the empirical rigor of the argument we make in this paper. Practical implications – We encourage practitioners to learn how to switch, both sequentially and spatially, between the two paradigms of culture (fundamentally incommensurable though they are). This involves taking a “both/or” approach to the two paradigms. Originality/Value - We show for the first time that Bohr’s complementarity principle is illustrative and useful for understanding the paradoxical relationship between essentialism and social constructivism. Inspired by two principles enunciated by Bohr – that of complementarity and that of classical concepts – we argue that the two competing paradigms are necessary yet 3 incommensurable. We therefore suggest that culture scholars switch between the two paradigms, instead of seeing each as negating the other. Paper type – Research paper Keywords: Culture, essentialist, social constructivist, complementary, incommensurable. 4 Introduction In a globalized world, culture plays a more and more important role in facilitating or hindering international business. One of the modern definitions of culture stems from Tylor (1871), who defines culture as a complex whole including knowledge, belief, art, moral, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society (Holden, 2002). Studies of culture in international business research are characterized by two major paradigms: i.e., essentialism and social constructivism. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines a paradigm as “a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated.” The essentialist paradigm, with its positivist approach, normally divides culture along various dimensions – value orientation being one such (e.g., Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Hofstede, 1980). The social constructivist paradigm takes an interpretivist approach, studying culture in accordance with the notion of thick description (e.g., Geertz, 1973; Feldman, 1989). Basically, we identify the two paradigms as conceptualizing “culture” in terms of values (essentialism) and meaning (social constructivism), respectively. The two paradigms are hostile towards each other; each feels superior to the other and refuses to discuss any possible complementary aspects. Facing various kinds of criticism from social constructivists, Minkov (2013), a prominent proponent of essentialism, has renamed the essentialist paradigm “culturology” – as opposed to “anthropology,” with its interpretivist or constructivist approach (Geertz 1973). This stance of mutual hostility might be termed an “either/or isolationist” approach. The consequence is either a lack of communication or a jockeying for primacy (Martin, 2002; Jackson & Carter, 1993). 5 However, while the essentialist paradigm has been dominant within the international business field during the last 30 years (Taras and Steel, 2009), more and more scholars are applying a social constructivist approach (Brannen, 2004). And recently the pendulum has swung back towards the middle. Thus, in addition to either/or isolationism, there is “both/and integrationism.” Some scholars argue, that is, that both essentialism and social constructivism are insightful and necessary: the two paradigms can and ought to be synthesized or integrated. In this article, we critique both either/or isolationism and both/and integrationism. We believe that neither is correct. Instead we see the relationship between the two paradigms as a paradoxical “Both-Or” (Li, 2014): in other words, they are complementary yet incommensurable. A Both-Or relationship of this kind is well explained, we contend, by Niels Bohr’s complementarity principle. In the following, we first present the two paradigms separately. We then introduce the social constructivist critique of essentialism, and the essentialist reaction and defense. After that we take our recourse to Bohr’s complementarity principle, in order to describe the paradoxical relationship between the two paradigms and to reconcile them. We suggest that, in order to gain a deeper understanding of not only cultures but also paradigms, culture studies scholars ought to make use of both paradigms – by switching between them. The two paradigms in the field of international business research It is only during the last 50 years that the two main paradigms for the study of culture have evolved systematically, despite the many definitions of culture available earlier. The first paradigm is the classic anthropological concept touched upon above. This paradigm sees culture as meaning. C. Geertz, one of its main proponents, puts the focus on a “thick” qualitative emic 6 description of culture (Geertz, 1973). 1 This approach is often referred to as the social constructivist paradigm. The other paradigm, normally known as the essentialist paradigm, focuses mainly on values. It seeks to group similar national cultures or ethnic groups into clusters (based on a few value-based dimensions), and to measure cultural distance. This paradigm only emerged on a full scale in the 1980s, with the publication of Hofstede’s (1984) Culture’s Consequences. It has mainly been popular within business studies – a field in which national differences are important, due to the operation of many companies in foreign markets. Both paradigms see culture as acquired, not as biologically based. In other respects, however, commonalities between the two paradigms are few, and each has heavily criticized the other. Indeed, research groups have split up because of differences among their members over the choice of paradigm. 2 The social constructivist paradigm The social constructivist or emic paradigm sees culture as “constructed with a specific purpose in mind and … [as] constantly in the making” (Abu-Lughod, 1986, Adams & Markus, 2004, Blasco et al., 2012). It has a longer history than the essentialist or etic paradigm. Were a work in this tradition to be judged as seminal, it would have to be that of C. Geertz (1973). Geertz writes that “the concept of culture I espouse … is essentially a semiotic one. … [I see man as] an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun. I take culture to be those webs and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning. It is explication I am after, construing social expressions on their surface enigmatical” (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). 1 A more detailed discussion can be found in the section on the social constructivist approach to culture. 2 Personal experience of one of the authors. 13 egalitarianism – the extent to which an organization or society minimizes gender role differences and gender discrimination; (8) power distance, defined as the degree to which the members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be unequally shared; and (9) uncertainty avoidance – the extent to which the members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by relying on social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices to alleviate the unpredictability of future events (House, 2004) Based on the World Value Survey, Inglehart developed two dimensions: traditional versus secular-rational, and survival versus self-expression (Inglehart, 1997) In 2002, finally, Leung and his co-authors introduced the concepts of belief and belief systems (religiosity) into cultural studies, with five dimensions: (1) cynicism; (2) social complexity; (3) fate control; (4) spirituality; and (5) reward for application (Leung et al., 2002) The above description shows that the number of values is unknown at the group level. At least so far, they have mainly been ascertained through the statistical outcome of empirical studies. The difference between the two paradigms As shown in Table 1, Hofstede’s essentialist definition portrays culture as collective programming of the mind: i.e., as comprising objectively ascertainable values that are acquired during childhood and which are therefore rather stable throughout one’s life. The essentialist focus is on propensities revealed in quantitative studies covering many countries. In contrast, Geertz’s social constructivism describes culture as consisting of webs of significance, on the basis of which we create meaning in our surroundings. These webs alter and change in the course of our interaction with other people throughout our lifetime. Social constructivists tend to 14 do qualitative studies devoted to thick description of a single unique culture. The central understanding of culture is interaction-driven. A summary of the differences between essentialism and social constructivism is shown in Table 1. Table 1. The two paradigms of culture study Essentialism Social constructivism Representative work Hofstede (1980) Geertz (1973) Culture as Values Meaning Definition of culture Collective programming of the mind The webs of significance we weave around ourselves Stability of culture Stable Transformative Socialization Childhood Lifetime practitioning Tendency Propensity Uniqueness Research methodology Quantitative Qualitative Depth of description Thin Thick Kind of understanding Objectively described Interaction Attitudes towards the other paradigm Each paradigm has been severely criticized by business scholars, as well as by supporters of the other paradigm. We will not discuss internal inconsistencies within a paradigm. 15 Fang (2006) criticizes the bipolar nature of the essentialist paradigm. According to Fang, culture is not either/or; rather, it is by nature both/and – and accordingly paradoxical. A culture can under certain circumstances be collectivist but in another context individualist. Intra-cultural values are not consistent, and they are context-dependent. The contextual view highlights the importance of “moment,” as predominant cultural values change according to context. Furthermore, Fang sees culture as a living organism and not as a “fossil,” meaning that culture changes continuously instead of being static. He uses the metaphor of an “ocean,” instead of Hofstede’s “onion”. Oceans are open and mix with each other; onions by contrast are layered, and they roll in different direction after bumping into each other. The onion metaphor suggests that the core decides the condition of the outer layers, which accords with Hofstede’s conception of culture as involving the substantial determination of behavior by values. Fang sees the interaction between values and behavior as much more interactive, and as going both ways. Finally, he contends, Hofstede’s national “black boxes” are being today transformed today by globalization – towards a much more fluid, mobile and virtual condition. Whereas the acquisition of cultural values, according to Hofstede, takes place primarily before the age of ten, it is a continuing process according to Fang and other social constructivists. Basically the difference is not an either/or one; rather, it is a matter of degree. Social constructivists also speak of socialization and identity-building among young people, but they see these processes as less stable than essentialists do. Søderberg and Holden (2002) criticize essentialism for portraying culture as “a stable, homogeneous, internally consistent system consisting of […] values and norms transmitted by socialization” (pp. 107-108). Instead, they contend, culture is not stable but dynamic, not consistent but contradictory and paradoxical. 16 The essentialist paradigm portrays culture as a stable, homogenous, internally consistent system of distinctive assumptions, values and norms that can be objectively described, and which the members of a group, an organization or a nation have or bear collectively (Gertsen and Søderberg, 2000). But in fact, Gertsen and Søderberg (2000) argue, culture is a complex phenomenon that cannot be captured through simplifications. Finally, essentialism tends to use the nation-state as its basic unit of analysis. In this connection Gertsen and Søderberg (2000) emphasize that most nation-states consist of several ethnic groups – a growing trend with increased globalization. In addition, any nation-state contains cultures of many other types besides: e.g., regional, professional, gender and educational. Finally, social constructivists emphasize that culture constantly changes and that it is internally contradictory. They dismiss essentialism’s dimensional way of understanding culture as binary. They themselves prefer the metaphor of a spiral or even a circle. Jacobsen ventures a more radical criticism (2015). He stresses that culture must be perceived as a process. One consequence of such an approach is that an individual is only partly conceived of as a representation of a particular national culture, and thus is only partly expected to act accordingly. What if culture, instead of being perceived as an explanatory framework in itself, is seen as an aggregated reflection of coordinated social processes that do not reflect perceived cultural differences of “the other,” but which rather are based on social strategic processes of various types that are constructed in order to safeguard or justify one’s position in the local community? If we take such an approach to the study of culture, it is important that we delineate and document the origin and context of such processes, so that we can map the social landscape that an individual navigates. 17 In order to engage these processes further, the analyst has to move beyond an etic perspective and towards an emic one. This means we must move towards an actor-oriented perspective. According to Weber and Glynn (2006), this perspective is governed by processes of sensemaking of an individual’s immediate social environment. Said individual thus perceives, interprets and reacts to changes taking place therein, so as to enhance his or her strategic positioning in that particular environment (Weber and Glynn 2006). A processual approach towards culture thus aims at avoiding a separation between structure and agency. Structures provide opportunities for agency, as well as imposing constraints on it. The next logical step in such an analysis is to introduce the notion of practice. A social constructivist account is generally based on practice, as behavior-based practice can be understood as a representation of specifically selected extroverted experiences – experiences gained during interaction within a given societal context. Practice is thus one of the guiding systems that govern “navigation” in a known as well as an unknown (trial and error mode) social-economic context. Agency is never purely individual, for it always takes place in a social context. Since transactions are mediated by significant symbols in the Geertzian sense, social agency can never be attributed to any singular actor. In other words, an act has no agency capacity unless it calls forth some sort of response. By this is meant that hermeneutics encompasses everything in the interpretative process, including verbal and nonverbal forms of communication, as well as prior experiences that affect communication, such as presuppositions and pre-understandings in relation to a given context (Jakobsen, 2015). A nuanced understanding of culture per se thus debunks sophisticated stereotypes (Osland and Bird, 2000). On the basis of this, we assume that self-reflection and self-adjustment will result – 18 due to contradictory experience in a cross-cultural context – in first-hand experience that goes beyond sophisticated stereotypes. Culture in this perspective is seen as a process whereby individuals recreate themselves continuously. Whereas the culturologist paradigm focuses on a collective socialization process that mainly takes place before the age of 10, the social constructivist paradigm – which is dominant in organization studies – sees the individual as an agent of change throughout his or her entire life. The agent thus reacts to people and their choice of action in a specific context, and acts accordingly. Essentialists criticize the social constructivist paradigm in turn, but in a considerably more limited way. Their main criticism is that social constructivist studies are emic, and are therefore neither comparable nor relevant for the conduct of global business. According to Minkov (2013), such studies cannot say anything about the cross-cultural interaction which is becoming increasingly common in a globalized world. Social constructivist studies lack comparability, and comparability is particularly important if cultural analysis is to be useful in connection with international business, where cultural distance plays a critical role. By contrast, etic essentialist analyses put the stress on similarities and differences, which are crucial for a multinational enterprise to know about when it enters a new market and begins operations there (Minkov, 2013). Social constructivist studies lack comparability, so the transferability of insights about varied cultural practices in connection with business activities is therefore not possible either. In short, the two paradigms have differing purposes, perspectives and methodologies. They appear, therefore, to be incompatible and mutually exclusive. Minkov (2013) contends that the two paradigms cannot be merged. The authors of this article agree with this argument, yet we 19 also consider both approaches to be valuable in certain contemporary settings, where contextual intelligence and dialecticism is gradually becoming a more crucial competence. A reconciliation inspired by Bohr’s complementarity principle A quantum physics solution to a social science paradox? It would appear, then, that we face a paradoxical situation. The two paradigms of culture studies seem to be mutually exclusive, yet each offers some insights about culture. Both paradigms are apparently indispensable, yet they cannot be integrated in any normal sense of the word. In an attempt to resolve this paradox, we have reviewed the management literature on organizational paradoxes (e.g., Clegg, 2002; Dodd & Favaro, 2006; Farjoun, 2010; Lewis, 2000; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Quinn, 1988; Quinn & Cameron, 1988; Seo, Putnam & Bartunek, 2004; Smith, 2014; Smith & Berg, 1987; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Unfortunately, however, this literature does not appear to offer any satisfactory solution for this particular paradox. We are thus forced to look for solutions outside the management literature, and indeed outside the social sciences altogether. Arguably, we have found a similar paradox in quantum physics: i.e., the wave-particle duality of light; as well as the philosophical solution to said paradox: i.e., Niels Bohr’s complementarity principle. We believe this paradox and its solution can provide guidance for reconciling the paradox reviewed above in the field of culture studies. The immediate question facing us, then, is whether this theory from quantum physics, a field in the natural sciences, is relevant or applicable to a social science problem. We have searched the social science literature, and fortunately have found – in the literature on management and organization – a precedent for applying ideas derived from quantum physics to issues of management. 20 Lord, Dinh & Hoffman (2015: 267) argue that studies of organization face a fundamental problem of uncertainty: namely, forward-based prospection cannot explain how events unfold probabilistically in the future. The authors then note that quantum physics has grappled with uncertainty, and that it offers a method for modeling it. It may be possible, therefore, to extend the quantum way of thinking to the social sciences: in particular, it may help us to understand how human systems construct the future. The authors accordingly propose a quantum approach to time and organizational change. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Born’s probability rule and Bohr’s complementarity principle are the three core principles of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. And if the uncertainty concept can be applied in the field of organization studies, there is no reason in our view to think that the complementarity idea cannot be too. In fact, Bohr himself ‘pointed to examples to indicate that the idea of complementarity could be fruitful also within the fields of psychology and biology, and he saw in the concept of complementarity a possibility for greater understanding between different cultures and different nations’ (Blædel, 1985). Taking our inspiration, then, in the work of Lord, Dinh & Hoffman (2015), we seek in what follows to apply Bohr’s complementarity principle to the essentialism vs. social constructivism paradox in the field of culture studies. The wave-particle paradox and Bohr’s complementarity principle According to Heisenberg (1958: 14), “The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory starts from a paradox.” For many physicists, the paradox lies in the wave-particle duality of light. On the one hand light can be seen as wave, because it exhibits wave properties in certain experiments; but it can also be seen as a particle, because it displays particle properties in certain other experiments. The wave-particle duality of light is a paradoxical phenomenon, because 21 waves and particles are fundamentally different (indeed they are mutually exclusive, in that waves are continuous while particles are discrete). Expressed technically, “particles are localized while waves are not” (Pais, 1991: 57). Einstein once put the paradox as follows: But what is light really? Is it a wave or a shower of photons? There seems no likelihood for forming a consistent description of the phenomena of light by a choice of only one of the two languages. It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do (Einstein & Infeld, 1938: 262-263). There are . . . now two theories of light, both indispensable and…without any logical connection (Pais, 1991: 88). As one of the three core principles of the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohr’s complementarity principle was initially proposed as a philosophical solution to the wave-particle paradox. According to Bohr, light (and in later formulations all matter and energy) has both wave and particle properties. In other words it is both wave and particle, ontologically speaking. When we try to observe it or to measure its properties in experiments, our instruments for doing so disturb or interact with it. Our observations register, then, the interaction between our observational instruments and the object we are observing. This is the so-called measurement problem. An experiment designed to observe the wave properties of light will disclose its wave properties, and an experiment designed to observe the particle properties of light will disclose its particle properties. Due to the fundamental difference between wave and particle, moreover, the two properties can never be captured simultaneously in a single experiment or observation. In technical terms, this is “a simple consequence of the noncommutativity” of wave and particle 22 (Pais, 1991: 304). However, no matter how contradictory the wave and particle descriptions of light are, epistemologically speaking, they are complementary to each other – and both are necessary for a complete description of the phenomenon in question. At the epistemological level, moreover, we have another paradox. According to Bohr the quantum theory is universal, while the classical theories are at best approximations of it. A pure classical description of the world is therefore incomplete. Yet it is also impossible, due to the above-mentioned measurement problem, to give a pure quantum description of the world. Bohr’s solution to this paradoxical situation is his principle of classical concepts, which proposes “to divide the system whose description is sought into two parts: one, the object, is to be described quantum-mechanically, whereas the other, the apparatus, is treated as if it were classical” (Landsman, 2006: 221). This quantum-classical division or separation is known as the “Heisenberg cut,” because Heisenberg elucidated this principle in a clear manner. In this sense, the relationship between quantum physics and classical physics resembles that between wave and particle: i.e., they are contradictory to, yet complementary with, each other. A generic view inspired by Bohr’s complementarity principle One of the insights of Bohr’s complementarity principle is that the measurement problem gives rise to differing descriptions of any object. Different methods for observation and measurement produce differing interactions between subject and object, and thus differing descriptions of these interactions. The suggestion we take from Bohr’s complementarity principle is that, in the social sciences too, the clash between paradigms over the same empirical phenomenon is epistemological in nature, rather than ontological. 29 of contradictory and mutually exclusive elements which are nonetheless equally operative (Osland & Osland, 2005). Some scholars have found that the cultures of contemporary China and Japan are paradoxical (e.g., Fang, 2012; Osland & Bird, 2000). That is to say, Chinese/Japanese people are sometimes collectivist and sometimes individualist, and sometimes long-term- oriented and sometimes short-term-oriented. How can we explain this cultural paradox? To understand it, we would argue, we must turn to certain social constructivist accounts or thick descriptions of Chinese and Japanese culture. In the case of China, Fang’s (2012) theory – with its focus on notions of Yin-Yang – is useful for explaining the cultural paradox. According to Fang, any culture contains opposite values (such as collectivism and individualism) within itself. In any culture, individuals dynamically activate or enact certain values while deactivating certain other (opposing) ones, according to changing environmental conditions. When it comes to the Japanese case, powerful tools for understanding the paradox include the distinction between shame culture and guilt culture (Benedict, 1946), and that between the interdependent self and the independent self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Shame mentality and self-other interdependence, we believe, can enable people in such a culture to act as a switch between binary paired items, such as collectivism vs. individualism and long-term vs. short-term orientation. For example, whether or not an individual with an interdependent self will judge an action of his or hers to be shameful is dependent on the behaviors of people in the surrounding community. We can identify two contingent situations here. If the surrounding people are strangers, the individual in question will feel less ashamed of behaving in an individualist or short-term-oriented or even immoral way. Moreover, if numerous persons in the individual’s surroundings act in an individualist or short-term-oriented or even immoral way, then the individual in question will feel less ashamed of doing the same. This may explain why many 30 Chinese do not obey traffic rules. There are a good many people in China, namely, who do not obey traffic rules. Many other people in the country, therefore, do not feel ashamed when they too disobey them (this is especially the case when the other persons in their environment are mainly strangers rather than acquaintances). This may also explain why many Chinese make fake or even harmful products (which surely qualifies as short-term-oriented and/or immoral behavior). The same reasons as those mentioned above apply here. As Poole & Van de Ven (1989) point out, there are two types of switching: sequential and spatial. Sequential switching is a stage-dependent approach, whereby the student of culture starts with the essentialist approach but then switches to the social constructivist or interpretivist one (or vice-versa). Worm (1997), for example, takes a sequential switching approach. Osland & Bird (2000) also recommend sequential switching for culture studies. Spatial switching, on the other hand, is a context-dependent approach, whereby the student of culture selects the appropriate approach according to the purposes and needs of the study. For example, if one wants to compare 100 cultures, then one should use the essentialist approach; but if one seeks a deep understanding of a particular country or of just a few countries, then one should have recourse to the thick description associated with Geertz. Both organization studies and international business research have been undergoing change in recent years. More and more scholars have come to the realization that both of the paradigms examined here are insightful and necessary; they therefore deem it best to use both in their research. In this article, taking our inspiration in Bohr’s principles of complementarity and of classical concepts, we argue that the two competing paradigms are necessary yet incommensurable; we therefore suggest that culture scholars switch back and forth between them. Future research should help to refine the conceptual clarity with which the relationship 31 between the two paradigms is portrayed here, thereby enhancing the empirical rigor of the argument we make in this paper. References Abu-Lughod, L. (1986). Veiled sentiments: Honor and Poetry in Bedouin society. Oxford University Press, New York. Adams, G., and Markus, H.R. (2004), Toward a conception of culture suitable for a social psychology of culture. Schaller, M. and Crandall (Eds.). The Psychological foundations of culture, pp 335-360. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum. Baum, J. A., and Dobbin, F. (2000), “Doing interdisciplinary research in strategic management – without a paradigm war,” Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 17, pp. 389-410. Becker, G. S. (1981), A Treatise on the Family. Boston: Harvard University Press Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthemum and the sword: patterns of Japanese culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Blædel, N. (1985) ‘Niels Bohr’, in Hansen, P. (Ed.) Factsheet Denmark. Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Copenhagen. Blasco, M., Egholm Feldt, L. and Jakobsen, M. (2012). “If only cultural Chameleons could fly too: A critical discussion of the concept of cultural intelligence,” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 12, pp. 229-245. Brannen, M.Y (1995) Does culture matter? Negotiating a complementary culture to successfully support technological innovation. Liker, J. Ettlie, J and Campell, J (Eds) Technology and management: America and Japan. Oxford University Press, Oxford Brannen, M. Y. (2004), “When Mickey Loses Face: Recontextualization, Semantic Fit, and the Semiotics of Foreignness,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29, pp. 593-616 Brannen, M. Y. and Peterson, M. (2009), “Merging without Alienating: Interventions Promoting Cross-Cultural Organizational Integration and Their Limitations,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 468-489. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Heinemann, London. Clegg, S. R. (Ed.). 2002. Management and organization paradoxes, Vol. 9, John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam. Dodd, D., & Favaro, K. 2006. “Managing the right tension,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 12, pp. 62-74. Einstein, A. & Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fang, T. (2006), “From ‘Onion’ to ‘Ocean’ – Paradox and Change in National Culture,” International Studies of Management and Organizations, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 71-90. Fang, T. (2012). “Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture,” Management and organization Review, 8(1), 25-50. Farjoun, M. 2010. “Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, pp. 202-225. Feldman, S. P. (1989). “The broken wheel: the inseparability of autonomy and control in innovation within organizations.” Journal of Management Studies, 26(2), 83-102. Geertz, C (1973). The interpretation of Cultures – Selected Essays. Fontana Press Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. Leslei, L., Lun, L. M. & Lim, B.C. (2011), “Differences between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-nation study,” Science, Vol. 332, pp. 1100-1104. Haastrup, K. (1996), A Passage to Anthropology. Between Experience and Theory. Routledge. London. Haire, M., Ghiselli, E. E. and Porter, L. W. (1966) Managerial thinking: An international study. New York: John Wiley http://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.dk/2012/05/clifford-geertzs-thick-description.html. Heisenberg, W. (1958), Physics and philosophy: The revolution in modern science, Harper, New York Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill. New York. Holden, N. J. (2002), Cross-cultural Management – A Knowledge Management Perspective, Prentice Hall, London. House, R. (2004), Culture, leadership, and organizations, The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage, London. Inkeles, A. and Levinson, D. J. (1969), “National Character: The study of Modal personality and sociocultural systems,” Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill, New York. (original work published in 1954). Jackson, N. and Carter, P. (1993) “‘Paradigms Wars’: A response to Hugh Willmott,” Organization Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 721-725. Jakobsen, M. (2015), Ethnic Chinese entrepreneurship in Malaysia. On the contextualization in international business studies. Routledge, London. Johns, G. (2006) “The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, pp. 386-408. Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kluckhohn, C. (1967), Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. Parson, T. and Shils A.E. (eds.) Toward a general theory of action pp 388 – 433. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Kluckhohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations. Row & Peterson, Evanston. Kroeber, A. L. and C. Kluckhohn, 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA. Landsman, N. P. (2006), “When Comparison meet: Rethinking the Bohr-Einstein Debate,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Vol. 37, pp. 212-242. Lewis, M. (2000), “Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 760-776. Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. I. (1999). “Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 672-690. Lord, R. Dinh, J & Hoffman E. (2015), “A quantum approach to time and Organizational Change,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 40, pp. 263-290 Leung, K. & Bond, M. H. (1989), “On the empirical identification of dimensions for crosscultural comparations,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 133-151. Leung, K., Bond M. H.,Carrasquel, M., Hernandez, M., Murakami,F., Yamagachi, S., Bierbrauer, G. and Singalis, T (2002), “Social Axioms. The search for Universal Dimensions of General Belief about how the World Functions,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 286-302. Li, X. (2014), “Can Yin-Yang Guide Chinese Indigenous Management Research?” Management and Organization Review, Vol. 10, pp. 7-27. Li, X., Worm, V. & Xie, P. (2014). “What is culture? Toward a 6-VHC structure to cultural dimensions.” Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. (Unpublished Manuscript) Maleki, A. & de Jong, M. (2014), “A proposal for clustering the dimensions of national culture” Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 48, pp. 107-143. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224. Martin, J. (2002), Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Minkov, M. (2013) Cross-cultural Analysis – the Science and Art of Comparing the World’s Modern Societies and their Cultures, Sage, Los Angeles. Osland, J. & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in context. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 65-77. Osland, J., & Osland, A. (2005). Expatriate paradoxes and cultural involvement. International Studies of Management and Organization, 35(4), 91-114. Parsons, T. and Shils, E. A. (1951), Towards a general Theory of Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Pais, A. (1991), Niels Bohr’s times: In physics, philosophy, and polity, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989), “Using paradox to build management and organisational theories,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 562-578. Quinn, R. E. (1988), “Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Quinn, R.E., & Cameron, K. S. (eds.), (1988), Paradox and Transformation: Towards a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Balinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA. Roseberry, W. (1989), Anthropologies and histories. Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick, NJ. Ross, L. (1977). “The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.10, pp. 173-220. Sackmann, S. (ed.) (1997) Cultural Complexity in Organizations: Inherent Contrasts and Contradictions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Sackmann, S. and Phillips, M. (2003), “One’s Many Cultures: A Multiple Culture Perspective,” Boyacigiller, N., Goodman, R. and Phillips, M. (eds.), Crossing Cultures – Insights from Master Teachers. Routledge. London. Schwartz, S. H. (1994), “Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values?” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 19-45. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (1995), Intercultural Communication: A discourse Approach. Blackwell: Cambridge, MA. Seo, M., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004), “Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change,” M. S. Poole, & A. Van de Ven (eds.), Handbook of organizational change, pp. 73-109. Oxford University Press, New York. Shapiro, J. M., Ozanne, J. L., Saatcioglu, B. (2008), “An interpretive examination of the development of cultural sensitivity in international business,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 71-87. Søderberg, A. M. and Holden, N. (2002) “Rethinking Cross Cultural Management in a Globalizing Business World” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 2, pp. 103-121. Smith, W. (2014).” Dynamic Decision Making: A Model of Senior Leaders Managing Strategic Paradoxes.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 1592-1623. Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987), Paradoxes of group life: Understanding Conflict, Paralysis, and Movement in Group Dynamic, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011), “Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36, pp. 381-403. Taras, V. and Steel, P. (2009) “Beyond Hofstede: Challenging the ten Commandments of Cross- Cultural Research,” Nakata, C. (ed.), Beyond Hofstede: Cultural Frameworks for Global Marketing and Management, pp. 40-61. Triandis, H. (1996), “The Psychological Measurement of Cultural Syndromes” American Psychologist, Vol. 51, pp. 407-415. Trompenaars, F. (1993), “Riding the Waves of Culture – Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business”. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London. Tylor, E. B.(1871) “Origins of culture”, Harper and Row, New York Wallner, F. (1994), Constructive realism: Aspects of a new epistemological movement, Braumuller, Vienna.