Multiparadigmatic Studies of Culture: Needs, Challenges, and Recommendations for Management Scholars

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12089
• Date: 01 March 2017
• Author: Taran Patel
• Published date: 01 March 2017

Multiparadigmatic Studies of Culture: Needs,

Challenges, and Recommendations for

Management Scholars

TARAN PATEL

Grenoble Ecole de Management, Grenoble, France

This conceptual paper serves as a timely reminder for culture scholars in business studies to engage in multi-

paradigmatic studies. Our review of culture literature (at the macro level: regional, societal, national) reveals a

dominance of the objectivist tradition, which has, over time, resulted in three problems: (1) an oversimplification of

the otherwisecomplex culture concept; (2)equating nation and culture;and (3) neglecting factors other than cultural

dimensions thatinfluence individual behavior.We argue that theseproblems can be partiallyresolved by engaging in

multi-paradigmatic studiesof culture. Since combiningdifferent paradigmatictraditions can be difficult, we also offer

insights intohow this can be done through two illustrativecases of recent multi-paradigmatic studies.These examples

reveal that conducting multi-paradigmatic cultural research is not only feasible, but that it also results in more

innovativeinsights than mono-paradigmaticstudies, while simultaneously resolvingsome of the afore-citedproblems.

Keywords: paradigms; objectivism; subjectivism; multi-paradigmatic; culture; ontology; epistemology;

methodology

Introduction

Culture has been a topic of interest since the writings of

early Greek scholars (Gelfand et al., 2007). Although

business scholars have made significant advances in

recent times toward understanding culture and its impact

on business-related outcomes (Taras et al., 2009), they

are no closer to a c onceptual consensus on the topi c than

their predecessors. Culture remains an elusive, grossly

misunderstood term with a contentious lineage (Bond,

2004). Culture scholars disagree on many points. While

some scholars agree that culture is shared (Triandis,

1994), others (Martin, 2002) argue that culture is more

accurately defined as an incompletely shared system (see

also Tsui et al., 2007). While many scholars (e.g.,

Hofstede, 1980) maintain that members of a social entity

(e.g., company, nation) enjoy considerable cultural

homogeneity, others like Tung (2008) and Usunier

(1998) support the notion of intra-group cultural

heterogeneity. Finally, while some scholars declare that

‘culture implies s tability’(Schein,1991: 245–248), others

(Ohmae, 1985)question the ‘permanent nature’ofculture.

Yaganeh et al. (2004) propose that our cultural

understanding may have been compromised by

weaknesses in the way cross-cultural research has been

conducted in the past. This viewpoint has also been

supported by other scholars (see Sekaran, 1983; Arbnor

and Bjerke, 1997). Tayeb (2001) criticizes extant cultural

literature for categorizing countries into cultural ‘boxes’

based on scores on bi-polar cultural dimensions, and for

neglecting factors other than cultural dimensions that

influence people's behaviors. Following a similar line of

thought, Leung et al. (2005)complain that many previous

culture studies in business literature adopt a simplistic

view of culture, resulting in examining thestatic influence

of a few cultural elements in isolation from other cultural

elements and contextual variables. Yet other scholars

(Adler and Doktor, 1986; McSweeney, 2009; Usunier,

1998) complain that the way cultural studies have been

conducted in business literature have led to wrongly

equating culture with nation. In light of these criticisms,

we argue that there is a need to rethink the way in which

cultural researchis being conducted in business literature.

This need becomesmore pressing in light of new forms

of organizations that have emerged in recent decades.

For instance, companies are increasing relying on

international business collaborations (e.g., joint ventures,

international strategic alliances). In such entities

Correspondence: Taran Patel, People, Organization Society Department,

Grenoble Ecole de Management, 12, rue Pierre Semard, Grenoble,

France. E-mail: taran.patel@grenoble-em.com

European Management Review, Vol. 14, 83–100, (2017)

DOI: 10.1111/emre.12089

©2016 European Academy of Management

boundaries are continuously being redefined (Angwin

and Vaara, 2005),accompanied by a blurring of corporate

and national identities of members. Therefore, in such

organizations the notion of a stable and manageable

culture with clearly defined boundaries no longer holds

(Ailon-Souday and Kunda, 2003). Instead, managers are

faced with culturally dynamic, plural organizations with

porous and flexible boundaries (Martin, 2002), where

geographic boundaries are less relevant (Taras et al.,

2009; Leung et al., 2011). The current business

environment is also witnessing an increasing number of

virtual and geographically-dispersed organizations (see

Martin's 2002 illustrations of EUREKA and The Well),

which render geo-ethnically-embedded definitions

of culture obsolete. These alternative forms of organi-

zational structures compel scholars to generate alternative

ways of conceptualizing culture (see Patel and

Rayner, 2012). We believe that this need may be partly

satisfied if scholars engage in multi-paradigmatic cultural

research.

Therefore, our present conceptual paper aims to serve

as a timely reminder in favor of multi-paradigmatic

cultural research in business literature. Nevertheless,

conducting multi-paradigmatic cultural research is

fraught with challenges. Therefore, as a secondary aim

of the present paper, we offer insights into how scholars

may operationalize multi-paradigmatic studies of

culture. Figure 1 offers a schematic representation of

our study.

This paper is structured as follows. First, we define the

term ‘paradigm’and expose two dominant paradigmatic

traditions in business literature. Then we review culture

literature in business studies and chart out the

paradigmaticpreferences of scholars in this domain.Next,

we identify the problems emanating from the dominance

of certain paradigmatic traditions over others in this field

of study. We then offer insights into how scholars may

engage in such multi-paradigmatic studies. We conclude

the paper with a few words of caution regarding

conducting multi-paradigmatic research, a discussion of

our theoretical and practical implications, and with some

suggestions for future research.

Defining ‘paradigms’

The term ‘paradigm’derives from the Greek word

paradeigma, meaning model, pattern, or exemplar (Ball,

1976). In natural sciences, the first to speak of paradigms

was the eighteenth-century philosopher Georg

Lichtenberg, who conceptualized paradigms as accepted

standard models or patterns into which researchers fit

unfamiliar phenomena. Thomas Kuhn's work on

paradigms has had a considerable influence on

contemporary scholars. In The structure of scientific

revolutions, Kuhn (1962) defines a paradigm as an all-

encompassing world-view, a scientific cosmology, with

its attendant (often unconscious meta-physical)

assumptions about reality, knowledge, and truth. A

somewhat simpler definition offered by Guba (1990: 17)

described a paradigm as ‘a basic set of beliefs that guides

actions’. More recent definitions integrate the role of the

‘scientific community’within the definition of paradigm.

For instance, Faria et al. (2011) define a paradigm is a

set of beliefs, theories, empirical methodologies,

communication practices shared by a scientific commu-

nity that serves as a foundation for future scientific

endeavors. Similarly, Sterman (2000: 849) defines

paradigms as self-consistent communities of like-minded

scientists, sharing a worldview. From this perspective, it

is believed thatparadigms transform groupsof researchers

into a profession,and lead to the formation of professional

bodies, such as professional associations, schools of

thought, departments, and specialized journals (Faria

et al., 2011). Consequently, paradigms are resilient

(Kuhn, 1962); they are difficult to change because the

scientific community has invested a lot in them (Faria

et al., 2011). Nevertheless, when a paradigm fails to

explain anomalies, it results in crises that lead to the

emergence of new theories and to paradigm change

(Kuhn, 1962; Faria et al., 2011).

A paradigm includes three distinct components:

ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Ontology –

the theory of being- denotes assumptions about the nature

of reality (Lewis and Kelemen, 2002). It implies

developing strategies to expose the components of

Figure 1 Schematicrepresentation of our study.[Colour figure can be viewedat wileyonlinelibrary.com]

84 T. Patel

©2016 European Academy of Management