Is Yin-Yang Superior for Paradox Research?

Xin Li, Verner Worm, Xie Peihong

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    114 Downloads (Pure)

    Resumé

    Purpose: The paper debunks Peter P. Li’s assertion that Yin-Yang is superior to any other cognitive frames or logical systems for paradox research. The purpose of this paper is to alert the Chinese indigenous management researchers to the danger of Chinese exceptionalism and over-confidence.
    Design/methodology/approach: To show that Peter P. Li’s assertion is doubtful, the authors identify the flaws in his analysis.
    Findings: The authors find that there are three serious flaws in Peter P. Li’s analysis. First, there are four defects in the typology of cognitive frames he built in order to compare Yin-Yang with the others. Second, his understanding of dialectics in general and Hegelian dialectics in particular is flawed. And finally, without resorting to Yin-Yang, many scholars can develop theories that are equivalent to those derived from Yin-Yang.
    Research limitations/implications: Due to the page limit, this paper only focuses on arguing that Yin-Yang is not superior to other cognitive frames or logical systems without going one step further to explain in which situations Yin-Yang are valuable and might be more suitable than others for helping us understand some research issues.
    Practical implications: This paper implies that we should not blindly believe that the Chinese way of thinking and acting is superior to other people’s. Chinese people should be open-minded in the globalized era, not only promoting their own culture but also appreciating and learning from other cultures.
    Social implications: The reduction of cultural exceptionalism and ethnocentrism can make cross-cultural communication and interaction smoother.
    Originality/value: This paper is a rigorous critique on the “Yin-Yang being superior” assertion of Peter P. Li.
    OriginalsprogEngelsk
    TidsskriftCross Cultural and Strategic Management
    Vol/bind25
    Udgave nummer3
    Sider (fra-til)501-514
    Antal sider14
    ISSN2059-5794
    DOI
    StatusUdgivet - 2018

    Bibliografisk note

    Published online: 15 November 2017

    Emneord

    • Indigenous
    • Paradox
    • Yin-Yang
    • Hegel
    • Dialectic
    • Superior

    Citer dette

    @article{0f8ca33f83fd4ec18c3cf3430987c3c2,
    title = "Is Yin-Yang Superior for Paradox Research?",
    abstract = "Purpose: The paper debunks Peter P. Li’s assertion that Yin-Yang is superior to any other cognitive frames or logical systems for paradox research. The purpose of this paper is to alert the Chinese indigenous management researchers to the danger of Chinese exceptionalism and over-confidence.Design/methodology/approach: To show that Peter P. Li’s assertion is doubtful, the authors identify the flaws in his analysis.Findings: The authors find that there are three serious flaws in Peter P. Li’s analysis. First, there are four defects in the typology of cognitive frames he built in order to compare Yin-Yang with the others. Second, his understanding of dialectics in general and Hegelian dialectics in particular is flawed. And finally, without resorting to Yin-Yang, many scholars can develop theories that are equivalent to those derived from Yin-Yang.Research limitations/implications: Due to the page limit, this paper only focuses on arguing that Yin-Yang is not superior to other cognitive frames or logical systems without going one step further to explain in which situations Yin-Yang are valuable and might be more suitable than others for helping us understand some research issues.Practical implications: This paper implies that we should not blindly believe that the Chinese way of thinking and acting is superior to other people’s. Chinese people should be open-minded in the globalized era, not only promoting their own culture but also appreciating and learning from other cultures.Social implications: The reduction of cultural exceptionalism and ethnocentrism can make cross-cultural communication and interaction smoother.Originality/value: This paper is a rigorous critique on the “Yin-Yang being superior” assertion of Peter P. Li.",
    keywords = "Indigenous, Paradox, Yin-Yang, Hegel, Dialectic, Superior, Indigenous, Paradox, Yin-Yang, Hegel, Dialectic, Superior",
    author = "Xin Li and Verner Worm and Xie Peihong",
    note = "Published online: 15 November 2017",
    year = "2018",
    doi = "10.1108/CCSM-06-2016-0116",
    language = "English",
    volume = "25",
    pages = "501--514",
    journal = "Cross Cultural and Strategic Management",
    issn = "1352-7606",
    publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing",
    number = "3",

    }

    Is Yin-Yang Superior for Paradox Research? / Li, Xin; Worm, Verner; Peihong, Xie.

    I: Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, Bind 25, Nr. 3, 2018, s. 501-514.

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Is Yin-Yang Superior for Paradox Research?

    AU - Li, Xin

    AU - Worm, Verner

    AU - Peihong, Xie

    N1 - Published online: 15 November 2017

    PY - 2018

    Y1 - 2018

    N2 - Purpose: The paper debunks Peter P. Li’s assertion that Yin-Yang is superior to any other cognitive frames or logical systems for paradox research. The purpose of this paper is to alert the Chinese indigenous management researchers to the danger of Chinese exceptionalism and over-confidence.Design/methodology/approach: To show that Peter P. Li’s assertion is doubtful, the authors identify the flaws in his analysis.Findings: The authors find that there are three serious flaws in Peter P. Li’s analysis. First, there are four defects in the typology of cognitive frames he built in order to compare Yin-Yang with the others. Second, his understanding of dialectics in general and Hegelian dialectics in particular is flawed. And finally, without resorting to Yin-Yang, many scholars can develop theories that are equivalent to those derived from Yin-Yang.Research limitations/implications: Due to the page limit, this paper only focuses on arguing that Yin-Yang is not superior to other cognitive frames or logical systems without going one step further to explain in which situations Yin-Yang are valuable and might be more suitable than others for helping us understand some research issues.Practical implications: This paper implies that we should not blindly believe that the Chinese way of thinking and acting is superior to other people’s. Chinese people should be open-minded in the globalized era, not only promoting their own culture but also appreciating and learning from other cultures.Social implications: The reduction of cultural exceptionalism and ethnocentrism can make cross-cultural communication and interaction smoother.Originality/value: This paper is a rigorous critique on the “Yin-Yang being superior” assertion of Peter P. Li.

    AB - Purpose: The paper debunks Peter P. Li’s assertion that Yin-Yang is superior to any other cognitive frames or logical systems for paradox research. The purpose of this paper is to alert the Chinese indigenous management researchers to the danger of Chinese exceptionalism and over-confidence.Design/methodology/approach: To show that Peter P. Li’s assertion is doubtful, the authors identify the flaws in his analysis.Findings: The authors find that there are three serious flaws in Peter P. Li’s analysis. First, there are four defects in the typology of cognitive frames he built in order to compare Yin-Yang with the others. Second, his understanding of dialectics in general and Hegelian dialectics in particular is flawed. And finally, without resorting to Yin-Yang, many scholars can develop theories that are equivalent to those derived from Yin-Yang.Research limitations/implications: Due to the page limit, this paper only focuses on arguing that Yin-Yang is not superior to other cognitive frames or logical systems without going one step further to explain in which situations Yin-Yang are valuable and might be more suitable than others for helping us understand some research issues.Practical implications: This paper implies that we should not blindly believe that the Chinese way of thinking and acting is superior to other people’s. Chinese people should be open-minded in the globalized era, not only promoting their own culture but also appreciating and learning from other cultures.Social implications: The reduction of cultural exceptionalism and ethnocentrism can make cross-cultural communication and interaction smoother.Originality/value: This paper is a rigorous critique on the “Yin-Yang being superior” assertion of Peter P. Li.

    KW - Indigenous

    KW - Paradox

    KW - Yin-Yang

    KW - Hegel

    KW - Dialectic

    KW - Superior

    KW - Indigenous

    KW - Paradox

    KW - Yin-Yang

    KW - Hegel

    KW - Dialectic

    KW - Superior

    U2 - 10.1108/CCSM-06-2016-0116

    DO - 10.1108/CCSM-06-2016-0116

    M3 - Journal article

    VL - 25

    SP - 501

    EP - 514

    JO - Cross Cultural and Strategic Management

    JF - Cross Cultural and Strategic Management

    SN - 1352-7606

    IS - 3

    ER -