COVER SHEET

This is the author version of article published as:

Yang, Xiaohua and Terjesen, Siri (2007) In Search of Context, Collaboration, Confidence, Constraints and Care. Asian Pacific Journal of Management 24(4):pp. 497-507.

Copyright 2007 Springer Accessed from http://eprints.qut.edu.au

1

In Search of Confidence: Context, Collaboration, and Constraints

Xiaohua Yang* School of Management,

Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Australia 4001

Tel: +61-7-3138-1242; Fax: +61-7-3138-1771 E-mail: x3.yang@qut.edu.au

Siri Terjesen

Brisbane Graduate School of Business, Queensland University of Technology,

GPO Box 2434, B423, Brisbane, Australia 4001

Max Planck Institute of Economics, Group: Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy,

Kahlaische Straße 10, D-07745 Jena, Germany Tel: +61-7-3138-1105; Fax: +61-7-3138-1299

E-mail: siriterjesen@yahoo.com

* Both authors contributed equally to this article. Please address correspondence to the first author.

To appear in the 25th anniversary issue of Asia Pacific Journal of Management

The authors thank Mike Peng (Editor-in-Chief) for comments on an earlier draft.

2

In Search of Confidence: Context, Collaboration and Constraints

Abstract

The development of any field of scientific inquiry involves global scholarly conversations.

While we agree with Meyer’s (2006) key tenets, we extend his discussion of Asia

management scholars’ need for self-confidence by exploring the role of context,

collaboration, and constraints in global scholarly discourse. In particular, we highlight the

need for consideration of multi-level context, the development of theories that are good

for local stakeholders’ management practice and technology-facilitated and super-

institutional collaboration. We illustrate our arguments for the development,

legitimization, and institutionalization of Asia Pacific management research with

examples from management and other scholarly disciplines in Australia, China, Europe,

and North America.

“Look how well off I am here by the Well!” shouted a horned frog to a spotted turtle from

the Ocean. “I can hop along the steps of the well to go out, and rest by a crevice in the

bricks. I can wallow to my heart's content with only my head above water, or stroll ankle-

deep through soft mud. No crabs or goldfish can compare with me. I am master of the

water and lord of the Well. What more can a fellow ask? Why don't you come here more

often to have a good time?” Before the turtle from the Ocean could get his left foot into

the well, however, he caught his right claw on something. So he halted, stepped back and

began to describe the Ocean to the frog, “It’s more than a thousand miles across and

more than ten thousand feet deep. In ancient times there were floods nine years out of ten,

yet the water in the Ocean never increased. And later there were droughts seven years out

of eight yet the water in the Ocean never grew less. It has remained quite constant

3

throughout the ages. That is why I like to live in the Ocean.” Then the frog in the shallow

Well was silent and felt a little abashed.

This story of a conversation between the Frog from the Well and the Turtle from the

Ocean illustrates the collision of two worlds— and two world views. The Frog becomes

less self-confident and falls silent. This new information about life and experiences

beyond his little Well may forever change his set of assumptions and theories about the

world.

The story is a nice metaphor for Asia management researchers joining “scholarly

conversations” (Huff, 1999). In order to participate in such “global scholarly discourse,”

Meyer (2006) suggests that Asia management researchers need to develop more self-

confidence. While we agree with many of Meyer’s (2006) key tenets, we extend his

arguments by exploring the role of context, collaboration, and constraints. We conclude

with a discussion of the importance of care. Our ideas are illustrated with examples from

management and other scholarly disciplines and our own research and experiences around

the globe.

Context

As management scholars, we operate in a paradigm where context-free is the dominant

bias (Blair & Hunt, 1996), yet context is critical for understanding the phenomena under

study (Johns, 2006). Meyer (2006) contends that Asia management researchers should

contextualize the phenomena of interest to local managers, adapting and developing new

theories, while enriching global scholarly discourse—what Peng (2005) calls “think

4

globally, act locally.” The contextualization process involves “linking observations to a

set of relevant facts, events, or points of view that make possible research and theory that

form part of a larger whole” (Rousseau & Fried, 2001: 1). We echo White (2002), Tsui

(2004), Peng (2005), Meyer (2006), and others’ calls for a focus on context in Asian

management research, but wish to articulate a few practical differences and extensions

related to scope, influence on practice and actions.

First, in contrast to Meyer’s (2006) three neat boxes: context-free (universal), context-

bound (comparative), and context-specific knowledge, we view contextual knowledge as a

continuum. Boundary conditions are blurred, particularly in a fast globalizing world

characterized by social and economic transformations.

Second, although Meyer (2006) focuses on national and regional dimensions, context is

more than location. Context includes occupation, location, time, rationale, task, social and

physical dimensions (Johns, 2006). One example is Child and Möllering’s (2003) study of

contextual confidence and the importance of active trust development in the Chinese

business environment. By contextualizing phenomena, scholars enable the assessment of

appropriate boundary conditions. Another critical aspect of context, culture, is

omnipresent and addressed by Hofstede (2007) in this issue. Asia management scholars

must consider the multiple dimensions of context when scoping phenomena.

Furthermore, context is illuminated by studies, over time, of processes, events and

developments. For example, Baumol’s (1990) treatise on the variance in the productive

contribution of society’s entrepreneurial activities based on innovation or rent-seeking

5

activities incorporates examples from early China as well as ancient Rome and

Renaissance Europe. Xiaohua and colleagues explored the impact of China’s imminent

accession into the World Trade Organization, suggesting that such institutional change

could increase China’s inward foreign direct investment (FDI) levels and enhance the

competitiveness of Chinese firms in the global market (Wang, Johnson, & Yang, 2003).

Context can be illuminated by incorporating cross-level or comparative studies. For

example, Siri and colleagues’ research “Could the Irish Miracle be Repeated in Hungary?”

(Acs, O’Gorman, Szerb & Terjesen, 2007) develops a theoretical framework linking

inward FDI and industrial policy with emergent entrepreneurial activity. The

socioeconomic and political histories of Ireland and Hungary are described, and then

directly tested using comparative data.

Many scholars, including Meyer (2006), suggest that researchers gather both qualitative

and quantitative data. We wish to point out that qualitative data, collected in Asia or any

other setting, provides researchers with an awareness of the full set of potentially

important variables and interactions within this context. For example, rather than directly

applying scaled items from research developed in North American contexts, Asia

management researchers could use repertory grid1 interviews with local managers to elicit

key constructs, and then conduct a survey.

Moreover, this depth can enable rich theoretical development and, in some cases, the

development of new theory—again an outcry of Meyer (2006) and others in the field.

1 Originally developed for use in psychology by George Kelly, repertory grid methodology has high reliability and has been used to develop many key contributions in management and strategy (Wright, 2006). The repertory grid interview process elicits respondents’ perceptions of elements and helps generate conversation and engagement.

6

There are many examples of theory emerging from Asia, albeit mostly outside the world

of management scholarship. For example, one of the world’s oldest games, chess, was

developed in sixth century India. The game and, just as importantly, deep conversations

about openings, gambits, and defenses traveled—first to Persia during the next century

and later to Europe. Over time and space, chess masters conversed and developed new

ideas and corpuses of chess theory have been regularly published since the fifteenth

century2.

In addition, Meyer (2006) describes how Asia management scholars were often

encouraged to focus on mainstream research issues outside the Asia context. Indeed,

Mike Peng (2005) describes his and Oded Shenkar’s PhD experiences. Both Mike and

Oded began their graduate programs with ambitions to study China business but were

guided into more “accepted” lines of theoretical inquiry. Only later, when their careers

were more established did they fully pursue Asia management research. Today, the most

cited Greater China-related organization and management research appearing in top

journals is written by authors in the USA and UK, followed by Hong Kong, Canada, and

Taiwan (Li & Tsui, 2002). The tendency to “not inquire in my backyard” (NIIMBY) is

also reflected in Australia. A survey of the top journals reveals that of 230 articles

published by Australia-based scholars, only a “handful” focus specifically on Australian

context or sample (Harzing, 2005). The “othering3” of Asia management scholarship by

2 The history and development of chess is well addressed in Henry Bird’s (1890) Chess History and Reminiscences and other texts. Chess developed from Chaturanga, an ancient Indian game played in the sixth century or earlier. New rules and theories have been adapted over time. For example, by the European Renaissance and noble culture, the modern Queen and bishop pieces move similarly to the ancient Indian predecessors, a counselor and a bishop. Today the World Chess Federation (FIDE) has 158 member country organizations and an estimated 285 million people play chess online 3 Othering refers to defining and securing one’s own positive identity through the stigmatization of an “other.”

7

both non-Asia and Asia-based scholars is a key obstacle, thwarting conversation and

preventing paradigm shifts. Meanwhile, researchers in other scientific fields such as

medicine scour rainforests and remote locales in Asia and elsewhere in the world, seeking

new species, cures, phenomena, and knowledge. Of course, seeking new context is not

always easy. For example, Siri’s most recent research visit to a remote village in

Thirinvallur, India, involved months of planning, a cocktail of immunizations and anti-

malarial pills, 20 hours in an airplane, and a hike through agricultural fields. She observed

the diffusion of technological innovation and the organization of self-help groups among

an Irula tribal people whose rat catching activities constitute their principal source of

income and food (see Terjesen, 2007a). The experience of being the first management

scholar (and the first Westerner!) to meet villagers was part of an exhilarating journey

which has dramatically changed her personal paradigms about the sources and impacts of

management. On her walk past mud huts on a red dust path lit by evening’s twilight, she

was overcome with a sense of self and purpose. She had witnessed something wild,

magical and complete about the power of entrepreneurship, innovation and collective

enterprise to transform lives. She would actively and fully engage such projects that were

previously bounded by time, distance, energy and comfort level. Her journal scribbles

read, “… that each research journey extends self, engages new— we understand

experiences by knowledge-ing each revision.”

Finally, and most importantly, why does context really matter? Meyer (2006: 120) argues,

“Support for the validity of existing theories may delight those who contributed to

building the original theory (and who are likely journal reviewers). Yet, they may

be of little value to local stakeholders in the research.”

8

Who are the local stakeholders? Allow us to take Meyer’s arguments a step further and

build on observations by Sheila Puffer and Daniel McCarthy (2007) in Russia. While the

presentation and publication of these findings is mostly confined to “an incestuous, closed

loop” of management scholars (Hambrick, 1994: 13), this knowledge has great potential to

spill over into practice. Researchers who teach students and managers are likely to share

the outcomes of their research. What happens when these “original developer and journal

reviewer-delighting” theories are inappropriately applied? Sumantra Ghoshal provides the

answer in the title of one of his last papers, “Bad management theories are destroying

good management practices.” He quotes Lewin (1945:129): “nothing is as practical as a

good theory,” but cautions that “The obverse is also true: Nothing is as dangerous as a bad

theory” (2005:86). Let us reflect on Meyer’s (2006: 133) observation, “To put it bluntly,

an expert of the Californian electricity industry would have a better chance of obtaining a

professorship in Hong Kong or Singapore than an expert of the Chinese electricity

industry.” What if the theories relevant to the Californian electricity industry do not fit

Hong Kong or Singapore? What if they are taught anyway, especially by someone who

knows little of the Hong Kong or Singapore industry? Is there, as Ghoshal suggests, a

potential for ‘bad management theory’ to ‘destroy good management practice’?

Collaboration

Meyer calls for “collaboration of scholars engaged in global scholarly discourses with

local scholars familiar with the specific contexts” so that “deep knowledge of the local

context” can be wedded to “up to date knowledge of the literature” (2006: 124). To

engage in such global scholarly conversation, we argue that researchers must pursue both

9

international collaboration and “brain circulation”. In contrast to “brain drain” where

individuals leave their home countries to work abroad, “brain circulation” (Saxenian,

2005) describes the phenomena of individuals subsequently returning home and

establishing relationships while still maintaining social and professional ties to their

former host country. For the purpose of this article, we broaden the definition of “brain

circulation” to include the phenomenon of frequent travel across two or more countries.

Such brain circulation may generate global discourse which makes it possible for

researchers to engage in developing theories and models “making the familiar appear

novel” and “making the novel appear familiar” (Tsui, 2004: 498).

Such collaborative circulations are not new to management researchers. For example,

prior to the development of North American organization studies scholarship, North

American researchers regularly sought close links to Europe (Augier et al., 2005).

Following World War II, North America’s cross-continent exchanges became less

frequent as they identified and developed a large on-shore community. “Scholarly fields

often bury their early and geographically distant contributors through some combination

of ignorance, localized ambitions for recognition, and convenient conceptions of progress;

and the field of organization studies in North America clearly exhibits such myopia”

(Augier et al., 2005: 85). Today, there are many examples of highly successful

collaborations, particularly between the US and Europe. For example, Bruce Kogut and

Udo Zander’s 1993 work on knowledge in multinational corporations won the Decade

Award from Journal of International Business Studies. As documented in Kogut and

Zander (2003), the brain circulating collaboration began with Kogut, a Californian,

spending his Wharton sabbatical leave at the Stockholm School of Economics. Zander, a

10

Swede, spent a Fulbright year in California. Their friendship and working collaboration

began with a chat in the basement boardroom of the Institute of International Business at

the Stockholm School of Economics.

Across the Ocean, how many Australia-based scholars participate in such international

collaborations? Across Australian research disciplines, international collaboration has

increased from 11.4% in 1981 to 34.9% in 1999 (Butler, 2003). Harzing (2005) notes that

of the ten most highly-cited articles by Australia-based authors published in the top 20

journals in Business and Economics between 1994-2004, just one was authored by

Australia-based authors only; the rest involved international co-authors or dual affiliations.

We concur with Meyer (2006) about the need for scholarly collaboration through PhD

education abroad, sabbatical leaves, and joint projects and with Ramaswamy (2007) on the

need for faculty exchange programs. We wish to point out that while many universities

have successful joint MBA programs with institutions in North America and Europe, joint

doctoral programs may also prove to be worthwhile investments by expanding

international higher education, combining strengths and providing PhD students and

faculty with access to a global network of scholars and possibilities for high quality

indigenous and comparative research. Such initiatives are already underway (Cavusgil,

1998). Well-established star scholars can also benefit by collaborating with those new to

the field. First, established scholars gain access to individuals who can do basic but solid

ground work, such as data collection, data analysis, and interpretation. Second, they can

explore phenomena and theory in new contextual environments. Third, they can ensure

11

that the next generation of management research is well-trained. In effect, the next

generation of management scholars could be “born” into a global research community.

We extend Meyer (2006) by briefly highlighting how technology can be harnessed in aid

of global scholarly conversations. For example, Skype is an inexpensive way to

communicate with co-authors. Customized Google news alerts and pages are other useful

features, providing researchers with daily updates of news, for example with the search

terms “entrepreneurship” and “Australia.” Taken together, such technology enables

researchers with access to the latest phenomena, facilitating scholarly thinking, research,

and conversations.

Finally, global collaboration is needed at super-national and super-institutional levels,

organizing dozens or hundreds of scholars in global conversations. The Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) project (Reynolds et al., 2005) is a wonderful example

of the development of a global community of scholars engaged in comparative research.

Active since 1998, GEM now includes over 270 scholars from 50 countries, including 37

scholars at 11 Asian institutions collaborating in an annual comparative survey of

entrepreneurial activity. The same sets of questions about entrepreneurial activity are

asked across countries, but each country can also develop a unique set of questions.

Collaboration is encouraged and research is regularly published in high quality journals.

Constraints (freedom from)

What factors constrain the development of Asia management research? Let us examine the

foundations of the world’s most robust management research institutions and national

12

cultures. The success of organization scholarship in North America is attributable to

several factors: glorification of science, acknowledged role of institutions in creating and

disseminating knowledge, growth of university education, optimism about the ability of

researchers to solve social problems and autonomous divisions (Augier et al., 2005).

What are the constraints in Australia and elsewhere in Asia Pacific? Australian

management research suffers from a lack of investment in research, a focus on attracting

fee-paying (international) students, high student/staff ratio and teaching loads, low

salaries, lack of local management process, and an incentive system rewarding quantity

over quality publications (Harzing, 2005). The government’s primary funding scheme,

the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Grant, rewards comparatively few

management proposals, and provides smaller amounts than those gifted in other fields

(Harzing, 2005).

In place since 1994 but planned to be phased out in 2008, Australia’s Department of

Education, Science and Training (DEST) point system has inhibited the development of a

robust management research community. The DEST point system rewards quantity and

solo-authorships over quality and co-authorships and is a key input into decisions about

funding universities and departments and also promoting and rewarding scholars. Each

non-book publication, whether a journal article, book chapter, or conference proceeding is

given the same weight, 1, but includes a fractional count to reflect the number of co-

authors. For example, in 2006, Siri’s research with three scholars from the UK and

Sweden appeared in the Strategic Management Journal (Birkinshaw, Braunerhjelm,

Holm, & Terjesen, 2006). This piece was therefore included in DEST as .25 (1 point

13

divided by 4 co-authors). In contrast, an eclectic, solo-authored piece appearing in the

Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship’s 2007 conference proceedings is

rewarded with a full DEST point (Terjesen, 2007b). If Siri wished to accumulate more

DEST points, she would need to focus on generating a high number of publications and

eschew collaborative, high-level work targeted at leading journals which, from her

experience, tends to be more time-consuming, more challenging, and more rewarding than

preparing conference manuscripts.

Meyer (2006:122) boxed “local research disconnected from global conversations” as that

knowledge which has local value but does not contribute to global knowledge. We find

much evidence down under. Across Australia-based scholars publishing in top journals,

Economics and Business papers have the highest number of papers (ex equo with Social

Sciences/general) and the lowest discipline ranking of citations per paper (ex equo with

Physics) (Harzing, 2005). Simply put, Australia-based management researchers are

talking a lot, but, as evidenced in the extraordinarily low citation counts, not participating

in global scholarly conversations. Furthermore, the conversation appears to be largely

confined to the continent. For example, of the 46 most prolific contributors to the

Australian Journal of Management (identified in Gallagher, 2006), all but two were based

at Australian universities.

Meyer (2005) draws attention to Australia’s Asia-leading rates of training its own

academics within country (60.2%) and within university (e.g., 36.4% at the University of

Queensland). Although Australia is the world’s sixth largest country by land mass with a

population of 20 million, only five cities have a population over one million. Although

14

there are 38 universities, only a handful are research-intensive. For example, within the

state of Queensland, the only two universities with a sizable representation of scholars

presenting work at the 2006 Academy of Management were University of Queensland (25

faculty members) and Queensland University of Technology (24). Thus, if a Brisbane-

trained and -based scholar wanted to contemplate taking a position at a research-intensive

university that wasn’t more than a 90 minute plane flight, her options would be very

limited.

There are two other elements in the Australian context worth calling attention to. First,

Australia suffers from what historian Geoffrey Blainey (1977) terms the “tyranny of

distance.” Australia’s geographic and figurative location from the rest of the world has

shaped its development, in good and bad ways. For example, Australia-based management

researchers who attend the Academy of Management meetings in North America

accumulate an average of 20,000 frequent flyer miles! Distance makes cross-pollination

difficult, resulting in unique fauna (e.g. Australia’s kangaroo!). One wonders what unique

management species exist on this remnant of the supercontinent Gondwana.

Second, Australian scholars do not have a strong track record in promoting their work. In

fact, this self-promotion runs against many values. In Australia, a “tall poppy” is an

individual with better-than-average abilities. While tall poppies are tolerated among elite

athletes and rockstars, the “tall poppy syndrome” refers to the behavioral tendency of

Australians to knock down those who are ‘superior’ to them. People who call attention to

themselves or speak against Australian culture can be described as “Un-Australian,” the

highest insult in the land. Of course, this behavior is not necessarily confined to Australia.

15

Variants are easily identifiable in Scandinavian culture. For example, the Norwegian

expression “janteloven” means “Don't ever think you count for anything!”

Institutional constraints also exist off Australia’s shores. In China, many PhD students are

required to publish in the top Chinese-language journals before graduating from their

programs. Furthermore, the majority of China-based journals are published in Chinese and

only a handful include English language abstracts. Hence, China-based researchers are

less likely to share in the “global scholarly discourse” and the reverse is also true: non-

Chinese-speaking researchers may have trouble joining the Chinese language conversation.

Some non-Asia-based journals are enabling conversations. For example, since 2007, the

International Small Business Journal publishes abstracts in Chinese, as well as French,

Spanish and German. Also, research development in Latin America suffers due to the low

importance of endogenous knowledge production and the isolation of the ‘elitist’

university system (Arocena & Satz, 2001).

Conclusion: The Need for Care

Unconstrained, management research might finally reach its potential. We wish to

emphasize the duty to care and to make a difference. In his 1993 Presidential address at

the Academy of Management, Don Hambrick spoke of a fictitious “Society for

Administrative Science,” founded in 1949, and reflected on the milestones that were not to

pass, beginning with:

“1972: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announces a new Nobel Prize

category: administrative science. Coming three years after the first Nobel Prize in

economics, this new category, in the words of a spokesperson for the Swedish

16

Academy, ‘will honor extraordinary contributions toward the improved

functioning of organizations in society’.”

Hambrick concludes the clippings, “Members of the Academy of Management, that is

what we might have been. We might have mattered.” Over a dozen years later, a great

administrator won a [real] Nobel Prize. Bangladeshi professor Muhammad Yunus

received the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for his pioneering work in establishing self-help and

micro-credit organizations. While leading his Chittagong University students through a

poor village, he interviewed a woman who made bamboo stools and learned that to

purchase the raw bamboo, she had to borrow money at rates as high as 10% per week,

leaving her with only a penny’s profit. Had she borrowed at a better rate, she might have

been able to raise herself to a subsistence level. Yunus loaned $30 to 42 poor but

enterprising women. Building on this very basic research and subsequent experiences,

Yunus founded the Grameen Bank which today disburses over $59 million in loans each

week, with a repayment rate of 98%. Grameen Bank facilitates 138 micro-credit programs

in 37 countries. The Nobel Prize announcement read, in part, “Muhammad Yunus has

shown himself to be a leader who has managed to translate visions into practical action for

the benefit of millions of people… Grameen Bank has been a source of ideas and models

for the many institutions in the field of micro-credit that have sprung up around the

world.”

Yunus did not set about to test a theory of poverty alleviation developed in North America

or elsewhere. Rather, he observed phenomena in villages in Asia and developed new

theory and administrative structures related to micro-credit and poverty alleviation. Yunus

17

was based at an institution which is not among the top ‘research’ players in Asia. As a

scholar, Yunus did not optimize his career around publishing in a certain set of journals.

And yet, he initiated theory and institutions which have been applied and adapted around

the world. As scholars and caretakers of the meaningfulness of management in this world,

our duty of care brings us into conversations with Yunus and others.

The twenty-first century has been dubbed an ‘Asia Century’ (Austin & Harris, 2001) and a

“Chinese Century” (Shenkar, 2005). There is some agreement, at least in the business

community, that Asia matters. So too should Asia management research. While the

inclusion of Asia management researchers in global scholarly discourse may not result in

Kuhn’s (1970) revolutionary paradigm shifts, we agree with Au (2007) that Asia

management research may become a “top ‘brand’ in the global research enterprise.”

Mie Augier, James March, and Bilian Sullivan (2005: 92) offer another view of the future:

“The last half of the twentieth century provides a classic instance of the inattention

of the large and powerful to the small and weak. North American scholars appear

to be consistently less conscious of European and Asian research than European

and Asian scholars are of North American research. As European and Asian

centers of organizations scholarship continue to develop, this parochialism will

become increasingly dysfunctional. American imperialism is one form of scientific

universalism, but it is a form that is likely to encounter increasing resistance from

European and Asian scholars and could leave their North American colleagues

dangerously isolated.”

18

We are more optimistic. We agree with many of Meyer’s (2006) key points, but extend his

analysis in the areas of context, collaboration, and freedom from constraints. Returning to

our opening short story, we believe the horned frog from the Well and the spotted turtle

from the Ocean will keep the conversation going. We hope that the frog and the turtle will

experience both the Well and the Ocean together.

19

References Acs, Z., O’Gorman, C., Szerb, L., & Terjesen, S. 2007. Could the Irish miracle be repeated in Hungary? Small Business Economics, 2/3: 123-142. Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. 2001. Changing knowledge production and Latin American universities. Research Policy, 30: 1221-1334. Au, K. 2007. Self-confidence does not come isolated from the environment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (this issue). Augier, M., March, J.G., & Sullivan, B.N. 2005. Notes on the evolution of a research community: Organization studies in Anglophone North America, 1945-2000. Organization Science, 16(1): 85-95. Austin, G., & Harris, S. 2001. Japan and Greater China: Political economy and military power in the Asian century. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Baumol, W.J. 1990. Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive and destructive . Journal of Political Economy, 98(5): 893-921. Bird, H.E. 1890. Chess History and Reminiscences. Full-text available at: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/chshr10.txt Birkinshaw, J., Braunerhjelm, P., Holm, U., & Terjesen, S. 2006. Why do some multinational corporations relocate their corporate headquarters overseas? Strategic Management Journal, 27(7): 681-700. Blainey, G. 1977. The tyranny of distance: How distance shaped Australia's history. MacMillan. Blair, J.D., & Hunt, J.G. 1986. Getting inside the head of the management researcher one more time: context-free and context-specific orientations in research. Journal of Management, 12: 147-166. Butler, L. 2003. Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications – the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32: 143-155. Cavusgil, T. 1998. Internationalizing Doctoral Education in Business: A Call for Action. Thunderbird International Business Review, 40(1): 77-85. Child, J., & Möllering, G. 2003. Contextual confidence and active trust development in the Chinese business environment. Organization Science, 14(1): 69-80. Gallagher, D.R. 2006. Thirty years of published research in the Australian Journal of Management. Australian Journal of Management, 31(1): 141-160. Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1): 75-91.

20

Hambrick, D.C. 1994. 1993 Presidential Address: What if the Academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19(1): 11-16. Harzing, A.W.K. 2005. Australian research output in economics and business: High volume, low impact? Australian Journal of Management, 30(2): 183-200. Hofstede, G. 2007. Asian Management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (this issue). Huff, A. 1999. Writing for scholarly publication. Sage. Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 386-408. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4): 625-645. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 2003. A memoir and reflection: knowledge and an evolutionary theory of the multinational firm 10 years later. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6): 505-515. Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Lewin, K. 1945. The research centre for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry, 8: 126-135. Li, J., & Tsui, A.S. 2002. A citation analysis of management and organization research in the Chinese context: 1984-1999. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(1): 87-107. Meyer, K. 2006. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2): 119-137. Peng, M. 2005. From China strategy to global strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22(2): 123-141. Puffer, S.M., & McCarthy, D.J. 2007. Does Asian management research need more self confidence? Reflections from Russia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (this issue). Ramaswamy, K. 2007. Asian management research needs broader initiatives and focused incentives. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (this issue). Reynolds, P.D., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia, P., & Chin, N. 2005. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Data collection design and implementation 1998-2003. Small Business Economics, 24(3): 205-231. Rousseau, D.M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 1-13.

21

Saxenian, A. 2005. From brain drain to brain circulation: Transnational communities and regional upgrading in India and China. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40(2): 35-61. Shenkar, O, 2005. The Chinese century. Wharton School Publishing: Philadelphia. Terjesen, S. 2007a. Building a better rat trap: Technological innovation, human capital and the Irula. Working Paper. Terjesen, S. 2007b. Venturing beyond the marathon: The entrepreneurship of Ultrarunning and the IAU World Cup in Korea. AGSE Conference Proceedings, Brisbane. Tsui, A.S. 2004. Contributing to global management knowledge: A case for high quality indigenous research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(4): 491-513. Wang, G., Johnson, M.V., & Yang, X. 2003. China's revised FDI laws and WTO entry create changing patterns of FDI in China: Implications for investors and policy makers, Journal of Emerging Markets, 8(3): 5-15. White, S. 2002. Rigour and relevance in Asian management research: Where are we and where can we go?” Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2/3): 287-352. Wright, R.P. 2006. Rigor and relevance using repertory grid technique in strategy research, in Ketchen, D.J., and Bergh, D.D. (Eds.), Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 3: 295-348. Xiaohua Yang (PhD, University of Kansas) is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Management at Queensland University of Technology. She has presented and published her work in the leading management journals and conferences around the world. She has taught in the United States, Australia, China, and Taiwan and lectured in Europe. Her research interests are in the areas of global strategy, expatriate management and corporate social responsibility. Her current research is on internationalization of firms in emerging markets. Siri Terjesen (PhD, Cranfield University) is a Senior Lecturer in the Brisbane Graduate School of Business at Queensland University of Technology and a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute of Economics in Jena, Germany. She has published her international research in the Strategic Management Journal, Small Business Economics, and other journals. She is a member of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. In the northern summers, she teaches entrepreneurship at the London School of Economics and Political Science and Peking University. Her research interests include strategy and entrepreneurship.