Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:14:21.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indigenous or Imported Knowledge in Brazilian Management Studies: A Quest for Legitimacy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Suzana B. Rodrigues ,
Roberto Gonzalez Duarte  and
Alexandre de Padua Carrieri
Suzana B. Rodrigues
Affiliation:
Erasmus University, The Netherlands
Roberto Gonzalez Duarte
Affiliation:
Federal University of Minos Gerais, Brazil
Alexandre de Padua Carrieri
Affiliation:
Federal University of Minos Gerais, Brazil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reflects upon the evolution of Brazilian management studies in light of the debate provoked by Management and Organization Review, 5(1), in a special edition on ‘The Future of Chinese Management Research’. Despite an impressive growth in publications, Brazilian management and organization studies have had litde conversation with mainstream international scholarship. The article offers some explanations as to why this might be so and suggests some alternatives for enhancing the international impact of Brazilian studies and advancing the country's reputation in the field. We suggest two routes through which Brazilian management studies could enhance international legitimacy: an outside-in approach, which draws upon established international contributions to theory to inform the investigation, but uses the Brazilian context to enlighten these same theories, and an inside-out approach that draws upon indigenous questions and research design to develop a theory relevant to the Brazilian context, which ultimately contributes to the enhancement of existing or to the creation of new theories. In addition, this article suggests that ambidextrous policies provide a better fit for research strategies intended to foster both approaches.

Keywords

Brazilimported knowledgeindigenous knowledgeinstitutional environmentlegitimacylocalness巴西引进知识本土知识制度环境合法性地方性
Type
Regular Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 8 , Issue 1: Special Issue Indigenous Management Research in China , March 2012 , pp. 211 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramovay, R., & Favarcto, A. 2009. As cstruturas sociais do desenvolvimcnto territorial - uma analisc da regiao do Cariri paraibano (Brasil). FIPE-Rimisp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Adams, J., & King, C. 2009. Global research report: Brazil research and collaboration in the new geography of science. Leeds: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
Alon, I., Child, J., Li, S., & Mclntyrc, J. R. 2011. Globalization of Chinese firms: Theoretical universalism or particularism. Management and Organization Review, 7(2): 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C. 1976. Theories of action that inhibit individual learning. American Psychologist, 31(9): 633–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astley, W. G. 1985. Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4): 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, J. B., & Zhang, S. 2009. The future of Chinese management research: A theory of Chinese management versus a Chinese theory of management. Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 15–28.Google Scholar
Becker, J. L., & Guerrciro, R. 2010. Relatório de Avaliação 2007-2009-Trienal 2010. Brasilia: Capes/MEC.Google Scholar
Bertcro, C. O., & Keincrt, T. M. M. 1994. A evolução da analise organizational no Brasil (1961-93). Revista de Administração de Empresas, 34(3): 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boisot, M. 1995. Information space: A framework for learning in organizations, institutions and culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bourdicu, P. 1988. Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
CAPES. 2009. Caderno de Indicadores. [Last accessed 10 October 2010.] Available from URL: http://www.capcs.gov.br/ Google Scholar
Cassiolato, J. E., Lastrcs, H. M. M., & Maciel, M. L. 2003. Systems of innovation and development: Evidence from Brazil. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, B. S., Wang, A. C., & Huang, M. P. 2009. The road more popular versus the road less travelled: An ‘insider's’ perspective ofadvancing Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, J. 2009. Context, comparison and methodology in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, J., & Rodrigues, S. B. 2005. The internationalization of Chinese firms: A case for theoretical extension? Management and Organization Review, 1(3): 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S. R., & Hardy, C. 1996. Representations. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C. & Nord, W. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies: 676-708. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R., & Hardy, C. 2006. Representation and reflcxivity. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B. & Nord, W. R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies: 425-443. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CREST OMC Working Group. 2008. Internationalization of R&D - Facing the challenge of globalization: Approaches to a proactive international policy in S&T. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Brussels: 1–26.Google Scholar
Cruz, C. H. B., & Chaimovich, H. 2010. Brazil. In UNESCO (Ed.), UNESCO Science Report: The current status of science around the world: 103-121. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2008. The internationalization of developing country MNEs: The case of multilatinas. Journal of International Management, 14(2): 138–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Silva, J. F., Da Rocha, A., & Carneiro, J. 2009. The international expansion of firms from emerging markets: Toward a typology of Brazilian MNEs. Latin American Business Review, 10: 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeNisi, A. S. 2010. Challenges and opportunities for the academy in the next decade. The Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 190–201.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fachin, R. C. 2006. Construindo uma associação cientifica: trinta anos da Anpad—memorias, registros, desafios. Rio de Janeiro: Anpad.Google Scholar
Fleury, A., & Fleury, M. T. 2011. Brazilian multinationals: Competences for internationalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. 2011. Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Making organization research matter: Power, values and phronesis. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B. & Nord, W. R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies: 370-387. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. C., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. Discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, A., & Pusterla, F. 2010. Emerging economies multinationals: General features and specificities of the Brazilian and Chinese cases. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 5(3/4): 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotabe, M., Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Parentc, R., & Mishra, H. A. 2007. Determinants of cross-national knowledge transfer and its effect on firm innovation. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2): 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, B., & Hendrischke, H. 2008. Framing China: Transformation and institutional change through co-evolution. Management and Organization Review, 4(1): 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, S. 2011. Brazil — focused publications in leading business journals. European Business Review, 23(1): 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazzarini, S. G., Miller, G. J., & Zenger, T. R. 2008. Dealing with the paradox of embeddedness: The role of contracts and trust in facilitating movement out of committed relationships. Organization Science, 19(5): 709–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, K. 2009. Never the twain shall meet? Integrating Chinese and western management research. Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, N. 2011. Capitalism in China: A centrally managed capitalism (CMC) and its future. Management and Organization Review, 7(1): 63–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, J., Liu, X., & Wang, H. 2011. Motives for outward FDI of Chinese private firms: Firm resources, industry dynamics, and government policies. Management and Organization Review, 7(2): 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machado-da-Silva, C. L., Cunha, V. C., & Ambon, N. 1990. Organizações: O estado da arte da produção acadêmica no Brasil. Paper presented at the 14° Encontro Anual da ANPAD. Rio de Janeiro, Setcmber 1990.Google Scholar
Machado-da-Silva, C. L., Guarido Filho, E. R., Rossoni, L., & Graeff, J. F. 2008. Periódicos brasileiros de administração: Análise bibliométrica de impacto no triênio 2005-2007. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 2(3): 351–373.Google Scholar
March, J. G. 2005. Parochialism in the evolution of a research community: The case of organization studies. Management and Organization Review, 1(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, E. 1949. Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company, the social problems of an industrial civilization. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Menard-Warwick, J. 2005. Both a fiction and an existential fact: Theorizing identity in second language acquisition and literacy studies. Linguistics and Education, 16(3): 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2009. Understanding variation in managers' ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4): 812–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, L. F., Arvidsson, N., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations: Explaining subsidiary ssolation and its performance implications. Organization Science, 19(1): 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(April): 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Pcrez-Batres, L. A., & Eden, L. 2008. Is there a liability of localncss? How emerging market firms respond to regulatory punctuations. Journal of International Management, 14(3): 232–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M. 1987. Context and action in the transformation of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6): 649–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M. 2001. Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management, 12(Suppl s1): S61–S70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramamurti, R., & Singh, J. V. 2009. Emerging multinationals in emerging markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, M. 2006. Organizational theorizing: A historically contested terrain. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B. & Nord, W. R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies: 19-54. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ribciro, D. 2009. Estruturas Organizacionais: Um possivel delineamento da produção cientifica nacional sobre o tema no período 1998-2008. Paper presented at the 33° Encontro Anual da ANPAD. Rio de Janeiro, September, ENANPAD, 2009.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, S. B., & Barros, B. 2002. Management in Brazil. In Warner, M. (Ed.), The international encyclopaedia of business and management (2nd ed.): 528–540. London: Thompson Learning.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, S. B., & Carrieri, A. P. 2001. A tradição anglo-saxonica nos estudos organizacionais brasileiros. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, Edição Especial, 5(Sep): 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossoni, L., & Guarido Filho, E. R. 2009. Cooperação entre programas de pós-graduação em Administração no Brasil: Evidências estruturais em quatro areas temáticas. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 13(3): 366–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1): 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Economist. 2011. Go south, young scientist. January 6: 36–37.Google Scholar
Tinoco, T. 2005. A Produção Científica de Administração no Brazil, 1997-2002: Uma Perspectiva Bibliométrica. Unpublished master dissertation, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, São Paulo.Google Scholar
Tsang, E. W. K. 2009. Chinese management research at a crossroads: Some philosophical considerations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A. S. 2006. Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 2(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S. 2009. Editor's introduction - Autonomy of inquiry: Shaping the future of emerging scientific communities. Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNESCO. 2010. Unesco science report: The current status of science around the world. Paris: Unesco Publishing.Google Scholar
Vergara, S. C., & Carvalho, J. R. 1995. Nacionalidade dos autores referenciados na literatura brasileira sobre organizações. Revista Brasileira de Administração Contemporânea, 1(6): 169–188.Google Scholar
Whitley, R. 2003. Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: The impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science. Research Policy, 32(6): 1015–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitley, R. 2010. Reconfiguring the public sciences: The impact of governance changes on authority and innovation in public sciences. In Whitley, R., Glaser, J. & Engwall, L. (Eds.), Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relations in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation: 3-50. Oxford: Oxford University Press, The Public Sciences.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar