Summary of Developing theory from strategic management research in China by Yuan Li and Mike W Peng, 2008 The research

issue presented in this paper is a theoretical gap between the global theory developments with that of China in the field of strategic management. This is despite the fact that Chine being the most studied country as indicated in the high presence of articles in the Asia Pacific Journal of Management (58%). This paper attempts to map the most common approaches of theory development in China context, identifying recent efforts on it and also recommended approach deemed suitable to bridge between China and the global theory development. The author classifies 3 approaches of theory development in Chin, summarized in the following figure: Approach Chinese local scholars: Chinaspecific theories Advantages Highly unique and indegenious theories may be developed Disadvantage Lacks theoritical background, unlikely to be tested universally, lack of support on scientific methodology Chinese trained in the West returned to Chinese Business Schools: validating western theories in China Broaden range of western theories, enhance understanding of Chinese realties from western perspective, likely to be tested by non Chinese speaking scholars Scholars familiar with western theories and ware of Chines uniqueness: Integrative (hybrid) Investgating systematic different assumptions between western and Chinese frameworks, English publications and set vocabs understandable by nonChinese speaking, likely to be Require long time to observe, Reviewers may reject the proposed approach for preference of existing framework, lack of appreciation by Chinese speaking scholars not familiar Possible misfit between western (mostly US) theories and Chinese realilities e.g: on private firms in the US and state-owned enterprises in China.

tested

with Eglish

The proposion offered by the authors of an integrative approach is based two streams which have been developed in the past decade. The first one focuses on the relationship between culture, strategic action and firm performance which have indicated unique characteristics, different that those in developed economies. This stream recognizes the uniqueness of China which has a major emphasize on guanxi (social relationship and connection), while increasingly adopting formal contracts. This blend between guanxi contractual governance may achieve better firm performance in strategic alliance. The second stream of the integrative approach is the institution-based of strategy. It suggests to put institution-based view. In the western research, institution-based views are often placed as background. In China context it needs to be brought in the forefront, counting the dynamics and complexity around institutions.This shall be placed at par with the more established approaches of industry and resource-based views. This positioning shall enhance understanding on Chinese firms intricacies. Further, it shall not only enrich China research but also helpful for enhancing global strategy research. In my view, the authors proposition of integrative approach, is very promising in an attempt to bridge between the mainstream western theory development and that of China. However, in its mapping of the current three approaches in China management field, the authors view on the China native approach could have been more balanced. It focuses on the lack of China s attributes which match to the mainstream of western theories. It did not mention anything about the mainstreams limited ability to see Chinas uniqueness. With a more balanced reasoning, there is a greater chance that the local Chinese scholar will have more buy-ins to the approach being offered by the authors. Hence, the aim of promoting mutual benefits between the mainstream global theory development and that of Chinese will have greater likeliness to be achieved.