Contextualizing HRM in China: differences within the country

Abstract

Through critical literature review, we introduce the special issue's focus, 'HRM in China: Differences within the country'. Researchers have, in practice, neglected to sufficiently contextualize HRM in China in order to identify, address and explain these differences. This has occurred despite continual calls for better contextualization, a theme common across other, overlapping fields: management in China; organizational behaviour; and HRM in general. A major impediment has been an unwillingness to contextualize beyond the organization or, perhaps the industry. This reflects dominant theoretical preferences in North America that produce literatureled research agendas and 'outside-in' research on China. In effect, academic pressures and the resulting literature also shape research approaches to contextualizing HRM in China. In seeking to promote phenomena-led research with 'inside-out' orientations, we highlight two important contextual conceptions of 'differences': diversity within China, especially where related to space and place; and rising evidence of expressed differences of interests within China's labour markets. The rest of the article provides summary overviews of this special issue's other seven articles, focusing on the phenomena they examine, the contexts they work with, the disciplines they embrace and the research designs/methods they employ. We conclude with suggestions for further research.

Methodological choices of HR research conducted in Asia

“…We believe that the broader context (i.e., local institutions) of Asia, and China more specifically influences these findings. Many scholars refer to the Chinese environment as dynamic and subject to ongoing change (Krug & Hendrischke, 2008;Li, X, & Freeman, 2015;Zhang & Peck, 2016;Sheldon & Sanders, 2016). Given the pace of change across Asia, it is not surprising that field studies which enable the collection of real-time data are the dominant methods for undertaking research in this region.…”

“…The practice of collecting data from Asia is likely to have emerged in the early 1990s when Chinese people became more mobile, leading to the growth in the number of China-based multinational enterprises (MNEs) and Chinese academics who had studied and worked abroad. In addition, such mobility has produced opportunities for Western scholars to undertake research in Asia by supervising international research students (Sheldon & Sanders, 2016) and collaborating with Chinese scholars. A question we have not answered is whether Chinese or Asian scholars were trained at a western university, or one of the approximately 2000 Chinese universities.…”

“…We question whether (associate) editors, reviewers and researchers receive sufficient incentives and are motivated to design robust and valid research (see also Lin & Sanders, 2014). Sheldon and Sanders (2016) emphasize that variation within China is immense and undertaking research at the country level is inappropriate because of the differences in regions and industries. One of the limitations of this study is that our data did not allow us to examine the variance of methodological choices within China.…”

“…Several scholars have called for increased attention to the context in which research is carried out (Barney & Zhang, 2009;Li, Leung, Chen & Luo, 2012;Tsui, 2006Tsui, , 2013Sheldon & Sanders, 2016). For instance, John (2006) calls for stronger engagement with the context of the data collection.…”

“…In terms of geographic context, scholars have emphasized the uniqueness of Asia's social, cultural, historical, and political mosaic as well as economic and market reforms, in order to highlight the importance of context (Tsui, Wang & Xin, 2006). Related to China specifically, Tsui (2006Tsui ( , 2013 emphasizes the importance of 'inside out' approaches that are sensitive to knowledge about the environment in contrast to 'outside in' research in which well-known topics examine 'how they are manifested' in the Chinese context (Tsui, 2006: 3; see also Sheldon & Sanders, 2016). Although these calls emphasize the importance of context in relation to theoretical questions, the research setting may also influence the suitability of different methodological treatments.…”