Globalization and culture: four paradigmatic views

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to show how different philosophical schools of thought view the relation between globalization and culture differently. Design/methodology/approach -This paper places the existing philosophical schools of thought into four broad categories: functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralist. This paper then shows how each of these four broad categories view the relation between globalization and culture differently. Findings -This paper finds that the functionalist paradigm views globalization and culture as universal, the interpretive paradigm views globalization and culture as particular, the radical humanist paradigm views globalization and culture as a domination ideology, and the radical structuralist paradigm views globalization and culture as causing conflict between classes.Research limitations/implications -This paper assumes that each school of thought can be located in one of the four broad categories of philosophical schools of thought. However, this may not be applicable to each and every philosophical school of thought. Practical implications -This paper implies that one would benefit by becoming familiar with other ways of seeing the same phenomenon. This paper shows that the relation between globalization and culture can be viewed at least from four different vantage points and therefore one would have a better understanding of the relation between globalization and culture if one becomes familiar with all four different view points. Originality/value -The contribution of this paper is the advice that in the era of globalization it is better for people to become open-minded because different people from different parts of the world have different perspectives and the best way to be able to live together is to learn about how others think.

World Views and the Evaluation of NGO Supply Chains: Thirteen Cases from Guatemala

“…We follow Ardalan's (2009) four classifications of world view: functionalism, radical humanism, radical structuralism, and interpretive, and the powerful impact world view has on Operations and Supply Chain Management 9(2) pp. 90 -104 © 2016 perceptions of globalization.…”

“…As shown in Figure 1, each world view makes fundamental assumptions about the nature of science (the subjective-objective dimension on the vertical axis) and the nature of society (the regulation-radical change dimension on the vertical axis) (Ardalan, 2009;Burrell and Morgan 1979).…”

“…The Four Paradigms (Ardalan, 2009;Burrell and Morgan 1979) The nature of science includes assumptions of ontology, epistemology, human nature, and methodology. Ontological assumptions consider the nature of the object being studied and whether it is external to human experience or inevitably part of it, that is, a product of the mind that observes the object.…”

“…Assumptions about human nature define the relationship between people and their environments and the degree to which they experience or create the environment. Assumptions about methodology define the extent to which the world can be measured objectively, or must inevitably be subjected to the mind doing the measurement (Ardalan, 2009).…”

Towards an XBRL-Enabled Corporate Governance Reporting Taxonomy: An Empirical Study of NYSE-Listed Financial Institutions

“…Considering this view, CG will be defined in the direction of how to understand organizational arrangements for different corporate participants who are related to a corporation. These participants consist of shareholders and stakeholders such as employees (Baker and Bettner, 1997;Ardalan, 2009). As a consequence, there is not a single or universally applicable CG principle which reflects institutional settings in all societies, cultures, corporations and epistemological underpinnings.…”