Tales from the (multinational) field: Toward developing research conducive to proximal theory building.

Abstract

Sampling champagne in Paris. Swimming in the Indian Ocean. Salsa dancing in Puerto Rico. And mud slides. And getting lost. And (never-ending) jet lag. And yes-cockroaches the size of cats (we swear!). Ah, the joys of multinational fi eld research! Even if it is not always glamorous, it is always and forever enlightening. We three coauthors are addicted-and no, we do not plan on ever recovering. Over the past decade, we have become particularly enamored with an approach to multinational organizational researchthe proximal approach, which is characterized by openness to the unexpected, acceptance of uncertainty, and appreciation of multiplicity. This approach can be contrasted with more distal approaches, which emphasize end states, linearity, and ordered structure (Cooper, 1992;Cooper & Law, 1995). In this chapter, we endeavor to explain why we so much appreciate the proximal approach and to provide practical suggestions for carrying out research in a manner incorporating its insights.To do so, we tell the story of a comprehensive multimethod, multinational, multiyear research project. This project was not explicitly (initially) guided by a proximal approach. Rather, most of the work has unfolded within a traditional distal mode, involving deductive, quantitative hypothesis test-

What, When, and with Whom? Investigating Expatriate Reentry Training with a Proximal Approach

“…Other HR domains such as leadership development or diversity training are assumed to generate an even wider range of divergent overt and covert goals. Our recommendations echo those formulated by Gibson and colleagues (), who claimed that staying open to doubt, exploring paradoxes, being reflexive, and understanding one's methodological biases will effectuate our ability to conduct responsible research and produce relevant theory.…”

“…We follow Cooper and Law () in conducting an empirical analysis grounded in two distinctive research modes: the distal (with its focus on functionalistic stability and outcomes) to address training content, and the proximal (with its attention to continuous transformation, process, and multiplicity) to address the training development process. In doing so, we follow organizational scholars who have advocated this approach in the past (e.g., Gibson, Szkudlarek, & McDaniel, ), and apply these dual analytical lenses to investigate reentry training. This approach extends from methods conventionally employed in training research, which instead focus on deductive hypothesis testing of training's setup (e.g., Osman‐Gani & Hyder, ), its effectiveness (e.g., Vidal, Valle, & Aragón, ), or conceptual model‐building of training design (e.g., Martin & Harrell, ).…”

“…A distal approach can certainly help in gaining important understanding of relationships and associations between known variables. However, as recently suggested (Gibson et al, ; McDaniel & Gibson, ), its exclusive use raises the question of the extent to which researchers are able to discover unknown factors, previously undiscovered issues, or novel solutions. A proximal approach allows such discovery, by exploring process, transformation, and interdependency of phenomena.…”

When is traditionalism an asset and when is it a liability for team innovation? A two-study empirical examination

“…We encourage future researchers to examine cultural value composition using a variety of different operationalizations (Harrison & Klein, 2007;Gibson et al 2012;. For example, a promising avenue might be to investigate how cultural values such as traditionalism may align with other values to create even more potent effects (Gibson, McDaniel & Szkudlarek, 2012).…”

“…We encourage future researchers to examine cultural value composition using a variety of different operationalizations (Harrison & Klein, 2007;Gibson et al 2012;. For example, a promising avenue might be to investigate how cultural values such as traditionalism may align with other values to create even more potent effects (Gibson, McDaniel & Szkudlarek, 2012). It may be that it is only when traditionalism values are aligned with other cultural characteristics such as universalism (i.e., the belief that rules should be followed regardless of the circumstances or the individual(s) involved, see Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998), that we see deleterious effects on innovation.…”