Table 5 Specific connotations of main coding categories.
From: From vocation to profession: multiple identities of Chinese management academics
Four dimensions of organizational power | |
American research hegemony | The American management paradigm as a universal standard and symbol of advancement constrains diverse perspectives in Chinese management research. |
Industrialization of academic governance | Academic organizations mirror industrial approaches by applying standardized, precise, and quantifiable metrics to evaluate academic work. |
Self-regulation | Academics achieve self-governance through self-discipline rather than external enforcement by voluntarily adhering to accepted academic norms and ethical standards. |
Rebellion against ‘academic game’ | Academics prioritize intellectual and social values over organizational metrics and objectives. |
Multiple academic identities | |
Fanatic convert | Empirical research methodologies were introduced to Chinese scholars by U.S. management scholars in the 1990s. However, some Chinese scholars have become dogmatic scientism adherents who regard the positivist paradigm as the universal standard for conducting all kinds of management research despite the existence of various research approaches. |
Career survivor | Scholars who prioritize long-term job security and advancement over risky or idealistic actions that may compromise their professional stability. |
Diligent game player | Scholars who enthusiastically follow organizational directives and metrics in order to receive rewards, recognition, and promotions aligned with the organization’s goals. |
Career retreater | An academic becomes resigned and disengaged at work, prioritizing job security over advancement or initiative in order to retreat to other life interests. |
