LAUSR

Kuhn’s paradigm framework asserts that scholarly fields differ in their level of development, and that such differences will be reflected in research norms and practices. In particular, early stage subfields are expected to have less consensus regarding theory and methods, negatively affecting both the consistency and sophistication of research designs. We examine Kuhn’s framework in the context of a rapidly advancing subfield: Chinese management research. This paper reports a content analysis of China-based studies against a matched set of management articles, focusing on methodology. In partial support of the paradigm framework, we find many differences in several important research design characteristics. Additionally, consistent with expectations, many of these differences decline over time. Based on these findings, we discuss the applicability of Kuhn’s framework to management research, and also identify normative guidelines for the design of future Chinese management studies.