四种主要心理景观的认识论认同

IF 3.2 Q2 BUSINESS
K. Fatehi, Gita Taasoobshirazi, J. Sánchez-Gutiérrez
{"title":"四种主要心理景观的认识论认同","authors":"K. Fatehi, Gita Taasoobshirazi, J. Sánchez-Gutiérrez","doi":"10.1108/ribs-02-2021-0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nJapanese American philosopher Magoroh Maruyama (1969) proposed the Mindscape theory, a macro model of cultural differences identification. The theory suggests inter-and intra-cultural heterogeneity and four major Mindscapes of H, I, S and G. He and his colleagues designed 64 graphic geometric patterns based on redundant and non-redundant complexity to recognize the Mindscapes in cultures. However, there is no method of identifying each Mindscape individually/separately. In other words, specificity is missing in this theory. Without such identification, the applicability of the Mindscape theory in international business is limited. This study aims to provide the needed specificity.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe present study applies Harvey’s (1966) four epistemological systems to identify each of the four Mindscapes. According to Maruyama and Harvey, three of Harvey’s four systems are identical to the three Mindscapes of H, I and G. If the authors can match the three Mindscapes with the three Harvey’s systems, what remains the authors assume to be the fourth Mindscape.\n\n\nFindings\nThe current study determined various graphic and geometric patterns associated with each of the four Mindscapes. In doing so, the study expanded the applicability of the theory in international business.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nHarvey (1966) administered nine psychological tests (instruments) to many subjects over nearly two decades to determine the four systems. Using nine major instruments is very challenging, demanding and time-consuming. For ease of application and saving time, the authors used one of these instruments as an example. Ideally, the authors should use all.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nMindscape theory suggests that each of the four salient Mindscapes is more relevant to a specific situation, such as human resource management, motivation, leadership, conflict resolution and others. By identifying each Mindscape, this study expands the use of Mindscape theory.\n","PeriodicalId":45046,"journal":{"name":"Review of International Business and Strategy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward epistemological identification of the four major mindscapes\",\"authors\":\"K. Fatehi, Gita Taasoobshirazi, J. Sánchez-Gutiérrez\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ribs-02-2021-0031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nJapanese American philosopher Magoroh Maruyama (1969) proposed the Mindscape theory, a macro model of cultural differences identification. The theory suggests inter-and intra-cultural heterogeneity and four major Mindscapes of H, I, S and G. He and his colleagues designed 64 graphic geometric patterns based on redundant and non-redundant complexity to recognize the Mindscapes in cultures. However, there is no method of identifying each Mindscape individually/separately. In other words, specificity is missing in this theory. Without such identification, the applicability of the Mindscape theory in international business is limited. This study aims to provide the needed specificity.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe present study applies Harvey’s (1966) four epistemological systems to identify each of the four Mindscapes. According to Maruyama and Harvey, three of Harvey’s four systems are identical to the three Mindscapes of H, I and G. If the authors can match the three Mindscapes with the three Harvey’s systems, what remains the authors assume to be the fourth Mindscape.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe current study determined various graphic and geometric patterns associated with each of the four Mindscapes. In doing so, the study expanded the applicability of the theory in international business.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nHarvey (1966) administered nine psychological tests (instruments) to many subjects over nearly two decades to determine the four systems. Using nine major instruments is very challenging, demanding and time-consuming. For ease of application and saving time, the authors used one of these instruments as an example. Ideally, the authors should use all.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nMindscape theory suggests that each of the four salient Mindscapes is more relevant to a specific situation, such as human resource management, motivation, leadership, conflict resolution and others. By identifying each Mindscape, this study expands the use of Mindscape theory.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of International Business and Strategy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of International Business and Strategy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ribs-02-2021-0031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of International Business and Strategy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ribs-02-2021-0031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的日裔美国哲学家丸山Magoroh Maruyama(1969)提出了文化差异认同的宏观模型——Mindscape理论。该理论提出了文化间和文化内的异质性以及H、I、S和g四种主要的心理景观。他和他的同事基于冗余和非冗余复杂性设计了64种图形几何图案来识别文化中的心理景观。然而,没有办法单独或单独地识别每个Mindscape。换句话说,这个理论缺少特异性。没有这样的识别,心智景观理论在国际商务中的适用性是有限的。本研究旨在提供所需的特异性。设计/方法论/方法本研究采用Harvey(1966)的四个认识论系统来识别四种思维景观中的每一个。根据Maruyama和Harvey的说法,Harvey的四个系统中有三个与H, I和g的三个Mindscape相同。如果作者可以将这三个Mindscape与Harvey的三个系统相匹配,那么剩下的就是第四个Mindscape。目前的研究确定了与四种思维模式相关的各种图形和几何图案。这样,该研究扩大了该理论在国际商务中的适用性。研究局限/启示sharvey(1966)在近二十年的时间里对许多受试者进行了九次心理测试(工具),以确定这四个系统。使用九种主要乐器非常具有挑战性,要求高,耗时长。为了方便应用和节省时间,作者以其中一种仪器为例。理想情况下,作者应该使用所有。原创性/价值思维景观理论认为,这四种显著的思维景观中的每一种都与特定情境更为相关,如人力资源管理、动机、领导力、冲突解决等。通过对每一种心理景观的识别,本研究扩展了心理景观理论的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Toward epistemological identification of the four major mindscapes
Purpose Japanese American philosopher Magoroh Maruyama (1969) proposed the Mindscape theory, a macro model of cultural differences identification. The theory suggests inter-and intra-cultural heterogeneity and four major Mindscapes of H, I, S and G. He and his colleagues designed 64 graphic geometric patterns based on redundant and non-redundant complexity to recognize the Mindscapes in cultures. However, there is no method of identifying each Mindscape individually/separately. In other words, specificity is missing in this theory. Without such identification, the applicability of the Mindscape theory in international business is limited. This study aims to provide the needed specificity. Design/methodology/approach The present study applies Harvey’s (1966) four epistemological systems to identify each of the four Mindscapes. According to Maruyama and Harvey, three of Harvey’s four systems are identical to the three Mindscapes of H, I and G. If the authors can match the three Mindscapes with the three Harvey’s systems, what remains the authors assume to be the fourth Mindscape. Findings The current study determined various graphic and geometric patterns associated with each of the four Mindscapes. In doing so, the study expanded the applicability of the theory in international business. Research limitations/implications Harvey (1966) administered nine psychological tests (instruments) to many subjects over nearly two decades to determine the four systems. Using nine major instruments is very challenging, demanding and time-consuming. For ease of application and saving time, the authors used one of these instruments as an example. Ideally, the authors should use all. Originality/value Mindscape theory suggests that each of the four salient Mindscapes is more relevant to a specific situation, such as human resource management, motivation, leadership, conflict resolution and others. By identifying each Mindscape, this study expands the use of Mindscape theory.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
25.80%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Review of International Business and Strategy is keen to present contemporary and innovative research that proposes new perspectives or challenges existing theories, and that advances the understanding of issues related to international business and global strategy. Themes covered by the journal include (but are not limited to): Internationalization of firms and international entrepreneurship Effects of international environment (political, social, economic and institutional) on international business activities and firm strategies Knowledge transfer strategies and innovation in MNEs Location strategies in international business activities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信