Over two decades, research in Chinese management has exploited existing questions, theories, constructs, and methods developed in the Western context. Lagging are exploratory studies to address questions relevant to Chinese firms and to develop theories that offer meaningful explanations of Chinese phenomena. Framed as a debate between pursuing a theory of Chinese management versus a Chinese theory of management, this forum, through the voices of thirteen scholars, provides an analysis of the reasons for the current status of Chinese management research and offers alternatives to shape the future of Chinese management studies. Based on the principle of autonomy of inquiry and heeding the warning of the constraint of normal science, the Chinese management research community can shape its own future by engaging in research that may contribute to global management knowledge and address meaningful local management problems.

Two approaches to the evolution of Chinese scholarship are possible. The first – developing a theory of Chinese management – focuses on applying and refining theories developed elsewhere in a Chinese context. In this sense, the emergence of the Chinese economy represents an important natural experiment for the test and refinement of general management theories. The second – developing a Chinese theory of management – focuses on creating explanations for the existence of Chinese management phenomena that are uniquely Chinese. This approach rejects a research agenda created by Western scholars in favour of a research agenda created by Chinese scholars in order to understand Chinese phenomena. The implications of choosing either of these approaches for the future of Chinese management research and possible relationships between them are discussed.

This paper expands recent appeals for more context sensitive organizational research to include organizational theory. It does this by systematically examining the interface between theory and context, characterized herein as contextualizing theory (theories in context) and theorizing about context (theories of context). The results of this analysis challenge recent criticisms of Chinese organizational scholarship for relying too much on Western theory. As an alternative to discontinuing the practice of cross-context theory borrowing, ways of making this borrowing more context sensitive are explored. The use of context effects to explain organizational phenomena, as well as their essential contribution to all forms of cross-context scholarship, is also examined. In addition, specific suggestions are offered for overcoming the obstacles facing scholars engaged in cross-context theorizing, especially scholars in new research contexts interested in using and improving ‘mainstream’ theory.

In this paper, I accept Whetten's (2009) view that it is necessary to investigate Chinese management in a way that takes account of its context in order to assess the extent to which its features are context-specific or context-bounded. The first requirement, therefore, is to develop a way of conceptualising and measuring that context. A framework articulating material, ideational and institutional contextual features is offered to that end. Second, I argue that both ‘outside in’ and ‘inside out’ approaches to the study of Chinese management require comparison between China and other countries. Even a theory that claims uniqueness for China needs to have that claim tested through external comparison. We, therefore, have to employ a methodology that allows for valid comparisons between context and management in China and other countries. This paper focuses on these two issues of context and methodology with reference to comparative research. It examines them in turn and closes by arguing that the choice Barney and Zhang (2009) pose – between a Chinese theory of management and a theory of Chinese management – needs to be reframed within a more dynamic evolutionary perspective.

We use the parable of the blind men and the elephant to suggest that Barney and Zhang (2009) and Whetten (2009) analogously touch on only a part of the Chinese management research puzzle. Their analyses remind us of many attempts at anchoring the research purpose – etic versus emic approaches, exploration versus exploitation approaches, rigor versus relevance scenarios – touched on by the many commentators in this issue. We suggest researchers first answer the ‘purpose’ questions before embarking on the research design. The research design should fit the purpose of the knowledge, which is either to improve the performance of Chinese organizations (meeting the relevance criterion) or to replicate, extend or refine a theory developed in the US (meeting the rigour criterion). We believe the strength of applied management research allows us to create knowledge that can meet the criteria of both rigour and relevance. We support the use of academic international research teams and dialectic debate as tools to move the field of Chinese management research forward.

To complement Barney and Zhang's as well as Whetten's articles in this issue of Management and Organization Review, we offer ways to develop indigenous management theory to explain unique Chinese management phenomena. We first briefly review the imbalance of developing theories of Chinese management versus developing Chinese theories of management in Chinese research societies. We then describe a five-step research process that uses an indigenous research approach to theory development: discovery of interesting phenomena, field observations, construction of the theoretical framework, empirical examination, and theory refinement. This process may be useful not only in the Chinese context, but also in any other context. We identify several challenges in both Chinese and international academic societies that must be overcome to facilitate learning across the two approaches proposed by Barney and Zhang: the need for high quality journals in the Chinese language, international journals' efforts to ease the imbalance between the two approaches, and collaboration between Chinese and Western management schools.

This commentary reviews Chinese management research since its beginning more than thirty years ago and considers the emerging paths that contemporary scholars may follow. Following Barney and Zhang's (2009) article as well as Whetten's article (2009) in this issue, we first clarify what the two paths (a theory of Chinese management and a Chinese theory of management) would mean for the Chinese scholar. We then discuss the possible interplay between these two paths and suggest it is time to take the road less travelled rather than to over-travel the more popular road. We conclude that practice will prove the final judge on the paths pursued and that the insights from the Barney and Zhang and Whetten articles help sharpen our understanding of the challenges.

This commentary offers several directions for the development of Chinese management research based on the penetrating analyses provided by Barney and Zhang (2009) and Whetten (2009). First and foremost, Chinese management researchers can develop novel, seminal ideas and theories that are not necessarily tied to the Chinese cultural context but are applicable in diverse cultural contexts. The success of this approach depends on the merit of the ideas and theories proposed. A fusion, or combined emic–etic approach, can also be attempted, which integrates elements from Western and indigenous theories. Finally, the synergistic approach involves a dynamic interplay of Chinese and Western management research, which will eventually lead to innovative, culture-general theories. This article argues that all three approaches should be emphasized in Chinese management research.

In this commentary, I discuss some philosophical issues related to contextualizing Chinese management research. First, it should be noted that contextualization can be interpreted in different ways by different philosophical perspectives. Second, the Duhem-Quine thesis implies that replications, in the form of empirical generalization, are an appropriate means of testing Western theories in a Chinese context. Third, owing to the difficulty of conclusively falsifying management theories, attempts to create theories that explain unique Chinese management phenomena may lead to theory proliferation and the perpetuation of weak, or even false, theories. Finally, I propose the study of empirical regularities as an alternative to the theory application and theory creation approaches.