Skip to main content
Log in

Mindscapes across landscapes: Archetypes of transnational and subnational culture

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most research on culture in international business either aggregates people within a country into a single, homogeneous, national culture, or examines heterogeneity within countries based on exogenous criteria. In this study, we explore heterogeneity in cultural values within and across countries endogenously through the configurations of values people share in common. We develop a theory of culture archetypes and use a novel methodology that identifies a small number of distinct configurations of values – archetypes – in our data. These data come from the World Values Survey 2005 and Schwartz’s model of culture. We identify four culture archetypes in Japan, USA and China, and six in India. The existence of transnational and subnational archetypes across the four countries suggests the need to recognize culture as a combination of universal – etic – as well as unique – emic – characteristics. Our approach also distinguishes between those individuals represented by our archetypes and those individuals who more closely resemble the average values of a country. By unifying both archetypes and national averages within one theoretical and methodological schema we thus reconcile the conflicting perspectives in the field.

Abstract

La plupart des recherches portant sur la culture en management international regroupent les habitants d’un pays au sein d’une seule culture nationale et homogène ou examinent l’hétérogénéité au sein des pays sur la base de critères exogènes. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous explorons l’hétérogénéité des valeurs culturelles au sein et entre pays de façon endogène à travers les configurations de valeurs partagées par les individus. Nous développons une théorie d’archétypes culturels et utilisons une méthodologie nouvelle qui permet d’identifier un nombre restreint de configurations distinctes de valeurs – ou archétypes – dans nos données. Ces données proviennent du World Values Survey 2005 et du modèle culturel de Schwartz. Nous identifions quatre archétypes culturels au Japon, aux Etats-Unis et en Chine, et six en Inde. L’existence d’archétypes transnationaux et infranationaux dans ces quatre pays montre qu’il est nécessaire de considérer la culture comme une combinaison de caractéristiques universelles – etic – et uniques – emic. Notre approche différencie également les individus représentés par nos archétypes et ceux qui ressemblent davantage aux valeurs moyennes d’un pays. En unifiant à la fois les archétypes et moyennes nationales au sein d’une seule approche théorique et méthodologique, nous réconcilions les perspectives contradictoires de ce champ de recherche.

Abstract

La mayoría de las investigaciones sobre cultura en negocios internacionales, tienden a agregar las personas de un país en una sola cultura nacional homogénea, o bien a examinar la heterogeneidad en los países con base en criterios exógenos. En este estudio, exploramos la heterogeneidad en valores culturales dentro y entre los países de forma endógena mediante las configuraciones de los valores que la gente tiene en común. Desarrollamos una teoría de arquetipos culturales y usamos una metodología novedosa que identifica un número reducido de distintas configuraciones de valores –arquetipos- en nuestros datos. Estos datos vienen de la Encuesta Mundial de Valores (World Values Survey) 2005 y del modelo de cultura de Schwartz Identificamos cuatro arquetipos en Japón, Estados Unidos y China, y seis en India. La existencia de arquetipos transnacionales y sub-nacionales entre los cuatro países sugiere la necesidad de reconocer la cultura como una combinación de características universales –etic- y a la vez únicas –emic- . Nuestro enfoque también distingue entre aquellos individuos representados por nuestros arquetipos de los que se asemejan más a los valores promedio de un país. Al unificar tanto los arquetipos como los promedios nacionales en un solo esquema teórico y metodológico, conseguimos reconciliar los puntos de vista contradictorios en este campo de estudio.

Abstract

A maioria das pesquisas sobre cultura em negócios internacionais ou agrega pessoas de um país em uma única e homogênea cultura nacional, ou examina a heterogeneidade dentro dos países com base em critérios exógenos. Neste estudo, nós exploramos a heterogeneidade nos valores culturais dentro e entre países endogenamente através das configurações de valores que as pessoas compartilham. Desenvolvemos uma teoria dos arquétipos culturais e usamos uma nova metodologia que identifica um pequeno número de distintas configurações de valores - arquétipos - em nossos dados. Esses dados vêm da World Values Survey 2005 e do modelo de cultura de Schwartz. Identificamos quatro arquétipos culturais no Japão, EUA e China, e seis na Índia. A existência de arquétipos transnacionais e subnacionais em todos os quatro países sugere a necessidade de reconhecer a cultura como uma combinação de características tanto universais - etic – quanto únicas – emic. Nossa abordagem também distingue aqueles indivíduos representados pelos nossos arquétipos daqueles indivíduos que mais se assemelham aos valores médios de um país. Ao unificar os arquétipos e as médias nacionais em um esquema teórico e metodológico, nós reconciliamos as perspectivas conflitantes no campo.

Abstract

国际商务文献里大多数有关文化的研究, 要么将一个国家的人们划归到单一的、同质的国家文化, 要么基于外生标准来审视国家内部的异质性。在本研究中, 我们通过从人们共享的价值观配置, 探索了国家之间和国家内部的文化价值观的内部异质性。我们开发了一个文化原型理论, 并使用了一种新颖的方法, 在我们的研究数据中识别小数目不同配置的价值观——原型。这些研究数据来自2005年的“世界价值观调查”和Schwartz的文化模型。我们在日本、美国和中国识别出了四种文化原型, 在印度识别了六种文化原型。这四个国家中跨国家及地方的文化原型的存在表明 : 应该既将文化看作是普世性的 (etic) , 同时也应将文化看作是独特的 (emic) 。我们的方法也区分了代表我们文化原型的个体和近似国家平均值的个体。通过使原型和国家平均值统一于同一个理论和方法框架, 我们调解了这一领域相冲突的视角。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Google Scholar, Hofstede (1980) has 36,611 citations, House et al. (2004) 4468 citations, and Schwartz (1999), 2000 citations, as of 21 April 2015.

  2. An alternative, but equivalent perspective, on these individuals is that, because they resemble a composite, their value configurations can also be regarded as a composite of the various subgroup configurations. This perspective underlies the specific methodology we will describe later, which extends this idea by treating all individuals as weighted composites of the latent archetypes, and then assigns them to archetypal or non-archetypal subgroups on the basis of the strengths of the various weights.

References

  • Ailon, G. 2008. Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture’s consequences in a value test of its own design. Academy of Management Review, 33 (4): 885–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Au, K. Y. 1999. Intra-cultural variation: Evidence and implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (4): 799–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnhart, R. K., & Steinmetz, S. (Eds) 1988. The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology. Bronx, NY: H.W. Wilson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beuckelaer, A. D., Lievens, F., & Swinnen, G. 2007. Measurement equivalence in the conduct of a global organizational survey across countries in six cultural regions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80 (4): 575–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M. H., & Smith, P. B. 1996. Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 46 (1): 205–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. 2005. The origin and evolution of cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. 2014. The ecological fallacy in national culture research. Organization Studies, 35 (7): 1063–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broderick, A. J., Greenley, G. E., & Mueller, R. D. 2007. The behavioural homogeneity evaluation framework: Multi-level evaluations of consumer involvement in international segmentation. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (5): 746–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulkins, D. D. 2004. Identifying culture as a threshold of shared knowledge: A consensus analysis method. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4 (3): 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, B. H. P., Mitchell, D. A., & Cram, L. E. 2003. Archetypal analysis of galaxy spectra. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 338 (3): 790–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. 2011. Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66 (7): 593–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2001. Cultural orientations in the United States: (Re)examining differences among ethnic groups. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 32 (3): 348–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, A., & Breiman, L. 1994. Archetypal analysis. Technometrics, 36 (4): 338–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dheer, R. J. S., Lenartowicz, T., & Peterson, M. F. 2015. Mapping India’s Regional Subcultures: Implications for International Management. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (4): 443–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, S. L., Diez-Pinol, M., Fernandez-Alles, M., Martin-Prius, A., & Martinez-Fierro, S. 2004. Exploratory study of within-country differences in work and life values: The case of Spanish business students. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4 (2): 157–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollard, J. 1939. Culture, society, impulse, and socialization. American Journal of Sociology, 45 (1): 50–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R. 2004. Standardization to account for cross-cultural response bias: A classification of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35 (3): 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R., & Schwartz, S. H. 2011. Whence difference in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artifactual sources. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 42 (7): 1127–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine, R., Richardson, S., & Foong, Y. P. 2002. The tropical fish problem revisited: A Malaysian perspective. Cross Cultural Management, 9 (4): 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. A. 1997. Demographic correlates of individualism and collectivism: A study of social values in Sri Lanka. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 28 (3): 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garreau, J. 1981. The nine nations of North America. New York: Avon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. W. 2009. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60 (1): 549–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greckhamer, T. 2011. Cross-cultural differences in compensation level and inequality across occupations: A set-theoretic analysis. Organization Studies, 32 (1): 85–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E. T. 1977. Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. 2006. Agitation over aggregation: Clarifying the development of and the nature of the GLOBE scales. Leadership Quarterly, 17 (5): 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. 2006. Response styles in cross-national survey research. International Journal of Cross-cultural Management, 6 (2): 243–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herskovits, M. 1948. Man and his works: The science of cultural anthropology. New York: Alfred Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huo, Y. P., & Randall, D. M. 1991. Exploring subcultural differences in Hofstede’s value survey: The case of the Chinese. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8 (2): 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. 2005. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. 2010. Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8 (2): 551–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, L.R. (Ed) 1983. Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A., & Mazzon, J. A. 1991. Value segmentation: A model for the measurement of values and value systems. Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (2): 208–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A., & Novak, T. P. 1992. Value-system segmentation: Exploring the meaning of LOV. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1): 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W. A., Novak, T. P., Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Verhallen, T. M. M. 1993. Identifying pan-European value segments with a clusterwise rank-logit model. (original in French), Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 8 (4): 30–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashima, Y., Kokubo, T., Kashima, E. S., Boxall, D., Yamaguchi, S., & Macrae, K. 2004. Culture and self: Are there within-culture differences in self between metropolitan areas and regional cities? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (7): 816–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. 1961. Variations in value orientations. New York: Row, Peterson and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozan, M. K. 2002. Subcultures and conflict management style. Management International Review, 42 (1): 89–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. 1952. Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Cambridge, MA: The Peabody Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. A., Soutar, G., & Louviere, J. 2008. The best–worst scaling approach: An alternative to Schwartz’s values survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90 (4): 335–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenartowicz, T., & Roth, K. 2001. Does subculture within a country matter? A cross-cultural study of motivational domains and business performance in Brazil. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (2): 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenartowicz, T., Johnson, J. P., & White, C. T. 2003. The neglect of intracountry cultural variation in international management research. Journal of Business Research, 56 (12): 999–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. 2008. Multicultural experience enhances creativity. American Psychologist, 63 (3): 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buchan, N., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. 2005. Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (4): 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L. M. W., & Bond, M. H. 2010. Value change: Analyzing national change in citizen secularism across four time periods in the World Values Survey. The Social Science Journal, 47 (2): 294–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, S., Wang, P., Louviere, J., & Carson, R. 2003. Archetypal analysis: A new way to segment markets based on extreme individuals. ANZMAC Conference Proceedings, Adelaide, 1–3 December, 1674–1679.

  • Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. 2005. Measuring values with the short Schwarz’s value survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85 (2): 170–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lytle, A., Brett, J., Barsness, Z., Tinsley, C., & Janssens, M. 1995. A paradigm for confirmatory crosscultural research in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior. 17, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 167–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama, M. 1992. Changing dimensions in international business. The Executive, 6 (3): 88–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama, M. 1999. Heterogram analysis: Where the assumption of normal distribution is illogical. Human Systems Management, 18 (1): 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, D. 2002. The new Japan: debunking seven cultural stereotypes. Maine: Intercultural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., & Takeuchi, S. 1996. Changing patterns of individualism and collectivism in the United States and Japan. Culture Psychology, 2 (1): 77–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith; a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55 (1): 89–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. 2010. Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3 (1): 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (1): 3–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. 2013. Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44 (9): 867–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M.P. Zanna (Ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 25, New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50 (4): 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 1999. A theory of cultural values and some implications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48 (1): 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 2011. Values: Cultural and individual. In F. J. R. Van de, A. Vijver, Chasiotis, & S. M. Breugelmans (Eds), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology, 25 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. 1995. Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26 (1): 92–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. 2005. The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. P. 1990. Managerial culture and work-related values in India. Organization Studies, 11 (1): 75–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B. 2004. Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communications style. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35 (1): 50–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. 2001. An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50 (2): 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spini, D. 2003. Measurement equivalence of 10 value types from the Schwartz value survey across 21 countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34 (1): 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. K., & Tung, R. L. 2015. Towards a More Balanced Treatment of Culture in International Business Studies: The Need for Positive Cross-Cultural Scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (4): 391–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steel, P., & Taras, V. 2010. Culture as a consequence: A multilevel multivariate meta-analysis of the effects of individual and country characteristics on work-related cultural values. Journal of International Management, 16 (3): 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1): 78–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Ter Hofstede, F. 2002. International market segmentation: Issues and perspectives. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (3): 185–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, C. (Ed) 1994. No ordinary genius: The illustrated richard feynman. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szekely, G. J., & Rizzo, M. L. 2013. Energy statistics: Statistics based on distances. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 143 (8): 1249–1272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. 2009. Half a century of measuring culture: Review of approaches, challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of International Management, 15 (4): 357–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Hofstede, F., Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Wedel, M. 1999. International market segmentation based on consumer-product relations. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Hofstede, F., Wedel, M., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. 2002. Identifying spatial segments in international markets. Marketing Science, 21 (2): 160–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. 1994. Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. 1993. Riding the waves of culture: understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A.Y. 2007. Cross-national, cross-cultural organization behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33 (3): 426–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. 2010. Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (8): 1259–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tylor, E. B. 1871. Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hemert, D. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., & Georgas, J. 2002. Structural and functional equivalence of the Eysenck personality questionnaire within and across countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33 (8): 1229–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H., & Verhallen, T. M. M. 2004. Response styles in rating scales: Evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35 (3): 346–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. 2013. Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models. International Marketing Review, 30 (5): 469–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. 2000. Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations. Norwalk, MA: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., Ter Hofstede, F., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. 1998. Mixture model analysis of complex samples. Journal of Classification, 15 (2): 225–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. 2011. Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30 (4): 377–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. W., & Gregoire, D. A. 2015. Seeking commonalities or avoiding differences? Re-conceptualizing distance and its effects on internationalization decisions. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (3): 253–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, C. 2012. American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • WVS. 2005. Official Data File v.20090901, 2009. World Values Survey Association (www.worldvaluessurvey.org). Aggregate File Producer: ASEP/JDS, Madrid.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Paul Brewer, Markus Christen, Michael Jarrett and seminar participants at the Leeds Business School for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the article. We also acknowledge the helpful guidance provided by the special issues editor Dan Carpar on various revisions, as well as the three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful ideas. All remaining errors and omissions are ours.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunil Venaik.

Additional information

Accepted by Dan Caprar, Guest Editor, 15 March 2015. This article has been with the authors for three revisions.

Supplementary information accompanies this article on the Journal of International Business Studies website (www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs)

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Venaik, S., Midgley, D. Mindscapes across landscapes: Archetypes of transnational and subnational culture. J Int Bus Stud 46, 1051–1079 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2015.11

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2015.11

Keywords

Navigation