Gaining new insights from a Kuhnian road trip through the cross-cultural management paradigm debate

Abstract

The study of cross-cultural management (CCM) is more important than ever to help us deal with cultural encounters. In times of ubiquitous transformation, the CCM scientific community is redefining itself. Who are we? What are our main ideas and goals? What is our scientific paradigm, or do we have or need multiple ones? This paper addresses the last question and explains the author’s journey in dealing with this topic. It is a road trip with some disillusions, new insights, and propositions for the ongoing debate about the CCM paradigm. Based on Kuhn’s understanding of paradigms, the overarching CCM paradigm is explained, and a critical position is taken against multiple paradigms in CCM. As a constructive counter-proposal, an adapted CCM paradigm is developed that follows the “rationale of healing.”

Let’s explore something exciting together: CCM as an autonomous scientific research discipline

The first thing you usually do when planning a road trip is deciding where you want to go and how to get there. But not all trips are planned this way. Sometimes you change your route, don’t stick to a schedule, meet people along the way, and make decisions on the fly. This is true of the trip we are talking about here. We know where we are starting but don’t know where we will end up.

This paper aims to explore the cross-cultural management (CCM) research discipline from a scientific perspective. From the term itself, but also from research reality (Barmeyer et al., 2019), CCM comprises two fundamental parts:

• The context of multiple cultures: “Cross-cultural” in CCM describes the general situation of cultural specifics, differences, and similarities. While there is a plethora of definitions of “culture” (Birukou et al., 2013; Jahoda, 2012; Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952), the understanding of “cross-cultural” can initially be just as vague. CCM refers to points of contact between distinct cultures, referring to a constructivist, meaning-oriented concept of culture with material, social, and mental aspects as part of collective symbolic systems (Geertz, 1973; Pickel, 2013), implying intercultural situations. The broad conceptualization of interculturality (Barmeyer, 2012; Bennett, 2013; Lüsebrink, 2004, 2005; Moosmüller, 2007a) includes both cross-cultural and trans-cultural exchanges (Glesener et al., 2017: 7). CCM can be understood as the set of fundamental questions concerning manifold culturalities (Abdallah-Pretceille, 2006) that arise when different cultures meet. CCM is relevant because culture is open and dynamic (Mergner, 1994: 20). The scientific methodologies in CCM range from empirical positivist studies (such as Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1993; Hofstede, 1980, 1991; House et al., 2004) to interpretative research approaches (such as D’Iribarne, 1993, 2009; Hall, 1959, 1966, 1976) and critical analysis (Glesener et al., 2017: 7).

• The objective of managing: “Management” in CCM means getting into action. Here, the pragmatic basic stance of CCM becomes visible. The associated activities are about shaping cultural encounters between actors from disparate cultural backgrounds and their effects. D’Iribarne (2012), whose fundamental premise is that individuals should shape their environment, Mendenhall et al. (2008) as well as Schneider and Barsoux (2002), who examine cross-cultural practices of global leadership, Scholz and Stein (2013) who strive for cross-cultural competitive advantage in international management, and Adler (1980, 1986), whose research interests include, among other things, the creation of intercultural synergy, represent just a few examples of this collaborative aspect. It extends to a variety of domains within the field of intercultural communication, including intercultural education (Landis and Brislin, 1983; Mergner, 1992) and intercultural literary studies (Kloepfer and Shaw, 1981; Piller, 2007).

Both points are consistent with the CCM mission, which is formulated from within CCM, stating that “CCM […] focuses on phenomena of agency, behavior, interaction, and influences among actors on the micro level of individuals in organizations” (Barmeyer et al., 2019: 219), concerning people from several cultures.

Preparing for further analysis from the perspective of the philosophy of science, the question arises as to whether CCM constitutes a research field or a scientific research discipline in itself. This question is a complex one, examined from various perspectives. By some researchers, CCM is regarded as an interdisciplinary “field” of research, drawing upon elements from multiple disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and management science (e.g., Barmeyer and Ruesga Rath, 2024: 20–21). This interdisciplinary orientation also supports the view – to be subsequently discussed – that CCM constitutes a paradigmatic collection of multiple paradigms rather than a unified framework (e.g., Mendenhall and Hippler, 2020; Romani et al., 2018a). This perspective aligns with the argument that the origins of the subject are strongly application-oriented, emerging from a practical need for advisory solutions, which challenges its designation as a distinct discipline (e.g., Phillips and Sackmann, 2015). Other scholars argue that CCM is a “discipline,” formulating distinctive inquiries, developing unique methodologies, and producing significant theories in cross-cultural management (e.g., Peterson and Sondergaard, 2008), such as Hofstede’s (1980 ff.) cultural dimensions theory or D’Iribarne’s (1993 ff.) contextualist cultural theory. Based on a set of criteria proposed by Stichweh (2013: 17), there are some further indications that CCM can be classified as a discipline. There is a clear research interest and a substantial body of scientific literature, including monographs, anthologies, scientific articles, academic journals, and handbooks (see Barmeyer and Busch, 2023: 7-8). Furthermore, an active community convenes at conferences dedicated to CCM, as evidenced by the work of Szkudlarek et al. (2020), which illustrates and canonizes the state of the art. There are also scientific associations, such as the International Association of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management (IACCM). Additionally, there are CCM-typical job profiles, such as Culture Manager and Cultural Diversity Manager, which further demonstrate the presence and importance of CCM in various professional contexts. This article posits that CCM, without prejudice to the existence of roots in various other scientific disciplines, meanwhile constitutes an autonomous scientific research discipline in light of the aforementioned evidence that has become well-established in research over the past five decades.

PROPOSITION 1: Cross- cultural management is regarded as an autonomous scientific research discipline: distinct, standalone, and independent from others. Consequently, it should be treated as such, including its epistemological positioning.

The road trip starts: Kuhn’s definition of paradigm

A road trip starts at home, where you feel familiar and know who you are. From an epistemological perspective, the paradigm serves as our primary reference point. But the road gets rough: we need to figure out how CCM and the idea of a “paradigm” relate to each other.

Across disciplines, there is a shared understanding of how knowledge is approached (e.g., Rimondi and Veronese, 2018). This means that the terminology used in the philosophy of science is not tied to any single discipline but belongs to a broader community of disciplines. Discussions often occur on a meta-level, which is specific to each discipline. This is important because broader discussions about disciplines can also be approached from an external, macro-level perspective (e.g., Khelfaoui et al., 2021). The philosophy of science relies on well-established terminology (e.g., Dohn, 2011), and using it imprecisely can cause misunderstandings, flawed experiments, and mistakes in applying findings (e.g., Yao, 2024). While precision in terminology can be challenging (for me as well), it is essential for ensuring clarity, avoiding confusion, and promoting effective communication in science. Establishing consistent standards across disciplines not only deepens theoretical insights but also ensures practical applications are reliable and effective. Therefore, precise terminology is critical for the integrity and advancement of science. In the philosophy of science, terms are not used arbitrarily but are carefully defined and distinguished, such as (e.g., Barberousse et al., 2018; Curd and Psillos, 2013; Guerra et al., 2012):

• A “paradigm” is a comprehensive scientific framework within a discipline, uniting theories, methods, and assumptions for guiding research.

• A “worldview” is a broad, often cultural or philosophical lens that shapes how individuals perceive reality, beyond specific scientific contexts.

• A “basic position” reflects foundational philosophical stances, such as realism or idealism, underlying one’s understanding of reality and influencing perspectives and theories, but may not include the methodological components of a paradigm.

• A “research approach” is a practical method or strategy for conducting research, like qualitative or quantitative methods, which operates within paradigms but is more specific.

• An “assumption” is an underlying foundational premise or an untested belief within a context, often forming parts of a paradigm but narrower in scope.

• A “narrative” is a structured story explaining events or concepts, often subjective and interpretive, lacking the systematic and empirical grounding of a paradigm.

Taking a closer look on “paradigm,” it has its etymological roots in Greek, where it denotes a pattern, model, or example. The philosopher Wittgenstein (2001 [1953]) describes the paradigm as “something with which comparison is made” (§ 50). The term “scientific paradigm” was introduced to the scientific community by the renowned theorist Kuhn in his seminal work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” published in 1962. In his view, the scientific methods, modes of thinking, and accepted norms that researchers typically recognize as the foundation for their research activities constitute a paradigm. A paradigm is considered relatively stable over time and generally prevailing, meaning that the combination of consistent content and methodological positions is predominantly shared by the scientific community of a distinct scientific discipline, although not by 100% of its members. The paradigmatic fundamental perspective defines what is considered “normal science” (Kuhn, 1962: 10). It determines what questions are suitable for scientific inquiry and what an acceptable approaches to study them are. A fundamental mechanism for maintaining and perpetuating the dominant paradigm is the practice of peer review within the collegial group (e.g., Moses and Knutsen, 2019: 179). It is important to note that Kuhn’s conceptualization allows that a paradigm embraces different research topics, deviating assumptions, and diverse methodologies. This includes the possibility that within the scientific community, during the ongoing research process the findings conflict and not necessarily show a consensus. Nonetheless, the overarching dominant paradigm serves as the common ground for the resulting debates within the CCM scientific community.

Not every statement carrying an insight is a paradigm. Giving some examples, the statement “the earth revolves around the sun” is not, in itself, a paradigm, neither in the narrower sense of Kuhn nor in the broader sense of the philosophy of science; rather, it is a key fact situated within the paradigms of heliocentrism and modern astronomy. In CCM science, a statement such as “surveys and questionnaires are reliable tools for assessing cultural differences in workplace preferences” (made-up, for illustration) would be an assumption and a methodological belief but not a paradigm, as it does not encompass an overarching framework of theory and practice. And a statement such as “postcolonial perspectives reveal how power imbalances rooted in colonial histories continue to shape managerial practices in multinational corporations, such as Western firms imposing hierarchical structures in former colonies while local employees strive for more egalitarian approaches” (made-up, for illustration) would, as a narrative, provide an interpretive account of cultural dynamics but would lack the methodological rigor and systemic cohesion required of paradigms.

According to Kuhn (1962), a paradigm can be replaced by a new paradigm (“paradigm shift”) when new findings arise that fundamentally challenge previous theories and worldviews and weaken the explanatory power of the existing paradigm. Upcoming anomalies can give rise to scientific controversies and result in a profound transformation of existing worldviews, thought patterns, and approaches. New terms, questions, theoretical principles, and potentially new methods emerge that compete in discourse until a shifted paradigm permits the scientists to return to scientific routine and to resume their activities under a “better” (in the sense of an updated and more fitting) paradigm. In the course of paradigm shifts, previously existing paradigms are not falsified but rather repressed (Hindrichs, 2014: 24). A paradigm shift, particularly in the field of natural sciences, occurs as a sudden and disruptive change, often marked by the rise of revolutionary technologies that become prevalent within the social group which constitutes the respective scientific community. The developmental pattern of paradigm shift has equally been applied to social sciences. In this context, however, it is not always as clear whether a novel perspective actually brings about a new understanding of science, signifying a fundamental change in established beliefs and methods, or is merely a “turn” shaped by factors like interdisciplinary influences, fashion, and the need to address misconceptions (e.g., Zwischenberger, 2023). In contrast to natural sciences, in the less deterministic social sciences the shift takes longer to complete because the new paradigm must gain acceptance within the scientific community. When the dominant paradigm in a discipline is challenged but a paradigm shift has not yet occurred, Kuhn (1962) describes this period as one of “crisis.” During this time, the existing paradigm is increasingly questioned due to anomalies it cannot resolve, leading to the exploration of alternative frameworks, which might be called a nascent paradigm as it represents an emerging but not yet dominant contender.

While discussing how theories evolve, Kuhn (1976) appears open to the idea that, within the framework of a single paradigm, theories can undergo adjustments or expansions over time – particularly when he critiques the “theory core” and “expanded theory core” introduced by Sneed (1971). Kuhn acknowledges that theories can evolve and that some may eventually encompass a broader range of phenomena (e.g., where a theory core remains stable while new applications are added). This adaptability suggests that a paradigm allows for internal expansion, yet Kuhn still maintains that at any given moment, a single paradigm dominates a discipline, with normal science progressing under its guidance without necessarily leading to a full paradigm shift. His position implies that, while shifts or adjustments can occur, the discipline generally revolves around one dominant paradigm during normal science, with transitions to new paradigms happening during periods of scientific revolution. Therefore, although Kuhn’s insights into the dynamics of theory change offer some nuance, he does not explicitly advocate for the simultaneous existence of multiple paradigms within the same discipline.

Despite all scientific criticism of the vagueness of both the paradigm concept and the paradigm shift (e.g., Lakatos and Musgrave, 1970; Toulmin, 1983), the fundamental utility and enduring presence of these concepts are nonetheless asserted (Mladenovic, 2017; Sakoparing and Wolfsteiner 2014: 8). Consequently, I refer to Kuhn in this paper when discussing paradigms because he was the first to introduce the concept in the way it is widely understood today. His seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), reshaped how scholars view the development of scientific knowledge and progress within disciplines. Kuhn established the foundations for the paradigm discussion – that is, the overarching framework within which scientific communities operate – as an experienced philosopher of science. Despite his background in the natural sciences (he started his education with a bachelor and master degree in physics), he did not limit his arguments to this field, nor were his ideas understood to apply exclusively to the natural sciences. In contrast, Kuhn’s paradigm theory has influenced fields beyond the natural sciences, including sociology, psychology, political science, and philosophy.

Some social scientists, such as organizational theorist Pfeffer (1993), advocate for a single, unified paradigm in the similar way that Kuhn does. In his analysis of organizational science, Pfeffer identifies a significant paradigmatic divergence, where multiple paradigms coexist simultaneously. He acknowledges that this pluralism fosters a wide range of theoretical perspectives and methodologies, but argues that it also leads to fragmentation, which hampers the field’s ability to build cumulative knowledge. Central to Pfeffer’s argument is the dynamic tension between convergence (when paradigms consolidate and achieve consensus) and divergence (when new paradigms proliferate, often resulting in confusion and lack of focus). He contends that organizational science suffers from this lack of consensus, which impedes scientific progress through fragmentation and disorganization. Thus, while he recognizes the value of theoretical and methodological diversity, he concludes that it must be integrated into a unifying paradigmatic framework to facilitate scientific advancement.

Kuhn’s ideas have shaped the very language we use to discuss scientific development, knowledge frameworks, and revolutionary change. If being asked “why Kuhn to such an extent?” I would argue that not examining paradigms based on Kuhn would be akin to not examining evolution based on Darwin: while feasible, this approach may not be the most obvious or effective strategy.

PROPOSITION 2: If we take Kuhn’s original idea seriously, the guiding principle is “one scientific research discipline – one paradigm”. While a paradigm may be subject to periodic challenge and evolution, it is nevertheless shared by the majority of members of the respective scientific community; otherwise, it would not be their “paradigm.” Since CCM is a distinct scientific discipline, one should precisely talk about it having one paradigm at a time.

The first town sign: The CCM paradigm

It is great to see a town sign pop up on the road trip. It is a handy way to orient yourself. It helps you figure out where you are on your road trip through the CCM paradigm debate.

CCM has its origins in the late 1970s (Barmeyer and Ruesga Rath, 2024: 4). Over time, the CCM scientific community has come together under its disciplinary umbrella, accepting the existing diversity in thematic and methodological approaches. This is exemplified by the comprehensive longitudinal analysis of topics, paradigms, and methods in the CCM research by Barmeyer et al. (2019), spanning the years 2001 to 2018.

The initial expectation consistent with Kuhn’s framework is that one dominant CCM paradigm can be identified in the literature with the CCM scientific community agreeing on it and collaborating on its basis, even if the single researchers pursue different epistemological interests. Despite a thorough review of relevant literature, it was not possible to identify “the single CCM paradigm,” explicitly formulated as such in a Kuhnian sense. However, three fundamental elements emerge repeatedly as essential components that, taken together, would constitute such a CCM paradigm:

(1) “Culture matters” as an axiom of CCM research: This principle, which has been fundamental to culture-related research from its inception (e.g., England, 1973; Farmer and Richman, 1965), is that people everywhere live in contexts saturated with cultural rationalities, which affect many aspects of life. While the concept of culture is still vague (Moosmüller, 2000), culture has ethnological (Brannen, 2003; Moosmüller, 2007b), sociological (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961), psychological (Molinsky, 2007; Thomas, 2005; Triandis and Berry, 1980), linguistic (Holliday, 2012; Scollon and Wong Scollon, 1997), historical-political (D’Iribarne, 2009), and many other roots and elements. However, scholars and practitioners in CCM accept the premise that cultural differences significantly impact behaviors, interactions, and management practices across contexts as a starting point without requiring further proof, as the discipline’s focus is to explore how and why culture matters in various dimensions of management. This includes the critical handling of culture, that is the conceptual questioning, deconstruction, and relativization of culture (e.g., Duncan and Duncan, 2004), while there is at the same time a growing interest in contextualizing culture within the broader historical, strategic, and power-related contexts (e.g., Mingdong, 2022).

(2) Subjects of scientific CCM research: CCM investigates individual sense-making actors within institutionalized contexts, often referred to as “organizations,” which are social entities striving to achieve specific goals (Mayntz, 1963). Additionally, CCM examines organizations as collectives, emphasizing how both individuals and organizations contribute to and shape the broader intercultural dynamics in which they are embedded. These subjects are instrumental for achieving its scientific goals, which include understanding interculturality, constituting a system of meaning (ontological objectives), and shaping interculturality through action (pragmatic objectives).

(3) Methodological breadth of CCM research: CCM employs a comprehensive array of empirical social research methodologies. This includes both positivist research approaches, such as quantitative empirical studies, and interpretative research approaches, such as qualitative case studies, and mixed-method studies combining both, as well as critical discourse analysis and critical ethnography (e.g., Bryman, 2006; Jick, 1979; Samiee and Jeong, 1994; Wutich and Brewis, 2019; Zhu, 2016).

If I were to attempt an explicit formulation of the one (implicit) paradigm of the CCM discipline as it has emerged over the years and seems to cover contemporary CCM research, I would briefly formulate it as follows:

The cross-cultural management discipline paradigm: CCM research, grounded in the belief that cultural encounters are shaped by both universal and context-specific factors, applies a multi-methodological approach that combines qualitative and quantitative methods from the social sciences. It emphasizes the importance of understanding culture through both emic and etic perspectives, with a focus on the interaction between individuals and groups from different cultural backgrounds. Researchers working within this framework use comparative analysis, ethnographic studies, and cross-cultural communication models to examine how cultural differences influence behavior and organizational dynamics, while acknowledging the ongoing negotiation of divergent objectives.

This overarching paradigm formulation provides the structure and operational approach for how knowledge is pursued and interpreted within the CCM scientific community while simultaneously acknowledging the necessity of a competitive struggle for relevant explanatory contributions and progress. This includes, for example, traditional as well as postmodern explanatory models, and conformist as well as critical perspectives.

PROPOSITION 3 The formulation of an overarching CCM paradigm serves to mark the common ground of the discipline. It does not imply the requirement for all CCM researchers to pursue identical research objectives or to adhere to a single set of methodologies.

Sloping road: CCM as a discipline with multiple paradigms

Oh dear, there’s a pretty steep path downhill ahead of us. Are we going to pick up speed in a direction we don’t want to go? And will we still be able to set the brake?

The path that the current CCM paradigm debate is taking, however, is that of a diversification into alternative paradigms of CCM. This led to the view that CCM has become a multi-paradigmatic science (e.g., Romani et al., 2018a). A closer examination of the intra-disciplinary discourse that preceded this development reveals the existence of four distinct phases:

First, the proponents argued that having only one overarching CCM paradigm has potential drawbacks and limitations. In particular, they gave three reasons for this:

(1) Having one single CCM paradigm would provoke oversimplification. Cross-cultural interactions and management challenges are highly complex and context-dependent (Adler and Aycan, 2018). No single CCM paradigm could adequately access and address the full range of cultural diversity and cross-cultural management challenges across the globe (Dupuis, 2014). Trying to cover all potential research topics with one single CCM paradigm might not be sufficiently rich in content and might oversimplify the resulting explanatory contributions (e.g., Primecz et al., 2009).

(2) Having one single CCM paradigm would constrain methodological diversity, whereas diversified paradigms would allow for a more rigorous exploration of various aspects of culture and management (Primecz et al., 2009).

(3) Having one single CCM paradigm would restrict innovativeness in CCM research. A rigid, single CCM paradigm might discourage researchers from exploring novel concepts, theories, and methodologies (Clarke, 2017) that do not align with the established CCM frameworks.

Referring to Kuhn, these points may not be valid. The issue with the proponents’ position is that it implicitly assumes the overarching CCM paradigm as made explicit in the previous chapter is reaching its functional limits. However, this assertion lacks justification. The CCM paradigm has been largely successful in capturing the complexity and richness of cross-cultural interactions and management practices, facilitating adaptability and responsiveness to the evolving nature of cross-cultural phenomena in a global context. In fact, it is possible to study traditional as well as post-traditional research questions under these CCM paradigm premises. The well-established, applicable methodologies with qualitative, quantitative, ethnographic, etc. And mixed methods already cover the whole imaginable range and are free to choose. And the overarching CCM paradigm is neither designed to exclude, nor does it aim to limit individual research perspectives. Finally, there is no evidence that the traditionally dominant research approach in CCM, the positivist approach (Barmeyer et al., 2019: 231), actively denies the fundamental legitimacy of alternative research traditions within CCM.

Second, the proponents derived the following assertion: CCM would benefit from the flexibility to draw from various paradigms. This would allow researchers to become more multifaceted, to apply more diverse methodologies, and to become more creative and innovative. Their postulation was: CCM must have multiple paradigms (e.g., Patel, 2016), allowing for dealing with a wider range of scientific positions: “We call this multi-paradigmatic ethnorelativism (Grosskopf and Barmeyer, 2021), others call it discourses (Deetz, 1996) or counter-narratives (Jackson, 2021; Barmeyer et al., 2023: 3).

This is, in fact, a movement that can as well be observed in other social sciences (e.g., Genov, 2020; Zaytsev et al., 2023). Given the evolving nature of scientific inquiry, it is inevitable that innovative perspectives will emerge from time to time, representing alternative argumentative positions that deviate from existing ones. This constitutes a further advance in scientific knowledge. However, it is not evident that alternative argumentative basic positions that stimulate a scientific discourse automatically become a “paradigm” of their own (moreover, it is unclear what the criterion for when this occurs might be). In accordance with Kuhnian terminology, this is unlikely to be the case, as a paradigm shift would only occur if the majority of the scientific community were to adopt one of the alternative argumentative basic positions. Nevertheless, the intradisciplinary discourse will continue to intensify until that point. It will undoubtedly become more controversial, but as long as researchers engage in discourse and listen to each other, it may also result in previously less dominant narratives gaining greater importance within the existing paradigm. This development can result in the complementation of the canon of research topics to be considered and in the expansion of the canon of methods to be accepted. This development can sharpen the existing paradigm by demonstrating its ability to accommodate a wider variety of assumptions and research approaches. In short, alternative perspectives enhance the adaptability or scope of a paradigm. Following this Kuhnian reading means that renaming newly emerging arguments or basic positions as “paradigm” is neither precise nor necessary. Furthermore, it may even be counterproductive, as will be explained below.

Third, the proponents employed the typology of Burrell and Morgan (1979) to differentiate these multiple paradigms. Based on assumptions about the nature of society and the regulation of organizational activity, this impacting typology, as Deetz (1996) puts it, categorizes organizational theories into four paradigms (i.e., functionalism, interpretivism, radical structuralism, and radical humanism), allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the diverse perspectives within organizational research. The transfer to the CCM led to four paradigms (e.g., Grosskopf and Barmeyer, 2021; Romani et al., 2018a: 9): functionalist, interpretive, postmodern, and critical. From this time on, they were discussed in detail in the CCM literature.

Although referring to the criticisms of the Burrell and Morgan typology, such as that by Deetz (1996), the proponents used this typology to lay the foundation for multiple paradigms in CCM. However, the broader discussion of the general transferability of Burrell and Morgan’s paradigm terminology appears undertheorized. Notably, the proponents have not clearly distinguished their use of “paradigm” in the Burrell and Morgan sense from Kuhn’s conceptualization of the term (Hassard and Cox, 2013: 1706). Burrell and Morgan diverged from Kuhn’s notion of a single paradigm guiding a scientific discipline. Instead, they used “paradigm” more loosely to represent distinct worldviews and methodological perspectives – specifically, the objectivist versus subjectivist approaches, which are closely tied to how humans perceive or experience reality – rather than unified scientific frameworks. In their model, paradigms represent contrasting ways of interpreting the social world rather than prescriptive frameworks for specific scientific practices. While Burrell and Morgan agreed with Kuhn on the incommensurability of paradigms in terms of their underlying assumptions, they argued that such paradigms could coexist unlimitedly within the social sciences. They suggested that researchers could work within any of the four paradigms without aiming for consensus across them. This perspective implies that paradigms are relatively fixed constructs. Kuhn, by contrast, emphasized the dynamic evolution of paradigms through ongoing communal consensus and crisis resolution (e.g., Masterman, 1970; Ogundele and Ogunyomi, 2020). Taken together, the use of the term “paradigm” by proponents of multiple paradigms in CCM lacks the precision it implies.

Fourth, the proponents started to present their postulation of multiple paradigms and their manifestations as a new normality for and in CCM that has to be accepted. An example is the call for papers for this IJCCM special issue, which seems rather normative. It demands that contributing authors should believe in the diversity of paradigms, commit themselves to it, and even promote this position: “This call for papers and the resulting Special Issue addresses researchers who do not see paradigms as isolated and irreconcilable separate worldviews, but who believe in understanding, coexistence and even collaboration between different paradigms […]. Promoting this multifaceted position becomes particularly relevant in an international and intercultural context” (Barmeyer et al., 2023: 3).

Many possible reasons (e.g., Goles and Hirschheim, 2000; Hassard and Cox, 2013) could explain why proponents do not pursue the idea of an overarching CCM paradigm, but rather develop their own (sub)paradigms in multiple constellations. In scientific competition (e.g., Albert, 2011), there is the potential desire to demarcate oneself from research topics that one does not focus on and to position oneself within the existing debate in a competitive manner. The thematic limitation might allow deeper analysis and building up more focused knowledge in more narrowly defined areas. It could reduce problem complexity (Ashby, 1956) within the own research strategy by declaring research topics as no longer belonging to one’s own research approach, which in the end is a kind of boundary setting as a coping strategy for individual complexity. The theory of social identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) assumes that a person’s identity is shaped by their membership in a social group and suggests that the emotional value of peer feedback could be expressed in more respect for one’s own research. There could be expectations of career opportunities in in-group networks that would be easier to identify after a paradigm shift than before. Sometimes, forming multiple paradigms is also a fashion that individuals join, thus following the (real or imagined) mainstream to participate in the expected success of a new research direction. This would be a bandwagon effect (Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1993; Barnfield, 2020). Or one does not want to be seen as an old-fashioned who clings to supposedly nostalgic concepts and thus misses out on progress (Rhodes and Pullen, 2010).

Nevertheless, the position of having various CCM paradigms may give rise to new problems. By labeling a research approach as a “paradigm,” the implicit Kuhnian aspiration is that each of these multiple paradigms will eventually be able to claim relevance and validity across the entire discipline, rather than being limited to a specific subset of CCM. However, none of the four (sub)paradigms makes this claim. The “four paradigms,” which constitute a multifaceted view (Barmeyer et al., 2023), were originally defined as four distinct configurations of research approaches. Each configuration consists of an agenda, a typical concern, a distinctive investigation method, and distinctive contributions to CCM (Romani et al., 2018b). Employ the terms “positivist/interpretive/postmodern/critical ‘studies’” in their subheadings, rather than “paradigms.” This raises the definitional question of whether alternative research approaches were simply reframed. In addition, each approach is already represented within the CCM discipline and constitutes a component of the overarching CCM paradigm described above. However, if the functionality of a paradigm in Kuhn’s sense is not asserted, the rationale for using terminology from the philosophy of science remains unclear.

The greatest risk is that the scientific CCM discipline frays out. When researchers adhere to their own preferred paradigm, as a potentially unintended side effect, they contribute to creating a divide between themselves and those who follow different paradigms. The creation of a research landscape with multiple paradigms within one discipline thus provokes incommensurability, that is, at least partial untranslatability of the terms of one theoretical approach into the terms of another, which can be both semantic/taxonomic and methodological (Sankey and Hoynigen-Huene, 2001: ix-xv). With several competing paradigms, the divergence movement will be strengthened, if not created. This makes the multiple paradigms – as a self-fulfilling prophecy – even more mutually exclusive. They appear to be qualitatively different, develop independently of each other, and find their own areas of application. It is widely accepted that changing worldviews, problems, and standards that define a discipline, and changing concepts of problem solutions complicate a joint interpretation of discipline-related research issues. Kuhn himself refers to members of different scientific as well as linguistic and cultural communities who are, over time, separated by divergent developments (e.g., Kuhn and Mladenovic, 2022: 92–93). As Kuhn observed, the same challenges to communication across disciplines that arise due to incommensurability between members of different scientific communities over time also occur between members of different contemporary sub-disciplines that result from scientific split-up (Kuhn 2000 [1993], 238). “The application of the relation of incommensurability is no longer restricted to diachronic episodes of scientific advance in which two theories are separated by a revolution. The contemporaneous sub-disciplines that result from a scientific revolution can also be incommensurable with each other” (Oberheim and Hoyningen-Huene, 2018).

The fragmentation of the discipline’s paradigm brings with it the danger of weakening of the entire discipline. This is due to the accentuation of differences between the multiple paradigms, the pursuit of demarcation, and the tendency to remain within the confines of one’s own paradigm, which can be conceptualized as a “bubble.” The opportunity to consider both the similarities and differences between the areas is missed. Doing so would enhance the classification of the individual areas and ensure that the interrelationships between them are not overlooked (Goles and Hirschheim, 2000). Nevertheless, it is argued that there is the possibility of learning the respective other’s paradigm language, as Romani (2008: 60) puts it, to stay in a joint discourse. This means that boundaries between multiple paradigms are permeable (Gioia and Pitre, 1990) and that a synoptic summary could be constructed after separate research and in mutual respect (Romani et al., 2020: 437). But to refer to Hall’s (1976) cultural analysis: by this, a high context research field is turned into a low context research field, in which the representatives of one multiple paradigm would have to explain to the representatives of another multiple paradigm every time explicitly which assumptions they are making and what they mean. In addition, it remains unclear who should take on the role of a “synoptic summary constructor” who is as neutral as possible if the involved researchers themselves belong to one of the multiple paradigms.

The disadvantages of multiple paradigms within a discipline may outweigh their advantages. The contrary hypothesis has not yet been convincingly supported by empirical evidence. The evaluation of this issue might, but does not necessarily, depend on the distinction between natural and social sciences (e.g., Moses and Knutsen, 2019: 145–149), often described as follows: In the natural sciences, paradigm shifts are typically triggered by clear game-changers, such as technological advancements, which are rapidly accepted due to their empirical basis. In contrast, in the social sciences, achieving general agreement is less likely as the number of divergent positions increases and as these positions become symbolically institutionalized, making them appear “unchangeable for the foreseeable future.” However, this argument primarily pertains to the pace of paradigm shifts in Kuhn’s framework and does not fundamentally challenge his basic conception.

PROPOSITION 4 It seems important to reassess the paradigmatic positioning of CCM from the perspective of philosophy of science. Whether this is a necessary and meaningful proposition should be debated with as little ideological bias as possible, as such discussions risk diverting attention from the core issues of CCM.

The crossroad: Are we heading to a CCM paradigm shift?

The road trip continues. We must decide which way to go at the fork in the road. Where will we end up?

A paradigm unites a scientific community intellectually as well as emotionally. It should be expressed and affirmed. The connected story is called a “narrative” – the story that makes sense to the members of the scientific community, sometimes coined “turn,” such as the postcolonial turn (Devisch and Nyamnjoh, 2011). A paradigm means that the majority of the scientific community tells a similar story on its collective dicilpline-related identity. Nevertheless, there might be feelings in the CCM scientific community that the limits of the existing paradigm are reached. According to Kuhn, such a crisis is an indication of a potential paradigm shift. New counter-narratives are emerging and entering the competitive discourse. The struggle for the dominant paradigm is about how a counter-narrative as a new idea can alter the previously dominant narrative. If the most scientific community members support the new narrative, it might result in a new paradigm. However, this need not occur unless the scientific community is able to resolve the crisis in accordance with the original paradigm, incorporating the critiques.

This mechanism of incorporating critiques into an existing paradigm takes place in other disciplines of social sciences. As an illustrative example, I would like to cite business administration (Bea and Schweitzer, 2009). Since the 1950s, the business administration research paradigm has emphasized company efficiency, profitability, and optimization, primarily through universal principles and quantitative methods, operating under assumptions of stability and predictability in organizational environments. This paradigm has long been the foundational framework for business administration research, covering diverse areas such as production, marketing, finance, and human resource management. It shaped both academic identity and corporate behavior, uniting scholars under a shared understanding of business success. However, over time, emerging counter-narratives – such as those presented in “The Limits to Growth” (Meadows et al., 1972), concerns about climate change, and globalization – challenged its assumptions. These challenges sparked a critical discourse on determinism, constructivism, and relativism (Badescu, 2015; Norreklit et al., 2016; Suddaby et al., 2011), yet rather than fragmenting the paradigm, these critiques led to its expansion. The updated paradigm now integrates complexity, sustainability, and stakeholder inclusivity, maintaining its focus on efficiency and profitability while incorporating dynamic, context-sensitive approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives. This new iteration of the business administration paradigm positions business success not solely in terms of financial profit but also in ecological and social sustainability, as well as governance-related compliance. These expanded criteria have become pillars that endure critical assessment both from within and outside the corporate sphere (Weißenberger, 2022). At its core, the paradigm still upholds elements from its original form, such as the necessity for strategic change and optimization (Gartner, 2023). Yet, it is now grounded in a reflective fluidity, supported by modernized capabilities like learning, branding, configuration, and networking, as described by Ghauri et al. (2011). This evolution reflects a broader shift in business administration from static optimization to a more nuanced, adaptable model responsive to increasing complexity in economic activities. While the core of the paradigm remains dominant, it now coexists with more critical positions, such as plural economics and post-growth economics, which challenge its assumptions. Nonetheless, the paradigm adaptation is seen as a cohesive expansion, not a disruption, achieving a consensus within the scientific community. Importantly, the paradigm’s development emphasizes what unites researchers – its core principles and expanding scope – rather than the divides among them. This ensures that even divergent positions can be integrated.

Similarly, Jackson proposes that a similar mechanism be employed in CCM, with the objective of “shifting narratives as an end product of our research” (Jackson, 2021: 175). In CCM, the counter-narratives do not primarily come from different methodologies that have long existed alongside one another in the “normal science” of CCM. Instead, they arise from a fundamental challenge to the efficacy of CCM as a problem-solving framework. As the (non-existent) clarity of the interpretation of cross-cultural encounters continues to erode, windows open for new counter-narratives. In the past of CCM, for example, a view prevailed in which cultural differences determined a conflictual course of cross-cultural encounters (e.g., Chanlat, 2013; Hauk and Mueller, 2015) and the use of cultural intelligence (e.g., Ang and Van Dyne, 2008; Earley and Mosakowski, 2004) was therefore primarily about reducing conflict (e.g., Chaudhary and Yadav, 2018; Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998). This has partially further developed into a search for complementary potentials and thus the construction of cross-cultural synergy (e.g., Adler, 1980, 1983, 1986; Barmeyer et al., 2021; Barmeyer and Franklin, 2016) and cross-cultural boundary spanning (Barmeyer et al., 2020), partially it has been expanded in the direction of cultural power dynamics (e.g., Mahadevan et al., 2020). However, even these fundamental positions do not appear to address all recent cross-cultural research challenges; yet the global context reveals many inherently incompatible cultural positions (e.g., Beagan, 2018). Consequently, it is worth questioning the way how to establish a fruitful modus vivendi (e.g., Holliday and Amadasi, 2020; Primecz et al., 2016; Romani et al., 2020).

As an interim conclusion, it can be stated that the critical discussion of a paradigm and its eventual deconstruction and reconstruction, as stormy as it may be, is not compulsorily a delegitimization of the paradigm concept itself. On the contrary: This is exactly the necessary discourse that is inherent in science and that may lead to a paradigm adaptation or a paradigm shift. Discussing the discipline’s paradigm is a way of saying it can be changed.

One may consider Kuhn’s (1970: postscript) conceptualization to examine the core issues challenging the overarching CCM paradigm. This approach recognizes two distinct interpretations or “senses” of the paradigm concept:

• The first relates the paradigm to the so-called disciplinary matrix, that is, which encompasses the collective beliefs, values, methodologies, techniques, and other shared elements within the scientific community. In Kuhn’s sense of “paradigms as the constellation of group commitments,” scientific knowledge emerges as a shared asset within the group. The associated challenge in CCM is that when researchers focus on individual, discrete normative beliefs, it can result in a more fragmented, value-driven, and ideologized community. This concerns, among others, gender and religion (e.g., Romani et al., 2018b) as well as power-related and postcolonial perspectives (e.g., Chibber, 2019; Jack and Westwood, 2009; Wong, 2010; Yousfi, 2021). This goes hand in hand with the fact that critical positions do not feel sufficiently represented in the CCM discourse. In contrast, traditional positions do not only feel challenged in their work but also attacked. Those involved may experience distress if the critique of established positions calls into question their sense of identity and if the rejection of new ideas fosters a sense of ignorance and intolerance. This phenomenon can be observed in discourses surrounding cultural appropriation and its ethical implications (e.g., Räikkä and Puumala, 2019; Siems, 2019). However, beyond individual suffering, damage is also caused to scientific discourse. In cross-cultural debates, a de facto ban on thinking and silencing of certain voices in cultural discourses related to postcolonialism (Vives and Mohabir, 2019) also occurs as soon as the tendency is expressed that mainly individuals who originate from that culture, that is, indigenous people, should be allowed to engage in discourse about that culture. Just like the opposite, that is the underrepresentation of indigenous people in cultural discourse (e.g., Moran, 2019), this restricts the discourse and hinders its expansion by eliminating the necessary complexity of plural and historical positions, thereby failing to reflect the existing diversity of perspectives.

• The second relates the paradigm to the concrete solution of problems based on shared knowledge, the so-called model to be applied in normal science to solve real-world problems as well as new emerging questions. These theory applications in the discipline have an important function for the scientific community: In Kuhn’s sense of “paradigms as shared examples,” members internalize the explicit rules, practice their expertise, and deepen their knowledge. The associated challenge in CCM currently consists in the fact that the mainstream of shared examples, which has so far been based on structural positions and reflects cross-cultural relations with positivist methodology, is shifting in favor of post-structural positions, reflecting cross-cultural relationalities with interpretive and critical methodologies. It is the phenomenon of the “crisis of representation” (Fröhlich and Hillje, 2020: 3), which is also typical in media discourses, that in a transitional period, newer shared examples are overrepresented in the discourse because they can exploit the “exoticism of the new.” It appears that the discourse has already shifted in a new direction, as evidenced by the fact that a few representatives of a newer position, which deviates from the traditional stance held by the majority of the scientific community, initially receive a similar level of attention or even more attention than the many traditional researchers. This phenomenon can even be exploited in the competition between scientists: minority positions – that do not or not yet or no longer feel represented – represent themselves in a demanding or even aggressive manner, consciously using staging instruments to make themselves heard in contrast to the common shared examples. This also leads to distortions in the scientific discourse. It is unclear which proportions of scientific positions close to and far from paradigms are represented within the discipline and whether their representation in the scientific discourse reflects these proportions. In addition, the orientation is lost as to which discourse to join, that is, whether one should remain in the interdiscourse or participate in a decoupled multidiscursivity.

To synthesize these two points: This is where the crux of the discussion becomes evident. Although scientific positions are at stake in scientific discourse, it is ultimately people and not theoretical constructs discussing with each other. Their reactions may not always be rational but rather emotional. They may experience feelings of insecurity, anger, disappointment from not being understood, hurt, insult, or isolation (e.g., Bonache, 2021). The one CCM paradigm is therefore confronted with individual and structural irritations, injuries, and sufferings resulting from different reactions to necessary scientific progress. If scientists do not use the dominant paradigm in their discipline, it can lead to a number of challenges or even perceived “harm” both for the individual and the broader scientific community. On a personal level, the scientist may struggle to gain recognition and support, as their work may be perceived as outside the established norms or as not aligning with the accepted methodologies, theories, or frameworks that guide the discipline. This could result in difficulties securing funding, publishing in reputable journals, or engaging with other researchers who adhere to the dominant paradigm. Furthermore, without the shared understanding and methodological cohesion that comes with working within a dominant paradigm, the scientist’s findings may be harder to interpret, validate, or apply. For the scientific community, the absence of adherence to the dominant paradigm can create fragmentation, making it harder to compare research findings, integrate new discoveries, or advance theory in a cohesive way. Ultimately, while innovation often requires challenging established paradigms, doing so without careful consideration can slow down the collaborative process that drives the collective advancement of scientific knowledge.

One potential reaction is to retreat into the safety-giving niche of one of the multiple paradigms. Another potential reaction is to work on the dominant CCM paradigm to coherently integrate one’s own point of view into the CCM paradigm. If the dominant paradigm is perceived as too narrow, it could be broadened.

The most important impulse of this paper is this: If the CCM scientific community knows about these mechanisms, then it can make the dilemma inherent to this discussion itself part of the overarching CCM paradigm. Irritations, injuries, damages, harms, and sufferings call for coping with it. As illustrated by the development of the business administration research paradigm, as mentioned above, a discipline’s paradigm in the Kuhnian sense can evolve further through supplementation.

The following presents a concrete (exemplaric) proposal for CCM: a “rationale of healing” could be incorporated into the existing CCM paradigm as a supplementary framework. In this proposal, the reference point for “healing” is the CCM discipline as a whole, not the individual researcher or scholar. The goal, therefore, is not individual well-being but the restoration of the scientific community. The argument is made at a categorical level: Healing typically becomes necessary when there is a disruption or imbalance that prevents a system – whether individual, collective, or environmental – from functioning optimally, thus requiring restoration to return it to a state of well-being, harmony, or wholeness. This concept can be applied to physical, emotional, social, or ecological systems, where healing involves addressing and resolving the disruption to promote growth, recovery, and resilience. In the context of this article, the current multiparadigmatic divide within the CCM scientific community can be interpreted as a state of perceived incommensurability, where the unity of the discipline is at risk. As such, resolving this divide can also be seen as a form of healing. It should be noted that “healing” has a double connotation:

• Concerning the disciplinary matrix, the functionality is to overcome the existing division within the scientific community. The negative effects of fragmentation are avoided, violations of scientific discourse are reduced, and the unity of the scientific community is strengthened.

• Regarding the shared examples, the functionality is shaped by aligning research content more closely with the evolving realities of CCM. Rather than exclusively emphasizing static differences, it is increasingly logical to prioritize post-structural elements such as relationships, changeability, meaning, power imbalances, and addressing both individual and collective suffering – a shift that is already occurring within the discipline.

Healing consists of mutual appreciation of scientific positions, repairing discursive rifts within CCM, bridging disputes, correlating diverging discourses, and transforming conflict into constructiveness. It is not merely about “taking action” to tackle future research topics such as cross-cultural education, training, collaboration, completion, synergy, emancipation, coping with post-colonial traumata, etc. Rather, healing introduces an additional aspect: where the intradisciplinary sense of mutual trust and co-destiny among researchers has been broken or is being broken, the first step is to repair it, both in cross-cultural reality and in the CCM discourse. Healing is associated with wholeness (Egnew, 2005). While dealing constructively with a dispute involves addressing the conflict through dialogue and problem-solving to reach a productive resolution, healing harmful outcomes of a dispute focuses on mending the emotional, psychological, or social damage caused by the conflict. The former aims at resolution, and the latter aims at recovery. The rationale of healing is multifaceted, beyond recovery encompassing the integration of (individual as well as collective) mind and spirit, as well as the personal contributions of the persons taking action, such as competence, compassion, and empathy (e.g., Dieppe et al., 2020). An interesting prerequisite is an overarching mindset focusing on forgiveness (e.g., McCauley et al., 2022) and choosing between distinction and appreciation. Healing offers CCM as a discipline including the scholars in it an additional dimension: it is relational, reflexive, and fosters constructiveness.

If one does not seek “healing” by simply adopting one of the four (sub)paradigms, but instead begins with the overarching CCM paradigm in the Kuhnian sense, a paradigm shift within this unified CCM framework could facilitate the integration of ideologically distinct positions under a cohesive paradigmatic logic. The added rationale of healing draws upon social and organizational healing mechanisms (e.g., Bloom, 2005; Kinsley, 1995; Powley, 2013). This healing process involves a three-step approach: understanding the present, interpreting it through the past, and using this understanding to shape the future. It is clear that scientific tools must be refined for this purpose. This includes mechanisms for addressing historical and discursive harm, as well as training in empathy and reflexivity for researchers. The goal is not to undo the past, but to constructively address past experiences perceived as harmful, realign the CCM discourse where necessary, and restore a positive experience of CCM research. This approach fosters intercultural self-efficacy in all researchers, creating an anxiety-free experience of cross-cultural contexts and empowering them to confidently handle cross-cultural situations. In this way, issues such as cross-cultural offender-victim relationships are recognized as relevant to the entire CCM discipline, but are transcended by framing them within CCM’s collective, future-oriented commitment to healing.

It becomes evident that a Kuhnian paradigm shift in relation to the overarching CCM paradigm is not a prerequisite for the adaptation of the dominant CCM paradigm through the active integration of critical points into normal science. In light of the previous discussion, I would briefly formulate the adapted CCM paradigm as follows:

The adapted cross-cultural management discipline paradigm: CCM integrates the methodological toolkit of the social sciences with therapeutic approaches from the health sciences, creating a framework for understanding the phenomena arising from individual or collective encounters between cultures. It organizes cross-cultural phenomena through a focus on the interplay of divergent objectives, examining the dynamics of cultural interaction, organizational behavior, communication, and intercultural competence. It extends traditional models by incorporating the recognition, diagnosis, and alleviation of discomfort and distress, positioning these concepts as central to both the scientific discourse and real-world applications of cross-cultural management.

The updated framework maintains continuity with earlier CCM approaches while expanding its scope to include the human and relational aspects of intercultural engagement, thus broadening the disciplinary focus to encompass both organizational and individual well-being. Instead of multiple (sub)paradigms requiring translation between different paradigmatic languages, the full range of narratives and counter-narratives can still be unified under this adapted CCM paradigm – at least in the sense of Kuhn’s notion. In practice, however, it is likely that some readers of this paper will perceive its argument as an affront or attack on their position, potentially deepening existing divides. However, this would only confirm that carrying out healing of perceived injuries as named above is not easy. It will be the responsibility of the CCM scientific community to persevere in the ongoing but arduous development of CCM as a research discipline. Nevertheless, CCM research can continue to produce legitimate knowledge under this adapted paradigm, as the fundamental elements of the original CCM paradigm, which have already demonstrated their capacity to generate reliable outcomes, remain intact.

PROPOSITION 5 In the context of a paradigm adaptation towards a more comprehensive CCM paradigm, the existing CCM paradigm could be expanded to include the rationale of healing.

The proposed adapted CCM paradigm could have a major impact on the CCM scientific community. For researchers in CCM, using the full range of social science methods would require a more interdisciplinary approach, bringing together different research traditions. This would involve combining qualitative and quantitative methods and incorporating perspectives from fields like sociology, psychology, and anthropology, and combine them with therapeutic methods such as psychological and behavioral therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, psychodynamic and experiential therapies etc. This approach could lead to a deeper understanding of cross-cultural interactions, considering the complex social, psychological, and emotional factors involved. By focusing on recognizing and reducing discomfort and distress in cross-cultural encounters, the paradigm could emphasize empathy, ethics, and social justice. Researchers would be encouraged to think about the human impact of cultural differences, not just as abstract ideas, but as real-life experiences. This could lead to more compassionate and socially responsible research that aims for practical solutions, not just theoretical ideas. However, adopting this approach might require significant resources, like new training programs, methodologies, and institutional support. It may also face resistance from those used to more traditional or narrow models of cross-cultural management, as it challenges existing practices and introduces complexities in balancing different goals and values.

Nevertheless, it is neither the intention of this article, nor is it feasible, to instruct CCM on how it should or could reposition itself. Instead, my aim is to offer a preliminary conceptual framework that could serve as a foundation for further development of a single unified paradigm, one that might lead to innovative, integrative solutions with a different focus. However, attempting to propose a final solution for this challenge would not only be impossible but also presumptuous. The responsibility to tackle this issue lies with the scientific CCM community itself.

A destination has been reached: but the CCM paradigm road trip continues

The road trip is not over even when the day’s stage has been completed. Maybe it’s a road trip that should not end because: good enough never is…

Despite the considerable differences among the various positions, it seems feasible to identify a common fundamental position, an overarching CCM paradigm. The CCM discipline is particularly well-suited. It possesses the necessary tools to perceive and comprehend diverging worldviews, to become aware of them, to facilitate their debate, and to understand them in the entire CCM scientific community as part of the CCM discourse on a common paradigmatic basis.

For this purpose, the practices of decontextualization and recontextualization can be instrumentalized as generic CCM discipline-related “critical superior capabilities:” based on different counter-narratives that collide in discourse, the community would, in the Kuhnian sense, still have to refer to the common ground of the one CCM paradigm, ideally in its adapted manifestation. Such an approach would not only facilitate the commencement of discursive healing, but also lay the foundation for a more comprehensive and constructive discourse. It is likely that this would serve to reduce the probability of new injuries and sufferings occurring in the CCM discourse from its inception.

This paper does not seek to ignore the inherent pluralism, breadth of philosophical orientation, and methodological diversity within CCM as a social science. Nor can it be denied that competing worldviews and research traditions offer different lenses for studying complex social phenomena. Nevertheless, an overarching CCM paradigm in the Kuhnian sense would provide a framework to constructively unite the professional discourses arising from this diversity and to actively search for synergies in explanation and design at the conflicting interfaces, rather than inadvertently fostering divergence and the marginalization of CCM’s disciplinary influence.