The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Transcending Paradox: The Chinese “Middle Way” Perspective
Open accessAbstract
Western thought is noted for its strengths in categorization and analysis; Eastern, or Chinese thought, is noted for its integrative and encompassing nature. This article seeks to bridge the two. Specifically, it aims to enrich Western thinking and the existing body of paradox literature by proposing the idea of paradoxical integration, a concept derived from the Chinese middle way philosophy. Paradoxical integration, the notion that two opposites (such as “self” and “other”) may be interdependent in nature and together constitute a totality (“integration”), is introduced as one means of transcending paradox and the conventional Western conceptualization of exclusive opposites. It suggests how we can apply the concept of interdependent opposites in a both/and framework to foster reconciliation of the apparent polarities of such dichotomies as competition and cooperation. The article concludes with a discussion of the broad implications of the concept of paradoxical integration upon both academic research and business practice. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291 · Cited by 4,263
MANAGERIAL TIES AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN A TRANSITION ECONOMY: THE NATURE OF A MICRO-MACRO LINK.
Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/1556406 · Cited by 2,861
Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories
Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308389 · Cited by 1,905
Earley, P. C. (1993) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256525 · Cited by 878
Paradoxical Thinking and Change in the Frames of Reference
Westenholz, A. (1993) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069301400104 · Cited by 175
Cited by
Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 · Cited by 1,385
Yin Yang: A New Perspective on Culture
Fang, T. (2012) · Management and Organization Review · doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00221.x · Cited by 486
Reconceptualizing the Competition— Cooperation Relationship: A Transparadox Perspective
Chen, M.-J. (2008) · Journal of Management Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1056492607312577 · Cited by 339
Self-citationNorouzinik, Y., Rahimnia, F., Maharati, Y., & Eslami, G. (2022) · Innovation · doi:10.1080/14479338.2021.1897467 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, M.-J.
- Venue
- Asia Pacific Journal of Management
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 179-199
- ISSN
- 0217-4561 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-9958
- OpenAlex
- W4242547948
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 3.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Transcending Paradox: The Chinese “Middle Way” Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1023/a:1016235517735
- The paper
- Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending Paradox: The Chinese “Middle Way” Perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1023/a%3A1016235517735
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.