Rethinking contexts and institutions for research on human resource management in multinational enterprises in an age of polycrisis: reflections and suggestions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International human resource management (IHRM) has covered two very distinct areas: comparative HRM (comparing HRM between national settings) and HRM in multinational enterprises (MNEs). Existing research has pointed to the multifaceted nature of contextual effects, and how they may differ qualitatively according to locale. This perspective article argues that a distinct and shared theme across this literature is much more than a recognition that many different sets of institutions and/or cultural features can make for viable alternative HRM models. We also consider whether or not MNEs seek to accommodate local realities or work to change them. Developing and broadening inquiry around these concerns may represent a solid way for researching IHRM in an age of polycrisis. Such understandings may be of great value in exploring the relationship between the present global polycrisis and HRM practice. We highlight potential concerns and opportunities for theorizing around the same.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.084 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.114 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.055 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".