In inquiring on theoretical framework to serve as the base for the research and analysis at the core of our dissertation it is crucial to comprehend the construction and the element directing the theory we are adopting for months to come. Stewart, Harte and Sambrook (2010, p223) have determined the relation that the theory plays with the evolution of the research process and its designer “In summary then the concept of theory is inextricably connected to notions of science that, in origin at least, refers to investigating the world according to a set of rules and principles.” Those rules and principles will be the guide and limitations to direct the inquisition once adopted and accepted by the authors and its advisors the dissertation will be bound to follow the direction set by the theoretical framework. We will establish the foundation of our paper and setting two main paradigms and further decide which one will be the more pertinent.
Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson (2012) have exposed the foremost epistemological methods centered on positivism and social constructivist, the latter component will be the approach retain to inspire our research. Form this model we must develop a theoretical framework in relation with the subject of our dissertation, we will investigate the influence of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980) on organizational learning inside SME in China. Learning is an individual and collective process that encompasses different realities, multiple experiences, and distinctive perspectives need to be assembled in a consolidation of quantitative and qualitative methods. This is in complete harmony with the constructivist position detailed by Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson (2012). However, that scheme does not constitute our framework, but the philosophical origin of the theory behind the outline established at the origin. The notion of organizational learning have emerged form practitioners and academic research and the concept is still in many ways not completely understood, multiple aspect remains vague and abstruse (Taylor, Templeton and Baker, 2010, p362). This will force us to properly define the limits of our frameworks and the methodology used to evaluate the effect of organizational learning, this can be a precarious pitfall reinforcing the prominence of a solid regulation. The other notion in our exploration is more developed and have been around for decades, multiples studies have used it in different fashion expanding its reach to a quite extensive range of social studies. Its legitimacy has been acquired over time, although some question touching its validity in evaluating individual in specific situation (customer behavior) are persistently debated in some literature (Blodgett, Bakir and Rose, 2008). Our boundaries are more associated with team learning in the context of a SME, so we believe that those limitations are not obstructing the appropriate evolution of...