This essay reflects the journey of two business scholars, Stephen X. Zhang and Jiyao Chen, who ventured into mental health research during the COVID-19 pandemic. We experienced first-hand how health sciences have operated their publication systems in ways that uphold scientific standing while addressing real-world problems. In doing so, we found the publishing expectations and norms in health and medical sciences to be vastly different from those in management. This essay further discusses aspects such as the preference for evidence over theory, the relationship with basic sciences, diverse evaluation criteria, encouragement of exploration and replication, timeliness, and democratization and inclusivity of scholarship as concrete steps of responsible research.

In this editorial, we are delighted to introduce the seven papers in this Special Issue. Each article considers various aspects of how management research can assist in the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in different contexts. Starting from a desire to provide a mechanism to drive real research outcomes for management research, this editorial considers the SDGs and their implementation/adoption in universities and businesses to date. It then introduces the different contexts for management research and the SDGs explored in the seven articles in the Special Issue. Finally, in a Postscript at the end of this Special Issue, we look at current progress against the SDGs, how COVID-19 has impacted this progress and what the future may hold for the links between management research and the SDGs.

Mixed methods is a youthful but increasingly robust methodological movement characterised by: a growing body of trans-disciplinary literature; prominent research methodologists/authorities; the emergence of mixed method specific journals, research texts, and courses; a growth in popularity amongst research funding bodies. Mixed methods is being utilised and reported within business and management fields, despite the quantitative traditions attached to certain business and management disciplines. This paper has utilised a multistrand conversion mixed model research design to undertake a retrospective content analysis of refereed papers (n = 281) from the 21st Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference 2007. The aim of the study is to provide a methodological map of the management research reported at the conference, and in particular the use, quality and acceptance level of mixed methods research within business and management fields. Implications for further research are discussed along with a call to the ‘first generation’ of business and management mixed method researchers to instigate mixed methods research training and capacity building within their respective business schools, relevant academies and associated professional forums and publications.

In this article, I argue that it is misleading to dichotomize the West as being either/or and the East as being both/and. The West has thought dialectically since ancient Greece. I offer a typology to compare and contrast three dialectical or non-either/or logical systems or ways of thinking: Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, Hegel's dialectic, and Niels Bohr's complementarity principle, as well as Aristotle's formal (either/or) logic. I show that the four logical systems have differences and similarities and show that Westerners can and do think dialectically. I also argue that Chinese Yin-Yang philosophy, while useful and powerful in some situations, is not always superior to the other logical systems and philosophies. My purpose is to alert Chinese management scholars to the dangers of overconfidence and to stimulate discussion and debate on the true value of Yin-Yang in particular and the promotion of Chinese indigenous management research in general. To that end, I present my opinion on the merits and drawbacks of Yin-Yang and posit that it may inspire but cannot guide Chinese indigenous management research because Chinese philosophy lacks a well-defined methodology and operationalizable methods.