Idea Transcript
CHAPTER 2 - REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.
Introduction
2.1.
Foundational Theories on Intercultural Communication 2.1.1. Edward T Hall’s work on intercultural communication -
High and low context theory
-
Polychronic and Monochronic Time
-
Notion of adumbration
-
Concept of space
-
Views and research on Hall’s Cultural Framework
2.1.2 Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck and Value Orientation Theories -
Views and research on Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck Framework
2.1.3. Geert Hofstede and Cultural Dimensions -
Significance and Development of Hofstede Theory on Cultural Dimensions
-
2.2.
Criticism on Hofstede’s Framework of Cultural Dimensions
Major studies on intercultural communication post-Hofstede 2.2.1. Schwartz theory of the Universal Content and Structure of Values 2.2.2. Fons Trompenaars - Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business 2.2.3. GLOBE Study on Intercultural Communication 2.2.4. Research on personality traits in cross-cultural literature 2.2.5. Research on cultural standards
2.3.
Post-dimensional Approaches to Intercultural Communication 2.3.1. Dialectical Approach 2.3.2. Co-cultural Theory 2.3.3. Gudykunst’s Anxiety and Uncertainty Management Theory 2.3.4. Gannon and Pillai and Cultural Metaphoric Approach
2.3.
Research Gap
45
2.0. Introduction Intercultural communication primarily deals with the questions on the ways in which people from different cultural backgrounds comprehend the world around them and how it plays a role in their communication with the other. It is a field of study that tries to understand the dynamics of the interaction between individuals and groups from different cultures, and examines the role of culture in determining the response and behavior of people in such interactions. The study is gaining significant importance as we live in an increasingly multicultural world that demands a great deal of cultural sensitivity to be successful in communicating one’s views effectively to the other. This chapter primarily outlines how the ideas of Edward T Hall, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), and Geert Hofstede (1980) shaped the knowledge on the ways in which cultures are arrayed in terms of diverging worldviews. It seeks to understand the ideas on intercultural communication first by understanding the functional theories in intercultural communication. It tries to outline the works of the researchers who used these theories to develop instruments to measure intercultural communication dynamics. The later theories that used the notions of these researchers and developed them further are discussed in brief in order provide an understanding to the study. 2.1. Foundational Theories on Intercultural Communication The term ‘intercultural communication’ was first used in Edward T. Hall’s (1959) renowned book, The Silent Language and Hall is credited with introducing the idea of intercultural communication to the field of communication. The application of anthropological and linguistic perspectives on understanding communication styles used by Edward T Hall and George Trager (1953) was the beginning of the notion of intercultural communication. Their 46
ideas on different communication styles, time and space attempted an understanding of diverging worldviews across cultures. These notions were developed on the lines of universal value orientations by researches such as Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) and Condon and Yusef (1974). However, the most influential contribution in the field till date is the idea of ‘cultural dimensions’ developed by the Dutch anthropologist Geert Hofstede (1980). These three researchers provided the base on which majority of the later studies on intercultural communication was developed. 2.1.1. Edward T Hall’s work on intercultural communication Edward T Hall’s ideas on differences in communication styles across cultures are held as the pioneering work in the field of intercultural communication. As an anthropologist he developed his ideas of communication on the basis of his experiences in interacting with Native Americans from 1933 to 1937. Hall in association with George Trager (1953) attempted training for the members of Foreign Service Institute (FSI) in the United States where they developed their views on different approach to time and space. They developed a training manual ‘The Analysis of Culture’ that outlined a method of mapping a given culture along certain cultural dimensions. Rogers and Hart (2002:9) point out that “…this matrix was reproduced in Hall’s The Silent Language (1959). An important appeal of Edward Hall’s The Silent Language to its readers was its illumination of previously hidden dimensions of human communication, particularly proxemics (how space affects communication) and chronemics (how time affects communication)”. Edward Hall using his work experience with different cultures such as “the Hopis and Navajos in the 1930s, with the people of different cultures on the island of Truk in 1946, and,
47
drawing on the intercultural communication experiences of his FSI trainees1” provided some of the fundamental notions in the field of intercultural communication. The following are the major contributions of Edward T Hall: High context and low context theory Edward T Hall suggested that cultures across the world could be categorized as being a ‘high context culture’ or a ‘low context culture’ on the basis of the presence of ‘context’ in an interaction. In other words to what extent speakers depend on words to convey the meaning in communication differs from culture to culture. In certain cultures, the information lies more in the context of the conversation and conveyed often through cues on non-verbal communication. Whereas in certain other cultures information lies mainly in the words uttered (Hall, 1987). According to Hall, high context cultures are those where the information is not stated directly in the form of words, but must be inferred either by the ‘physical context’ or in the ‘person’. In contrast, all the required information is stated explicitly in the low context cultures (Hall, 1976). Hall expressed the view that it is possible to array the cultures of the world on a ‘high context to low context’ continuum. Countries such as the USA, Canada, Switzerland and Germany among others are identified as low -context cultures whereas countries such as Japan, other Asian countries, Brazil, Italy, and Arab countries are identified as high-context cultures (Ming-xiang, 2012). According to Keegan (1989:50) “…in high-context cultures, less information is contained in precise verbal expression, since much more is in the context of communication. The context of
1
http://www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2002/review24/2.pdf
48
communication is high because it includes a great deal of additional information, such as the individual‘s background, associations, values and position in society”. It is evident that in high-context cultures the listeners understand the speaker not primarily on the basis of what is spoken but also on the grounds of how those words are spoken and what is the context of the speech. Hence, as pointed out by Root (1987), “Highcontext cultures are characterized by the expressive manner in which the message is delivered using non-verbal behaviour, such as facial expressions, gestures and body language”. In a low-context culture, the emphasis is on ‘clarity’ of expression. The messages in these cultures rely heavily on the ‘words’ and not on the ‘context’. The information lies in ‘the message’ rather than ‘in the person’ and usually comes in elaborate detail, clearly communicated. Usually people from low-context cultures differentiate between personal relationships and professional relationship. In these cultures “communication is more formal and explicit” (Hall, 1976). Monochronic and Polychronic Time The other major contribution of Edward T Hall to intercultural communication is his classification of cultures on the basis of ‘approach to time’. According to Hall’s theory people’s orientation to time differs across the cultures: some view it sequentially whereas others view it synchronically. Hall divided the cultures into two categories: ‘monochronic cultures’ and ‘polychronic colures’. “In monochronic cultures, time is experienced and used in a linear way. It is divided into segments and is used as a classification system for ordering life. Time is tangible and equal to money, and is seen as a scarce resource which must be rationed and controlled through schedules and appointments”(Ming-xiang, 2012:1209)
49
Punctuality, adherence to deadlines, and compartmentalization of tasks are the characteristics of monochronic cultures. People from these cultures are not comfortable with engaging in multiple tasks at given point of time. Most of the North European countries, and Japan in the Asian context are categorized under this category. “People in polychronic cultures view time as the simultaneous occurrence of many things. They put more emphasis on human relationships than schedules or deadlines. Punctuality is less important. It is the maintenance of harmonious relations that is considered as the most important. Time is a commodity that can be manipulated, stretched, or even dispensed with altogether. Thus, the use of time should be flexible” (Ming-xiang, 2012:1209) People are comfortable in multitasking and taking a relaxed approach to completion of tasks in polychronic cultures. Hall categorizes most of the Asian countries, the Arab nations under polychronic cultures. Notion of ‘adumbration’ In addition to the idea of ‘context’ in communication, there is another concept provided by Edward Hall that would be of an important value in the context of the latest approaches to intercultural communication, particularly that of ‘cultural standards’. The concept that we refer to is what Hall termed as ‘adumbration’: “Adumbration is the communication of a message to the receiver without the communicator’s conscious knowledge of the communication. It is different from what is commonly perceived as ‘cue’. The cue is a short message of minimal redundancy in full awareness from A to B that indicates what A wants B to do. The adumbration, on the other hand, is a perceivable manifestation of A's feelings of which he may not even
50
be aware: his tone of voice (paralinguistic behavior), facial expression, even his dress, posture, and handling of appointments ‘in time’” ( Hall E, 1964:157) .
This idea of perceiving ‘what is going to come’ plays an important role in
intercultural communication and certainly forms the core of the idea of theory on ‘cultural standards’. Concept of Space Edward T Hall’s ideas on different views on ‘Space’ across cultures are another major contribution. He outlined how the approach to space is not the same in different cultures. “Each person has around him an invisible bubble of space which expands and contracts depending on a number of things” (Hall, 1976). According Hall these expansion or contraction varies across cultures. Yeganeh et al., (2009:17) pointed out that “Hall distinguished among intimate, public and social spaces, which are perceived differently across cultures. For instance, in most Western cultures, people preserve a personal space and do not touch each other unless they have an intimate relationship.” In other cultures such as Asian and in a few Latin American cultures touch is viewed as an expression of friendliness and requirement. In these cultures the idea of personal space is not same as the personal space as experienced in the Northern European countries. Views and research on Hall’s Cultural Framework It is true that Edward Hall explored the field from the point of view of an anthropologist and has its own set of limitations. It is argued that as way of understanding the cultural values, it does not provide measurable yardsticks. Yeganeh et al., (2009:18) observed that
51
“A major concern with Hall’s elements is that they are not mutually exclusive and seem subjective. For instance, the notions of high/low context and monochromic/polychromic are conceptually overlapping. Furthermore, Hall’s framework does not distinguish any ranking.” In other words, it has been observed that the ‘contexting model’ and other ideas of Hall (1976) lack a concrete explanation in terms of the method used to arrive at the conclusions. Further, the ranking of the cultures ‘along the contexting continuum’ was not based on any empirical evidence (Cardon, 2008). However, a number of researchers have tried to scientifically develop the ideas provided by Hall to understand the difference in communication styles across cultures. Major research studies in this direction are that of “Gudykunst et al., (1996), Kim, Pan, and Park (1998), Ohashi (2000), and Richardson and Smith (2007)2”. Gudykunst et al., (1996) worked on the concept of ‘contexting’ and provided an instrument to measure it by surveying the students in universities of the United States, Japan, Australia and Korea. They used eight theoretical dimensions that showed contrasting features in High Context and Low Context cultures and used the data to test their eight hypotheses. Cardon (2008) pointed out that though Gudykunst et al., expected to find a significant variation between the diverse cultures “only three of the eight hypotheses were supported, Four hypotheses were insignificant, and one hypothesis was significant but it was not supported”. They concluded that the contexting could be understood to a greater extent on the individual level than on the cultural level. Another major work on the idea of ‘contexting’ culture was done by Kim, Pan, and Park (1998). Cardon (2008:405) in his essay on Hall observed that
2
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/viewFile/25102/16440
52
“Kim et. al., (1998) identified five theoretical of categories of contexting: social orientation, responsibility, confrontation, communication, and dealing with new situations. They developed a 16-item survey based on various survey instruments and administered this survey to graduate management students from three cultures: American (n = 96), Chinese (n = 96), and Korean (n = 50)”.
The study instrument primarily focused on the issues associated with ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’. The results of the study showed that the American students were more significantly individualist compared to the Chinese and the Korean students and vice versa. Ohashi (2000) developed a study on ‘social norms’ involving the 230 American and 223 Japanese students. She reached the conclusion in her study that “the results confirm that the Japanese participants in this study are a more high-context communication culture than the U.S. American participants” The recent study on the ideas of Hall (1976) was carried out by Richardson and Smith (2007). They modified the instrument used by Ohashi (2000) and expected there would be a significant variation between the Japanese and the American way of communication and score. However according to Cardon (2008:407), “the results of their survey of 75 American university students and 79 Japanese
university students showed only a small significant difference between the two groups on the 5-point Likert HC–LC scale (Japanese: M = 3.00, SD = 0.39; American: M = 2.84, SD = 0.52)” The other major names in the field of intercultural research who attempted to make use of Hall’s (1976) idea of ‘contexting’ as a part of their work include Koeszegi et al., (2004) and Trompenaars (1994). Koeszegi et al., (2004) in his study on Negotiation Support System (NSS) made study across 11 cultures involving 2204 business students. The study
53
confirmed the idea of ‘contexting’ of cultures as they concluded that students of low context culture are more comfortable with linear logic in comparison to students of high context cultures. Trompenaars and Hampden (1994), in outlining the idea of dimensions of culture made use of Hall’s idea of ‘contexting’. His dimension of ‘specificity– diffuseness’ is an extension of Hall’s idea of low context and high context communication. He surveyed the managers in 43 countries and based on the study pointed out that one of the major dimensions involved is ‘direct and indirect communication style’ across cultures. Overall, it is evident that Hall’s framework has influenced the study of inter cultural communication in diverse areas. The ideas on communication style, space and time are applied to understand “the differing styles of communication, consumer attitude, behavior of the people in organization, and nature of negotiation across cultures” (Yeganeh et al., 2009).
2.1.2. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck and Value Orientation Theories Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's (1961) using anthological perspective provided one of the major frameworks of understanding cultures. The study began with the Harvard Values Project where they explored the how cultures respond to and orient themselves towards the universal values. They outlined the proposition that “ ..there are a limited number of common human problems for which all societies at all times must find some solution...How a group is predisposed to understand, give meaning to, and solve these common problems is an outward manifestation of its innermost values, its window on the world: its value orientation." (Gallagher, 2001:1) The ‘Value Orientation Theory’ proposed by them highlighted the idea that cultures could be understood on the basis of their approach to certain universal values.
54
Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck Framework compared cultures along five dimensions initially (which was further extended to six dimensions), based on the following primary questions (Hill, 2002:4): “• Do people believe that their environment controls them, that they control the environment, or that they are part of nature? • Do people focus on past events, on the present, or on the future implications of their actions? • Are people easily controlled and not to be trusted, or can they be trusted to act freely and responsibly? • Do people desire accomplishments in life, carefree lives, or spiritual and contemplative lives? • Do people believe that individuals or groups are responsible for each person’s welfare? • Do people prefer to conduct most activities in private or in public?”
Based on the responses to the above questions Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) Value Orientation theory suggested that “cultures develop unique positions in the five value orientations: man-nature, activity, time, human nature and relational”. In other words, they proposed that societies across the world would respond “in one of three ways to each of the five questions or orientation3:
3
http://www.leadershipeducators.org/Archives/2001/Gallagher.pdf
55
Table 2.1: Outline of Value Orientation Source : Gallagher, T .2001, Understanding Other Cultures: The Value Orientations Method, Association of Leadership Educators Conference, Minneapolis4
Hills, M. D. (2002:6) pointed out that “Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) interviewed members of five different cultural groups in the South-West USA. These included itinerant Navaho, Mexican-Americans, Texan homesteaders, Mormon villagers, and Zuni pueblo dwellers. … they were able to develop real-life situations relevant to all five cultural groups, and questions to probe the value orientations used by members of those cultures in dealing with the situations involved. They were then able to draw value profiles of each group, showing the ways in which they differed from each other, and the ways in which they were similar”. The following Table (2) outlines the value orientations explained by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck
4
http://www.leadershipeducators.org/Archives/2001/Gallagher.pdf
56
Table 2.2: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Framework of Value Orientations
Source: Nardon, L., & Steers, R. M. 2009, The culture theory jungle: Divergence and convergence in models of national culture, Cambridge handbook of culture, organizations, and work
These value orientations provide an entry point into a culture and also help to compare the values of a culture with another. The value orientation theory has been used by 57
the researchers to understand the cultural difference across societies 5 . Maznevski et al., (2002:276) pointed out that “The cultural orientations as proposed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck are straightforward and meaningful notions corresponding to a culture’s core and are presumed to be found in all societies”. Views and research on Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck Framework It is significant to note that Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) work gave directions to a number of later researchers and this is evident in the similarities to it found in the major frameworks of intercultural communication provided by Hofstede (1980) and Trompenaars (1994). These orientations were further developed by John C. Condon and Fathi Yousef (1974). They provided a list of o twenty-five value orientations on which a culture could be understood. According to Prosser (2012), Condon and Yousef(1974) pointed out that “As universal values and value orientations, they include ‘the self’ (including individualism/interdependence, age, sex, and activity), ‘the family’ (including relational interaction, authority, positional role behavior and mobility), ‘the society’ (including social reciprocity, group membership, intermediaries, formality, and property), ‘human nature’ (including rationality, good and evil, happiness and pleasure, and mutability), ‘nature’ (including relationships of humans and nature, ways of knowing nature, structure of nature, and the concept of time), and the ‘supernatural’ (including the relationship of humans and the supernatural, the meaning of life, providence, and knowledge of the cosmic order)”.
5
http://www.itrade.kuas.edu.tw/commit/dis/fo/4.pdf
58
These ideas on value orientations by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) and Condon and Yousef(1975) provided the basis on which studies on the approach to values developed which eventually led to the idea of cultural dimensions. For instance Russo (1992) through his work involving a Native American tribe, the Lummi of Washington state demonstrated how Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck theory of universal human values could have practical implications. He showed that creation of awareness among the Lummi tribe about different world view of the ‘majority culture ‘they deal with helps the tribe to have a higher standard of living’ (Hills, 2002). A significant development in the field was the work of Milton Rokeach (1973; 1979) who developed an instrument called Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) to measure personal and social values 6 . Expanding the idea of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck to the field of social psychology, Rokeach (1973) distinguished between two sets of values: instrumental and terminal. He defined the value concept as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence”. Overall, it is evident that the contribution of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck was a significant way forward in the field of intercultural communication studies. The idea of the existence of difference approach to values across cultures set the tone for the further research in the field. 2.1.3. Geert Hofstede and Cultural Dimensions The modern theories on intercultural communication are primarily based on the notion of value dimensions that examines the value differences between different cultures, and in this regard the major name is that of Geert Hofstede, the Dutch anthropologist.
6
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/commerce/the-problem-statement-for-successful-entrepreneurship-commerceessay.php
59
Geert Hofstede developed the most influential work in the field of intercultural communication through his study based on responses by IBM employees across the globe. Hofstede used the same quantitative questionnaires to identify and measure the personal value orientations of IBM employees in different countries. Using the data gathered from these employees, he finally developed his theory of cultural dimensions. “Data were collected in two periods during the years 1968 and 1972. Hofstede emphasized that first he had more than 116,000 questionnaires filled in by IBM employees in the 40 largest subsidiaries of IBM (40 countries) and later in ten more countries and in three global regions (several countries grouped together). In the second round, factor analysis was employed to analyze the responses to 32 questions, and the famous four value dimensions were derived by grouping the responses: power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001)”7. Later, Geert Hofstede in association with Michael Harris Bond added the fifth dimension, long-term orientation versus short-term orientation, as a result of their work in Chinese Value Survey (Hofstede 2001). Later, in 2010, Hofstede also incorporated the sixth dimension of ‘indulgence versus restraint’ by taking into consideration the work of Minkov and World Value Survey (Hofstede, 2011). However, as the sixth dimension is not extensively used in majority of the studies involving Hofstede’s work, this study focuses on the first five dimensions. The first dimension is power distance (PD). It is defined as “the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 1980:45).
7
Fink, Gerhard, Anne-Katrin Neyer, and Marcus Kölling, 2006, ‘Understanding Cross-Cultural Management Interaction: Research into Cultural Standards to Complement Cultural Value Dimensions and Personality Traits’, International Studies of Management and Organization.
60
The second dimension is individualism – collectivism (IND-COL). Individualism is defined as “a loosely knit social framework in which people are supposed to take care of themselves and of their immediate families only', while COL 'is characterized by a tight social framework in which people distinguish between in-groups and out-groups, they expect their in-group to look after them, and in exchange for that they feel they owe absolute loyalty to it” (Hofstede, 1980:45). Hofstede‘s Collectivism verses Individualism dimension relates to “the degree to which people in a culture prefer to act as members of a group or as individuals. It also reflects whether the group‘s interests are most important or the individual person‘s interest”8. The third dimension uncertainty avoidance (UA) is defined as “'the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid these situations by providing greater career stability, establishing more formal rules, not tolerating deviant ideas and behaviors, and believing in absolute truths and the attainment of expertise” (Hofstede, 1980:45). In other words, the idea of uncertainty avoidance examines to what extent people of a given culture are comfortable with changes to the existing structures and are willing to accommodate changes. It has been observed that cultures with low uncertainty avoidance tend to be less structured and show a greater acceptance of ambiguity.
8
http://publications.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/16432/Obeng-Darko_Dayann.pdf?sequence=1
61
The fourth dimension is masculinity (MAS)-femininity (FEM). Masculinity and Femininity are defined in terms of their approach to values that are held important in a society. Masculinity is defined as “the extent to which the dominant values in society are "masculine" - that is, assertiveness, the acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of life, or people”(Hofstede, 1980:45) Femininity is defined as “the extent to which the dominant values in society are ‘feminine”. The values identified under femininity are caring for others, sympathy for the unfortunate, and willingness to support the other” (Hofstede, 1980:45). It is evident that Masculine cultures stress earnings, recognition and challenge whereas feminine cultures stress “good working relationship, cooperation and employment security” (Hofstede 1991)9. Hofstede and Bond (1988) developed a fifth dimension, Confucian dynamism (or long-term v/s short-term orientation). “Long-term orientation refers to future-oriented values such as persistence and thrift, whereas short-term orientation refers to past - and present-oriented values such as respect for tradition and fulfilling social obligations” (Hofstede, 2001:353). The following table provides an outline of the features of dimensions explained by Hofstede (1984).
9
http://publications.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/16432/Obeng-Darko_Dayann.pdf?sequence=1
62
Table 2.3: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Source: Nardon, L., & Steers, R. M. (2009). The culture theory jungle: Divergence and convergence in models of national culture. Cambridge handbook of culture, organizations, and work, 3-22.
63
The above mentioned dimensions identified by Hofstede are extensively used in cross-cultural research as the base for understanding the fundamental values of national cultures. Hofstede (1983:46) pointed out that: “… dimensions considered here relate to very fundamental problems which face any human society, but to which different societies have found different answers. They are used to explain (1) different ways of structuring organizations, (2) different motivations of people within organizations, and (3) different issues people and organizations face within society. On the basis of combined scores, the countries studied can be grouped by cultural clusters.”
Based on his extensive study, Hofstede has given a specific score for each country on all the established dimensions. These scores on the dimensions provide a general understanding of the cultural orientations of a given nation. For instance a high score on Power Distance and a low score on ‘Uncertainty avoidance’ on India indicate that India as a country operates on a hierarchical structure and a fairly loose rules and regulations. Further, these scores on dimensions enable one to compare and contrast the cultural values of different countries. This in turn may help individuals to grasp a generalized idea about a given culture.
The following table shows the scores attributed to the selected countries by Hofstede:
64
Table 2.4: Index Values of Ranks of 50 Countries and three Regions on four Dimensions Source: International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 13, No. 1/2, Cross-Cultural Management: II. Empirical Studies (Spring - Summer, 1983), pp. 46-74
65
Significance and Development of Hofstede theory on Cultural Dimensions Hofstede’s framework of understanding cultures through value dimensions has been extensively used by the researchers across the field. Fernandez et al., (1997) observed that Hofstede’s work is “a watershed conceptual foundation for many subsequent cross-national research endeavors". A significant number of empirical studies, and conceptual work emerged after 1981 based on the concepts provided by Hofstede. Sivakumar and Nakata (2001) pointed out that the framework provided Hofstede had been applied to diverse fields and the range was truly astonishing. They observed that ‘Since publication of Culture's Consequences, Hofstede's definition of culture as the ‘mental programming’ of a society, the delimitation of culture to the nation-state, and the deconstruction of culture as four universal values have been widely adopted in marketing (e.g., Deshpande, Farley, and Webster, 1997), management (e.g., Kogut and Singh, 1988), organizational development (e.g., Adler and Bartholomew, 1992), accounting (e.g., Cohen, Pant, and Sharp, 1993), business ethics (e.g., Armstrong, 1996), information decision science (Bryan, McLean, and Smits, 1995), and other business disciplines.” (Sivakumar and Nakata , 2001:556) The significance of Hofstede’s work is also evident in the total number of citation the study received. Søndergaard (1994) pointed out that Hofstede’s work received the highest number of citations in comparison to any other study in the field. “Hofstede‘s 1980 study received 1,036 citations, while another highly regarded study on strategy by Miles and Snow received only 200 citations.” (Søndergaard 1994:448)
66
A significant work in the field that used Hofstede’s idea of value dimension was the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness) project. The project associated with Robert J. House (2002) focused primarily on leadership; however, it was extended into other aspects of culture soon. “In the period 1994 - 1997 some 170 voluntary collaborators collected data from about 17,000 managers in nearly 1,000 local (non-multinational) organizations belonging to one of three industries: food processing, financial services, and telecommunication services, in some 60 societies. For conceptual reasons GLOBE expanded the five Hofstede dimensions to nine. They maintained the labels Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance (but not necessarily their meaning). They split Collectivism into Institutional Collectivism and In Group Collectivism, and MasculinityFemininity into Assertiveness and Gender Egalitarianism. Long Term Orientation became Future Orientation. They added two more: Humane Orientation and Performance Orientation. The nine dimensions were covered by 78 survey questions, half of them asking respondents to describe their culture (‘as is’) and the other half to judge it (‘should be’). GLOBE thus produced 9 x 2 = 18 culture scores for each country: nine dimensions ‘as is’ and nine dimensions ‘should be’10” (Hofstede, 2011). Further, Michael Minkov (2007) conducted an extended study on dimensions and provided two dimensions namely indulgence versus restraint and exclusionism versus universalism in 2007 based on his World Value Survey. “For the dimensions ‘Exclusionism’ versus ‘Universalism’ country scores have been re-calculated from partly different sources, for 86 countries for ‘exclusionism’ and for 43 countries for ‘monumentalism’. Indulgence versus Restraint has been reversed and renamed ‘Industry’ versus ‘Indulgence’; scores for 43 countries have been based on a slightly different choice of WVS items. The old and new versions of these dimensions are still strongly correlated, in the case of Indulgence obviously
10
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=orpc
67
negatively. A unique feature of the study is that the addition of a dimension not based on survey questions but on a statistically strong cluster of national statistics: murder rates, HIV (AIDS) rates, adolescent fertility rates and low average IQ (Intelligence Quotient, explainable from low education levels) 11” (Hofstede, 2011). Another noteworthy application and extension of Hofstede’s dimensional framework was developed by Shalom Schwartz in 1994. Making use of Hofstede’s idea on dimensions
and the value survey provided by the American researcher Milton Rokeach (1973), Schwartz (1994) provided a total of 56 values. His samples involved teachers and students from 50 countries. “At the country level he distinguished seven dimensions: Conservatism (later rebaptized “Embeddedness”), Hierarchy, Mastery, Affective autonomy, Intellectual autonomy, Egalitarianism and Harmony. Country scores for teachers published by Schwartz in 1994 were significantly correlated with the IBM scores for Individualism, Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance” (Hofstede, 2001:17). Further, the significance of Hofstede’s work also lies in the possibilities of newer areas of research. “In addition to identifying work-related cultural dimensions, Hofstede (1984) proposed six areas for continued research: (1) non-Anglo cultural dimensions; (2) additional countries; (3) cultural changes over time; (4) sub-cultures, such as regional, occupational, and organizational cultures; (5) the consequences of cultural dimensions; and (6) foreign organizational and management theories” (Ming-Yi Wu, 2012:34).
11
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=orpc
68
Critique of Hofstede’s framework of Cultural Dimensions It is evident from the vast number of research output based on Hofstede’s work that the cultural dimension framework is a seminal work in the field of intercultural communication. However, it is not entirely free of criticism. The following observation sums up the major criticism directed against the work of Hofstede by the scholars in the field: “It is to be noted that Hofstede's (1980) work has been criticized for reducing culture to an overly simplistic four or five dimension conceptualization; limiting the sample to a single multinational corporation; failing to capture the malleability of culture over time; and ignoring within-country cultural heterogeneity” (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001:556). One of the important criticisms directed against the study was that the data was collected from only one organization, IBM, and the results were equated with national cultures “… a study based on only one company cannot possibly provide information on the entire cultural system of a country” (McSweeney, 2002:89). Further, it has been observed that for Hofstede equated cultures with national cultures, and the presence of heterogeneity within the national culture was ignored. McSweeney (2000:89) pointed out that “…nations are not the proper units of analysis as cultures are not necessarily bounded by borders”. This idea of within culture heterogeneity was also highlighted by DiMaggio (1997:267): “…that research in recent times has found that culture is in fact fragmented across group and national lines, a consideration of cross-border influences of Arabic cultures would take one to see this weakness” 69
However, as a defence to this criticism leveled against his study, Hofstede mentioned that “national identities are the only means we have of measuring and identifying cultural differences” (Hofstede 1998:481). Another significant question raised against the work of Hofstede is about the relevance of the data beyond the ‘time’. Questions on “if the data collected in the 1980’s on cultural values are adequate to be used for cross-cultural research in the 21st century posit another dimension to the study” ( Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001:560) Despite the criticism there is no denying that Hofstede’s framework of cultural dimensions is one of the most influential research works in the field. Smith and Bond's (1999) have rightly observed that prominent studies developed in the field since Hofstede's (1980) work such House, 2004, Schwartz, 1990; and Trompenaars,1998 “have sustained and amplified [Hofstede's] conclusions rather than contradicted them” (Kirkman et.al., 2006).
2.2.Major studies on intercultural communication post-Hofstede 2.2.1. Schwartz theory of the Universal Content and Structure of Values Shalom Schwartz (1990) developed a significant framework on understanding cultural values using the ideas of the earlier researchers. He developed an instrument using what he termed ‘a system of values’. “Schwartz (1990) undertook his most comprehensive investigation into value orientations at the levels of society and individuals in twenty countries. He collected the responses from 200 teachers and 200 students in 20 countries and developed his idea of ‘value types’ to understand cultures. He used the value survey developed by Rokeach (1973) and distinguished among content and motivational aspects to group values with the same goals to form a value type. By that he could transform 56 values into eleven value dimensions. The validity of these eleven value dimensions was tested with a 70
questionnaire, and individual value priorities were identified along a nine-point Likert scale, interviewed persons were asked to assess whether a value has a meaning to them in their life” (Fink Gerhard et.al, 2006).
Table 2.5: Seven Value Types of Schwartz Model at Cultural Level Source: Yeganeh, H., Su, Z., & Sauers, D. 2009, The applicability of widely-employed frameworks in cross-cultural management research. Journal of Academic Research in Economics, 1(1 (June)), 1-24. 71
2.2.2. Fons Trompenaars - Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business Fons Trompenaars'(1998) developed a cultural framework using the ideas of earlier researchers such as Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) Geert Hofstede (1981). Trompenaars focused on “three problem areas: relations with other human beings, relation to time, and relation to the environment" (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998), and as a response to these three problem areas developed seven dimensions (Table 5).He collected his data from “15,000 completed questionnaires from 30 corporations with subsidiaries in 50 countries (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998). The data were validated with cluster and correlation analysis” (Fink Gerhard et.al, 2006). It differed from Hofstede’s method of survey as it involved ‘managers’ and ‘secretaries’ from different companies across the fifty countries. Based on his study, Trompenaars outlined the following seven dimensions: “Time, Affective versus Neutral, Universalism verses Particularism, Individualism verses Communitarianism, Specific versus Diffuse, Achievement versus Ascription, and internal versus External” (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1997:8) The following table (6) provides an outline of the seven dimensions developed by Trompenaars:
72
Table 2.6: Trompenaars Seven Cultural Dimensions
Source: Nardon, L., & Steers, R. M. (2009). The culture theory jungle: Divergence and convergence in models of national culture. Cambridge handbook of culture, organizations, and work, 3-22.
73
2.2.3. GLOBE Study on Intercultural Communication The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Project (GLOBE) led by Robert House tried to identify the impact of cultural values on organizational practices and leadership in a large number of countries. “National cultures in 61 countries were investigated along nine value dimensions (House et al., 2002). Quantitative questionnaires with seven-point Likert scales were used to identify the appropriate items for the nine value dimensions (Table 6). Each of the interviewed persons was asked to fill in their perception of the present situation ‘as is’ and as the desired situation ‘should be'. The idea is that the difference between ‘as is’ (practices) and ‘should be’ (values) would indicate possible future development. Culture-specific qualitative data of focus groups, interviews, and publicized information were analyzed with content analysis methods to support analysis and validation of quantitative data (triangulation) (House et al., 2002). In addition to the nine dimensions of societal values, 21 leader attribute items were identified to show that different value perceptions have an impact on the perceptions of good leadership”12 (House et.al 2002).
The following table provides an outline of the GLOBE study results in the field of intercultural communication.
12
Fink, Gerhard, Anne-Katrin Neyer, and Marcus Kölling, 2006, ‘Understanding Cross-Cultural Management Interaction: Research into Cultural Standards to Complement Cultural Value Dimensions and Personality Traits’, International Studies of Management and Organization.
74
Table 2.7: GLOBE Dimensions and their Descriptions
Source: Derived from House et al., (1999, 2004) in Yeganeh, H., Su, Z., & Sauers, D. 2009, The
applicability of widely-employed frameworks in cross-cultural management research. Journal of Academic Research in Economics, vol.1, pp.1-24.
2.2.4. Research on personality traits in cross-cultural literature As pointed out by Fink Gerhard et.al. (2006) the researcher extended the idea of intercultural communication by attempting an understanding of the variation in individual response in cross-cultural encounters. It is based on the fundamental premise that “people suffer from adjustment problems if they are systematically confronted with behavior not compatible with their own culturally determined rules of behavior”. These studies aimed at comprehending 75
the ways in which individuals approach a certain situation alien to their cultural norms and respond to these situations According to Fink, Gerhard et.al. (2006:48) they focused on the following research questions:
“How can individuals cope with culture shock?
What personal characteristics and dispositional motives are needed for some individuals to adjust better to the challenges of an international assignment?
How can expatriates be selected who can be considered to have better dispositions for international assignments?”
The significant observations of these studies are that “there are means to help individuals cope with the related adjustment problems” (Ward et al., 2001); “that individuals with specific personality traits have fewer problems adjusting or coping with the ambiguous situations emerging in cross-cultural encounters” (Caligiuri, P., 2000); and that “specific personality traits have an impact on intercultural effectiveness” (Gudykunst et al., 1977). Notion of individual traits and the view that certain aspects of the personality affect the intercultural effectiveness of an individual are of great importance to the idea developed in this study. 2.2.5. Research on cultural standards Research on cultural standards emerged out of the need to grasp the specific problems arising out of cross-cultural interactions in the business set up. In spite of the overwhelming significance of the notions of ‘cultural dimensions’, it was felt that a deeper understanding on the specific ways in which employees respond to a cross cultural encounter was required. To deal with these issues, Thomas (1988) developed the concept of cultural standards “as a way to generate more cultural-specific and actionable knowledge”. He defined the idea of cultural standard as follows: "By cultural standards we understand all kinds of perceiving, thinking, 76
judging, and acting, which in a given culture are considered by the vast majority of the individuals for themselves and others as normal, self-evident, typical, and obligatory" (Thomas, 1993 translation by Fink, Gerhard et.al., 2006). Cultural standards provide precise information about the cultural differences as they take into consideration the context within which a group of organization operates and examines the interaction among sets of values. Instead of understanding the generic differences across cultures through dimensions, cultural standards propose to “explain the emergence of critical incidents within the cross cultural encounters” (Fink, Gerhard et.al. 2006). The cultural standard method explicitly addresses “differences in the modes of perceiving, sensing, thinking, judging, and acting within and across different cultures” (Thomas 2003 in Fink, Gerhard et al 2006). It has been observed that the “three strands of cross-cultural literature i.e., cultural dimensions, personality traits, and cultural standards help to explain certain effects of encounters in cross-cultural interaction and could lead to further research to relate constructs from these research fields to each other and to explicitly consider (model) these relations in further analyses, which will provide a better understanding of the complexity of crosscultural interactions” (Fink, Gerhard et.al. 2006). Evidently, the attempt by the researchers in field towards this direction could lead to newer insights in to the field of intercultural communication. 2.3.Post-dimensional Approaches to Intercultural Communication The idea that identifying cultures in terms of nations has limitations made researchers explore other approaches beyond dimensional approach. The primary critique was against the use of nation as a unit of analysis as it was believed that this conceals a great amount of information than revealing the useful information as it relies on generalizations (Ono, 1998). These generalizations are often mere stereotypes and it would be erroneous to equate them with the entire set of people in a given society. Ono (1998:198) observed that “blanket stereotypes of a 77
society… is a move toward controlling the people in that country”. The following are a few of the major approaches developed in intercultural communication post dimensional approach:
2.3.1. Dialectical Approach Martin and Nakayama (1997) advocated for the use of “inter-paradigmatic dialogue and collaboration”. They offered dialectics as an approach understand and deal with the cultural differences with the following argument: “…(it) offers us the possibility of engaging multiple, but distinct, research paradigms. It offers us the possibility of seeing the world in multiple ways and to become better prepared to engage in intercultural interaction. Such an approach reinterprets intercultural interaction as a dynamic and changing process that transcends facile dichotomies and “resists fixed, discrete bits of knowledge” (Martin and Nakayama, 1997:13). In other words, the dialectical approach to the study of intercultural communication “makes explicit the dialectical tension between what previous research topics have been studied (cultural differences, assumed static nature of culture, etc.) and what should be studied (how cultures change, how they are similar, importance of history)” (Martin and Nakayama, 1997:19).
2.3.2. Co-cultural Theory The idea of co-cultural theory was developed by Orbe in 1998. Using the notions of “muted group and phenomenological traditions”, Orbe (1998) attempted an understanding of the strategies employed by the marginalized groups in their interaction with the dominant
78
groups. This study gave a new perspective to the field of intercultural communication by providing space for the communication strategy adopted by minority groups in a multicultural environment. The traditional approaches to intercultural research have largely ignored the aspect of adaptation process involved in the interactions between the majority and minority groups in a society. The idea of how power plays a role in intercultural communication from the perspective of a non-powerful section of the society led to newer debates in the field. According to Moon (2010:40), “Orbe’s work on co-cultural theory has been crucial to the shift away from traditional descriptors of ‘subordinated cultures’ (i.e., subculture) to the term ‘co-culture’ which draws attention to the diversity of influential cultures that exist within a nation”. 2.3.3. Gudykunst’s Anxiety and Uncertainty Management Theory The theory on Anxiety and Uncertainty Management (AMU) developed by Gudykunst (2003) highlights the dynamics involved in the interaction between members of a cultural ingroup and members of an out-group. It focuses on the situations where such interaction is based on a sense of fear or creates a sense of anxiety among the participants. According to Gudykunst & Kim (2003:427), “effective communication is a process of minimizing misunderstandings … and the best way to communicate in intercultural relations is to decrease uncertainty and increase confidence”. It is about the extent to which an individual could predict the behavior of a stranger during the first meeting and how well one could understand the behavior of the stranger in this situation. Gudykunst & Kim (2003) in the book Communicating with strangers: an approach to intercultural communication, proposed that “anxiety and uncertainty are related
79
aspects of this lack of shared scripts, and these two are the primary reasons for misunderstanding in communication between members of different groups”. 2.3.4. Gannon and Pillai and Cultural Metaphoric Approach Martin Gannon and Pillai (2010) argued that the dimensional approach should be supplemented by a more content-rich approach - the cultural metaphoric. The idea of ‘cultural metaphor’, according to Gannon and Pillai (2010:1), “…attempt to have an in-depth understanding of a culture through the use of a metaphor, which is any activity, phenomenon, or institution that members of a given culture consider important and with which they identify emotionally or cognitively”. The idea of construction of cultural metaphors certainly takes intercultural communication to another plane as it attempts to understand the national cultures in terms of their specificities. Evidently, the attempt here is fuse the features of cultural dimensions with cultural standards. Martin Gannon and his associates began to develop a cultural metaphor for each national culture in 1988 (Gannon &Pillai, 2010). The book, Understanding Global Cultures, describes “an innovative method, the cultural metaphor, for understanding easily and quickly the cultural mindset of a nation and comparing it to those of other nations 13”. “In essence, the method involves identifying some phenomenon, activity, or institution of a nation’s culture that all or most of its members consider to be very important and with which they identify cognitively and/or emotionally. The characteristics of the metaphor then become the basis for describing and understanding the essential features of the society. Cultural metaphors can be used to profile ethnic groups, nations, clusters of nations, and even continents” (Gannon & Pillai 2010:8). 13
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5241_Gannon_Chapter_1.pdf
80
In their significant and exhaustive study, Gannon and Pillai (2010) have identified 31 metaphors that members of given societies or nations deem as very important 14. They clearly state that through the use of metaphors and its characteristics; we can describe the culture of a nation, and can also compare societies. There is empirical evidence to prove that cultural metaphors exist, individuals tend to think of national cultures in this fashion, and they are important for understanding cross-cultural differences (Gannon & Pillai, 2010). Certainly, cultural metaphors such as the French wine, the Japanese Garden, the Brazilian Samba, the traditional British House and the others do conjure up the idea of an entire national culture. These metaphors evoke a number of characteristics specific to the nations. It borrows the basic idea propagated by Geert Hofstede that national cultures can be understood on the basis of certain cultural dimensions. However, it differs in the view that these dimensions may not represent the specific characteristics of all the nations. Use of universal criteria to assess individual national cultures might be misleading, and there is a need for specific representation that involves the dimensions. However, the major issue in case of constructing the cultural metaphors is the validity of these metaphors. A cultural metaphor as pointed out by Gannon relies on “one critical phenomenon of a society to describe the entire society”15. As such, the metaphor must be an accurate representation of majority of its features and every section of the society must be able to identify itself with the metaphor. As such, the validity of the metaphor comes into question in the absence of an accepted determination criteria.
14 15
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5241_Gannon_Chapter_1.pdf http://pubinfo.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1095/index.html
81
2.4.
Research Gap
The established functional theories on intercultural communication from value orientation constructs of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck to the seminal work of Hofstede’s value dimensions tend to accept all cultures under the broader umbrella of national cultures and are mute about the variation caused by the distinctive nature of multiculturalism practiced in diverse countries. From Edward T Hall (1953) to Martin Gannon (2010), attempt is to associate the national culture with a set of values and asses it against a set of values of another culture. This attempt is largely accepted by all the proponents of intercultural communication and often results in the generalization of the entire national culture. It is exactly at this point there is a possibility of arriving at generalization that may fail to incorporate the specificities within the culture. This is all the more applicable in the case of national cultures that have a great degree of diversity within. The entire notion of understanding cultures through the framework of ‘national cultures’ limits the knowledge of cultures to a generalized framework. It is observed that these generalized frameworks often fail to grasp the specific knowledge of cultural values that are fluid in nature. Multiculturalism as an idea lies in attending to notions of intersectionality and by doing so “it is more likely to produce knowledge that is specific and local, rather than abstract and overly generalized” (Moon, 2010). It would be worthwhile to examine the validity of intercultural communication theories in the context of multiculturalism by reexamining the constructs of ‘national cultures’. The dimensions that are attributed to the national culture as a whole may exhibit variations when the diversity within the national cultures challenges the established constructs. The study tries to understand the uniqueness of intercultural dynamics that operates in the case of a multicultural country such as India. The attempt is to explore the idea of
82
intercultural communication provided by the researchers in the field, specifically the framework provided by Hofstede (1984), through the distinctive kind of ‘multiculturalism’ that operates in India. The idea of ‘multiculturalism’ in India as outlined in the first chapter is unique and not limited to a ‘political construct’. It has been observed that ‘multiculturalism’ is lived more than practised as a policy in India (Bhattacharya, 2003). This uniqueness of ‘multiculturalism’ is termed as ‘multiculturality’ of India by the researcher and it would be interesting to examine its impact on the understanding of cultural dimensions on the nation as a whole. It would be worthwhile to note whether such pluralism in culture or what could be termed as ‘domestic diversity’ would affect the paradigm of established cultural dimensions and cultural constructs in intercultural communication. The focus of the study is to examine if the framework provided by Hofstede needs to reexamined in the case of India if we take into account of the ‘domestic diversity’. Hofstede framework is selected as the theoretical framework to be examined in the case of India because it is considered a seminal work in the field and continued to be used as a base for understanding the variations across cultures (Kirkman, B. L., 2006). As per Hofstede (2001) study, India is generally termed as a culture with high Power Distance, low Uncertainty Avoidance, moderately Masculinity, moderately Collectivist, and slightly on the long term orientation. However, an understanding of India through its ‘domestic diversity’ may warrant additional information on the cultural values observed in India. In this direction, this study aims to contribute to Hofstede’s idea of cultural dimensions on India. Further, viewing the dynamics of cultural communication through ‘multiculturality’ may lead the researcher to novel dimensions that may act as a supplement to Hofstede’s model of cultural communication.
83