Volume 10, No. 1, Art. 51 – January 2009
Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Communication Research: Some Reflections about Culture and Qualitative Methods
María Assumpta Aneas &María Paz Sandín
Abstract: This article attempts to offer a response, from a general perspective, to the question of how culture reveals itself in the application of qualitative research methods in intercultural communication. When we use the term "culture" it is important to bear in mind that culturally attributed social interaction processes are themselves the result of socially constructed processes. They are part of an individual-collective dialectic with multiple potential meanings, which are emergent and in constant reformulation from a wide variety of social and cultural perspectives. Much of the recent research in intercultural communication has been directed towards the study of these systems of culturally related meanings. The literature we review offers perspectives from a variety of disciplines and insights into the role of culture in communication processes.
Key words: culture; approaches to cultural research; qualitative methodology; intercultural communication; cross-cultural communication
Table of Contents
2. The Role of Culture in Researching Intercultural Communication
2.1 A brief history of the field of intercultural communication research
2.2 Culture as applied to cross-cultural and intercultural communication
2.3 Conceptual approaches to the study of culture
2.4 Culture and qualitative research
3. Methodical Challenges in Researching Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication
3.1 Content of the information being gathered
3.2 The interpersonal intercultural relation climate
3.3 Language in the research process
3.4 Culture, analysis and interpretation in qualitative research
In this article we will address the question of how culture is conceptualized and manifests itself in the application of qualitative methodology. With this objective we attempt to summaries contributions from the field of intercultural and cross-cultural communication which we feel may be of help in moving towards the necessary conceptualization. It is also hoped that the arguments here reviewed will enable us to analyze, from a general perspective, the relationship between culture and some of the most significant components of qualitative research. 
First, the role of culture in intercultural communication is examined. We offer a concise presentation of the history of cross-cultural and intercultural communication as a research field, and then continue by offering an outline of the basic idea of culture as it is applied in studies of intercultural communication. We introduce to some approaches which are currently used in studying culture. Then we outline how cultural research and qualitative research intersect conceptually. 
The next section, which is dedicated to the analysis of empirical reality in qualitative research, is mainly focused on the role played by culture in the information gathering process. In particular, and using a very generic approach, some theoretical contributions are presented which illustrate the role that culture plays in determining the content of the information which is assembled, the interpersonal climate which is established, and the language through which the world of facts is approached. The section does not examine specific techniques or strategies but rather it identifies some elements which may influence the way culture enters and influences the research process. The section also includes the relation between culture and the processes of analyzing and interpreting reality, and offers a brief summary of some of the principal theoretical approaches applied for analyzing culture and their backflow on the research practice in an intercultural context. 
At this point we would like to emphasize the necessarily generic character of the present work, since the complexity and the theoretical richness which underlie the concepts "culture" and "qualitative research" would really justify the writing of a separate article for each of the sections we present here. Thus, accepting the risk of offering, at times, what some might consider a rather superficial account, we have tried to outline a more general framework from which the conceptualization of culture and its relations with the process of qualitative research in the context of intercultural communication may be addressed. 
2. The Role of Culture in Researching Intercultural Communication
2.1 A brief history of the field of intercultural communication research
Intercultural communication is a scientific field whose object of interest is the interaction between individuals and groups from different cultures, and which examines the influence of culture on who people are, how they act, feel, think and, evidently, speak and listen (DODD, 1991). As described by VILA (2005), intercultural communication may be defined as a communicative process involving individuals from reference cultures which are sufficiently different to be perceived as such, with certain personal and/or contextual barriers having to be overcome in order to achieve effective communication. Even if the origins of the study of intercultural communication can be situated in the years following the end of World War II, and coincide with the creation of the United Nations (1945), it is generally accepted that Edward T. HALL (1959) was the first to use the term itself.1) Most of the work which was carried out in the 1960s and 1970s was very much under HALL's influence, together with that of KLUCKHOHN and STRODTBECK (1961). During the 1970s the field flourished, and the most notable works were possibly that of CONDON and YOUSEF (1977), as well as SAMOVAR, PORTER and JAIN (1981) who were the first researchers to systematize the area of investigation. During the 1980s and 1990s publications were focused on deepening the outreach of theory and on refining the applied methodology (CHEN & STAROSTA, 1998). 
LOMAS, OSORIO and TUSÓN (1993) divided the various areas of study (together with the pertinent theoretical contributions) into four blocks:
the analysis of the communicative process—among the most significant contributions here are the work of GUDYKUNST (1989, 1992, 1993,1994), KIM (1977, 1988, 1992) and CASMIR (1991,1993, 1999);
the role of language in intercultural communication—here the work of WITTGENSTEIN (1953) and DODD (1991) are seminal;
the cognitive organization of the communication process—stimulated by CHOMSKY (1957,1968), FODOR (1986) and VYGOTSKY (1977, 1979); and
the development of interpersonal relations, which includes contributions from authors like ALTMAN and TAYLOR (1973) and TING-TOOMEY (1984, 1999). 
The influence of quantitative methodologies on studies about intercultural communication was hegemonic until the 1990s, when the publication of the journal "International and Intercultural Communication Annual" began to promote methodological pluralism, opening the doors to the use of qualitative methodology. 
2.2 Culture as applied to cross-cultural and intercultural communication
There have been numerous attempts to define the meaning of the term culture following the classic proposal of TAYLOR in 1871. But, as GUDYKUNST and TING-TOOMEY (1988, p.27) point out, "no consensus has been achieved when it comes to formulating an interdisciplinary definition which can be accepted across the diverse fields of study." The sociologist PEDERSEN (1997, p.159) also illustrated the difficulty in defining culture when, following an extensive literature survey he states "[p]eople use culture in the same way as scientists use paradigms (...) to organize and normalize their activity (...), the elements of culture are used, modified or discarded depending on their utility in organizing reality." 
KEESING (1974), using an anthropological approach, was able to distinguish between two main currents: one which considers culture as an adaptive system, and a second one, which treats culture as a symbolic system. Given that both approaches, when taken separately, present serious limitations when it comes to capturing the complex situations which can be found in the context of cross-cultural and intercultural communication, authors like ADLER (1975), KIM (1988) or PEDERSEN (1994) have proposed the use of an interactive approach wherein they define culture as the universe of information that configures the patterns of life in any given society. 
FRENCH and BELL (1979) in their classic "Iceberg Model" identify the behavioral, cognitive and emotional components of culture, and these include values, conceptual systems, behavior and both material and symbolic artifacts. On this base, ANEAS (2003, p.120) synthesized as a definition of culture "the set of knowledge, values, emotional heritage, behavior and artifacts which a social group share, and which enable them to functionally adapt to their surroundings." Thus culture affects us in the way we interact with our environment, influencing both how we construct it, and how we understand it. 
Clearly the construct "culture" is one which is under continuous modification in the different disciplines in which it is deployed, and especially when it is applied in the context of the processes of globalization and diversity which characterize modern societies. We can, however, identify two main approaches to the use of the term:
a traditional conception, which embodies a more popular and static approach and identifies culture with a group of "products" (knowledge, skills, ...) that a community has generated historically, (the "expressive" culture), and
an extensive and instrumental conception (the way of being of a community, the conceptual model in which the world is interpreted and the culture is situated) which incorporates a more dynamic use of the term. 
The first conception leads back to a series of concepts which have a more "quantitative" interpretation, in that they serve as a synonym for acquired knowledge. Tacitly this leads us back to the idea of culture as something that people "possess," and to considering it as a static "given" whose development is seen as linear and progressive, with outputs which can be expressed in terms of accumulation. Such conceptualization can lead to a process of stereotyping of cultural traits where the "other" is characterized in terms of the most trivial and superficial elements. From this cumulative and static perspective a hierarchic conception of the relation between cultures (based, for example, on social prestige and/or power) is sometimes deduced. 
The second conception could be described as being more complex given that it incorporates more dimensions. It understands the term culture as the instrument by means of which we relate to the world and interpret it. According to this view, culture is not something which we "possess"; rather cultures form an inherent part of the person, and it is culture which bestows individual and collective identity: a complex identity which is articulated across multiple social belongings. It is, then, a mechanism for understanding and interpreting the world which acquires instrumental, adaptive and regulatory meaning. 
As a consequence we need to recognize that the classes of social interaction which are examined in studies of cross-cultural and intercultural communication are the result of a socially constructed process, and form part of an individual-collective dialectic, possessing inherently multiple meanings. The meanings produced are constantly being modified and reformulated, and are the emergent product of the perpetual interaction of many cultural perspectives and social situations. It is to these systems, processes and schemas that large parts of the qualitative research efforts in intercultural communication have been directed in an attempt to understand and interpret the diverse cultural practices and representations which can be identified. Finally, we should never forget the social, political and economic context that determines how differences are valued. Interpreting such interaction processes should also be considered as a priority activity in studies of cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Thus, even if it is accepted that culture gives meaning to reality and to the existence of differences in attitudinal, affective and behavioral patterns between different cultural groups, as has been systematically documented in works which are now classics like Man and Culture of Ruth BENEDICT (1967), it is nonetheless true that belonging to a group does not mean, always and necessarily, the automatic presence of one or another form of behavior or pattern of communicative interaction. We need to bear in mind, then, that another of the characteristics of "culture" is that it is differentially distributed, and that not all the members of a given cultural group adopt, live or reflect their common culture in an identical way in every moment and life circumstance, nor do all members of the same group demonstrate the same feeling of identification. Viewing cultures in this way would rapidly lead us to adopt the most simplistic of cultural stereotypes, or fall into what STANFIELD (1993, p.21) calls "the fallacy of the monolithic identity" which consists in failing to recognize that differential identities exist among the members of any group. 
2.3 Conceptual approaches to the study of culture
According to TRIANDIS (2000), research that studies culture and, more specifically, cross-cultural and intercultural communication in its various forms and social contexts, can approach the theoretical foundations and methodological design of their work from three different perspectives: the indigenous one, the cultural one and the cross-cultural one.
The "indigenous" approach focuses on the meaning of concepts in a culture and how such meaning may change across demographics within a given culture context. The focus of such studies is the development of knowledge tailored to a specific culture without any special claims to generality beyond the confines of that particular cultural context. The main challenge with the indigenous approach is the difficulty involved in trying to avoid the influence of pre-given concepts, theories and methodologies and therefore the difficulty of determining what the term indigenous (ADAMOPOLOUS & LONNER, 2001) really means in any given culture.
The "cultural" approach is used to describe those studies which make special use of ethnographic methods. More traditional experimental methods can also be used in conjunction within this approach. Here again the meanings of constructs in a culture are the main focus of attention and there is little of direct comparison of constructs across cultures. The aim is to advance the understanding of the individual in a sociocultural context and to emphasize the importance of culture in understanding his or her behavior. The challenge with this approach is a lack of a widely accepted research methodology (ADAMOPOLOUS & LONNER, 2001).
TRIANDIS (2000) states that, when using "cross-cultural" approaches, studies obtain data in two or more cultures making the assumption that the constructs under investigation are universals which exist in all of the cultures studied. One positive point about this approach is that it purports to offer an increased understanding of the cross-cultural validity and generalizability of the theories and constructs under investigation. The main challenge, however, comes from the need to demonstrate the equivalence of the constructs and measures used, and to minimize the evident biases that may threaten valid cross-cultural comparisons (ADAMOPOLOUS & LONNER, 2001). Thus not only does the researcher conceptualize and operationalize, but also, and in addition, the differential factor is taken into account, that is to say, the way in which one and the same construct functions in a variety of different cultures. 
Indigenous and cultural approaches focus on emics, or the things which are unique to a given culture (ÆGISDÓTTIR, GERSTEIN & CANEL, 2008, p.190). These approaches are relativistic in that their aim is the in-depth study of the local context and the meaning of constructs without imposing a priori definitions on the constructs themselves (TANAKA-MATSUMI, 2001). 
Scholars working within these approaches usually reject claims that the theories they work with are universal. On the other hand, in the cross-cultural approach the focus is on etics, or factors that are universal across cultures (BRISLIN, LONNER & THORNDIKE, 1973). Here the goal is to understand similarities and differences across cultures, and the comparability of cross-cultural categories or dimensions is emphasized (TANAKA-MATSUMI, 2001). Summing up, emics focus on "the native's point of view"; etics focus on the "comparative cross-cultural point of view." Emics and etics are perhaps the two most crucial constructs in the study of culture (BHAWUK & TRIANDIS, 1996, p.23).2) TRIANDIS' classification, and the references to "emic" and "etic" questions remind us that "MALINOWSKI's dilemma" is still as valid today as it ever was, and that the tensions between "cultural specificities" and "universal-general" continue to remain a challenge for the qualitative approach, and an even greater one, if that is possible, in the area of cross-cultural communication. 
Having presented the conceptualization of culture in studies of cross-cultural communication, and examined how the issue of culture is handled in these studies we will now pass on to another key aspect of the relationship between culture and qualitative research into cross cultural communication, and that is how culture makes its presence felt in the process of qualitative research. 
2.4 Culture and qualitative research
There is more to qualitative research than simply applying a given method to the assembly and analysis of information. Behind any decision to apply a given methodology lies a series of epistemological and theoretical presuppositions which sustain and orient the whole research process. Such presuppositions range from the underlying conception of reality, to the nature of knowledge itself, to the questions to be studied and to the various methods to be applied. For this reason GUBA and LINCOLN (1994) describe qualitative research as being not only a set of interpretative research techniques but also a discursive space, or meta-theoretical discourse. 
Despite the difficulty involved in formulating a consensually grounded set of general characteristics to define qualitative research, the contributions of SILVERMAN (1997) and LINCOLN and DENZIN (2000) offer a good starting point for examining the interests which impregnate the qualitative research approaches and help to see the influence of the culture within qualitative research process. 
According to SILVERMAN (1997, p.1) "[i]t is necessary to expand our conception of qualitative investigation beyond questions related with subjective meaning and broaden research towards dimensions related to language, representation and social organization." And LINCOLN and DENZIN argue (2000, p.1048):
"At the present time, research is though of as being a moral act, or a moral discourse, which leads us towards a dialogue about ethics, vulnerability and truth. The human and social sciences have been converted into a space where it is possible to converse in a critical fashion about democracy, race, gender, class, nation, liberty and community." 
These characterizations of qualitative research move us towards the methodological terrain in which research into cross-cultural and intercultural communication can develop, and there we find a number of key elements to consider. 
The attention that qualitative research devotes to context reminds usthat human experience takes place in very clearly delineated social spaces, in such a way that events and phenomena cannot be adequately understood if they are separated from those spaces. This is why the qualitative researcher focuses his or her attention on natural contexts, trying to remain as faithful as possible to those contexts. The "contexts" in which qualitative research develops should not be considered, however, as "acultural" space. Culture, explicitly or implicitly impregnates the events, experiences, and attitudes that form the object of the research. 
Experience is approached in an overall and holistic way, and the person is not seen as simply the sum of a collection of discrete and separate parts. 
The researcher play a fundamental role of the in the process of information gathering and data analysis. That is, in qualitative studies the investigator is constituted as the principal instrument in the process of information gathering, in interaction with reality.
"Researchers need to observe what they have before them, forming a reference structure and a set of intentions. The I is the instrument which unifies the situation and bestows meaning on it (...). Knowing what to exclude involves having a sense of what is, and what isn't, significant, and having a structure which makes the search for significance efficient" (EISNER, 1998, p.50). 
This question implies a special competence on the part of the researcher for addressing questions of sensitivity and perception and is also closely related with the researcher's own culture, which determines what she or he sees, and serves as a filter for interpretation. 
Another characteristic of qualitative studies is their interpretative character. EISNER (1998) highlights the fact that interpretation has two meanings. On the one hand the qualitative researcher tries to justify, elaborate or integrate the research results within a given theoretical framework. On the other, the researcher wants the participants in the study to speak for themselves, and to approach their singular experience through the meanings and the vision of the world they possess by offering what GEERTZ (1987) calls "dense description," and this is, in its turn, impregnated with their culture. 
In addition to the above characteristics, interest has grown in questions related to power, control, and the construction, interpretation and representation of reality, the legitimacy of texts and the role of class, race, gender and ethnicity in research processes. As a consequence of this, another fundamental characteristic feature of qualitative research has emerged: reflexivity. Reflexivity implies paying attention to the diverse linguistic, social, cultural, political and technical elements which influence in an overall fashion the process of knowledge development (interpretation) in the language and narrative (forms and presentation) and impregnate the production of texts (authority and legitimacy). This also involves paying attention to the individual being studied, recognizing the theoretical and personal assumptions which enter into his or her actions, as well as the relation with the other participants and the community in which the study is carried out (SANDÍN, 2003). That is what is involved is making visible and explicit, among other factors, the role of culture, and its influence in the process and outcome of the study. Thus the close relationship which exists between culture and qualitative research should be clear, both from the perspective of the researcher and from the reality being studied (subjects, institutions, contexts, etc.). 
3. Methodical Challenges in Researching Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication
Citing the view of BHAWUK and TRIANDIS (1996, p.31), the appropriate methodology to apply in any given study into cross-cultural and intercultural communication depends on the actual problem which is being investigated, on the knowledge available to the researchers, on the degree of acceptance by those being studied of the techniques used in the study, among many other factors. These authors recommend emic approaches such as ethnographic techniques, systematic observations, content analysis, and in-depth interviews when commencing a study in culturally unknown scenarios with the objective of coming to know this reality either in depth or from a holistic but unique perspective. When there is an interest in generalizing the results or in facilitating possible comparisons between the works in hand and other similar research, it is desirable, according to BHAWUK and TRIANDIS (1996), to use etic approaches in which mixed or exclusively quantitative methods are employed. That is, it would seem to be the case that in carrying out qualitative research the use of emic type approaches is more appropriate. But this should not be taken to mean that such research may not include recourse to an objective instrument or the incorporation of a component more typically associated with etic type approaches. 
In terms of the information gathering process it should be pointed out that the researcher needs to keep constantly in mind the diversity of the elements in which culture can manifest itself. In this sense the question of the extent to which culture influences the approach, development and outcome of the information gathering process needs to be asked. In order to offer a concise response to this question we would refer to contemporary epistemological arguments. In general it is not accepted that scientific knowledge reflects and describes the reality of an object in and of itself, and that the object can be identified and grasped in a value free way (CHALMERS, 1982). That is, an interpretative epistemology assumes the presence of culture, among other factors, in the activities and processes which form part of the approach to empirical reality. Today it is widely accepted that it is an error to imagine that observational evidence enters our field of perception in a way which is totally independent of the theoretical interpretation which is applied to it. Theories about culture offer us important indications about the potential influence of culture in the design and application of the differing techniques and strategies used in qualitative research in order to proceed with information gathering. The contributions are diverse both in terms of sources and in indications, so we will try to structure them around four principal axes: the content of the information being gathered, the nature of the interpersonal intercultural relations generated in applying a technique or strategy, and the language in use in the research process. 
3.1 Content of the information being gathered
BHAWUK and TRIANDIS (1996, p.29) offer an interesting collection of insights and recommendations when it comes to the content of interviews. Interviewing is one of the fundamental techniques used in qualitative research on cross-cultural and intercultural communication. One of the principal concerns when conducting an interview is whether an emic or an etic approach is more appropriate—that is, whether to ask different, tailor-made and culture-specific questions or ask the same questions in all the cultural contexts being studied. If the same questions are to be used, researches should avoid emic concepts. It is often useful to use random probes. One should also examine what ideas the respondents have about the interviewer, about the questions themselves, and whether the questions appear to the respondents to be in some way biased are issues are discussed in detail by PAREEK and RAO (1980). 
The interviewer's perspective can bias both what is observed and how it is observed. In this sense BHAWUK and TRIANDIS (1996, p.28) argue that the most frequent errors to be found in cross-cultural research are the result of the reactions of those being observed to the observer, to the encoding system used and to the fact that the definitions of boundaries for behavior were culture-specific. They also recommend the use of multiple observers, encoding systems that have been pre-tested in a variety of cultures and extensive observer training as being likely to reduce such problems. 
3.2 The interpersonal intercultural relation climate
In referring to the interpersonal relations which inevitably develop during processes of qualitative research into cross-cultural and intercultural communication there is an extensive body of literature which has examined both the presence and the manifestations of culture. 
Psychological factors associated with anxiety and its effects on intercultural relations have been studied by numerous researchers. According to STEPHAN, STEPHAN and GUDYKUNST (1999, p. 613):
"When individuals who come from different groups interact, they experience in one way or another a certain preoccupation. This preoccupation can be due to the possibility of not being sufficiently able to remain detached, fear of being negatively affected by the encounter, apprehension about being the victim of misunderstanding, confrontation, etc. The anxiety generated by all these possibilities can in and of itself create difficulties for the interview and generate effects which negatively affect the relationship between interviewer and interviewee." 
One of the most widely disseminated theories in the context of intercultural processes when viewed from the psychological perspective is the theory of Anxiety Uncertainty Management (AUM) developed by GUDYKUNST (1989, 1992, 1993). AUM takes the view that managing the anxiety which is generated by uncertainty is a process which exerts a fundamental influence on the efficacy of communication and intercultural competence. This theory was initially developed by BERGER and CALABRESE (1975) in their Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT). The most important axiom in this theory holds that:
"Uncertainty anxiety management has a direct influence on the efficacy of communication in interpersonal and intergroup encounters. Individuals can communicate effectively to the extent that they are able to manage their anxiety and that they feel themselves able to predict the attitudes, feelings and behaviour of the interlocutor (or interlocutors) with a certain degree of success" (STEPHAN, STEPHAN & GUDYKUNST, 1999, p.614) 
What this means is, that when it comes to setting up a qualitative research process involving study participants from different cultures it is important to be aware of the anxiety which, even if unconsciously, can affect all those involved. Such anxiety can place limits on the communicative relations which are produced and influence the other intellectual and relational processes which are developed in the research.3) Thus it is essential to be aware of such potential anxiety, to anticipate its influence, and to incorporate strategies for reducing its impact, thus facilitating mutual confidence and making the communication process more effective. 
Symbolic interactionism places considerable emphasis on the importance of structuring intercultural interaction. It stresses the need for compromise in initiating the interaction, the role of negotiation throughout the encounter, the significance of the positions which each of the participants occupies, and the frameworks or action guidelines they use, and which configure interaction as a ritual (VILA, 2005, p.55). These contributions are especially necessary in the development of strategies for contexts where (inter-)cultural interaction is especially intense and free, as, for example, in the case of ethnographic studies. 
DODD (1991) outlined a theory of rhetoric which argues that the first studies in intercultural communication had their origins in anthropology and rhetoric. This theory facilitates the analysis not only of individual differences but also of the properties of the context in which the interaction takes place. This makes it easier for the researcher to identify those cultural traits and norms that need to be understood to produce a better intercultural relation. 
There are examples of qualitative research where the existence of a good relation is fundamental. This is the case, for example, in action research. If such action research is realized in an intercultural context the key role of the relations between the researcher and the participants of the study is fundamental. The importance of negotiation, construction, mutual confidence between the various participants in such transformative processes should constantly be borne in mind. In order to understand the way in which this kind of relation may develop ATMAN and TAYLOR (1973) present their theory of Social Penetration. It has been an important reference point for analyzing the interpersonal relations dimension within the context of relations between different cultures too. This theory holds that any interpersonal intercultural relation between two or more interlocutors passes through five distinct development stages: orientation, exploratory exchanges, affective exchanges, stable exchange and mutual awareness. 
3.3 Language in the research process
The role of language is fundamental in cross-cultural and intercultural qualitative research. We would like to give special attention to the mediating role of language in the process. Language is the main medium in which information circulates and it assembles itself as the message transmitter. 
In order to understand and interpret utterances or gestures in a given language, a minimum degree of language equivalence between the language of those being studied and that of the researcher is needed (LUSTIG & KOESTER, 1996; SAMOVAR, PORTER & STEFANI, 1998). Clearly situations may easily arise in which the lack of such equivalence is a real barrier to communication and understanding for the research. These barriers extend from simple lexical non-equivalence to an experiential non-equivalence, passing through various other degrees of difficulty. 
The references to the role of language which are to be found in DODD's (1991) theory of the coordinated management of meaning and rules are interesting and relevant. DODD's theory holds that all human communication is by its very nature imperfect. For him the objective of communication, in our case the communication which is developed during the research process, is coordination, understood here as a model of interaction between participants. 
The theory of cross-cultural communication offers a great heritage of knowledge and resources to identify and understand communicative differences. For example, GUDYKUNST and TING-TOOMEY (1988) or BENNETT (1998) proposed models of communicative cultural styles. As VILA (2005, p.78) points out, differences between verbal styles as well as affecting communication between people of different reference cultures, may also, if ignored, lead to differences in interpretation. LUSTIG and KOESTER (1996) have analyzed non-linear communication. For example, an individual with a circular style may interpret another, who has a more lineal style of discourse, as being simplistic or arrogant, while the latter may view the person with a circular style as illogical or evasive. 
Some authors as EKMAN and FRIESEN (1969) or DODD (1991) have analyzed problems of non-verbal gesture in intercultural interaction. In an interview or in a focus group, a look or a gesture, even a smile, may signify something different from one culture to another. In addition to influencing the effectiveness of the process of attributing meaning to such gestures, these differences may also alter the communication climate or influence the development of the research process, given the possibility of reducing confidence, producing doubts, etc. 
3.4 Culture, analysis and interpretation in qualitative research
In this section we consider the presence of culture in the cognitive processes of research. These processes include a wide spectrum of intellectual activities: knowing, understanding, comparison, analysis, synthesis, evaluation. To what extend does culture influence such processes? As ANDERSEN (1993, p.51) suggests discussions of race, class, and gender need to be thoroughly integrated into debates about research process and data analysis. This requires an acknowledgment of the complex, multiple, and contradictory identities and realities that shape our collective experience. 
First we will look at some theories and conceptual contributions which can provide orientation. 
Contributions from theories that focus on the role of language in cross-cultural communication have been significant in clarifying the part played by culture in the processes of information interpretation (RODRIGO, 1999). The role of WITTGENSTEIN (1953) has been fundamental here, since he was the first who made the decisive break with the traditional separation between language and thought, justifying this move with the argument that language is organized through rules which are based on cultural use.4) It is precisely this structural organization which gives meaning to gestures and utterances. In this same sense, according ERICKSON (1989), the base for theoretical constructions is the immediate and local meanings of action as defined from the point of view of the social actors involved. In other words, we interpret a reality, a given piece of information according to the parameters of our experience in which our culture occupies a fundamental position. Culture is the reason why a given phenomenon, a specific form of behavior can be given a very different meaning according to the origin culture of the person analyzing and interpreting the process. 
With respect to the relation between culture and theories of cognitive organization, the contribution of constructionism to the processes of analysis, interpretation and intellectual creation is worthy of special attention. Among the many contributions of constructionism with special relevance to the relationship with culture we would highlight the construction of mental schemas (COLL, MARCHESI & PALACIOS, 1990). Mental schemas constitute a cognitive system which enables us to interpret the gestures, utterances and actions of others. Culture influences the organization of the schemas developed by individuals with the justification that different visions and interpretations of reality are culturally variable. In the same sense constructionism stresses the importance of socio-cultural background in the higher order psychological processes (VYGOTSKY, 1979) as an argument with which to demonstrate the union of culture with cognitive processes and the relation between learning, development and the contexts of personal relations. 
Another contribution to our understanding of the relation between culture and cognitive processes comes from the tradition which studies the influence of roles and stereotypes in the creation of mental schemas and social categorization (CASMIR, 1991). In this sense the process of social categorization favors positive biases for "own-culture" groups and negative biases for groups belonging to other cultures (GUDYKUNST, 1989). Summing up, theories of categorization and social attribution facilitate the development of explanations concerning the perception and interpretation of the behavior of others in intercultural contexts. 
Ethnomethodology, which focuses on the analysis of spontaneous conversation seen as a social activity, considers language as a privileged instrument which gives meaning to a situation. From this point of view reality is not discovered but rather interpreted, constructed, negotiated and maintained through social interaction. This focus suggests analyzing intercultural communicative situations from a constructivist and interpretative perspective. 
The work of BHAWUK and TRIANDIS (1996, p.24) focuses on the level of analysis, and suggests that, depending on the objectives being pursued in research into cross cultural communication, it is possible to distinguish two levels of analysis: the individual and the ecological. The etic-individual studies might include attempts to show the universality of a phenomenon (LONNER, 1980); this might well be the approach which is closest to the positivist methodologies often associated with quantitative methodologies. The emic-individual studies might include studies of subjective culture, such as the ones that established the meaning of the word philotimo (VASSILIOU & VASSILIOU, 1973). Etic-ecological studies are holegeistic (whole-world) studies described by NAROLL, MICHIK and NAROLL (1980). The emic-ecological are attempts to show that certain cultures are high and other cultures low on some variable; HOFSTEDE's (1991) study, for example, would fall into this category. 
There is thus an extensive literature that attempts to demonstrate the influence of culture in cognitive processes, and extrapolating, in qualitative research. The researcher thinks, interprets and reasons on the basis of her or his cultural points of reference. When faced with one and the same phenomenon two researchers can arrive at opposing conclusions, and culture may be one of the factors which help to explain this kind of situation. Language and mental maps are cultural elements with which the researcher operates in the analysis and the construction of results. 
In this article we have attempted, from a general perspective, to address the issue of how culture is conceptualized/manifests itself in the application of qualitative research methodology to cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Despite the numerous definitions of culture it can be asserted that the conceptualization applied in cross-cultural and intercultural communication studies is characterized by its complexity, dynamism and intersubjective character, and that in this conceptualization it is possible to identify a multiplicity of components of which the individual is not always aware. It has become clear throughout this article that culture constantly makes its presence felt in the research process, and especially in the context of qualitative research, starting with the theoretical-epistemological foundations of such research, as well as in the process of approaching and generating empirical data and in its analysis and interpretation. In the same way cross-cultural theory has contributed elements which make such influences more visible, with the result that it has become easier to accept, live with and manage this influence. 
The current thematic issue of FQS seems to us to constitute an opportunity for the research community to re-examine the way we look at alterity and at the same time to develop research processes which broaden the opportunities for coexistence and social justice in a multicultural world. In the course of this article we have constantly drawn attention to the cultural relevance of social practices, as well as to intercultural communication and its symbolic dimension. Our short review of the theoretical questions which arise in connection with qualitative research as it interacts with the construct "culture" attempts to stress the need to address the substantive areas of intercultural communication and epistemology together. 
The fallacy of the monolithic view of identity alerts us to the need for prudence and the importance of avoiding categorizing cultural studies of communication in stereotypical terms, as built on folklore beliefs and essentialist in terms of culture. On the other hand, it is already widely accepted in qualitative research that the researcher becomes the "principal information gathering instrument," and thus some of the objectives which have been identified for studies of cross-cultural and intercultural communication are associated with the reflexivity of the researcher over her or his own cultural biases together with the associated theoretical, and even social and political standpoints. 
This also applies to the possibility of learning the meanings of cultural interaction on the basis of transactions between different cultural worlds, symbolic systems, individual and collective cultures. Perhaps the process of renewal of qualitative research methods in the context of cross-cultural and intercultural communication really needs to start with a reflection over the life history of the researcher given that the researcher is also immersed in the norms, values and beliefs of the institutions, communities and movements in which she or he functions, and which give ideological form to the whole process. 
For the outlook of researching cross-cultural and intercultural communication we would stress that culture is a "system" and not the sum of a collection of fortuitous traits. It is an integrated whole which cannot be understood by examining its components individually and in isolation. It is a dynamic whole which is in flux, and constantly changing, and which reveals itself as being in interaction with the world in a multiplicity of complex and diverse situations and contexts. Some authors, being conscious of this, have gone so far as to propose the possibility of approaching the study of human communication from the perspective of contemporary chaos theory or from that of the complexity paradigm, a proposal which could well be a task which could be explored in the future. 
We would like to thank Matthias OTTEN for his supervision, contributions and support for the last months of work.
Adamopolous, John & Lonner, Walter (2001). Culture and psychology at a crossroad: Historical perspective and theoretical analysis. In David Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp.11-34). New York: Oxford University Press.
Adler, Paul (1975).The transitorial experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15, 3-23.
Ægisdóttir, Stefanía; Gerstein, Lawrence & Canel, Deniz (2008). Equivalence, bias, and translations methodological issues en Cross-Cultural Counseling Research. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(2), 188-219.
Altman, Irwin & Taylor, Dalmas (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Andersen, Margaret (1993). Studying across difference. Race, class and gender in qualitative research. In John Stanfield II (Ed.), Race and ethnicity in research methods (pp.39-52). London: Sage.
Aneas, Assumpta (2003). Competencias interculturales transversales en la empresa: un modelo para la detección de necesidades formativas, http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TDX-1223104-122502/ [Access: 10/10/2007].
Barinaga, Ester (2009). Performative view of language—Methodological considerations and consequences for the study of culture. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 24, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901244.
Benedict, Ruth (1967). El hombre y la cultura. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.
Bennett, Milton (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.
Berger, Charles & Calabrese, Richard (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 17, 99-112.
Bhawuk, Dharm & Triandis, Harry (1996). The role of culture theory in the study of culture and intercultural training. In Dan Landis & Richard W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp.17-34). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Brislin, Richard; Lonner, Walter & Thorndike, Robert (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John Wiley.
Busch, Dominic (2009). The notion of culture in linguistic research . Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,10(1), Art. 50, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901508.
Casmir, Fred (1991). Introduction: Culture, communication, and education. Communication Education, 40, 228-234.
Casmir, Fred (1993). Third-culture building: A paradigm shift for international and intercultural communication. Communication Yearbook, 16, 407-428.
Casmir, Fred (1999). Foundations for the study of intercultural communication based on a third-culture building model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(1), 91-116.
Chalmers, Alan (1982). ¿Qué es esa cosa llamada ciencia? Una valoración de la naturaleza y el estatuto de la ciencia y sus métodos. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
Chen, Guo-Ming & Starosta, William (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic structures. Paris: Mouton The Hague
Chomsky, Noam (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Coll, César; Marchesi, Álvaro & Palacios, Jesús (1990). Desarrollo psicológico y educación. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Condon, John & Yousef, Fathi (1977). An introduction to intercultural communication. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrul Educational Publishing.
Dodd, Charles Harold (1991). Dynamics of intercultural communication. Dubuque, A: Wm.C. Brown Publishers.
Eisner, Elliot (1998). El ojo ilustrado. Indagación cualitativa y mejora de la práctica educativa. Barcelona: Paidós.
Ekman, Paul & Friesen, Wallace (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behaviour: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, 1,49-98.
Erickson, Frederick (1989). Métodos cualitativos de investigación sobre la enseñanza. In Merlin Wittrock (Ed.), La investigación de la enseñanza, II. Métodos cualitativos y de observación (pp.195-301). Barcelona: Paidós/M.E.C.
Fodor, Jerry (1986). La modularidad de la mente. Madrid: Morata
French, Wendell & Bell, Cecil (1979). Organizational development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Geertz, Clifford (1987). La interpretación de las culturas. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Guba, Egon & Lincoln, Yvonna (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Norman Denzin & Yvonna Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.105-117). London: Sage.
Gudykunst, William (1989). Intercultural communication theory. Current perspectives. Newbury Park: Sage.
Gudykunst, William (1992). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gudykunst, William (1993). Toward a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup communication. In Richard L. Wiseman & Jolene Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp.33-71). London: Sage.
Gudykunst, William (1994). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, William & Ting-Toomey, Stella (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. London: Sage.
Hall, Edward (1959). The silent language. New York: Anchor Books.
Hoffman, David (2009). Multiple methods, communicative preferences and the incremental interview approach protocol. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 41, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901419.
Keesing, Roger (1974). Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, 73-97.
Kim, Young-Yun (1977). Communication patterns of foreign immigrants in the process of acculturation. Human Communication Research, 41, 66-76.
Kim, Young-Yun (1988). Contexts of cross-cultural adaptation. In Howard Giles & Cheris Kramarae (Eds.), Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory (pp.3-31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kim, Young-Yun (1992). Intercultural communication competence: A systems-theoretic view. In William Gudykunst & Young-Yun Kim (Eds.), Readings on communicating with strangers. An approach to intercultural communication (pp.371-381). New York: McGraw Hill.
Kluckhohn, Clide & Strodtbeck, Fred (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston: Row Peterson.
Lincoln, Yvonna & Denzin, Norman (2000). The seventh moment. Out of the past. In Norman Denzin & Yvonna Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.1047-1065). London: Sage.
Lomas, Carlos; Osorio, Andres & Tusón, Amparo (1993). Ciencias del lenguaje, competencia comunicativas y enseñanza de la lengua. Barcelona: Paidós.
Lustig, Myron & Koester, Jolene (1996). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures. New York: Harper Collins.
Mahadevan, Jasmin (2009). Redefining organizational cultures: An interpretative anthropological approach to corporate narratives. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 44, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901440.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922). The argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enter-prise and adventure in the Archipielagoes of MelanesianNew Guinea. London: Routledge.
Otten, Matthias & Geppert, Judith (2009). Mapping the landscape of qualitative research on intercultural communication. A hitchhiker's guide to the methodological galaxy. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 52, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901520.
Pareek, Udai & Rao, Venkateswara (1980). Cross-cultural surveys and interviewing. In Harry Triandis & John Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 2 (pp.127-180). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Pedersen, Paul (1994). A handbook for developing multicultural awareness. Alexandria: Americans Counselling Association.
Pedersen, Paul (1997). Culture-centred counselling interventions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rodrigo, Miguel (1999). La comunicación intercultural. Barcelona: Anthropos.
Samovar, Larry; Porter, Richard & Jain, Nemi (1981). Understanding intercultural communication. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company
Samovar, Larry; Porter, Richard & Stefani, Lisa (1998). Communication between cultures. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Sandín, M. Paz (2003). Investigación cualitativa en educación. Fundamentos y tradiciones. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
Schwegler, Ulrike (2009). The challenge of researching trust in intercultural cooperation. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,10(1), Art. 48, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901486.
Silverman, David (1997). Qualitative research. Theory, method and practice. London: Sage.
Stanfield II, John (1993). Epistemological considerations. In John Stanfield II (Ed.), Race and ethnicity in research methods (pp.16-36). London: Sage.
Stephan, Walter; Stephan, Cookie & Gudykunst, William (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 613-628.
Tanaka-Matsumi, Junko (2001). Abnormal psychology and culture. In David Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp.265-286). New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, Edward (1920 ). Primitive culture. New York: J.P. Putnam’s Sons.
Ting-Toomey, Stella (1984). Qualitative research. An overview. In William Gudykunst & Young-Yu Kim (Eds.), Methods for intercultural communication research (pp.169-184). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, Stella (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press.
Triandis, Harry (2000). Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 185-195.
Vila, Ruth (2005). La Competencia Comunicativa Intercultural. Un estudio en el primer ciclo de la ESO. Tesis Doctoral, http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TDX-1216105-135329/ [Access: 10/10/2007].
Vygotsky, Lev (1977). Pensamiento y lenguaje. Buenos Aires: La Pléyade.
Vygotsky, Lev (1979). El desarrollo de los procesos psicológicos superiores. Barcelona: Crítica.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953). Investigaciones filosóficas. Madrid: Crítica.
María Assumpta ANEAS, Dra. is a member of the research group GREDI (Group of Research on Intercultural Education) at Barcelona University. She is a professor in the Department MIDE (Methods of Research on Education). Her principal research area is that of Intercultural Competences, qualitative research methodologies and the integration of the migration. She is a member of IAIR, and is currently president of SIETAR Spain.
María Assumpta Aneas
Departament de Mètodes d'Investigació i Diangòstic en Educació, Facultat de Pedagogía, Universitat de Barcelona
Passeig de la Vall Hebron, 171, Edifici Llevant, 2ª planta
Dpt. MIDE 08035 Barcelona, Spain
Tel.: 34 93 40 35 219, 34 607 65 60 78
Fax: 34 93 40 35 011
María Paz SANDIN, Dra. is a member of the research group GREDI (Group of Research on Intercultural Education) at Barcelona University. She is a professor in the Department MIDE (Methods of Research on Education). Her research work started in 1992 with research into intercultural education, and during her professional career she has carried out numerous assessments, participated in action research processes as well in participative evaluation ones in secondary schools. In recent years her work has centered on qualitative research methodologies and on the treatment of qualitative data using computer software.
María Paz Sandín
Departament de Mètodes d'Investigació i Diagnòstic en Educació, Facultat de Pedagogia, Universitat de Barcelona
Passeig de la Vall Hebron, 171, Edifici Llevant, 2ª planta
Dpt. MIDE 08035 Barcelona, Spain
Tel.: 34 93 40 35 219
Fax: 34 93 40 35 011
Aneas, María Assumpta & Sandín, María Paz (2009). Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Communication Research: Some Reflections about Culture and Qualitative Methods [57 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 51, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901519.
COM 372—Theory and Research in Intercultural Communication
Updated 22 May 2014
Cultural Values and American Culture
Read in conjunction with PPt: http://www.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/372/Cultural%20Values.ppt [Same content—PPt available upon request]
Main Objectives for this class:After this class you should be able:
- To describe the difference between highand low-context cultures
- To explain Hofstede’s 4 axes (and Confucian dynamism/Long-Term Orientation and Indulgence/Restraint) and write an application essay using these dimensions
- To recognize differences by label of other dimensions (Hall,Parsons, Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck). [You will not need to reproduce the whole dimensions on an exam]
- To recognize differences between key terms of cultural difference (values, rules, norms, beliefs, worldview, etc.)
- To recognize or define Triandis’ cultural syndromes and other key terms from Triandis (cultural distance, obj/subj culture)
- To differentiate between main differences between Eastern and Western religious world views
- To provide a brief explanation of each of several religious world views
I.Understanding Cultural Influences
A. Cultural influences
Many writers attempt to model the communication process. As we learn in introduction to theory classes, every model has the strengths of allowing us to troubleshoot where problems might lie in a process or to visualize what is happening in the process. But we also know that by focusing on some elements, every model also leaves out other elements. Gudykunst and Kim (2003) suggest that the “cultural influences” on communication are group-held values, norms, beliefs and attitudes that influence the interaction. Triandis calls these the subjective culture, as opposed to the physical and even behavioral manifestations of culture (objective culture). As an example, a rule or norm is an expectation for how one should or can behave in a culture (with norms having more of a “morality” component, as we shall explain below). They guide behavior, but they are not the behavior itself.
The rest of this website will summarize some of these, with greatest attention to values. I will draw on the work of several authors.
B.Cultural versus Individual difference:
At first read, it seems like self-construal and individualism/collectivism are pretty much the same thing. But they are not! One (I/C) describes a cultural orientation—that is, the values that the culture as a whole upholds or privileges. The other is an aspect of the individual person. Thus, even though Gwen might live in an individualistic culture, she might perceive herself as much more interrelated to those around her and consider their perspectives and needs as she makes decisions. So also, someone in a highly “collective” culture might, in fact, make very self-focused decisions. We will find that most “cultural-level” variables below also have an “individual-level” component. We should not say that a person is “individualistic” as that term refers to a whole culture. Rather, we would say she has an “independent” self construal. The same applies to uncertainty avoidance (she has a high tolerance for ambiguity, even though she lives in a culture with high uncertainty avoidance), gender orientation (she is “androgynous” even though she lives in a “masculine” culture), and so on.
Egalitarianism (cf group/ individual power)
Tolerance for ambiguity
Individual-level M/F (androgyneity)
C.What do we mean by “cultural difference”?Further, we should realize that when we do speak of “cultural difference,” we are not making absolute predictions, but must recognize that each culture has variety and diversity within it. Often, students think that when we talk about cultural difference, we are suggesting that all Latinos think or communicate like that and all Pakistani-Americans think or communicate like this. Instead, we should think of differences between groups (including men and women, rich and poor, etc.) like overlapping bell curves. If I were to line up all of the class in terms of height, we would have some women who are taller than some men and some men who are shorter than some women. But if we plotted a bell curve, we would find that on average, we could predict that men are higher than women. It is very important to note that when making predictions about human (communication) behavior, we are making probabilistic, not absolute predictions! That is, we are predicting that “in most cases,” with “other variables being the same,” Chinese people are more likely to prefer such-and-such style of compliments, and Russians are more likely to sense that type of love in romantic relationships. If one is thinking as a “social scientist,” the critique of scientific studies and theories that “this theory does not work, because everybody is different” does not make sense and is not a valid critique!!!! (I’m trying to be subtle here!) Instead, the scientist would try to explain more and more of the difference between individuals with additional variables. All social scientists recognize that individuals are unique, but they tend to believe that we do act in patterned and predictable ways.
D.Some important terms dealing with “cultural difference”:
· Attitudes: According to Samovar & Porter, a disposition to respond to something in a certain way. For our purposes, it will be you feelings towards a particular person, object, or idea.
· Beliefs: According to S&P, a thought about the connection between two concepts, for example, “sky” and “blue” or “Communism” and “desirable.”
· Values: What an individual or group of people hold to be important, either as a desired end-state or as a characteristic of a person.
· Norms: “Guidelines of how we should or should not behave that have a basis in morality” (Gudykunst, 2004, p. 43)
· Rules“Guidelines for the ways we are expected to communicate. Rules are not based in morality” (p. 43).
· Taboos/Mores: A taboo or more is a strong norm, usually with stronger social consequences. For example, incest has been found to be a taboo in most cultures.
· Laws: A rule or norm that is strong enough to be codified into a written or spoken formal code for a culture, usually with prescribed punishments.
· World View: A view about the connections between the elements in the cosmos, such as between people and nature, between the deity, and so on. Also involves metaphysical views about the nature of life (e.g., reincarnation, judgment).
As brief examples, consider the following:
- Most laws are probably based on norms, rather than rules (“Thou shalt not kill”). Interestingly, what might have “rule” status in one culture might have “norm” status in another culture (e.g., regarding notions of modesty). And in some cultures what is not even a rule in one culture might have law status in another. For example, chewing gum is against the law in (for purposes of cleanliness of the public spaces)
- If someone violates a “rule” she or he would be weird. If the person violates a “norm,” people would consider the person “bad.” If the person violates a taboo, society would view that person as even worse—“evil,” “reprobate,” etc.
- Rules are very similar to scripts. If anything, scripts are “prescriptions” (rules) for a series of interconnected acts, while a rule could be broader—the prescription for even a single act (like, “don’t pick your nose at the table”)
- Many rules are known and spoken (“Don’t pick your nose at the table”), but many are informal and may not even be spoken (“Don’t disagree with the boss when the Cubs have lost a game—which is most of the time”).
- Values are usually phrased in a word or two: “Hygiene” or “Respect”. See discussion of Reynolds in yesterday’s notes. Rules and norms are usually framed in terms of a sentence: “Do this,” “Don’t do that.”
- Rules and norms are in flux. For example, there is currently a debate on the internet over restroom humor on public TV. While some see restroom commercials as simply violating a rule of what is expected, others question their appropriateness. And violation might in some cases be contextual—for example, I have heard of people using bathroom sinks in the men’s room for urinals during crowded sports games (And we used to think that washing your hands after you went to the bathroom was sanitary!) Speaking of rules and restrooms, for a bit of cultural fun, stop studying for a minute and play the Urinal Game!Okay now, get back to work. . .
Thought Box: Go out this week and violate the “rules” or “scripts” of a situation. See what happens. One of my favorites is to get on a crowded elevator, put my back to the door and look everyone in the eyes and say, “You’re probably wondering why I’ve gathered you all here today,” or “I feel good all under!”Be careful where you do this. For example, as one commercial demonstrated, offering to show your family pictures to the man at the urinal next to you in the public restroom might get you a punch in the eye. If this is an application essay, discuss what would make it fall under each of several categories (e.g., rules, norms, mores, laws), to demonstrate your understanding of these.
II.Some (Etic) frameworks for understanding cultural values
Gudykunst and Kim (2003) present a variety of frameworks that can be used to compare cultures. That is, they tend to be used for cross-cultural communication (with the assumption that when people engage in intercultural communication, they might reflect these same values). Further, to be able to compare cultures, these frameworks are used for all cultures studied, rather than specific to any single culture (that is, they are etic frameworks). Finally, they are most frequently used to be able to make predictions about cultures—for example, researchers have conducted studies to see if people in individualistic or collectivistic cultures are more likely to use hints or direct requests as a first strategy to influence someone’s behavior (see work by Min Sum Kim on , , and mainland ). A couple of points before we begin:
o “Objective” (scientific) researchers seldom study cultures for the sake of the culture’s themselves, but rather use the cultures to tap some underlying variable, such as power distance or high/low context.
o “Subjective” researchers would probably not use these frameworks as a whole; they might use specific terms, but may instead look at a single idea (such as “social status”) and how it is defined and communicated within a single culture.
o Scholars are increasingly using both group- and individual-level variables. For example, the work of M.S. Kim above does group comparisons by country, but also measures “self-construal” to make predictions about people who see themselves independent or interdependent of others (regardless of culture) on how they make requests.
o These frameworks provide some of the “basic language” of interculturalists. Just like learning a foreign language, your mastery of these terms is essential for your future reading in the course!
A.High and Low Context: This deals with where one looks for meaning. According to Hall,
- High context cultures tend to place meaning “internalized within the communicators (more or less his words—but from my memory). That is, meaning is embedded in the role relationships, the situations, the history of the individuals, etc. In a high-context classroom, you would just be expected to know what to do (or how to write a paper) based on the relationship with the instructor, the social prescriptions, the level and type of class.
- Low context cultures place meaning in the “explicit code”—that is, the words. In these cultures, words are more likely to say what they mean, and we look for meaning in them. Note that many of our definitions of communication, as a “vehicle to transfer meaning from one person to another” reveal a low-context approach. Cultures with a high-context approach would not look for meaning in the words, but in nonverbal behaviors or in linguistic subtleties. These cultures, then, might use communication for different purposes, such as building unity (or resistance), being artistic or metaphoric, etc. Some cultures, in fact, distrust the verbalized word, thinking it only obscures reality.
B.Hofstede’s Dimensions Plus Two. Geert Hofstede, an organizational psychologist, developed a survey by studying IBM employees in 40 different nations. From the survey, he derived four dimensions that he then used to categorize the 40 nations. Now upwards of 100,000 people have taken his measure. You can find out more about his dimensions or see visualizations of the placement of many cultures in the world on his website: http://www.geert-hofstede.com/. BTW, while I think that his approach has both strengths and limitations (what doesn’t!?), the company that I do intercultural training with on the side places a large amount of the cultural training in terms of Hofstede’s dimensions and Hall’s notion of high and low context. Note that each of these is meant to describe cultures as a whole, not specific individuals.
- Individualism/collectivism: A culture’s value of interconnectedness of the individual to surrounding groups (such as family, workgroup). Some have expanded the notion to include also commitment to the community, such as seen among many African Americans (Gaines, 1995). Harry Triandis, a cross-cultural psychologist from the University of Illinois has done much work on this area specifically, including breaking I/C down into vertical and horizontal individualism/collectivism. This, in essence, joins I/C with Hofstede’s next dimension.
- Power distance: A culture’s acceptance of status difference, especially by those lower on the status dimension. A culture with “high power distance” will value status difference more, often reflecting this in communication behaviors such as bows or other differential (and deferential) treatment for those higher in status, different “registers” of language (such as more formal language for higher status, as seen in the “honorific” verbs used in Korean)
- Masculinity/femininity: A problematic dimension in that it contains two elements, which sometimes seem to contradict each other within a given culture. Hofstede wrote a book in the 1ate 1990s just on this dimension, as it had received much criticism:
- Direct, goal-oriented behavior (M) versus relational, face-saving behavior (F)
- Role rigidity (men do men things, women do women things—M) versus role fluidity (male and female roles overlap—F)
- Uncertainty avoidance: A culture’s desire for structure and predictability. Cultures with high UA will seek more predictability and structure, often seen through more rigid religious systems, stronger punishments, and more clearly enforced laws. For these cultures, “different is bad.” Low UA cultures will be more flexible in rules and are more likely to see “different as interesting.”
- Confucian work dynamism: The China Culture Connection (1987) suggested that the 4 dimensions were not enough to predict Chinese communication and created a fifth dimension (no—not thatFifth Dimension) that refers to a culture’s value on things such as thrift, persistence, respect for tradition, personal steadiness, and reciprocity (Gudykunst & Lee, 2002). This is also called Long-Term Orientationas it reflects a value on hard work, education, and so on that lead to long-term outcomes, rather than short-term pragmatism (for fun, go on to Hofstede’s Website and compare China and the United States on LTO!).
- Indulgence versus Restraint: Since BCGS text went to press, Hofstede’s website (http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html) has added a 6th dimension, indulgence versus restraint. In Hofstede’s words, “Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for a society that suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms.”
Hofstede plots nations upon pairs of dimensions, such as this following sample, which shows that generally, the more individualistic a culture, the lower the “power distance”; the more industrialized and urbanized a nation, the more individualistic; and certain regions of the world (e.g., East Asia, Latin America, Mediterranean Europe) might be similar in their placement.See his reading in the Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel reader for a full explanation of the dimensions. Many scholars say that I/C is the fundamental, most important cultural value distinction by which cultures can be explained, and for our course, it will likely be the most important cultural value notion you can “pick up” all term!
C.Parson’s Pattern Variables. Talcott Parsons, a sociologist, developed another framework to differentiate cultures. There is some overlap between this and some of Hofstede’s notions. Here are the dimensions, with my brief and simple explanations and examples:
- Affectivity ßàAffect Neutrality: How a culture makes decisions: whether a culture values intuitive (emotional, affective) decisions or logical, rational decisions. Ex: If your culture values setting emotion aside in decision making, it is “affect neutral.”
- Universalism ßàParticularism: Rules: whether a culture seeks to apply the same rules to all people equally (U) or holds different sets of expectations and rules for people in different (status) categories (P). Ex: If your culture believes that people of higher status should receive certain privileges or should be treated with more formal or more respectful communication, this is a “particular” culture.
- Diffuseness ßàSpecificity: Roles: whether a culture values treating people more holistically, that is, as whole persons, or in specific roles. Ex: Mexican culture has the notion of “respecto,” in which one treats a waitperson or subordinate as a whole person, often knowing about several aspects of the person’s life. Roles overlap, so the padron might be both a boss but also like a father figure. In other cultures, the waitperson is only a waitperson, and when you go to work, you leave your personal issues at home.
- Ascription ßàAchievement: Status: whether a culture assigns status based o n some pre-determined category (such as name of family, profession) or by one’s own accomplishments. Ex: Two cultures might value the diploma on the wall, but in the ascription culture, status is “ascribed” to the individual, or simply given, based on the fact that she has a diploma. In the “achievement” culture, the diploma is a representation of her hard work, and it is that hard work that gives her status. Generally speaking, in ‘achievement’ cultures, status is more changeable—that is, there is more “status mobility.”
- Instrumental ßàExpressive: Mode of communication, activity: whether one engages in behavior (including communication) in order to achieve some end-state (goal-driven, I), or for its own sake (E). Ex: Some cultures are really good at just “hanging out.” People can sit for hours just visiting and enjoying the moment (E). Others see communication as a means to an end. This might be reflected in the differences between men’s and women’s phone conversations in . Men are more likely to call to achieve a goal, and then end the conversation when the goal is accomplished. Women are more likely to call to chat, or to continue chatting. Research suggests that women’s friendships and girls’ games are more based on “talk,” whereas men’s relationships are based more on “activity,” and boys’ games on clearly defined rules by which one can clearly be declared the “winner.”
Thought Box: Where would you place either American culture or your own “culture” (whichever you choose to describe, or your national culture, if you are not American) on one of these sets of dimensions? Justify your answer.
Triandis, H. C. (2012). Culture and conflict. In L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (13th ed., pp. 34-45). Boston: Wadsworth.
D.Triandis’ cultural syndromes. Harry Triandis, a cross-cultural psychologist at the University of Illinois, is an extensive writer on culture, focusing especially on individualism-collectivism (see numerous articles or books he has collaborated on). Triandis (2012) summarizes what he feels are some key dimensions of culture. See if you can recognize the same concepts by different names from other frameworks? How might each apply to communication?
1.Before we get there…
· Defining culture: For Triandis culture is “a shared meaning system found among those who speak a particular language dialect, during a specific historic period, in a definable region. It functions to improve the adaptation of members of the culture to a particular ecology, and it includes the knowledge that people need to have in order to function effectively in their social environment” (p. 35). What type of def is it? What does it include? What does it exclude?
· Objective and subjective culture:Triandis mentions subjective culture more in passing (p. 35). In other works, he differentiates this, the norms, values, and other meaning components of a culture, from objective culture, which are the tangible artifacts that people in a group make, what he elsewhere calls “material culture” (http://www.wwu.edu/culture/triandis1.htm). (I wonder where he would put communicative behavior?
· Cultural distance: A very important notion in IC comm—cultures vary in how close or similar they are to one another, with greater conflict (the focus of this chapter) more likely between those cultures with greater distance.
· Attribution(p. 39): Giving meaning to the behavior of others or ourselves. This is central to cultural (mis)understanding! We often make errors in attribution, especially between in- and out-groups or towards groups we are more favorable toward and those we like less. We’ll say more about this in our unit on intolerance.
· Aggression: The chapter is about conflict, and we may not come back to it, but note the factors that lead to aggression (p. 41)—how many of those do you see in U.S. American culture?
2.Cultural Syndromes: Be able to recognize these and see how they relate to other dimensions we have discussed. Especially, know bold, red terms. You’ll note many repeat ideas of earlier authors (e.g., Parsons)
· Vertical and horizontal cultures
· Active-passive cultures
· Emotional expression or suppression
- All dimensions exist in all cultures—but cultures tend to have “preferences” for one dimension over the other.
- Hofstede’s dimensions, especially, should not be thought of as dichotomies. One of the limitations of his approach is that most people who use it simply classify cultures as, for example, either “individualistic” or “collectivistic”—often choosing countries such as U.S. and Japan (the latter actually becoming increasingly individualistic!) for examples of the variables.Unfortunately:
- His framework was developed in 1980, and culture scores seem to be based on the same data he collected at that time
- His data was collected from IBM employees who may not represent the rest of their cultures (for example, the placement of culture may mostly reflect White, middle-class men, and not women or other groups)
- Thus, by placing a culture on one point on his dimension, we could hide other differences among subgroups within a culture
- Sometimes the score on some measure (like a “47” on individualism”) may not tell us about the nuances of how individualism plays out in different cultures. In fact, those who study self-construal note that someone might have elements of both independent and interdependent self-construal at the same time. Some are now arguing that individualism/collectivism, past/future, and so on, be seen as “tensions” (dialectics) within culture, rather than opposites on a continuum.
Note: The last (K&S) really seems to deal more with world view than with values per se. I will outline these when I fill out the webpage, but if you want to know more about the latter sets of dimensions or want to read about them on your own, I refer you to Ch. 3 of Communicating with Strangers: https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBADJGU2.PDF
II.Some other frameworks for understanding cultural values: Emic and Not
While many authors seek a single set of dimensions or terms that can be applied for comparison across all cultures, other researchers prefer to study a single culture, or sometimes only two cultures, to compare them against one another. And still others seek a single framework that might apply to all cultures. Neuliep, for example, presents both in his section on “value orientations” (pp. 64-76). In a way, the wording is a bit broad, because the other orientations in the chapter are also value orientations, and at least one of the items contained here (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck) deals as much with world view as with values (so you’ll find discussion of their dimensions, important for the exam, below!). Here are some examples:
A. Emic approaches:
1. Hsu’s postulates of basic American values.
2. The Chinese Value Survey (this original measure of Chinese culture later developed into the long-term orientation now considered often with Hofstede’s analysis, above).
3. We will see others from a variety of cultures as we move through the course!
B. Schwartz’s Universal Values: Shalom Schwartz sought to develop a framework for values that would apply to all cultures—11 “motivational types of values” (Neuleip, 2006, p. 69). These values represent underlying universal needs (biological, social coordination, survival & welfare), though each culture might have its own priorities. This is a frequently cited list and useful to know! (though not for our exam…)
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2002). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
· Ch 3: Part A (individual versus cultural differences:
· Ch. 3: Part B (various frameworks briefly described):
Web Resources: (links provided, rather than hotlinks, due to PDF format for Blackboard)
· How stuff works: Culture & tradition channels: http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-and-traditions-channel.htm
· ChangingMinds.org on E.T. Hall’s Dimensions (hi/low context): http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/hall_culture.htm
· Youtube on Hi/Lo context cultures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tIUilYX56E
· Intercultural Press’s books on specific cultures:http://nicholasbrealey.com/boston/subjects/interculturalpress.html
· Let me know if you find other helpful links!
Dodd, C. H. (1998). Dynamics of intercultural communication (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Friday, R. A. (2000). Contrasts in discussion behaviors of German and American managers. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (9th ed., pp. 329-334). Belmont, CA: Wadsorth.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-cultural communication theories. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 25-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nakayama, T. K., & Martin, J. N. (2002). Worldview, religion, and intercultural communication. In J. K. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 21-31). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Reynolds, B. K. (1984). A cross-cultural study of values of Germans and Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 269-278.