i need help writing a powerpoint presentationAll the guidelines have been attachedThe current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2042-3896.htm
Students’ perceptions of the use
of technology in cross-cultural
communication
Antonina Bauman
School of Business, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas, USA
Abstract
Technology in
cross-cultural
communication
193
Received 7 June 2015
Revised 18 December 2015
12 February 2016
Accepted 2 March 2016
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore students’ perceptions of the use of technology in
cross-cultural communication and to compare findings with current trends in business.
Design/methodology/approach – Structured interviews with seven open-ended questions were
used to explore students’ perceptions of the use of technology in cross-cultural communication.
Findings – Students learn how to use new technology in cross-cultural communication faster than
businesses implement those technologies. Students tend to emphasize the use of video conferencing
tools rather than e-mail.
Research limitations/implications – Although data saturation has been reached, the sample size
was relatively small. Students studying business participated in the study.
Practical implications – The findings of this study suggest considering changes to the curriculum
and embedding work-based learning into academic programs.
Originality/value – This paper compares students’ perceptions with business expectations, revealing
the areas in the content of the business communication classes that need to be changed.
Keywords Cross-cultural communication, Communication technology, Students’ perceptions
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
With the increased importance of international business and the growing number of
multinational companies, the issue of cross-cultural communication has become critical.
It impacts many managerial processes including planning and organizing activities,
decision making, and public relations (Kesari et al., 2014; Okoro, 2013). Globalization of
markets or flow of products, resources, and culture (Ariely, 2012) requires professionals
to find ways to communicate effectively and efficiently (Holtbrügge et al., 2013).
Recent studies stress the importance of training employees about cross-cultural
communication competence (Askary and Qayyum, 2014; Bartlett and Beamish, 2014;
Okoro, 2013). As the purpose of business cross-cultural education is to prepare individuals
for jobs in the international environment, the topic of what type of technology students
perceive as useful in cross-cultural communication is worth investigating in order to make
adjustments to the academic curriculum and thus improve students’ employability.
Theoretical background
Globalization and the need for cross-cultural communication
Globalization is understood as the free flow of products, money, people, and culture
across borders (Ariely, 2012; Arnett, 2002). It has been noted that political changes in
countries around the world, economic cooperation and interdependency, as well as
technological developments in the area of communications have all increased the
degree of globalization (Arnett, 2002). Many domestic organizations of yesterday
have been transformed into the multicultural organizations of today as they
operate in the international, multinational, global, or transnational environment
Higher Education, Skills and
Work-Based Learning
Vol. 6 No. 2, 2016
pp. 193-207
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2042-3896
DOI 10.1108/HESWBL-06-2015-0034
HESWBL
6,2
194
(Bartlett and Beamish, 2014). This infuses organizations’ networks – ranging from
their employees to their customers and suppliers – with cultural differences,
including languages, attitudes and beliefs, ages, educational levels, and technological
backgrounds. It also increases the role of communication skills (Bardia, 2010) in the
overall success of the business as “no business can survive without proper
communication” (Charles, 2011, p. 25).
The workplace has changed dramatically over the past decade. With the internet
transforming the world into a global village, where “national boundaries are gradually
losing their significance and companies are competing in a global environment”
(Bardia, 2010, p. 29), researchers have concluded that more companies are becoming
global (Molinsky et al., 2012; Okoro, 2013).These companies employ a diverse and
mobile group of people, and organizational structures are less hierarchical and more
collaborative (Molinsky et al., 2012; Okoro, 2013). In addition, the increased number and
variety of telecommunication devices make cross-cultural communication faster, and
“retrieval of information is quicker” (Misko, 2010, p. 12). In the current business
environment, good cross-cultural communication skills are turning from “a nice to
have” option to a necessity.
Business cross-cultural communication and technology
Communication skills are defined as skills that are “mainly concerned with sending
messages or transforming information clearly and receiving the message correctly”
(Askary and Qayyum, 2014, p. 17). Business cross-cultural communication refers to the
process of communication “that crosses national boundaries for business purposes”
(Guang and Trotter, 2012, p. 6457). It includes both interpersonal and mediated
communication. According to Castells (2013), mediated communication presents the
environment in which people receive and send signals that make meaning. As
communication depends on the culture, organization and technology of communication
systems (Castells, 2013), any changes to any of these three elements impact the way
relationships are established.
Due to technological developments and environmental requirements,
multinational organizations rely more heavily on the communication technologies
that allow cross-cultural teams to work together across time zones and to conduct
daily operations from any place in the world (Holtbrügge et al., 2013). Communication
technology (such as the telephone and fax) has existed for decades, but the internet
and especially the introduction of Web 2.0 in 2004, made a breakthrough with
interactive tools. Web 2.0 describes a set of technologies allowing people to create
content on the internet rather than on their desktops (O’Reilly, 2005). The internetbased technologies and wireless communication present interactive communication
(Castells, 2010) enabling workers to work together in a virtual environment. These
newer technological tools, such as blogging and wikis, video and audio conferencing,
made their way into work practices, allowing employees to virtually work together
either synchronously (at the same time) or asynchronously (with delay in response
time) as their schedules allow (Deal et al., 2010).
Today an employee, based almost anywhere, can have the means to “access work
materials and interact with colleagues on a 24/7 basis, all one needs is a smart phone or
any other wired device that reaches the Internet” (Ouye, 2011, p. 3). There is no longer
an “away from my desk” scenario; your desk can travel with you wherever you go
(Ouye, 2011). This transformation of communication was noted as one of the most
significant changes in the work environment (Castells, 2010).
Generation 2020 as a workforce
The “Generation 2020” will soon be entering the workplace. These are young people
who were born after 1997. They are known as “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001) as they
have known the internet from their early childhood and they do not think about
adapting to technology as technology is a natural way of “knowing and interacting
with the world” (Hershatter and Epstein, 2010, p. 213).
Since they will be directly impacted by globalization and technology, analysts are
trying to identify common trends in Generation 2020. Four common characteristics of
this generation are noted (Klobucher, 2011):
(1) the “Generation 2020” is a generation that remains connected and their lives are
impacted by the internet (Twitter, Facebook, blogs, online games);
(2) the “Generation 2020” seems to be sensitive to the environmental and social issues;
(3) the “Generation 2020” is a generation which is comfortable collaborating in both
face-to-face and virtual environments; and
(4) the “Generation 2020” is careful about who they listen to and how they spend
money.
However, these characteristics will not be sufficient for the employability of new college
graduates. As noted by many researchers, although this new workforce is comfortable with
new technology and likes collaborating (Deal et al., 2010; Hershatter and Epstein, 2010; Ng
et al., 2010), employers will also expect graduates to demonstrate skills in communication,
leadership, critical thinking, and problem solving (Lowden et al., 2011). A study by Archer
and Davison (2008) explored the perspectives of employers on graduate employability
which revealed a contrast between what academic programs are promoting and what is
required by industry. Current employability statistics support the research findings.
In 2015, the ManpowerGroup (a world leader in workforce solutions with offices in
82 countries around the world) conducted its tenth annual survey of global talent
shortages. The company asked 41,700 employers from 42 countries to identify the
difficulties they experienced when trying to fill available positions. According to the
ManpowerGroup (2015) report, the number of global employers reporting talent
shortages in 2015 “peak[ed] at a seven-year high of 38%” ( p. 3). Talent shortages were
defined by this research group as the lack of available talent that leads to a difficulty in
filling available vacancies (ManpowerGroup, 2015). Japan was identified as the country
with the highest number of employers reporting shortages at 83 percent compared to
11 percent of Irish employers (ManpowerGroup, 2015).
Many business leaders complain that “recent college graduates lack the communication
skills, especially writing, necessary to gain success in the business world” (Hill et al., 2014,
p. 278). It has been suggested that to overcome the gaps between the world of academia
and the world of business, work-based learning should be employed more often (Huq and
Gilbert, 2013). At the heart of work-based learning is knowledge and skills gained through
active involvement in the work assignments focussing on the task at hand (Andrews and
Higson, 2008; Raelin, 1997) and as such it offers students an opportunity to develop the
skills required to ensure their future employability.
Purpose
The extensive use of information technology, the growing role of cross-cultural
communication, quicker and widespread communication, and interactive
communication are among the current communication trends (Bardia, 2010).
Technology in
cross-cultural
communication
195
HESWBL
6,2
196
Our current generation of technologically astute graduates is entering the workforce.
However, employers are facing difficulties with regard to filling positions. This study
aims to explore the perceptions of today’s students (who will become tomorrow’s
employees) regarding the use of technology in cross-cultural communication and then
compares them with employers’ expectations.
Method
Since this is an exploratory study aimed at gaining more insight into students’
perceptions of methods of cross-cultural communication, a purposive sample was
selected that reflected the characteristics important to the research – a group of
university students studying business. A purposive sample was selected based
on a non-probability sampling technique that selects study participants based on a
researcher’s judgment (Robinson, 2014; Saunders, 2012). This type of sample is used
most often in content analysis studies (Elo et al., 2014). Although findings from a
study with a small sample size can present difficulty in arriving at conclusions and in
applying them to other situations, it is still possible to generalize theoretically
(Saunders, 2012).
After careful consideration, a list of open-ended questions was compiled to collect
the data. With the approval of the Institutional Review Committee which oversees
ethics in academic research, a description of the study and consent form were
distributed among students. Participants were guaranteed that their personal data
would be kept private. In total, 70 full-time students from the undergraduate and
graduate classes of a US private university were asked to participate in the study by
answering the seven questions listed below:
(1) What is the most memorable experience you have had communicating with a
person from a different culture?
(2) Was it face-to-face or with the help of technology?
(3) Did you ever use any technology in communicating with people from other
culture(s)?
(4) What type of technological or electronic device do you think is most useful for
cross-cultural communication? Why?
(5) If you had to communicate across cultures, what method of communication
would you use? Would it be different from the answer to the previous question?
Why?
(6) When hiring for a job that requires cross-cultural communication, what skills do
you think companies should require? Why?
(7) When applying for a job that requires cross-cultural communication, what
personal skills will you emphasize? Why?
Participants were encouraged to provide additional comments to better express their
perceptions and opinions whenever possible. They did not receive any incentives to
contribute to the study. Surveys were distributed among students from three
management courses and collected in one week.
In total, 41 students (58.6 percent response rate) returned surveys. More than half of
the students were over 25 years old and had some work experience. Table I provides
the basic demographic information about participants.
Respondents shared their personal experiences of cross-cultural communication and
expressed their perceptions of what communication methods they would use in the
workplace. Participants were given time to reflect on the topic in the convenience of
their homes and had to return the surveys within a week. Their answers were entered
into an Excel spreadsheet for data processing and analysis. Since the core of qualitative
content analysis is “coding raw data into conceptually congruent categories” (FinfgeldConnett, 2014, p. 342), the keywords for each answer were identified, tabulated, and
analyzed in accordance with the principles of qualitative content analysis (Cooper and
Schindler, 2013; Elo et al., 2014).
Technology in
cross-cultural
communication
197
Results and discussion of findings
Most of the students had experienced a face-to-face event (95 percent) with people from
other cultures with whom they had to communicate either while studying together
(24 percent), traveling (20 percent), or working (37 percent). As work experience,
although mostly part-time, is the most common business environment for students,
their perceptions regarding what is expected of them in the workplace and what they
think they have to offer are important for finding possible educational gaps.
It should be noted that 22 percent of students had never used technology in crosscultural communication and 7 percent thought that face-to-face communication without
the use of technology was still the best way to communicate.
The results of the respondents’ answer to the question “What type of technological
or electronic device do you think is most useful for cross-cultural communication?” are
shown in Table II.
Almost a third of students (31.7 percent) identified a smartphone as the most useful
type of technology for cross-cultural communication as it has several features that
students find helpful in cross-cultural communication such as mobility and applications
Age group (years)
21-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40+
Type of technology
Female participants
Male participants
9
3
4
1
2
7
5
5
2
3
Number of responses
Chat
1
Computer
4
E-mail
4
F2F
3
Mix of all
2
Pictures
1
13
Smartphone
Social media
2
Video conference
11
Total
41
Note: Due to rounding of all figures, the total is 99.8 percent not 100.00 percent
Table I.
Demographic
information about
study participants
% of the total
2.4
9.8
9.8
7.3
4.8
2.4
31.7
4.8
26.8
100.00
Table II.
The most useful type
of technology for
cross-cultural
communication
HESWBL
6,2
198
that perform a variety of tasks – from translation to a list of cultural customs to video
conferencing. Some of the comments received about the use of a smartphone follow:
•
“Smart phones because it is basically a computer in the palm of your hand. You
can connect with people all over the world through the internet, texting, voice
calls, and video” (Student DN).
•
“Mobile internet technology has revolutionized everything, including crosscultural communication. Anytime I’ve needed to know anything about another
culture’s history, music, geography, etc., to contextualize the point of view of
another person, either at work or at play, I can always use a mobile search app for
information, even about the most frequent misunderstandings between my
culture and the culture of the other person” (Student JM).
•
“In my case, phone apps accessible for the both of us (like Weixin). We can
already communicate in Chinese together, but Weixin includes a translation
button, allowing her to communicate” (Student AO).
This results were to some extent as expected as the participating students represent the
generation of millennials (born between 1981 and 2000) who have been “greatly shaped by
the technological advances present during their childhood, college career, and into the
workplace” (Gibson and Sodeman, 2014, p. 66).
The use of IT in communication is growing and different types of technologies are
“becoming extremely popular in the corporate circles nowadays” (Bardia, 2010, p. 31).
However, among the variety of communication tools available (e-mail, Skype, blogs,
audio and video conferencing online, wikis, and Twitter to name a few), e-mail is
recognized as the most frequently used method by businesses (Holtbrügge et al., 2013;
National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges, 2004
report). It is in the area of communication that gaps started emerging between what
students listed as the top tool (smartphone) and what businesses actually use (e-mail).
With regard to students’ responses e-mail was listed as a business communication tool
by a little under 10 percent of students.
The two options with the lowest scores were “chat” (2.4 percent) and “Pictures” (2.4
percent) as only one student mentioned chat and one mentioned pictures. By “chat” the
student meant any type of instant messaging – either texting or using blogs. For
pictures, the student stated that “For the most basic communication, pictures that
represent the meaning you are trying to convey are the most useful in my opinion”
(Student RF). It appears that this student was thinking (as later confirmed) more in
terms of day-today living in a foreign country though, rather than communication in a
business environment.
Table III shows the results of the content analysis of the answers submitted to the
question: “If you had to communicate across cultures, what method of communication
would you use?”
A somewhat surprising result was that when it came to selecting a type of
technology for cross-cultural communication, 29.3 percent of students preferred to have
face-to-face meetings despite the usefulness of technological devices. The following
comments were used to justify the choice of face-to-face communication:
•
“At this day and age, I think technology comes in handy, but it is no where [sic]
near the interaction you can get from actually speaking with someone face to
face” (Student DM).
Type of technology
Number of responses
Computer
4
Depends
1
E-mail
4
F2F
12
Internet
4
Mix
1
Smartphone
7
Social media
1
Video conference
7
Total
41
Note: Due to rounding of all figures, the total is 100.1 percent not 100.0 percent
% of responses
9.8
2.4
9.8
29.3
9.8
2.4
17.1
2.4
17.1
100.00
•
“I would prefer to meet the person face-to-face since that gives best
representation of me and the other person since you get all the body language
as well and not online a generic online spoken English [sic], which most can do.
But meet them and actually experience the situation” (Student TAH).
•
“Technology is good, but it is often easier to interpret reactions and avoid
potential misunderstandings face-to-face rather than through electronic devices.
It is also more personal, which can be needed when communicating with cultures
other than our own” (Student SKS).
First, these statements show that students understand that, as a concept, cross-cultural
communication involves both verbal and non-verbal exchange (McLean and Lewis,
2010) and, second, that they appreciate and see the value of the dual nature of crosscultural communication as shown by this student: “As an employee and future
manager, it is helpful to observe others’ verbal and non-verbal responses, while
communicating with them” (Student MEF).
The video conference (17.1 percent) option, as a preferred method of communication,
shared the second spot with the Smartphone (17.1 percent). Some of the students’
comments are:
•
“video calls allow to be present [sic] and see facial expressions and make the call
less impersonal” (Student ADG).
•
“The most useful technology I think it Webex for a meeting you can actually see
body language and visual communication. But if there is a problem with
language you can always go to simple typed responses within the same
application” (Student BD).
•
“I would say any device that you can use that can bring the conversation as close
as you can to a face-to-face experience would be the best” (Student KM).
•
“I would definitely use some type of videoconference, for me it’s the ideal thing to
use. It is as up close and personal as you could get without being there” (Student JS).
Comments about smartphones were focussed on the tools that allow students to use video
conference features such as Skype but also have applications that help with translation or
with finding information about cultural traditions and taboos. The common theme in
student comments about video conferencing and smartphones is that this technology
brings communication as close to real face-to-face communication as possible.
Technology in
cross-cultural
communication
199
Table III.
Method of
communication that
students would use
HESWBL
6,2
200
On the opposite side of the spectrum were two non-specific options: “Depends” and
“Mix.” One student stated that selection of the communication tool depends on the
culture (Student VS) while another student was convinced that “All types of
communication technology” (Student MTF) should be used for cross-cultural
communication.
The key categories describing the skills that, in the students’ opinions, companies
should require of their employees are listed in Table IV.
Foreign language skills (24.4 percent), cultural awareness (21.9 percent), and
tolerance (17.1 percent) toward people with different cultural backgrounds are listed by
students as skills that should be required by companies. Social skills (2.4 percent),
willingness to learn (2.4 percent), and writing skills (2.4 percent) are among the least
needed in opinion of students.
Overall, this finding is in line with Daniel et al. (2014). In the Daniel et al. study,
researchers surveyed 836 US executives who had supervisory duties or were involved
in HR decisions. They found that “almost 85 percent of the firms will place a greater
emphasis on international competence among management and employees over the
next ten years” (Daniel et al., 2014, p. 28)
The fact that the “writing skills” requirement is listed by only one student out of
41, shows a gap between what US businesses are looking for and the students’
perceptions. The National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and
Colleges (2004) published a report that presented the results of a survey of major US
corporations who employ nearly four million people. One of the findings was that
“80 percent or more of the companies in the service and finance, insurance, and real
estate (FIRE) sectors, the corporations with the greatest employment growth potential,
assess writing during hiring” (National Commission on Writing for America’s Families,
Schools, and Colleges, 2004, p. 3 report).
Later, in 2006, four US organizations (The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for
Working Families, Partnership for twenty-first century skills, and the Society for
Human Resource Management) surveyed 431 US employers, representing a combined
workforce of over two million people, regarding the skills that new entrants into the
workforce should have to be successful. They reported that 71.5 percent of employers
considered written communication skills as very important for two-year college
graduates while 93.1 percent of employers said that these skills are very important for
Skills
Table IV.
Which skills
companies should
require?
Number of responses
3
Adaptability
Communication skills
2
Cultural awareness
9
International experience
2
Language
10
Patience
3
Previous cultural experience
2
Social skills
1
Tolerance
7
Willingness to learn
1
Writing skills
1
Total
41
Note: Due to rounding of all figures, the total is 99.9 percent not 100.0 percent
% of the total
7.3
4.9
21.9
4.9
24.4
7.3
4.9
2.4
17.1
2.4
2.4
100.00
four-year college graduates (Casner-Lotto and Barrington, 2006). Yet, 47.3 percent of
employers noted that two-year college graduates were found deficient (lacking or
poorly prepared) in these skills, while 27.8 percent rated four-year college graduates as
deficient (Casner-Lotto and Barrington, 2006).
It is disturbing to see that even while contributing to a study on cross-cultural
communication, students do not think about the job requirement of having writing
skills. It appears that students seem to differentiate between more generic
communication skills and specific writing skills. The findings of this study show
that while considering the use of technology in cross-cultural communication, more
students think about oral communication rather than a combination of speaking,
writing, and listening.
The last question was “Which skills will you emphasize? Why?” The results, based
on content analysis, are shown in Table V.
The skills within the “Tolerance” category were listed by a total of 14.6 percent of
students followed by “Cultural awareness” (12.2 percent), “Foreign language”
(12.2 percent), and “International experience” (12.2 percent).
An interesting observation is to compare the skills students list as qualifications for
a job involving cross-cultural communication and the skills they say they would
emphasize while applying for such a position: the same three categories, but in different
order, appear in Tables IV and V.
Emphasizing people skills rather than technical skills seems to be another trend
among the students. People skills are “the interpersonal attributes that characterize a
person’s relationships with others” (Robles, 2012, p. 457). Tolerance, cultural
awareness, language, and previous international experience are at the top of the list.
Flexibility while dealing with other people, and acceptance of and respect for other
cultures are also commonly used characteristics in the “Tolerance” category. While
discussing communication skills, none of the students noted their ability to use
technology to communicate across cultures. This fact points to gaps between what
students perceive is the most useful cross-cultural method of communication, what
they list as a requirement for a job, and what skills they will emphasize when
applying for a job.
Skills
Number of responses
Adaptability
2
Communication skills
4
Cultural awareness
5
Educational degree
1
Foreign language
5
International experience
5
Patience
3
People skills
4
Team player
2
Tolerance
6
Willingness to learn
2
Work experience
2
Total
41
Note: Due to rounding of all figures, the total is 99.9 percent not 100.0 percent
Technology in
cross-cultural
communication
201
% of responses
4.9
9.7
12.2
2.4
12.2
12.2
7.3
9.7
4.9
14.6
4.9
4.9
100.00
Table V.
Which skills will
you emphasize?
HESWBL
6,2
202
A possible explanation for this finding could be that this generation of students takes
their ability to use technology for granted as they were born during the internet era.
This is supported by Casner-Lotto and Barrington (2006) who reported that two-year
college graduates demonstrate 25.7 percent excellence in the application of information
technology, while four-year college graduates were rated at 46.3 percent excellence in
the application of information technology.
It appears that students understand the difference between communication skills
and knowledge of a foreign language. Communication skills are used to describe the
ability of a person to be engaged in speaking, listening, writing, and reading, while
language “is the medium of interaction” (Askary and Qayyum, 2014, p. 18). Indeed the
focus of statements like “Effective listening skills and comprehensive understanding
skills” (Student TL) is not the same as “The ability to speak multiple languages”
(Student AS) and “Knowledge of another language” (Student MG). The first statement
emphasizes the desire to understand the other party while the latter two statements
focus on linguistic ability. In total, 17 out of the 41 students in the study group
specifically listed as a requirement the ability to speak a foreign language, or a
communication skill or a combination of both. Of the 17 students, 11 noted the
importance of the ability to speak a foreign language as they listed this skill as a
requirement for a job that deals with cross-cultural communication. Four students
discussed communication skills and two students listed both communication skills and
foreign language skills that companies should require of their potential employees.
This separation of communication and linguistic skills continued in the responses to
the question “When applying for a job that requires cross-cultural communication,
what personal skills will you emphasize? Why?” In total, 12 out of the 41 students
referred to communication skills: six students said that they would emphasize their
language skills, five students – communication skills, and one student – both
communication and linguistic skills.
Limitations
This study, as any research, has limitations that should be mentioned. First, this was
an attempt to explore students’ perceptions of the use of different methods of
cross-cultural communication. The sample size was relatively small: 41qualitative
structured responses to the study survey were obtained and answers to the
open-ended questions were analyzed. One should be cautious about drawing
conclusions and generalizing findings.
Another limitation of the study is that respondents were students majoring in
business and studying cultural differences. However, businesses hire students
majoring in other subjects, and it would be interesting to analyze their perceptions of
cross-cultural communication.
Although the participants’ backgrounds differ in terms of their religion, norms, and
values, they represented one national culture. This, therefore, reduces observations and
has an impact on generalization. A further explorative study involving participants
from different cultures would shed more light on the area of study.
Implications
The results of the content analysis revealed gaps between employers’ and students’
views on workforce skills in the area of cross-cultural communication. This study
supports earlier recommendations (Gibbs et al., 2011) for better communication
between businesses and educational institutions regarding the skills required of
students in the workplace and, cross-cultural communication skills in particular.
The gaps between what business employers define as important skills and students’
perceptions of those skills should be minimized.
Although it is unrealistic to expect that the gaps will be completely eliminated as
students’ perceptions of job requirements and employer’s expectations will continue to
differ, it is realistic to expect that some basic cross-cultural communication skills could
be developed during the students’ course of study.
The findings of this study suggest that students are comfortable with the use of
technology in cross-cultural communication but that they tend to omit the importance
of basic communication skills – such as writing, for example. Students’ preference for
video conferencing tools (as the means of oral communication) might signal the need to
adjust the course curriculum. As businesses consider e-mails (writing skills) as one of
the most commonly used method of cross-cultural communication, there is a gap
between students’ perceptions and employees’ expectations. Higher education
institutions need to cooperate with businesses and develop solutions that would help
local and global communities (Cappelli, 2014).
Since it has been noted, regardless of the type of careers graduates select, that
“communication skills are essential for success in the workplace” (Flynn, 2014, p. 366),
the importance of emphasizing the impact of communication skills on student
employability is crucial to any educational institution. Cooperation with employers
could lead to new initiatives in this area (Davies et al., 2011; Pavlin, 2014). Embedding
work-based learning in academic programs might become such an initiative. At the
heart of work-based learning is active participation of learners in the task at hand in the
working environment (Raelin, 1997). As tasks change, so do the skills required for
specific jobs. Teaching business communication content should be done from the crossdisciplinary perspective (Bell and Muir, 2014) so that students are learning a variety of
skills applicable to the work environment.
Rhodes and Shiel (2007) suggested that to be effective, work-based learning should
offer flexibility which allows for a dynamic curriculum. Since there are three key
players in the work-based learning environment – students, employers, and
universities (Little, 2000) – only the combined efforts of all parties might result in
the development of a flexible approach aimed at increasing employability of students.
The increased rate of employment of graduates is beneficial for all: students get a job,
employers hire qualified candidates, and the rate of employment reflects the value of
education received at a university and is included in that university’s ranking
(McMurray et al., 2016).
This paper serves as an initial stage of a larger project – comparison of students’
and employers’ perceptions of cross-cultural communication between different
countries. It would be interesting to trace students who study in different countries
and observe whether their perceptions change based on different educational
environments. Another potential area of study could be comparing students’
perceptions before and after work-based learning experiences.
Conclusion
With globalization expanding, cross-cultural communication is one of the major issues
for international companies (Kesari et al., 2014; Okoro, 2013). To be successful in a
competitive market, it is important to master cross-cultural communication (Anand,
2014; Guang and Trotter, 2012). Employers tend to put more emphasis on “soft skills”
Technology in
cross-cultural
communication
203
HESWBL
6,2
204
(communications and teamwork) rather than “hard skills” (educational degree and
technical skills), (Lowden et al., 2011) as they rank communication skills among the top
three requirements for a job (Archer and Davison, 2008).
Companies notice that, on the one hand, the current business trends of globalization,
diverse workforce, team-based organizations, advances in technology, and flatter
organizational structures impact communication trends in the workplace (Bardia,
2010). On the other hand, technology exists at the level of the individual and the
physical location of an employee often does not matter, as employees become part of
the global network (Charles, 2011). Between globalization and technology “modern
business communication has become a diverse, dynamic field which has increased its
relevance and significance than ever before” (Bardia, 2010, p. 31).
Charles (2011) stated that an older approach to communication as “communication
in business” is changing to become a “communication is business” paradigm
(Charles, 2011, p. 31) that should be the focus of business strategy. More and
more businesses recognize this and expect new workforce to be able to
communicate in a clear and effective way. Academic institutions should aim to
improve employability of students (Pavlin, 2014) by ensuring they have a clear
understanding of, and are capable of meeting, these expectations to the best of their
abilities (Daniel et al., 2014).
As our current students will be entering a workforce that has to deal with a diversity
of peers and customers, they will have to learn how to match job requirements with the
available technology and also their personal skills.
References
Anand, P.K.K. (2014), “Cross cultural diversity in today’s globalized era”, Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 2 Nos 6-1, pp. 12-16. doi: 0.11648/j.jhrm.s.2014020601.12.
Andrews, J. and Higson, H. (2008), “Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business
knowledge: a European study”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 411-422.
Archer, W. and Davison, J. (2008), “Graduate employability: what do employers think and want?”,
The Council for Industry and Higher Education, London.
Ariely, G. (2012), “Globalisation and the decline of national identity? An exploration across sixtythree countries”, Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 461-482.
Arnett, J. (2002), “The psychology of globalization”, American Psychologist, Vol. 57 No. 10,
pp. 774-783. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.57.10.774.
Askary, S. and Qayyum, M.N. (2014), “Communication skills, cultural changes, and intellectual
capital: a theoretical framework”, Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 16-24.
Bardia, G. (2010), “Smart communication: the key to managing your new age business”, The IUP
Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 27-33.
Bartlett, C.A. and Beamish, P.W. (2014), Transnational Management: Text, Cases and Readings
in Cross-Border Management, 7th ed., McGraw Hill Irwin, New York, NY.
Bell, R.L. and Muir, C. (2014), “A review of business communication under the leadership
function”, Business Studies Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 99-121.
Cappelli, G.W. (2014), “Creating the future American workforce”, Appollo Institute , available at:
www.apollo.edu/content/dam/apolloedu/microsite/workforce/pdf/Creating-the-FutureAmerican-Workforce.pdf (accessed April 8, 2016).
Casner-Lotto, J. and Barrington, L. (2006), “Are they really ready to work? Employers’
perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century
US workforce”, report, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Washington, DC.
Castells, M. (2010), The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and
Culture, Vol. 1, 3rd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Castells, M. (2013), Communication Power, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Charles, M. (2011), “Business communication: mapping a road for the future”, Synaps: A Journal
of Professional Communication, Vol. 26, pp. 25-33, available at: www.nhh.no/Admin/Public/
Download.aspx?file¼Files%2FFiler%2Finstitutter%2Ffsk%2FSynaps%2FArtikkel+3
+(26).pdf (accessed June 6, 2015).
Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. (2013), Business Research Methods, 12th ed., McGraw Hill Irwin,
New York, NY.
Daniel, S.J., Xie, F., Kedia, B.L. and Lodge, W. (2014), “2014 US business needs for employees with
international expertise”, paper presented at the Internationalization of US Education in the
21st Century, The Future of International and Foreign Language Studies, A Research
Conference on National Needs and Policy Implications, Williamsburg, VA, April 11-13,
available at: www.wm.edu/offices/revescenter/internationalization/papers%20and%
20presentations/danielkediafull.pdf (accessed June 6, 2015).
Davies, A., Fidler, D. and Gorbis, M. (2011), “IFTF: future work skills 2020”, Institute for the
Future for University of Phoenix Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, available at: www.iftf.
org/futureworkskills (accessed December 2, 2015).
Deal, J.J., Altman, D.G. and Rogelberg, S.G. (2010), “Millennials at work: what we know and
what we need to do (if anything)”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 191-199.
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K. and Kyngäs, H. (2014), “Qualitative
content analysis a focus on trustworthiness,”, SAGE Open, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
doi: 10.1177/2158244014522633, available at: http://classic.sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/1/
2158244014522633.full (accessed August 22, 2014).
Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2014), “Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theorygenerating qualitative systematic reviews”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 341-352.
Flynn, T.T. (2014), “Do they have what it takes: a review of the literature on knowledge,
competencies and skills necessary for 21st century public relations practitioners in
Canada”, Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 361-384.
Gibbs, S., Steel, G. and Kuiper, A. (2011), “Expectations of competency: the mismatch between
employers’ and graduates’ views of end-user computing skills requirements in the
workplace”, Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 371-382.
Gibson, L.A. and Sodeman, W.A. (2014), “Millennials and technology: addressing the
communication gap in education and practice”, Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 63-75.
Guang, T. and Trotter, D. (2012), “Key issues in cross-cultural business communication:
anthropological approaches to international business”, African Journal of Business
Management, Vol. 6 No. 22, pp. 6456-6464.
Hershatter, A. and Epstein, M. (2010), “Millennials and the world of work: an organization and
management perspective”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 211-223.
Hill, K., Mehta, G. and Hynes, G.E. (2014), “Do they think they can communicate? Graduate
students’ perceptions of their communication competencies”, Journal of Organizational
Culture, Communication and Conflict, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 275-286.
Technology in
cross-cultural
communication
205
HESWBL
6,2
Holtbrügge, D., Weldon, A. and Rogers, H. (2013), “Cultural determinants of email communication
styles”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-110.
206
Kesari, B., Soni, R. and Khanuja, R.S. (2014), “A review on the need of cross cultural management
in multinational corporations”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Management
and Social Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 120-127.
Huq, A. and Gilbert, D.H. (2013), “Enhancing graduate employability through work-based
learning in social entrepreneurship: a case study”, Education + Training, Vol. 55 No. 6,
pp. 550-572.
Klobucher, T. (2011), “Characteristics of generation 2020: generations at work”, available at:
www.thegreatworkplacerevolution.com/characteristics-of-generation-2020-generations-atwork/ (accessed January 27, 2015).
Little, B. (2000), “Undergraduates’ work based learning and skills development”, Tertiary
Education & Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 119-135.
Lowden, K., Hall, S., Elliot, D. and Lewin, J. (2011), “Employers’ perceptions of the
employability skills of new graduates”, University of Glasgow SCRE Centre and
Edge Foundation, Glasgow, available at: www.edge.co.uk/media/63412/employability_
skills_as_pdf_-_final_online_version.pdf (accessed April 8, 2016).
McLean, J. and Lewis, R.D. (2010), “Communicating across cultures”, Manager: British Journal of
Administrative Management, Vol. 71, Summer, pp. 30-31.
McMurray, S., Dutton, M., McQuaid, R. and Richard, A. (2016), “Employer demands from
business graduates”, Education + Training, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 112-132.
ManpowerGroup. (2015), “2015 Talent Shortage Survey”, available at: www.manpowergroup.
com/wps/wcm/connect/manpowergroup-en/home/thought-leadership/research-insights/
talent-shortage-2015/talent+shortage+results (accessed December 2, 2015).
Misko, J. (2010), “Responding to changing skill demands: training packages and accredited
courses”, report, National Centre for Vocational Education Research, Station Arcade,
Adelaide.
Molinsky, A.L., Davenport, T.H., Iyer, B. and Davidson, C. (2012), “Three skills every 21st-century
manager needs”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 90 Nos 1-2, pp. 139-143.
National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges (2004), “Writing: a
ticket to work … or a ticket out. A survey of business leaders”, NCW Report, September,
available at: www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.
pdf (accessed May 17, 2015).
Ng, E.S., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S.T. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field
study of the millennial generation”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 281-292.
Okoro, E. (2013), “International organizations and operations: an analysis of cross-cultural
communication effectiveness and management orientation”, Journal of Business &
Management (COES&RJ-JBM), Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
O’Reilly, T. (2005), “What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software”, September 30, available at: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/whatis-web-20.html (accessed October 27, 2013).
Ouye, J.A. (2011), “Five trends that are dramatically changing work and the workplace”, available
at: www.knoll.com/research/downloads/WP_FiveTrends.pdf (accessed February 22, 2013).
Pavlin, S. (2014), “The role of higher education in supporting graduates’ early labour market
careers”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 576-590.
Prensky, M. (2001), “Digital natives, digital immigrants”, Part 1, On the Horizon, Vol. 9 No. 5,
pp. 1-6.
Raelin, J.A. (1997), “A model of work-based learning”, Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 6,
pp. 563-578.
Rhodes, G. and Shiel, G. (2007), “Meeting the needs of the workplace and the learner through
work-based learning”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 173-187.
Robinson, O.C. (2014), “Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: a theoretical and
practical guide”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 25-41.
Robles, M.M. (2012), “Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace”,
Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 453-465.
Saunders, M. (2012), “Choosing research participants”, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (Eds),
Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, Sage, London,
pp. 35-52.
Corresponding author
Antonina Bauman can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
Technology in
cross-cultural
communication
207
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Assignment Instructions
M3 Assignment
For M3 Assignment, you will prepare a PowerPoint presentation that focuses on a different
culture that you would like to learn to communicate with effectively. At a minimum, the
presentation should include the following elements:
1. Overview of the culture
2. Key characteristics /dimensions of the culture that should be learned before
communications begin (include at least six dimensions)
3. Compare/contrast the culture with your culture (based on the dimensions you included
in #2)
4. Create a culture communication plan specifically for your chosen culture that will help
you and your workplace to conduct effective communications. This culture
communication plan should include an outline or brief discussion of the three or four
components you have found most critical.
5. Provide a summary/recommendations for your organization to move forward with
training for cultural communication.
Your presentation should be a minimum of 15 content slides (not including the title slide and
references slide). Your slides should include either speaker notes placed in the “notes” section
of the slide or you should record audio on each slide. In addition, you should have a minimum
of three scholarly sources. References should be written in proper APA formatting.
Instructions:
The Notes panel of your slides will contain your speech script; this will be word-for-word exactly
what you would say to accompany each slide. Be sure to read your speech aloud several times
so that you’re confident that the language you’re using sounds conversational and not like a
term paper or essay. Remember to use transitional words and phrases to make your speech
flow smoothly.
It’s critical to cite the sources that back up your points and subpoints. Citing sources orally (as
you would be doing for a speech) is different from citing them in a paper. For a refresher on
how to do this, see Citing Sources Orally the Announcements in this course.
When you are ready to submit your slides and script, you must save your slides in a format with
the slides on the top of a page, with the accompanying notes (your script) beneath each slide,
as seen below.
Do not submit a PowerPoint file. Instead, print your notes pages to PDF, or export your
presentation to Word, and choose the layout with “notes below slides.” I must be able to see
both your slide and script on the same page; if not, your speech will be returned with a zero for
a grade, and you will have one opportunity to revise.
If you are using Microsoft PowerPoint, see the article Add speaker notes to your slides and for
how to do this using Google Slides, see
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/docs/NlKimlcNaaQ
Frequently Asked Questions
•
•
•
FAQ on Assignment 3
FAQ on Speakers Notes (Required for Assignments 3 & 6)
How to Put Speaker Notes & Slide on Same Page
Length/Formatting Instructions
Length
Minimum of 15 content slides with speaker
notes or audio recorded on the slides.
Font
For the slides: 36-point minimum, preferably
Calibri font
For the slide notes: 12 point, preferably
Calibri Font, no more than 1″ margins
Program/File Type
Submit in PDF, with note beneath each slide.
Do NOT submit in PPT
Attachments
Referencing system
APA referencing system is necessary in
assignments, especially material found on the
Internet.
For examples of correct citations, visit the
following links:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/
560/01/
File Name
Assignment 3_Student’s Name
M3 Assignment Grading Rubric
Your work will be evaluated on the following criteria:
CATEGORY
Exemplary
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unacceptable
Overview of the
Culture (20
Points)
20 points
The
presentation
contains a
comprehensive
overview of the
culture.
16 points
The
presentation
has an adequate
overview of the
culture, but is
not
comprehensive.
8 points
The
presentation
does not include
a
comprehensive
overview of the
culture.
0 points
The
presentation
does not meet
the
requirements.
Comparison/Co
ntrast of the
Cultures (20
Points)
20 points
The
presentation
contains a
comprehensive
comparison
between
cultures.
16 points
The
presentation
has an adequate
cultural
comparison, but
is not
comprehensive.
8 points
The
presentation
does not include
a
comprehensive
cultural
comparison.
0 points
The
presentation
does not meet
the
requirements.
Culture
Communication
Plan (20 Points)
20 points
The
presentation
contains a
comprehensive
communication
plan.
16 points
The
presentation
has an adequate
communication
plan, but is not
comprehensive.
8 points
The
presentation
does not include
a
comprehensive
communication
plan.
0 points
The
presentation
does not meet
the
requirements.
Summary/Reco
mmendations
(20 Points)
20 points
The
presentation
contains
comprehensive
recommendatio
ns for cultural
training in the
workplace.
16 points
The
presentation
has an adequate
cultural training
plan, but is not
comprehensive.
8 points
The
presentation
does not include
a
comprehensive
cultural training
plan.
0 points
The
presentation
does not meet
the
requirements.
Writing Style Organization,
10 points
The assignment
8 points
This writing
4 points
This writing
0 points
This writing
Transitions,
Tone (10 Points)
is written with
excellent
organization,
thoughtful
transitions, and
the appropriate
tone.
assignment is
adequately
organized, but
has some errors
in the
transitions or
the tone.
assignment is
poorly
organized, or it
contains
ineffective
transitions
and/or
inappropriate
tone.
assignment
displays little to
no organization
or transitions,
and/or does not
use the
appropriate
tone.
APA Format Citations and
References (10
Points)
10 points
All sources used
for quotes and
facts are
credible and
cited, and the
references and
in-text citations
are all properly
formatted. Each
reference has
an in-text
citation and intext citation has
a reference.
8 points
All sources used
for quotes and
facts are
credible and
cited, but slight
errors are
present in the
format of the intext citations or
references. Or
there may be
one in-text
citation or
reference
missing.
4 points
Some sources
used for quotes
and facts are
either not
credible or
there are
significant
errors in the intext citations
and/or
references. Or
there are
multiple missing
in-text citations
or references.
0 points
The sources
used for quotes
and facts are
not credible
and/or not
cited. The intext citations
and/or
references are
not present.
Improving Cross-Cultural Communication Skills
Shaganti Srinivas *
ABSTRACT
Communicating across cultures can be a difficult experience. All successful communication results from one person understanding
the meaning and intention of what another person has said. The skills associated with effective and rewarding cross-cultural
communication can seem elusive to many people who lack experience of this form of interaction. The information contained in
this fact sheet is designed to initiate and/or guide your cross-cultural experiences. The resources and contacts listed are
intended as a starting point for further learning.
Keywords: Cross-culture,Communicationskills,Media and Internet Technology,Language.
INTRODUCTION
The first cross-cultural studies were carried out by 19th-century anthropologists such asEdward Burnett Tylor and
Lewis H. Morgan. One of Edward Tylor’s first studies gave rise to the central statistical issue of cross-cultural studies:
Galton’s problem. In the recent decades historians and particularly historians of science started looking at the
mechanism and networks by which knowledge, ideas, skills, instruments and books moved across cultures, generating
new and fresh concepts concerning the order of things in nature. In Cross-Cultural Scientific Exchanges in the
Eastern Mediterranean 1560-1660 Avner Ben-Zaken has argued that cross-cultural exchanges take place at a
cultural hazy locus where the margins of one culture overlaps the other, creating a “mutually embraced zone”
where exchanges take place on mundane ways. From such a stimulating zone, ideas, styles, instruments and practices
move onward to the cultural centers, urging them to renew and update cultural notions.
Improving Cross-Cultural Awareness and Communication through Mobile Technologies:
Increasingly, technology is mediating the way in which the youth around the world communicate, consume content
and create meaning. As mobile communication media and the internet become more pervasive, young people from
different cultures and communities are afforded more opportunities for collaboration across previously unbridgeable
distances. The need for cross-cultural awareness and communication is thus more important than ever. The initiative
described in this article, successfully demonstrated the role of mobile phones and the web as mediating technologies
in the development of intercultural competencies and communication skills among a group of teenagers scattered
across two countries.
Nine simple ways to improve cross culture understanding in a new country
The social adaption happens much faster if we make a conscious effort to interact with the local culture. To improve
the cross cultural understanding and learning more about the local way of life, here are a few simple but effective
tips…
The social adaption varies from person to person, some people adapt faster than others. Regardless, it is very natural
to have some ‘opinions’ or biases against a new culture or a new place.
Once we move to a new country or a new culture, the adaption starts; we subconsciously start to get used to the new
norms as time goes. And, in many cases, we don’t even realize that we are adjusting to the new culture; it happens
automatically. It is a natural social change – adapting to the new circumstances over time.
However, the social adaption happens much faster if we make a conscious effort to interact with the local culture.
To improve the cross cultural understanding and learning more about the local way of life, here are a few simple but
effective things that we can do:
*ResearchScholar, Department of Sociology, Kakathiya University, Warangal, Telangana, India
Improving Cross-Cultural Communication Skills
l 84
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Adapt to the local language: Don’t isolate yourself from the local language and the local way of speaking the slang, the style, … the whole nine yards.
Participate in the community functions: Be a part of the local community. The social interactions help with
understanding the local customs, traditions, and appreciating the differences.
Volunteer at a local school or library: Being a volunteer at local school or library is not only a noble thing to
do, but it help you equally. You learn a lot about the local lifestyle, the local education system and it opens
many doors to the social activities.
Improve communication skills: The best way to improve local interaction is by improving your communication skills.
Understand and overcome the culture shock: When we go to a new place, we all go through this phase of
culture shock – some more than others. You can take a look at this article on ‘How to overcome your
culture shock abroad’ for more information on this topic.
Socialize outside your own culture: Again, avoid self-isolation by limiting your social interactions within
your own community. Go explore the other culture; there are always so many interesting and intriguing
facts and things about the other culture waiting to be discovered.
Share your own culture and customs: To improve cross-cultural understanding, share the customs of your
own culture with the local communities and with local circle of friends. This is the best way to bridge the gap
between two cultures – learning about the local customers and sharing your own culture and norms.
Don’t be judgmental: Everyone has their own way of doing things, their own customs, their own rituals.
Don’t be quick to judge a culture based on partial observation. We all do many things that look strange to
people from other culture. The idea is to adapt, not to criticize. So, listen to your local friends, observe their
cultural habits. This will help you in understanding their way of thinking and how they deal with different
social situations.
Time is a great equalizer: it takes time to adapt to a new place, to learn a new way of life, to understand a new
culture. Do not rush yourself to form an opinion about another culture. Take some time to know the local
society, make some friends and have some fun. With time, you will find yourself more and more at home.
A multi-cultural society is a way of life now-a-days. So enjoy the diversity and relish your cross-culture journey.
CROSS- CULTURE STUDIES
Cross-culturalstudies,sometimescalledholoculturalstudies or comparative studies, is a specialization in anthropology
and sister sciences (sociology, psychology, economics,political science) that uses field data from manysocieties to
examine the scope of human behavior and test hypotheses about human behavior and culture. Cross-cultural studies
is the third form of cross-cultural comparisons. The first is comparison of case studies, the second is controlled
comparison among variants of a common derivation, and the third is comparison within a sample of cases. Unlike
comparative studies, which examines similar characteristics of a few societies, cross-cultural studies uses a sufficiently
large sample so that statistical analysis can be made to show relationships or lack of relationships between the traits in
question. These studies are surveys ofethnographic data.
Cross-cultural communication
Cross-cultural communication is a field of study that looks at how people from differing cultural backgrounds
communicate, in similar and different ways among themselves, and how they endeavour tocommunicate across
cultures. Intercultural communication is a related field of study.
Advantages and disadvantages of cross cultural research in psychology
Culture refers to the many characteristics of a group of people including attitudes, behaviors, custom and values that
are transmitted from one generation to the next.
Cross-cultural Research
is a scientific method of comparative research, which focuses on systematic comparisons that compares culture to
85 l
Splint International Journal of Professionals I ISSN : 2349-6045 I Vol.-III, Issue-9, September 2016
culture and explicitly aims to answer questions about the incidence, distributions, and causes of cultural variation and
complex problems across a wide domain, usually worldwide.
Cross-cultural studies, sometimes called holocultural studies or comparative studies, is a specialization in anthropology
that uses field data from many societies to examine the scope of human behavior and test hypotheses about human
behavior and culture .
There are several types of cross-cultural research. The first of which is Regional comparative cross-cultural research
which is well represented by the works of Kroeber and Driver. Second small-scale regional comparison advocated
by Fred Eggan (1954) who called it “controlled comparisons” on theassumption that it may make it easier to rule out
possible effects of similarity in history, geography, and language. Third large-scale within-region research (using data
on all or most of the cultural traits in the region) which generally tries to arrive at classifications of cultures in order
to make inferences about processes of diffusion and historical ancestry. Four coding which implies that data can be
collected in two ways.
Therefore, cross-cultural research is the branch of psychology that looks at how cultural factors influence human
behavior.
Advantages of the Cross-cultural Research in Psychology
The statistical conclusions drawn from a worldwide comparison of all type of society are probably applicable to the
entire ethnographic record, assuming that the sample is more or less free of bias. That is to most if not all regions and
all types of societies in the ethnographic record. Thus other thing being equal, the worldwide type of cross-cultural
comparison has a better chance than other types of comparison of coming close to the goal of knowing that a finding
or an observed relationship has nearly universal validity, which is consistent with the general scientific goal of more
and more comprehensive explanation.
It maximizes the amount or range of variation in the variable investigated thereby making a difference between a
useful and a useless study.
WHO ARE CALD STUDENTS
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) students are not international students – they are citizens or permanent
residents of Australia. Some are voluntary migrants, while others have entered Australia on a Humanitarian Visa
after being a refugee. CALD students come from many countries and represent many cultures and languages. The
University of Tasmania currently has significant numbers of students enrolled who come from Chile, China, Korea,
Iraq, India, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Burma, Bhutan,
Nepal, Zimbabwe as well as small numbers of students from other countries. These students bring with them a vast
array of life experiences and useful perspectives on the world around us. Many have fled violent civil wars, religious
or political persecution or natural disasters like famine and drought. Many have experienced the worst that human
nature can offer, yet bring enthusiasm and optimism to their study and the life of the University.
WHO ARE HUMANITARIAN ENTRANT STUDENTS?
Humanitarian entrant students are people who have resettled in Australia after being a refugee. They enter Australia
as permanent residents and can only access the services available to the general student population. A refugee is any
person who has left their country because of the experience or fear of violence, religious persecution, political unrest
or natural disasters, and has no hope of returning to that country. There are currently 44 million refugees and
internally displaced persons worldwide. Australia is one of only 22 nations accepting resettlement of refugees, with
an annual refugee resettlement commitment ~ 13-14,000 each year.
From 2004-2010 300 refugees on average are resettled in Tasmania each year. As many entrants are young adults
and teenagers looking to make the most of the educational opportunities in Australia .this has led to a sizeable UTAS
population at approximately 300 students, which has increased sharply from 2004, but has remained fairly stable
Improving Cross-Cultural Communication Skills
l 86
with a trend of low growth over 2010-11. They have all been refugees for extended periods and have experienced
or witnessed extended periods of danger and privation, mostly during protracted civil wars. They have been subjected
to forced dislocation, squalor, malnutrition, disease, limited access to clean water and sanitation and a lack of
educational opportunities.
WHAT IS CULTURE?
Culture is the integrated pattern of human behaviour that includes thoughts,
communication, actions, customs, beliefs, values and institutions of a racial, ethnic, religious or social group. It reflects
the norms and values of a given society and constitutes, to a large extent, the way in which individuals in that society
views the world.
Why is Communicating Across Cultures so Difficult ?
More than 80% of the world’s people live in societies that are collectivist in nature. Those living in Western societies
live in societies that are individualist in nature. This is a fundamental difference that has the potential to create
constant misunderstanding and, therefore, miscommunication. The comparison provided in the table on the following
page is a useful starting point for interpreting those fundamental differences as they arise. Remembering that we are
all human beings driven by the same emotions, instincts and ambitions may also help us to see cultural difference as
something that is on the surface and not so threatening.
Useful Tips for Communicating Across Cultures
The following tips are a starting point for cross-cultural communication at UTAS. Some of the many useful websites
providing variations and more detail are listed in the resources section of this fact sheet. Feel free to contact a CALD
Support Officer if you have a particular issue.
1.
Be complete, explicit and pay attention to the other person’s response.
2.
Be alert for different meanings.
3.
Avoid metaphors, colloquialisms and jargon. Define any jargon that you must use.
4.
Attempt to be clear while avoiding the over-simplification of terms as it may seem insulting.
5.
If a word or concept is not understood, re-word your thoughts. Do not repeat it or increase your volume as
if the listener has a hearing problem.
6.
Paraphrase and seek verification of understanding. Ask the listener to confirm information or directions in
their own words.
7.
Acknowledge cultural differences without bias and be persistent. When you have difficulty, talk about it
together.
8.
Be sensitive to cultural stands on social issues like gender roles and drug use.
9.
Do not ask questions that you would not or could not answer yourself.
10.
Research the cultural background of the person, if possible.
11.
Withhold judgment and set your assumptions aside. Study and evaluate culturalgeneralisations. Understand
that even valid generalisations must be carefully considered when applied to individuals.
12.
Always provide a why. Cultural patterns or rules may seem arbitrary ifunexplained. If a student is uncomfortable with a decision or situation, explaining why is important, particularly if the issue is non-negotiable.
13.
Take the risk! Always remember that you will make mistakes as you learn.
CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION
Communication is the exchange of meaning: it is my attempt to let you know what I mean. Communication includes
any behavior that another human being perceives and interprets: it is your understanding of what I mean.
Communication includes sending both verbal messages (words) and nonverbal messages (tone of voice, facial
expression, behavior, and physical setting). It includes consciously sent messages as well as messages that the sender is
totally unaware of sending. Whatever I say and do, I cannot not communicate. Communication therefore involves
87 l
Splint International Journal of Professionals I ISSN : 2349-6045 I Vol.-III, Issue-9, September 2016
a complex, multilayered, dynamic process through which we exchange meaning. message is never identical to the
received message. Why? Communication is indirect; it is a symbolic behavior. Ideas, feelings, and pieces of information
cannot be communicated directly but must be externalized or symbolized before being communicated. Encoding
describes the producing of a symbol message. Decoding describes the receiving of a message from a symbol. The
message sender must encode his or her meaning into a form that the receiver will recognize-that is, into words and
behavior. Receivers must then decode the words and behavior-the symbols-back into messages that have meaning
for them.
Lack of Cultural Self-Awareness:Although we think that the major obstacle in international business is in understanding
the foreigner, the greater difficulty involves becoming aware of our own cultural conditioning. As anthropologist
Edward Hall has explained, “What is known least well, and is therefore in the poorest position to be studied, is what
is closest to oneself (8:45).” We are generally least aware of our own cultural characteristics and are quite surprised
when we hear foreigners’ descriptions of us. For example, many Americans are surprised to discover that they are
seen by foreigners as hurried, overly law-abiding, very hard working, extremely explicit, and overly inquisitive (see
the example that follows). Many American businesspeople were equally surprised by a Newsweek survey reporting
the characteristics most and least frequently associated with Americans.
SUMMARY
Cross-cultural communication confronts us with limits to our perceptions, our interpretations, and our evaluations.
Cross-cultural perspectives tend to render everything relative and slightly uncertain. Entering a foreign culture is
tantamount to knowing the words without knowing the music, or knowing the music without knowing the beat.
Our natural tendencies lead us back to our prior experience: our default option becomes the familiarity of our own
culture, thus precluding our ac curate understanding of others’ cultures. Strategies to overcome our natural parochial
tendencies exist: with care, the default option can be avoided. We can learn to see, understand, and control our own
cultural conditioning. In facing foreign cultures, we can emphasize description rather than interpretation or evaluation,
and thus minimize self-fulfilling stereotypes and premature closure. We can recognize and use our stereotypes as
guides rather than rejecting them as unsophisticated simplifications. Effective cross-cultural communication
presupposes the interplay of alternative realities: it rejects the actual or potential domination of one reality over
another.
CONCLUSION
Global leaders must be in constant pursuit of, and proficient in, cross-cultural communication skills if they are to
succeed in today’s global environment. They must be persistent in asking for cultural knowledge, seeking ways to
understand people of different cultures and knocking on the door of wisdom toward unlocking hidden meaning to
better communicate across cultures. Without the proper meaning, misunderstandings and misinterpretations often
prevail because what is appropriate behavior for one culture can be inappropriate in another. Global leaders often
use their own meaning to make sense of someone else’s reality or lack cultural awareness of their own behavioral
rules and apply them to others. Global leaders must strongly consider the cultural factors of the languages of context,
time and space because they impact the language we speak, be it verbal or nonverbal.
REFERENCES
1.
Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith Rumor Clinic as cited in Robert Bolton, People Skills (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979), pp. 73-74.
2.
Asch, S. “Forming Impressions of Persons,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 40 (1946), pp.
258-290.
3.
Bagby, J. W. “Dominance in Binocular Rivalry in Mexico and the United States,” in I. Al-Issa and W. Dennis,
eds., Cross-Cultural Studies of Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970), pp. 49-56. Originally in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 54 (1957), pp. 331-334.
4.
Berry, J.; Kalin, R.; and Taylor, D. “Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada,” in Multiculturalism as
Improving Cross-Cultural Communication Skills
l 88
5.
6.
7.
89 l
State Policy (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1976).
Berry, J.; Kalin, R.; and Taylor, D. Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada (Ottawa: Minister of
Supply and Services, 1977).Bholanath, D. (2008,June). Communication in cross-cultural context. ICFAI
Journal of Soft Skills, 2 (2), pp. 7-12.
Good News Bible (1992). Today’s English Version (2nd Ed.). New York: Thomas Nelson. Gudykunst, W.,
& Kim, Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
http://diemmvo.vox.com/library/video/6a00d41448d19f6a4700e3989bddaa0004.html.
Splint International Journal of Professionals I ISSN : 2349-6045 I Vol.-III, Issue-9, September 2016
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
The post [SOLVED] powerpoint presentation – Business Finance appeared first on Essay Center.
