Intercultural Collaboration

Independent research is still highly valued in academia and within the funding and tenure worlds. However, most realize that it is becoming more and more necessary for researchers to create truly collaborative teams and to partner with those outside their discipline, institution, and country. Given the potential of international research collaborations, it's important for PIs to consider cultural differences that can have an impact on the effectiveness of their team and collaborations.

With that in mind, I wanted to introduce you to some cultural dialectics to bear in mind when working with people who are from cultures different than your own. Geert Hofstede, a social psychologist developed a cultural dimensions theory that identified several spectra that people from the same national culture tend to share. Edward T. Hall, known as the father of Intercultural Communication also identified useful cultural variants. Below, I describe some of these spectra, and suggest how awareness of the dialectic can allow you to maneuver collaborations that extend outside of your native culture.

High/Low Context Communication

In this spectrum, high context communication refers to that which relies heavily on non-verbals, such as a person's position, sex, and other social cues as to how they should be addressed and what is appropriate to say.  Low context cultures, such as the US and other Western countries, tend to favor a more literal communication style that is direct and spells out meaning within verbals.

Low context communicators should be sensitive to those from higher context cultures, such as Japanese culture, and realize that they may not be comfortable verbalizing their thoughts, especially around negotiating publication authorship or leadership in an interest to save face for themselves and others on the team. On the flip side, if you are from a high context culture, realizing that those in low context cultures are not meaning to be offensive, but are instead more comfortable communicating directly can allow you to more effectively communicate with them.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

It may seem that a person's comfort with ambiguity is personal, and that's certainly true. However, there is a larger cultural orientation that influences members' UAI.  High UAI cultures are uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity and tend to want to have very clear guidelines and steps for solving a problem. Low UAI cultures are more comfortable with uncertainty and are more comfortable with change and being flexible. Whereas high UAI cultures are more comfortable dealing with uncertainty by instigating rules, low UAI cultures are more comfortable with risk.

Those researchers from High UAI cultures, such as Latin American cultures, in a research collaboration setting may tend to want clear structure in embarking on a project, whereas those in lower UAI cultures, like the US may be more comfortable working on issues and complexities as they come up.

Individualism/Collectivism
The individualism/collectivism spectrum is particularly interesting to consider in relation to research teams, considering the tension around PIs proving their independence in research and the recognition/need for collaboration in research to solve the really big challenges of our day. In short, individualistic cultures, like mainstream US and Canada, tend to promote and reward an individual's accomplishments and endorse competition as a driver for achievement. Those collectivistic cultures, such as Native American and First Nations people tend to value the interests of their communities, families, or teams over an individual's interests.

Understanding these differences can allow research teams to understand the goals and interests of members from different cultural orientations and to forge paths that respect these different starting points. They can also allow research teams to better collaborate collectively, drawing on those cultural strengths in the group while recognizing and distinguishing the individual contributions of each group, drawing on and recognizing the values of more individualistic cultures.

As a caveat, although these spectra can give us insight into different cultural perspectives and some generalizations about national cultures, it's important to recognize the variance within countries - such as mainstream US and native cultures within the US mentioned above. It's also important to recognize the cultural differences within cultural groups, such as those related to gender. Lastly, in a more and more globalized world, we're seeing more and more people who are culturally nomadic in a sense and able to navigate very different cultures easily.

With that said, if members of a research team can be aware of these differences - including their own cultural preferences and where others might be coming from, it can make for a more clear and productive collaboration.

Resources
The Hofstede Center's Culture Compass Tool
Edward T. Hall and the History of Intercultural Communication: United States and Japan - Rogers, Hart, and Miike