September 1, The Call: Current cross-cultural management research has a decidedly comparative flavor; we tend to compare management practices in one nation versus another. The globalization of trade and an increasingly mobile international workforce make intercultural interactions within and between organizations commonplace.
Introduction Studying the field of intercultural communication is a highly complex task for researchers. Especially the controversial concept of culture, as one of this field's key components, often causes theoretical difficulties, which are being inevitably reproduced in every intercultural research setting.
The theoretical problems with the culture concept are well known, so they need not be outlined in all detail. However, the following passages will briefly recount the main issues with the intention to prepare for subsequent thoughts on this concept.
Intercultural communication research has adopted this notion of distinction, although it intrinsically aims to rise above it. This creates misunderstandings in the definition of intercultural communication.
However, intercultural communication research is still caught in this paradoxical loop: It is constructing precisely those differences that it initially intended to overcome.
Questions of similarities and differences within cultural groups—meaning of cohesion and integration—are far from being understood in detail. Thus, investigating intercultural communication hardly takes cultural dynamics and processes of social change into account.
One needs to consider, however, that more or less dynamic but still ongoing change is part of every cultural production and reproduction. And more, dynamics seem to be increasingly relevant within modern life-styles WELZ, They just accentuate them in a different way or challenge the relevance of the concept of culture in general.
The problems imported by the culture concept are furthermore supplemented by the theory of communication, which is mostly applied in ICC. Intercultural conflict analysis theory is mainly oriented towards cooperation and understanding, but rarely develops a comprehensive concept of the various intentions of communicating.
Nevertheless, an ethical orientation towards "understanding" is often still assumed. Thus, the relevance of power structures, which are enacted in social fields, for communicative acts is not systematically acknowledged. Furthermore, culture theory and communication theory as relevant theoretical frameworks for ICCR are used complementary, like two independent variables.
Thus, the fundamental interrelation of them both, the dialectic constitution of culture and communication, is widely ignored. The following article will explore how a paradigm of culture as knowledge, as it has been discussed in recent cultural and social anthropology, could contribute to a new understanding of ICC.
Understanding Culture as Knowledge To outline the idea of culture as knowledge, I will mainly refer to a conceptual article written by the Scandinavian anthropologist Fredrik BARTH inwho put the paradigm and guiding principles of research forward to anthropological discussion.
The surplus of this new paradigm lies mainly in the disaggregation of the culture concept.
But this small variation is a fundamental one and has significant consequences for the conceptualization of investigations, as BARTH suggests. Thus the concept of 'knowledge' situates its items in a particular and unequivocal way relative to events, actions, and social relationships" BARTH,p.
But stocks of knowledge vary widely within populations depending on spatial, social and cohort experiences. Knowledge gives the individual the capacity to orient himself. It consequently structures the individual's understanding of the world and purposeful ways of acting.
Knowledge always shows three "faces" when applied in any kind of situation.
In this way, knowledge can be distinguished conceptually from group membership, social relations and other social aspects of daily life. Differences are not primarily interpreted in terms of diverse cultural belongings.
It is first and foremost a question of knowledge asymmetries between the interacting persons. Differences are likely to appear within as well on the edges of societies. Even so, it is known that people are interconnected with the communities they live in and the assumption of individually diverse knowledges raises the problem how individuals get integrated in larger social contexts.
Though it is experience-based, most knowledge thus does not become private in any individual sense. This makes a great deal of every person's knowledge conventional, constructed within the traditions of knowledge of which each of us partakes. My personal skills and embodied knowledge are likewise largely constituted on the basis of activity into which I have been socialized, some of them embodied through purposeful practice, some of them preconceptual, arising from experience based on how my physical body functions in the world" BARTH,p.
In his definition of the term "knowledge," he includes all the different ways of understanding, which people make use of to constitute reality. He thus develops a very broad understanding of knowledge as a basic daily human phenomenon. It diverts the emphasis of scientific observation from the existence to the emergence of culture.
Now the practices and processes of cultural production and reproduction are a core interest for cultural analysis. Not the similarities but the constitutions of communities attract the interest of the researcher. Now, researching means to concentrate on individual approaches to the world rather than on collective world views.
BARTH suggests "that each tradition of knowledge will be characterized by distinct and in their own ways stringent criteria of validity—presumably in some kind of systematic relation to the uses to which that knowledge is put" BARTH,p. This paradigmatic re-orientation towards the means, processes and organization of cultural production is asking not so much for existing traditions but rather for the inherent logics driving cultural development.
Although cultural properties and traditions are not of interest as entities of itself, they remain subject-matter of cultural analysis.Usually, conflict mediation follows a culture-specific process, as defined within a specific cultural context.
In intercultural contexts, mediators of intercultural conflict . To learn how culture, your own and other peoples’, shapes the understanding of intercultural conflict analysis. To explore cultural awareness of ‘self’, ‘other’ cultures and the challenges encountered in interaction between people of diverse culture.
Campus Compact 45 Temple Place Boston, MA CO Communications Instructor: Heather Rosewell Student: Scott Cumston 10/14/ Unit 5 Assignment 1- Intercultural Conflict Analysis Migration of humans has been happening for centuries.
The phenomena of human migration are thought to be one of survival and there are many theories on how humans became so spread out across the Earth. Feb 27, · This is a short presentation by Jonathan Stuart of Hennepin Technical College's Customized Training Services on the Intercultural Conflict Style Model.
Intercultural conflict essays. Principal agent problem analysis essay mla research paper on racism essay describing the american dream, ilm ki dunya english essay air vif paul eluard illustration essay dissertation zitieren verlago philosophie et science dissertation atterrissage curiosity explication essay.
Competence Competitiveness and Intercultural Conflict in Qatar Case Study Solution & Analysis In most courses studied at Harvard Business schools, students are provided with a case study.
Major HBR cases concerns on a whole industry, a whole organization or some part of organization; profitable or non-profitable organizations.