Intercultural Communication Case Study Analysis
Collectivism vs Individualism
Third Scenario: Amar and Kathleen
Shoji is from a collectivist culture which utilizes high context communication. This means that he employs implicit, non-verbal communication that is commonly very ambiguous
Matthew is from a individualistic culture which utilizes low context communication. This means that he prefers to relay precise messages that are spoken in explicit terms, and really places value on verbal messages
- Amar and Kathleen have been dating for eight months. Kathleen was raised in a catholic home, while Amar was raised by a Pakistani mother and American father, neither of which strongly identified with their respective religions. Both of them are attempting to balance out their relational and intercultural dialectic tensions.
Relational Dialectics
First scenario: Matthew and Shoji
- Autonomy vs Connection: some individuals prefer to have set alone time, away from their partner, while others seek to be together at all times
- Prediction vs Novelty: develop a set routine of behaviors, or if they value spontaneity in a relationship.
- Openness vs Closedness: how much personal disclosure they will make to the other party
This fundamental difference aided in the first misunderstanding and attribution errors between Matthew and Shoji. Matthew viewed Shoji as unwilling to contribute to the discussion, while Shoji was simply trying to respect Matthew’s opinion and not seem too outspoken. Later, the differences in the two cultures power distances come into play, involving Matthew’s supervisor.
Intercultural Dialectics
Second Scenario: Alison
- Matthew is a business associate in a financial firm in the US. He is paired with Shoji, who is from a sister branch of the company in Japan. They must work on a marketing project together but end up having conflicting viewpoints
- Revelation vs Non-revelation: This is similar to the interpersonal dialectic of novelty versus prediction,
- Integration vs Separation: very similar to the interpersonal dialectic of autonomy versus connection, but on a larger scale that involves outside individuals
- Uniqueness vs Conventionality: This is similar to the interpersonal dialectic of novelty versus prediction,
- Identity Security vs Vulnerability: Both partners will have an expectation of not only feeling like their cultural background is valued, but they also expect that their identity will also be respected and accepted
- Present vs History: Some individuals will value a rich cultural history, while others prefer to live in the present
- Privilege vs Disadvantage: must be addressed because it underlines a fundamental power difference in the relationship
- Alison is a graduate student from Spain, who just moved to Germany for a 2 year internship. Alison experienced what is known as culture shock upon arriving in Germany for her internship. She followed the typical U shaped pattern of culture shock, beginning in the honeymoon phase, then experiencing both a crisis phase and a positive recovery, ending with an overall cultural adjustment.
U Shaped Model of Culture Shock
1. Honeymoon stage: travelers are very excited at the possibilities of traveling to a new culture, and experiencing new things
2. Crisis stage: Once entering the new culture, individuals experience a crisis stage when their experiences start to deviate from what they expected. Typically a lot of anxiety stems from a lack of language proficiency, and small cultural misunderstandings that morph into bigger ordeals.
3. Recovery stage: During this time, people seek out the positives in their experiences and try to minimize the negatives
4. Adjustment stage: This occurs once travelers have gained a moderate level of competence in navigating the host culture. This does not mean that there are never any negative experiences or misunderstandings, but they are instead minimized, and seen as trivial matters