How Do Culture and Soc Med Relate? « Mollybob Goes To School

As social media removes geographic barriers to intercultural communications, cultural identity still remains. How do culture and social media relate?

Introduction

As the prevalence of the world wide web continues to grow, it is becoming increasingly accessible as a tool for intercultural communication. While in the past it was possible for most people to only read content online, there is an increasing shift towards contributing and responding online using social media, which has created a burgeoning amount of cross-cultural communication online. To date, there is limited research around how our social interactions online have impacted culture and are impacted by culture, which is reflective of the novel and uncertain nature of the current landscape. This paper aims to explore the implications social media has for cross-cultural communication, and offers some answers as to how different cultures communicate online.

What is social media?

Social media is a term used to describe the internet as it exists interactively. It is an updated iteration of Web 2.0, which was was coined to describe commonalities of technology companies that were considered particularly innovative (O’Reilly 2007). Social media focuses on the ability to communicate, collaborate, and interact online using a variety of resources, as Universal McCann’s Wave 3 report describes, “the term emphasises the idea that as a collective it can have as much impact as any traditional media platform” (2008, p.10). Because of its nature, mass involvement and mass communication are essential to its relevance.

What is culture?

Definitions of culture vary across the literature, but generally include themes around common knowledge, behaviours and values across a group of individuals and systems of communication (Kersten et al 2002, Mohan et al 2004, Morse 2003, Setlock et al 2004).

Predominant approaches to analysing culture take a behaviourist perspective, attempting to recognise, chart and compare behaviours along continuums. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (1983) and Hall’s work on context (1976) feature prominently, however the usefulness of this approach alone in the social media context is questionable because increasingly “it is culture that distinguishes people more than nationality” (Landy et al 2004, p. 22), and these approaches focus on national culture to measure culture in an increasingly complex and internationally diverse online environment.

An alternative approach to culture, which offers greater consistencies with the social constructivist ideals of social media are Vygotsky and later Nisbett’s theories around culture. Unlike the behaviourist approaches above, these do not offer binary frameworks, which have their own analytical merits and drawbacks, but proposes that culture is a determinant of development, and that cultural frameworks are defined by cognition (Faiola &Matei 2006).

In analysing the impact of social media in cross cultural communications, a behaviourist model such as Hofstede’s may be useful in observing and measuring what is occurring in an online environment, and the social cognitive approach may offer explanation as to how our perception of reality, and culture in turn, is shaped by the social processes occurring online.

Problematising the current literature

Because social media is a relatively new area, there is limited understanding of the impacts it is having in terms of cross cultural communication. The literature is largely reliant on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (1983) and Hall’s work on context (1976), and comes from a behaviourist approach, using binary models, often coupled with empirical analysis. Although the literature dealing with both culture and social media provides some valuable insights, especially when combined with literature dealing with intercultural relations, standing alone as a body of work, it presents some challenges in aligning the theoretical stances of social media and intercultural communication in a cohesive, practice informing manner.

The current literature addressing online communication often uses older terms such as computer-mediated-communication (Faiola & Matei 2006; Kersten et al 2002; Morse 2003; Setlock et al 2004), online communication (Gevorgyan 2009), new media (Di Maggio et al 2001; Leonardi 2003), internet communication tools (Thorne 2003), which is reflective of the novelty of social media as a term and concept. Such terms are often matched with an attitude that reflects unfamiliarity with the technology in question, with much discussion in the literature focusing on the technology rather than the cross-cultural communication that it enables. The literature often diagnoses behaviours according to Hofstede and Hall’s models, but provides little explanation as to the impact technology plays in a larger cultural setting. Those that work from a social cognitive perspective tend to provide explanations more aligned with the social constructivist underpinnings of the technology in question, suggesting that the social interaction the technologies allows needs to be focussed upon as the technology is essentially a vehicle for social interaction. Essentially, the literature working from a behaviouralist perspective lacks insight into the nature of online culture formation because it doesn’t recognise the social constructionist underpinnings of social media.

Another common issue within the literature is the tendency to problematise culture, with the content and conclusions implying that intercultural relations create negative barriers to communication and understanding. While this is one perspective, and a quite evident and valid one considering the increase in contact between cultures is most likely met by a proportionate amount of miscommunication (Mohan et al 2004), there is little mention of what occurs beyond the differences measured. Hewling (2005) suggests that the root of such problematic attitudes are contained within the behavioural models of culture themselves, with the binary nature of the models being used to identify difference, but not providing alternatives and strategies. The binary models serve their purpose of measurement, which holds priority within the behaviourist perspective, however, a balanced approach would be more adept at identifying differences, and examining the impact and reasoning behind them.

The literature also raises the debate as to whether technology or social interaction is shaping intercultural communication. By focussing on technology, it is implicit in DiMaggio et al’s (2001), Kersten et al’s (2002), Morse’s (2003), and Setlock et al’s (2004) work that technology and design hold a significant role in how communication and the resulting cultures that occur. Through focussing on social interaction Leonardi (2003), Thorne (2003), Hewling (2005), and Faiola and Matei (2006) highlight that communication is an essential ingredient in online culture formation. According to Leonardi (2003), a heavy focus on technology will result in research lacking the analysis into human behaviour that the technology was designed to be a vehicle for through the social constructionist ideas that social media is inherently based upon through its capabilities. Hewling’s commentary follows a similar trajectory criticising common approaches to cultural analysis, quoting Street as believing that culture “is not about finding definitions, but, rather a matter of seeing how, when, and why definitions are made” (2005, p4). Both assert that studying the interaction occurring, rather than the technological framework is a more telling approach.

Key questions considering cross-cultural communication and social media

In exploring the issue of how cross cultural communication relates across social media, a number of key questions were identified around the relationship between social media, which is shaped by social construction of meaning through communication, and cross-cultural communication.

Does technology determine culture, or culture determine technology?

Before the large scale advent of social media, communication according to the constructivist definition of reciprocity, interpretation and interpersonal relationships (O’Keefe in Kaye 1994, p14), was largely improbable as there was no way for users to respond directly to content. During this period, literature tended to err towards technological determinism, which suggests “that structural features of new media induce social change by enable new forms of communication and cultivating distinctive skills and sensibilities” (DiMaggio et al 2001, p. 309). Social media has altered this balance, with designers now needing to focus on functionality as users create their own content and add their own artifacts, which over time creates culture forming interaction.

According to Vygotsky’s reasoning, all internet sites are determined by culture because knowledge and sociocultural processes, which would be required to create the sites, are grounded in culture (in Faiola & Matei 2006), however, what makes technology more determined by culture than previously is the collective communicative nature of social media. While the design, functionality, and build of a website are still essential to its functioning, and inherently grounded in culture, a social media site is designed as an empty shell, whose shape is determined by the communication that occurs within it, and according to Nisbett’s cultural psychology (in Faiola & Matei 2006) and O’Keefe’s thoughts about communication (in Kaye 1994) because the success and life of the site is determined by continual evolution and use, it can be suggested that not only cultures from the physical world shape the site, but the culture which emerges in the site as a result of the interaction determines the future the technology will take.

Viewing social media tools as human artifacts steeped in culture (Thorne 2003), through Nisbett’s cultural psychology lens and O’Keefe’s constructivist communication theory (1994) can provide some explanation to the claims that social media is changing our society (DiMaggio et al 2002), because it suggests the social media tools used in society are being continually shaped by culture, meaning that culture is a continual process of “doing” (Hewling 2005) that evolves over time.

Do culture or individuals talk to each other?

Another way of making sense of cross cultural communication online is to analyse it without the boundaries that Hofstede and Hall’s national frames of reference apply. Hewling suggests that these approaches assume that there are binary opposites in cross-cultural communications, and in doing so, problematise cross-cultural communication and reduce the role of the individual in the culture defining process.

Rather than use national frames of reference, Hewling (2005) suggests a focus on compatibility, highlighting that a focus on activity in a site will reveal that each site has its own culture, influenced by the participation on the site, and the larger context in which it exists.

The concern with Hewling’s approach of studying activity in the online environment is the tendency for every group to have dominant members . Using Hewling’s approach, careful analysis of what was not being acted out would be necessary, as a study of just “doing” as is suggested may present a biased perception as to how group’s culture would be defined as communication, a defining part of culture consists of both surface and tacit information (Kaye 1994).

Although extreme in some respects, Hewling’s approach is reflective of the social media landscape and the approach presents a technique which addresses issues recognising online culture that more behaviourist methods have difficulty achieving. National cultures are useful as frames of reference, or as Landy et al suggest, as “box cars” which provide a context (2005) in an increasingly linked world, but must be recognised as a general backdrop and frame of reference against which communication that aids culture development occurs.

Is a technology a location with its own culture?

One of the failings of much of the current literature in the landscape is its view of social media as a one dimensional entity that exists outside cultural boundaries, the same boundaries that have been used in Hofstede et al’s widely accepted models of culture. To suggest that social media is devoid of location is not quite correct, and may be a cause of the inconclusive nature of the literature in the area. Social media sites have URL’s, which could be considered virtual addresses, and within these virtual addresses, locations exist in the form of websites, which are unique and socially constructed by users through their communication to emerge as social entities (Leonardi 2003).

A technology, like a geographic location is more complex than assigning a national culture, and Leonardi highlights the importance of noting the cultural communication norms of a group using technology. Just a geographic areas contain a group with a common culture, but also other independent ones, many cultures exist within social media platforms, who in turn have their own culture like a physical geographic location does. What makes virtual locations more complex, is that the underlying national culture which shapes communication practices across many other subcultures in the physical world is not present, often replaced with a common culture around a shared interest (DiMaggio et al 2001). In this respect, virtual locations differ markedly from physical locations because it is not possible for virtual locations to have an underlying national culture because “nationality is simply a geographic reality” (Landy et al 2004, p22), as such, everyone using social media is an immigrant in that regard.

The case study highlighting miscommunication between the high context Japanese culture and the low context Australian culture in Mohan et al 2004 highlights the ease with which cross-cultural misunderstandings can occur online, highlighting that various national cultures can co-exist across a singular platform, with such close proximity that casual conversations can more easily occur than in the physical world. Equivalent cross-cultural misunderstandings are inevitable with the increased access to geographically spanning technologies which allow us to interact internationally while still in our own environment (Mohan et al 2004), and in some respects communicating online could possibly worsen tendencies toward ethnocentrism because vital non-verbal clues are missing and cause confusion as Kertsen et al (2002) suggest because “influence of culture on behaviour in computer-mediated communication is partly reduced and partly amplified (p2). Another factor that could worsen the problem is the symbolically ambiguous nature of language (Wood 2002), blurring meanings through a lack of physical context and varied speech communities

However, interactions such as the one above are more complex than two nationalities meeting when taking into account the social construction and consequent cultures of the tools themselves (Faiola & Matei 2006, Hewling 2005, Leonardi 2003). The severity of the misunderstanding could have been lessened had both participants recognised the culture of the platform they were using, as an addition to their own ethnocentricities. This leads to the more recent recognition of hybrid cultures that are created through intercultural online exchanges (Hewling 2005)

How do different national cultures use social media?

If we consider social media as multi-faceted, complex, and socially constructed, it can be suggested that different cultures will use social media according to their cultural preferences, and different benefits will be received from technology use depending on culture (Morse 2003), a hypothesis supported through a comparison of Universal McCann’s Wave 3 report (2008) technology usage by country and facets of national culture.

Literature that views technology as one-dimensional tends to suggest that online communication forces users to speak a common language, and in doing so creates misunderstandings and tensions (Morse 2003, Setlock et al 2004). While it is true that to communicate interculturally, users may need to use a second language, and the potential for less skilled communication is higher, the reality is more complex in terms of where and how social media is being used.

It is not just different cultures using the same tools for their different needs, rather, different national cultures tend to use different social networks to satisfy their needs. The Universal McCann Wave 3 (2008) report’s statistics support Faiola and Matei’s (2006) findings that cultural cognitive style impacts online communication styles and is consistent with O’Keefe’s social constructivism (in Kaye 1994) and Vygotsky’s social cognition, where tools are built and shaped according to underlying culture. The Universal McCann Wave 3 report (2008) shows that use of social networks is delineated by geographic location, which is reflective of social networks developing and being developed to fit the commonalities brought about by national culture.

Aside from differences in preferred social networks, a comparison of cultures according to Hofstede’s individualism continuum (1983) and Hall’s (1976) context identification show that rather than isolating high context users (Setlock et al 2004), or forcing them to use lower context communication modes (Morse 2003), that users tend to gravitate towards tools that suit their cultural preferences.

Countries that have the highest blog readership tend to be more collectivist in nature, with the Philippines, Mexico, Brazil, Taiwan, Korea and Italy having high blog readership (Universal McCann 2008). This is particularly relevant when considering that the two most read types of blogs are personal and family blogs as it suggests that social media is being used to further the importance of family relationships.

There is also an observable similarity between collectivist, high context cultures consuming video, with Philippines, Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, China, Spain and South Korea watching more videos that France, Australia, Germany, Canada, and Austria. The results are similar in terms of photo sharing, with comparisons weakening slightly through South Korea’s lack of preference for photo sharing. As visual stimulation is removed, but sound remaining through podcasts, a comparison is still telling, although blurred more still, especially in Japan and Italy. These comparisons support Daft and Lengels’ Media Richness Theory (in Setlock et al 2004, p606) which suggests that tasks are best supported when media matches cultural communication preferences and is supportive of Leonardi’s (2003) suggestion that technology is used to meet cultural needs, and within cultural understandings, with the needs of high-context culture more readily met through rich media, assisting in reducing the truthfulness of claims that communication online reduces social clues and favours low context communications (Kersten et al 2002, Morse 2003, Setlock et al 2004). This is where Leonardi’s approach (2003) shows strength, because it highlights that cultures will gravitate toward the tools which most suit their communication preferences, so while other cultures may be using the same tool, it may be for different reasons, and in a different manner.

A hybrid culture or a mediating culture?

In identifying that comparative models of national culture alone can only provide limited insight into how different national cultures interact online Hewling (2005), suggests that a third hybrid culture emerges through the interaction brought about from intercultural communication as previously discussed. In highlighting the emergence of another culture from communication online, it must be suggested that any online culture would not exist in isolation, in regards to platform or bounds between the physical and virtual worlds. An example of such meshing is the attention celebrities bring to social networks (Heater 2009), or the adaption of language on one social networking platform to fit with another as is currently the case with micro blogging features and language being emphasised on the social network Facebook (Schonfeld 2009).

Indeed, with the increasing level of intercultural exposure social media allows, it could be suggested that models reliant on national culture need to coexist with a social constructivist approach to create a relevant approach for analysing communication online.

In this respect, Setlock et al’s (2004) statement “in a decision-making task, before collaborators negotiate a decision, they typically must reach a mutual understanding about the nature of the task and the options available to them. Research has shown that these tasks are demonstrably more efficient when people share greater amounts of common ground” (2004, p605) can be considered not just with relation to national culture, but with relation to the culture of the social media platform too because the culture of the online environment they are in serves as the common ground. In this respect, the hybrid culture is an important source of diffusion for potential miscommunication because it acts as a mediating, or bridging culture. For example, users of the micro blogging service Twitter don’t necessarily get angry about foreign behaviour as it’s accepted and widely promoted through users that it’s an international platform but tempers fray when Twitter etiquette (Lynch 2009), which is variously defined, informally negotiated and tacit amongst Twitter members is breached. Similarly, the need for establishment of such cultural norms can be seen in Morses’ work, where students suggested a word limit on forum contributions (2003).

Taking this concept further, the establishment of common boundaries and acceptable behaviours is recommended practice in using social media to create online courses according to Shea, who recommends the establishment of netiquette, and Salmon (2002), who advocates a stage of social interaction to develop mutual understanding which would reduce the severity of Morse’s assertion that high context participants did not get to know each other, something that was important to their learning (2003). The idea of a mediating culture addresses Hewling’s concern that the binary frameworks are lacking in an understanding of how collaboration occurs online (2005), and addresses the need to establish a link between national culture and online behaviour. In this regard, online culture is like any subculture, where skillful interpersonal communication is determined skilled communication that is situationally appropriate (Hargie 2006) with the added complexity of international cultures, but compensation of shared interest (DiMaggio 2001).

Conclusion

The ease of access to social media increases the possibility for intercultural communication, and as much of the literature in the area highlights, it also increases the possibility of miscommunication. Examining social media as a complex network of cultures built through communicative actions allows a different perspective than a comparison between national cultures in the online context. Seeing social media as a family of technologies that exist online, shaped by interaction, allows the conclusion that each tool has its own culture, and this culture, created by participants, can act as a buffer in cross-cultural communications, providing a common set of norms, values and behaviours that bridge national cultures. The global village as it is affectionately known, can be likened to just that, with different cultures all communicating, sometimes ineffectively, sometimes miscommunicating, but ultimately forming communities with likeminded individuals, where coexisting cultural norms are continually negotiated in the virtual world, just as they are in the physical world.

References

Faiola, A. Matei, S. A. 2006, Cultural Cognitive Style and Web Design: Beyond a Behavioural Inquir into Computer-Mediated Communication, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 11 pp. 375-394

Gevorgyan, G. and Manucharova, N. 2009 Does Culturally Adapted Online Communication Work? A Study of American and Chinese Internet Users’ Attitudes and Preferences Toward Culturally Customized Web Design Elements, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol 14, Iss. 2, pp393-413

Hall, E. 1976 Beyond culture Doubleday, New York

Heater, B. 2009 Oprah to Start Tweeting Today, World to End, AppScout Stalking the Killer App, April 17 2009
Available: http://www.appscout.com/2009/04/oprah_to_start_tweeting_today.php
Accessed: 27 May 2009

Hewling, A. 2005, Culture in the Online Class: Using Message Analysis to Look Beyond Nationality Based Frames of Reference, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol 11. Iss. 1
Available: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/hewling.html
Accessed: 23 May 2009

Hofstede, G. 1983, The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories, Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, pp75-90

Kaye, M. 1994, Communication Management, Prentice Hall, Sydney, p2-22

Kersten, G. E. Koszegr, S. T. Vetschera, R. The Effects of Culture in Computer-Mediated Negotiations, Working Paper OP2002-08 School of Business, Economics, and Computer Science, University of Vienna.

Leonardi, P. M. 2003, Problematizing “New Media”: Culturally Based Perceptions of Cell Phones, Computers, and Internet amount United States Latinos, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol. 20, Iss. 2, pp. 160-179

Lynch, G.C. 2009, Twitter Etiquette: Five Do’s and Don’ts, CIO Feature Article
Available: http://www.cio.com/article/480318/Twitter_Etiquette_Five_Dos_and_Don_ts_?page=1
Accessed: 27 May 2009

Mohan, T. McGregor, H, Saunders, S, Archee, R, 2004 Communication as Professionals, Thomson, Southbank, Victoria, Chapter 4, ‘Intercultural communication competence in business and the professions, pp. 77 – 105

Morse, K. Does One size Fit All? Exploring Asynchronous Learning in a Multicultural Environment, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp.37-55

O’Reilly, T. 2007, “What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software”, Communications and Strategies, Vol. 65, 1^st quarter 2007, pp.17-37

Salmon, G. 2002, e-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online, 2nd ed., RoutledgeFalmer, Oxon

Schonfeld, E. 2009, Facebook’s Response to Twitter, TechCrunch March 4, 2009
Available: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/04/facebooks-response-to-twitter/
Accessed: 27May 2009

Setlock, L. D. Fussell, S. R. Neuwirth, C. 2004 Taking It Out Of Context: Collaborative within and across Cultures in Face-to-Face Settings via Instant Messaging, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pp604-613

Shea, V. 1994 The Core Rules of Netiquette.
Available: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html
Accessed: 19 March 2009

Thorne, S. L. 2003, Artifacts and Cultures-of-Use in Intercultural Communication, Language Learning and technology, Vol. 7m Is. 2, pp 38-67

Universal McCann, Power to the people – Social Media Tracker Wave 3, March 2008
Available: www.universalmccann.com/Assets/wave_3_20080403093750.pdf
Accessed: 3 April 2009

Wood, J. T. 2002, Interpersonal communication; Everyday encounters, 3^rd edn, Wadsworth, Thompson Learning, Belmont, California, Chapter 4, “The world of words”, pp. 122-156