Culture

'Culture' is a big and contested topic. I like the description of Held et al (1999) who say that “Culture refers to the social construction, articulation and reception of meaning. We are using culture in its fullest, if sometimes ambiguous sense; culture as a lived and creative experience for individuals as well as a body of artefacts, texts and objects; it embraces the specialized and professionalized discourses of the arts, the commodified output of the culture industries, the spontaneous and unorganised cultural expressions of everyday life, and, of course, the complex interactions between all of these” (pp. 328-329). The 'lived and creative experience for individuals' resonates with Pedersen's (1988) take on culture as being concerned with “within the person” (p. 3) experiences such as values, habits, customs, and lifestyles. This might be naively stated as 'culture is the way we do things here!' Let's face it, when you're a guest drinking yak milk in a yurt in Mongolia, viewing culture as 'the way we do things here' would probably seem to be a valid account of the lived phenonemon!

To think about culture in the classroom, let's use Hofstede's work as a heuristic device. Hofstede's work polarises most people ... you either love or hate him. I tend to look for the middle ground and think there's something useful we can glean from Hofstede's ruminations. Geert Hofstede is a psychologist and organisational anthropologist whose work on national cultural values has had wide exposure and is frequently employed in contemporary research in education, especially where intercultural or internationalisation themes are involved.

Hofstede’s work essentially maps out descriptive relativism, that is, the notion that social norms differ from one place to another. Hofstede’s work is a comprehensive account of particular characteristics of over 72 national cultures through the way they fit into a model that he produced from two rounds of questionnaires between 1967 and 1973 into attitudes of over 100,000 International Business Machines (IBM) employees. The resultant model originally contained four cultural dimensions. A fifth dimension was added in the 1980s. Hofstede (2001) said these dimensions reflect “basic problems” that are faced by every society, but for which solutions can differ (p. xix). For an introductory explanation of Hofstede's work plus the chance to compare different countries' index scores for the cultural dimensions, [|click here].

Hofstede's work on cultural dimensions suggests differences between Australian and, for example, Indian cultures:



For the purposes of this exercise, it's actually not important to understand the details of the cultural dimensions. The main thing to note is that the graph shows some differences. The most useful approach lecturers can take is to think how they might support individual students who exhibit 'low PDI' behaviour in the classroom adjust to the expectations of Australian academe (a high PDI context). Indeed, it matters not whether the student comes from India at all.

From Hofstede (2001, p. 107)
 * **Australia** **(Low PDI)** || **India** **(High PDI)** ||
 * Teachers treat students as equals || Students depend on teachers ||
 * Students treat teachers as equals || Students treat teachers with respect, even outside class ||
 * Student-centred education || Teacher-centred education ||
 * Students initiate some communication in class || Teachers initiate all communication in class ||
 * Teachers are experts who transfer impersonal truths || Teachers are gurus who transfer personal wisdom ||
 * Parents may side with students against teachers || Parents supposed to side with teachers to keep students in order ||
 * Quality of learning depends on two-way communication and excellence of students || Quality of learning depends on excellence of teachers ||
 * Lower educational levels maintain more authoritarian relations || Authoritarian values independent of education levels ||
 * Educational system focuses on middle levels || Educational system focuses on the top level ||
 * More Nobel Prizes in sciences per capita || Fewer Nobel Prizes per capita ||
 * More modest expectations on benefits of technology || High expectations on benefits of technology ||

From Hofstede (2001, p. 237)
 * **India** **(Low individualistic)** || **Australia** **(High individualistic)** ||
 * Teachers deal with pupils as a group || Teachers deal with individual pupils ||
 * Pupils’ individual initiatives discouraged || Pupils’ individual initiatives encouraged ||
 * Schoolchildren report ethnocentric, traditional views || Schoolchildren report “modern” views ||
 * Students associate according to preexisting [//sic//] in-group ties || Students associate according to tasks and current needs ||
 * Students expect preferential treatment by teachers from their in-group || In-group membership no reason to expect preferential treatment ||
 * Harmony, face and shaming in class || Students’ selves to be respected ||
 * Students will not speak up in class or large groups || Students expected to speak up in class or large groups ||
 * Students’ aggressive behaviour bad for academic performance || Students’ self-esteem good for academic performance ||
 * Purpose of education is learning how to do || Purpose of education is learning how to learn ||
 * Diplomas provide entry to higher-status groups || Diplomas increase economic worth and/or self-respect ||

Using Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions illustrates how different cultures might manifest themselves in the classroom and the implications this could have for students’ academic work and social interactions between lecturers and students. Although such cultural theory can be useful in some respects to help lecturers reflect on the idea of culture and help prepare them for working with international students, its limitations make it unwise for them to rely on it as their primary guiding principle in their teaching.

Out of interest here's Hofstede's cultural dimensions Australia and the United States;



To explore further the idea of strengths and limitations of using cultural theory in the classroom, refer to Sanderson (2007) (see references below.)

Culture-specific information concerns commonly-encountered behaviours that are part of daily life. Whilst this may be useful, such information should perhaps be used to assist in your reflections on interactions with people from other cultures, rather than following it to the letter. There are bound to be exceptions to every rule!
 * Culture-specific information**

Pedersen (1988) noted that culture-specific knowledge concerns a particular nationality, ethnicity, or cultural group (p. 5). Hofstede (2001) said culture-specific knowledge was beneficial, for example, for future expatriates and their families because it familiarised them with their new country in terms of “geography, some history, customs, hygiene, dos and don’ts, what to bring - in short, how to live” (p. 428). Brislin and Horvath (1997), too, called this sort of factual information “culture-specific” (p. 335) and said it was useful for international students, business people, diplomats, and others who crossed cultural boundaries. It includes information on climate, transportation, schooling, methods for reducing conflicts in interpersonal relations, male-female dating patterns, and superior-subordinate workplace relations. Some examples of culture-specific information for India are available from the links below. If you know of any others, please feel free to add them:

See the section on the following URL called 'Related Links on building an Online Community' []

eDiplomat []

A comprehensive website: []

Kwintessential Cross Cultural Solutions: []


 * References**

Brislin, R., & Horvath, A. (1997). Cross-cultural training and multicultural education. In J. Berry, M. Segall & C. Kagitçibasi (Eds.), //Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: social behaviour and applications// (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 327-369). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). //Global transformations: Politics, economics, culture//. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hofstede, G. (2001). //Cultural consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organisations across nations// (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pedersen, P. (1988). //A handbook for developing multicultural awareness//. Alexandria: American Association for Counseling and Development.

Sanderson, G. (2007, 27-30 Nov). [|The strengths and limitations of using essentialist cultural theory to understand international students]. A presentation at the 18th ISANA: International Education conference 'Student success in international education', Adelaide, 27-30 November, 2007. (Refereed paper). Note: If referencing this paper, use Sanderson, G (2007), The strengths and limitations of using essentialist cultural theory to understand international students, Conference Proceedings of the 18th ISANA International Education Conference, 27 - 30 November 2007, Stamford Grand, Glenelg, South Australia, Australia. paper 36, page xx.