A significant diversity dimension that has received considerable attention and research is that of culture (Cox, 1993; Hofstede, 2004; Triandis, 1994). Much of the drive for this has come from the increasing types and degrees of diversity occurring within organizations in an increasingly globalized marketplace and the need to manage this process to achieve effective functioning of work groups (Maznevski, 1994).
Historically the definition of culture has been contentious, resulting in numerous definitions by researchers (Erez & Earley, 1993; Triandis, 1996). Shweder and LeVine (1984) and D’Andrade (1984) defined culture as a shared meaning system within a group of people. Hofstede (1980), on the other hand, described culture as a set of mental programs that control an individual’s responses in a given context. Still others (Triandis, 1972; 1995b) have viewed it as consisting of shared elements of subjective perception and behaviour where the subjective aspects of culture include the categories of social stimuli, associations, beliefs, attitudes, norms, and values, and roles of individuals who share a common language and live during the same historical time period in a shared geographical location. Triandis (1996) also identified subjective culture as being a function of the ecology (terrain, climate, flora and fauna, natural resources) linked to the maintenance system (subsistence and settlement patterns, social structures, means of production) within which it is situated.
Even though there are multiple definitions most agree that culture consists of shared elements “that provide the standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating, communicating, and acting among those who share a language, a historic period, and a geographic location (Triandis, 1996, p. 408). It’s important to note that most countries consist of hundreds of cultures and subcultures (Triandis, 1995b) and that culture is not synonymous with nations, although it is often discussed this way in the literature (Erez & Earley, 1993).
One of the most widely used and quoted studies on culture is the seminal work of Hofstede (1980; Hofstede, 2001), which studied cultural differences in a large multinational organization with data from more than 40 countries. He developed a five-dimensional model that took account of cultural variation in values. According to this research, the five dimensions on which culture vary are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and long-term versus short-term orientation.
Power distance describes the way in which members of the culture accept inequality of power, that is, the unequal sharing of power; uncertainty avoidance reflects the degree to which a culture emphasizes the importance of rules, norms, and standards for acceptable behaviour; individualism versus collectivism relates to the degree to which individuals are integrated into primary groups or in-groups (Triandis, 2001); masculinity versus femininity refers to the division of roles based on gender; and long-term versus short-term orientation highlights the predominant focus of people within the group, namely the future or the present (Hofstede, 2001, p. 29). Of these five dimensions most of the variance in the data was accounted for by the individualism and collectivism (I-C) dimension. Since the publication of the original work in 1980 a multitude of research and theory has the I-C dimension as a focus (Church, 2000; Triandis, 2004).
Triandis (1995b) defines individualism as “a social pattern that consists of loosely linked individuals who view themselves as independent of collectives; are primarily motivated by their own preferences, needs, rights, and the contracts they have established with others; give priority to personal goals over the goals of others; and emphasize rational analyses of the advantages and disadvantages to associating with others”. Collectivism on the other hand is “a social pattern consisting of closely linked individuals who see themselves as parts of one or more collectives (family, co-workers, tribe, nation); are primarily motivated by the norms of, and duties imposed by, those collectives; are willing to give priority to the goals of these collectives over their own personal goals; and emphasize their connectedness to members of these collectives” (p. 2). These differences can be summarised as:
- A sense of self as independent versus self that is connected to in-groups. Markus and Kitayama (1991) view this as independent versus the interdependent self-construal
- Personal goals have priority versus group goals have priority
- Social behaviour guided by attitudes, personal needs and rights versus social behaviour guided by norms, obligations, and duties (Church, 2000; Triandis, 1995b)
In addition to these general contrasts the following attributes tend to be reflective of the I-C dimension (see Table 4.1).
It is important to note that to this point the terms individualism and collectivism and the corresponding attributes refer to the cultural level where the unit of analysis is the culture (i.e., between culture analyses) and individualism is the opposite of collectivism (Hofstede, 1980). To make the distinction between the cultural and individual level of analysis (i.e., within-culture analyses), Triandis Leung, Villareal & Clack (1985) used the terms idiocentrism and allocentrism (I-A) that describe individual personality attributes (Triandis and Suh, 2002, p. 140).
Table \(\PageIndex{1}\): Attributes of individualist and collectivist cultures
| Attributes |
Individualist |
Collectivist |
| Self-perception |
individual |
group |
| Attributions |
internal causes |
external causes |
| Prediction of behaviour more accurate based on |
internal dispositions such as personality traits or attitudes |
social roles or norms |
| Identity & emotions |
ego-focused |
relationships & group membership; other focused |
| Motivation |
emphasize abilities |
emphasize effort |
| Cognition |
see themselves as stable and the environment as changeable |
see their environment as stable and themselves as changeable/ flexible |
| Attitudes |
self-reliance, hedonism, competition, emotional detachment from in-groups |
sociability, interdependence, family integrity |
| Norms |
curiosity, broadminded, creative, having an exciting and varied life |
family security, social order, respect for tradition, honouring parents and elders, security and politeness |
| Social behaviour |
personality more evident |
influenced by behaviour and thoughts of others; shifts depending on context |
| Attitudes towards privacy |
personal business is private |
personal business is also business of group |
| Communication |
- direct
- emphasizes content and clarity
- frequent use of “I”
|
- message is indirect and reliant on hints, eyes bodies, etc.
- emphasizes context and concern for feelings and face-saving
- frequent use of “we”
|
| Conflict resolution |
more direct |
obliging, avoiding, integrating, & compromising styles |
| Morality |
prefer attitudes and behaviour are consistent |
- contextual and focused on welfare of the collective
- linked to adherence of many rules
|
| Responsibility |
individual |
collective |
| Professional behaviour |
promotion based on personal attributes |
promotion on the basis of seniority & loyalty |
Idiocentrics emphasize self-reliance, competition, uniqueness, hedonism, and emotional distance from ingroups. Allocentrics emphasize interdependence, sociability, and family integrity; they take into account the needs and wishes of in-group members, feel close in their relationships to their in-group, and appear to others as responsive to their needs and concerns.
At the individual level of analysis idiocentrism and allocentrism are often orthogonal to each other meaning that individuals can and often do exhibit attributes of both. In addition idiocentrics and allocentrics are found in all cultures (Triandis & Suh, 2002). It’s also been found that idiocentrism tends to increase with affluence, leadership, education, international travel, and social mobility; is more likely if migration to another culture has occurred; and in cases of high exposure to Western mass media. Allocentrism is more likely if individuals are financially dependent; of low social class; have limited education; undertaken little travel, socialized in a traditionally religious environment; and acculturated in collectivist culture (Triandis & Trafimow, 2001, cited in Triandis, 2006). Additionally allocentrism and idiocentrism attributes are dependent on context (Triandis, 1995a). Triandis (2006) also notes that globalization is essentially compatible with individualism and idiocentrism. This has the effect of complicating the discussion about I-C cultures and in turn the discussion on diversity.
Ferdman (1995) also discussed the gap between group differences and individual uniqueness using the concept of cultural identity. He argued that “culture is by definition a concept used to describe a social collective” (p. 41) but that values, norms and behaviours ascribed to a particular culture are expressed by individuals who vary in their image of the group’s culture as reflected in individual-level constructions. In other words diversity does not just apply to differences between groups but also within-group differences and the “concept of cultural identity suggests that simply having some representatives of a particular group may not adequately reflect the full range of diversity” (p. 56). Cox (1993) argues that many individuals belong to multiple groups and that group identity develops when there is an affiliation with other people who share certain things in common. Indeed “various group identities play a part in how we define ourselves” (p. 43) and how we behave as individuals. The growing recognition that globalization is giving rise to more multicultural or complex hybrid identity development of young people is a case in point (Lam, 2006). This in turn “shifts our understanding of culture from stable identities, categorical memberships, and holistic traits to ways of acting and participating in diverse social groups and the heterogeneous sets of cultural knowledge, skills, and competence that are required in the process” (p. 217).
While some have warned against describing both cultural and individual characteristics using a broad dichotomy such as I-C (Church & Lonner, 1998) and that different selves are accessible in different contexts (Trafimow, Triandis & Goto, 1991), given the accumulated research in this area and continuing dominance the I-C dimension it seems an appropriate and valid dimension to consider when attempting to address issues of diversity in the online learning environment.
