Culture reflects how a particular group interprets meaning or makes sense of the world, which in turn reflects how they behave and use language to communicate. Cultural values, therefore, do not only constitute a particular group’s customs and traditions, values, beliefs, or music, literature, and art, but also its language use and communication styles and practices. Cultural differences are also present among people who live in the same community and speak the same language. For instance, your gender, religion, organization, or race dictates how you see yourself and how you interact with people. Culture affects how you perceive the world, how you behave, and how you communicate. To be able to function effectively in a multicultural society, one must have awareness of his or her own cultural identity, respect cultural differences, and develop sensitivity and flexibility in adjusting to various cultures.
Communication styles in different cultures are distinctive customs for conveying information. Each is influenced by a culture. The framework developed by the Dutch psychologist, Geert Hofstede, is one of several methods that can be used to describe culture-based differences between social groups, including those that impact communication. Based on this framework and other techniques, communication styles in different cultures include:
More power distance versus less power distance
This Hofstede dimension refers to whether people with relatively less power accept unequal power structures in their social group. While their acceptance of power-based inequalities indicates a culture with more power distance, their refusal to do so marks a culture with less power distance. The communication style used in the former type is likely to be an authoritarian, top-down style. In contrast, the latter culture is likely to prefer a democratic style that works toward a consensus.
Individual-focused versus group-focused
Two of Hofstede’s dimensions, masculinity versus femininity and individualism versus collectivism, can be grouped in the individual-focused versus group-focused dimension because they essentially explore the same things. Using this new grouping, the communication styles in different cultures can be separated based on whether they favor individual-focused goals such as assertiveness, heroism, material reward, and achievement or group-focused targets such as modesty, cooperation, quality of life, and caring for the weak.
More uncertainty avoidance versus less uncertainty avoidance
Hofstede separated cultures that are comfortable with uncertainty from those that are not so. In relation to communication styles, the former is likely to make employees responsible for their communication while the latter is likely to have the narrative in each stage of exchanging information under the control of the management.
Learn more: How to Negotiate Your Salary
Indulgence versus self-restraint
In this dimension, Hofstede differentiated cultures that are more likely to indulge their desires from those that are less likely to do so. During the process of communication, communicators from the former type are likely to be less dependable than people from the latter.
More context versus less context
This dimension of cultural difference relates to how a culture values context. In relation to communication, a communicator from a culture that values less context is likely to focus on the communication itself and develop materials to support it while another from a culture that prefers more context is likely to work on the communication’s surrounding circumstances, such as social relationships between stakeholders and their personal agendas.
Affective versus neutral
While affective cultures tend to share their emotions, neutral ones value controlling their feelings during interactions. While the former prefers informal, theatrical communication, the latter opts for a more formal process of information exchange.
Social resources-based versus skill-based
Cultures can also be differentiated based on whether they rely more on their social resources or skills. In the former type, which is prevalent in less developed societies, the exchange of information is regulated by social networks that are usually intolerant of criticism or dissension. Communicating with people from social resources-based cultures can be unproductive.
In contrast, cultures that are skill-based are usually found in developed societies. These social groups rely on experts with proven skills who consider opposing viewpoints and make informed decisions. This enhances communication.
Learn more: How to Improve Communication Skills for Workplace Success
It is my honor to be the inaugural section editor of Culture and Communication, a new section of Frontiers in Communication. I was uncertain about taking on this role when I was first approached by Frontiers. However, after discussing the opportunity with colleagues and family, and thinking about the potential for such a venture, I happily accepted this challenge and opportunity. Being the inaugural section editor of Culture and Communication, it was my responsibility to develop the scope for this section. In consultation with the Associate Editors, we developed the following Scope for the new section:
Culture and Communication aims to publish research that emphasizes the varied intersections of culture and human communication. The section is theoretically and methodologically interdisciplinary, welcoming social scientific, humanistic, critical/cultural, rhetorical, performative, and other approaches. Culture and Communication is an international platform that explores how “culture” in its myriad forms intersects with those of “human communication.” This section broadly defines culture to include the ideas, customs, social behavior, and norms of societies. Communication is broadly defined as the exchange of information. All areas of research that discuss the relationship between culture and communication are encouraged, including [but not limited to]:
• Intercultural communication
• Cross-cultural communication
• International communication
• Inter-ethnic communication
• Cultural studies
• Post-colonial studies
By including research on the intersection between culture and communication, this section seeks to promote interdisciplinarity and to enhance our understanding of global and glocal issues. Culture and Communication places culture at the center of research. The section is interested in furthering both our theoretical and methodological understandings of culture and communication.
I've been asked many times over the past few weeks as the Associate Editors and I prepare for the section launch, what makes a quality submission to Culture and Communication? There are six indicators of a strong submission, and one that the Associate Editors, myself, our reviewers, and our future readers will want to read: [1] Culture is at the center of the research, [2] the work advances our understanding of communication, [3] the work is theoretically and/or methodologically innovative, [4] the work has societal and/or practical significance, [5] the work is timely, and [6] the work follows open science practices.
As this section is Culture and Communication, it is critical that culture is at the center of all submissions. What does this mean? For a submission to fit this section the research, no matter what the theoretical or methodological approach must place culture at the center of the communication process. In this sense, researchers can approach culture from a more cultural sensitivity approach where culture is seen as the shared values, beliefs, and practices [Brislin and Yoshida, 1994; Croucher et al., 2015]. Or, researchers may approach culture from a culture-centered approach, where culture is articulated in the meanings co-constructed by the cultural participants, and these meanings are located within the local context of the culture. Culture includes a continuous component that flows through the history of the culture, and a dynamic component that continually shifts as the culture responds to statewide, national, and global shifts in politics, economic, and communication flow [Dutta, 2007, p. 311].
Either way, the key is to critically interrogate the role of culture in communication within all pieces submitted to Culture and Communication.
Research submitted to this section must advance our understanding of communication. While the Associate Editors and I recognize and appreciate the interdisciplinary nature of communication as a discipline, all works must further our understanding of communication, this is a given that cannot be under-estimated. Whenever I am reviewing a piece, I always ask myself what have I learned about communication from this manuscript. This question must be addressed, and readers should come away from reading all pieces with a better understanding of communication. In addition, we cannot learn from studies that do not use valid measurement. It has been the norm in communication for too long to focus on reliability, and for many to ignore validity [Croucher and Kelly, 2020]. Thus, validity is a key part of advancing our understanding of communication, and all pieces will rigorously be reviewed for validity.
This section is interested in pieces that are theoretically and/or methodologically innovative. Too often I hear stories of editors who are only interested in theory driven pieces. In fact, I can personally attest to how editors of top communication journals have desk rejected pieces for being methodologically innovative but not theory driven. As a discipline I would say we are still learning about methodology. Unfortunately, many editors have a tendency to pigeon-hole method pieces to method journals. This will not be the case in this section. We are very interested in methodological pieces. We are also interested in theoretically driven pieces. We recognize that the study of culture and communication can be approached from many different angles. Thus, we encourage theoretically and/or methodologically diverse pieces from all paradigmatic approaches.
This section strongly encourages all submitters to discuss the societal and/or practical implications of their research/findings. We live in a world that can no longer only publish for fellow academics. We should be publishing research that has societal and/or practical implications and translates into socially meaningful discussions, particularly regarding culture and communication. As I write this introduction, the world is in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the US is in the midst of the Black Lives Matter movement. We as researchers have a responsibility to not only produce sound theoretical and methodological research, but also research that makes a difference.
This section will also strive to publish timely research. One thing that has impressed me about Frontiers is its review to publication process. Most manuscripts are decided on within 3–4 weeks and if accepted the manuscript is up for anyone to read within 2 months of being submitted. Compare that to a “typical” non-open-access journal. By the time a manuscript finishes the review process and is accepted the timeframe can be 4–6 months, if you're lucky. However, only subscribers to the journals [individual or institutional] can read the work after those 6 or more months. Typically, many people around the world who do not have access to the journal cannot read your results for 18–24 months after the piece is submitted. How timely is the data then? I am proud to be working with an open-access publisher that facilitates open access to information, which allows all people to receive access to key findings in a timely manner.
The sixth and final indicator is that of respect for open science. While there have been extensive debates about open science in other social sciences, communication as a discipline has not engaged in these debates as extensively [Bowman and Keene, 2018]. In this section we encourage all submitters to make their data available when requested by others. Recognizing some data has privacy, sensitive material, and/or intellectual property concerns, we will work to follow ethical practices as set forth by the American Psychological Association, Frontiers, and author institutions. It is critical we foster an atmosphere of openness and access to information.
My primary goal as editor of Culture and Communication is to publish the best research on the varied intersections of culture and human communication. All methodologies, theoretical approaches, contexts, and philosophical approaches are welcome. Similar to the call from Afifi [2017], in her editorial statement, I want to publish research that matters. On behalf of the Associate Editors, we look forward to your submissions and are proud to inaugurate this section of Frontiers!
Author Contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
Bowman, N. D., and Keene, J. R. [2018]. A layered framework for considering open science practices. Commun. Res. Rep. 35, 363–372. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Brislin, R., and Yoshida, T., [eds.]. [1994]. Improving Intercultural Interactions: Modules for Cross-Cultural Training Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar
Croucher, S. M., and Kelly, S. [2020]. Why care about validity in communication? Annals Int. Commun. Assoc. doi: 10.1080/23808985.2020.1792788
CrossRef Full Text
Croucher, S. M., Sommier, M., and Rahmani, D. [2015]. Intercultural communication: where we've been, where we're going, issues we face. Commun. Res. Pract. 1, 71–87. doi: 10.1080/22041451.2015.1042422
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Dutta, M. J. [2007]. Communicating about culture and health: theorizing culture-centered and cultural sensitivity approaches. Commun. Theor. 17, 304–328. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00297.x
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar