Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 19
3
Cultural Differences and Nuances
“Quite often cross-cultural nuances and culture-centric
perspectives—grounded in one’s experience or merely assumed—
often cloud conversations between faculty researchers and research
administrators when they are negotiating the shared development of
meaningful international research agreements. In this session we will
hear from a number of experts on cross-cultural communications,
understanding, and collaborations.” (Workshop agenda)
3.1 THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON
RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS1
Dr. Riall Nolan, previously Associate Provost and Dean for Inter-
national Programs and currently Professor of Anthropology at Purdue
University, provided perspectives on how cultural differences can influ-
ence international research collaborations. Researchers are increasingly
focused on addressing important social, political or economic issues in
their research, and on application as well as discovery. This work is increas-
ingly cross-national and cross-cultural in nature, and a central challenge is
ensuring that people from different backgrounds work together effectively.
In this section and other sections summarizing presentations, views and opinions are
1
attributed to the presenter unless stated otherwise.
19
OCR for page 20
20 CORE ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION
Dr. Nolan predicted that in the near future the best universities will
be those that have established strong structural relationships with other top
universities around the world. Success or failure in these relationships will
be determined by how cultural differences are managed. Globalization does
not mean the end of difference, but that we now have to deal with difference
directly instead of at a distance.
Culture can be thought of as a management system; a shared under-
standing of how the world works. Culture has three components: (1) the
things we make (artifacts), (2) the things we do (behavior), and (3) what
we carry around in our heads (cultural knowledge). An individual may
belong to a number of “cultures,” for example institutional (e.g., Harvard,
Purdue), disciplinary (e.g., law, engineering), and national. Furthermore,
individuals may have a professional culture based on their main area of work
(e.g., “she’s a quant,” or “he’s a soybean guy”). Finally, there are the national
and international aspects of culture, including the emerging body of laws,
regulations, and customs that inform or constrain research activities. These
include export controls and intellectual property.
Dr. Nolan trains many engineers for international internships, and
finds that they return with a greater appreciation for how common sense
can be defined differently in different countries. Culture does matter to
what people see, how they interpret what they see, and what they do. One
problem is culture’s inflexibility and low tolerance for ambiguity in messag-
ing, which leads to miscommunication. For example, in one negotiation
between American and Chinese university deans, the American dean would
give responses such as “we’ll think about that,” or “we’ll look into that.” In
Chinese culture those sorts of phrases are almost always interpreted as “No.”
After the issue was explained to both deans, they quickly came to agreement.
Research collaborations can take many forms (Figure 3-1: Forms of
Collaboration, Riall Nolan). They range from lab-centered collaborations
between individuals with a defined scope and limited duration to long-
term, developmental partnerships between institutions that involve many
participants doing external applied work. As collaborations become larger
and more complex, they are more influenced by cultural rules, norms, and
expectations.
Dr. Nolan has drawn several lessons from his 20 years of experience in
helping several large research universities forge structural relationships. It is
always important that the institution itself understands both its own cul-
tural identity and the nature of the partnership that it is seeking. University
partnerships can take one of three basic forms: (1) Predominant capability,
OCR for page 21
21
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND NUANCES
Individuals Institutions
Lab-centered External applied
Short-term Long-term
Dyadic network Elaborated network
Project-based Partnership-based
FIGURE 3-1 Forms of collaboration.
SOURCE: Riall Nolan
Figure 3-1
where an institution is the strongest in a particular field, and partners with
the strongest counterpart in a given country, (2) Complementary partner-
ships, where the institution is strong in one area, perhaps less strong in
another, and the partner institution brings what is lacking, or (3) Technical
assistance, which is a helping relationship. Each type has different cultural
norms and expectations. There are also great differences between a project
(short-term), program (longer term), and a partnership. The partnership
is the most cross-cultural and it is also the hardest to develop and sustain.
Multiple intersecting and often internally contradictory cultures make
it difficult to create and sustain good partnerships. They render true col-
laborative work difficult even within a single institution, to say nothing of
collaborative work with institutions 10,000 miles away. In the end, collabo-
ration occurs between people and not between institutions.
It is important to understand how individuals operate in cultural
terms and how well they know how to operate across cultures. Faculty
development becomes very important in this context. A few of the cultural
factors that tend to shape success or failure include attitudes toward pro-
tocol, politeness, approaches to information sharing, how relationships of
trust and confidence are developed, and notions of what constitutes good
leadership. Some of this can be handled with interpreters and translators,
but not all.
According to Dr. Nolan, the good news is that research indicates that
many of the individual characteristics that favor cross-cultural aptitude are
found in most researchers. These include openness to others and to new
information, tolerance for ambiguity, flexibility, curiosity, the ability to ask
good questions, and the ability to quickly discern pattern.
OCR for page 22
22 CORE ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION
In today’s world, everybody knows something, and nobody knows
everything. Cross-cultural collaboration, when it works, is synergistic,
bringing into existence arrangements and understandings between partners
that no one partner is likely to be able to develop working on their own.
3.2 RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS IN A
GLOBAL ORGANIZATION
Christopher Williams, Washington Representative of the United
Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT, discussed in
Chapter 2 above), gave examples and perspective on cultural issues that can
arise when doing research in the developing world. UN-HABITAT, one of
the few UN agencies not based in Geneva or New York, is headquartered
in Nairobi, Kenya, with operations in over 87 countries.
The context for UN-HABITAT’s work is that the world is rapidly
becoming more urban. A majority of the world’s population now lives in
areas with 20,000 people or more, and the world is expected to be 75 per-
cent urban by 2035 to 2040. Sub-Saharan Africa and South and Southeast
Asia are urbanizing fastest. This represents a massive change. Unlike the
urbanization of Europe and North America that occurred in the 19th and
early 20th centuries, the current urbanizing trend is not being accompanied
by widely distributed economic growth.
Mr. Williams gave three examples of research undertaken by
UN-HABITAT that indicate what the agency is trying to accomplish
and that illustrate the issues. The three research activities were very dif-
ferent, but all were applied research within the context of informal
settlements and slum improvement. Each faced significant cross-cultural,
linguistic, and ideological challenges.
The first project was an evaluation of the UN-HABITAT Commu-
nity Development Program, which had been undertaken over ten years in
seven countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. The project assessed
the impacts of the program on living and working conditions in informal
settlements and slums. It involved development and measurement of a set
of indicators and the use of a survey of households to allow for comparison
across countries.
The second project was an examination of Slum and Shack Dwellers
International, a group that represents 12-14 million urban poor in 15 coun-
tries who are associated in savings groups. In particular, the research looked
at the methodology the group uses to stop violent forced evictions and create
OCR for page 23
23
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND NUANCES
policy alternatives for resettlement in South Africa, India, and the Philippines.
The research was turned over to Slum and Shack Dwellers International itself,
in order to document its own experience and develop case studies.
The third project was a situation analysis of 110 informal settlements
and slums in UN-HABITAT’s home city, Nairobi. This was done on a very
short timescale (four months), and was sensitive because Kenya’s President
Moi was a patron for the exercise. It was based on focus group analysis.
Urban social movements, the central government, international and local
NGOs, the donor community, and private industry all gave perspectives on
trends and what could be done to improve conditions.
Mr. Williams reviewed several important lessons generated by these
research projects, including: (1) the need for coordination among multiple
stakeholders; (2) the necessity of establishing agency (whose project is it?);
(3) how to address problems arising from the differing pay scales of interna-
tional and local researchers; (4) how to determine appropriate contracting
mechanisms (with institutions or individuals?); (5) a greater appreciation
for cultural nuances and ethnicity (need to hire beyond groups that might
be overrepresented in a given country’s university system); and (6) how to
address challenges that arise when the research agenda is politicized.
Finally, these projects raise the broader issue of how findings can ulti-
mately be acted upon. How do researchers and scientists hold themselves
accountable for addressing the implications of their work?
3.3 PERSPECTIVE OF A SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTION
Tembeka Mpako-Ntusi, Director of Research at the Cape Peninsula
University of Technology (CPUT) in Cape Town, South Africa, focused
her remarks on cross-cultural nuances and culture-centric perspectives in
international research collaborations, particularly how the personal experi-
ences of individual researchers influence research.
As collaborations move from those undertaken between investigators
to more complex partnerships at the departmental, school, and institutional
levels, layers of cultural nuance are added. In the case of South Africa, the
historical issues of race, past intimidation, and power imbalances play a
role. Researchers collaborating across racial barriers may be carrying baggage
from those experiences. Care needs to be taken to ensure that imbalances of
power based on history do not affect the research.
Gender can also unexpectedly raise issues. Dr. Mpako-Ntusi related her
experience in setting up a women-in-research program. At the outset, one of
OCR for page 24
24 CORE ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION
the senior female members of the faculty was reluctant to become involved,
expressing the belief that women should not get preferential treatment. This
faculty member later reconsidered her stance and become one of the most
active participants in the project.
Other barriers to international collaboration include “cultural noise”
(misunderstandings that can occur even when collaborators speak the same
language), material differences in working environments, and government
policies. Making sure that any formal ethical codes (national or institu-
tional) are compatible is also important.
Objectives and mechanisms to address problems encountered in the
collaboration need to be honestly stated in the beginning. Is the partner’s
primary motivation to attain a better status for collaborating within a
given country, or to obtain funding? Is the opportunity to work with
a particular researcher driving the collaboration? Recognizing the pos-
sible impacts of personal backgrounds and cultural orientations is also
important.
For Dr. Mpako-Ntusi, concluding a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) is a valuable first step. This is a document that is drawn between
two institutions, and the signatories are members of executive management.
When that process is over, the next stage is to conclude a memorandum of
agreement (MOA). This second document is between the actual individual
researchers from the different institutions who are going to be involved in
the research project. It is a contract about roles, intellectual property rights,
timeframes, other partners and the disposition of data. At Cape Peninsula
University of Technology, MOAs are processed by the Legal Office and
managed by the Research Office in order to protect the integrity of the
institution, as well as that of the country. The Research Office sees its role
as one of providing support in addition to ensuring compliance with insti-
tutional and national policies.
3.4 PERSPECTIVE OF A PUBLISHER
Elias Wondimu, Publisher and Editorial Director of Tsahai Pub-
lishers, is also associated with Marymount Institute Press and the African
Academic Press. He discussed the role of diaspora communities in fostering
international research collaboration, reflecting on his own personal and
professional experience. He is an exiled journalist from Ethiopia.
Looking at international statistics for global knowledge production,
Africa is underrepresented, and a large part of Africa’s scholarship comes
OCR for page 25
25
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND NUANCES
from South Africa. African scholars working in Africa as well as diaspora
scholars working in other parts of the world often experience difficulties in
publishing. What are the causes for this, and what can be done about it?
Dr. Wondimu previously worked for the journal Aztlán, an interdisci-
plinary journal of Chicano studies founded in 1970. Aztlán was launched
as a response to the difficulties that Mexican-American scholars were fac-
ing in getting published at that time. Over the decades since, many of the
young academics who had an opportunity to publish in Aztlán later became
department heads and leaders in their fields.
In founding the International Journal of Ethiopian Studies some years
ago, Dr. Wondimu was inspired by the Aztlán experience. The journal did
succeed in fostering a community of Ethiopian diaspora scholars, and con-
necting the younger and older generations. But Dr. Wondimu also realized
that the challenges facing Ethiopian scholars were also facing the broader
community of African scholars working both inside and outside of Africa.
This realization led him to launch the African Academic Press and Tsahai
Publishers to publish African scholarship within and outside of Africa.
These are now fulltime enterprises for him.
This work has to be done on a shoestring, but there are many signifi-
cant rewards. One major focus is on human resources, developing the next
generation of African publishing professionals. In addition, Dr. Wondimu
has seen his publishing ventures build bridges between African intellectuals
working within and outside Africa.
OCR for page 26
