Typologies are widely used in the field of intercultural communication to explain cultural differences. Especially the typology 'individualism versus collectivism' (I/C) is a central theoretical construct in cross-cultural comparison. But are such typologies really suited for explaining cultural phenomena? Is their explanatory power limited because the theoretical underpinnings are based on a Western mindset? And is using typologies as scientific models appropriate to explain intercultural incidents and uncover cultural patterns from a non-Western view as well? Do such typologies meet the demands of a modern view on the field of intercultural communication? This article casts a critical light on the appropriateness and applicability of typologies. The aim is twofold. The first part examines the limitations of typologies from an East Asian standpoint, bringing out the hidden cultural mindset on which this bipolar construct is built. The second part presents a model meant to contribute to a more profound debate between East Asian and Western views on intercultural communication.

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the mutual influence between culture and technology on a broad inter- and transcultural level. Especially, how does information culture shape the meaning of information, communication, and knowledge, and consequently, the design, spread, and usage of ICTs in certain societies? Vice versa, we are interested in the ways in which the spread and usage of ICTs affect the predominating culture. We aim for a model that incorporates cultural as well as technological factors in order to provide a basis for future ICT research that goes beyond both technological determinism and social constructivism. We believe that new technologies indeed can contribute to more justice in the world in terms of access to knowledge and wealth, if sociocultural factors are taken into account more seriously. Current developments in the context of the UN World Summit on the Information Society raise awareness in this direction. At the same time, we are well aware that the loose notion and imprecise definition of the concept of culture allows for the exploitation of the term in empty political and technoeconomical policies. Culture degenerates to an indispensable buzzword in the current ICT debate. This chapter is an attempt to introduce the concept of culture into the socioresponsible ICT research on equal terms with technology, economy, and society.

“Poor sleep health” (PSH), defined as reduced amount of sleep and non-restorative sleep, affects cognitive, social and emotional development. Evidence suggests an association of sleep deprivation and mental health problems; however, there are no universal concepts allowing a first-tier screening of PSH at a community level. The focus of this narrative review is to highlight the cultural context of the current medicalized approach to PSH and to suggest social ecological strategies informing new and holistic community-based screening concepts. We present two conceptual screening frameworks; a “medical” and a merged “social emotional wellbeing framework” and combine them utilizing the concept of “ecologies.” The first framework proposes the incorporation of “sleep” in the interpretation of “vigilance” and “inappropriate” labeled behaviors. In the first framework, we provide a logic model for screening the myriad of presentations and possible root causes of sleep disturbances as a tool to assess daytime behaviors in context with PSH. In the second framework, we provide evidence that informs screening for “social emotional wellbeing” in the context of predictive factors, perpetuating factors and predispositions through different cultural perspectives. The distinct goals of both frameworks are to overcome training-biased unidirectional thinking and a priori medicalization of challenging, disruptive and/or disobedient behaviors. The latter has been explicitly informed by the critical discourse on colonization and its consequences, spearheaded by First Nations. Our “transcultural, transdisciplinary and transdiagnostic screening framework” may serve as a starting point from which adaptations of medical models could be developed to suit the purposes of holistic screening, diagnosis, and treatment of complex childhood presentations in different cultural contexts.

No abstract

No abstract