Contexting Koreans: Does the High/Low Model Work?

Abstract

South Korea is assumed to be a high-context culture with extensive shared information and an emphasis on relationships in doing business. The following study reported here tests this assumption and illustrates similarities and differences between Korean and American writers in an attempt to document language differences between high-and lowcontext societies. Data in the texts studied did not confirm the high/low contextfeatures expected. South Korean texts showed more similarities to than differences from the American texts, and the language features found suggest a more complex context situation than the high/low context model may be able to accommodate.

Special Review Article: Beyond culture or beyond control? Reviewing the use of Hall’s high-/low-context concept

“…Only three of the 23 empirical studies (13.0%) employ a qualitative design. Two out of these three studies test Hall's framework (Djursaa, 1994;Thomas, 1998). A problematic issue that arises from an over-reliance on quantitative studies is that quantitative methods could be to be close towards the LC pole and might suggest an unintended methodological bias.…”

“…Only three of the 26 studies (11.5%) employ the idea of medium context in their analysis and refer to positions 'somewhat in the middle'. The International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 11(1) Adair, 2003;Taylor et al, 2000;Kitayama & Ishii, 2002;Rosenbloom & Larsen, 2003;Okazaki, 2004;Gudykunst et al, 1996 (-) Korea Miracle et al, 1992;Rosenbloom & Larsen, 2003;Thomas, 1998 Adair, 2003;Koeszegi et al, 2004;Rosenbloom & Larsen, 2003;Djursaa, 1994 Adair, 2003;Mintu-Wimsatt & Gassenheimer, 2000;Miracle et al, 1992;Taylor et al, 2000;Kitayama & Ishii, 2002;Koeszegi et al, 2004;Dozier et al, 1998;Rosenbloom & Larsen, 2003;Okazaki, 2004;Kapoor et al, 2003 (-); Thomas, 1998 (-); Knutson et al, 2003;Callow & Schiffman, 2002;Leets, 2003 (°); Kim et al, 1998;Biswas et al, 1992;Dsilva & Whyte, 1998;Gudykunst et al, 1996 (-) Bold country name = Country classified HC and LC by different studies; regular font = country classified either HC or LC; bold reference = study testing the classification, with (-) = no empirical support and (°) = only partial empircal support; regular font = study uses this country A Spain, in Dozier et al, 1998 was also considered MC.…”

Management Communication: History, Distinctiveness, and Core Content

“…• Systems theory (Suchan, 2006; • Network theory (Ibarra & Hunter, 2007;Cross & Parker, 2004) • Media selection (Lengel & Daft, 1968; • Cultural identity and cultural intelligence theory Earley & Ang, 2003;Nickerson, 1999;Hildebrandt, 1998;Thomas, 1998;Hildebrandt & Liu, 1991) • Interpersonal communication (Iacoboni, 2008;Stone, Patton, & Heen, 2000;Tannen, 1995), including listening , building credibility and trust (Thomas, Zolin, & Hartman, 2008), doing "empathy work" (Clark, Murfett, Rogers, & Ang, 2013), and conflict management Instrumental, day-to-day activities that managers need to master include informational management and persuasion. Managing information requires decisions about what information to share and retrieve, as well as ways to get information heard and understood despite information overload (Hemp, 2009;Reinsch, Turner, & Tinsley, 2008).…”

Cultural determinants of email communication styles

“…Three items were included to measure formalness. Many authors have interpreted this as saving face and politeness (Thomas, 1998), and in email communication it may manifest itself in the use of titles, first and last names, or honorifics (Bello et al, 2006;Hall and Hall, 1990).…”

“…It is also apparent that, although an array of literature dealing with culture exists, few studies have applied Hall's concepts to email communication (Leung et al, 2005). Moreover, most studies on electronic communication have been conducted with students in a university setting (Benabou, 1999;Guo et al, 2008;Holtbrügge and Kittler, 2007;Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999;Kapoor et al, 2003;Kim et al, 1998;Manrai and Manrai, 1995;Richardson and Smith, 2007;Thomas, 1998;). This limits the generalizability of the results for the business world.…”