SIETAR survey: Perceived contributions of the social sciences to intercultural communication

Harman, Robert C.; Briggs, Nancy

doi:10.1016/0147-1767(91)90071-n

Cited by 50 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The concept of high-/low-context communication was originally introduced in 1959 but elaborated in Beyond Culture (Hall, 1976). The latter is also considered to be the more influential contribution (Harman and Briggs, 1991). Hall (1976) argues that the human potential is strictly limited by an underdeveloped ability to get 'beyond culture' in order to achieve a more creative, expansive and responsive use of our capacities to think and communicate (verbally and non-verbally) and resolve problems (Tool, 1977).…”

Section: High-and Low-context Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kittler

Rygl

Mackinnon

2011

Int'l Jnl of Cross Cultural Management

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews Edward T. Hall’s influential concept of high-/low-context communication and its use in cross-cultural research. Hall’s concept suggests that individuals combine preprogrammed culture specific context and information to create meaning. The use of context is argued to vary across cultures and country classifications have been attached to Hall’s concept. These country rankings have evolved over time classifying (national) cultures as ‘high-context’ (HC) and ‘low-context’ (LC). Since future studies employing Hall’s context idea as an underlying framework in cross-cultural research need to rely on a valid and reliable country classification, our study analyses literature related to Hall’s HC/LC concept. Based on a systematic review, we particularly question whether the country classification attached to Hall’s concept is built on rigorous and substantiated findings. Our study shows that most previous research that utilized HC/LC country classifications is based on seemingly less-than-adequate evidence. Mixed and often contradictory findings reveal inconsistencies in the conventional country classifications and show that they are flawed or, at best, very limited.

show abstract

Section: High-and Low-context Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kittler

Rygl

Mackinnon

2011

Int'l Jnl of Cross Cultural Management

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hall, 1992). Figure 2, research in this tradition builds on social science research, most notably in psychology and sociology (see Harman & Briggs, 1991). The ultimate goal is sometimes to describe, but often to predict human behavior.…”

Section: Four Paradigmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking Dialectically About Culture and Communication

Martin

Nakayama²

1999

Commun Theory

227

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of contemporary research reveals distinct and competing approaches to the study of culture and communication. These approaches reflect various metatheoretical assumptions, research goals, and beliefs about the role of power and relevance in contemporary research. In order to legitimate the various approaches and facilitate interparadigmatic discussion, this essay first examines the metatheoretical assumptions of current research and then proposes a dialectical approach to scholarship. First, we identify and describe four distinct paradigms of culture and communication, based on Burrell and Morgan's (1 988) framework: functionalist, interpretive, critical humanist, and critical structuralist. For each paradigm, we identify metatheoretical assumptions, concomitant conceptualizations of culture, the relationship between culture and communication, and contemporary research exemplars. We then propose a dialectic approach that facilitates interparadigmatic dialogue and offers new ways to conceptualize and study intercultural communication. We offer six dialectics of intercultural communication practice that could guide future research.A survey of contemporary research reveals distinct and competing approaches to the study of culture and communication, including crosscultural, intercultural, and intracultural communication studies (Asante & Gudykunst, 1989; Y. Y. Kim, 1984).' Culture and communication studies also reflect important metatheoretical differences in epistemology, ontology, assumptions about human nature, methodology, and research goals as well as differing conceptualizations of culture and communication, and the relationship between culture and communication.In addition, questions about the role of power and research application often lead to value-laden debates about right and wrong ways to conduct research. Whereas these debates signal a maturation of the field, they can be needlessly divisive when scholars use one set of paradigmatic criteria to evaluate research based on different paradigmatic assumptions (Deetz, 1996). The purpose of this essay is to focus attention

show abstract

“…One such "break" with respect to intercultural communication encompasses the creation of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) and the role played there by anthropologist Edward T. Hall. Indeed, this era is often marked as the "beginning" of the field of intercultural communication (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990); its importance to the development and formation of intercultural communication as a field has been documented (e.g., Harman & Briggs, 1991;Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990). However, according to Leeds-Hurwitz (1990), Hall's work "was shaped by the specific context of the FSI" (p. 260).…”

Section: A Genealogy Of Intercultural Communicationmentioning

confidence: 95%