|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
This paper focuses on cross-cultural software production and use, which is increasingly common in today's more globalized world. A theoretical basis for analysis is developed, using concepts drawn from structuration theory. The theory is illustrated using two cross-cultural case studies. It is argued that structurational analysis provides a deeper examination of cross-cultural working and IS than is found in the current literature, which is dominated by Hofstede-type studies. In particular, the theoretical approach can be used to analyze cross-cultural conflict and contradiction, cultural heterogeneity, detailed work patterns, and the dynamic nature of culture. The paper contributes to the growing body of literature that emphasizes the essential role of cross-cultural understanding in contemporary society.
Keywords: Globalization, cross-cultural work, structuration theory, software development, technology transfer
ISRL Categories: A10114, A10703, BD0101, BD05, EL05, EL07, EL09
Introduction
There has been much debate over the last decade about the major social transformations taking place in the world such as the increasing interconnectedness of different societies, the compression of time and space, and an intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole (Robertson 1992). Such changes are often labeled with the term globalization, although the precise nature of this phenomenon is highly complex on closer examination. For example, Beck (2000) distinguishes between globality, the change in consciousness of the world as a single entity, and globalism, the ideology of neoliberalism which argues that the world market eliminates or supplants the importance of local political action.
Despite the complexity of the globalization phenomena, all commentators would agree that information and communication technologies (ICTs) are deeply implicated in the changes that are taking place through their ability to enable new modes of work, communication, and organization across time and space. For example, the influential work of Castells (1996, 1997, 1998) argues that we are in the "information age" where information generation, processing, and transformation are fundamental to societal functioning and societal change, and where ICTs enable the pervasive expansion of networking throughout the social structure.
However, does globalization, and the related spread of ICTs, imply that the world is becoming a homogeneous arena for global business and global attitudes, with differences between organizations and societies disappearing? There are many authors who take exception to this conclusion. For example, Robertson (1992) discussed the way in which imported themes are indigenized in particular societies with local culture constraining receptivity to some ideas rather than others, and adapting them in specific ways. He cited Japan as a good example of these glocalization processes. While accepting the idea of time-space compression facilitated by ICTs, Robertson argued that one of its main consequences is an exacerbation of collisions between global, societal, and communal attitudes. Similarly, Appadurai (1997), coming from a non-Western background, argued against the global homogenization thesis on the grounds that different societies will appropriate the "materials of modernity" differently depending on their specifi c geographies, histories, and languages. Walsham (2001) developed a related argument, with a specific focus on the role of ICTs, concluding that global diversity needs to be a key focus when developing and using such technologies.
If these latter arguments are broadly correct, then working with ICTs in and across different cultures should prove to be problematic, in that there will be different views of the relevance, applicability, and value of particular modes of working and use of ICTs which may produce conflict. For example, technology transfer from one society to another involves the importing of that technology into an "alien" cultural context where its value may not be similarly perceived to that in its original host culture. Similarly, cross-cultural communication through ICTs, or cross-cultural information systems (IS) development teams, are likely to confront issues of incongruence of values and attitudes.
The purpose of this paper is to examine a particular topic within the area of cross-cultural working and ICTs, namely that of software production and use; in particular, where the software is not developed in and for a specific cultural group. A primary goal is to develop a theoretical basis for analysis of this area. Key elements of this basis, which draws on structuration theory, are described in the next section of the paper. In order to illustrate the theoretical basis and its value in analyzing real situations, the subsequent sections draw on the field data from two published case studies of cross-cultural software development and application.
There is an extensive literature on cross-cultural working and IS, and the penultimate section of the paper reviews key elements of this literature, and shows how the analysis of this paper makes a new contribution. In particular, it will be argued that the structurational analysis enables a more sophisticated and detailed consideration of issues in cross-cultural software production under four specific headings: cross-cultural contradiction and conflict; cultural heterogeneity; detailed work patterns in different cultures; and the dynamic, emergent nature of culture. The final section of the paper will summarize some theoretical and practical implications.
Structuration Theory, Culture and IS
The theoretical basis for this paper draws on structuration theory (Giddens 1979, 1984). This theory has been highly influential in sociology and the social sciences generally since Giddens first developed the ideas some 20 years ago. In addition, the theory has received considerable attention in the IS field (for a good review, see Jones 1998). The focus here, however, will be on how structuration theory can offer a new way of looking at cross-cultural working and information systems. The rest of this section develops this analysis. A summary of key points is provided in Table 1.
Structuration theory is described by Giddens as an "ontology of social life" or, in other words, a description of the nature of human action and social organization. At the heart of the theory is the attempt to treat human action and social structure as a duality rather than a dualism. In other words, rather than seeing human action taking place within the context of the "outside" constraints of social structure (a dualism), action and structure are seen as two aspects of the same whole (a duality). This device is achieved in part by a careful redefinition of the meaning of structure. Giddens defines structure as:
Rules and resources, recursively implicated in the reproduction of social systems. Structure exists only as memory traces, the organic basis of human knowledgeability, and as instantiated in action (1984, p. 377).
The crucial point here is that structure, defined in this way, is seen as rules of behavior and the ability to deploy resources, which exist in the human mind itself, rather than as outside constraints. (This distinction is often misunderstood in the IS literature which draws on structuration theory; see Jones 1998.) The actions, therefore, of an individual human being draw on these rules and resources and, in so doing, produce or reproduce structure in the mind. So, for example, a manager who reprimands an employee for arriving late at the workplace is drawing on the concept of the start time of an employee, the rule that the employee should arrive before or at this time, and the perceived ability for the manager to deploy the human resource represented by the employee, and thus to reprimand the employee for being late. In carrying out this action, the manager and the employee have the structure of these rules and resources reinforced in their minds as standards of appropriate behavior.
In order to develop a more detailed analysis of the duality of structure, as defined above, Giddens introduced three dimensions concerned with systems of meaning, forms of power relations, and sets of norms. Human action and structure in the mind are composed, according to structuration theory, of elements of each of these dimensions but, as the example of the manager and the employee above demonstrated, the dimensions are inextricably interlinked. So the power to reprimand is linked to the concept of starting time and the norm of what it means to be late. This may seem obvious, but norms of behavior such as this vary widely between cultures. In our analysis later in the paper, it will be seen that it is precisely some of these differences "in the mind" as to what is appropriate behavior that can cause conflict in cross-cultural working.
Culture, at its most basic level, can be conceptualized as shared symbols, norms, and values in a social collectivity such as a country. In Giddens' terms, systems of meaning, forms of power relations, and norms of behavior have a more widespread currency than merely within the mind of one person. Giddens defines these as structural properties, namely "structured features of social systems stretching across time and space." He comments that social systems should be regarded as widely variable in the degree of systemness that they display, and he says that they rarely have the sort of internal unity which may be found in physical or biological systems. In other words, related to the focus of this paper, national cultures are composed of many different people, each with a complex structure in their mind, none of which can be thought of as fully shared. For example, there will be all sorts of nuance as to how individuals view lateness, even within the same cultural context. Nevertheless, it will be argued in thi s paper that the structural properties of cultures often display enough system-ness for us to speak about shared symbols, norms, and values, while recognizing that there will remain considerable intra-cultural variety. There have been a number of attempts to incorporate information systems within the theoretical framework of structuration theory (e.g., DeSanctis and Poole 1994; Orlikowski 1992). Giddens himself makes little direct reference to information technology in his development of the theory, so that the IS researcher is left to his or her own devices. This paper draws on the conceptualization in Walsham (1993, p. 64), where he argues that:
A theoretical view of computer-based information systems in contemporary organizations which arises from structuration theory is that they embody interpretative schemes, provide coordination and control facilities, and encapsulate norms. They are thus deeply implicated in the modalities that link social action and structure, and are drawn on in interaction, thus reinforcing or changing social structures.
In other words, IS are drawn on to provide meaning, to exercise power, and to legitimize actions. They are thus deeply involved in the duality of structure.
There is one further element in structuration theory, which has not been widely referred to in the literature, and certainly not in the IS literature, that is of considerable theoretical value in the study of cross-cultural working. This is Giddens' discussion of conflict and structural contradiction. He defines and discusses these concepts as follows:
By conflict I mean actual struggle between actors or groups...whereas contradiction is a structural concept.... Conflict and contradiction tend to coincide because contradiction expresses the main "fault lines" in the structural contradiction of societal systems (1984, p. 198).
Conflict is thus real activity, while contradiction can be thought of as the potential basis for conflict, arising from structural contradictions within and between social groupings. Giddens elaborates on this:
contradictions tend to involve divisions of interest between different groupings or categories of people....Contradictions express divergent modes of life and distributions of life chances...If contradiction does not inevitably breed conflict, it is because the conditions not only under which actors are aware of their interests but are able and motivated to act on them are widely variable (1984, pp 198-199).
This theorizing has immediate application to cross-cultural working and IS. Contradictions include "divergent modes of life," which can be taken to include cultural differences. They may result in conflict if actors feel that the differences affect them negatively, and they are...
|
