Cultural richness versus cultural large scale insights: culture, globalization, and it workers

Michelle L. Kaarst-Brown, Indira R. Guzman
{"title":"Cultural richness versus cultural large scale insights: culture, globalization, and it workers","authors":"Michelle L. Kaarst-Brown, Indira R. Guzman","doi":"10.1145/2599990.2600002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The increasing globalization of business and of the Information Technology (IT) workforce has increased interest in cross-cultural issues associated with distributed software development, virtual teams, and cultural conflict or collaboration using information and communication technologies (ICT's) [6]. We continue to see a reliance on studies using quantitative methods that compare a limited number of cultural variables (such as Hofstede's 1984), often because of the challenges associated with richer interpretive or ethnographic studies. Ethnography is a traditional design approach when studying rich cultural issues, deeply rooted in anthropology and goals of rich, emic description, and understanding [1]. Unfortunately, in information systems (IS) research, there is a predominant emphasis on quantitative survey designs, sacrificing cultural richness for broader sampling of more limited variables. Our extended abstract proposes mixed method designs that incorporate both quantitative and qualitative methods as a viable, richer alternative to survey research of cultural studies. For purposes of our presentation at ACM SIGMIS-CPR, we are providing some preliminary arguments from our larger study where additional research is analyzed and compared. To illustrate our points, however, we briefly compare two IS cultural studies, one using comparative ethnography and one using a sequential, phased mixed method design. Our goal is not to discourage rich cultural ethnographies, but to provide a viable alternative approach that may enable more culture research in IS.","PeriodicalId":122788,"journal":{"name":"SIGSIM-CPR '14","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIGSIM-CPR '14","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2599990.2600002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The increasing globalization of business and of the Information Technology (IT) workforce has increased interest in cross-cultural issues associated with distributed software development, virtual teams, and cultural conflict or collaboration using information and communication technologies (ICT's) [6]. We continue to see a reliance on studies using quantitative methods that compare a limited number of cultural variables (such as Hofstede's 1984), often because of the challenges associated with richer interpretive or ethnographic studies. Ethnography is a traditional design approach when studying rich cultural issues, deeply rooted in anthropology and goals of rich, emic description, and understanding [1]. Unfortunately, in information systems (IS) research, there is a predominant emphasis on quantitative survey designs, sacrificing cultural richness for broader sampling of more limited variables. Our extended abstract proposes mixed method designs that incorporate both quantitative and qualitative methods as a viable, richer alternative to survey research of cultural studies. For purposes of our presentation at ACM SIGMIS-CPR, we are providing some preliminary arguments from our larger study where additional research is analyzed and compared. To illustrate our points, however, we briefly compare two IS cultural studies, one using comparative ethnography and one using a sequential, phased mixed method design. Our goal is not to discourage rich cultural ethnographies, but to provide a viable alternative approach that may enable more culture research in IS.
文化丰富性vs文化大规模洞察力:文化、全球化和it工作者
商业和信息技术(IT)劳动力的日益全球化增加了人们对与分布式软件开发、虚拟团队以及使用信息和通信技术(ICT)的文化冲突或协作相关的跨文化问题的兴趣[6]。我们继续看到对使用定量方法比较有限数量的文化变量的研究的依赖(如Hofstede的1984),通常是因为与更丰富的解释性或民族志研究相关的挑战。民族志(Ethnography)是研究丰富文化问题的一种传统设计方法,它深深植根于人类学,以丰富、专题描述和理解为目标[1]。不幸的是,在信息系统(IS)研究中,主要强调定量调查设计,牺牲文化丰富性以换取更有限变量的更广泛抽样。我们的扩展摘要提出了混合方法设计,将定量和定性方法结合起来,作为文化研究调查研究的可行、更丰富的替代方法。为了我们在ACM SIGMIS-CPR上的演讲,我们提供了一些来自我们更大的研究的初步论点,其中分析和比较了其他研究。然而,为了说明我们的观点,我们简要地比较了两项IS文化研究,一项使用比较民族志,另一项使用顺序、阶段混合方法设计。我们的目标不是阻止丰富的文化民族志,而是提供一种可行的替代方法,可能会使更多的文化研究在is。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信