Introduction Feedback

        I've been trying to narrow down what my paper will concern and I think one of the best ways to do this is to layout a nice introduction in the work you are going to do in the paper to follow. So, in that respect I am posting my introduction to get some feedback on if it clearly exposes the problem that I'm wrestling with at the current moment.

In recent scholarship and organizational communication, technical communicators and businesses come across issues that deal with the idea of glocalization. Glocalization is the adaptation of a product or service specifically to each locality or culture in which it is sold. However, glocalization purely as a marketing concept is outdated in the realm of technical and organizational communication. In order to expand the concept of glocalization in technical communication scholars have to consider cultural difference and ethics when designing brands and visuals glocally. Using Hofstede's cultural dimensions and Appadurai's flexible scapes to define culture, the ethics of visual design and pedagogy, and a case study of glocal branding, the intercultural and glocal can be brought together to produce a more culturally sensitive technical communication scholar and professional. 

QEP Thoughts and GC

I was going through the QEP briefly tonight and I noticed a chapter that stood out to me the most out of the (seemingly exhaustive) QEP.  Specifically, it was Chapter 3 in the QEP concerning student outcomes and a plan for implementation of the new QEP throughout the university. It is specifically concerned with upping some of the requirements for undergraduates to become globally and locally competent as it seems the incoming freshman are not necessarily up to par when it comes to diversity, culture, and multicultural interactions.

The concept or proposal that struck me the most is exactly what the QEP plans to do to achieve competency throughout the undergrad population. The big step is to require that students of all disciplines take 3 credit hours of multicultural coursework and 6 hours of writing intensive coursework. The writing intensive part of this proposal seems like a great idea as many engineers and STEM disciplines seem to want to downplay the amount of work and thought that goes in to a competently written document. Additionally, it would seem that the line of thought is that in order to be able to write across cultures and on the global level then a student should have a strong core in writing on the basic level of their own native language. However, the multicultural requirement troubles me for one reason: it doesn't really seem all that multicultural.

For instance, the specific language regarding this course says, "TTU students must complete a three-hour designated Multicultural Course that focuses on U.S. subcultures or the cultures of other societies. Students can fulfill the Multicultural Course requirement by selecting a course from 53 options that span the undergraduate curriculum from 'Introduction to Agricultural Education' to 'World Dance Forms' to 'Cultural Aspects of Food' to 'World of Egypt and the Near East.' They can also fulfill the requirement by completing an approved Study Abroad Program, with assessments by the TTU Study Abroad Office." (QEP, 2015). The focus on U.S. subcultures seems a bit out of place. What does that mean exactly? Not to pull down the QEP or those who designed it, but what makes U.S. subcultures part of being multicultural exactly? If we think about how Appadurai talks about villages and neighborhoods being constructed I could see some link there. There are many smaller pockets of tradition and culture from around the world in the U.S., but the "melting pot" concept is more like a "bowl of salad" where we are all kind of tossed together, but don't necessarily meld completely.

Also, we've talked briefly in class about how other cultures fund their students and faculty to go to other countries to work and study to truly develop competence in their workers and scholars. Here it says a student can fulfill that requirement by studying abroad, but there isn't any funding to give students so that they can actually afford the ridiculous cost to do that. I admire the development of the Global Communication center and appointing fellows every year who get to be involved in courses, but again, things like Intro to Sociology and Art Appreciation are valued higher over classes based in English it seems. I wonder if teaching in the FYC program (which every student has to take or get credit for) would qualify us to become fellows in a global communication context. I would say so, especially if it affords the opportunity to make connections and gather training to help mediate the fact that many of our FYC classes are heavily saturated with students from different cultures.

Overall, the state of Global Communication, to me, is that we are trying. It's not an easy task by any means. The fact that TTU has the foresight in the next 5 years or so to see that being able to produce workers with intercultural competence is important is a great stride. I haven't read the QEP 100%, so I can only comment on that one chapter, but overall I would like to study it further to see how it was constructed from a rhetorical standpoint.

As a side note: At the end of Chapter 3 is just a singular picture of a black student with no title or caption or anything. Kind of just....there. Is that what "multicultural" is to TTU? Is it representative?

Introduction and Thesis

This is the introduction and thesis from my paper. This is the unrevised version. I plan to reshape it to fit more closely with some of the readings in our class.

In recent scholarship and organizational communication, technical communicators and businesses come across issues that deal with the idea of glocalization. Glocalization is the adaptation of a product or service specifically to each locality or culture in which it is sold. The main issue I want to trace back through five rhetors is how visualization and images might mediate the cultural tensions that arise when a company or service tries to localize itself within a culture that is opposite of its own. By tracing issues of what defines a culture, globalization vs. localization, and how images and visualization play a part in defining how humans perceive the world. I want to try and show that visuals can potentially bridge the gaps in communication in cases of glocalization and different ways in which technical communicators and companies can approach ideas of localization.

It needs some cleaning up and reshaping, but I think it can work in the context of this course.

ICC and ELS

        The visits with ICC and ELS this week were extremely helpful and useful. Honestly, the service learning of this course has been a great way to see spaces where the readings and theories can be applied. Additionally, it is easy to see where some theories seem to fall short in comparison with others. For instance, Hofestde's dimensions are extremely useful in identifying broad differences and similarities between our cultures. However, they fall short in situations that complicate the flexibility and fluidity of personal and national identity. This is where Appadurai's flexible scapes are applicable. The two theories fill the gaps in each other's work and make a more well rounded approach to culture.
        At ICC, it was interesting to sit around the table and talk about ways we might put on a panel for international students. As far as I could tell, the Chinese professors had a little bit of input on the panel, but we dominated the conversations. I think their advice would be valuable. Also, it would have been really nice to have more international students involved. I liked the building itself and Kelley was really relativist in her approach to the panel itself. The way we are approaching the International Week I think is really a great idea and I'm glad we got to visit and develop a plan to talk about culture at the university.
        As for my visit to ELS, it was really eyeopening. One of the things I noticed was that there was a divide in the classroom. Apparently, there were "groups" that were separated almost right down the middle of the room according to nationalities. However, when the activities began I noticed a huge amount of collaboration being implemented between the groups. It seemed to be of the students own will and it was really a great thing to see! They were joking with each other and the teacher, but were still intent and excited about learning. The class we observed was classified as "advanced" so they were reading entire magazines and identifying concepts that might be complex like cause and effect. Things that seem common to insiders in the culture were being exposed in ways that I hadn't really thought of before. The prevalence of mobile devices in the room was large. There were a lot of students using their devices to look up certain things or just generally texting. There's always some sort of globalizing technology that seems to permeate culture. I think looking at ways to incorporate this technology in our own classrooms will help a bit with our culture's resistance to outside cultures and values.

Hofstede

        The ways in which Hofstede describes the "software" of the mind is an interesting concept to me that seems to make sense. I'm not sure if this is because I am oriented towards the implementation of technology in our society. However, the ways in which Hofstede explains that as children we are raised in certain contexts with certain people around us which we have no control over is definitely an idea that I ascribe to. In this way, we are all inscribed/programmed in such a way that there are certain values that we cannot rewrite completely (the onion model). However, as I said in class I like that Hofstede differentiates humans from the idea of the computer by saying even though we are programmed in certain ways that in other ways we are flexible (practice, ritual, language). I'm drawing a link here between the "Onion" model and the metaphor for the software of the mind because I think by using these two concepts we can observe a culture more perceptively and move in to the more ethnorelative realm that Bennett describes.
        As far as my reflective essay, I'm editing a chapter on how using the cloud composing software Google Drive is tied to globalization but is still firmly rooted in a localized practical use. Hofstede comments on the internet molding our world in to one "global village" and I disagree. The ways in which people use the internet and communication technologies are still localized. Composing in a digital age makes it much easier for people from two separate parts of the world to communicate, but the ways in which culture work, according to Hofstede's models, seem to make it impossible for us to all reside in the same "village" culturally. Although, I think that the embracing of these differences is very important. While we may not be able to resolve difference (nor should we) it is in the areas where cultures clash that seem to yield the most enlightening experiences and knowledge. I think my reflective essay will center around how the argument is made in my chapter concerning technologies that allow us cross communication and composing, but are still localized due to the nature of the way that culture is constructed. The values that are held individually aside from culture will always be present and separate and conjoin us. I wonder though, if software like Google Drive is a step towards helping people realize and negotiate cultures more readily than in the past.

Townhall Experiences

       So, this week we all went and did a townhall-esque meeting with the ELS students and took some of their questions. In general, I was very surprised at the types of questions and comments we received. The students at ELS are engaging with texts and "American" culture in such deep ways that many of us (at least from my own small view of the world) do not consider when thinking about our own culture. Many times throughout the talk I was faced with the question of what it was about our culture that made us different and to be confronted with something like that is eye opening as well as really humbling. For instance, when Abed was asking how we come to the decision to just move away from our parents and set out on our own life and career path. He couldn't fathom that line of thought from his perspective. The collectivism instilled in his culture is so vastly separate and different than our individualistic culture that my "software" is programmed on a different plane of existence almost.
        This also brings me to trying to delineate where our cultural identity and culture actually split. The ways in which I saw myself separating my own personal cultural identity from what it means to be "American" were eye opening. I don't really know what it is to be totally "American" from the perspective of the outside world or other cultures and this townhall has pushed me to the limits and boundaries of what it means to be American. Also, there was the question of what the "American dream" really means. It used to mean something static like the nuclear family. A house, a car, two kids. As society changed and as the context of our culture changed with things like glocalization and world trade our idea of what the dream is has changed drastically. Also, I think it is tied intensely to things like class, race and gender. On top of that even, we have an individual idea of what it means to "have made it" in the United States. This identity/culture split isn't as dichotomous as Hofstede might say, but at the same time there are some rhetorical boundaries that separate the two. Although our software is affected by the context and culture that surrounds us, we still hold deep values that are instilled in us from when we can't remember as children as Hofstede points out.
        I'd like to end with a question or two that has been rattling around in my brain since we left the meeting. I wonder how the Q&A session would've gone had the students not been told to prepare questions that were connected to their own readings. We had a lot of questions for them that were concerned with the societal and cultural ways in which a foreigner might have to use to navigate what is most undoubtedly unfamiliar to them just as their culture is unfamiliar to us. I'm also concerned with the power structure that happened in the townhall. Dr. Graves was kind of a panoptic sort of presence that kept the students "in line" so to speak and I felt at times she might have guided them in their questions and possibly suppressed some ideas or questions we might have gotten. Maybe I was the only one who felt that? Finally, I wonder why Rich and I were targeted specifically for the question covering divorce rate in the US. Are men the deciders of that kind of situation in that particular student's culture? Arranged marriages are a huge deal around the world. That difference where women and men choose who to marry must be a large change. Did anyone else want to know whether or not any of them would stay in the US? In Lubbock even? There were so many question I had that were not answered in that kind of format. If it were possible to split them from a power source such as a teacher, I wonder if we'd get more candid responses....

Hofstede survey

        I'm having a bit of a hard time with the question this week. In general, sometimes I feel like when I talk about cultural difference and similarity I'm coming off as ethnocentric and I really don't try. There are a lot of different criteria we've covered in the classroom so far about what makes a person "intercultural", but as I've never been outside of the US I feel like I'm at a loss to some extent going in to the service learning of this course. I know that actually becoming part of this service learning will enlighten me and help me move more in to the ethnorelative side of the equation and I wanted to preface my post with this sort of side thought to help frame what I say in a way that doesn't sound too harsh one way or the other. Anyway, let me get down to how I think we can use Hofstede's dimensions of national culture to shape a set of questions for a survey.

        I think one of the hugest dimensions that Hofstede uses is the dimension of individualism/collectivism. The US being a highly individualistic culture is one of the hurdles I think, especially from the organizational perspective, that we will encounter when doing our work. The directness of our culture, even in university, is a question in and of itself. What do the students think the expectation of their work will be? Do they envision a more group oriented work environment or do they expect to be tossed in the deep end, so to speak? Our culture centers around self motivation and self sufficiency to the point of fanaticism in some instances. The ideal of "American exceptionalism" is a real thing to consider when discussing the differences and similarities of burden of work between cultures. Another dimension that is tied in to the idea of collectivism and individualism (I mean, there's a reason Hofstede picked all of these right?) is the power distance dimension. The different power distances between cultures is huge. For instance, the way in which we perceive men and women's roles in relationships. Rich has said in class we will see a lot of men interrupting women and other people in general because in certain cultures the power lies mostly with the men of the realm. My biggest survey type question that will come from this dimension in relation to the students actually entering in to the American university system is: What do you feel the relationship between the student and teacher will be when you enter TTU? Will it be similar to the way their culture gives lessons? What is different? Will it be an issue if the instructor is a woman? These are all questions that relate to Hofstedes idea of power distance just on a micro level of the classroom. I must admit, I'm completely blind going in to this sort of situation. I think some of Appadurai's scapes about the economic and political sphere that these students come from will help me in developing some type of heuristic to start from, but the questions I've asked above seem most clear to me in relation to Hofstede. As we can see here a lot of the dimensions cross over in to one another as the male/female roles also refer to the masculine/feminine traits in a culture.

We might also think about the uncertainty factor in things like using and adopting the idea of the "hybrid" course. We didn't really talk about it in class the other day, but our Composition program relies on the burgeoning principle of hybridity between the classroom and the virtual world aka the internet. How common is this concept to students from different cultures? More specifically, are the students prepared to learn and adopt the technology and mindset that goes along with this concept? I think that the ELS students are learning English to proficiency will play a large part in this because I'm not actually sure how much accommodation we have for students in translation etc. But this idea of only seeing a class once a week and then giving them the bulk of the work on their own time seems foreign even to some students who go to school in America first. Also, how will they address the instructor through email? Will they be comfortable with the one on one office hours? How these dimension cross each other is something that is interesting and I'll be paying special attention to in the coming weeks.

Glocalization

        With my previous work thus far combined with what we've learned so far has given me some different ways to approach the idea of cultural competence in relation to ELS. The best lens, or at least my personal preference, is Appadurai's ideas of scapes. The idea of different scapes interacting and moving dynamically and fluidly is an idea and lens that makes sense to me and has multiple applications across cultures and across cultural boundaries.
        When I think about how the idea of glocalization works, which is essentially disseminating information and knowledge across the boundaries of local and global to create a specialized product, idea, or service for a locality I think of how we might actually apply an idea of that magnitude. Here is where I think Appadurai's framework excels. It is fluid enough to be flexible and allow for Bennett's idea of ethnorelativism to flourish, but also has the concreteness of a heuristic to allow for application across many cultures and ideas. If we, as intercultural communicators, can examine the different fluid scapes that make up a locality we can really start to triangulate what that culture might consist of. Now, I'm not saying that we can exactly say what a culture is and isn't. Rather, if we were tasked, as Rich asked in class, to deal with multiple nationalities and cultures within an organization it would be useful to use these scapes to help us be adaptable and accepting of different cultures and perspectives.
        I think heuristics are a solid place to start as they give us a broad approach to a specific cultural problem or more eloquently a barrier. In order to really delve in to the conflicts and the differences/similarities that arise between cultures we need Appadurai's flexible scapes to navigate and trace the ideas and traditions that pop up in cultures (including our own). In interacting with the ELS students I think the roundtable interview that we are having at ELS is really a great way to move through the different scapes since we can use them to model our questions a bit. By examining the scapes of the students through the course of a Q&A or an interview we can examine where our cultures differ and come together more clearly and from that develop methods for teaching and interacting with ELS students without trying to dominate their ideologies and own culture.

ELS Assumptions

        Some of the assumptions about values and ethics that I can only figure the ELS students might hold comes down to the demographic we might come in to contact with. In my limited experience I was able to edit a manuscript for a Chinese graduate student and it was enlightening about the different types of epistemology and ethics attached to the Chinese way of producing scholarly work. The student's manuscript did not have any plagiarism in it, but it was laced with ideas and ideologies that were easily identifiable. When I brought this up to the student he commented on how in China it is okay to take another person's work without attribution and it was seen as sort of an honor to do so. If someone's idea was good enough to be used elsewhere then they should be proud.
        This reminds me of Hofstede's models for the different types of culture and the ideologies that are associated with each. In our society it is highly individualistic whereas Chinese culture is extremely collectivist. This difference in mindset I think it directly connected to how plagiarism is treated. Bringing this back to the ELS students, if they are from a society that promotes collectivism there is a hurdle to be had in teaching how writing and attribution to others will be handled. I can't simply say, "Don't plagiarize." because the difference in the culture creates a bit of a block that I have to elaborate on and make clear to them. I have to go over how not citing another person's work within their own work will result in some serious penalties. Additionally, I imagine there will be some mystery surrounding how the environment of TTU works.
         We talked a little bit about a hidden culture in the university system here that isn't explicitly stated. I imagine it's worse for the ELS students because they don't get the opportunities a lot of the time to stay on campus for extended periods and interact with students who are actually attending university. The hidden culture is doubly hidden from them so having them come to campus and expose to them the inner workings of some of the vital systems, such as the library, that move information around the campus seems to be a good way to demystify the university environment for them.
        Finally, having them come and sit in on a class might reveal some differences, but more importantly, some similarities between the teaching and university cultures. Making theses differences and similarities more explicit allows us to breach common ground with other cultures and to adapt and remodel our own teaching style to accommodate those students who are from different areas. My final question pertains to TTU. In my courses, we have a population of students that have English as a second language, but we do not cater to them in any way. There is no way to tell how many we have or where they are from. Why don't we have training and programs in place to help our instructors to cope with the shock that comes with teaching in a multicultural classroom? Students fail not because they don't know the material, but they don't know the culture and standards that are set. Adapting to the different needs of different cultures and realizing ways in which to reach out and accommodate as well as to educate seem to be at the center of my thoughts on this subject.

Grammar of Context Thoughts

        In class this week we discussed what the differences between high and low context cultures are. One of the things that is very interesting about the differences comes in the forms of humor and history. For example, the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks in France were over a perceived slight to the Muslim faith in the humor magazine's front page spreads that take Muhammad and put him in various states of nudity and make him say things like, "100 lashes if you don't die laughing". These slights to the Muslim faith were seen as satirical and humorous to the group that published Charlie Hebdo weekly and were taken as such by those who read it. However, the differences in culture and religion that exist between people caused the attackers to kill many people over the perceived offense to their religion and subsequently, their culture.
        I had never really considered the idea of humor to be a part of the culture at large. This attack and our discussion has lead me to realize that the different types of humor that exist in the microcosms that exist even in the United States are just as complex and large as the macrocosms of the world. Edward Hall exposes this idea of studying the smaller, microcosms that exist as opposed to trying to connect these larger, unrelated communities to one another. Culture exists on the most basic form of human interaction, which is communication. In doing this type of closer look, I began to realize that by making the smaller connections between communities we can trace the links to the culture-at-large and make inferences and deductions about how that culture operates and works.
        In terms of high context and low context, I'd like to draw a link to the macrocosm/microcosm dichotomy that seems to emerge with yet another contextual example. In the United States as a whole our culture is seen as "American" and that we all operate within the same type of culture. However, on the micro level the United States is split between high context and low context cultures. The Southern United States is classified as a high context culture moreso than the Northern United States. Why is that? I'm not 100% sure, but having grown up in Mississippi I can only figure that there is a completely separate history between the two halves of the US. The South is steeped in history, hospitality, and stories. A lot of the references and identities that make up the South are entrenched in the mystical and sometimes mythical history of the South after the Civil War and during Reconstruction. In this way, a lot of the references and communication we make have a higher contextual meaning because there are such deep ties to the past. Where does all of this context come from? In Mississippi, we are taught the South's history (although many times it is slanted, because rhetoric). We are taught about Reconstruction, the evils of slavery, the way that the opulent South operated before the Civil War. Many times, even when mentioning the Reconstruction to Texans, I found that they were never taught it. They learned about another history completely. These are just some ramblings and ideas I have as to why the South may be higher context than the North. The South is always "othered" in relation to the country as a whole and just shows that the macro/microcosm are two separate categories, one not existing without the other.

In regards to ELS, I think that the grammar of context is going to be a huge hurdle for me to overcome. I'm a high context communicator in an everyday context, but a low context when I teach. I like to elucidate what I'm trying to say and be very direct with what I expect and how I expect it. I think that when it comes to teaching ELS and communicating with other students of different cultures I'll have to conform to some different standards. I think one way to bypass this is find out as much as I can about the culture dynamic of the group before jumping in to things. I want to be able to adapt to their culture while exposing our culture and expectations as an American university, much like Liz said in our meeting.