Dear @Mohammad, this are some of the articles about the issue You have raised, among many available in RG publications database. 

Article Cultural Differences in Academic Discourse-Problems of a Lin...

Article More than just translation: Challenges and opportunities in ...

Dear Mohammad, 

Natural science should not be affected by our cultural differences because we seek facts, find them and report them in a neutral way. In other discussions belonging e.g. to theology  the concept and misunderstanding of  for example Trinity may differ between theologically educated and less educated persons in this field. 

The research examines discursive features of engagement demonstrated by native English- and Russian-speaking academics in their research articles. Pronoun choice, formation of directives, references to shared information, and use of rhetorical questions are identified in written academic discourse and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. This research connects the use of interactional features in research-based writing and the communicative practices of the authors. It is argued that academic discursive traditions are molded by the sociocultural environment, which either encourages or discourages a writer to engage in dialogue with the reader.

Researchers have found that scholars writing in English, Italian, Spanish, and Russian express their ideas and establish a relationship with their readers differently. For instance, scholarly texts in English may address or acknowledge the target audience more directly than articles written in other languages.

http://tesol-dev.journals.cdrs.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2015/04/1.-Khoutyz-2013.pdf

http://www.ijors.net/issue4_2_2015/articles/khoutyz.html

I think it does effect but impact is not for very long run. This type of differences can be resolved by staying more in touch and having communication with each other. If it happens the wrong feeling can be erased very easily and one would be ready to understand the issues and points raised by the other colleagues. Basic issue is to have dialogue more and more.

Dear @Mohammad, this are some of the articles about the issue You have raised, among many available in RG publications database. 

Article Cultural Differences in Academic Discourse-Problems of a Lin...

Article More than just translation: Challenges and opportunities in ...

Application in a Call Centre

Cross-cultural issues: The varied cultural background and little cross-cultural understanding of the interlocutor's cultural background,  lack of intercultural knowledge etc., may be the reasons for a breakdown in communication.

Frequently, CSRs are given advice, such as “be more confident” and yet no explanation of how this can be realized linguistically is offered

http://www.engl.polyu.edu.hk/call_centre/CCCR.html

Dear Mohammad

The culture of being from a developing/lower middle income country and from a developed one is totally different. I think the researchers from the former look at intersections of inequality and development paradigms (e.g Andre Gundre Frank) and inequalities arising out of intersections of different kinds of identities.  Gender for example is never looked at separately from religion, caste, race etc. Rights is not the only language for people from developing countries, but also justice. Floors and ceilings are seen as crucial by those from developing countries.  

Having said that there are differences in world views within the developing and low income countries based on culture, political history etc. The academic research in  Philippines is more westernised/liberalised than India and research there more easily accept neo liberal agenda. Being former communist countries, the researchers in Moldova and Vietnam, still expect state to act. Researchers from developed countries may not fully fathom the same.  Countries like India, South Africa, fall in between-experimenting with mutually aided cooperatives, producer companies, fair trade, collective health insurance etc

Frankly, there is a vacuum in thinking on development - with neither the states nor markets delivering- we need to look at how the third institution site based on collective endeavours work, while not dismantlling state and markets. 

Yes, a lot has been written to demonstrate that culture has impact in both the theory and analysis. Culture has a direct bearing on most theoretical works. For example demand theory is based on the western concept of individual decision making, yet in the African context, choices are often group based. If this were so how does one use the western theories to assess the behavior of Africans? When the assumptions underlying most theoretical works are analyzed carefully and compared with the behavior patterns of certain cultures we will begin to understand clearly why some issues are not well explained by well known hypothesis.

Dear All

Thanks for your answers and well-thought perspectives. 

To substantiate your viewpoints, I would like to add two extremes of research objectives, even in the supposed cases of scientific research projects - (1) the search for Noah's Arc in and around the Mediterranian by the Western researchers, and (2) the prized presentations by aronautical specialists here in India on the event of Indian National Congress last year making huge(!) claims that India in the remote past not only had far better aeroplanes but also the inter-celestial space-ships! 

Are these types related to cultural milieus or something else?

With sincere regards to all the participants

Israr

Dear Israr, thank you for raising this so important and valuable question! You can see your result by the great answers you provoked already. Let me add my point of view.

We know since the research of Benjamin Lee Whorf, that the Language itself gives the basis of many ideas and thoughts which may lack in other cultures´ language. Whorf e.g. pointed out that The Hopi could express timely dimensions, which are absent in other cultures. This is why in WWII the Us Navy used them to construct a secret code which could have been deciphered with lots of efforts only by other Hopis. Looking into linguistics, you can find many other examples.

So e.g. in Chinese (especially in the classical one but still in the modern one) you can see that the written/painted caracters of the words cover several grammatical entities like adjective, noun or verb and only how it is used tells you where you are, but often without excluding the other forms completely and always you will/must keep in mind, that the meaning also implies more than what you thought in the first term.

All this is forming how you look to the world und how relations and relationships are constructed, felt and perceived, making sometimes more and sometimes less differences between cultures (1) and times (2).

And thus the existing socalled reality is perceived rather differently, leading to different approaches of research, as question are put different and answers you get are interpretated differently.

Besides, what is reality? According to physics the same experiment about light gives you the answer you believe/exspect in advance: make it to be a particle or a wave.

And we know now by fMRT research, that the functioning of the brain is different according to the different accents of education relying on the different cultures and even by different forms of psychotherapy you will have different outcomes which you can verify by a changing fMRT, indicating neuron´s plasticity and modularity. 

But when we all (the individuals) and cultures are so different, so how to communicate?-  Of course you can try to go away from your personal culture and adapt an international/intercultural way of thinking, where the contexts are more clear to everybody participating and thus we are in RG rather successfull - but still in the tiny details a lot remains and according to the chaos-theory should its value and importance not remain underestimated.

(Some of these ideas were a part of an article which i headed forth to a wellknown Canadian anthrop. journal being refused and half a year later the editor of the journal published by himself an article which as the biggest part used my ideas...)

As i really like your question, i hope you don´t mind, when i share it with our RG-friends...

Hello Mohammad, 

Your question on "How do cultural differences affect the research and academic communication and discourses?" is a good one and may be answered in a variety of ways. One lens through which to view the notion of cultural differences is through Mary Douglas's Grid and Group Theory (also referred to as cultural theory). In her framework, Douglas explains that in every cultural setting, two dynamic dimensions are simultaneously at work: grid and group. Grid concerns the individual as well as the rules and role expectations that govern the individual. Group concerns social incorporation, belongingness, and loyalty to the group. Each dimension can be plotted on a continuum from strong to week, resulting in four possible cultural categories. I have attached a book chapter that explains these four categories, but to specifically answer your question, Douglas posits that due to the strength of these cultural contexts in which we live, we all have "cultural biases." Cultural bias is the phenomenon of interpreting and judging phenomena by standards inherent to one's own culture. Our biases constrain us from seeing other points of view, and others' biases keep them from seeing ours. Like any lens, Douglas's framework has strengths and weaknesses, but one primary strength is that we don't have to understand a plethora of cultural biases, but rather four and only four. Hope this helps some.

Ed

There are different traditions of discourse analysis which are derived from differing interpretations of the meaning of discourse. Linguistic traditions define discourse solely as the units of written and spoken communication under study and focus on the content of texts and conversations. Other social science traditions define discourse as being derived from and dependent on social practices –the complex mix of cultural norms, disciplines and rituals–which govern discursive formations. Social practices form sets of rules which work together to construct discourses. A definition of discourse which encompasses social practices draws attention to how discourses are formed and shaped, and to the possibility of contrasting sets of influences producing divergent discourses.

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/publish/discussionpapers/pdfs/dp24Hewitt.pdf

Culture with "built tolerance" and with respect for other opinions will be better with science, I think.

Culture does play an important role in human life. It is reflected in research aptitude, effort and outcome. 

Dear George,

my short remark, i added in brackets, wanted to remind, that not everything is cultural, and you must not forget about the individual factors as well. I apologize, if you felt  i hurted the Canadians.

And yes it is true: tolerance is of utmost importance - but has also its limits, when the socalled common sense of rules of daily life is not even touched, but neglected (thinking of religious and other fanatics). But where these borders are, is again varying in the different cultures (thinking of the female genital mutulations, which isn´t accepted in most cultures/countries anymore).

So everyone is asked to be sensitive enough to look out again and again in the international/ transcultural discourse to avoid these mistakes which can happen easily without you wanting them. But still they must be spoken about to develop a better awareness, where everybody´s limits are.

Only like this finding multicultural based agreements for central issues (not about prohibiting local ways of cheese-production like in the EU) more and more, our planet can be saved!

I hope this can clarify my ideas...?

Dear All

Thanks a lot for nice and beautiful responses. I have greatly benefitted, especially, from the responses of Sirs Thomas Heise, George Stoica, Manuel, Renzo, WF Schwarz, Edward Harris as well as from the enlightening opinions of dear Krishnan, Barbara, Harshwardhan, Josef, and Alpana.

I would like to substantiate the viewpoint raised by Sir Thomas Heise that RG is helpful in minimizing cultural biases in research discourses. This question on culture and research communication owes its genesis in the very discourses on RG itself. In many of my question and answer sessions, I found myself at odds with respect to what I wanted to say and what was, perhaps, conveyed to the reader. Sometimes, I found myself in a trouble to get the ideas of the other researchers as written by them. So, I do not only hesitate but also remain uncertain of what I am writing and what my beloved colleagues are reading!

I am very thankful to the RG platform for making me realize this mostly unfelt lacunae of research and academic communication.

I do again express my sincere thanks to all the contributors.

With best regards

Israr

Dear Mohammad,

I would recommend:

Maruyama, M. (1987). Communication between mindscape types. In J. P. Van Gigch, (ed.) Decision Making about Decision Making. Tunbridge Wells: Abacus Press, pp. 79-97.

Especially his definitions of autodox (my theory is right because it is consistent within my epistemology) and exoparadox (your theory is wrong because it is contradictory within my epistemology)..

Dear Peter 

Thanks a lot. So, it is epistemology, as a part of the cultural milieus, that becomes a major factor  for differences. Epistemological inconsistency may, therefore, explain quite a large part of the acceptance or non-acceptance of research/theories across cultures. 

Best Regards

I had looked at this question and spent some time considering a reply, even previously writing a few words, but abandoned it being unable to find my copy, in my study or online, the paper by the high-level UN official who was tasked with reporting on the 2007/8 collapse. I have also mentioned that work before here on RG I believe. An Indian name... Ravi Kandor? or something similar.

He wrote at length how international negotiation and agreement is hindered by not only finding common language but also by the fact that agreement on a text is not sufficient to signify agreement upon what it means, how it should be applied as real situations develop, what actions should be taken as a result and even what obligations and consequences those agreements place upon the various participants. The consequence being that agreements get made but rarely do any effective or consistently applied programmes of actions result between the signatories.... it is more likely that they will just keep on arguing as a consequence of continuing perceptions of 'violations' which they each perceive other parties to be guilty of. When all that is happening is a continuation of the same miscommunication, and due to the same causes, that was taking place when the agreements were being negotiated.

These causes are as many an complex as those which shape each one of us as individuals... cultural context, world-views, language, implicit 'givens' assumed and therefore never stated - such as moral paradigms and even 'cosmic' elements such as the way in which the flow of historical time, from the past and into the future, takes place. This latter being the difference between seeing eternity as encompassing a circular view of time and our lives within it versus a linear view in which the past is forever gone and the future is forever new.

The international dimension of research and academic discourse is simply a nexus in which are amplified, in 'plain view' so to speak, the common differences that we encounter amongst the mix of people in our own communities and with which we grapple every day of our lives. India and South Africa are just two countries in which multiple societies, languages, histories and world-views struggle to understand each other so that they might better tolerate one another's differences. South Africa has 44 language groups, India ... over 2000? Academia on the other hand, in 'the mainstream' as defined by the dominant hegemony, would like to limit it to just one.... English. But this is a language with over 3 million words, counted across all of its 'dialects', being used within it and of which perhaps a majority have more than one ascribed meaning, often depending upon 'textual' context.... never mind the characteristics and the personal conceptions of reality of the individuals using it!

This last point, that of personal conceptions of reality, moves one into the the whole area of social psychology and how each person perceives reality and how that determines how they interact with and understand that reality. A reality which includes other people the individual communicates with and what they have to say. This all contributes to the shaping of each persons motivations and expectations, and these are what are rarely revealed in the course of linguistic exchanges that are conducted largely remotely and in without the benefit of direct 'biological' contact that enables each party to understand the real meanings of the words being used by the other party.... through eye contact, body language, demeanour, intonation and so on.

So yes. Cultural differences, as one small part of the universe of differences which exist between any two people - even when from within the same nation, must and do affect our communication and the interpretations given to our discourses.

A specific case in point. You have written of how the Sufi-way, through its renunciation of a focus on the satisfaction of 'self' and a focus on the needs of the 'other' in each life experience and situation, can contribute to a less materialistic and hedonistic approach to life and reduce the demand for wasteful material production and consumerism thereby offering this insight to the wider world as a useful mindset which if its essence, even without the metaphysical beliefs underlying it, were widely adopted would facilitate the wider world achieving its stated goals of reducing waste and limiting global ecological damage... and is therefore to be recommended. From your world-view and cultural heritage, and those from similar histories numbering perhaps 2 billion other people, this seems self-evident and not likely to be particularly controversial. However, for those within or strongly influenced by the European 'tradition'... perhaps another 2 billion... such a proposal probably sounds more like a call for retreat and abdication from the the 'pursuit of happiness' which has been promised them for centuries and which has increasingly been identified in their minds with the supposed delights of a life of conspicuous consumption of (largely useless) goods and services. They have not been taught by any element of their experience, their upbringing or cultural history that this vision of plenty, both to consume and display conspicuously, as being the formula for, as well as being the definition of, the goal of happiness that they, like us all, intuitively desire to achieve. For them there is no cycle of life and lives along the path of which they may eventually attain that goal. They have, as individuals, only one shot at it... a 70 to 90 year slot. They do not even have time, they think, to consider the fallacy embedded within their vision.... the one arising from the implicit inclusion in that picture of 'high status' relative to everyone else seeking the same happiness that accompanies the vision of conspicuous consumption, display and luxury as being a part of and a measure of happiness having being attained. If everyone has high status then it has to be that everybody has no status if they have all achieved happiness, since status is relative, and if some of your fellows do not have that status then they are not as happy as you and that can only make you not happy..... unless one subscribes to ultimate happiness being only able to be the domain of one person at any one time, or eternally if that is one's belief. And that road is the one that leads to a 'winner takes all' form of competitiveness.... with every other human and so with every other life form and a need to dominate even our physical environment. The whole European catastrophe.....

So you see, I am sure, that academic discourse and communication if it is ultimately a search for the truth can never be kept 'positive'. It is required to be essentially 'normative' because truth, in the end, is a matter of perception and belief..... it is a cultural matter. By definition all cultures that engage in study are admitting that they are each wrong... in the sense that they do not possess the truth and that they believe that without it they cannot regard themselves as fulfilled as the type of living being they believe themselves to be. So if there is also by definition only one truth then we are all of us on the same path that requires us to each be self-conscious of our cultural differences and the problems that this brings to our joint quest so that we can be continually attentive to the high probability of our words being misunderstood, or of them being perceived as being incorrect or inappropriate or emotionally hurtful to the other, let alone the fact that they may fail to convey the idea intended.

It is therefore also evident that we are, each of us, through our discourses and communications actively creating a wider, inclusive unitary culture of understanding and perceptions and at the same time destroying the cultures that have made us who we are and which are so useful in seeding new ideas and viewpoints at this time into this joint endeavour.

This does not mean that our social cultures and living arrangements and local adaptations to the environmental realities that each region faces are being destroyed. They will, as they always have, continue to adapt and change while continuing to be the vectors of our personal and group histories. These will only merge into a global culture when, in future aeons, we gain an objective perspective of the planet Earth being the single nexus of a heritage that by that time we will see as being one in which we all share. Until then we are the ones who lead the way in contributing in small parts, by our mutual attentiveness and self-consciousness, to the development of a common culture of understanding. Hopefully this will be eased by automated translation tools that, with the help of AI technology far beyond what we can do now, will be able to capture and convey from one language to another every nuance of meaning in every text or utterance.

But then this whole question you have put falls into further complexity, and starts to upset those who love their own language and want to use it for everything involving words. Linguistics and Semiotics and allied studies suggest to us that the development and communication of ideas are constrained in the complexities that may be conveyed by the availability of words and meanings in the language through which it is done. Hence numerical ideas are conveyed through he language of Mathematics, for instance. And different branches (regions?) of that 'world' use different dialects of it that contain the 'words' suited to the communication of the ideas concerned. In the same way some human spoken and written languages have vocabularies which are limited in the scope of ideas and concepts that they have words for. International discourse requires, like mathematics, a 'lingua franca'. At the present time, as a consequence of the dominant commercial hegemony, this is English. But in those parts of the world that have been largely free of this hegemony they have remained under that of other dominant commercial and hence political cultures and have their own 'lingua franca'. In China this was only the written form while it was read out in each local language in each cultural.. a single 'culture of understanding'. India, today, owes its present coherence in large part to the historical imposition of English across a multitude of languages and cultures. We are all only starting out on this road of active concern for the form and the meanings conveyed by our mutual communications and discourses.

How do these differences affect our research? The answer is.... in every way imaginable. This is a problem but also the challenge that we must each face. Not even touched on here, but the subject of many books, is the manner in which even the hypotheses that we conceive and test, and the 'acceptance' by our peers of the validity of our work are all the product of cultural perceptions and societal structures and institutions of social, governmental, political and commercial power.

Respected Robin Sir,

Your posts, rather the discourses, pour a very deep impact not only on me but also on my soul, as I believe it to be. You elaborate and explain the things in a very holistic and comprehensive way; on a very large canvas not observable to all the viewers. 

I am compelled to ascribe to your view that "...truth, in the end, is a matter of perception and belief...." and, perhaps, the better a person has the perceptions the better she/he approaches nearer to the truth. 

I think an honest and transparent dialogue process amongst the cultures may be a helping instrument.

With the most sincere regards

Yours .....

Israr

Cultural differences affect the research and academic communication & discourses since there are those who categorize cultures into superior & inferior. Unless there is cultural acceptance (which is more than tolerance) & mutual respect between those who come from different cultural backgrounds, there will be no hope for a "real" progress of humans academically & research-wise. We have seen throughout history how research & academic matters moved from region (X) , developed in region (Y), and then further developed in region (Z). No race on this earth can claim that it has done it all in academia & in R&D. Snobbery can never lead to progress.

Thank you Israr for your support.  I have always sought to specialise in generality.. On joining IBM I was asked in what field did I hope to specialise, I answered 'As a Generalist".  If one does not keep what one successively deconstructs in the course of the study of its specific fundamentals in a clear perspective of its place on the larger canvas into which it fits then one can never hope to recognise for what it is that seeming insignificance which will be the axiomatic principle upon which the object of your attention depends when it first appears to you,   It is the lack of that perception in so many of us which leads to the charge of us being a group of people who "learn more and more about less and less until in the end they know everything there is to know about absolutely nothing!".  It is one thing to know something.  It is quite another to recognise its value.

Currently, communication and sharing of knowledge became available to all countries and people of our planet. But a few decades ago, especially since hundreds of years ago, was well noticeable spread of culture and knowledge of one nation to another. For example, the wonderful melodies of Africa were the basis for the formation of jazz in the United States and other countries. Thus examples of each person can lead a lot.

Vladimir, I do completely agree - and appreciate Hotstix Mabuza's music.  It is not only a question of how cultural differences affect our work but for many of us it has been very important to appreciate how the absence of cultural difference affects our work and the resulting absence of cross-fertilisation and energizing of our ideas that can only come from hearing different perspectives and interpretations applied to the same factual realities.  Rob

Dear Mohammad Israr Khan ,

Very interesting and pertinent question, and I hope I read your question correctly...

While certain languages can be more expressive and specific for certain domains of inquiry, there are also roots/genesis of ideas/schools/proponents linked to specific nationalities that appeals to certain individuals; or require the adoption of a certain world view (ontology). So they are both language and cultural chasms to be bridged even within a given discipline. Here I highlight 4  examples in economics with "schools" and their respective stance.

Personally I believe it affects how people understand ideas, why they accept or reject certain problem formulations, and why interests in certain areas of a discipline seem to have fizzled out over time. As a certain "school" begins to dominates the research corpus, so will researchers gravitate increasingly towards that "culture", such that a dominant paradigm is forged in the end.

Article Decisions and Dynamics: Postwar Theoretical Problems and the...

Chapter German Roots of Regional Science

Article Ludwig M. Lachmann Against the Cambridge School

Chapter Ordoliberalism and the Austrian School

Dear @Shian-Loong, have I missed something, or you have not finished your response in term of 3 cases...!?

Dear Shian-Loong

I am really thankful to you for such a nice and informed response.

Also a lot of gratitudes to Ljubomir Jacic Sir.

Regards