Hallo Thomas ..... Such a wide-ranging question.....

I lived in many different countries and I'm not sure any answer I could attempt would be very optimistic. I think that some differences may well be well-nigh unbridgeable ... Part of the reason is the way the brain works: very malleable at birth, brain circuits establish themselves and then specialize (by repeated "resonance") , and little-used or unused brain areas (and their corresponding potential centers) get 'cannibalized' and re-purposed by the more active areas (which is exactly the reason why , if you catch a 'wolf-child' before the age of 12, you can still teach him or her a human language - but catch them after the age of 13, though, and their brain's language centers have been so hopelessly cannibalized by other brain areas that you cannot hope to ever teach them to ever speak afterwards. And at that, the brain language area is one of the most the most cannibalization-resistant brain centers.) So by the time you are a young adult, your brain is kind of set in certain ways ....

Another danger is to believe that we can bridge the gaps easily, and act accordingly - which may be sometimes a counterproductive illusion. The best bet would be, perhaps, some common core in world education so that areas of commonality are established? Failing that, at least common core values - such as the sanctity of life, whatever? This being said, these differences also exist within a same population, which strengthens the need for a common core, which blunts sharp edges within societies.

Always be mindful that other cultures and past history is written by the people that win the wars.  May times even in the USA we see history and cultural books written by the non-native people and there is always a slant to bias the history. 

The native American culture was vastly chanced by the wars with the incoming cultures of Europe.  But this was not because they were changing but because they had to change in order to deal with the displacement of their own culture by other cultures. 

There needs to be study of the cultures look before and after the wars or invasions or blending of cultures which always happens when unknown cultures meet.  

George

Dear Thomas:

In the first place, it depends on the subject and purpose of the study or work. Generally speaking , anthropology provides rigorous alternative approaches, such as thick description. But of course, there are many other possibilities. I think a crucial point is that the work should clearly explain the point of view from which the author observes and interprets. For example, I have found very useful some studies on my own culture by foreign authors who interpret within the framework of their own values. This happens because we, immersed in our own culture, often naturalize certain meanings and perceptions, and only with great difficulty could think of other possibilities. An external observer is able to objectify these kind of experiences and make us see that those alternatives exist .

Well.... First, read  Tristes Tropiques (also translated as A World on the Wane) by Claude Lèvi-Strauss. Then, read the controversy between Lèvi-Strauss and Caillois about cultural relativism. Finally, forget and unlearn any political correctness and write from your soul. Put in the front: "I don't own the truth, but this is what I think".

This is an important question for those of us who work in areas of culture. Similar to George Stoica's response, I recommend working with an author of the culture in question to help you to spot the biases in your writing that you may not realize exist - even after years of study or living in a culture. At a minimum I would recommend having someone of the culture read drafts of your work to help you filter out the cultural biases or misunderstandings that exist in your own thought processes. 

The first is that to understand (interpret) to other cultures is needed intense ethnographic work, or from within it. That involves a series of difficulties to keep in mind, above all we must win the confidence of the members of that culture and adequately explain the reasons that led to the investigation. Also in the case of immigrants it this criterion looks biased against so popular today. I suggest watching the works of Clifford Geertz symbolic anthropology. In specific relation to the writings of cultures recommend the book by George E. Marcus. In any case I think the hardest part is to define one's own position in terms of epistemological and ethical responsibility of the researcher when writing other cultures.

Dear all,

Culture is a long standing common social behavior of a particular society with apparent and hidden dimensions. To write a book about a culture of societies, it requires  to have either passion or authentic reason to know about that culture. Then if one has either passion or reason, then learn to speak at least the language and be able to acquaint self with the society to feel and read the essence of the culture from different strata (for knowing hidden and apparent or visible dimensions) which leads to do authentic research of depth about it. Then on the final writing process, truthfulness and honesty are vital where readers of the book demand. It is similar to writing a scientific paper on a topic. 

The biggest challenge to write about other cultures - to understand the ideological part of the culture that means commonly be understand at least as nature and climate and its synthesized character.

It is difficult to overcome. To do this, one look to a lot of aspects of nature. This experience needs experimentaly to live in order to understand.

The biggest mistake - look for a lot of symbolism. There are symbols, but there is symbolism. It is necessary to avoid it. The consequences are. But it depends of which migrants it speaks about. What is it about?

The challenge here is mostly to be objective, forget yourself and be aware of the context of the culture one is writing about. Unless one is well versed in the culture he is describing he will not be able to give that culture its due.Knowledge and objectivity are essential here.

As I've done my research mostly on Islamic cultures, being in contact with Muslims in Germany, I regard the biggest challenge to seem "colonialistic". People want to evaluate their own subjects, they ask for support, not for teaching them....

the basis of sociology is 'understanding'... placing one's self in the socio-cultural shoes of others. some have misinterpreted this as 'feeling' or 'appreciating' just like the people you study. classic anthropology and sociology developed methods for getting close to the subject such as participant observation, etc, almost 'going native.' more recent 'checks' on observer bias have been 'reflexive' comments which disclose where an 'objectively oriented' observer might be biased. ethnomethods and phenomenology tried to get closest to the subject without changing it by using language...  people like me take photos and hope that viewers (including subjects) see what i see (at least the record remains and can be further analyzed. in all, it is impossible to do more than to describe as best you can what it is you see, to disclose as best you can your potential distortions, and to analyze that data using the most conventional (i.e. shared) methods and theories. i have found, oddly, that even parsonian structuralism has a great deal to offer when the 'modernist', western, and capitalist biases are recognized and therefore, like the wind on sail, corrected with your mental rudder.

Dear all: thanks a lot for all your well considered recommendations coming obviously not only from your brain, but also from your heart!

And until now i have been thinking, and it looks like most of you agree, that this is so important. Exotic things change by the time as Michael said. Yes, as the weather is changing everywhere in the world, but has specific conditions in special places. Every culture is dealing with similar human problems under not always the same conditions linked to a specific past.

Preparation with languages and cultural learning and experiencing shows many sides of life, also the ones you do not "like" seen from your personal cultural basis. Tolerance and clearness by demonstrating the problems and how they evolved - is it enough?

Getting into resonance like Chris said is important. Find what is in common and what separates you to judge the gap better? Comparing the museum pieces and books/photos with the real life or what is left over?

Looking for which layer you can dig in the many war-histories of every country? No, as I think changes are everywhere and the winner manipulating the written history will also be victim later - so this always must be taken into account.

Being eager for humans and their solutions and describing without valueing (as good as possible?) is may be the first step?

I would note that I know of only two cultures that I would ever dare to write about.  One is the culture into which I was born and grew up.  The other is a culture that I was immersed into as an adult, and immersed to the point that many of my understandings of things was changed. 

If I had to write about this second culture, it would sound very strange because while I would acknowledge some of the visible practices, my explanation of what was being done and why would not fit with the generally accepted understandings.  I would be explaining the actions from a totally different world view than that of my birth (western white) culture.

Dear Thomas,

When you study some other culture, your understanding of it depends of your attitude toward that culture. There is no objective study or conclusion. You can only try to be as objective and neutral as possible. The values you use as a mean of measure cannot be universal, they depend of your historical and cultural background, and those values are actually your own view of that culture based on your own culture.

You can overcome this problem by incorporating some of people of that culture as some kind of councilors, but then that book won’t be your book, but joint work of all of you.

There are many examples of books that describe other culture. In our case (Albanians) they often did not match the truth as we know it. It always depends who wrote it: historically FRIEND or NO-FRIEND.  

Feride Lohaj

It is not at all easy to understand a foreign culture.

To really say you understand it you usually have to live there some time....

maybe suffer culture shock.

Not too many persons have incorporated a double culture, or are even truly  bilingual.

Best advice is commuticate with persons of other cultures.

I refer to Spivak's work on speaking for the sub-altern, and even the sub-altern attempting to speak for themsleves, but to dominant 'others' within dominant frameworks and formats.

Although I imagine you'd be across Spivak and this matter.

I'm not saying your considered and controlled objectivity in research cannot be valuable just because you are white and perhaps relatively comfortable.

Just saying that would be the main obstacle, if i'm even correct. I've taken a lot from one photo and the fact you are on researchgate.

I also don't know your history and apologise if i've assumed too much :)

I can pass on perhaps a couple of useful observations, not my ideas but those of the department I study within under one of my majors;

One professor here is outright stating it will be very hard for local Anthropology students from white westernised backgrounds to secure PhD roles with the department, they are not looking for us anymore, as much.

Primarily because one innovation around the idea of accounting for the disruption to cultural continuums brought by postcolonial practice and thought of researchers from dominant societies, is to have researchers that are somewhat culturally engaged also report their finding in  the written and verbal language of those they study.

This may eliminate a lot of incongruence simply entailed by English language omitting nuanced-yet-pivotal perspecitval communications.

If you learn to 'think in spanish' as you speak spanish, for instance, you know what I mean.

So if you speak other languages, espically those of whom you study- perhaps take the time to record your finding in another language from the outset, then figure out how to translate in english.

Rather than imposing that task, in a reverse-engineered way, on much of the rest of the world, especially those you study and report on, who will be interested to read the findings i'm sure :)

It is a very difficult undertaking indeed. Human beings respect power which is why the biases of the powerful take the form of contempt, romantic-exotic storytelling or defense. Nineteenth century anthropologists from the West distorted reality in the first two ways and modern ones often defend the most outrageous practices in the name of defending the authenticity of the cultures they study. it is, however, possible to describe cultures but one has to know the language (s) and lives of the people living it.

Ethnocentrism (i.e., the fallacious belief in the innate superiority of one's own culture relative to others) might pose a significant dilemma in this regard, as it invariably culminates in highly distorted analyses tainted by all manner of bias and presumption.

As a methodological safeguard against ethnocentrism, cultural anthropologists allied to the Boasian lineage often recommend the adoption of cultural relativism (i.e., a principle which seeks to instill parity amongst heterogeneous cultural formations) as a foundational disciplinary axiom, thereby reducing the overall probability of ethnocentric distortions.

Given this, however, it must also be noted that cultural relativism is not without its own drawbacks, as it constrains the capacity of the observer to cast judgements where they might - and this is where heated controversy often arises - be warranted.

Each observer must therefore negotiate the boundaries of acceptability in this regard, straddling the precarious divide between cognitive closure and methodological openness in an ongoing process of contingent selection...        

Writing a book on other cultures should be done AFTER you have read books on your OWN culture written by people outside your ethnocultural group. After you understand the misconceptions people have regarding where you come from, you may be more sensitized to not making the same false assumptions about other groups. An example would be that of Native people in Brazil's Amazon, who, when allowed to film their own vision of more "Westernized" society, showed its ugly defects: mistreatment and neglect of the elderly, materialism, obsession with wealth, etc. More Westernized Brazilians were accustomed to thinking of themselves as morally more advanced than the Amazonians.....but films made by the Native peoples told quite a different story. Of course there is no group free from defects...the trick is to be aware that these defects are universal BEFORE you write your book on the mythologized "other."

I'm enjoying people's contributions here. I have written a few pieces on cross-cultural research that I think are relevant  (available in my profile here). Perhaps the most relevant one does not have "culture" in the title: Ethics in Violence Against Women Research: The Sensitive, The Dangerous, and the Overlooked.

Also, I think you might find my book, Interviewing Clients Across Cultures, relevant. It describes many of the pitfalls of both cross-cultural conversations and writing about those conversations, and includes highly practical suggestions.

http://smile.amazon.com/Interviewing-Clients-across-Cultures-Practitioners/dp/1606234056/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449138110&sr=1-1&keywords=interviewing+clients+across+cultures

I would like to add to my previous answer.

1. Edward Saeed was only partially correct in his theory of Orientalist falsification of reality. Not just Western but ALL writers falsify reality. The books of Indians about Europeans are as biased as those of English writers about Indians. Falsification is a fact of external, indeed any, observation and perception of reality.

2. The Orientalists, at least those who wrote about India, did produce tremendous and much needed knowledge about India which may still be appreciated. Not to acknowledge this is itself a bias. Indeed, those with interest in India's civilizations were more understanding of Indian sensitiviby interpretations of Saeed's book leading to mistrust of knowledge about other cultures is basically wrong.

3. Relativism, if carried to the extent of considering every value, every cultural expression, every narrative, as good as any other leads to nihilism. We are vulnerable, insecure mammals on a planet going around an aging star in a certain galaxy in space. For us the basic value is our survival and happiness. This is what shapes our cardinal values despite their bewildering variation as to tribal detail. Thus, we all appreciate that millions of germs (life forms) should be killed by medicine to save our lives. Hence, we cannot and should not endorse something like killing women for honour or cutting off peoples' throats. Anyone doing it in the name of cultural relativism needs to rethink about the subject again.

4. As to tribal (by this I mean any group and not a pre-modern formation) variations, these should be understood and put in the larger perspective of cardinal values. If a culture considers it rude to call people by their first name (as ours does even now) then to insist on using first name under the mistaken belief that this is more informal and intimate, is just ignorant and insensitive. If, however, a culture (again ours) thinks girls should be punished for marrying according to their choice, then not to condemn the practice in the name of cultural relativism is simply immoral.

5. Lastly, though difficult, it is possible to produce fairly authentic knowledge by following certain research procedures strictly and being self-reflexive. I think an Arab and an Israeli or an Indian and a Pakistani historian can agree to facts though not to the interpretations of those facts and the implicit values the facts have for them. After all, we are not all lucky enough to be doing mathematics; we are doing the social sciences which, we might as well concede, are more social and less 'sciences'. But this we can do well if we work hard enough.

First of all, you have to define culture. Then the hardest part would be to somehow include every cultural expression and to represent every individual of these cultural expressions. The risk is that you start to generalize and simplify. Then you have to be aware all the time about the outsider perspective. How to describe a culture that you're not a part of? Culture is a quite arbitrary and abused concept. The reality is not as homogenous as the culture concept. I would be more specific. What is it that you want to study if you go beyond the concept of culture? You could actually get some help from my thesis about the concept of cultural heritage and its relation to the concept of culture.

I propose to adhere to the Cultural Relativism concept. This should be the main effort while writing on other cultures.

    When I teach and write about  intercultural Interactions,  I always approach cultural dynamics as opportunities to discover and to refine what are my own taken- for- granted cultural assumptions.  In the process of exploring different worldviews and reasoning modes, I discover more clearly my  own implicit values and priorities.  So, clearly articulating the author's cultural associations is essential so readers can understand the cultural grounding from which the discussion of differences or similarities of the "others" spring.   The naming and claiming of your own cultural assumptions shows a willingness to engage in cultural discussions from a perspective of equality rather than superiority. 

Dear Thomas,

As a researcher from Poland I have behind the experience of writing a book on multicultural Bosnia (Bosnian identity). And the biggest challenge to me was actually something as a matter of fact addressed by ethnographers, namely the idea that our perception of reality is mediated by culture. The father to modern anthropology, Franz Boas, coined the term “Kulturbrille” to refer to a set of ‘cultural glasses’ that each of us wears and which provide us with means of perceiving the world around us. So what I’m saying is that the hardest part is to take off such glasses and truly, indigenously experience the reality around, so our respondents won’t turn into confirmation of our previously assumed hypotheses.

 I feel compelled to write in strong support of Dr. Rahman's assertion that relativism as considered/supported here inevitably leads to nihilism and all of its ramifications.  

Although tangentially related, since the subject has been raised in such an articulate manner, I add that we must confront this issue head on in our formulation of theory, interdiction, and the end game of what we are attempting to produce with our therapies.  

Be it within our own cultures or cross-culturally, we need pause and examine a relativism we have long accepted a priori.  Foucault astutely asserted that the result of postmodern reason is nihilism.  While there are issues with Foucault, he accurately predicted our postmodern state of affairs.  Dr. Rahman begins to suggest some categorical alternatives from an alternate paradigm.  I would like to read further elaboration from him.  My apologies for taking a slight turn in the discussion but the answer to the question asked cannot be found without consideration of the paradigm to which Tariq alludes; at least, not an answer that will carry us into a hopeful and thus positive future.  

This is not the creation of meaning where there is none to be found, much rather it is a re-examination of our past assumptions and the road that has carried us to nihilism.  Foucault knew well that his arguments masked a deeper truth.  

I single out Foucault only because he was most influential in providing the final push into the abyss of postmodern reason.  The sky will not fall if we play with Deleuze and Guattari for a bit; even though they did not think much of our "founding father", their often-humorous extrapolations provide fuel for a different fire, and their solutions to the cross-cultural problem were novel (minimizing the wild).

Fortunately, Dr. Rahman is far better grounded (it seems) and certainly on target; thus, this reiteration of one of his themes.

My biggest problem, I really should say our, I include Richard Sheil and Zinaida Zavyalova)  biggest problem has not been carrying out the research.  Rather it has been getting our work published and reviewed.  I feel that there are some themes or topics that are trendy or popular.  I am sorry but I do not feel that cross-cultural subjects are as well received in North America as they are in Europe.  Research Gate is performing a very valuable service by making available research that would otherwise be overlooked.

I have experienced this, as I researched the adaptation of English novels by non-English-speaking film industries. Luckily, I lived at an international students’ residence. I would often ask somebody from the culture I was researching to read my work and tell me if they objected to anything. However, I always worried than being an outsider would undermine my credibility. On the other hand, I am from Galicia (Northern Spain) and Galician cinema is one of my research interests. I would frequently be told by my fellow countrymen that I would “go nowhere” researching such a “minority culture”. My experience proved them wrong, but for a long time I felt trapped in a vicious circle (What culture was I allowed to talk about?).

I came to the conclusion that I do not mind researchers having preconceptions when studying other cultures, but I do mind when they think that those preconceptions are rigid, static and cannot be challenged. Cultures are not homogeneous, they change with time and people can make personal choices about how they relate to their own culture.

Always remember, Culture ain' t visible  to those who are living it.

James, i do not agree!

Every person is able of perception and able to compare while going into different styles restaurant, countries, hearing their diverse music, creating different feelings...  So unless you are dumb, deaf and unsensible you are at least to a certain degree able to decipher elements of your culture by comparison. And as culture is a living tissue and for every individual different, so also you can compare your household culture with that one of persons you like and you dislike, and also with ones from the past by tales, books, films, pictures,...

So let´s be aware of our and others culture!!!

James, i do not agree!

Every person is able of perception and able to compare while going into different styles restaurant, countries, hearing their diverse music, creating different feelings...  So unless you are dumb, deaf and unsensible you are at least to a certain degree able to decipher elements of your culture by comparison. And as culture is a living tissue and for every individual different, so also you can compare your household culture with that one of persons you like and you dislike, and also with ones from the past by tales, books, films, pictures,...

So let´s be aware of our and others culture!!!

1) Know  or study the culture's language and nuances.

2) Study their values. I saw a politician open his speech with a remark about his lowly  or ordinary background by remarking his father didn't know which end of the electric saw to hold. His audience consisted of Hispanics who revere their parents, the elderly, and have great respect for work. The remark was not humorous to the audience, either.

3) Study the culture's art as it often reveals the values of a culture. The subject matter and materials used to create the art will reveal much. In Cuba, I saw a purse made from seeds and inquired about it. The women explained the seeds came from her yard. She did not have access to wool, silk, leather, or cotton. Those were not Cuba's resources.

Careful not to confuse abstraction with falsification guys...

It can falsify or it cannot

Be prepared to NOT be the expert. Realize that your education and your degrees mean exactly zero in many social groups. I have been dong participant observation in Haiti for almost 10 years. I am still the stupid one, I am still the child. Be humble. They are teaching you & that is not your right or their obligation. It is a gift. Check your tender feelings and outrage at the door because some people will not like you. They will not support your research. Racism happens. My best advice ever about fieldwork is "Suck it up, buttercup." Say thank you for every gift of knowledge & remember even the awkward or unpleasant incidents add to your data.

Saw this book title, chapters' content, and thought of your project. It has chapters ranging from culture and architecture to emotional politics through textiles, and even Irish suicides.

The Handbook of Textile Cultures. Eds. Janis Jefferies, Diana Wood Conroy, Hazel Clark, pub by Bloomsbury. 2016.

Greetings, what a brave topic to take on.  Depending on the cultures you choose to write about...of course, I personally would want to embed myself within those cultures first and foremost before attempting to write about them.  I would participate in their ceremonies, speak to their elders and their children.  Often outsiders may be seen as 'culture vultures', as in taking from the peoples for self-profit, or aggrandizement, even though that may not be the purpose, it may be seen as so.  Also, please become knowledgeable about internalized shame within cultures and trans generational transmission of trauma...genocide etc. You may be quite familiar with all of this already.  And finally, I would get specific permission to use any  personal stories, even though didacted or made anonymous.  Good Luck, Catherine Blue Eden

Thanks to all of you for your great comments and sharing your valuable experiences!!!

For me it was a milestone when i have been reading Jeanne Favret Sadat who has been writing (1976?) that she did participating field work: first she studied the believe into the power of the words and sorcery in the French countryside village and then she participated in order to understand more from the inside. -

I thought great, i will try to do the same. So e.g. i studied the reception and content of traditional Chinese medicine and then qigong in Germany/Europe and afterwards i looked for a scholarship and was able to study this in the PR of China 1984 when there were still little foreigners and took part in many qigong-experiences during and alongside to my training.

After this i found out how divergent most of the books written in Europe or even in China have been. 

George Van Hoesen makes an interesting point. From a positive perspective, technology creates culture (Misa, T. (2004). Leonardo to the present: Technology and culture from the Renaissance to the present. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press). From fire to the first liquor still to the iPhone, etc....and yes sadly the atomic bomb

The best way to writing another culture is to experience by researcher to attach, take part in their daily lives ,living their customs and ceremonial rites in other words If researcher is conducting ethnographic research then he will successful in writing another culture.

Kiran, it can be incredibly difficult to set aside one's own prejudices, even assuming that one is truly accepted into another culture.  Of course if one does, then they might well find, as I did, that their original culture has totally distorted what the new culture actually believes.  Finding a way to correct this misunderstanding can be extremely difficult.

There is, or at least was, one culture where having sex with whomever you wanted to was quite acceptable, but you would never eat with anyone outside your immediate family.  Do you think you could fully adapt into such a culture, and if you did do you think you would be able to explain their logic to your current culture without distorting it?

I am by no means an expert on cross cultural research. However, as a person who belongs to one of the 'other cultures' my biggest advice would be your awareness of your own positionality, prejudices and subjectivity. Achieving complete objectivity is impossible; however,  once you become aware of that fact, you become more critical of your own thought process. Do no try to explain cultural practices or phenomenons by referring to your own cultural context. Rather, be aware of the function that each practice serves in any given society to avoid misunderstandings and ethnocentrism. Also be mindful that what people say they do often differs from what they actually do and that cultural  traditions are not stagnant concepts or practices. 

In the context of today's world, cultural diffusion has highly increased especially because of migration, wars and the creation of refugees and diasporic communities. You should keep that in mind when exploring cultural exchange. 

Particularly evaluating the culture based on psychology.... in  brief... while culture represents shared meaning system based on location, history and language, it is always useful to keep in mind that there is an individual differences.  Also, I always believe the religion, particularly faith factor is a significant element to at least figure out the cultural practices. Therefore, I suggest that evaluating independently the  factors of faith and individual difference might be beneficial in related field.