Download pdf - Designing and implementing culturally‐sensitive IT applications

Designing and implementingculturally-sensitive IT

applicationsThe interaction of culture values andprivacy issues in the Middle East

Norhayati Zakaria and Jeffrey M. StantonSyracuse University, New York, NY, USA, and

Shreya T.M. Sarkar-BarneyIllinois Institute of Technology, Dearborn, Chicago, USA

Keywords Culture, Privacy, Information technology, Values

Abstract The Internet, World Wide Web, and related information technologies, originallydeveloped in Western countries, have rapidly spread to a great variety of countries and cultures.Many of these technologies facilitate and mediate interpersonal communication, an activity whosemodes and means bind closely to cultural values. This article provides a theoretical integration of aframework for culture values together with a model for understanding privacy and related issuesthat arise when personal information is shared or exchanged using information technology. Theresulting hybrid framework can help understand and predict individuals’ culturally linked reactionsto various communication-related IT applications (e.g. e-mail, e-commerce sites, Web-logs, bulletinboards, newsgroups) in diverse cultural contexts. An application of the framework to culturalsettings in Middle Eastern nations concludes the article.

In this information age, people can receive, transfer, and exchange informationanywhere, anytime, and with almost anyone using new forms of informationtechnology (IT). Constraints of time and distance that existed before arediminishing with the global spread of IT (Kedia and Bhagat, 1988; Roche, 1992;Shore, 1996). According to Danet (2001), the Internet provides a backdrop tohuman interaction and a medium for cultural, social, commercial, and linguisticfacets of communication. These enhanced capabilities also present challenges,however, because of the increasing influence of effective interpersonalcommunication, knowledge sharing, and resource transactions on theproductivity of societies, organizations, and individuals. In contrast with thewidely discussed idea of the “global village,” information technology plannersand proponents must still consider the myriad differences among cultures asthey work to implement new forms of technology in new settings (Deresky,2002).

Cultural values held in common by individuals within societies reflect acomplex of preferred patterns for social interaction, communication, andexchange (Adler, 2001; Schneider and Barsoux, 1997). Much research has

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-3845.htm

Culture, privacyand IT in theMiddle East

49

Information Technology & PeopleVol. 16 No. 1, 2003

pp. 49-75q MCB UP Limited

0959-3845DOI 10.1108/09593840310463023

shown that cultural values influence the typical ways in which communicationartifacts and other technologies are used within a society (Adler, 2001; Cole andO’Keefe, 2000; Fischer, 1992; Gao, 2001; Honold, 1999a; 1999b; Marcus, 2001;Sifianou, 1989). These works universally support the need for culturalawareness and sensitivity to how culture affects the adoption of newtechnologies. Newer forms of Internet-based communications such as e-mail,instant messaging, chat, newsgroups, Web logs, and certain varieties of peer-to-peer applications are likewise subject to differences in how individualsprocess, exchange, and evaluate information. Although servers, fiber optics,and other technological infrastructure elements may be universal, userfunctions and interfaces may need to accommodate differences in culturalvalues by offering localizations (Arnold, 1998; Avgerou, 1996; Barber andBadre, 1998; Gould et al., 2000; Marcus and Gould, 2000; Volkow, 1996). Theoverused expression, “Think globally, act locally” seems meaningfullyapplicable to the development of culturally sensitive IT applications. Priorresearch supports the idea that the success of implementing IT applicationscross-culturally depends on careful appreciation of prevailing norms andvalues (Martinson and Westwood, 1997; Olaniran, 2001; Shea and Lewis, 1996;Shore, 1996; Straub et al., 2001; Straub et al., 1997).

With these constraints in mind, we suggest that assumptions about thebehavior of users of communicative technologies may not be as valid in arecipient culture as they may have been in the donor culture. For example, in acomparative examination of Web site designs, Gould et al., (2000) and Marcusand Gould (2000) found that cultural elements are embedded in user interfacesas a set of contextual and social cues for effective use. Yavas et al. (1992)documented that one important barrier to the cross-cultural adoption of newtechnology lay in the ethnocentric nature of the technology. In a comparison ofMalaysia, Japan, Canada, and other countries, Little et al., (2001) found thattraditional cultural practices directly affected some of the uses of newcommunication technologies. In short, culture appears to connect closely withinformation technology design outcomes (Abdul-Gader, 1990; Aladwani, 2001,2000; Davidson, 1999; Harris et al., 1996; Mejias et al., 1996; Veiga et al., 2001).

As new forms of IT enhance the speed and expand the available modes ofinformation exchange, culturally preferred behavioral patterns can facilitateand impede adoption and usage processes. Individuals within cultures definethe value of information differently; what is considered useful, meaningful, andworth communicating among individuals in one culture may not be consideredso by people from another culture. Culture seems so complex and multifaceted,however, that it is difficult to perceive how these variations might manifest indifferent settings. Some IT designers may feel a sense of bewilderment whenconsidering the myriad ways in which information technology mightbeneficially be tailored to fit into new countries and cultural settings(Cunningham and Srayrah, 1994; Straub et al., 2001).

ITP16,1

50

The present paper takes an “information boundary” framework (Stanton,2002), useful for understanding mediated communications, informationsharing, and privacy concerns pertaining to IT, and integrates it into aculture values framework developed by Hall (1976). In developing this merger,the paper provides an analysis of the implications of culture for informationtechnology deployment as well as technology management research andpractice. Although this merged framework likely has broad applicability, wefocus our discussion in this paper on Middle Eastern nations and Arabicnations in particular. Many scholars studying technology in the Arab worldhave focused sharply on the technology but may have not fully consideredsome of the unique social implications of Arabic culture (Fandy, 2000). Forexample, the very few studies that have examined the role of culture intechnology transfer in the Arab world (e.g. Straub et al., 2001) have indicatedthat, “Arab cultural beliefs were a very strong predictor of resistance to IT”(Straub et al., 2001, p. 6).

Hall’s (1976) theory of intercultural communication provides a particularlysuitable cultural framework for this analysis, in part because of its emphasis onunderstanding the ways that individuals within a culture communicate withone another. To build a foundation for our synthesis of Hall’s work andinformation boundaries, we first examined research on “filtered out cues”developed by Kiesler et al. (1984), Sproull et al. (1984), and Sproull and Kiesler(1986), during the early emergence of computer-mediated communication(CMC). In brief, their work suggested that social contextual cues in the form ofnon-verbal behaviors and paralanguage are important for effectivecommunication. The absence of cues such as body posture, facialexpressions, hand gestures, and eye contact owing to the “leanness” of CMCchannels inhibits communication through these channels. Although this earlywork has been criticized for taking a highly deterministic view of the effects oftechnology on communication, the kernel of truth, from our perspective, wasthat reduced non-verbal and paralinguistic cues consistently caused new CMCusers to begin with their own behavioral norms in making use of thetechnology. These findings support our idea that mass adoption and usage of acommunicative technology can be affected by norms for behavior (cf. Rogers,1962).

We also examined the work of Lea and Spears (1991), who used a socialidentity model of de-individuation to propose that the development of socialnorms between individuals that interact using CMC does not depend ontransmission of non-verbal and paralinguistic cues. In more recent work,Postmes et al. (2000), Walther (1996), and others have argued that norms forbehavior in CMC groups develop through a process of “social construction”that is unique for each technology. Despite the fact that behavioral normsappear to develop dynamically in CMC dyads and groups, however, Walther(1996) and others suggest that behavioral norms and bases of interpersonal


51

relations are nominally encoded within the social identities of the participantsat the outset of the group. We believe that this also supports our theoreticalstance in that culturally derived elements of identity will inevitably countamong the early influences on the development of behavioral norms for usingcommunicative technologies. Indeed, in his examination of the early adoptionof the telephone in the USA, Fischer (1992) documented substantial differencesin telephone adoption and usage patterns based on sub-cultural differencesbetween northern and southern areas of the country, rural and urban areas, andsocioeconomic statuses (e.g. income, race). Fisher (1992, p. 107) concludes, “Theprocess was not pushed ahead by the internal logic of technology, but wasshaped by marketing decisions, government policies, and technical and culturalcontexts” (emphasis ours). Fisher also developed a distinction between wealthy,urban early adopters and later mass adoption. Among the highly educatedearly adopters, sub-cultural differences were relatively unimportant, whereasthese sub-cultural differences were considerably more important in the contextof mass adoption.

We begin the remainder of the paper with a brief review of culture valueframeworks and a more detailed examination of Hall’s work. Subsequently, wedescribe the information boundary framework and synthesize the componentsof the framework with Hall’s contextual dimension. Finally, the paper discussesthe range of cultural values present in the Middle East, with an emphasis on thediversity of cultural configurations present in the region. This discussionserves as a springboard into using the cross-cultural theory of informationboundaries to facilitate understanding of information technology adoption anduse within organizations in the Middle East. The paper includes thepresentation of a set of research propositions that could serve as the basis ofconfirmation and development of a cross-cultural theory of informationboundaries.

Brief overview of cross-cultural value systemsAccording to Hofstede (1984, p. 18) a value is a “ broad tendency to prefercertain states of affairs over others”. Schwartz (1992, p. 2) provided a moreelaborate definition, which stated that values are “desirable states, objects,goals, or behaviors, transcending specific situations and applied as normativestandards to judge and to choose among alternative modes of behavior”.Together, these definitions describe a value as an overarching concept thatspans a variety of situations and actions. Values influence the way peopleperceive and evaluate the world around them; values also help people to selectappropriate actions for interacting with their surroundings. With respect tounderstanding the conceptual role of values, theorists suggest that values donot directly influence people’s behavior (Schwartz, 1999). However, values dohave an indirect influence on behavior through attitudes and goals.Additionally, the values of members of a group can influence societal

ITP16,1

52

structures (Hofstede, 1980) and ecological factors such as the technologicaladvancement of a society (Gidden, 1984).

Because values link socio-cultural factors to individual behaviors they canbe considered at the individual level as well as the cultural or societal level. Atthe individual level, values serve as guiding principles in life that motivate anddirect activities toward certain goals (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz and Bilsky,1987, 1990). However, not all values are equally important in a person’s life.Researchers propose that the nature of relationship among the different valuesis that of compatibility and conflict. If there is a set of values that serve as“guiding principles” in one’s life, then there may also exist elsewhere a set ofvalues that are opposed to the person’s fundamental beliefs and preferences(Schwartz, 1992). The basic hypothesis of cultural value studies is that peoplefrom different cultures differ normatively in their value orientations, whichultimately causes differences in the overt behaviors of many of the people muchof the time. Values that are compatible with one another are more likely toreside in a single individual as opposed to values that are incompatible. Forexample, a person with high individualism, when working in a group setting,may emphasize his or her own goals (e.g. promotion, pay raise) over the overallgroup’s goals (e.g. increasing the group’s productivity by helping a co-worker).It is unlikely that two opposing values (e.g. strongly individualistic andstrongly collectivist; Triandis et al. (1985)) would reside in the same individualat the same time.

Cultural or societal level values represent implicit and explicit ideasshared in a group about what events, characteristics, and conducts are good,right, and desirable (William, 1968, 1970). Such values are said to influencebehavioral norms in the society, including norms pertaining to appropriateuses of technology. Societal and cultural values also influence socialinteractions (whether or not these are mediated by technology) by framingthe nature of relationships among individuals and between individuals andinstitutions (Aycan et al., 2000; Schwartz, 1999). Thus we believe that valuesprovide a useful lens for examining differences among cultures, particularlywhen trying to understand and predict variations in the functioning of atheory such as the information boundary framework presented in this paper.In closing this section it is important to note that some have criticizeddimensional culture value approaches as providing too static a picture ofwhat is intrinsically a dynamic phenomenon (e.g. Weinrich, 1983, 1988). Weconcur with Triandis (1997), however, on the point that dimensional valueapproaches complement other research strategies for making sense of cultureand its influences.

Hall’s culture values frameworkHall (1976) developed a cultural theory that examines communication at aninterpersonal level. His work emerged from realization of the importance of


53

intercultural understanding for facilitating effective communication amongand between individuals from different cultural backgrounds. Hall’s work hasprovided a substantial contribution within the larger community of researcherswho share a common interest in investigating intercultural communications(e.g. Adler, 2001; Chen and Starosta, 1998; Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988;Ting-Toomey and Chung, 1996; Triandis, 1994). Hall’s frameworks includeseveral dimensions that vary across cultures (e.g. the meaning and importanceof “time” and “space”), but we focus in this paper on the dimension with thestrongest connection to communications and privacy issues: the contextualdimension. Hall asserts that cultures vary in the degree to which contextualelements matter in interpersonal communication. Hall’s contextual dimensionreflects the ways in which individuals perceive information, exchangeinformation, use information, and communicate it. In his book, Beyond Culture(1976), he refers to context as the situational and informational aspect ofmessage sharing. Milward (2000) further highlights the point that context notonly influences what is being said, but also affects when, where, to whom, andhow messages are sent. Thus, in Hall’s framework, context refers to the degreeto which the communication situation contains information that is essential forreceipt and understanding of a message. Message senders take the culturallynormative communication context into account as they formulate a message,and, to varying degrees, message receivers must also interpret the messageusing unique cues obtained from the communication context.

Although Hall describes context as a continuum, varying from high contextto low context, as a way of promoting clarity he typically describes the contrastbetween the two extremes. For example, Hall (1976, p. 91) defines high contextcommunication as situations “...in which most of the information is in thephysical context or internalized in the person, while very little is a coded,explicit, transmitted part of the message”. The receiver of the information inhigh context society has been acculturated to receive the information from thecontext because context is usually implicit, rather than explicit; this logicallyimplies a sharing of assumptions, both tacit and explicit. To paraphrase, in ahigh context society, many or most messages can be terse because both speakerand listener assume a large store of shared knowledge.

In contrast, Hall (1976, p. 91) defines low context as situations in thefollowing way, “the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code”.Thus, in a low context culture, senders assume little or no shared knowledgewith receivers. Thus, senders typically pack a great deal more informationinto a message. Importantly, this higher information load can include socalled meta-messages such as emotional tone. On an associated point, Hallsays that, “Members of cultures in which low-context messagespredominate. . . are sensitive to dispositional characteristics and tend toattribute others’ behavior to characteristics internal to the individual (i.e.personality)” (Triandis, 1994, p. 127). Thus with the diminished import of the

ITP16,1

54

local communication context in message transmission, the attributeddependence of motivated action on situational constraints or environmentalfeatures is likewise diminished.

To help clarify these points it may be useful to consider another researcher’stake on construct similar to Hall’s context. Trompenaars (1994) described the“specific-diffuse” dimension as one of his seven cultural dimensions. Indescribing the specific-diffuse dimension, Trompenaars (1994, p. 89) states that,“context has to do with how much you have to know before effectivecommunication can occur; how much shared knowledge is taken for granted bythose in conversation with each other; how much reference there is to tacitcommon ground”. Thus, he elaborates that people who are from high contextsocieties normally “circle around” a stranger first, get to know the other partyin a diffuse manner in order to establish trust, and only then reveal the relevantinformation. On the contrary, in a low context society, Trompenaars (1994)suggests that communicating individuals come “straight to the point” withoutfirst working out the trust status of the relationship between sender andreceiver.

Some examples of high-context societies include Japan, China, and SaudiArabia. In these societies, individuals develop, make use of, and depend onextended information networks among family, friends, colleagues, andclients for effective communication and related social functioning. As aresult, for many normal communications individuals neither expect norrequire much contextual information to be made explicit in the messagessent and received. Jandt (2001, p. 141) describes an Arabic communicationstyle as being, “. . .one that emphasizes. . . repetition, metaphor, and simile”.This idea reflects the idea that individuals make considerable use of sharedcontextual information (e.g. the shared knowledge basis and understandingof metaphors). At the other end of the spectrum, some examples of lowcontext societies include the USA, Germany, and Great Britain.Interestingly, Ting-Toomey (1988) indicated that, in low context culturessuch as these, individuals have a greater concern for autonomy andprivacy. Table I provides a broad overview of the contrasting values thatcharacterize high and low context societies.

Taken in overview, Hall’s contextual dimension helps to identify the basis ofa powerful cultural difference between the low context communications thatare the norm in some Western societies and the high context communicationsthat frequently occur in Arabic and other non-western societies. Theimplications of these differences for the design of communicativeinformation technologies will become evident following an introduction tothe motivational components of information boundary regulation discussed inthe following section.


55

Characteristics/values High Low

1. Culturalunderstanding

Requires an adequateunderstanding of a particularculture in order to function wellwithin the society

Requires little knowledge of culturefor their members to get along, andculture does not play adeterminative role in formingindividual identity

2. Culturalassumptions

Assume a rich common culture, theidentity of individual members isdefined in terms of that culture

Assumes a society is based moreon laws and not humans (i.e.culture). A member of any othersociety can function well by simplyadhering to minimal legalrestrictions

3. Nature ofinformation

Information is implicit, requireslittle information since people areexpected to have prior knowledge

Background information is madeexplicit in an interaction whereeverything is spelled out clearly

4. Information cues Transmit important informationthrough non-verbal and contextualcues

Transmit important informationthrough explicit verbal messages

5. Speech and styleof communication

Speech and communication isindirect, “beat around the bush”,use ambiguous language, tend toavoid saying no directly to theircounterparts

Speech and communication isdirect, “straight to the point”,highly value verbal speech, andeloquent speech, tends to expressopinions and intentions freely anddirectly persuade others to accepttheir viewpoints

6. Knowledge oninformationrequired

Have a wider network, stay well-informed on many subjects

Verbalize more backgroundinformation; tend not to be wellinformed on subjects outside theirown subjects or interests

7. Culturalorientation

Establishment of relationship isimportant prior to getting goalsachieved, “relationship-oriented”

Focus on how to get theirobjectives and goals accomplished,“goal and task oriented”

8. Culturalexpressiveness

Feelings and thoughts are notopenly expressed. Often times,messages needs to be “readbetween the lines”

Texts written for low contextaudiences must describe in detailall the relevant cultural featuresthat are necessary to understandthe text

9. Culturaldistinctionsbetween workingand personalrelationships

Permeates and connects everyaspects of life in an individual toeverything else in his/her life

Compartmentalize their personalrelationships, their work, andmany aspects of day-to-day life

10. Backgroundexperiences

People are homogeneous withregard to experiences, information,and networks

People carry independentexperiences, information, andnetworks, which are all basedindividually

Source: Adtopted from Chen (2001); Deresky (2002); Hall (1976); Trompenaars (1994) andZakaria (2000)

Table I.Contextual valuesand characteristics

ITP16,1

56

Overview of information boundary theoryInformation boundary theory (IBT) developed from research investigating usesof monitoring and surveillance information technologies within businessorganizations. Analysis of multiple waves of interview and survey data(Stanton, 2002; Stanton and Weiss, 2000; Stanton and Weiss, in press)suggested the viability of synthesizing communications boundarymanagement theory (Petronio, 1991), justice theory (Alder, 1998; Alder andTompkins, 1997), and a general expectancy-valence framework for privacyprotection (Stone and Stone, 1990). In general terms, IBT predicts thatindividuals’ behavior follows rules for “boundary opening” and “boundaryclosure” (Petronio, 1991) when information technology mediates thecommunication of personally relevant information. Boundary opening andclosure are dynamic, psychological processes of regulation by which peopleattempt to control the flow of personally relevant or “intimate” information.Message senders regulate the flow of information by deciding whatinformation to reveal to receivers. Receivers can also control the flow ofinformation through withholding or making requests for information.Boundary regulation may manifest in verbal behavior (e.g. changing thesubject) or non-verbal behavior (e.g. hanging up the phone).

The ideas of boundary opening and closure are particularly applicable tocommunicative forms of information technology. E-commerce serves as onepossible prototype in this regard because customer transactions requirerevelations of personally relevant information (e.g. creditworthiness) to aninstitutional audience. IBT could thus predict an individual’s preferences andchoices regarding the amount and type of personal information that theindividual would be willing to reveal in various e-commerce scenarios. Othercommunicative applications of information technology are also relevant here.The successful application of knowledge management software in organizations;list servers, bulletin boards and newsgroups in professional organizations; ande-mail and chat for personal purposes all depend on the degree to whichindividuals feel comfortable revealing sensitive or intimate information. Suchinformation can relate to any of a variety of domains including work-related (e.g.job performance), personal (e.g. information about family members), healthrelated, etc. depending on the communicative situation and its goals.

IBT describes a set of linked research propositions that predict preferencesand behavior based on individuals’ beliefs about the nature of their relationshipwith the institutional or individual “other,” the expected uses of revealedinformation, and the expected benefits of revealing information. As researchresults from Stanton and Weiss (in press) suggested, individuals frame theiruses of information technology to transmit information in similar terms tothose used within human relationships (e.g. “telling about me,” “knowing whatI’m doing,” “becoming known,” or “becoming visible to others”). Individualscan articulate a personal “calculus” of boundary negotiation, i.e. the conditions


57

under which permitting information flow is acceptable or unacceptable. Thenegotiation of boundaries depends on the status of the relationship between theindividual sending the information and the audience (individual orinstitutional) receiving it. A shorthand term for the relationship status that isconducive to the opening of boundaries is “trust”. Where trust exists betweensenders and receivers, boundaries should open to the flow of more and more“intimate” types of information content. Incorporating the group-valueperspective from the justice literature (Lind and Tyler, 1988, pp. 230-40),intimate, in this context, refers to information that may impact on one’s statusin a valued social group. To the extent that trust does not exist or has falteredin the relationship, senders may attempt to close boundaries to all but the mostbasic types of information. Senders evaluate receiver requests for informationin light of the trust in the dyad and fairness concerns about the information.Senders also open boundaries for the transmission of personal information thatcan serve instrumental or expressive ends. Finally, a zone of acceptance existsin which senders transmit routine forms of information across boundarieswithout explicit consideration of instrumental or value-expressive goals.

At root, IBT is a motivational theory that posits three different types ofmotivation for information boundary regulation plus an important edgecondition. First, individuals regulate information flow based on the currentlevel of trust in the sender-receiver relationship. Trust and fairness bind tightlytogether because trust represents an expectation or belief regarding thelikelihood of fair treatment by another person or institution. In a low trustsituation, parties to a relationship have few or no expectations of fair treatmentby each other, and thus information boundaries tend to close. In a high trustrelationship, parties have substantial expectations of fair treatment by eachother, and information boundaries tend to open. Second, individuals regulateinformation flow for instrumental purposes. Instrumental motivations reflectdesired end states, and individuals tend to open boundaries in expectation ofreaching those end states. For example, revealing one’s health problems to aninsurance company in hope of receiving reimbursement represents opening theinformation boundary for an instrumental purpose. Third, individuals regulateinformation flow for expressive purposes. As described earlier, expressivemotivations often pertain to establishing and maintaining status in a valuedgroup, but expression also captures a sender’s motivation to display theircreativity. For example, consider the phenomenon of Web logging: “Bloggers”publicize the details of their daily lives on the Web as a form of self-expression,often within the context of a community of readers who are themselvesbloggers. Finally, information boundary theory posits an edge condition,known as the “zone of acceptance”. This idea recognizes the fact that in someroutine forms of communication no explicit evaluation of informationboundaries occurs. Some forms of communication (e.g. introducing oneself

ITP16,1

58

by name) occur without conscious consideration by the sender of themotivational valence of the transmitted information.

The effects of context on information boundary regulationPook and Fustos (1999) found that differences between national culturesapparently influence the availability and dissemination of information.Cultural differences seem to play a role in determining what information istransmitted, who receives the information, and the allowable circumstancesunder which different types of communication can occur. Furthermore, issuesof personal privacy, workplace privacy, physical and social space, monitoringand surveillance, autonomy and intimacy also vary from culture to culture.While it might be acceptable to share private information with “sociallydistant” institutions (e.g. e-commerce vendors, or foreign firms) in low-contextcultures, high-context cultures differ in this regard.

In this section, we integrate Hall’s high and low contextual values by linkingthem to the three motivational elements and the edge condition described inIBT. For each of these pieces, we describe how high and low context culturesdiffer and we present research propositions that summarize our arguments.Throughout this section, we believe that it is important to keep in mind that avariety of influences on information sharing and boundary regulation mustpresumably exist that do not link with Hall’s contextual factor (or other culturalvalues). Thus, we acknowledge that numerous individual level values, attitudes,and beliefs inevitably influence boundary regulation in addition to the culturallylinked values considered here (e.g. Homer and Kahle, 1988; Kahle et al., 1986;Rokeach, 1979; Rokeach and McLellan, 1972). The discussion below attempts tohighlight those connections between values and boundary regulation thatreflect Hall’s (1976) concern for culturally driven communication strategies.

Context and trust/fairness motivationsIn high context societies people must establish and maintain trusted personalrelationships in order to communicate in an effective way. Developed personalrelationships act as the contextual “glue” that allows high contextcommunication (with its terse, situationally dependent messages) to occur.For example, a business conversation in a high context society might typicallyinvolve an elongated introductory period to establish a friendly ambiance andthe intimacy that in turn promote an effective communicative environment.The business agenda itself would not enter the conversation until thisenvironment was fully established. Hall (1976) asserted that high-contextpeople place a lot of emphasis on relationships and common implicitunderstanding of how members of the community should conduct themselves.So if trust is to be developed, one needs to know whom one is dealing with. Inessence, establishing rapport and getting to know people is a critical precursorto the revelation of instrumentally relevant information. Note that the


59

revelation of personally relevant information is one way in which intimacy (andlater trust) can be fostered in an interpersonal relationship (Petronio, 1991).

In contrast, low-context cultures build on explicit rules and procedures tofacilitate rapid communication with “socially distant” individuals andinstitutions. In some communication acts, one might characterize low-contextindividuals as “task oriented.” Individuals in low context societies may placegreater reliance on written agreements (e.g. contracts, legal agreements,companies policies and procedures) in which information exchange can occurnot as a result of trust in the relationship, but rather in the procedures adheredto and goals achieved. As Trompenaars (1994) suggested, individuals in lowcontext societies often work on the “getting to know you” interpersonalconcerns only after a basis for mutual interests is well established.

P1a. In a high context society, communicative behaviors reflecting trust-building and expressive motivations must usually precedecommunications for instrumental purposes. In a low context societythe precedence is often reversed.

P1b. In a high context society, communicative information technologiesused for instrumental purposes (e.g. e-commerce), will have a greaterlikelihood of success if they incorporate functional elements to helpestablish trust between the parties. In a low context society,contractual agreements (e.g. privacy policies) may suffice in place oftrust relationships.

Context and instrumental motivationsInstrumental motivations essentially work on a principle of reciprocity. Froman information boundary regulation perspective, individuals are motivated toreveal information if they perceive the potential outcome as favorable orexpected: “. . .actions are assumed to occur in relation to these induced valencesand the person’s expectations about the likelihood of achieving the outcomesand future consequences” (Feather, 1988, p.105). Note that not all favorableoutcomes need be monetary or otherwise tangible. Political maneuvering, forinstance, often includes acts of communication (e.g. ingratiation) that haveintangible goals such as influence over someone’s future behavior. Because ofthe primacy of relationship-based transactions in high context societies, suchintangible outcomes of communication may have greater motivational force forcommunicators than tangible outcomes. This also follows from the importanceof contractual arrangements in low context societies: fiduciary and othermaterial incentives serve as a preferable guarantor of predictability in a lowcontext relationship.

P2a. In high context societies, instrumental motivations for boundaryregulation will primarily emphasize intangible outcomes (e.g. receiving

ITP16,1

60

a future favor in exchange for some valuable information), whereas inlow context societies, instrumental motivations for boundaryregulation will primarily emphasize tangible outcomes (e.g. amonetary reward in exchange for some valuable information).

P2b. Communicative information technologies designed for high contextsocieties will improve their success by incorporating intangiblerewards (e.g. granting of privilege or access) to encourage informationrevelation, whereas technologies designed for low context societies willhave greater success by incorporating tangible rewards (e.g. money orprizes) to encourage information revelation.

Context and expressive motivationsIBT predicts that the extent to which people express intimate information byopening up information boundaries depends on the status of relationship andlevel of trust established. At the same time, however, the theory posits a purelyexpressive motive for some types of communication. In high context societies,the more trustworthy the relationship is, the more willingness people may haveto express intimacies. In low context societies, such a high degree of associationor affiliation may be less necessary for intimate revelation and publicexpression for expression’s sake has a greater likelihood of occurrence (think ofthe commonplace US practice of confiding in a stranger while on a trip). Thusexpressive motivations in a high context society are likely to promote intimaterevelation only within the context of the existing network of relationships. Inlow context societies, expressive motivations can promote intimate revelationto a larger audience of non-network members.

P3a. In high context societies, boundaries tend to remain closed in publiccontexts: individuals will rarely communicate sensitive or intimateinformation to anyone outside their personal network. In low contextsocieties, expressive motivations can open boundaries, such thatindividuals will more freely communicate sensitive or intimateinformation outside of their personal network for purposes of self-expression.

P3b. Communicative information technologies designed for purposes of self-expression will not work effectively in high context societies unlesscontrols exist to restrict access to a community of users designated bythe communicator. In low context societies, communicativeinformation technologies designed for purposes of self-expressioncan succeed without such controls.

In high context societies, individuals produce messages that are indirect andsubtle. People express important information reference to contextual cues,rather than actual language codes. As Hall (1959) describes, people in high


61

context cultures are more often silent about their feelings and thoughts. Forhigh context people, one must “read between the lines” in order to understandthe true meaning of a message (Deresky, 2002). The concept of “saving face”examined by Ting-Toomey (1988) describes one reason why high contextpeople are often cautious and/or ambiguous in their speech: to avoid causingembarrassment or humiliation to others. Conversely, in low context societies,people may express opinions and intentions more freely and may more oftensay what they literally want people to understand. Individuals’ expressionsappear in a more explicit manner that describes the situational elements neededto understand the text (Hall, 1976). In a low context society, individuals tend toproduce important messages through use of explicit verbal codes. Recall that,according to the outline of IBT, boundary opening resulting from expressivemotivations relates to attempts to establish and maintain status in a valuedsocial group. The following propositions focus specifically on communicationsresulting from expressive motivations.

P3c. In high context societies, expressive communications are terser andcontain more unexpressed or implied elements than expressivecommunications in low context societies do. In low context societies,expressive communications contain a greater proportion of explicitmessages (e.g. pertaining to tone, affective content, etc.).

P3d. While lean communication technologies (e.g. e-mail) can easily serveexpressive communication goals in low context societies (throughexplicit coding of meta-messages), in high context societies richermedia will provide a more satisfactory medium for self-expression.Although many individuals may prefer richer media for self-expressivepurposes, the difference in preferences will be more pronounced in highcontext societies.

Context and the zone of acceptanceIBT predicts that there is a threshold level below which requested informationis freely revealed because the request is routine. In low context societies, a greatvariety of information is routinely exchanged in daily communicationtransactions because frequent contacts between “socially distant” partiesensures that little shared context exists in many conversations. A classicexample in Western societies appears in customer service calls. One routinelydivulges name, address, phone number, and various other elements of personalinformation by telephone to a complete stranger in customer service,sometimes multiple times in a single call. In high context societies suchintimate communications transactions between strangers may occur lessfrequently, and thus the sense that an information request is routine may beless common.

ITP16,1

62

P4a. In high context societies, relatively few pieces of personal or intimateinformation fall within the zone of acceptance when the informationrequest comes from outside an individual’s personal network. In lowcontext societies, the necessary frequency of such requests tends tomake the zone of acceptance larger (i.e. more different kinds of personalor intimate information considered routine).

P4b. Information technologies that request personal or intimate informationfrom individuals in high context cultures will have a greater proportionof requests that fall outside the zone of acceptance. Thus someinformation requests considered routine in a low context culture wouldtrigger evaluation in a high context culture and thus be subject to trust,instrumental, or expressive motivational considerations.

Culture values work as filters in processing social and other forms ofinformation. Triandis (1994) called this idea the “glasses through which we seethe world”, Plous (1993) referred to it as the cultural “frame of mind”, andHofstede (1997) labelled it the “software of the mind”. Kirlidog (1996) observedthat the socio-cultural environment in which IT is deployed has substantialinfluence over technology’s success. Communication technologies, inparticular, only function properly if they facilitate culturally acceptablemodes of communication. Although some users – particularly early adopters(Rogers, 1962) – may exhibit a substantial degree of flexibility, transcendingcultural preferences and adapting to a disruptive technology, broadlysuccessful deployment of a new communications technology must includelocalizations that enhance the “fit” of the technology to the culture (Harris andDavidson, 1999). We believe that our synthesis of “contextual IBT” providessome useful insights into expected differences between high and low contextcultures on preferences for communications technology. In the followingsection we examine the specific application of our synthesis to Arabic cultures.

Applications of contextual IBT in Arabic culturesIn this paper we have chosen to limit our discussions to a relativelyhomogeneous set of Arabic Middle Eastern cultures; because there are so manydifferent cultures in the Middle East it would be difficult to adequatelyintegrate all of them in a brief paper such as this. According to Chen (2001,p. 56), “. . .to understand a person’s communication behavior or to communicateeffectively with a person from a different culture, it is first necessary tounderstand the person’s culture”. Thus, it is practical to begin this section withan understanding of the Arabic cultural values pertaining to establishingrapport, conducting meetings, the use of non-verbal cues, negotiation, and soforth.

Studies investigating Arabic culture have found strong influences of Islamicvalues and symbols (Elashmawi, 1989; Fandy, 2000; Hanson and Narula, 1990;


63

Jandt, 2001; Nydell, 1987). Elashmawi and Harris (2000, p. 51) state that,“Religion plays a vital role in Arab culture, influencing most decisions in lifeand business”. Strong values arise from monotheistic faith. Faith influencesmotivations in everyday life, but also affects how Arabs perceive futureundertakings. Arabs are inclined to say “Inshaallah” – “If God is willing” –when discussing a future event (Straub et al., 2001; Jandt, 2001, Scarborough,1998).

Studies of Arabic Middle Eastern culture have also described three basiccultural values in common: collectivism, honor, and hospitality (Feghali, 1997,Mackey, 1987; Parkinson, 1985; Dodd, 1973). Collectivism is strongly endorsed(Badawy, 1980; Buda and Elsayed-Elkhouly, 1998; Khalid, 1977 in Feghali,1997). Hasan and Ditsa (1999) confirmed that the collective nature of Arabsociety enhances the collaboration of team-based IT development becausepeople are more willing to emphasize the common good of the project beforetheir own advancement. Feghali (1997) mentioned that social life in the Arabicworld is characterized by mutual interdependence and characterized bysituation-centeredness and collectivism, rather than the self-reliance orindividualism manifested in low-context societies. In this orientation, loyaltyto one’s extended family as well as the larger “in-group” takes precedence overindividual needs and goals (Nydell, 1987; Yousef, 1974). Elashmawi (1993)stipulated that Arab culture is neither as individualistic as the USA norcollectivistic as Japan, yet strongly oriented towards maintaining familysecurity. Honor is also a strong value in the Arabic culture and is grounded in“the modesty code” by which family members must abide and which alsopertains to collective property of the family (Jandt, 2001; Muna, 1980; Patai,1983). Scarborough (1998, p. 111) stated that, “Ties of kinship and tribal ties areintense, as is distrust of outsiders. Arabs will defend the honor of their familieswithout regard for culpability”. Hospitality also symbolizes status (Almaneyand Alwan, 1982; Almaney, 1981; Barakat, 1993; Elashmawi, 1993; Feghali,1997).

In the light of Hall’s (1976) high vs low context framework, this discussionclearly indicates that Arabic cultures can be accurately described as “highcontext”. Indirect and implicit coding of messages in the context of theinteraction provides mechanisms to save face and display courtesy inconversations (Feghali 1997; Mackey, 1987). A study conducted by Zaharna(1995) compared communication patterns between the Arab and the Americanwith regard to the structure of persuasive messages. The study found that forUSA culture, conveying information is a primary function of language. Theemphasis is on function, and by extension, substance, meaning, and accuracy.A message may be valued more for its content than style. Conversely, in Arabculture, language functions as a social tool for weaving relationships. Formpresides over function, affect over accuracy, and image over meaning. The

ITP16,1

64

“chemistry” a message creates is viewed as more crucial than the purelyinformational impact.

Levine (1985) further delineated differences between direct and indirectcommunication styles apparent in the US culture and Arabic cultures.American communicative styles and preferences lay with unequivocal anddirect communication (e.g. “Say what you mean”, “Don’t beat around the bush”,and “Get to the point” (Levine, 1985, p. 29)). In contrast, Arabic preferencesinvolve the use of ambiguous, vague, and indirect styles of communication(Anderson, 1994; Cohen, 1987). Ambiguity in speech and symbolic connotationspromote the affective elements in messages. Directness in questions or answersmay be perceived as potential exposure to loss of face that in turn mayinterrupt social harmony.

In support of the indirectness manifest in the Arabic society, Hanson andNarula (1990, p. 131) state, “One uniting factor has always been, and willcontinue to be the Arabic language, which is itself more adapted to oral/auralexchange than written communication”. Indirectness requires unstated butmutually agreed on communication modes and procedures. Fandy (2000)explained that the lack of symbolic and emotional evocations suggests whycertain “lean” communication technologies might resist taking root in Arabiccultures. Arabic culture has also been labeled as “contact culture” in whichstronger emphasis is placed on people and personal contact and much less oninstitutionally derived procedures and rules. This increases the importance ofpersonalization as an element of design (Scarborough, 1998). Moreover, becauseestablishing a more meaningful relationship is considered a priority oversimply fulfilling a business agenda, Pugh (1993, p. 127) emphasized, “. . .in theArab culture, it matters who you are – not just what your job is”. Interestingly,individuals in Arabic cultures tend to know more about each other thanWesterners because they make fewer distinctions between public and privateself. As such, privacy in Arabic countries is gained through psychologicalrather than physical separation (Feghali, 1997). In Arabic cultures, trustnetworks provide the necessary context for psychological separation(Kluckhohn and Strodbeck, 1961).

One final way to characterize the high-context Arabic society is in modalpreferences. Zaharna (1995) points out that Arabic preferences for oralcommunication connect with higher usage of metaphors, analogies, and storytelling to establish the emotional qualities of a message. In this mode,communications engage the imagination, sounds and feelings of the audienceand the separation between the communicator and the audience diminishes.One strong and vivid example may illustrate a message more powerfully thanthe use of facts and figures. Oral communication by nature tends to be acollective experience, whereas reading and writing tends to be a more solitaryindividual or dyadic experience (Storr, 1989).


65

Design and implementation of culturally-sensitive ITThe information society model developed by Hanson and Narula (1990)foreshadowed the many contexts in which Arabic values might influence ITdevelopments but could not have anticipated the large impact that the Internetwould have throughout the Middle East. The 1990s saw substantial growth inthe use of the Internet in Arabic countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Dubai inboth the government and private sectors (Hasan and Ditsa, 1999; Hill et al.,1998; Straub et al., 2001). In these contexts global competitive pressures haveinfluenced decision makers to believe that it is risky to not adopt IT for fear offalling behind. For instance, Fandy (2000) and Ghareeb (2000) demonstrated theburgeoning of satellite communications as well as the flourishing of Internetconnectedness in the Arab world. The value of e-commerce within the MiddleEast alone was expected to increase almost tenfold from $400 million in 2000 to$3 billion in 2003 (Al Gergawi, 2001). The increased use of the Internet has beensubstantial in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates and willlikely continue to increase in popularity. The rise of Dubai Internet City as thehub for new economy businesses reflects the spread and establishment of theInternet in Middle Eastern countries. It is important to note, however, thatalthough the Arab world has increased its Internet connectivity, it hasnonetheless experienced one of the lowest rates of Internet growth worldwideand some industry analysts have expressed concerns that future growth maybe hampered (Ghareeb, 2000).

Fandy (2000) observed that many studies focused on technologydevelopment and transfer in the Arab world, yet few studies have exploredhow Arabic cultural values influence general acceptance and use of new formsof communication technologies. Numerous studies have focused onorganizational culture and structure issues (Abdul Ghani and al-Sakran,1988; Khan, 1991) but have not specifically addressed culture values andbeliefs. Two research efforts that exemplify an exception to this rule, however,were the Arab policy and IT (APIT) and Arab culture and IT (ACIT) projects atGeorgia State University. These studies made systematic efforts to ascertainbeliefs, values, and attitudes about information technology transfer and assesstheir impact on adoption and usage patterns (Hill et al., 1998; Straub et al.,2001). The early phase of the study comprised focus groups of Arab studentsfollowed by surveys of US resident Arab business professionals. A later phaseof study involved a mail survey of professionals in Jordan, Egypt, SaudiArabia, Lebanon, and the Sudan. Reports on these efforts (e.g. Straub et al.,2001) showed a clear influence of culture values on technology adoption andserve as a template for empirical research for testing models such as the onepresented in this paper.

With respect to our model, several authors have mentioned some of therelevant design questions that remain unresolved (e.g. Ali, 1990; Atiyyah, 1989;Goodman and Green, 1992; Hudson, 2000). How can people who interact only

ITP16,1

66

through computer screens develop substitutes for the affective cues that areintrinsic to oral, face-to-face communication? How can work organizations useIT to facilitate the kind of relationship building that is critical to organizationaleffectiveness in Arabic cultures? Perhaps more importantly, how can ITpromote relationship building across the “social distance” of divergent cultures(e.g. USA and the Middle East)? Can cyber communities (e.g. electronic supplychains) in Arabic cultures flourish as supplements to “real” communities? Inthe socially conservative culture of some Middle Eastern societies how can theglobal information sweep of the Internet be reconciled with individuals’concerns for family, security, and privacy?

It is clear from these questions that the deployment of new communicativetechnologies in high context societies presents a variety of new challenges. Fewof the standard network-based communication tools were designed with face-to-face interaction in mind and fewer still were designed to facilitatedevelopment of interpersonal relationships and credibility on the basis ofinformal oral agreements. In particular, typical e-mail and groupware packagesdo not facilitate the building of the levels of trust that are essential in highcontext societies (Fandy, 2000; Hasan and Ditsa, 1999). Trusting proceduresand information that comes from distant places seems more difficult in Arabthan in Western cultures (Fandy, 2000). Arabic values are prioritized forbuilding consensus and creating family-like environments withinorganizations; these priorities must be explicitly transformed into newsoftware features for community building (Ali, 1990; Badawy, 1980; Hudson,2000; Matta and Boutrous, 1989; Rose and Straub, 1998).

IT designers can take a number of approaches to ensure the effectiveutilization of IT based on prevailing culture values. For example, in a culturewhere the emphasis is on person-to-person relationships, oral communication,and face-to-face interactions, it is important to preserve these interactions tofoster trust building (Muna, 1980; Pugh, 1993). Communicative technologiesshould be construed as a supplement to face-to-face interactions andrelationships rather than a replacement (Rose and Straub, 1998; Straub et al.,2001). Technologies such as audio messaging and video-conferencing may helpto capture some of the features of face-to-face interaction and oralcommunication. These technologies may have their greatest applicability –and be most preferable to e-mail or text messaging – when sharing of sensitiveinformation is required. Web sites and Web pages should incorporateculturally relevant textual elements, elaborative language use (Samovar andPorter, 1991), use of graphical elements to deliver symbolic information (Gouldet al., 2000), and other appropriate design elements (Koch, 1983; Shouby, 1951).

Every new information technology poses a number of challenges to its users(e.g. learning the new interface). Often, skills and knowledge training can helpovercome these barriers and thus help to ensure successful use of the newtechnology (Veiga et al., 2001). If a new technology is deployed in such a way


67

that its use runs counter to cultural norms for behavior, however, even trainingand incentives together may not be sufficient to ensure its adoption. In a highcontext culture, new communications technology should be introduced indiscrete steps, where each step avoids disrupting the network of relationshipsthat has evolved using current technology (or no technology).

Developing trusting relationships through mediated communication in highcontext societies such as the Arabic countries appears to be a difficultchallenge. Yet creating positive reputations and building relationships withemployees, customers, or citizens in order to establish the level of trust that willenable them to share sensitive information is key to the success of new IT.Software designers must give attention to providing tools for establishing“community networks” and giving users control over the formulation andmaintenance of these networks. When an individual from a high contextsociety sends a message to others within his or her community network, thesoftware design should incorporate appropriate (and publicized) securityfeatures that keep that message “in network”. Such features will allowindividuals to selectively regulate information boundaries such that theyremain closed to distant institutions and individuals, while available andaccessible to close community members. Existing evidence suggests thatcultural values certainly play a role in determining the success of ITapplications; our contribution here is a set of theory-based predictions abouthow the cultural dimension of context influences decisions as to when, why andwhat private information is revealed or withheld.

In the next phase of our research work, we expect to test some of the researchpropositions described in this paper. Because building trust is important in ahigh-context culture, we thus attempt to use both the qualitative andquantitative approaches to collect data. Our exploration efforts would beinitiated by a qualitative approach, which is to collect some preliminaryevidence from semi-structured interviews of a small group of individuals fromthe Middle East and the USA. Then, based on the information obtained fromthe participants, we would develop a survey instrument in order to test some ofthe key variables and specific hypotheses established in the theoreticalframework. Future theory synthesis efforts should try to address otherdimensions of culture that may have particularly strong influences over thesuccess of IT deployment and adoption. Through development of appropriatetheory, researchers can understand and predict the impact of technology-drivenchange on cultures, such as those in Arabic countries that are rapidlyintegrating new technology into business and society.

References

Abdul Gader, A.H. (1990), “End-user computing success factors: further evidence from adeveloping nation”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Abdul Ghani, J. and Al-Sakran, S. (1988), “The changing data processing environment in SaudiArabia”, Information & Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 61-6.

ITP16,1

68

Adler, N.J. (2001), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed., South-WesternPublishing, Cincinnati, OH.

Aladwani, A.M. (2000), “IS project characteristics and performance: a Kuwaiti illustration”,Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 50-7.

Aladwani, A.M. (2001), “IT planning effectiveness in a developing country”, Journal of GlobalInformation Technology Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 51-65.

Alder, G.S. (1998), “Ethical issues in electronic performance monitoring: a consideration ofdeontological and teleological perspectives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, pp. 729-43.

Alder, G.S. and Tompkins, P.K. (1997), “Electronic performance monitoring: an organizationaljustice and concertive control perspective”, Management Communication Quarterly,Vol. 10, pp. 259-88.

Al Gergawi, M. (2001), “Spreading the online culture, organization for economic cooperation anddevelopment”, 224, The OECD Observer, p. 8.

Ali, A.J. (1990), “Management theory in a transnational society: the Arab’s experience”,International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 7-35.

Almaney, A.J. (1981), “Cultural traits of Arabs: growing interest for international management”,Management International Review, Vol. 21, pp. 10-18.

Almaney, A.J. and Alwan, A.J. (1982), Communicating with the Arabs: A Handbook for theBusiness Executive, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.

Anderson, J. (1994), “A comparison of Arab and American conceptions of effective persuasion, inSamovar, L. and Porter, R. (Eds), Intercultural Communication: A Reader, Vol. 7, pp. 98-107.

Arnold, M.D. (1998), “A review of the essentials of international communication”, TechnicalCommunication, Vol. 2, pp. 197-206.

Atiyyah, H.S. (1989), “Determinants of computer system effectiveness in Saudi Arabian publicorganizations”, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 19 No. 2,pp. 85-103.

Avgerou, C.Z. (1996), “Transferability of information technology and organizational practices”,in Odedra-Straub, M. (Ed.), Global Information Technology and Socio-economicDevelopment, Ivy League Publishing, Nashua, NH, pp. 106-15.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N., Mendoca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, J. and Kurshid, A. (2000), “Impactof cultural on human resource management practices: a ten-country comparison”, AppliedPsychology: An International Review, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 192-221.

Badawy, M.K. (1980), “Styles of mideastern managers”, California Management Review, Vol. 22No. 2, pp. 51-8.

Barakat, H. (1993), The Arab World, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Barber, W. and Badre, A. (1998), “Culturability: the merging of culture and usability”, HumanFactors and the Web (4th Conference), available at: www.research.att.com/conf/hfweb/proceedings/barber/index.htm.

Buda, R. and Elsayed-Elkhouly, S.M. (1998), “Cultural differences between Arabs andAmericans: individualism-collectivism revisited”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,Vol. 29 No. 3, p. 487.

Chen, G.M. (2001), “Toward transcultural understanding: a harmony theory of Chinesecommunication”, in Milhouse, V.H., Asante, M.K. and Nwosu, P.O. (Eds), TransculturalRealities: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Cross-cultural Relations, Sage, Thousand Oaks,CA, pp. 55-70.


69

Chen, G.M. and Starosta, W.J. (1998), Foundations of Intercultural Communication, Allyn andBacon, Needham Heights, MA.

Cohen, R. (1987), “Problems of intercultural communications in Egyptian-American diplomaticrelations”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 11, pp. 29-47.

Cole, M. and O’Keefe, R.M. (2000), “Conceptualizing the dynamics of globalisation and culture inelectronic commerce”, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol. 3 No. 1,pp. 4-17.

Cunningham, R.B. and Srayrah, Y.K. (1994), “The human factor in technology transfer”,International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 101-18.

Danet, B. (2001), Cyberpl@y: Communicating Online, Berg Publishers, Oxford, MA.

Deresky, H. (2002), Managing Across Borders and Cultures, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper SaddleRiver, NJ.

Dodd, P.C. (1973), “Family honor and the forces of change in Arab society”, International Journalof Middle East Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 40-54.

Elashmawi, F. (1989), “Testing your intercultural communication skills – interacting withArabians”, International Business Communication, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 23-6.

Elashmawi, F. (1993), Multicultural Management. New Skills for Global Success, Gulf PublishingCompany, Houston, TX.

Elashmawi, F.A. and Harris, M. (2000), Multicultural Management 2000: Essential CulturalInsights for Global Business Success, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX.

Fandy, M. (2000), “Information technology, trust, and social change in the Arab world”, TheMiddle East Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 378-93.

Feather, N.T. (1988), “From values to actions: recent applications of the expectancy-value model”,Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 105-24.

Feghali, E. (1997), “Arab cultural communication patterns”, International Journal of InterculturalRelations, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 345-78.

Fischer, C.S. (1992), America Calling: a Social History of the Telephone to 1940, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, CA.

Gao, Y. (2001), “Directive approach to telephone counseling in the People’s Republic of China:underlying cultural traditions and transitions”, Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 29 No. 3,pp. 435-53.

Ghareeb, E. (2000), “New media and the information revolution in the Arab world: anassessment”, The Middle East Journal, Summer, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 395-418.

Gidden, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Goodman, S.E. and Green, J.D. (1992), “Computing in the Middle East”, Communication of theACM (CACM), Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 21-5.

Gould, E., Zakaria, N. and Mohd Yusof, S.A. (2000), “Applying culture to Website design: acomparison of Malaysian and US Web sites”, International Professional CommunicationSociety International Communication and ACM Special Interest Group on DocumentationConference Proceedings (IEEE Professional Communication Society)/ SIGDOC.

Gudykunst, W.B. and Ting-Toomey, S. (1988), Culture and Interpersonal Communication, Sage,Newbury Park, CA.

Hall, E.T. (1959), The Silent Language, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, NY.

Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Anchor Press, Garden City, New York, NY.

ITP16,1

70

Hanson, J. and Narula, U. (1990), New Communication Technologies in Developing Countries,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Harris, R. and Davidson, R. (1999), “Anxiety and involvement: cultural dimension of attitudestoward computers in developing societies”, Journal of Global Information Management,Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 26-38.

Harris, R., Palvia, P.C. and Hunter, M.G. (1996), “Information systems development: a conceptualmodel and a comparison of methods used in Singapore, USA, and Europe”, Journal ofGlobal Information Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 5-16.

Hasan, H. and Ditsa, G. (1999), “The impact of culture on the adoption of IT: an interpretivestudy”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 5-15.

Hill, C.E., Loch, K.D., Straub, D.W. and El-Sheshai, K. (1998), “A qualitative assessment of Arabculture and information technology”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 6No. 3, pp. 29-38.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1984), “The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 9, pp. 389-98.

Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York,NY.

Homer, P.M. and Kahle, L.R. (1988), “A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behaviorhierarchy”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 638-46.

Honold, P. (1999a), “Learning how to use a cellular phone: comparison between German andChinese users”, Technical Communication: Journal of the Society for TechnicalCommunication, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 196-205.

Honold, P. (1999b), “Culture and context: an empirical study for the development of a frameworkfor the elicitation of cultural influence in product usage”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 12 No. 3/4, pp. 327-45.

Hudson, M.A. (2000), “Pan-Arab virtual “think-tank”: enriching the Arab informationenvironment”, The Middle East Journal, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 362-77.

Jandt, F.E. (2001), Intercultural Communication: An Introduction, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks,CA.

Kahle, L.R., Beatty, S.E. and Homer, P.M. (1986), “Alternative measurement approaches toconsumer values: the list of values (LOV) and values and life style (VALS)”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 405-9.

Kedia, B.L. and Bhagat, R.S. (1988), “Cultural constraints of transfer technology across nations:implications of research in international and comparative management”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 559-71.

Khan, E.H. (1991), “Organization and management of information systems functions:comparative study of selected organizations in Bahrain”, Information & Management,Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 73-87.

Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1992), “Group decision making and communication technology”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 52, pp. 96-123.

Kiesler, S., Siegal, J. and McGuire, T.W. (1984), “Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication”, American Psychologist, Vol. 9, pp. 1123-34.

Kirlidog, M. (1996), “Information technology transfer to a developing country: executiveinformation systems in Turkey”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 55-84.


71

Kluckhorn, F. and Strodbeck, R. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Row, Peterson,Evanston, IL.

Koch, J.B. (1983), “Presentation as a proof: the language of Arabic rhetoric”, AnthropologicalLinguistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 47-60.

Lea, M. and Spears, R. (1991), “Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and groupdecision-making”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 283-301.

Levine, D. (1985), The Flight from Ambiguity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York,NY.

Little, S., Holmes, L. and Grieco, M. (2001), “Calling up culture: information spaces andinformation flows as the virtual dynamics of inclusion and exclusion”, InformationTechnology & People, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 353-67.

Mackey, S. (1987), Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom, Signet, New York, NY.

Marcus, A. (2001), ”Babyface design for mobile devices and the Web”, in Smith, M.J. andSalvendy, G. (Eds), Conference Proceedings, Human-Computer Interface Internet (HCII),Vol. 2, pp. 514-18.

Marcus, A. and Gould, E.W. (2000), “Crosscurrents: cultural dimensions and global Web user-interface design, interactions”, ACM Publisher, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 32-46, www.acm.org.

Martinsons, M. and Westwood, R. (1997), “Management information systems in the Chinesebusiness cultures: an explanatory theory”, Information and Management, Vol. 35,pp. 215-28.

Matta, K.F. and Boutros, J.E. (1989), “Barriers to computer-based message systems in developingcountries”, Computers & Society, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-6.

Mejias, R.J., Shepherd, M.M., Vogel, D.R. and Lazaneo, L. (1996), “Consensus and perceivedsatisfaction levels: a cross-cultural comparison of GSS and non-GSS outcomes within andbetween the US and Mexico”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 137-61.

Milward, S. (2000), “The relationship among Internet exposure, communicator context andrurality”, American Communication Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/rogue4/millward.

Muna, F.A. (1980), The Arab Executive, Macmillan, New York, NY.

Nydell, M. (1987), Understanding Arabs: A Guide for Westerners, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth,ME.

Olaniran, B.A. (2001), “The effects of computer-mediated communication on transculturalism”, inMilhouse, V.H., Asante, M.K. and Nwosu, P.O. (Eds), Transcultural Realities:Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Cross-cultural Relations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 83-105.

Parkinson, D.B. (1985), Constructing the Social Context of Communication: Terms of Address inEgyptian Arabic, Mouton de Gruyter, New York, NY.

Patai, R. (1983), The Arab Mind, rev. ed., Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, NY.

Petronio, S. (1991), “Communication boundary management: a theoretical model of managingdisclosure of private information between marital couples”, Communication Theory, Vol. 1,pp. 311-35.

Plous, S. (1993), The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making, Temple University Press,Philadelphia, PA.

ITP16,1

72

Pook, L. and Fustos, J. (1999), “Information sharing by management: some cross-cultural results”,Human Systems Management, Vol. 18, pp. 9-22.

Postmes, T., Spears, R. and Lea, M. (2000), “The formation of group norms in computer-mediatedcommunication”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 26, pp. 341-71.

Pugh, D.S. and and the Open University Course Team (1993), “Cultural differences inorganizational behavior”, in Weinshall, T.D. (Ed.), Societal Culture and Management,Walter de Gruyter & Co, New York, NY.

Roche, E.M. (1992), Managing Information Technology in Multinational Corporations,Macmillan, New York, NY.

Rogers, E. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Rokeach, M. (1979), “Some unresolved issues in theories of beliefs, attitudes, and values”,Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 27, pp. 261-304.

Rokeach, M. and McLellan, D.D. (1972), “Feedback of information about the values and attitudesof self and others as determinants of long-term cognitive and behavioral change”, Journalof Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 236-51.

Rose, G. and Straub, D. (1998), “Predicting general IT use: applying TAM to the Arabic world”,Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 39-46.

Samovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. (1991), Communication between Cultures, Wadsworth, Belmont,CA.

Scarborough, J. (1998), The Origins of Cultural Differences and Their Impact on Management,Quorum Books, Westport, CT.

Schneider, S.C. and Barsoux, J.L. (1997),Managing Across Cultures, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.

Schwartz, S.H. (1992), “Universals in the structure and content of values: theoretical advancesand empirical tests in 20 countries”, in Zanna, M.P. (Ed.),Awareness in Experimental SocialPsychology, Academic, Orlando, FL, 25, pp. 1-65.

Schwartz, S.H. (1999), “A theory of cultural values and some implications for work”, AppliedPsychology: An International Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 23-47.

Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1987), “Towards a psychological structure of human values”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 550-62.

Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1990), “Toward a theory of the universal structure and content ofvalues: extensions and cross-cultural replication”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 58, pp. 878-91.

Shea, T. and Lewis, D.L. (1996), “The influence of national culture on management practices andinformation use in developing countries”, in Edward, S. and Mehdi, K. (Eds), The HumanSide of Information Technology Management, Idea Group Publishing, Harrisburg, PA,pp. 254-73.

Shore, B. (1996), “A conceptual framework to assess the gaps in information systems culturesbetween headquarters and foreign subsidiaries”, in Palvia, P.C., Palvia, S.C. and Roche,E.M. (Eds), Global Information Technology and Systems Management: Key Issues andTrends, Ivy League Publishing, Westford, MA, pp. 191-208.

Shouby, E. (1951), “The influence of the Arabic language on the psychology of the Arabs”,Middle East Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 284-304.

Sifianou, M. (1989), “On the telephone again!: Differences in telephone behavior, England versusGreece”, Language in Society, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 527-44.


73

Sproull, L.S. and Kiesler, S. (1986), “Reducing social context cues: electronic mail inorganizational communication”, Management Science, Vol. 32, pp. 1492-512.

Sproull, L.S., Kiesler, S. and Zubrow, D. (1984), Encountering an Alien Culture, Carnegie MellonUniversity Press, Pittsburgh, PA.

Stanton, J.M. (2002), “Information technology and privacy: a boundary managementperspective”, in Clarke, S., Coakes, E., Hunter, G. and Wenn, A. (Eds), Socio-Technicaland Human Cognition Elements of Information Systems, Idea Group, London, pp. 79-103.

Stanton, J.M. and Weiss, E.M. (2000), “Electronic monitoring in their own words: an exploratorystudy of employees’ experiences with new types of surveillance”, Computers in HumanBehavior, Vol. 16, pp. 423-40.

Stanton, J.M. andWeiss, E.M. (n.d.), “Technology and personnel data: contrasting the concerns ofhuman resource managers and employees”, Behaviour and Information Technology.

Stone, E.F. and Stone, D.L. (1990), “Privacy in organizations: theoretical issues, research findingsand protection mechanisms”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,Vol. 8, pp. 349-411.

Storr, A. (1989), Solitude, Ballantine, New York, NY.

Straub, D., Keil, M. and Brenner, W. (1997), “Testing the technology acceptance model acrosscultures: a three country study”, Information & Management, Vol. 33, pp. 1-11.

Straub, D., Loch, K.D. and Hill, C.E. (2001), “Transfer of information technology to the Arabworld: a test of cultural influence modeling”, Journal of Global Information Management,Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 6-48.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988), “A face negotiation theory”, in Kim, Y. and Gudykunst, W. (Eds),Theories in Intercultural Communication, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 213-55.

Ting-Toomey, S. and Chung, L. (1996), “Cross-cultural interpersonal communication: theoreticaltrends and research directions”, in Gudykunst, W.B., Ting-Toomey, S. and Nishida, T.(Eds), Communication in Personal Relationships across Cultures, Sage, Thousand Oaks,CA, pp. 237-62.

Triandis (1994), Culture and Social Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Triandis, H.C. (1997), “Cross-cultural versus cultural psychology: a synthesis?”, paper presentedat the Conference of the International Council of Psychologists, Padua, Italy.

Triandis, H.C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. and Clack, F.L. (1985), “Allocentric versus idiocentrictendencies: convergent and discriminant validation”, Journal of Research in Personality,Vol. 19, pp. 395-415.

Trompenaars, F. (1994), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding the Diversity in GlobalBusiness, Irwin Publishing, New York, NY.

Veiga, J.F., Floyd, S. and Dechant, K. (2001), “Towards modeling the effects of national culture onIT implementation and acceptance”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 16, pp. 145-58.

Volkow, N. (1996), “Building a system within its context: a case study of Petroleos Mexicanos”, inOdedra-Straub, M. (Ed.), Global Information Technology and Socio-economic Development,Ivy League Publishing, Nashua, NH, pp. 143-52.

Walther, J.B. (1996), “Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal andhyperpersonal interaction”, Communication Research, Vol. 23, pp. 3-43.

Weinrich, P. (1983), “Emerging from threatened identities: ethnicity and gender in redefinitionsof ethnic identity”, in Breakwell, G. (Ed.), Threatened Identities, Wiley, Chichester.

ITP16,1

74

Weinrich, P. (1988), “The operationalisation of identity theory in racial and ethnic relations”, inRex, J. and Mason, D. (Eds), Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA.

Williams, R.M. (1968), “Values”, in Sills, E. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia for the SocialSciences, Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 283-7.

Williams, R.M. (1970), American Society: A Sociological Interpretation, 3rd ed., Knopf, New York,NY.

Yavas, U., Luqmani, M. and Quraeshi, Z.A. (1992), “Facilitating the adoption of informationtechnology in a developing country”, Information & Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 75-82.

Yousef, F.S. (1974), “Cross-cultural communication aspects of contrastive social values betweenNorth Americans and Middle Easterners”, Human Organization, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 383-7.

Zaharna, R.S. (1995), “Bridging cultural differences: American public relations practices & Arabcommunication patterns”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 21, pp. 241-55.

Zakaria, N. (2000), “Marriage across borders: the influence of culture on international jointventures”, Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 1, pp. 48-64.


75