The transfer of research information within and by multicultural teams

Information Processing & Management, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 89-100, 1995 Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 03ofG4573/95 $9.50 + .oo

0306-4573(94)00032-8

THE TRANSFER OF RESEARCH INFORMATION WITHIN AND BY MULTICULTURAL TEAMS

DONALD DAY, MARTA DOSA, and CORINNE JORGENSEN School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100, U.S.A.

(Received 30 September 1993; accepted in final form 16 May 1994)

Abstract-This paper reports findings of a study that sought better understanding of communications and other interactions within research teams composed of individuals from a variety of cultures. The study, focusing on economically developing countries, addressed the questions: (1) What kinds of processes do multicultural team researchers use to develop, exchange, and disseminate data and information, and (2) which factors affect the quality and outcome of such processes? Key concepts are introduced and assumptions regarding information flows and technology transfer are examined. Research in technology transfer and the diffusion of innovation within multicultural settings is reviewed briefly, as are the settings of multicultural research and recent trends in the oper- ation of multicultural teams. Research methods for the study were descriptive and exploratory, employing a survey and in-person interviews. Preliminary analysis of data identified five major themes, characterizing the external environment of the respondents’ projects, which may form an organizational framework for future research: sociopolitical climate, cultural climate, development-related trends within countries, information climate, and behavior patterns and attitudes. The study addressed facilitators of research and dissemination, barriers and their effects, and team research approaches considered by participants to be most likely to succeed in the future.

INTRODUCTION

Information science research is expanding into ever more diverse geographic regions and political settings throughout the world. Investigative teams including individuals from a variety of cultures are being formed by governments, transnational corporations, joint ventures, and international organizations. Team research may focus either on (a) phenomena related directly to information flow (e.g., information science, informatics, telematics) or on (b) the role played and value added by information in various sectors (e.g., business, the environment, health care, technology production).

An investigative team may work at a central site or each member may contribute from a remote location. Members bring with them different cultural, linguistic, and ideological backgrounds. Thus, the team is not merely international, it is multicultural. As such, it is subject to a host of interpersonal dynamics that stem from members’ home cultures. Inves- tigation of the ways in which members of multicultural teams work together could enhance both the quality of research conducted by such teams and the extent to which their results are disseminated.

This paper reports findings of a study that sought better understanding of the communications and interactions within multicultural teams and between such teams and their external environments. Teams in information science/informatics and teams investigating problems in other areas were included. The study focused on economically developing countries (EDCs) because the processes, teamwork, and context of multicultural research within these countries have been studied less and are less well understood than those in the industrialized economies.

Our research investigated the processes used to develop, exchange, and disseminate

Reprint requests should be addressed to Prof. Marta Dosa.

89

90 D. DAY et al.

data and information within and by multicultural research teams, and factors that affect these processes. Specifically, we addressed:

l internal and external facilitators of research and dissemination, l internal and external barriers and their effects, and l approaches considered by participants most likely to succeed in the future.

The study recognizes that developing nations are not homogeneous; they have a wide range of economic, social, and historical characteristics, and may be undergoing funda- mental transformations within their societies. Therefore, in research teams composed of individuals from different cultures and societies, each team member represents a distinct cultural context, professional agenda, and goal-oriented behavior. We assume that the success of such teams in generating and distributing meaningful findings depends upon over- coming communication barriers and transforming diverse approaches into creative interchange among team members.

The research literature offers scant contribution toward a conceptual framework and means of synthesis to accommodate the various interpretations of sustainable development. The confusion engendered by this lack of structure and analytic technique has spawned con- flicting and overlapping definitions of long-range national development. The former East- West polarization of development policy and research goals, in which the term “West” was presumed to mean the collective thinking of industrialized countries, has evolved into a confrontation between the scientific and technological needs of economically underdevel- oped regions (collectively, the “South”) and the scientific and technological domination of economically more advanced areas (the “North”) (Chou & Shy, 1991).

Whereas in the past the national development of a country was practically synonymous with rapid industrialization, today development implies a more people-centered perspective (Ayish, 1992; Chitty, 1992; Golembiewski, 1993). We can perceive a movement toward a new development paradigm that places human resources at the center “both in terms of the goals toward which it moves-human well-being in all its dimensions, and of the means used to get there-the initiative and creativity of individuals and communities” (Ickis et a/., 1986, p. 231). The definition of development is also influenced by a new industrial inter- nationalism created by the interdependence of nations, on the one hand, and a growing environmental awareness confronting the heedless spread of industrialization, on the other (Ohmae, 1990; Sharif, 1992).

The study reported in this paper focused on researchers from countries we prefer to call “economically developing,” to avoid the condescending generalization of “less developed countries,” a term abounding in the literature. The newly industrialized countries (NICs) of Southeast Asia receive copious attention from researchers. International development aid and lending agencies identify and define categories of low-income nations of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and South Asia-most of them burdened by national debt and unstable institutional systems-that fit the description of “economically developing,” Despite some aggregate achievements in international development programs, in these countries widespread poverty exists:

Per capita incomes in some economies have doubled twice over since 1960 and are well on the way to a third doubling. But thirty-six nations with a combined population of nearly 500 million people have seen low or declining average incomes over the past twenty-five years. (Summers, 1993, p. 243)

The most important lesson learnt from the sustainable development strategy experience is that governments must invest in the education, health, and cultural well-being of people in order to secure economic returns. Other prerequisites for development are domestic and regional peace, innovative domestic policies, and a proper blend of state and market influences on the economy (Summers, 1993). The perception of a relationship between information and the new people-centrism of development policies is an unfolding and ten-

The transfer of research information 91

tative phenomenon in the literature, a perspective crying out for more solid documenta- tion and measurement than is currently available (Lu & Farrell, 1990; Boon, 1992; Menou, 1993).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

For the research questions, we conceptualized knowledge and information exchange as an integral part of technology transfer. As noted by Perrin (1984), the role played by learning-in Perrin’s terms, the knowledge produced by the practical experiences of the users of novel technologies-is critical to the success of technology transfer. Information transfer, often embedded in paradigms and analytic tools, precedes but does not ensure knowledge transfer. The main determinant of the effectiveness of information transfer, and thus the development of knowledge, is the extent to which the process is integrated within the culture. Integration requires that both candidate technologies and methods of adaptation be appropriate for the recipient cultures. Assessment of appropriateness is one of the major objectives of multicultural teams.

International technology transfer (ITT) will be defined here as the transmission of goods, information/data, and knowledge/know-how/skills across national borders. Def- initions elsewhere have characterized ITT in terms of what is being transferred from one country to another. For example, ITT has been described as encompassing both tangible and intangible commodities. “It includes patents, trade secrets, and know-how, and may also include machinery and other devices that implement the intangible property” (Dob- kin, 1988, p. 3). Concentrating upon the intent of the ITT process, Jenkins (1987, pp. 66- 67) proposes that “. . . the term transfer is in an important sense misleading and that it would be more appropriate to refer to ‘commercialization of technology.’ ”

However, it is essential to avoid the impression that all technology transfer takes place in the context of trade or commerce. An extensive but scantily explored dimension of ITT relates to social program innovations originally developed abroad, and their selection, implementation, and evaluation within a social organization in the recipient country. The cultural variables that affect industrial ITT apply also to transfers of social program and policy models, with the involvement of a number of additional cultural factors (Korten, 1981).

The social technology dimension For several decades, two related assumptions regarding information flows during the

transfer of technology to EDCs were held widely by international development agencies. These assumptions supposed a lack of relevant knowledge and skills on the part of the recipient populations, and a one-way flow of communications from donors to recipients. It was presumed that if information transfer were reinforced by training and consultation, the transmission of knowledge would take place automatically. As a result, potential recipients were not included in project planning and in the exploration of social and cultural impacts of technological modernization. A growing body of recent literature charges that in the past too little attention was paid to the cultural and social variables that affect innovation and to the development of indigenous technological capability (Altbach, 1987; Cernea, 1991; Scott-Stevens, 1987; Summers, 1993). Lallez (1986, p. 184) typifies concerns with the interplay of imported technologies and local cultures. Along with the transmission of technology came new lifestyles, new organizations with a different division of labor, new standards, and new values that threatened the traditional family pattern.

A further dimension was introduced to the technology transfer debate by the proponents of social technology. Although the amorphous quality of the debate deepened as a consequence of this new perspective, the research landscape was immensely enriched and diversified. To most development specialists, the concept of social technology transfer meant both the processes of adopting, adjusting, and diffusing social innovations, and the media that facilitated such processes (Bhalla & James, 1991; Hanson & Narula, 1990).

92 D. DAY et al.

Cromwell (1992, p. 972) illustrated these processes by describing a 20-year program grad- ually modernizing microhydrotechnology in Nepal:

Transfer is not exclusively concerned with adapting technology to given socioeconomic and technical environments. It is also the development of suitable mechanisms within the destination environment whereby a technology can be successfully . . . exploited - adaptation of the destination environment itself.

A number of researchers went further by defining social technology as all management and communication activities that produce social change. Seen collectively as “an interac- tive process of [strategy] formulation and implementation” within development organizations, social technology affects structural relationships, information flows, and evaluation and measurement criteria, resulting in total bureaucratic reorientation (Ickis et al., 1986, pp. l-3). As a major current in the new trend, the impact of indigenous knowledge and communication systems on development is of growing interest to multicultural researchers (Mundy, 1993).

Development information research has been slow in recognizing the applicability of the social technology perspective to the study of ways to innovate information systems in developing countries. The theme of information technology (IT) management dominates the literature and forms the extensive foundation for the ongoing selection of projects by international sponsors as well as the establishment of national research agendas (Bowonder, et al., 1993; Friend & Rapport, 1991; Lu & Farrell, 1990; Palvia et al., 1990; Ping & Grim- shaw, 1992). However, there also is evidence of efforts toward ways to assess the impact of information on development (Agha & Akhtar, 1992; Jussawalla, 1993; Menou, 1993). Less interest is expressed in the problem of identifying ways to better manage the research process itself. By gaining a better understanding of the barriers to and facilitators of information flows within multicultural team projects, we hope that these teams-representing dimensions of social technology-can become more effective in exploring ways to accomplish cross-national cooperation in managing and diffusing research.

Key factors in technology transfer Relating international technology transfer (ITT) to national development strategies,

Marton (1986) suggests that historically all industrial sectors in developing countries were in desperate need of technological development. Subsequently, certain areas (e.g., petro- leum, minerals, the food industry, and pharmaceuticals) were given priority status. More recently, the equipment and applications of microelectronics and telecommunications have been the coveted imports. Demonstrating a shift in emphasis from the channels to the con- tent of communication, today it is data, information, and knowledge that are in the eye of the politicized ITT debate.

Paralleling such changing priorities in official policies, a groundswell of doubt, sus- picion, and.criticism of North-to-South transfers has penetrated the debate. Imports have been seen by some as perpetrators of dependence on foreign technology. To counter the emotional stance of this anti-ITT movement, technology assessment proponents have turned to the “unpackaging” approach to better measure the contributions of imported technology. They have used the term “embodied” technology to refer to tangible elements (such as equipment and turnkey plants), and “nonembodied” or “disembodied” technology to designate intangible elements (such as expertise, techniques, information, analysis, and evaluation methods) (Marton, 1986, p. 4). Thus, instead of estimating an innovation’s total value, each machine, system, procedure, or program can be broken down into its components for evaluation.

Some would argue that “knowledge” is not amenable to this approach. “Knowledge” is taken as a form of technical experience that cannot be codified in a single medium, whether oral or written, for transmission to others (Perrin, 1984). This practical knowledge, never static but always changing over time, is usually acquired on the job through collaboration and familiarization. Cultural factors have an extensive impact on this process.


In their examination of human factors in project work, Perrett and Lethem (1980) identify the following culture-bound determinants of the appropriateness of technology:

. social, behavioral, and resource requirements of the technology, l corresponding characteristics of the target population and work environment, l compatibility of the technology and the population, l the intended beneficiaries, l the recipients’ natural setting, demography, and existing tools, and l patterns of decision making, cooperation, and conflict resolution.

A landmark study by Yin (1992) symbolizes the evolution of policies in EDCs, from earlier assumptions that all technology had to be imported to present efforts to create technology locally, even at a small scale. Yin analyzed data from 116 local firms in China to identify the effects of indigenous technological capability (ITC) upon the performance of technology transfer projects in recipient Chinese firms. ITC is defined as the ability to adapt, modify, or create technological processes that interrelate in complex and seemingly intangible ways. Yin’s research concludes that domestic firms in a developing country must formulate strategies “with a thorough understanding of the relationship between the transfer of foreign technology and the development of local technological capability” (Yin, 1992, p. 26). Components recognized as essential to strategic planning include the allocation of resources, the appropriateness of the new or improved technology, and the mechanisms of transfer.

Cultural aspects of technology transfer Hofstede (1984) reported on cultural variations in such work-related terms as Power

Distance (the extent to which unequal distribution of power is accepted), Uncertainty Avoidance (the tendency toward a need for formal rules and stability), Individualism- Collectivism (the social framework affecting people’s leaning toward independence or dependence), and Masculinity-Feminity (not related to gender but to dominant social values historically deemed to be masculine or feminine). His findings, underscoring the pow- erful impact of cultural values upon working relationships, hold vital implications for multicultural team research. Gudykunst and Kim (1992) describe cultural, sociocultural, psychocultural, and environmental filters that determine the cognitive schema used by members of a culture in the “understanding” of reality. The cultural filters that members of a team bring to their work define the degree to which the sharing of beliefs, values, and attitudes will facilitate the research process and the dissemination of findings. Conflicts among values, and distortions in political and economic power, arise as a result of the dis- placement inevitable in the wake of technological innovation.

The concept of sociological and cultural communication barriers that we have applied in our research has its origins in work carried out in several different disciplines. Barriers may be technology related, or human-cognition and behavior related. “From the social technological point of view, the performance demands of technology must fit into existing patterns of human interaction to be meaningful in the particular social system” (Han- son & Narula, 1990, p. 10). Schein (1987, p. 78) suggests that barriers arise when people with different social, cultural, and political assumptions find it difficult to understand each other’s thinking. Information exchanges among people are especially prone to encounter- ing barriers because of the amorphous and culture-bound nature of information. Warren et al. (1991) find that informal information flows are so deeply affected by the cultural context that assessment models created for formal information systems may not be used for them.

Technology transfers involve the social reconstruction of a system of work, and affect the cultural environment outside of work, linking transfer to problems of social change and development. Failures in production that often are explained as a lack of motivation on the part of workers may in fact be caused by conflicts between recipient cultural values and those implicit in the transferred development model (Perrin, 1984).

94 D. DAY et al.

Development studies are emphasizing the role of information in such social change. Korten (1980) introduces the concept of the “learning organization.” Kim (1981) charac- terizes emerging societies that use computer and telecommunication applications as “intellectual societies” marked by the growing role of information and knowledge. Social technology has been highlighted as an information-intensive empowering innovation. It employs the forces of new media in developing countries, and due to its awareness-raising effects, “people’s activities contribute to the inevitable changes in the social system” (Han- son & Narula, 1990, p. 10).

THE ENVIRONMENT AND SETTINGS OF MULTICULTURAL TEAM RESEARCH

The management of development research is fundamentally different from the management of development projects that introduce technological or institutional innovations (White, 1987; Narula & Pearce, 1990). Whereas development projects are influenced by the characteristics of the economic sector in which they take place, the management of research typically depends upon the methodology employed. However, no research is com- pletely free of the need to garner political support and to respond to cultural influences (Bhatt, 1986; Pratt & Manheim, 1988; Rondinelli, 1983).

The environment of a research team includes the politics of sponsorship, the culture of the site of the investigation, and the characteristics of project leadership. The research setting will determine the language(s) used, the nationalities of consultants hired, and the extent and nature of the dissemination of findings. Teams operate in a climate of institutional interdependence in which project outcomes may be either supported or undermined, depending upon the nature of indigenous communication and cooperation (Romer, 1993; Scott-Stevens, 1987).

Two main organizational structures are used in team research: researchers assembled in one location, usually in the host country, and researchers working from their own countries, meeting only occasionally. Computer conferencing in newly industrializing countries makes it possible to merge the two research management styles.

The strongest social factor affecting international sponsorship of team research is the shift in development priorities from physical infrastructures to human resources, training, and analytic skills. Economic growth is assumed to be the product of a combination of capital accumulation, investment, economic management, entrepreneurship, and human resource development (Singh, 1990; Van Arkadie, 1990). It is recognized that the success of any research team in a developing country depends upon the relevance of the research to local needs. This recognition creates a special challenge to researchers, because both local data collection and the dissemination of research results require innovative methods. There- fore, information exchange between the research team and its environment is seen not only as an internal support mechanism for the project, but also as an integral part of the entire development process.

Development economists remain pessimistic about the potential of externally sponsored, large-scale development research, because of the prevailing technological knowledge gap between the South and the North. Poverty breeds dependencies, and foreign support for research is seldom politics-free. Singh (1990, p. 19) notes that

In the 1980s both international financial institutions and bilateral donors have massively increased the conditionality attached to their development assistance. . . . Only an impar- tial international evaluation of development performance can inspire the confidence and respect of both donors and recipients.

As a result, when multicultural teams are assembled for a research project, questions arise regarding the selection of team members and the freedom and integrity of investiga- tions. The topic of covert conflict between “guided” research and autonomous investigation is a small but vociferous newcomer to the development literature.

The following sections describe the data collection methodology and findings of our study of information transfer within and by multicultural research teams.

The transfer of research information

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

95

Two data collection methods were chosen for this study: use of a mailed questionnaire and performance of structured personal interviews. Questionnaires were mailed to 20 care- fully selected researchers who have had experience working on multicultural teams. Among the countries represented by respondents were Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, India, Jamaica, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, the Sudan, and Zambia.

Questionnaire Nearly half of the respondents were independent consultants; the majority were rel-

atively senior, some having 11 or more years’ experience. Only one quarter of the researchers had participated in large-scale projects involving a number of organizations in various countries. Nearly all spoke two or three languages, with multilingualism stronger in reading than speaking. English was spoken in the majority of projects. Most teams were rela- tively small, having seven or fewer participants. Sponsors included intergovernmental organizations (two thirds) and universities; some sponsorship arrangements overlapped.

The response rate, at 75070, was quite satisfactory for a mailed survey. Data analysis was both quantitative and qualitative. Percentages and ranks were computed for closed option responses, and a qualitative categorization of open-ended responses provided insight into major themes.

Interviews Four individuals with multicultural research experience were interviewed, to add depth

and texture to questionnaire responses. In this paper, their remarks are interspersed with findings and designated as Source A, Source B, Source C, and Source D. Because this research combined qualitative and quantitative approaches, we emphasized the in-depth gathering of perceptions from a few individuals representing a great diversity of intercultural backgrounds, rather than a larger number of short interviews less likely to capture the richness of the human experience.

Source A had served as a graduate assistant for a project sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which examined coastal resource management for several Western African countries. The research was conducted in the United States, even though the application area was on another continent.

Source B, who had worked as a consultant for UNESCO for eight years, described an evaluation of women’s study programs carried out in the Caribbean region and sponsored by an intergovernmental organization.

Having served as a development specialist in a government department for ten years, Source C described a two-year UNESCO project that investigated national information systems in Brazil and Morocco.

Source D had been involved in more than 200 academically based research projects, prototyping the production of goods and services, training practitioners, and promoting research as a management tool in developing countries.

RESPONDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

Five major themes, characterizing the external environment of the respondents’ projects, emerged from answers to the questionnaire. These may form an organizational framework for future research:

l the sociopolitical climate, l the cultural climate, l development-related trends within recipient countries, l the information climate (including production/dissemination of information and

knowledge), and l behavioral patterns and attitudes.

96 D. DAY et al.

Prejudice against other countries in the regions studied, and the effects of past or current political domination were elements of the sociopolitical climate. Source A noted that project leaders and host government representatives (consciously or subconsciously) selected methodologies and paradigms favored by former colonial powers. The cultural climate included linguistic and religious differences heightened by widespread illiteracy and a corresponding reliance upon oral communication. A slow pace of change, insufficient institutional infrastructures, declining performance of public social services, and resistance to innovation were described as characteristic trends in development -as were relentless economic hardship and the exploitation of cheap labor. Attributes of the information climate included the devaluation of information by policy makers, weak information infrastructures, reliance upon foreign experts, and government resistance to information sharing and to the dissemination of research findings. Behavioral patterns and attitudes in society were characterized as both positive (universal respect for people, social openness, hospitality, patience) and negative (lack of cultural identity, sensitivity to criticism).

Project objectives as described by respondents Three of the themes that emerged (cultural climate, development-related trends, and

behavioral patterns) were identified as relevant to first-ranked objectives of the respondents’ research projects. Examples of cultural objectives included clarification of the sociocultural bases of health service, and understanding of multicultural social values in innovation. The improvement of working conditions, market expansion, nutrition, and animal health were among development goals. Major project objectives relating to the information climate included investigation of the information infrastructure, examination of information use habits, and the role of libraries in national development. All interviewees stressed that project goals were dominated by a desire to disseminate practical improvements through information flows.

Several second- and third-ranked objectives fell within the development trend and information climate themes. For example, one project examined trade protectionism, another sought elimination of needless bureaucratic procedures, and still others strove to design and promote information infrastructure policies. One project hoped to enhance the impact of libraries upon society.

There were several common threads within project objectives seeking to improve the information climate. Although some represented short-term concerns (computer software; immediate problems in information services), a vision of long-term policy needs asserted itself (communicating the value of information to policy makers and the public; improv- ing the measurement and analysis of information infrastructures; information exchange and policies).

Facilitators of research and dissemination The three most significant factors perceived as facilitating research and dissemination

were the quality of team leadership, effective use of face-to-face meetings, and personal- ity characteristics of team members. Project managers and team leaders acted as facilitators in a majority of cases. Others contributing significantly included local individuals, foreign consultants, and representatives of sponsoring organizations.

Flexibility in and sensitivity to multicultural cooperation on the part of team leaders were considered important by many respondents and interviewees. Reportedly, projects were enhanced by the leaders’ willingness to acknowledge good work, motivate team members, and foster an atmosphere of “learning from mistakes.” Source C emphasized the invigorating impact on teams of interpersonal socialization, bonding, and brainstorming. The involvement of management in these activities was essential.

Team members’ knowledge of the research field, their willingness to share experiences and information, their general enthusiasm, and a positive attitude toward multicultural cooperation were said to be significant for successful research and dissemination. Also help- ful were a clear understanding of project objectives, an appreciation of shared experiences, and the availability of current information. Source D described the importance of informal team training to the creation of a unified vision of project goals.

The transfer of research information

Barriers to research and dissemination

97

Insufficient telecommunication capability was the major technological difficulty, in both the conduct of research and the dissemination of findings. Interviewees pointed out that projects suffered from inadequate financial guidelines by sponsors (B) and international standards that were inapplicable to local projects (C). A lack of specialized training within research teams, software incompatibility, and inadequate overall training in the host country were considered substantial, but secondary problems.

Nontechnological barriers within teams were led by discordant personal and professional attitudes, insufficient interpersonal communication, and differences regarding methodologies and paradigms. Barriers imposed on teams included constraints insisted upon by a sponsor or a government. The use of translated foreign case studies in preference to local experience and expertise was termed the “number one misfortune of multicultural research” by one interviewee (D).

Cultural and sociopolitical barriers (especially, different cultural values and languages) also were considered significant, as were divergent political agendas. Conflicts between information accessibility and control were attributed to official trade protectionism and the refusal of some organizations to divulge proprietary information. Source A observed that host governments often resent the sharing of project information across political boundaries, and that most institutions retain valuable intelligence for their own use. The source reported that the information made available was often 5-10 years old.

Respondents felt that these barriers affected the quality of communication and management decision making, resulting in project delays, inefficient planning meetings, and frequent interference by project management. Delays in establishing routine communication and the lack of electronic mail resulted in repetitious meetings and cumbersome expla- nations. Cultural conflicts impaired the quality of research designs and contributed to weak findings and policy recommendations. Data and information frequently had to be verified to detect errors and other deficiencies. Some information essential to projects could not be obtained, effectively distorting the interpretation of information that was gathered.

Respondents reported many failures and deficiencies in the dissemination of research results following the completion of projects. In some cases, reports were distorted by the team leader or sponsoring agency, or were set aside indefinitely because findings were unpopular with the sponsor. Consequently, little was known about the research in the host country. A lack of management’s understanding of the dissemination process also was blamed for some failures.

Incompatible motives and expectations of team members caused divergent decisions about dissemination (A). Research reports were often sent to sponsors only and received very little local attention. In one case even libraries refused to collect them, because reports did not fit into hardcover collections (D). Occasionally, a research project was hindered in dissemination by local antagonism against the project’s American sponsorship (A).

Respondents’ views on improvements When asked which approaches would be most likely to support research and dissem-

ination in the future, most respondents cited interpersonal communication and tolerance. They advocated the cooperative selection of research paradigms, interdisciplinary work, the appointment of multidisciplinary consultants, institutional information exchange, and reduced use of consultants from outside the region. Respondents also recommended the prompt reporting of results, the use of communication channels for dissemination that can reach the most readers, the presentation of findings at conferences and in seminars, and the publication of findings in simple, easy-to-understand terms. There was agreement that dissemination would be promoted by involving local staff in projects, sharing findings with local experts before publication, and discussing results with all interested parties.

Unique suggestions by interviewees were grounded in their practical experience. With respect to the management of research projects, Source C preferred sponsorship by intergovernmental organizations over that by corporations, which allow little independence for employees and consultants; Source A would allocate funds directly to host governments; and Source D advocated use of action research (a paradigm involving research subjects in

98 D. DAY et al.

project design and implementation). Furthermore, a sound balance between technical and nontechnical team members (C), development of a common technical terminology (D), and follow-up studies to determine the impact of research (A) were advised.

Future research projects would benefit from a priori discussion of the political agendas of team members (D), and behavioral improvements in teams, such as the avoidance of criticism of host countries (B), positive and caring attitudes, and generally “leaving your ego behind” (B). Managers were enjoined to provide initial briefings about any expected problems and about the characteristics of the host culture (B, D), and to negotiate access to local information (D).

Caveats about dissemination priorities and strategies figured prominently in interview responses. “Do not distribute politically sensitive information in host countries, but con- centrate on practical ideas relevant to local needs” (A). “Let your partners in host countries take charge of dissemination” (A). Project reports (preferably in three languages) and executive summaries should be distributed not later than six months after completion of a project (B).

The potential benefits of increased indigenous participation in multicultural research, and of more determined diffusion of research results to local institutions and populations, were interwoven throughout almost all of the recommendations for improvement.

CONCLUSION

Research teams in the South are most often comprised of members with different cultural backgrounds, due to the ethnic diversity of these regions and the frequent presence of foreign consultants. Researchers from the host society strengthen scientific inquiry within the cultural context-a goal of developing countries. Yet we know very little about how members of such teams work, interact, and exchange information. Thus, a description of researchers’ perceptions of facilitating factors, barriers, and ways to improve the research process in the future may be of both scholarly and economic significance.

Although our study is descriptive and exploratory in nature, a number of factors affecting multicultural teams have come to light. This paper suggested ways of categoriz- ing these factors, at the same time recognizing that the interplay among them is much more complex than is indicated here.

It is apparent that multicultural research teams operate within unpredictable political and resource environments. Team members face dynamic situations. Without adequate preparation, they may experience cognitive dissonance and role shock, and thereby be less able to accomplish successful knowledge transfer. There is evidence that the dissemination of research findings is an acute problem whose consequences are poorly understood. Fac- tors affecting both the research and dissemination processes remain appropriate topics for further study.

Three groups of potential research questions have been identified. Pre-project preparation needs to be explored, because it determines the sociopolitical,

cultural, and administrative framework that will support or undermine success. The inter- relations of host government, sponsor agency, project management, and researcher should be better understood. How may political impediments be lessened and team effectiveness increased? What paths are available to strengthen the roles of host country researchers and consultants? Techniques to improve negotiations, interpersonal and technological communications, and access to relevant information should be investigated.

The process during the project’s life-cycle needs in-depth examination. Expectations and perceptions of individual team members, as well as problems faced by the team collectively, may signal necessary decisions. Ethical implications of information access and control within this context are timely areas for inquiry, as are concerns for the cost of lost or weakened communication opportunities that could link the research project to the host country’s development goals.

Post-project information dissemination, a growing concern of researchers and sponsor agencies, calls for rigorous assessment. What is the relationship between political and


technological factors that would assure the adequate diffusion of research? What kinds of measurements may be used to appraise the economic and social impact of dissemination? Whose responsibility is it to inform the public of the host country about project findings?

Multicultural teams are a prime locale where cooperative efforts may begin to search for answers. It is hoped that the small step made by our exploration toward a better understanding of the context, climate, and potential of such teams will lead to a keener appreciation of their remarkable work carried out under difficult circumstances, and to improved effectiveness for future projects.

REFERENCES

Agha, S.S., & Akhtar, S. (1992). The responsibility the response: Sustaining information systems in developing countries. Journal of Information Science, 18(4), 283-292.

Ahbach. P.G. (1987). The ‘know/e&e context. Albanv. NY: State University of New York Press. Ayish, M.I. (1992). International communication in the 1990s: Implications for the Third World. International

Affairs, 68, 487-510. Bhalla, A.S., & James, D.D. (1991). Integrating new technologies with traditional economic activities in devel-

oping countries: An evaluative look at “technology blending.” The Journal of Developing Areas, 25,477-4%. Bhatt, A. (1986). The social and political dimensions of administering development in India. In J. Ickis, E. de

Jesus, & R. Maru (Eds.), Beyond bureaucracy, strategic management for social development (pp. 102- 115). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Boon, J.A. (1992). Information and development: Some reasons of failures. Information Society, S(4), 227-241. Bowonder, B., Miyqake, T., & Singh, T.M. (1993). Emerging trends in information technology: Implications for

developing countries. International Journal of Information Management, 13, 183-204. Cernea, M. (1991). Using knowledgefrom social sciences in development projects. Washington, DC: The World

Bank. Chitty, N. (1992). Development is communication: Self-reliance, self-development, and empowerment. Telematics

and Informatics, 9(l), 21-41. Chou, C.-F., & Shy, 0. (1991). A Model of technology gap, product cycle, and the process of catching up between

the North and the South. Economic Record, 67(198), 217-226. Cromwell, G. (1992). What makes technology transfer? Small-scale hydropower in Nepal’s public and private

sectors. World Development, 20(7), 979-989. Dobkin, J.A. (Ed.) (1988). International technology joint ventures in the countries of the Pacific rim. Singapore:

Butterworth (Asia). Friend, A.M., & Rapport, D.J. (1991). Evaluation of macroinformation systems for sustainable development.

Ecological Economics, 3, 59-76. Golembiewski, R.T. (1993). Organizational development in the Third World: Values, closeness of fit and culture-

boundedness. International Journal of Public Administration, 16(1 l), 1667-1691. Gudykunst, W., & Kim, Y. (1992). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication

(2nd edition). New York, NY; McGraw-Hill. Hanson, J., & Narula, U. (1990). New communication technologies in developing countries. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-

rence Erlbaum Associates. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publications. Ickus, J.C., Jesus, E. de, & Maru, R. (1986). Beyond bureaucracy: Strategic management of social development.

West Hartford, CT: Kumarian. Jenkins, R. (1987). Transnational corporations and uneven development: The internationalization of capital and

the Third World. London: Methuen & Co. Jussawalla, M. (1993). Adding value to information: A case study of the Asian NIEs. Development, 3, 32-35. Kim, G.S. (1981). The new intellectual technology society. Media Asia, 8(4), 182-184. Korten, D.C. (1980). Community organization and rural development: A learning process approach. Public Admin-

istration Review, 40(5), 480-511. Korten, D.C. (1981). The management of social transformation. Public Administration Review, 41(6), 609-618. Lallez, R. (1986). Educational technology in universities in developing countries: Prospects, 16(2), 177-194. Lu, M.-T., & Farrell, C. (1990). Information systems development in developing countries: An evaluation and

recommendations. International Journal of Information Management, 10(4), 288-296. Marton, K. (1986). Multinationals, technology, and industrialization, implications and impact in Third World

countries. Lexington, KY: D.C. Heath and Company. Menou, M.J. (1993, July). The impact of information on development: Results of a preliminary investigation.

Paper presented at the 3rd International Information Research Conference, Poigny-la For&, France. Mundy, P. (1993). Indigenous communication systems: An overview. Development, 3, 41-44. Narula, U., & Pearce, W.B. (Eds.) (1990). Cultures, politics, and research programs, an international assessment

of practical problems in field research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy. New York, NY: Harper

Collins. Palvia, P., Palvia, S., & Zigli, M. (1990). Models and requirements for using strategic information systems in

developing nations. International Journal of Information Management, lO(2): 117-126. Perrett, H., & Lethem, F.J. (1980). Human factors in project work. Washington, DC: The World Bank. (WB

Staff Working Paper 397). Perrin, J. (1984). The production of knowledge and obstacles in its transfer. Prospects, l4(4), 479-488.

IPM 31:1-H

loo D. DAY et al.

Ping, Z., & Grimshaw, D.J. (1992). A comparative study of the application of IT in China and the West: Cul-’ ture and the stages of growth model. International Journal of Information Management, 12(4), 287-293.

Pratt, C.B., & Manheim, J.B. (1988). Communication research and development policy: Agenda dynamics in an African setting. Journal of Communication, 38(3), 75-95.

Romer, P.M. (1993). Two strategies for economic development: Using ideas and producing ideas. In Proceed- ings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics 1992 (pp. 63-l 15). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Rondinelli, D. (1983). Development projects as policy experiments. London: Methuen & Co. Schein, E.H. (1987). Process consultation, Vol. 2. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Scott-Stevens, S. (1987). Foreign consultants and counterparts: Problems in technology transfer. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press. Sharif, N. (1992). Technological dimensions of international cooperation and sustainable development. Techno-

logical Forecasting and Social Change, 42, 367-383. Singh, M. (1990). Development policy research: The task ahead. In Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Con-

ference on Development Economics, 1989 (pp. 1 l-20). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Summers, L.H. (1993). Recent lessons of development. The World Bank Research Observer, 8(2), 241-254. Van Arkadie, B. (1990). The role of institutions in development. In Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Con-

ference on Development Economics, 1989 (pp. 153-175). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Warren, M., Brockensha, D., & Slikkerveer, J. (Eds.) (1991). Indigenous knowledge systems: The cultural dimen-

sion of development. London: Kegan Paul International. White, L. (1987). Creating opportunities for change: Approaches to managing development programs. Boulder,

CO: Lynne Rienner. Yin, J.Z. (1992). Technological capabilities as determinants of the success of technology transfer projects. Tech-

nology Forecasting and Social Change, 42, 17-29.

The transfer of research information within and by multicultural teams

Documents

Transcript of The transfer of research information within and by multicultural teams