Embracing Multiculturalism In Supervisory Relationships
Cultural patterns shape our perceptions (Image: dj paine / unsplash)
Many of us navigate multicultural contexts in our personal lives. I often joke that I don’t need to step outside my house to experience multicultural clashes. I was born and raised in the Philippines, but my children are third-culture kids—born in Belgium, raised in England, with Filipino parents. This rich blend of cultures within a single family illustrates the complexity of cultural interactions.
At first glance, it might seem enlightened to view people purely as individuals, independent of their cultural backgrounds; after all, individuals, regardless of their origins, possess varied personality traits, and even people of similar backgrounds hold a wide range of varied perspectives. We absolutely should approach each person with the intention of getting to know them personally. However, we all belong in some way to the contexts that have shaped us, and even with the best of intentions, it is easy to misjudge others through our own cultural lens. Cultural diversity is one of the great strengths of UK higher education, so it is worth taking time to think about how we navigate the intersections at the heart of our supervisory relationships in a way that respects, nourishes and nurtures differences.
Understanding our shared cultural context for supervisory relationships
Cultural patterns shape our perceptions (what we see), cognitions (what we think), and actions (what we do). They are like the water in which we swim: we don’t necessarily even notice they are there. They intertwine with organizational and other group dynamics that make up academic and research culture. We are building relationships with our researchers within a complex knot of influences. While it is not possible to untangle the personal and the cultural, we can invite ourselves to examine our work relationships through a multifaceted lens, with values of curiosity, creativity, and care.
Image: nadine shaabana / unsplash
Image: Amazon.com
This blogpost introduces a tool that can support this reflective practice towards better navigating cultural differences in our academic relationships. Erin Meyer’s 2014 book, The Culture Map offers eight scales representing common gaps how we engage with each other. This practical tool gives a leg up with decoding how culture influences your own preferences and behaviours, and your day-to-day collaborations.
Here are the Eight Scales of the Culture Map and some suggestions of how we can use them to help us navigate our multicultural supervisory relationships:
We all belong in some way to the contexts that have shaped us, and even with the best of intentions, it is easy to misjudge others through our own cultural lens. (Image: CTTO)
Communicating: When you communicate, do you say exactly what you mean? If so, you are perhaps from a ‘low-context’ culture. Low-context communication is explicit, precise, clear, and taken at face-value. In contrast, ‘high-context’ communication is nuanced and more indirect, with the situation as important as what is being said in words. When speaking with people you supervise, it is helpful to be aware of whether you are carrying high-context assumptions (“surely they will know what I really mean”) into low-context conversations (“they will say exactly what they mean”) or vice versa.
Deciding: Who makes decisions is culturally contingent. This scale measures the extent to which decisions are made collectively by consensus, or top-down by a single leader. In a Supervisor-PGR relationship you need to find a shared route to making decisions about how research will progress. If one of you is from a consensus-building culture, this might mean allowing time for longer decision-making processes so that everyone is happy with the next steps. By contrast, if one of you is used to quick individual decision making, ensure this is not seen as a snub within the relationship.
The types of arguments you find convincing are deeply rooted in your cultural, philosophical, and educational backgrounds. (Image: jason goodman / unsplash)
Evaluating: Some cultures are frank, direct, and straightforward with negative feedback, while others soften it with a gentle, circuitous, approach. The ‘feedback sandwich’ (good thing, bad thing, good thing) is a common UK example of a feedback mechanism that may not land with everyone. While constructive criticism is always a good thing, you need to make sure that your doctoral candidate can see your feedback as helpful, not unclear or – even worse – destructive. For ideas of how to be more effective in giving feedback, check out Kay Guccione’s blog on Giving feedback that doesn’t sting.
Disagreeing: This scale measures tolerance for open disagreement and its perceived impact on relationships. Some cultures see open disagreement as healthy and constructive, while others view it as disruptive and harmful. Flowing on from evaluating and deciding, Supervisors and PGRs need to find ways to talk about what needs to happen in the research lifecycle – what methods to use, what chapters to write, what training and development a PGR should do – where they both feel their views have been appropriately heard.
Some cultures are frank, direct, and straightforward with negative feedback, while others soften it with a gentle, circuitous, approach. (Image: brooke cagle / unsplash)
Leading: This scale assesses the degree of respect and deference that cultures show to authority figures (see for example the 6-D model of national culture by Geert Hofstede and the work of Robert House on cultural practices, leadership ideals, and generalized and interpersonal trust). This is often shown through symbolic actions like what names are used (is it “Dr Royle’ or ’Joanna’?”), how people dress, or what order they speak in. People say they prefer egalitarian environments, but in practice for many hierarchies are a familiar comfort, making it easy to know everyone’s role in a situation. This is a particularly important scale in the Supervisor-PGR relationship because it affects how much you each expect a PGR to be ‘told what to do’ versus finding their own route through their research. Being sensitive to the norms that are comfortable to you both can help you to find common ground.
Trusting: Trust is at the absolute heart of the Supervisor-PGR relationship. For Meyer, this scale runs along cognitive (task-based) trust and affective (relationship-based) trust. Cognitive trust is built through reliability and competence – doing what you said you would do, when you said you would do it, and not using up too much of people’s time. Whereas affective trust is developed through emotional connections and personal relationships – sharing and bonding over who you are as a person. As a supervisor it is helpful to pre-consider how much self-exposure you are comfortable with, as well as how you convey the importance of meeting milestones.
By acknowledging the interplay between cultural and individual differences, and considering the broader organizational and societal contexts, we can improve our relationship-building skills, (Image: christina wocintechchat / unsplash)
Persuading: The types of arguments you find convincing are deeply rooted in your cultural, philosophical, and educational backgrounds. Do you lay out the theory behind an idea before giving the practical how-to? Or do you come straight in with what you will do and then explain why? Understanding whether you – and your doctoral candidate – are ‘principles-first’ or ‘application-first’ will help you to listen to each other better, and with more patience.
Scheduling: The final scale is a big one! Cultures place different values on adhering to schedules and doing things ‘in order’ at the ‘right time’. Some follow strict timetables (monochronic), while others treat schedules as guidelines (polychronic). In a supervisory relationship this can manifest as how both sides approach deadlines, the firmness of a supervision appointment, how soon to expect replies to emails and more. An unconsidered mismatch in our approach to time can be a real source of tension, so make sure you discuss this early and frequently with your researchers.
Of course, no-one is their culture, but thinking about how these eight areas of practice underpin our assumptions of ‘normal’ can significantly enhance our effectiveness in multicultural interactions. Meyer’s model is a helpful tool for self-reflection, allowing you to notice who you are, what has shaped you, and how you interact with others. By acknowledging the interplay between cultural and individual differences, and considering the broader organizational and societal contexts, we can improve our relationship-building skills, with our researchers and in all our research collaborations. [ws]
*Editor’s note: This article was first published on auditorium.com on 02 July 2024.
Cultural patterns shape our perceptions, cognitions and actions. They are like the water in which we swim: we don’t necessarily even notice they are there. (Image: ThoughtCo. / John Moore / Getty)
Isa Buencamino | guest contributor | ws
Isa Buencamino is an Executive Coach, Leadership Development Specialist & Diversity and Inclusion Advocate. She has 30 years of experience in learning, leadership and organisation development across multicultural settings and sectors. Shuttling between England and Bahrain as base, she is also the founder of Women of the World (WOW), an all-women global group coaching programme for ambitious women who want to proactively shape the next stage of their career and lives. Isa Buencamino: The Trailing Spouse Plays Big | Email: WOW@whatsinsideltd.com