1assignment Brief And Marking Schemeyour Learning On This Module Is A ✓ Solved

1. Assignment brief and marking scheme Your learning on this module is assessed largely via coursework that will enable you to demonstrate your engagement with a variety of topics and material. The assignment requires you to write three short essays. A maximum of 750 words for each essay excluding references. All three essays will be submitted as one document via Blackboard, with a final submission date of 15th April 2021 2pm.

We will read all three essays and the mark awarded will be an average of the 3 marks. If you fail to complete an entry it will be given a mark of Zero and this will of course reduce your final averaged mark for the assignment. Essay 1 The landmark work of Geert Hofstede is widely taught in business schools, but many authors find it controversial. What is the nature of these criticisms? (750 words) Essay 2 Drawing on any of the theoretical frameworks we have covered in the module, or other reading that you have done, please choose and critically discuss an intercultural encounter that you have experienced during the last 12 months. (750 words) Essay 3 Based on the Film “L’Auberge Espagnole†(To be shown in Seminar 3) How do the concepts and ideas presented on the module explain the situations portrayed in the film? (750 words) Essays are to be submitted as Word documents either .doc or .docx.

Please use Arial 12pt or Times New Roman 12pt font and 1.5 line spacing. A reference list should be included at the end of the 3rd Essay showing the sources used in all 3 essays. Referencing should follow the UWE Bristol Harvard format. 2. Marking · Markers will assess your entries in relation to three criteria: engagement, argumentation, and presentation.

Mark descriptors are detailed in the marking grid at the end of this handbook. · Please note that by detailing the marking criteria, we are not trying to create a mechanistic scheme of marking where marks are awarded for each element and simply added up to give an aggregate score. Instead, we are providing you a guide against which you can self-assess the strengths and weaknesses of your work. 9 ENGAGEMENT ARGUMENTATION PRESENTATION 70-100 · At the upper end of this mark category, a wide range of sources is used and referenced, including the suggested further reading and some sources gathered through independent research. There is a high level of synthesis and possibly some originality of thought.

At the lower end of this mark category, the entry demonstrates a throrough engagement with core reading, and with some suggested further reading. · Everything written is relevant and closely related to the topic of the entry. · Arguments are clearly and fully developed, displaying intellectual depth and a high level of critical analysis. · The entry has a clear and logical structure with a balanced treatment of the subject. · A conclusion is clearly stated. · The presentation (typing, page numbering, referencing) is careful and accurate. 60-69 · The entry demonstrates a very good understanding of the issues involved, and a meaningful engagement with the core reading, and possibly with some suggested further reading. · Most of what is written is relevant to topic of the entry. · Arguments are mostly clearly and fully developed.

There is a good level of critical analysis displayed but there may be a tendency towards description. · The entry has a clear structure. · A conclusion is stated. · Some aspects of the presentation may be incomplete or incorrect. 50-59 · The entry demonstrates an adequate understanding of the issues involved, and an adequate level of engagement with the core reading. · It is possible that some material is not clearly relevant to the topic of the entry. · Arguments are partially developed but some key features may be missing. The tendency towards description predominates over the presence of analysis. · The entry has a structure that is broadly clear, but may give uneven treatment to the elements of the structure. · A conclusion is usually present but it may not adequately draw together and link the arguments, or go beyond simple repetition. · Presentation is on the whole acceptable, but an element may be missing or badly done.

40-49 · The entry shows a rudimentary understanding of the issues involved, similar to the understanding of someone who would not necessarily have attended the module. There is possibly an over-reliance on classroom material. · Not all the material used is clearly relevant to the topic of the entry. · Critical analysis is less obvious than a descriptive presentation, which may be inaccurate. · The entry is not always clear in its structure and consequently lacks logical development in a number of respects. · A clear conclusion may not be apparent. · Presentation is flawed in various respects. There is no correlation between sources and references. 30-39 · The entry displays little understanding of the issues involved. · A large proportion of the material used is not clearly relevant to the topic of the entry. · There is very little critical analysis and there are numerous errors. · There is a major problem of structural progression in the entry. · The entry arrives at no real conclusion. · Referencing is limited and poorly executed, and overall presentation is weak. 0-30 · There is no understanding of the issues. · There is a great deal of irrelevant material unrelated to the topic of the entry · There is no critical analysis, and errors abound. · The entry has no coherent structure. · There is no conclusion whatsoever. · Presentation is weak in all respects.

Paper for above instructions

Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory remains a seminal contribution to the understanding of intercultural communication and management. However, it is not without significant criticisms that question its validity and applicability across different cultural contexts. This essay outlines the main criticisms directed at Hofstede's work, including the oversimplification of cultures, the static nature of cultural dimensions, and the lack of empirical support.
One of the most significant criticisms of Hofstede's model is its reductionist approach, which generalizes cultures into broad categories based on limited dimensions (McSweeney, 2002). Critics argue that this oversimplification overlooks the rich complexities and nuances inherent in any culture. For instance, Hofstede’s dimensions—Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-term vs. Short-term Orientation, and Indulgence vs. Restraint—risk presenting cultures as monolithic entities rather than as dynamic examples of human societies. By relegating cultural experiences to mere numbers, Hofstede's framework may inadvertently dehumanize individuals within those cultures (Smith, 2006).
Additionally, Hofstede’s dimensions have been criticized for their static nature. The model suggests that cultural traits are stable over time, which is increasingly challenged in our interconnected world. Cultures are not static; they evolve and adapt due to globalization, migration, and technological advancements (Javidan & House, 2001). Critics assert that relying on Hofstede's dimensions may lead to outdated and inaccurate conclusions about cultural behaviors and values. For example, countries that were once deemed high in collectivism may exhibit more individualistic traits as they adopt global practices, thus creating discrepancies between reality and Hofstede’s framework (Hofstede, 2011).
Furthermore, the empirical foundation of Hofstede’s theory is questioned, particularly in relation to the original data collection methods. The data used to construct the cultural dimensions were derived from a specific sample—IBM employees from over 50 countries—raising concerns about the representativeness of the findings (McSweeney, 2002). Critics argue that this limited scope may not accurately reflect the broader cultural context of these countries, as it primarily considers corporate culture rather than societal culture at large (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006). Thus, the credibility and validity of Hofstede’s conclusions may be undermined due to the potential biases in his sample.
Additionally, Hofstede has faced backlash for conceptualizing culture as a determinant of behavior. This deterministic view implies that individuals from a specific culture will exhibit expected behaviors without considering other pertinent factors, such as situational context, personal experiences, or individual differences (Adler & Gundersen, 2007). Critics argue that this could lead to stereotyping and undermine the uniqueness of individuals based on cultural backgrounds.
Moreover, Hofstede's model does not account for the intersectionality of multiple identities, as cultures are not easily categorized (Bennett, 1998). For example, an individual may identify with multiple cultural identities, such as ethnicity, gender, or religion, leading to complex interactions that Hofstede's framework fails to encompass. This omission further weakens the applicability of Hofstede's dimensions in understanding modern multicultural interactions.
In summary, while Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory has provided a foundational understanding of intercultural communication, it faces significant criticisms that question its relevance in contemporary society. The oversimplification of cultures, the static nature of cultural dimensions, critiques regarding empirical support, and the deterministic approach of culture highlight the limitations of Hofstede's work. Hence, while his contributions can serve as a starting point for understanding cultural differences, they should be critically assessed and complemented with more dynamic and nuanced perspectives.

References

- Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2007). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Cengage Learning.
- Bennett, M. J. (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings. Intercultural Press.
- Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1014
- Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289–305. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00027-4
- Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture's consequences: A review of the empirical evidence on Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202
- McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118. doi:10.1177/0018726702551004
- Smith, P. B. (2006). When the going gets tough: Cultural differences in responses to stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 173–187. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.003
---

Reflecting on my personal experiences over the last year, one particular intercultural encounter stands out as both enlightening and challenging. This encounter occurred during a virtual project collaboration with colleagues from diverse cultural backgrounds, particularly those from Japan and India. Theoretical frameworks, such as Hall’s dimensions of communication and Hofstede’s dimensions, provide meaningful insights into the challenges and misunderstandings that arose during this encounter.
One of the most notable aspects of this intercultural project was the variation in communication styles among team members. According to Hall (1976), cultures can be classified into high-context and low-context communication styles. High-context cultures, such as Japan, rely heavily on non-verbal cues, implicit messages, and the relational context to convey meaning. Conversely, low-context cultures, such as the U.S., emphasize explicit verbal communication and clear, direct language.
Throughout the project, differences in communication styles led to misunderstandings and frustrations. For example, during meetings, my Japanese colleagues would often provide little verbal feedback, which left me feeling uncertain about their agreement or understanding of the project direction. This contrasts starkly with the more direct communication style I am accustomed to in the U.S., where feedback is typically conveyed explicitly. As a result, I felt anxious about whether my contributions were valuable or if I needed to modify my approach to cater to the perceived preferences of my colleagues (Javidan & House, 2001).
To navigate these misunderstandings, I relied on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, which elucidated some of the underlying differences in our approaches. For example, Hofstede's dimension of Power Distance reflects how different cultures perceive authority and hierarchy. In Japan, a relatively high power distance culture, team members may be less inclined to challenge ideas presented by superiors openly. This contrasted with my low power distance culture, where questioning ideas and providing feedback is deemed acceptable (Hofstede, 2011). Understanding this dimension allowed me to recognize the challenges of soliciting feedback from my Japanese colleagues and prompted me to adapt my communication strategy accordingly.
Additionally, the differences in time orientation highlighted in Hofstede’s framework were evident throughout the project. The Japanese employees operated with a strong focus on punctuality and meticulous planning, which initially clashed with the more flexible approach adopted by my Indian colleagues. This divergence occasionally led to tension, particularly when deadlines were perceived differently by team members from diverse time-centric cultures (Smith, 2006). By acknowledging these variations and leveraging dialogue to establish mutually agreed timelines, we were able to strike a balance that satisfied everyone involved.
Reflecting on this intercultural encounter, I recognize that the experience significantly enhanced my own intercultural sensitivity. By using theoretical frameworks like Hall's dimensions and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to bridge gaps, I was able to engage more effectively with my colleagues and build positive working relationships. Additionally, this experience underscored the importance of adaptability and cultural awareness in today’s interconnected world, emphasizing that successful collaboration requires not only technical skills but also a profound understanding of diverse cultural influences (Bennett, 1998).

References

- Bennett, M. J. (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings. Intercultural Press.
- Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
- Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1014
- Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289–305. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00027-4
- Smith, P. B. (2006). When the going gets tough: Cultural differences in responses to stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 173–187. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.003
---

The film "L'Auberge Espagnole," directed by Cédric Klapisch, offers a vivid exploration of intercultural interactions among a group of students from different countries who come together in Barcelona for an academic exchange program. The various cultural dynamics depicted in the film can be effectively analyzed through Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory and Hall's high-context/low-context communication framework.
Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural differences can be observed throughout the interactions among the characters living in the shared accommodation. For example, the theme of Individualism vs. Collectivism is prominent, particularly when examining how the characters navigate communal living while maintaining their individual identities. The French protagonist, Xavier, embodies elements of individualism, whereas his roommates from Spain and Italy display more collectivist tendencies, prioritizing group dynamics and relationships. This clash of cultural orientations leads to both conflicts and camaraderie among the characters, eventually culminating in an appreciation of diverse cultural perspectives (Hofstede, 2011).
In addition to Hofstede’s dimensions, Hall’s communication theory can also enrich our understanding of the film’s intercultural dynamics. The French characters, including Xavier, tend to communicate in a relatively low-context style, while other characters, particularly from high-context cultures—such as the Spaniard, who often relies on non-verbal cues and contextual factors—create moments of misunderstanding (Hall, 1976). This communication gap illuminates the challenges faced by individuals in intercultural settings and the importance of contextual and cultural awareness in fostering effective communication.
Furthermore, the film highlights the concept of cultural adaptation and negotiation. As the narrative unfolds, Xavier experiences both cultural shock and adaptation. His initial discomfort with the differences in customs and behaviors represents a universal experience among individuals entering new cultural environments. As characters learn to negotiate differences—whether in meal times, social interactions, or personal space—the film portrays a broader commentary on the necessity of flexibility and openness to completely embrace intercultural exchanges (Bennett, 1998).
Moreover, the film’s resolution emphasizes the value of friendships formed across cultural boundaries. The characters’ shared experiences in Barcelona help cultivate mutual respect and understanding despite their initial adjustments and tensions. This aligns with intercultural competence, which emphasizes the ability to effectively and appropriately engage with individuals from diverse backgrounds (Javidan & House, 2001).
In conclusion, "L'Auberge Espagnole" serves as a rich case study for analyzing intercultural interactions through the lens of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and Hall’s communication framework. The film reveals the complexities of cultural exchange and adaptation through its narrative and character development. By exploring the interactions among the characters, viewers gain insights into the significance of cultural awareness and the potential for growth through intercultural experiences. Overall, the film resonates with contemporary audiences, as it reflects the increasing relevance of intercultural competency in our increasingly globalized world.

References

- Bennett, M. J. (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings. Intercultural Press.
- Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
- Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1014
- Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289–305. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00027-4
---

Reference List

- Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2007). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Cengage Learning.
- Bennett, M. J. (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings. Intercultural Press.
- Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
- Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1014
- Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289–305. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00027-4
- Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture's consequences: A review of the empirical evidence on Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202
- McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118. doi:10.1177/0018726702551004
- Smith, P. B. (2006). When the going gets tough: Cultural differences in responses to stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 173–187. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.003