Cross-cultural communication & computer-supported cooperative work - Access to Japan

"Culture has been likened to an iceberg; nine-tenths of it lies beneath the surface, out of our immediate awareness:'

-Sharon Ruhly,

Orientations to Intercultural

Communication

Through a strange series of circumstances I found myself delivering a lecture on the state of the art of Virtual Reality to a dozen research managers at NTT (Nippon Telephone and Telegraph). These are the people designing the mind amplifiers of the future. It wasn't easy to tell bow they were reacting to my word's - with the exception of Hiroshi Ishii. Every time I started talking about something weird and fringe-like, such as computer-assisted group minds, I could see his eyes light up. He was eager to interrupt me with questions - a very un-Japanese conversational style. Later be showed me what he'd been working on and I could see why be was so excited. His project, called TeamWorkStation, was a prototype tool for collaborative thinking. He's plugged together computer screens, video images, voice communication and computer graphics to create a nifty system for supporting cooperative work. I wanted one. We started cooking up this article as soon as be told me be was interested in using these systems to explore cross-cultural communication. Can technology penetrate cultural barriers? I don't know. But Hiroshi Ishii, Senior Research Engineer of NTT Human Interface Laboratories, is determined to put the question to the test. -Howard Rheingold

MY JOB IS TO CREATE TOOLS to help people think together, across boundaries of time, space, and culture. I am a CSCW researcher working for NTT Human Interface Laboratories in Japan. CSCW (Computer-Supported Cooperative Work) is a new interdisciplinary field devoted to the study of the nature of cooperative work and computer-based technologies to support it (often called "groupware"). How do people solve problems together? How can computer and communciation technologies help the group problem-solving process? Those are the kinds of questions I pursue.

Recently I have had chances to work in western academic societies such as Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), ACM Special Interest Group Computer-Human Interface (SIGCHI), CSCW, and others; those experiences helped me become aware of the importance of, "culture" in the design of computer-supported communication tools, These experiences can be compared to the sudden awakening from a deep sleep.

When I became aware of the differences between American and Japanese social protocols, I began to understand more deeply my own cultural background. I think of my reawakening to the cultural component of my own thoughts and beliefs as a kind of counter-culture shock. I came to understand that the tools we are designing for CSCW are more usefully seen as cultural tools than as computer tools.

Through the discussions I participated in, along with many foreign researchers, I realized that research into human interfaces, communication and CSCW share common goals - to understand the nature of cross-cultural communication and to design systems to facilitate formulation and communication of ideas using computer technology. People who are trying to make computers easier to use are wrestling with one aspect of the same problem faced by groupware designers. We know a great deal about how our communication and computing technologies work, and we arc only beginning to learn how people use these tools in their intellectual work. We are also beginning to understand that these questions about how people use tools together are cultural matters, and a few of us suspect that these technical issues might lead to some help in dealing with the broader human issues of cross-cultural communication. The ability of telecommunication and computer-based technologies to overcome time and space constraints seems to be an essential foundation for tools to promote international collaboration in a variety of fields. We are building on that foundation.

"Human interface" has long been interpreted as an interface between an individual user and a computer "human-computer interface" or HCI). Research into ways to improve human-computer interfaces had mainly focused on communication issues between an individual user and a single computer, such as screen layout, icon design, data visualization, pointing devices, etc.

CSCW is rooted in the work of Doug Engelbart and others in the field of "augmenting human intellect," and the pioneering explorations of others in the use of computer conferencing/computer networks.(1) The field is growing anew with the advent of inexpensive, powerful computer and communications technologies. The telecommunications infrastructure for delivering powerful information tools to large numbers of people is being built today. Now that the technology has advanced so far, it is time to devote more effort to the human side of the system. The new directions in designing CSCW tools for truly widespread adoption have had the effect of shifting our focus on human interfaces from HCI to "human-human interaction mediated by computer and communication."

We do not interact with computers, but through computers. Operating a computer is not a goal in itself for the vast majority of people; to most of the population, the greatest potential of computers lies in their capabilities as media for human-human interaction. For example, making a document using word-processor software increases your ability to share the ideas with other people by sending the document to them through the mail or as an interoffice memo. If you can send the document electronically, instantly, anywhere, amplifying the power of the media again amplifies the power of the process. Word processing is just a micro-step of higher cooperative work in an organizational context.

"Communication" has also long been traditionally interpreted in terms of electronic communication" based on the "Open Systems Interconnection (OSI)" seven-layer model, which is widely known by engineers in the telecommunication world, but which doesn't make much sense to non-engineers. The OSI model deals with incompatibilities between different hardware and software by creating standard formats for exchanging data at different layers," each of which has a set of protocols for mediating between foreign systems. The way data is encoded for transmission is one layer, the way information is transported across a network is another layer, the way information is presented on screens is another layer, etc. Engineers have worked to provide high-speed, broad band, and reliable communication networks using a variety of hard technologies.

They have created the foundation for doing things with groups of people that haven't been possible before. In this OSI framework, however, the subjects of communication are not human beings but the computers or programs. This is not what I pursue. I much prefer to explore the notion of "interpersonal communication" because I believe the subjects of communication should be us, the people of the world. Focusing on design of CSCW tools raises our focus of attention from "electronic communication" level to "interpersonal communication" level.

Through CSCW research, I realized that the notion of "human interface" is equivalent to the notion of "communication" at a higher level. And I found that most communication difficulties come from cultural gaps among people. The same "code" can be interpreted in a variety of ways, depending on the undersea part of the iceberg - the framework for interpreting words, gestures, and expressions that is part of membership in a culture. Japanese and Americans and others have fundamentally different decoders at the cultural level, and communication difficulties result when that isn't taken into account. Therefore I believe that international collaboration is very critical for human interface research and CSCW investigation of the nature of cross-cultural communication and the possibility of "cross-cultural groupware." Specifically, how can we go about designing modem communication systems that will help people overcome the cultural barriers to communication?

Cross-Cultural Groupware?

Groupware consists of the computer and communication system that supports a group of people working together, In the design of groupware it is very important to capture the structure of social process within a group. However, it is difficult to build any general and standard model of human communication because protocols can be extremely different at a deep level from one community to another community. Let me give you two examples.

The Decision-Making Process and Nemawashi Japanese companies reach decisions in a certain way, one that is very different from most American decision-making processes(2) Decision-making in Japan is a collective process involving many people. The person pushing a plan spends a lot of energy to gain consensus before the formal decision. Before the proposal document is sent around, he explains the plan to everyone concerned at informal meetings and through personal contact. He tries to get the tacit agreement of others, and this effort decreases the possibility that the plan will not be supported. Getting a consensus beforehand is a key to success. This kind of groundwork is called nemawashi in Japanese. "Nemawashi" means that all the people who approve the plan at all levels will have the feeling of participation in formulating it; this makes it possible to implement the plan more smoothly.

In American companies, responsibility and authority are clearly defined, and the person in charge can usually decide anything that comes within his authority immediately. Without turning to a discussion of which one is better," I would like to point out that major differences exist between social processes associated with executive decision-making in Japan and USA. Decision-making in Japan and USA is based on very different cultural principles and social processes. In the near future, we must begin to integrate deeper understanding of these principles and processes with the computer architecture, human interface design, and other components of CSCW systems.

For example, computer-mediated communication systems often include a public bulletin-board-like area where a group can discuss and debate an issue, along with a second, more private means of sending personal communications from any individual to any other individual or group of individuals (electronic mail, also known as "e-mail"). Note how Japanese and American decision-making teams might use the same system in somewhat different ways. Electronic nemawashi would mean that a lot of the communication would take place invisibly, in many e-mail messages, behind the scenes of the public conferencing areas; American decision-making might involve more or less similar behind-the-scenes communication, but a lot of the debating and decision-making might take place "onstage," in the public area.

GDSS (Group Decision Support System) is an active research field. There is a variety of theories of decision-making, and the tools are designed based on these theories. Again, all theories carry a lot of cultural assumptions and the tools impose constraints on the group of users. Therefore GDSS imported from another culture can easily fail. Understanding these social and cultural differences is a starting point toward the design of next-generation groupware that can support inter-cultural collaboration. Of course, these brief examples are only generalizations; there are always exceptions, but I have found these generalizations to hold true to a significant extent. They should be studied further by social scientists and information system designers, working together.

Face-to-Face Meeting

The style of meetings in America and Japan offer another illustration of the role of cultural differences in decision-making. Participants in American meetings try to contribute to the content of the meeting. American managers expect participants to take personal responsibility and make an active effort. People are often very assertive. On the other hand, participants in Japanese meetings try to achieve harmony with others. They defer to others and often wait for others to draw them out. Japanese may be satisfied with sharing information and getting a feel for others' views even if they cannot get concrete results such as a decision or solution to a problem. Japanese do not like debate over issues and ideas. Direct attacks on the ideas of others may prevent the achievement of harmony and mutual understanding, very deeply held cultural values. Japanese find it difficult to criticize another person s ideas because it can be interpreted as an attack on the personality of the person whose idea is criticized.

Americans seem to place emphasis on the exchange of words and specific explanations of ideas. However, Japanese communication depends very strongly on the context of the discussion. Facial expressions, postures, tacit understandings only hinted at in a few words, are very important.

In my own experience, I found that turn-taking is most difficult for me to learn to adapt to in discussions with Americans. Situation-oriented non-verbal cues for turn-taking in Japanese meetings are much more clear to me. In Japan it is very rude to interrupt other persons speaking. We have been taught to be patient, to listen until others are finished talking. However, in America, people must interrupt others in order to take a turn. Otherwise, there is a smaller chance of being able to express one's ideas.

In face-to-face meetings, non-native speakers of English always feel strong time pressure to understand and speak in realtime. For me, e-mail is a much more happy medium of communication for non-native speakers because e-mail allows users to take time to read and compose the messages. Under the strong time pressure of face-to-face conversation, it is very difficult to concentrate on the discussion for hours.

E-mail is now a narrow-band communication media based on low technology compared to what is now becoming available. It uses just text to express information: no multi-media. However, its asynchronous feature gives great benefits to non-native speakers. I believe this is just one of many roles communication technology can play in encouraging cross-cultural communication.

Conclusion

Each community has its own style of communication, and the world is full of communities that differ in fundamental ways. However, we live together on the planet, and we must collaborate internationally. We work together in scientific research, cooperate and compete economically, and discuss problems of mutual interest, Yet we know very little about the dynamics of cross-cultural communication, and little about the unique cultural biases in the way we communicate and make decisions.

We need to understand each other better. We should use all the tools at our disposal to pay more attention to understanding the differences among us. And then we should start to think how to overcome this gap with or without technology.

Although I am not overly optimistic about what technology can do to overcome this gap, I expect next-generation groupware will be designed to take these cross-cultural issues into consideration.

1. [Engelbart 63] Engelbart, D., "A Conceptual Framework for the Augmentation of Man's Intellect," in Vistas in Information Handling, Vol. 1, Spartan Books, Washington, DC, 1963, pp. 1-29.

2. [Nittetsu 87] Nittetsu Human Development, "Talking about Japan," ALC Press Inc. Japan 1987.

Johnson-Lenz, P. & T. (1980). "Groupware: The Emerging Art of Orchestrating Collective Intelligence." Presented at the World Future Society's First Global Conference on the Future, Toronto, Canada. Johnson-Lenz, P. & T. (1981a). "Consider the Groupware: Design and Group Process Impacts on Communication in the Electronic Medium."

In Hiltz & Kerr, Studies of Computer-Mediated Communications Systems: A Synthesis of the Findings. Research Report #16, Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center, New jersey Institute of Technology. Johnson-Lenz, P & T, (1982). Groupware; The Process and Impacts of Design Choices." In Kerr & Hiltz, Computer-Mediated Communication Systems. Academic Press.

COPYRIGHT 1990 Point Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group