Indian Journal of Business Management & Technology, ISSN 2319-5797, Volume 8, Number 1/2 (2021): 1 - 8
© Arya PG College (College with Potential for Excellence Status by UGC) & Business Press India Publication, Delhi
http://apcjournals.com, www.aryapgcollege.ac.in

Cross Cultural Communication & Understanding

Shilpa , Anand Prakash Mishra and Shrinivasan
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce,
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work
Guru Nanak Khalsa College, Yamunanagar (Haryana), India
3Pharma Executive Chennai (Tamilnadu), India
⃰ Email: shilpimanne32@gmail.com

Abstract

Understanding involves seeing previously unseen connections. The connection can be between ideas, between facts, or between ideas and facts. To be a skilled explainer, one has also to take account of the explainees, and their social and cultural backgrounds, motivations, linguistic ability, and previous knowledge – and plan accordingly before embarking upon the explanation. Sometimes, the task of the explainer is to explain the problem and sometimes to explain the connection between the problem and the solution. A problem such as the relationship between truth and meaning may not have any solution, or it may have several unsatisfactory solutions, but at least the problem may be understood. A person may carry away from an explanation much more than the intentions of the explainer.

Keywords: Complexity, Metaphor, Resonates, Subtleties.

Introduction

The exposure metaphor tends to reveal the subtleties, complexity, and perhaps uniqueness of things, actions, events, or events while undressing metaphor resonates with scientific methods, such as development of attribution theory that attempts to use statistical analysis and to determine the dimensions in which people provide explanations for their behavior. In Standard Modern English, the word "explain" means "detailed description". It is debatable whether providing more details can improve the explanation. It is also debatable whether the standard definition covers many personal meanings of the interpretation constructed and used by the interpreter. The explanation is "a conversation which can be used as a solution to some troublesome situations."
Nature of Understanding
Understanding involves seeing connections which were hitherto not seen. The connections may be between ideas, between facts, or between ideas and facts. This apparently simple definition has strong links with much of cognitive psychology.
Importance of Understanding
Once one has understood something, one could not ‘de-understand’ it, The composite of their views captures the essence of understanding. It’s the interconnection of lots of disparate things – the feeling that you understand how the whole thing is connected up – you can make sense of it internally.
One is making lots of connections which then make sense and it’s logical. It’s as though one’s mind has finally ‘locked in’ to the pattern. Concepts seem to fit together in a meaningful way, when before the connections did not seem clear, or appropriate, or complete. If one does not understand, it’s just everything floating about and you can’t quite get everything into place – like jigsaw pieces, suddenly connect and one can see the whole picture. But there is always the feeling one can add more and more and more: that doesn’t necessarily mean that one does not understand it. For an explanation to be understood, the explainee must first perceive there is a gap in knowledge, a puzzle or a problem to be explained.
This perception activates the working memory to retrieve schemata from the long-term memory. These schemata may have been stored in any of the procedural, semantic (thoughts and facts) or episodic memories (narratives, events). Cues in the explanation being given are matched to the activated schemata. This matching may lead to assimilation of the explanation into the existing schemata or it may modify the existing schemata. In both, it produces new connections of concepts and/or facts. The degree of stability of those new connections depends in part upon the network of existing concepts and facts. The validity of the new connections, that is, of the understanding, can be tested only by reference to corroborative evidence, which may be from an external source or from other evidence and rules stored in the person’s cognitive framework.
If the cues are clear and well-ordered, they can be rapidly processed. If they are confusing, they will not link with existing schemata and may be rapidly forgotten. Given the limitations of sensory and working memory, one should not explain too quickly, and one should chunk the information provided into meaningful and relatively brief sentences. Pauses should be used to separate the chunks of information. Too fast or too distracting explanations cannot be processed by the working memory. The use of analogies, metaphors, and similes will create new connections rapidly with the existing schemata of the explainee. The use of frequent summaries, guiding statements, and cognitive maps can help explainees to change their schemata, which they can then elaborate on subsequently. Personal narratives interwoven with concepts and findings can trigger the procedural, episodic, and semantic memories and so aid storing and retrieval of understanding.
Types of Explaining
The literature abounds with typologies of explanations. In considering these typologies, It is seen that a robust, simple typology which would be relatively easy to use by researchers and practitioners. The typology consists of three main types of explanation: the interpretive, the descriptive, and the reason-giving.
They approximate to the questions, What? How? Why? However, the precise form of words matters less than the intention of the question. They may be supplemented with the questions, Who? When? Where? Together, these questions can rapidly provide a framework for many explanations. Interpretive explanations address the question, ‘What?’ They interpret or clarify an issue or specify the central meaning of a term or statement.
Examples are answers to the questions: What is ‘added value’? What is a novel? What does impact mean in physics? What does it mean in management? Descriptive explanations address the question, ‘How?’ These explanations describe processes, structures, and procedures, as in: How did the chairperson lead the meeting? How do cats differ anatomically from dogs? How should a chairperson lead a meeting? How do you measure sustainability?
Reason-giving explanations address the question, ‘Why?’ They involve reasons based on principles or generalizations, motives, obligations, or values. Included in reason-giving explanations are those based on causes and functions, although some philosophers prefer to distinguish causes and reasons. Examples of reason-giving explanations are answers to the questions: Why do camels have big feet? Why did this fuse blow? Why do heavy smokers run the risk of getting cancer? Why are some people cleverer than others? Why is there more crime in inner-city areas? Why am I reading this unit? Why should I keep to deadlines? Of course, a particular explanation may involve all three types of explanation. Thus, in explaining how a bill becomes a law, one may want to describe the process, give reasons for the law, define certain key terms, and consider its implications for legal practice.
Functions of Explaining
The primary function of giving an explanation is to give understanding to others, but in giving understanding, one can also fulfill a wide range of other functions. These include ensuring learning, clarifying ambiguities, helping someone learn a procedure, reducing anxiety, changing attitudes and behaviour, enablement, personal autonomy, and, last but not least, improving one’s own understanding. These functions imply that explaining and understanding are not merely cognitive activities but also involve a gamut of motivations, emotions, and conation. Clearly, one needs to take account of the specific function of an explanation when considering the tasks and processes of explaining.
Tasks and Processes of Explaining
Explaining is an interaction of the explainer, the problem to be explained, and the explainees. The explainer needs to take account of the problem and the knowledge, attitudes, and other characteristics of the explainees and use appropriate approaches in the process of explaining.
To assist in this process, it was suggested that a ‘P5’ approach as shown in beneficial:
• Pre-assessment of the explainees knowledge
• Planning
• Preparation
• Presentation
• Post-mortem
This approach is developed from the work and the model is pertinent to formally presented explanations, such as lectures or presentations, and to ‘opportunistic explanations’ prompted by a question from a client, patient, or student, although in the last, one may have little time to prepare. It follows the sequence of defining the problem, determining the process, and clarifying and estimating the outcomes.
One has to diagnose and communicate clearly the problem in a way that is acceptable to the client. Even if the problem is accepted, the solution proffered may not be acceptable. More subtly, the solution may be accepted but not acted upon.
But it is not enough merely to identify the problem. To be a skilled explainer, one has also to take account of the explainees, and their social and cultural backgrounds, motivations, linguistic ability, and previous knowledge – and plan accordingly before embarking upon the explanation. An important point here is empathy. To be a good explainer, one needs to empathise with the explainees, see the world through their eyes, and relate one’s explanation to their experiences.
As an explainer, one has to decide on one’s goals in relation to the explainees, identify appropriate content, highlight and lowlight the content appropriately, and select appropriate methods and resources to achieve the goals. Once the problem and its possible solution(s) have been identified, the problem might helpfully be expressed in the form of a central question, and that question may be then subdivided into a series of implicit questions or hidden variables. Thus, the explanation of how local anaesthetics work contains the implicit questions, ‘What is a local anaesthetic’?’ and ‘How are nerve impulses transmitted?’ These implicit questions or hidden issues can then provide the structure of an explanation.
Process of Explaining
The task of the explainer is to state the problem to be explained and present or elicit a series of linked statements, each of which is understood by the explainee and which together lead to a solution of the problem. These linked statements may be labelled ‘keys’ since they unlock understanding. Each of these keys will contain a key statement. A key statement may be a procedure, a generalization, a principle, or even an appeal to an ideology or a set of personal values. The key may contain examples, illustrations, metaphors, and perhaps qualifications to the main principle. When the problem to be explained is complex, there might also be a summary of key statements during the explanation as well as a final summary.
The keys are the nub of explaining. But, as emphasized earlier, for an explanation to be understood, it follows that the explainer has to consider not only the problem to be explained but also the characteristics of the explainees. What is ‘good’ for one group may not be good for another. Its quality is contingent upon the degree of understanding it generates in the explainees. For different groups of explainees, the keys of the explanation and the explanation itself will be different, although the use of keys and other strategies may not be.
The process of explaining is not only concerned with identifying problems and proffering solutions. Sometimes, the task of the explainer is to explain the problem and sometimes to explain the connection between the problem and the solution. A problem such as the relationship between truth and meaning may not have any solution, or it may have several unsatisfactory solutions, but at least the problem may be understood.
Outcome
The outcome hoped for when explaining is that the explainee understands. The explainer has to check that the explanation is understood. This task is akin to feedback, and it is sometimes neglected by doctors, teachers, lawyers, and others. Understanding may be checked on by a variety of methods, including, of course, formal assessments. The most primitive method is to ask, ‘Do you understand?’ The answer one usually gets is ‘Yes’. The response is more a measure of superficial compliance than of understanding. Other methods are to invite the explainee to recall the explanation, to ask questions of specific points in the explanation, to apply the explanation to another situation or related problem, to provide other examples of where the explanation might hold, or to identify similar sorts of explanations. All of these may be used to measure the success of an explanation, providing the procedures are appropriate and valid.
The explanation may be understood, but it may not lead to action. The explanation may not be understood or imperfectly understood.
The Covering Law Model
At the core of explanation is the triadic principle derived from Aristotle’s syllogistic method (2009). There must be:
• A generalization or universal law.
• An evidential statement or observation that the situation being considered is an instance of that generalization.
• A conclusion.
• At first sight, procedural explanations do not fit the covering law model. Certainly, in giving a procedural explanation, it may not be necessary to use the covering law model. Indeed, its use could confuse the explainee, but there should be an explanation based upon the covering law model which justifies the procedure. If not, the procedure is likely to be faulty. Put in different terms, a good practice is always underpinned by a good theory, even if the practitioner is unaware of the theory.
The covering law model is used for scientific explanations based on strong scientific laws or in a weaker form for highly probabilistic explanations or for generalisations believed by an individual or group. Values, obligations, ideologies, or beliefs might form the first statement of an explanation. An explanation may be incorrect yet believed, or correct and not believed.
Even if an explanation is valid, or believed to be valid, there remains the question of whether it is understood. Now, clearly, it is possible for a scientist or scholar to give an explanation that is not understood in his or her own time, or, as was more frequently the case, the explanation may have been understood but rejected by his or her peers.
However, even in such extreme cases, one can assume that the scientists or scholars intended to give understanding to their audience. But is intention enough? On this issue there are various views. On the one hand, explaining may be seen as a task word such as hunting or fishing; on the other hand, it may be seen as an achievement word such as killing or catching. If explaining is regarded as an achievement word, then the outcome of the explanation takes primacy.
As observed: ‘If the teacher really has explained something to his class, they will understand it, and if they do not understand it, despite his efforts, what purported to be an explanation is not an explanation after all.’ Our own view is that the intentional position is too weak and the outcome position too strong. We suggest there is usually an intention to explain, an attempt to explain, and a check on understanding. We recognise that some outcomes may not be attained or attainable, and some explanations, not intended, can deepen understanding. A person may carry away from an explanation much more than the intentions of the explainer.
Conclusion
Personal narratives interwoven with concepts and findings can trigger the procedural, episodic, and semantic memories and so aid storing and retrieval of understanding. It is not enough merely to identify the problem. To be a skilled explainer, one has also to take account of the explainees, and their social and cultural backgrounds, motivations, linguistic ability, and previous knowledge – and plan accordingly before embarking upon the explanation
References
Aristotle (2009) Prior Analytics Book -Clarendon Aristotle Series. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
Cambie S (2012) International Communications Strategy: Development in Cross-cultural Communications, PR and Social Media. Strategic Direction 28 (6).
Ochieng EG (2011) Managing cross-cultural communication in multicultural construction project teams: The case of Kenya and UK. International journal of project management 39 (7) : 449 - 460.
Gallagher HC (2013) Willingness to Communicate and Cross-cultural Adaptation: L2 Communication and Acculturative Stress as Transaction. Applied Linguistics 34(1): 53–73
Würtz E (2005) Intercultural Communication on Web sites: a Cross-Cultural Analysis of Web Sites from High-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (1) : 274 – 299.
https://www.communicationtheory.org/cross-cultural-communication/.
https://www.mindtools.com/CommSkll/Cross-Cultural-communication.htm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-cultural_communication.