Diseño De Mezclas Asfálticas

In order to understand how culture relates to group behaviours, several cultural models have been proposed. A field study conducted in 1961 identified six basic cultural orientations describing human patterns within a culture (Tax and Kroeber 1965): the nature of humans, relationships among people, relation to broad environment, activity, time, and space. The model claims that individuals are the ‘holders’ of the preference and cultural pattern; all dimensions are available in all societies. The model was validated by Maznevski et al. (2002) and claimed as beneficial at the individual level of analysis. However, this model might be contested because, while focusing on

individuals, it may not reflect the group or national culture. Its benefit in broader contexts is questionable.

According to GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness), who conducted a survey in 61 nations focusing on culture and leadership, the national cultures were analysed and categorised into

particular regions (e.g. Anglo-Saxon, Eastern Europe) (House et al. 2002). This model provides a comprehensive view of cultures, and substantiates insight from previous models. Additionally, there are several overlapping dimensions which compromise the validity of the results (Hofstede 2011). From the educational perspective, the model may not provide beneficial implications, because it only focuses on businesses.

Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010) developed cultural dimension of learning framework from several published cultural models. The model outlines cultures relating to teachers’ instructions and students’ learning behaviours. The main benefit of this model is that it represents a relationship between culture and education. However, the main drawback of this model is that it was developed based on literature review, not on empirical research. It does not provide information regarding national or regional cultures. The validity and applicability of the model is not yet defensible.

In light of the above, a number of cultural models have been developed and published. There is still no ‘best’ model that can perfectly explain human cultures and their influences on education. It is important for educators to consider the ‘most appropriate’ cultural models which are congruent with the educational environment. The next section will present and discuss the cultural model which is most appropriate for educational contexts and this research project.

5.1.2.1 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Model

One cultural model which is widely used and referenced to explain human cultures is Hofstede’s cultural dimension model (Hofstede et al. 2002; Hofstede et al. 2010; Hofstede 2011). The model represents ‘National Culture’, which describes beliefs, values, and behaviours of people within a country. In this model, culture is categorised into six dimensions: Hierarchy, Identity, Gender, Truth, Virtue, and Happiness (Table 5.1). Each dimension comprises two different poles.

The first four cultural dimensions were developed from a study which

conducted a questionnaire survey on 88,000 people working in 66 countries in the 1960s (Hofstede et al. 2010). Later the study was extended to 74 countries and the last two dimensions were developed.

Although the authors do not use the term ‘Happiness’ to label the last

dimension, they refer to another original study called ‘Happiness Research’, which they analysed when developing this dimension. Hence, in this research project, I decided to use the term ‘Happiness’ to label the last dimension of the Hofstede’s Cultural Model.

The data collected for developing the model were statistically analysed to provide scores defining the degree and pattern of people’s behaviours and beliefs in each country. Then the countries were ranked based on the scores. The model illustrates comprehensive information of national cultures which has been being used in cross-cultural research for decades.

5.1.2.2 Critiques of the Hofstede Model

Despite its popularity, the Hofstede model has been subject to intense

debate on its quality and applicability. A number of controversial issues were raised and contested by several reviewers. For instance, Javidan et al. (2006) challenged that the model is too simplistic and that the results which emerged from the data collected from four decades ago may not still be valid. Certainly Information Technology (IT) has massively impacted upon modern human societies and, particularly for this research context, dental education (Schleyer et al. 2012; Khatoon et al. 2013). However, the Hofstede model does not consider the inter-relationship between IT and cultures.

Furthermore, assuming that all people within a nation share similar culture is a misconception, because each nation contains a variety of sub-cultures and its cultures are influenced by many factors (Baskerville 2003). In terms of methodological rigour, Blodgett et al. (2008) comment that the Hofstede study contains a lack of face validity, construct validity, and reliability, and argue that it is not valid at the consumer level of analysis.

From my personal viewpoint as a researcher, culture is subjective and consists of both observable (behaviours) and intangible (values)

components; therefore, representing the culture using scoring derived from statistical analysis may not demonstrate the real nature of culture, as it is difficult to capture subjective issues by using quantitative methods. It is important to acknowledge that the Hofstede model only demonstrates general trends and characteristics of people, but does not reflect some variations within the culture (e.g. sub-cultures).

Nevertheless, many authors assert that this model still provides great

benefits for cross-cultural research. The model gives in-depth understanding of human values rather than providing general beliefs and practices; hence, the notable increase in the use of this model outside social sciences

although the Hofstede model possesses certain fallacies and disadvantages, it provides valuable insights regarding national cultures over other models and allows further exploration of social phenomena. On balance, in relation to the context of this research project, I decided to use the Hofstede cultural dimension model as a framework to describe European cultures and their relationship to and influences on European dental education.