Reframing institutional meetings in the cross cultural contextDawn Francis, School of Education, James Cook University of North Queensland. Abstract This paper is based on two years research in a Papua New Guinean college where twenty staff from different ethnic backgrounds interacted in the day to day teaching and decision making that is the business of formal institutions. I describe my view of the meetings I attended as status validating ritual which provided tangible evidence of nationals' silencing in decision making contexts. Meetings support a rhetoric of participation and sustain a sense of unity while maintaining a status quo in which some members have little influence. The paper outlines the national and expatriate cultural communication frameworks perceived by Papua New Guineans to be barriers to equity and poses changes to meeting processes which they saw as creating spaces whithin which they could find a voice and influence. Bernard Narokobi's contention that there is a 'Melanesian Way' and his push for the dissemination of authentic images constructed from Melanesian voices has drawn fierce debate in Papua New Guinea. I sense that there , as in Australia, there exists a code of socially correct behaviour in which it is considered provocative, or at best non-productive, to focus on aspects of cultural difference. If this is so, the understanding and ability of different cultural groups to talk together about the ways in which they give meaning to their work and lives is limited and limiting. Paralleling this reluctance to place cultural difference on the academic agenda is an almost uniform silence as to how historical events might be shaping social expectations, interpretations and inter-ethnic communication styles. In this paper I examine the patterns of cross cultural difference I perceived to be operating in an educational institution's meetings where staff from different cultural backgrounds attempted to make decisions that would impact on them all. Within these expatriate English speakers dominated the meeting floor. I pose that only when cultural ways of knowing and speaking are made explicit and part of the meeting process can spaces be made for a more equitable distribution of influence. Background to this studyPrior to this research I had worked in Papua New Guinea as an Australian curriculum consultant assessing the needs and facilitating the writing of curriculum in vocational teacher education. As I lived and worked with the Papuan New Guinean educators, all graduates, I had been puzzled by the contrast between their animated discussions of their work in informal contexts with me, an expatriate, and their silence in institutional decision-making contexts. This puzzlement led to a four year ethnographic study (Francis, 1992) in which four Papuan New Guineans from different regions (to be referred to here as "field colleagues") worked with me to tap the meanings given to nationals' participation in institutional decision-making and the factors influencing that participation. The work described here is but a small part of that study. We believe that the words of my key field colleagues and their reflections on the differences they perceive between themselves and their expatriate colleagues provide a foundation for thoughtful discussion about the ways in which interaction is constructed and given meaning culturally, historically and politically within the modern institution. The institution within which we were working had a staff of twenty, including people from across the regions of Papua New Guinea, from England, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, India, the Philippines, and Canada. Very early in my work with the Papuan New Guinean staff I noticed a pattern of referring to people as 'national' (Papua New Guinean) 'non national' (non-Anglo expatriates) and 'expatriate' (people of Anglo origin). In analysis of interactions or ways of communicating the non-nationals were rarely mentioned. That there were 'two' recognisable 'ways of working' was something they were very certain of even in the face of my examples that indicated multiple ways operating across the models. As one of them put it:
My field colleagues believed passionately that the staff's collective practice of not talking about difference, and more importantly , not having a base and language in which to frame such talk was critical to their continued silencing in the decision making process
A background to "meetings"I defined meetings as those gatherings specifically called for a purpose related to the four levels in the institution's decision-making structure: general staff, curriculum review, academic courses, and governing council. Following Atkinson, Cuff and Lee (1978), I saw the meeting as a social form that organised interaction in a distinctive way, framing talk as "business" using specific conventions. In this context meetings followed a typical western world format of the agenda being determined in advance by senior staff and the senior person, as Chair, being responsible for the running of the meeting. When I first began collecting data from the formal meetings, I delved into the voluminous literature about decision-making and was disturbed by the reductionist nature of the models I saw there. Most had a rational base and assumed that decision-makers faced clearly defined problems which are commonly understood. None of this seemed to reflect the meetings I attended where information was limited and not available equally to all participants. Nowhere in the rational models could I fit the personal biographies, motivations, beliefs about self and others and the often tacit but sometimes explicit agendas which determined who influenced others and what knowledge would be valued. Rational models remove human variables and ignore interpersonal relationships, conflict styles, value systems, needs and wants which create the meaning that participants bring to and take from meetings. They also remove decision-making from the cultures, histories, structures and environment in which they are embedded. I came to view meetings as a form of ritual (Francis, in press) located in personal and cultural histories and constructing a framing device for a display of status and validating both cultural beliefs and histories. Moreover, they did this regardless of whether the meeting achieved the purposes for which it was called. Participation in meetingsI was a participant observer in some meetings while in others I removed myself to focus solely on observation. I also video recorded and fully transcribed all meetings that I attended. In addition to the in depth interviewing and stimulated recall of the four field colleagues, turns of speech were counted for national, non national and expatriate participants at a number of key meetings. For the purposes of this paper I select one set of these as representing a pattern that was consistent. The Principal, a non national, is shown separately because his access to information and his position as Chair would skew perception of participation attributed to that group. Also, in earlier interviewing, the Principal had rarely been referred to in terms of ethnicity or group attachment. A comparison of the composition and participation charting indicates a mismatch between the proportional representation of the groups and their levels of participation as measured in turns of speech. Furthermore, every expatriate contributed to the discussion, while three out of the eight nationals did so. It was clear from the interviews this that all groups perceived nationals to be participating less than their expatriate colleagues. The counts of speech turns in the institution's meetings supported these perceptions and my key field colleagues' reactions to the counts intimated that participation levels were much lower than even they had thought. Those who did participate felt, correctly I believe, that they had little influence. While this is an important insight for those working in Papua New Guinea, it is not peculiar to that country but rather an extension of an imbalance that has been revealed in studies of decision making in Western institutions (Duke, Showers and Imber, 1981; Imber and Duke, 1984). The key difference here is that the imbalance was ethnically based and in direct conflict with official rhetoric of valuing the national voice. While establishing the turns of speech provided an overt measure of participation it does little to illustrate whether speech turns are linked to having an effect on decisions being made. I examined the data on who generated ideas and which of these were taken up in subsequent discussion. In transcribing the meeting I was struck by the difference between the nationals' short contributions and the lengthy detailed introduction to topics initiated by first language English speakers. Field colleague, Tasa, commented "they give many reasons to back up their idea". This was evident in the data as shown in Table 1.
We saw three factors as important to understanding participation and influence in this instance. First, expatriates generate more ideas and take greater share of topic control. Second, ideas supported by "a number of reasons" engage others in debate of that idea. Third, ideas so put have greater potential to influence the decision made. The usefulness of this quantitative data hinges on what it tells us about the levels of participation and the influence generated from that participation. Not only did the Nationals initiate relatively few topics but these were put with a minimum of words and were the only ones tabled without supporting reasons. Only topic 8 generated further discussion and this did not follow initiation but was integrated into the case presented by another person for topic 13. I put this data from the Table alongside that generated in interviews. Those people who had been named as "having power and influence" in interviews were those who in the quantitative count held the floor most often. They not only initiated topics using multiple reasons, but they also used others' responses to reinforce or return to their case. In doing this they use the meeting to confirm their status and they frame what "counts" as business. I had not constructed the tables or graphs when I reflected on this meeting with my field colleagues, but I shared with them my surprise that they had not "contributed many ideas" when I had heard them speaking informally about numerous ideas they had for in servicing, the main agenda item of this meeting. The immediate laughing response was, " Oh, that always happens at meetings. You know that !" While they acknowledged that language was a factor contributing to their silence, they saw cultural differences as being even more significant. Working individually with the four I explored this further using recalled description, sentence completion and stimulated recall from the video. It was here that cultural ways of knowing and being, along with historically situated valuing of personal knowledge gave the business of meetings new meaning. Notions of "elder"One of the most consistent themes in the data was the importance given to "elder" both within the day to day interaction of the institution and particularly in formal meetings. While this was initially constructed in terms of "those known to be first born males in a family", in the institutional context it was extended to "those with institutional status" or those who "had" or "believed themselves to hold" special expertise. The data here led me to believe that notions of elder (and parallel expertise) are a critical element in any interaction with and between Papua New Guineans. These notions influence what and how knowledge, skills and values associated with interaction, negotiation and decision-making are learned and given meaning. Perhaps this is not unexpected given anthropological studies which have shown how prestige, authority and knowledge are linked to age (Brown, 1979; Chowing, 1979; Shalins, 1968: Burkins and Krause, 1982; Vulliamy & Carrier, 1985). However, the ways in which this traditional meaning is (re) constructed within the modern institution and shapes the conduct of meetings is worthy of further study. In the meetings of the institution I noted that Laha, an acknowledged elder, was closely monitored by other nationals. They were aware of very small changes in his body language and rarely spoke once he had made a definitive statement. Frequently, after an extended questioning of others, he would sum up in a way that did not seem to correspond to the preceding interaction, yet the summary would be accepted without contradiction by the non elders. Another national linked this to his own experience saying
And again, [in whispered comment to me in a meeting after Laha had spoken sharply and then turned away from the Chair]
And again, (Notes taken during staff meeting with outside visitors present)
Mindful of the dangers of generalising from close association with one elder and one institution's meetings, I attempted to address this inherent problem by having each of the key field colleagues conduct their own observations of elders and non-elders in the wider context. I intended that this would incorporate different geographical regions and socio-economic groups. I also extended observations to the one other elder located in the immediate scene. While deliberate searches were made for disconfirming evidence to challenge our interpretations, the pervasive influence of elder was sustained. There is little in the literature to illuminate this issue. My field colleagues held that this was tied to respect for elder but also painted compelling pictures of the "cultural preparation" that first born males, and in some cases first born females, for "initiating", "speaking for the group" and "speaking the feeling of the group after informal consultation". I heard often that "it is their responsibility to hear us before speaking in that public place". This aspect of timing I will return to later. Relationships and harmonyAnother major theme to emerge was that of "relationships and harmony" which I labelled "manu" from a traditional story told by Laha. Interaction was given meaning within a complex network of relationships with "maintenance of harmony" the principal goal. Laha wove a compelling narrative around embodiment of harmony and the mythical manu bird:
Ensuring that the manu bird does not want to fly off involved the construction and maintenance of the harmony necessary for personal needs to be met within a framework of reciprocal relatedness. Laha would say that the manu would fly if the expert is challenged by the novice and respect in the novice- expert relationship is not seen to be valued. In meetings this could mean that a person regarded as elder expert, or friend would not be challenged publicly. Desire for a communal harmony and maintenance of face interact limiting the participation of some. By comparison, for expatriates interactions were perceived to be fluid and not tied to family position. Their allegiances could alter according to issue or goal without implying a change in relationship between people. The link here to the notion of 'individual ownership of ideas' and the nature of the link between knower and knowledge is strong. Knower and knowledgeMy field colleagues saw me and my expatriate colleagues as responding to ideas independently of our perception of the person who expressed that knowing. This was an assertion that was given particular significance in the meeting context as it impacted directly on who could speak, when and how they could speak and how others could engage with them about that speech. Litat described it as:
Litat's words challenged me to think about my interactions as a curriculum consultant in the institution's meetings. Certainly, my view of decision- making was that I approached interactions within and outside meetings with my own ideas and preferences, albeit shaped by biography, culture, gender and political allegiances. I expected that I would use these to engage others in discussion. I expected that there would be debate about my ideas. I expected that I would both listen and be heard depending to a large extent on the worth that I attributed to the ideas expressed. While I was more aware of negotiating the politics of power and influence than was evident in Litat's words, I could see how she would read my action in meetings as not tightly bound to my existing relationships. My position on an issue could be reshaped within the public context of the meeting. Should a new issue be raised during the meeting I felt comfortable to immediately take a position and state my ideas. In this I was viewed by expatriates as a confident and competent negotiator. Notions of the value of academic debate and public negotiation of consensus shaped my view of the purposes of the decision- making meeting. As we reviewed a video recording of a curriculum review committee meeting Litat stopped the tape after an exchange between me and the Principal, a non national, saying:
For Litat, and later confirmed by all of the others key field colleagues and a group of school inspectors, the notion that "the superior" person, as defined by birth order or expertise tied to institutional position, could be questioned directly, or contradicted publicly in this way, was peculiar. Maintaining respect for "face"Within the expatriate framing of knowledge, strong words and eye contact can be used within the issue related talk, and negative emotion, as tied to ideas rather than person, can be shown. Litat, leaving a meeting and walking with me to the car-park, reflected with me on a difference of opinion between two expatriates that we had both observed:
As we talked and examined extracts from the meetings on video I began to see that my Anglo notion of "academic debate" was linked to my cultural way of "owning my own ideas" , and speaking these as ideas separated in some way from my being as person. The academic debate that I saw as a natural part of meeting procedure was a social construction that was oppositional to Manu's nesting. For the nationals, the reciprocal nature of the relationship and the persons sincerity, effort and intentions are paramount. Thus, they can be more concerned with the perceived quality of the person, including respect for the quality a person assumes of themselves, and the interactive relationship set up with that person than with the content spoken. An example of this illustrates the dilemma this creates for nationals in meetings set up for the debating of ideas. The video shows Litat, a first born female, challenging a visiting academic in a seminar about use of home language. Other Nationals turn away. As we reach this point in our reviewing of the video Litat, looking concerned says:
To Litat and to other nationals who viewed this extract the adequacy or validity of the work being discussed were secondary to the perceived "quality of his person", "his belief" in the position he put and to his caring about this particular community. The public "face" of the person was tied to the ideas put. Within this framing, criticism is not easily separated from the speaker or the person to whom the criticism is directed Here I was moved by the data from notions of Papua New Guinean group orientation and reciprocity towards a view that responsibility to care for both group and self is built into the expectations of elders and non-elders, structuring their behaviour in mutually sustainable ways. Within this, vulnerability of self is minimised and expectation of advantages for self and group sustained. Power from the political action of speech was legitimated only when it was used to sustain the reciprocal community network. I draw a comparison with the view constructed in the feminist literature (Blackmore, 1987; Gilligan, 1977, 1982; Hartsock, 1984) of morality and power as community capacity . Such comparison suggests that the processes of leadership, institutional conflict and evaluation of capacity to act and move others to action which are used in the institution (and I suspect in the wider administration) are grounded in a Western, masculine discourse. This is, I suggest, in keeping with the abstract individualism of anglo bureaucratic rationality . While I could easily identify with nationals' reaction to elder, the value given by my key field colleagues to personal effort, time commitment and genuine intent as an indicator of a right to be heard and not challenged was far more difficult for me, as an Anglo to understand. This view had implications for the conduct of debate. The degree to which the content spoken about and the affect attached to the person speaking could be separated was a significant element in the way these nationals gave meaning to verbal interaction within a meeting. Ways of disagreeingAll agreed that fear of disagreeing was a critical element in nationals' lack of participation, particularly in public forums. There was also a strong perception that disagreeing could be tied to disliking or not caring about a person as shown above. Nationals in reviewing meetings could identify "small changes" in the talk of their peers which indicated clearly to them that the position was being changed without loss of respect for the initiator of the idea. Laha tied this "giving time", "protecting face" and "circular talk" in describing his clan's community based meetings.
This way of negotiating disagreement was often misread by expatriates as "repetition". I saw several examples of "circular talk" being cut short by an expatriate attempting to summarise ( and so "save time"). In the talk of the nationals "disagreeing", "criticism", "public correction", and "causing bad feelings" were used to describe moments in meetings where I as expatriate heard ideas being "debated". Circular talk was regarded as essential to maintaining face and attempts to sort circuit it almost always led to no further input from nationals. In terms of the manu metaphor, such behaviour ruffled feathers and threatened the stability of the nest. GoalsNot only was circular talk important to shaping desired change but it is seen as serving a very different purpose from the circular talk used by expatriates. Whereas the nationals used circular talk to replace open debate and disagreement so as to sustain harmony and to maintain the face of each participant as a group member, they perceived expatriate circular talk to be individually goal directed.
The perception was that for expatriates, interaction in meetings was most often 'outcome' or 'productivity' directed. Participation was seen to be useful only in relation to the goal. Time was not wasted on niceties or 'smoothing the feathers of participants' unless this was necessary to achieving a goal. Goals here were not constructed as being linked to relationships among people but to productivity and efficiency of the institution. This meant that errors, sometimes directly identified as being made by individual speakers, must be addressed and corrected. Time 'is not wasted on valuing the face' of others who have made an input which needs to be negated or modified. 'Fixing the error is valued'. Timing of "first hearing" and notions of "consultationWho raised the issue, the timing of the first public hearing in relation to the degree to which it had been subjected to informal discussion and the timing and strength of speech of the elders, were all identified as important factors shaping the levels of national participation. In my early days in the field I was constantly puzzled by the nationals' silence in situations where open questions were asked. Only as we moved collectively to analyse specific examples did I slowly learn that the western concept of "consultation" within the agenda of the meeting did not engage the Papua New Guineans. One event illustrates a pattern I saw often: Peter [an expatriate] puts aside his cup and stands to announce, "The Principal has given us fifty Kina for the end of term function. We can go to lunch ... or evening meal. I've been told the golf club has good, cheap lunches . .. or evenings ... we could take wives ..." [a couple of women make jokes about husbands. Everyone stops talking and those at the door return to their chairs. Midway through Peter's words, mumbling begins at the back tables (where nationals sit) while at the front there is less cross-talk and individuals indicate their preferences directly to Peter, who remains standing. He continues to look to the back where nationals are seated, waiting for ideas or reactions. The mumbling stops and I see blank faces as individuals look away from Peter. There appears to be general consensus among the expatriates at the front favouring an evening meal with partners present. Peter, looking to the nationals says, "What would you like?" I see some words exchanged between occupants of adjacent chairs and some undirected comments. These seemed to anticipate needs of others, both present and not present [' _ likes to go to _ ;' '_ has children to mind at night;' 'Last time _ didn't come']. No indication of preference is directed to Peter and twice more he asks. In the absence of a stated preference from nationals, it is agreed that an evening meal will be arranged (Field Journal). This was a pattern that I saw many times both in informal settings like this one and in the more formal context of meetings. A direct question put to the whole staff, or to a large group of any sort, brought comments and suggestions from expatriates but few from nationals. This silence would be followed by animated and articulate dialogue in small groups and between individuals in outside informal contexts. Often this took the form of grumbling if the decision made in the meeting was not to their liking. Feedback to the person or persons who had raised the question did not occur. Silence is taken by expatriates as meaning no strong preference, and once a decision is made, continued silence is taken to mean that there is agreement, or at least acceptance of the decision made. As an expatriate, my view of decision-making and of the consultation that accompanied it was that I saw a meeting as an acceptable forum for "consultation". Here I could speak to many without waste of time. The national field colleagues called my construction "owning your ideas as an individual" and "being more concerned with time than people" and contrasted it to their commitment to a slow and careful process of establishing "communal ownership" of ideas prior to their being put in a meeting context.
The role of initiator and final speaker, and the way in which "consultation" "was done" were constructed differently too.
I noticed here that the emphasis in consulting was placed on everybody "hearing". There was no necessity for everyone to speak. This we would later link to patterns surrounding elders final words in decision-making. It was, for me, an insight illustrating how we had all been using the word "consult" but giving it meaning in very different ways. Implicit in this description is that the dignity of each person must be attended to in a personalised rather than a public process. "Naming" in this consultation process is equated with recognition of membership of the communal group. The meeting is used only to make a public presentation formalising the view already established in the outside consultation process. Thus nationals operating within a communal frame are reluctant to publicly express a view before consulting (hearing) all the appropriate people informally and perhaps indirectly. They want to take time to determine how their individual thoughts on the issue fit with others. While informal consulting, even lobbying for support or consensus prior to meetings, does occur in Western institutions, it is not a pre- requisite for public speech as is the case here for nationals. Tasa described the discomfort that public calling for individual response can cause:
And from Hakala:
Tasa continued, indicating that if she was pushed to voice an opinion in the public forum before she had a chance to know how others were thinking, she felt anxious:
Hakala supported this view when he explained why he had not answered a question related to graduation organisation:
Accessing the floor and the role of Chair "Getting a turn" in meetings was frequently the subject of informal talk and perceptions of expatriates "cutting in" persisted in our video reviewing.
The nationals described how this waiting for a turn operated in cross cultural meetings in the institution:
Away from the field I replayed the videos in slow motion and was surprised to find that, despite my transcripts indicating to the contrary, there was very little overspeaking occurring in the talk within formal meetings. Slow replay revealed that expatriates responded to linguistic cues (raised intonation, eye flash, slowing speech) to insert themselves into very small pauses. Thus non first language English speakers, unable to read these linguistic cues and waiting for a long pause did not access the floor at the time that was most appropriate to expressing a particular idea held. Tasa expressed it this way:
Within meetings Nationals supported a strong role for the Chairperson whom they saw as responsible for the pace, and the allocation of turns of speech . The one National Chairperson I observed carefully summarised all views expressed prior to any vote being taken and before moving from one agenda item to another. This person also summarised others' ideas before expressing his own. My National colleagues claimed that this "reduced uncertainty" and was in keeping with their notions of "elder having the last word". (Re)constructing MeetingsHabermas' describes the ideal speech situation as:
Is it possible to move towards this in the institutional meeting, particularly where meaning is being constructed across cultures using the language of one? I believe that small changes might make a big difference. It is within formal meetings that nationals' non nationals and expatriates' collusion in the silencing of non Anglo voices is not only most evident but also most out of awareness. This can be raised to a more conscious level. With Walker (1991: 79) I believe that:
Thus there is a need for members to lay out the cultural assumptions which guide their beliefs and behaviour and to discuss these so that touchstone or common ground can be negotiated. While this sounds complex, it can begin with a simple statement like, "Lets stop for a moment and look at what is happening here," or a question such as "What beliefs are important to you as we approach this task?" Our findings suggest possible alternatives which might be trialed. First, the timing and placement of information intended to stimulate discussion and input prior to meetings seems to be critical to countering first hearing within the meeting. A bold notice placed on a board at the entrance to the staff room just prior to morning tea or other collective informal time almost always drew comment and discussion, including discussion across ethnic boundaries. I suspect six years down the track, email might do a similar thing. Second, agenda items posed as questions rather than proposed solutions put within the meeting to small groups would support the informal hearing and fitting of ideas prior to public speech. Turn taking around the circle in these small groups could be useful as a way of allocating turns but here I move beyond the data. Small group discussion allows the groups to nominate a speaker/elder and provides a forum in which elders can consult and hear. However, for such groups to alter the discourse there would need to be a corresponding reversal of the initiate and perpetuate patterns currently used by expatriates and their deliberately refraining from giving solutions when confronted with silence or summarising when circular talk is evident. Such informal and non public discussion could replace the notion of academic debate that currently occurs as a very public way. Most importantly, we need to talk about the meeting as a cultural and political ritual and about the ways we give meaning to our knowing and speaking within it. Although there are detailed socio-linguistic studies of traditional Papua New Guinea groups, we know almost nothing of how meaning is negotiated in the discourses of educational institutions. Given the very large amount of time given to meetings at all levels of the organisation and the way these meetings construct and validate social relationships, it is essential that researchers give attention to meetings. In Papua New Guinea fine grain discourse analysis of meetings involving second language English speakers and comparisons with meetings conducted in all-national contexts, could provide valuable insights into the way interaction conventions block participation along ethnic lines. There is also a need to establish how shared knowledge ( cultural touchstone) can be negotiated. In keeping with Narokobi's plea I have listened to the National voices but there remains a need for research by Nationals on how meaning is (re)constructed in their world of work where people. Potential input is ruled out progressively as follows: 1. Input into the agenda at the construction stage was made by a few key individuals in administrative positions or those with whom they had prior consultation. Attempts to widen this were met with nil response, reducing the likelihood that those with power would perceive others to have the desire or knowledge to make an input. 2. The resultant agenda has limited distribution. Without knowledge of items to be raised at a meeting, non recipients can not raise issues with those who represent them at the meeting. Representatives do not consult widely. 3. Within the meeting, certain people, whose job it is perceived to be, raise agenda items together with a solution and supporting information. Alternatives are not raised and discussion is focussed on the way the suggested solution fits existing policy and can be implemented within it. 4. Cues such as `any comments?' or `everyone agreed?' are followed by silence. 5. Silence, particularly in the absence of a vote, leads to a decision being written up as a group decision or to the decision not being clearly articulated or recorded at all. 6. Minutes go to meeting members but are not read until another meeting is due. Subsequently, representatives do not feed back into the wider group. References
|
|
|