THE ADVANTAGES OF EMPLOYING QUANTITATIVE

AND QUALITATIVE METHODS IN INTERCULTURAL

RESEARCH: PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FROM
THE STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
COMPETENCE BY AMERICAN AND RUSSIAN
MANAGERS
Alexei V. Matveev
Department of Business, City University of New York,
College of Staten Island

Published: Collected research articles, Bulletin of Russian Communication

Association "THEORY OF COMMUNICATION AND APPLIED COMMUNICATION",
Issue 1 / Edited by I.N. Rozina, Rostov-on-Don: Institute of Management,
Business and Law Publishing, 2002. - 168 p. P. 59-67

Abstract
Intercultural researchers usually use two types of investigation processes. First is quantitative
research, which employs numerical indicators to ascertain the relative size of a particular
communication phenomenon. The second type of investigation process is qualitative research,
which employs symbols and words to indicate the presence or absence of phenomena or
categorize them into different types. Quantitative and qualitative observations provide
intercultural researchers with different ways of operationalizing and measuring theoretical
constructs and practical concepts. While quantitative methods can provide a high level of
measurement precision and statistical power, qualitative methods can supply a greater depth of
information about the nature of communication processes in a particular research setting.
This research investigated the perception of intercultural communication
competence by American and Russian managers with experience on multicultural
teams. The researcher employed a survey method to solicit information about
intercultural communication competence and multicultural team performance from
124 American and Russian managers. Qualitative interviews of 40 American and
Russian managers enriched the data collected by using questionnaires. This study
yielded a number of conclusions about the importance of intercultural
communication competence in the performance of multicultural teams.
The researcher experienced a number of advantages of applying both quantitative
and qualitative methods in this intercultural research. Quantitative methods
ensured high levels of reliability of gathered data. Qualitative research allowed for
obtaining more in-depth information about how the managers perceive intercultural
communication competence and its relationship with the performance of
multicultural teams. This article is useful for empirical researchers, qualitative
scholars, and business practitioners who are engaged in intercultural research or
who plan to perform a future study.
The Research Problem
In todays world, people spend a considerable time communicating across cultures
with other people and organizations around the world. Intercultural communication
competence of employees of multicultural organizations has risen to a higher level
of importance. Today a large portion of communication in multicultural
organizations occurs between people with different cultural backgrounds (Hofner
Saphiere, 1996). Team members with different cultural backgrounds are likely to
have difficulties in understanding each other because of the difference in the
perception about what competent communication is. Past research shows that
competent communication and an effective team development process can address
many of the challenges of multicultural teams (Christophel, 1996; Gudykunst &
Kim, 1984; Hofstede, 1991; Lewis, 1998; McCroskey & McCroskey, 1986;
McCroskey & Richmond, 1990; Parker, 1998; Rhinesmith, 1983, 1996; Young,
1998).
To work effectively with diverse people, managers of multicultural organizations
need to know not only about the culture of the person with whom they are
interacting, but also about his or her personality, behavior patterns in conflict
situations, demographics, and life experiences. An ability to work in a diverse
workforce requires managers to become competent intercultural communicators.
The research presented in this paper analyzed the perception of intercultural
communication competence by American and Russian managers with experience
on multicultural teams. The primary goals of this study were to (a) investigate how
American and Russian managers perceive intercultural communication
competence, and (b) describe a relationship between intercultural communication
competence of managers and the performance of multicultural teams.
Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods of Inquiry
Intercultural researchers are deemed to have certain challenges due to cultural,
linguistic, business practice, and communication differences of the research
participants, survey respondents, and interviewees. Combing quantitative and
qualitative methods helps to prevent some of these challenges and manage others.
The following section highlights strengths and weaknesses of the quantitative and
qualitative methods experienced by intercultural researchers.
Quantitative Method
The functional or positivist paradigm that guides the quantitative mode of inquiry
is based on the assumption that social reality has an objective ontological structure
and that individuals are responding agents to this objective environment (Morgan
& Smircich, 1980). Quantitative research involves counting and measuring of
events and performing the statistical analysis of a body of numerical data (Smith,
1988). The assumption behind the positivist paradigm is that there is an objective
truth existing in the world that can be measured and explained scientifically. The
main concerns of the quantitative paradigm are that measurement is reliable, valid,
and generalizable in its clear prediction of cause and effect (Cassell & Symon,
1994).
Being deductive and particularistic, quantitative research is based upon
formulating the research hypotheses and verifying them empirically on a specific
set of data (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1992). Scientific hypotheses are
value-free; the researcher's own values, biases, and subjective preferences have no
place in the quantitative approach. Researchers can view the communication
process as concrete and tangible and can analyze it without contacting actual
people involved in communication (Ting-Toomey, 1984).
The strengths of the quantitative method include:
Stating the research problem in very specific and set terms (Frankfort-Nachmias
& Nachmias, 1992);
Clearly and precisely specifying both the independent and the dependent
variables under investigation;
Following firmly the original set of research goals, arriving at more objective
conclusions, testing hypothesis, determining the issues of causality;
Achieving high levels of reliability of gathered data due to controlled
observations, laboratory experiments, mass surveys, or other form of research
manipulations (Balsley, 1970);
Eliminating or minimizing subjectivity of judgment (Kealey & Protheroe,
1996);
Allowing for longitudinal measures of subsequent performance of research
subjects.
The weaknesses of the quantitative method include:
Failure to provide the researcher with information on the context of the
situation where the studied phenomenon occurs;
Inability to control the environment where the respondents provide the answers
to the questions in the survey;
Limited outcomes to only those outlined in the original research proposal due to
closed type questions and the structured format;
Not encouraging the evolving and continuous investigation of a research
phenomenon.
Qualitative Method
Qualitative research shares the theoretical assumptions of the interpretative
paradigm, which is based on the notion that social reality is created and sustained
through the subjective experience of people involved in communication (Morgan,
1980). Qualitative researchers are concerned in their research with attempting to
accurately describe, decode, and interpret the meanings of phenomena occurring in
their normal social contexts (Fryer, 1991). The researchers operating within the
framework of the interpretative paradigm are focused on investigating the
complexity, authenticity, contextualization, shared subjectivity of the researcher
and the researched, and minimization of illusion (Fryer, 1991).
Qualitative research in general is more likely to take place in a natural setting
(Denzin, 1971; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1989). This means
that topics for study focus on everyday activity as "defined, enacted, smoothed,
and made problematic by persons going about their normal routines" (Van Maanen,
1983, p. 255). Qualitative research is less likely to impose restrictive a priori
classification on the collection of data. It is less driven by very specific hypotheses
and categorical frameworks and more concerned with emergent themes and
idiographic descriptions (Cassell & Symon, 1994).
Extending the fundamental beliefs of the interpretative paradigm, one can name
three characteristics of qualitative inquiry. First, qualitative research is the study of
symbolic discourse that consists of the study of texts and conversations. Second,
qualitative research is the study of the interpretive principles that people use to
make sense of their symbolic activities. Third, qualitative research is the study of
contextual principles, such as the roles of the participants, the physical setting, and
a set of situational events, that guide the interpretation of discourse (Ting-Toomey,
1984).
The strengths of the qualitative method include:
Obtaining a more realistic feel of the world that cannot be experienced in the
numerical data and statistical analysis used in quantitative research;
Flexible ways to perform data collection, subsequent analysis, and
interpretation of collected information;
Provide a holistic view of the phenomena under investigation (Bogdan &
Taylor, 1975; Patton, 1980);
Ability to interact with the research subjects in their own language and on their
own terms (Kirk & Miller, 1986);
Descriptive capability based on primary and unstructured data;
The weaknesses of the qualitative method include:
Departing from the original objectives of the research in response to the
changing nature of the context (Cassell & Symon, 1994);
Arriving to different conclusions based on the same information depending on
the personal characteristics of the researcher;
Inability to investigate causality between different research phenomena;
Difficulty in explaining the difference in the quality and quantity of information
obtained from different respondents and arriving at different, non-consistent
conclusions;
Requiring a high level of experience from the researcher to obtain the targeted
information from the respondent;
Lacking consistency and reliability because the researcher can employ different
probing techniques and the respondent can choose to tell some particular stories
and ignore others.
The Research Methods Used in This Study
Investigating how different cultures perceive intercultural communication
competence and its relationship with multicultural team performance included field
research in Russia and data collection in the United States. The participants in this
study were 124 upper and middle managers of medium and large international
companies. The researcher selected the companies and the actual research
participants based on the scale of their international operations, their history of
working in intercultural teams, and their willingness to participate in this research
study.
The researcher employed the Integrated Intercultural Communication Competence
Model (Model) to examine the perception of intercultural communication
competence by American and Russian managers with experience on multicultural
teams. The Model is based on the research of Abe and Wiseman (1983) and Cui
and Awa (1992). The theoretical foundations of the Model are rooted in the cultural
studies of Edward Hall (1956, 1976), Hofstede's (1980, 1991) cultural dimensions
of power distance, individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and
masculinity-femininity, and the communication orientations across cultures
(Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). The Model views intercultural communication
competence of a team member as being based on four underlying dimensions:
interpersonal skills, team effectiveness, cultural uncertainty, and cultural empathy.
The factor analysis of the pilot data confirmed these four dimensions as being
critical characteristics for members of multicultural teams (Matveev, Rao, &
Milter, 2001).
The researcher used both quantitative and qualitative methods to solicit
information from the respondents on intercultural communication competence and
multicultural team performance. The quantitative part of the research included two
research questionnaires. The Intercultural Communication Competence
Questionnaire with the internal consistency reliability of Chonbach alpha of 0.88
was based on the Integrated Intercultural Communication Competence Model
(Matveev, Rao, & Milter 2001). The High Performance Team Questionnaire with
the test-retest reliability of .82 and the internal consistency alpha of .88 was based
on the integrated model of group development (Wheelan, 1990, 1994, 1999).
The qualitative part of the research included 40 semi-structured interviews with the
American and Russian managers. The goal of the interviews was to obtain more in-
depth information about how the managers perceive intercultural communication
competence and its relationship with the performance of multicultural teams
(Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1992). The researcher asked the American and
Russian managers to describe an interculturally and communicatively competent
employee, to rank the dimensions of intercultural communication competence
based on their understanding of this theoretical construct, and to describe their
views about a relationship between intercultural communication competence and
performance in multicultural teams.
The Results
The statistical analyses of the survey data determined the differences in the mean
intercultural communication competence scores and the mean scores of different
dimensions of intercultural communication competence between the American and
the Russian respondents. The correlation analysis suggested a significant
relationship between the score for intercultural communication competence and the
score for multicultural team performance.
The quantitative method allowed the researcher to collect the data from the
respondents in the numerical format, to exercise objective judgment, to achieve a
high level of reliability and accuracy. The researcher used the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to perform the descriptive statistical analyses, the t
tests, the analyses of variance, and the correlation analysis (Norusis, 1999). The
alpha level of statistical significance (Cronbach, 1951) was set at .05 for all types
of statistical analyses (Stevens, 1996). The researcher formulated the research
hypotheses prior to implementing the actual intercultural study. The researcher
verified the hypotheses empirically on a data set collected from the Russian and
the American respondents.
Employing the quantitative method allowed the researcher to:
State the research problem in very specific, definable, and set terms;
Specify clearly and precisely the independent and the dependent variables;
Follow the original set of research goals;
Achieve high levels of reliability of gathered data due to mass surveying;
Test the research hypotheses;
Arrive at more objective conclusions by minimizing subjectivity of judgment.
The American managers named open-mindedness and openness to new ideas, and
the Russian managers named vast cultural knowledge as the key qualities of an
interculturally and communicatively competent employee. Both the American and
the Russian managers identified the interpersonal skills dimension of intercultural
communication competence as the most important. However, the Americans and
the Russians differed in their ranking of importance of other dimensions of
intercultural communication competence. All of the interviewed American and the
Russian managers believed that that the level of intercultural communication
competence of individual team members affected the performance of multicultural
teams in their organizations.
The qualitative method allowed the researcher to describe the perceptions of
intercultural communication competence more accurately and thoroughly. The
researcher engaged in actual interaction with the American and Russian managers
in real day-to-day organizational contexts. The respondents provided more
authentic and open answers because they operated in their natural organizational
settings. The researcher discovered new themes and interpretations of the
intercultural communication competence construct because of the absence of the
restrictive a priory classifications and judgment.
The interviews helped the researcher to determine a more holistic nature of the
intercultural communication competence construct. The managers explained their
understanding of different dimensions of intercultural communication competence
including the items and definitions related to intercultural communication
knowledge, attitude, motivation, and skills. The respondents provided specific
examples of their experience that supported the influence of dominance of cultural
parameters on interpretation of intercultural communication competence. The
American and Russian cultures differ in the collectivism-individualism, power
distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity parameters. The
managers also emphasized the contextual nature of intercultural communication
competence.
Employing the qualitative method allowed the researcher to:
Collect the primary data in a flexible, non-structured way that allowed
emergence of new information and interpretations of intercultural
communication competence;
Interact with the research subjects in their own language and, in most of the
cases, at their own work place;
Understand intercultural communication competence as a more holistic and
complex construct;
Obtain a more realistic and hands-on feel of the world that cannot be
experienced in the numerical data and statistical analysis used in quantitative
research.
Conclusion
This research analyzed the perception of intercultural communication competence
by American and Russian managers with experience on multicultural teams. The
researcher determined importance of intercultural communication competence to
the performance of multicultural teams, the culturally explained differences in the
perceptions of intercultural communication competence between Americans and
Russians, and differences in the scores on the dimensions of intercultural
communication competence between managers of these two cultures with
experience on multicultural teams. Managers of multicultural organizations
emphasized that the success of their companies would depend on how well their
employees are able to deal with cultural complexity and to understand, accept, and
respond to cultural differences.
This intercultural study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods of
inquiry. The researcher experienced a number of advantages of applying both
quantitative and qualitative methods in this intercultural research. Quantitative
methods ensured high levels of reliability of gathered data. Qualitative method
allowed for obtaining more in-depth information about how the managers perceive
intercultural communication competence and its relationship with the performance
of multicultural teams. The use of different research methods allowed building on
the strengths of each method and minimizing their weaknesses. The weaknesses of
the quantitative method, such as failure to provide information about the context of
the situation, inability to control the environment, and pre-determined outcomes,
were compensated by interaction with the research participants during interviews,
learning about the context, and uncovering new research themes.
The weaknesses of the qualitative method, such as departing from the original
objectives of the research, excessive subjectivity of judgment, and high
requirements for the experience level of the researcher, were compensated by
clearly stating the research problem, crosschecking with the results of the statistical
analyses, and strong theoretical foundation of the research. The researcher highly
recommends using both methods of inquiry in future intercultural studies to ensure
high reliability of data, understanding the contextual aspects of the research,
flexibility and openness of the data collection, and a more holistic interpretation of
the research problem.
References
Abe, H., & Wiseman, R. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural
effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53-67.
Balsley, H.L. (1970). Quantitative research methods for business and economics. New York:
Random House.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S.J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York: John
Wiley.
Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (1994). Qualitative research in work contexts. In C. Cassell, & G.
Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Christophel, D.M. (1996). Russian communication orientations: A cross-cultural examination.
Communication Research Reports, 3(1), 43-51.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-
334.
Cui, G., & Awa N.E. (1992). Measuring intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 311-328.
Denzin, N.K. (1971). The logic of naturalistic inquiry. Social Forces, 50, 166-182.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1992). Research methods in the social sciences (4th
ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Fryer, D. (1991). Qualitative methods in occupational psychology: Reflections upon why they
are so useful but so little used. The Occupational Psychologist, 14 (Special issue on qualitative
methods), 3-6.
Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An approach to
intercultural communication. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gudykunst, W.B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hall, E.T. (1956). Orientation and training in government for work overseas. Human
Organization, 15, 4-10.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Hofner Saphiere, D.M. (1996). Productive behaviors of global business teams. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(2), 227-259.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, United
Kingdom: McGraw-Hill.
Kealey, D.J., & Protheroe, D.R. (1996). The effectiveness of cross-cultural training for
expatriates: An assessment of the literature on the issue. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 20(2), 141-165.
Kirk, J., & Miller, M.L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitative
Research Methods Series, 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lewis, R.D. (1998). When cultures collide: Managing successfully across cultures. London,
United Kingdom: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Matveev, A.V., Rao, N., & Milter, R.G. (2001, November). Developing a scale to measure
intercultural communication competence: A pilot study in multicultural organizations. Paper
submitted to the International and Intercultural Communication Division of the National
Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
McCroskey, J.C., & McCroskey, L.L. (May, 1986). Predictors of willingness to communicate:
Implications for screening and remediation. Paper presented at the International Communication
Association Convention, Chicago, Illinois.
McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: Differing cultural
perspectives. The Southern Communication Journal, 56, 72-77.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization communication.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 608-621.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management
Review, 5, 491-500.
Norusis, M.J. (1999). SPSS advanced statistics (5th ed.). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Parker, B. (1998). Globalization and business practice: Managing across boundaries. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rhinesmith, S.H. (1983). A manager's guide to globalization. Alexandria, VA: Irwin.
Rhinesmith, S.H. (1996). A manager's guide to globalization: Six keys to success in a changing
world. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Smith M.J. (1988). Contemporary communication research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1984). Qualitative research: An overview. In W.B. Gudykunst, & Y.Y. Kim
(Eds.), Methods for intercultural communication research (pp. 169-184). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Van Maanen, J. (1983). Qualitative methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Wheelan, S.A. (1990). Facilitating training groups: A guide to leadership and verbal intervention
skills. New York: Praeger.
Wheelan, S.A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Wheelan, S.A. (1999). Creating effective teams: A guide for members and leaders. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Young, D. (1998, September). Global efficiency: Team heat. CIO Magazine [Online]. Available:
http://www.cio.com/archive/090198_team-content.html

About author:

Matveev Alexei V.
Ph.D., Department of Business, City University of New York, College of Staten
Island, USA, e-mail: cstng@hotmail.com