c
 



  

 

B. Sebastian Reiche, IESE Business School, University of Navarra
Prof. Anne-Wil Harzing, University of Melbourne

© Copyright 2007 B. Sebastian Reiche and Anne-Wil Harzing. All rights reserved.
Second version, 26 June 2007

Print this page

 
In contrast to what the wealth of textbooks on conducting empirical research
seem to indicate, the actual research process is quite messy in nature. In fact, it
can be viewed ´as a set of dilemmas to be ¶lived with·; and [¬] as an effort to
keep from becoming impaled on one or another horn of one or more of these
dilemmas´ (McGrath, 1982: 69). From this perspective, embarking on a cross-
national research project introduces many additional dilemmas. In this paper, we
make an attempt to explore these issues in more detail and offer possible
solutions to address them. While cross-cultural investigation is not limited to
survey research but includes a range of qualitative methods of data collection
(see Marschan-Piekkari & Welch, 2004 for a good overview), we focus our
discussion on the collection of international and cross-cultural data through
questionnaires. We begin by identifying key methodological challenges in cross-
cultural survey research. Subsequently, we describe several research practices to
cope with these challenges, structuring our discussion along the various stages of
the research process.

 

   

 

Compared with domestic research, international cross-cultural research faces
additional methodological challenges that, if not properly addressed, may
considerably increase the risk of inferential errors (Singh, 1995). Indeed, the
literature emphasizes that constructs and concepts may entail culture-specific
attributes and meanings which need to be explicitly taken into account to ensure
sound interpretation of cross-cultural data (Peng, Peterson, & Shyi, 1991). In a
similar vein, there is evidence that the language of the questionnaire affects the
way respondents answer the same question which argues against the use of
single-language surveying (Harzing, Maznevski, & country collaborators, 2002).
These arguments require cross-cultural researchers to systematically establish
equivalence in terms of their adopted constructs, measures and samples (Mullen,
1995; Sekaran, 1983; Singh, 1995).

To determine which methodological issues are most relevant, it is crucial to

characterize a given research project in terms of its approach to cross-cultural
research. In this regard, Adler (1983) distinguishes between six orientations to
investigating cross-cultural management issues ² parochial, ethnocentric,
polycentric, comparative, geocentric and synergistic research. The approaches
and their main characteristics are compiled in Table 1.

„
 
 „ 
  
    

 

 

 



 
  
 
 
 



  Single Domestic Assumed What is the Traditional
 culture managemen similarity behaviour of methodologies:
studies t studies people like in All of the
organizations traditional
? Study is methodological
only issues
applicable to concerning
management design,
in one sampling,
culture and instrumentation
yet it is , analysis and
assumed to interpretation
be applicable without
to reference to
management culture.
in many
cultures.
á


 Second Replication Search for Can we use Standardization
 culture in foreign similarity home and translation:
studies cultures of country How can
domestic theories management
managemen abroad? Can research be
t studies this theory standardized
which is across culture?
applicable to How can
organizations instruments be
in Culture A literally
be extended translated?
to Replication
organizations should be
in Culture B? identical to
original study
with the
exception of
language.



  Studies in Individual Search for How do Description:
 many studies of difference managers How can
cultures organization manage and country X·s
s in specific employees organizations
foreign behave in be studied
cultures country X? without either
What is the using home
pattern of country
organizationa theories or
l models and
relationships without using
in country X? obtrusive
measures?
Focus is on
inductive
methods and
unobtrusive
measures.


 
 Studies Studies Search for How are the Equivalence: Is
 contrasting comparing both management the
many organization similarity and methodology
 cultures s in many and employee equivalent at
foreign difference styles similar each stage in
cultures and different the research
across process? Are
cultures? the meanings
Which of key concepts
theories hold defined
across equivalently?
cultures and Has the
which do research been
not? designed such
that the
samples,
instrumentation
,
administration,
analysis and
interpretation
are equivalent
with reference
to the cultures
included?

Ö

  Internationa Studies of Search for How do Geographic
 l multinationa similarity MNCs dispersion: All
managemen l function? of the
t studies organization traditional
s methodological
questions are
relevant with
the added
complexity of
geographical
distance.
Translation is
often less of a
problem since
most MNCs
have a
common
language
across all
countries in
 which they
operate. The
primary
question is to
develop an
approach for
studying the
complexity of
large
organizations.
Culture is often
ignored.

 
 Intercultural Studies of Use of How can the Interaction

 managemen intercultural similaritie intercultural models and
t studies interaction s and interaction integrating
within work difference within a processes:
settings s as a domestic or What are
resource international effective ways
organization to study cross-
be managed? cultural
How can interaction
organizations within
create organizational
structures settings? How
and can universal
processes and culturally
which will be specific
effective in patterns of
working with management
members of be
all cultures? distinguished?
What is the
appropriate
balance
between
culturally
specific and
universal
processes
within one
organization?
How can the
 proactive use of
cultural
differences to
create
universally
accepted
organizational
patterns be
studied?

The six approaches to cross-cultural research vary in terms of their

methodological issues and thus require different measures to cope with the
underlying research process. Whereas parochial research reflects what we would
consider a domestic research setting, ethnocentric research replicates domestic
studies in another culture. In the latter approach, a key methodological challenge
involves the translation of questionnaire items into the language of the research
setting. Polycentric research concerns the study of the particularities of certain
cultures or those of organizations operating in these specific cultures. Implicit to
this approach is the need to use measures that have been developed in the given
culture and reflect its idiosyncrasies. In many cases, especially in less researched
settings such as developing countries (Bulmer & Warwick, 1983), such measures
are not readily available, thus requiring the researcher to develop new scales. This
may involve close collaboration with local researchers who can serve as cultural
mediators.

Comparative research aims at contrasting two or more cultures, or organizations

operating in these cultures. For example, a researcher may be interested in
examining to which extent feelings of organizational identification vary across
cultures. In order to draw meaningful inferences from the study, the researcher
needs to ensure equivalence throughout the entire research process. Most
importantly, the construct of interest, in the current example organizational
identification, requires equivalent treatment in all cultures under study. This will
only be the case if (1) the construct serves the same function (functional
equivalence), (2) is expressed in similar attitudes or behaviours (conceptual
equivalence), and (3) entails identical interpretation of the scale items, response
categories and questionnaire stimuli across the respective cultures as shown by
similar patterns of item-to-measure correlation (metric or instrumental
equivalence) (Harpaz, 2003; Singh, 1995). In addition, the survey administration
may require different channels. For example, online surveys may be an
inadequate means of data collection in less developed countries or rural areas
where broadband access is not as widely available.

Geocentric research is primarily concerned with the study of multinational

companies (MNCs) that are dispersed across different locations and maintain
complex interrelationships. The current interest in studying how knowledge that
resides in different geographically dispersed company units is diffused within a
MNC (Foss & Pedersen, 2004) provides an example for this approach.
Accordingly, the geographical dispersion of the different social entities under
study poses a main methodological challenge. While this is a central concern in
qualitative methods of data collection, the use of surveys, especially web-based
surveys, can alleviate this concern. Although cultural differences and
idiosyncrasies are often secondary to this line of research, they form an integral
part of any geocentric research project and, if not adequately controlled for, can
lead to biased interpretations. In the previous example, it is likely that knowledge
sharing processes are contingent upon how individuals across cultures process
and make sense of new information (Bhaghat, Kedia, Harveston, & Triandis, 2002)
and the extent to which they interact with one another (Wang & Kanungo, 2004).

Finally, synergistic research deals with cross-cultural interactions in organizations.

International assignment research serves as a prime example for this approach as
international assignees directly interact with individuals from different cultural
backgrounds during their assignment. In contrast to the other types of cross-
cultural research, synergistic research concentrates on understanding the
interaction between individuals from different cultures rather than describing
specific cultures (Adler, 1983). This involves an identification of particular MNC
structures and processes that are effective for the cross-cultural collaboration
between organizational members. Given the large number of different cultural
groups in MNCs, these research aims substantially increase the level of
complexity involved in the research project. Depending on which cultural groups
are included in the analysis, the researcher may draw different conclusions
concerning the universality or culture-specificity of certain behaviours and
processes. In the case of international assignment research, this problem may, for
example, be alleviated by holding the assignment culture constant, thus focusing
on the cultural particularities of the individual actor with regard to a given
cultural context. This facilitates the assessment of where cultural influences occur
and where such influence does not exist. In the following sections, we will discuss
in more detail the various methodological challenges identified above.
¬

 
 


Any research project is dependent on access to sufficient data in order to address
the research questions of interest. In an international research context, data
access concerns not only securing an appropriate sample but also ensuring that
all data can be feasibly collected given the additional cost that are involved in
cross-border mail, telephone and fax correspondence. The survey population is a
crucial concept in empirical research as it determines the set of entities from
which the sample can be drawn and affects both the internal and external validity
of a study·s results (Reynolds, Simintiras, & Diamantopoulos, 2003). Internal
validity refers to the extent to which the manipulation of an independent variable
is the sole cause of change in a dependent variable. In contrast, external validity
concerns the generalizability of the results to the external environment (Zikmund,
2003). Internal validity is threatened if the observed results are influenced by the
confounding effects of extraneous variables. To control for possible extraneous
variation, it is important to select a homogenous population (Reynolds et al.,
2003). In this vein, Sekaran (1983) highlights the use of matched samples that are
functionally equivalent across the countries of interest but not necessarily
identical. In the earlier example of international assignment research, this may
entail the focus on one particular group of assignees (e.g., inpatriates or short-
term assignees) from different countries-of-origin. At the organizational level, this
may involve limiting the analysis to MNCs of comparable size, industry affiliation
or internationalization experience.

A systematic way to identify all organizations that form part of the target
population is the use of data bases with information on company profiles and
respective contact details (e.g., Hoover·s Handbook of World Business) in
combination with local address books. In most cases it is appropriate to address a
request letter or email to either the managing director or, if individual employees
serve as the primary unit of analysis, the HR director. As managing directors
rotate frequently and address data bases may not be regularly updated, it is
advisable to confirm the personal details prior to sending out the request
(Harzing, 1999).

Given that response rates from cold calls tend to be low, other strategies are
necessary to gain data access. For example, it is beneficial to contact international
professional organizations (e.g., IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers), attend international academic conferences that place a strong focus
on practitioner issues (e.g., Conference of the International Council for Small
Business) or participate in conferences hosted by business schools (e.g., FuBuTec
conference at INSEAD). Another strategy is to contact consultancies specializing
in specific services that are relevant to a given research project. Consulting firms
maintain a comprehensive client data base and may be willing to share this
information in return for access to the research results.

The inclusion of local collaborators in the specific countries of interest not only
serves as an additional means to gain access to local companies but, importantly,
also helps to manage the international data collection process (Harzing & 32
country collaborators, 2005; Harzing et al., 2002; House, Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Indeed, local collaborators can collect the data on-site
and return the responses in one batch, thereby facilitating the data transmission.
Also, they provide additional credibility to the research project in the local
context which may help to increase response rates and local collaborators may
help with the interpretation of culture-specific findings (Harpaz, 2003). Finally,
research that involves developing countries is plagued by additional challenges
of data access such as lack of communication infrastructure and literacy problems
(see Bulmer & Warwick, 1983 for an overview).

 
¬   
When developing a survey, three methodological issues require special attention
in an international research context: (1) choice of survey type, (2) the use of
measurement scales that capture equivalent concepts across cultures, and (3)
survey language(s). We will discuss each separately in the following sections.

 

 
Different methods of survey administration exist, namely surveying by face-to-
face interview, telephone, fax, mail and internet (Fowler, 2002). In the case of
large-scale international survey research, both face-to-face and telephone
interviews are usually not feasible in terms of the costs involved. Additionally,
substantial time-zone differences between the researcher·s and the respondents·
location limit the available time frame for scheduling and conducting telephone
conversations. In a similar vein, the scarce research assessing the effectiveness of
fax surveys indicates that their response rates tend to be lower than traditional
mail surveys (Tse & Ching, 1994). These limitations have led the majority of
international researchers to rely on paper-and-pencil surveys administered by
postal mail.

However, traditional mail surveys are not without problems. Mailing times can be
substantial, thus delaying the data collection process. Also, the use of
international prepaid postal coupons adds significant extra costs to the research
project and there is some concern about the reliability of postal services in less
developed countries (Harpaz, 2003). In this vein, researchers increasingly
emphasize the use of internet-based surveys as an effective alternative (Dillman,
2000; Hewson, Yule, Laurent, & Vogel, 2003). Generally, surveys administered via
the internet offer several advantages over paper-and-pencil surveys. For example,
internet-based questionnaire distribution involves lower cost as well as higher
transmission and response speed (Bachmann, Elfrink, & Vazzana, 1996; Mehta &
Sivadas, 1995; Sproull, 1986), which is of particular importance in an international
research context. In addition, web-based surveying entails time and cost savings
with regard to data entry and reduces the risk of data entry errors as respondent
data can be automatically transformed into a format ready for analysis (Hewson
et al., 2003). Especially for studies covering a large number of different cultures
and addressing respondents that possess unrestricted access to broadband
internet connections, web-based surveys appear a fruitful approach.

  

Questionnaire design involves the decision about which items will best reflect the
underlying construct the research wishes to measure. Although a wealth of
existing scales is available for measuring constructs in the management
discipline, these scales may not be easily transferable to a different cultural
context. Implicit to this argument is the issue of construct equivalence in cross-
cultural research referred to earlier.

In general, whether construct equivalence can be established is contingent upon

the type of perspective the researcher takes towards the study of culture, namely
emic or etic. Originating in a linguistic distinction between phonemics and
phonetics (Pike, 1966), the emic approach emphasizes the intrinsic cultural
distinctions that are meaningful to the members of a given society whereas the
etic perspective attempts to derive commonalities between cultures. Therefore,
when the research project aims at an emic approach, it will be restricted to uni-
cultural or polycentric inquiry (Peng et al., 1991). Ethnographic studies serve as a
key method to address such research issues. In contrast, survey research is
primarily useful for etic considerations as it allows for cross-cultural comparisons.

Even in the case of an etic research perspective, establishing construct

equivalence encompasses various difficulties. For example, Adler, Campbell and
Laurent (1989) failed to validly and reliably describe management behaviour in
China as some of their measurement items contained the Western notion of
¶truth· not applicable to Confucian philosophy. Thus, a construct can only be
meaningfully measured across cultures if it is based on a universally applicable
concept in these cultures, that is, is conceptually equivalent. In this regard, while
questionnaire translation (see next section) is necessary to ¶clarify· construct
elements in the local language and frame of reference it is an insufficient
condition for establishing conceptual equivalence (Peng et al., 1991). Rather, in
many cases the original scale will need to be re-constructed and existing items
complemented with additional questions to appropriately capture the underlying
construct. Again, the use of multinational research teams whose members are
familiar with the respective local cultures may help to overcome problems related
to adapting measurement scales (Harpaz, 2003). Key to a meaningful
modification of existing measurement scales is a sound process of scale
development (see Hinkin, 1995 for a good overview on scale development
practices).

 


 
The choice of survey language will be primarily determined by respondents·
language proficiencies. In the case of surveying MNCs· managerial employees
who are likely to possess a sufficient level of English and have been exposed to
similar tertiary education in business schools around the world, the use of single-
language surveys in English may be adequate. At the same time, research shows
that English-language questionnaires lead to significantly less extreme response
styles than questionnaires in a respondent·s native language, thus
underestimating cross-country differences (Harzing, 2006). Especially if both
native and non-native English speakers are included in an international survey,
survey translation into the respective local language appears crucial.

As many concepts and terms entail culture-specific connotations, their mere

direct translation is unlikely to transport the intended meaning. For example, the
concept of feedback differs substantially across cultures. Whereas it is usually
viewed as a direct, open and formalized process in the U.S. or the U.K., many
Asian countries regard feedback as a more indirect, anonymous and informal
procedure (Hofstede, 1998). Without clearly specifying the intended meaning of
the concept in the translated questionnaire, the researcher risks introducing
systematic bias. A meaningful translation of the original version of the
questionnaire requires a researcher not only to ensure overall conceptual
equivalence but also to consider vocabulary, idiomatic and syntactical
equivalence (Sekaran, 1983). In this vein, Brislin (1980) has suggested to use
simple sentence structures as well as clear and familiar wording as much as
possible to facilitate translation. In addition, by adding redundancy and necessary
context for difficult phrases, the researcher is able to clarify the intended
meaning.

The most frequently employed translation technique is back-translation (Brislin,

1970). In this procedure, the original version of the questionnaire is translated
into the target language and subsequently translated back into the source
language by a second bilingual person. The use of two independent translators
increases the chances that the original meaning has been retained, ensures literal
accuracy and helps to detect mistakes. However, given the earlier notion that
corresponding concepts may not always exist in another language, back-
translation does not guarantee overall conceptual equivalence (Peng et al., 1991).
Harpaz (2003) identifies two additional translation techniques: bilingual method
and committee procedure. The former approach involves sending the original
and the translated questionnaire to bilingual individuals and subsequently
correcting items based on inconsistencies in their responses. In contrast, in the
latter approach a committee consisting of bilingual individuals translates the
questionnaire jointly and discusses possible mistakes or difficulties. Finally, to
cross-check for possible translation mistakes and to ensure comprehension of the
translated questionnaire among respondents, pilot testing is particularly
important in international research.

 
  
  
 
Similar to survey development, the survey and data collection process is likely to
also require substantially more time than in domestic research. This is not least
due to the need to manage different language versions of the questionnaire,
coordinate with country collaborators and, in some cases, to even employ
different means of survey administration in order to accommodate respondents·
different levels of technological proficiency. In addition, ideal times for
distributing the survey may vary across countries. For example, countries have
different public holidays, different peak holiday periods and even differ in terms
of their end of financial year dates, which usually correspond to an increased
workload for employees. However, the timing of data collection not only affects
its overall length but can also influence the results. Research, for instance, has
shown that the September 11 attacks had an impact on cultural values and the
level of cosmopolitanism of U.S. university students (Olivas-Luján, Harzing, &
McCoy, 2004).

A key challenge in any survey research is to maximize the study·s response rate.
Overall response rates have been found to differ significantly, both across
different professions and occupational groups as well as across countries. For
example, evidence suggests that response rates of managerial employees are
lower than those of non-managerial staff (Baruch, 1999). In a recent meta-
analysis, Cycyota and Harrison (2006) identified an overall top manager response
rate of 32%. In an international research context, these rates are, on average,
likely to represent an upper boundary. In addition, research has identified
considerable cross-national differences that are partly contingent upon the
researcher·s origin. Harzing (2000), for instance, showed that respondents were
geographically and culturally closer to the research project·s originating country,
were more internationally oriented and came from countries with a lower level of
power distance than non-respondents.

Several factors have been found to influence response rates in domestic research
and will exert differential effects across cultural research contexts. We will discuss
three categories of strategies to increase response rates: strategies related to the
questionnaire design, the survey process and offered incentives (Dillman, 2000;
Zikmund, 2003). First, survey appearance is a widely accepted determinant of
response rates. Questionnaires should be user-friendly and have a professional
layout. It is also important to personalize the correspondence with potential
respondents, by using real signatures and addressing respondents individually.
However, whether a survey appears well-designed to the individual respondent is
highly subjective and may vary considerably across cultures: Certain colours and
pictures used on the cover page or throughout the survey can have culture-
specific connotations, which may require slight adaptations of the survey design.
Again, country collaborators and pre-tests with individuals from the target culture
may facilitate this process. In addition, overall questionnaire length is considered
an important predictor of response rates (e.g., Berdie, 1973; Tomaskovich-Devey,
Leiter, & Thompson, 1994), yet may vary considerably across different languages.
A questionnaire translated from its original English version into German or
Finnish can easily be one or two pages longer, thereby affecting respondents·
decision whether or not to complete the survey. Before making a final decision
about the overall survey length and thus the number of measurement scales to
include, the original version should be translated into all required languages first.
It is also important to note that due to respondents· different levels of language
proficiency and general educational background, the average time to complete a
survey may vary. It is therefore recommendable to provide respondents with a
range rather than a specific estimate for the survey completion time.

Second, there are various strategies to increase response rates that concern the
actual survey process. In general, it is beneficial to follow a multi-stage survey
process that includes the circulation of an announcement letter and the
distribution of reminders (Dillman, 2000). In addition to the actual questionnaire,
these may also need to be translated into the local language. In the case of using
single-language surveys, it is at the very least necessary to include a note in the
local language in case the survey is forwarded by a colleague or secretary. It is
particularly important to seek sponsorship for the study given the geographical
and cultural distance between the researcher and the respondents. Sponsorship
can be provided by an international professional organization, through an
international committee of recommendations that includes local university
representatives from every target country (Harzing, 1999) or, at the level of the
individual unit of analysis, of the respective participating organizations. It often
takes the form of an explicit letter of endorsement that can be attached to the
actual cover letter, expressing support for the study and asking for participation.

Third, the use of incentives is widely accepted to increase survey response rates.
In an international research context, the inclusion of financial tokens, which have
been shown to increase response rates (Dillman, 2000), is difficult to administer,
both due to currency differences as well as possible differences in ethical
perceptions. From this perspective, non-financial incentives may be preferable.
This may entail the inclusion of a ¶Thank you· note in the reminder letters, thereby
thanking those who have already completed the survey. Also, providing
respondents with a summary report of the overall research results and
recommendations of the study is beneficial. Organizations may be particularly
interested in benchmarking themselves against other firms. Other non-monetary
incentives may include the attachment of tea or instant coffee bags (Harzing,
1999). Again, local adaptation is likely to result in an increased effect.

¬






In the case of comparative and synergistic and, to a lesser extent in geocentric,
cross-cultural research, the effect of cultural differences has to be explicitly taken
into account in order to draw meaningful inferences from the survey results. In
this regard, several statistical approaches have been developed to test for and
establish cross-cultural equivalence. A first set of techniques are based on item
response theory which examines statistical relationships between item responses
and the latent attributes that are reflected by combinations of specific items. If
these statistical relationships and thus item response distributions reveal similar
patterns for constructs measured in different languages, it is assumed that
construct equivalence is possible (Peng et al., 1991). In a different vein, Riordan
and Vandenberg (1994) apply a covariance structure analytic procedure to test
the stability and transferability of self-report measures in cross-cultural research.
Similarly, Mullen (1995) applies Multiple Group LISREL and Optimal Scaling
techniques to the diagnosis of cross-cultural equivalence. However, a main
drawback inherent in these methods is the need to have equally-sized groups in
order to model comparisons which may be difficult to achieve when multiple
cultural groups are considered. As mentioned earlier, local collaborators and even
other local academics volunteering to peer-review the results can serve as an
important source for interpreting the findings within the scope of the local
cultural and institutional context.

When writing up the research results for publication, it is important to explicitly

discuss and convince potential reviewers and editors why the research project
warrants an international rather than domestic design, especially in the case of
targeting general management and organizational studies outlets. Whereas this
will be evident in comparative cross-cultural research, several issues related to
the study of MNCs, for example, may apply to domestic organizations as well,
which is why the researcher needs to clarify the conceptual idiosyncrasy of the
research context (Roth & Kostova, 2003). Of course, a unique research
contribution should be established prior to starting data collection but an explicit
justification of conducting international survey research along with a discussion
of the distinct methodological issues provides a stronger rationale that reviewers
and editors may buy into.

Conducting meaningful international survey research is prone to additional
difficulties and complexities and can easily discourage researchers from initiating
cross-cultural inquiry in the first place. Given these problems, many areas in the
field of international management are still largely under-researched and provide
ample opportunities to advance our knowledge in this domain. We hope that by
identifying some of the key issues in international survey research and offering
various solutions we are able to promote such future research. Addressing the
issues raised in this paper will contribute to a more rigid and sound conduct of
research across cultures.

ÊÊÊÊ
  Ê Ê  Ê  Ê
ÊÊ ÊÊÊ
Ê Ê
ÊÊ Ê
Ê
ÊÊ
Ê ÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
Ê
Ê   ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Ê  Ê
Ê

]
ÊÊ
Ê
ÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊ ÊÊ
Ê ÊÊ ÊÊ

Ê
Ê ÊÊ
Ê Ê ÊÊ Ê
ÊÊÊÊ
Ê
 ÊÊ ÊÊÊÊ
 ÊÊÊ 
ÊÊ
ÊÊ ÊÊÊÊÊ   ÊÊ
 Ê Ê 
ÊÊ ÊÊ  Ê!Ê
ÊÊÊ Ê ÊÊÊÊ
Ê



 ÊÊ
Ê ÊÊÊÊ   Ê
ÊÊ Ê Ê
ÊÊ
ÊÊ

Ê ÊÊ
Ê Ê
Ê
Ê
Ê
ÊÊÊ
 ÊÊ
ÊÊ
Ê

Ê   ÊÊÊ"ÊÊÊÊ  Ê
Ê   Ê Ê
ÊÊ


 ÊÊ#ÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊ ÊÊ   Ê$Ê Ê
ÊÊÊ


Ê
Ê ÊÊÊ
Ê
Ê%Ê Ê ÊÊ ÊÊÊ ÊÊ
 Ê ÊÊÊÊÊÊ Ê ÊÊÊÊ

Ê
  Ê Ê  Ê  Ê
ÊÊÊ
  Ê ÊÊÊ
ÊÊ
ÊÊ ÊÊÊ Ê
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ
Ê
Ê
ÊÊ
ÊÊ
%ÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊ
Ê Ê
ÊÊÊ
Ê& ÊÊÊ  ÊÊ
 Ê
 ÊÊÊ
ÊÊ
Ê