L. de Rooij - MA thesis BIS - Systems of survival

Lotte de Rooij, BSc. of Science
Student number 0221902
Thesis for the Masters degree in Business Information Systems
University of Amsterdam
Faculty FNWI and Faculty Economy and Business Administration
8th
of January 2009
Supervised by drs. Wim Bouman and dr. Ard Huizing
Signature supervisor:
Signature student:

2
Systems of survival
Escaping naïve conceptualizations of learning culture
Lotte de Rooij
University of Amsterdam
Summary
The field of information management (IM), and the adjoining field of knowledge management (KM)
are rooted in the objectivist philosophy. The choice for objectivism as its foundation is problematic
for IM, because this philosophy is incapable of dealing with its most important aspect: information
(Huizing 2007 18). Following this conclusion IM has been transforming from the management of facts
to the management of meaning. His has lead to the realization that IM needs a new foundation
(Maes, 2007). This foundation should combine objectivism and subjectivism into a comprehensive,
integrative approach to information management (Huizing, 2007 19).
In this thesis I take the concept of ‘‘learning culture’’ as a topic to study the pitfalls of the objectivist
approach to learning (an increasingly important concept in IM) and to investigate the possibilities of
subjectivism. The dominant way of thinking in intercultural education is also rooted in the objectivist
philosophy and is build on the idea of ‘‘effective adapting’’: increasingly becoming sensitive to the
Other’’s cultural patterns and capturing and classifying these patterns enables the effective
adapting to a new culture, which leads to the understanding (or even the becoming) of ‘‘it’’. Learning
culture in this view is perceived of as simply ‘‘finding out what the Other does (acquiring information),
do it the same way (building concepts), and you become ‘‘intercultural competent’’ (knowledgeable)’’:
thus able to deal with any cultural setting. In this view information, or knowledge for that matter, can
be objectified, transferred and internalized, unchanged by the individual’’s perceptions, beliefs,
thoughts or feelings (or arguably, the individual’’s culture), and information is regarded to mean the
same to every individual. These are precisely the naïve conceptualizations, related to objectivism,
which made IM realize that this philosophy is incapable of dealing with the concepts of information,
knowledge and learning. Furthermore, in this approach culture is perceived of as an ontological
reality, which is stable and shared by ‘‘all of the Others’’. It is also assumed that ‘‘the Other’’s culture’’
can be objectified and classified (in cultural patterns). These conceptualizations of culture conflict
with anthropological thoughts on culture. According to anthropologists culture is not an ontological
reality and can thus not be objectified. In addition, culture is not stable, nor shared. Also, culture is
often described as being equal to nationality (e.g. ‘‘the Japanese culture’’). This approach of culture
has been rejected by anthropologists since decades.
With this thesis I aim to contribute to finding a rich, socially rooted, comprehensive and integrative
foundation for information management by enquiring into the social complex system of learning
culture. I see this as ‘‘systems of survival’’. Following from this enquiry I aim to provide an alternative
way of looking at learning culture, and making recommendations to improve the designing for
intercultural learning programs. I argue for an interpretative and thus holistic epistemological
approach (the ‘‘verstehen’’) of learning culture, stepping away from positivist science. I carried out the
process of enquiry by empirically evaluating six assumptions on which the dominant thinking in
intercultural education is build and comparing these assumptions to insights from relevant social
theories. These six assumptions are: 1] learning about a culture means learning the culture; 2]
intercultural experience leads to increased adaptability; 3] adaptation leads to understanding or even

3
becoming; 4] everyone roughly goes through the same process; 5] sensitivity leads to construing
complex constructions; and 6] construing complex constructions leads to understanding or even
becoming.
My findings are that the conceptual model of dominant thinking in intercultural education is naïve
and represents a simplistic perception of complex issues. Defining and researching learning culture as
merely ‘‘effective adapting’’ does not allow the examination or the understanding of the complexity
behind the theoretical entities it incorporates. The first assumption was found to be invalid, because
learning about a culture and learning a culture are two very different things. Learning culture cannot
be done from the outside, because ‘‘cultural knowledge’’ is not useful outside a context. In addition,
the knowledge, skills and understanding a learner gains in one culture are not applicable in another
cultural setting. Also, the idea that experience with another culture leads to adaptation is misleading,
because adaptation is an ambiguous concept. In current thinking adaptation is assumed to be
possible under every circumstance and is always to the learner’’s advantage. However, my findings
illustrate that adaptation is a concept that can be interpreted differently by different actors and the
motivation for it changes over time. My respondents received mixed signals from their surroundings
on what it meant to ‘‘adapt well’’, and some things were impossible for them to adapt to (due to
personal convictions), and even made them feel stronger about ‘‘being right’’ to do something in a
certain way. Also, the more information the respondents received from their surroundings, the more
confused they got. More and richer information did not lead to a reduction of uncertainty, or to
understanding, instead it made decision making and navigation harder. The assumption that
adaptation leads to understanding or even becoming was thus found invalid: the respondents had
very different ideas on the need and the method to come to understand the new context.
Furthermore, the dominant perspective on learning culture assumes every individual follows a
universal path of development (assumption 4). This implies learning is a fixed trail individuals can go
down, and all learn the same, in the same manner. My findings demonstrated that the respondents
followed very different paths in their learning. Their individual developments were thus not universal
and could not be generalized. Also, the assumed linearity in learning in the dominant perspective is
inconsistent with my findings in the field. The respondents did not move from one phase to the next,
rather, they demonstrated behavior belonging to a later phase in one situation, and behavior
belonging to an earlier phase in another situation. Additionally, the dominant perspective on learning
culture assumes that there are no constraints to learning, that a learner has all freedom to make
choices and to gather information. Possible (access) constraints to learning are not taken into
account, whereas my findings demonstrate that social structures, for instance gender, influence the
access to certain spheres and thus to certain information.
The assumption that sensitivity leads to construing complex constructions was found to be valid.
However, this is like a self fulfilling prophecy: of course looking for more complexity will result in
more complexity, because one assumes it is already there. Therefore, the question if construing
complex constructions leads to better understand (or even become) the local culture is more
interesting. In the dominant perspective it is assumed that by construing complex constructions one
will come to understand the other cultural worldview, because it allows a person to shift frames of
reference, or even to integrate another frame of reference into one’’s own worldview. In my
fieldwork none of the respondents obtained the capacity to shift their frames of reference. Nor did
they integrate another frame of reference. No matter how complex their constructions became, they
were always constructed from their own frames of reference. I did not find the evidence supporting
the claim that learners who construe complex cultural constructions understand their surroundings
better than learners who do not do this. The respondents who did not construe complex cultural
constructions survived the new context just as well, and became part of the local community just as
much as the other respondents did.

4
I conclude that instead of viewing learning culture as ‘‘effective adapting’’, the ongoing process of
learning a (new) culture should be viewed (and thus researched and designed for) as a system of
survival: a learner in action, participating in a dynamic local context, confronted with confusing and
conflicting information, unable to come to objective truths (either about themselves or the Other),
questioning identity, and with fading (but not diminishing) boundaries between ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘them’’. In
this ongoing process of learning the learner moves away from the periphery (the question still
remains if a learner can ever become an old timer) and becomes part of the local community.
Constraints to learning, such as a lack of access should be kept in mind, just like the increase in
complexity for the learner, due to the contrasting information a learner receives. Using this approach
of learning culture in further research will lead to a more in depth understanding of the matter and
may eventually lead to a full understanding of what ‘‘intercultural learning’’ is. Furthermore, to
improve the design for learning programs Etienne Wenger (1998) offers a theoretical framework
which includes the notions of social complexity of learning pointed out in this thesis. His framework
could be used as a starting point for further design of intercultural education.
The implications for IM which can be drawn from my enquiry into the social complex system of
learning culture (the systems of survival) are manifold. This thesis once again confirms that learning
out of context is useless, because the context is always part and parcel of the learning. Information,
or knowledge for that matter, is not an object which is transferable to anyone anywhere, because
there is no strict boundary between the person and the world. The implication for IM following this
conclusion is that learning cannot be regulated and objectified. Learning cannot be designed, it can
only be designed for (Wenger, 1998). Furthermore, dealing with ‘‘culture’’ cannot be reduced to
classifying a list of aspects and ‘‘adapting to them’’. Paying more attention to the contemporary
anthropological view of (organizational) culture would benefit IM research and the search for a new
foundation for IM. Paying more attention to the boundaries of agency and the limiting influence of
social structure (the lack of access) on one’’s learning possibilities are also important to IM and could
be developed further in IM literature.
Additionally, understanding what learning culture constitutes is relevant to IM since IM has to do
with socially constructed realities and the management of meaning. The need for this understanding
becomes obvious in the case of outsourcing solutions, off shoring resolutions, or (inter and intra
organizational) mergers and takeovers. It can also be relevant when it comes to designing for
learning environments or social software. As argued by Bouman et al (2007) people will not ‘‘just
adapt’’ to a design, instead social software can only trigger social behavior to a certain degree: people
will engage in social activity and form social groups by free choice. Sociality thus should not be
underestimated by focusing purely on the functionality of social software systems or learning
environments. Instead, sociality should be the starting point of the design for an environment, since
learning involves socialization and enculturation. This thesis demonstrates the complexity of social
interaction, learning and culture and the need to approach these concepts holistically.
Finally, I draw the conclusion that IM can learn from my respondents when it comes to dealing with
the impossibility of an objectivist reality. Understanding how the respondents dealt with the
inevitable confrontation with multiple realities, and extending this lesson to the world of information
managers is a step towards a new foundation for IM. The respondent’’s systems of survival were
based on drawing conclusions from the information they got from their environment. However, the
more information the respondents received, the more confused they got. More and richer
information did not lead to a reduction of uncertainty, or to understanding, instead it made decision
making and navigation harder. The information that the respondents received was sometimes so
confusing and conflicting that conclusions which at first seemed to be true could no longer persist.
They became untenable. Drawing a new conclusion though, eventually led to the same problem. The
respondents were inevitably confronted with multiple possibilities of reality: they came to realize
that their conclusions were not objectivist truths, but just shades of grey in an indefinite spectrum.

5
Nonetheless, people have to draw conclusions and have to create certainties in order to function.
This is part of human nature. The way the respondents dealt with this was by moving back and forth
from treating conclusions as either generalizations or as truths (and alter conclusions when they
became untenable). Their systems of survival came down to creating a reality, but receiving a
reminder every now and then that that reality was not the only possibility.
Information managers should also understand that they are not dealing with objectivist truths, but
instead are managing based upon their generalizations of the world. They should too realize that
there is no other possibility, since human beings need to create certainties in order to function. The
duality this represents is troublesome as a framework for management. I therefore argue for a
pragmatic solution: people are drawn to objectivism because it makes the world easy to navigate (as
one can gain objective knowledge of reality through sensory perception). Objectivism thus allows for
the human seek for certainty. This makes objectivism extremely well qualified for an everyday
survival technique. However, objectivist conclusions can and will always be challenged by opposing
information. This is what should be recognized. Therefore, the subjectivist approach should linger in
the back of an information manager’’s mind and should come forward when there is a need to see a
conclusion as a generalization instead of a ‘‘truth’’, for instance when a problem emerges, when a
solution stops working, or when a conclusion becomes untenable. Since subjectivism in its extreme
leads to an overwhelming postmodernist approach of enormous complexion, it is not a feasible
approach for management. Its role therefore is to challenge, to confront and to provide room for
alternative approaches of a situation. This is how objectivism and subjectivism could be combined
into a new approach of information management.

6
Acknowledgements
The making of this thesis would not have been possible if it weren’’t for some fantastic people, who
helped me along the way in smaller and bigger ways. For a wonderful time in Paraguay and great
support during my fieldwork I have to thank the directora ejecutiva of AFS Paraguay: Victoria Villalba
de Rothkegel and the directorio: Fernando Crosa, Eulalia Fleitas de Royg, José Pésole, and Mariella
Moura. Of course, my ‘‘colegas’’ at the AFS office made this experience unforgettable and I am very
thankful for the way they made me feel at ease and helped me with whatever I needed. Darío,
Magnus, Magalí, Diana, Jazmín, Susana, Lourdes, Julio, Estella, Raquel, Liliana, Horacio, Freddy and
Graciela, thank you! Furthermore, my gratitude goes out to my family, my second home, the Jara
Falcón family and to Rosa Valdez, one of my best friends, and her family. Also, I want to say here
again how much I appreciate the willingness and openness of my respondents. I was amazed at how
easy they opened up to me and how they accepted me as one of them. I am very happy I got to know
you!
And of course, back in the Netherlands, I wouldn’’t have managed without my parents warmth and
support and the incredible positivity and understanding of Willem Jan, who always makes sure I have
something to laugh about! Finally, my thanks goes out to Wim Bouman, who managed to get me
calm and focused, even over the phone…… And to Ard Huizing, for his mediating activities and push in
the right direction.

7
Table of contents
1. Surviving a new culture ....................................................................................................................... 9
2. Research framework ......................................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Personal motivation .................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Problem statement...................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Research objectives..................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Research question....................................................................................................................... 14
2.5 Epistemological orientation ........................................................................................................ 14
2.6 Research strategy........................................................................................................................ 15
2.7 Research setting .......................................................................................................................... 17
2.8 Methods of data gathering.......................................................................................................... 18
2.9 Intended audience....................................................................................................................... 19
3. Expounding complexity –– the intricacy of theory.............................................................................. 20
3.1 The complexity of learning and knowledge ................................................................................ 20
3.1.1 Development of theory over time........................................................................................ 20
3.1.2 Two metaphors in learning theory....................................................................................... 22
3.2 The complexity of culture............................................................................................................ 24
3.2.1 More or less cultivated?....................................................................................................... 24
3.2.2 Where is culture? ................................................................................................................. 25
3.2.3 Culture as something objectively real, stable and shared?.................................................. 26
3.3 Adding more complexity: constraints to learning....................................................................... 27
3.3.1 Defining social structure and agency ................................................................................... 27
3.3.2 Bringing together agency and social structure..................................................................... 27
3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 29
4. Exposing naivety –– what happens in the real world.......................................................................... 31
4.1 Intercultural research in information management ................................................................... 31
4.1.1 Culture in information management ................................................................................... 31
4.1.2 Dealing with culture ............................................................................................................. 32
4.2 Intercultural research in psychology........................................................................................... 33
4.2.1 Culture in psychology ........................................................................................................... 33
4.2.2 Learning culture, a psychological perspective ..................................................................... 34
4.3 Two naïve models used in practice ............................................................................................. 36
4.3.1 American Field Service (AFS)................................................................................................ 37
4.3.2 The perspective AFS takes.................................................................................................... 41
4.3.3 The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity ........................................................ 42
4.3.4 The perspective the DMIS takes........................................................................................... 45
4.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 45
5. Evaluating the assumptions .............................................................................................................. 47
5.1 Six assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 47
5.2 Learning about a culture means learning the culture................................................................. 49
5.2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 49
5.2.2 Obtaining cultural knowledge? ............................................................................................ 49
5.3 Intercultural experience leads to increased adaptability............................................................ 52
5.3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 52
5.3.2 The impact of the AFS models.............................................................................................. 52
5.3.3 Adaptability .......................................................................................................................... 53
5.3.4 More information leads to more uncertainty...................................................................... 55

8
5.4 Adaptation leads to understanding or even becoming............................................................... 56
5.4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 56
5.4.2 Understanding and becoming ‘‘the Other’’ ........................................................................... 57
5.5 Everyone roughly goes through the same process ..................................................................... 58
5.5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 58
5.5.2 A universal path of development? ....................................................................................... 58
5.6 Sensitivity leads to construing complex constructions ............................................................... 60
5.6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 60
5.6.2 Discriminating conceptual and perceptual cultural differences .......................................... 60
5.7 Construing complex constructions leads to understanding or even becoming.......................... 61
5.7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 61
5.7.2 How to understand, or even become?................................................................................. 61
5.8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 62
6. Conclusion and recommendations.................................................................................................... 64
6.1 IM as management of meaning................................................................................................... 64
6.2 Designing for learning ................................................................................................................. 66
6.3 Further research.......................................................................................................................... 68
7. Reflection........................................................................................................................................... 69
References............................................................................................................................................. 71
Appendix................................................................................................................................................ 75

9
Heather, a 23 year old exchange student in Paraguay: ““When you first arrive here, you know nothing.
You don’’t even know at what time is dinner, or necessarily know how to say dinner. They never told
me how lonely it was going to be…… They never told me I was going to have times where I was like: ‘‘I’’m
not sure what the hell is going on……””
Being able to ‘‘survive’’ in a new cultural context is increasingly important, because in our globalizing
world cross cultural encounters are more and more common. This not only applies to individuals, but
also to organizations. Since organizations are a group of people, operating in an environment, culture
inevitably is a concept to take into account. It can be influential in negotiations, co operations, and
marketing. It will become an even more pressing issue in the case of mergers or takeovers and
outsourcing and off shoring solutions. Just a few months ago the top two executives of
telecommunications company Alcatel Lucent stepped down, because the merger of the American
Lucent with the French Alcatel led to a so called ‘‘trans Atlantic cultural clash’’. Among other cultural
differences ““Lucent executives found it difficult to adapt to Alcatel's corporate culture”” (International
Herald Tribune, July 29th
2008). Although ““Lucent’’s U.S. strength in the wireless business nicely
complemented Alcatel’’s global footprint and its prowess in fixed line and broadband, [their] cultures
could hardly have been more different. One was hierarchical and centrally controlled, the other
entrepreneurial and flexible”” (Business Week, June 18th
2008).
Organizations often rely on intercultural education programs to provide their employees the ‘‘tools,
skills, attitudes and understanding’’ to deal with cultural difference, but despite the vast amount of
literature on this topic, problems still arise when cross cultural encounters take place. I conclude that
contemporary intercultural education programs are ineffective because the dominant way of
thinking about ‘‘learning culture’’ is very naïve. The concept of ‘‘culture’’ has been debated (mainly by
anthropologists) for decades and remains undefined until today. However, the dominant approach in
intercultural education is build on the idea that simply finding out what the Other does and doing it
the same way makes one ‘‘intercultural competent’’: thus able to deal with any cultural setting. This
approach assumes ‘‘culture’’ can be defined as a set of patterns which can be divided, objectified and
transferred, in order for someone to gain ‘‘cultural knowledge’’. This simplistic conceptualization of
learning culture does not lead to an in depth understanding of it, let alone to the design for effective
learning. It conflicts with anthropological thoughts on culture and wields an objectivist view on
reality and learning.
The objectivist philosophical tradition views reality as something that exists independent from
human consciousness. Individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception
and human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept
formation. Human beings thus gain information from their environment and process this information
into concepts. This is how they become objectively knowledgeable about the world (about reality). In
science, the positivist approach of research is related to objectivism. In this philosophy there are no
apparent problems with objectifying cultural patterns (since culture too is objectively real) and
transferring these pieces of knowledge about culture (cultural concepts) to a learner. However, this
philosophical perspective has its pitfalls. Among other disciplines, the field of information
management (IM) is an important discipline which demonstrates the pitfalls of objectivism.
Information management, and the adjacent field of knowledge management, have been deeply
affected by objectivist thinking (Huizing, 2007 18). Accordingly, the positivist scientific approach (in
both methodology and epistemology) is predominant in information and knowledge (management)
literature. According to objectivists information is an object, equal to all of its ‘‘users’’. Information has
1. Surviving a new culture

10
a fixed meaning to everyone, unaffected by perceptions, beliefs, thoughts or feelings. Learning in this
sense is thus a step by step process of acquiring information (which is factual, fixed and transferable)
and developing concepts to gain ever more knowledge of reality. But this perception of learning
leads us to the following paradox: if we can only become cognizant of something by recognizing it on
the basis of the knowledge we already possess, then nothing that does not yet belong to the
assortment of the things we know can ever become one of them. Conclusion: learning new things is
inherently impossible (this paradox is known as Plato’’s learning paradox).
IM’’s choice for objectivism as its foundation is problematic, because precisely this philosophy is
incapable of dealing with its most important aspect: information (Huizing 2007 18, p. 20).
Furthermore, there is an increasing understanding that organizations do not operate in a static and
homogenous environment, with subordinate employees that can be managed. Instead, organizations
have to deal with a complex and dynamic environment, socially constructed realities and agents who
make free choices: ““organizations are no longer the center of their own world, as they used to
perceive”” (Maes, 2007, p. 11). Organizations thus need to be customer oriented and flexible, and
information exchange needs to be as efficient and effective as possible. This requires a closer look at
‘‘information’’ and ‘‘information exchange’’. Information management’’s vision on information is still in
its preliminary phase (Maes, 2007). Besides looking at information from an economic perspective
(which is currently the predominant vision), we can look at information from a social constructivist
point of view. In this sense, IM has to do with the construction of meaning and information is a
source of continuous interpretation and sense making (Maes, 2007). Also, a greater significance is
put on issues like interpersonal communication, learning processes, emotional interpretation, and
trust (Nevejan, 2007, in Maes, 2007, p. 17). ““The management of information, once in essence a
management of facts, is becoming the management of mechanisms that give meaning to these facts””
(Introna, 1997, in Maes, 2007, p. 17). ““In other words, IM can no longer concentrate itself on the
delivery of data [……], but is becoming the management of their interpretation. IM is transforming into
management of meaning”” (Maes, 2007, p. 17). This change of perspective has many consequences. It
has led to the realization that IM needs a new foundation, which addresses its integrative character
(Maes, 2007).
The approach of information, knowledge and learning opposing objectivism is subjectivism.
According to the subjectivist view different people interpret the same information differently and
one person can interpret the same information differently in a different context. The subjectivist
approach of learning (which is an increasingly important concept in IM) gains ground in IM with
contributions from authors such as Chun Wei Choo: viewing information seeking as social behavior
and the organization as a thinking and learning whole (The Knowing Organization, 1996); Etienne
Wenger: viewing an organization as a community of practice: people who engage in a process of
collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor (Communities of practice Learning,
meaning, and identity, 1998); and Lucy Suchman: introducing the design of interactive systems taking
into account that human action is constantly constructed and reconstructed from dynamic
interactions with the material and social worlds (Human Machine Reconfigurations, 2007).
An attractive solution for finding a new foundation for IM is to search for it in subjectivism, since
subjectivism advocates that knowledge and value are dependent on and limited by one’’s
subjective experience. Unfortunately, it is hard for subjectivists to deal with the economic context of
information. ““Subjectivists rarely specifically focus their attention on what is the bottom line for
private and, increasingly, public organizations: the realization of economic value”” (Huizing, 2007 19,
p. 20). Furthermore, the subjectivist perspective currently lacks a coherent framework which can
support organizations in organizing their information and knowledge (Lodder, 2008). This leads to the
conclusion that ““there is no other way than to combine objectivism and subjectivism into a
comprehensive, integrative approach to information management”” (Huizing, 2007 19, p. 2).

11
In this thesis I take the concept of ‘‘learning culture’’ as a topic to study the pitfalls of objectivism and
to investigate the possibilities of subjectivism. I aim to contribute to finding a comprehensive, rich,
socially rooted and integrative foundation for information management by enquiring into the social
complex system of learning culture. I see this as ‘‘systems of survival’’. I initiate this process of enquiry
from a deep rooted conviction that learning and understanding another cultural environment is not a
flat, readily understood phenomenon, but instead can only be understood and eventually designed
for as a rich and complex social system (the system of survival). By addressing the social complex
system of cultural survival holistically and in depth instead of approaching it from the traditional
positivist point of view naïve conceptualizations and ineffective solutions following these
conceptualizations, such as ineffective intercultural education programs, will be avoided.
I carried out this process of enquiry by empirically evaluating six assumptions on which the dominant
thinking in intercultural education is build and comparing these assumptions to insights from
relevant social theories. Besides drawing conclusions for the improvement of intercultural education
research and design, I investigate the implications of the complexity of systems of survival for IM. I
will end this thesis with providing recommendations for the improvement of the design for
intercultural learning programs. The research question of this thesis thus is: On what assumptions
are contemporary models in intercultural education build? What turns out to be the value of these
assumptions when evaluated empirically and compared to insights from social theories? To what
implications for information management does this lead? What recommendations to improve
research and designing for learning programs can be made based upon this evaluation?
The research for this thesis did not take place in a corporate situation, but involved a group of
Western exchange students (age 16 25) who participated in an intercultural education program in
Paraguay, South America. I studied the exchange student’’s systems of survival (during three and a
half months) while the students came to live in a Paraguayan host family and participated in every
aspect of daily Paraguayan life. This provided me the opportunity to study the mechanisms outside
the obvious IM context and learn from it, to combine IM and ethnographic research methods and to
broaden the theoretical base of IM with relevant theories and insights from social scientific
disciplines such as anthropology.
In the following chapter I will first present my research framework, explaining the chosen
methodology, the empirical orientation and the research strategy. In chapter three I will go on to
enquire into the theoretical aspects of the social system of learning culture. I will discuss the
concepts of culture and learning (in section 3.1 and 3.2), stressing their complex character and I will
address certain social scientific theories and their perspectives on the concepts. Also, I will introduce
theories on the integration of agency and social structure (section 3.3), an issue which is left
untouched in current thinking on learning culture. In chapter four I will elaborate on the dominant
perspective on learning culture as it is now (sections 4.1 and 4.2), and I will present the conceptual
model of current thinking. Then, I will introduce two models on learning culture, which are used in
practice and I will display the perspectives they take (section 4.3). In chapter 5 I will extract six
assumptions (the core of this thesis) from the conceptual model, which I research in order to see
how these assumptions sustain when evaluated in an empirical situation and how they can be
compared to theoretical insights. This evaluation will be described in the rest of chapter 5 where I
will discuss one assumption at a time and end with a conclusion. In chapter 6 I will conclude my
overall findings, with a focus on the implications for IM. I will end with a reflection on the stronger
and weaker points of my research (chapter 7).

12
2.1 Personal motivation
My personal motivation finds its origin in my experience as a ‘‘city girl’’ trying to become part of a
small village community during my childhood and adolescence. Not being born in the village meant
not really belonging to the community and, no matter how hard I tried, due to my liberal upbringing
(with a working mother), my lack of knowledge on the local dialect and many other circumstances, I
never got to be a true ‘‘villager’’. Then, as a 19 year old exchange student I tried my luck somewhere
else. I went to Paraguay and lived there for six months with a local host family. I wanted to learn to
understand their ‘‘way of life’’ and wished to become a ‘‘full family member’’. Although I learned many
things there, I never did get to ‘‘understand their way of life’’, their ‘‘culture’’. Nor did I become part of
the family. Just like I never really became part of the village community here in the Netherlands.
Since those who can’’t do, study, I studied ‘‘culture’’ and becoming part of, or learning, ‘‘culture’’. I
guess I feel the urge to research and explain the complexity of ‘‘learning a culture’’, not only to my
readers, but to myself as well. Furthermore, during my study Business Information Studies I was
confronted with the subjectivist objectivist dualism. Although I am personally very much drawn to
the subjectivist approach of the world, I see around me the dominant objectivist perspective. It took
me a while to realize that it is not sensible and, more importantly, quite useless to fight this
dominant perspective, instead I aim to find a right combination between the two.
2.2 Problem statement
Organizations increasingly realize they are not the center of their own world, but instead they are
operating in a dynamic environment in which they are confronted with their own identity (Maes,
2007). Learning therefore becomes increasingly important to organizations in order for them to keep
up with their changing environment, and to shape and reshape their identity. Dealing with culture is
also of importance to organizations, not only because of the influence of major macro economic
shifts such as globalization, but also because of the fact that organizations are confronted with
cultural difference on a daily bases: it is part and parcel of the dynamic environment they operate in,
just like subcultures within the organization are part and parcel of the organization as being the
environment. Learning culture however, has mostly been studied from a psychological, positivist
perspective, resulting in overly simplistic conclusions, hardly leading to an in depth understanding of
the matter.
The two concepts ‘‘learning’’ and ‘‘culture’’, even though they are everyday concepts, are both highly
complex. Nonetheless, they are put forward in current literature as though they are commonly and
unanimously understood. The same applies to the concepts of adaptation and adaptability. In my
opinion, we need to stop naïve conceptualizations of complex issues, because they stop us from an
in depth understanding of the matter. Furthermore, solutions following naïve conceptualizations,
such as simple intercultural training programs, can never really be effective, because they are based
on simplistic ideas of reality. Instead, we need to approach learning culture from an holistic point of
view, stepping away from positivist science. There is a need for a better understanding of the social
complex system of learning culture, and subsequently, its facilitation.
By studying what happens to people who have an intercultural experience (in the real world) and by
comparing these findings to relevant social scientific models (the conceptual world), I give reason to
rethink current perspectives on intercultural education (in the conceptual world). I challenge naïve
2. Research framework

13
conceptualizations in current literature and argue that more in depth research and the inclusion of
relevant social scientific insights will lead to less problems in the real world (figure 1).
Figure 1: A rich picture of the problem.
By empirically researching the main assumptions on which contemporary dominant models in
intercultural education are based, and evaluating these assumptions by comparing them to insights
from relevant social theories (which address the social complex system of learning culture), a more
in depth understanding of learning culture will be obtained. I argue thus for a holistic enquiry into
such issues. Following from this understanding, recommendations for the improvement of the
facilitation of learning culture can be made, but more importantly, it will lead to implications for IM
which will contribute to finding Maes’’ (2007) new foundation of information management as a rich,
socially rooted discipline.
2.3 Research objectives
From this problem statement the objectives for this research can be derived. The objectives are
twofold: an objective in the study. By this I mean the actual goal of this particular research. The
second objective is the objective of the study. This objective can be seen as the scientific relevance of
the study: its contribution to a goal that lies far down the road, but, when met, would be the
ultimate outcome (a utopia).
Objectives in the study:
Contributing to finding a new foundation for information management by enquiring into the social
complex system of learning culture. And following from this enquiry providing an alternative way of
looking at learning culture, and making recommendations to improve the designing for intercultural
learning programs.

14
Objectives of the study:
Finding the perfect combination of objectivism and subjectivism in a coherent, integrative and
feasible approach to IM and obtaining a full understanding of what learning culture is and how it can
best be designed for.
2.4 Research question
The central research question in this thesis follows from the problem statement and the research
objectives. In order to gain an in depth understanding of the social complex system of learning
culture I carried out a process of enquiry by empirically evaluating six assumptions in contemporary
intercultural education thinking, and by comparing these assumptions to insights from relevant social
scientific theories (which address the social complex system of learning culture). The research
question is thus as follows:
On what assumptions are contemporary models in intercultural education build? What turns out to
be the value of these assumptions when evaluated empirically and compared to insights from social
theories? To what implications for information management does this lead? What recommendations
to improve research and designing for learning programs can be made based upon this evaluation?
2.5 Epistemological orientation
Enquiring into the real world in order to create theories which explain or even predict this world
might be part of the human nature. How this enquiry should take place however, has been taken up
in a great variety of ways. The natural sciences traditionally opt for the objectivity, repetitiveness,
and verification of research and control of the research situation. Although there are significant
differences between the object of the social sciences and the object of the natural sciences, some
social theorists still plead for a methodology that imitates the successful approach of the natural
sciences as close as possible. From the nineteenth century the social sciences have copied this
dominant research approach, called positivism, or empiricism. In the nineteen twenties and thirties
these nouns were extended by the prefix ‘‘logical’’. Currently, this approach is called empirical
analytical (‘‘t Hart et al, 1998, p. 99). The type of knowledge empirical analytical research aims for is
nomothetic: relating to, or involving, the search for abstract universal principles (generalizing). An
important starting point of this approach is its definition of reality. For empirical analytical
researchers reality is atomic: reality exists out of the same types of unities with varying contents.
Ever since the development of the modern social sciences in the second half of the nineteenth
century there have been researchers who opposed against a research orientation derived from the
natural sciences. According to these opponents science should be empirically based, but could never
fully be explained from a naturalistic perspective. Instead, the aim was to ‘‘verstehen’’: understanding
the social actor and its behavior from the context. This approach is called interpretative research. It
conducts qualitative rather than quantitative research and it aims for an ideographic type of
knowledge (particularizing). Behind this ideographic ideal of knowledge hides a organic and holistic
definition of reality. Reality cannot be divided into unities. Instead, concrete wholes (organs) are the
starting point of research and they are researched as wholes (holistic research).
Although the empirical analytic approach has been dominant in Information Management, the
interpretative approach has gained popularity over the last decade. In this thesis I wield a
interpretative and thus holistic epistemological approach, because I believe reality is not atomic. I
see my contribution to the social sciences with this thesis as the initiation of the ‘‘verstehen’’ of

15
learning culture. Most research in this field wields an empirical analytical approach, with a
nomothetic ideal of knowledge. This approach has led to the overlooking of much of the social
complexity behind the concept, treating it as though it is a universal, well defined, readily
understood concept. In my eyes it is anything but well defined. With this thesis I aim to contribute to
social science methodologically by acknowledging reality is socially constructed and therefore I am
arguing for qualitative, holistic and interpretative research.
2.6 Research strategy
Following from my epistemological orientation I needed an interpretative, holistic research strategy
for this thesis. I found a suitable methodology in the Soft Systems approach. Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM) is a systemic and holonic process of enquiry. It is especially designed for studying
complex social phenomena. SSM takes the stand that the real world cannot be known, just
perceived, but the methodology for enquiring into the perceived world can be systemic (Checkland &
Poulter, 2006). The primary use of SSM is in the analysis of complex situations where there are
divergent views about the definition of the problem. SSM is based on several key thoughts. Firstly,
every situation in which a researcher undertakes action is a human situation in which people are
attempting to take purposeful action which is meaningful to them. Secondly, many interpretations of
any declared ‘‘purpose’’ are possible, and so the first choice to be made is which interpretations are
likely to be most relevant (or insightful) in exploring the situation. That choice made, it is then
necessary to decide for each selected purposeful activity the perspective or viewpoint from which
the model will be built, the ‘‘Weltanschauung’’ (worldview) upon which it is based. Of course
interpretations of purpose will always be many and various, and there is always a number of models
in play, never simply one model claiming to describe ‘‘what is the case’’. Models in SSM therefore
never claim ““to be representations of anything in the real situation. They are accounts of concepts of
pure purposeful activity, based on declared world views, which can be used to stimulate cogent
questions in debate about the real situation and the desirable changes to it. They are models
relevant to debate about the situation perceived as problematical”” (Checkland, 2000, p. 26).
SSM is often depicted in a seven stage process model (figure 2). In this model the first two stages
entail entering the problem situation, finding out about it and expressing its nature. Enough of this
has to be done to enable some first choices to be made of relevant activity systems. These are
expressed as root definitions in stage three and modeled in stage four. The next stages use the
models to structure the further questioning of the situation (the stage five `comparison') and to seek
to define the changes which could improve the situation, the changes meeting the two criteria of
`desirable in principle' and `feasible to implement' (stage six). Stage seven then takes the action to
improve the problem situation, so changing it and enabling the cycle to begin again.

16
Figure 2: Seven stages of SSM (Checkland, 2000).
As Checkland states, methodology use will always be user dependent (Checkland, 2000).
Nevertheless, the question of what constitutes SSM (what you must do if you wish to claim to be
guided by it in a particular study) remains important. ““The answer to the question: what is SSM? has
to be made at three levels: the taken as given assumptions; the process of inquiry; and the elements
used within that process. (1) you must accept and act according to the assumption that social reality
is socially constructed, continuously; (2) you must use explicit intellectual devices consciously to
explore, understand and act in the situation in question; and (3) you must include in the intellectual
devices ‘‘holons’’ in the form of systems models of purposeful activity built on the basis of declared
worldviews”” (Holwell, 1997, in Checkland, 2000, p. 38). Within the process of inquiry there are some
necessary elements: ““the activity models are used in a process informed by an understanding of the
history of the situation, the cultural, social and political dimensions of it (the process being) about
learning a way, through discourse and debate, to accommodations in the light of which either `action
to improve' or `sense making' is possible. Such a process is necessarily cyclical and iterative.””
(Holwell, 1997, in Checkland, 2000, p. 38).
I used SSM to systemically research a situation I find problematic and wish to transform. This
situation can be described as the naïve conceptualization of complex issues in contemporary
intercultural education research and its result: unsatisfactory training programs. Furthermore, the
naïve conceptualization of complex issues are not to be limited to intercultural education alone. They
are visible in the thinking of many organizations and managers. They exemplify simplistic reasoning
of complex social issues, leading to ineffective measures. I argue for a holistic enquiry into such
issues, leading to a more in depth understanding of them. The transformation intended is towards a
practice based approach.
As a Master student I am not capable of changing the situations I find problematic by myself. What I
can do is systematically explore the situation in question. I see this as exploring the wider system of
naïve conceptualizations. In this wider system, I would like to create a transformation. The rich
picture of my study is the problem situation as described above. To be able to transform the
paradigm in current thinking I explored this paradigm as a system, having several subsystems (which
will be introduced as two empirical examples). I used intellectual devices to understand all these
systems and I constructed a conceptual model based on their worldviews. I thus researched a subset

17
of the paradigm: six assumptions. From this research I conclude the paradigm should be reviewed.
Before I come to this though, I will first explore other possible approaches to intercultural education,
which do not include naïve conceptualizations and which make up the wider system. This
demonstration will make clear the naivety in current thinking and therefore also clarify the
importance of the problem situation and the transformation needed for improvement.
2.7 Research setting
To be able to research a real world situation in which the learning of a culture takes place, I had to
choose a suitable research setting. An obvious choice may have been to study my research theme in
a corporate setting. Yet as a student in anthropology, I had the unique chance of studying my
‘‘systems of survival’’ in another context: a learning program in a non European setting. It was agreed
in the supervising team that this might provide an excellent opportunity to study the mechanisms
outside the obvious IM context and learn from it, to combine IM and ethnographic research methods
and to broaden the theoretical base of IM with relevant theories and insights from a social scientific
discipline such as anthropology.
I chose to study the intercultural learning program of one of the biggest international education
organizations: American Field Service (AFS). Since intercultural education programs mainly focus on
Westerners dealing with people from non Western societies, I decided this also had to be true for my
research. Because of my familiarity with AFS Paraguay (this is the organization that facilitated my
exchange experience in Paraguay when I was 19), I chose to study the hosting program in this
country1
. AFS Paraguay sends about 150 young Paraguayans to more than 25 countries, and hosts
about 200 foreign participants every year. The education programs begin in August or February. The
foreign exchange students can choose from different programs: the high school program (semester
or year) and the community service program (semester or year). AFS high school students live with a
host family and attend a local (private) secondary school as full time students. AFS participants in the
community service program volunteer at local organizations that address community needs, such as
helping street children or developing training programs with human rights workers. At the local
organization, they will be asked to pitch in and offer assistance in whatever capacity might be
needed. Participants in the community service program also live with a local host family.
The AFS educational program in Paraguay is shaped according to the description in section 4.3.1. For
the investigation of this ‘‘real world’’ situation I used the example of David L. McConnell’’s Importing
Diversity (2000). McConnell explores the politics behind a Japanese education and exchange
program, the Japan Education and Teaching (JET) program, in a balanced, thorough and multifaceted
manner. His emphasis lies on the top down effort to create ‘‘mass internalization’’ at the grassroots
level (McConnell, 2000). He describes the program from various angles. I used McConnell’’s example
by looking at the AFS intercultural education program from various angles too, both from the
organization’’s history, ideology and organization, and, most importantly, from the exchange
student’’s point of view. I would have liked to include the ‘‘natives’’ point of view too (the host family
and peers of the exchange student), but unfortunately I there was too little time to do this.
During my research I observed and participated in so called AFS camps, I did participant observation
when the students met each other, I (group) interviewed fourteen exchange students2
, both of the
high school program and the community service program, and I investigated the AFS program as a
whole. The results of this last part the investigation of the AFS (worldwide) program draw upon
the (limited) access I had to organizational documents during my fieldwork, my participant
1
More information about the country Paraguay can be found in appendix D.
2
Information about the interviewed respondents can be found in appendix B.

18
observation in the AFS Paraguay national head office (I had a desk in the office reception: the center
of activity), research of several AFS websites and my own experience as an AFS exchange student in
Paraguay and as a volunteer for AFS in the Netherlands.
2.8 Methods of data gathering
To enquire real world situations in a non simplistic, in depth, holistic manner, I choose research
methods that met these requirements. Also, I decided a longitudinal study would meet these
requirements better than a short term study would. Lastly, to ensure validity of the gathered data, I
needed triangulation. I decided to use three methods for data gathering: participant observation; in
depth interviewing; and group interviews. My research lasted for three and a half months.
Participant observation is a research method which aims to gain a close and intimate familiarity with
a given group of individuals, in my case, a group of exchange students. Participant observation is
usually undertaken over an extended period of time, ranging from several months to many years. An
extended research time period means that the researcher will be able to obtain more detailed and
accurate information about the people she or he is studying. Observable details (like what the
exchange students did in their spare time) and more hidden details (like how the exchange students
felt in their new surroundings) are more easily observed and understandable over a longer period of
time. A strength of observation and interaction over long periods of time is that researchers can
discover discrepancies between what participants say and often believe should happen (the
formal system) (for instance the notion that the exchange students should fully ‘‘adapt’’ to the
‘‘Paraguayan lifestyle’’) and what actually does happen (for instance the student’’s rejection to ‘‘adapt’’
to certain things), or between different aspects of the formal system; in contrast, a one time survey
of people's answers to a set of questions might be quite consistent, but is less likely to show conflicts
between different aspects of the social system or between conscious representations and behavior. I
was able to conduct a lot of participant observations, because the exchange students were keen to
stay in touch. They spent a lot of time together (going out, hanging out, shopping, birthday parties,
lunch dates, etcetera) and on many occasions I was invited too. Even though the respondents knew I
was doing research, they saw me as being one of them, not only because I am an ex exchange
student, but more importantly because I was living with a host family too during my research.
In depth interviews are face to face conversations to explore underlying causes and motivations of
issues. They are conducted without using a structured questionnaire, to stimulate an ‘‘out of the box’’
situation, where the respondent’’s answers can be used to pose further questions and to go deeper
into the subject matter. I used the in depth interview to gain a better understanding of the exchange
student’’s feelings and thoughts about the situation they were in, about the local people, if and how
they compared themselves and the country they came from to Paraguay and the Paraguayans
around them, what they found hard about being in Paraguay, what they found easy, and how these
issues changed over time. The interviews took between an hour and two hours and took place in
different settings, on varying times of the day, but always at a location that was familiar to the
student, to make him or her feel comfortable.
A group interview is a qualitative research technique involving a discussion with a group of
respondents, led by a moderator. This method is also known as focus groups, group discussions,
panels, and group depth interviews. Although group interviews often lead to socially accepted
answers instead of ‘‘real answers’’, the dynamic in the group and the discussion that take place before
coming to an answer (sometimes an answer is never agreed upon) the so called meta information
is more important than the answer to the original question. Moreover, what is socially accepted can
later on be compared to what actually happens in practice. I started my fieldwork with several group

19
discussions. This enabled me to understand what the formal system was in the student’’s exchange
experience: how were they supposed to behave, what were they supposed to think and what were
they supposed to do? During the participant observation and the in depth interviews I gained more
information on how the students were actually behaving, thinking and what they actually did.
2.9 Intended audience
The intended audience of this study can be found in several disciplines. Firstly, it aims to help the
developers and practitioners of intercultural education to understand the concept of learning culture
and to improve intercultural educational programs. Secondly, it contributes to the field of
psychology, by helping to overcome the current limitations of cross cultural psychology. Lastly, it is
important for information scientists and managers, because it contributes to our knowledge about
information and knowledge sharing in organizations (theoretical knowledge) and our knowledge
about how to study these issues (methodological knowledge). The investigation of an intercultural
education program is relevant for IM and organization (or business) science, because organizations
deal with cultural difference on a daily bases, for instance in (international) business negotiations,
outsourcing solutions, marketing questions, and off shoring resolutions, but also in the case of (inter
and intra organizational) mergers and takeovers. Furthermore, cultural differences can be an issue
between organizational departments or branches, which are working together. With the increasing
understanding that organizations are no longer the center of their own world (Maes, 2007), the
importance of intercultural education increases too. Organizations do not operate in a static and
homogenous environment, but have to deal with a complex and dynamic environment, socially
constructed realities and agents who make free choices. Since organizations thus always have to deal
with (sub)cultural difference, they need an in depth, holistic understanding of what it is they are
dealing with (theoretical knowledge) and how to study these issues (methodological knowledge).
Finally, the concept of culture has been used rather narrowly in IS literature: ““IS research [on
organizational culture] would benefit if more attention was paid to the contemporary
anthropological view of culture”” (Avison and Myers, 1995, p. 53).
Figure 3: A schematic representation of the research process.
Contemporary objectivist
perspectives on learning
Theories on learning
& knowledge
Theories on culture
Renewed vision on
learning culture
Theory on agency
& structure
New foundation
for IM
Empirical evaluationVision on
learning culture
Conclusion &
recommendations

20
3.1 The complexity of learning and knowledge
In this section the development of theories of learning and knowledge is described: from behaviorism
to constructivism and sociocultural theories of learning. The move from objectivism to subjectivism is
apparent in the development of learning theories. Sociocultural theories of learning take into account
the social character of learning and its context embeddedness, bringing it closer to ideas about
culture and stepping away from the idea of an objective reality which can be acquired by anyone. This
notion of learning as acquisition is challenged by notions of learning as participation. I describe the
oppositions between these two different metaphors of learning here. Giving up or prescribing either
of the approaches is neither desirable nor possible since they both have their advantages. However, in
order to come to a balanced combination of the two metaphors, the metaphor that is still
underdeveloped the participation metaphor must receive more attention.
3.1.1 Development of theory over time
Theories of learning try to explain why, how and sometimes when learning takes place. Traditionally,
these theories have evolved from the field of psychology, but over the last few decades influences
from other disciplines, such as information science, sociology, organization science and anthropology
are growing. To demonstrate the evolution of learning theories over time I will provide a short
overview of the most important learning theories and their relation to each other.
Behaviorism
The theory of behaviorism concentrates on the study of overt behaviors that can be observed and
measured. Learning in this view is the result of a change in behavior. It views the mind as a "black
box" in the sense that response to stimulus can be observed quantitatively, totally ignoring the
possibility of thought processes occurring in the mind. For behaviorism, learning is thus the
acquisition of new behavior through conditioning. Some key players in the development of the
behaviorist theory were Pavlov, Watson, Thorndike and Skinner (Mergel, 1998).
Cognitivism
In the 1920's people began to find limitations in the behaviorist approach to understanding learning
(Mergel, 1998). A new learning theory, called cognitivism, emerged. Cognitivism is a theoretical
approach in understanding the mind, which argues that mental function can be understood by
quantitative, positivist and scientific methods, and that such functions can be described as
information processing models. Cognitivism emphasizes on the structure and activities of the human
mind. The information processing model is concerned with how humans collect, store, modify and
interpret from their environments and how human beings use this information and knowledge in
their activities.
Cognitivism has been criticized for its positivist approach of reducing individual meaning to
measurements stripped of all significance. By representing experiences and mental functions as
measurements, cognitivism ignores context and, therefore, the meaning of these measurements. It is
the personal meaning of experience gained from the phenomenon as it is experienced by a person
which is the fundamental aspect of our psychology that needs to be understood: therefore they
argue that a context free psychology is a contradiction in terms. Also: positivist methods cannot be
meaningfully used on something which is inherently irreducible to component parts, holism is
necessary.
3. Expounding complexity –– the intricacy of theory

21
Constructivism
Constructivism addressed some of these critiques. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as
‘‘constructed’’, because it does not necessarily reflect any external ‘‘transcendent’’ realities; it is
contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. Various types of constructivism
have emerged. ““We can distinguish between radical, social, physical, evolutionary, postmodern
constructivism, social constructionism, information processing constructivism and cybernetic
systems [……] (Steffe & Gale, 1995; Prawat, 1996; and Heylighen, 1993 in Murphy, 1997). Ernest (1995,
in Murphy, 1997) points out that ““there are as many varieties of constructivism as there are
researchers.”” Consequently, there are as many critiques of constructivism as there are varieties: any
of them might point to opposite standpoints in constructivism. The common thread between all
forms of constructivism however is that they do not focus on one ontological reality, but instead on
the constructed reality. Constructivist epistemology thus proposes new definitions for knowledge
and truth that forms a new paradigm, based on inter subjectivity instead of the classical objectivity,
and viability instead of truth. Constructivist scholars emphasize that individuals make meanings
through the interactions with each other and with the environment they live in (pointing towards the
importance of human interaction and context). Despite many varieties in constructivism it is possible
to see social constructivism as a bringing together of aspects of the most important works in the
field: those of Piaget with that of Bruner and Vygotsky (Wood, 1998, p. 39).
Social constructivism and social constructionism
The social constructivist paradigm views the context in which the learning occurs as central to the
learning itself. It thus addresses the critique of cognitivism that reduces learning to individual
meaning. When we only have decontextualized knowledge about a concept then it it impossible to
apply our skills, because we are not working with the concept in its complex environment or
experiencing the complex interrelationships in that environment that determine how and when the
concept is used. One social constructivist notion that focuses on context is that of situated learning,
where the learner takes part in activities which are directly relevant to the application of learning and
which take place within a culture similar to the applied setting (Brown et al., 1989). In recent
decades, social constructivist theorists have extended the traditional focus on individual learning to
address collaborative and social dimensions of learning.
Social constructivism is often interchanged with social constructionism, which focuses on uncovering
the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the creation of their perceived social reality.
Social constructionism involves looking at the ways in which social phenomena are created,
institutionalized, and made into tradition by humans. Socially constructed reality is seen as an
ongoing, dynamic process; reality is reproduced by people acting on their interpretations and their
knowledge of it. Even though both social constructionism and social constructivism are concerned
with ways social phenomena develop, they are distinct. Social constructionism refers to the
development of phenomena relative to social contexts, while social constructivism refers to an
individual’’s making meaning of knowledge relative to social context (Schneider, 2005). For this
reason, social constructionism is typically described as a sociological construct, whereas social
constructivism is typically described as a psychological construct (Schneider, 2005).
Social constructivism encourages the learner to arrive at his or her own version of the truth,
influenced by his or her background, culture or embedded worldview. Historical developments and
symbol systems, such as language, logic, and mathematical systems, are inherited by the learner as a
member of a particular culture and these are learned throughout the learner’’s life. Social
constructionism became prominent with Berger and Luckmann’’s 1966 book, The Social Construction
of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Berger and Luckmann argue that all knowledge,
including the most basic, taken for granted common sense knowledge of everyday reality, is derived
from and maintained by social interactions (Schneider, 2005). When people interact, they do so with
the understanding that their respective perceptions of reality are related, and as they act upon this

22
understanding their common knowledge of reality becomes reinforced. Since this common sense
knowledge is negotiated by people, human typifications, significations and institutions come to be
presented as part of an objective reality. It is in this sense that it can be said that reality is socially
constructed. Things including even nature are not simply given, revealed, fully determined, and as
such, unalterable. Rather, things are made, and made up, in and through diverse social and cultural
processes, practices, and actions (Schneider, 2005).
Sociocultural theories of learning
The ‘‘discovery’’ within the cognitive tradition of the social anchorage of cognition led to theories of
cognition located in cultural contexts, distributed cognition, and situated learning and cognition
(Hedegaard, 1998). The inspiration came both from Vygotsky’’s theory and from the anthropological
research tradition. Although Vygotsky is referred to in these theories, there are also differences
between Vygotsky’’s theory and those from the anthropological research tradition (Hedegaard, 1998).
According to Hedegaard (1998) Lave is one of the central researchers in this new, sociocultural
approach to cognition and learning. Lave comments on the work of Vygotsky, because of his ideas of
internalization. In this respect, she breaks with social constructivism and together with Etienne
Wenger she developed a sociocultural learning theory, called legitimate peripheral participation
(LPP). Lave and Wenger’’s comment on Vygotsky by stating that:
““Conventional explanations view learning as a process by which a learner internalizes knowledge,
whether ‘‘discovered,’’ ‘‘transmitted’’ from others, or ‘‘experienced in interaction’’ with others. This focus
on internalization does not just leave the nature of the learner, of the world, and of their relations
unexplored; it can only reflect far reaching assumptions concerning these issues. It establishes a sharp
dichotomy between inside and outside, suggests that knowledge is largely cerebral, and takes the
individual as the non problematic unit of analysis. Furthermore, learning as internalization is too easily
construed as an unproblematic process of absorbing the given, as a matter of transmission and
assimilation. [……] Internalization is even central to some work on learning explicitly concerned with its
social character, for instance in the work of Vygotsky.”” (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
Legitimate peripheral participation conceives of learning as a community of practice where
newcomers become experienced members and eventually old timers. According to legitimate
peripheral participation, newcomers become members of a community initially by participating in
minute and superficial, yet productive and necessary tasks, that contribute to the overall goal of the
community. These activities are typically simple and carry low risk to the community as a whole but,
are also important. Through peripheral activities, novices become acquainted with the tasks,
vocabulary, and organizing principles of the community. Gradually, as newcomers become old
timers, their participation takes forms that are more and more central to the functioning of the
community. Legitimate peripheral participation suggests that membership in a community of
practice is mediated by the possible forms of participation to which newcomers have access, both
physically and socially. If newcomers can directly observe the practices of experts, they understand
the broader context into which their own efforts fit. Conversely, legitimate peripheral participation
suggests that newcomers who are separated from the experts have limited access to their tools and
community and therefore have limited growth.
3.1.2 Two metaphors in learning theory
Human learning has historically been conceived of as acquiring something (Sfard, 1998). Since the
time of Piaget and Vygotski, the growth of knowledge in the process of learning has been analyzed in
terms of concept development. Concepts are to be understood as basic units of knowledge that can
be accumulated, gradually refined, and combined to form ever richer cognitive structures (Sfard,
1998). The vocabulary we use when we talk about learning for instance ‘‘knowledge acquisition’’, or
‘‘concept development’’ makes us think about the human mind as a though it is a box to be filled
with a certain content and makes us think about the learner as becoming an owner of this content.

23
Once acquired, the knowledge, like any other commodity, may now be applied, transferred (to a
different context), and shared with others (Sfard, 1998). The idea of learning as gaining possession
over some commodity has endured in a wide spectrum of frameworks. ““As long as researchers
investigated learning by focusing on the ‘‘development of concepts’’ and on ‘‘acquisition of knowledge’’
they implicitly agreed that this process can be conceptualized in terms of one metaphor: the
acquisition metaphor (AM)”” (Sfard, 1998, p. 4).
The acquisition metaphor is so strongly established in our minds that we would probably never
become aware of its existence if another, alternative metaphor did not start to develop. The new
researcher however talks about learning as a legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger,
1991), or as an apprenticeship in thinking (Rogoff, 1990; 2003). While the concept of acquisition
implies that there is a clear end point to the process of learning, the ‘‘new’’ notion of learning
stretches its endless flux. Moreover, the ongoing learning activities are never considered separately
from the context within which they take place. The context, in its turn, is rich and multifarious, and
““its importance is pronounced by talk about situatedness, contextuality, cultural embeddedness, and
social mediation”” (Sfard, 1998, p. 4). Learning is now conceived of as a process of becoming a
member of a certain community. ““From a lone entrepreneur, the learner turns into an integral part
of a team. For obvious reasons, this new view of learning can be called the participation metaphor
(PM)”” (Sfard, 1998, p. 5).
The PM and the AM approach differ in a variety of points. Sfard (1998) has summarized the
differences in mappings between the two approaches as depicted in table 1. I have included this
table to summarize the differences on some of the core concepts of the different approaches.
Table 1: Summary of the two metaphors (Sfard, 1998).
““Although we have been living with the AM for decades, we have not been happy with it”” (Sfard,
1998, p. 7). There are at least two areas in which the AM reveals a particular weakness. The first is
that the conception of knowledge as a property leads to a too literal translation of beliefs on material
properties into beliefs on learning. This leads to an asocial attitude towards knowing, creating and
learning. If people are valued and divided according to what they have, the idea of intellectual
property is likely to feed rivalry, more than collaboration. Second, our thinking about learning has
always been plagued by foundational quandaries. Probably the best known foundational dilemma
obviously inherent to the AM was first signaled by Plato in his Meno and came to be known later as
‘‘the learning paradox’’. The central issue of Plato’’s learning paradox is: how can we want to acquire a
knowledge of something that is not yet known to us? Indeed, if this ‘‘something’’ does not yet belong
to the repertoire of the things we know, then being unaware of its existence we cannot possibly
The Metaphorical Mappings
Acquisition metaphor Participation metaphor
Individual enrichment Goal of learning Community building
Acquisition of something Learning Becoming a participant
Recipient (consumer), (re )
constructor
Student Peripheral participant, apprentice
Provider, facilitator, mediator Teacher Expert participant, preserver of
practice/discourse
Property, possession, commodity Knowledge, concept Aspect of practice/discourse/activity
(individual, public)
Having, possessing Knowing Belonging, participating,
communicating

24
begin to inquire about it. Or, to put it differently, if we can only become cognizant of something by
recognizing it on the basis of the knowledge we already possess, then nothing that does not yet
belong to the assortment of the things we know can ever become one of them. Conclusion: learning
new things is inherently impossible. Philosophers and psychologists have been struggling with the
learning paradox for ages, but is the central idea of learners as the builders of their own conceptual
structures that, at a closer look, turns problematic (Sfard, 1998). How do we account for the fact that
learners are able to build for themselves concepts that seem fully congruent with those of others?
One of the reasons some people may be attracted to the PM is that it seems to help us out of these
foundational quandaries. It is an escape rather than a direct solution: instead of solving the problem,
the new metaphor simply dissolves worrisome questions by its very refusal to objectify knowledge.
Within the PM’’s boundaries, there is simply no room for the clear cut distinction between internal
and external (concepts, knowledge), which is part and parcel of objectification. ““By getting rid of the
problematic entities and dubious dichotomies and clearing the language of essentialist aftertaste,
PMs circumvent the philosophical pitfalls of AMs in an elegant manner.”” (Sfard, 1998, p. 8). Of
course, it may well be that the PM has new foundational dilemmas in store. The PM’’s present appeal
comes from the fact that it brings immediate relief from an old headache. There is no guarantee,
however, that it is not going to disclose its own troubles one day.
After pointing out the weaknesses of the AM and the relative advantages of the PM, Sfard goes on to
argue that giving up the AM is neither desirable nor possible. When it comes to research, some
important things that can be done with the old metaphor cannot be achieved with the new one.
Besides, the PM, when left alone, may be ‘‘as dangerous a thing’’ as the AM proved to be in a similar
situation (Sfard, 1998). Sfard’’s conclusion is that the relative advantages of each of the two
metaphors make it difficult to give up either of them: each has something to offer that the other
cannot provide. Moreover, ““metaphorical pluralism embraces a promise of a better research and a
more satisfactory practice.”” (Sfard, 1998, p. 10). An adequate combination of the acquisition and
participation metaphors would bring to the front the advantages of each of them, while restricting
their respective disadvantages. ““We can look on the PM and AM generated conceptual frameworks
as offering differing perspectives rather than competing opinions. [After all,] [h]aving several
theoretical outlooks at the same thing is a normal practice in science.”” (Sfard, 1998, p. 11).
3.2 The complexity of culture
The concept of ‘‘culture’’ has been under attack ever since it was introduced in science. Originally it
was studied as an ontological reality, subordinate to natural laws. From the 1950s the concept is
viewed to be studied by the humanities and is no longer seen as an ontological reality. What culture
is, is still subject to critical debate. Anthropologists however did come to agree on what it is not.
‘‘Culture’’ is not equal to nationality, cannot be objectified, is not ‘‘stable’’ and cannot be viewed as
something which is ‘‘shared’’.
3.2.1 More or less cultivated?
Given the fact that anthropology is usually defined as the study of cultures, the concept of ‘‘culture’’ is
one of the most crucial concepts of the discipline. Ever since the foundation of the discipline of
anthropology the concept of culture has been a target of critical attack. It has been described as one
of the two or three most complicated words in the English language (Williams, 1981, in Eriksen, 2001
p. 3). In the early 1950s, Clyde Kluckhohn and Alfred Kroeber (1952) presented 161 different
definitions of culture. The first English language development of the anthropological concept of
culture was formulated by Tylor (Tylor, 1871, in Risjord, 2007 p. 402): ““Culture or Civilization, taken

25
in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals,
law custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”” This
notion of culture, which developed in the 18th
century (mainly in European anthropology), and which
was predominant throughout the 19th
century, was linked to the idea of social evolution: a linear
path of development for societies: ‘‘traditional’’ versus ‘‘cultivated’’. This idea, called evolutionism,
comes from Western imperialism (Rapport and Overing, 2000, p. 92) and is highly political, because it
views cultures as classifiable in different stages of development and thus places some cultures higher
up, being more developed, compared to others. Consequently, these ‘‘underdeveloped’’ societies
have ‘‘a lot of work to do’’ to ‘‘get to the higher (often industrialized) level’’.
This approach of culture and the start of anthropology as a science was an outgrowth of the Age of
Enlightenment, a period when Europeans attempted systematically to study human behavior. It was
also influenced by Darwin. He developed the thought that human similarities and human differences
could be explained in biological terms: culture might follow natural laws. This evolution of life might
also provide a model for the evolution of civilization: ““human beings are an advance on the apes, and
higher races or higher civilizations were in the same way and advance on lower races and their
civilizations”” (Kuper, 1999, p. 11). An argument against explaining culture in biological terms is that
cultures are hybrids (just like races). ““There are no pure cultures, distinctive and enduring. Every
culture draws on diverse sources, depends on borrowings, and is in flux”” (Kuper, 1999, p. 12). The
answer to this critique was that cultural differences were caused by the challenges presented by the
local environment, and by contacts between human populations (an approach of culture called
cultural materialism).
Franz Boas was the most important opponent of the evolutionist approach and he developed the
notion of cultural relativism. He was very sceptical of universal laws of evolution. According to Boas,
different cultures can only be understood and judged from their own context and should be seen as
equal. Each culture has a specific ‘‘way of life’’ which is expressed through its own combination of
artefacts, institutions and patterns of behavior. Where Tylor saw ‘‘culture’’ as the result of human
achievement, Boas spoke of a ‘‘Kulturbrille’’: cultural spectacles everyone wears and which enable us
to understand the world around us. One can thus not be more or less cultivated. The fundamental
Boasian thesis was that culture makes us, not biology. We are not born a certain way, we become
what we are because we grow up in a certain setting. The challenge of a biological theory of human
similarity and difference led to the conception of culture as opposed to biology: nature versus
nurture. This discussion of nature versus nurture is still alive today.
3.2.2 Where is culture?
If we approach culture as something that is build from what we acquire as members of a society,
then culture could be seen as positioned in the human mind instead of being a collective
consciousness. What then is left of ‘‘culture’’? The answer is to view culture as a collective symbolic
discourse. People construct a world of symbols and live in it. One way of investigating culture as a
symbolic discourse was a reductionalist, generalizing approach: componential analysis. This was
based on the idea that culture is a symbolic discourse very much like language. ““If a new science of
culture was to follow the lead of linguistics, then together these sciences would ultimately establish
the deep structure that all languages and cultures shared, and that was (surely) etched in the brain
itself”” (Kuper, 1999, p. 18). This approach, called structuralism, flourished for a while, but fell out of
fashion because of the impossibility to determine certain words and symbols according to some
structuralists. According to Goodenough (one of the developers of componential analysis) it was
possible to construct more than one valid model of a semantic system. He concluded that ““the very
fact that it is possible to construct more than one valid model of a semantic system has profound
implications for cultural theory, calling into question the anthropological premise that a society’’s
culture is ‘‘shared’’ by its members.”” (Goodenough, 1965, in Risjord, 2007 p. 413). Furthermore, the

26
structuralists limited themselves to emic descriptions. Harris (1968, in Risjord, 2007) argued that this
was a harmful limitation on the scope of culture. There are cultural events and processes not
represented by the locals that are nonetheless important, if the object of ethnography is only to
discover the rules recognized by the natives, crucial aspects of the culture will be incomprehensible
(Harris, 1968, in Risjord, 2007).
Also, it is extremely difficult to define where one culture stops and another begins, even within
isolated communities. Boas related culture to the development of a nation state (Germany in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth century), coming from the ‘‘Deutsche Geist’’. His ideas led to the
idea of culture as belonging to one people, one society. Nonetheless, the idea of nationality as
culture, for instance, ‘‘the Japanese culture’’, has been severely criticized by anthropologists in the
1940s and it was agreed upon that nationality could not be seen as equal to culture.
3.2.3 Culture as something objectively real, stable and shared?
Although Boas was the most important force in introducing the idea of cultural relativism,
anthropologists did not always follow his idea that culture itself is an ongoing process in which new
elements are introduced and which transforms over time (Rapport and Overing, 2000, p. 94).
Instead, the idea that culture refers to a shared and stable system of beliefs, knowledge, values, or
sets of practices remained predominant in anthropology for a very long time. First of all, this notion
of culture assumes ‘‘it’’ is fixed, bounded and coherent. In this sense, tradition is something real, to be
found ““outside the minds of individuals, and objectified in the form of a collection of objects,
symbols, techniques, values, beliefs, practices and institutions that the individuals of a culture share.
[……] It is a notion strongly embedded in all functionalist, structural functionalist, and structuralist
thought”” (Rapport and Overing, 2000, p. 94). By portraying cultures as having an objective reality
beyond human agency a ‘‘true science’’ was born. This reification of culture makes us think of ‘‘a
culture’’ as a completed object, a ‘‘thing’’ we can ‘‘touch and feel’’, and which all members of the
culture share. By researching this ‘‘social fact’’ the social sciences would receive scientific
respectability, just like the natural sciences. Therefore, the notion of culture as ““a coherent,
bounded, and stable system of shared beliefs and actions has been [……] very difficult to shift””
(Rapport and Overing, 2000, p. 94). But can culture be seen as ontologically real? In the 1960s there
was a move away from this idea, which stressed culture as idea systems, or structures of symbolic
meaning. Edward Evan Evans Pritchard debated that because anthropology’’s distinctive subject deals
with conscious, thinking human beings, it should fall under the humanities and not the natural
sciences. Culture became to be understood as a shared system of mental representations. ‘‘It’’ gave
purpose to the social system, and ensured its equilibrium.
Is culture something stable then? Boas already stressed the dynamic character of culture. ““People
continually incorporate and transform new and foreign elements”” (Rapport and Overing, 2000, p.
94). Globalization has clearly demonstrated this. Culture can therefore not be ‘‘essentialized’’ to a set
of fixed, unchangeable traits. Essentialism is a discursive way of reducing something into (what one
perceives as) their essential characteristics. Furthermore, as Goodenough already concluded, how
can culture as being something ‘‘shared’’ account for the fact that sometimes people of a culture
behave out of that culture’’s system valuations, or even have different system models? This cannot
merely be seen as abnormal or dysfunctional behavior or people, because that would mean most of
the culture’’s population would be or behave abnormal or dysfunctional every now and then. And if
this is the case, how can the culture’’s system be true? Maybe ‘‘culture’’ cannot be seen as a collective
representation and a template for social action, since it leaves us with the question of how we can
explain differences in knowledge, behavior and lifestyle between individuals from one culture? And
how can the role of the individual in cultural processes be explained?

27
Anthropological thought now hesitates between two ways of conceptualizing culture and its study.
One approach is individualistic: cultures are more or less arbitrary collections of individuals. The
fundamental cultural phenomena are the representations, experience, or other ‘‘traits’’ of a person
insofar as these are similar to other persons or passed down among generations. The other approach
is holistic. In this view, cultural phenomena are independent of individual experience or
representation. Both views are represented in contemporary cultural studies.
3.3 Adding more complexity: constraints to learning
In this section I discuss ideas of social structure versus agency. I added this section, because by taking
into account the ‘‘structure versus agency debate’’ in the analysis of a ‘‘learning situation’’ questions on
issues such as control, access, action, empowerment, and negotiation are stimulated. This helps to
gain insight in the constraints of a learner, instead of assuming the total freedom and independency
of a learner. I present the theories of Bourdieu (1977), Giddens (1984), and Luhmann (1995) to
demonstrate three different ways of thinking about the relation between structure and agency.
3.3.1 Defining social structure and agency
Social structure is a term frequently used in sociology and social theory yet rarely defined or clearly
conceptualized (Jary & Jary, 1991). Social structure may be seen to underlie important social systems
including the economic system, legal system, political system, cultural system, and others. Family,
religion, ethnicity, gender, customs, law, economy and class are all social structures. The social
system is the parent system of those various systems that are embedded in the social system.
One of the earliest accounts of social structure was provided by Karl Marx, who related political,
cultural, and religious life to the mode of production (an underlying economic structure). Emile
Durkheim introduced the idea that social institutions and practices played a role in assuring the
functional integration of society the assimilation of diverse parts into a unified and self reproducing
whole. The notion of social structure has been extensively developed in the twentieth century, with
key contributions from structuralist perspectives drawing on the structuralism of Levi Strauss or
Marxist perspectives (Jary & Jary, 1991).
The notion of social structure is intimately related to a variety of central topics in social science,
including the relation of structure and agency. Agency refers to the capacity of individual humans to
act independently and to make their own free choices.
3.3.2 Bringing together agency and social structure
Structure and agency accounts allow for an analysis of the co evolution of social structure and
human agency, where socialized agents with a degree of autonomy take action in social systems
where their action is on the one hand mediated by existing institutional structure and expectations,
but may, on the other hand, influence or transform that institutional structure. Theories have been
developed that attempt to bring together both agency and structure into one integrated paradigm.
Among the most influential theories are Anthony Giddens’’ theory of structuration (1984) and Pierre
Bourdieu’’s practice theory (1977). A more controversial theory but suitable theory for this thesis is
Niklas Luhmann’’s social systems theory (1995).
Giddens’’ structuration theory
Structures tend to appear in social scientific discourse as hard, deterministic and unchangeable
(Sewell, 1989). What goes unnoticed in this idea of structure however, is human action, or agency.

L. de Rooij - MA thesis BIS - Systems of survival

L. de Rooij - MA thesis BIS - Systems of survival

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to L. de Rooij - MA thesis BIS - Systems of survival

Similar to L. de Rooij - MA thesis BIS - Systems of survival (20)

L. de Rooij - MA thesis BIS - Systems of survival