Running head: STAND TO SPEAK 1

Stand to Speak: Individualism and Collectivism within Auburn Badminton Club

Daniel Park

STAND TO SPEAK 2

Stand to Speak: Individualism and Collectivism within Auburn Badminton Club

Individualism and collectivism, as parts of cultural dimensions theory, have been

applied extensively in many contexts and across many different cultures. Cultural dimensions

theory explained communication and personality differences between cultures in settings

such as schools, homes, and the workplace (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). One area

of research relating to cultural dimensions theory that is lacking is sports settings. The idea

that cultural dimensions theory can be applied in a natural but competitive situation, like

sport, is an interesting one.

This study examined the interactions of group members of different cultures in a

sports club. Specifically, this ethnography examined the interactions among of the Auburn

Badminton Club during both game play and rest periods. Whether the natural setting is

competitive or not, members of different cultures will act and interact in ways consistent with

their cultures’ generally-accepted level of individualism. This paper begins with an

explanation of individualism/collectivism and my methodology, followed by an analysis of

the ways in which Chinese group members interacted in a collectivistic manner whilst in a

sports setting, before explaining how the different cultures within the club managed conflict.

Individualism and Collectivism

National cultures are described by six dimensions (The Hofstede Centre, n.d.).

Hofstede’s original study during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s revealed only four of these

categories; Power Distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, Masculinity versus

Femininity, and Uncertainty Avoidance (The Hofstede Centre, n.d.). Together these

categories made up Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture, and allowed researchers to

analyze how cultures valued different things across a number of contexts. Long Term

Orientation (Bond 1991) and Indulgence v. Restraint (Minkov, 2010) were later added to the

categories.

STAND TO SPEAK 3

Individualism versus Collectivism

One of the most widely researched cultural dimensions was Individualism versus

Collectivism. Introduced by Hofstede in 1980, the individualism-collectivism dimension

related to how different societies are either loosely or tightly connected (Jandt, 2006).

Hofstede et al. said that a minority of people in the world belong to an individualistic society

(2010). An individualistic society is one where the interests of the individuals take priority

over those of the group. This is a result of children growing up knowing the importance of “I”

(Hofstede et al., 2010). In contrast, a collectivistic society is one where the interests of the

group take priority over those of the individual (Hofstede et al., 2010). As a whole, the

majority of the world’s societies are collectivistic and the children in these societies grow up

learning the idea of “we” (Hofstede et al., 2010). Whether a person’s self-image is defined as

“I” or as a part of “we” communicates important values about society (The Hofstede Centre,

n.d.).

Scoring Individualism

Different cultures are scored on their level of individualism, 100 being the most

individualistic and 0 being the most collectivistic (Hofstede et al., 2010). The United States

holds the highest individualism score of 91 making it the most individualistic society in the

world, whereas China has a score of 20 and is ranked 59 out of the 76 countries studied

(Hofstede et al., 2010). The scores allocated by Hofstede et al. (2010) were used to continue

research on the differentiations between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Triandis,

Bontempo, and Villareal (1988) found the main differences to be the ways in which members

valued self and goals. The United States sample, as an individualistic society, was found to

subordinate ingroup goals in favour of personal goals (Triandis et al., 1988). The Japanese

sample as a collectivistic society, on the other hand, was much more interested in the group

STAND TO SPEAK 4

honors and goals (Triandis et al., 1988). Triandis et al. (1988) further cemented Hofstede’s

model of cultural dimensions and individualism scoring.

Conflict in Cultures

Face-negotiation theory ties in with cultural dimensions and helped explain why the

two culture categories react differently to conflict (Ting-Toomey, 2012). Ting-Toomey

(2012) presented a flowchart of how individualistic and collectivistic cultures managed

conflict. Ting-Toomey (2012) asserted that individualistic and collectivistic cultures respond

to conflict in three separate ways, making six conflict management styles in total. As a self-

independent culture, individualists respond to conflict by competing, emotional expression,

or passive aggressive action. Collectivists respond by compromising, third-party help, or

avoiding (Ting-Toomey, 2012).

Method

According to Barker (2012) “ethnography is an empirical and theoretical approach . . .

which seeks a detailed and holistic description and analysis of cultures based on intensive

fieldwork” (pp. 32). By encompassing qualitative methods such as participant-observation,

interviews and focus groups, ethnography explores what it means to be a part of the studied

culture through thick description and identification of group norms. Philipsen (1992)

described a culture as “a socially constructed and historically transmitted pattern of symbols,

meanings, premises and rules” (pp. 7). In order to study the shared meanings of the Auburn

Badminton Club and see the communication involved from a different perspective,

ethnography was used.

Gaining Entry

The first phase of conducting an ethnography is to select a suitable site and gain entry.

The Auburn Badminton Club meets twice a week (Friday 6-8 p.m., Sunday 2-4 p.m.) and has

no sign-up costs. The club’s information was available for all Auburn University students to

STAND TO SPEAK 5

view online using the AU Campus Recreation webpage. I created an account using my

student ID number and email address then clicked to add myself to the badminton club’s

member list.

Joining the badminton club online allowed me to meet the members the following

Sunday. I entered the Auburn recreation centre at 3 p.m. on the first Sunday after I joined

online. At the end of the multi-purpose courts, behind a large screen, were three badminton

courts with 8-12 players occupying them. I sat on the side sill and observed as a mixture of

doubles and singles rallies played out across the three side-by-side courts.

About 5 minutes after I sat down, a young man wearing a pink and blue Yonex shirt

approached me; his name was Yua and he introduced himself as the vice-president of the

badminton club. I told Yua that I joined online; he seemed very happy at the prospect of a

new member and offered to warm-up with me. The recreation centre was out of badminton

racquets that Sunday, so I asked if I could use a spare one. Yua told me that there was no club

equipment, but I could use his spare racquet for the day. At this moment, I knew that I had

gained entry to the group.

Observation / Participation

One aspect of ethnography as a research method is balancing the level of observation

with participation. Participation is important in order to understand the shared meanings and

rules of a culture, but observation is required to collect data. Participation was straight-

forward; I played singles, doubles, and rallied with a number of the group members. In terms

of observation, as we rested between games I took keyword notes of what I observed on my

cell phone. The cell phone notes allowed me to write field notes once I returned home after

each group session, in total I compiled over 15 pages of handwritten field notes.

Verification

STAND TO SPEAK 6

Following an example from Kramer (2006), I conducted verification throughout my

observation. During the study I informally interviewed group members to verify whether my

observations and findings were aligned with what they knew to be true of the cultures. I

spoke to different group members each week to check my observations were unbiased and

accurate.

Importance of Face-to-Face Communication

The badminton club consisted of Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, and Indian members.

Throughout the four weeks of observation there was a total of approximately 25 different

group members. The majority of the group members were Chinese; there were only two

Indian members, one Russian, and one Brazilian member. Although the culture split was

uneven, the differences were significant. Collectivistic culture members valued face-to-face

group communication much more than the individualistic members at Auburn Badminton

Club.

Stand to Speak

Chinese members were much more interested in group communication than the other

members. One of the key signifiers of this conclusion was my observation of the Chinese

members as they spoke during game breaks. As the Chinese members interacted between

games they always stood. I first noted this in my field notes during week two:

Yua seemed much more interested in talking to a slim Asian girl wearing leggings,

orange shirt, and glasses than playing another game. They spoke in what I presume to

be Chinese, often laughing. They stood during the entire conversation, as other

members joined in.

During this interaction other group members came over to the area in which Yua and his

friend were talking. Some members stood with Yua and interacted with the pair, whilst others

sat down away from the group. This observation of standing to interact continued to catch my

STAND TO SPEAK 7

eye during week three. In my field notes I noted how a group member with whom I

previously interacted, Orange, completely ignored me as I sat on the side sill of the

gymnasium. I even attempted to make eye-contact and unfolded my arms as to start a

conversation with Orange, but he silently sat down away from me, and away from a group of

four members who stood talking.

Valuing group communication is an aspect of a collectivistic society. As explained by

Jandt (2006), collectivistic cultures are more interested in the welfare and dynamics of the

group. The individual goals of members are put aside in favor of achieving a tightly-

connected group. Even though the Chinese members of the badminton club were tired after

playing, they insisted on standing to talk to one another. By standing, and ignoring their

fatigue, the members placed emphasis on the group’s communication which is indicative of

collectivistic cultures like China. If the group had included Orange in the conversation, whilst

he sat down, they would have acknowledged his individual goal of restand therefore acted in

an individualistic way.

Phone Usage

Cell phone use also indicated how the collectivistic culture members valued face-to-

face communication more than the individualistic members. Although I noticed that many of

the group members did not use their phones at all during the club hours, the difference

between the two culture types regarding phone usage became apparent. Lui, a Chinese

woman, waited with me at the side of the courts before a Sunday session. No other group

members had arrived, and there was a slight worry that no one else would show up. As I

recorded in my field notes, Lui never used her phone whilst talking to me: “she also

completely stopped using her phone whenever each of us spoke, even though there was a

clear need to find out where everyone else was.” I observed during this interaction that even

STAND TO SPEAK 8

in a time of panic Lui, as a collectivist culture member, valued the interaction with me much

higher than her individual goal of finding out where her friends were.

In contrast to the interaction with Lui, a conversation with a Brazilian member

showed how a more individualistic culture member does not value face-to-face

communication as much. Yulana was a group member that I met on week three, after

finishing a game on the middle of the three courts she walked to the side sill where I was

sitting and sat next to me. It seemed the only reason she sat next to me was because she put

her phone and water bottle there before she played. As she looked at her phone, and opened

messages, she asked me what my name was and why I was at badminton club. After a brief

conversation, about 5 minutes, I learned that Yulana was Brazilian and had been coming to

badminton club for about two years. As I noted in my field notes, “even though Yulana talked

about Jimi as if he were different, she sat while she spoke to me and constantly checked her

phone.” This showed that the conversation with me was not Yulana’s top priority.

Brazil had an individualism score of 38, which was almost twice as high as China’s

score (Hofstede et al., 2010). Although a score of 38 was not considered high in terms of

individualism, the difference in face-to-face communication valuation was vast between the

two cultures at the badminton club. Through interactions whilst sat with Yulana, and Russian

group member Jimi, I noticed that their individual goals of rest and out-group connectivity

took priority. In contrast, every conversation I had with a Chinese group member was with

them standing. None of the Chinese members checked their phones when they spoke to me;

the conversation within the group was their main priority. These observations aligned

perfectly with what Triandis et al. (1988) found in their study; one of the main differences

between individualistic and collectivistic societies was the individual versus group goal

prioritizing.

Differing Conflict Management

STAND TO SPEAK 9

Although the badminton club was non-competitive in terms of a lack of tournament

and league play, there was still an element of competition involved between some group

members. One court each week was reserved for the more “serious” players to play singles

against each other. Even during those intense singles games, the majority of the players did

not voice emotions. The collectivistic culture group members avoided conflict altogether,

whereas the few individualistic culture group members competed and expressed emotion as a

way of managing game conflict.

Voicing Disappointment

The difference in competition intentions and emotional expression during game play

varied significantly among the Chinese and Russian group members. I first met the only

Russian badminton club member, Jimi, during week two. Before I knew Jimi was from

Russia, and a math professor at Auburn University, I was put in his partnership to play

doubles against Orange and Yua. Although I had played doubles before, Jimi led me through

the rules and his preferences as to which court area I took. He instructed me on the secret

hand signals we had to use we served; Jimi pointed a thumb up to signal I take a court side or

his index finger up to signal that I should take the back of the court. The instruction seemed

very competitive and it was clear that Jimi played to win.

Throughout the doubles game, Jimi used extremely competitive and emotive

language. As I recorded in my field notes, “almost like war commands. If one of us hit a high

return he would shout ‘defend, defend,’ meaning we should take a court half . . . and expect

‘an attack.’ ” This language use was polar opposite to that of our Chinese opponent; Yua and

Orange were extremely reserved during the game.

The difference in emotional expression between Jimi and the Chinese players may be

explained by Ting-Toomey’s face negotiation model (2012). Individualistic culture members

managed conflict using three styles, two of which were competing and emotional expression.

STAND TO SPEAK 10

During the conflict of the two sides both wanting to win each point, Jimi vocally expressed

his emotion through command-like language and groaning after bad shots. This was in

contrast to the two Chinese players, Yua and Orange, who avoided the conflict by staying

quiet. Both of these responses fitted with the cultures’ individualism scores; Russia 39 and

China 20 (Hofstede et al., 2010).

As a British participant, I noticed I behaved in a way that was consistent with my

individualistic culture. During the game I often apologized to Jimi for a poor shot and I

openly voiced disappointment at losing a point. At the end of the game I was elated with the

result, and gave Jimi a high-five and said “great game, well done.” This in itself adds to what

Ting-Toomey said of individualistic cultures. As Great Britain was given an extremely high

individualism score of 89 (Hofstede et al., 2010), Ting-Toomey’s (2012) model said that as

an individualistic culture member I would manage conflict by competing and expressing

myself emotionally. Both of which became apparent during the game in week two.

Happy to Lose

Auburn Badminton Club’s collectivistic group members avoided conflict and

compromised with an individualistic group member by praising their good shots. Chinese

group members praised my good shots much more than the Russian and Indian players. After

I played against Jimi in week four, I noticed that after I hit a winning point he announced the

score. Jimi didn’t express positivity toward me during the entire 21-16 point game. Similarly,

as noted in my field notes, “Hasheek, one of the two Indian group members, reminds me of

Jimi. He is much more competitive than the Chinese players, and is visibly disappointed at

every lost point.”

The open expression of disappointment during games again connected to Hofstede et

al.’s individualism scores and Ting-Toomey’s face negotiation model. India was scored as 48

on the individualism index (Hofstede et al., 2010). This score ranked India 32 out of the 76

STAND TO SPEAK 11

countries researched, making it an individualistic-leaning society (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Ting-Toomey’s (2012) model explained why Hasheek and Jimi managed conflict in the styles

of emotional expression and competing, because they are members of an individualistic

culture.

The Chinese players praised every good shot I hit. Even if the shot ended a long rally

which disrupted the continuity of the game, Yua praised me for the good shot. By doing this

Yua complied with the accepted behaviours of a collectivistic culture like China. He managed

conflict by compromising after understanding that I was a competitive culture member (Ting-

Toomey, 2012).

Conclusion

Even in a sport setting members of different cultures act in accordance to their

cultures’ level of individualism. Through the observation/participation method of

ethnography I was able to find that individualistic and collectivistic cultures do not alter their

culture’s natural behaviours during a competitive situation.

The Chinese group members placed a much higher importance on face-to-face

interaction than the Russian and Brazilian members. This was found to be true by looking at

the way in which the collectivistic culture members stood to speak to each other and refrained

from cell phone use during face-to-face conversations, whereas as the individualistic culture

members did not.

Conflict management styles were also analyzed, and it was found that the badminton

club members acted consistently with Hofstede et al.’s individualism scores and Ting-

Toomey’s face-negotiation model. The Russian and Indian group members openly expressed

emotions during game play and were not positive toward an opponent after losing a point.

The Chinese members, on the other hand, were much more avoidant of conflict by being

STAND TO SPEAK 12

quiet during games. They also compromised when faced with an individualistic culture

member in a game by praising their good shots.

The ethnographic methods allowed me to learn the shared meanings of the Auburn

Badminton Club, and of the cultures within the group. It became apparent that cultural

behaviours do not change during a competitive environment like sport. Future research

should look at how large team sports, like football, differ from the more individual sports like

badminton. With the increase in participants and the increase in number of different cultures,

there may be a shift in the behaviours of individualistic and collectivistic members.

Examination of larger scale sports settings will give a better understanding of individualism

in sport.

STAND TO SPEAK 13

Works Cited

Barker, C. (2012). An introduction to cultural studies. In Cultural Studies: Theory And

Practice (4th ed.). (pp. 3-38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). I, we, and they. In Cultures And

Organizations: Software Of The Mind (3rd ed.). (pp. 85-134). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill

Jandt, F. E. (2006). Dimensions of culture. In An Introduction To Intercultural

Communication: Identities In A Global Community (5th ed.). (pp. 159-181). Retrieved

from http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/11711_Chapter7.pdf

Kramer, M. W. (2006). Shared leadership in a community theater group: Filling the

leadership role. In Journal Of Applied Communication Research, 34 (2). (pp. 141-

162).

Philipsen, G. (1992). Speaking in its cultural context. In Speaking Culturally: Explorations in

Social Communication. (pp. 3-17). Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?

id=O9gRL0LH_dgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=philipsen+1992+speaking+culturally

&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIs_jV-

6GCyQIVyhceCh3DgwNz#v=onepage&q=philipsen%201992%20speaking

%20culturally&f=false

The Hofstede Centre. (n.d.). National Culture. Retrieved from

http://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In

Theorizing About Intercultural Communication (pp. 71-92). Retrieved from

https://books.google.com/books?

id=FQtdsLaPe3AC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=the+matrix+of+face+an+updated+fa

ce-

STAND TO SPEAK 14

negotiation+theory&source=bl&ots=rfkW2Te9wq&sig=YUUkyPlA3ikD5zaPt6EHy0

TEs-

k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI3pP9taf3yAIVkrgeCh308Ags#v=on

epage&q=the%20matrix%20of%20face%20an%20updated%20face-negotiation

%20theory&f=false

Ting-Toomey, S. (2012). Face-negotiation theory. In E. Griffin, A First Look At

Communication Theory (8th ed.). (pp. 407-420). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., & Villareal, M. J. (1988). Individualism and collectivism:

Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. In Journal Of Personality

And Social Psychology (pp. 323-338). Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.408.882&rep=rep1&type=pdf