Content uploaded by Peter Cardon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Cardon on Sep 04, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://jbt.sagepub.com/
Technical Communication
Journal of Business and
http://jbt.sagepub.com/content/22/4/399
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1050651908320361
published online 16 July 2008
2008 22: 399 originallyJournal of Business and Technical Communication
Peter W. Cardon
on Intercultural Business and Technical Communication
A Critique of Hall's Contexting Model: A Meta-Analysis of Literature
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:
Journal of Business and Technical CommunicationAdditional services and information for
http://jbt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jbt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jbt.sagepub.com/content/22/4/399.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jul 16, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Sep 15, 2008Version of Record >>
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
A Critique of Hall’s
Contexting Model
A Meta-Analysis of Literature on
Intercultural Business and Technical
Communication
Peter W. Cardon
University of South Carolina
Edward Hall’s model of low-context and high-context cultures is one of the
dominant theoretical frameworks for interpreting intercultural communication.
This article reports a meta-analysis of 224 articles in business and technical
communication journals between 1990 and 2006 and addresses two primary
issues: (a) the degree to which contexting is embedded in intercultural com-
munication theory and (b) the degree to which the contexting model has been
empirically validated. Contexting is the most cited theoretical framework in
articles about intercultural communication in business and technical communi-
cation journals and in intercultural communication textbooks. An extensive set
of contexting propositions has emerged in the literature; however, few of these
propositions have been examined empirically. Furthermore, those propositions
tested most frequently have failed to support many contexting propositions,
particularly those related to directness. This article provides several recom-
mendations for those researchers who seek to address this popular and appeal-
ing yet unsubstantiated and underdeveloped communication theory.
Keywords: contexting; high context; low context; intercultural communica-
tion; directness
The works of Geert Hofstede and Edward Hall are fixtures in nearly all
of the academic literature having anything to do with cross-cultural
comparisons, particularly in the management and communication fields
(Driskill, 1997; Hunsinger, 2006; Thatcher, 2001; Varner, 2000, 2001;
T. Weiss, 1992). One indicator of the influence of these cross-cultural
researchers and theorists is how frequently they are cited. As of July 2007,
Journal of Business and
Technical Communication
Volume 22 Number 4
October 2008 399-428
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/1050651908320361
http://jbt.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
399
Author’s Note: Address correspondence to Peter W. Cardon; e-mail: pcardon@sc.edu
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
according to the Web of Science Social Sciences Cited Reference Index
(2007), Hofstede had been cited over 6,100 times for his three major works:
4,138 times for the first edition of Culture’s Consequences (1980), 532 times
for the second and highly revised edition of Culture’s Consequences (2001),
and 1,488 times for Cultures and Organizations (1991). Hall had been cited
over 3,300 times for his three major works: 1,552 times for The Hidden
Dimension (1966), 1,124 times for Silent Language (1959), and 659 times
for Beyond Culture (1976). Their works have also become integral parts of
intercultural communication textbooks and courses. In particular, Hall’s con-
texting model has been identified as the most commonly used cultural model
in intercultural communication courses (Fantini & Smith, 1997).
Surprisingly, the works of Hofstede and Hall have been treated quite
differently. Whereas Hofstede’s works have been published in refereed
journals (Hofstede, 1983; Hofstede & Bond, 1984, 1988) and extensively
tested, replicated, refined, and critiqued (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges,
Javidan, Dorman, & Gupta, 2004; Schwartz, 1999; Trompenaars, 1994), none
of Hall’s works about contexting have been published in refereed journals,
and they have escaped close scrutiny by other researchers. Studies that use
contexting as an explanatory framework for cross-cultural variation almost
invariably accept the contexting continuum (Hall’s ranking of cultures from
low context to high context) and fail to critically examine exceptions.
Hermeking (2006) suggested that Hall’s model has received little criticism
because Hall was vague in his presentation of the model and ranked cultural
groups rather than national cultures.
A close examination of the validity of the contexting model, its major
propositions, and the degree to which it is embedded in intercultural busi-
ness and technical communication (IBTC) fields is particularly warranted
because contexting is one of the most common frameworks explaining dif-
ferences in business communication styles across cultures (Gudykunst &
Nishida, 1986; Limaye & Victor, 1991; Varner, 2000). I begin my exami-
nation with a literature review of contexting, which includes a critique of
Hall’s (1976) research methodology and a description of non-IBTC litera-
ture that has attempted to develop instruments of contexting or non-IBTC
literature that has involved empirical studies of contexting in more than 10
countries or cultures. Next, I provide my method and findings for a meta-
analysis of IBTC articles since 1990. I conclude with a discussion of the
contexting model and recommendations for its future use in IBTC research.
In a broader sense, I examine the degree to which the IBTC fields treat
theory development.
400 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Literature Review of Contexting
The primary work from which Hall (1976) created his contexting model
was Beyond Culture. In explaining this model, he defined high-context and
low-context messages as follows:
A high-context (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the
information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person,
while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message.
A low-context (LC) communication is just the opposite; i.e., the mass of the
information is vested in the explicit code. (p. 79)
Hall made a number of distinctions between HC and LC cultures. In HC
cultures, information is widely shared and thus requires extensive cultural
programming whereas in LC cultures, information is less widely shared and
thus requires less cultural programming. HC cultures emphasize stability
whereas LC cultures emphasize change and mobility. In HC cultures,
providing too much information is considered talking down to others whereas
in LC cultures, doing so is considered being thorough. In HC cultures, com-
munication is an art form that is unifying and cohesive and thus displays
sophistication, nuance, and cultural identity. In LC cultures, communication
is primarily task oriented. HC cultures appreciate slow, indirect messages
whereas LC cultures insist on fast, direct messages. HC cultures extensively
use informal information networks whereas LC cultures prefer formal infor-
mation networks. HC cultures interpret laws with personal involvement and
thus bend rules to accommodate relationships whereas LC cultures interpret
laws impersonally and thus maintain strict adherence to rules. Fundamentally,
HC cultures tend to employ more holistic thinking whereas LC cultures
tend to employ more linear thinking.
Hall (1976) described cultures as being either primarily HC or primarily
LC. But he explained that cultures could be arranged on a continuum from
extremely LC to extremely HC cultures. He classified the following cultures
on such a continuum in order of lowest to highest context: Swiss-Germans,
Germans, Scandinavians, Northern Americans, French, English, Italians,
Latin Americans, Arabs, Chinese (added in Hall & Hall, 1987, 1990), and
Japanese. This contexting continuum (i.e., ranking of cultures from LC to
HC) is frequently credited to Rosch and Segler (1987) as an extension of
Hall’s contexting model; however, Rosch and Segler merely placed Hall’s
ranking in a graphical format, which is often replicated in intercultural
communication texts (e.g., Beamer & Varner, 2008; Victor, 1992).
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 401
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Hall (1976) provided numerous anecdotes of various cultures but, unlike
Hofstede (1980), never mentioned his method for developing his model.
Hall provided in one paragraph his rankings of cultures from LC to HC, but
he did not describe how he conceptualized or measured these rankings.
Although he provided few indications about how he collected data, several
of his comments suggest that he did so primarily through qualitative inter-
views and observation. He did not mention using methods for qualitative
data collection that would be considered rigorous by today’s standards,
such as identifying alternative explanations (identifying best fit), negative
case analysis, triangulation, review by inquiry participants, expert audit
review, theory triangulation, sampling techniques, bias acknowledgment and
credibility of researcher (researcher as instrument), coding schemes, analysis
framework, or audit trail (Patton, 2002).
In qualitative research in which the researcher is the instrument, a
description of motivations and biases is particularly important. In his latter
works (Hall & Hall, 1987, 1990), Hall frequently described his intentions
of helping individuals improve their intercultural relationships. In particu-
lar, he emphasized his desire to help American executives understand the
often confusing behavior of executives from other cultures. In early works
in which he developed contexting theory, however, Hall did not indicate
motivations or biases. But close examination of Beyond Culture indicates
that Hall (1976) generally characterized HC cultures in more favorable
terms than he did LC cultures. Throughout his work, he strongly criticized
LC U.S. institutional behavior in government, businesses, courts, and
schools, which each represents the interests of the powerful at the expense
of common people. He criticized many of the American tendencies directly
tied to LC culture, including engaging only in linear thinking, looking at
ideas not events, not taking the time to get to know people, ignoring impor-
tant parts of context such as relationships, producing bad art, creating
bureaucracy, relying on modern management methods, depending on man-
agement consultants, using government funds inefficiently and unfairly,
conducting inaccurate research in social and biological sciences, manipu-
lating the legal systems to benefit the powerful, having less personal work
relations, behaving with ethnocentrism, and scapegoating to protect the
powerful. For example, Hall expressed his disappointment with American
LC behavior in the following statement: “Given our linear, step-by-step,
compartmentalized way of thinking, fostered by the schools and public
media, it is impossible for our leaders to consider events comprehensively
or with priorities according to a system of common good” (p. 9). Conversely,
he frequently mentioned the positive aspects of HC cultures in terms of
402 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
maintaining effective relationships and examining issues from a holistic
perspective.
In later research, Hall and Hall (1987, 1990) examined contexting in
intercultural business situations in several cultures. In 1987, Hall and Hall
described Japanese business culture and conducted 165 open-ended inter-
views with American and Japanese professionals. Then in 1990, Hall and
Hall conducted 180 interviews in the United States, Germany, and France.
Other than describing the number of interviews, however, they provided no
information about methodology or analysis, and they interpreted many
aspects of contexting within these cultures with little variation from prior
works.
Few subsequent studies have attempted to develop measures of contexting
so that variation between cultures could be identified clearly. Gudykunst, one
of the most renowned researchers in the intercultural field, has conducted
several studies about contexting (see, e.g., Gudykunst et al., 1996; Gudykunst
& Nishida, 1986). In their 1996 study, Gudykunst et al. developed an instru-
ment to measure the level of contexting based on the following theoretical
dimensions that contrast a theoretical LC characteristic with a theoretical
HC characteristic: giving precise versus ambiguous information, revealing
true intentions versus maintaining harmony, being dramatic versus being
reserved, being precise versus using understatements, and disclosing person-
based versus group-based information. They surveyed university students in
the United States, Australia, Japan, and Korea. Ultimately, 80 of the commu-
nication style survey items loaded onto eight factors:
1. inference: having the ability to infer others’ intentions, needs, and feelings
2. indirectness: having the tendency to communicate implicitly
3. sensitivity: showing respect to others, being tactful, not offending others,
using qualifying words, adjusting to others’ feelings, and listening carefully
4. dramatics: telling exaggerated stories, using picturesque speech, using col-
orful words, telling jokes, and nonverbal expressiveness
5. feelings: being aware of emotional responses toward others and using these
responses as guides to behavior
6. openness: disclosing personal information
7. precision: using precision in messages
8. silence: valuing periods of silence during communication
Gudykunst et al. (1996) hypothesized that cultural individualism and
collectivism would relate to the eight LC and HC communication dimen-
sions. Their eight hypotheses are depicted in Table 1. The table also includes
whether these hypotheses were supported and the effect sizes (d) for
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 403
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
404
Table 1
Results of Gudykunst et al.’s 1996 Contexting Study
United States Australia Japan Korea
(n =283) (n =110) (n =192) (n =168)
Hypothesis
Contexting Hypotheses MSDMSDMSDMSDSupported Fd
H1. Members of LC cultures are more likely to have
an ability to infer indirect messages of others. 4.89 0.74 4.77 0.75 4.51 1.03 4.67 0.85 Yes 8.30* .21
H2. Members of HC cultures are more likely to be
sensitive to others’ feelings. 5.04 0.66 5.00 0.83 5.09 0.68 4.93 0.62 No 6.00
H3. Members of HC cultures are more likely to use
indirect communication. 3.41 0.81 3.48 0.84 3.40 0.79 3.65 0.82 No
H4. Members of LC cultures are more likely to
display dramatic communication. 4.36 0.87 4.14 0.99 4.07 0.93 3.97 0.84 Yes 7.47* .20
H5. Members of LC cultures are more likely to be
aware of their own feelings toward others. 4.87 0.96 4.83 0.82 5.04 0.80 4.82 0.84 No 2.46
H6. Members of LC cultures are more open to
disclosing personal information. 4.29 1.00 3.95 1.02 4.02 1.13 3.68 0.89 Yes 12.66* .26
H7. Members of LC cultures are more likely to use
precise communication. 4.61 0.77 4.36 0.74 4.44 0.83 4.49 0.76 No 2.76
H8. Members of HC cultures are more likely to
value silence. 3.63 0.84 3.78 0.92 3.04 0.89 3.18 0.77 No 29.19* .39
Note: H=hypothesis; LC =low context; HC =high context.
*Significant main effects
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
significant relationships. Effect sizes have been calculated based on formu-
las described by Rosnow and Rosenthal (1996, 2000). Assuming that the
United States and Australia were LC cultures and Japan and Korea were HC
cultures based on Hall’s (1976) descriptions, they anticipated seeing signifi-
cant differences between the two culture types. But only three of the eight
hypotheses (H1,H4, and H6) were supported. Four hypotheses were insignif-
icant (H2,H3,H5, and H7). The remaining hypothesis (H8) was significant,
but it was not supported. Based on effect sizes of .2 considered to be small,
.5 considered medium, and .8 and greater considered large (Cohen, 1992),
the three hypotheses that were supported had small effect sizes (ranging from
.20 to .26). The significant hypothesis that was not supported, however, was
the only one that approached having a medium effect size (.39).
Gudykunst et al. (1996) concluded that on a cultural level, the results sup-
porting contexting were weak. But self-construals were significant predictors
of all of these hypotheses. In other words, contexting was better explained
on an individual rather than a cultural level. They concluded that their
instrument was a reliable measure of contexting; however, individual-level
variables such as independent and interdependent self-construals are better
predictors of contexting than are cultural-level variables such as individu-
alism and collectivism.
One of the major limitations of Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) work is that it
examined only four cultures. Hofstede (2001) explained that in order to iden-
tify etic (applicable to all cultures) dimensions of cultural variability, data
from a minimum of 10 to 15 societies are necessary. Otherwise, researchers
run the risk of treating cultures as individuals, not as wholes. Hofstede argued
that cultures “are wholes, and their internal logic cannot be understood in
terms used for the personality dynamics of individuals” (p. 17).
Kim, Pan, and Park (1998) were the next known researchers after
Gudykunst et al. (1996) to attempt developing an instrument that measures
contexting. Based on Hall’s (1976) work, they identified five theoretical
categories of contexting: social orientation, responsibility, confrontation,
communication, and dealing with new situations. They developed a 16-item
survey based on various survey instruments and administered this survey to
graduate management students from three cultures: American (n=96),
Chinese (n=96), and Korean (n=50). Kim et al. assumed that the Americans
would exhibit LC tendencies and that the Koreans and Chinese would exhibit
HC tendencies. The majority of survey items (10 items in the social orienta-
tion, responsibility, and confrontation categories) primarily addressed issues
associated with individualism and collectivism, and the results on these items
for the Chinese and Korean students were significantly more collectivist
compared to those for the American students. Although Hall (1976) indirectly
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 405
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
identified issues related to individualism as LC and collectivism as HC, this
identification made up only a small portion of his line of reasoning. Thus, the
survey items captured a limited portion of Hall’s contexting model.
Although Hall (1976) developed contexting primarily as a communication
model, Kim et al. (1998) devoted only two survey items to communication
preferences, and the results for these items do not support traditional assump-
tions about contexting. The first item states, “A person’s word is his bond and
you need not spell out the details to make him behave as he or she promised.”
The traditional assumption is that members of HC cultures would agree with
this statement much more often than would those from LC cultures. Yet, in
this study, the Americans agreed with this statement significantly more
often than did the Koreans. Although the Chinese agreed with this statement
more often than the Americans did, the result is not significant. The second
item states, “A person cannot think unless he/she can put it into words.”
Based on the assumption that members of LC cultures focus more on articu-
lation of thoughts and ideas, members of LC cultures should agree with this
statement whereas members of HC cultures should disagree with this state-
ment. Contrary to that assumption, all three groups disagreed with the state-
ment. The Americans showed the most disagreement, but the difference was
not significant. Regarding the failure of the communication items to support
their contexting hypotheses about communication, the authors reasoned that
because the “Chinese and Korean samples were active managers for whom
there is frequent communication with foreign parties and...the busi-
ness communication environment today mainly follows the Western norms[,
they] may have [been] normatively conditioned...to become quite
Westernized” (p. 519). The researchers considered their study to be a good
initial effort in developing a measure of contexting but concluded that
“given the wide scope of the high-versus low-context culture concept, and its
complexity in establishing a workable scale, it seems that much more
research is needed before one can measure the concept in an accurate and
comprehensive way” (p. 520).
Ohashi (2000) was the next researcher to develop a measure of con-
texting. She criticized Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) measure for deviating from
Hall’s (1976) original model of contexting. Ohashi stated that whereas
Hall’s model assumes that HC and LC communication are two ends of a
unidimensional construct, Gudykunst et al.’s measure assumes HC and LC
communication are separate dimensions. In contrast, Ohashi based her 20
questionnaire items on social norms in a society. Thus, the wording of each
item is similar to the following:
406 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
I believe that in the United States/Japan it is generally considered that a listener
should be able to understand what a speaker is trying to say even if the speaker
does not say anything that he or she intends to communicate. (p. 77)
After surveying 230 American college students and 223 Japanese students,
Ohashi applied confirmatory factor analysis and retained 7 of the original 20
items. The 7 items focus on how listeners should be able to infer meaning
when it is not directly stated and the intent of the speaker. Also, several items
address emphasis on politeness versus clarity and form versus content.
Ohashi concluded that “the present study also showed that the social norm of
high-context communication is still very much alive in Japan” (p. 68) and that
“the results confirm that the Japanese participants in this study are a more
high-context communication culture than the U.S. American participants”
(p. 50). But these statements may be overly enthusiastic because the mean
score on the 7-point Likert scale for the Japanese students was 4.89 compared
to 4.30 for the American students. These scores place both the Japanese and
the American students near the midpoint of the scale, thus showing slight
agreement for the HC items for both groups. Assuming that Japanese and
Americans represent opposite ends of a scale on contexting, as Ohashi
claimed, we would expect Americans to show strong disagreement and
Japanese to show strong agreement for the questionnaire items.
Richardson and Smith (2007) are the most recent researchers known to
have developed a measure of contexting. They used a 17-item modified
version of Ohashi’s (2000) measure, retaining 14 of these items after con-
firmatory factor analysis. They hypothesized that Japanese would score
higher on a HC–LC scale than would Americans. They also hypothesized
that members of HC cultures would prefer more media-rich channels of
communication, such as face-to-face or telephone conversations whereas
LC cultures would prefer less rich channels of communication, such as
e-mails or letters. But the results of their survey of 75 American university
students and 79 Japanese university students showed only a small signifi-
cant difference between the two groups on the 5-point Likert HC–LC scale
(Japanese: M=3.00, SD =0.39; American: M=2.84, SD =0.52). Thus,
Richardson and Smith concluded that
the small effect size implies that claiming the US as an LC culture and Japan
as an HC culture may be an overstatement, especially with the fact that
the mean score for [the] Japanese sample was at the midpoint of the scale.
(pp. 490-491)
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 407
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Furthermore, HC–LC scores from their survey did not confirm their media-
richness hypothesis.
Only a few known studies about contexting have satisfied Hofstede’s
(2001) standard that data from 10 to 15 countries or cultures are necessary
to develop etic dimensions. These include Shao, Bao, and Gray’s (2004)
study of comparative advertising and Koeszegi, Vetschera, and Kersten’s
(2004) research about negotiation. Also, Trompenaars (1994) developed a
set of cultural dimensions with a large number of country samples. He
stated that one of his cultural dimensions is analogous to contexting.
Shao et al. (2004) examined the perceived effectiveness of comparative
versus noncomparative advertising in terms of attitude toward the ad and per-
suasion effect. They hypothesized that LC cultures would be persuaded by
and hold more positive attitudes toward direct comparative ads whereas HC
cultures would be persuaded by and hold more positive attitudes toward indi-
rect comparative ads. The researchers sampled 196 individuals from 36 coun-
tries, classifying these individuals as LC or HC depending on their country of
origin. They concluded that individuals from LC cultures thought more direct
ads had a greater persuasion effect than did those from HC cultures but that
the LC and HC cultures did not differ in attitudes toward the ads. Their study
was exceptional in terms of the number of countries sampled; however, Shao
et al. did not reveal which countries they sampled or how they grouped them
as LC or HC cultures. They simply mentioned that they included an average
of 5 individuals per country. Such a small sample per country clearly limits
the generalizability of their findings.
Koeszegi et al. (2004) examined the contexting model in regard to a nego-
tiation support system (NSS). Their sample comprised 1,102 negotiations of
2,204 master of business administration (MBA) students from 11 national
cultures: Austria, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Ecuador, Finland, Hong
Kong, India, Russia, Taiwan, and the United States. They grouped the coun-
tries into LC (Austria, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Finland) and HC cul-
tures (Ecuador, Hong Kong, India, Russia, Taiwan). The negotiations, which
took place from 1996 through 2000, were training exercises that employed
the Inspire NSS. Koeszegi et al. addressed these research questions: (1) Do
LC cultural members evaluate analytical support better? Is this analytical
support more compatible with their thought patterns? (2) Do HC cultural
members add additional contextual information? Do they exchange more
messages? They concluded that the behaviors and attitudes of the NSS users
did generally support the contexting model. HC cultural members (from
Ecuador, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) sent significantly more written messages
during the negotiation exercises. The researchers reasoned that because
408 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
members of HC cultures need greater social and physical context, and
because the students conducted the exercises online, the students from HC
cultures required additional context through written messages. The students
from LC cultures, on the other hand, were content simply to exchange offers.
In other words, their communications were considered almost exclusively
task oriented. Also, Koeszegi et al. concluded that the LC users’ more posi-
tive evaluation of the NSS as an analytic tool indicated that linear logic was
more compatible with LC cultures than with HC cultures. The researchers did
not, however, measure contexting. Furthermore, a close look at country-level
scores raises questions about their fit with Hall’s contexting continuum,
which the authors so frequently cited. Table 2 lists these countries and the
average number of times their respective members used the written commu-
nication tool. Users from Finland, considered an LC culture, were among
the most likely to use written messages (hypothesized as HC behavior).
On the other hand, users from India and Russia, considered HC cultures, were
the least likely to use written messages (hypothesized as LC behavior).
Trompenaars (1994), in his survey of managers in 43 countries, identified
six cultural dimensions. He considered the dimension he labeled specificity–
diffuseness as being analogous to Hall’s contexting model because cultures
that emphasize specificity (LC) are “direct, to the point, purposeful in
relating, precise, blunt, definitive, and transparent” whereas cultures that
emphasize diffuseness (HC) are “indirect, circuitous, seemingly aimless
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 409
Table 2
Use of Negotiation Support System (NSS) Communication
Tool to Establish Social Context
User Country Average Number of NSS Uses
Ecuador (HC) 11.16
Taiwan (HC) 9.26
Finland (LC) 9.24
Hong Kong (HC) 8.99
Switzerland (LC) 8.23
Canada (LC) 8.14
Austria (LC) 7.64
United States (LC) 7.43
Germany (LC) 7.01
India (HC) 6.84
Russia (HC) 6.70
Note: HC =high context; LC =low context.
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
forms of relating, evasive, tactful, ambiguous, even opaque” (p. 98). Similar
to Victor (1992), Trompenaars identified a close relationship between dif-
fuse (HC) cultures and the importance of face. In diffuse cultures, ideas and
people are inseparable. Thus, using indirect and ambiguous speech helps
people in these cultures to maintain harmony and avoid losing face. Thus,
in diffuse cultures, avoiding criticism is important, and people’s work and
personal lives are enmeshed.
Trompenaars’s (1994) rankings, however, contradict many of Hall’s rank-
ings. For example, Trompenaars ranked the only Arab country in his list
(United Arab Emirates) as being LC. He likewise ranked Japan as being LC.
He ranked the United Kingdom as being more LC than Germany or the
United States. His ranking of Chinese cultures is particularly problematic
because he ranked mainland China as HC but placed Singapore and Hong
Kong in the middle of the rankings. His ranking of Latin Americans also con-
tradicts Hall’s ranking because he classified the two Latin American countries
(Mexico and Uruguay) as moderately to extremely LC, respectively.
In summary, then, I found that Hall (1976) provided no explanation of
the method or analysis he used in creating his contexting model. He also
provided no explanation for his ranking of various cultures along the con-
texting continuum, which has become a prominent part of nearly all inter-
cultural texts and courses. Subsequently, several sets of researchers have
developed instruments for measuring contexting. Of these, Gudykunst et al.
(1996) concluded that contexting was better predicted by self-construal
than culture; however, they tested their instrument with just four cultures.
Kim et al. (1998) concluded that their instrument was a good initial effort
at understanding contexting, but it could not comprehensively measure con-
texting. Furthermore, their study was limited to just three cultures and pro-
duced unexpected results about communication preferences. Ohashi (2000)
and Richardson and Smith (2007) also developed measures of contexting.
Their studies were limited in that each only examined two cultures
(Japanese and American), and both showed only a slight difference between
what is considered a prototypical HC culture (Japanese) and a prototypical
LC culture (American). No known studies have subsequently used the
instruments developed by any of these researchers. Only a few researchers
have empirically tested propositions of contexting in more than 10 to 15
cultures, the minimum number of cultures necessary to develop etic cultural
dimensions, according to Hofstede (2001). Their studies, however, have
done little to validate Hall’s contexting model. In fact, they have demon-
strated major divergence from Hall’s contexting continuum (Koeszegi et al.,
2004; Trompenaars, 1994). With such little empirical validation in the
410 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
literature outside of business and technical communication, the study I pre-
sent here is needed to identify the degree to which contexting is embedded
in IBTC literature and the degree to which the contexting model has been
developed and tested in IBTC literature.
Method
To examine (a) the extent to which contexting is embedded in IBTC
research and (b) the extent to which contexting theory has been developed
and validated in IBTC research, I address the following research questions:
1. How widely is contexting theory used compared to other etic theories of
cross-cultural variation in IBTC literature?
2. Which non-IBTC texts are cited most frequently in IBTC literature?
3. Which cultural regions are most often explained by contexting in IBTC
literature?
4. What business and technical communication articles have been cited most
frequently in the IBTC literature? What emphasis is placed on contexting in
these works?
5. What intercultural textbooks have been cited most frequently in IBTC
literature? What emphasis is placed on contexting in these textbooks?
6. What instruments or measures of contexting have been used in IBTC
literature?
7. To what degree have contexting propositions been empirically validated in
IBTC literature?
8. To what extent are empirically based studies of contexting cited in IBTC
literature?
9. What limitations of contexting theory have been raised in IBTC literature?
The nature of these research questions lends itself to the meta-analytic
perspective that treats studies as units of analysis. With this method,
researchers can find answers to their research questions by integrating the
findings of many studies. This method involves identifying which studies to
include in the research, developing a scheme for coding these studies, and
then conducting an analysis of the coded data (Cook et al., 1992; Glass,
1976). Although many meta-analyses employ sophisticated statistics, in
this analysis I primarily rely on descriptive statistics for several reasons.
First, the studies I examine do not match the conditions necessary for meta-
analyses that employ sophisticated statistics. That is, these studies are not
all carefully controlled experiments in which measurements are precise,
and they do not all use equivalent or comparable measures or instruments
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 411
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(Pettit, 1994). As I discussed in the literature review and will show in the
findings section, prior studies of contexting have not employed any stan-
dard measures of contexting that have been used in more than one study,
and none has examined more than four cultures. Thus, these studies’ mea-
surements cannot be considered precise, and comparability across studies is
difficult. Second, many of the research questions are best answered with
descriptive statistics. For example, many questions deal with the degree to
which contexting theory is embedded in IBTC literature. These questions
are best answered with counts and percentages.
I selected 224 articles from the IBTC literature published from 1990
through 2006. I chose articles published since 1990 for several reasons.
First, experts consider that the present stage of globalization began around
this time because countries (e.g., China, India, Russia) representing a large
proportion of the world’s economy became increasingly integrated into the
global economy. Second, intercultural communication became a prominent
focus in business and technical communication during this period, largely
due to seminal works describing the need for additional research in this area
(e.g., Beamer, 1992; Limaye & Victor, 1991; Victor, 1992).
I selected articles from seven business and technical communication jour-
nals: Journal of Business and Technical Communication (32 articles),
Journal of Business Communication (40 articles), Business Communication
Quarterly (79 articles), Management Communication Quarterly (14 articles),
Technical Communication Quarterly (17 articles), Technical Communication
(27 articles), and Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (15 arti-
cles). I selected these articles because their authors identified them as cross-
cultural comparisons or as culture-specific studies.
I coded the articles for the following: contexting characteristics, etic the-
ories (culture-general theories of variation), references to other business
and technical communication literature, references to other works about
contexting, references to works of major etic cross-cultural theorists and
researchers, references to other business and technical communication arti-
cles, countries or cultures examined, and whether the article was based on
empirical research. I then entered each coded item into a database in order
to be able to quantitatively describe the results in a manner consistent with
meta-analysis procedures (Light & Pillemer, 1982). My most complex cod-
ing task was to identify contexting characteristics. I developed and refined
these categories during several iterations of examining the selected articles,
and I was heavily influenced by existing works that include summaries of
contexting propositions (Beamer & Varner, 2008; Victor, 1992).
412 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
I was able to answer nearly all of my research questions by analyzing the
IBTC research literature. The second part of one research question (R5),
however, involves an analysis of the most frequently cited intercultural text-
books. It addresses the degree to which contexting is embedded in com-
monly used intercultural textbooks. Analyzing textbooks is useful because
ideally they represent a synthesis of the finest research, and they identify
how knowledge is being transmitted (DeVoss, Jasken, & Hayden, 2002).
Findings
In this section, I present the findings of my meta-analysis of the IBTC
literature as they pertain to each of my research questions.
R1. How widely is contexting theory used compared to other etic
theories of cross-cultural variation in IBTC literature? Contexting is the
most frequently used theory in the IBTC literature during the period of
1990 through 2006, with 49 articles referencing it (see Table 3). The next most
important theories cited were Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions of
individualism–collectivism (41 articles) and power distance (24 articles). The
only other theory that was referenced more than 10 times was politeness–
facework (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).
Contexting was cited in just 5 articles from 1990-1995, which amounted to
11% of the IBTC articles during that period. Its importance grew during
the 1996-2000 and 2001-2006 periods, with references in 26 articles and
18 articles, respectively, accounting for 28% and 21% of all the IBTC articles
during those periods.
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 413
Table 3
Primary Theories or Dimensions to Explain
Cross-Cultural Communication
1990-1995 1996-2000 2001-2006 Total
(n =44) (n =93) (n =87) (N=224)
Theory n%n%n%n%
Contexting 5 11.36 26 27.96 18 20.69 49 21.88
Individualism–collectivism 4 9.09 21 22.58 16 18.39 41 18.30
Power distance 3 6.82 12 12.90 9 10.34 24 10.71
Politeness–facework 1 2.27 15 16.13 8 9.20 24 10.71
Uncertainty avoidance 2 4.55 9 9.68 4 4.60 15 6.70
Masculinity 1 2.27 9 9.68 3 3.45 13 5.80
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
R2. Which non-IBTC research works are cited most frequently in IBTC
literature? The most frequently cited non-IBTC texts are Hofstede’s (1980,
2001) two editions of Culture’s Consequences (45 citations) in which he
described his research about cultural dimensions (see Table 4). Hofstede’s
(1991) Cultures and Organizations, a practitioner’s guide to his cultural
dimensions, is the third most cited text (30 citations). Hall’s (1976) Beyond
Culture is the second most cited text (34 citations). When totaling all of
Hall’s work (Hall, 1959, 1976, 1983; Hall & Hall, 1987, 1990), he is cited
75 times, equal to that of Hofstede (1980, 1991, 2001).
R3. Which cultural regions are most often explained by contexting in
IBTC literature? Anglo and Chinese cultures are by far the most frequently
described cultures in terms of contexting (see Table 5). Anglo cultures are
framed in terms of contexting in 20 articles, and Chinese cultures are framed
in terms of contexting in 18 articles. But Chinese cultures are the most
likely to be described in terms of contexting, with nearly half (42%) of the
articles describing Chinese culture doing so. With the exception of the
western European region (7 articles), no other cultural region was framed
in terms of contexting in more than 5 articles.
R4. What business and technical communication articles have been
cited most frequently in the IBTC literature? What emphasis is placed on
414 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Table 4
Most Cited Non–Intercultural Business and Technical
Communication (ITBC) Research Works in the ITBC Literature
Research Work Times Cited
Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede 1980, 2001) 45
Beyond Culture (Hall, 1976) 34
Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Hofstede, 1991) 30
Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global 18
Business (Trompenaars, 1994)
Silent Language and “Silent Language in Overseas Business” (Hall, 17
1959; Hall, 1960)
Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese (Hall & Hall, 11
1987) or Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French,
and Americans (Hall & Hall, 1990)
Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Brown & Levinson, 1987) 9
Dance of Life (Hall, 1983) 9
The Hidden Dimension (Hall, 1976) 4
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
contexting in these articles? Four of the five most cited business and tech-
nical communication articles concern conducting effective research about
intercultural business or technical communication. All five of the articles
cite Hall, and only one of the articles (Beamer, 1992) does not include a
description of contexting (see Table 6).
R5. What intercultural textbooks have been cited most frequently in
IBTC literature? What emphasis is placed on contexting in these textbooks?
Table 7 lists the most cited intercultural communication textbooks in ITBC
literature. The three most cited textbooks are each specific to the business
or technical communication fields: Victor’s (1992) International Business
Communication, Varner and Beamer’s (1995; Beamer & Varner, 2008)
Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace, and Hoft’s (1995)
International Technical Communication. Each of these textbooks exten-
sively uses contexting as an explanatory framework for cross-cultural vari-
ation. For example, Victor (1992) devoted an entire chapter to contexting in
his seminal work on international business communication. Based on pages
listed in the index, he referred to contexting on 36 pages whereas he
referred to individualism–collectivism on 22 pages and power distance on
5 pages. In the latest edition of their book, Beamer and Varner (2008) also
discussed contexting extensively. Based on pages listed in the index, they
referred to contexting on 36 pages compared to the 34 pages on which
they referred to individualism–collectivism and the 13 pages on which they
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 415
Table 5
Cultural Regions Explained by Contexting in Intercultural
Business and Technical Communication Literature
Contexting % of Articles
No. of Used as Citing
Region Articles Explanation Contexting
Anglo (United States, United Kingdom, 70 20 29
Australia, New Zealand, Canada)
Greater China (China, Taiwan, Hong Kong) 43 18 42
Western Europe (not including United Kingdom) 39 7 18
Korea and Japan 18 4 22
Latin America 16 5 31
Southeast Asia 11 3 27
Russia and Eastern Europe 10 2 20
Arab countries 5 2 40
South Asia 4 1 25
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
referred to power distance. Hoft (1995) explained that for individuals to
operate effectively across cultures, they should use models of culture. She
provided four models of culture to choose from: Hall’s (1976),Victor’s (1992),
Hofstede’s (1980, 2001), and Trompenaars’s (1994). Contexting constitutes
a large portion of these models because it is a central component of Hall’s,
Victor’s, and Trompenaars’s (specific versus diffuse) models.
416 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Table 6
Most Cited Business and Technical Communication Articles in
Intercultural Business and Technical Communication, 1990-2006
Article Times Cited Contexting Hall Cited
“Learning Intercultural Communication 15 No Yes
Competence” (Beamer, 1992)
“Approaches to Managerial Influence in 12 Yes Yes
the People’s Republic of China”
(Krone, Chen, & Xia, 1997)
“Cross-Cultural Business Communication 10 Yes Yes
Research: State of the Art and
Hypotheses for the 1990s”
(Limaye & Victor, 1991)
“‘The Gods Must Be Crazy’: The Challenge 10 Yes Yes
of the Intercultural” (T. Weiss, 1993)
“Technical Communication Across Cultures: 9 Yes Yes
Five Philosophical Questions”
(E. H. Weiss, 1998)
Table 7
Most Cited Intercultural Communication Textbooks in Intercultural
Business and Technical Communication Literature
Textbook Times Cited
International Business Communication (Victor, 1992) 27
Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace (Varner & Beamer, 21
1995; Beamer & Varner 2008)
International Technical Communication: How to Export Information About 16
High Technology (Hoft, 1995)
Intercultural Communication (Scollon & Scollon, 1995) 11
Communication Between Cultures (Samovar & Porter, 2004; Samovar, 11
Porter, & Jain, 1981)
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
R6. What instruments or measures of contexting have been used in IBTC
literature? Only one study in the 49 articles that used contexting to explain
cross-cultural variation attempted to comprehensively measure various
dimensions of contexting. Thomas (1998) compared business letters of
American and Korean MBA students. Assuming that Koreans were HC and
that Americans were LC, she tested the following seven sets of language
characteristics that have traditionally been tied to the contexting theory. First,
she examined the level of specific versus general information. Second, she
examined the amount of contextual information. Third, she examined polite-
ness strategies in terms of modal auxiliaries, passive constructions, and face-
saving phrases. Fourth, she examined the level of accountability based on use
of personal pronouns. Fifth, she examined the directness of the organization:
direct (recommendation in the first sentence), modified direct (recommen-
dation in the first paragraph), and indirect (recommendation later in the
message). Sixth, she examined implicit versus explicit messages in bad-news
situations. And seventh, she examined linear versus recursive reasoning. To
her surprise, she found that none of her hypotheses about contexting differences
were confirmed. Generally, both Americans and Koreans wrote similarly and
were fairly direct, linear, and detailed. Thomas stated that this research
“strongly suggest[s] that our interpretations of the high/low context model in
terms of text are in error” (p. 20). Furthermore, she stated that “the notion of
high- and low-context cultures is useful at a macro level, but it becomes prob-
lematic when applied to text” and that all her “interviews with the South
Korean students reveal a pragmatic, common-sense approach to doing business
with a strong focus on the bottom line” (p. 21).
R7. To what degree have contexting propositions been empirically vali-
dated in IBTC literature? Throughout the IBTC literature, many propositions
are made about characteristics associated with HC and LC cultures. Table 8
contains a summary of the general categories of contexting described in
IBTC literature and contrasts the characteristics of HC and LC cultures.
Table 9 contains a summary of the empirical studies in IBTC literature related
to the various contexting categories. By far, the categories of directness and
management of information are the most described categories related to con-
texting. But few articles that use contexting as part of their explanatory
frameworks are empirical. Directness has been the most addressed contexting
category; however, it is also the least empirically supported category, with
one study supporting it, two studies with ambiguous or mixed results, and
five studies not supporting it. The most supported category is communication
channel, with four studies supporting it, one study with mixed results, and no
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 417
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
418 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Table 8
Contexting Categories and Related Cultural Characteristics in
Intercultural Business and Technical Communication Literature
High-Context Characteristic Low-Context Characteristic
Contexting category
Directness of communication
Primary message is implicitly coded. Primary message is explicitly coded.
Primary message is stated at the end of a Primary message is stated at the beginning
communication. of a communication.
Open conflict is avoided. Issues are openly confronted.
Politeness is emphasized. Politeness is not emphasized.
Management of information
Information is widely shared. Information is not widely shared.
Informal communication networks Formal communication networks transmit
transmit most important information. most important information.
Ambiguous information is preferred. Precise, detailed information is preferred.
Slow messages are appreciated. Fast messages are appreciated.
Close attention is paid to social cues and Less attention is paid to social cues and
context. context.
Physical cues are important. Physical cues are unimportant.
Values and beliefs about work and relationships
Relationships take precedence over Problems or tasks take precedence over
problems or tasks. relationships.
Emphasis is on maintaining stability. Emphasis is on change and mobility.
Goals are long-term. Goals are short-term.
Communication channel
Oral communication is preferred. Written communication is preferred.
More text is required in written Less text is required in written communication
communication to create context. because context is unimportant.
Literalness and symbolism
Artful language (proverbs, poems, Task-related language is preferred.
sophistication, historical references)
is preferred.
Words are not trusted. Words are trusted.
The meaning of words varies greatly. The meaning of words does not vary greatly.
Persuasion and logic
Reasoning is holistic. Reasoning is linear.
General principles are appealing. Specific points are appealing.
Truth is relative. Truth is absolute.
Contracts and rules
Contracts are interpreted flexibly. Contracts are interpreted rigidly.
Oral agreements are binding. Written agreements are binding.
Adherence to rules and laws is weak. Adherence to rules and laws is strong.
Expressiveness and display of emotion
Communication contains little Communication contains high self-disclosure.
self-disclosure.
Little emotion is displayed. Much emotion is displayed.
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
419
Table 9
Empirical Studies in Intercultural Business and Technical Communication
Literature Related to Various Contexting Categories
No. of Articles/ Empirical Articles Empirical Articles Empirical Articles
No. of Empirical That Support With Mixed Results That Do Not
Contexting Category Articles Contexting Regarding Contexting Support Contexting
Directness 32/8 1 (Thatcher, 1999) 2 (Alred, 1997; 5 (Beamer, 2003; Bell, Dillon, & Becker,
Stevens, 2000) 1995; Conaway & Wardrope, 2004;
Connor, Davis, De Rycker, Phillips, &
Verckens, 1997; Thomas, 1998)
Management of 32/3 2 (Ding, 2004; 1 (Thomas, 1998)
information Wang, 2000)
Values and beliefs about 20/0
work and relationships
Communication channel 19/5 4 (Kohl, Barclay, Pinelli, 1 (Stevens, 2000)
Keene, & Kennedy,
1993; Sun, 2006;
Thatcher, 1999, 2006)
Literalness and symbolism 16/0
Persuasion and logic 14/5 2 (Ding, 2004; 1 (Alred, 1997) 2 (Bell, Dillon, & Becker, 1995;
Du-Babcock, 1999) Thomas, 1998)
Contracts and rules 4/1 1 (Hagen, 1998)
Expressiveness and 2/0
display of emotion
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
studies not supporting it. The categories of management of information,
persuasion and logic, and contracts and rules each has five or fewer empirical
studies that have addressed them, and a great deal of uncertainty still exists
about how well supported these propositions are. The categories of values
and beliefs about work and relationships, literalness and symbolism, and
expressiveness and display of emotions have not been studied empirically in
any of the IBTC articles. That is particularly surprising for values and beliefs
about work and relationships because the proposition that HC cultures value
relationships whereas LC cultures value achievement and tasks was described
in the literature reviews or theoretical frameworks of 20 of the articles. It is
also surprising that the literalness and symbolism category has not been
empirically researched in any of the contexting articles because Hall (1976)
referred to this contexting category repeatedly.
R8. To what extent are empirically based studies of contexting cited in
IBTC literature? Thomas (1998) is the only researcher in the IBTC literature
who attempted to comprehensively measure contexting. She found that none
of her hypotheses about contexting was supported and that the model should
be seriously questioned. But her study has been cited in only one IBTC article
since, and that article failed to mention that Thomas rejected the contexting
model (Houston, 2002). The studies of Gudykunst et al. (1996) and Kim et al.
(1998), the only other known works to have attempted to comprehensively
measure contexting, were not cited in any of the IBTC articles.
Ironically, one of the most frequently cited empirical studies of contexting
in the IBTC literature is Campbell’s (1998). Examining the HC features of
a letter written by a Chinese scientist, Campbell pointed out some of the
commonly described HC features of the letter from his own point of view.
Interestingly, he described showing the letter to Japanese colleagues, who
are members of a culture that is assumed to be HC, and they criticized the
letter for lacking sufficient directness and purpose and for providing unnec-
essary information. Thus, many IBTC articles cite this study for supporting
contexting when in fact the only viewpoints of assumed HC cultural
members provided by the study seem to contradict traditional contexting
propositions.
R9. What limitations of contexting theory have been raised in IBTC
literature? No article in the IBTC literature was found that directly critiqued
or challenged Hall’s (1976) methodology for developing the contexting
model or the contexting continuum although Victor’s (1994) article implied
that the contexting model is nonempirical:
420 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
While Hall’s works laid the foundation for the field, they are non-empirical
and limited to a handful of cultures. Even some of these cultures (for example,
Arabic and Scandinavian) are too cross-culturally heterogeneous within the
culture to be accurate. Additionally, researchers need to examine Chinese,
Mexican, Brazilian, Hindu, and other key cultures Hall overlooks. (p. 42)
Several IBTC authors, however, have questioned portions of the contexting
model or its relevance with short statements. For example, Beamer (2003)
stated the following concerning her research about Chinese letters: “Hall’s
high-context and low-context construct of communication suggested that
Chinese prefer indirectness, but that is not the case in these business letters,
not even in the majority of requests” (p. 233). And Zaidman (2001) made
the following statement:
[Contexting] does not explain variations within a culture or variations among
cultures that share a broad value. For example, a schema such as HC-LC does
not distinguish between the HC communication of a Japanese businessperson
and the HC communication of an Indian. Moreover, it is unable to account
for the communication of an Indian manager who has been extensively
exposed to an LC system of communication. Thus, the limitations of the
global-culture approach are that complexity and variation in communication
patterns are often ignored and the approach is insensitive to adaptation of
communication strategies. (p. 410)
But critique of Hall’s model is rare. The few statements that challenge con-
texting are short one- or two-sentence statements.
One major limitation of contexting theory that is not expressed explicitly
by any IBTC authors but that pervades the literature is that modernization and
globalization increasingly create a LC business culture (Hofstede, 2001).
Thus, the relevance of the model is challenged because most trends seem-
ingly point toward the adoption of LC communication practices in so-called
HC cultures. Several articles in the IBTC literature illustrate this trend toward
the adoption of LC communication practices around the world by focusing
on direct, precise, persuasive, and articulate management and interpersonal
communication styles (Goby, 1999a, 1999b); written documentation, such as
ISO certifications (Thatcher, 2006); the increased legalistic approach to lia-
bility and the enforcement of consumer regulations (Lipus, 2006); the adop-
tion of business communication textbooks that emphasize benefits of LC
communication (Tebeaux, 1999); and the increasing use of technology that
relies less on contextual cues (St. Amant, 2002; Starke-Meyerring, 2005).
With English increasingly adopted as the global business language, LC
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 421
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
communication can be expected to increase in importance because contexting
is tied to the language used for business (Du-Babcock, 1999). The increased
use of LC communication in a global business environment may be one rea-
son why over half (9 out of 17) of the international business practitioners who
responded to a survey about useful components of an intercultural communi-
cation course considered contexting unimportant. By contrast, educators who
took the same survey overwhelmingly (21 out of 22) considered contexting
an essential or important part of the course (Martin & Chaney, 1992).
Another limitation of contexting theory in the IBTC literature is that
articles that make cultural contrasts between HC and LC cultures do not
mention the HC behavior in cultures traditionally considered LC; thus,
differences between so-called HC and so-called LC cultures are exagger-
ated. For example, HC language devices in American culture, such as the
use of puns, idioms, metaphors, humor, and hyperbole, are often pointed
out in IBTC literature that discusses American culture in isolation but not
in literature that contrasts it with HC cultures. Furthermore, LC cultures are
often advised to avoid using such HC communication patterns by using
simplified language with less nuance and by avoiding using too much humor
when dealing with HC cultures (DeVoss et al., 2002; Griffin, 2004; Horton,
1993; Serebryakova-Collins, 1998; Thrush, 2000). Such treatment of HC
behavior in LC cultures interferes with a balanced discussion of the contrasts
between cultures.
Discussion and Recommendations
Based on this meta-analysis of the IBTC literature, I can reasonably
say contexting is the most important communication theory in IBTC.
Furthermore, its influence has grown since the early 1990s, with nearly one
quarter of all IBTC articles citing it over the past decade. Yet, the theory was
never described by Hall with any empirical rigor, and no known research
involving any instrument or measure of contexting validates it. Furthermore,
studies that seem to have challenged contexting have gone unnoticed in
subsequent research.
Ironically, contexting is most frequently discussed in terms of directness,
yet empirical studies nearly all fail to support this relationship. In other
words, the relationship between directness and contexting based on tradi-
tional classifications of HC and LC cultures is particularly tenuous. Most of
the contexting categories simply have not been researched enough to make
firm conclusions. But the fact that contexting has not been empirically
422 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
validated should not necessarily be construed as a failure of the theory. One
conclusion of this study is that not only have there been a limited number
of empirical studies, but each of the empirical studies has been quite limited
in scope: The studies have not examined the majority of contexting propo-
sitions or a sufficient number of cultures to identify etic variation. The body
of contexting propositions, however, has been developed by IBTC researchers
with diverse cultural backgrounds and substantial intercultural experience;
thus, the propositions deserve serious attention. Nonetheless, the contexting
model simply cannot be described as an empirically validated model.
A clear failure of the IBTC literature regarding contexting is that none of
the research mentions the limitations of the model and nearly all the research
seems to completely accept the model despite the lack of empirical valida-
tion, which has led to generalizations in the IBTC literature that are perhaps
unwarranted. For example, George (2003) interpreted the public relations
breakdown between Americans and Arabs and Muslims in the aftermath of
the Iraq War as a communication issue. George stated that “the message and
language from a low context culture (US) did not resonate with the audience
of a high context culture, such as Arab and Muslim countries” (p. 104).
Such statements demand empirical validation when other substantive issues
could so clearly be more divisive.
Based on the findings of this study, then, IBTC researchers should con-
sider contexting to be a nonrigorously developed model without empirical
support. Thus, researchers who cite contexting or interpret intercultural
communication in terms of contexting should do so cautiously. Certainly,
researchers who describe contexting should also identify the limitations of
this model. Also, given many of the trends toward LC communication in a
global business environment, IBTC researchers may not be best served by
continuing to use contexting as an explanatory mechanism for cultural
differences. But for those who would like to continue research about con-
texting, I provide the following recommendations:
1. Develop measures or instruments for contexting. Because existing research
does not reveal any reliable basis for comparing cultures in terms of contex-
ting, future research must employ rigorously developed measures. Such
measures would allow a basis for effectively contrasting cultures and would
allow for replication and extension studies.
2. Include more countries and cultures in studies of the contexting model. The
value of an etic model is that it provides a comparison across many countries
and cultures, yet the existing contexting model fails to incorporate most
cultures in the world. Those studies that have attempted to measure contexting
have measured only American, Australian, Japanese, and Korean societies,
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 423
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
finding little or no difference between these cultures. For contexting to be a
meaningful theory that explains cross-cultural variation, a minimum of 10 to
15 cultures must be included in a study.
3. Develop categories or dimensions of contexting. A close look at the numerous
contexting propositions indicates that multiple dimensions may be possible.
Thus, classifying cultures simply as HC and LC may be inappropriate. The
process of developing, testing, and refining a measure for contexting could
reveal whether contexting is a multidimensional construct.
4. Focus on the circumstances in which various cultures use both HC and LC
messages. A balanced research approach requires understanding when cul-
tures value HC messages and when they value LC messages. Hall (1976)
pointed out that all cultures use both HC and LC messages.
5. Focus on areas of contexting other than directness. Scant attention has been
paid to contexting areas such as persuasiveness and logic, communication
channel, rules and contracts, management of information, and literalness and
symbolism. Close examination of Hall’s works reveals that these issues are
much more at the heart of his theory than directness.
This study also reveals problems with the dissemination of reliable knowl-
edge in the IBTC field. Despite lacking empirical support, contexting has
become a deeply embedded component of IBTC textbooks and training plat-
forms. Business and technical communication instructors and intercultural
communication trainers should be aware of the limitations of contexting and
avoid overemphasizing its applicability to global business interactions.
In this article, I have critiqued Hall’s development of the contexting model
and described a meta-analysis of IBTC literature since 1990. This meta-
analysis reveals that the contexting model is based on little or no empirical
validation. Future IBTC research, then, should cautiously treat the extensive
set of contexting propositions that have emerged in the IBTC literature.
Furthermore, the role of contexting in IBTC textbooks and courses should be
diminished until reliable research about contexting is available.
References
Alred, G. J. (1997). Teaching in Germany and the rhetoric of culture. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication,11, 353-378.
Beamer, L. (1992). Learning intercultural competence. Journal of Business Communication,
29, 285-303.
Beamer, L. (2003). Directness in Chinese business correspondence of the nineteenth century.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication,17, 201-237.
Beamer, L., & Varner, I. (2008). Intercultural communication in the global workplace (4th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
424 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Bell, A. H., Dillon, W. T., & Becker, H. (1995). German memo and letter style. Journal of
Business and Technical Communication,9, 219-227.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, C. P. (1998). Rhetorical ethos: A bridge between high-context and low-context
cultures? In S. Niemeier, C. P. Campbell, & Dirven, R. (Eds.), The cultural context of busi-
ness communication (pp. 31-47). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,112, 155-159.
Conaway, R. N., & Wardrope, W. J. (2004). Communication in Latin America: An analysis of
Guatemalan business letters. Business Communication Quarterly,67, 465-474.
Connor, U. M., Davis, K. W., De Rycker, T., Phillips, E. M., & Verckens, J. P. (1997). An inter-
national course in international business writing: Belgium, Finland, and the United States.
Business Communication Quarterly,60, 63-74.
Cook, T. D., Cooper, H., Cordray, D. S., Hartmann, H., Hedges, L. V., Light, R. J., et al.
(1992). Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
DeVoss, D., Jasken, J., & Hayden, D. (2002). Teaching intracultural and intercultural communi-
cation: A critique and suggested method. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
16, 69-94.
Ding, D. D. (2004). Context-driven: How is traditional Chinese medicine labeling developed?
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,34, 173-188.
Driskill, L. (1997). Guest editor’s introduction to the special issue: How can we address
international issues in business and technical communication? Journal of Business and
Technical Communication,11, 253-260.
Du-Babcock, B. (1999). Topic management and turn taking in professional communication: First-
versus second-language strategies. Management Communication Quarterly,33, 141-164.
Fantini, A. E., & Smith, E. M. (1997). A survey of intercultural communication courses.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations,21, 125-148.
George, A. M. (2003). Teaching culture: The challenges and opportunities of international
public relations. Business Communication Quarterly,66, 97-113.
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher,
5, 3-8.
Goby, V. P. (1999a). All business students need to know the same things! The non–culture-specific
nature of communication needs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,13,
179-189.
Goby, V. P. (1999b). Teaching business communication in Singapore: An issue of language.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication,13, 449-456.
Griffin, F. (2004). Idioms and back translation. Business Communication Quarterly,67, 455-464.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.
(1996). The influence of cultural individualism–collectivism, self-construals, and individ-
ual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research,
22, 510-543.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1986). Attributional confidence in low- and high-context
cultures. Human Communication Research,12, 525-549.
Hagen, P. (1998). Teaching American business writing in Russia: Cross-cultures/cross-purposes.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication,12, 109-126.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1960, May). The silent language in overseas business. Harvard Business Review,
38(3), 87-96.
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 425
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1983). Dance of life. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1987). Hidden differences: Doing business with the Japanese.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French, and
Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Hermeking, M. (2006). Culture and Internet consumption: Contributions from cross-cultural
marketing and advertising research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,11,
192-216.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related val-
ues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cul-
tural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization,
13, 46-74.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across cultures (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: An independent valida-
tion using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,15, 417-433.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic
growth. Organizational Dynamics,16, 4-21.
Hoft, N. L. (1995). International technical communication: How to export information about
high technology. New York: John Wiley.
Horton, W. (1993). The almost universal language: Graphics for international documents.
Technical Communication,40, 682-693.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.) (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Houston, H. R. (2002). Health care and the silent language of Vietnamese immigrant consumers.
Business Communication Quarterly,65, 37-47.
Hunsinger, R. P. (2006). Culture and cultural identity in intercultural technical communication.
Technical Communication Quarterly,15, 31-48.
Kim, D., Pan, Y., & Park, H. S. (1998). High- versus low-context culture: A comparison of
Chinese, Korean, and American cultures. Psychology & Marketing,15, 507-521.
Koeszegi, S., Vetschera, R., & Kersten, G. (2004). National cultural differences in the use and
perception of Internet-based NSS: Does high or low context matter? International
Negotiation,9, 79-109.
Kohl, J. R., Barclay, R. O., Pinelli, T. E., Keene, M. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (1993). The impact
of language and culture on technical communication in Japan. Technical Communication,
40, 62-73.
Krone, K. J., Chen, L., & Xia, H. (1997). Approaches to managerial influence in the People’s
Republic of China. Journal of Business Communication,34, 289-315.
Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1982). Numbers and narrative: Combining their strengths in
research reviews. Harvard Educational Review,52, 1-26.
Limaye, M. R., & Victor, D. A. (1991). Cross-cultural business communication research: State
of the art and hypotheses for the 1990s. Journal of Business Communication,28, 277-299.
Lipus, T. (2006). International consumer protection: Writing adequate instructions for global
audiences. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,36, 75-91.
426 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Martin, J. S., & Chaney, L. H. (1992). Determination of content for a collegiate course in inter-
cultural business communication by three Delphi panels. Journal of Business Communication,
29, 267-282.
Ohashi, R. (2000). High/low-context communication: Conceptualization and scale develop-
ment. Dissertation Abstracts International,61(05), 1680. (University Microfilms No.
9971973)
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pettit, D. B. (1994). Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, R. M., & Smith, S. W. (2007). The influence of high/low-context culture and
power distance on choice of communication media: Students’ media choice to communicate
with professors in Japan and America. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
31, 479-501.
Rosch, M., & Segler, K. G. (1987). Communication with the Japanese. Management
International Review,27, 56-67.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). Computing contrasts, effect sizes, and counternulls on
other people’s published data: General procedures for research consumers. Psychological
Methods,1, 331-340.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Contrasts and correlations in effect-size estimation.
Psychological Science,11, 446-453.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (2004). Communication between cultures (5th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & Jain, N. (1981). Understanding intercultural communication.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied
Psychology,48, 23-47.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural communication. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Serebryakova-Collins, I. (1998). Here’s a twist: Talk about translation. Business Communication
Quarterly,61, 109-111.
Shao, A. T., Bao, Y., & Gray, E. (2004). Comparative advertising effectiveness:A cross-cultural
study. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,26, 67-80.
St. Amant, K. (2002). Integrating intercultural online learning experiences into the computer
classroom. Technical Communication Quarterly,11, 289-315.
Starke-Meyerring, D. (2005). Meeting the challenges of globalization: A framework for global
literacies in professional communication programs. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication,19, 468-499.
Stevens, B. (2000). Russian teaching contracts: An examination of cultural influence and
genre. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,14, 38-57.
Sun, H. (2006). The triumph of users: Achieving cultural usability goals with user localization.
Technical Communication Quarterly,15, 457-481.
Tebeaux, E. (1999). Designing written business communication along the shifting cultural
continuum: The new face of Mexico. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
13, 49-85.
Thatcher, B. (1999). Cultural and rhetorical adaptations for South American audiences.
Technical Communication,46, 177-195.
Thatcher, B. (2001). Issues of validity in intercultural professional communication research.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication,15, 458-489.
Cardon / A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model 427
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Thatcher, B. (2006). Intercultural rhetoric, technology transfer, and writing in U.S.-Mexico
border maquilas. Technical Communication Quarterly,15, 383-405.
Thomas, J. (1998). Contexting Koreans: Does the high/low model work? Business Communication
Quarterly,61, 9-22.
Thrush, E. A. (2000). A comment on Laurie Grobman’s “Beyond internationalization:
Multicultural education in the professional writing contact zone.” Journal of Business and
Technical Communication,14, 84-91.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi,A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated
face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,22, 187-225.
Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global busi-
ness. New York: Irwin.
Varner, I. I. (2000). The theoretical foundation for intercultural business communication: A
conceptual model. Journal of Business Communication,37, 39-57.
Varner, I. I. (2001). Teaching intercultural management communication: Where are we?
Where do we go? Business Communication Quarterly,64, 99-111.
Varner, I. I., & Beamer, L. (1995). Intercultural communication in the global workplace.
Chicago: Irwin.
Victor, D. A. (1992). International business communication. New York: HarperCollins.
Victor, D. A. (1994). Advancing research in international business communication. Business
Communication Quarterly,57, 41-42.
Wang, Q. (2000). A cross-cultural comparison of the use of graphics in scientific and techni-
cal communication. Technical Communication,47, 553-560.
Web of Science. (2007). Social sciences cited reference index [Electronic version]. Stamford,
CT: Thomson.
Weiss, E. H. (1998). Technical communication across cultures: Five philosophical questions.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication,12, 253-269.
Weiss, T. (1992). “Ourselves among others”: A new metaphor for business and technical writ-
ing. Technical Communication Quarterly,1, 23-36.
Weiss, T. (1993). “The gods must be crazy”: The challenge of the intercultural. Journal of
Business and Technical Communication,7, 196-217.
Zaidman, N. (2001). Cultural codes and language strategies in business communication:
Interactions between Israeli and Indian businesspeople. Management Communication
Quarterly,14, 408-441.
Peter W. Cardon is an assistant professor in the College of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport
Management at the University of South Carolina. He teaches business communication and
intercultural communication. His primary research interests are in intercultural business
communication. He also acts as the international exchanges director for the college.
428 Journal of Business and Technical Communication
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 3, 2014jbt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
