Page 105 - Culture Technology Communication

90 Carleen F. Maitland and Johannes M. Bauer

to be a bias toward smaller entities. Generally, the smaller the size
of the group the more accurate the description of its culture. This
stems from the fact that it is simply less likely within a small group
to identify a person who violates the cultural norms, thus potentially
invalidating the description of that culture. Therefore, describing
the cultural differences between two neighborhoods will be more ac-
curate than describing the cultural differences between two soci-
eties. The problem lies with the “ecological fallacy” (or fallacy of
division)—the impulse to apply group or societal level characteris-
tics onto individuals within that group. The result for research on
culture is that as we move up in levels of analysis the descriptions,
either qualitative or quantitative, become increasingly difficult to
1
defend. For example, if culture is considered a societal-level con-
struct it can be argued that societies do not respect national-level
boundaries. Several distinct societies can exist within a nation, such
as in northern and southern Italy, for example. It can also be argued
that societies span national boundaries, such as a French cultural
base in parts of Belgium. The result is quantified measures of na-
tional culture can be considered controversial, both for being quanti-
tative and for their level of analysis. 2
Despite these recognized limitations of quantified measure of
national culture, this research will attempt to use these measures
in a study of global diffusion. Although a society is more likely a bet-
ter unit of analysis than a nation, there is very little quantitative
data that can be found describing various cultural traits of societies
around the globe. In addition to this, other data with which to com-
pare the impact of culture is also rarely available on a societal level.
National governments collect data that are often only relevant at
the national level. Thus, studies of global diffusion are forced not
from theory but from available data to use nations as the unit of
analysis. The result is that studies using national level cultural
characteristics must be careful in interpreting results. In particu-
lar, national level characteristics must not be interpreted at the in-
dividual level.
One might ask whether or not it is worthwhile to engage in re-
search where the variables are potentially poor indicators of the the-
oretical construct involved. The reality is that all measures at the
national level are suspect. Economic indicators such as Gross Do-
mestic Product, employment, teledensity, infant mortality rates, etc.,
can all be called into question in terms of their accuracy of measure-
ment (reliability) as well as how well they reflect what they are in-
tending to measure (validity). Such is the nature of inter-national