Big Questions for Negotiation and Culture Research

Gelfand, M. J., Brett, J. (2019). Big Questions for Negotiation and Culture Research. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. (12)2, 105-116. doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12157

A conference at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University was held on April 12, 2018 to recognize recent advancements in the fields of conflict and negotiation as well as to discuss influential opportunities to further guide the fields of study forward. The overall goal of this conference was to engage participates in meaningful discussions that would provoke new and intriguing research agendas for culture and negotiation. The conference started out with various 5 minute presentations of speakers sharing their current work in the fields, showcasing a diversity of research. Next, five keynote speakers presented on emotion, neuroscience, trust, communication, and globalization relative to conflict and culture. Then a panel of scholars facilitated discussions connecting culture and negotiation. Lastly, diverse think tanks were created to identify openings in current literature that may provide inspiration for future research.

The first group focused on trust and culture in negotiations. They speculate if the meaning of trust may vary across cultures and identity three forms of trust: interpersonal trust, perceived trustworthiness, and trust propensity. They then turn their attention to the effects of trust and how it may influence integrative versus distributive outcomes and how the importance of trust in negotiations may vary across cultures. Next, they analyze culture and trust development, suggesting a need for research on trust formation as a dynamic process. Trust and distrust are then discussed, analyzing if they represent a single continuum or two independent variables. Further, they speculate that both trust and distrust can lead to positive and negative outcomes. Next, they discuss trust repair in intercultural negotiations and how this might vary by culture. Finally, they review the impacts of technology and virtual communication on the negotiation process and speculate how culture may further complicate such interactions.

The second group focused on the crossroads of negotiation, culture, and emotion. First, they advocate for a theory grounded in a logic of appropriateness, which refers to whether or not a behavior is acceptable given a certain context. Next, they discuss several areas for continued research. They suggest that future research examine how cultural norms influence appropriateness of emotional regulation and expression and how this may lead to feelings of dissonance or consonance. Further, they suggest an analysis of how this may impact interpersonal communications. They then review how interpretations of emotions may lead to miscommunication as well as the extent to which such differences in intentions versus interpretations can influence negotiations. Next, they debate mindfulness as both a beneficial and potentially detrimental element in cross-cultural negotiations, calling for additional research on the downsides of mindfulness. They also recognize culture as not just a driver of the above subjects, but also a dependent variable in the equation. Lastly, they introduce technology as a final research area and suggest the relationship between technology, emotion, culture, and negotiation be further research.

The third group focused on cultural norms in communication, negotiation, and conflict management. They first note the lack of research on honor and face cultures as compared to dignity cultures and call for future research to address how honor and face cultures create value in negotiations. They also suggest future research could examine how cultural norms influence propensity to negotiation, conflict management initiation, allocation of outcomes, and use of interests, rights, and power strategies. Next, they turn their focus to norm violations in negotiations in the context of cultural tightness-looseness. They also discuss norm variations across cultures and speculate how this may lead to mismatched strategies in intercultural negotiations. From this, they acknowledge both the positive and negative outcomes of miscommunications in negotiations. Lastly, they address the importance of rapport in the negotiation process and the role of schmoozing in building rapport. They suggest future research investigate the cross-culture implications of schmoozing in the negotiation process relative to distinct cultural norms.

The fourth group focused on intergroup conflict. First, they analyze under what conditions people are willing to engage in overt forms of intergroup hostility. They suggest future research focus on the influence of threats and economics difficulty on such behaviors. Next, they discuss the role of morals on individual behavior in intergroup conflict. Moral identity, foundations, credentials, and group-based emotions are identified as current research on the topic. They then move their discussion to understanding how intragroup and intergroup processes influence one another. With this, they review the role of technology and how it has led to the formation of new virtual groups. Lastly, they discuss global challenges such as population growth and climate change and speculate how these challenges may impact intergroup relations in the future. As societies must work to manage such challenges, they advocate for research on cooperation that will offer practical and applicable solutions on a large multicultural scale.

The fifth group focused on globalization. They start by acknowledging the limited research available on globalization through a psychological lens which they suggest is a needed area for future research. Thus, they focus much of their suggestions towards psychologists to provide a new dimension to globalization. First, they propose a deeper understanding of the effects of global experiences on thoughts and behaviors. They recognize such experiences can have both positive and negative effects and therefore seek to identify what aspects of the global experience leads to positive versus negative outcomes. Next, they discuss hybridization and human agency relative to globalization. They speculate that hybridization may help to mitigate conflict that arises from globalization. Lastly, they discuss the importance of understanding how cooperation may be evolving relative to globalization and how these new forms of cooperation can be used to facilitate positive global changes.

Advancing the Scientific Understanding of Trust and Culture in Negotiations

Kong, D. J., Yao, J. (2019). Advancing the Scientific Understanding of Trust and Culture in Negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. (12)2, 117-130. doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12147

Both culture and trust play important roles throughout the negotiation process. Significant research has developed around the topics of trust and culture in regards to negotiation. However, minimal research has connected all three topics by examining the overlapping implications that both trust and culture can have on the overall process and outcomes of negotiations. This article seeks to draw attention to this disconnect by examining current literature on the topic and by providing insightful suggestions for future research. This is accomplished by examining six key topics: meaning of trust, effects of trust, development of trust, trust and distrust, trust repair, and trust in virtual communications.

The meaning of trust can vary greatly across cultures; particularly depending on the form of trust such as interpersonal trust, perceived trustworthiness, and trust propensity. Interpersonal trust refers to ones willingness to trust and be vulnerable which tends to have the same meaning across cultures, providing a common platform for comparison on the topic. Perceived trustworthiness refers to ones perceptions of others trustworthiness, and varies qualitatively and tends to be valued differently across cultures. These differences can lead to challenges during the pre-negotiation and negotiation stages when trust is being formed. Trust propensity refers to one’s tendency towards trusting others, and has also been found to differ greatly across cultures. Findings have shown that while some cultures may exhibit high levels of interpersonal trust, their trust propensity remains low. This indicates that the two forms of trust are distinct and that the relationship between the two can be complex. This current understanding of trust provides a solid framework for additional research on the topic to further understand the dynamic meaning of trust among cultures within the context of negotiations.

Next, research on the effects of trust on negotiations was examined. Findings show that trust in negotiations often led to integrative outcomes and joint gains. However, when looking at this across cultures, it was found that trust is not always required in all cultures for successful outcomes. Some cultures tend to rely more on assurance than trust, eliminating the strong need for trust in negotiations among those cultures. To further understand these differences, the concept of cultural tightness versus looseness was reviewed. This concept refers to the extent of cultural norms imposed on individuals within a culture. It was noted that much of the current research available on trust and negotiations involves loose cultures, such as the United States. Additionally, even among tight or loose cultures, levels of trust can vary depending on the individual culture. This understanding of trust provides insight into the complex nature of trust and culture while still leaving the door open for additional research.

The development of trust has largely been researched as a static topic. However, trust changes over time. Therefore, the authors argue that trust should be researched through a dynamic approach. This point is particularly important because trust impacts all three stages of the negotiation process and can fluctuate dramatically throughout the process. Further, it is argued that development of trust can vary within and between different cultures. For example, trust may take longer to develop or change in certain intracultural or intercultural negotiations than others. For continued research on the topic, the authors highlight the importance of qualitative methods to be used in order to truly examine the complexities involved in the development process.

The next topic examined was trust and distrust. In recent years, the debate over trust and distrust as separate entities or a single spectrum has sparked attention on the topic of trust. If trust and distrust are defined as separate entities, than an individual can have a combination of both. For example, a combination of high trust and distrust can lead to positive attitudes towards the counterpart’s cooperative behaviors as well as negative attitudes towards the counterpart’s competitive behaviors. Further, it is noted that trust is not always good, and distrust is not always bad. For instance, trust in a negotiation can lead to poor judgement and distrust can lead individuals to ask more questions which may result in greater information sharing and greater value creation for both sides. These findings lead the authors to propose that future research examines how the combination of trust and distrust can impact perceptions, behaviors, and outcomes in negotiations.

Next, trust repair was examined as trust violations often occur in the negotiation process. Trust violations generally result from miscommunications and misaligned goals and has rarely been researched in the context of intercultural negotiations. Since this topic has seldom been studied but trust is often damaged in the negotiation process, the authors call for additional focus on the topic. Further, the success of trust repair has been found to be tied to the individual’s intentions behind the action. When individuals intentionally act deceitful, the likelihood of trust repair is minimal. However, when an individual unintentionally breaks trust, the likelihood of trust repair is much more likely. Generally, intercultural trust violations are a result of unintentional actions, leading the authors to speculate that the effectiveness of trust repair varies greatly between intercultural and intracultural negotiations.

Lastly, trust in virtual negotiations was reviewed as online and technology aided communication continues to grow in both intracultural and intercultural negotiations. Research has found that virtual communication, as opposed to in person communication, leads to greater misunderstandings and less integrative outcomes. Additionally, virtual communication has been found to hamper social awareness which is needed for trust and cooperation. While the impacts of virtual communication on trust are apparent, sufficient research is still needed. Specifically, intercultural virtual negotiations should gain particular focus as culture extends the potential consequences of virtual communications and international negotiations are likely to occur virtually. The authors recommend both the positive and negative implications of trust and culture dynamics should be examined in order to truly understand the impacts on intercultural negotiations.

Logics and Logistics for Future Research: Appropriately Interpreting the Emotional Landscape of Multicultural Negotiation

Rees, L., Kopelman, S. (2019). Logics and Logistics for Future Research: Appropriately Interpreting the Emotional Landscape of Multicultural Negotiation. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. (12)2, 131-145. doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12152

Emotion, culture, and negotiation represent three distinct areas of study with growing research examining their complexities and underlying nuances. However, minimal research has investigated the crossroads of all three. Therefore, this article sets out to provide inspiration for continued research on the impacts of emotion on cross cultural negotiations. First, a logic of appropriateness is defined to provide a framework for which to understand current literature on the topic. With this framework, six areas for continued research are identified as particularly ripe with opportunity for further exploration. A discussion on current literature on each topic is provided as well as suggestions to spark inspiration, evoke thought, and offer direction.

Thus far, most research on culture and negotiation has been based in a logic of rationality. However, what is considered rational is not universal across individuals or cultures. In response to this, a logic of appropriateness has been developed to build on the framework. A logic of appropriateness emphasizes four key dimensions: identity, rules, recognition, and group culture. For instance, this framework considers whether or not a particular persons actions are acceptable given the context of the situation and cultural setting. Important to note, culture represents one of the four dimensions by which appropriateness is decided. This consideration of what is or isn’t appropriate provides a needed framework for understanding the dynamics of emotion, culture, and negotiation.

            Perceived inappropriateness of one’s emotional expression, or intensity of such expression, can result in a feeling of dissonance for the expresser. For instance, if an individual from a less expressive culture shows intense anger in a negotiation the individual may feel higher levels of guilt as a result. Further, the level of dissonance felt may vary depending on whether the negotiation is intercultural or intracultural. Due to cultural variations in appropriateness of emotional expression, the authors note that future research should account for cultural norms in intrapersonal emotional dissonance and consonance. Further, empirical research could measure negotiators felt dissonance versus consonance and how these feelings impact future outcomes.

            Similarly, variations in cultural norms relative to emotional expression and intensity have implications at the interpersonal level. Communication is largely influenced by emotional expression and nonverbal manners which provide ques of the expresser’s intentions. Further, emotional expressions become increasingly important in cross cultural communications, particularly across cultures with distinct norms relative to emotion. With this, the authors suggest future research would benefit from a deeper understanding of how these cultural norms impact negotiations. Further, how miscommunications as a result of such cultural differences may impact the negotiation process and outcomes.

            Emotional awareness of one’s self and others can have broader implications as well. Generally speaking, mindfulness has been regarded as a beneficial quality leading to positive outcomes. However, research is lacking on potential negative consequences of mindfulness that could lead to detrimental outcomes. This unexplored relationship represents a rich opportunity for future research in the context of cross cultural negotiations. For instance, the authors offer that future research could examine if and to what extent problem-solving is impaired due to a heightened focus on the negotiators emotional state. While it is clear there are benefits to mindfulness, a more thorough understanding of potential detriments is needed in order to best manage such outcomes, particularly in cross cultural settings.

            In addition to the above implications, the interpretation of emotional expression can have a significant influence on communication and the negotiation process as a whole. Interpretations of different emotions can vary greatly across cultures, adding complexity to the situation. In fact, recent research has recognized the existence of emotional dialects or emotional languages that represent differences in the way even basic emotions are expressed. Thus, misinterpretations of emotions across cultures are expected to occur. This offers an opportunity for further research to explore the extent to which intended emotions are misinterpreted and how these miscommunications may impact negotiations and their outcomes.

            As shown thus far, culture plays a powerful role in the way emotional expression, intensity, and interpretation can influence negotiations. Now, the authors highlight the importance of taking a step back and examining how culture develops and evolves, calling for research on culture as a dependent variable. For instance, as cross cultural communication and interaction occurs over time, new expectations and compromises are developed that can influence and change culture. As additional individuals join a group they bring with them new values and ideas that can impact the views of appropriateness, norms, and the culture as a whole. Further, the authors propose culture as a dependent variable should be researched at the organizational level as well as geographical level and focus on emotional factors within negotiations that can shape culture.

            As technology has rapidly transformed communication it is increasingly important that potential implications of such changes be examined in the context of the above agendas. For instance, current research has found emotions expressed through use of technology are more likely to be misinterpreted. Therefore, the authors propose future research could focus on ways to accurately and effectively express emotion during technology aided cross cultural negotiations. Further, awareness of the array of emotions used during negotiations would help to understand under what conditions various emotions are culturally appropriate to use during in person communication versus virtual communication.

Normatively Speaking: Do Cultural Norms Influence Negotiation, Conflict Management, and Communication?

Marin, J. R., Olekalns, M., Adair, W. (2019). Normatively Speaking: Do Cultural Norms Influence Negotiation, Conflict Management, and Communication? Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. (12)2, 146-160. doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12155

Cultural norms play a fundamental role in shaping individual’s behaviors and actions. Norms vary across cultures and can be used to help us better understand and manage underlying differences that impact cross cultural interactions. For instance, norms from one culture may be interpreted as rude or disrespectful from an individual in a different culture. However, a true understanding of the normative differences can lead to greater tolerance and openness of such foreign actions. Therefore, this paper examines the influence of cultural norms on negotiation, conflict management, and communication and offers suggestions for continued research.

Norms influence the negotiation process from initiation to strategy to allocation of resources, in both intercultural and intracultural negotiations. Recent research has identified three cultural types: dignity where an individual’s value is equal at birth, face where an individual’s value is determined by others perceptions, and honor where an individual’s value is determined by self-perception. Research has found that dignity cultures tend to facilitate questions and answers in the negotiation process, while face and honor cultures tend to facilitate substantiation and offers. Q&A has been found to lead to greater value creation, thus requiring additional research on how face and honor cultures create value in a negotiation. Expanding on this, the authors propose research would benefit from a deeper understanding on each cultural types propensity to initiate a negotiation. Further, differences in cultural expectations should be researched in order to gain a better understanding of how cultural norms influence resource allocation in the negotiation process.

Similarly, these cultural norms can have implications for conflict management and resolution. For instance, some cultures may have a greater propensity to initiate conflict management processes where direct confrontation is accepted. Further empirical findings support that conflict resolution behaviors differ across cultures which suggest differences in norms relative to use of interests, rights, and power. It is therefore proposed that future research investigate if there are cultural norms related to conflict management initiation. Further, research should investigate if there are cultural norms that influence conflict management behaviors.

 Beyond differences in norms, research shows that the degree to which a society follows such norms can also differ across cultures. This degree of acceptable normative deviation is referred to as cultural tightness-looseness. Further, norm violation can produce both positive and negative outcomes. For instance, one study found that in individualist cultures a person that violates a norm is more likely to be viewed as powerful and be tolerated, as opposed to the same scenario in a collective culture. These differences among tightness-looseness cultures can have implications for cross cultural negotiations. For example, there is a greater chance of mismatched strategies in intercultural negotiations which can lead to lower value creation. However, no research has currently examined the specific impact of tightness-looseness on intercultural negotiations. The authors provide this as a research opportunity to examine how tightness-looseness norms impact negotiators perception of norm violation and conformity.

Norms that influence communication represent another challenge in negotiations, particularly in intercultural negotiations. Miscommunications in these situations are common and can have both positive and negative consequences. For instance, simple surface-level misunderstandings can be met with humor and create positive feelings and build the relationship. This can lead negotiators to work harder to understand each other and share more information. On the other hand, if cultural intelligence is low the misunderstanding may lead to frustration, embarrassment or shame. This can lead negotiators to increase their social distance and hurt the relationship. To understand the deviation in potential outcomes, the authors advocate that future research should investigate what factors lead negotiators to react positively versus negatively towards miscommunications. Additionally, research should investigate what factors lead negotiators to use such miscommunications as an opportunity that leads to integrative outcomes rather than an obstacle that leads to distributive outcomes.

The relationship of negotiators also has a significant impact on the negotiation process and outcomes. Research has found that rapport can play a particularly important role in facilitating better outcomes and generating positive feelings. However, rapport may not be essential in all cultures. For example, some cultures view the negotiators relationship as an outcome of the negotiation deal, not a necessary predecessor to the deal. Schmoozing, or small talk, has been found to quickly facilitate rapport among negotiators at the start of the negotiation process. The effectiveness and usefulness of schmoozing is likely to vary cross culturally, however minimal research has been conducted on the topic. Thus, this article calls for additional research on cultural norms relative to schmoozing and how such schmoozing might cause offence in intercultural negotiations.

Intergroup Conflict 2020

Halevy, N., Cohen, T. R. (2019). Intergroup Conflict 2020. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. (12)2, 161-173. doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12148

Intergroup conflict is an inevitable and persistent part of humanity. It shows itself in a wide range of forms from stereotyping and discrimination to terrorism and war. While unlikely to ever be fully eliminated, intergroup conflict is an important issue to understand in order to manage and minimize the negative impacts it can have on society. Much research on the causes, impacts, and management of intergroup conflict have focused on interests, identities, and ideologies of the parties involved. However, relatively minimal literature has incorporated all three focus areas, resulting in a lack of multidimensional understanding of the complex matter. To dissect this issue further, the authors highlight five important areas for continued research on the topic by providing a framework of current literature and examining potential research topics and challenges surrounding intergroup conflict.

The first research topic addresses when and why people will engage in overt forms of intergroup hostility and aggression. Further, the authors analyze under what conditions are society as a whole willing to excuse these behaviors. One area of research available on this topic examines the role of perceived threat and its impact on intergroup conflict. Findings show that heightened levels of intragroup unity and intergroup hostility can arise when groups are in competition over resources or power, representing a perceived threat. This illustrates the idea that intragroup cooperation and intergroup competition tend to go hand in hand. While a good start, the authors call for further research on the topic that may identify additional conditions that lead individuals to act in accordance with or condone such behaviors. This greater understanding can then be leveraged to help mitigate and manage such issues.

Next, the impact of moral motives on individual behavior in the context of intergroup conflict was examined. While certain behaviors within a group may be consider immoral, the same behaviors or actions towards another group may be considered moral, and vice versa. This demonstrates the complex relationship that exists between intergroup conflicts. This relationship has largely been backed by research that defines morality as a key component of intergroup dynamics. For instance, most people want to view themselves as moral and different moral backdrops can lead individuals to justifying their morality in various ways. While this example offers a glimpses of insight on the topic, minimal research has taken a multilayered approach to understanding how morality impacts intergroup conflict.

Another important research topic that was identified is the relationship between intragroup and intergroup processes and how they influence each other. One body of research on the topic examined the negotiation process and found that competitive approaches have a greater impact on agreements than cooperative approaches. Another area of research found that leaders with unique attributes that separate them from outgroups are viewed more favorably and leaders with unique attributes that relate them to outgroup members are viewed less favorably. These represent just two layers of a complex and multifaceted topic that deserves further research in order to understand additional layers and how they can be incorporated to help resolve negotiations among groups.

Technology is playing an ever increasing role in the world and thus represents another essential area for continued research on intergroup conflict. Specifically, the authors set out to understand how the changing nature of groups impact intergroup and intragroup conflict. One distinct change relative to this is the increased fluidity of groups. With the help of technology, individuals can now work from home while communicating with individuals from around the world. As a result, the understanding of who is part of a group and who is not has grown increasingly blurred. It is speculated that intragroup conflict may be minimized with fluid groups as people feel less of an identity with the group and are more willing to leave the group if faced with conflict. However, the authors suggest added research is needed in order to truly understand the inherently unique complexities associated with dynamic groups. Additionally, the authors propose the impacts of online communication should be examined as more interactions continue to occur online.

Lastly, impacts of global challenges on intergroup dynamics represent a research topic full of opportunity. Global challenges include population growth, migration, and climate change which cause multidimensional impacts at individual, societal, and international levels. For instance, refugees to new countries create three intergroup conflicts: between the citizens of a country and the refugees, between citizens within the host country with opposing views, and between different countries with opposing views and policies. In order to successfully manage such issues international cooperation is required. Therefore, the authors advocate for additional research that can provide a foundation for creating successful and creative solutions to global challenges.

Globalization: Current Issues and Future Research Directions

Janssens, M., Maddux, W. W., Nguyen, T. (2019). Globalization: Current Issues and Future Research Directions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. (12)2, 174-185. doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12149

Globalization plays a defining role in nearly every aspect of our lives from business to societal interactions to basic human morality. While much research on the topic has addressed the connection between globalization and economics, sociology, and political science, little has focused on the impacts related to psychology. This article takes the opportunity to address this by first outlining the current understanding of globalization from a psychology standpoint. With this foundation, three research agendas are offered as areas for opportunity of continued research and four research implications are discussed.

From a psychology viewpoint, two main understandings of globalization have developed. First, globalization has led to an increased individual consciousness of global interconnectedness. This increased awareness leads to both positive outcomes such as new insights and cross cultural contacts, as well as negative outcomes such as loss of national sovereignty; leading to different levels of resistance across individuals. This indicates that heightened levels of consciousness is both an outcome and a driver of globalization. Second, globalization provides a new relationship of the self-other in the context of world connectivity. This concept emphasizes the potential for multiple forms of belonging, loyalty, and identity that can be experienced by an individual. These fundamental understandings of globalization highlight its complex and intertwined relationship with psychology while emphasizing individuals as co-drivers of globalization. From this understanding, three research agendas are proposed.

            The first research agenda investigates the effects of global experiences on the way individuals think and behave. At the societal level, globalization brings positive outcomes such as sharing of new ideas and increased GNP. It has also brings negative outcomes however, such as increased income inequality and loss of local languages. At the psychological level, globalization brings positive outcomes such as increased creativity and trust after being fully immersed in a culture. However, research has also shown that individuals that have lived in multiple different countries with different moral codes are more likely to engage in immoral behaviors. Further, negative global experiences can lead to increased prejudice and discrimination towards other cultures. With the impacts that these global experiences can have both at the societal and psychological level, the authors propose further research to investigate what specific aspects of the experience leads an individual to view their global experiences as positive or negative.

            The next research agenda identifies globalization as a hybridization of various cultures and the impacts of individual agency on this process. Hybridization refers to the process of mixing, specifically in this case the mixing of cultures, which has been accelerated in recent years due to technological and other structural advancements. Research has shown that individuals can identify with two or more cultures as part of their core self, highlighting a history of mixed cultures and practices that has led to global identities. The authors thus propose that future research investigate how individuals develop this type of multicultural identity while still maintaining a local identity. Further, the positive and negative impacts of a multicultural identity should be examined and how they help or hinder individuals in an increasingly interconnected world.

            The third research agenda investigates what new or mixed forms of cooperation are required as a result of globalization. This builds on the idea that globalization impacts people across the globe with different levels of global consciousness and identity which in turn will lead to different levels of cooperation. Traditionally, multinational cooperation and collaboration have been facilitated by multinational institutions, such as the United Nations. Recently however, localized players have entered the field leading to a more bottom-up organizational approach. This change emphasizes the importance of localized efforts in global cooperation. Therefore, the authors recommend future research on the topic investigate the conditions under which cooperation forms and how the tensions and varying levels of consciousness between parties can impact this. Further, the various new forms of cooperation should be collectively analyzed to better understand commonalities and differences in the cooperation process.

            With these research agendas, four research implications were identified. First, while this article gave focus to psychology, the authors emphasize the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the study of globalization. Second, culture and identity should be studied as a dynamic process and avoid assumptions that individuals will always identify with the cultural group they are considered to be from. Instead, human agency needs to be considered in one’s self identification in a globalized world. Third, drawing a line between local and global should be avoided and instead be viewed as two interconnected and complex realities of globalization. Lastly, the authors draw attention to the importance of reflective research by emphasizing the role researcher’s play in the outcome of their studies through their own assumptions, views, and background. Engaging in reflective research will allow for deeper insights and contribute to a more meaningful expansion of our understanding of globalization.