Chameleonization in the Folds of Culture: A Comparative Analysis of Cross-Cultural Qualitative Fieldwork

This paper argues against a prevailing culture-free tendency in cross-cultural qualitative research that has been normalized by conventional qualitative research methodology to propose chameleonization, a culturally sensitive research process. First, I delineate the paradoxes encountered in comparative research of Sino-U.S. university partnerships by comparing five fieldwork elements: research ethics, access to fields, informed consent, informants' recruitment, and interview environment and process. The comparison reveals that the seemingly golden rule of Western-centered qualitative research and procedure were both disturbing and paralyzing in non-Western fields. Subsequently, this work deciphers these paradoxes with Hofstede's cultural dimension theory as a main analytical framework, supplemented by theories from cultural theorists in the two cultures. These paradoxes can be resolved through a chameleonization process through which researchers attune to a postmodern cross-culturalness by navigating the folds of culture, as characterized by their cross-cultural qualitative fields. Tentative strategies for applying chameleonization to activate, solidify, and extend a folding-unfolding-refolding process are then proposed, followed by a discussion on the approach's potential limitations.

Automated summary

This paper challenges the culture-free approach in cross-cultural qualitative research, proposing a culturally sensitive research process called chameleonization. By comparing five fieldwork elements, the study reveals the limitations of Western-centered qualitative research in non-Western contexts. The paper uses cultural dimension theory and cultural theories to decipher these paradoxes and suggests strategies to implement chameleonization.