Search results

This chapter delves into the complex perception of national culture within cross-cultural management. It critiques the essentialist views that regard national culture as static and homogeneous, emphasizing instead the dynamic interplay of historical, social, and political forces that shape national identity. The chapter traces the origins of essentialist perspectives, highlighting influential thinkers like Durkheim, Jung, Schmitt, and Parsons, who contributed to these views during the colonial era. It critiques their theories for perpetuating a static and exclusionary understanding of culture and identity. The text discusses how cross-cultural management emerged as an academic field, initially embracing essentialist views for their simplicity in explaining cultural differences. Influential models like Hofstede’s cultural dimensions reinforced these views by categorizing national cultures into binary scales, often favoring Western countries. The chapter highlights the extensive critique of Hofstede’s model for its ethnocentric biases and lack of empirical rigor. The chapter advocates for incorporating postcolonial perspectives in management practices, emphasizing the need to understand culture as dynamic and constructed through power relations. It explores postcolonial theories by scholars like Said, Bhabha, Spivak, and Mignolo, who challenge colonial legacies and advocate for decolonizing knowledge and management practices. These theories highlight issues of otherness, mimicry, and cultural hybridity, offering deeper insights into the experiences of marginalized communities. The text also examines internal colonialism within contemporary societies, drawing parallels between traditional colonial practices and the exploitation of immigrant communities in Western countries. It underscores the need for a critical reimagining of management and organizational practices to promote social change and address power imbalances.

This paper describes the planning and implementation program of Remaja Berdaya Sehat Tanpa Rokok (JayaStar) or Empower Youth Healthy without Smoking (EYHWS). This is a pilot tobacco control program for smoking behavior with a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach in a rural area of Indonesia.

This research used the participatory rural appraisal (PRA) method. The paper would describe three stages of the JayaStar program that started from diagnosis, planning action and taking action. Participants in this research were all youths aged 17–25 years including as many as 33 people. The key informants were the village head, the hamlet head, the hamlet head’s wife, the youth leader, health promotion officers at the Pleret Health Center and the Health Promotion Section of the Bantul Health Office.

The determinants of the youth empowerment process are divided into (1) predisposing factors, (2) group structure and (3) group climate. It has an important role in the success of the youth empowerment process in smoking behavior control. The implementation of the JayaStar program consisted of (1) outbound, and training with the theme of increasing self-potential; (2) training on the impact of cigarettes/vapors on the health of youths; (3) discussion and practice of making health campaign videos; (4) parenting program with the theme of the important role of parents in creating a healthy and superior young generation; (5) declaration and inauguration of JayaStar volunteers.

This research is an example of a successful community-based youth project that resulted in a demonstrable positive outcome. It demonstrates the importance of good relations between stakeholders. The JayaStar movement could be a potential model for youth empowerment projects to control smoking behavior among future generations in Indonesia.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe challenges to ethnic minorities in the UK. While the experiences of migrants are both complex and varied depending on individuals' social class, race, cultural proximity to the host country and acculturation levels, more in-depth studies are necessary to fully understand how COVID-19 affects specific migrant groups and their health. Taiwanese migrants were selected because they are an understudied group. Also, there were widespread differences in pandemic management between the UK and Taiwan, making this group an ideal case for understanding how their acculturation journey can be disrupted by a crisis.

Qualitative data were collected at two different time points, at the start of the UK pandemic (March/April 2020) and six months on (October/November 2020), to explore migrant coping experiences over time. Theoretically, the authors apply acculturation theory through the lens of coping, while discussing health-consumption practices, as empirical evidence.

Before the outbreak of the pandemic, participants worked hard to achieve high levels of integration in the UK. The pandemic changed this; participants faced unexpected changes in the UK’s sociocultural structures. They were forced to exercise the layered and complex “coping with coping” in a hostile host environment that signalled their new marginalised status. They faced impossible choices, from catching a life-threatening disease to being seen as overly cautious. Such experience, over time, challenged their integration to the host country, resulting in a loss of faith in the UK’s health system, consequently increasing separation from the host culture and society.

It is important to note that the Taiwanese sample recruited through Facebook community groups is biased and has a high level of homogeneity. These participants were well-integrated, middle-class migrants who were highly educated, relatively resourceful and active on social media. More studies are needed to fully understand the impact on well-being and acculturation of migrants from different cultural, contextual and social backgrounds. This being the case, the authors can speculate that migrants with less resource are likely to have found the pandemic experience even more challenging. More studies are needed to fully understand migrant experience from different backgrounds.

Public health policymakers are advised to dedicate more resources to understand migrants' experiences in the host country. In particular, this paper has shown how separation, especially if embraced temporarily, is not necessarily a negative outcome to be corrected with specific policies. It can be strategically adopted by migrants as a way of defending their health and well-being from an increasingly hostile environment. Migrants' home country experience provides vicarious learning opportunities to acquire good practices. Their voices should be encouraged rather than in favour of a surprising orthodox and rather singular approach in the discussion of public health management.

The paper has clear public health policy implications. Firstly, public health policymakers are advised to dedicate more resources to understand migrants' experiences in the host country. Acknowledging migrants' voice is a critical first step to contribute to the development of a fair and inclusive society. Secondly, to retain skilful migrants and avoid a future brain-drain, policymakers are advised to advance existing infrastructure to provide more incentives to support and retain migrant talents in the post-pandemic recovery phase.

This paper reveals how a group of previously well-integrated migrants had to exercise “coping with coping” during the COVID crisis. This experience, over time, challenged their integration to the host country, resulting in a loss of faith in the UK’s health system, consequently increasing separation from the host culture and society. It contributes to the understanding of acculturation by showing how a such crisis can significantly disrupt migrants' acculturation journey, challenging them to re-acculturate and reconsider their identity stance. It shows how separation was indeed a good option for migrants for protecting their well-being from a newly hostile host environment.