Sociocultural insights into conducting qualitative educational research in Malaysia

Socio-cultural insights into conducting qualitativeeducational research in Malaysia

byFariza Puteh-BehakFarah Mohd Khaja

Ramiza DarmiFaculty of Education, University of Southern Queensland

The paper provides socio-cultural insights into theexperiences of three Malaysian researchers in conductingqualitative research in Malaysian educational contexts afterreceiving formal training in Australian educationalinstitution. It presents some examples of the complexitiesthat arise from Malaysian socio-cultural practices thatsometimes contradict ethics in Australian educational setting.Among the key issues discussed are the practice of givingincentives, the issue of hierarchical power distance and theinfluence of examination-base classroom practices. The paperthen explains the meanings of these cultural practices basedon Malaysian socio-cultural perspective. Examples from datafrom the three research projects were discussed to illustratethe challenges in obtaining rich data within this context.Upon confronting these challenges, the three researchersdeveloped contextualized approaches that were tailored to thedistinctive characteristics of their participants who wereMalaysian teachers and students. This paper concludes byreinforcing that in conducting qualitative research, socio-cultural considerations is significant in obtaining rich data.

INTRODUCTIONThis paper discusses socio-cultural issues that influenced thedirections of three separate educational research projects inMalaysia. The research projects were conducted by threedoctoral students from Malaysia who were studying doctoralprogram in an Australian university. Receiving researchtraining from the Australian university and conducting the

1

research projects in Malaysian educational settings, theresearchers found themselves in a mismatch of two worlds:Malaysian cultural setting and the ethical guidelines requiredby the Australian institution. This paper highlights thedilemmas faced by these three researchers in reconciling thedifferences that exists between these two worlds. Thediscussion focuses on how some cultural beliefs and practicesin Malaysia influenced the planning, research processes andoutcomes of the qualitative research projects. Amid thismismatch, the researchers found themselves negotiating thesocio-cultural beliefs and practices in their researchconducts. The discussion in the paper will focus on the (1)ethical dilemmas that the researchers experienced in thepractice of giving incentives; (2) the issue of power distancein a hierarchical structure and how that hierarchical powerdistance affected the direction of the research projects and(3) the influence of cultural classroom practices to theresearcher’s research processes.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDYThe paper looks at three qualitative research projects fromthe socio-cultural lens. Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theorysuggests that all human activities are socially, culturallyand historically constructed (Jaramillo 1996; Lantolf 2000;Turuk 2008; Vygotsky 1978). Jaramillo (1996) asserted thatVygotsky defined social as an entity that consists of “rules andnorms of the society that adults and more competent peersteach their younger initiates” (p. 136). Socio-cultural theoryalso advocates that human social and mental activity isorganised through culturally constructed artefacts. Accordingto Turuk (2008), these artefacts or tools are created byhumans under specific social and historical conditions, andthey carry the characteristics of the culture in question.These points show that the cultural background of a society isa significant factor that influences human activities and italso shapes the society members’ interpretations of the worldaround them i.e each society has their own ways of makingsense of the world around them. This point was also stressed

2

by Hong (2009) when he defined culture as “networks ofknowledge, consisting of learned routines of thinking, feelingand interacting with other people, as well as a corpus ofsubstantive assertions and ideas about aspects of the world”(p. 4). His definition clearly states that culture shapes theway a particular society sees, understands and makes sense ofthe many aspects of the world.

Based on the socio-cultural lens, the three researchersexplored the socio-cultural issues in their researchexperiences as Malaysian students studying in Australia. Theresearchers experienced the differences of the two cultures intheir journey of conducting research. The very first challengewas to address the lecturers, regardless of their titles andrank in the faculty, with their first names; a very alienconcept in Malaysia. Each of the researchers was faced withthe predicament because referring the lecturers with theirfirst names is not an accepted cultural practice in Malaysia.In Malaysia, people are addressed with their title, forinstance Dr Robyn Henderson will be addressed as Dr Hendersonrather than just Robyn in the Australian context. If a studentin Malaysia addresses the lecturers using their first namesuch as Fariza instead of Dr Fariza, the students would beperceived as being impolite. In the Malaysian academiacontext, it is customary to address academics using theirtitles preceding their first name such as Dr or Professor toshow respect (Lim & Asma 2001; Norma & Kennedy 2003). Thisanecdote was the beginning point for the three researchers toexplore their own socio-cultural experiences as doctoralstudents in Australia who conducted research in Malaysia. Thispaper highlights how Malaysian socio-cultural practicescontradict some ethical research conduct in Australiancontext. The discussion of this paper will later shows thatunderstanding the socio-cultural patterns of a particularsociety is significant to understand the society’s distinctivepractices and how it can be deliberated to obtainunderstanding and obtain data for the research project.

RESEARCH PROJECTS

Fariza3

Fariza conducted a participatory action research study toinvestigate the implementation of a multiliteracies approachin an examination-based context. She also investigated issuesrelated to collaborative research processes among aresearcher, teachers and students in a hierarchical structure.The study was conducted at an English as a Second Language(ESL) classroom in a higher education institution in Malaysia.Her study focuses on using qualitative data methods such asobservations, interviews, professional discussions, informalconversation, and classroom artefacts to explore the teachers’and students’ experiences.

FarahUsing ESL students’ experiences in developing Web portfolios,Farah’s project involved studying how Web portfolios were usedas a learning tool and assessment tool in a teacher traininginstitution in Malaysia. Her participants were 128 studentswho enrolled in a Computer-assisted language learning (CALL)course. Through a mixed-methods approach, data was collectedusing questionnaires, focus group interviews and students’ Webportfolios

RamizaRamiza conducted an exploratory research study to explorelanguage learning using mobile phone as a learning tool inorder to reduce the language anxiety level and to enhancespoken communication of second language learners. This studywas also conducted at an ESL classroom in a public higherinstitution in Malaysia. Her study adopted a mixed methodsapproach, where quantitative methods such as pre- and post-questionnaires and qualitative methods such as focus groupinterviews and classroom artefacts were employed.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4

The practice of giving incentivesThere are quite a few ethical issues surrounding the practiceof giving incentives or rewards to participants for theirparticipation in a research project. One of them is thatgiving incentives or rewards to participants in a researchproject could lead to the elements of coercion in terms ofgetting participation from the participants (Grant & Sugarman2004; Head 2009; King & Horrocks 2011; Singer & Couper 2008).The Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in HumanResearch (Australian Government, 2007) states that allparticipation in a research project should be voluntary andany elements of coercion or pressure are unethical andunacceptable. Grant and Sugarman (2004) stated that givingincentives involves relations of power, where participantsmight feel obliged to join the research project due to theincentives offered. The Australian National Statement onEthical Conduct in Human Research also states that any paymentor any inducement that encourage participation is ethicallyunacceptable (p.24). Another issue that surrounds the practiceof giving incentives or rewards to participants of a researchproject is that participants might be encouraged to giveresponses that the researchers are looking for. Head (2009)argued that the issue of providing payment to participantsworth a debate because interviewees that received payment fortheir participation would just tell what the researchers whatthey wanted to know. The main concern here was that theresearcher would not be able to obtain authentic responsesfrom the participants, thus the reliability or trustworthinessof the data could be questioned.

This situation may be very different in Malaysia because thepractice of giving rewards and incentives carry a differentmeaning.. It might even be rude disrespectful if researchersdo not give any rewards or incentives to the researchparticipants Quynh Le (2008) in her paper that discussedintercultural issues in conducting healthcare qualitative

5

research within an Asian context also highlighted that givinggifts to participants and officials were not an unethicalpractice, and it was viewed by the community as an act ofshowing appreciation. In Malaysia, the culture of giving andreceiving gifts or rewards is regarded as an accepted practice(Hamzah 1991). It can be regarded as a way to maintainharmonious relationship with other members of the society thatis important in Malaysian society (Asma 2009; Hofstede 2001).

The researchers viewed that giving incentives to participantsin Malaysian contexts during research is not seen an act ofcoercion. Incentives were given for the purpose ofestablishing good relationship between the researchers and theparticipants at an initial stage of the research process. Forexample, to create a pleasant relationship between herstudent-participants and herself, Fariza presented pens andfolders to her participants. Similarly, Ramiza gave a set ofher institution’s promotional items to her participants. Theresearchers believe that these practices were not acts ofcoercion on the participants due to the value of the gifts.The value of the gifts were not too rewarding that it couldcoerce or force participation from the participants. Fariza’sgifts that consist of pens and folders cost less than AUD10and Ramiza’s gifts were complimentary from the marketingdepartment of her university. Furthermore, the incentives wereonly given after the participants had expressed theirwillingness to participate in the research projects.Therefore, the act of giving the incentives could not beassociated with inducing the participants’ involvement in theresearch projects.

In the researchers’ research contexts, the practice of givinggifts was a way for the researchers to express gratitudetowards the assistance given by the participants to completethe research projects. While some people might see thispractice as a complex issue of influencing participants to actor respond in accordance to what the researchers are seeking,

6

the researchers view this practice as a straightforwardpractice of reciprocal action. The reciprocal action of givingincentives resonates well with the Malaysian culture as statedin a Malay proverb that says “Orang berbudi kita berbahasa, orangmemberi kita merasa” (Translated meaning: Every gift or favour should be returnedwith a gift or favour). This proverb states the importance of showinggratitude when receiving gifts or favours from others. Theresearchers viewed that the participants provided valuabledata, information and answers to the research questions, andit was only appropriate, according to the Malaysian culture,for the researchers to reciprocate by giving incentives. SinceFariza’s and Farah’s research projects were conducted in auniversity course setting, they viewed that the studentsshould be rewarded for their participation including time andeffort in completing the research activities. Coming from anexamination-based learning context, marks for a courseassignment is considered rewarding by participants. Thus, inthese circumstances, Fariza and Farah rewarded the studentswith marks for completing the research activities. It seemsclear that in Malaysian research contexts the practice ofgiving incentives was not an act of coercion but was an act ofexpressing appreciation.

Giving incentives to participants in Malaysian researchcontext could be seen as a positive practice to encourageresponses even though, some popular perspectives view givingincentives as means for researchers to influence theauthenticity of the participants’ responses. In theresearchers’ research contexts, incentives were given tomotivate the participants to contribute to the researchproject and a mean for researchers to establish goodconnections with the participants. In Farah’s case, tomotivate the students to complete Web Portfolios as a part ofher research activity, she offered rewards for the best WebPortfolio. She maintained that the students needed additionalmotivation to complete the task for her research activity. Thequestion is here whether this practice could be considered as

7

motivating the participants to respond in accordance toFarah’s research objectives. The answer would be yes and no.Yes, it was a means to motivate the students to contributemore time and effort in completing the Web Portfolios. No, theincentives were not given to influence the types of data andinformation that the students would include in the WebPortfolios. It is important to note that the ethics of givingincentives are based on the intention of the researcher. InFarah’s case, she needed to motivate the participants incompleting her research activity and her incentives did notinfluence the students’ responses and input for the WebPortfolios. Thus, in this case the practice of givingincentives can be used to motivate the participants and at thesame time would not influence the authenticity of theparticipants’ responses.

The researchers also rewarded the students in a debriefingsession with a ‘makan-makan’ session, where participants wereinvited to a casual lunch or tea break.. In the Malaysiancontext, makan-makan was more than just eating a mealtogether; it was also more than a debriefing session; it was acultural celebration for showing appreciation andtogetherness. In the case of Fariza’s research project, thepractice of makan-makan fostered a good relationship betweenFariza and the participants. At the end of the first cycle ofher action research process, she brought the students for amakan-makan session, and when she began her second cycle ofthe research process, she noted that she and the students hada more positive and closer relationship. At the first cycle,the students were reluctant to express their feelings andopinions, but after the makan-makan session, they were moreopen and more willing in sharing their feelings andexperiences in the research project. It seemed that theincentive in the form of makan-makan sessions had a positiveimpact on the research process, as it appeared that it broughtthe researcher and the participants closer.

8

Thus, giving gifts and incentives in the Malaysian contextcannot be seen as something unethical, but should be seen as apositive practice that benefit the researcher in numerousways. It should not be viewed as unethical practice becausethe researchers were taking into account the culturalpractices of the participants. If the researchers had takenout the elements of incentives and gifts from the researchpractices, most probably rich data would not be obtained fromthe participants due to several other factors such ashierarchical power relationship and examination-based culturethat are going to be discussed further in a later section ofthe current paper. With giving gifts and incentives, theresearchers and participants had pleasant feelings and a goodrelationship with each other. Therefore, it is unfair togeneralise the practice of giving gifts or incentives asunethical because the practice is very much based on Malaysiancultural beliefs and practices.

The issue of hierarchical power distanceIn the research projects, the element of power distance hasinadvertently affected the direction of the qualitativeresearch studies. Power, as defined by Hayward (2001), is ‘anetwork of social boundaries that constrain and enable actionfor all actors” (p.11). Hofstede, in his study of the culturaldimension of 40 countries, (2001) has described Malaysia asbeing a hierarchical country where power distance was veryhigh. It means within Malaysia, status and status differencesbetween individuals are recognized and acknowledged (Asma2009; Lim 1998; Lim & Asma 2001; Norma 2000; Schermerhorn1994). Some individuals have more power over others dependingon their rank in the hierarchical structure. Since theresearch projects were conducted within higher educationinstitution contexts that were structured hierarchically, theissue of power distance was quite prominent. The discussion inthe current section revolves around the influences of powerdistance and the negotiations made to reduce the implications

9

towards the research processes. This section also discusseshow status difference in hierarchical settings have bothfacilitated and deterred the researchers’ efforts in carryingout the projects.

Before venturing into the issues of power distance, it isworthwhile to explain the hierarchical structure involved inour research projects. Figure 1.1 illustrated our position asresearchers and the positions of our research participants inthe hierarchical structure. Gosin, Dustman, Drapeau andHarthun (2003) mentioned that researchers are socialized tobelieve that they are the experts and thus puts them in apower position. This was also stated by Lofman, Pelkonen andPietila (2004) who indicated that a researcher has been seenas “holding the power because of their knowledge base,membership of the intelligentsia and as managing the researchagendas” (p.337). Bowman & Anthonysamy (2006) also mentionedthat in Malaysia the researcher has more power as compared toresearch participants. As university lecturers, theresearchers had more access to resources and possessed ahigher status as compared to others such as the teacher-participants and student-participants within the hierarchicalstructure. The teacher-participants hold a higher rank thanthe student-participants who were at the bottom of thestructure; signifying the higher amount of power possessed byteachers over students. In Malaysia, a teacher is oftenregarded as a bearer of knowledge in which case students areto give their highest regards and respect towards theirteachers in the process of learning (Badli Esham & Faizah2010). It is common that out of respect, students will adhereto the teachers’ instructions in many circumstances.

10

Figure 1.1. Hierarchical structure in our research projects

The status differences of the researchers in the researchcontexts influenced the direction of the research projects. InFariza’s study, the teacher-participants were young freshgraduate teachers who had just begun their service in apolytechnic. Fariza, on the other hand, was 10 years older andhas been a lecturer at a university for more than five years.Fariza’s power status was attributed to her position as auniversity lecturer and the 10-year age difference, placingFariza at a higher position in the hierarchical structure. Dueto her position, her teacher-participants were willing tocomply with all the requirements of the research project.Fariza received full participation and was able to control thedirection of the study. Meanwhile, in Farah’s case, she wasworking with another lecturer in a university, who has equalpower position in the hierarchical structure; allowing themequal power in decision making particularly in designing theassessment and content for the construction of portfolios forthe research project. Farah has less control over thedirection of the research project instead she had to negotiatewith the teacher-participant in conducting the researchproject. These two incidences show that within Malaysiancultural contexts, the issues of hierarchical power distance

11

and status difference are inevitable and require considerableattention in the process of planning the research.

Bowman and Anthonysamy (2006) stated that in some places inMalaysia, when the permission from the leader is obtained, theresidents felt obliged to answer researchers’ questions.People from other setting such as from the Western background,might view this practice as a violation of individual rights,however, Asma (2009) stated that Malaysians are a collectivesociety where individuals tend to subordinate personal goalsand hold those in leadership positions in high esteem. Thiswas the case in Ramiza’s study where she obtained the consentof the Dean of the faculty and the unit coordinator to includeher online questionnaires in all the course instructors’Learning Management System (LMS), a database for storing allcourse materials that will be retrieved by course instructorsand students. The course instructors then disseminated theinformation of the online questionnaires and invited thestudents to respond. Ramiza herself was the class instructorfor three groups and she briefed her learners about the studyand the importance of responding to the online questionnaire.They were strongly encouraged to give their feedback butwithout any direct form of coercion. At this stage, Ramizaused her authority as a class instructor to encourageparticipation from the students. This is customary in mostMalaysian educational settings when students felt obliged toparticipate in a research project when encouraged by theteachers, who hold a higher position in the hierarchicalstructure.

Another issue of power distance is exemplified in theparticipatory action research project conducted by Fariza. Hercollaborative efforts with two teacher-participants faced somechallenges in achieving equal power distribution as spelledout in the participatory action research literatures.Initially, the teacher-participants viewed Fariza as a leadresearcher due to her position as a university lecturer. This

12

was evident during the initial decision-making process wherethe teacher-participants asked for Fariza’s approval for theiractions. This point is evident in Extract 1.2 where Siti(teacher-participant) stated her opinion however, beforeending her statement; it seemed that she asked for Fariza’sapproval before deciding not to continue with her statement.This situation had put Fariza in a dilemma between using herauthority to control the outcome of her research project andrealizing the ideals of participatory action researchphilosophy.

Extract 1.2

Fariza

How about we take two parts from the assessment scheme? Maybe we can assess Majalah 3 and the career research presentation. We can take the career research presentation as an individual assessment and Majalah 3 could be assessed as a group assignment.

Siti:

I was thinking the career blog, because, umm, No? I don’t know,I have no ideas (laugh)

(Professional discussion 2, 24 November 2010)

Throughout the research projects, negotiations had to be madeto reduce the influences of the hierarchical power distance.As illustrated by Figure 1.1, within the Malaysian culturalcontext, a teacher is at the top of the hierarchical structurein the classroom and viewed to have authority over thestudents who are at the bottom of the structure. In Fariza’sstudy, obtaining rich data from student-participants posed asa huge challenge because the student-participants viewedFariza as a figure of authority. During her first interviewwith the student-participants, Fariza noted that they hadreservations and were quite reluctant to express ideas andshare their experiences. At the end of the study, the student-participants mentioned that the reason for their reservationwas due to Fariza’s position as a teacher; they were concernedthat their answers would be offensive to Fariza as their

13

teacher. Noticing the power distance between the students andherself, Fariza reduced the gap through creating informallearning setting and engaging in casual conversations.Because of this effort, prior to the project’s completion, shenoticed that her student-participants were more expressive andhad fewer reservations. It appeared that Fariza’s effort inbuilding relationship with the students had reduced the powerdistance that had strained the research relationship betweenFariza and the students. This point is supported by King andHorrocks (2011) when they stated that building rapport is aneffective way to minimise the influence of power between aresearcher and participants.

From the careful analysis of the experiences of the threeresearchers, it seemed clear that the issue of power distancewas quite significant in the hierarchical structures withinthe Malaysian education contexts. In particular, the statusdifference of certain individuals over others based on theirranks in the structure had played an important role indetermining the process and direction of the qualitativeresearch projects. Based on these observations, it isrecommended for future researchers intending to conductqualitative studies in Malaysian education setting toacknowledge hierarchical power distance as an element that mayinfluence the outcome of the research projects. It seemsnecessary for elements of status difference to be negotiatedbetween researchers and their participants in an effort todraw closer the gap that exists between people from differenthierarchical ranks.

The influence of cultural classroom practiceConducting qualitative research in Malaysian educationalsettings is also usually influenced by cultural classroompractice such as heavy orientation towards examinationsuccess. In the Malaysian classroom context, the abilities ofstudents are usually measured through their performances in

14

the examination. Nadzrah (2005), through her study of the useof computers in English language teaching in Malaysianclassrooms noted that teachers prioritised examination successin determining the direction of their teaching and learningpractices. Hwang & Mohamed Amin (2007) in their study ofapproaches by Malaysian teachers in teaching a literaturecomponent in their English as a Second Language (ESL)classroom also indicated that that one of the participants haddeep consideration of the syllabus and examination indetermining the questions and even approaches used in theclassroom. As a result, teachers prefer to prepare thestudents with information and knowledge relevant to passingthe examination and it is very common for teachers to ‘finishup the syllabus’ before embarking in any creative or criticalactivities that are not outlined in the syllabus document. Inmost cases, teaching always mimics the tasks in theexamination convention, for example students are trained towrite essays in a specific time frame and answer comprehensionquestions (Hwang & Mohamed Amin 2007). Fariza (2013)highlighted this point when she investigated the existingcultural classroom practices in Malaysian classroom. She notedthat most of the classroom still approach learning fromreplicating examinations setting. This section of the paperwill highlight the implications of this cultural classroompractice towards the research process and alternative methodsthat had been implemented to negotiate these culturalimplications.

During the initial stage of conducting interviews, all threeresearchers experienced similar issues in getting responsesfrom their participants. The researchers found that theirparticipants had difficulties in expressing their opinions inface-to-face interviews. For example, when Fariza wasconducting her interviews, she found that her students werenot as expressive as she had expected. Despite using theparticipants’ first language when conducting interviews,Fariza experienced difficulties in obtaining detailed

15

information regarding the students’ learning experiencesbecause her participants responded using single-word answers.This point was evident in Extract 1.3:

Extract 1.3Fariza:

: So, you are more comfortable having videos rather than print materials in the classroom?

S10: Yes.Fariza:

How about the rest of you, do you have anything else to say onthis topic?Silence

Fariza:

Nothing?

Silence (with a few nods from a few students. (Informal conversation, 20 December 2010)

This situation was also experienced by Farah in her focusgroup discussions. She observed that there were only a fewmembers who were willing to share their views while the othersremained reserved. In both cases, most participants felt lesscomfortable and seemed worried throughout the interviews as ifthey were sitting for an oral examination.

The students’ passive responses were most probably highlyinfluenced by the Malaysian cultural classroom practices.Classroom practices always stress on giving the correctanswers to a set of examination questions and this practicewas replicated in the research contexts. Most probably, theparticipants were concerned that their answers may beevaluated as assessment such as in examination setting. Notingthis cultural practice, Fariza reminded the students a numberof times that the interview question were not examinationquestions and their answers would not be evaluated as shown inExtract 1.4:

Extract 1.4Fari It is okay, you can talk to me. This is just an informal

16

za: conversation, not a test, so I welcome your opinions.S8: ummm...(silent)Fariza:

I am not judging you in any way. There is no judgement and noevaluation. Just a friendly chat.Silence.

(Informal conversation, 20 December 2010)

The failure of getting responses from students throughqualitative interviews could be attributed to thecontradictory factor between the nature of the interview andthe participants’ classroom cultures. The interviews wereconducted orally and face-to-face, meanwhile examination-basedclassroom practices placed emphasis on reading and writingactivities that often require students to answer questions onpaper. Writing and reading skills are considered relevant toMalaysian national examinations (Fauziah & Nita 2002).Speaking skill is reported to be the least practice skill inthe classroom and “learners were not able to speak well andtheir speaking is the weakest skill among the four languageskills” (Fauziah & Nita 2002). Similarly, learners get lessopportunity to express ideas verbally in the classroom.Indirectly, this classroom culture influenced the students’responses towards verbal interviews where they had issues inexpressing their ideas verbally.

Considering the cultural practice of the participants, theresearchers then decided to consider the student’s learningcultures in order to obtain richer data. First, theresearchers encouraged student-participants to expressthemselves through writing. For example, after failing to getdetailed responses from qualitative interviews, Farizaencouraged the student-participants to write their learningreflections in journals. This was seen as a more effectiveapproach as her participants were used to writing activitiesand would no longer be bounded by the feeling of beingassessed. Farah had also encouraged her participants to bemore open through discussing their concerns about thedevelopment of individual’s Web portfolios through an online

17

forum. Similarly, Ramiza also acknowledged the significance ofwriting in her participants’ classroom cultures that shedecided to collect data through following the thread of onlinediscussion forum. She noted that her participants werecomfortable to write their views and share them with theresearcher and other participants within the group. Moreover,Ramiza allowed the students to write in Bahasa Malaysia, thenational language to encourage extensive individual opinionson the subject matter. These are proofs that the studentswere more comfortable in writing their responses rather thanexpressing them orally. Writing their ideas gave them lesspressure because writing was a customary classroom activityin the Malaysian classroom learning context.

CONCLUSION

Qualitative methods enable researchers to gain rich personaldata in exploring educational issues. This is becausequalitative methods such as interviews and observationsrequire researchers to be in close contact with the researchparticipants. As demonstrated above, cultural background ofthe research locations and participants play a significantrole to ensure the success of data gathering process. Thefirst contribution to knowledge is for researchers to considerthe cultural practices of the research participants.Specifically, researchers are highly encouraged to giveincentives or rewards to participants as an act of expressingappreciation from the researchers. The second contribution toknowledge is researchers should acknowledge hierarchical powerdistance as an element that influences the research projectsoutcome. The issue of power distance in Malaysia is quitesignificant, nevertheless, it is often assimilated to respectwhere the ranking of individuals in the structure determinesthe role of individuals in the society. The final contributionto knowledge is for researchers to negotiate the influence ofparticipants’ examinations-based culture. Speaking creates a

18

great apprehension level to student participants so manyprefer to be reticent. Alternative methods to voice out theiropinions were adopted and among them were the use of journalwriting, social networking and online forum. The participantsexpressed themselves as experiencing high comfort and lessanxious feelings to write their feedback using any of thesemedia.

REFERENCES:

Asma Abdullah 2009, Going glocal: Cultural dimension in Malaysian management, Institut Terjemahan Negara, Kuala Lumpur.

Australian Government 2007, Australian National Statement on Ethicalconduct in Human Research, viewed 26 December 2012,<https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72>

Badli Esham & Faizah Abdul Majid 2010, ‘Cultural influence onSDL among Malay adult learners’, European Journal of Social Sciences,vol. 16, no.2, pp. 244-258.

Bowman, LL & Anthonysamy, A 2006, ‘Malaysian and Americanstudents’ perceptions of research ethics’, College Student Journal,vol. 40, no.1, pp. 1-14.

Fariza Puteh-Behak 2013, ‘Using a multiliteracies approach ina Malaysian Polytechnic classroom: a participatory actionresearch project’, PhD thesis, University of SouthernQueensland, Australia.

Fauziah Hassan & Nita Fauzee Selamat 2002, ‘Why aren’tstudents proficient in ESL: The teachers’ perspective’, TheEnglish Teacher, Vol.28.

Gosin, MN, Dustman, PA, Drapeau, AE & Harthun, ML 2003,‘Participatory action research: creating an effective

19

prevention curriculum for adolescents in the Southwestern US’,Health Education Research, vol. 18, no.3, pp. 363- 379.

Grant, RW & Sugarman, J 2004, ‘Ethics in human subjectsresearch: Do incentives matter?’, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy,vol.29, no. 6, pp.717-738.

Hamzah Sendut 1991, ‘Managing in a multicultural society- TheMalaysian experience’, Malaysian Management Review, vol.26, pp.61-69.

Head, E 2009, ‘The ethics and implications of payingparticipants in qualitative research’, International Journal of SocialResearch Methodology, vol.12, no.4, pp.335- 344.

Hofstede, G 2001, Culture consequences:comprising values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, California.

Hong, Yy 2009, ‘A dynamic constructivist approach to culture:Moving from describing culture to explaining culture’, in RSWyer, C Chiu & Yy Hong (eds.), Understanding culture: theory, research,and application, Taylor & Francis Group, New York.

Hwang, D & Mohamed Amin Embi 2007, ‘Approaches employed bysecondary school teachers to teaching the Literature componentin English’, Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan, vol.22 , pp.1-23.

Jaramillo, JA 1996, ‘Vygotsky's sociocultural theory andcontributions to the development of constructivist curricula’,Education, vol. 111, no. 1, pp.133-140. King, N & Horrocks, C 2010, Interviews in Qualitative Research, Sage,London.

Lantolf, JP 2000, ‘Introducing sociocultural theory’, in JPLantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

20

Lim, L 1998, ‘Cultural attributes of Malays and MalaysianChinese: Implications for research and practice’, MalaysianManagement Review, vol. 33, no.2.

Lim, L & Asma Abdullah 2001, ‘Cultural dimensions of Anglos,Australians and Malaysians’, Malaysian Management Review, vol. 36,no.2.

Lofman, P, Pelkonen, M & Pietila, A 2004, ‘Ethical issues inparticipatory action research’ Scand J Caring Sci, vol.18, pp.333-340.

Nadzrah, AB 2005, ‘Computers for teaching English as a SecondLanguage (secondary school) in Malaysia: a case study’, PhDthesis, University of Adelaide, Australia.

Norma Mansor 2000, ‘Malaysian culture and the leadership oforganizations: A GLOBE study’, Malaysian Management Review, vol.35,no.2.

Quynh Le 2008, ‘Intercultural issues in conducting healthcarequalitative research’, Qualitative Research Journal, vol.8, no.2,pp.104-112.

Schermerhorn, JR 1994, ‘Intercultural management training: Aninterview with Asma Abdullah’, Journal of Management, vol.13,no.3, pp.47-64.

Singer, E & Couper, MP 2008, ‘Do incentives exert undueinfluence on survey participation? Experimental evidence’, JEmpir Res Hum Res Ethics, vol.3, no.3, p.p 49-56.

Turuk, MC 2008, ‘The relevance and implications of Vygotsky'ssocioculturaltheory in the second language classroom’, ARECLS,vol.5, pp. 244-262.

Vygotsky, L 1978, Mind and society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

21

22