Abstract
The purpose of this article is to illustrate how mixed methods research can be applied as a rigorous method for developing a quantitative instrument responsive to an indigenous culture in Malaysia. In a sequential research design, a three-round Delphi study was conducted to integrate open-ended and free-listing data, and to generate a list of items. The items were subjected to a field test to ensure reliability. A correspondence analysis of scale was employed to examine the validity of the instrument. This research contributes to mixed methods by illustrating the value of Delphi groups as part of a mixed methods research design and the utility of mixed methods research in advancing the validity and reliability of an indigenous cultural values instrument.
The substantial integration of qualitative and quantitative findings and data in developing cultural values instruments is seldom seen, although optimizing instrument validity depends on it (Hitchcock et al., 2005; Onwuegbuzie, Rebecca, & Judith, 2010). This lack of integration may partly be due to the traditional philosophical assumptions that qualitative or quantitative approaches cannot be combined and used together. Another obstacle may be the scarcity of good examples to which researchers can turn when seeking to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods to develop either qualitative or quantitative instruments, but the full list of reasons is probably more complex. Cultural values are conceptualized as shared beliefs that a group of people use to make sense of their world (Hofstede, 1980). Researchers know how to enhance the reliability of the instruments that measure values through quantitative techniques. They are also aware that values are intangible elements of cultures, a latent feature of societies, a normative system that is independent of individuals and often deeply internalized (Schwartz, 1999). Therefore, these values can be best accessed and understood through qualitative methods such as interviews and other forms of observation. As such, a successful assessment of cultural values must rely on some combination of the two methods to develop a fuller picture and to benefit from the strength of each method. Using an integrative approach would be far more beneficial because it allows for producing results that are more valid and reliable.
Thus, the purpose of this article is to illustrate how mixed methods can be applied as a rigorous method for developing cultural instruments to measure individual differences in personal cultural orientations. The mixed methods can be used at different cultural levels, but in this article, it is applied to elaborate individual cultural values differences in a single homogeneous culture to show the effectiveness of the mixed methods research. A comparison among cultural groups requires conducting separate studies in each culture to redefine and add cultural values from the people within these cultures.
Values, Cultural Values, and Culture
Although the terms “values,” “cultural values,” and “culture” are often used interchangeably, each term is actually a distinct piece of the larger picture. Values are defined as desirable goals that guide people to select and evaluate actions, policies, and events (Schwartz, 1999). Values operate at the individual and group levels. At the individual level, values express broad desirable goals that guide and affect the way individuals interpret and perceive events and situations (Schwartz, 1999). At the group level, values are shared conceptions of what is good, right, and desirable in solution groups (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1999). Cultural values are the group values that members of a society share and develop in response to existential challenges (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1999). Cultural values therefore play a crucial role in the way that social institutions function. Culture is defined as all of a group’s guiding values, rituals, heroes, and symbols taken together as one big whole (Hofstede, 1980).
To measure differences in cultural values, most previous research in cross-cultural psychology has focused on the national level values scales (Fontaine & Richardson, 2005; Terpstra-Tong, Terpstra, & Tee, 2014). However, national level values are conceptually quite different from cultural values because they prioritize the values that are shared at the national level and therefore neglect the cultural fragmentation within each nation (Fischer et al., 2005). Understanding and being able to assess cultural values initially requires a multidimensional approach to measure the value differences among individuals in a culture (Sharma, 2010) and then adding the values that are responsive to cultural levels (Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011). Mixed methods research can achieve both targets because it captures the voices of key informants, the people to whom the instrument will be administered (Ingersoll-Dayton, 2011).
Cultural Assessment Approaches
There are two dominant approaches to cultural assessment: culture-centered and personality-centered approaches (Clark, 1990). Culture-centered approaches are qualitative methods of cultural assessment (Lenartowicz & Roth, 1999) and primarily follow anthropologists’ point of view that cultures are so diverse and complex that they cannot be measured but merely described and observed (Haviland, 1990). Such an approach provides descriptive data that delineate cultural characteristics. Quantitative results are not produced, although the method does provide useful information for cross-cultural comparisons (Lenartowicz & Roth, 1999).
The personality-centered approach relies on quantitative measures for describing and identifying culture. This approach assesses culture through two basic methods: the use of proxies (Adler & Graham, 1989) and value inference (Erez & Earley, 1993). Generally, proxies link cultural groupings to cultural geographic locations such as nationality, country of origin, and place of birth (Adler & Graham, 1989). A limitation of this method is the absence of ratio and interval measures to compare or rank cultures based on their characteristics. The proxies are only used to categorize cultures based on their regional affiliation; thus, the culture measure was nominal (Lenartowicz & Roth, 1999).
The value inference approach assumes a value-based conceptualization of culture (Lenartowicz & Roth, 1999). Central to this approach is the proposition that culture is a set of learned characteristics largely shared by members of a particular group (Triandis, 1996). Examples of such values are collectivism and power distance (Hofstede, 1997), conservatism and mastery (Schwartz, 1999). This approach provides interval and ratio measure to compare cultural scores and to test the hypothesized relationships among cultures as an independent variable, along with dependent variables. Attempts to use scales developed by this approach to compare the cultural values differences across cultures has encountered several problems including insufficient attention to cultural nuances (Ingersoll-Dayton, 2011), inappropriate definition and labeling (Ho, 1996) and unsuitable response sets (Hui & Triandis, 1989).
In the evaluation of the above cultural assessment approaches, Lenartowicz and Roth (1999) indicated that none of these approaches alone can address an inclusive set of criteria relevant to cultural assessment. Their suggestion was consistent with Clark’s (1990, p.77) recommendation for future research based on a “marriage of methodologies.” Although the significance of this marriage has been regularly utilized in mixed methods research (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007; Fetters & Freshwater, 2015), far fewer studies have actually been completed using mixed methods to develop quantitative instruments assessing cultural values (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2010).
The mixed methods approach is particularly relevant to the development of culturally sensitive instruments because it provides a way to incorporate the perceptions of indigenous people (Ingersoll-Dayton, 2011). Using an integrated approach would be so much more rewarding because it would allow each method to address aspects of cultural values and would therefore yield more comprehensive data (Yin, 2006). Researchers have attempted to propose several systematic ways to optimize the process of integration in mixed methods studies (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017; Yin, 2006). The framework of five procedures proposed by Yin (2006) is broadly reflected in this research. Yin (2006) identified the five procedures as research questions, units of analysis, sampling, instrumentation and data collection, and analytic strategies.
Methods in Extracting Dimensions of Cultural Values
Much of the work on categorizing the values described in the literature is based on dimension reduction analysis and can be characterized as quantitative. Typically, instrument developers conceptualize items to develop both theory-based (Inglehart, 2003; Schwartz, 1999) and nontheory-based (Hofstede, 1980; Rokeach, 1973) instruments to measure shared values (Triandis, 1996). Principle component analysis and factor analysis have often been used for extracting value dimensions (Inglehart, 2003; Sharma, 2010). Despite their wide-scale usage, dimension reduction techniques have been subjected to no small amount of criticism (D. W. Stewart, 1981).
Most of this criticism focuses on the misapplication of factor analysis as a tool for clustering purposes (D. W. Stewart, 1981). Because factor analysis provides a set of coordinate axes, numerous clusters can be defined by the position of the entities on any one dimension and by various combinations of dimensions (D. W. Stewart, 1981). This is particularly the case in the values studies in which researchers are interested not in describing a value by factors but in describing a factor by values. The ultimate determination of dimensions requires analyses beyond factoring (Pervin, Cervone, & John, 2005).
Another reason for the popularity of the dimension reduction methods can be attributed to the availability of computer programs that were designed to use reflective indicators to measure concepts. Generally, there are two types of indicators: Reflective and formative. Reflective indicators are defined as observed variables that are manifest of the latent variables. In contrast, formative indicators are defined as observed variables that define the latent variables (Jarvis, Mackenzie, Podsakoff, Mick, & Bearden, 2003). The process for evaluating the validity and reliability of reflective constructs does not apply to formative constructs (Petter, Straub, & Rai, 2007).
The blind use of reflective indicators is a principal cause of the dissatisfaction with the measurement technique. Jarvis et al. (2003) searched the top four journals in marketing for the 24-year period from 1977 through 2000 to identify all empirical applications of latent variables structural equation modeling or confirmatory factor analysis. According to them, 29% of the formative constructs in the top four journals were incorrectly modeled as having reflective measures. As such, Jarvis et al. (2003) suggested a set of criteria to identify a construct as either formative or reflective. Following their suggestions, the indicators of values dimensions should be formative because the value dimension is a composite of these indicators. The use of formative indicators to measure constructs has become popular in recent years because of the development of some powerful statistical software, such as partial least square. This research provides guidance on how researchers should approach data reduction analysis in mixed methods studies to extract the value dimensions and to develop formative indicators.
Delphi Technique
The Delphi method is a pragmatic research methods that was first introduced by the RAND Corporation in the 1950s (Yousuf, 2007). It is a group method that aims to achieve the most reliable consensus of opinions from experts by using a series of questionnaires within a controlled feedback process (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The Delphi technique allows experts to address anonymously in their own time complex topics in their area of expertise (Yousuf, 2007). There are many varieties of Delphi that range from qualitative to quantitative and mixed methods Delphi.
We conducted a mixed methods Delphi study because values are abstract ideals (Rokeach, 1973). Much of the difficulties in understanding the concept of “values” originates from the fact that values are invisible elements of a culture. Values do not exist in isolation in individuals’ minds but rather are linked with other beliefs and are embedded in multiple and complex layers of social interaction (Hofstede, 1980). The complexity of the concept of “values” has raised a common concern among sociologists regarding the construct validity of instruments that measure values (Hitchcock et al., 2005). To enhance measurement validity, it is crucial to have a clear comprehension of what value is being measured and to have a shared understanding of exactly what values exist in a culture (Ingersoll-Dayton, 2011; Maltseva, 2016). The Delphi study allows for greater participation and inclusion from experts in indigenous cultures who are often left out by traditional instrument developers due to the quantitative nature of their research methods.
Another reason for using the Delphi method relates to the inherent ability of the technique to provide both qualitative and quantitative tools to analyze data. “Delphi straddles the divide between qualitative and quantitative methodologies” (Critcher & Gladstone, 1998. p. 443). There is a preponderance of studies that show the usefulness of integrating qualitative and quantitative research in a Delphi process. One well-known mixed methods Delphi study is that of the effectiveness of the enforcement of new international regulations on ship emissions by Bloor. Sampson, Baker, and Dahlgren (2015). Another mixed methods Delphi study is Tapio, Paloniemi, Varho, and Vinnari’s (2011) work involving insightful analyses of the strengths, weaknesses, and pitfalls encountered when combining qualitative and quantitative information in a Delphi process by studying seven disaggregative policy Delphi material conducted in Finland from 1999 to 2008. In each case, the mixed methods Delphi study has actually validated researchers’ findings through integration and has enabled the understanding of a phenomenon in greater depth. This potential value makes the mixed methods Delphi a suitable tool to produce a holistic picture and to capture the internal organization of complex abstract entities such as cultural values.
Correspondence Analysis of Scales
Many values studies have successfully implemented various forms of analysis to identify the important values dimensions by which people can be differentiated (i.e., smallest space analysis in Schwartz [1999]; ecological analysis in Hofstede [1980]; factor analysis in Inglehart [2003]). The analyses in these studies were based on single items. Here, we use the correspondence analysis of scales, which allows treating multiple values dimensions and demographic characteristics simultaneously to reveal variation within the target culture. The technique was effectively used by Maltseva (2016) in his analysis to explore the values structure of Swedish values in prosocial cooperation.
The technique provides an appropriate visual representation to describe cultural values. Such a visualization of the mutual effect of demographics and cultural values offers a “big picture” of complex dimensional structures, which is advantageous in studies of cultural models (Maltseva, 2016). It is a particularly strong option for mixed methods researchers because it solves the issue of simplification that is entailed in the process of data reduction (Neuman, 2011).
Cultural Context
Asia, with its wide spectrum of people from different cultural backgrounds, continues to be an interesting place for researchers. Among Asian countries, Malaysia has a remarkable cultural diversity and provides a fertile ground for studying various aspects of culture. The main ethnic groups within Malaysia are Malays, Chinese, and Indians, with many other ethnic groups represented in smaller numbers (Terpstra-Tong et al., 2014). Malays speak in Bahasa, practice their own customs and observe Islam as their religion. Most Chinese speak Mandarin in their daily life, with their own dialects, such as Cantonese. They are followers of various religions and practices such as Buddhism and Christianity (Asma, 1992). Indians in Malaysia live mainly in West Malaysia, and many still follow their customs from their original country of India.
Despite clear differences in symbols, heroes, and rituals, most of the previous studies in this context did not find significant differences in the cultural values among these ethnic groups. For example, Fontaine and Richardson (2005) used the Schwartz Value Scale to compare the cultural values of Chinese, Malay, and Indian ethnic groups in peninsular Malaysia by using a quantitative approach. They found that at the cultural-level, 82% of the values are shared by all three ethnic groups without any significance differences at 5%. L. Lim (2001) found no significant difference between the Malays and Chinese in Hofstede (1980) work-related values. Terpstra-Tong et al. (2014) investigated the three ethnic cultures in Malaysia by examining the individual-level values of managers and professionals. Based on responses to a Schwartz Value Survey, they found that Chinese and Indians did not differ significantly across all cultural value dimensions, which is interesting because these two groups have very different cultural heritages. Only Malays were found by the researchers to be more conservative and less self-transcendent than Chinese or Indians. These findings are clearly opposed to the presence of distinct cultural practices and ethnic artifacts in Malaysia. As such, there is a need to examine how Malaysians express their values in everyday life and to develop a methodology to describe and measure them accurately. In this article, the focus is on the Malays because they are the largest ethnic group in Malaysia. Generally, a Malay, as defined in article 160(2) of the Malaysian constitution, is a person who professes Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, and conforms to Malay customs known as adat.
Method
Overview of the Study Design
An exploratory sequential mixed methods design, our study comprises two phases: a Delphi study and field test phase. The Delphi study began with a qualitative opening round wherein the experts were asked to provide responses to open-ended questions concerning the Malay culture. After generating the data input, the emphasis changed to quantitative analysis and the collection of data to achieve a consensus of the experts’ opinions on the emerged values and items. At the same time, the experts were asked to respond to other open-ended questions for clustering purposes.
Once the instrument was developed, it was subjected to a field test to assess the appropriateness of each item and the test reliability of the instrument. The main steps for the mixed methods Delphi process and field test study procedure are depicted in Figure 1. The necessary steps for this technique are below.
Procedural diagram of using a mixed methods Delphi technique to create an indigenous cultures measurement instrument.
Phase I Delphi Study
Panel of Experts
The validity of the results of the Delphi technique lies in its ability to draw on expertise (Yousuf, 2007). In this study, the expertise of the panel members was defined based on their experience and knowledge of Malay culture. The experts’ level of knowledge was assessed based on their scientific profile and publications. Subsequently, the experts’ level of experiences was evaluated in terms of professional accomplishments in multiple domains of professional functioning relevant to Malay culture. To this end, three of the following four criteria had to be meet: (a) publication in the area of Malay values in one of the relevant major journals or the publication of a book related to Malay values; (b) a minimum of a PhD in the various fields related to Malay culture such as anthropology, history, and so on; (c) the experts needed to be Malay; and (d) the experts needed to be employed for at least 5 years as a researcher at any cultural institution or local higher learning institution in an area related to Malay culture. The existence of published research as a mark of expertise meant that the potential respondents had their expertise assessed by two or three anonymous referees during the publication process.
As presented in Table 1, a total of seven experts were selected by purposive sampling. A panel of 5 to 10 members was deemed to be sufficient for an exploratory study with a homogeneous population (Martino, 1973). A cover letter, the rounds questionnaire and a study information sheet were distributed to the seven participants by e-mail. To increase the survey’s accessibility, it was produced in Microsoft Word 2013, which could be completed off-line and returned via e-mail.
Experts Profile.
Number of Rounds
Three rounds were found to be sufficient to yield consensus among the panelists. This three-round Delphi process involved a series of questionnaires in which a questionnaire was subsequently formulated from the respondents’ feedbacks and comments to the preceding questionnaire. The number of rounds depends on the level of consensus and sufficiency of information (Sobaih, Ritchie, & Jones, 2012).
First Round: Qualitative Data Collection
The purpose of Round 1 was to generate a comprehensive list of the values relating to Malay culture. This round used open-ended questions to glean as much information as possible (Taylor & Judd, 1989). The experts were asked to (a) describe the Malays’ ethnic groups, (b) identify specific characteristic of Malays, and (c) indicate up to 10 basic and fundamental values of Malays.
The first two questions provided background information regarding Malay values. To analyze these two questions, the following steps were taken to ensure proper rigor. First, all data were transcribed into a Microsoft Word file. Second, from the database, the segments of text hat related to a single concept were tagged. If responses were repeated, the creation of new themes emerged.
The purpose of the third question was to generate an initial pool of values that reflected different aspects of Malay culture. The question asked the participants to name basic values among Malays. This method is referred to as a free-listing technique and has been used extensively by researchers (Maltseva, 2016). It was used at the initial stage of the Delphi study to outline the salient values among Malays. The idea is that the values that appear frequently in expert responses are probably more important than the values that appear infrequently.
First Round: Results
The information gathered from the panelists showed that culture plays a very important role either directly or indirectly in the everyday life of Malays. When the panel members were asked to indicate the unique values of Malays, they were consistent in their responses that Malays are polite, accommodative, collectivist, and soft-hearted. They stated that They are so open and accommodative towards other ethnic groups. (Expert 3, March 5, 2015) A Malay ethnic group is collective in nature, accommodating, polite, male-authority-oriented with strong family ties. (Expert 5, March 2, 2015) Malay ethnic group values modesty and a collectivist culture. (Expert 6, February 12, 2015)
Being friendly and helpful is also important to them.
They have a deep sense of belonging or esprit de corps towards their friends and family. It is not difficult to win the hearts and minds of the Malays. Malay people like to help others, and they usually do not like the person who stabs them from behind. (Expert 3, March 5, 2015)
In terms of the unique characteristics of Malays, the responses focused on Malays’ uniqueness in their communication patterns. Malays prefer other people to communicate with them in less straightforward and more empathic ways. The common pattern of communication was echoed by one expert as Values harmonious relationships, and they are very indirect. (Expert 6, February 12, 2015)
Therefore, the panelists’ responses to the first two questions led us to conclude that Malays share values such as politeness, an accommodating nature, indirectness, and collectivism in their societies.
The third question that was asked required the experts to indicate up to 10 values of the Malay culture. As illustrated in Table 2, the panelists provided a list of values that they perceived to be the most relevant to the Malay culture. To assess the face validity, we looked for the values that were mentioned by at least two experts to proceed to the next rounds (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989).
Values Mentioned by Experts in Round One.
Note. E = expert.
Second Round: Qualitative Data Collection that Led to Categorizing the Value Dimensions
The purpose of the second round was to achieve the experts’ consensus on the values that emerged from the first round and to categorize the values into distinct dimensions by searching for cross-themes. Although the first round instrumentation presented open-ended statements to generate a depth and breadth of input (divergence), the second round initiated the process of convergence. This round included two sections.
In the first section, the panel members provided data through closed-ended questions with a Likert-type scale. This scale made it possible to score the list of values from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important). A total score for each value emerged from the statistical analysis. A descriptive analysis was used to calculate the median of the total score. This median was considered to be a cutoff point to achieve consensus. The total score was defined as a summation of the experts’ importance rating of each value. The median is the most accurate statistical approach to show group views (Martino, 1973). This method is consistent with the average majority consensus cutoff rate that has been sporadically used in Delphi studies (Heiko, 2012). Only the responses that received a higher median score than the cutoff point were used in the next round. In the second section, the experts were asked to define the most repeated values from their point of view to reduce the overlap across themes. This step led to the creation of a hierarchy of categories.
Second Round: Results
As presented in Table 3, the values frequently mentioned by the experts rated a higher score. The findings confirmed our assumptions in the first round. The median cutoff point for this step was found to be 21. Thus, if the total score for each value was greater than 21, a consensus is reached.
Importance Rate and Expert Consensus.
Note. E = expert.
A summary of the experts’ responses are illustrated in Table 4. The following is a discussion of the data by themes.
Malay Values and Its Dimensions.
Politeness
The first of the four dimensions of Malay culture revealed by this study is politeness. It is gauged by the way that Malays behave toward one another during interactions. From the perspective of the experts, politeness emanated from two different levels of social interaction: superior–subordinate (vertical) and peers (horizontal). In superior–subordinate interactions, respect, and tolerance in addressing superiors, particularly elders in the context of society, were considered to be the most important criteria in the evaluation of politeness. This view was clearly stated by the experts.
Being polite is important in a hierarchical-based society, and it means respecting others who are more senior in age. This means having to be tolerant of their ways even if you do not like what they say and do. (Expert 1, March 18, 2015) Politeness means being patient in dealing with others. (Expert 7, March 23, 2015) Politeness is “Lending them (other people) your ears, elders first.” (Expert 6, March 19, 2015)
Among peers’ interaction, maintaining harmony and avoiding conflict were the main points in the assessment of politeness.
Respect and try to ensure not to offend or hurt others’ feelings. As much as possible, he/she tries to understand other people or other ethnicities and tries to make them happy. (Expert 3, March 20, 2015)
Moreover, being indirect in communication as a way to achieve politeness has been previously clearly pointed out by Malay researchers (Awang, Maros, & Ibrahim 2012). Therefore, politeness was categorized based on three values: (a) respect of elders, (b) indirectness, and (c) being tolerant in dealing with other people.
Collectivism
The second dimension of Malay culture is collectivism. The term presents individuals’ relationship with group members and the collectivity that dominates in Malay society. The main belief that underlies the Malay interpretation of collectivism is that people are interrelated with one another, and their success depends on their collective effort. The emphasis on group preferences was well-stated by one expert: Collectivist means being comfortable working in groups rather than alone. Teamwork is important. (Expert 1, March 18, 2015)
Other comments suggested that Malays tend to seek a majority consensus and being accepted by society. Being helpful and fulfilling their duty towards other people is unquestionable.
Collectivism means seeking a majority consensus. (Expert 6, March 19, 2015; Expert 7, March 23, 2015) Collective values refer to the values that are held together or practiced together by the community. These values have been practiced for a long time such as helpfulness, Gotong-Royong and concern for neighbors. (Expert 3, March 20, 2015)
In general, according to the panel members, collectivism was more related to (a) group preferences, (b) the reciprocation of favor, (c) duty, and (d) seeking a majority consensus.
Accommodation
The third dimension of the Malay culture is an accommodating nature. This dimension revealed one of the most unique characteristic of the Malay ethnic group. It refers to the series of actions by and beliefs of the individual and community to accept and to be accepted by other people and otherness. The basic belief that underlies Malays’ accommodating nature is that human beings are not the same, and Malays should “understand” (Expert 1, March 18, 2015) and “appreciate (the) differences” (Expert 7, March 23, 2015; Expert 2, March 3, 2015) of other people. They should “behave accordingly” (Expert 3, March 20, 2015) to live in a “peaceful and harmonious society” (Expert 1, June 12, 2015). We consistently found the following comments in the documents.
Being accommodating is being sensitive to the feelings and nuances of others. (Expert 1, March 18, 2015)
An accommodating nature is the “willingness to accept others” (Expert 7, March 23, 2015).
The Malays are willing to accept other ethnic groups or others in accordance with their willingness to compromise. An accommodating attitude causes others to respect them. (Expert 3, March 20, 2015) Accommodating attitude refers to the willing to accept others without prejudice and bias. (Expert 3, March 20, 2015)
To achieve this end, Malays need to be flexible and open minded. As mentioned by the experts, Malays are very open minded. (Expert 2, March 3, 2015) Accommodating is more about flexibility. (Expert 6, March 19, 2015)
Accordingly, the expert discussions regarding an accommodating nature involved two values: (a) to appreciate differences and (b) being flexible in dealing with others.
Hierarchy
The fourth dimension of Malays’ culture is hierarchy. This dimension emphasizes the legitimacy of an unequal distribution of power, wealth and recourses. This value revealed that Malays’ source of strength comes from their membership in an extended group, their clan and their position in society.
According to the experts, hierarchy is “A cultural dimension which states that in some cultures, emphasis is placed on rank, status and other ascribed attributes over equality issues” (Expert 1, March 18, 2015).
Hierarchy also “Refers to the social status in the community, age, family relationships” (Expert 3, March 20, 2015) and “Accept(s) powers’ distance” (Expert 6, March 23, 2015).
Therefore, the hierarchy dimension referred to the status-based values in the community such as (a) power, (b) wealth, and (c) family relationships.
Third Round: Quantitative Data Collection that Led to Achieve a Consensus Toward the Survey Items Generated From the Qualitative Data Collection
This round comprised two sections to generate items based on the cultural values that emerged from the previous rounds. The first section was used to develop a set of items related to Malay values, and the second section was used to ensure that the developed items were sufficiently viable to present these values.
Each item contains two ways to express motivations for achieving particular goals by pointing out the importance of values in the first sentence and by indicating what people want or would like to do in the second sentence. Thus, the first sentence provides clear value statements, and the second sentence presents an intention and a feeling. The two sentences were used to focus more on the basic meaning of each item.
In addition, the respondents were asked to compare themselves with the statements in each item. The levels of similarity with the items ranged from 1 (not like me at all) to 6 (very much like me) on a Likert-type scale. This format is more common in everyday life rather than other alternative formats such as the importance level. People constantly assess other people and compare them with themselves (Schwartz, 2003). After developing these items, two pilot studies were conducted to improve the clarity and simplicity of the items.
The second section set out to obtain the experts’ agreement on the most relevant items that present Malay values. In this section, the experts were asked to evaluate the degree of the relevance of the items on the instrument by answering a question (how much the person in the description is similar to Malays) with 6 (very much like Malay), 5 (like Malays), 4 (somewhat like Malays), 3 (a little like Malays), 2 (not like Malays), or 1 (not like Malays at all). Consensus was assessed by the five experts who participated in the previous two rounds.
For this section, more than 80% agreement on a 6-point Likert-type scale on the top three measures (very much like Malay, like Malay, and somewhat like Malay) was considered to be a consensus. The items with lower ratings were removed from the instrument. The same approach was used by Putnam, Spiegel, and Bruininks (1995). We decided to be conservative and use 80% as the cutoff point for this final evaluation to identify the instrument that would be acceptable for use in future studies.
Third Round: Results
Accordingly, 16 items were developed to measure various aspects of Malay culture. In addition, three items were adapted from the hierarchy dimension of Schwartz’s (2003) scale because they represented the findings well. After conducting two pilot studies, seven items were modified to improve clarity, and one item was eliminated because of a median of less than 3. Finally, a total of 17 items had reached consensus on completion of Round 3, which is shown in Table 5. This result represents 94% of the total number of the items. The final instrument is shown in Table 6.
The Experts Final Evaluation Results.
Final Malay Value Items.
Note. P = politeness; A = accommodating; C = collectivism; H = hierarchy.
Phase II Field-Test Study: Quantitative Data Collection
The purpose of this field-test study was to ensure that the items developed in the Delphi study were valid and reliable. To this end, a purposive sample of 352 out of 416 respondents were qualified to be analyzed. The eligible respondents were Malays with various backgrounds from across Malaysia. Sixty-six surveys were excluded from the data analysis because of miscoded and unengaged responses. The respondents were older than 18 years, so that they had a stable sense of themselves as ethnic members (Phinney, 1989). The instrument was developed first in English and then translated into Bahasa Melayu. A back-translation was conducted by Malay graduate students to improve the translation accuracy. Five research assistants were recruited to directly distribute the questionnaire to the respondents. All items were assessed on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not like me at all) to 7 (totally like me). A summary of the respondents’ demographic profile is shown in Table 7.
Respondents Demographic Profile.
Comparison Between the Experts and Sample Results
The results of the field test are presented in Table 8. The findings demonstrate that the pattern of results is similar to the experts’ final evaluation results. The items related to politeness received the highest mean score among the Malay respondents. Similar results were found for the accommodating, collectivism, and hierarchy items. As expected, the hierarchy items received the lowest mean score among the respondents. Therefore, the findings from this study lead us to conclude that the items developed in the Delphi study are reliable in representing Malay values.
Results of the Field Test.
Correspondence Analysis
This analysis allows the visualizing and mutual positioning of cultural values relative to one another with respect to the demographic information in a two-dimensional space. The output is shown in Figure 2. Based on the median score for each item, the values’ data were divided into a high and low value orientation to be able to attribute and emphasize the differences that originate from the respondents’ demographic profiles.
Correspondence analysis output for Malays cultural values scales and demographic categories.
The dispersion of demographic characteristics on the graph and their unequal distance from the high and low value orientations suggest that Malays from different demographic profiles possess different cultural values. The equidistant position of genders from the high and low value orientations indicates the absence of strong differences in value orientation between Malay males and females. However, females have a slightly higher sense of belongingness to their parents’ culture. In contrast, the wide distribution of the respondents’ geographic profiles around the graph indicates the importance of this factor in shaping Malays’ value orientations. Furthermore, Malays’ income level appears to be a more influential factor than gender and geographic factors in reflecting Malays’ values. Malays with a higher income level clearly indicated a higher value orientation. Finally, the level of value orientation also increased with age. Overall, the value orientation was somewhat higher for females and for the Malays who were older and richer, which indicates that the instrument is sufficiently sensitive to reflect the value differences within different demographic categories in Malay culture.
Discussion
The close distance of the high value orientation from the center of the graph draws attention to the importance of cultural values. From the results, it appears that politeness is the most important value dimension among Malays. The findings demonstrate that Malays avoid any actions and inclinations that lead to conflict with other people because it may violate their social solidarity. To achieve politeness, Malays need to be indirect in their communication, to be tolerant in dealing with other people and to respect other people, particularly elders.
At the most abstract level, politeness may indeed be a universal phenomenon (Brown & Levinson, 1987). However, it would be a grave error to assume that the values attached to politeness are similar across cultures. Indeed, what counts as polite behavior is different from one culture to another culture (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The association between politeness and cultural context is also evident in Malay society. Malays’ politeness ideological notions are influenced by the concept of budi, which can be translated to wisdom or intellect (K. H. Lim, 2003). In the Malay culture, the achievement of the politeness value types in an individual’s social world is one of the most significant goals of everyday living such that the concern for achieving politeness appears to be an even higher value than other important outcomes.
The types of the politeness values identified in this study indicate the dynamic process to achieve harmony within a society that is both collectivist and hierarchical. Malay politeness examines the oft-expressed link between harmony and the hierarchical system in which the maintenance of harmonious relationships is considered to be fundamental to the daily basic regulation of social interaction. Achieving politeness in both directions will help Malays live in harmony and preserve the relational and social order. This is more than simply just a term for “proper behavior,” which is often mentioned in universal scales, such as Schwartz’s (2003) Value Scale, to indicate the politeness level across cultures.
The second dimension that came to the surface was collectivism. It emphasizes Malays’ tendency to seek a majority consensus. This collective value may be influenced by the Confucian heritage. In the civilization process, Confucianism spread its impact from mainland China to neighboring nations over hundreds of years (Chang, 1997). Deliberate attempts to follow and practice Confucian values are evident in these nations. Indeed, Malaysia has a uniquely amalgamated culture deeply steeped in centuries of history and external influences. Therefore, it is logical to assume that Malay culture has also been influenced by these Confucian values. Values such as majority consensus, duty, and teamwork can be emphasized as evidence that signifies the importance of cultural collectivism among Malays.
Cultural collectivism can also be attributed to Malays’ past income resources and climatic determinism (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). Collectivism was observed to be stronger in lower income nations (Van de Vliert, 2011) with greater climatic hardship (Van de Vliert & Postmes, 2012). Therefore, perhaps it should have come as no surprise that this study found Malays to be strong collectivists.
The third dimension was being accommodating. The emphasis on being accommodating is manifested by one’s value of appreciating differences and being flexible in dealing with other people. Being accommodating is necessary to achieve interpersonal and social harmony. The achievement of interpersonal and social harmony helps Malays to have a higher level of life satisfaction (Kwan, Bond, & Singelis, 1997), a higher level of perceived health (S. Stewart et al., 1998), and a lower level of depression (Chen, Chan, Bond, & Stewart, 2006). Appreciating differences and being flexible allows them to live peacefully together in a conflict free-manner (Jia, 2008) and in particular, work together more effectively in a situation where each member has different opinions concerning the best process to achieve work-related goals (Lun & Bond, 2006).
The fourth dimension was hierarchy. It refers to status-based values in the community used to get ahead in the social hierarchy. Malays see society as a conglomeration of individuals who are inherently unequal in rank. They believe a person’s social status reflects his or her position in society. This fact enables them to admit and accept their position in the social hierarchy and allows everyone to fulfill his or her prescribed tasks (Lun, 2012). Ultimately, society would progress without any challenge and disorder. To justify this hierarchical interaction of social life and to motivate Malays to accept this power distance, they must treat the tangible and abstract outcomes of power such as wealth, being obedient, and family relationships as values. This is perhaps the reason why Malays adhere to hierarchical values in their society.
Limitations
This study does not intend to trace the origin of Malay values. The analysis of the original values of the traditional Malays is a very difficult task (Hamid, 1991) due to its considerable contact with Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, and European civilizations. It should also be emphasized that our goal is not to put our target cultures and their values under a religion umbrella. Religion as a system of symbols can provide a powerful meaning and transformation mechanism between values and objective reality and can clothe them with such an aura of faculty that the meanings seem uniquely realistic to be evaluated by individuals (Geertz, 1973). Therefore, it is not accurate to say that religions form cultural values.
Contribution to Mixed Methods Research
The results illustrate the usefulness of mixed methods research in advancing the validity and reliability of an indigenous cultural values instrument. It helps researchers understand a wider range of cultural differences at the individual level, especially in multicultural countries. The indigenously derived instrument introduced in this article proposed value dimensions such as “politeness” and “accommodation” that did not load on any quantitative or qualitative values instruments. This study has already shown how these value dimensions differ across demographic groups in our target culture. Understanding these nuances are important because they can be usefully employed in a variety of business setting such as the design of the marketing mix, the identification of advertising appeals that are most appropriate for different cultures and the study of symbolic consumption. Researchers should look at both qualitative and quantitative methods while simultaneously emphasizing the variations in cultural groups that have heretofore been either ignored or overlooked in purely quantitative or qualitative research.
Utility of Yin’s Framework of Five Procedures to Maximize Integration
The mixed methods approach allows the development of instruments based on the inclusion of indigenous participants and consultation with local experts. We followed Yin’s (2006) framework of five procedures to maximize the integration of the components in our study. The first procedure in Yin’s framework relates to the research question. In this research, there was a clear rationale for the use of survey data, list data, and open-ended data in addressing the same substantive question of what are our target culture’s values. Three further procedures are units of analysis, sampling, and instrumentation and data collection. Here, the units of analysis were integrated in the sense that the qualitative open-ended data and quantitative survey data had the same points of reference—these were experts and people from the same culture. The data collection instruments of all methods were linked to emphasize the complementary use of each method and to corroborate the findings from prior stages by addressing the same substantive issue of our target culture values. An example of this is to be found where the findings from the open-ended and list data were integrated to provide a fuller picture and to produce a comprehensive list of values responsive to the target culture. The list of value was corroborated through quantitative survey data.
Yin’s (2006) final procedure for achieving integration is the analytic strategies. Here, the analysis began by observing distinct techniques that were conventionally associated with each method; these were a descriptive and consensus analyses for the list and open-ended data. The qualitative inquiry was used to develop the theory-based categorization of values by generating formative items. It is hoped that the efforts described here might be replicated in the development of formative indicators in varied settings. Thereafter, a correspondence analysis of scale was used for the quantitative survey data. It allowed a more nuanced account and explanation of the target culture’s values at different layers of demographic groups and the tracing of cumulative cultural development layer after layer.
Finally, the results show the value of Delphi groups as part of a mixed methods research design in advancing validity and reliability of a quantitative cultural values instrument. The Delphi literature has several distinct gaps in methodological guidance. Some of the gaps in the literature for using the qualitative Delphi includes how should researchers approach data reduction and analysis in qualitative Delphi studies (Brady, 2015)? As demonstrated, this study offers a solution by describing how qualitative inquiry, which is suited for investigation of cultural values, can be used to inform instrument development, data reduction, and analysis in Delphi studies. It is hoped that the efforts described here might be replicated in varied settings.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to sincerely thank all participants in the Delphi survey for their contribution which have been vital to achieving results of this study. The authors also wish to thank those who have read and commented on the article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study is supported by Zamalah Scholarship, from University of Malaysia, Sarawak, under UNIMAS/TNC(AA)-10/04-30/01 Jld 2 (176) contract.
