Cultural adaptation in training materials: the role of concurrent authoring
09 Sep 2024
6 mins
When we surveyed more than 300 learning and development (L&D) professionals in partnership with Training Industry, we learned that their top obstacle to localizing training content is incorporating cultural nuance. In my previous blog inspired by this survey, I explained why the cultural adaptation of training materials is both necessary and challenging, and said I’d come back to how to address this challenge. So here we go.
Addressing cultural relevance in training
More than 40% of the survey respondents said they feel challenged by the need to incorporate cultural nuance into localized content (though this was much more the case for North American enterprises than those in other regions – for details, download the full report).
The survey also points to one of the best ways enterprises can address this challenge. Asked about their methodology for creating localized training content, 47% say they’re creating content in multiple languages simultaneously rather than first in one language before localizing to others (see the chart – and again, explore regional differences in the full report). We call this methodology ‘concurrent authoring’, and I’d like to explain what it is and why it’s a best practice for the cultural adaptation of training materials (though strictly speaking, it’s not a form of adaptation at all, but a different way to approach the challenge of cultural relevance in training).
What is concurrent authoring?
As the name suggests, concurrent authoring happens when different instructional designers – one per target market – each work concurrently but separately to develop local versions of a given training course (or part of a course) from scratch.
There is no original version of the training to adapt to different markets. Instead, each designer is given the same brief – objectives, scope, takeaway messages, expected outcomes, sources, relevant brand considerations, templates and so on – and is asked to develop the most appropriate training for their market. Each result is assessed against the brief, and it doesn’t matter if different designers successfully meet the brief in very different ways.
The idea is that since each instructional designer is native to the target market, they can use formats, styles, examples and language that best suit the needs and expectations of that market. Doing this for every market makes the training more engaging for all learners and boosts the effectiveness of the localized training content.
An example
A course on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is developed through concurrent authoring for Angola, Germany, Japan and Jordan. Here are a few contrasts to show the different approaches used for the cultural adaptation of these training materials:
- Design-wise, the Angolan course is the most informal and colourful, while the Japanese is the most formal and austere.
- Format-wise, the Angolan course uses a lot of audio, drawing on a long heritage of oral learning, while the German course uses no audio and is the most text- and detail-heavy.
- Both the Angolan and Jordanian courses use character-centric storytelling through workplace scenarios, but in different ways. The Angolan scenarios each describe an unnamed challenge in the workplace that must be overcome by a group working together (reflecting the importance of group unity in the prevailing culture). It’s a much more indirect approach than the Jordanian scenarios, which focus on individuals experiencing a specific type of discrimination that is directly pointed out and named.
Hybrid approach: it’s not all or nothing
My example above illustrates concurrent authoring used for development of a complete course from scratch. But it can also be used in a hybrid approach that combines concurrent authoring with more traditional localization:
Traditional localization is used for common course content that isn’t significantly influenced by culture and doesn’t differ much, if at all, by market. This content can be developed for a source market and adapted as necessary (typically by focusing on language and imagery without touching the format, structure or content). For example, a sales course might use localization for all the content describing the company’s products and services that the course covers.
Concurrent authoring is used for any content that is more dependent on local differences or cultural nuance for relevance and engagement. For example, the sales course could use concurrent authoring for a country-specific section on legislation and for sections about sales strategies, with a deductive learning style preferred by some cultures and an inductive style by others. For example:
- A deductive approach would first explain how to approach a sale or respond to a client query in general, then give specific examples to demonstrate the theory.
- An inductive approach would first present case studies and ask the learner what they would do, then use this to extract the general theory.
This hybrid approach is a good compromise for organizations worried that concurrent authoring is more time-consuming and costly than traditional localization. It makes sense whenever there is a good proportion of common content. The less common content there is, the more likely it is that concurrent authoring for the whole course will actually be more efficient than managing and combining two different processes.
When should concurrent authoring be used?
Concurrent authoring is used mostly where recognizing local differences and preferences is critical to the effectiveness of the training. This might be specific to the type of training – for example, recognizing the criticality of cultural differences for DEI training. Or it might be specific to the context – for example, recognizing that safety training in an industrial environment has much higher stakes than in an office environment, so for the former it might be worth using concurrent authoring to ensure that the training addresses different learning styles influenced by culture.
Typical training areas that will benefit from concurrent authoring for all or part of a course include DEI, customer service, leadership, sales, and health and safety. But you can use it for any type of training, even those with overwhelmingly common content, if you want to tailor course elements such as format, narrative structure or style to suit different culturally influenced learning preferences.
Making the most of traditional localization
Even when you’re not employing concurrent authoring, simply recognizing that localization is more than translation and paying specific attention to the cultural adaptation of training materials can go a long way to addressing the challenge of cultural relevance in training. This is why it’s important to understand the role of human language specialists in the process – the topic of my next blog in this series.
In the meantime, enjoy further insights from the survey in our report, Learning across borders, along with advice on how to start or improve your own localization efforts for L&D content. You can find it here.
Isaura Saguer Colomé
All from Isaura Saguer ColoméRelated Articles
