This article critically reviews recent initiatives to employ artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), for the revitalization of Indigenous languages. Structured by geographical contexts, the analysis includes Irish Gaelic (Europe), Māori (Aotearoa/New Zealand, Oceania), Guaraní (Paraguay/Bolivia, South America), and Inuktitut (Canada, North America). Applying a theoretical framework grounded in data colonialism and Indigenous data sovereignty, the article examines the key achievements in different regional endeavors, as well as investigate how government-led projects and Big Tech collaborations across these diverse contexts navigate (or fail to navigate) issues of data extraction, community consent, cultural representation, and ownership. Through this lens, the article identifies specific ethical pitfalls as well as commendable practices that either reproduce colonial dynamics or empower Indigenous communities. This critique emphasizes regional and contextual nuances, arguing that authentic community agency and rigorous adherence to Indigenous data sovereignty principles are vital to ensuring ethical AI practices and meaningful linguistic revitalization.

As AI changes the way the world gathers information, some critics say that it is perpetuating stereotypes and erasing cultural nuances for Indigenous groups and people of color. Most mainstream models are trained on the work of Western writers—particularly white men—and regularly mimic those values, writing styles, viewpoints, and biases. Some critics say the data grab is a new form of colonialism, where information gathering replaces Imperial-era land seizures while the AI companies—rather than a conquering nation—reap profits from marginalized groups. Data collection from these groups is often done without their consent or any verification that the information is accurate.

Jorge Perez

Little attention is instead given to what values LLMs may reflect and what behaviours they may assume beyond those relating to safety. How well do the values, beliefs and behaviours of these models align with those of their users?

This paper is concerned with issues of trust and bias in generative AI in
general, and chatbots based on large language models in particular (e.g. ChatGPT).
The discussion argues that intercultural communication scholars must do more to
better understand generative AI and more specifically large language models, as
such technologies produce and circulate discourse in an ostensibly impartial way,
reinforcing the widespread assumption that machines are objective resources for
societies to learn about important intercultural issues, such as racism and discrim
ination. Consequently, there is an urgent need to understand how trust and bias
factor into the ways in which such technologies deal with topics and themes central
to intercultural communication. It is also important to scrutinize the ways in which
societies make use of AI and large language models to carry out important social
actions and practices, such as teaching and learning about historical or political
issues

Are AI systems truly representing human values, or merely averaging across them? Our study suggests a concerning reality: Large Language Models (LLMs) fail to represent diverse cultural moral frameworks despite their linguistic capabilities. We expose significant gaps between AI-generated and human moral intuitions by applying the Moral Foundations Questionnaire across 19 cultural contexts. Comparing multiple state-of-the-art LLMs’ origins against human baseline data, we find these models systematically homogenize moral diversity. Surprisingly, increased model size doesn’t consistently improve cultural representation fidelity. Our findings challenge the growing use of LLMs as synthetic populations in social science research and highlight a fundamental limitation in current AI alignment approaches. Without data-driven alignment beyond prompting, these systems cannot capture the nuanced, culturally-specific moral intuitions. Our results call for more grounded alignment objectives and evaluation metrics to ensure AI systems represent diverse human values rather than flattening the moral landscape.

Abstract

Culture fundamentally shapes people’s reasoning, behavior, and communication. As people increasingly use generative artificial intelligence (AI) to expedite and automate personal and professional tasks, cultural values embedded in AI models may bias people’s authentic expression and contribute to the dominance of certain cultures. We conduct a disaggregated evaluation of cultural bias for five widely used large language models (OpenAI’s GPT-4o/4-turbo/4/3.5-turbo/3) by comparing the models’ responses to nationally representative survey data. All models exhibit cultural values resembling English-speaking and Protestant European countries. We test cultural prompting as a control strategy to increase cultural alignment for each country/territory. For later models (GPT-4, 4-turbo, 4o), this improves the cultural alignment of the models’ output for 71–81% of countries and territories. We suggest using cultural prompting and ongoing evaluation to reduce cultural bias in the output of generative AI.

E. Ramirez Auckland University of Technology

Ineke Hendrika Martine Crezee Auckland University of Technology

Elba Ramirez
Senior lecturer and programme leader for international studies at the School of Social Sciences and Public Policy (Te Wānanga Aronui o Tāmaki Makau Rau), Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.

The head of legal affairs and sustainability at a Finnish mobile device manufacturer oversees responsibilities related to governance, ethics, and long-term impact. The company emerged after taking over a well-known mobile phone business in the mid-2010s and operates as a global organization with a presence in more than 150 countries, serving highly diverse markets across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas.

The company’s mission is strongly rooted in huma-centric values, which are most of it is inherited from the company’s organizational culture. These values include respect for the individual, fairness, inclusiveness, diversity, and adherence to human rights principles. According to the interviewee, these values are reflected not only in internal company culture but also in how they conduct business globally, for example, through ethical manufacturing, protection of personal data, and providing affordable mobile devices for different socioeconomic groups.

Intercultural communication plays a crucial role in organization’s daily operations. He highlights that Finnish communication tends to be very direct, which can be effective internally but may be perceived as rude or confrontational in other cultures, especially Asian contexts where politeness, hierarchy, and indirect communication are more valued.

Hofstede Dimensions

Power distance refers to how much hierarchy and unequal power are accepted in a culture. The organization reflects a low power distance culture, influenced by Finnish and Nordic values, where leadership is democratic, and everyone is encouraged to share ideas. In contrast, many Asian mostly Chinese) operate with high power distance, where decisions are made by senior leaders, questioning authority is uncommon (Hofstede et al., 2010).  This contrast has led to misunderstandings in cross-cultural interactions, particularly when his direct communication style was interpreted as disrespectful or as causing someone to “lose face”.

Their culture emphasizes respect for the individual and personal responsibility, aligning with individualistic cultures common in Europe. Employees are encouraged to express their opinions openly. However, in more collectivist cultures, such as those in Asia and Africa, maintaining group harmony and relationships is more important than direct disagreement. This requires a more indirect and careful communication style (Hegerova, 2024).

The organization demonstrates moderate to high uncertainty avoidance through its focus on clear legal frameworks, NDA, and bilingual contracts. However,  in some Asian markets, such formal legal protections are not always standard practice, and business relationships may rely more on trust and long-term relationships rather than formal legal structures, requiring HMD to adapt its processes. For example, the use of an NDA is not really common in China for the counterparties.

Finland is considered a feminine culture, valuing cooperation, equality, and quality of life. This is reflected in HMD’s focus on inclusiveness, fairness, work-life balance, and consensus-based leadership. A leadership approach that prioritizes collaboration and diverse perspectives aligns closely with this cultural dimension  (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Lastly, the company demonstrates a long-term orientation, shown through long-term contracts and a strong focus on sustainability. This aligns well with many Asian cultures that value long-term relationships. However, the interview also highlights that legal systems may vary by region. For example, Legal systems in Europe and India are generally more independent and predictable, whereas legal disputes involving large Chinese companies can be extremely difficult due to the close ties between companies and government institutions  (Hofstede et al., 2010.

Figure 1: Hofstedes Dimenssions (Country Comparison – Culture in the WorkplaceTM, n.d.)

Outcome

The interview suggests that the intercultural problems faced by the organization stem from differences in communication approaches and expectations regarding hierarchy, rather than from issues of respect and professionalism. Finland is known for direct and task-oriented communication. This is actually more common in low-power-distance situations. However, direct communication may be viewed as “too harsh and even disrespectful,” especially when addressing a person higher in the hierarchy, and there is a danger of “losing face,” as found in some Asian cultures (Hofstede et al., 2010).

The second result is that the legal approach to the company’s operations demonstrates the company’s strategy to avoid uncertainty through the use of formal contracts, agreements, and non-disclosure agreements. Interviewee argues that in other markets, the formal approach may not be the norm at the beginning of a cooperation, as market engagement is often based on trust and relationship-building. If the strategies are divergent, negotiations can take a long time and be challenging.

In conclusion, to communicate effectively across cultures in the company, one must strike a balance between clarity and cultural sensitivity, including the tone of legal and ethical standards and the style of feedback.

Possible solutions

Thus, the organization can facilitate easier intercultural collaboration by adopting effective behaviours to avoid confusion without compromising laws and regulations. For effective collaboration, a quick pre-task cultural scan should be conducted before engaging in crucial conversations to recognise the other party’s cultural background and communication patterns, particularly focusing on the context, whether it is a low- or a high-context situation, to ensure an effective and compatible initial engagement and response to the other party’s expectations and behaviours (EBSCO, n.d.; FutureLearn, n.d.). For a more effective and non-confrontational engagement in a face-sensitive and high-context situation, it is essential to avoid confusion and bluntness in corrections and criticisms by asking instead, “Do we want to adjust the way?” and “Could we explore another way?” rather than bluntly saying “Don’t do it” and “Change it,” considering that different cultures have different feedback expectations and blunt corrections could damage the relationship and collaboration process (Meyer, 2014). To avoid confusion and misunderstanding, a clarity-check process is required after calls and emails, rather than assuming understanding, by confirming understanding with a quick, easy-to-understand statement and ensuring clarity through a series of basic lines and phrases (EBSCO, n.d.).

Two other elements can be helpful in a hierarchical/relationship-first context: aligning the meeting processes with the level of the hierarchy being addressed and making the authority in decisions explicit, as power distance can influence who can speak up in a discussion or make decisions in a timely fashion, which can hinder progress on a case (Hofstede, n.d.). If the early formal legal approach seems inappropriate in some context, consider a staged approach in which a less formal initial agreement is used before proceeding to detailed contracts as trust is built in the relationship, in part because this can facilitate accommodation without “losing oneself” or compromising one’s standards in the process (Molinsky, 2013).

References

Country Comparison – Culture in the WorkplaceTM. (n.d.). Culture in the WorkplaceTM. https://cultureinworkplace.com/country-comparison-dashboard/?ode-country-selected=FI,CN,DE,JP,US

EBSCO. (n.d.). High-context and low-context cultures. EBSCO Research Starters. Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://www.ebsco.com/

FutureLearn. (n.d.). What is high-context and low-context culture? Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://www.futurelearn.com/

Hegerova, Z. (2024, November 28). Building relationships in collectivist workplaces. Headroom Mental Health. https://headroom.co.za/building-relationships-in-collectivist-workplaces/

Hofstede, G. (n.d.). The 6-D model of national culture. Geert Hofstede. Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://geerthofstede.com/

Meyer, E. (2014, February 25). How to say “This is crap” in different cultures. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/how-to-say-this-is-crap-in-different-cultures

Molinsky, A. (2013, March 12). When crossing cultures, use global dexterity. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/03/when-crossing-cult

Authors

Students:Block 2, Semester 1, 25-01-2026

Alma Eekhout Conde, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/alma-eekhout-conde-5b22021b5/)

Karlo Koljonen, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/karlo-koljonen-626478390/)

Aisha Mohamed, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/aisha-mohamed-208545257/)

Dain Yoon, (https://www.linkedin.com/in/dainyoon/)

Yianna Reinking: (www.linkedin.com/in/yianna-reinking)

The company is a part of a global hospitality industry that delivers high-quality service and fosters a diverse and inclusive culture. The hotel located in The Netherlands is a destination for both business travelers, tourists and guests who come from a wide range of countries across Europe and from all around the world. Due to the diverse backgrounds, not all clients are fluent in English, which is mainly used in communication between the staff and guests. Many guests rely on basic English, gestures or support from multilingual staff to express their needs. As a result, cultural differences in communication styles and expectations of service vary depending on the customer, which creates challenges for the company.

The company’s vision is to be the first choice when it comes to guests who value genuine hospitality, and its mission is to provide an excellent service and create memorable experiences for guests from diverse cultural backgrounds. Additionally, the company has a clear hierarchical structure in which strategic decisions and cultural initiatives are led by senior management. Nevertheless, there are potential misunderstandings related to hierarchy and stress at work because both the individual personality and cultural background of the employees affect how they respond to stress and instructions.

Hofstede Dimensions

Cultural differences in the organization can be explained by Hofstede’s dimensions of value, given that employees of different cultures work in the organization. Cultural differences affect communication, organizational structure, responsibility, and handling stress at work. In a service-oriented context, differences will directly influence decisions and work performance, as well as how employees relate to their work personally.

Power Distance Index can be observed through how workers react to management and instructions. Some workers may want clear instructions from management, while others may want to be left alone to act on their own. Such differences may lead to how decisions are executed, especially when it is busy. On the other hand, it may lead to how workers are either empowered or limited by management.

Individualism versus Collectivism is reflected in the degree to which the team-working style is preferred over the individual working style. Whereas some workers would thrive on frequent communication, others would work better on their own. This directly influences task delegation and ownership. A blend of the two will help to ensure proper decision-making.

Uncertainty Avoidance is a factor in how workers react to pressure, to unforeseen changes and to stressful situations. While some workers are composed and methodical in their behavior in such situations, others may feel increased levels of stress or act on instinct. It is because of culture that workers behave in this way. To mitigate this effect, supervisors provide workers with clear instructions and systematic procedures, especially in handovers.

Differences related to Masculinity versus Femininity are found in the way people communicate. Some employees are very direct and task-oriented while others are very polite and indirect. Such differences can result in misunderstandings due to different styles of communication. Supervisors can be aware of these differences and change their own communication styles to facilitate respect and easy decision-making.

Long-term orientation is expressed through operational methods such as structured handovers, written lists of tasks, and documentation. Such methods prioritize continuity with a focus on long-term optimization instead of short-term problem-solving. This is very helpful for intercultural collaboration because it avoids reliance on implicit assumptions. Overall, Hofstede’s Value Dimensions are a good means of explaining how values affect behavior in an organization.

Figure 1: Hofstedes Dimenssions: https://cultureinworkplace.com/country-comparison-dashboard/

Outcome

In the Front Office team, the main intercultural communication issue is that the same message can be understood differently because of language level, communication style, and hidden cultural norms. English is the shared working language, but for most staff it is not their first language, which increases misunderstandings – especially when information is technical or must be transferred quickly. The interviewee explains that these differences become most visible during shift handovers, complaint handling, and emergency situations, because time pressure makes small misunderstandings more serious. Direct versus indirect communication adds another layer: some colleagues communicate very directly while others are more indirect, which can create confusion until people learn each other’s styles. Using Hall’s Iceberg Model, the visible part is the style (direct/indirect), but underneath are values about respect, hierarchy, and what is considered appropriate at work. Because of these hidden norms, communication can become inhibitive (people hesitate to clarify or speak up) and sometimes feel almost prohibitive (people feel they “cannot” question decisions due to cultural expectations).

Possible solutions

The solutions should reduce inhibitive silence and make shared meaning explicit. The interviewee already uses practical strategies like speaking slowly, using simple English, and showing examples. A stronger team-level approach is to standardize communication in critical moments: short confirmation loops, clear handover routines, and written checklists that everyone uses across shifts. This improves clarity and reduces uncertainty. Another solution is to agree on a shared feedback and escalation style, so directness is used for clarity but stays respectful, and indirectness is not interpreted as incompetence. Finally, inclusion improves when language support and development opportunities are transparent, because language barriers can otherwise indirectly limit access to certain roles and responsibilities.

Authors:

Students: International Business Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2026

Julia Szewczyk (https://www.linkedin.com)

João Pedro Lamas Paulino (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jo%C3%A3o-paulino-5976b6144/)

Quỳnh Nguyễn (http://linkedin.com/in/quỳnh-trâm-nguyễn-478ba8208)

Caesardo Diaz Afriansyah (https://www.linkedin.com)

Denys Shukhat (https://www.linkedin.com/in/denys-shukhat)

Mees Camoenie (https://www.linkedin.com/in/mees-camoeni%C3%A9-73a4a9386?trk=contact-info)