Bridging cultural divides: Culture and acculturation in Latino/a service-provider interactions

This case study examines how culture and accul­turation shape interactions between Latino/a immigrant farmers and service providers in Missouri. Grounded in Valdivia et al.’s (2012) framework on capital creation and complemented by Bour­dieu’s (2012) concepts of habitus and field, the research draws on focus groups and interviews with Latino/a immigrant farmers and agricultural ser­vice providers across Southwest and Central Missouri. The analysis reveals seven interconnected themes spanning institutional disconnect, trust bar­riers, time administration, communication, market entry, financial practices, and gender dynamics. Acculturation emerged as a bilateral dynamic in which both farmers and service providers interpret each other’s behavior through institutional logical frameworks that are culturally distinct. Farmers’ prior experiences in Latin America, including encounters with institutional corruption and finan­cial instability, shaped their wariness toward U.S. institutions, while service providers’ habitus (the values, beliefs, and motivations they absorb through professional training and social position) led them to misread farmer behavior as cultural deficiency rather than adaptive strategy. To organ­ize these dynamics, the study develops a bidirec­tional acculturation interface: a conceptual framework that extends acculturation theory (Berry, 1997) to the farmer–service provider relationship by integrating Valdivia et al.’s capital creation framework with Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field. The framework iden­tifies two mechanisms that shape outcomes: a mis­alignment mechanism that blocks farmers’ conver­sion of existing types of capital into institutional support and an alignment mechanism that enables conversion when service providers recognize the capitals that farmers bring. Findings underscore the need for culturally responsive services, revised eli­gibility criteria accommodating small-acreage and dispersed operations, accessible financial products, and institutional attention to the context of recep­tion that shapes farmers’ willingness to engage.