Safe landing! And Happy B-day, Australia!

Kia ora my fellow ocean travellers!

As we approach the landing site after sailing across the seven seas, I just want to say: It was a pleasant journey!

And as I ponder over the experience, I wonder whether we have all reached the Happy Isles. Hopefully, we won’t get there in a disarray, as it was the case with the epic First Fleet after its arrival on the fair land of OZ, an event remembered each year at the upcoming January 26 Australia Day celebrations.

When the First Fleet left Botany Bay to sail north in search of a better future (little they knew that Sydney Harbour was just around the bend), they paraded before French Captain La Perouse’s expedition. The following is an account of what happened, excerpted from a great book, The Fatal Shore, by Robert Hughes:

“The departing English now gave the French a spectacular show of fumbling.  Friendship rammed Prince of Wales, losing her jib boom. Charlotte nearly ran on the rocks, clawed off and cannoned into Friendship. Lady Penrhyn just avoided ramming her amidships.”

….the birth of a nation!!!

Wish you all a safe docking, and see you on land.

Ka kite ano!

The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks;
The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs; the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends.
‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.

It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles……

Ulysses, by Alfred Tennyson

UR – Designing Intercultural Research

COURSE: Understanding Research—UR

FORUM: Designing the Research Proposal

TOPICS: explore your research interest

Step 3 – Part 2

Keywords: intercultural communication, Intercultural research, interviewing by e-mail, culture, reflexivity

Link to forum

Link to blog

CONSIDERATIONS ON DOING RESEARCH WITH AN INTERCULTURAL COMPONENT

Article review

Aneas, María Assumpta & Sandín, María Paz (2009). Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Communication Research: Some Reflections about Culture and Qualitative Methods [57 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 51, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901519 Accessed on Dec.10, 2009 at http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1251

During the break I found this interesting article that addresses specific issues emerging in research with an intercultural slant. Considering that in the ALGC we are all one way or another going to deal with the intercultural dimension of our experience and of our relevant research project, I thought of sharing some reflections on this very issue.

What follows are my considerations. I posted them here not as a topic for discussion, but merely to share them.

Quotes are shown indented.

Content of the information being gathered (INTERVIEWING)

BHAWUK and TRIANDIS (1996, p.29) offer an interesting collection of insights and recommendations when it comes to the content of interviews. Interviewing is one of the fundamental techniques used in qualitative research on cross-cultural and intercultural communication. One of the principal concerns when conducting an interview is whether an emic or an etic approach is more appropriate—that is, whether to ask different, tailor-made and culture-specific questions or ask the same questions in all the cultural contexts being studied.

my comments:

My research won’t be about discussing, exploring, analyzing the participants’ host or original cultures; in that sense it does not take an emic approach. My research will explore the experience of the participants and the extent to which they may share similar views and experiences of processes of adaptation and intercultural competence building. In a sense, my research has an emic nature, in that it attempts an in-depth exploration of one specific culture, the culture that informs a transnational personhood/identity.

Doing semi-structured interviews through e-mail prevents the interviewer’s culturally-affected reactions to influence the respondents. See BHAWUK and TRIANDIS (1996, p.28) I believe this method has advantages that will be beneficial to my research. (see this article for more on this method).

It will also diminish opportunities for the emergence of intercultural anxiety provoked by the uncertainty typical of intercultural contexts, as defined by Gudykunst (1993) in his theory of Anxiety Uncertainty Management (AUM).

Language in the research process

In order to understand and interpret utterances or gestures in a given language, a minimum degree of language equivalence between the language of those being studied and that of the researcher is needed (LUSTIG & KOESTER, 1996; SAMOVAR, PORTER & STEFANI, 1998).

my comments:

Utterances or gestures in my e-mail interviews  will be automatically disregarded.

Language issues will be partly sidestepped by using English as the language of the research, and selecting participants who have a certain degree of fluency in English. Though this choice may introduce a level of bias, it will facilitate both the collection and the analysis of the narratives, based on the assumption that – to a large extent – the respondents share an equivalency in the meaning of the vocabulary they use.

Nevertheless, I will need to be mindful of this assumption.

Culture, analysis and interpretation in qualitative research

Mental schemas

In this same sense, according ERICKSON (1989), the base for theoretical constructions is the immediate and local meanings of action as defined from the point of view of the social actors involved. In other words, we interpret a reality, a given piece of information according to the parameters of our experience in which our culture occupies a fundamental position. Culture is the reason why a given phenomenon, a specific form of behavior can be given a very different meaning according to the origin culture of the person analyzing and interpreting the process. [47]

Mental schemas constitute a cognitive system which enables us to interpret the gestures, utterances and actions of others. Culture influences the organization of the schemas developed by individuals with the justification that different visions and interpretations of reality are culturally variable. In the same sense constructionism stresses the importance of socio-cultural background in the higher order psychological processes (VYGOTSKY, 1979) as an argument with which to demonstrate the union of culture with cognitive processes and the relation between learning, development and the contexts of personal relations.

Summing up, theories of categorization and social attribution facilitate the development of explanations concerning the perception and interpretation of the behavior of others in intercultural contexts.

Language and mental maps are cultural elements with which the researcher operates in the analysis and the construction of results.

Conclusions

The fallacy of the monolithic view of identity alerts us to the need for prudence and the importance of avoiding categorizing cultural studies of communication in stereotypical terms, as built on folklore beliefs and essentialist in terms of culture.

On the other hand, it is already widely accepted in qualitative research that the researcher becomes the “principal information gathering instrument,” and thus some of the objectives which have been identified for studies of cross-cultural and intercultural communication are associated with the reflexivity of the researcher (my note: see Bryman, p. 682) over her or his own cultural biases together with the associated theoretical, and even social and political standpoints.

For the outlook of researching cross-cultural and intercultural communication we would stress that

  • Culture is a “system” and not the sum of a collection of fortuitous traits
  • It is an integrated whole which cannot be understood by examining its components individually and in isolation.
  • It is a dynamic whole which is in flux, and constantly changing, and which reveals itself as being in interaction with the world in a multiplicity of complex and diverse situations and contexts.

REFERENCES

Bampton, R. & Cowton, C.J. (2002). The E-Interview [27 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2), Art. 9, Retrieve on Dec. 19, 2009 at http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs020295

Bhawuk,D. & Triandis, H. (1996). The role of culture theory in the study of culture and intercultural training. In Dan Landis & Richard W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp.17-34). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Erickson, Frederick (1989). Métodos cualitativos de investigación sobre la enseñanza. In Merlin Wittrock (Ed.), La investigación de la enseñanza, II. Métodos cualitativos y de observación (pp.195-301). Barcelona: Paidós/M.E.C.

Gudykunst, W. (1993). Toward a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup communication. In Richard L. Wiseman & Jolene Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp.33-71). London: Sage.

Lustig, M. & Koester, J. (1996). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures. New York: Harper Collins.

Vygotsky, L. (1979). El desarrollo de los procesos psicológicos superiores. Barcelona: Crítica.

UR – Research proposal (1)

COURSE: Understanding Research—UR

FORUM: Explore your research interests

TOPICS: Research, proposal,

Step 3 – Part 1

Keywords: research, methods, enactivism, ontology, epistemology, methodology, intercultural communication, sampling,

Link to process document

Link to forum

Link to blog

Thank you to all those who have helped me reach more clarity on this assignment and the research tasks that lie ahead! (-:

The following is a condensed version of my reflections on the several stages of my research proposal. I welcome your feedback and comments.

RESEARCH STATEMENT (tentative)

The research will explore issues of globalizations related to the personal learning experience of long-time international sojourners. This qualitative study will examine the dynamics of personal transformation affecting international sojourners and the relevant development of global-mindedness as processes of learning ensuing from intercultural contacts, reflection, acculturation, increased cultural and intercultural awareness, development of intercultural communication competence, and personal growth.  To contain the scope of my research, I could (still undecided) consider the theoretical framework and taxonomy in Milton Bennett’s developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (see below) against which to analyze my findings.

Possible Themes: global learning, identity building, intercultural competency, identity negotiation, avowed and ascribed identity, intercultural learning, cross-cultural/multicultural identity, intercultural communication, tolerance for ambiguity, adaptedness, experiential learning, long-life learning, reflective learning,

These themes seem to suggest a link between one’s intercultural experience and learning. Intercultural competence emerges as the outcome of such interplay. One’s continuous contact with a different culture sets in motion certain learning mechanisms that preside over his or her ability to develop intercultural competence.

How does this study relate to my participation in the ALGC?

This tentative proposal relates to the relevance of learning in the experience of people who live and work outside of their original culture. The themes also relate to one of the core aspects of the ALGC, i.e. Global Learning, which has been broadly defined in a previous course as “that aspect of learning that includes an understanding of human interactions and knowledge across cultural boundaries in light of the cultural differences affecting the participants’ diversity of communication styles, values and beliefs. Global Learning occurs within a collaborative and transformational context of world-wide networks. Global Learning may eventually promote a paradigm shift that would ultimately redefine people’s identities on a personal and potentially global scale.”

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY (RATIONALE)

This study is directed to all those who are interested in learning more about the experience of international sojourners and the development of intercultural competence as a process of learning, identity negotiation and ultimately personal transformation. It may be of interests to scholars, interculturalists, cross-cultural trainers, people working internationally, educators, and to the many people who are living the life of international sojourners at the start of the third millennium.

This study will contribute to increasing acceptance and understanding of a new way of contracting one’s own cultural identity beyond the limitations and allegiances imposed by monoculturalism. Recognizing and promoting transnational attitudes will hopefully play a significant part in defusing current nationalistic/ethnic strives.

PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Having grown up in a bi-lingual area close to an international border has certainly contributed to my interest in the learning opportunities presented by cross-cultural experiences. After living abroad for many years and through my experience in the ALGC I have realized the importance of learning for our human experience. This realization prompts me to start this research on the link between intercultural learning, personal transformation, and the shaping of identity in a globalized society.

ONTOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY (Research strategy)

As I believe that culture plays a fundamental role in our learning processes, I am approaching this research from a contextual constructivist approach as suggested by Cobern (1993). In his view, “construction takes place in a context – a cultural context created by, for example, social and economic class, religion, geographical location, ethnicity, and language.” (Cobern, p.1)

In the course of the research, an enactivist perspective will allow for additional meanings to emerge from the narratives.

This research will be both descriptive and explanatory. The research will follow a phenomenological approach within a qualitative research strategy. Accordingly, the focus of the research will be on people’s subjective experiences and interpretations of the world. It will therefore develop from a hermeneutic perspective.

AREAS OF INQUIRY (more can be added)

MAIN:

  • Degree of adaptation experienced by the participants (adaptation is used here broadly to cover different levels of intercultural engagement)
  • Shaping of identities
  • Learning about the new cultures (ABC, i.e. Affective, Behavioral, Cognitive)

SECONDARY:

  • Importance of fluency in the local language

POPULATION & SAMPLING

I will use snowball/purposive sampling to select a small group of people (max 15) who have an experience relevant to this research.

The main selection criteria will include the following:

  • Participants will be individuals that have lived in more than one culture different from their original ones for a certain number of years.
  • Participants will be independent movers who left their original country following a personal call.
  • Participants will be based in different countries across the globe.
  • Participants will be somewhat fluent in the language of their relevant host country.

METHODS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This research will be a world-wide scale descriptive case study emerging from in-depth interviews of a selected population.

Data collection will occur in two phases, which will ensure that the research questions will be adequately addressed. This dual collection process will allow each participant to reflect upon her or his intercultural experience. In accordance with the scope of this research and its hermeneutic nature, I will encourage participants to explore their multicultural experiences from whatever angle they may wish to do it. This will ensure credibility.

This study will follow Guba & Lincoln’s (1985) taxonomy on credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.

1) WRITTEN NARRATIVES

Respondents’ thick narratives will be collected through semi-structured interviews in the form of qualitative “write in” questionnaires.

Advantages:

This will allow respondents to reflect on their experience and formulate written descriptions that will be analyzed without the need to transcribe them. Respondents, particularly non-native English speakers, will have the opportunity to find the words that more accurately describe their experience. This method is also inexpensive when done though through the e-mail, and doesn’t have a time limit.

Disadvantages:

No opportunity to observe para-language patterns such as non-verbal communication cues. No immediate opportunity to ask follow-up questions.

2) FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS

This may be done at a later stage to address certain aspects as they emerge from the narrative analysis. It will serve as a triangulation tool. Rather than implementing additional theoretical sampling, I will attempt to clarify and deepen the findings collected through the available written narratives. This will be done iteratively with the examination of available, relevant literature.

POSSIBLE INITIAL QUESTIONS

Identity:

A new cultural environment exerts an influence on people’s experience, which may have an impact on people’s identities. I see the process of identity negotiation as a learning experience.

  • What is the influence of culture on personal identity
  • How is one’s experience influenced by perceived and/or projected avowed and ascribes identities?
  • What are the building blocks of personal identity?

Individual’s ability to successfully engage cross-culturally:

People who live outside of their original culture develop skills and knowledge to deal with their everyday reality. This process lies at the foundation of how successfully (however that may be defined) they engage with their context.

  • What are the difficulties encountered when living in another culture?
  • What are the perceived benefits of such experience?
  • What are the learning outcomes of such experience?
  • How do international sojourners balance their original cultural identity with the need for functionality in a new cultural environment?
  • What are the learning mechanisms at work?

Stages of Intercultural competence:

Stages of intercultural development are not set in stone; they accurately reflect the main levels of experience through which people refine their intercultural competencies. They can be considered stages of global learning.

  • How does one develop intercultural competence?
  • In what ways do peoples’ narratives reveal issues of denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation, integration as defined in Milton Bennett’s developmental model of intercultural sensitivity, and of transformation, an additional step in the development of intercultural competence as defined in the literature?

LITERATURE AND THEORY (very tentative)

The literature will serve as a foundation for the formulation of the interview questions; it will also serve as an aid for the iterative analysis of the finding as they emerge from the narratives.

The literature will include literature explored during the ALGC program and relevant scholarly publications on issues of intercultural communication. As an example, Milton Bennett’s developmental model of intercultural sensitivity could be used to inform my research questions.

Relevant literature will include publications on relevant topics, e.g.  Cross-cultural Adaptation, Multicultural Identity, Third-Culture Identity, Intercultural Communication Competence, the “A-B-C approach,” Culture Shock, Achieved Identity, experiential learning, perturbation, schemata.

—————————————————

REFERENCES CITED IN THIS POST

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards Ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Cobern, W. W. (1993). Contextual Constructivism: The Impact of Culture on the Learning and Teaching of Science. In K. G. Tobin (editor), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 51-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Retrieved on Oct. 15, 2008 from http://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/SLCSP115/slcsp115.pdf

Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.


UR – link to essay

Understanding Research. A critical, comparative analysis of the methods and methodologies employed in the course case studies (link)

Link to E-portfolio (login required)


Learner: Oscar Vallazza – Linköping University

Course: Understanding Research (Linköping University)

Instructor: Martin Lundberg, Emilia Fägerstam and Fredrik Sandberg

Tutor: Fredrik Sandberg

Group: Indian Ocean

Essay 2 Date: December 5, 2009 Words:  2139

UR – reflections on feminism

Link to forum

Link to blog

Hi Edouard,

Your post raises interesting questions that were also asked by several of us (you included, I believe) during the discussion in our last course, when the theme was education and learning for social change.

Some of us suggested that the feminist approach followed in the path of a dichotomous view of the world (Marxism vs. capitalism), and that it would be worthwhile looking outside those boxes and considering more systems-thinking alternatives. I am afraid, but of course this is just a personal opinion that the questions you have raised will keep popping up, as I believe they stem from a linear thinking paradigm based on mutually exclusive perspectives.

I had posted some thoughts on this theme on my e-portfolio webpage at:

https://www.itslearning.com/liu/oscarvallazza/posts/transformation/

If that doesn’t work, try this:

https://worldconnections.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/integral-theory-and-transformation/

I find Marie Carr’s comment posted at the bottom very appropriate and encouraging.

Cheers,

Oscar

 

UR – Grounded Theory, Context, and Enactivism

COURSE: Understanding Research—UR

FORUM: Elaborating the logics of research approaches

TOPICS: Research, ontology, epistemology

Step 2 – Part 1

Keywords: context, grounded theory, enactivism

Link to blog

Link to forum

CONTEXT

Throughout our program issues of context have been prominently presented and discussed. I realize that also plays a role in research. With regard to the two main research strategies, quantitative and qualitative, my current understanding of context is as follows. Researchers in both approaches claim giving context their full attention, however, in two very distinct and almost antithetic ways. In quantitative research the context is the “here and now” reality of the relevant research environment, where variables are measured according to an objectivist ontological perspective that views phenomena as external events “beyond our reach of influence.” (Bryman, p. 18) In qualitative research, instead, context seems to include a variety of factors that, according to constructivism, definitely influence the observed phenomena. This simplified distinction makes me think that whenever we talk about context, we may be referring to two very different concepts that would be better understood by using different words.

Clearly, the contextual scope in qualitative research is much broader than the selected, controlled environment in a quantitative design. In my view, it is exactly the context of a certain phenomenon that qualitative researchers are after. Therefore, the context (and related processes) of a given case scenario is not only the framework within which researchers develop their strategy for data collection and analysis; it is also the object of their investigation. Given the relevance of context in both research strategies, I find it strange that Bryman’s book does not include any relevant entry in either the glossary or the index.

An example of the importance of context in qualitative research is Grounded Theory (see Bryman, pag 541). Although I have not completed the readings, I believe that this particular kind of approach includes a broad context for the study of all interacting factors, actors and even observers. When considering these issues, I remembered our discussion in a previous course. Back then we were examining different approaches to experiential learning and the roles of observation and participation. Fenwick (2001) provided the following definition of context, which I find very relevant to my comments in this post. I believe that Fenwick’s definition helps understand how learning is influenced by our environment, but also how a qualitative education research needs to be mindful of a very broad and inclusive context:

Context involves the social relations and political-cultural dimensions of the community in which the individual is caught up, the nature of the task, the web of joint actions in which the individual’s choices and behaviors are enmeshed, the vocabulary and cultural beliefs through which the individual makes meaning of the whole situation, and the historical, temporal, and spatial location of the situation. (Fenwick, 2001, p. 20)

Going back to my previous mention of Grounded Theory, it seems to me that context defines the background against which identities play out, but it can also become indistinguishable from the actors. In a process of ongoing negotiation and reframing, context is simply a reality that is constantly transforming itself. Grounded Theory researchers persistently re-evaluate their findings, which reminds me a lot of the enactivist/ecological perspective as discussed in Fenwick (2001):

The enactivist perspective insists that learning cannot be understood except in terms of co-emergence: each participant’s understandings are entwined with those of other participants, and individual knowledge co-emerges with collective knowledge. Educational theory also must examine the subtle particularities of “context” created through the learning of complex systems, embedded in their constantly shifting interactional dynamics, and the relations among these particularities. Educators need to become alert to a “complexified awareness…of how one [individual] exists simultaneously in and across these levels, and of how part and whole co-emerge and co-specify one another.  (Davis and Sumara 1997, p. 120)

When it comes to education research, it seems to me that we – in our multiple roles of educators, researchers, and learners – would move between different degrees of participation and observation to gain a deeper understanding of the context, whether that be for our research or for our engagement in our professional practices.

Would it be correct to say that Grounded Theory follows an enactivist/ecological approach to the understanding of context e to the emergence of theory?

REFERENCES:

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research methods (3rd ed). Oxford; Oxford university press

Fenwick, T. (2001) “Experiential Learning: A Theoretical Critique from Five Perspectives” Information Series No 385, ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education now located at the Centre for Education & Training for Employment at Ohio State University, accessed on June 2, 2009 at http://www.uni-koeln.de/hf/konstrukt/didaktik/situierteslernen/fenwick1.pdf

UR – Reflections on definitions

COURSE: Understanding Research—UR

FORUM: Elaborating the logics of research approaches

TOPICS: Research, ontology, epistemology

Step 2 – Part 1

Keywords: definitions, positivism, interpretivism, post-interpretivism,

Link to blog

Link to forum

REFLECTIONS

As I continue examining the readings, I realize that there is only so much that one can comment on the research papers under discussion without sounding redundant and repetitive.

Instead, I find myself engaged in a process of understanding of the philosophical questions that affect research. I previous posts the discussion branched out into the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, trying to better define the ontological and epistemological issues that lie at the roots of the different research designs.

I noticed that many of the terms used by Bryman are used differently by others. For example, William M.K. Trochim takes a more pragmatic approach, and his website provides a slightly different sequence of definitions. For Trochin the two main epistemological categories are in fact positivism vs. post-positivism (Bryman instead emphasizes positivism vs. interpretivism); furthermore Trochin places constructivism firmly under positivism, but he also allows for room for objectivity under the same epistemological family.

These readings are clearly both the result and the fuel of the academic disputes that have developed among social scientists. I find the debate interesting, but at the end of the day, I find it very time consuming and possibly even unproductive. In his website, Trochim also admits that

Clearly, all of this stuff is not for the faint-of-heart. I’ve seen many a graduate student get lost in the maze of philosophical assumptions that contemporary philosophers of science argue about. And don’t think that I believe this is not important stuff. But, in the end, I tend to turn pragmatist on these matters. Philosophers have been debating these issues for thousands of years and there is every reason to believe that they will continue to debate them for thousands of years more. Those of us who are practicing scientists should check in on this debate from time to time (perhaps every hundred years or so would be about right). We should think about the assumptions we make about the world when we conduct research. But in the meantime, we can’t wait for the philosophers to settle the matter. After all, we do have our own work to do!

Cheers!

WEBLIOGRAPHY:

William M.K. Trochim’s website: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qual.php

%d bloggers like this: