Intercultural understanding and integration outside the classroom

1. Intercultural understanding and integration outside the classroom What do students really experience in our multi-cultural university? Theresa McKinven, Ustinov College, Durham University 2nd December 2013

2. Who we are • Our task as a college is to support the students whole educational experience. As a college, our key characteristics are: • 1700-2000 members, 100 nationalities • Large number of one-year PGT students • One-third of members are resident, two-thirds non-resident • 85% of residents non-UK • For the last 10 years we have focused on enhancing the educational experience of our members through offering an increasing number of different activities. We have also sought to ensure we understand the community we are working with. This talk is based on research and practice developed over the last 10 years.

3. College Community • In addition to providing residential accommodation, we also aim to enable a community environment. This involves supporting and promoting activities such as: • College magazine, to reinforce college experience • Seminars, lectures, academic and cultural activities • An intercultural forum • Student organisations • Through these activities, we aim to support students in their journey of studying and living together in a multi-national community.

4. Context • Over the past 15 years a significant body of research has been built up considering the experiences of students going overseas to study, most often from the perspective of the overseas student. These include studies focusing on • students’ learning experience (e.g. Campbell & Li 2008) • interaction between host country and overseas students (e.g. Barron 2006) • conditions which can lead to integration of students from different cultures • the potential benefits of interaction (e.g. Gill 2007, 2010) • the difficulties students face in developing relationships with students from other cultures (e.g. Brown 2009, Dunne 2009) • a limited number of studies include the perspectives of host country students • few studies focus on the experience of students outside the classroom

5. Why university residences? • Why look outside the classroom? • It has been suggested that a university residence provides an ideal opportunity to investigate international learning experience (Van Laaret al. 2005, Kudo & Simkin 2003) due to their nature as ready made communities with recognisable cultural differences in the membership (Todd & Nesdale 1997)

6. Research on residences • Some students prefer to live with others of the same nationality to help combat loneliness (Sarwar et al. 2008) • Students often passively wait or simply hope for interaction to randomly occur (Kudo & Simkin 2003) • Initial phases of residence together may be ‘cognitively exhausting’ and therefore discourage further interaction (Trail et al. 2009) • Where encouragement towards interaction occurs, host country students may be more satisfied that significant amounts of interaction has occurred than overseas students (Todd & Nesdale 1997) • Intercultural interaction is thought to happen by osmosis, simply by being in a place with people from different cultures (Halualani 2008)

7. Intercultural Understanding • Extract from ‘To a louse, On Seeing One on a Lady's Bonnet at Church’ • O wad some Pow'r the giftiegie usTo see oursels as ithers see us!It wad frae mony a blunder free us,An' foolish notion:What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,An' ev'n devotion! • Robert Burns 1786

8. Key characteristics of intercultural understanding • the need for distance to view one’s own and other cultures • the role of context in communication • negotiating between the inside and outside perspective • the flexibility to start on the journey • the interaction should go ‘beyond the passive and the observational … the individual is actively engaged with cultural materials and systems’ (Sen Gupta 2003). • Since encountering cultural difference need not be challenging in itself, it is this active engagement which makes the intercultural experience challenging, ‘when the encounter forces us to evaluate our own fundamental beliefs and values systems’ (Sen Gupta 2003).

9. Living & Studying abroad • The experience of living and studying abroad is particularly challenging, involving as it does the whole person: • ‘this particular intercultural experience involves at first disorientation and loss, a confrontation with a foreign environment which may violently jolt individuals and perturb their taken-for-granted world. It places individuals in a situation where adaptation and transformation are necessary if they are to maximise life in their new conditions. In other words, life abroad represents an extensive natural learning situation which stimulates many more aspects of learners’ personalities than are usually catered for in educational institutions. It can be understood broadly as an interaction between an individual and a new environment where the former is unsparingly put to the test as a whole person.’ (Murphy-Lejeune 2003)

10. Research in the area • Recently there has been a significant increase in research articles considering the experience of being an international student, and a noticeable increase in research including host student perspectives (e.g. Barron 2006, Montgomery 2009 and Dunne 2009; Peacock & Harrison 2009). • This reflects the realisation that in increasing international student numbers, institutions need to understand the impact on the whole student body. • The literature also tends to focus on ‘international’ students and interaction with ‘host’ country students, with little research considering features of international students’ interaction with other international students.

11. Research in the USA compared to UK/Australia/NZ • USA – often focuses on one feature, for example anxiety or risk-taking (e.g. Samochowiec & Florack 2010; Wang 2009), and investigate how that particular aspect influenced intercultural interaction, and/or primarily quantitative or large scale (e.g. Van Laaret al. 2005). Also focus on ethnic heritage (e.g. ‘black’, ‘Hispanic’), which doesn’t always distinguish students by country of origin • UK/Australia/NZ - more likely to adopt a qualitative approach (e.g. Brown 2009), often with interviews and some surveys, and/or focus on a particular nationality of overseas students (e.g. Turner 2006). Intercultural interaction or competence was considered by UK studies, including mention of the contact hypothesis, with differences in group interaction focusing mainly on collectivist and individualistic society perspective, rather than adopting a social identity theory perspective. In addition, the difficulty in generalising outcomes was also apparent.

12. Key themes from research • the contact hypothesis (Allport 1954) • intergroup encounters, inc. research in educational settings • friendship and friendship formation • socialising, and involvement in student organisations • the particular situation regarding interaction with Chinese students • acculturation • intercultural interaction

13. We have contact • Contact = understand and learning (often what people believe, ‘naïve’ version of the contact hypothesis, Allport 1954) • 4 conditions to be met - in order for greater cultural awareness to occur, contact between groups should be sustained, of equal status, interdependent and have institutional support. • Contact may lead to ‘increase[d] friction and hostility’ (Greenholtz 2003), or ‘simply reinforce stereotypes and encourage hostility rather than fostering comprehension and mutual respect’ (De Nooy & Hanna 2003). • Task • Which of these activities meet the 4 conditions of the ‘contact hypothesis’?

14. Attitudes towards other groups • Reducing negative attitudes towards members of other groups • Being able to empathise • Taking the ‘outgroup’ perspective • Reducing feelings of intergroup anxiety, which is often caused by the uncertainty about how others will see you, how to behave, whether you will be accepted • (Pettigrew & Tropp meta-analysis of 516 studies, 2006, in Pettigrew 2008) • You could summarise that these affective mediators are more significant than cognitive mediators (i.e. knowledge) in reducing negative attitudes • Look again at the activities from the previous page – are cognitive and affective mediators involved in the activities? How could they be adapted? • *

15. A self-fulfilling prophecy? • Intercultural encounters are ‘fundamentally problematic, … a nuisance at best and often a disaster’ Hofstede (1986) has been a very influential theorist, and often taught on e.g. on management programmes (e.g. collectivist/individualist societies) • Is the importance of ‘culture’ overstated? – there are many and various issues influencing people’s lives and identities • Important not to downplay social and interpersonal differences, and not to focus primarily on national identity • Social identity theory (Tajfel 1974) is defined as an individual’s efforts to ‘achieve a satisfactory concept or image or himself’, with social identity defined as ‘that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the emotional significance attached to that membership’.

16. Interaction • From the social identity theory perspective, interaction is both on an interpersonal and intergroup level. Interpersonal differences concern how we view people as individuals (how ‘like me’ someone is), intergroup differences concern how we view people according to the groups they belong to, and how those groups (outgroups) differ from the group or groups I belong to (the ingroup), with some groups appearing more different than others (Van Oord 2008). Individuals aim for a positive self-image, related to positive feelings towards their individual as well as their group or social identity. • Intergroup interaction becomes most salient when faced with obvious markers of group identity, such as the use of a different language, which emphasises difference, and the lack of native speaker command of one group’s language marking an individual out as a member of another group (Byram 2003)

17. Interaction and anxiety • Due to lower levels of knowledge of out-groups, interaction prompts greater anxiety, which according to integrated threat theory ‘is seen as the fundamental cause for negative coalition between ‘in’ and ‘out’ groups. As threats are experienced, individuals tend to rely more heavily on stereotypes, and express more negative emotions and evaluations (Stephan, Stephan & Gudykunst, 1999)’ (Fritz et al. 2008), as a result, outgroups are subject to more superficial and stereotyped assessment, and considered more homogenous (Sen Gupta 2003).

18. Do we have contact? • *Friendship across cultures is thought to fulfil the 4 conditions of the contact hypothesis • However, less support for the contact hypothesis has been found when the group members belong to culturally dissimilar groups, especially when the members of one group belonged to the cultural majority (e.g. Mitchell, 1968; Amir, 1976; Ray, 1980, 1983; O’Driscollet al., 1983). Indeed research suggests that the members of such groups feel threatened by the presence of minority cultural group members, and are reluctant to engage in contact with them (e.g. Fossett & Kiecolt, 1969; Wellman, 1977). A number of research studies looking at international and host country students indicate that host country students express considerably less interest in interacting with international students than vice versa.

19. Friendship • The tendency for students from the same country to engage in co-national friendships at least initially is found in much research, as is the tendency to ascribe this to ‘cultural’ factors even by the students themselves (Brown 2009; Ayano 2006), in spite of co-national friendships being common across countries and cultures (Pearson-Evans 2006). In particular, the research notes difficulties in encouraging friendships between UK and Chinese students (e.g. Peacock & Harrison 2009; Holliday 2011; Tian & Lowe 2009; Dunne 2009). • Task – what might some of the difficulties be in developing friendship cross-culturally?

20. Accidental interaction? • ‘They don’t want to open up too much.’ • ‘I never see him in the flat.’ • ‘They dominate the space.’ • ‘They always stick together.’ • ‘They’re not really interested in getting to know other • students.’ • ‘They don’t really seem very approachable or friendly.’ • ‘They don’t like going to different types of events.’ • ‘I can’t find anything to talk to them about.

21. Developing cross-cultural friendships • Difficulties in engaging and developing friendships cross culturally involve • language and culture • looking for and making assumptions about similarity • perceived and actual attitudes of host country students • native and non-native speakers can feel that their identity is limited in intercultural interactions, due to the need to control language use (Dunne 2009) • host country students are thought to lack necessary skills, interest or preparedness to make the effort to adapt their language (Brown 2009a, Leask 2009) • students may view students of other nationalities as ‘distant, unfriendly, quiet, rude or arrogant’ (Peacock & Harrison 2009) • students are perceived to withdraw into apparent segregated groups (Brown 2009a)

22. The research • An ethnographic interview study of home and overseas students who had been resident in college for at least 9 months at the time the study started • Students were interviewed on 2, 3 or 4 occasions over the course of 3-15 months • Interviews were transcribed and analysed on an on-going basis • Due to the significant amount of research indicating that many overseas students are unhappy with the level of interaction with host country students, students who had been seen to have some level of engagement in various college activities were invited to take part • A bit about the site of research – there are approximately 550 postgrad student residents, 85% on one-year programmes, 80%+ from outside the UK, (at the time) approx. one-third residents from PRC

23. Scenario 1 • A student organisation decides to hold a party to celebrate Chinese New Year and Valentines Day, and to invite a college society and the Chinese Students’ Association to co-organise, to help understand more about each others’ cultures and learn some skills in working cross-culturally. All are enthusiastic. The Taiwanese Students’ Association indicate they would like to join in the organisation of the event and be credited as a co-organiser. • Group 1 You are the student organising committee. How would you go about resolving this situation? • Group 2 You are the member of staff facilitating the event. You expect the student organisers to ask you for help in resolving the situation. What do you need to do to prepare for the meeting with the student committee?

24. Scenario 2 • The student organisation is asked to stock a newspaper produced by a Falun Gong support society. The committee members of the student society, who are from the UK, Europe, the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent and the Far East, are asked whether they agree to the request. • A student rep from China states that many Chinese students would be offended. The student committee is divided on the issue. • Why might this pose a problem for all those involved? • How would you work with the students to resolve this issue?

25. Taking another perspective • The Chinese student rep explained ‘as a foreigner’ Chinese students might feel ‘attacked or something’ and that • if college allowed this stuff, they wouldn’t look at this from European’s perspective, it’s like people have the right to be offended, they would think that college allows this kind of information, allow Falun Gong’s information to be here, that means college supports this kind of, um, thing. … I am not against people have the right to be offended, but this kind of concept Chinese students don’t have. (Chinese student)

26. Fundamental values • ‘the disquieting tension in the intercultural experience’ (Bredella 2003), by demonstrating difficulties which can occur when a value (freedom of speech) which is fundamental to a culture is challenged (Byram 2003) and challenges to another key value, tolerance, which can occur (Bredella 2003). They also exemplify how encountering cultural difference can be challenging ‘when the encounter forces us to evaluate our own fundamental beliefs and values systems’ (Sen Gupta 2003). • ‘Censorship’ is a particularly difficult subject for many European students to compromise on.

27. Where do we go from here? • We need to be aware that for many students, ‘internationalisation’ means ‘westernisation’ • For others, it means very little at all • For some students, it’s a liberating experience • There is the ‘illusion of intercultural interaction’, which can inhibit genuine intercultural interaction • Students can dis-associate individuals from their social group, and therefore not reflect on their own pre-conceptions • Support is necessary, but not sufficient • The meaning of multiculturalism • Providing opportunities for reflection • Strengthening institutional support

28. Our approach • Bring together the various activities under the heading of ‘The Global Citizenship Programme’ • Work with student organisers, from a variety of backgrounds and with a variety of experience • Work with students to design and deliver the content of the ‘projects’ • Understand that the ‘community’ will ‘naturally’ section off for various different activities • Understand that we will have to work in partnership with different parts of the community to bring them together, and we may meet with different approaches • Try not to make assumptions about why things are occurring • Understand which of our fundamental values may be challenged and be prepared for it • To demonstrate as collectively and individually the attributes of an intercultural citizen – be flexible, curious, ‘un-freeze’ our own understanding, take risks, be resilient, imaginitave, persevere