96.. .2 .l: .C.....».;.‘. in! 1"; t: I'- "6 C? . .. 2.. u 4 1.. 1 .3534. anlnz t : :25. 1 3.5).. .A 1:! n \ . Ir J ”39...? . i .1. . hi. vi 4»: 32:1 v a: \4 a It: .. 1.. .3 .31. _ it . Haul .I‘.fL-I.§ 1‘... i. 3.3;...) :31 ..,.;....Aa,_;§n - . .3. s :3: 2 J. t. an»? 95.2.. .1. . Aqw..r.fi~wm.\..n- 3935...: - A J . . i s1... 9» 4%fié... 8H, 3.3. 313‘ i). . I... I). 2 .anufirfl II. I: a est. ”xii-vain v :1? 63):. i. .7! . r. s 1.199.553 .1 5“ a e. 1‘. .2 £3:va .A. s 73. 1...}... 11.3»...11 {3.9. 5.: ti: .9. .zblu‘tdlf S , $1.. . II. 3’!!! IIF‘DAnv . flg‘ MICthJu State University PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE , v. .r *7 m 01% Show 6/01 c-JCIRC/DatoDuopss-gts THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES: EXPERIENCES OF STATESIDE CHURCH LEADERS WHO TRAIN CROSS-CULTURALLY By David Andrew Livermore A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education 2001 ABSTRACT THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES: EXPERIENCES OF STATESIDE CHURCH LEADERS WHO TRAIN CROSS-CULTURALLY By David Andrew Livermore Educators are facing increasingly diverse teaching and learning contexts at home and around the world. Globalization is bringing students from around the world to learn in the United States; more than ever before, Stateside educators are trotting the globe to teach. As a result, much more needs to be understood about culturally diverse teaching and learning contexts. What assumptions are evident in the cross-cultural teaching experiences of stateside educators? That was the overriding research question driving this study. Specifically, the interest was in understanding the influence of a foundationalist frame of reference on how an educator negotiates the challenges of teaching cross-culturally. The study developed from a review of literature on the preparation and experiences of cross-cultural sojourners, whether tourists, study-abroad students, missionaries, or employees sent on overseas assignments. In addition, the research on cross-cultural teaching and learning was studied. Education and sociology were the primary disciplines in which the research was rooted. Merton’s (1968) theory of anticipatory socialization served as the conceptual framework for the study. Anticipatory socialization refers to the influence of how one prepares for a new context upon how that individual assimilates therein. Merton’s theory was used to develop a study that would consider how to refine the preparation strategies of cross-cultural educators. Data were gathered and analyzed using a case study design 'fié‘. '1? «v‘ a a. t.»- w - . v I o 4 OJ.“ ‘0) "' On >l‘.)’v~ k.‘ than); )"'4"“ 7 . .k...\uk.--u4~ in. Q 5.13 o‘r ans A.A. C n . ' '9": h) A ~‘ - Hz.» :a“ )‘g v Lu, - -. ‘ it.“ X'IT"R.1:; v . 'h. ~~¢- A V‘ ‘\ U Q. 1‘. [ll I ‘ ha Cs’ 7 .;-7‘ . n.‘ . — by . .4 ' 9 'N‘bkic '.‘ . SS. with 12 trainers who traveled overseas for 10 days to two weeks to teach students within a particular culture. The sample comprised subjects who led youth ministries in a variety of stateside churches. The subjects conducted training overseas on behalf of a stateside- based organization that offers training for evangelical church leaders. The findings revealed that subjects’ primary reflection about the cultural contexts where they sojourned focused on the hardware issues of culture rather than the more subtle software issues. This appears to be connected to the limited praxis exercised by the subjects. In addition, the findings revealed that subjects espoused foundationalism theologically and epistemologically; however, at times, they talked more like constructivists. For example, they operated from the assumption that the content of their training must be deposited from them to the students, a clear foundationalist perspective; however, they also stated that interaction is the most important part of the training, a much more constructivist perspective. Although involved in what seems to be a less colonialistic paradigm of missions and education, subjects displayed subtle but strong imperialistic tendencies. The findings led to five key determinants fbr interculturally competent teaching and learning. The five factors most evident to influence the cross-cultural teaching context are the organizational values, frames of reference, selection of trainers, preparation of trainers, and the duration of the sojourn. Although the findings and resulting conclusions relate most specifically to educators coming from foundationalist perspectives, there are broader implications for any educator teaching cross-culturally. Copyright by DAVID ANDREW LIVERMORE 2001 luish to deig. 1:67.112 Puchzxd Lixc'“ them he “as one o puss. The wax he 6‘ r» - “Sn are‘ou OOTHEV 9 ' t AAA': L“ next? were a comm-I s f." ~~‘ "~0de me “Dr. Lix lnexer got a c}, l. 593 '- aim ~' ’ a‘é‘m SOmC‘t ~ u.‘ \v I wish to dedicate this dissertation and the many hours it represents to my father, the late Richard Livermore. My dad dropped out of high school in the ninth grade. However, he was one of my greatest cheerleaders through each of my educational pursuits. The way he explored issues aloud with me and his continual questions like: When are you going to be done with this degree? and What do you think you will study next? were a constant source of inspiration. No one was more eager than my dad to be the first to call me “Dr. Livermore.” I never got a chance to say “Goodbye” to my father. However, I look forward to seeing him again someday in eternity. In honor of my father... l- L. \lO‘I': pups: ‘ u ‘ " ‘ ~ '4 . " . ’ la. try: .0 we Dc. .~-- - : J 1" '~ 1.52.03: and cried... I I l - ' . ‘ as set: Kirchzsan 514' b 1%;- 's‘ m...1nc my studx 7- .h - “L 31} LUPIL in a \a \I} dé;“‘hu ACKNOWLEDGMENTS More people have played a significant role in helping me complete this study than I can begin to cite here, including my co-workers, classmates, professional colleagues in missions and education, family members, fiiends, my subjects, and my employer. Before he lefl Michigan State University, Dr. Robert Rhoads served as my advisor and helped me refine my study from my many interests. When he went to UCLA, Dr. Anna Ortiz graciously assumed the role of advisor on my dissertation committee. Her expertise in intercultural education, coupled with her qualitative research abilities and insights, was central to my success. Each of my committee members shaped my thinking and approach to my topic in a variety of ways, from one-on-one conversations to classroom settings. My daughters, Emily and Grace, patiently allowed me to cut “daddy-daughter times” short when I had to go back to working on my “homework.” My best friend and wife, Linda, was a constant source of encouragement and motivation throughout this process. Not only did she create the space and motivation I needed to get this done; she also critically reflected on and debated with me about the issues surfacing from my work. Most of all, I am thankful to God, who provided me all the above-mentioned people to assist in my understanding of who He is and what He is about. He also gave me the opportunities and resources to complete this work. I only hope I have represented Him well. Any praise goes to Him! LESI OF TABLES ....... llSI OF FIGURES ...... CHAPTER 1 [\TRDDL'CIIUX ....... O‘xeniexx of To; Researcher Pox: Sigifieanee oft Research Quext; Organization of (PAPER 2 LHEPAIL'RE REVIE Tne lnteraetix e Socialization of Cftl‘Sb-C 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Topic .................................................................................................... 2 Researcher Position ................................................................................................... 3 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 8 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 14 Organization of the Dissertation ............................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 18 The Interactive Nature of Socialization and Culture ............................................... 19 Socialization of Cross-Cultural Sojourners ............................................................. 21 Cross-Cultural Understanding (Preparatory) ............................................. 22 Communication/Language ............................................................... 22 Social Networks ............................................................................. 24 Self Concept ................................................................................... 27 Global Mindset .............................................................................. 29 Intercultural Training ...................................................................... 31 Socialization (During Trip) ........................................................................ 34 The Symbiotic Relationship Between Learning and Culture .................................. 36 Culturally Diverse Teaching and Learning Styles ...................................... 38 Culturally Diverse Conceptualizations ...................................................... 41 CHAPTER 3 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 45 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 45 Sampling and Design .............................................................................................. 52 Data Collection................. ...................................................................................... 61 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 65 Limitations, Reliability, and Validity ..................................................................... 68 CHAPTER 4 AN TICIPATORY FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 71 “I can assess cultural contexts” .............................................................................. 73 vii “I have something they need.” ............................................................................... 78 “The better prepared I am, the better I will engage.” ............................................. 83 “God will keep me safe.” ....................................................................................... 89 “I won’t offend the students.” ............................................................................... 90 “Language equals communication.” ........................................................................ 93 CHAPTER 5 ENGAGEMENT FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 95 “This culture consists of what I see.” .................................................................... 96 “I can tell students are hungry for what I’m teaching.” ....................................... 102 “These people are more competent than I expected.” ......................................... 108 “I was adequately prepared for this experience.” ................................................ 110 “We should teach Scripture rather than our personal illustrations to avoid importing our bias.” ................................................................................. 113 “Interaction is as important as content.” ............................................................. 120 “Language equals communication.” ...................................................................... 125 “I understand American culture.” ......................................................................... 127 “As a Christian, there are prescribed conclusions I should make from this sojourn.” ................................................................................................... 129 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................... 134 Anticipatory Socialization--Viable or Not? ......................................................... 135 Key Determinants of Intercultural Competency in Teaching and Learning ......... 137 Organizational Values ............................................................................... 139 Frames of Reference ................................................................................. 142 Selection of Trainers ................................................................................. 145 Preparation of Trainers ............................................................................ 152 Duration of Sojourn .................................................................................. 161 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 165 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 169 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 179 General References ............................................................................................... 189 viii Oily-MI" \I) 3"“ K Annual “nut IL- ...... LIST OF FIGURES Potential Variables .............................................................................................................. 62 Sane time .1: \w Harv-1'3“. U .l ‘ , ou'u .11: i¥mt A 45 H :rzsersor} expert" rib); ‘3.) I I “hush Last-1:4" in IT.“ c ‘fim-l- ‘ v, i v. Mu“; TICIII 011T Ll“ 1.4 4:01. ' ”.3 )1' ~ 1 “Ewan VI , 1 . "" AJAA: ‘\ .;‘ a... some stateside ' l-Y ~. ’ . antje q-;L.\' WP.}.V'_J "‘r‘Lcu 6‘, ‘ ' - '1 Sgnfi~l ‘ ¥ CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Some time ago I was roaming the winding streets of Picadilly Circus with my South African friend, Mark. This was Mark's first trip out of Afiica, and experiencing the multisensory experience of the night scene in Picadilly Circus with him is a memory etched clearly in my mind. It was the perfect way to view a culture--Mark and I each coming from our unique cultural vantage points. Our topic of conversation is another part of the evening I will never forget. We had just finished dinner and an orientation meeting with some stateside youth pastors who had come to train youth workers in Europe for a couple of weeks. Mark said, "Dave. They were just so American!" I replied, "Wait a minute. You're talking to a fiill-blooded United States citizen. Watch it!" For the time being, he assured me, I was exempt from his tirade against American youth workers. He said, "They didn't ask me a single question all night long. They were loud and brash. And they have prepared for this trip just enough to make them dangerous" (M. Tittley, personal communication, November 4, 1999). The first two accusations were nothing new to me. I had observed and heard those criticisms all too often about our culture. However his concern about preparation making them dangerous intrigued me. I was intrigued not only because of my personal role in cross-cultural education and priding myself on being well- prepared; but also because I was in the midst of this study, exploring this very topic--the role of preparation in teaching cross-culturally. Was Mark on to something? Could preparation actually hinder one's engagement in teaching cross-culturally? EH37} bk-L: 1““:1» AK! F..i;1L ”‘sk' iv" 1" xx but. to“; O 1 7‘. ’1 ”0 Jul; ‘0 :4 we OF CliI.\ \ 3"; 71 ‘t‘ ‘- k: x. -T | '7”. ‘ :‘kkh.-£~ i- ... . _ uCL,;€:_Q,gnS G‘ ‘ I}. "INN ““ «on \N 21:11 0*”:3 -iglnliifi in C 9" ‘tv «'7‘. ". l’ x L 3.11 nanrl: ~94. ,vh ‘ "3‘ ,. 7 *£ {Iii-W"?! '5‘ ~ ‘\u‘ .“ 9., LLLE bUrv _. I" K " .’ st. ‘vj: “PI~ ‘ \‘U‘K.]!I;-3{ ‘ \h a? q ‘H ‘trh‘ ,4 ("IN Overview of Topic Everywhere is so made up of everywhere else--a polycentric anagram--that I hardly notice that I'm sitting in a Parisian cafe just outside Chinatown (in San Francisco), talking to a Mexican-American friend about biculturalism when a Haitian woman stops off to congratulate him on a piece he's just delivered on Saint Patrick's Day. "I know about all those Irish nuns," she says, in a thick patois, as we sip our Earl Grey tea near signs that say CITY OF HONG KONG, EMPRESS OF CHINA. (Iyer, 2000, p. 1]) Experiences like Iyer's used to be reserved for a remote few who jet-setted around the world and spent time in major cities. Today, Iyer's experience at the Parisian cafe is a taste of globalization that most Americans can experience to some degree in their own hometowns. Globalization is permeating life in every dimension, not the least of which is education. With the internationalization of today’s world come a vast array of educational opportunities in diverse contexts transcending cultural and linguistic boundaries. Both profit and nonprofit organizations in the United States are increasingly involved in training endeavors cross-culturally. Education and training are said to be the “gateway into the global market which demands that adults continue a process of further learning throughout their life” (Walters, 1997, p. 17). Every sector of education is facing the opportunities and challenges of cross-cultural education. As the world looks increasingly similar, one could falsely conclude that learning occurs uniformly for people everywhere. However, cultural differences still abound. Educators must therefore be sensitive to diverse cultural dynamics when they attempt to foster learning in cross-cultural settings. To suggest that learning is inextricably tied to culture is not a new concern. Kanungo (1980), wrote, “That cultural differences are a major factor in the satisfaction and motivation of people is by now almost an axiom. However, it is still too often overlooked and, even if one is sensitive to these differences, to manage them remains a very difficult problem” (p. iii). . a .. . - .‘ ~\."“0;;.-Zl‘. €th ~1~-' ‘ w t 1 1 ‘ ‘ F an; he “and. mad. 1 amenee. The Chan-:25 2.33m; contexts. for ex 9 I 1..., 43.“..1'116 td.i.11'31 L013; 1‘ ~ ‘ v 7’1““.‘WJ ‘ ° ' A ' fair:.da': ‘klj‘l 5:16 rLIJIt' (- l"F "cs-m v~~ ° -. ' \u.hI—\AH“ \. I :L‘lLEZ‘aK‘rA) a ‘9- ”T: .M 4.-) and are erg“. c I 5.4-; -. . ‘1 “T "V: o - "“““: “413.11 ll‘iC CPI." ‘ o Giobaliza ; 7 ~ . \iLI‘n 1} No.4- ‘MQ 1‘0 be 11836151th .3; a. 5.1""3"- mus. Researchen r M u.’*- 2?— “‘LJ'TS. _ \J 5.. ‘3' ~JLA. fi'flh I out "\ was l ‘\ .y _ , ‘- 0h... '33 t- ‘ p‘dke 0U‘_ 1. Tim m to Led: . .. Although educational opportunities in diverse contexts are increasingly accessible around the world, much more needs to be understood about the cross-cultural educational experience. The challenges of contextualization surface in all kinds of cross-cultural teaching contexts. For example, multinational corporations are having to think carefully about the cultural context as they train globally. Higher education institutions are grappling with the relationship between learning and culture in endeavors to develop extension campuses overseas, in working with foreign students who come to study stateside, and in preparing students to work in international contexts. Missionaries and Christian organizations are rethinking their colonialist approaches to educating cross- culturally and are engaged in philosophical debates about what it means to contextualize training within the Christian realm. Globalization is affecting the field of education in a number of ways. Much more needs to be understood about how to approach teaching and learning in cross-cultural contexts. Researchers must consider the intercultural competencies uniquely needed by educators. Researcher Position Given the importance of the researcher's position to qualitative research, this section describes both my experience related to the topic and the philosophical stance from which I conducted the study. My particular interest in cross-cultural teaching and learning is generated from a role I play in leading the international division of a religious, training organization called Teamworks (pseudonym). I interface with all of our training that takes place outside the United States and Canada. I am keenly aware of the challenges related to teaching and learning in culturally diverse contexts. lexr 6P1.“ : ‘mewffies A :I'C“ ‘ L'A 5K '““' met lee:e..~1'.or . ‘..A ”In x0... t uJ 1.11:1... linen-J's home in S V 3922-1 ...- ..1 .. ‘ ‘J-W JO)§{L.:H¢'H. ”TE-‘02)}; ‘ ' a-..“ 111 a tore: ML: 56322;: in w- 1 . 1‘.) -\. ,V “‘l\ Llfln: I currently spend nearly half the year living outside the United States in a variety of countries. A great deal of my time is spent both training and empowering others to train. A significant amount of my reflection about this topic and the actual analysis of the data collected for this study were done in places outside my culture. Some of the places I prepared this study and analyzed data were a train ride across the Czech Republic, a hotel room in North India, a cafe in Ecuador, countless coffee shops throughout Singapore, and a friend’s home in South Africa. It has often been a surreal experience to read and study about cross-cultural engagement and the influence of culture on learning while being immersed in a foreign setting myself. I expect that working on this study in diverse cultural settings in some way shaped the way I approached the study. While conducting this research, I also wrote my own version of Teamwork's most basic seminar, Seminar 1 (pseudonym). I attempted to write the seminar in a more narrative, discovery-oriented manner. In doing so, I was interested to ponder how a non- Westemer might have written the same seminar. Regardless, my own time devoted to working on this revision project for Teamworks influenced the way I considered the subjects' approaches to training Teamworks' materials cross-culturally. Although the training organization for which I work and the values and beliefs I personally embrace could be labeled "evangelical," I often find myself questioning many of the practices and assumptions inherent in the evangelical community. I wonder if it is possible to teach material coming from a foundationalist worldview without being exploitive. To what degree is my understanding of my faith shaped by my cultural upbringing? Although Christianity originated in the East, not the West, to what extent has my Western orientation clouded my understanding of who Jesus truly is and was? These are the kinds of questions that continued to haunt me personally as I moved through this research. H {/3 53° (1. "‘ "a {a "' J t -oy-u e.‘ misses eons... at .. 1C fSTTLC an CF.‘-~ 0: the one. 1:1, 1 a ‘ . ea ‘1 5.26 “631' CEICQC‘TIL 5.37112}. For exam: -v unwa- 9L filzxnya ' ' “w a; 1101‘ 10115 of 1' 31051 ”pure” Is there a place for one who embraces the claims and authority of Christ and also embraces constructivist approaches to learning? It is a tension for sure. The study led me to embrace an epistemic perspective which I have labeled constructive foundationalism. On the one hand, I am confident of the clear existence of objective truth and morality, although my grasp and understanding of both are limited. The Gospel of Jesus defines some clear categories of right versus wrong. Culture is not given the liberty of defining morality. For example, when one uses wealth or power to abuse an individual who lacks those resources, I believe that is clearly wrong, not simply a cultural way of approaching things. When women are dehumanized by men, governments, and religions in cultures, it is not simply the option of a culture to socially construct a knowledge and moral code that allows for that. The moral code taught and characterized by Christ supersedes cultural notions of morality. Most "pure" constructivists would argue against evangelizing altogether. The assumption is that native religions are valid in their own ways and should not be challenged. It is extreme reductionism, however, simply to regard evangelization as imperialism. Relativists ofien claim to have equal respect for all cultures until they come up against religious castes and sexism, clitorectomies, and deliberate persecution. They argue that those kinds of extreme issues mandate the primacy of certain universal principles. But whose principles? The moral underpinnings of foundationalism provide me answers to those kinds of issues. Further, my epistemological lens is constructed on the premise that God is the source of all knowledge. I am confident there is an objective body of knowledge that constitutes absolute truth, some of which is discernible. At the same time, I contend that knowledge is socially constructed. Constructivist approaches to knowing and learning provide more promise of stimulating meaningful connection between content and the 135-«g5 experiences. 1 :e Bi’ble and The WY} 111: God trough (":27 Mini}. Althea; 3.1.11 011*. is {151‘ 7:50: that I accept :3: 37181235 116611 \\ 7:13;: Sir-02gb. my our, re‘. . eeause law-.5 learners to think and ; ‘21ng ‘hem “hat to :3 B} 1:11 trawling» It is 121:.“ K II ”1151 affee I an] Ifflu‘ikfg' he“! learners' experiences. I believe knowledge is developed experientially and with the help of the Bible and the working of the Holy Spirit for those who are in covenant relationship with God through Christ. The acquisition of knowledge must happen experientially and Socratically. Although some of the absolute truth that exists is knowable positivistically, a great deal of it is not and must be accepted purely on faith. It is with faith more than reason that I accept the Bible as the objective source of God's truth, although even the Bible has been written and rewritten through many revisionistic lenses. I further interpret it through my own revisionistic lens. Because knowledge is socially constructed, it is better that I empower adult learners to think and that I enable them to discover knowledge for themselves rather than telling them what to think. The highest level of knowing, mandates action in relationship to that knowing. It is possible to have some cognizance of a concept; however, if I truly know it, it must affect what I do. This kind of knong is discovered, not transferred. I am thankful for an era of postmodern thought that allows for a theory like constructive foundationalism. I find great consolation in the refreshing realism of postmodernism. Looking at the extent of chaos and evil in the social order and searching for something better is exactly what my belief in and relationship with Christ affords me. The world is full of tension, chaos, and disorder. Whereas science and other modes of discourse can help me to understand some of that chaos, there is little hope that any discourse will remove the chaos. My belief in a grand metanar'rative brings meaning to the chaotic world in which we live. This is where I part ways with many constructivists. However, I am keenly interested in pursuing the tensions that lie in constructive foundationalism rather than fleeing those tensions. A constructionist point of view need not lead to relativism and the abandonment of every claim to knowledge. . . . The advantage of the constructionist point of view is that it fits our experience of mutual understanding, helps make sense of the pro 0“” ‘.‘ *3 L15 1113-; t‘ - .4 . «a i" III-1961541- V‘ No educaic rang than les. 1;: “’1 '31.“) 3. U...‘ ..._,3 ,..: .1 . -. ‘\U A.Mr3“eb‘ §s\1r " 1 thug-31 Jesus ts ttnanx 01‘an 3,4 - 3.1.: ekblore 1L 3 7" a . ,~ A‘GUL‘:3 1 AQCHKS “ L 11-311. :4 Ln) \\ 91.: z fact that, often, the more we work at trying to understand one another, the more profoundly we experience the differences among our ways of seeing things. And the image of frame-reflective entry into one another's worlds suggests the experience we have (much less often) of passing from misunderstanding to mutual understanding. (Schon, 1987, pp. 229, 231) No educator has better demonstrated the value of constructivist approaches to learning than Jesus. The vast majority of his teaching occurred in the streets outside the synagogues, along the hillsides, and other places where he could interact with people. He used miracles, stories, and questions to foster learning among those in his audience. Although Jesus was the holder of all truth, even he did not provide prescriptive answers to many of the questions asked. He left it up to the recipients to direct their own learning and to explore the nature of reality. He taught his content best by modeling it. Although I believe that God is the holder of all knowledge and truth, only He knows what that means. Therefore, cross-cultural educators must help learners construct knowledge and understanding according to their students' respective cultural contexts, experiences, and learning styles. The educator's primary role is to help structure meaning around the learners' experiences. That is a high calling and responsibility. Cross-cultural educators need to think critically about learning as a nesting and interacting of frameworks, rather than simply disseminating information from one account into another (Barr & Tagg, 1995). To some degree, it is to be expected that one who travels cross-culturally to teach comes bearing some helpful insights and resources. The key is whether the recipients of that teaching feel empowered as they interact with the foreign educator or whether they feel degraded and inadequate. Cross-cultural teaching initiatives that leave students dehumanized have failed. Instead, cross-cultural education should further construct self- directed learning on the part of recipients while challenging those recipients to consider ~~’ y‘ \ x; “I If“ sermons .11. Ms -1 - R ._ 5L 0' " . £1: £3!U&L.l€§ aft} s5..- lam plSSlL'1f..;l; -.-~- ‘ a‘ ' ' a. 33:35. HUM“ er. 35 .1 I :LI- . '.' l- 3.913.111 3113.133: 1 hr 3' “II . v1 “9-. 4-1 3‘ u I ..1_é>-t......'.'.11 {6.1.1.2- ”a“; - . - . ran»: arb\\ er) Tfi‘) alt regnsrncm. It is in .\ uuL £3 Q”). o . . ~.‘ sf “pram 1mg”. new conscious choices. An educator's epistemological stance is at the root of how he or she approaches any teaching and learning context, especially a cross-cultural one. I am passionately committed to my faith in Jesus Christ. I am unquestionably in process, however, as a follower of Christ, and my complete certainty lies in very few things. I am a lifelong learner in the field of cross-cultural education, and my experiences in cross-cultural teaching and learning actually raise more questions in my mind than they provide answers. This study is more than simply the fulfillment of an academic requirement. It is an extension of who I am and a reflection of my passions and interests. Significance of the Study Vast research exists on pre departure training for cross-cultural sojourners. It seems safe to assume that a fair amount of overlap exists between how one should prepare for any kind of cross-cultural experience, depending on whether the sojoumer is going to work, study, volunteer, or vacation overseas. Less research exists, however, that is specifically focused on how best to prepare educators for cross-cultural teaching and learning experiences (A. Ortiz, personal communication, December 2, 1999). Even less research has been conducted on the growing trend in evangelical missions wherein church leaders from the United States travel overseas to train church leaders in other cultural contexts. The complexities of teaching cross-culturally are compounded when the educator operates from a foundationalist frame of reference. The next research frontier is to investigate the situational components that occur within an intercultural context. These components typically involve subtle abstractions that are not easily discerned by the average sojoumer (Dinges & Lieberman, 1989). The hidden dynamics occurring in cross-cultural work are what cause so much failure by those who participate in international assignments, both short term and long term. As a result, t;- “9’".7 “h filo: 3§-LAJ‘°Ik"‘ 1"... I..E‘IELS‘L\' ‘ -‘- .9 at“ . Q ..,.. ,..-. -. 1.. Cl “153:3 ‘5 ‘..1. (Back. Mendcr Y | ‘u OB 331110.? {856* fairies Of‘t’r y F1» the attention paid by scholars to the topic of international adjustment continues to increase. This study contributes both to understanding the competencies needed by educators who teach cross-culturally and to exploring what occurs when church leaders from the States train overseas. There is an increasing number of books and guidelines that specifically outline ways to prepare to teach cross-culturally. Although these tools are beneficial, "unfortunately, most of the work has been without substantial theoretical grounding” (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). A strong theory of intercultural competency must be built on research exploring the teaching experiences and the socially constructed realities of some cross-cultural educators. The challenge is to develop a theoretical framework from research that is oriented to the needs of practitioners (Bhagat & Prien, 1996). Studies like the one conducted for this dissertation are needed wherein a theoretical framework grounds the study. Theoretically, grounded research is lacking not only for intercultural educators, but throughout the greater field of intercultural practice as well: Research on intercultural relations in organizations has frequently been faulted for an overly glib and abstract discussion of "cultural differences" as the malady behind a host of organizational ills without offering meaningful explanations of the dynamics of the malady or offering suggestions as to the remedy. (Ady, 1994, p. 41) Researchers have demonstrated that careful development of a theory concerning the role of preparation for cross-cultural work is connected to the success of those who participate in cross-cultural assignments. In referring to this, Chiu (1995) wrote, “We believe that studies that extend this approach to other types of sojoumers and immigrants are in order” (p. 41). In addition 10 b .1 5‘ .53.“ 113115.113 94357-17" 3 367.33. R;- mtb‘Cn .5301 31111171“; In on-C T‘_'. I- ‘. ~ .' ' 1.1: 1: 3.111111: it: man: 12:;5 :‘ COD;Uctifi A: I aural mourns. lhe “figment to the resc; kn?“ Far) h‘lfi ., ¥K15r ‘1 I 5 Map: on. 1. at 1‘. “La? I‘ .z ““~ *5 543319.: cm 39-] . ‘ .. 5r.)\l\0\er31mp'.1 ) 4 t“ Eel:\. “KS-cage. A.) 51012:}. L. :1" . \tud} It “as n”, - L i ‘\. m. . \‘O ‘ -t‘ In addition to being theoretically grounded, research must also more systematically examine the dynamics of intercultural adaptation longitudinally (Hammer, Wiseman, Rasmussen, & Bruschke, 1999, p. 323). More research is needed to establish the linkage between training and outcomes. This is especially true in light of the reluctance of many stateside organizations to commit the necessary resources to ensure meaningful training for their cross-cultural participants. It is difficult to understand and interpret the role of training in one’s cross-cultural success without some longitudinal components. This is lacking in many studies (Bhagat & Prien, 1996). I accounted for this need to some degree by conducting interviews with the educators sampled before and after their cross- cultural soj ourns. The pretrip and posttn'p interviews provided a quasi-longitudinal component to the research. Another shortcoming in most of the research in the field of intercultural practice is the assumption that particular kinds of tests or experimental situations truly measure what is happening cross-culturally. In so doing, the complexity of cultural groups is grossly oversimplified (Cole & Scribner, 1974). Most studies examining cross-cultural educators have sought to measure the effectiveness of the teaching. Although worthy of study, measuring effectiveness is subjective and difficult. Rarely do these studies provide thick descriptions so that one can gain insight into the role of culture in the educator’s experience. Although effectiveness of teaching was certainly a consideration throughout this study, it was not of primary concern as data were collected and analyzed for the study. I was most interested in understanding the subj ects' perceptions of their experiences, before and after they engaged in those experiences. My hope was that their perceptions would shed light on how to better prepare educators for cross-cultural work and on how to use educators' cross-cultural teaching experiences to foster perspective transformation. 10 Oxcrail. Lb. a $.22:ch \th 13.1. I I — 1 -P ‘I » 9g. . ), _ CIQ)?‘\L..'..K11 11.: . i” ’5 ' 4‘ cxi ~ arms} um)“ BU . l o ' .‘J "‘\h'n.y .1“ ‘ 1'; 3“ *“sd..‘ can. ‘3 V a Uta range 01 .12» “:3 Rfiiturcc “3w... -. . §!_'w- r‘ 3 s _ , punt} l‘ It '3 O Eben m“ T: t ”"h'M1 t . b - ,4: '34-. ‘ . u~ «Ant. Isdkn‘ne p. s . “a“: i. V4.10, the em; I '_'~ ' . . ww‘grle). [1111‘ C? s .\ r”) mfi'gfi' ‘ fi 1’ In g 31 1-1.; "'.'I - r\” 11.; - ”9.01. :1, 1110 ) TL axg Pr LIM - h - 0111 01 In. REHEL e"« 111157? ii- ' - n.1,. :3 Overall, there has been limited research on the teaching and learning experiences of educators who teach cross-culturally. Little has been done to examine how educators use cross-cultural teaching experiences to construct meaning for intercultural understanding. Studies that do exist tend to have been done in isolation from one another. Research on the teaching and learning experiences of cross-cultural educators must include work from a broad range of disciplines in addition to education. Literature in the fields of HRD (Human Resource Development), communication, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and missiology also should be examined. The research addressing intercultural competency as it pertains specifically to educators is sparse and lacks theoretical depth. Even more lacking is the availability of theoretically grounded research on cross- cultural teaching practices throughout evangelical missions. Missiologists assert that 85 percent of the evangelical ministers in the world have never had any formal training for ministry. If every existing Christian training organization in the world, including seminaries, universities, and nontraditional educational providers like Teamworks operated at 120 percent capacity, only 10 percent more ministers would be trained (Taylor, 2000). These statistics, along with other factors, are causing evangelical churches and mission organizations throughout the States to shifi their emphases from making converts out of indigenous people to training those who are already converted. As a result, each year, thousands of churches throughout North America send their ministers for two to three weeks to train church leaders in other cultural contexts. This is the model of missions represented by the sample in this study. It is a model that is growing rapidly and mandates some careful, theoretical analysis. F oundationalism, upon which evangelicalism is based, can easily lead to new- world-order agendas. The new world order, also known as globalization from above, refers to the perpetuation by dominant forces of a uniform global culture. Most of the pursuits 11 ofgichflimion are an . werfil The nexx w: . ‘ ‘ r " v . 0605231160 and .155“ I A 1 WI reiazionshlps El... 3!: “in: benefits the e. The rapacmus : J .4, ~" \ ; . 0" gunmen are SUD... Ties: sahtleties are pr .‘yra‘ .“;';' ' I ' 3L.» anion-.11 ”7.551“ f y 4 ' hated on the non ‘h Ur “chem religion. R3: “33%? Share 3 found. ”@“Ia L, trek. un'quh a:- J ‘ u ’1 .‘ L413 C4,? ’3 D, 4 {)3 “n r}, A _ u “Jr“ .— ‘dl era 0 {Ii-:5“ ‘1‘“«411‘3‘ of globalization are an effort to expand the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful. The new world order assumes a hierarchical relationship between the center and the periphery and assumes the center knows what is best for the periphery. The same power relationships that have existed for the last 500 years continue, wherein the center considers what can be done to help the periphery; but the decisions are ultimately based on what benefits the center (Barber, 1996). The rapacious relationships involved in new-world-order approaches to globalization are subtle because they typically are disguised by use of a global language. These subtleties are present in the emerging paradigms of evangelical missions. Unlike more traditional mission endeavors, the many contemporary mission models appear much less patriarchal and colonial. Mission models like those used by Teamworks are not founded on the notion of a Westemer moving into a culture to "convert" the natives to a Western religion. Rather, Teamworks works with existing national church leaders who already share a foundationalist view of reality. Those national church leaders invite the Western church leaders to work along side them. It sounds like a big improvement from the days when the white missionary brought his white God, his white music, his white steepled church, and the rest of his baggage. Regardless, the findings indicated that even this contemporary missions model is wrought with hierarchical relationships and agendas. Those findings are what led me to use that familiar title, "The Emperor's New Clothes". Of course the "emperor" metaphor comes from the nightmare of imperialism. During Colonialism, totalitarianism was carried out with a uniformity that subordinated diversity in the name of one empire's superiority. Nations were imagined into being during the Postcolonial era of the last fifiy years. However, new versions of monocultural dominance persist. 12 At the core or 1 1%.: are necessr} to l u-- 1 I - ; V1.11; Cildtk 0‘?) 15 ,... < '- ' ‘ ‘ ‘. .\ I' >L:Wi\‘é \T‘L $1.35 )\u\. 33:51:): Ho“ ex er. I ' ' V f..d'3n0~ ’3‘.“ 0,34 Mousdé Emma-.5». The Hair“ .sl World-order an. ‘\K 5 C o “. ~- '. _~ ‘ _ ‘. s 423:». Ere-bani At the core of most globalization strategies are universal, cookie-cutter approaches that are necessary to pull off a new world order. Everything from economic strategies to political endeavors is assumed to have universal value for all cultures and nations. The subjects in this study expressed the desire to avoid exporting cookie-cutter approaches to ministry. However, the subjects' aspirations and conclusions about what they had to offer students indicated they were operating from this same new-world-order mindset. The training done by subjects like those in this study is a microcosm of new- world-order agendas. It is one more version of the "have's" and the "have-not's . In fairness, globalization from above is in no way a phenomenon evidenced exclusively by evangelical church leaders like those in this study. There are numerous examples of colonialism in new clothes. For example, the Greening movement is a force involved in new-world-order agendas. Although it is purported to be a movement to protect natural resources, the largest environmentalist groups are bedfellows with the new-world-order movement. "The Global Environmental Facility set up at the World Bank addresses only four environmental issues: reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; protection of biodiversity; a reduction of pollution of international waters; and a reduction in ozone layer depletion" (Shiva, 1993, p. 55). These are all agendas shared by major multinational corporations. New-world-order agendas presume that "Others want what we have to give them." I recently spoke with a Haitian physician who told me about the time he walked up to a stranger in Port au Prince. He told me, Her arm had obviously been broken and never reset, and she was now very handicapped by it. I walked up to her and said, "Maam. I am a doctor. I would love to help you. Come to my clinic and I'll do surgery on your arm. I would be happy to do this for free for you so you can use your arm again." The handicapped woman looked at me and began cussing me out. She said, "I don't need your help. Leave me alone and mind your own business." I am 13 reminded that p them. [item it. t} mm m unsoli 3001) Compared to th got'errmenis. and 011*. e: chat-on ex'ide. eed ha Eigztzeant. Ho“ e\ e' l‘.‘m"" - ‘ a ‘ . ' tunes. .eaders 0t ta". .1 7“»? “0‘ k ‘— ,.; c. ‘ :‘\3L1‘17A‘Lk\n- '“ ml of trans” “ 4 . Isqul ‘15 hostility [-0 p. C???" r “on. the hero 3:“: 6.17““.3“ K.*~~I a . .ttal educ 9 Bull EYES-Clihural tea - L C . , \ lnLe the C‘Lv-J‘ “1‘ ‘ "33“134 r st. \knh {hé C 21.3.2- ’ “TOW-n S rt ‘- {Q r.. g Nil 11,} gr ‘ ml 1min reminded that people aren't necessarily interested in the resources I have to offer them. Even if they seem helpful to me, I degrade people when I presume they want my unsolicited help. (H. Morquette, personal communication, June 22, 2001) Compared to the new-world-order agendas of multinational corporations, Western governments, and other agencies, the new-world-order tendencies of cross-cultural education evidenced by evangelical church leaders from the States seem almost insignificant. However, rather than be party to colonialist, patriarchal agendas in new clothes, leaders of faith communities in the West must lead the way in the less recognized type of globalization--"globalization from below." Globalization from below consists of "an array of transnational social forces animated by environmental concerns, human rights, hostility to patriarchy, and a vision of human community based on the unity of diverse cultures seeking an end to poverty, oppression, humiliation, and collective violence" (Brecher et al., 1993, p. ix). This is largely in line with the life and teaching of Christ, the hero and Savior of the Christian faith. Research needs to consider how evangelical educators, presumably coming from foundationalist perspectives, approach cross-cultural teaching contexts. There is little research that richly describes the teaching and learning experiences of those who travel cross-culturally to teach. Even more scarce are studies that explore the ways North American trainers from foundationalist perspectives, prepare for and negotiate the challenges of training cross-culturally for short periods of time. These gaps, coupled with the diversity of cultural backgrounds among students in stateside classrooms, the growing numbers of opportunities for educators to teach cross-culturally, and the growing phenomenon of cross-cultural training done by church leaders, were the most important reasons for conducting this study. 14 II The quest in the cross-cult! question; that ace 2:; better 'ex eiop 1: e33: ators' frat: 1'30 3 1 L‘Bto’J-‘ste Lhe Cu}. I. “fia— kgl‘m ....In ‘date f0: 23”“ are - b ' . -\ ' s, \ [Caehm . h \ S t 4‘. -. LL23 ‘ ant Quinn. 31%: Research Questions The question driving this study, then, was this: What assumptions are evident in the cross-cultural teaching experiences of stateside educators? The practical questions that accompany this question are: What do these assumptions reveal about how to better develop interculturally competent educators? How can one foster transformation in educators' frames of reference? Several secondary questions supported these primary questions. I was interested to explore how stateside educators perceive their cross- cultural teaching experiences. How does preparation influence the ways educators negotiate the cultural dynamics of the teaching and learning setting? How should trainers accommodate for and be influenced by the predominant worldview of the culture where they are teaching? Are there strategies to aid in this process so that educators can remain true to their worldviews without being “colonialist” in their approaches to learners? How does a foundationalist frame of reference inhibit intercultural competency and perspective transformation? As reflected in Chapter Six, the data revealed a number of responses to these kinds of questions. As the literature review began, many more specific questions were raised that came out of the findings of previous research. Further adaptation and refinement of the questions occurred as the study focused more specifically on church leaders who travel cross-culturally to train other church leaders. I sought to understand the experiences of 12 church leaders from the States. These church leaders traveled overseas for about two weeks to train other church leaders from different cultures. The study was designed using a sociological framework, anticipatory socialization. Anticipatory socialization refers to the influence of one's preparation for a new cultural encounter on how the individual engages therein (Merton, 1968). Using anticipatory socialization as the conceptual framework, data were collected from subjects 15 CTGSS-CLLLH l 0 ”Have: ’xrv a...~.\u..u_ heater: . !‘ -._K e0" - 'm.;»rr»u - . . . :r-‘i ‘vn :03 4 ‘dk ‘gp.“\\‘ I .' .' -1 . mtg," U; ‘4 bV‘O‘A I Etc-.1 Prints '- “3"~ ‘ C , . - .0meny “”1531”; i a. .. I‘L‘éCrtt: before, during, and after their sojourns. At the outset, the purpose was to develop a theoretical understanding of how cross-cultural educators from a foundationalist perspective construct a sense of intercultural understanding. The hope was to use the findings to better prepare other educators like them in the future. Specifically, the objective was to understand how evangelical ministers prepare for and engage in two-week mission training endeavors. I anticipated using the findings of the study to refine the preparation strategies of cross- cultural trainers from Teamworks. I also hoped there would be some contribution to a broader development of theory for intercultural education. As the study progressed, it ended up raising more questions related to contemporary missions models, epistemology, and praxis than addressing specific training issues. Although the study did not directly result in a pre departure training program for cross-cultural educators, it revealed some important deterrents to intercultural competency, innate to educators coming from foundationalist frames of reference. Further, the study indicated some key determinants for interculturally competent teaching and learning. The findings and resulting conclusions relate most specifically to stateside church leaders who travel cross-culturally to train. However, there are broader implications from the findings for any educator participating in teaching others from different cultural contexts. Organization of The Dissertation Following the overview of the study in Chapter One, Chapter Two contains a review of the literature that is most germane to teaching and learning in cross-cultural contexts. The nature of the study required looking at multiple disciplines of research, primarily the fields of education and sociology. The literature review covers two primary areas: (a) the socialization of cross-cultural sojourners, and (b) the relationship between 16 j»... ALA.- . ' ‘ ~ .h-.ui... A A no» . 4 "-, -. '- tegckuon am. 3.. . ’“.‘1'v~ ?; ‘- QNAAIPHO-n; that ‘ih ‘ Q Minn“ OI arr“: in“. Lt» hex date .;7‘ ' A-e... learning and culture. The methodology used in the study is described in Chapter Three, beginning with a description of the theoretical perspective framing the study. The remainder of the chapter describes how the study was conducted, including the data- collection and analysis procedures. Chapter Four contains what I consider to be the most important findings from the data collected before subjects' cross-cultural sojoums, whereas Chapter Five contains findings generated from data collected during or after the subjects' sojourns. The findings in Chapters Four and Five are organized around prevalent assumptions that continued to emerge from the subjects. In Chapter Six, I explore the viability of anticipatory socialization for a theory of intercultural competency and outline five key determinants for interculturally competent teaching and learning. Included with the description of these determinants is a discussion of the implications for organizations like Teamworks. 17 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Globalization has added international responsibilities to the jobs of workers all around the world. Cross-cultural travel and work sound exciting, but all too often, those who participate are ill-prepared and consequently fail miserably. Not everyone is cutout for the intense challenges of an international assignment. Although one may possess the professional skills needed to perform a job, there are a number of other dynamics to consider when working cross-culturally. There is a booming need for interculturally competent employees. “The lack of cross-cultural understanding by executives in today’s global economy results in increased time to get the job done right, increased travel time and costs, increased frustration, poor job performance, decreased revenues, poor working relationships, and lost opportunities” (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994, p.40). Between 16 and 40 percent of all expatriate managers who are given foreign assignments end them early because of the inability to adjust (Goldstein & Smith, 1999). Some writers have indicated that the better an individual understands one’s role and the expectations of the host country, the better one will be able to adapt to the differences. Estimates have suggested that as many as 99 percent of expatriate failures are caused by cultural problems, not lack of job skills (Caudron, 1992). Educators who teach students from diverse cultures stateside and abroad face some challenges similar to corporate managers. “More so now than at any other time in history, educators are responsible for a student body that represents a myriad of colors, languages, backgrounds, and learning styles” (Milhouse, 1995, p. 173). The challenge is compounded when the educator travels overseas to teach culturally diverse students because of the personal socialization required as well as the need to adapt methods and 18 -.‘ 7.: I ' "\ turntflt u D" 5 . am, :1- Cl ‘....~.\.> ; u "‘ ",‘s'! ;C‘\!a\o)k\ LA content to the respective culture. Despite the challenges and high rates of failure, organizations of all types spend enormous amounts of money annually to create and maintain global connections (Goldstein & Smith, 1999). It is clear that more must be understood about the cross- cultural experiences of sojoumers and specifically of the teaching and learning experiences of cross-cultural educators. To aid in developing a theoretical base to prepare cross-cultural educators, one must look at research from a number of fields. There is a great deal to be learned about how to prepare cross-cultural educators from what has already been done to study the experiences of cross-cultural sojourners, including educators, anthropologists, missionaries, and corporate managers. Further, because of the educational context, a careful review of the literature addressing the relationship between learning and culture is needed. Before looking at these two areas, however, socialization and culture need to be defined. The Interactive Nature of Socialization and Culture Socialization and culture are separate entities, yet they clearly are interrelated. Given the ubiquitous presence of socialization and culture in this study, it is important to begin with understanding what is meant by each and their relationship with each other. Finding agreement on what the concept of culture represents is no easy task. Anthropologists and sociologists both have widespread interpretations of what is meant by the term. In the broadest sense, culture includes the elements of language, material (foods, homes and so on), normative order, and values (Hess, Markson, & Stein, 1985). Niebuhr (1951) defined culture as the artificial, secondary environment superimposed on the natural. Becker (1982) simplified the many meanings of culture by focusing on the 19 CL; man“ .a Shotgun.- b \ ‘1"“m < Ll LU;..m; ”’5'3‘ .3" o .‘r'k~x“‘ II) . "a! e ed understandings people use within a culture to align their actions. Culture, then, represents a group’s shared way of perceiving, judging, and mizing ideas, situations, and events they encounter in their daily lives. It encompasses rules or guidelines used by a group of individuals who share a common history or graphical setting to mediate their interaction with their environment. Culture might »lve adherence to a specific religious orientation and use of a certain language or style ommunication. It includes people's preferences for various expressive methods to esent their perceptions of the world (e.g. art, music, dance). It is the “collective gramming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of ole from another” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 5). Culture is less what people “do” and more ideas they have about and materials used in what they do (Johnson, 1995). Socialization is the means by which culture is transmitted (Mead, 1934). As ple prepare to participate in social systems, they experience the socialization process. se systems begin to be taken for granted as reality, and the process leads to the :lopment of one’s social self (Johnson, 1995). Socialization is a lifelong journey that ll'S as people acquire new roles and adjust to the loss of old ones. Culture is transmitted by the process of socialization and is reified and re-created result of it. At the same time, culture plays a role in defining socialization processes. interactive nature of these concepts is germane to studying the cross-cultural :riences of those from the United States who travel overseas. It is important to :rstand the lifelong experiences of these sojoumers and, in particular, the influence of r expectations of cross-cultural engagement. “To come to know an organizational situation and act within it implies that a on has developed some commonsensical beliefs, principles, and understandings; or in thand notation, a perspective for interpreting one’s experiences in a given sphere of 20 is: sort “or. summon ' l {,2- u‘ ta. ”“u' .L'te 01 u suit . “" 1‘ .0“ CRIS w“. "h’ :1‘0: ‘ X‘LALJAHO .~ I ‘ MA ten 18. be" ‘ ' . ., ’ . 3 k“ W; J..." K... \ xi.“ -r‘; ‘?-:11 H 5"*‘i'\ the work world” (VanMaanen & Schein, 1979, p. 212 ). Cross-cultural educators must socialize to both the organizational and the national contexts. Exploring the development and role of that socialization process for cross-cultural educators is what drove this study. The study of the anticipatory and ongoing socialization of cross-cultural educators occurs within a broader context. That context includes research addressing the socialization of cross-cultural sojoumers and the literature analyzing the relationship between learning and culture. A summary of some of the most important work done in both of these areas follows. Socialization of Cross-Cultural Sojourners Multinational organizations have managers traveling from a base in the Netherlands to a subsidiary in Honduras; African Americans find themselves managing Euro-American subordinates; Chinese workers in mainland China work for a Japanese manager in Hong Kong; a Hispanic trainer in the United States has Anglo-American, Korean, and African American students stateside and travels overseas to train people elsewhere; university professors find students from every continent on their class rosters. The types and complexity of these cross-cultural relationships are increasing, and research is needed that describes the teaching experiences of those who are regularly interacting in these diverse cultural settings (Albert, 1994). The literature addressing the experiences of cross-cultural soj ourners typically covers two broad categories. The first category is cross-cultural understanding, the traits and skills one has and develops before engaging in a foreign setting. The second category, socialization, is the engagement in a cross-cultural context based on one's level of cross- cultural understanding. 21 , . ('7-55- ulturg. l ’1 lt'tseltot ! ‘ - err-hrs} ees the h 33 u‘\ .Il'x~ OWN 5 b I 1‘ I: I ‘- ‘\ n ' L’lll'vluhlt Lane ";H“’,- “‘1’” qr budmeulém. um 93min the 125+. ' a Intv- oh! ‘ ‘ will unit in :1 l I J. ' _ thin that 1: re 5“""l'r‘ 14 dru‘) Aslatcu Many c 3pr ‘hem rn‘. Cross-Cultural Understanding (Preparatory) It used to be that overseas assignments were reserved for those mid career employees who had proven themselves over time. However, more and more organizations are giving opportunities to employees earlier (Geber, 1992). At the same time, an individual cannot approach tasks the same way in different cultures. Culture as a variable is influential, and there are multiple dynamics that go beyond simply the skills needed to perform the task (Swenson & Casmir, 1999). Cultural dynamics are particularly influential in a learning context because of the level of confidence and communicative ability that is required in teaching. Cross-cultural adjustment and job performance are directly related (Cui & Awa, 1992). Many competencies are needed for cross-cultural understanding. Some scholars group them into the cognitive, behavioral, and affective domains while adding lists of the necessary personal attributes (Kim & Paulk, 1994). Others group competencies into the mainstream categories of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Paige, 1996). Regardless of how they are categorized, some of the broader aspects of cross-cultural competence that consistently surface in the literature are language and communication skills, social networks, self-concept, a global mindset, and intercultural training. Communication/language. I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in communication, and my jobs typically have included a great deal of public and interpersonal communication. As a result, I often approach communication interchanges with a high level of confidence. When I leave the States however, one of the hardest things I deal with is the issue of communication. Suddenly, a competency on which I rely so heavily is wrought with new challenges. Even in English-speaking contexts, I find myself second-guessing everything I say. Some researchers have suggested that the way a person 22 “ ne‘er-4. ‘ bk‘r‘..mu’\r ‘.,f‘{ 44"_‘ 5ki-'~.u~k F? ' ('1 Lu '1» 4 5 9,. “‘\ {11‘ ['1' [U (I! communicates in his or her own context serves as a valuable indicator of how that individual will communicate in a different cultural context (Kealey, 1996). With that in mind, one's competency in the art of communication is something that should be carefully considered when anticipating a cross-cultural sojourn. Language is a significant determinant of how well one will communicate when engaging cross-culturally. Being able to speak and understand the language spoken by the locals in a cultural context allows for more successful engagement therein (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994). A number of researchers have demonstrated a correlation between the success of international students at stateside universities and their aptitude for English. The research has indicated that the greater students' capacities in English, the better their performances in the classroom. For one thing, content is much more readily grasped by English-speaking students. Furthermore, interactions with instructors and classmates are much more feasible for international students who speak English. This often leads to better academic performance. It has been further argued that the very ways students mentally organize concepts is shaped by the language in which they think about the discipline (Barratt & Huba, 1994; Dozier, 1993). Although important, learning the language of a culture alone is not sufficient for cross-cultural competency. It may lead only to encoding a message rather than actually allowing for an accurate exchange of information and emotions. Communication involves much more complexity than simply the words spoken. Communication has the potential for human beings to interact on the deepest levels known to any living being, but only when interpreting and exchanging commonly understood symbols. As a result, stateside educators traveling to English-speaking cultures must still be aware of the communicative challenges they may face. Stateside corporations that send employees on international assignments requiring extended sojourns often experience 23 reason suggests. dissent the corn ht tort car. he ht: ntish cult: their is the can the flats are he Cross-e 370,7 ' ~ - 4 ~ my? 111 LTD.“ ‘ exploring educ communicatio Veins t0 the 19%. “futtrr a. reduce ur ahtwut increa; some of the highest attrition from those assigned to the United Kingdom. One of the reasons suggested for this problem is that the corporations and the employees alike discount the communicative challenges they will face. Employers and employees presume that work can begin immediately because there is no language barrier. They soon discover that British culture differs greatly from stateside culture in some ways, not the least of which is the communication process itself (Landis & Bhagat, 1996). There is no guarantee that ideas are being properly communicated just because an educator is speaking the language of the students. Cross-cultural communication is one of the most critical issues facing people who engage in cross-cultural work (Collier, 1988; Cumber & Braithwaite, 1996). Researchers exploring educators' and others' global pursuits must continue to consider the communication aspect of adjustment. More is needed in this regard, specifically as it pertains to those engaging cross-culturally for short periods of time (Shuter & Wiseman, 1994). “Future research should address those specific behaviors enacted by interactants that reduce uncertainty during cross-cultural interaction to ascertain how individuals go about increasing the predictability of communication and becoming more effective intercultural communicants” (N euliep & Ryan, 1999, p. 97). Social networks. I have made more than my share of cultural blunders. One time I was speaking to an audience of several hundred Brazilians in Sao Paulo and I swore at all of them. This was unintentional on my part, but it was extremely offensive none the less. I gave them what I knew to be the hand symbol for "okay." Instead, I communicated, "F--- you!" Another time I was in Bangkok and talked for a couple of hours with some elderly Thai men. We sat in a circle facing one another. I sat most of the time with my legs crossed in such a way that my left ankle was resting on my right knee. Exposing and 24 refining the ho elderl} person r‘t'liz that at t the: timesl h which at} igm the let el of re much more to lhs is one 0t One: eernnmiea: It‘seargh a3 . 563163“ Cu "fia . h~:\_ Pr: r P \f ‘ \X‘ pointing the bottom of my shoe at an elder in Thailand was about like walking up to an elderly person in the States and pulling at their hair to see if it is real. Obviously, I did not realize that at the time. Sometimes I have gotten away with horrific gestures like these; other times I have not. Relationships usually make all the difference in the degree to which my ignorance offends. My level of offensiveness is remarkably proportionate to the level of relationship I have with the offended parties. Those who know me better are much more tolerant of my ignorance than are those with whom I have no relationship. This is one of the many benefits of developing strong relationships when working cross- culturally. One's social networks are interrelated to the above-discussed competency, communication. These networks of relationships are another issue described in the research as playing a key role in cross-cultural understanding. “Interactions do not occur between cultures but between individual members of cultures” (Swenson & Casmir, 1999, p. 223). People are real. Cultures are fabrications of reality; therefore, people relate to people, not cultures to cultures. As we begin to relate with individuals from other cultures, we often find it diminishing the ethnocentrism to which we are all inclined (Stephan & Stephan, 1992). Multinational organizations are understanding better the importance of social networks. As organizations send their employees overseas, they are placing a high level of importance on helping those employees and their families develop relational networks. Research has shown a high correlation between the relationships expatriates develop overseas and their overall effectiveness in that environment as well as their long-term commitment to remaining in that kind of position. (Briody & Chrisman, 1991). Social connectedness within a cross-cultural context allows foreigners to be included in a variety of work- and nonwork-related networks. The apprehension and stress experienced from 25 . . 1“- 1"",1 0"‘, 5%“ old 3 He‘s! y . - 1.. £013": '3..:\ 1“I:V - . 131.." 11:”1& 5. E As CV] ‘ . ‘ 1 Emit-’15 car 3 0.: . l ‘1 P..." '“1 _' .irlhjé 01‘ 3’3""19- Y ‘ “on...“ ,0 k : v. ""1“"- I~ #41 uh...“ \ .4.’ : hay. I h . ‘. fi‘ikfittet L16 center 1 . . 3447.? mmnmfi ”In: the“ \M‘ ”I ‘4.“ \.c ‘ ‘v- v ”J \h ‘1 1, x.“ n 1 being in a different culture often are alleviated to some degree through contact with the nationals there. As a result, expatriates' interpersonal relationships in cross-cultural contexts play a role in improving their overall sense of well-being (Mak, Westwood, Ishiyama, & Barker, 1999). As evidenced by my experiences in places like Sao Paulo and Bangkok, social networks can also help the sojoumer transcend other weaknesses. Students are more forgiving of cultural faux pas and the misuse of language when the foreign educator attempts to connect emotionally and interpersonally (Yook & Albert, 1999). As the findings later indicate, the trainers sampled ofien operated from assumptions that could have been extremely offensive to their students. However, their teaching was often done in the context of having spent a great deal of time informally interacting with students in addition to the formal teaching times. This likely allowed the offenses to be less severe than they would have been if the relationships had not been developed. Overall, increased intimacy between expatriates and nationals fosters increased understanding for both groups. At the same time, relationships cannot be forced and must be approached in a culturally-appropriate manner. Relationships should never be developed merely as a way to get things accomplished. Unfortunately, Americans are often accused of doing that very thing. Using relationships to accomplish other agendas is more damaging than having little relational connection in the first place (Hammer et al., 1999) Another social network that influences cross-cultural engagement is the familial relationships of the employee being sent on the overseas assignment. The spouse's view of an overseas assignment is one of the strongest variables shaping one’s ability to function well cross-culturally (Black & Stephens, 1989; Briody & Chrisman, 1991; Caudron, 1992). Some corporations are now offering specialized training for spouses and 26 . '31. f , inner: 01 up expense 5 en central to t . 1 a, an. .e expat “MW and Cross 7*. a 5 L , , I“ “ ‘Qretifl t .. .tow’mw 1‘ "ubetur -. Pct-1‘33 ftp: Emerald '16 1 children of expatriate employees because of the predominant influence family play in an expatriate’s cross-cultural success. Black and Stephens (1989) empirically demonstrated that a favorable opinion about the overseas assignment by an employee’s spouse is highly correlated to the adjustment of the expatriate manager. Also, the adjustment of the spouse and the expatriate are positively related to the expatriate’s intention to stay on in the overseas assignment and whether to participate again in the future. Cross-cultural competence is profoundly connected to one’s relational affiliation in a foreign culture. Rhinesmith (1996) wrote, “In the end, a global organization’s people . . . constitute the most critical factor in the organization’s ability to survive and grow. People represent an organization’s purpose, mission, values, and mindset, which are the generative juices that enable it to respond creatively to the unanticipated” (p. 17). The importance of social networks and affiliations cannot be overemphasized in one’s level of cross-cultural understanding. Self concept. At times it seems like we spend all our lives trying to convince ourselves and others of our significance. Many people learn to disguise the insecurities so commonplace to humanity by using socially learned patterns of relating. However, few things challenge the security with which we view ourselves like the experience of leaving our cultural contexts. Like communication and social networks, the view of self is another interrelated determinant of cross-cultural competence. Our sense of self plays a primary role in how we personally adjust to new situations. Coming into new cultural contexts brings about new uncertainties and insecurities, and the ability to negotiate those is connected to the view of self (Kealey, 1996). In that regard, Anderson (1994) wrote, “The individual’s firm sense of self, being grounded in stable self-esteem and individual identity, can be sorely battered during the 27 ' J 63:“ ha [I u ‘4 '/u 3“." "" 1 ' -_ . L bio-‘gnl ¢‘ 9 5 b r V 11W -ut. . and N- ' . ettet';\el T MTY‘JF' V». \u.5.u I ."‘~J« ‘ ~04»: Or ‘ I 'l ‘h-- y "we s1 ’ _ A $53.13]. .‘r~' .CJ to l .a! .- . “(st 1*: early days of adjustment” (p. 321). Consequently, the process of socialization, when engaging cross-culturally, requires a strong sense of self in the face of environmental disturbance. The better prepared the individual is to do so, the more professionally effective he or she will be (Anderson, 1994). The self-concept and the influence of culture on that concept is an issue especially pertinent to cross-cultural teaching and learning contexts. A student's capacity for learning comes out of his or her self-esteem. Conversely, how students learn and what they learn affects the further development of their self-esteem. For example, Barratt and Huba (1994) found a strong correlation between foreign students’ self-concepts and their learning abilities. The study indicated that the way an international student viewed self while studying in the States did not change from how he or she viewed self at home. The researchers did conclude however, that a student’s ability to speak up in class was largely tied to his or her aptitude in English. As a result, students struggling with English ofien viewed themselves less positively than those who spoke the language well. Furthermore, proficiency in English led to better development of social networks. Although asserting a direct linear relationship between the variables of communication, social networks, and self-concept may be pretentious, clearly there is some level of relationship between a sojoumer’s aptitude for the language spoken in the culture visited and the level of his or her confidence there (Barratt & Huba, 1994; Dennett, 1995). Dennett (1995) studied the effect of cultural bias on an adult student’s self- esteem. She concluded that failing to accommodate for divergent learning styles due to cultural differences can cause low self-esteem in a student. An educator cannot possibly adapt teaching to each individual’s self-concept; however, the role of self in learning must be central to teaching, particularly when doing so cross-culturally. 28 Mar-:35 a an: ism cross-c stem “hen tea. cirrd typeset: ..C3..".‘.l\ i "t " "H ll. :1...“ U I\ s . . l ) ' romp: 1: M} u Schmls and re Whereas a fair amount of researchers have analyzed the role of self-esteem in how one learns cross-culturally, little has been done to examine the role of a teacher's self- esteem when teaching cross-culturally. Much more research has been done on the cross- cultural experiences and self-concepts of expatriates as a whole. The self has been found to significantly influence one’s intercultural interactions. Consideration of the self- concept is key in thinking about one’s level of cross-cultural understanding (Paige, 1996). The self emerged as one of the most important variables in this study. Global mindset. Diversity permeates society, even throughout our stateside contexts. Professions like engineering, law, medicine, and accounting have special cultures. Schools and religions have unique cultural dynamics, as do corporations and organizations from Microsoft to the Girl Scouts. There are cultures of genders, generations, social classes, geographic regions, even particular cities and parts of cities. Although multicultural diversity has become a way of life in the twenty-first century, the propensity toward ethnocentrism continues to prosper. Ethnocentrism has been cited by numerous writers as the greatest deterrent to developing cross-cultural competency (Caudron, 1992; Chesebro, 1998; Cumber & Braithwaite, 1996; Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida, 1989). Conversely, developing a multicultural perspective, or a global mindset, is another interrelated predictor of cross-cultural competency. The global mindset is most interrelated with the influence of one's self-concept. The degree to which one can empathize with another culture flows from the individual’s psychological disposition. The way one views self corresponds to the degree to which the individual is aware, understanding, and accepting of cultural differences (Cui & Awa, 1992). A global mindset entails not only tolerating differences but actually pursuing and seeking to understand those differences and the meanings represented thereby. To do so is 29 m :as ask. 2 The IT when 5013'... with ‘ those 1": ("4" t h lk‘Ag“\j 1173733. \r '2 ”- K... ‘ “alt' : -. ‘ ‘--’ .4 a ‘ \ Al“;‘: \‘I a- no easy task, as indicated by the following conclusion from a study conducted on this very issue: The motivation to develop socio-cultural competence is likely to be compromised when people’s original cultural pride or identity is threatened. New immigrants or sojoumers may resist learning the social presentation of host nationals when faced with a perceived pressure to abandon their own customs and replace them with those characteristic of the new country. (Mak et al., 1999, p. 80) Transcending one's self and culture is the beginning of developing a global mindset. Operating from a global mindset allows the individual to move away from too quickly accepting previously made assumptions. The global mindset always keeps “context” at the forefront and is never satisfied with simple answers. It balances the contradictions inherent in the many demands that occur in cross-cultural interactions. Process must be trusted over structure, and global mangers and trainers must flow with the inevitable change and ambiguity (Rhinesmith, 1996). The findings demonstrated the incredible struggle it is for sojoumers to truly engage in this kind of approach to a different cultural context. Two proven ways of developing a global mindset are training in intercultural competency and previous cross-cultural experience. Organizations sending people on cross-cultural assignments are convinced that previous experience overseas contributes to a more global mindset. Employers are looking for people with cross-cultural experience that exceeds brief tourist visits. They would like to hire employees who have lived overseas at least six weeks and preferably at least six months (Geber, 1992). Further research is needed on the nature of how training and experience develop a global mindset (Black & Stephens, 1989). Specifically, theory needs to be developed and tested that specifically prepares educators for cross-cultural teaching and learning contexts. 30 The “3} complex yet in! . A'.‘ ,. . manner: mu 1w.» “‘5' k u 1..“ ‘ . one: m1 0:, tassel. has i: The way an individual views his or her own culture as compared with others is complex yet integral to the ability to develop cross-cultural understanding. Future researchers must keep the " global mindset" in perspective when looking at socialization by sojoumers. Intercultural training. The final aspect that frequently surfaces when evaluating one's level of cross-cultural understanding is intercultural training. A growing body of research has indicated the value of cross-cultural training in a variety of settings, including schools, military organizations, nonprofit organizations, and businesses (Albert, 1983; Black & Mendenhall, 1990). Although training does not solve all the dilemmas of cross- cultural experience nor does it guarantee cross-cultural competence, at least it gives the sojoumer a fighting chance to be effective cross-culturally (Albert, 1994). In a sense, intercultural training is different fi'om the preceding aspects because it is intended to improve the other areas of cross-cultural understanding. It is not a skill in which one develops competency as a cross-cultural sojoumer. Rather, it, like previous cross-cultural experience, is a means of developing cross-cultural understanding. Predeparture training has long been advocated as an important way to facilitate successful cross-cultural interactions. It is used to reduce culture shock by at least preparing sojoumers for the dissonance that is likely to occur. However, only 30 percent of United States managers who are sent on overseas assignments receive even cursory cross-cultural training before departure, and the percentage of participants in short-term assignments who receive cross-cultural training is far less (Goldstein & Smith, 1999). Cross-cultural training needs a multidimensional approach. Many organizations need to spend time helping employees develop and be trained in certain skills needed to accomplish the tasks that will be done during the assignment. However, the skills alone 31 are no: smug ms: aiso r3: 9 9‘ ~.u I. '\n‘ n‘ mal‘kltl‘: kg“ at“ am: lied to . 2 ummm Ll" ’ . 9. 111.15.: 0*, H tore Cum are not enough to prepare an individual for effective engagement cross—culturally. Training must also raise the “what” and “why” questions. Sojourners need to develop abstract thinking patterns wherein hypotheses are entertained without immediately lumping in new observations with past experiences (Bennett, 1986). Increasing numbers of organizations are moving beyond just training their multicultural workforce in task-related skills. As an example, the Wharton School of Business has a program that prepares employees for cross-cultural work. The curriculum used to be developed with primary attention to the profession of the sojoumer. This was done in order to give maximum attention to the unique dynamics of fulfilling the same kinds of tasks done stateside, in a different context. A few years ago however, the entire core curriculum was revised to place the primary emphasis on developing people skills above task-related skills (Rhinesmith, 1996). Brislin and Yoshida (1994), renowned for their work in intercultural training, recommended using pre departure training for a variety of reasons. First, the training should focus on helping the participants develop an awareness of culture. Sojourners need assistance in thinking about and working through the cross-cultural differences they are likely to experience. In addition, training should include discussion about ways to work through the adjustment process. As differences are experienced and as culture shock occurs, expatriates should be empowered to negotiate those differences. In that regard, people should be made aware of the emotional challenges they will face. The process of acculturation is not merely a cognitive one but can deeply influence the affective domain as well. Finally, cross-cultural training needs to create opportunities to identify and practice various skills. For example, working through an interpreter, learning about gift- giving in a particular culture, learning how to negotiate business deals and similar kinds of things need to be explicitly addressed. 32 1. There eaters-sped: experiences. an men iext mining is ill 48$de 8: C geared to“ a. 10 exnlore \ COMM i; “4“ ll 33 form 01 men» ~ MM 1' ~ ““36 ques. dEFZH *“CL’CI #- All 5430.000 ( 0" "3» \el X45 U Willy R- Mess of There is a growing body of research on the need for both culture-general and culture-specific components of training to adequately prepare people for cross-cultural experiences. Culture-general training covers broad, cross-cultural principles that provide an overview of the many dynamics encountered in cross-cultural work. Culture-specific training is built around actual situations that people may face in a particular location (Briody & Chrisman, 1991). There is limited training in either category, specifically geared toward the cross-cultural educational context. Extensive research has been done on pre departure training. This literature is of great help in exploring the preparation of educators for cross-cultural teaching and learning as well as raising new questions. Goldstein and Smith (1999) suggested several questions to explore when thinking about pre departure cross-cultural training, including: How common is training? Is it more common among some types of organizations than others? What form does it take? Is it mandatory? Can its benefits be demonstrated? Does it help or increase the benefit of what happens in the country receiving the expatriate? I kept these questions in mind as I considered using this study to assist in developing pre departure training for educators teaching cross-culturally. The cost of each failed expatriate assignment has been estimated at $50,000 to $150,000 (Goldstein & Smith, 1999). With that in mind, organizations sending employees overseas need to think carefully before they conclude that cross-cultural training is too costly. Research is needed on how intercultural training influences the socialization process of cross-cultural educators and the unique needs of cross-cultural educators in the classroom. I expected this study to result in the development of a pre departure training program for educators who teach cross-culturally. However, the findings suggested more about the competencies needed by those who participate in cross-cultural education than they did about how to prepare those participants. The competencies that surfaced are 33 more complex amazon; will: coupled mm ; l'. The Ill 3211112; Ill 3 1 s 5 y . l g - 3330:“. 5ch “an '- J LVN‘SlOHA a“ assent; I this more complex than what can be developed through a training program. However, educators with the cited competencies could use those skills much more effectively when coupled with pre departure training developed specifically for educational contexts. The literature on the cross-cultural understanding needed by sojoumers before engaging in a cross-cultural context was reviewed in this section. Communication, social networks, self-concept, global mindset, and intercultural training are the five themes most commonly addressed in the literature. Competency in these areas has been deemed essential for successful engagement cross-culturally. The research in these areas provided a necessary foundation for considering how educators can be best prepared for cross- cultural teaching and learning contexts. Socialization (During Trip) The competencies brought by a sojoumer into a cross—cultural context influence the way that individual engages therein, consequently shaping the socialization process of the sojoumer. Socialization is ongoing and clearly occurs as one experiences a new cultural experience. Ongoing socialization refers to the “changes that occur as a result of firsthand contact between individuals of differing cultural origins” (Ward, 1996, p. 124). It is the way one engages, good or bad, in a foreign culture. People who travel cross-culturally often lack familiarity with the social values, roles, and rules governing interpersonal relationships in the foreign setting. This ofien deters success in sojourners’ personal adjustment and, as a result, their professional success is usually hindered as well (Mak et al., 1999). Socialization will occur with or without cross-cultural understanding; it is inevitable. However, one’s competency in cross-cultural issues will affect how one Socializes and how the experience influences the individual. Most people are not aware of ' V rim '9"! ms .11... 'QPJ ’1' Ad“ at I As a re .:-l xkeli 0‘" "‘ N a1; (11 b‘.’ .4. 4 I '1 n1 the influence of their own culture on their personal values, thinking, and behavior. It is rare for people to be conscious about the ways culture has shaped them (Casse, 1979). As a result, when individuals travel to different cultures, they lack familiarity with the social values, roles, and rules governing even their own behavior, much less the influences on the people in a different cultural context. This lack of awareness is often detrimental to success in personally adjusting to a cross-cultural context and as a result, professional success is usually hindered as well (Mak et al., 1999). It is difficult to separate the cultural patterns one brings to a cross-cultural setting from the patterns experienced there. However, the patterns an individual brings into a cross-cultural setting are actually more significant in the socialization process than the foreign cultural patterns experienced there are (Stening & Hammer, 1992). Individuals adjust to a different culture in a number of ways. The way one socializes to a culture is connected to the individual's personality. Four different socialization patterns are used by sojourners to acculturate, the general adjustment pattern, the internally controlled pattern, the affiliation pattern, and the externally dependent pattern (Tanaka, Takai, Kohyama, & Fujihara, 1994). One using the general adjustment pattern perseveres through everyday routines. Interpersonal relationships are used as a means to cope. The internally controlled pattern, however, is highly independent. This occurs when one draws almost entirely on his or her internal mechanisms to cope. Those who are highly dependent on interpersonal relationships for adjustment fall into what is called the affiliation pattern, whereas those who develop outside activities and vents to cope with the adj ustrnent are labeled, externally dependent. The authors did not order the values of any of these approaches but related them to different personality styles. 35 I‘W Y) Socialization often occurs informally through the media as well. Television, music, magazines, and movies all play a role in socializing foreigners to a culture. Foreigners subconsciously use media as a way to identify with the foreign society to which programming is aimed (Johnson, 1996). Socialization, like all adjustment, is a dialectical process. “It has the potential for being as positive an experience as negative. Obstacles and crises encountered may trigger a developmental process” (Anderson, 1994, p. 321). All adjustment is a recursive process of overcoming obstacles and solving problems in one’s environment. "Adaptation is more than the sum of subadjustrnents that compose it. Working one’s way into a culture can produce fundamental changes in the sojoumer commensurate with a process of resocialization” (Anderson, 1994, p. 293). The research conducted on the socialization of cross-cultural soj ourners, both in regard to competencies needed and the resulting engagement provides a necessary fiamework for exploring how to best prepare educators for cross-cultural teaching and learning contexts. The way sojoumers engage in a cross-cultural setting says a great deal about how they prepared for that experience. This research developed the structure for exploring how the preparation of educators influences their teaching and learning experiences in cross-cultural settings. The Symbiotic Relationship Between Learning and Culture The other area of research that had to be carefully considered before researching the experiences of those who teach cross-culturally was in the field of education. Considering the connection between learning and culture was of central importance to studying trainers as they took on familiar roles in unfamiliar contexts. In the preceding section, research on the experiences of cross-cultural sojoumers was reviewed which 36 . ‘ ‘ I a .25. \1j‘ffi ‘4" . ~-:- about a ‘1‘ ‘1. ~! X'MUIC‘ Cat‘s:- -'- :i REJLQA‘ r. e ’2 iii served as a backdrop for drinking about the socialization of cross-cultural educators. The symbiotic relationship between learning and culture is considered more specifically in this section. The ever-increasing multiculturalism of society in the United States and abroad has led to a surge of interest in the relationship between learning and culture (Byram, Morgan & Colleagues, 1994). The past three or four decades, in particular, have brought about an increased awareness of the value of a sociological perspective of education. A sociological understanding of education in the United States for example, should include consideration of the expanding knowledge base, the growing population globally, and the rapidly changing culture (Westby-Gibson, 1965). Kimball (1974) wrote, “In international and cross-cultural education, many of the difficulties accompanying attempts to transfer education systems from one culture to another could be alleviated or eliminated if these anthropological concepts [meaning the concepts that allow viewing education through a sociological grid] were available” (p. 34). For many years, learning theory was of little concern to social scientists. In the 1950s, sociologists began to look at the relationship between learning and culture by studying the relationship of child rearing practices to personality development (Altbach, 1974). Although there has been some improvement in the growing amount of research that looks at the social construction of the cross-cultural educational context, most of it concerns the socialization of participating students. Although much more needs to be understood about students' experiences, the engagement of educators in these contexts must also be explored. As indicated in the pages that follow, educational and HRD research has indicated that culture strongly affects the way students learn. More than ever, educators are having to think through the implications of culture on learning. Stateside classrooms are filled 37 tilt student Ol'CTSCCiS l0 ' (I! A H w whit; .aI‘. ml'fifiq ior ukullil~ i s ‘l‘ . . . iP': \“L‘w 4 ~.‘. \\ with students from culturally diverse backgrounds. Faculty and students are traveling overseas to study and teach for a semester or more. As a result, local school districts, colleges, and universities across the country are incorporating multicultural sensitivity training for teachers (York, 1994). Trainers in HRD are also acknowledging the relationship between learning and culture. The world of work is changing. International organizations based in the United States are asking questions such as, “How do you build trust among team members in Montreal, San Francisco, Chicago, Bangkok, Paris, and Johannesburg who have never met?” Like educators, HRD trainers must consider this issue regardless of whether they have any activity outside the States. By the year 2000, at least 3 percent of the work force in the United States was predicted to be immigrants. Obviously the concentration in urban areas is far higher (Francis, 1995). Consequently, research addressing the relationship between learning and culture is needed not only for international endeavors but also for educational venues occurring stateside. Additional research is needed on how cross-cultural educators are prepared for the differences both in how students from other cultures learn and what they learn. These two different aspects of learning are covered in the following paragraphs. Cultugllly Diverse Teaching and Learning Sgles As well as accommodating for individual learning styles, cross-cultural educators must also consider the differences in how students are traditionally taught relative to their cultural contexts (Guild, 1994). Dennett (1995), who studied the learning styles of adults, found that the classroom cultures in the United States and Canada are largely characterized by participation and discussion. However, in many Asian cultures, students 38 arettught using and the student. students in lati' ul . l nettlelgeah; Shim}. teachers and tl the teacher's c material. and stateside t “.1; W633 in th. Culture treat. State WllO “355$ ‘ £0111:er fOI dlscem “hi are taught using a behavioristic teaching style, with limited interaction between the teacher and the student. East Indian students are taught never to question their elders, and students in Latin America are taught to sit back and listen holistically to the “knowledgeable one." Shirnahara and Sakai (1995) conducted an ethnographic study that compared teachers and their practices in Japan and United States. They looked at the influence of the teacher’s culture on issues like faculty interactions, classroom content, delivery of material, and interaction with students. For example, the independent orientation of stateside culture permeates the self-reliant nature of most teachers and the educative process in the United States; meanwhile, the interdependent orientation of Japanese culture creates far more interactive classrooms in Japan. Stateside adult educators continue to emphasize experiential learning. Consultants who assess corporate training efforts typically suggest active, problem-solving types of contexts for the most effective education of employees. Educational researchers need to discern whether the experiential modes of teaching are culturally bound. Although experiential training is extremely popular and seemingly effective among stateside adults, the possibility that experiential training is a Western bias should be explored. Hofstede (1997), an industrial psychologist and cross-cultural researcher, determined that cultures can be analyzed by examining five work-related value dimensions. He developed an index of relative scores for each dimension (with 100 points between the lowest and highest scoring countries) for 50 countries and three regions. The dimensions are power distance (one’s view of power and authority), individualism (the degree to which individuals function separately), masculinity (the level of clarity of social gender roles), uncertainty avoidance (risk tolerance), and long-term orientation (the perspective of the people toward the future). Hofstede's work is considered as the best 39 ‘ ' flan-n Seni 3385i“! HOSE-£51331; 1984. Rhine“) l “H1“ ‘ EQHM\iOY 3L V Y-. “ ‘ .‘1 " 3 ‘ . h\“"'~“e 5‘ 55.1“. o ’ , rariw. .lle’ . .3 L ' ‘ “'1 _ “idealism d '._ _‘ . ‘ Pidkcq ‘01:: “l Com n-l, _ alum, N.: recent attempt to examine the implications of culture on how an organization operates cross-culturally (Ardichvili, Cardoro, & Gasparishvili, 1998; Goodman, 1994; Jaeger, 1984; Rhinesmith, 1996; York, 1994). Hofstede's work has been used by educational theorists as well. Francis (1995), an instructor at the School of International Service at the American University, took two of Hofstede’s dimensions, power distance and uncertainty avoidance, and used them to project the cultural relativity of training techniques. She created a continuum of training techniques, with didactic methods on one end and experiential methods on the other. She placed countries with high scores in power distance and uncertainty avoidance on the end of the continuum most inclined to use didactic methods. For the most part, Latin American cultures fell on this end, hence Francis suggested training techniques such as readings, panels, lectures, and demonstrations in those cultures. The United States and Europe were on the other end of the continuum, the experiential end. Francis described these contexts as being positioned with intuitive bases for learning, given their low power- distance scores and weak uncertainty indices. For these cultures, Francis recommended the use of role-plays, fishbowl exercises (when some students form a discussion circle and others surround them in a listening circle), and simulations. Most Asian cultures were in the middle of the continuum produced by Francis, for whom she recommended techniques including discussion groups, case studies, and brainstorming. What is not clear from Francis’ research is whether certain training techniques are Simply more comfortable for students in their respective cultures or whether they clearly foster the most effective learning. For example, I have been in situations where I have Pushed students fiom didactically oriented cultures to engage in experiential learning. Despite students' initial resistance, learning still occurred. What is not clear is whether the learning that occurred was more significant than what would have occurred using didactic 40 techniques. T ends of educ; context. He 5 \ja.. _ ' Lrsibéllltlm) 1 H n3 u\\ SEC-mg ea As a result. em“? l0\\;11 mash-5‘.) steamed I adherence 1 mlSCUllllltj praise lhe 5 salesmen As ”We abt'aL 0f 311611 11: [Clallllflgh heat-11‘. .01 '3'9 ll techniques. This is no small issue. Based on Dewey’s (193 8) view that the means and ends of education are connected, it seems students will come to know content differently depending on the techniques used. Goodman (1994) translated four of Hofstede’s five dimensions for the educational context. He suggested that high power-distance societies tend to have teacher-centered classrooms in which the teacher transfers information to the students. He found that strong collectivist societies have a strong sense of respect for tradition and for the group. As a result, the individual in these classrooms finds more satisfaction in working with a group toward a collective goal rather than worrying about individual achievement. Not surprisingly, students from societies with high scores in uncertainty avoidance prefer structured learning activities with precise learning objectives, detailed assignments, and adherence to a schedule set up in advance. Finally, those cultures scoring high on the masculinity end of the continuum encourage competition in the classroom and openly praise the success of winners. Failure is deemed detrimental to success and fosters low self-esteem. As cross-cultural teaching opportunities increase, educators are hearing more and more about their need to contextualize how and what they teach. A comprehensive theory of intercultural competency for educators must take into account the symbiotic relationship between learning and culture. The research conducted for this study drew heavily on the existing research in this field. Culturally Diverse Conceptualizations The influence of culture on the teaching and learning context goes beyond teaching and learning styles. As well as playing a role in how one learns, culture also influences what one learns. The question considered in this body of research is this: If the same 41 content is ca; critical bael explain 1‘: mm p lac inl‘. rent fortress-ct Pt {therefore} ctertt. lie. and cons: Sl‘ddents I “ha: is z: Cognlllte or lmctl 0fSocial hashes. (Cole 3; content is taught in the same way to people from two different cultures, how does their cultural background influence the way they conceptualize the information? Although exploring this question in depth was beyond the scope of this study, it is another important piece that must be considered in cross-cultural learning contexts. Dealing with the influence of culture on students' conceptualizations is part of the socialization process for cross-cultural educators. “Perceptual development differs within various ethnocultural groups. It is [therefore] erroneous in the teaching-learning process to assume children ‘see’ the same event, idea, or object in the same way” (Shade, 1989, p. 139). Culture then both enables and constrains thinking. The educator’s sensitivity to the role of culture in the way students think about content is vitally important. Learners think about things based on what is most functional for their indigenous home environment (Claxton, 1990). For many decades, sociologists and anthropologists have jointly addressed cognitive differences relative to culture. Comte, Durkheim, and others developed organic or functional views of the individual and society. These theorists stressed the critical role of social collectivity in determining how one conceptualizes reality. Historically, culture has been understood to influence the way a learner perceives and organizes information (Cole & Scribner, 1974). Culture shapes one’s learning both in terms of how an individual decodes information and how one goes about signifying it for self and others. One's "common sense reality" is contingent on the context by and in which it is constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Because one's cultural background influences how that individual constructs reality, cross-cultural educators must beware of assuming that learners see the same event, idea, or object in the same way (Kohli, 1986). 42 llte ‘ mos people people acltn cemeate a citrate: “43"! ‘n,l ‘luu ll“; ' 5 learning it Se domain Y 0111qu m‘ i1 \ Well as &ng The values and predominant religious beliefs of a culture are central to the way most people in that context think and behave (Brameld, 195 7). Regardless of whether people acknowledge a common set of values, there are typically some broad values that permeate a culture. An individual’s worldview affects the way one learns and how information is assimilated and organized. The greater the dissonance between the values underlying the content taught and students' cultural values, the greater the challenge to learning (Cole, 1996; Gardner, Mutter, & Kosmitzki, 1998). Sensitivity to the role one's worldview plays in learning is essential for cross- cultural educational pursuits. Boyer (1994) wrote, “Religious ideas constitute a fascinating domain . . . because they put forth extraordinary claims. They are learnable and communicable because their mental representation includes, and is constrained by, domain-specific assumptions that are part of a universal intuitive understanding of basic ontological categories” (p. 409). At the same time, religion is not geopolitically specific. Buddhism is in Boston as well as in Latin America and Southeast Asia. This is also true of Christianity. Kushigian & Parsekian (1998) asked, How can you call a Bostonian Christian more Christian than a Korean Christian in Seoul? Theologically and intellectually you cannot make that claim. You cannot say that a Buddhist in Japan is more Buddhist than one in San Francisco. We know that Islam constitutes the second largest religion in the United States. There are more Muslims than Jews. There are more Muslims in Paris than Protestants, although most Parisians are Catholic. The religious situation is entirely fluid. (p. l 3) The religious beliefs embraced by a student and by his or her culture as a whole must be kept in perspective when teaching that student. Worldviews are not only held by religious organizations. The Peace Corps has talked about cultural sensitivity longer than anyone else, yet it works from a specific set of guiding principles (York, 1994). In the 43 corporate s marred \ mutel} A Fetches. crews-cult: M has been 1 subject ll urdena'xe COgI‘iIh e le alert tc and b) ck “til. the : lOlllldirllt fer C1035. Which to ‘13? and hf)“ filer. (literary. corporate sector, organizational developmental (OD) theories traditionally have been advanced without attention to the underlying dimension of the cultural context. OD is innately American and humanistic and it emphasizes tasks and efficiency (Amada, Faucheux, & Laurent, 1991). Foundationalist frames of reference are at the core of many cross-cultural training endeavors originating in the United States. Most of the research addressing culturally diverse conceptualizations of content has been limited to children and adolescents. The literature has little to offer on this subject with regard to adult learners and teachers. In recent years, Cole (1996) has undertaken some of the most helpful research on culture and cognition. He addressed the cognitive processes of people reared in different cultures. Cross-cultural educators must be alert to the role of culture in the way content is conceptualized, both by themselves and by their students. Summary Consideration of the studies on socialization of cross-cultural sojoumers coupled with the research on the relationship between learning and culture, provides a strong foundation from which to further develop a theoretical framework for preparing educators for cross-cultural teaching and learning experiences. Current research brings strengths on which to build and weaknesses from which to learn. The issues raised in the research are vast and represent many more themes than could be addressed in this study. The study, however, deepens the understanding of the complex dynamics involved in teaching cross- culturally. 44 .\l§ cassette to best pre “35 the 0\ the resulti: crlerosssc' l’r mid}. ant recountin 115013510 CHAPTER THREE METHODS My purpose in this study was to develop a theoretical understanding of how cross-cultural educators construct a sense of intercultural understanding. What is needed to best prepare educators to engage effectively in cross-cultural teaching contexts? That was the overriding research question behind this study. The conceptual framework and the resulting methodology were developed as a way to better understand the experiences of cross-cultural educators. This chapter begins with an overview of the theoretical perspective framing this study, anticipatory socialization. The next section contains an overview of the sampling and design, followed by a description of how the data were collected, and another section recounting the way the data were analyzed. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the limitations, reliability, and validity of the study. Conceptual Framework Given my interest in understanding how to best prepare cross-cultural educators, Merton's (1968) theory of anticipatory socialization was used as the conceptual framework. In describing the phenomenon of anticipatory socialization, Merton wrote, “For the individual who adopts the values of a group to which he aspires but does not belong, the orientation may serve the twin firnctions of aiding his rise into that group and of easing his adjustment after he has become part of it” (p. 319). In his initial research, Merton looked at the increased likelihood of promotions within the Army for privates who accepted the official values of the Army's hierarchy. In turn, those individuals, as a result of anticipatory socialization Merton argued, took on the values of the positions to 45 I rhlch they as." hltllt ' ' . _ he preparatl : xxial‘rrtlcrr '. . heart less: cultures. he t into the respep cultural Gaga: \‘tlltlalts that Experience in posititel} or Socialization “ho latght Petr lhart the We lelmre Sh; how an t’tl which they aspired. Merton's anticipatory socialization has been used as a framework for analyzing the preparation processes of multiple kinds of groups and contexts. Anticipatory socialization is not always viewed positively. When Spitzer (1999) examined how three different families from various ethnic descents struggled to blend into dominant European cultures, he found that some of their expectations negatively influenced their assimilation into the respective cultures. He challenged the idea that accurately anticipating cross- cultural engagement leads to a successfid encounter. Regardless, Spitzer's research further validates that the way one anticipates a cross-cultural experience influences his or her experience in that culture. In question was whether the expectations held by educators positively or negatively influenced their cross-cultural encounters. Anticipatory socialization provided a framework through which to view the assumptions of educators who taught cross-culturally. People carry culture with them. Leaving one setting for another does not mean that the premises of one’s home culture are abandoned for those of the second. Because culture shapes and is shaped by social interaction, the role of anticipatory socialization in how an educator approaches teaching cross-culturally was of primary concern throughout the research for this study. Merton’s work on anticipatory socialization was used extensively by VanMaanen (1976) in the field of organizational theory. VanMaanen (1983) looked at the process by which people learn the values, norms, and required behaviors of a given occupation and the influence of their socialization on how they perform in that occupation. He wrote, “Socialization takes place from womb to tomb. It is a recurrent and lifelong process taking many forms and occurring across a wide range of settings. Exiting one setting moves into another, and socialization begins anew” (p. 213). 46 .‘hllllll .‘ l definition of. have relet a. c. reach. othel miltlpatorx , time. one hits loo‘xire at the Clllllll‘t term; Regardless, \ lilililpmm lrtdr Strings, ll. {141 min ml??- forl anticipator Digitized an trait-id adinsulin Although VanMaanen's use of anticipatory socialization is limited to a more micro definition of culture, specific organizational cultures, some of the concepts he developed have relevance to a more macro definition of culture, such as national cultures. In their research, others looking at international contexts have drawn on VanMaanen's work on anticipatory socialization (Bennett, 1986; Black, 1992; Black et al., 1991). At the same time, one must be careful to recognize that very different variables are at work when looking at the adjustments made into an organizational context within one's original culture versus the adjustments made when working in a different national culture. Regardless, VanMaanen's use of Merton's work was a helpful demonstration of using anticipatory socialization to frame research. Individuals experience three distinct, yet interrelated phases as they enter new settings. The phases are anticipatory socialization, encounter, and metamorphosis. The first, anticipatory socialization, emphasizes the degree to which one is prepared, before entry, for his or her new position. VanMaanen (1976) contended that although anticipatory socialization cannot fully account for the behavior of individuals in organizational settings, its influence is well documented. Depending on the role for which an individual prepares, anticipatory socialization can aid or hinder that individual’s adjustment to the respective organizational demands. The way a person responds to novelty and uncertainty is a key factor in cross- cultural adjustment. An individual’s level of fear in preparing for a cross-cultural experience influences the engagement that follows (Chiu, 1995). The fear can be very real. Many people feel threatened by the idea of abandoning the identity and culture that has signified them for so long (V ila, 1999). The greater the perceived cultural differences between the original and the host country, the greater the social anxiety on the part of the soj oumer. Apprehension in approaching a cross-cultural experience leads to a lack of 47 corhlence as The re penalize hrtl assented \sl set of expect. Anticipatory spiced-to. sr ones I. lath? arr experren nets culture mtlcipatler lh: We the ne inf“ Org; 011112011]: ( “ll‘Cl’l the (la. 84). D r . I‘C‘racrungr confidence as one begins to engage in the foreign culture (Neuliep & Ryan, 1999). The results of anticipatory socialization on an individual range from causing one to internalize broad societal prescriptions to affirming specific behavioral guidelines that are associated with a specific career. Anticipatory socialization provides the individual with a set of expectations regarding one's appropriate location within the occupational strata. Anticipatory socialization stems from a person’s learning history before entering an aspired-to situation; however, more recent experiences are likely to outweigh more distant ones (VanMaanen, 1983). Essentially, the more completely and accurately one anticipates an experience in a different culture, the greater the ease and speed of adjustment to that new culture (Fisher, 1986). What is not so simple is determining what accurate anticipation entails (Spitzer, 1999). The second phase of organizational socialization is the encounter or the entry into the new organization. In discussing the “reality shock” one experiences when entering a new organization, VanMaanen (1976) wrote, “The extent to which the shock affects the outcome of the organizational socialization process depends largely on the extent to which the person has correctly anticipated the various expectations of the organization” (p. 84). During this phase, the individual begins to master the tasks of the job and the relationships with others involved in working in the new setting. It is here that expectations are confirmed or disconfrrmed. “In general, accurate individual expectations, low role ambiguity, and low role conflict facilitate a person’s adjustment to the organization during the encounter stage” (Black et al., 1991). Culture shock occurs during the encounter stage as one experiences a different cultural context. Oberg (1960) coined the term “culture shock” to describe the anxiety felt by soj ourners when they lose all “familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse. These signs or cues include the thousand and one ways we orient ourselves to the situations of 48 hill} lite" tp. f ult‘r chectitel} in lehat lorrl p: otters-g. art; it. the cor-re Cul‘ sellir'rrage. um'que 0p; rot limiter "cellture 5 iii some 3 daily life” (p. 177). Culture shock is the process any individual must experience to function effectively in a setting that does not recognize all or part of the assumptions and behavioral patterns that one takes for granted. It is a highly individualized process that is ongoing, and, in the end, the process typically leads to both a change in the individual and in the context in which the individual works (Casse, 1979). Culture shock is said to lead to loneliness, an inability to reason clearly, a poor self-image, depression, a threat to one’s security and more, although some see it more as a unique opportunity for learning (Anderson, 1994). The phenomenon of culture shock is not limited to sojoumers traveling to different national cultures. New faculty experience a “culture shock” of sorts when they are hired; they encounter a number of organizational challenges to which they adapt through a process of trial and error. “For many new faculty, the first two years are characterized by loneliness and intellectual isolation, lack of collegial support, and heavy work loads and time constraints” (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994) The final phase of socialization is called metamorphosis, the personal change necessary for continuance in a new setting. This is the “role management” stage, during which the individual moves toward becoming a fully accepted member in the new context (Feldman, 1976). Metamorphosis is largely connected to an individual’s desire to belong and one’s motivation for success, and it comes back to personal issues of socialization. Some situations require that people undergo change wherein they take on new perspectives toward the world and their roles therein. The disorienting influence of these adjustments often brings about transformation in the individual's frame of reference. Research is needed on the transformation rituals that are required when educating cross- culturally. 49 Th experience theoretrca first phr: stasis .l a SOClirllZ/Zt hre'. it} c needed l “Perle exT‘ffie mien; I v 7H,; 8“ .‘.\:‘ AH‘L] This three-fold process of socialization is helpful for thinking about the experiences of short-term cross-cultural educators. Given the desire to develop a theoretical understanding of the preparation of those who educate cross-culturally, the first phase, anticipatory socialization, was especially important to the research for this study. I also considered the second phase, encounter, to evaluate the role of anticipatory socialization. The third stage, metamorphosis, was of less concern in this study, given the brevity of the subjects' cross-cultural sojourns. More extended cultural immersion is needed before the metamorphosis process can be observed. Black et a1. (1991) made similar use of the research related to anticipatory socialization, and specifically of VanMaanen and Schein’s (1979) work when developing a framework of international adjustment with two categories: anticipatory adjustment and in-country adjustment. Metamorphosis becomes a more valid concern when one has had previous teaching experience cross-culturally. Adjustments may well have occurred since the preceding experiences, and those experiences may trigger more rapid adjustments in subsequent encounters (A. Ortiz, personal communication, December 2, 1999). For this study, during the first phase, anticipatory socialization, I looked primarily at the ways subjects' anticipated their cross-cultural teaching experiences. The effect of pre departure orientation on how subjects anticipated their sojourns, their fears, their perceptions of the cultures to which they were headed, and similar concerns were addressed before the trainers' sojourns. In short, the first phase of the study was focused on examining how a cross-cultural educator's construction of reality was altered by anticipatory forces and on seeing what that revealed about the educator's assumptions. The second phase was called engagement. I was interested in knong how the educators experienced their initial encounters teaching in the foreign cultures. The comparison of reality with what subjects expected, the things they wished they had done 50 differently to prepare, and the ways they assessed their effectiveness, were the kinds of issues explored after the subjects engaged in their cross-cultural encounters. During the engagement phase, I was most interested in understanding how the trainers negotiated their anticipatory constructions of reality with lived experiences. The data collected from both phases were used to further develop a sociological framework from which to understand some of the dynamics anticipated, experienced, and reflected on by cross- cultural educators. This was done as a step toward developing a theoretical base to study the intercultural socialization of cross-cultural educators so that pre departure training could be improved. Using anticipatory socialization as the conceptual framework, the interest behind this study was more specifically related to refining the preparation of cross-cultural trainers from Teamworks and other organizations like it. To accomplish this purpose, I explored the role of preparation strategies in the teaching experiences of Teamworks trainers who taught cross-culturally. This was done using a case study design with 12 trainers who traveled overseas for 10 days to two weeks to teach students within a particular culture. The concepts of socialization and culture are best explored using flexible data collection techniques. Therefore, a qualitative approach was employed. Agar (1987) asserted that qualitative research “requires an intensive personal involvement, an abandonment of traditional scientific control, an improvisational style to meet situations not of the researcher’s making, and an ability to learn from a long series of mistakes” (p. 12). Process was of more interest than outcomes, and discovery more than confirmation. “Such insights into aspects of educational practice can have a direct influence on policy, practice, and firture research" (Merriam, 1998, p. xii). 51 l tt; cross-cult; Toniattor. deal of at. educators reser'eh ; Tearrmr 1" ; OTC-cm 1"; Emphas': I was most interested in exploring the assumptions of educators when they teach cross-culturally and specifically, whether perspective transformation could be fostered in foundationalist educators who travel cross-culturally to teach. With this in mind, a great deal of attention was given to the role anticipated constructions of reality played in how educators actually experienced teaching cross-culturally. I was personally involved in the research process because of my role in interviewing the subjects, by working at Teamworks, and by personally observing subjects train in the South American context. I had a clear idea of where I was headed in the study; however, I remained open to the ongoing development of abstractions, hypotheses, and theories and actually ended up emphasizing some themes that were different from what I anticipated (Creswell, 1994). Geertz (1973) contended that the researcher must see society as an object and must experience it as a subject. A qualitative approach allowed for exploration of the dynamics experienced by cross-cultural educators. “Individual constructions can be elicited and refined only through interaction between and among investigator and respondents. . . . The final aim is to distill a consensus construction that is more informed and sophisticated than any of the predecessor constructions” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 111). A Geertzian perspective (Geertz, 1973) using a microscopic approach to provide heightened understanding of cross-cultural teaching and learning, combined with Merton's theory of anticipatory socialization, provided the theoretical constructs for this research project. Sampling and Design The population of interest for this study was stateside educators who participated in short-term teaching contexts outside North America. Short-term was used to describe those who typically instructed stateside but went to a different country for 10 52 has to then a . ., 333111111 days to two weeks to teach locals there. The short-term distinction is important because when one moves to another culture for a long period of time, the individual gradually assimilates that culture as part of his or her own identity (Boyer, 1994) and experiences different degrees of metamorphosis (VanMaanen, 1976). The sample consisted of 12 trainers from Teamworks. The sample size was based upon what was needed to explore the research questions given the time and financial constraints with which I was working. “There are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry. Sample size depends on what you want to know, the purpose of the inquiry, what’s at stake, what will be useful, what will have credibility, and what can be done with available time and resources" (Patton, 1980, p. 184). The logic of purposeful sampling is different from the logic of probability sampling. The problem is, however, that the utility and credibility of small purposeful samples are often judged on the basis of logic, purpose, and recommended sample sizes of probability sampling. Purposeful samples should be judged on the basis of the purpose and rationale of each study and the sampling strategy used to achieve the study’s purpose. The sample, like all other aspects of qualitative inquiry, must be judged in context-—the principle that undergirds analysis and presentation of qualitative data. Random probability samples cannot accomplish what in-depth, purposeful samples accomplish and vice versa. (Patton, 1980). Teamworks is a not-for-profit leadership development organization and is not affiliated with any one religious denomination. The organization assists Christian churches and denominations in evaluating whether their programs and ministries are mission driven or activity driven. Teamworks teaches a philosophy of ministry based on the life and ministry of Christ. In teaching leaders to emulate Christ, the training does not exhort church leaders to "walk on water" (Matthew 14:22ff) or to pick 12 men as a 53 leadership team (Luke 6: 12ft). Teamworks training does, however, challenge leaders to extrapolate the transferable principles from Christ's leadership style. Empowering members within the congregation to lead in their own spheres of influence, teamwork, prioritizing time with leaders, strategic planning, and servant leadership are some of the prevalent themes throughout the various training modules offered. Teamworks' primary activities are training, consulting, and developing and providing resources for lifelong learning in leadership. Teamworks began in 1979 under the auspices of a predominant Christian college. Teamworks was an attempt to wed education and practice in the religious sector. Initially, the focus was on equipping church leaders, both clergy and laity, for work with youth. Teamworks became its own entity separate from the college in 1987, and soon broadened its scope to equipping leaders across all segments of the church (beyond just youth). In the early years, 500 to 1,000 people were trained annually. By 1990, 13,500 people were trained annually, 20,000 by 1995, and more than 60,000 in 1999 with more than 1,000 training events. Throughout the past 20 years, Teamworks has received ongoing invitations to participate internationally with churches and other religious and not-for-profit organizations. Until 1995, international involvement was sparse and sporadic. Today, more than 100 overseas partners in more than 67 countries are implementing Teamworks global vision. Teamworks is not interested in institutionalizing itself globally. The majority of those networked with Teamworks internationally develop their own entities. Teamworks is strongly committed to contextualization and is endeavoring to work with a multicultural core of people to distill the transcultural "DNA" or canon that connects the Teamworks Virtual community around the world. When entering a culture, although the initial contact 54 otte: lead 10 ll. tt‘nj 3?? (IO ,7; I” ) VJ often involves a stateside trainer coming in, a primary value is to empower indigenous leaders rather than create dependent relationships. Cross-cultural initiatives aim to restore to national churches and their leaders the power to nurture their own environments and to enhance the access of ordinary people to the resources they need (Brecher, Brown Childs, & Cutler, 1993). "The global must bend to the local, since the local exists with nature, while the 'global' exists only in offices" (Shiva, 1993, p. 59). That captures Teamworks' approach internationally. A sparse staff of 11 full-time employees and 12 part-time employees run Teamworks at its main office. The mission of the organization, however, is carried out through 1,000 church leaders who conduct Teamworks’ training and coaching around the globe. Although trainers receive an honorarium and reimbursement for travel expenses stateside, they typically volunteer their time when they travel internationally. The stateside trainers who travel internationally raise an average of $2,000 to cover travel cost and training materials. Trainers volunteer to participate because of a deep-felt conviction and passion to facilitate learning globally about Christ's approach to ministry. Teamworks has fostered a real sense of movement among its trainers, that is, a collective sense of vision and urgency that compels like-minded people to join. Leaders volunteer their time because they see the potential not simply as self-fulfillment, but as expressing stewardship and servanthood. "Leadership among volunteers is rather dependent in beautiful ways on shared values and commitment, on understood visions expressed in workable mission statements, and on moral purpose" (De Free, 1997, pp. 1-2). As the international director at Teamworks, I am responsible for leading the organization's activity and presence outside the United States and Canada. Because of the nature of Teamworks, my leadership position is less authoritative and managerial and is more influential through vision-casting among a collaborative, intercultural, virtual 55 community. Before coming on staff with Teamworks, I trained stateside and internationally for the organization while working full time elsewhere. Selecting a sample from an organization where I am in leadership was not something I took lightly. Although there were potential shortcomings from trying to elicit accurate data from people who know me and work with me, I do not ftmction as their "boss," and because they were volunteering their training overseas, their risks from being frank with me were minimized. Further, in this study, I was most concerned with understanding the subjects' experiences (before and during their training overseas) and the ways they constructed meaning from those experiences. That made my role as researcher less threatening than if I were looking primarily at the trainers' effectiveness. I was more interested in looking at what Teamworks and other educational providers need to do to better prepare educators to teach in cross-cultural contexts than in evaluating the specific trainers. The challenge came in making the familiar, strange (Eisner, 1997). At the end of the study, I did feel like my position at Teamworks shaped the way subjects responded to some of the interview questions more than I anticipated. Some subjects seemed more concerned about giving me "right answers" than simply describing their expectations and experiences. However, I think the triangulation of data collection helped to minimize the influence of my position at Teamworks with subjects' responses. Furthermore, even if subjects responded more in terms of what they perceived were "right" answers than sharing what they actually thought, that still demonstrates some profound assumptions from which the trainers were operating. The sample was chosen by controlling the level of experience among the subjects and the cross-cultural locations where they trained. Half the subjects had never trained cross-culturally, whereas the other half had some experience doing so. Two geographic 56 loca (Br; Toe; cell trrl locations were chosen from where Teamworks trains, South Afiica and South America (Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador), and the subjects studied were divided between those two locations. Using the preceding parameters, I chose prospects for the study with the help of a colleague, whose primary role is coordinating and facilitating Teamworks' cross-cultural training trips. He recruits the trainers, plans the trips and training events, and prepares the trainers. Over the next couple of years, I will play a more predominant role in training the trainers for their cross-cultural experiences; however, my current role in that arena is limited. With the help of my colleague, I selected the sample by choosing trainers who fit the parameters of the preceding controls. I contacted the trainers who met those criteria through phone or e-mail and explained the study to them. I invited them to participate in the study, gave them a consent form (Appendix B), explained it to them, and gave them an opportunity to ask questions. Of the 12 subjects in the sample, most embraced Christianity as children. About half of them grew up in Christian homes. All but one of the subjects had at least a bachelor's degree, with majors including criminal justice, religious education, and secondary education. All of the subjects taught regularly in their stateside contexts. Their teaching roles included teaching youth and adults in churches, leading community workshops on issues related to youth, and serving as adjunct faculty in Christian colleges. They had all personally been through Teamworks training, and they all taught Teamworks seminars in the States. Some taught Teamworks seminars within their own ministries and local communities, whereas a few traveled to conduct Teamworks training nationally. All but two of the subjects were males, and all of the subjects were Caucasians. Those demographics were likely a limiting factor to the study. However, the 57 predominance of white males in the sample reflects the demographics of leaders in stateside, evangelical churches. The two females involved in the study were the only two available to participate in the research. All but one of the subjects were married, and the majority of them had two or three children. The subjects' ages ranged from 27 to 47; most of them were in their thirties. The majority of subjects had been involved in local church youth ministry for at least 10 years. When at home, most of the sample members had limited contact with people from other ethnic backgrounds. A few of them spoke another language fluently. Table 1: Cross-Cultural Travel and Training Experience of the Subjects in this Study Subject Gender Destination Times Overseas Times Training Overseas Bill Male South Africa 2 0 Bob Male South Africa 30+ 8-10 Ron Male South Africa 2 0 Rhonda Female South Africa 2 1 Doug Male South Afiica 10+ 4-5 Dan Male South America 2 0 James Male South America 1 1 Ken Male South America 1 0 Shawn Male South America 0 0 Phil Male South America 10+ 4-5 Mike Male South America Grew up in Brazil 0 Shannon Female South America 4-5 1 58 The levels of cross-cultural travel and training experience vary. Table 1 depicts those variances. Three trainers with extensive cross-cultural experience were purposely chosen to discern how their experience influenced their assumptions. Further, a US. citizen who grew up in Brazil was also purposely selected to see how his upbringing may have influenced his assumptions about cross-cultural teaching and learning. Before engaging in the teaching sojourns under study, subjects were sent orientation materials as part of the pre departure training process. The materials included logistical information such as emergency contact numbers, flight arrangements, housing arrangements, training schedules, and immunization details. There were three articles about general cross-cultural issues and some books and websites about the specific cultures where subjects were headed were recommended. The group of trainers who traveled to South Afiica went through one day of predeparture training together as did the group who traveled to South America. I was present during both of those training days. The training lasted about five hours and included some general group discussion about the importance of being sensitive to context and a reminder of Teamworks' core values. Most of the training was devoted to discussion of teaching the actual content in the respective contexts. Some time was also spent reviewing the logistics of the respective training trips. Subjects taught in widely diverse settings. In South Afiica, training was conducted in urban areas like Durban, Capetown, and Johannesburg as well as in squalor villages. The settings in South America were equally diverse. Training primarily occurred in major cities like Medellin, Quito, and Sao Paulo however there were also training sites in more rural settings outside those cities. Some training sites were beautiful classrooms in churches or colleges while others were in one room churches with leaking roofs and dirt floors. 59 The population of students who attended training was also diverse. Almost all of the students were national citizens of the countries where training occurred. In South Africa, more than half the students trained were white and of British descent. However, seminars also included Afrikaans, black, so-called colored, and Indian students. There was also a variety of ethnic backgrounds among the students who attended training in South America including Indians, Afro-South Americans, and Germans. The commonality among the students at all the training sites was that they worked as youth leaders in local churches. Less than five percent of the youth workers in training received remuneration from their churches; however, almost all of the students were responsible, at least in part for the adolescent programming in their respective churches. Students earned incomes from a variety of sources including teaching, business, medicine, and farming. They embraced evangelical Christianity before coming to the seminars and most of the students attended locally-led churches rather than missionary-led churches. I was interested to explore the influence of the diverse settings and students upon the assumptions evident among the subjects. Surprisingly, the settings and students appeared to have little influence upon the assumptions at work in the trainers. Extreme caution was used to protect the anonymity of subjects involved in this study. The study did not begin until permission was granted from the MSU Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS). Pseudonyms were used for each subject and I am the only one with access to their real names. Confidential information about the subjects, including their real names, contact information and their employers, was saved on disks under filenames known only to me. The disks were kept in a locked place, accessible only to me. The study had a quasi-longitudinal component wherein data were collected from subjects at two different times. First, data were collected from each subject before his or 60 her cross-cultural sojourn. This was done to demonstrate how the trainers prepared, formally and informally, for their cross-cultural assignments. It was used to reveal assumptions from which the trainer was operating. Second, data were gathered from the same subjects on their return to the States. This provided interpretations of how the subjects engaged in training cross-culturally. In a qualitative study, the researcher avoids suggesting direct relationships between the dependent and independent variables. At the same time, as the study began, the variables shown in Figure 1 were used in developing a framework for collecting and analyzing the data. My interest was not in suggesting a simplistic, direct relationship between the variables. However, as this was my first experience conducting formal, qualitative research, I needed to develop at least a loose structure from which to begin the study . Data Collection The primary means of collecting data was through interviews with the trainers. “The basic purpose of the standardized open-ended interview is to minimize interviewer effects by asking the same question of each respondent. Because the interviewer is systematic, interviewer judgment during the interview is reduced” (Patton, 1987, p. 111). Each subject was interviewed individually in two phases. Phase one included formal structured interviews that explored the subjects' backgrounds and how they became involved in teaching overseas. Interviews extensively investigated how trainers prepared, both formally and informally, for their respective experiences. For example, had they attended any cross-cultural training in the past? Did they read literature from and/or about the culture where they intended to teach? (See Appendix A for Interview protocols). 61 3:9883 eczema—8m 353865 23395 owmzwamq “9323” 2.08am ”55.285 mmocozaoohm mamnomoh . one—z macogmsmvax . cotauowoz 8:300 . 32953330 . 8:33:50 :23238800 . 328% .m> mcomafioomxm . nth. untagnofiowawam "fl mama.— 33ata> 35525 3 «Sara 8:me 530m 8830 use cornea; ofiqflwooO Q Q 38:00.:om . monotoaxm 3530-380 £538; . 8.8502 Boom . mamas; ~833885 388m . 2280:8338an . muonfioomxm . eeoiiéaa—aofi tease: a mafia 62 The second phase of interviews involved debriefing with the subjects on their return. The intention was to hear the educators reflect on their teaching experiences and hear them compare what they anticipated with what they perceived to have actually happened. Questions explored the nature of the educators’ engagement in the culture and the adjustments made in order to succeed. I attempted to understand whether and how trainers negotiated a sense of intercultural understanding and the role of anticipatory socialization in doing so. Issues needed to be approached creatively in order to get responses that accurately reflected the subjects’ perceptions. For example, a direct question about how well one communicated may have been less demonstrative of the subject's true communicative abilities than observing how he or she interacted through the interview. Although the subjects' perceptions may have been different from what happened in reality, perceptions were still useful in noting some emerging patterns and themes. The interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim. The subjects were asked to keep journals during the study. These journals included their reflections of what they anticipated about training in the cross-cultural context, as well as what they experienced as they actually engaged in the assignment. Subjects were encouraged to write specifically about the learning environments and to Construct meaning from teaching therein. They were challenged to think about the role their preparation for this teaching played in what they were experiencing, and they were encouraged to reflect on the development of their intercultural understanding. I asked Subjects for permission to examine these journals. The journals were a helpful source of data. The guidelines found in Appendix C were given to subjects for use in keeping their j oumals. 63 Subjects distributed student evaluations (Appendix D) which provided additional insights into the learning experiences students had with the subject. Open-ended questions were used that focused less on quality judgments and more on the nature of what the student experienced with the educator. Student evaluations sometimes provided a perspective different from the trainers' self-assessments about the nature of the experience and the dynamics of what occurred. Evaluations completed by South African students were written in English, and I read them directly. Evaluations completed by South American students were completed in Spanish and Portuguese and were translated into English before I read them. 637 evaluations were collected from students. I traveled to South America to observe half of the subjects firsthand. On-site observations and the field notes I took provided increased insight into the issues trainers faced in their cross-cultural contexts. I also kept a personal research journal throughout the study. As I moved through the interviews and continued to analyze and synthesize observations with the literature studied, my personal journal writing brought some emerging themes to the surface. Journal writing fostered personal reflection about the experiences of the subjects vis-a-vis the socialization processes I have personally undergone when teaching cross-culturally. Informal pilot studies were conducted to practice interview questions on other short-term, cross-cultural educators. This afforded the chance to obtain feedback on how to refine the interview protocol. Pilot studies further helped me develop a conceptual understanding of the issues involved and fine-tune the overall methodological approach. They caused me to probe more deeply in the formal interviews. Data Analysis Data analysis was conducted simultaneously with data collection and interpretation. This included a process of sorting the information into categories, formatting the information into a narrative form, and actually writing the qualitative text. This same process was used for all four types of data: the interview transcripts, subjects' journals, student evaluations, and the field notes taken in South America. The voluminous information gathered was reduced to certain patterns, categories, and themes and was then interpreted using Merton's (1968) theory of anticipatory socialization. As this was a qualitative study, I tried to avoid allowing the conceptual framework to repress other emerging themes and patterns. At the same time, anticipatory socialization provided a helpful structure from which to begin the process of analysis. Data was organized according to Phases I (anticipatory socialization) and II (engagement). Analysis included comparison of the data collected with patterns predicted from the literature (Yin, 1994). Tesch’s (1990) concepts of decontextualization and recontextualization were helpful to the analysis process. He wrote, “Although much work in the analysis process consists of ‘taking apart’ (for instance, into smaller pieces), the final goal is the emergence of a larger, consolidated picture” (p. 97). Although I was not too quick to get to the big picture, recontextualization into understanding the dynamics of cross-cultural education was the ongoing goal. This helped prepare for the interpretive aspect of the study, wherein causal links or rival explanations were explored to draw the conclusions set forth in Chapter Six (Yin, 1994). Multiple readings of field notes and transcriptions, examination for emergent themes, and the correlation of those themes with other data were at the core of the analysis process. This gradual process led to a layered and complex understanding of the 65 social experience of cross-cultural educators. Myerhoff (1982) called this “re-membering.” “Private and collective lives, properly remembered, are interpretive. Full of ‘thick description’ is such an analysis. This involves finding linkages between the group’s shared, valued beliefs and symbols" (p. 111). I used the constant comparative method (Miles & Huberrnan, 1994) to codify the data in order to find the themes and patterns that described the pertinent experiences and problems that occurred. Initially, codes were developed within Merton's (1968) themes of anticipatory socialization; these codes were primarily descriptive. The first series of codes came directly from the questions asked in the interviews, student evaluations, and journal guidelines. However, as the analysis moved forward, several of the themes and patterns became more interpretive, and sometimes codes were developed beyond the immediate structures of the protocols and beyond the fiamework of anticipatory socialization. The process for coding the data was as follows: A coding sheet was prepared for each open-ended question. The transcripts were read, and lines were drawn under the answers to the questions, and corresponding question numbers were marked beside the respective answers. Pertinent information was highlighted and then categorized on the coding sheet. I listened to the taped interviews several times, read the transcripts of interviews, and referred to the notes I took during the actual interviews and on the field in South America to assist in the coding process. After all of the interview data had been read, highlighted, and coded, I tallied the frequency of each interviewee’s responses by category. A search for themes and patterns across interview questions was carried out. Changes in patterns between Phase I and Phase 11 interviews were carefully analyzed, as were discrepancies between trainers' perceptions and students' perceptions. The analysis was enhanced by referring back to 66 some of the predicted variables and by representing the themes and categories discovered in matrices. The findings are presented in a narrative style, using direct quotations that illustrate salient factors. My transcriber used commas and periods in the transcripts to indicate a pause or hesitation by the interviewee during the taped interview. Words were deleted (as indicated by . . . ) or changed (indicated by brackets) to provide the clearest reading; but edits were done carefully to preserve the informant's intended meaning. Because the subjects were promised anonymity, they are referred to with pseudonyms. Because a single researcher collected and analyzed the data, there can be no inter- researcher reliability. However, all original data (tape recordings, verbatim transcripts) were numbered and preserved, which makes it possible for other researchers to examine the data to conduct their own analysis and interpretations. Although I did not want to sacrifice the depth of meaning by simply reducing this study to its utility, Eisner (1997) pointed out the importance of providing some level of interpretation. He wrote, “It is unlikely that uninterpreted qualitative material will satisfy our colleagues or be optimally useful to those who work in the schools. Our challenge is learning how to make such interpretations without sacrificing the quality and character of the writing we have done” (p. 267). This became a real source of tension for me. As I embarked on the study, it seemed that whatever the findings demonstrated would have very practical use. Now I struggle to grasp the immediate practical implications of the study. Regardless, the implications for those involved in cross-cultural education, along with areas needing further research, are raised in Chapter Six. 67 Limitations, Reliability, and Validity Establishing reliability and validity is often a complex process and it must be dealt with differently in qualitative studies than in quantitative ones. The problem of observer reactivity may surface, wherein subjects answer as they expect they should answer. Furthermore, there are limitations to the methodology used for this study. It was a modified method, given the constraints of available resources. An ethnographic study in which I looked carefully at the broader socialization of subjects and observed each subject's cross-cultural teaching first hand would have been the best. However, this modified approach, including procedures to enhance internal and external validity, was developed to elicit accurate data as much as possible, given the existing constraints. The study has some limitations with regard to its generalizability to other cross- cultural teaching contexts. The brief duration of the subjects' sojourns limited the degree to which metamorphosis could be expected (Black etal., 1991). Adjustments made to contextual dynamics were more readily expected when subjects had had previous experience teaching cross-culturally. Transformation is more subtle in a cross-cultural teaching assignment as short as those experienced by these subjects. The transformation happens more within the greater reality the subject is undergoing in life at the time (Boyer, 1994). At the same time, brief encounters teaching cross-culturally are becoming more commonplace and need to be examined. Several things were done to increase the internal and external validity of the study. Internally, triangulation, the use of varying sources of data, was employed. "No single method will ever permit an investigator to develop causal propositions free of rival interpretations" (Denzin, 1970, p. 26). Triangulation was done by comparing interview data with subjects' journals. Student evaluations provided additional insight. Consistent attitudes and experiences that surfaced from multiple sources of data were carefully 68 considered as were contradictions. Further, I interwove some of my own experiences, assumptions, and biases to enable the reader to understand my interpretation of the data. In addition, the findings came from data collected over a prolonged period of time, including interviews with each subject before and after the cross-cultural teaching experience. Finally, internal validity was enhanced through peer examination by colleagues in the field of graduate education who were asked to comment on the results during the course of analysis. External validity was enhanced by providing thick, rich description of the Teamworks organization, the training contexts and students therein, the subjects as a whole, and the perceptions subjects had before and after their experiences. This description will enable readers to apply the findings more accurately to other contexts. Member checks was another method used to enhance validity. "The member check, whereby data, analytic categories, interpretations, and conclusions are tested with members of those stakeholding groups from whom the data were originally collected, is the most crucial technique for establishing credibility" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 314). Member checking occurred informally and formally throughout the study. Subjects were asked for their reactions when a summary of the interviews was "played back." Excerpts from other subjects' interviews were anonymously played back for their fellow subjects. Analysis and response were sought from subjects as these interviews were "replayed." This system of member checking assisted in developing credibility for the study and its outcomes. Finally, a review of literature, embedded in discussion, also contributed to the external validity of this study. Another potential limitation in the approach of this study was the varying experiences of the subjects. As stated earlier, a variety of forces can potentially intervene with the other variables (e. g., geographic location and culture, power issues, relevant 69 language aptitude, personality, and socio-cultural background). Denzin (1970) called these extrinsic test variables, that is, substantive events or conditions outside the research that could have caused variations in the results. He wrote, "Their presence may increase or decrease the magnitude of relationship between an independent and dependent variable" (pp. 148-149). In analyzing the data, I was careful to keep these intervening variables in perspective. Broad generalizations from this study are not intended; however, the preceding measures were used to enhance reliability. Although exact replication of the study in another context is not expected, it is hoped that the findings will allow for some theoretical insights that contribute to developing a theory of intercultural preparation for those educating cross-culturally. Summary The methodology for this research was chosen with some assumptions about the social process of cross-cultural education. It was designed to study the socialization process that occurs among cross-cultural educators as revealed by their assumptions. Anticipatory socialization was the framework from which the research was conducted. Data were collected before and after the informants taught cross-culturally and the data were analyzed in light of anticipatory socialization. Limitations were accounted for as much as possible in order to strengthen validity and reliability. The research brought me closer to developing an emerging theory of intercultural competency, specifically as it pertains to training done by educators from foundationalist frames of reference. 70 CHAPTER FOUR ANTICIPATORY FINDINGS Here I sit in Starbucks-mot at home in quaint, little Geneva, but in the midst of the hustle and bustle of Orchard Road in Singapore, 14 time zones from home. Sipping this frappuccino makes me feel like I'm not all that far from home. Just having hung up from talking with Linda and the girls makes it seem like they're just around the comer. Singapore-~the land of more Mercedes Benz per capita than anywhere else in the world; where evangelical churches are bursting at the seams in their large buildings; where the more education you have, the more likely you are to be a Christian. Tomorrow I catch a five-hour flight to Delhi, India--a place I've never been and somehow, I expect it to be unlike any place I've ever been. As I think about traveling to the poverty-ridden land of more than one billion people, I feel that nervous excitement that I used to get whenever I left the States. It's the anticipation of experiencing an entirely different world, a place in pretty close proximity to the meticulously clean, affluent shopping district outside my window. A place made up of people seemingly a world apart from the cosmopolitan Singaporeans walking by. (D. Livermore, personal journal, January 8, 2000) Under what assumptions are educators operating when teaching cross—culturally? How does a teacher from a foundationalist frame of reference negotiate the challenges of contextualization? How do the answers to these questions contribute to effectively preparing educators to teach in cultural contexts different from their own? These are the questions behind this study. Throughout the journey of this study, I considered the way my own assumptions, as revealed by my anticipatory reflections, shaped the way I engaged in cross-cultural teaching contexts. I exercised this reflection in tandem with collecting data from the 12 purposely selected Teamworks trainers who trained cross-culturally. The interview instrument described in Chapter Three, student evaluations, field notes, and trainer journals were used to collect data from the subjects. 71 Several months of reading and analyzing the data resulted in a number of emerging assumptions shared by a majority of the subjects. Some of the assumptions driving the way trainers anticipated the cross-cultural sojourn were explicitly related to the ways they engaged in the sojourn. Other assumptions were more implicitly related. Of the more than 100 assumptions that surfaced from the data, the most prevalent assumptions shared by numerous informants in the sample are described and discussed in Chapters Four and Five. These chapters were written using a narrative format and are divided into assumptions evident in the anticipatory data (Chapter Four) and those found in the engagement data (Chapter Five). The findings are organized around the predominant assumptions that emerged fiom the data. Data exemplars are followed by the following codes which indicate the source of the data: T1--Pretrip Interview T2--Posttrip Interview J «Journal S1--South Afiican student evaluation SZ--South American student evaluation What did the subjects anticipate overall about the cross-cultural training experience? What did they expect? To what did they aspire? What did they fear? How bad they prepared? Analyzing subjects' responses to questions like these demonstrated the assumptions that follow: 0 "I can assess cultural contexts." - "I have something they need." 0 "The better prepared I am, the better I will engage." - "God will keep me safe." 72 0 "I won't offend the students." - "Language equals communication." These assumptions are the most important findings from the data collected before the subjects traveled cross-culturally to teach. They are the implicit or explicit assumptions evident among subjects before their engagement in the sojourns under study. My key concern as I collected and analyzed the data was less related to whether subjects should or should not be making these assumptions than it was to understand the nature of their assumptions and to compare how the subjects engaged in the sojourn with how they anticipated doing so. The nature of each of these anticipatory assumptions is described and exemplified in this chapter. "I Can Assess Cultural Contexts." The majority of subjects were confident about their abilities to read the cultural dynamics of a given context and thought they could adapt accordingly. This was evident in the ways subjects talked about the cultures to which they were headed, as well as their notions about cultures they had visited previously. Subjects who were traveling to South Africa expected it to be Westernized, although they anticipated some measure of ongoing political unrest. Nearly every subject in the first sample talked about both of these issues. The following statements reflect the sentiments of each of the subjects who traveled to South Afiica: Bill: Confused, confused, and uh, anxious . . . I’m just interested to see how things are after apartheid, especially among Christian people and then throughout society. I imagine there is still a lot of unrest. (T1) Ron: I would say, the culture itself is unstable, and in a great state of flux; but definitely Westemized. (T1) Doug: I’m very aware that since Mandela has not fulfilled his promises, there is . . . increasing unrest, so . . . I anticipate that racism is very much a part of their 73 living and life, just as it is here . . . I know there’s potential for me to meet people with a very different worldview but . . . this is Johannesburg . . . We’re basically going to another New York City. (T1) When asked what they perceived the South Africans themselves to be like, subjects were unified in presmning that the South Africans they would encounter would be much like people in the United States. In contrast, the trainers who went to South America expected the Latinos to be relationally oriented and poor. Trainers described the relational orientation they expected by talking about how they perceived Latinos to desire interaction and to prioritize relationships above schedules or tasks. In talking about Latinos, they said: Phil: My perceptions are that they are peaceful, simple people. Very poor. Per capita income is less than $1,000 per person annually . . . There [is] a real hunger . . . for training. They’re anxious for coaching. They want to sit back and ask personal one on one questions. They’re more interested in one on one questions than they really are in the formal training. (Tl) Mike: They’re definitely more people oriented than they are event oriented. I think it lends itself to more successful ministry. (T1) Shannon: Relational and not very time oriented. I think that will be a stretch for me because I like structure but I don’t think order and structure are very high priorities for them . . . Party animals. That’s what I think about Latinos. No, seriously, I expect they’ll be very into the relationship stuff we teach. And poverty. I know that’s going to be there. (T1) Dan: I don’t think it’s bad . . . I think it’s very rich in culture . . . but totally different from ours in the sense of ethnic and maybe financial state . . . We expect paved roads, clean water, stuff we take for granted 24-7. . . . I think that will be a difference. (T1) It is interesting that Dan’s response began with, "I don't think it's bad." His statement demonstrates awareness on his part of the ethnocentrism to which people worldwide are so readily inclined. When wrapped up with one's self and worldview, the narrow nationalism that results often inclines the individual to conclude that different is 74 bad or abnormal. Dan seemed to indicate some understanding of this tendency. Subjects evidenced a strong measure of confidence in thinking that they had a pulse on what the cultures where they were going would be like. As subjects talked about their upcoming sojourns, they often reflected on previous sojourns. Every subject had been out of the States at least once before, although Shawn had never gone beyond Mexico. Subjects’ descriptions of what they anticipated in their upcoming sojourns, coupled with their reflections of previous experiences cross-culturally, demonstrated assessments of culture that primarily looked at the surface differences in culture. Hofstede (1997) talked about the software of culture as the programming of the mind. The software is all those subtle yet profound presuppositions on which a culture is founded, such as the views of epistemology, authority, gender, and community versus individuality. The hardware of a culture, then, refers to the external components of a culture that are readily observable, such as the color of skin, the way people dress, and language. The contextual assessment done by subjects in this study was based almost exclusively on the cultural hardware rather than the software. Subjects made the following statements when reflecting on their previous sojourns cross-culturally. These are the kinds of responses given by almost all the subjects when asked about previous travels. Notice the proclivity toward describing hardware elements rather than software elements. As they reflected on previous sojourns, trainers said: Bob: I just remember . . . driving on the different side of the road and language things, and money changing, you know . . . basic things. (T1) Rhonda: Everything was different . . . The buildings were different. Their cars were different. The groups of people and how they walked . . . in the street, crossing the street. . . . They didn’t have standards like we have. And I remember driving along time because we lived out in the bush . . . There was no running water or electricity so I was just preparing myself for how I was going to deal 75 with seeing a cobra. So I remember all of that. . . . The first morning I woke up, I realized I had to go to the bathroom [just out in the bush]. . . . It was amazing, you know. That part of it, and lions and tigers and stuff. (T1) Bill: It was probably . . . the poverty. Especially in Mexico. To think that people who live so close to you live in such poor conditions. It’s just mind boggling. It still is. (T1) Shawn: The first time I went to Mexico, I was impressed just with the fact that we’re not in America any more . . . Just going through a chain link fence and all that kind of stuff. My other impressions were the poverty of the people, yet the warmth of the people. (Tl) Doug moved a bit beyond the hardware elements when he discussed the gender roles he observed when he was in India. He said: Doug: Each time I did a pastors’ conference [in India] . . . I got to challenge the culture a little bit . . . I do wash dishes. I do the laundry. . . . Those are part of my regular chores and that’s appalling for most of the the world to think of that sort of thing [for a man]. . . . When the relationships develop far enough, I can say . . . "Hey. Your wife might feel . . . love more at home if you do a few more things". (T1) I asked Doug how the gender issues played more deeply into the things he was training, especially as they pertained to leadership roles in the church. He did not respond to the question but began talking about his anticipation of experiencing a context where he had never been before. He said: Doug: What am I going to see that I haven’t seen before? . . . It doesn’t happen very often for me overseas. . . . There’s got to be something different in Afiica that I haven’t seen in Asia or Europe, or South America. So I’m looking forward to that end of it. And I know that I’m doing something different, so there’s a certain challenge to it, and I know I’ll grow but I’m not sure how. (T1) Throughout the study, Doug displayed a high level of confidence in his ability to interact cross-culturally, although most of his discussion of contextual issues related to more concrete, hardware-related issues than the more abstract software programming of culture. In contrast, Phil, although less confident about his ability to read culture, 76 demonstrated a deeper level of reflection as he anticipated and reflected on his Teamwork training sojourn and other sojourns. Like others, his contextual assessment included a description of hardware elements. He said: Phil: We went to Guatemala in 1988 and it was just coming out from under a harsh military rule . . . When we got through the airport . . . everybody aimed machine guns at us when they were pointing us through the airport. I was thinking . . . "This is really different. I’ve never been motioned along with so many guns before." . . . Nobody had coached me on what it would look like or what customs would feel like. (Tl) Phil's contextual assessment was not limited to hardware issues however. Regardless of whether his assumptions about the software issues reflected in the following quotation are accurate, his thinking demonstrated a unique level of reflection compared to most others in the sample. He said: Phil: In Singapore, what I found is that they were much more into the notes and the systems and would ask a lot of “how-to” questions. But it seemed more cerebral. They were more knowledge based than experience based . . . I find the questions in the United States are often questions that are . . . more practical. In Singapore they were . . . good questions, not shallow. But there were questions that were more theoretical, and I wasn’t sure they really understood how they were going to apply those truths or those principles. (T1) Although thinking beyond the hardware issues, Phil was working from some cultural assumptions of his own. Giving increased value to practical and applied thinking is an American phenomenon. Many other cultures regard the theoretical realm as a context for greater meaning than the practical realm. Regardless, Phil demonstrated some critical reflection in his observations. He also discussed the influence of culture on people in the United States He said: Phil: I see different cultures here. I might have just assumed that Asian kids in the United States were American kids. And I wouldn’t have thought about the world their parents come from. And the same with different ethnic kids. So I think about where they’re coming from and what shapes their parents’ world, if not their world. (T1) 77 Trainers readily observed and commented on the hardware elements in culture and the ones they expected to see in the culture where they were headed. As a result, their thinking seemed to be more in the practical, applied realm than in the theoretical. They were less in tune, however, with the software of the culture, which more significantly shapes the way people behave. Admittedly, the software of a culture is much more complex and difficult to identify than the hardware. I was intrigued to explore how immersion in the cross-cultural context, coupled with the process of reflection might bring to light some of the more abstract dynamics of culture and the influence of those dynamics on the teaching and learning contexts. "I Have Something They Need." One of the leading assumptions evident in the data collected before subjects' engagements cross-culturally was the sense that the national church leaders needed help from these subjects. Subjects were excited about the prospect of helping their colleagues in other parts of the world. The trainers placed a strong measure of significance on what they could contribute to those who would go through training with them cross-culturally. The subjects who had never trained cross-culturally before tended to describe their anticipations in more colonial and paternalistic ways. They did express concern about the importance of contextualization and not coming in with all the answers. For example, notice what these subjects said which demonstrated a concern for contextualization: Ken: My big question is, what does youth ministry look like there? . . . There’s almost a fear that they’re going to be looking at me like. . . . Here's the answer man. Give it to me. I know [we need] to be sensitive to their unique context. (T1) Shannon: I don't want to go in as the ugly American. I want to be very sensitive to the idea that youth ministry is and should be a reflection of culture. (J) Bill: I think the context is the biggest issue we have to remember. (T1) 78 The concern for contextualization, however, seemed somewhat contradictory with how subjects described what they anticipated accomplishing through this venture. There are several pages of exemplary data supporting the presence of this assumption among most of the subjects. The following represent the kinds of statements made numerous times by most of the informants. Notice especially the statements in italics (my emphasis). Bill: I think what is most exciting to me is meeting with the youth workers there, hearing about them, and imparting my life into their world. That’s going to be great. (T1) Ron: I think getting a chance to share that there is such a hope to what they can do in their ministries. . . . Just getting a chance to share [with them] . . . what they can do and what the church is all about . . . I want to see their ministries produce fruit. (T1) Dan: I would say probably the opportunity to train and equip these pastors . . . To help equip them so that they can be eflective in the ministry there and . . . in their own communities. . . . It’s a benefit to us. It’s going to benefit you. . . . If . . . all the other countries get on board . . . we could see the return of Christ much sooner, possibly even this generation. (Tl) Trainers' assumption that they had something to offer the students was further demonstrated by the way they talked about what they anticipated as outcomes for the students who went through the training. Dan wanted students to walk away saying: Dan: "Wow! These people came to help to train us so that we can be more effective". (Tl) Other trainers aspired toward giving students what they "needed." They said: Shawn: [I would hope] that they would get a glimpse . . . [of] how they can transfer the principles of how [Jesus] did ministry into their own local ministry . . . . [I want to] give them some helpful things that will help them to be better used by God. (T1) Rhonda: [I want them to] come out with a plan . . . [and to see] that this really works. (T1) 79 Doug: [I hope they will walk away being] more open to develop leadership. (T1) Embedded in the predominant assumption being exemplified here, "I have something they need," were numerous other assumptions. For example, Rhonda's comment indicated she presumes that the students did not currently have a plan and assumed that what she was teaching would work for them. Doug's comment suggested that the nationals were not currently developing leadership and were not even open to it. When set apart in these exemplars, the colonialism of these statements is obvious; however it is much more subtle when reading through the data in their entirety. I am confident that subjects did not consciously intend to come across in a condescending manner. For example, Bill's desire to "impart my life into their world" and Ron's aspiration to "share that there is hope" sound noble. However, these statements are ridden with the assumption that nationals lack hope or desire the impartation of our lives. There seemed to be an assumption that "fruit" was lacking in the ministries of the national leaders. Dan seemed to assume that the ministry the locals currently had was ineffective or not as effective as it would be if they were trained by him. Notice how Shannon assumed that the success of her ministry here was something that could and should be exported to other places: Shannon: I’m so excited about this opportunity to take what God’s done in our ministry here, and multiply it to other places. This is going to be cool (J). In the pretrip interview she says: Shannon: I would imagine these youth workers have lots of great ideas but do they have a philosophy of ministry? I would guess they don’t. I want them to walk away with a good structure for their ministry. (Tl) To this I responded, "Why do you presume they don't have a philosophy of ministry?" 80 She replied: Shannon: Well, of course I don't know that. But I think it's a pretty safe assumption. I mean, I went through a four-year degree and got started in youth work without any real philosophy of ministry guiding me, so what are the chances they do? (T1) In other words, "If I as an American didn't have a philosophy of ministry before I went through Teamworks training, surely a Latin American won't either." As I continued to collect data, I became increasingly troubled by the way colonialist themes kept emerging. Much more will be said about this in the pages that follow, but here is an excerpt from my journal, written one afternoon midway through my research: I am troubled, to say the least! I just finished another interview, and I wonder what I'm part of! Everyone keeps talking about the importance of contextualization and being sensitive to cultural differences, but in the next breath, sometimes in the same breath, they go on about all that we have to offer these church leaders based on having this insight into God's Word that the "nationals" lack! I'm becoming more and more convinced that we have just put colonialism in new clothes. We know better than to be raging American bigots like the Baptist preacher, Nathan Price, described in Kingsolver's (2000) Poisonwood Bible. But maybe we're more like him than we care to admit. How have I done the same thing? Am I perpetuating this injustice through my role with Teamworks? Do I have colonialist tendencies disguised in false humility? (D. Livermore, personal journal, September 6, 2000) Without question, there was a difficult tension here. In defense of the subjects, the Teamworks trips were advertised to them as a response to the crying need among church leaders of the world for leadership development. And in point of fact, church leaders outside the United States do consistently request training from stateside church leaders. At the same time, far too many national church leaders have told me about the learned art of securing frmding by enduring training from a clueless American. Others have described stateside churches' training pursuits as yet another Western attempt at colonialization. 81 Because I desperately want to avoid any colonialist tendencies in my own training cross-culturally, when I go to places where I have been invited to facilitate Teaming, I often begin by saying something like, "I am simply here to learn with you. I don't have all the answers, but I am excited about exploring some of these issues together this week. " One time when I said something like that, a good friend from another culture pulled me aside and said, "Now, Dave! I appreciate your humility and I believe it's genuine. However, we didn't bring you all the way down here just to learn with us! We know you have some insight into these issues already, and we're anxious to hear that." In part, his comment likely came out of his experience with teacher-centered education, yet it also raised an ongoing dilemma with constructivist approaches to learning. How does an educator authorize a group of students without entirely de-expertizing himself or herself? The pedestal that comes with a teaching role can never be escaped entirely. Educators facilitating learning cross-culturally must be especially sensitive to the power issues inherent in teaching. Ken, who had traveled outside North America only once before and who had never trained cross-culturally seemed to be aware of the assumption under discussion here. He was frightened by the implications of the assumption, "I have something they need." He said: Ken: There's almost a fear that they're going to be looking at me like . . . "Okay, Here's the answer man. Give it to me". (J) Phil, an experienced traveler and trainer cross-culturally, was not working from the same assumption held by most of the other subjects. His anticipatory reflections were more indicative of a constructivist approach to learning. When thinking aloud about how he expected to approach training in the upcoming Teamworks trip, he said: Phil: I would imagine myself asking lots of questions and then affirming what they’re doing right. Helping them see that they don’t have to learn a whole new 82 set of skills . . . Sometimes they just need a confidence that disciple making looks like what they’re doing but then need to . . . do some things a little bit differently . . . My whole thing is having to realize how little we know. I just feel like I don’t know enough about this context to really be able to feel confident . . . I don’t know enough to even begin to ask the right questions . . . I know how much I don’t know. (T1) Bob, well-traveled as well, was also less concerned about what he had to offer the nationals. He was more interested in seeing national leaders empowered to develop indigenous expressions of the material being trained, although he did limit that to being "guys". He said: Bob: The thing I get most excited about is the opportunity to build relationships with these guys, the national leaders . . . to realize that these are the guys who will influence full nations. . . . That’s one of the things I’m looking forward to most. (T1) Negotiating one’s role in educating others cross-culturally is anything but simple. How does the way an educator anticipates his role with learners in another culture influence what unfolds? How does it determine the way the educator engages in the sojourn? Those are questions I was intrigued to explore through the follow-up interviews with these subjects. "The Better Prepared I Am, the Better I Will Engage." Trainers experienced varying degrees of apprehension about their levels of preparation for their cross-cultural training experiences. As they talked about the concern of being adequately prepared, the assumption underlying their comments was, "The better prepared I am, the better I will acculturate and teach." Subjects who expressed the most apprehension about being unprepared tended to talk about it again as a frustration afterward. There seemed to be little correlation between subjects' sense of how well prepared they were and their levels of experience doing cross- 83 cultural teaching. Rather, the desire to be well-prepared appeared most closely connected to one’s self and the individual's approach to life and teaching. Cements like those made by Dan and Shawn about wanting a better feel for what they would actually be teaching were themes repeated by other subjects. Shawn talked about it the most--before, during, and after the trip. Shawn: One of my waking nightmares, if you will, a paranoia I have, is not being prepared. And so on a trip like this, not knowing what to expect at this point, not having a copy of what the actual training materials will be or knowing the roles that are going to be filled, there’s a little bit of discomfort there. (T1) Dan: The material that we have, versus the material we’re going to have (to teach). It’s going to be different. I know what we have . . . But I don’t know what they have. I don’t like that. (T1) Because Teamworks uses teams to do training, a few subjects were concerned about the limited time teams would have to get oriented to one another and collaboratively prepare. Sentiments like Phil's were shared by others. In talking about what concerned him about the upcoming trip, Phil said: Phil: The team and whether we’ll be ready. . . . We come from different parts of the United States, and in a short time we need to be on the same page and then to be able to . . . communicate . . . overseas. I’d be afraid to take me when I went to Guatemala the first time. And I realize everybody has to have their first trip and that they will have lots of faulty assumptions and potentially will have American arrogance. And to somehow gently work through that and get beyond that in a short period of time always concerns me. (Tl) A number of the subjects team-taught together. Bill was the only subject who voiced a concern about being ill-prepared to team teach. He referenced this concem again on his return from the trip. Before the trip he said: Bill: I guess we’re going to be team teaching on the weekend, and I don’t know just how that’s going to work. . . . I don’t know how much time we’re going to get to sort through that. . . . I’m sure it will all work out, but I’m not really used to team teaching. I’m just not sure what to expect. (T1) 84 Although trainers expressed concern about their preparation, the limited measure of their self-directed efforts to prepare themselves puts this assumption in question when it came to their actual practice. As subjects referenced the topic of preparation, it was either in relation to the official orientation materials sent to them by Teamworks, the work they did on their own to prepare for going cross-culturally in general, or the work they were doing to prepare for teaching in another culture. Here are some exemplars regarding each form of preparation. Orientation Materials Participants were sent orientation materials that covered basic principles of cross- cultural sensitivity, logistics about the trip itself, and some information on the regions where they would be teaching. Further description of the pre departure orientation was provided in Chapter 3 in the Sampling and Design section. Most subjects were ambivalent about the value of the orientation materials they received. Comments like the following reflect the sentiments of the majority of subjects: Shawn: It was helpful to a certain degree. . . . I didn’t find anything really earth shaking, just from my own perspective. (T1) Phil: Some of it was helpful. . . . I read it, not thinking about if it was helpful or not. I was scamring it for the information. . . . I did not come across a lot of new information, but again [that was] a superficial reading. I would not say I read it well. (T1) Shannon: It was okay. It was pretty generic, so that was disappointing, but maybe there isn’t a way you can really prepare for these things. I think Teamworks needs to develop its own orientation materials, though, not just piecemeal together what others have done for very different kinds of cross—cultural experiences. What we’re doing is very unique. (T1) 85 I asked Shannon to expand on what she thought specific Teamworks orientation materials should consist of. What were the unique aspects of what Teamworks does that were not already covered by the kinds of materials she received from Teamworks? She replied: Shannon: We need things that look specifically at youth ministry in different cultures and at how the Teamworks materials are being taught in different places . . . I guess the cultural differences are pretty obvious, but it's the similarities I'd like to hear more about. What do we have in common that we can capitalize on? (T1) What Teamworks does differs in a number of aspects from other cross-cultural training endeavors, so Shannon's perspective is worthy of further thought by Teamworks. Her assumption that "differences are obvious, and similarities are what need more consideration" is not an assumption she alone holds. It is an assumption that will continue to surface in the findings. Personal Preparation In addition to the official orientation materials sent out by Teamworks to prepare the trainers, most trainers also did some preparation on their own. Subjects' personal preparation typically involved going to libraries or bookstores to peruse travel books or going online to read basic information. The following are the kinds of statements subjects made about their personal preparation: Ken: I went to Barnes and Noble . . . I just read up on the cities. [I] looked them up on the map and stuff . . . I’m still reading. I’m trying to read the customs and manners. (T1) Phil: I always go to Borders and buy a couple books on each country I’m going to. So I started that, but haven’t gotten very far. . . . I reflected a lot on my Guatemala trip and what I’ve learned about culture in Guatemala and knowing that it was a combination of Spanish and Indian. . . . I was thinking about what communicated and what didn’t. What were the personalities of the people? And then I just have a list of questions I am going to ask when I hit the ground. (T1) 86 Shannon: 1 went on the Internet and got lots of information. There’s lots on there, and some of it was really helpful. (T1) Shawn, for whom this trip was the first sojourn out of the continent, further demonstrated his apprehension about being ill-prepared. Shawn: I’m kind of a preparation freak, which relates back to my waking nightmare of not being prepared for something. I’ve looked online for information . . . . I’ve been doing that with books from the library. I’ve purchased a book on Portuguese. (Tl) None of the subjects had read any literature produced by the culture where they were headed nor had they read any novels about or from the country where they were going. I asked several subjects, "Did you consider reading something written by an Afiican (or South American) that critiqued missions from a non-Christian perspective?" The subjects said they had not considered doing that. This kind of reading was not overtly recommended to subjects in the orientation materials they received from Teamworks. One of the orientation pieces included in the Teamworks materials suggested reading novels about the culture to which one was headed as a helpful means of preparation. However, Teamworks provided no further prompting or encouragement to subjects to do so. This would have been a meaningful way to get subjects to consider their frames of reference compared to the perspectives voiced in literature like this. Teaching Preparation In addition to preparing themselves for some of the general cultural dynamics they anticipated, subjects also described what they were doing specifically to prepare to teach in their respective contexts. Most of the subjects spent very little time preparing to teach the material. The approach to preparation among a majority of the subjects was similar to the sentiments reflected in the statements below. When talking about how they were preparing to teach the material, subjects said: 87 Ken: Maybe this is very American of me, but part of me is like . . . it isn't going to matter as much [as when I train at home]. (T1) Dan: I think it’s going to be the same thing [as teaching here]. The issues, the concepts, the principles are going to be universal. (T1) Shannon: Boy. I guess that’s going to be what I do on the plane. I probably shouldn’t admit that, but to be honest, I haven’t given much thought to the teaching end of things. But then, we teach principles, not programs, so I don’t think you approach it all that differently. (T1) After hearing these kinds of statements repeatedly, I began probing for more. I asked follow-up questions like, "Are you really sure the issues are the same? Talk about why you think principles transfer cross-culturally. Why don’t programs transfer?" The responses were typically repetitions of what had already been said, or generic references to the universal nature of principles and the cultural specifics of programs. This tension continued to surface and is explored throughout the findings. Shawn, the self-proclaimed "preparation freak," and Bob, the subject with the most travel and training experience cross-culturally, were the only two who described things they had done to specifically prepare to teach: Shawn: On the training end of things, I’ve been reviewing [Seminars 1 and 2] . . . I’ve been going through those materials to make sure that all the information is fresh. (T1) Bob: One of the things I did specifically to prepare was work through again the Czech [Seminar 1] manual, and the Australian [Seminar 1], and I also read through the United States [Seminar 1] one more time. . . . I purposely wanted to think through . . . the common denominators. . . . And since the South Africans have a lot in common with the Australians . . . I really wanted to work through the Australian stuff and think through . . . how might this apply to South Africa? (T1) Shawn had the least experience cross-culturally of any of the subjects. Bob had the most. Previous cross-cultural experience in and of itself did not appear to be a primary determinant in one's concern about preparation. 88 "The better prepared I am, the better I will engage." That was the assumption that subjects espoused, however, the actual effort they put into preparing puts this assumption in question. Subjects expressed concern about being adequately prepared to acculturate and teach in the different cultural contexts, yet most of their actions demonstrated limited concern about being prepared. During and after the trip, subjects were asked to reflect further on how well prepared they were for their sojourns and teaching experiences cross-culturally. Those findings are addressed in Chapter Five. "God Will Keep Me Safe." Interestingly, one of the assumptions not as widely evidenced by the subjects but still prevalent enough to merit inclusion in the findings was the discussion by trainers about their personal safety. Subjects traveled to two of the most dangerous places in the world, South Africa (Johannesburg) and Columbia; however there was surprisingly little discussion about potential danger. Those who did talk about danger said things like this: Dan: Let me share this with you. In 1998, almost 2,000 people were kidnapped, a world record, including 40 foreigners. These are the official figures, but it’s estimated that there may be up to 50 percent or more unreported, negotiated privately with abductors . . . When I came across that, I have a little bit of hesitancy there--my leaving this comfort zone and running into problems and having young kids. (T1) Doug: They say there’s a great deal of flooding going on in South Africa . . . I don’t know where this is all happening but apparently it’s fairly devastating. I mean, I’ve been caught in a monsoon . . . Everyone around the village [where I stayed] was in water and for three days . . . waiting for the water to subside. . . . So we pushed out, and as I was walking out . . . we just hung onto each other and walked through the waters to get to the roadway. . . . So that’s an apprehension I have. (T1) When asked explicitly about whether they were concerned about safety issues, most subjects pointed to their trust in God as the reason they had little fear. Shannon's writing demonstrates the kind of thinking that surfaced: 89 Shannon: I must admit it's a little unsettling to think about leaving my kids while I trek off to South America. I mean--anything could happen. If it's not a plane crash, it could be a mugging or something. But I keep reminding myself that it's safer to be in South America and in God's will than at home out of His will. I have to believe that, or I lay in bed awake at night. After all, what's the worst thing that can happen? I get to go be with my Heavenly Father. But I would rather stay around to raise my kids and not leave them without a mother. I'm being way too dramatic. I'm sure nothing will happen. (J) Discerning whether Shannon truly thought she was safer in South America than at home is entirely speculative. However, faith like hers was expressed by other subjects as well. Shannon never referenced her fear of danger in her pretrip interview. I asked her about it in the posttrip interview, and she shrugged it off as something that had not really phased her. "God will keep me safe." I think the subjects truly believed that. Subjects' lack of discussion about this issue is likely a combination of their faith in God's protection and their relative removal from dangerous situations in their everyday lives. I expect the safety theme would have been much more evident if the study had been conducted after the alleged terrorist activity of September 11, 2001. "I Won't Offend the Students." Like the issue of safety, subjects' limited discussion about cultural offensiveness was as revealing as what they did say. After engagement, a significant number of subjects were confident they had not offended the students when they were training, but few of them considered that as an issue before going. Most of the discussion about potentially offending nationals came from the three subjects with extensive cross-cultural experience. They said: Bob: I am always a little concerned . . . that the team would be sensitive. . . . Are we going to offend them? . . . They’re very gracious and understanding, but. . . what if we do something that really hinders things? (T1) 90 Phil: I’d be afraid to take me when I went to Guatemala the first time. And I realize everybody has to have their first trip and that they will have lots of faulty assumptions and potentially will have American arrogance. (T1) Doug: I’m conscious of our image of being loud, basketball-playing Americans, which are the three stereotypes we got in South America . . . and I have a really bellyful sort of laugh. . . . It seems like whenever I teach overseas, if I teach long enough, something happens. . . . That’s one of the reasons India was so nice because I have such a relationship built there that I can get away with most anything at this point. And if it’s something they don’t like, they will talk to me about it rather than just sinking in their chairs. But I’m worried about that in a new place. (T1) Doug was confident that his relationship with the students in India allowed them to see beyond his unintentional offenses. I asked him to explain further his confidence that the Indian leaders would challenge his offenses. He gave a few examples of times when they told him that what he was saying would never work in their churches or culture. There is no way of knowing whether Doug accurately perceived these interactions; however, he demonstrated strong awareness of the increased potential for offending students when new, cross-cultural relationships are involved. Doug's experience in India is a demonstration of the premise that students are more forgiving of cultural faux pas and misuse of language when the foreign educator attempts to connect emotionally and interpersonally (Yook & Albert, 1999). Increased intimacy between stateside sojoumers and host nationals fosters increased understanding for both groups. Meanwhile, some of the subjects did demonstrate concern about being "right. ” The subjects' definition of "being right" seemed less connected to being culturally sensitive and to empowering learners, and more connected to being accurate. Comments like the following revealed this sentiment: Shannon: I’m just very conscious of wanting to do this the right way. . . . It’s hard enough for me to teach here, but there-~Man! (T1) 91 Ron: I know God works and all that, but I hope we do it right. Not so much for personal projection but, more so, because they need to get it. We can’t stray off of what we need to give them but just to do it right. I don ’t want to screw them up. (TI ) What does it mean to teach such subjective material "right"? I asked Shannon and Ron to expand on that, but neither did. Shannon acknowledged that she was not even sure what the "right way" was, but she was confident that God would make that clear as she needed to know. Ron's statement pointed to the colonialist tendencies inherent to foundationalism. Foundationalism works from the presupposition that there are essentials one must learn from others who possess knowledge of those essentials. The "I have what they need" assumption resurfaced and there seemed to be an inflated perception of the potential influence of the training in his final sentence. The seriousness with which he viewed the training is commendable. However, some of the assumptions underlying that seriousness are troubling. Subjects increasingly demonstrated a banking model of education (Freire, 1997) wherein content is deposited from teacher to student, as compared to a liberatory model wherein students are empowered by teachers to construct their own critical perceptions. This pointed to an underlying problem. Subjects hold a foundationalist view of knowledge and of Christianity. They maintained that one interpretation of truth exists and is revealed through Christ, although they also described a desire for contextualization. Can one embrace Christianity while also approaching education from a social constructivist position, recognizing that different individuals and societies have diverse ways of constructing knowledge? This question is explored further in Chapter Six. The intensity of discussion that occurs these days related to multicultural sensitivity and appreciation of diversity makes the subjects' limited concern about offending surprising. For whatever reason, subjects showed little concern about offending 92 those they would train. "Language Equals Communication." As subjects anticipated their cross-cultural teaching experiences, the issue that concerned them more than any other was communication. Their concern is commendable. The variable of communication permeates all else when one engages cross-culturally. Communication is central to the teaching process and to the process of acculturation in general. Some of the concerns raised by subjects pertaining to communication are as follows: Shannon: The concepts we teach are so abstract. I mean--it’s hard to grasp it here, so I worry about how well we can communicate this in a foreign context. I guess it makes us more dependent that way. (T1) Phil: I’m a terrible person with languages. I want to be empathetic. . . . I want to be connected to them. I want to show sensitivity to their language and attempt to understand it and state basic things. But I’m so impaired. I just struggle to do it. (T1) Ken: Being understood [is a concern of mine]. I don’t mean like, "Hey--You got to understand me." . . . I know we’ll have an interpreter and all that. But being understood and understanding, especially on the coaching end of things, there’s a concern there. (T1) As the trainers discussed communication issues, they usually equated language with communication. With the exception of what Ken said above, whenever I asked subjects about how they anticipated communicating in the upcoming training experience, they almost universally Spoke about language issues. Here are some of the exemplars of the voluminous data relating to this anticipatory assumption: Ron: I think my exposure to British English should help. . . . [It’s] sometimes hard for me to adjust to at times, but I feel I can communicate clearly since I speak English fine. (T1) 93 Bob: The language barrier would have to be the top challenge for communicating overseas. Since they speak English, I’m not concerned about communication. (T 1) Ken: I can order off a Spanish menu, and that's about it. I can find the bathroom. So communication could be a bit challenging. Shawn: I guess I’m a little apprehensive about Brazil. . . . I can speak some Spanish . . . [but] Portuguese is a source of discomfort. Speaking the language of a culture alone is not sufficient for communicating cross- culturally. It may lead to simply encoding a message rather than to communicating and interacting with another person (Landis & Bhagat, 1996). We all experience the multiple ways rniscommurrication happens almost daily as we interact with others who speak our mother tongue. So why was the assumption that "language equals communication" so prevalent among the subjects? This was an area into which I probed firrther in the posttrip interviews. Summary Subjects' anticipatory assumptions suggested a great deal about how the subjects might approach their sojourns and teaching experiences. As I moved through the pretrip interviews, I became increasingly surprised by what seemed to be primarily concrete rather than abstract thinking. However, I expected engagement in the cross-cultural context coupled with the discipline of journal writing and subjects' anticipation of the follow-up interview to yield deeper reflection and thought. I was interested to see what role reflection alongside cross-cultural experience would play in challenging the foundationalist frames of reference held by all the subjects. In Chapter Five, the assumptions most prevalent in the ways subjects experienced and reflected on engaging in their cross-cultural experiences are considered. 94 CHAPTER FIVE ENGAGEMENT FINDINGS The day after I sat in the Singapore Starbucks, musing about my imminent encounter with Indian culture, I lay awake at night in my Delhi friend's home. I sat up and started writing: Hours ago I was in the fast-paced, efficient, affluent, cosmopolitan world of Singapore. The flight here in itself was a taste of a different world. I found myself pretty turned off by the way everyone was making their requests, no, not requests, demands of the ever-so-polite Singaporean flight attendants. By the time we landed, a pungent stench of body odor permeated the 747. Inside the airport, I observed departing passengers flowing through the metal detector they were setting off with no one there to check them. Stray dogs and cats were running everywhere. The hour-long taxi ride through the fog was an adventure. I sat in the back seat with springs protruding into my butt. . . . When I arrived at Abraham's flat where I’m spending the night, I had a quick bite to eat (some tasty curry and potatoes) and then I went to bed. I was just lying here in bed listening to the pigs running by outside and the woman chanting her prayers next door, and I began to pride myself on my sense of cross-cultural adventure. “I love this,” I thought. . . . I suddenly realized I wasn’t alone in bed! A couple rats just joined me. Okay--my sense of adventure is quickly fleeing . . . . I'm excited about the forum this week. I'm terrified. I feel so much cultural distance. How in the world am I going to facilitate this? I don't have a clue what I have to offer these leaders. I need to keep my mouth shut as much as possible and do a whole lot of listening, observing, and asking questions. (D. Livermore, personal journal, January 9, 2000) I explored the role of anticipatory assumptions on engagement through the lens of my own expectations and experiences. Did subjects' anticipatory assumptions persist as they engaged cross-culturally or were those assumptions abandoned for new ones? How did the trainers experience teaching cross-culturally compare to what they expected? How did reality interface with the hopes and fears of these trainers? Did they think they had prepared sufficiently? Did this experience cause a disorientation to their frames of 95 reference and consequently lead to perspective transformation? These were the kinds of issues I was interested in exploring in the posttrip interviews, through reading subjects' journals, and from reading students' evaluations. The posttrip findings are captured by the following assumptions by subjects as they engaged in their sojourns and reflected thereupon: - "This culture consists of what I see." 0 "I can tell the students are hungry for what I'm teaching." - "These people are more competent than I expected." 0 "I was adequately prepared for this experience." - "We should teach Scripture rather than our personal illustrations to avoid importing our bias." 0 "Interaction is as important as content." 0 "Language equals communication." 0 "I understand American culture." - "As a Christian, there are prescribed conclusions I should make from this sojourn." These assumptions are the findings from the posttrip data. The nature of each of these engagement findings is described and exemplified in the following pages. "This Culture Consists of What I See." Similar to the first assumption addressed in the anticipatory findings, "1 can assess cultural contexts," subjects continued to demonstrate confidence in their abilities to assess culture. On engagement, they thought they had accurately discerned the cultural dynamics. However, their contextual assessment continued to focus on concrete, hardware elements of culture rather than on the more subtle, abstract software elements. 96 Subjects expected South Africa to be a Westerrrized place that was experiencing political unrest. As the trainers reflected on their first impressions of South Africa after landing in Johannesburg, they talked about how much it looked like home. They provided brief descriptions of their first impressions of South Africa. I asked them why they did not have more to say in this regard. They said it was difficult to recall what impressed them because it felt so much like being at home. Even with open-ended questions and follow-up probes, the descriptions did not get any thicker than the following: Bill: I was really interested in any changes because of apartheid having fallen and stuff like that. So I was trying to be observant of that. . . . I was trying to have conversations . . . without really forcing the political kind of stuff. . . . So my first impression was that it was very different [from what I expected], but also much better in some ways. And much worse in some ways. (T2) Bob: The segregation . . . is always apparent to me. . . . I’m watching for it. (T2) Admittedly, Johannesburg was built in such a way as to keep people fi'om being able to readily observe the squalor villages and the poverty therein. One can easily travel along the highways and see only nice neighborhoods and McWorld establishments. As subjects reflected on other cross-cultural contexts, poverty and abject living conditions seemed to be the things they observed most readily. These observations emerged both in subjects' recollections about their first sojourns outside the States and in their reflections about their first impressions from engaging cross-culturally in this training experience. The absence of discussion about first impressions by subjects who went to South Afiica, compared to thicker descriptions offered by subjects who went to South America, further supported this finding. Subjects who went to South America were primarily struck by the poverty there. As subjects in the South American sample described their first impressions, they said things like: 97 Shannon: The children! I never get used to seeing these young kids have to beg for food. I immediately think about my own. It's so unfair that these kids have to grow up here. I guess the lack of finances would be the first thing that hits me when I look around me. (J) Shawn: I noticed that. . . . it’s not as modern as the United States. Walking off the plane, instead of going down a jet way. Just the process and all that kind of stuff. . . . Definitely it’s a lot cleaner area than Mexico but a far cry from my neighborhood. It's hard to believe you can be in a place with such poverty in such a short flight away from home. (T2) Dan: I guess my first impression was the reminder of how good we have it. You see these people around you with so little, and they're just so happy. I wonder why we clutter our lives with so much. . . . You get off the plane. . . . It was just very . . . quiet. . . . And then you're the only white. . . . So you were singled out and you didn’t even have to say a word. . . . You punch this little button as you’re going through. . . . White folks . . . get the red light and . . . have to go through inspection. . . . That was funny too because [the Latinos all] . . . got the green light. (T2) I asked Dan how it felt to be a minority, and to be treated differently for being an outsider. He replied: Dan: Oh, that was no big deal. I found it quite humorous actually. (T2) Subjects' attention to the external dynamics in the contexts of the culture where they sojourned continued to relate back to their anticipatory assumption, "1 can assess cultural contexts." Ron made a statement that other subjects echoed. He contended that a few days in a culture allowed him to get an overall picture of that culture. Ron: I trained after already being there a few days, so I had a chance to already get a feel for things--you know, just to get an overall picture of the context. . . . There are so many things you can pick up, just through casual conversation and stuff, so by the time . . . I . . . got to training, [I] had so many things already in my head to understand the context. (T2) Assessing a context based on what is seen externally is likely an assumption that led many subjects to identify so much similarity between the cross-cultural contexts where they taught and what they saw in the States. Subjects overwhelmingly 98 demonstrated what Anderson and Anderson (2000) described: When we travel to a new country, we feel an ahnost irresistible impulse to smooth over the strangeness, the distinct particularity of the people we meet. We slip seamlessly into supposing that they are just like ourselves, and we almost forget to marvel at the differences. It’s not until we have dwelt in the new country long enough to be shocked, repeatedly, at the wrongness of our assumptions that we begin to notice the crucial things we have missed (p. 41). More than half of the subjects made statements like the following: Shannon: [The students] met most of my expectations. . . . If there were any surprises for me, it came in terms of the similarities . . . of general ministry issues . . . issues with young people and things like that. (T2) Rhonda: They struggle with the same things . . . church elder boards, parents . . . how do we get them to buy into our vision . . . you know . . . sacred cows--you can’t move youth group. It’s always on Friday nights and no one wants to change it, and I’m like, "Oh. I’ve been there. . . . You know, program for program's sake.". (T2) The similarity between South African students and stateside students was most prevalent in Ron's perceptions. Here are some of the times when this theme appeared in his data: Ron: I think the one thing that really strikes me is . . . the similarity just in things that we deal with. . . . The issues are the same in just so many fronts . . . One issue we faced in South Africa for youth ministry is . . . seeing it as a valid form of ministry. . . . There are similarities in terms of . . . we’re all fallen people and the issues are so much the same because we have the same root to deal with. . . . That’s what’s so beautiful. . . . Because that same plan that Jesus used 2,000 years ago is the same plan we can use today. I guess those are the things that strike me most . . . the similarities. . . .because I had prepared myself more for the differences. (T2) One thing that is overall similar is Jesus, Lord and Savior. Wherever I go . . . he’s recognized . . . his kingly presence . . . his absolute . . . sovereignty. (T2) They are very similar to people I train here. (J) 99 They are just like us, but not like us at all. If we can keep this oxymoron central to our thinking, the efforts of Teamworks can really make a difference. (J) Some of the subjects equated the similarities to a shared, Western culture. The assumption was, this culture is Western and as a result, I can train here pretty much like I would in the States. For example, Rhonda and Phil said: Rhonda: If you were to [train] somewhere else that wasn’t so Western, I think it would definitely be different but . . . not in South Afiica. . . . There weren’t differences. . . . They are just like us. (T2) Phil: There’s many similarities in [places like] South Afiica and Singapore, but there are almost no similarities in Zambia. (T1) When coming across the above data and similar comments, I stopped to write in my journal one day: Subjects are making the assumption that the more developed the context, the more closely teaching can be approached to how it's done at home. That's sure not always been my experience. I can facilitate learning more like I do stateside when I'm in India or South America than I can when I'm in Hong Kong. I guess that isn't entirely true. The limited language barrier in Hong Kong and the high level of abstract thinking ability make it easy to use some of the same kinds of exercises as I use at home. However, facilitating discussion in Hong Kong is so difficult because I can't get them to speak out and give input in large, classroom settings. The Indians and Latinos dialogue freely. (D. Livermore, personal journal, April 14, 2001) Surprisingly, there was little difference between the ways subjects who taught in urban settings like Johannesburg and Durban reflected on their experiences compared to those who taught in more remote settings with predominantly non-white students. In similar regard, subjects in the second sample talked with a high level of similarity about their experiences whether they taught in Sao Paulo or in a more rural region. Further, even though the first sample group taught in Africa, a radically different continent from South America, there was relatively little difference in the ways subjects from both samples talked about their experiences. This was one of the most unexpected findings of the 100 study. When asked to expand on what similarities existed between the foreign culture and the stateside culture, subjects most often referred to the similar youth cultures. These trainers were not alone in assuming that a global youth culture exists from horizon to. horizon. I have heard it said, "A teenager has more in common with another teenager on the other side of the world than either of him or her has with his or her own parents" (Patty, 1998). I recently talked with a Malaysian adolescent in Kuala Lurnpur. He was dressed in carpenter jeans, an Abercrombie t-shirt, a baseball cap, and a backpack hanging off his arm. I asked him what he thought about the preceding statement, which suggests that teenagers are increasingly the same all around the world. He said, "Sir, I nright look like kids in your neighborhood on the outside but what's on the inside is entirely different" (personal conversation, February 21, 2001). The very fact that he called me "sir" convinced me! Multinational corporations are convinced of the presence of a global youth culture. A few years ago, a New York City-based advertising agency videotaped the rooms of teenagers in 25 different countries. The convergence of what was found in rooms from Los Angeles to Mexico City to Tokyo made it difficult to see any differences. Basketballs were sitting next to soccer balls, and closets were overflowing with an international, unisex uniform: baggy Levis or Diesel jeans, NBA jackets, and rugged shoes fi'om Timberland or Doc Martens (Tully, 1994). In a world divided by trade wars and tribalism, teenagers, of all people, are the new unifying force. From the steamy playgrounds of Los Angeles to the stately boulevards of Singapore, kids show amazing similarities in taste, language, and attitude . . . Propelled by mighty couriers like MTV, trends spread with sorcerous speed . . . Teens almost everywhere buy a common gallery of products: Reebok sports shoes, Procter & Gamble Cover Girl makeup, Sega and Nintendo videogames, Pepsi, etc. (Tully, 1994, p. 90) 101 I tend to agree with my Malaysian acquaintance. Externally I see increasing similarities among adolescents in many of the major cities of the world. However, from what I can tell, the similarities only go an inch deep. There is danger in too quickly presuming that things are as similar as they appear. The indication that subjects focused primarily on hardware elements of culture before their sojourns continued on after engagement. The anticipatory assumption, "1 can assess cultural contexts" had a clear correlation to the engagement assumption, "This culture consists of what I see." "I Can Tell the Students Are Hungry for What I'm Teaching." There were at least 30 instances when subjects talked about the students' eagerness to learn from them. The assumption was, "Students are hungry for what I'm teaching." The theme of students' hunger for the training was especially present in Dan's data. Notice the recurring streams where Dan described the hunger and thirst in relation to what was being taught. Each stream of data represents a different time in the interview or journal when this issue appeared: Dan: I guess I was surprised at the hunger. I was surprised at the thirst. (T2) They were really hungry [for the training]. (T2) The training was outstanding. . . . I think they were hungry, very hungry. I would even say more hungry overseas than they are here . . . because they’re looking for more effective ways and tools. (T2) They would sit and listen. They wouldn’t get up and go to the bathroom every five nrinutes or say "I need a break" every couple hours. They were enduring heat . . . humidity . . . the small environment. . . . And they didn’t get up and leave. I mean they were spellbound . . . in listening to the message, the methodology . . . the format . . . the how to’s and the philosophy. (T2) 102 These are the next generation of leaders. They are hungry for truth. They are zealous for God. They [are] anxious to apply their learning. (J) It’s fresh and new [like] they never heard it before. They are really soaking it up. (J) Although Dan worked from this assumption more frequently than did any other subject, statements like the following appeared in more than half the subjects' interviews or journals: Bob: It felt like they were really hungry . . . It seemed like they were eager, hungry, and open to what we were doing. (T2) Rhonda: The guys in training--they were so thirsty. They just hung on every word. (J) Ron: The classroom is even more attentive than in the States. They hang on every word. (J) The data raised a question in my mind: Did the attentiveness and apparent hunger reflect how much the students longed for the training, or was this more a demonstration of appropriate classroom behavior in the respective culture? It is interesting that the subjects did not seem to consider the "obedience" of the students as a potential cultural difference. They concluded that it indicates the value of the training being received. To conclude that students were hungry for training, subjects were depending on another related assumption. "1 can assess how students are responding to what I'm teaching." I began asking follow-up questions to statements like those in the data above. I asked, "How did you know students were hungry for what was being taught? What made you think they were soaking it in or hanging on every word?" There were a few different ways in which subjects made their assessments. They used intuitive assessment, nonverbal feedback, and verbal feedback from students to discern students' receptivity to the teaching. Some examples of each means of assessment follow: 103 Intuitive Assessment Subjects said they could "just tell" when they were getting through. They asserted: Shawn: I gave opportunity for feedback. I was talking about the love languages and after presenting [them] . . . [I gave] time for a few questions and answers [which] gave me a sense of whether they were tracking or not. . . . I just sensed some very good camaraderie [with the students and us]. . . . [I was] trying to connect to them exactly where they were and where they are in their Christian walk and trying to help them come alongside and encourage them. (T2) James: I had notes that were probably different from what I did. . . . I just kind of allowed it to flow based on what was working. . . . I did notice . . . that the people were really interested in what we had to say. (T2) The following streams in Ron's data demonstrate his assumptions about his communication and his intuitive assessment that what he was doing was working: Ron: I think trying to pronounce the words the way they do . . . does go a long way. . . . Obviously you don’t want to overdo that . . . because they recognize that you’re a foreigner. . . . But I think . . . striving to do that in a tasteful way does communicate that you're there . . . to serve them, and encourage them, and empower them. (T2) While he was in the midst of the training, Ron wrote: Ron: It is notable that my communication is being understood. Even with the language barrier, I can tell they grasp this stuff. The strategy of Jesus overcomes the language issues. (J) Although it sounds nebulous, it is not uncommon for educators and communicators to use intuition as a way to determine whether they are connecting with their recipients. One could argue that those assessments should be questioned whenever they are done. Intuitive assessment is especially suspect however, when teaching and communicating with students from a different culture. Subjectively discerning a student's response is fraught with cultural assumptions. The worldviews, the learned behaviors of responding, the thinking patterns and much more may vary widely between the student 104 and the teacher any time, but especially when they are coming from two different cultural vantage points. Nonverbal Feedback In similar fashion and perhaps as a factor contributing to intuitive assessment, subjects also used nonverbal feedback to assess whether they were connecting with the students. Half the subjects made statements similar to these: Ken: They were nodding their heads. I mean, I’d say something, then I’d wait for the interpreter and then just kind of look to see what kind of look they’ve got on their faces. (T2) Shannon: It was so cool to see the light bulbs go on when I was teaching today. I could just see by their nods that we were connecting (J). Dan: Their facial expressions, their body language, when you can see the light bulbs going on in their heads. That’s when I knew they were getting it. . . . As people would be translating and interpreting . . . you’d have to slow down . . . and make sure that they caught it, and they understood it, and looking in their eyes and seeing their expressions. (T2) For several decades, researchers have said that in face to face communication, as much as 90 percent of what is communicated is carried in the nonverbal message (Mehrabian, 1981). Educators are wise to consider what they can discern from students’ nonverbal feedback. The question is to what degree the communicator should trust his or her assessment of that feedback, especially when it comes from someone from a different cultural context. The first time I trained in India, I frequently stopped and asked the students whether they were following what I was saying. Every time I asked, the Indians would respond by shaking their heads from side to side. I presumed that meant "No." I tried explaining it again. One time in particular when I was desperately trying to be sure they followed what I was saying, I kept reexplaining my point and asking whether they 105 grasped what I meant. Each time I asked, they kept shaking their heads. Finally, after about 15 minutes of belaboring the same point, my interpreter leaned over to me and said, "Dave. They're with you. They know what you mean." Later he explained to me that the head motion they were using was, in fact, saying, "Sure. It's no big deal. We follow you." Nonverbal communication is a rich source of feedback for educators, but it must be filtered through the cultural meanings behind nonverbal language. Verbal Feedback Subjects relied heavily on any verbal or written input provided by students. They considered verbal feedback to be a reliable predictor of whether they had effectively communicated. They said: Mike: Overall, . . . [communication] was the biggest challenge for me, even though those I talked to felt like it came across clear and was great. I just wasn’t as comfortable as I would have liked to have been, which maybe was better. (T2) Ron: One comment I did get fi'om someone . . . was . . . "You guys were the first Americans that we’ve met that haven’t talked down to us . . . and haven’t treated us as second class. . . . We just need to be schooled." . . . So that really meant a lot to the people we talked to. (T2) Rhonda: I did ask them, . . . "Are you understanding? Are you tracking with me? . . . Am I talking too fast?" . . . I said, "Now I know your culture is to be nice, but I need you to tell me, like, if I’m talking too fast." . . . They ’re like, "No, You ’re fine. " So I wanted to give them the freedom to say, "No. You’re talking too fast" or whatever. But they see enough American programs and they watch Friends. (T2) I asked Ron and Rhonda and other subjects who made comments like these how they determined whether the students providing this verbal input were being honest and truthful. They were confident the subjects were being sincere. 106 Students who experienced the training conducted by all the subjects filled out evaluation forms on which they provided feedback on their instructors. Most of the written feedback from students was very positive; however, the feedback must be read critically. Many cultures are more committed to "saving face" and to avoiding conflict than to addressing it head-on. As a result, drawing reliable conclusions from feedback provided from students is at least suspect. The student evaluations (Appendix D) were designed to de-emphasize evaluation of the trainer. Instead, priority was given to gaining understanding about what happened during the training from the student's perspective. Regardless, the input received must still be read with a critical perspective. More than half the evaluations included statements like these: 0 I’ve learned so much this week. What a blessing to learn this material. (81) 0 I didn't have any problem following her. (S2) 0 He really knew his material and I understood everything! (S1) Some of the South Afiican students raised concerns about the way communication took place between the trainers and the students. Just over 10 percent of the students from South Africa wrote something similar to the following: 0 It was a little fast at times and I got lost with the American accent. (SI) 0 I appreciate that [he] tried to use terms we use, but it may have been forced at times. We can make the cultural translations in our own minds. . . . We can understand American English. We watch television, so it’s actually easier without trying to use our accent. (SI) 0 Some of the instructions were a little hard to follow for the group times. Maybe it’s a cultural thing. (81) Presuming that students are hungry for what is being taught depends on the related assumption that the trainer can assess how students are receiving what is being communicated. These assumptions have clear connections to the anticipatory 107 assumption, "1 have something they need." These assumptions further contribute to a banking concept of education that emphasizes a teaching paradigm above a learning paradigm (F reire, 1997) . "These People Are More Competent Than I Expected." Subjects were impressed by the level of competency among the students. I was interested in whether this subconsciously challenged subjects' anticipatory assumption,"l have something they need." The trainers expressed excitement about the competency they observed. I was interested to explore how the trainers negotiated this perception about the students' competency with the subtle, paternalistic paradigm under which many of the subjects approached the sojourn. Rhonda and Shannon were struck by the thinking and Teaming abilities the students demonstrated. Both of them taught in urban settings and said: Rhonda: They were thinkers . . . and they were intelligent. . . . They are very, very smart. (T2) Shannon: I have to say, these people are really making me think. Their questions are incredible. . . . I'm embarrassed to say, I didn't expect them to track with these concepts nearly so well (J). The other data relating to this category came from subjects who did not expect the students to have the level of experience and competency in the field of youth ministry that they did. Perhaps it created dissonance for the subjects because of the assumption so many of them had that they had come to "impart" and "give hope." The following exemplars are reminiscent of statements made by at least half the subjects, some from both samples and some from both urban and rural training settings: Mike: I was surprised with the development of youth ministry there. And where it is today. . . . That was really encouraging to see the number of people involved and interested in youth ministry. (T2) 108 During Doug's pretrip interview, he expressed the desire to see the African leaders develop other leaders, implying that the Africans were not currently doing so. The following quotation from his posttrip interview demonstrates that his assumption was challenged: Doug: It was a real wake-up call for me to see how much these guys are tracking . . . with what other people are doing around the world in youth ministry. . . . I mean, I have never heard of some of these guys [they were referencing]. (T2) When asked why they were surprised by the level of competency, subjects acknowledged their ignorance about the degree to which Christian churches had developed programs for youth in countries all around the world. I probed further with some subjects, asking, "Does it bother you that you were surprised by this? What does that tell you about yourself?" Without exception, the subjects who were asked that question asserted that they were not bothered by the fact that this surprised them and they weren't sure it had anything to tell them about themselves. It simply made them more aware of what God was doing all around the world. One day after receiving that kind of response, I stopped and wrote: When hearing my subject just talk about how much it surprised him that the people in the training already have a lot they are doing in regard to youth ministry that is working well, I asked him, "Does it bother you that you were surprised by their level of proficiency? How does that make you feel? What does it teach you about your assumptions?" 1 can't believe it! I thought he would at least make something up. He didn't. He didn't feel like there was any reason to be bothered by it. I confess. It bothers me! (D. Livermore, personal journal, March 3, 2000) The subjects continued to reveal a great deal about their worldviews and assumptions based on the ways they engaged in the reality of the cross-cultural sojourns. What, if anything, does this mean for pre departure training for those teaching cross- culturally? Is there anything that can be done to foster perspective transformation in subjects like these? Those are the questions I continued to keep at the forefront of my 109 thought as I collected and analyzed data. "I Was Adequately Prepared for This Experience." How did the subjects feel about their preparation for training cross-culturally? Was it adequate? What else should they have done? How would they advise others to prepare? Subjects described things they wished they had done differently to prepare. They also shared advice for others engaging in similar kinds of cross-cultural training experiences. Overall, subjects seemed confident about how they had prepared. This seemed to contradict the assumption evident in the anticipatory findings, "The better prepared I am, the better I will teach." It is contradictory because, by their own admission, subjects did not do a lot to prepare. In retrospect however, they thought they were prepared for what they encountered. Numerous subjects made comments like the following: James: I felt adequately prepared. I wouldn’t do anything different. (T2) Ken: I was afraid of being unprepared but . . . I was . . . over prepared. I think I’d do it the same. I think [it] was good for me to kind of make things up as we went along. It goes a little bit against who I am . . . and it was refreshing to not be so stinking planned out. . . . Flexible. I guess that was really the key word that I learned. Flexibility. (T2) Dan: I don’t think you can really prepare fora trip like this. There’s nothing you can really do ahead other than pack your bags and show up! (T2) Consistent with how he talked about the importance of preparation during the pretrip interview, Shawn had more to say about the importance of adequate preparation than did any other subject. A few of the streams of his concern about being ill-prepared are as follows: 110 Shawn: This was one of the pretrip frustrations. There wasn’t an awful lot on which to base expectations. So I didn’t know what to expect . . . what I’d be doing or how I’d be doing it. . . . So there wasn’t much there. (T2) The fact that we didn’t really have nearly as much to do as I expected. . . . I guess it was a little frustrating. It’s when you have impressions, or preconceived notions of how sometlring’s going to be and it doesn’t match up. That’s always interesting. And I guess part of me just kind of felt like . . . it wasn’t the best use of our time. . . . It was fun. We had a good time, but it didn’t seem very intentional. (T2) I think as much as you possibly can, it’s advantageous to make everybody aware of what . . . everybody can expect to encounter-~what their roles are going to be. Try to spell out as much of that as you can ahead of time. Even . . . when we get there, it may be completely different and we may need to adapt and that’s just something that we can’t predict. . . . But letting us know . . . from the get-go . . . would have helped me to better mentally prepare. (T2) However, Shawn later made the comment: Shawn: There is nothing significant I would change about how I prepared. (T2) I asked Shawn how he could say he would not change his preparation, given all his frustrations with the lack of preparation. He thought he had done all he could to prepare. It was in the organization by Teamworks itself that the preparation was lacking. As indicated in the anticipatory findings related to preparation, Bill was apprehensive about team teaching before he participated in teaching in South Africa. Upon his return, he said: Bill: Since I team taught [Seminar 2], it would have been nice if I had been able to get some time with [my partner] before we had to start training . . . To know each other ahead of time and to know how each other was going to do things. That would have helped. (T2) Bob and Phil, the subjects with the most extensive cross-cultural travel and training experience, were the only subjects who described the importance of more preparation related to the teaching context. Bob did think that his international experience 111 kept him from being surprised by much in this particular sojourn. He said: Bob: Not much surprises me, you know. . . . Okay, I don’t think I get too surprised by much. . . . So things went pretty much like I expected. (T2) At the same time, the consistency between Bob's expectations and reality did not cause him to think there was nothing more he could do to prepare for experiences like this in the future. He said: Bob: The [small group teaching format] would be the one thing . . . I would structure . . . more intentionally with a real clear format. I need to give more thought to that for the future. It worked really well. (T2) Phil's questions in the following statement were some of the most critically reflective questions asked by any of the subjects in relation to the training context. He said: Phil: [My] assumption [is] that we probably don’t know how to do a good job on the first trip. . . . I would love to do two trips everywhere because the first trip is, for me, discovering what do they now know. How do we communicate in their culture? What are the illustrations [that will communicate]? I don’t mean precise illustrations, but what are the kinds of things. . . . Is it an agricultural society? Is it industrial? Is there education? Is there no education? Natural education in the bush where they are taught not to hunt? What are we talking about? And then to do what Jesus did. He knew his culture. We translate the illustrations into the culture of the location. (T2) I am perplexed by whether other trainers can be taught to ask these kinds of questions. Can this kind of thinking about teaching be learned or does it come naturally out of who one is and how the individual approaches education and life? Can the way one anticipates a cross-cultural teaching assignment be manipulated to stimulate perspective transformation and better develop intercultural competency? Although prescriptive answers to these kinds of issues should be viewed as suspect, in Chapter Six I have attempted to provide some concrete means of addressing the issues raised by these findings. 112 "We Should Teach Scripture Rather Than Our Personal Illustrations to Avoid Importing Our Bias." When coding the engagement data, the category with more data than any other was the one pertaining to subjects' discussion of the use of illustrations while teaching versus the value of teaching principles from Scripture. Subjects were nearly unanimous in their assumption that illustrations should be avoided when training cross-culturally. Rather, they presumed principles based on Christ and the Word of God should be used. This assumption was interesting, given subjects' anticipatory comments, which were more heavily rooted in the practical, applied realm than in the theoretical realm. It seems that subjects thought that using illustrations would be a classic case of culturally specific and, worse yet, colonialist teaching. That was the trainers’ perspective. The students had a very different perspective. Some of the subjects with recurring streams of data reflecting the assumption that illustrations should be avoided made statements like these: Ron: [We must] champion principle over example. (J) You must boil down the principles to their very essence to be successful in communicating truth. . . . Start from [Scripture] and work your way up. (J) Even in your illustrations you know, although it’s very much a Westernized culture . . . there are still some key differences. You have to drop the illustrations. (T2) No matter how much we prefaced, "Now this is an example from an American context" . . . you spend more time disclaiming it and stuff. . . . So you’re trying to get them to see how the principle will flesh out there. (T2) An example from an American context really seems to be more of a negative thing. . . . That’s a real struggle because we have to speak from our context to a certain extent. . . . You spend more time disclaiming it . . . to get them to see how the principle will flesh out there. (T2) 113 Although Ron was committed to avoiding illustrations or, at most, using them very cautiously, Rhonda accused him of violating this assumption. Rhonda: Ron gave illustrations that were, like, just American examples. . . . He spent more time on the how, and for me, I spend more time on the why (J). In talking about her own training, she said: Rhonda: My stories won’t work. They’re about here, so I had to not do those. And so like I really tried to get more examples from Scripture. So it made me dig deeper so that was really good. And then just having them give examples. Asking them questions and having them apply it more that way. Because I can’t use my stories. . . . they don’t work. (T2) Wherever you are in the States, you can give . . . examples and they’ll just automatically change them for their settings. But you can’t use those examples at all [overseas]. (T2) Rhonda brought up this issue several other times when reflecting on the teaching experience in South Afiica. Bob also made multiple references to avoiding the use of illustrations. Some of his comments in this regard were: Bob: I do a lot more overseas in saying, "Here’s the principle . . . Why don’t you tell me how it looks here," rather than saying . . . "Here’s an example of how that would work" and then have them deal with it. . . . I tend not to give any examples overseas. (T2) I tend to see . . . the huge differences in culture from like Afiica to here, compared to the minor differences between Chicago and Minneapolis. . . . Those are different contexts also, but maybe not as different as first world/third world places. But I think that’s one thing that causes me to . . . give less direction. . . . "Here’s the principle and what do you think that looks like for you?". (T2) Statements like the following were pervasive throughout the posttrip data: James: I saw the other guys use more personal examples than I would have felt comfortable doing. And so I think that reinforced for me the need to not do that. (T2) 114 Phil: I assume that my illustrations won’t work, and I assume that the things I can do in my sleep when I talk, that those won’t necessarily communicate. (T2) Notice Shannon's dissonance in the following quotation. She knew she had content to teach that students needed, but she was uncomfortable with the thought that the students would take what she had to say too seriously. She said: Shannon: A couple times I shared things from our youth group, but I think that was a weakness. I noticed that’s when they took the most notes, and I don’t want them to try to do what we do. . . . Well, maybe what we do but not how we do it. (T2) Whereas subjects were passionate about avoiding the use of illustrations, many of their students had vastly different perspectives. This was the finding with the most notable discrepancy between the subjects' and the students' perceptions. Several students determined they needed to have more illustrations in order to better grasp what was being taught. The following samples were representative of more than one third of the evaluations received: - The one thing that would have helped me would have been to hear some more practical examples of how he did this in his church. (S1) - [One thing I would do differently if I were training this] would be to give more ideas about how to do this. It was somewhat theoretical. I think we understand what is being said, but it would help to see what this looks like. (82) - It seemed like he [the trainer] didn’t talk much about how he has done this in his church. I would like to hear what he’s doing to apply this, but . . . I liked his humor. (S1) - My only critique is that lots of us felt like we needed to hear more examples of how this happens in a church now. (S2) 0 The training was more theoretical than practical. I think that’s a weakness. (82) 115 Two student evaluations did concur with the subj ects' assumption that illustrations from one's personal context are not necessarily helpful. The two students who responded this way said: i - Quite a bit of the material is pretty American, but it’s still good stuff. (S2) 0 I wish the trainer could have more familiarity of examples from our culture. I don’t think it works the same here. (S2) These were the only two students out of the 637 who submitted evaluations, who made such statements. The fact that these statements were such anomalies from those made by most other students further demonstrates the discrepancy between students' and trainers' perspectives regarding the use of illustrations. Phil, who had trained cross-culturally four or five times before stated, "I assume that my illustrations won't work." However, in the following quotation, he did allow room for illustrations. Rather than throwing them out altogether, he described the selective use of illustrations from his cultural context. He talked about asking questions to discern which illustrations would be most appropriate. Phil: When I go overseas, I actually spend a lot of time thinking about what are the irreducible minimums here. And I think about, "What do I say that’s just culture?" and really look at my illustrations and generally throw most of them away. And that’s part of my series of questions when I hit the ground. What do you do in your church? How does your church operate? What do youth do here? What are your expectations? Because I need to find the illustrations that will work once I hit the ground in that country. (T2) As I began to see the prevalence of the assumption by trainers that they should avoid using illustrations, particularly after observing the different perspective students provided, I probed further with subjects in the other sample. I asked them, "When you teach stateside, are you finding more and more that you have students from a diverse set of cultures?" They all agreed that they did. I continued, "As this trend continues, would you maintain that we should increasingly eliminate the use of illustrations in our teaching 116 stateside as well? If illustrations should be avoided when teaching cross-culturally, should that same caution be exercised when teaching at home?" Although some thought we should certainly lessen the degree to which we use illustrations even stateside, every subject contended that some illustrations should still be used when teaching at home. Here were the kinds of responses subjects gave to these queries: James: I think in Orange County, I . . . use . . . more examples of what our group did. Specific, practical things to give people ideas that would fit. For instance, T- shirts, or names. . . . But I didn’t want to do that [overseas]. (T2) Ken: I . . . use more humor and examples [at home]. I feel freer to do that anyway. (T2) Shannon: When I’m teaching at home, I’m much more prone to give tangible examples. That’s important, and I’ll even use video clips, role plays, case studies and things like that. (T2) Because of the recurring nature of this assumption, I pursued the subject further with even more leading probes. Interchanges like the following one between Mike and me reflect the kinds of conversations I had with most of the subjects: Me: With the growing element of multicultural diversity in our stateside classrooms, doesn't it make sense then that we should eliminate most, if not all of our illustrations and examples, even when teaching here? Mike: I’d still be able to use examples that are culturally relevant here from my own youth group, even with the subcultures we have here. It's not the same as teaching there. Here [the examples] really support the teaching of the principles. Me: But don't you think using examples, even with their cultural baggage, would ‘ also have helped students in Brazil or Ecuador better understand the principles too?" Mike: I guess there are some things that are easily transferable [there], but some just aren’t. [Some of the] . . . materials needed just aren’t available there. . . . In answer to your question, I think it would hinder more than help to use the examples there. You have to give them concepts and let them run with them and come up with solutions and practical applications for their own ministries. 117 Me: But Mike, how do you respond when I tell you that several of the students in the training there indicated that it would have helped them to have heard more personal examples from the trainers?" Mike: I'm not surprised they said that. But you see, that comes from the way they have been educated. They aren't used to thinking for themselves. They've been spoon-fed all the way through their educational process, so it's a real stretch for them to do what we were asking them to do. But I still think our approach was more effective. (T2) The data indicated that most of Mike's fellow trainers in either sample would support him wholeheartedly. They agreed that trainers should avoid importing personal stories when teaching biblical content cross-culturally. The subjects were united in presuming that, "Principles are paramount." In particular, the assumption was that principles, as extrapolated from Scripture, are free from cultural bias; therefore, principles are what should be emphasized in the training. The transferability of principles from Scripture is also an assumption perpetuated by Teamworks as a whole. The comrrritrnent to theoretical principles as evidenced in the engagement findings was different from the assumptions revealed in the anticipatory findings. Beforehand, subjects talked about the importance of practical, applied training that would help the national church leaders going through training. Although the subjects focused more on the hardware issues in their assessments of culture, and although they espoused training that was more applied than theoretical, their posttrip reflections contradicted their anticipatory assumptions. It seems that immersion, even short term, in a foreign culture quickly led the subjects to see, albeit subconsciously, that they knew very little about the context. They likely knew even less about how to go about ministering to youth in that context. As a result, the default response was to rely on what the subjects understood to be the "truth." 118 The not-so-subtle assumption goes something like this: "If we teach Scripture, we have not imported our cultural bias. They need our understanding of Scripture in order to be effective." One need not read between the lines to find this assumption. Note the following exemplars (italics added to emphasize the point being described): Dan: We came here to teach about the life of Christ and how he did ministry. And so cultural dijferences really don ’t matter. (T2) Shannon: I got really frustrated with [the missionary] today when he kept saying, “There are many different ways you can approach working with youth, but we wanted to expose you to one of the approaches that is working well around the world.” This is not just one of many good approaches. This is how Jesus did it. (J) Ken: My big question is, "What does youth ministry look like here?" . . . Then I come back to T eamworks and the [philosophy] is Christ ’5 [philosophy] and that ’s cross-cultural. (J) Rhonda: I wouldn’t want to be teaching anything else overseas, but it’s so cool when it comes to Teamworks kinds of stuff. . . . The principles we teach are totally transferable for anywhere in the world. Any church, any ministry. It works. It’s biblical. (J) Ron: I was kind of amazed . . . how much we still have Americanized stuff in our manuals. . . . We really have to get back to the [Gospels]. . . . The issues are so much the same because we have the same root to deal with. . . . That’s what’s so beautiful. . . . Because that same plan that Jesus used 2, 000 years ago is the same plan we can use today. (T2) There are many other examples of subjects' belief in the cultural transferability of biblical principles. While exploring the nature of this assumption in the process of data analysis, I stopped to write in my journal: Everyone is so sure that our stories and illustrations are our biggest problems in teaching cross-culturally, and they say we need to just stick with principles. I wonder if just the reverse isn't true. I'm in agreement that we must beware of assuming our stories are transferable and we must avoid getting learners to emulate the events or ideas that we use to illustrate concepts. However, if people learn best narratively--now that's an assumption I'm making, but if I can go with it for a minute--we must tell the Story of God in a narrative way and, at the same 119 time, share the stories of how that intersects with our lives. Why are we so convinced that principles are culturally neutral? (D. Livermore, personal journal, February 26, 2001) It is not a denial of the Bible's validity to acknowledge it as a book written in cultural and historical contexts. The Bible is written as the Story of God, not as a book of principles meant to be nrindlessly applied whatever the situation or context. As the subjects reflected on the uncertainties and complexities of teaching cross-culturally, they demonstrated an uncharacteristic inclination toward the theoretical realm above the applied realm. It seems that as things became uncomfortable for them, their tendency was to rely on what was deemed certain, the truth. "Interaction Is As Important as Content." In the anticipatory findings, subjects were convinced they had something to offer the students. In the engagement findings subjects widely shared the assumption that interaction among students was as important as the content itself. These are conflicting assumptions. Subjects talked about what they had to offer students-«giving them the right way to do ministry and making sure they understood the material so the youth workers being trained could be more effective in their ministries. That reflects a foundationalist approach to teaching. Precluding that interaction is at least as important as content however, reflects a constructivist approach to teaching, wherein truth is socially constructed by the learners. This contradiction continued to surface throughout a number of the assumptions. The discussion about interaction was one of the richest sections of data. Almost every subject made a reference similar to the ones below in talking about the value of interaction for the teaching and learning process. 120 Bill: What they really seemed to crave was the relationship aspect of the training, which was kind of a surprise to me . . . But they were saying, "This is what we want. . . . We want people to sit down with us and talk . . . not just talk at us". (T2) Rhonda: It was small, so we got a lot of interaction time. It was really fun. . . . We just really were able to talk through things, whereas if you had 15 or 30, then you can’t do that. . . . You can’t address everybody’s personal issues, but with seven people, you can answer every question. Someone said it was like a little family. (T2) Shannon: The people aren’t used to being able to interact as much as I’m letting them do this week. Sometimes I second guess myself, wondering if maybe I’m losing control of the direction of things, but I think it’s worth it. Even though we aren’t going to cover everything, they really appreciate the chance to talk about real life issues (J). Shannon's journal entry depicts the conflict between a banking concept of education and valuing and encouraging interaction. Her concern about whether she was losing control of where things needed to go was well-founded, given the foundationalist approach to education she had embraced elsewhere in her data. Subjects felt strongly about the importance of interaction. As a result, it was the basis of what many of them were inclined to say to others who would participate in these kinds of teaching experiences. When asked how they would advise others who would participate in teaching cross-culturally, more than half the subjects made statements like these: Shawn: Give plenty of opportunity for dialogue and interaction. That was one thing I perceived as a weakness of our training in Quito. The first half was predominantly lecture. Very little interaction. The second half was much more interaction based. And it seemed to go better. (T2) Mike: I’d encourage them not to be too wordy. Just to get the basics across and allow them to interact and then brainstorm and exchange ideas. . . . Say as much as you can in as few words as possible and really allow them to ask questions and interact. That was real helpful to them. (T2) 121 Several trainers had multiple streams of data that kept returning to the importance of interaction. The following data demonstrate some of the most critically reflective thinking done by Doug or by any of the subjects related to the teaching context. Interestingly, most of it came from his journal rather than in his interview. Doug: In the third world, there’s a certain amount of learning methodology . . . [that] is strictly repetition . . . rote. . . . The fact that I’ll just use an overhead and ask questions is foreign. (T2) I figure I’ve experienced India and few places can compare. [1] simply need to find out cultural norms and seek out some ways to frame my teaching. [The] answer [is] thematic teaching with increased interaction time. (J) Lecture is the norm for most the world so it’s always expected. Q and A needs to be fostered. . . . Silence is a great facilitator in any culture. Passion always ignites the heart. . . . Self evaluation, process time [is] essential for application-- especially with the overabundance of information. Experiential learning [is] well received. (J) Despite his vast experience, Bob had more questions than conclusions about how to approach teaching and specifically about the role of interaction in teaching. He said: Bob: [For] guys who live out in a tribal village who . . . go through our training . . . [I ask myself], "Is this . . . even anywhere close to where they are?" . . . It [causes] me to question, "Is this the right thing? What’s the best thing to do?" I don’t think I’ve come to any conclusions. I would say interaction is key. (T 2) They really seem very interactive. . . . The evaluations talked a lot about the small groups, which I thought, too, were very valuable. (T2) I was trying to determine . . . if it was something unique to the way their culture was willing to just . . . go at it and . . . argue . . . almost an attacking type thing. But then they could come out of that and move on and feel like [it] was really good. . . . That was really helpful. I’ve been still trying to process whether that was unique to that group . . . to how South African white culture interacts, or if it was unique to the way we did it. I don’t know. I don’t have a good answer to that. (T2) 122 Ron lacked the experience Doug and Bob had with training cross-culturally; however, he shared the assumption that interaction was key. Experience did little to predict a trainer's commitment to this assumption. Subjects unanimously worked from this assumption. Some of Ron's reflection about interaction included the following: Ron: Bob started off a little nervous but came through like a champ! Training is defrrritely not teaching. This is important especially in a cross-cultural context. Bob's intro was rough, but was made up for many times over through his interactivity. He was a model example in his interactivity, example sharing, and dialogue promotion. (J) The interactivity period both in the small group and large group discussion is critical. (J) My interactivity in my lecture time seems to be very key. This is the time they are most attentive, and it is notable that my communication is being understood. To understand their traditions and their problems in the church is helpful in guiding meaningful discussion. (J) They are very similar to people I train here. . . . Relationships are key there, so that’s important. (T2) Students agreed with the subjects about the value and importance of interaction to the teaching and learning context. Clearly, in a majority of the evaluations, students cited the chance to interact with other students as one of the most positive aspects of the training. Comments like the following were commonplace on the evaluations received from both samples: - He did a good job of letting us discuss the things being taught. In that way, this was much better than other experiences I’ve had with American instructors. (Sl) - The best part of the class was the chance to interact with others in ministry, facing similar issues. (S1) ~ This was much better than other training like this I’ve attended. [This time] it wasn’t just boring lecture. . . . We got to talk with him a lot about what it means. (31) 123 0 The trainers were excellent. They let us talk about what these things means for us. (32) 0 I was glad they let us give input and discuss the things we were learning. (82) Some students revealed a more classic, banking view of education when assessing interaction. It would be intriguing to explore comments like the following one with the people who made them: - Some people dominated the discussion, but that wasn’t [the trainer’s] fault. It was good to hear from different people, but I would have liked to have the teacher give us. . . the right answer at the end of discussion. (82) This student's comment contradicted the subjects' assumption that "interaction is as important as content." However, this student's response actually was more consistent with the subjects' foundationalist approaches to teaching than were the subj ects' own comments about interaction. The subjects consistently demonstrated a foundationalist or banking concept of education. Particularly the data exemplars included in the previous assumption, "We should teach Scripture," indicated there was content that must be transferred from the teacher to the student. The subjects worked from the assumption that they had transcultural material from the Bible to present to the students. If understanding transferable principles from the Bible as they pertain to youth ministry was the paramount goal of the training seminar, a pure foundationalist perspective would consider it contradictory to deem interaction as a more important value than the content itself. Understanding whether foundationalism and interactivity are mutually exclusive was an issue I was interested in exploring further. This is fiu'ther addressed in the final chapter. Trainers with a constructivist approach to education need not abandon the idea of having something to offer students, especially if it involves liberating and empowering students to further their learning processes. It is more difficult, however, to reconcile how 124 trainers from a foundationalist approach to education can maintain a high value on interaction. The discrepancy between subjects' tenets of faith vis-a-vis their espoused commitments to contextualization became increasingly evident. "Language Equals Communication." The assumption that communication and language are synonymous was strongly evident in the anticipatory findings, and this assumption continued to permeate the engagement findings. Subjects demonstrated little concern that two people speaking the same language could have come away with totally different understandings of what was said. Upon engagement, subjects maintained the assumption that speaking the language of the students would allow for effective communication. Statements like the following were commonplace among the subjects: Dan: I’d be more effective if I was a little more literate in Spanish. . . . If I spoke Spanish, I could see that they caught it and that I was speaking clearly in their language and I could see it on their faces. (T2) Mike: I don’t think I went in as prepared as I wanted to be. . . . I’d never presented in Portuguese. Even though I’ve been thinking of it in Portuguese and translating and doing that kind of thing, it was unfamiliar territory for me. I didn’t feel as smooth . . . as where I wanted to be. . . . Maybe even just talking it out in front of a mirror and trying to wrestle with some of the terminology [would have helped]. (T2) Shawn: My concern is, you don’t always have the luxury of understanding the language. So how do you assess what’s happening then? (T2) Because subjects' assumed that language and communication were one and the same, they had varying levels of discomfort with their inability to speak the language of the students they were teaching. About half the subjects made statements like these: 125 Shawn: I felt decidedly uncomfortable because I didn’t understand any Portuguese . . . so I felt incredibly uncomfortable in that context. I felt like I needed somebody who could translate even something so simple as “Can you point me to the bathroom?” (T2) Shannon: I’m so fi'ustrated by not being able to really talk with these people . . . I don’t know what to do at meals times or breaks. It’s so awkward. I can’t wait to teach to an English audience again. (J) Subjects indirectly contradicted this otherwise widely held assumption that language equals communication when they talked about some of their struggles in using an interpreter. Even though the words were being translated into the students' language, subjects sometimes questioned whether what they were trying to communicate was actually coming across. Several subjects made statements similar to the following: Doug: Teaching pastors through an interpreter. The challenge is . . . what are they really getting? (T2) Bob: The big thing I think we need to think through some more is helping [trainers] with translators. . . . That’s a whole different experience. . . . I’ve done it a number of times but I still really struggle at first. . . . How do you communicate a philosophy through a translator? . . . You wonder what they . . . are ending up with. . . . Is it just a literal translation or words, or are they getting a dynamic equivalent or what? (T2) ‘ Ken: I was using that verse [from] when Jesus looked on the crowds who were harassed and helpless like sheep without a shepherd, and I was asking [the interpreter] how that verse was translated. . . . “Harassed and helpless” . . . were different words. . . . Then I was trying to decide . . . Will he interpret it the same as what the text said? The point I was trying to make was, "Do you know harassed students? Do you know helpless students?” Trying to use the same words. . . . I think [he] said he was translating the same as the Scripture. (T2) 1 was unable to discern whether the discomfort in using an interpreter was related to distrust in the interpreter to translate accurately or whether it was an acknowledgment that communication is more than words. The findings demonstrated that the subjects relied upon more than just verbal communication when they were assessing whether or 126 not learning was occurring among the students. Earlier in the chapter, when findings described the subjects' assumption, "I can tell the students are hungry for what I'm teaching," words were only one way they made that assessment. When subjects assessed the cultural contexts where they were teaching, they did so primarily through observations that came from things other than words. Overall, when asked about it overtly, trainers thought that being able to speak the language of the students would foster communication and understanding however the findings contradicted that assumption. "1 Understand American Culture." The anticipatory findings in Chapter Four began by describing the subjects' assumption, "1 can assess cultural contexts." The engagement findings in this chapter began with the subjects' assumption, "This culture consists of what I see." In similar regard, subjects also made assumptions about their own cultural contexts in the States. They talked about their home context and the dynamics therein with a high level of confidence. Subjects had some assumptions about the teaching and learning context in stateside classrooms. Some of the interaction I had with subjects related to teaching the students in their cross-cultural setting compared to teaching students in the States went like this: Bill: They seemed to really crave the relationship aspect of the training, which was kind of a surprise to me. Because here, people just want to fill in the blanks or whatever. . . . They looked at us as being able to help them which was great. . . . Whereas . . . sometimes my impression is here . . . even if you had a number of coaches, they [American students] might be a little defensive rather than willing to receive the coaching aspect. Me: What makes you think people here just want to fill in the blanks? 127 Bill: Well, you know what I mean. Maybe not fill in the blanks but just move through the material anyway and not spend time talking about it. (T2) My interaction with James was similar to my interaction with Bill: James: They didn't seem nearly as concerned about getting through all the content as [students] here would be. Me: What do you think contributed to the Latinos' not caring if they got through all the material? James: They're interested in relationships. We aren't. Me: Do you really think that's true? Do you really think students in the States aren't interested in relationships?" James: Well, of course they are. But they don't take the time to invest in them like people in Latin America do. (T2) I had a hard time getting Bill and James and other subjects to linger on thoughts like these long enough to engage in a deeper level of exploration and questioning. Subjects described other things about their contexts beyond the classroom context in the States. As they did so, the concrete drinking about hardware elements of culture continued to permeate subjects' reflections on things they noticed about American culture. A few of the examples included statements like these (my emphasis in italics): Ken: I noticed how stressed out people are here and. . . priority dijfirences. That really stood out to me. In my circumstances, it really stood out to me just how well financed our ministry really is even although I want more money. (T2) Shawn: Hearing English spoken as the dominant language, that struck me . . . And then getting back to good old American food . . . [a] hamburger. (T2) Mike: Our organization, our aflluence, our roads. The potholes in Brazil as compared to here. . . . Everything is just more organized and orderly and cleaner and just more prosperous. Not necessarily positive. (T2) 128 Although they were still predominantly hardware issues, Rhonda demonstrated reflective thinking about her context at home compared to the one she experienced in Afiica. One of the most noteworthy aspects of her statement was her acknowledgment that she inconsistently followed through with what she espoused to do. Ahnost anyone who has traveled in the developing world can relate to Rhonda's sentiments. Rhonda: I think . . . we live in a bubble here and take everything for granted. That was the one thing I really walked away with and I said I’d never go back to that. And of course, I immediately came home and bought my lattes. . . . I remember being one place near the Uganda border and they had no water. The whole city had no water. They were just in a drought and they actually paid a guy who had water to bring water for us. And you had like half a Kool Aid pitcher for a whole day and that was it. . . . [You had to use it to ] wash your face, brush your teeth, wash your clothes, for everything. And I was like, I’m never taking water for granted again and I’m like, I’m not going to take long showers again. Of course, none of that lasted. (T2) The way subjects assessed their own contexts, both explicitly and implicitly, was similar to the ways they thought about the cultures where they were headed during the pretrip interviews. It was also similar to how they described those same cultures afterward. Overall, subjects' analyses were primarily concrete and simplistic. "As a Christian, There Are Prescribed Conclusions I Should Be Making as a Result of This Sojourn." One might expect that a group of Christian leaders like those in the sample, almost all of whom were employed full-time in the ministry, would be more inclined than the typical person to exercise critically reflective thinking. After all, the nature of spirituality is an abstraction that if personally owned, requires thorough critical reflection. In that regard, subjects' level of introspection was most evident when they reflected on the influence of their cross-cultural sojourns on their journeys with God. At the same time, almost any reflection about the personal transformation they experienced 129 as a result of cross-cultural teaching and travel was immediately relegated to commonplace spiritual themes in Christianity. For example, listen to almost any church youth group as they return from a mission trip, and they will talk about their desire to be more aware of materialism, to spend more time in prayer, to see what God is doing around the world, and the like. Subjects' reflections were reminiscent of these kinds of adolescent reflections. The assumption, albeit implicit and subconscious, but an operative assumption nonetheless was, "as a Christian, there are prescribed conclusions I should be making as a result of this sojourn." The frequency with which trainers from very different journeys in life described similar kinds of conclusions as a result of this trip supported this finding. The following represent some of the exemplars that demonstrate this assumption in their thinking. These kinds of responses were given to questions like, "Talk about how this experience has changed who you are as a person. How, if at all, will it influence the way you will go about your daily life? How will it change the way you will teach?" Rhonda: I notice . . . how much we have in our country versus what they don ’t have and how much it can be a plus or a minus. It can be a plus in the fact that we are so blessed. I mean, we have all this running water, power, and electricity and cars that go down the street with no problem, and freeways and highways, and telephone systems, and e-mails that go out. And the power doesn’t go out. . . . But that material possessions can be a hindrance because it can keep us fiom really focusing on God. . . . When I lived in Africa, the daylight was your day . . . and I remember, like, in the morning, it was so quiet and peaceful and the giraffe were out and I’d have beautiful long talks with God and out in the middle of nowhere, just me by myself with Him. . . . It really helped my relationship with Him. . . . But you know, then I get home and I’m like, "Oh man. I’ve got to go here. I have to get to work and have to drive there, drive here," and that’s what I think I miss the most. . . . It’s so calm and there’s no busyness. No one’s in a hurry. Church starts when you get there. (T2) Bill: The big challenge I’ve faced is seeing conditions of these people and the way they respond. . . . I’ve been encouraged actually, to see how they deal with so little and their strong faith. . . . That makes my needs in life and ministry seem so small 130 comparatively, or at least different. (T2) Ken: One of the biggest things I learned was the power of prayer. We really saw incredible answers to prayer. I actually [just] pulled up . . . my journal. . . . Other than my salvation . . . [my first trip overseas] was the most incredibly life-changing opportunity I ever had. . . . I listened a lot more. The trip taught me to listen. . . .I almost wondered, "Okay, God. This whole trip . . . is this the only way You could get me to listen? . . . ” And so that really struck me because there was a lot of listening time carved out as part of the trip. And it made me wonder what other things I missed. So God taught me a lot about leading from quiet . . . on that trip . . . . [A lot of those things] are still part of my life and part of the way I even start a week. (T1) Shannon: I never want to forget some of the things I’ve seen this last week. These people do so much with so little. I have it so good. Why can’t I be content with what I have? Maybe God wants us to get along with less. Maybe we should sell our home, our second car? How can we live more simply? That’s what’s on my mind. (J) Prayer, contentment, broadening one's horizons and similar themes were the recurring ones cited by subjects as the most profound transformations they experienced as a result of engaging in the cross-cultural sojourn. These were rich, life-changing conclusions, but I expected more from the subjects. I am not aware that these conclusions are prescribed explicitly in any way to Christian sojoumers. However, the frequency with which these conclusions appeared in the findings, coupled with the regular presence of these conclusions among other Christians travelers seems to suggest the latent prescription of these kinds of conclusions among evangelicals. Further, I was surprised not to hear more about the socioeconomic differences they observed and how that might translate into their own lifestyles. There was some discussion of that but relatively little compared to the other themes of prayer and intimacy with God. I expected more discussion by the subjects about heightened uncertainty about some of their convictions and beliefs about life and ministry. I anticipated hearing them describe an increased awareness of the role of culture in shaping how one thinks about life, knowledge, 131 teaching, ethics, ministry, and more. In similar fashion to their drinking throughout the study, Bob and Phil demonstrated a deeper level of reflection than did the other subjects. Bob and Phil's extensive experience traveling cross-culturally seems to have played a role in making them more reflective and interculturally competent. As they reflected more broadly on the influence of their cross-cultural travel throughout the years, they said: Bob: It really causes me to question a lot more. . . . I believe this and have believed this for years and years. Is that because that’s what the Bible teaches, or is that because that’s what I’ve been taught all these years? (T1) Phil: I suppose with experience, I’m more confident. . . . If anything, I’m certainly less impressed with me. I mean, the more you travel, the more you see the work of God in the world, the more small you are. You see how you really fit in the scheme of things, and I don’t feel that I, I felt in the early days I had more to offer. The more I do it, the less I have to offer. . . . I feel more personally insignificant, but I also feel that there’s a calling. There’s a purpose. (T1) The subjects engaged most in critical reflection when they were talking about their changing relationship to God. It is to be expected that an individual who truly embraces a faith as a way of life allows it to penetrate all thinking patterns. The noteworthy discovery from these data is that the thinking about the transformations caused by the cross-cultural sojourn appeared commonplace with what nearly every other subject described. Most of the reflection undergone by the subjects studied was limited to what seemed to be predetermined categories of transformation. Summary The findings in these chapters represent themes that surfaced after many readings of transcribed interviews, multiple hearings of the interview recordings, and many readings of the journals and evaluations. The data produced other findings as well, such as the view of the subj ects' families toward the cross-cultural experience, the nature of the 132 relationships developed among the team members, theological considerations, and discussion about eating "foreign" foods. Although these other findings provided additional perspective on the individual subjects and their experiences, I did not include them in the analysis because they did not contribute in a significant way to answering the research question under study. The experiences of these trainers suggest that anticipatory socialization is a theory that should be further explored to better develop trainers’ intercultural competency. The assumptions that emerged throughout the engagement findings were largely consistent with those in the anticipatory findings. Some discrepancies were evident and are further addressed in Chapter Six. 133 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Extrapolating conclusions from the findings generated in a study like this is no simple process. There are any number of ways one could reflect on the implications of this study. In some regards, I find myself with more questions about how one can most effectively prepare to teach cross-culturally than when I began. The findings did not significantly challenge the conclusions from previous research on cross-cultural understanding. The literature indicated that effective cross-cultural engagement was related to the variables of communication skills, social networks, self- concept, a global mindset, previous cross-cultural travel, and intercultural training. Although these were not all predominant variables in the findings, they surfaced at least indirectly throughout all the data. The key lies in seeing the iterative relationships among all of these variables. For example, one may have great communication skills when teaching and relating stateside; however, without the appropriate social networks with students in a foreign context, the communication skills, even if still strong there, will likely play little role. Extensive intercultural training and much experience traveling cross- culturally typically strengthen one’s engagement in teaching cross-culturally. At the same time, an inflated self-concept may actually make previous training and travel a hindrance to successful engagement. Examples of this are discussed later in this chapter. As well as reifying the above-discussed themes discovered in previous research on cross-cultural understanding, the data collected in this study also reinforced the symbiotic relationship between learning and culture. Subjects described variances in the ways students learned in the cross-cultural contexts in contrast with how the subjects perceived that students from stateside culture learn. Assessing effectiveness in accommodating 134 diverse cultural learning styles, however, was not a primary concern in this study. The implications for that area of research are indirect, at best. The primary focus instead, was on studying the cross-cultural teaching experiences of educators to understand the assumptions underlying their behavior. Anticipatory socialization was the conceptual framework on which the study was based. The conclusions and implications of the study are organized in this chapter as follows: First, I re-visit the viability of anticipatory socialization as a theory for preparing cross- cultural educators. Second, using the themes that emerged from the findings, I suggest five key determinants for interculturally competent teaching and learning. In discussing those determinants, I suggest some practical implications for organizations like Teamworks. Anticipatory Socialization--Viable or Not? Anticipatory socialization is the influence of one's preparation for a new cultural encounter on how the individual engages therein (Merton, 1968). Did this study indicate that anticipatory socialization serves as a viable framework for examining the nature of educators' cross-cultural teaching experiences? The findings clearly indicated that the ways educators anticipated cross-cultural teaching contexts revealed something about how they would engage in those contexts. For example, there was a clear correlation between how subjects saw their roles with the students they would be teaching and how they reflected on those experiences thereafter. In addition, subjects who voiced apprehension about being ill-prepared before the sojourn continued to talk about the lack of preparation throughout and after the engagement. When concerns were mentioned during pretrip interviews about the potential language barriers, those concerns followed subjects through the training. 135 On the other hand, Merton's (1968) theory of anticipatory socialization is based upon the premise that an individual is aspiring to belong to a particular group and in so doing, adopts the values of that group. The subjects did not demonstrate a strong desire to belong to the cross-cultural context where they would teach which changed the nature of what anticipatory socialization was supposed to describe. Admittedly, they were only there for two weeks and had no intention of acculturating long-term in the contexts where they were teaching. Subj ects' anticipations related more to playing the role of a teacher and authority figure among peers from a different cultural context rather than to socializing as a peer among those in the culture where they were teaching. Further, the findings did not support that accurately anticipating a context necessarily causes more effective engagement. In some cases, subjects anticipated fairly accurately what they would be encountering in the classroom, although they typically did so at a surface level of analysis. Although their anticipations continued throughout engagement, there was no clear evidence that the subj ects' accurate assumptions led to more successful encounters. For example, almost all of the subjects who trained in Latin America expected most Latinos to be poor people with strong relational affinity. That is, in fact, what they experienced on engagement; however, that did not appear to significantly alter the ways trainers went about fostering learning among the Latino students. Another example is the way subjects accurately anticipated the ongoing political unrest in South Africa, the influence of Western culture there, and some similarity in ministry structures to what is found in stateside evangelical churches. Those accurate anticipations, however, did not make the subjects more effective. In many cases, the accurate anticipations seemed to foster more confidence than what was helpful for effective engagement. The anticipations were accurate but were a limited view of the 136 context. A better appreciation by the subjects of their limited perspective and understanding would have made them more effective as learners and as facilitators of learning. Therefore, although the findings indicated that the ways subjects anticipated their soj oums affected the ways they engaged in them, there was no indication that eflective engagement resulted simply from accurate anticipations. Anticipatory socialization was most helpful as a theoretical framework in terms of revealing assumptions held by the trainers participating in cross-cultural teaching experiences. In so doing, the methodology which was developed provided the chance to compare the assumptions of the subjects before, during, and after their cross-cultural teaching endeavors. Further research exploring the nature of these kinds of experiences, however, would be better served by a theoretical framework rooted in perspective transformation developed by theorists such as Daloz (1986), Mezirow (1991), and Pratt (1992). Key Determinants of Intercultural Competency in Teaching and Learning I expected this study to significantly aid in developing training programs for educators who teach cross-culturally. How can educators who experience multicultural classrooms, even here in the States, be better prepared to deal with the cultural variances among students? More specifically, how can Teamworks trainers and others like them be adequately prepared to effectively negotiate teaching and learning contexts in different cultures? How can an educator from a foundationalist frame of reference effectively negotiate the challenges of contextualization? That was the range of questions I intended to address in this study with a pre departure training program as a result. There are some obvious implications for the kinds of training programs that can be developed for these 137 kinds of situations. However, the study indicated that the issues involved in intercultural education are much more deeply rooted and complex than what can be altered and addressed solely through pre departure training. The issues are even more complicated when dealing with trainers and material from a foundationalist perspective. Effectively fostering learning among students from a different culture requires a broad range of competency. The literature reviewed in Chapter Two describes five key areas which influence the way one engages cross-culturally: Communication/language, social networks, self-concept, global mindset, and intercultural training. The findings of this study further reinforced the importance of these areas to developing cross-cultural understanding. There are additional determinants influencing the effectiveness of how an educator acculturates. Although these additional variables may also relate to other cross- cultural sojourners, these emerged as the most important variables specifically related to interculturally competent teaching and learning. The findings revealed that the key factors to consider for cross-cultural education include the values of the educational organization, the frames of reference embedded in the teaching material and the teacher, the selection of those who will train cross-culturally, the preparation of the trainers selected, and the duration of the cross-cultural teaching sojourn. The discussion of each of these determinants begins by connecting it to the findings and then suggests some ways to effectively manipulate the variable for more effective training cross-culturally. Like the variables in the literature on cross-cultural understanding, the determinants for interculturally competent teaching and learning are symbiotically related to one another. They feed each other and are dependent upon one another. 138 Organizational Values Some of the new-world-order agendas evident in the subjects for this study were at least in part, the responsibility of Teamworks. Some of the ways Teamworks and its leadership, including me, were responsible for the findings of this study include both the way the trainers were recruited for the cross-cultural contexts and the very nature of Teamworks' training materials. Trainers were recruited for the cross-cultural training trips based on what was advertised as the cry of churches around the world for help in reaching their youth. I did plenty to promote this need myself. In the midst of conducting the analysis for this study I wrote the following as part of a promotional piece sent out by Teamworks: Consider this... - Rev. Wu of Wuhan, China pastors 14 congregations and his only training comes from his two ministry books, both of which he’s read many, many times. - Pastor Immanual shepherds over 20 churches throughout the poorest country in the world--Sierra Leone. His only training consists of a six week course he attended several years ago. - Evangelist Rakesh in Northern India is a 20 year old who is planting churches in 15 different villages. He only came to Christ a year ago but does the best he can to teach people the Word. 85 percent of churches around the globe are led by pastors who have never received any training. . . . [Teamworks has] gifted, trained people ready to equip their peers. (D. Livermore, personal communication, April 2001) The information I wrote is accurate. However, it clearly emphasizes the American's role in helping international church leaders, and it sounds like the very condescension evident in the study's findings. It is not that Americans have nothing to offer or give others. Operating primarily from this kind of mindset, however, quickly leads to dehumanizing our international colleagues rather than empowering them. I am reminded how quickly we 139 can slip into subtle participation in new brands of colonialism, simply dressing the "Emperor in new clothes". Although Teamworks espouses a commitment to empowering learners through a facilitative approach to learning, the very nature of the training content can easily incline trainers toward a banking concept of education. Teamworks uses the life and ministry of Christ as the exemplar for how to go about leading a church today. At the core of Teamworks is a strong commitment to understanding Christ's historical and cultural context rather than mindlessly presuming that everything he did should be replicated by church leaders today. However, trainers often present it far more prescriptively than what Teamwork's primary leadership intends. Many of the subjects in this study appeared to view the Bible as the "Word of God, pure and simple, rather than the Word of God as mediated through the life experiences and cultural settings of the biblical authors" (Noll, 1994, p. 133). The revisionistic lens through which an individual reads and interprets the Bible was also unrecognized by most of the subjects. When Scripture is used as a model for leadership and rrrinistry with the absence of praxis, ascertaining exactly what the Scriptures say and in turn prescribing that to others around the world is frightening. This is not unlike what Augustine (1982) criticized so many years ago: "To defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, [some Christians] will call on Holy Scripture . . . [to] support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which theymake assertion" (pp. 42-43). Teamworks must develop new means to empower their more than 1,000 trainers around the world to learn from one another as they study Scripture. The multicultural diversity among Teamworks training team members globally affords the organization a unique resource to study issues and Scripture using widely diverse cultural perspectives. 140 The organization and its trainers will have to proactively fight against reducing the tensions these discussions will raise to the "right" interpretation. In addition, new training resources are needed. Teamworks has developed some strong discovery-oriented materials wherein learners work with others to construct their understanding of Christ's approach to ministry and the implications thereof. These pieces need to be further refined and made more central to the training initiatives used internationally. New resources like these need to be developed using multicultural teams from around the world. A unique niche exists for Teamworks within the evangelical scene internationally. A true commitment and plan to work interdependently across the globe to develop strategies and training will make Teamworks a unique and more Christlike organization. Teamworks trains and works only when and where invited by local leadership. That policy positions the organization to operate beyond new-world-order agendas. Of course, the true test is what happens on arrival in the cross-cultural context. The response to many of the invitations from around the world has been to send an expatriate in for a number of years to teach and develop strategy alongside a team of nationals. Other times the decision has been to send in training teams itinerantly, for 10 days to two weeks, once or twice a year. This was the model studied in the research for this dissertation. Although the intention in all the initiatives is to truly engage in partnership and to insist on indigenous leadership to lead the way, new-world-order issues are often subversively and subconsciously at work. Teamworks is in the midst of developing a partnership with churches in Sierra Leone. We have attempted to respond to our subtle new-world-order agendas in the way we have entered this partnership. In recruiting trainers to participate in this training trip, we have described it as a mutual-training event. The first three days will consist of 141 training done by the Sierra Leonean church leaders to the Teamworks trainers. They will address the unique issues of leading a Christian church in Sierra Leone. I am eager to see how this unfolds. I am aware that we must protect ourselves from simply going through the motions of having them train us first so that we "feel" like we have not colonialized them. The inequity of financial resources between our countries, churches, and personal savings further complicates the real application of moving beyond new-world-order approaches. The extreme poverty of Sierra Leone vis-a-vis our wealth immediately develops complex issues of power. Although not a guaranteed revision of the Teamworks approach, this is the kind of direction in which Teamworks must move, in order to truly empower the international partners with whom the organization works. Teamworks must continue to be alert to the potential of perpetuating colonialistic approaches. Trainers must enter culturally-diverse contexts first as a learner. They must spend time to understand what local youth workers are already doing there. There is no need to toss aside any desire to help but the trainers should be aware that they may come home learning far more than the students they just taught. Teamworks must lead the way in forging a humanizing and empowering paradigm of cross-cultural education. Frames of Reference The practice of teaching is governed by one's frame of reference. A frame of reference is the way an individual understands what it means to learn, to teach, and to know. The subjects in the sample came from foundationalist frames of reference. Adhering to these perspectives appeared to inhibit subjects from demonstrating intercultural competency in their teaching. The shared frame of reference among the trainers was rooted in the premise that knowledge was something to be transferred from the teacher to the student. Learning was 142 viewed as cumulative and linear, and the content existed independent of the teacher and student dynamics (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Subj ects adhered to this theoretical framework both implicitly and explicitly. At the same time, subjects argued for the importance of interaction, to the extent that many argued that interaction was at least as important as the content itself. In that way, subjects were sounding more like social constructivists than foundationalists. Subjects espoused the importance of contextualization during pretrip interviews. As they reflected upon their experiences, they continued to talk about the importance of not importing cultural biases. The question is whether contextualization merely became a means to an end. Subjects seemed to be most concerned about contextualization, interaction, or other constructivist themes as a way to transfer the information to the students. The implicit message was that interaction would be used to help students "get it", "it" being the objective content possessed in the mind of the trainer. In the midst of dissonance and uncertainty, subjects resorted to reliance on the "tru " as the compass for what to do. This then led them to colonialistic tendencies wherein the trainers assumed they knew what was best for the youth workers they were teaching. I am confident any of the subjects in the sample would argue vehemently against perpetuating the ills of colonialism. Their assumptions, however, revealed a discrepancy between their espoused ideals and how they actually described their cross-cultural training efforts. As a result, the subjects, consciously or subconsciously, ended up participating in new-world-order agendas. The question is whether a foundationalist can teach cross-culturally without being the "Emperor". At the core of evangelicalism is the commitment to see people from every people group embrace Christ and all He represents. Participating in the proselytizing efforts of evangelicalism would seem to be a clear contradiction with globalization-from- 143 below approaches to education. Yet even constructivist frames of reference hold to some essentials. It is extreme reductionism, simply to regard any aspect of foundationalism and hence evangelization as imperialism. Constructivists claim to have equal respect for all cultures until they come up against religious castes and sexism, clitorectomies, and deliberate persecution. They argue that those kinds of extreme issues mandate the primacy of certain universal principles. Many constructivists join crusades to liberate oppressed peoples given these universal principles of morality. But whose principles? Who determines that flying planes into skyscrapers is an inappropriate way to respond to capitalistic oppression? Who decides that capitalistic oppression is wrong? The relativism of a pure constructivist frame of reference is wrought with tensions and contradictions as well. The most important theoretical finding from this study for me personally was the development of a framework called constructive foundationalism. Constructive foundationalism is the kind of perspective that embraces the tensions innate to negotiating cultural ways of knowing rather than fleeing those tensions. Simplistic categories which pit one perspective as entirely antithetical to another are not helpful in fostering learning cross-culturally. Everyone involved in the educational context is helped when educators explore the tensions that emerge from their epistemological perspectives and frames of reference. Challenging the new-world-order assumptions implicit to foundationalist frames of reference is much more complicated than just addressing these issues in pre departure training. It requires an entire paradigm shift in the way cross-cultural educators think about themselves, their faith systems, and their relationships with other members of their faith in other cultures. All of these determinants need to be used collaboratively to truly 144 cause the perspective transformation needed. Teaching competently in cross-cultural contexts and doing so in a liberatory manner is symbiotically related to all these key determinants--organizational values, frames of reference, selection of trainers, preparation of trainers, and duration of the sojourn. As educators develop abilities to assess their own cultural frames of reference, they will begin to identify the tensions therein. Foundationalists like the subjects in this study need to explore the discrepancies between their espoused desire to follow Christ's example and the abuse of their privileged positions. Interculturally competent teaching and learning is dynamically related to one's frame of reference. Constructive foundationalism is the kind of flame of reference which moves organizations and its trainers closer to fostering learning cross-culturally in a competent manner. Selection of Trainers The study clearly revealed that although pre departure training is valuable and important, far more important is the selection process of those who participate in cross- cultural teaching assignments. Latent throughout the anticipatory and engagement findings was the role of self. Previous cross-cultural experience, the ability to interact and relate with people, communicative competencies, and other variables like these are themes that recur throughout the literature on cross-cultural understanding. This study indicated, however, that although, it is more subtle, the most powerful force shaping the way educators engage cross-culturally is the self. When selecting trainers to teach cross- culturally, although subjective, a trainer's sense of self is the most important dimension to consider. 145 In the psychological literature, the term "self" is defined in two distinct ways. First is the self-as-object definition, which consists of an individual’s attitudes, feelings, and perceptions of self as an object. The self-as-object definition means that if one could transcend self and evaluate what is observed, this is what the individual would say (Hamachek, 1971, p. 8). When a person responds to self as an object, there is a tendency to establish boundaries and make judgments quickly, such that these people are encapsulated by themselves. Individuals encapsulated by themselves are unable to construct a unified identity. They are unprepared to negotiate the shifts between cultures, and they have limited ability to assess cultural frames of reference (Bennett, 1993). Encapsulation was evident among most of the subjects in the study. In their pretrip interviews, the trainers ascribed value to practical, applied approaches to teaching and learning but resorted to primarily theoretical approaches when they engaged in cross- cultural teaching contexts. Further, the inability to reflect upon their cross-cultural experiences in abstract and creative ways indicated the subjects were encapsulated by themselves. In contrast, a self-as-process definition, or constructive marginality as Bennett (1993) called it, is the process of becoming fully conscious of self-differentiation. It leads one to assume personal responsibility for choosing and constructing value sets. “It is not so much a case of becoming individualistic as it is of becoming self-reflective” (Bennett, 1993, p. 118). A self—as-process orientation is the very trait needed to explore the tensions within one's frame of reference. The self, in coalescing perception, produces a "picture that has an order predetermined, significantly, by emotional emphases" (Kreiger, 1991, p. 47). From this perspective, “self’ includes an active group of processes, such as thinking, remembering, and perceiving (Hamachek, 1971, p. 8). 146 As already indicated, the subjects in this study demonstrated the encapsulated approach to self, wherein limited critical thinking occurred that led to faulty assessments. When a more constructive sense of self emerged in a subject, it superseded other variables cited in the literature as predeterrnining intercultural competency. For example, both Phil and Doug had extensive experience traveling and training cross-culturally yet Phil demonstrated a sense of self that yielded a more significant level of critical self-reflection. In contrast, Ron and Ken both had limited experience traveling and training cross- culturally yet Ken engaged in a more abstract level of critical self-reflection than Ron did. Phil's extensive experience, coupled with viewing himself as process, made him much more effective as a cross-cultural educator. That effectiveness was evident by things like Phil's ongoing critical reflection, the learning apparent by the students who evaluated him, and by his overall willingness to question his assrunptions. However, there was potential for Ken (no experience but viewed self as process) to engage more effectively than Doug (lots of experience but viewed self as object) because of how they viewed themselves. Furthermore, the majority of subjects made assessments about student perceptions that were not in line with the input provided by the students themselves. For example, most subjects shared the opinion that principles should be taught but that illustrations should be avoided. Students expressed the opposite view. It is noteworthy that most informants’ identities appeared to be rooted in their careers as youth ministers, not as educators. That was to be expected. However, it does raise the question, how much did identifying more as ministers than as educators influence the way the subjects thought through their experiences? Considering the teaching and learning issues involved in the cross-cultural experience seemed to be much less a part of subjects’ thinking than did analyzing what youth ministry was like in the respective contexts. One’s identity--ethnic, vocational, and otherwise--is at the core of intercultural 147 training (Bennett, 1993). The danger of building a framework of intercultural competency for cross-cultural educators based on the self-as-object definition is the potential for fostering self- absorption. Educators could be inclined toward being preoccupied with using another culture and the learners there first and foremost as a way to actualize one’s self. On the other hand, a more constructivist perspective that views self as process has the potential of both gaining increased insight into one’s self and more carefillly considering rt constructions of reality. As educators view themselves within the larger social body, there is increased potential for creating a more democratic sense of higher learning for everyone . 5 involved in the teaching and learning context (Rhoads, 1997). [L The primary challenge for educators teaching cross-culturally lies in "learning how to think critically about contradictory perspectives their cultural knowledge and experience have provided. If they are indeed encapsulated by the whirlwind of equally valid (to them) cultural frames of reference, they need to develop standards for assessing those frames" (Bennett, 1993, p. 125). In subtle but profound ways, the subjects' “self” influenced how they went about preparing for their cross-cultural teaching experiences and that directly correlated to how they anticipated them. This was true for all the subjects. The role of self could be traced through the way each subject engaged in the cross-cultural teaching experience. Helping cross-cultural trainers develop a constructivist perspective of self is the starting point of dealing with the subtle arrogance that permeates so many of the findings. Viewing self as process provides the means by which to understand one's experiences and the experiences of others in new ways. It allows for a deeper level of critical reflection and abstraction. I was challenged to consider my own sense of self as I worked on this study. Analyzing my findings while continuing to participate personally in training cross- 148 culturally had a profound influence on my own reflections about my teaching, my level of preparation, and what it was I needed to do differently. While doing my data analysis, I was teaching another course in India. I wrote in my journal: I love this! I hate this! I feel more cultural distance when I'm in India than anywhere else. Today I was right in the middle of making a point, and while Rakesh was interpreting for me, my mind wandered off to thinking, "Is what I'm saying making any sense whatsoever? I'm so unprepared and ill-equipped to be fostering learning among these people. The entire course is unfolding in a way much differently than I anticipated, and it's fostering all kinds of internal j dissonance for me. I'm not sure where to go from here. Where should we even F head tomorrow?" Meanwhile, Rakesh was waiting for me to continue my point. Lest I be too critical of the subjects in my study, I have a lot of work cut out for me in better developing my own competency at fostering learning cross-culturally. (D. Livermore, personal journal, March 5, 2001) At times I found myself troubled by my sometimes harsh and judgmental attitude in thinking about my subjects and their experiences. The subtle arrogance I found pervasive in many subjects' statements was easy for me to slip into as well. I think I subconsciously justified my judgmental spirit because I thought these fellow Americans and, for that matter, fellow evangelical church leaders should know better. It became increasingly clear to me, however, that narrow, nationalistic thinking that can yield new forms of colonialism and paternalism is a common human weakness. Foucault's (1969) analysis of the power relationships that accompany knowledge is relevant to this tension. Particularly when operating from a foundationalist perspective, one who has knowledge that others seemingly lack tends to use that knowledge as leverage. The subjects' knowledge of their training content inclined them to act superior to their students. My education and experience in cross-cultural education inclined me to act superior to my subjects who had less education or experience in this field. The commodity of knowledge must be held in check by educators everywhere. Keeping one's 149 self in check in this regard requires a self-as-process orientation. The self-as-process orientation needs to be the primary consideration for Teamworks and other educational organizations when selecting trainers for cross-cultural teaching assignments. Although an assessment can in no way happen objectively, organizations like Teamworks would be helped by developing an objective checklist from which to begin selecting participants for cross-cultural training. Based on the findings of this study, as well as those that recur in the literature on acculturation, the following represent the kinds of things that need to be assessed. Some questions have been listed under each section below as an indication of the issues needing to be explored. Trainers are needed who are: Relationally strong. Relational affinity will communicate and vice versa. Teamworks trainers and others like them have been part of some excellent international partnerships despite the nationalistic tendencies that have often been present. The relational affiliation is what has typically made the difference. How do trainers interact with people stateside? Do they easily read people and their needs? Do they ask questions well and remove attention from themselves? Can they laugh at themselves? Reflective in praxis. Does the trainer demonstrate a reflective stance when describing other cross-cultural experiences? Trainers who question their assumptions based on what they see in a foreign context can play a major role in how well they facilitate learning cross-culturally. Is there an unhealthy level of confidence? Is there a willingness to put in question the way they think and act? Is there a theoretical framework guiding their cross-cultural interactions? Are they lifelong learners? Cautious in using examples. The findings indicated trainers' shared conclusion that illustrations should be avoided when teaching cross-culturally. The students, however, struggled to implement purely theoretical teaching. Do trainers exhibit an ability to demonstrate theoretical concepts for application without presenting the illustration as 150 the "right" way to apply the concept? Can trainers move freely between the theoretical and applied realms? Secure in their contexts. Sometimes trainers seem to think deprecating American culture and all it represents is the best way to establish credibility cross- culturally. Realizing that American culture has many weaknesses is an asset; however trying to be something we are not is a liability. How do trainers perceive and describe stateside culture? What is their level of awareness of cultural dynamics? Security with one's own culture comes from a self-as-process orientation. Committed to partnership. Training is merely a means to an end, and the long- terrn value of blowing into a place one time, sharing some information, and moving on to the next stop is questionable. Long-term equipping partnerships built on relationships have the potential of truly empowering other leaders. What connection do trainers see between formal teaching and on-the-job learning? Are trainers willing to be part of a long- term partnership, either personally or as partners with others? Developing more reflective questions on the applications for participation in cross-cultural training trips is one way to begin exploring these kinds of issues, but the assessment needed requires far more than just reading a submitted application. Ideally, face to face interaction and on-site observation of the individual training and working in his or her local context will help produce the kind of information needed to answer the preceding questions. It might still be valuable to consider involving trainers in cross-cultural trips who demonstrate less competency in these qualities. However, those participants' primary role would be to use the trip as a way to better develop their own competency as cross- cultural trainers. Their role in formally facilitating learning for others should be limited, and the focus should be on their own preparation and learning about cross-cultural 151 learning and ministry. Teamworks and similar organizations have the potential of approaching cross-cultural education with an increased level of competency when carefully selecting the trainers who will represent the organization cross-culturally. Organizations like Teamworks might need to consider selecting a specific group of its trainers to represent the organization internationally. A trainer should be selected based upon his or her proclivity toward a self-as-process orientation. Upon selection, trainers should be given ongoing opportunities to construct a sense of self that leads to perspective transformation. In so doing, those trainers are more apt to reproduce a liberatory model of education as they teach cross-culturally. This leads to the next key determinant of interculturally competent teaching and learning, the preparation of selected trainers. Preparation offlainers Training is a variable already cited in the literature review as a key factor in fostering intercultural competence. Predeparture training has long been advocated as an important way to facilitate successful cross-cultural interactions. However, only 30 percent of United States managers who are sent on overseas assignments receive even cursory cross-cultural training before departure, and the percentage of participants in short-term assignments who receive cross-cultural training is far less (Goldstein & Smith, 1999). The learning process is embedded in culture. As a result, cross-cultural educators need not only training related to general cultural dynamics, but also need training that relates to the inherent nature of culture in the learning process. The findings revealed that subjects were not adequately prepared for the unique challenges of teaching familiar content in new and unfamiliar contexts. The sampled trainers espoused contextualization but ended up acting colonialistically. They valued 152 practical, applied teaching but resorted to theoretical, abstract teaching when they got in unfamiliar environments. Subjects' analyses of the cultures where they taught focused upon concrete, hardware issues of culture rather than the more subtle and possibly more important software issues. Although pre departure training cannot be expected to solve all these issues and the many others that occurred, it is an important tool for moving educators like those sampled toward greater intercultural competency. The training of cross-cultural trainers needs to be rooted in a transformational learning framework wherein organizations like Teamworks provide venues for trainers to structure meaning from their experiences. Predeparture training needs to be developed within a comprehensive lifelong learning plan for Teamworks trainers. Being certified once and for all to teach materials overseas is not the objective. Instead, ongoing experiences and venues for considering one's frame of reference and empowerment for ongoing perspective transformation is what is needed. Preparation of trainers which is developed within a transformational learning model sets the pace for the kind of teaching and learning that trainers should be part of on the field, in the States and abroad. A transformational approach to learning operates on the premise that educators and students are free and responsible human beings. There is an understanding that knowledge is a personal and social construction, and a belief in a democratic vision of society (Clark, 1993). At the crux of transformational learning is the art of praxis. The importance of critical self-reflection for cross-cultural trainers like the ones sampled became increasingly apparent as I continued my research. Midway through my data collection, I wrote the following in my journal: I'm more than disheartened. Trainers did not prepare for these experiences personally, educationally, etc. In trying to get them to reflect on what they anticipated or what they experienced, there is little substance to their responses. I'm not convinced that pre departure training will do much to alter this. I think the key lies in somehow fostering self-reflection-—getting them to really 153 wrestle with personal issues. When asked things like "How has your cross-cultural travel challenged your faith system?" I get responses like--"I was encouraged to pray more . . . I was humbled by my wealth." That's all nice and good but is there nothing deeper? When asked to reflect on the prescriptive nature of the training, it seems to go nowhere . . . How do I foster that kind of reflection? How do you get trainers to think about the software of the culture and not only the hardware? Everyone seems to cite the obvious differences and observations that come from a surface-level analysis. How can more in-depth analysis be stimulated? Does evangelicalism breed such superficial thinking? Is there a causal link between my sample being a bunch of youth pastors and their limited critical thinking or would I find similar kinds of responses from a different group of trainers? Is it more related to them being practitioners or to being evangelicals? Or neither? In fairness, these trainers aren't a whole lot unlike the corporate trainers I meet "on the road" who train internationally. They don't seem very reflective either. But I would hope for something more in church leaders. How do I foster this kind of critical self-reflection?? That’s going to be key in preparing people to acculturate as educators, whatever the context! How do we train trainers to train others to engage in it? Those are the things I need to unlock and in so doing, I must continue to engage in some serious, critical self reflection of my own, (D. Livermore, personal journal, November 9, 2000) In the second sample, I probed further with subjects to try for a deeper level of reflection. I even intentionally asked some leading questions. However, even with biased probes, subjects' analyses were still primarily concrete rather than abstract. The trainers evidenced practice without good theory. There were occasional rays of hope when one or two subjects expressed their many uncertainties or the presuppositions they were questioning. Even the subjects with a heightened level of critical self-reflection usually relegated discussion about personal transformation from going overseas to conclusions already predominant in the evangelical community. For example, they described increased prayer lives, reflection about materialism vis-a-vis the poverty of people in developing countries, the need to trust God more, and similar conclusions that permeate evangelical presuppositions. My concern was not with the nature of those reflections but that the 154 IF .- .v reflective thinking did not go further. With such limited praxis occurring, both the trainers and students were robbed of the experience of engaging more fully in higher learning. Schon’s (1987) model of praxis needs to be explored as a crucial element for preparing trainers to teach cross-culturally. Schon looked at how professionals think in the course of their everyday work. In his study of the way architects, psychotherapists, engineers, town planners, and managers operated on the job, he describes the process as reflection in action, a researcher in the practice context. Inherent in the way professionals work is not just problem solving but problem setting, an activity that clearly has a theoretical component. The goal lies in not just finding answers, but in formulating hypotheses. However, Schon argued that alongside reflection-in-action there is a place for ancillary, outside-of-practice learning that enhances a practitioner’s capacity to think in doing. Cross-cultural educators need to learn praxis, reflection both behind and within their actions. Fostering praxis among cross-cultural educators is valuable for everyone. It allows for a holistic approach to education that empowers people to perceive critically the ways they exist in their worlds. Praxis leads to seeing self as process, which potentially equips one to move beyond new-world-order agendas and into conscious choices like constructive foundationalism. Praxis allows individuals to see the world not as a static reality as so many of the subjects seemed to do, but rather as reality in transformational process. Cross-cultural educators must transcend themselves as people “who move forward and look ahead, for whom looking at the past must only be a means of understanding more clearly what and who they are so that they can more wisely build the future” (Freire, 1997, p. 65). The ability to theorize fosters functional self-awareness, perhaps the most humanizing educational tool of all. I cannot think for others, nor can others think for me. 155 Theory is often held in disdain by religious practitioners. However, “when our lived experience of theorizing is fundamentally linked to processes of self-recovery, of collective liberation, no gap exists between theory and practice” (hooks, 1994, p. 61). I wonder to what extent evangelical ministers have been dehumanized by having rarely been liberated enough to truly think for themselves. The evangelical subculture has lauded practice above theory for several decades (Noll, 1994). Challenging some of the rapacious elements of evangelicalism goes beyond the scope of this study; however, empowering educators for cross-cultural teaching experiences by helping them experience praxis does not. Helping trainers structure meaning around their experiences through the use of L praxis comes from empowering them with tools like journal writing. As human beings, we cannot stop thinking. Every moment is filled with all kinds of impressions. As we sort through the barrage of impressions that come our way daily, we order some into the background whereas others are brought into sharper focus. The practice of reflecting through writing on the impressions we receive is one of the most important ways to make meaning out of our many impressions. Journal writing can be one of the most effective means of facilitating praxis. Subjects in the study often demonstrated their deepest, most abstract reflections in their journals. The journal data, although much less in quantity, revealed much more reflective, abstract thinking than the interview data did. Unfortunately, the abstractions did not go far enough. The majority of the journal entries were descriptive, observations of what was occurring during the sojourn and throughout the training. Descriptive journal writing like that is not unimportant. It is the starting point for sorting through impressions and making meaning from them. It is not enough, however, to observe and record experiences alone. "Equally important is the ability to make meaning out of what is 156 expressed" (Clark, 1994, p. 355). Journal writing allows one to explore both the affective and the cognitive implications of self-discovery. It has the potential to provide insights that can be acquired only through introspective writing (Berman, 1994). As human beings, we have a deep need to represent our experiences through writing. "By articulating experience, we reclaim it for ourselves. . . . We write because we want to understand our lives" (Calkins, 1986, pp. 5-6). Admittedly, some types of learners are more prone to use journals than others. Fostering praxis through the art of journal writing comes much more naturally for assimilators than for accommodators. Assimilators are more inclined to think before acting and to analyze their practice (Kolb, 1981). Regardless, journal writing is a discipline worth careful consideration by every cross-cultural educator. One adult learner wrote, "There have been times in my life when only by writing could I find the rhythms that would contain the pain, sustain the necessary movement forward. There were other times that only by rereading my diaries could I believe that my shifting reality would continue to shifi and that present pain would yield as mysteriously as past pain had" (Berman, 1994). At the core of a transformational model of learning and developing the art of praxis is the continual questioning of assumptions. Perspective transformation is dependent upon evaluating previously held claims with new experiences and information. My family and I live in Singapore for four or five months each year. We stay in a beautiful condominium complete with five free-form swimming pools, a gym, playgrounds, and many other amenities. We live unlike the 75 percent of Singaporeans who have much more modest housing, subsidized by the government. During my family’s first sojourn in Singapore, my daughter Emily who was then three said, “Daddy! You know what I love 157 about Singapore?” “What?” I replied. She said, “Everyone in Singapore gets to go swimming every day!” After laughing I told her, “Even those who live in housing developments like ours are too busy to go swimming more than once a month. Besides, most Singaporeans do not live in places with swimming pools.” She was not convinced. She knew what she was experiencing and was certain every other child in the country had the same paradise like life she did right then. I began reflecting on how Emily's assumption was not unlike what many of the participants in my study did. They presumed that their experiences in a given culture could be generalized to what everyone in that culture experienced. Worse yet, some presumed that whatever they experienced cross-culturally was reflective of what happens anywhere cross-culturally outside the United States. For Emily and for educators like those in my study, a key to developing praxis lies in questioning assumptions. In the multiple readings of the data, I increasingly found myself questioning the assumptions being made by the subjects, which in turn led me to increased suspicion of the many assumptions I make as I teach cross-culturally. In looking at the assumptions analyzed in the anticipatory and engagement findings, I discovered that many of them are suspect when measured against the literature reviewed and compared with the student evaluations. However, the accuracy of subjects’ assumptions was not the primary concern here. Rather, getting trainers to identify some of the predominant assumptions underlying their preparation and practice when teaching cross-culturally was of concern. Whereas subjects may have espoused a few of the assumptions described in the findings, I expect they would not have consciously supported the majority of them. Cross-cultural educators must wrestle with the tensions between their espoused assumptions and the ones demonstrated in actual practice. 158 “‘.-_, I‘ Helping educators bring formerly "unquestioned assumptions and premises into critical awareness in order to understand how they have come to possess certain conceptual categories, rules, tactics, and criteria and then to judge their validity" (Mezirow, 1991, p. 203) enhances their ability to continue their own learning as well as the learning of others. Further, as educators learn to question their assumptions, they become better at asking questions of others as well. The art of asking questions that stimulate thought and discovery on the part of both learners and teachers, is essential to competently engaging in cross-cultural educational settings. Trainers going into foreign contexts for only two weeks have an increased challenge to even begin exposing the assumptions at work in their perceptions and practice. However, as they incorporate those short-term experiences within the larger scope of their lives, and specifically as they reflect on them in light of other teaching and learning experiences, the cross-cultural teaching assignment can provide a powerful means of exploring their assumptions. In point of fact, traveling cross-culturally, as described in the section that follows, is one of the key tools to aid in developing praxis and hence perspective transformation. Further, building trusted relationships with people from diverse cultures provides an ideal context in which to begin questioning one's self. As we participate in cross-cultural sojourns and develop relationships with people in other cultures, we need to pause when we come across something in a different culture that clashes with us. We must begin by asking ourselves how the situation is viewed through the eyes of the other person. This ability to pause before making a judgment is critical to the whole ability to effectively navigate through cross-cultural encounters. 159 F. .- r.“ Praxis has the potential to lead a cross-cultural educator into a stage where he or she can tolerate ambiguity, respect other perspectives, and define his or her own frame of references. Bennett (1993) wrote: Ultimately, [praxis] requires the person to make a commitment to a value system honed from many contexts and an identity actively affirmed and based solidly on self as choice maker. It requires an ability to empathize with others, balanced by skill at withdrawing from empathy, and flexibility of boundaries, balanced by skill at defining them. (p. 119) Preparing trainers through a transformational learning model can move organizations like Teamworks toward the kind of paradigm shift that is needed to redeem its educational practices cross-culturally. Further, it is the very tool needed to assist educators in exploring the tensions innate to their frames of reference and in developing a self-as-process orientation. Predeparture training offers little hope for the bringing about the kinds of changes needed without a broader plan for fostering perspective transformation in trainers. Within a comprehensive plan for empowering educators for intercultural competency, pre departure training should assist trainers in honing the art of praxis. Further, literature about the West and about Christianity that has been written by individuals from the culture where one is headed should be a reading requirement. Most importantly, individuals from other cultures who have received training from stateside educators should play a heightened role in developing and presenting the pre departure training. Predeparture training should not be developed without significant input from internationals. Most educators and the organizations they represent are interested in bringing about change. Teamworks and its trainers are no exception. Transformational learning is a paradigm of teaching and learning that seeks to produce change in all the involved parties. 160 Mezirow (1991) wrote: Through content and process reflection we can change our meaning schemes; through premise reflection we can transform our meaning perspectives. Transformative learning pertains to both the transformation of meaning schemes through content and process reflection and the transformation of meaning perspectives through premise reflection. (p. 117) The findings indicated a needed for change in the way Teamworks trainers and others like them approach cross-cultural teaching and learning. Predeparture training developed within a comprehensive plan for transformational learning among trainers is a key determinant for bringing about the kind of change Teamworks hopes to cause. Duration of Sojourn Being in a foreign culture itself can be a valuable tool in bringing about the perspective transformation that is needed for intercultural competence in teaching and learning. The cross-cultural experience can be the disorienting dilemma that Mezirow (1991) insisted was necessary for perspective transformation. Mezirow stated that perspective transformation does not happen until an individual encounters dissonance from an experience. The experience often includes an emotionally charged situation that fails to fit the person's expectations and consequently lacks meaning, or results in encountering an anomaly that cannot be given coherence either by learning with existing schemes or by learning new schemes (p. 94). Storti (1990) wrote: Once we encounter another frame of reference . . . we begin to see what we never could before. When we notice the unusual behavior of a foreigner, we are at that moment observing our own behavior as well. We only notice a difference (something unusual) in reference to a norm or standard (the usual) and that norm we refer to is invariably our own behavior. . . . It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the average expatriate, even the average tourist, returns from a stay abroad knowing more about his or her own country than about the one just visited. (p. 94) 161 (E. Of course, it is entirely possible, as demonstrated by many of the informants in this study, to be in a foreign context and not use it as a way of developing praxis. In Chapter Five, the findings revealed that subjects glossed over cultural differences during their brief encounters. Two week teaching assignments overseas cannot be expected to foster transformation and intercultural competency in and of themselves. These brief assignments can be used as a piece of fostering increased competency interculturally, but are unlikely to disorient an individual enough to stimulate perspective transformation. Anderson and Anderson's (2000) analysis bears repeating here: When we travel to a new country, we feel an almost irresistible impulse to smooth over the strangeness, the distinct particularity of the people we meet. We slip seamlessly into supposing that they are just like ourselves, and we almost forget to marvel at the differences. It’s not until we have dwelt in the new country long enough to be shocked, repeatedly, at the wrongness of our assumptions that we begin to notice the crucial things we have missed. (p. 41) Storti (1990) also asserts that sojoumers typically ignore differences and focus upon similarities. At six weeks in a cross-cultural setting, a foreigner often begins to face the first cycle of heightened awareness of cultural differences. After working through some of the dissonance caused by seeing differences, the foreigner usually moves into a new level of understanding and socializing into the new context. Three months into a cross-cultural sojourn is another marker when expatriates often experience cultural differences with a new level of intensity, and again at six months, and one year. The way one responds to the awareness of those differences significantly shapes how the individual acculturates and whether or not metamorphosis occurs (Black et al., 1991; Oberg, 1960; VanMaanen, 1976). More extended immersion in a diverse context is likely to play a much stronger role in fostering intercultural competency than a two week sojourn. However, abandoning the two week training model altogether is not the only alternative for organizations like 162 Teamworks. The two week teaching assignment can be used as a piece of a comprehensive plan for stimulating perspective transformation. Subjects in this study demonstrated the potential to use sojourns in this regard. When they were asked about how the sojourn under study or even previous sojourns caused them to think about their home contexts, subjects answered with case. It seemed natural for them to use the cross-cultural encounter as a way to stimulate thinking about their home environments. The problem came in the ongoing surface-level reflection that occurred, rather than in using the mirror of foreign culture to think more reflectively about personal assumptions, cultural frames of reference, and the like. Educators preparing to teach in cross-cultural contexts need to be empowered to use those contexts to foster praxis and hence perspective transformation. Immersion in subcultures, even within the States, allows for some aspect of this vantage point. Working within ethnic, religious, gender-based, or other subcultures provides some of the same mirroring opportunities as does traveling overseas. At the same time, a brief encounter in Chinatown or in the inner city is unlikely to bring about the critical self-reflection that can come from extended engagement in a foreign context. The nrirror of a different culture can enhance one's ability to see self as process rather than as object. As stated earlier, the self-as-object orientation focuses on the particular circumstances of our lives that account for how we are different from those around us. The self-as-process orientation understands the role of cultural conditioning and accounts for how we are the same as everyone around us. “Although we can come to know and change our individual selves [self as object] without leaving our own culture . . . we cannot know our own cultural selves [self as process] without the benefit of an equivalent vantage point” (Storti, 1990, p. 95). 163 With a great deal of intentionality, two week sojourns can be used as a piece of a comprehensive lifelong learning plan for perspective transformation. The transforrnative potential of a cross-cultural sojourn is further connected to the way it is debriefed. A fundamental change in one's frame of reference and value system is unlikely without a guided plan for debriefing an educator through the reflections seen in the nrirror of the foreign culture. Just as much and maybe more energy and resources need to be devoted to debriefing cross-cultural teaching experiences as the energy and resources devoted to pre departure training. The duration of a cross-cultural sojourn influences the degree to which it fosters perspective transformation. Even brief sojourns have the potential to aid in an ongoing consideration of one's flame of reference. In so doing, there is a greater chance of operating flom a more liberatory model of education cross-culturally. Cross-cultural education has the potential to more effectively foster transformational learning for teachers and students both when careful consideration is given to the values of the educational organizations involved, to the educator's flame of reference, to the process of selecting cross-cultural trainers, to the preparation of those trainers, and to the duration of the teaching sojourns. I expect the influence of this study on my work at Teamworks to be ongoing. The preceding implications address some of the most germane areas in which the organization and others like it must begin to respond to what was discovered through this study. I take seriously my own responsibility to do the same. 164 Conclusion As the international director at Teamworks, all the preceding implications relate to me personally. The implications run even deeper for me as an individual, however. Being a dissident voice in a movement with which I am so closely connected, evangelicalism, can be lonely at times. A study like this only makes me more passionate about my faith journey; however, it also gives me cause to consider abandoning the greater evangelical movement and its institutions. I am quickly reminded, though, that other groups who share my basic presuppositions have baggage of their own. Instead, I am inclined to remain part of evangelicalism and speak into its shortcomings as a peer rather than as an outsider. Further, I am increasingly aware that I am not a lone voice within evangelicalism. A growing number of thinkers are challenging some of the same kinds of issues as those raised by the findings flom this study. For example, Mark Noll (1994), an evangelical scholar, wrote, "To put it most simply, the evangelical ethos is activist, populist, pragmatic, and utilitarian. It allows for little space for broader or deeper intellectual effort because it is dominated by the urgencies of the moment" (p. 12). In similar fashion, Canadian N.K. Clifford (1973) wrote, "The Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed its crusading genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an oversimplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for critical analysis and serious reflection" (p. 323). l resonate in profound ways with Susan Wise Bauer's (2000) description of her experience as a Ph.D. student at Harvard: There is much about evangelical culture that I loathe . . . its unthinking boasting of truth, rationality, and the American market-way--and whenever I criticized some prominent voice of evangelicalism-Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, for example, my classmates became visibly more comfortable with my presence. My willingness to find fault made me respectable. But to reject the evangelical label 165 altogether. . . seemed like a betrayal. (p. 47) Interestingly, however, most of the influence flom scholars like those above seems to be restricted to the academic world of evangelicalism. These kinds of issues do not appear to have the ears of men and women leading evangelical churches. My research has given me an increased desire to challenge and empower church practitioners with regard to the kinds of issues raised by this study. Noll (1994) wrote: For evangelicalism as a whole, not new graduate schools, but an alteration of attitudes is the key to promoting a Christian life of the mind. . . . The superstructures--appropriate institutions, lively periodicals, adequate funding, academic respect, meaningful influence--are not insignificant. . . . But if evangelicals are ever to have a mind, they must begin with the heart (p. 249). The alteration-of-heart attitude is what I most long to see come about as a result of the suggested implications. Cross-cultural teaching and learning is complex and is not helped by simplifying it into packaged approaches. More research is needed on the assumptions of cross-cultural educators in general, and specifically the foundationalist assumptions held by trainers like the subjects in this study. Further research needs to be done on how best to foster perspective transformation in educators who participate in cross-cultural education. Constructive foundationalism needs to be tested as a flame of reference which yields a more liberatory model of education while still remaining true to some essentials of truth and morality. As my South Aflican fliend and I continued to wander through Picadilly Circus on that autumn night several months ago, I challenged him not to write off all Americans just yet. A few months later, he e-mailed me the following message: I am in recovery at the moment. I have just hosted for a week an American who works for Youth Leadership Association [pseudonym] . . . and it has been a disaster. He presented a . . . workshop. The essence of what he presented . . . was really good--but could have been much better presented by someone more culturally-sensitive. I have never met anyone more insensitive to a local culture-- 166 r" ___.._ l nor a more proud, pushy and condescending person in my whole life. We clashed over cultural issues flom the moment he arrived to the last minute that he left. I even told him that he is terminally-offensive in our culture. He would normally say that he is transcultural and that he is not American but biblical in terms of his values. . . . He never once asked to see anything that I had done--that just made me feel like nothing we have is worth anything. (M. Tittley, personal communication, August 5, 2000) I wonder what success stories this trainer flom the States told when he returned home. Did he use Mark's bold confrontation as a stimulus to reflect critically on his experience? Did he use it to construct a more social sense of self? Would he be bothered by his own new-world-order agendas if he saw them? Although not wanting to remove personal responsibility for exercising praxis, was this trainer intending to be so culturally “I- offensive or was he subconsciously acting out what he had been programmed to do by his national and religious cultures? As educators learn to be more reflexive in foreign contexts, it can only strengthen their teaching in familiar contexts. "We need to become more self-reflective about understanding the changing landscape of the international scene, because the globalizing process is being duplicated in our own local environment almost on a daily basis" (Kushigian & Parsekian, 1998, p. 13). I am committed to continuing my journey in this area of research. I am further comnritted to ongoing growth in my own role as a facilitator of learning in contexts around the world. I love traveling the world and meeting people with entirely different cultural identities. I often find myself in churches, hotels, or conference centers that could just as easily be in Chicago, New York, Kansas City, Sao Paulo, Frankfurt, or Bangkok. Marriott meeting rooms look much the same in any of those cities. So I have to make it a point to break away flom those sterile environments and blaze the streets. I often wander aimlessly around town, sometimes with an invincibility and naiveté that could be 167 dangerous. I talk to locals and I scan the streets for "hits"--the eyebrow raisers and the aha moments--and I mentally file them. What am I after? I want to take the pulse of the community, partly to increase my effectiveness while there, but also just to broaden my personal bandwidth, to glean flesh insights, and to recharge my creative batteries. 1 look around. I ask questions. Answering them is not as important to me as constantly looking at the world in different ways and realizing that very few people live the way I do. If I cannot draw flom these new perspectives, how can I create anything that will be meaningful to anyone but myself? This introspection makes me more effective in the classroom, and rather than shaking my faith, it enriches my journey with God. With God's help, I want to multiply that privilege in the lives and experiences of others who train and learn cross-culturally. 168 F. —-. ‘ tTJ’ APPENDICES 169 APPENDIX A Interview Protocols Phase I Interview Protocols The interview began with an overview of the direction of the study. Subjects were assured that the interest was not in "right answers" to questions but in understanding the subject's perceptions and experiences related to the following: 1. Tell me a little about your personal journey. Gender? Race? How old are you? Where did you grow up? When and how did you embrace Christianity? Tell me about your educational background. Your career history? How did you end up in ministry? This particular position? 2. Have you ever traveled overseas before? If yes . . . Where? What did you do? What did you learn? Do you recall any first impressions? Lasting impressions? How did this experience change your view of yourself? Of the world? Of Christianity? Of ministry? 3. How did you become involved with Teamworks? What has your level of involvement been? How much training have you done with Teamworks stateside? What kind of other teaching do you do? In your church? Outside your immediate church setting? 4. How did you end up participating in one of our cross-cultural training experiences? Have you ever trained overseas before? If yes . . . How was it similar to when you have trained stateside? Different? How did it change your approach to training stateside thereafter? How did it influence the way you will approach this experience? What was your biggest challenge in the training? Talk about how that training experience influenced your view of education in a different culture. What differences did you observe about the worldview of the host culture and how has that influenced your training? How will that change the way you approach this experience? 5. What are you looking forward to most about this opportunity? Why? 6. What are you fearing most about this opportunity? 7. What kind of communication challenges do you anticipate? What’s your comfort level with [the language]? If using an interpreter-- 170 5.1 How do you feel about using an interpreter? 8. What apprehensions do you have about teaching these students? 9. Tell me about your family. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Are you married? Do you have children? Ages? Are any of your family joining you? How do they feel about this assignment? Do you know any of the other people participating in this trip? Do you know anyone where you are going? Describe your overall level of confidence in approaching this training context. What is your level of contact with people flom other ethnic groups stateside? Do you have regular contact with ethnic groups other than yourself? If so . . . How does that change the way you view yourself? Them? The world? Christianity? Talk with me a little about how you have prepared for this trip. Which of the suggested pretrip orientation tips have you used? What seems like it was the most helpful? What seemed like a waste of time? Do you feel like the training you have received for this has been useful or does it seem like it has played little role in getting you ready for actually teaching the material overseas? What literature have you read flom [African/South American] authors? Have you ever participated in any other intercultural training, either for this trip or for something else? If yes . . . What did that entail? How might that influence the way you will approach this trip? How did your preparation for this training compare with how you would prepare to train stateside? Summarize your perception of the culture where you're headed and the people you will be training. What do you see as your role with the students who will attend the training? What is your desired outcome flom this experience for the students? For you? What do you know about the way they learn compared with students you teach stateside? Do you anticipate your teaching style will change? Why or why not? How? How do you anticipate students will conceptualize the content compared to when you teach it stateside? Do you have any sense that they will walk away with something different than when you train the same material stateside? 171 22. Is there anything else you would like to say about your preparation for this experience? Phase II Interview Protocols When subjects returned flom their sojourns under study, the following questions were used to understand their engagement and the influence of their anticipatory socialization thereon. 1. What was the first thing you noticed when you arrived in the foreign culture? When you began teaching? When you arrived home? 2. What surprised you most about your experience overall? 3. What surprised you most about your students? 1"" What about them was like people you train stateside? Unlike? 4. How would you describe the relationship you developed with the students? - How did that make you feel? i What did that teach you about the culture? About cultures in general? About yourself? L ' 5. How, if at all, was your approach to training, different from what you anticipated? Would you approach it that way again in the future? 6. To what degree were the expectations of your role clear on arrival? 7. What do you wish you had done differently to prepare? 8. Tell me about some of the conflicts you experienced while training. How did you respond to these? Did you feel prepared for these conflicts? What might have better prepared you for them? What issues did this surface for you about intercultural teaching? About the content in general? About yourself? About our culture? 9. How about outside the classroom? What conflicts did you experience? How did that influence your behavior in the classroom? 10. Describe the people in and compare that with what you expected them to be like. How does that affect your view of people in general? Of the Church? Of yourself? 11. What changes did you make after you got going? Would you make those same changes again? Did the way you prepared for the training aid or hinder making those adjustments? 12. How will your teaching here be different, if at all, as a result of this experience? 13. What would you tell someone else preparing to fill the role you just filled? 172 14. How did you feel about the relationships you built with students? With professional colleagues flom the host culture? 15. With whom did you spend time when you weren’t in the classroom? If with students . . . How did that affect the time in the classroom? If only with Americans . . . Did you feel threatened to be with the nationals? Why or why not? 16. What communication challenges did you experience? What, if anything, would have helped you better prepare for those challenges? How did you assess if you were communicating clearly? 17. How was teaching your content to these students different flom when you do so stateside? What assmnptions were challenged? How is their understanding of Jesus similar/dissimilar with yours? 18. Did you sense any resistance to the Essentialist claims of the material, even although the training participants espouse to be Christians? If yes, tell me what happened? Did you feel like you could present the material without stripping them of their cultural heritage and worldview? What might you re-negotiate in your own understanding of Christianity as a result of encountering Christians in this culture? 19. How would you rate your teaching compared to when you teach stateside? 20. Is there anything else you would like to share about your teaching experience? 173 ‘rI-VJV'I n APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT FORM PROJECT TITLE: Understanding the Effects of Anticipatory Socialization on the Teaching Experiences of Cross-Cultural Educators Project Summary: Through the use of qualitative techniques (formal, structured interviews; journals; student evaluations; and possible observations), this project will examine how educators construct a sense of intercultural understanding by the way they negotiate teaching and learning in a cross-cultural context over a period of 10 days to 2 weeks. In particular, the study explores the role of anticipatory socialization in constructing this sense. Specifically, the study seeks to refine the preparation of cross-cultural trainers flom Teamworks (pseudonym). Broadly, this study intends to develop a theoretical understanding of how cross-cultural educators construct a sense of intercultural understanding. Estimate of Subject’s Time: Approximately 5 hours (in addition to already traveling cross-culturally to train). Voluntary Participation: The subjects fleely consent to participate. Participation is voluntary. Subjects may choose not to participate at all, may refuse to answer certain questions, or may discontinue involvement at any point. Subjects will be interviewed; interviews will be tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. Confidentiality and Anonymity: All data and results will be treated with strict confidence by the investigator, and the subjects will remain anonymous in any report of research findings; on request and within these restrictions, results may be made available to subjects. Subjects’ privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Contact Person for Subjects: David Livermore Dr. Anna Ortiz "Teamworks" 430 Erickson Hall 526 North Main Street Michigan State University Elbum, IL 60119 East Lansing, MI 48824 630.365.5855 X254 517.353.6617 dlivermore@sonlife.com ortizam@pilot.msu.edu *******F or questions about participants’ rights as human subjects of research, please contact UCRIHS Chair, David E. Wright at 517.355.2180. 174 fl“_ Based on the above information, I agree to participate as a research subject in the project, “Understanding the Effects of Anticipatory Socialization on the Teaching Experiences of Cross-Cultural Educators.” I understand that I may contact David Livermore or Dr. Anna Ortiz with any concerns or questions. Signature Date 175 APPENDIX C Subject Journal Guidelines As a participant in this study, you agree to keep a journal during your cross-cultural training. The journal will be used to further illumine the way you construct a sense of intercultural understanding from training cross-culturally. I am interested in the role of your preparation in this experience. As you journal, particularly focus on what you anticipated versus what you experienced in the training realm of this assignment. The primary concern is not as much on you evaluating your effectiveness as it is on you describing what you are experiencing internally and externally as you teach. You might seek to answer and/or reflect on questions like the following as you journal: 0 before training, what are you expecting to experience in this teaching setting? 0 What is going on externally in the classroom? How is that similar/dissimilar to when you train stateside? - What things are going on in your mind about your own ministry as you train in this environment? - What surprises are occurring to you and/or the students as you train? - What forms of delivery are working really well? Which ones seem to be more of a struggle? - What are you learning about the way people in this culture learn? - What are you learning about the Christian "sub-culture" in this culture? - How is this experience changing your view of yourself? Of God? Of the world? Of ministry? - How is your teaching different flom when you teach this same material at home? How is it similar? 0 How are you adapting the content for this audience? - As you experience the culture outside the training context, what role is that playing in how you approach the training? 176 0 How are you assessing and adjusting what you are doing as you continue to train? 0 With whom do you seem to be connecting best? Why? Least? Why? 0 What issues are surfacing in your mind as you train here? What are you thinking about? Thank you for taking the time to journal. This will be a real help to firrther assessing how to best prepare future trainers. By signing below and by signing the consent form, you agree to provide me access to your journal, assuming all the precautions outlined in the consent form are used. Signature Date 177 APPENDIX D Student Evaluations The following will be used to confidentially glean insight into your learning experience with this North American trainer. We are less interested in having the quality of the teaching evaluated and more interested in simply learning about your perception of the experience. - What did you enjoy most about the training with this trainer? 0 What did you enjoy least? 0 Have you had North American teachers in other educational settings? If so, how did this experience compare with that one? - What methods did the trainer use to present the material? (lecture, small group discussion, role plays, etc.) Which were most helpful to you? Why? Which were most awkward for you? Why? 0 How would you teach this material if you were going to train people here in your culture? - Did you understand most of what was being presented or were you often confused? - Describe the way students connected with each other in the training. 0 What kind of interaction occurred between the trainer and the students? 0 How did the trainer's "American-ness" influence the training? In what ways did it help and/or hinder? - How, if at all, will this training change your approach to your ministry? - What counsel would you give a future North American coming to train this material here? 0 Is there anything else you would like to share about this training experience? Thanks so much for helping us better understand the cross-cultural experiences of our North American trainers. Your responses will be kept entirely confidential. 178 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ady, J .C. (1994). Minimizing threats to the validity of cross-cultural organizational research. In A. Gonzalez & D. Tann. (Eds), Communicating in multinational organizations in international and intercultural communication annual 18, 30-44. Agar, M.H. (1987). Speaking of ethnography. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Albert, RD. (1983). The intercultural sensitizer or culture assirnilator: A cognitive approach. In D. Landis, & R. Brislin (Eds), Handbook of intercultural training volume 2. Issues in training methodology (pp. 186-271). New York: Pergarnon. Albert, RD. (1994). Cultural diversity and intercultural training. In A. Gonzalez & D. Tann. (Eds), Communicating in multinational organizations in international and intercultural communication annual 18, 153-65. Altbach, P. G. (Ed.) (1974). University reform: Perspectives for the Seventies. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Amada, G., Faucheux, C., & Laurent, A. (1991). Organizational change and cultural realities: F ranco-American contrasts. International studies of management and organization 21, 62-95. Anderson, L. (1994). A new look at an old construct: Cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18, 293-328. Anderson, R., & Anderson, S. (2000). The cultural creatives: How fifty million people are changing the world. New York: Harmony Books. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Gasparishvili, A. (1998). Leadership styles and management practices of Russian entrepreneurs: Implications for transferability of Western HRD interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly 9, 145-55. Augustine, A. (1982). The literal meaning of genesis, Volume 1 (J .H. Taylor, Trans). New York: Newman, 42-43. (Original Work published 401). Barber, B. (1996). Jihad vs. Mc World: How globalism and tribalism are reshaping the World. New York: Ballantine Books. Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995, December). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change. Barratt, M.F., & Huba, ME. (1994). Factors related to international undergraduate 179 student adjustment in an American community. College Student Journal 28, 422- 36. Bauer, S. (2000). God and woman at Harvard. In J. Wilson (Ed.) Best Christian writing 2000. San Francisco: Harper, 46-59. Becker, H. (1982). A sociological view. The Yale Review 71, 513-27. Bennett, J .M. (1993). Cultural marginality: Identity issues in intercultural training. In M Paige. (Ed). Education for the intercultural experience, (pp. 109-135). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M.J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10, 179-200. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor. Bhagat, R.S., & Prien, KG. (1996). Cross-cultural training in organizational contexts. In D. Landis & R.S. Bhagat (Eds). Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 216-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Black, IS (1992). Socializing American expatriate managers overseas: Tactics, tenure, and role innovation. Gro University Press and Organization Management 1 7, 171-92. Black, J .S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review 15, 113-36. Black, J.S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review 16, 291-317. Black, J.S., & Stephens, GK. (1989). The influence of the spouse on american expatriate adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. Journal of Management 15, 529-44. Borthwick, P. (1996). Some tough questions about youth ministry. Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 32, 2, 148-56. Boyer, P. (1994). Cognitive constraints on cultural representations. In L. Hirschfeld & S. Gehnan (Eds). Mapping the mind (pp. 391-409). New York: Cambridge University Press. 180 Brameld, T. (195 7). Cultural foundations of education. New York: Harper & Brothers Publ. Brecher, J., Brown Childs, J., & Cutler, J. (Eds). Global visions. beyond the new world order. Boston: South End Press. Briody, E.K., & Chrisman, J .B. (1991). Cultural adaptation and overseas assignments. Human Organization 50, 264-82. Brislin, R., & Yoshida, T. (Eds). (1994). Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-cultural training programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Byram, M., Morgan, C., & Colleagues. (1994). Teaching and learning, Language and culture. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Casse, P. (1979). Training for the cross-cultural mind: A handbook for cross-cultural trainers and consultants. Washington: Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research. Caudron, S. (1992). Surviving cross-cultural Shock. Industry Week 241, 35-38. Chesebro, J .W. (1998). Distinguishing cultural systems: Change as a variable explaining and predicting cross-cultural communication. In A. Gonzalez & D. Tanno (Eds). Communication and Identity Across Cultures flom the International and Intercultural Communication Annual 21 , 177-92. Chiu, ML. (1995). The influence of anticipatory fear on foreign student adjustment: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 19, 1-44. Clark, M. (1993, Spring). Transformational learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 5 7, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clark, PG. (1994). Learning on interdisciplinary gerontological teams. Educational Gerontology 20, 4: 349-64. Claxton, CS. (1990, Fall) Learning styles, minority students and effective education, Journal of Developmental Education 14, 6-8, 45. Clifford, N.K. (1973). His dominion: A vision in crisis, Sciences Religieuses/Studies in Religion 2, 323. Cole, M. (1996). A cultural-historical approach to interacting minds. In P. Baltes & U. 181 Staudinge. Interactive Minds (pp. 58-87). NY: Cambridge University Press. Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Collier, M.J. (1998). A comparison of conversations among and between domestic cultures: How intra- and interpersonal competencies vary. Communication Quarterly 36, 122-24. Creswell, J .W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cui, G., & Awa, NE. (1992). Measuring intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 16, 31 1-28. Cumber, C.J. & Braithwaite. (1996). Perceptions of multiculturalism. Howard Journal of Communications 7, 271-82. Daloz, L. (1986). Eflective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational power of adult learning experiences. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass. De Pree, M. (1997). Leading without power: Finding hope in serving community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dennett, M. (1995). The effect of cultural bias on the adult student’s self-esteem. Adult Learning 6, 29-30. Denzin, N.S., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1970). Sociological methods: A sourcebook Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. Dinges, N.G., & Lieberman, D.A.. (1989). Intercultural communication competence: Coping with stressful work situations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 13, 371- 285. Dozier, SB. (1993). Emotional concerns of undocumented and out-of-status foreign Students. Community Review 12, 33-38. Eisner, E.W. (1997). The new flontier in qualitative research methodology. Qualitative Inquiry 3, 259-273. F eldman, D. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly 21 , 433-52. 182 Fisher, C. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management 4, 101-145. Greenwich Press, CT: JAI Press. Foucault, M. (1969). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Haper Colophon. Francis, J .L. (1995). Training across cultures, Human Resource Development Quarterly 6, 1 01 -1 07. F reire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the oppressed New York: Continuum Publ. Gardner, H., Mutter, J ., & Kosmitzki, C. (1998). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Geber, B. (1992). The care and breeding of global managers. Training 29, 32-3 7. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Goldstein, D.L., & Smith, DH. (1999). Critical training issues for expatriate managers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 23, 157-73. Goodman, NR. (1994). Intercultural education at the university level: Teacher-student interaction. In R. Brislin & T. Yoshida (Eds). Improving Intercultural Interactions: Modules for Cross-Cultural Training Programs (pp. 120-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guba E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.S. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 98-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guild, P. (1994). The culture/learning style connection. Educational Leadership, 51, May 1997, 16-21. Hamachek, D. (1971). Encounters with the self New York: Holt. Hammer, M.R., Wiseman, R.L., Rasmussen, J .L., & Bruschke, J .C. (1999). A test of anxiety/uncertainty management theory: The intercultural adaptation context. Communication Quarterly 46, 309-26. Hess, B., Markson, E., & Stein, P. (1985). Sociology. New York: MacMillan. 183 Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. NY: McGraw Hill. Holy Bible. (1984). New international version. Colorado Springs: International Bible Society. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge. Iyer, P. (2000). The global soul: Jet lag, shopping malls, and the search for home. New York: Alfled A. Knopf. Jaeger, A. M. (1984). The appropriateness of organization development outside North America. International Studies of Management and Organization 14, 23-35. Johnson, A. (1995). The Blackwell dictionary of sociology: A user ’s guide to sociological language. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publ. Johnson, MA. (1996). Latinas and television in the United States: Relationships among genre identification, socialization, and socialization stress. Howard Journal of Communications 7, 289-314. Kanungo, R. (1980). Biculturalism and management. Toronto: Butterworths. Kealey, D. (1996). The challenge of international personnel selection. In D. Landis & R.S. Bhagat (Eds) . Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 81-105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kim, Y.Y., & Paulk, S. (1994). Intercultural challenges and personal adjustments: A qualitative analysis of the experiences of American and Japanese co-workers. In A. Gonzalez & D. Tanno (Eds), Communicating in Multinational Organizations in International and Intercultural Communication Annual 18, 1 1740. Kimball, ST. (1974). Culture and the educative process: An anthropologicalperspective. NY: Teachers College Press. Kingsolver, B. (1999). Poisonwood bible. New York: Harper Perennial. Kohli, M. (1986). Social organization and subjective construction of the life course. In A.B. Sorenson, F.E. Weinert, &. L.R. Sherrods (Eds), Human Development and the Life Course: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 271-292. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 184 Kreiger, S. (1991). The presence of self. In S. Kreiger (Ed.). Social science and the self: Personal essays on an art form (pp. 43-48). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kushigian, J ., & Parsekian, P. (Eds). (1998). International studies in the next millennium: Meeting the challenge of globalization. Westport, CT: Praeger. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage. Mak, A.S., Westwood, M., Ishiyama, F.I., & Barker, M.C.. (1999). Optimizing conditions for learning sociocultural competencies for success. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 23, 77-90. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case-stuay applications in education. (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions in adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Miles, M.B. & Huberrnan, AM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Milhouse, V. (1995). Instructional strategies and pedagogy for culturally-diverse classrooms. Howard Journal of Communications 6, 3, 173-87. Myerhoff, B. (1982). Life history among the elderly. In J. Ruby (Ed.) A Crack in the Mirror (pp. 102-115). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Neuliep, J .W., & Ryan, DJ. (1999). Communication apprehension and socio- communicative orientation on uncertainty reduction during initial cross-cultural interaction. Communication Quarterly 46, 88-99. Niebuhr, HR. (1951). Christ and culture. NY: Harper and Row. Noll, M. (1994). The scandal of the evangelical mind. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new culture environments. Practical 185 Anthropology 7 , 177-82. Paige, RM. (1996). Intercultural training competencies. In D. Landis and RS. Bhagat (Eds). Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 148-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton. MO. (1980). Qualitative research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Patton, MO. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Patty, D. (1998, June). Globalization of youth. Forum conducted at the first meeting of the Global Youth Initiative. Elburn, IL. Pratt, D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly 42, 4, 203-220. Rhinesmith, S. (1996). A manager’s guide to globalization: Six skills for success in a changing world Chicago: IRWIN Professional Publishing. Rhoads, R. (1997). Community service and higher learning: Explorations of the caring self Albany: State University of New York Press. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shade, B.J. (1989). The influence of perceptual development on cognitive style: Cross- etlrnic comparisons. Early Childhood Development and Care 51 , 137-55. Shimahara, N.K., & Sakai, A. (1995). Learning to teach in two cultures: Japan and United States. New York: Garland. Shiva, V. (1993). The greening of the global teach. In J. Brecher, J. Brown Childs & J. Cutler (Eds). Global visions: Beyond the new world order. Boston: South End Press. Shuter, R. & Wiseman, R. (1994). Communicating in multinational organizations International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 1 8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Spitzer, L. (1999). Lives in-between: The experience of marginality in a century of assimilation. New York: Hill & Wang. Stening, B., & Hammer, M. (1992). Cultural baggage and the adaptation of expatriate American and Japanese managers. Management International Review 32, 77-89. 186 Stephan C., & Stephan, W. (1992). Reducing intercultural anxiety through contact. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 16, 89-106. Storti, C. (1990). The art of crossing cultures. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press. Swenson, J ., & Casmir, FL. (1999). The impact of culture-sameness, gender, foreign travel, and academic background on the ability to interpret facial expression of emotion in others. Communication Quarterly 46, 214-30. Taylor, W.D. (Ed.). (2000). Global missiology for the 21 st Century. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer. Tierney, W. & Rhoads, R. (1994, April). Enhancing promotion, tenure and beyond: Faculty Socialization as a Cultural Process. ERIC Digest. Tully, S. (1994). Teens: The most global market of all. Fortune 16 May: 90-97. VanMaanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin, Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society (pp. 67-130). Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co. VanMaanen, J. (1983). Doing new things in old ways: The chains of socialization. In J .L. Bess (Ed.). College and university organization: Insights fi'om the behavioral sciences (pp. 211-247). New York: New York University Press. VanMaanen, J., & Schein, EH. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior 1, 209-266. Vila, P. (1999). Constructing social identities in transnational contexts: The case of the Mexico-United States border. International Social Science Journal I 5 9, 75-87. Walters, S. (Ed.). (1997). Globalization, adult education and training : Impacts and issues. London, UK: Zed Books. Westby-Gibson, D. (1965). Social perspectives on education. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Wiseman, R. L., Hammer, M.R., & Nishida, H. (1989). Predictors of intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 13, 187 Wm 349-70. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yook, E.L., & Albert, RD. (1999). Perceptions of international teaching assistants: The interrelatedness of intercultural training, cognition, and emotion. Communication Education 48, 1-17. York, DE. (1994). Cross-cultural training programs. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. 188 General References Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Altbach, PG. (1987). The knowledge context. Albany, NY: SUNY University Press. Altbach, P.G. (Ed.). (1985). The relevance of American higher education to Southeast Asia. Singapore: Regional Institute for Higher Education and Development. Altbach, PG. (1991). Patterns in higher education development: Toward the year 2000. The Review of Higher Education 14, 293-316. Altbach, P.G., & Lulat, Y.G.M. (1985). International students in comparative perspectives: Toward a political economy of international study. New York: Garland. Applegate, L.M., Feld, C., & Jordan, M. (1993, May). Managing in an information Age: Transforming Frito-Lay for the 1990's. Harvard Business School Working Paper Series. Bartlett, C.A., & Ghoshal, S. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School, 1989. Bennett, J.M. (1986). Modes of cross-cultural training: Conceptualizing cross-cultural training as education. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10, 117-34. Berman, J. (1994). Diaries to an English professor. Amherst: Massachusetts University Press. Bird, A., Taylor, S., & Beechler, S. (1995). A typology of international human resource management in Japanese multinational corporations: Organizational implications. Human Resource Management 3 7, 159-172. Brief, A.P., Aldag, R.J., Van Sell, M., & Melone, N. (1979). Anticipatory socialization and role stress among registered nurses. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 20, 161-66. Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Butterworth, G., & Light, P. (Eds). (1982). Social cognition: Studies of the development of understanding. Chicago University Press. 189 Byram, M. (1989). Cultural studies in foreign language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Morgan, C. & Colleagues. (1994). Teaching and learning, language and culture. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Chen, H. (1997). Human resource development practices in America and Chinese high- technology companies in Taiwan. In Torraco, R.J. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development 1 997 Conference, (pp. 108-113). Atlanta, GA. Chesebro, J .W., & Bonsall, D.G. (1989). C omputer-mediated communication. Tuscaloosa: Alabama University Press. Cole, M. (1988). Cross-cultural research in the socio-historical tradition. Human Development, 31, 137-157. Cole, M. (1991). Conclusion in Resnick, Lauren and John Levine Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: American Psychological Association, 398-415. Cole, M., Gay, J., Slick, J., & Sharp, D.W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books. Cole, M., & Griffm, P. (1987). Contextual factors in education: Improving science and mathematics education for minorities and women. Unpublished manuscript, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Madison, WI. Collier, M.J. (1989). Cultural and intercultural communication competence: Current approaches and directions for future research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 13, 287-302. Copeland, L., & Griggs, L. (1985). Going international: How to make fiiends and deal efiectively in the global marketplace. New York: Random House, 1985. Cranton, P. (Ed.). (1997). Universal challenges in faculty work: Fresh perspectives flom around the world. In New Directions for Teaching and Learning 72, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cross, P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cseh, M. (1997). Managerial learning in the transition to a free market economy in Romanian private companies. In R]. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of Human 190 Resource Development 1997 Conference, (pp. 687-693). Atlanta, GA. Dobbin, RR. (1990). The origins of private insurance, 1920-1950. American Journal of Sociology 97, 1416-50. Dobbin F.R., Edelman, L., Meyer, J.W., Scott, W.R., & Swindler, A. (1988). The expansion of due process in organizations. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 70-98. Dobbin F. R., & Boychuk, T. (1991). Job autonomy and national context evidence flom nine nations. Paper presented at the American Sociological Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. Dodd, C. (1998). Response to Chesebro’s change variable to explain cross-cultural communication. In A. Gonazlez & D. Tanno (Eds). Communication and Identity Across Cultures: International and Intercultural Communication Annual 21 , 203- 214. Durkheim, E. (1893). The division of labor in societies. New York: Free Press. Education standards for the 21st century: Opening statements of ministers at the Asia- Pacific economic cooperation education ministerial. (1992). Office of Policy and Planning, United States Department of Education. F amham, D. (1984). Personnel in context. London: Institute of Personnel Management. F ulk, J ., & Steinfeld, C. (Eds). (1990). Organizations and Communication Technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gardner, H. (1985). The mind ’5 new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books. Goldhaber, G.M., & Barnett, GA. (1988). Handbook of organizational communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publ. Co. Goodenough, W. (1957). Cultural anthropology and linguistics. In Report of the seventh annual round table meeting in linguistics and language Study (Language and Linguistics Monograph 9). Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Hackman, J .D. (1992). What is going on in higher education? Is it time for a change? The Review of Higher Education 16, 1-17. Hall, ET. (1961). The silent language. Greenwich: Premier Books. 191 Hansen, C. and Headley, J. (1997). Changing work cultures: Assessing HRD needs in Francophone West Afiica. In R.J. Torraco (Ed.). Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resources Development 1997 Conference, (pp. 114-119). Atlanta, GA. Herring, R. D. & Jespersen, S. (1994). International counseling: An opportunity for culture specific counseling with the New Zealand Maori. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 22, l7-27. Hofstede G. (1980). Culture ’s consequences: International diflerences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relationships 10, 301 -3 20. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kanungo, R. (1975). Managerial job satisfaction: A comparison between Anglophones and Francophones. In Hameed, (Ed.). Canadian Industrial Relations, Toronto: Butterworths. Kanungo, R., Gorn, G.J., & Dauderis, H]. (1976). Motivational orientation of Canadian Anglophone and Francophone managers. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 8, 107- 21. Kanungo, R., Misra, S., & Dayal, I. (1975). Relationship of job involvement to perceived importance and satisfaction of employee needs. International Review of Applied Psychology 24, 49-59. Kao, C., & Gansneder, B. (1995). An assessment of class participation by international graduate students Journal of College Student Development 36, 132-40. Kim, M-S., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communication Monographs 61, 3, 210-35. Kim, PS. (1997) Globalization of human resource management in government: A cross- cultural perspective. In R.J. Torraco (Ed), Proceedings of Human Resource Development 1997 Conference, (pp. 675-678), Atlanta, GA. King, M.C., & Koller, AM. (1995). Emerging opportunities in international education. Community College Journal 65, 20-25. Kluckhohn, C., & Kroeber, A.L. (Eds). (1952). Culture. New York: Random House. 192 Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston: Gulf. Kolb, D. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. The modern American college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kwan, K.K., Sodowsky, GR. and Ihle, G. (1994). Worldviews of Chinese international students: An extension and new findings Journal of College Student Development 35, 190-97. Landis, D., & Bhagat, R. (Eds). (1996). Handbook of intercultural training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Laurent, A. (1983). The Cultural diversity of western conceptions of management. International Students of Management and Organization 13, 75-96. Levy-Bruhl, L. (1910). How natives think (In French). Translation. New York: Washington Square Press, 1966. Louis, MR. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly 25, 226-51. Martin, J .N., & Nakayama, T.K. (1999). Thinking dialectically about culture and communication. Communication Theory 9, 1, 1-25. McCroskey, J .C. (1982). Communication competence and performance: A research and pedagogical Perspective. Communication Education 31, 1-8. McKenna, C. (1995). Adult education as seen through a global kaleidoscope. Adult Learning 6, 10-11. Mead, G.H. (1938). The philosophy of the act. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 76. Morrison, T., Conaway, W.A., & Borden, GA. (1994). Kiss, bow, or shake hands: How to do business in sixty countries. Holbrook, MA: Bob Adams Inc. Muhammad, N., & Arawati, A. (1993). Challenges of industrialization and globalization of business towards the T wenty-F irst Century. Bangi, Malaysia: University Kebangsaan. Myers, LB. (1990) Gifts diflering. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press. 193 Odenwald, S. (1993). Global training: How to design a program for the multinational corporation. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. O’Hara-Deveraux, M. & Johansen, R. (1994). Globalwork: Bridging distance, culture and time. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Ono, K. (1998). Problematizing ‘nation’ in intercultural communication research. In A. Gonazlez & D. Tanno (Eds). Communication and Identity Across Cultures flom the International and Intercultural Communication Annual 21 , 193-202. Pace, R.W., Smith, G.E., & Mills, GE. (1991). The international setting of human resource development. Human Resource Development: The Field Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pereira, C. (1993). Educating ESL students for citizenship in democratic society. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Development. Peterson, LA. (1997). International HRD: What we know and don’t know. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8, 63-79. Robinson, A.G., & Stern, S. (1995). Strategic national HRD initiatives: Lessons flom the management training program of Japan. Human Resource Development Quarterly 6, 123-147. Rothwell, W. (1997). Determining the labor demand and development needs of HR/HRD professionals in China. In R.J. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of Human Resource Development 1997 Conference, (pp. 398-405), Atlanta, GA. Schein, EH. (1968). Organizational socialization. Industrial Management Review 2: 37- 45. Scribner, S. (1976). Situating the experiment in cross-cultural research. In K.F. Riegel & J .A. Meacharn (Eds). The developing individual in a changing world vol. 1, Historical and cultural Issues (pp. 310-21). Mouton & Co., The Hague. Scribner, S. (1976). Review of Societal structures of the mind, by U.G. Foa and B. Edna. American Anthropologist 78, 655. Shade, B.J., & Robinson. (Eds). (1989). Culture, style and the educative process. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publ. Shweder, R. (1991). Thinking through cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 194 Press. Spiro, M. (1965). Religious systems as culturally constituted defense mechanisms. In M. Spiro(Ed.). Context and Meaning in Cultural Anthropology (pp. 100- 113). New York: Free Press. Stake, R. (1994). Case Studies. In N.S. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stipe, CE. (1956). Anthropology in the bible institute and bible college curriculum. Practical Anthropology, 3, 19-30. Swiderski, RM. (1993). Teaching language, learning culture. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin and Garvey. Tan, D.L. (1995). Perceived importance of role models and its relationship with minority student satisfaction and academic performance. NA CADA Journal 15, 48-51. Tanaka T., Takai, J ., Kohyama, T., & F ujihara, T. (1994). Adjustment patterns of international students in Japan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18, 55-76. Tobach, E., Falrnagne, R., Parlee, M., Martin, L., & Kapelman, A.S. (Eds). (1997). Mind and social practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tobin, J .J ., Wu, D.Y H., & Davidson, DH. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press. Turner, J .H. (1988). A theory of social interaction. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Umetani, S. (1991). Invited reaction: Comments on strategic national initiatives: Lessons from the management training program of Japan. Human Resource Development Quarterly 6, 155-56. VanMaanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly 20, 207-28. VanMaanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. Organizational Dynamics, 19-36. Vygotsky, LS. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ward, C. (1996). Socialization. In D. Landis & and RS. Bhagat (Eds). Handbook of 195 5.1 intercultural training (pp. 124-147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where’s the culture in cross-cultural transition? Comparative studies of sojoumer assignment. Journal of Cross-C ultural Psychology 24, 221- 49. Yan, B., & McLean, G. (1997). Human resource development in the People’s Republic of China. In R.J. Torraco (Ed), Proceedings of Human Resource Development 1997 Conference, (pp. 120-127). Atlanta, GA. Yang, B. (1994). Meaningful relationships between asian international students and United States college students: A descriptive study. College Student Journal 28, 108-115. 196