ERA-AARE Conference, Singapore, November ERA-AARE Conference, Singapore, November Cross-cultural partnerships in educational research

Transcription

1 ERA-AARE Conference, Singapore, November 1996 ERA-AARE Conference, Singapore, November 1996 Cross-cultural partnerships in educational research Paul Chesterton Faculty of Education Australian Catholic University, Sydney Introduction In recent years increasing attention has been given to ethical issues in educational research, leading to the publication of codes of ethics by professional associations and other organisations. Over the same period, various `minority' groups have drawn attention to exploitation and abuse of their members by researchers from cultural backgrounds other than their own in a number of research projects. Their concerns raise a number of questions about the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the published codes. This paper examines some of the issues arising in educational research involving individuals from different cultural settings. In so doing, it draws on examples of joint research projects in which the researchers come from different cultures and of projects in which the cultural background of the researchers is different to that of the people from whom data are being collected. Each of these project types is identified as involving cross-cultural relationships of various dimensions between individuals as part of the research undertaking. The examination of issues in turn leads to an analysis of the nature of research relationships between individuals in such projects, in terms of key attributes that will assist in addressing the issues. The paper concludes with an outline of key implications for researchers and for the ongoing development of research codes of ethics. For the purposes of this paper, `culture' is defined as the unstated assumptions, standard operating procedures, and ways of doing things that have been internalised to such an extent that people do not argue about them... It includes ideas and behaviours that are obviously valid- for members of the culture and that need not be debated' (Triandis, 1994:16). Background During the last few years, the author of this paper has been engaged in a number of research projects and research planning processes involving co-researchers and/or data providers from different cultural backgrounds. These have included, for example, the application of an American University Equal Opportunity Climate instrument in an Australian university setting, the design of a study of the impact of

2 educational planning on the expansion of secondary schooling in Indonesia, the planning of a comparative study of high school Economics education in Japan and Australia, a study of provision for students with special needs in an educational region, a study of the effectiveness of the training of workers in the field of Habilitation, and a study of the ways in which Catholic schools perceive and relate to the poor. A range of issues has emerged from these experiences, as outlined below. Some key issues Developing contextual understanding Cross-cultural partnerships involve individuals from different cultural contexts. These contexts may differ in terms of a number of characteristics such as, for example, language, laws, institutions, beliefs, knowledge, expectations, practices, and perspectives. Such differences carry important implications for the focus, design, and methodology of research as well as for the determination, interpretation and reporting of its findings. Without clear and detailed understanding, incorporation and explication by researchers of the cultural context in which their research is planned, implemented and reported, the validity of any findings is difficult to establish. The net result may indeed be reconstructed knowledge, as well as damage to the processes of cultural transmission in the researched community (Atkinson, Brabham, Henry and James, 1994:2). The previously mentioned study involving the application of an American University Equal Opportunity Climate instrument (UEOCS) in an Australian university setting provides a useful example (Black-Gutman, Chesterton and Landis, 1996). The United States and Australia share many cultural characteristics. Each is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial democracy, predominantly English-speaking and a former British colony. Most of their populations are of Anglo-Celtic background and each has a value system stemming primarily from the Judean-Christian tradition. Both countries have an indigenous population which had been dispossessed by European settlers plus a high proportion of their population deriving from a non-english-speaking immigrant background. Yet in seeking to apply the UEOCS in an Australian setting, considerable adaptation was needed in order to relate the items to the related but different cultural setting. The adaptation involved taking account of differences in language usage, symbols relating to particular groups, terms of insult, institutional and societal practices, and gender and racial/ethnic issues within the two settings. Some examples of aspects needing to be adapted for Australian settings included references to particular historical events such as the American civil war and segregation and to university social organisations such as fraternities and sororities, words carrying different meanings such as `professor', and symbols of significance for minority groups such as memorial programs for Dr Martin Luther King. By adapting the instrument, the research team was able to tap into the culture-specific frameworks of meaning while still

3 retaining the central underlying constructs. A further example may be drawn from a study of the ways in which Catholic schools perceive and relate to the poor in the Australian state of New South Wales (Johnston and Chesterton, 1994). In this case, the researchers were endeavouring to gather data from over 500 school and community settings that varied considerably in terms of cultural characteristics such as educational and occupational backgrounds, socio-economic status, and racial/ethnic composition. Given the possibility of different understandings and definitions of `the poor' across and within these communities, it was decided to seek and use participant definitions of `the poor' rather than definitions determined by the `outsider' researchers. This led to a much broader view of poorness than that provided through the use of traditional indicators such as income related poverty lines. Communities were able to reveal their own particular multidimensional experiences and perceptions of poorness, encompassing social, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, cultural, and physical aspects as well as financial or economic. Focusing specifically on research involving Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander participants, Crowley and Cruse (1992) identify the need for such research to `be conducted within culturally intelligible and acceptable frames of reference'. This implies an awareness and acceptance of the particular cultural heritage of the research setting throughout the research planning, implementation and reporting phases. A prime example lies in the need for researchers to ensure that `the research methodology and the culture base from which it proceeds reflect the communal and collective system of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities' (Koori Centre, n.d.:3). The notion of intellectual property illustrates the point. The protection of intellectual property in Australia depends upon the concept of copyright as a property, that is, the individual author owns the copyright and can assign it to others by commercial transaction. This is in contrast to the Aboriginal concept of property rights which do not belong to individuals and cannot be traded in the market place - traditionally, property is commonly owned. Australian copyright law however does not recognise collective ownership or cultural rights (Peters, 1995). This difference carries significant implications for researchers seeking to collect and use certain types of data from Aboriginal communities. Gaining access Gaining access to participants and data is an issue in all research. In research involving individuals from different cultural settings there are certain dimensions of the issue that warrant particular consideration, such as differences in language, bureaucratic processes and traditional protocols. The problems associated with differences in language among participants will not necessarily be solved by the approach used in a number of research projects, i.e. sole use of the mainstream culture language.

4 This may well have the effects of excluding some potential participants and limiting the depth and breadth of responses from others. The validity of responses may also be questioned in terms of the extent to which the intent of questioning is fully communicated to those with a different first language background. The use of more than one language to tap into the different languages of participants would seem to be warranted, directly by the researchers and/or by translation and interpretation processes. This may require some rethinking as to the composition of the research team established for such projects. As noted earlier in the American-Australian project example, differences in language use and understanding may also occur within an apparently common language. This requires careful checking and adjustment to ensure that the intended meanings of questions are preserved and that the data collected from participants are correctly interpreted. Detailed awareness of particular bureaucratic processes operating within the cultural setting is also important in gaining full and meaningful access. A recent collaborative research planning exercise in Indonesia revealed for example the need to involve a range of government agencies at different levels (national, provincial and local) in discussion and to seek their endorsement of the particular proposal, despite agreement not being formally required at each of these levels. A further influence on access is that of traditional protocols operating within the cultural setting. Gilson (1995) refers to two levels of protocol applying to researchers wishing to undertake research within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia. Cultural protocol requires that any person from outside the community obtains permission from the community elders before entry. Community protocol then requires the outsider to instigate communication with the community's management team and to actively involve all factions within the community in their discussions. The need to negotiate with the community is similarly highlighted by Watene-Haydon, Keefe-Ormsby, Reid and Robson (1995) in their analysis of research involving Maori, the indigenous people of New Zealand. In their view, negotiation is a matter of developing trust between researchers and the community, and of recognising and accounting for the impact of the research process on the community. Developing shared meaning An integral component of educational research is that of communication among the various parties involved, such as funding bodies, researchers, data providers and those to whom the research processes and findings are reported. The development of shared meaning in communication is critical in terms of promoting appropriate access, accurate interpretation of data, valid findings, and effective and faithful reporting. The promotion of shared meaning often tends however to be more difficult to achieve in projects involving individuals from different cultural settings.

5 Not only is meaning hard to come by when two different worlds have limited interaction, but misinterpretation, attribution of motives, feelings of being misunderstood, and disillusionment on both sides is almost guaranteed. (Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991: 80) To understand messages and information emanating from a different cultural setting requires not only knowledge of the meanings of words and phrases and of grammatical structures, but also an understanding of the cultural setting in which the communication is relayed. Eades (1992:26), for example, observes that Aboriginal English speakers will often say `yes' to a question even if they do not understand it. The underlying meaning in this case is not agreement but a display of willingness to be of assistance, of wanting to be well thought of, and of anticipation that things will work out. Meaning is also conveyed by non-verbal or paralinguistic communication. Triandis (1994:197) points to significant variations across cultures in meanings attached to a range of paralinguistic cues such as looking someone in the eye, touching a person on various parts of the body, voice levels, gestures, and the distance maintained between people talking to each other. A firm handshake may be admired in one culture but seen as aggressive in another. Misinterpretation of cues may well block the communication of information, let alone the development of shared meaning. Sharing control and responsibility The perceived exploitative nature of research has been a matter of increasing concern among some groups in recent years. Watene-Haydon et al. (1995) refer to much of the research focusing on the Maori people of New Zealand as colonising research, whereby outsiders extract raw materials (information and data) from the community and develop these for their own gain and recognition (via research papers, books and theses) with little or no return to the community. This approach has meant that `Maori have missed out on consultation, participation, skill development, ownership and control of that data' (Watene-Haydon et al., 1995:492). Eades (1992:27) notes that in Aboriginal communities, certain people have rights to certain knowledge. Difficulties may occur when researchers with culturally different assumptions about appropriate and effective ways of seeking information come into the community. The use of direct questions in interviews and questionnaires for example may be seen as an inappropriate attempt to take information as distinct from a process whereby knowledge is shared. The incorporation of stakeholders in the research process represents an attempt to address these types of issues. A recent study of provision for students with special needs in an educational region in New South Wales provides an example (Chesterton, 1996). The research was characterised by stakeholder involvement in its planning, implementation and reporting phases. In this case, the stakeholders included representatives of parents, teachers, school principals, counsellors, psychologists and system authority personnel from the region. These stakeholders also became directly involved in decision

6 making in the region flowing from the findings and recommendations of the research. The involvement of stakeholders in this case carried considerable benefits. These included a refining of the research focus and questions in the light of local needs and concerns, facilitation of access to information sources and key personnel, the bringing of local knowledge to interpretations of data, and a sense of shared ownership of the project and a commitment to carry out its recommendations. The need for shared control, responsibility and benefit in research is increasingly being identified in educational research codes and guidelines. Thus, for example, The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, their community/ies, or organisation/s involved in the research shall have a principal role in decision-making within the research project. (Koori Centre, n.d.:3) They (researchers) should endeavour to see that the participants benefit by their participation in research as well as by the results. (Australian Association for Research in Education, 1995:2) The nature of research relationships Educational research involving individuals from different cultural settings creates a series of cross-cultural relationships of various dimensions as part of the research undertaking. As outlined above, there are a number of issues associated with cultural differences in these relationships that need to be addressed. The addressing of these issues is important in terms of promoting both the validity of research findings and appropriate recognition of individual and community rights. To address these issues, it is contended that the cross-cultural research relationship needs to possess two key attributes. The first of these is cross-cultural sensitivity, i.e. `the preparedness of the researcher to honour culturally different values, needs, practices and perspectives' (Atkinson et al., 1994:15). This implies a conscious and deliberate effort to identify, understand, respect and take account of cultural differences in all aspects of the research undertaking. The second attribute is that of partnership. This implies a genuine sharing of power and responsibility in research, as noted by Wolfendale (1989:107) - The elements or building blocks of partnership are perceived by various writers to be equality in decision-making, power-sharing, equal rights in self-expression and the exercise of mutual responsibility and accountability by all parties to each other and to others outside the specific enterprise. It may well be argued that these attributes should apply to all research relationships. In a sense, most if not all research is cross-cultural to the extent that it involves individuals or groups that possess one or more cultural traits that are different to those of the researcher. The previously mentioned study of the effectiveness of the training of workers in the field of Habilitation, for example, involved the researchers interacting with people of a different

7 occupational (and in many cases socio-economic) background with its own particular knowledge, procedures, priorities and expectations. There were also traits that were shared by the researchers and the Habilitation workers, deriving from common cultural elements such as language and nationality, and these provided points of entry to the particular cultural mixes encountered. Yet while the cultural differences are not major in such instances, the case for cross-cultural sensitivity and partnership remains. Some implications for researchers The preceding discussion carries a number of implications for researchers. Of key importance is the need to engage in critical analysis of the underlying assumptions and procedures of research projects from a cross-culturally sensitive perspective. This process should encompass the totality of the project from the initial determining of the research focus and questions through to the final reporting phase. For some researchers, this may require intercultural training or study to develop awareness of the nature and implications of cultural differences. The question of who should be the researchers also needs consideration. The inclusion of a team member whose cultural background is more closely aligned to that of the population providing data may greatly assist the critical analysis process. An alternative or additional step would be to seek advice and critical reaction throughout the research process from within the specific cultural group concerned. Finally, the pattern of power, responsibility and control within research projects may need to be re-examined and realigned in order to move more closely to a partnership model. For some researchers, this will represent a major shift from their normal mode of operation and as such, will not be an easy task to undertake. The net benefits however provide a strong case for movement towards this type of model. Some implications for development of research codes of ethics There are also implications for professional associations and other organisations as they seek to develop or refine their research codes of ethics. The effectiveness of the current codes is of some concern, given the persistence of claims of research being conducted in a culturally insensitive manner. There would appear to be a case for a more comprehensive coverage in these codes of the ethical issues in research involving different cultural settings. An examination of the codes and guidelines published by bodies representing groups such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Maori communities would assist in developing the coverage. It is these groups that have direct experience of culturally insensitive research and are thus able to highlight critical incidents and processes. It is also important to include representatives of various cultural backgrounds in the review and development of the codes. This should provide access to a range of perspectives as well as modelling the more inclusive partnership approach outlined for the research process

8 itself. A more comprehensive code needs to be supported by effective dissemination and education in order to promote awareness and commitment. This may include the organisation arranging intercultural training workshops or at least publicising details of the availability of such training offered elsewhere. Organisations may also need to extend their dissemination and education efforts beyond their immediate membership to include others in their field. Finally, there is a need to recognise that ethical codes are not ends in themselves but rather means by which ethically based research cultures can be established and maintained. The role of the codes is critical however in identifying and highlighting key issues, principles and procedures for the guidance of researchers and others involved in or affected by research. Continuing attention to their development and refinement can only help in providing a sounder basis for research design and implementation. Paul Chesterton Associate Professor Faculty of Education Australian Catholic University 179 Albert Road Strathfield NSW 2135 AUSTRALIA Telephone Fax P.Chesterton@mary.acu.edu.au References Atkinson, M., Brabham, W., Henry, J. and James, D. (1994). Koorie Research Program: Ethics, protocols and methodologies discussion paper. Institute of Koorie Education, Deakin University. Australian Association of Research in Education. (1995). Code of ethics for research in education. Coldstream, Vic.: AARE. Black-Gutman, D., Chesterton, P. and Landis, D. (1996). Cross-cultural application of the University Equal Opportunity Climate Survey. Manuscript submitted for publication. Sydney: Australian Catholic University. Chesterton, P. (1996). Balancing customer requirements and stakeholder expectations. Conference Proceedings of the Australasian Evaluation Society Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, August Crowley, V. and Cruse, S. (1992). Discussion paper on ethics in Aboriginal research. Adelaide: Aboriginal Research Unit, University of

9 South Australia. Eades, D. (1992). Aboriginal English and the law. Continuing Legal Education Department, Queensland Law Society. Fullan, M. and Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. (2nd ed.). London: Cassell. Gilson, M. (1995). Culturally appropriate strategies for evaluation. Proceedings of the Australasian Evaluation Society International Conference, Sydney, September 1995, vol. 2, Johnston, K. and Chesterton, P. (1994). The poor and Catholic schools. Sydney: Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes (NSW). Koori Centre. (n.d.). Principles and procedures for the conduct of research. Sydney: University of Sydney. Peters, M. (1995). Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders and the legal protection of their art. Economics 31, 3, Triandis, H.C. (1994). Culture and social behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill. Watene-Haydon, N., Keefe-Ormsby, V., Reid, P. and Robson, B. (1995). Issues of research and evaluation by indigenous peoples. Proceedings of the Australasian Evaluation Society International Conference, Sydney, September 1995, vol. 2, Wolfendale, S. (1989). Parental involvement and power-sharing in special needs, in Wolfendale, S. (ed.). Parental involvement: Developing networks between school, home and community. London: Cassell.