INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL STRATEGIES IN FOSTERING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT

Transcription

1 INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL STRATEGIES IN FOSTERING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT Jiro Takai, PhD Department of Educational Psychology Nagoya University

2 Intercultural competence Defined as the ability to: Deal with intercultural interactions Communicate effectively and appropriately with people of different cultures Adapt to a new cultural environment Maintain cultural identity, while respecting those of others Engage in cultural frame-switching, linguistic code-switching Effectively managing cultural diversity

3 How is intercultural competence achieved? Direct experience Interacting with people of diverse backgrounds Living and working in a foreign or diverse cultural environment e.g. study abroad, homestay hosting Cost and labor intensive Intercultural education and training Expand on opportunities for students to study abroad Not realistic, as we need to find enough partners to accommodate a huge number of our students Experiential learning through simulated interactions Requires trained professionals who can conduct such specialized training Cost and labor intensive

4 How can we mass-produce intercultural competence with minimal cost and labor? Inducing courses or orientation programs requires a small army of specialized, professional educators to conduct training which can only be done in small groups Not the most realistic answer Do we have other cheap, convenient, realistic resources? International students? What if we can utilize international students to provide students with a cross-cultural experience?

5 International students and intercultural competence Under certain conditions, mere cross-cultural contact between host and international students can induce beneficial exchange What is the probability that an international student will have intimate relationships with host students, compared to co-patriots and other internationals? How can cross-cultural exchange be facilitated? Can it be achieved laissez faire? What if any are the impeding factors toward cross-cultural exchange on our campus?

6 The scope of this presentation This is not a how-to presentation on getting student groups to mingle and acquire intercultural competence Prototypes of arrangements in which student groups can become psychologically similar, and hence, closer to each other are suggested These are mere prototypes, and no concrete examples of just how to go about doing this in the actual field are offered In fact, consider it as a psychologist s daydream

7 Beliefs about cross-cultural exchange According to the mere exposure theory (Zajonc, 1967), simple repetitive contact is enough to promote intergroup understanding and acceptance The intergroup contact hypothesis, claimed that this is just too simple, and suggested certain precedent conditions are necessary for this to happen

8 Intergroup contact hypothesis Social psychologists have delineated specific conditions under which ingroup-outgroup contact can become constructive, and hence, successful Allport (1954) claimed that equal-group status within the contact situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support are necessary for successful exchange Amir (1976) suggested the additional conditions of voluntary participation, and intimacy of the contact

9 Idealized versus actual contact Intergroup contact theory outlines the ideal conditions, but in actual life, meeting all conditions is unrealistic Berry (1997) gives us an idea of what might happen when conditions go awry

10 Is it important to maintain own cultural identity? NO YES Maintaining cultural identity: Berry s (1997) typology of acculturation Is it important to maintain good relations with hosts? YES NO INTEGRATION SEGREGATION ASSIMILATION MARGINALIZATION

11 The issue What social, cultural, institutional, and interpersonal forces might be there which may impede idealistic intergroup contact between host students and international students? Just what is it that makes our efforts to promote quality cross-cultural exchange to turn out in vain? Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) may give us the answer

12 Social Identity Theory Theory constructed to explain intergroup conflict We have both inclusion and differentiation needs, hence see ourselves in terms of group membership in social categories Those in our group are the ingroup ( us ), those who are not are the outgroup ( them ): this functions to clarify our identity, and serve our identity needs We gain our self-esteem depending on how our ingroup is evaluated, so we like to keep our ingroup superior to the outgroup Because of this, we favor our ingroup while we disrespect the outgroup

13 The ills of intergroup compared to interpersonal Stereotypes and outgroup homogeneity effect Ingroup favoritism and similarity effect Biased attribution of behavior (ultimate attribution error) Intensifies feeling of competition between groups for resources (space, financial aid, attention from faculty)

14 The ills of intergroup?

15 The good news Group identity is fluid We identify with multiple categories A certain category can be made salient at any one time Category levels are personal and social Personal level = personal attributes Social level = nationality, sex, social class Why can t we manipulate the categories that students perceive of each other, i.e. think of themselves as being a common category, not host and international?

16 Applying SIT principles to international education Universities, or individual departments within universities, must therefore, concern themselves on how they can structure the interaction between host and international students such that the goal of international educational exchange can be realized at the micro-level Some international education models based on SIT and contact theory tenets will be proposed

17 SIT says: intergroup=nasty intragroup=sweet If international students see themselves differently from the hosts, and vice versa, we have intergroup contact, and they won t be able to see each other beyond their social categories The two groups perceive one another as competing for limited resources, and cooperation will not likely materialize One way around this is to emphasize the fact that they are all fellow students, having membership in a single, mutual category We can induce decategorization, recategorization, superordinate categorization, subcategorization, and cross-categorization

18 Decategorization model Person-based contact as opposed to category-based If students can become unaware of the categories of international and host, this can be actualized Decategorization can be institutionally induced by increasing personal level contact between students, through collaborative projects, parties and other informal social gatherings, study groups

19 Decategorization model International Student Student Host Student People perceive each other as individuals, not members of categories

20 Common Group Identity Model Social categorization is behind ingroup bias and resulting injustices toward outgroup If group boundaries can be restructured to include both groups into a single, superordinate ingroup, such intergroup discord will be eliminated Outgroup members become ingroup members of a larger subsuming group, hence those who used to be outgroup others, now become ingroup mates We do this through recategorization to bring about superordinate categorization

21 Recategorization Create a common-identity, superordinate group that subsumes both international and hosts No need to deny the existence of these categories, but make students aware they are part of a larger, more important category Emphasizing the laboratory, or the department that the students belong to should do the trick Accentuate the notion of teamwork Students gain a common, more salient membership within a group consisting of mutually compatible goals, and their ethnicity or nationality becomes unimportant

22 Common identity model: Superordinate categorization through recategorization International Student Host International Host Host Student People just simply forget that they are of certain categories, because they see each other as members of the same category. Graduate Student Host International International

23 Subcategorization model Respective category identities remain salient, but structuring the nature of their relationship in a manner such as to foster collaboration and cooperation is induced Without the presence of the other group, nobody can realize any goals Mutual interests, and dependence in pursuing them bring groups together, but if one party does not live up to the expectations of the other, this can seriously backfire

24 Subcategorization model International Student Common Goals Host Student People know they are of different categories, but see each other pursuing the same mutually inclusive goals, so group membership does not matter

25 Cross-categorization model Cross-categorization assumes that individuals hold membership in multiple overlapping groups While they may be mutually distinct (outgroup) in one category, they may overlap (ingroup) in another Make salient the common category membership, despite distinction in other categories Students realize that international and host students have something in common, such as their study major, this overriding the fact their nationalities are different, resulting in ingroup sentiment

26 Cross-categorization model International Student Physics Major Physics Major IS Host Student Physics Major Maximize physics major identity, minimize student category identity Physics Major HS

27 Institutionally managing positive contact and category awareness The air of competition may hamper positive intercultural interaction between host and international students, and they may increasingly become aware of the us versus them distinction Managing the level of awareness of the classes of students is often overlooked, and this can lead to unpleasant experiences on both international, and host students Of course, this is easy to say, but when it comes down to doing it, it s another story

28 Some suggestions Increase personal level contact between international and hosts (including graduate students and faculty) Hold parties and get-togethers Encourage collaborative research Launch some group projects Induce buddy systems or tutoring systems International residences should be just that, having host students live with internationals rather than being exclusive quarters for the latter Grants and fellowships not toward individuals, but to host/international constituted groups

29 Getting back to intercultural competence Having the ability to perceive oneself as a member of a single multicultural or multinational community in itself is intercultural competence By giving the student the opportunity to think this way, competence naturally happens (I would like to think so) Students will not rely on stereotypes, they will not have this us vs. them outlook, and they will gain experience in managing social identitites All this can happen at the institutional level, not the classroom level hence, much easier to manage and execute (so I think)

30 Conclusion In this presentation, reference to social psychological theories of intergroup contact were made in offering some models of international exchange at the student level What can be done, at what level remains to be seen, but the scope of this presentation is to give food to thought

31 Thanks for your attention! Please address inquiries to: Jiro Takai Nagoya University

32 Reference Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the Elimination of Racism (pp ). New York: Plenum Press. Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27.