So, this week we all went and did a townhall-esque meeting with the ELS students and took some of their questions. In general, I was very surprised at the types of questions and comments we received. The students at ELS are engaging with texts and "American" culture in such deep ways that many of us (at least from my own small view of the world) do not consider when thinking about our own culture. Many times throughout the talk I was faced with the question of what it was about our culture that made us different and to be confronted with something like that is eye opening as well as really humbling. For instance, when Abed was asking how we come to the decision to just move away from our parents and set out on our own life and career path. He couldn't fathom that line of thought from his perspective. The collectivism instilled in his culture is so vastly separate and different than our individualistic culture that my "software" is programmed on a different plane of existence almost.
This also brings me to trying to delineate where our cultural identity and culture actually split. The ways in which I saw myself separating my own personal cultural identity from what it means to be "American" were eye opening. I don't really know what it is to be totally "American" from the perspective of the outside world or other cultures and this townhall has pushed me to the limits and boundaries of what it means to be American. Also, there was the question of what the "American dream" really means. It used to mean something static like the nuclear family. A house, a car, two kids. As society changed and as the context of our culture changed with things like glocalization and world trade our idea of what the dream is has changed drastically. Also, I think it is tied intensely to things like class, race and gender. On top of that even, we have an individual idea of what it means to "have made it" in the United States. This identity/culture split isn't as dichotomous as Hofstede might say, but at the same time there are some rhetorical boundaries that separate the two. Although our software is affected by the context and culture that surrounds us, we still hold deep values that are instilled in us from when we can't remember as children as Hofstede points out.
I'd like to end with a question or two that has been rattling around in my brain since we left the meeting. I wonder how the Q&A session would've gone had the students not been told to prepare questions that were connected to their own readings. We had a lot of questions for them that were concerned with the societal and cultural ways in which a foreigner might have to use to navigate what is most undoubtedly unfamiliar to them just as their culture is unfamiliar to us. I'm also concerned with the power structure that happened in the townhall. Dr. Graves was kind of a panoptic sort of presence that kept the students "in line" so to speak and I felt at times she might have guided them in their questions and possibly suppressed some ideas or questions we might have gotten. Maybe I was the only one who felt that? Finally, I wonder why Rich and I were targeted specifically for the question covering divorce rate in the US. Are men the deciders of that kind of situation in that particular student's culture? Arranged marriages are a huge deal around the world. That difference where women and men choose who to marry must be a large change. Did anyone else want to know whether or not any of them would stay in the US? In Lubbock even? There were so many question I had that were not answered in that kind of format. If it were possible to split them from a power source such as a teacher, I wonder if we'd get more candid responses....
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Hofstede survey
I'm having a bit of a hard time with the question this week. In general, sometimes I feel like when I talk about cultural difference and similarity I'm coming off as ethnocentric and I really don't try. There are a lot of different criteria we've covered in the classroom so far about what makes a person "intercultural", but as I've never been outside of the US I feel like I'm at a loss to some extent going in to the service learning of this course. I know that actually becoming part of this service learning will enlighten me and help me move more in to the ethnorelative side of the equation and I wanted to preface my post with this sort of side thought to help frame what I say in a way that doesn't sound too harsh one way or the other. Anyway, let me get down to how I think we can use Hofstede's dimensions of national culture to shape a set of questions for a survey.
I think one of the hugest dimensions that Hofstede uses is the dimension of individualism/collectivism. The US being a highly individualistic culture is one of the hurdles I think, especially from the organizational perspective, that we will encounter when doing our work. The directness of our culture, even in university, is a question in and of itself. What do the students think the expectation of their work will be? Do they envision a more group oriented work environment or do they expect to be tossed in the deep end, so to speak? Our culture centers around self motivation and self sufficiency to the point of fanaticism in some instances. The ideal of "American exceptionalism" is a real thing to consider when discussing the differences and similarities of burden of work between cultures. Another dimension that is tied in to the idea of collectivism and individualism (I mean, there's a reason Hofstede picked all of these right?) is the power distance dimension. The different power distances between cultures is huge. For instance, the way in which we perceive men and women's roles in relationships. Rich has said in class we will see a lot of men interrupting women and other people in general because in certain cultures the power lies mostly with the men of the realm. My biggest survey type question that will come from this dimension in relation to the students actually entering in to the American university system is: What do you feel the relationship between the student and teacher will be when you enter TTU? Will it be similar to the way their culture gives lessons? What is different? Will it be an issue if the instructor is a woman? These are all questions that relate to Hofstedes idea of power distance just on a micro level of the classroom. I must admit, I'm completely blind going in to this sort of situation. I think some of Appadurai's scapes about the economic and political sphere that these students come from will help me in developing some type of heuristic to start from, but the questions I've asked above seem most clear to me in relation to Hofstede. As we can see here a lot of the dimensions cross over in to one another as the male/female roles also refer to the masculine/feminine traits in a culture.
We might also think about the uncertainty factor in things like using and adopting the idea of the "hybrid" course. We didn't really talk about it in class the other day, but our Composition program relies on the burgeoning principle of hybridity between the classroom and the virtual world aka the internet. How common is this concept to students from different cultures? More specifically, are the students prepared to learn and adopt the technology and mindset that goes along with this concept? I think that the ELS students are learning English to proficiency will play a large part in this because I'm not actually sure how much accommodation we have for students in translation etc. But this idea of only seeing a class once a week and then giving them the bulk of the work on their own time seems foreign even to some students who go to school in America first. Also, how will they address the instructor through email? Will they be comfortable with the one on one office hours? How these dimension cross each other is something that is interesting and I'll be paying special attention to in the coming weeks.
I think one of the hugest dimensions that Hofstede uses is the dimension of individualism/collectivism. The US being a highly individualistic culture is one of the hurdles I think, especially from the organizational perspective, that we will encounter when doing our work. The directness of our culture, even in university, is a question in and of itself. What do the students think the expectation of their work will be? Do they envision a more group oriented work environment or do they expect to be tossed in the deep end, so to speak? Our culture centers around self motivation and self sufficiency to the point of fanaticism in some instances. The ideal of "American exceptionalism" is a real thing to consider when discussing the differences and similarities of burden of work between cultures. Another dimension that is tied in to the idea of collectivism and individualism (I mean, there's a reason Hofstede picked all of these right?) is the power distance dimension. The different power distances between cultures is huge. For instance, the way in which we perceive men and women's roles in relationships. Rich has said in class we will see a lot of men interrupting women and other people in general because in certain cultures the power lies mostly with the men of the realm. My biggest survey type question that will come from this dimension in relation to the students actually entering in to the American university system is: What do you feel the relationship between the student and teacher will be when you enter TTU? Will it be similar to the way their culture gives lessons? What is different? Will it be an issue if the instructor is a woman? These are all questions that relate to Hofstedes idea of power distance just on a micro level of the classroom. I must admit, I'm completely blind going in to this sort of situation. I think some of Appadurai's scapes about the economic and political sphere that these students come from will help me in developing some type of heuristic to start from, but the questions I've asked above seem most clear to me in relation to Hofstede. As we can see here a lot of the dimensions cross over in to one another as the male/female roles also refer to the masculine/feminine traits in a culture.
We might also think about the uncertainty factor in things like using and adopting the idea of the "hybrid" course. We didn't really talk about it in class the other day, but our Composition program relies on the burgeoning principle of hybridity between the classroom and the virtual world aka the internet. How common is this concept to students from different cultures? More specifically, are the students prepared to learn and adopt the technology and mindset that goes along with this concept? I think that the ELS students are learning English to proficiency will play a large part in this because I'm not actually sure how much accommodation we have for students in translation etc. But this idea of only seeing a class once a week and then giving them the bulk of the work on their own time seems foreign even to some students who go to school in America first. Also, how will they address the instructor through email? Will they be comfortable with the one on one office hours? How these dimension cross each other is something that is interesting and I'll be paying special attention to in the coming weeks.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Glocalization
With my previous work thus far combined with what we've learned so far has given me some different ways to approach the idea of cultural competence in relation to ELS. The best lens, or at least my personal preference, is Appadurai's ideas of scapes. The idea of different scapes interacting and moving dynamically and fluidly is an idea and lens that makes sense to me and has multiple applications across cultures and across cultural boundaries.
When I think about how the idea of glocalization works, which is essentially disseminating information and knowledge across the boundaries of local and global to create a specialized product, idea, or service for a locality I think of how we might actually apply an idea of that magnitude. Here is where I think Appadurai's framework excels. It is fluid enough to be flexible and allow for Bennett's idea of ethnorelativism to flourish, but also has the concreteness of a heuristic to allow for application across many cultures and ideas. If we, as intercultural communicators, can examine the different fluid scapes that make up a locality we can really start to triangulate what that culture might consist of. Now, I'm not saying that we can exactly say what a culture is and isn't. Rather, if we were tasked, as Rich asked in class, to deal with multiple nationalities and cultures within an organization it would be useful to use these scapes to help us be adaptable and accepting of different cultures and perspectives.
I think heuristics are a solid place to start as they give us a broad approach to a specific cultural problem or more eloquently a barrier. In order to really delve in to the conflicts and the differences/similarities that arise between cultures we need Appadurai's flexible scapes to navigate and trace the ideas and traditions that pop up in cultures (including our own). In interacting with the ELS students I think the roundtable interview that we are having at ELS is really a great way to move through the different scapes since we can use them to model our questions a bit. By examining the scapes of the students through the course of a Q&A or an interview we can examine where our cultures differ and come together more clearly and from that develop methods for teaching and interacting with ELS students without trying to dominate their ideologies and own culture.
When I think about how the idea of glocalization works, which is essentially disseminating information and knowledge across the boundaries of local and global to create a specialized product, idea, or service for a locality I think of how we might actually apply an idea of that magnitude. Here is where I think Appadurai's framework excels. It is fluid enough to be flexible and allow for Bennett's idea of ethnorelativism to flourish, but also has the concreteness of a heuristic to allow for application across many cultures and ideas. If we, as intercultural communicators, can examine the different fluid scapes that make up a locality we can really start to triangulate what that culture might consist of. Now, I'm not saying that we can exactly say what a culture is and isn't. Rather, if we were tasked, as Rich asked in class, to deal with multiple nationalities and cultures within an organization it would be useful to use these scapes to help us be adaptable and accepting of different cultures and perspectives.
I think heuristics are a solid place to start as they give us a broad approach to a specific cultural problem or more eloquently a barrier. In order to really delve in to the conflicts and the differences/similarities that arise between cultures we need Appadurai's flexible scapes to navigate and trace the ideas and traditions that pop up in cultures (including our own). In interacting with the ELS students I think the roundtable interview that we are having at ELS is really a great way to move through the different scapes since we can use them to model our questions a bit. By examining the scapes of the students through the course of a Q&A or an interview we can examine where our cultures differ and come together more clearly and from that develop methods for teaching and interacting with ELS students without trying to dominate their ideologies and own culture.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
ELS Assumptions
Some of the assumptions about values and ethics that I can only figure the ELS students might hold comes down to the demographic we might come in to contact with. In my limited experience I was able to edit a manuscript for a Chinese graduate student and it was enlightening about the different types of epistemology and ethics attached to the Chinese way of producing scholarly work. The student's manuscript did not have any plagiarism in it, but it was laced with ideas and ideologies that were easily identifiable. When I brought this up to the student he commented on how in China it is okay to take another person's work without attribution and it was seen as sort of an honor to do so. If someone's idea was good enough to be used elsewhere then they should be proud.
This reminds me of Hofstede's models for the different types of culture and the ideologies that are associated with each. In our society it is highly individualistic whereas Chinese culture is extremely collectivist. This difference in mindset I think it directly connected to how plagiarism is treated. Bringing this back to the ELS students, if they are from a society that promotes collectivism there is a hurdle to be had in teaching how writing and attribution to others will be handled. I can't simply say, "Don't plagiarize." because the difference in the culture creates a bit of a block that I have to elaborate on and make clear to them. I have to go over how not citing another person's work within their own work will result in some serious penalties. Additionally, I imagine there will be some mystery surrounding how the environment of TTU works.
We talked a little bit about a hidden culture in the university system here that isn't explicitly stated. I imagine it's worse for the ELS students because they don't get the opportunities a lot of the time to stay on campus for extended periods and interact with students who are actually attending university. The hidden culture is doubly hidden from them so having them come to campus and expose to them the inner workings of some of the vital systems, such as the library, that move information around the campus seems to be a good way to demystify the university environment for them.
Finally, having them come and sit in on a class might reveal some differences, but more importantly, some similarities between the teaching and university cultures. Making theses differences and similarities more explicit allows us to breach common ground with other cultures and to adapt and remodel our own teaching style to accommodate those students who are from different areas. My final question pertains to TTU. In my courses, we have a population of students that have English as a second language, but we do not cater to them in any way. There is no way to tell how many we have or where they are from. Why don't we have training and programs in place to help our instructors to cope with the shock that comes with teaching in a multicultural classroom? Students fail not because they don't know the material, but they don't know the culture and standards that are set. Adapting to the different needs of different cultures and realizing ways in which to reach out and accommodate as well as to educate seem to be at the center of my thoughts on this subject.
This reminds me of Hofstede's models for the different types of culture and the ideologies that are associated with each. In our society it is highly individualistic whereas Chinese culture is extremely collectivist. This difference in mindset I think it directly connected to how plagiarism is treated. Bringing this back to the ELS students, if they are from a society that promotes collectivism there is a hurdle to be had in teaching how writing and attribution to others will be handled. I can't simply say, "Don't plagiarize." because the difference in the culture creates a bit of a block that I have to elaborate on and make clear to them. I have to go over how not citing another person's work within their own work will result in some serious penalties. Additionally, I imagine there will be some mystery surrounding how the environment of TTU works.
We talked a little bit about a hidden culture in the university system here that isn't explicitly stated. I imagine it's worse for the ELS students because they don't get the opportunities a lot of the time to stay on campus for extended periods and interact with students who are actually attending university. The hidden culture is doubly hidden from them so having them come to campus and expose to them the inner workings of some of the vital systems, such as the library, that move information around the campus seems to be a good way to demystify the university environment for them.
Finally, having them come and sit in on a class might reveal some differences, but more importantly, some similarities between the teaching and university cultures. Making theses differences and similarities more explicit allows us to breach common ground with other cultures and to adapt and remodel our own teaching style to accommodate those students who are from different areas. My final question pertains to TTU. In my courses, we have a population of students that have English as a second language, but we do not cater to them in any way. There is no way to tell how many we have or where they are from. Why don't we have training and programs in place to help our instructors to cope with the shock that comes with teaching in a multicultural classroom? Students fail not because they don't know the material, but they don't know the culture and standards that are set. Adapting to the different needs of different cultures and realizing ways in which to reach out and accommodate as well as to educate seem to be at the center of my thoughts on this subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)