When faced with challenges, the participants reported that they used introspective strategies. For instance, Holly mentioned quite a few times that she tried not to think negatively of any incident. The following excerpt was Holly’s response when asked how she overcame feeling disregarded at her work.
I reflect on that. I just try to think or understand why they say this thing; they needed someone before, now they don't need someone to interpret, mainly I just ignore. The best thing which works for me is that I don’t let this thing get to me. Sometimes, why do you say or attitude towards me? I don't think this kind of thing much. It is okay. (Interview 4)
In this section, I illustrate such reflective practices shown in the participants’ recounts. First, the participants reported that they acknowledged differences between their discourses and the dominant discourses (an identified constraints on entering communities in Section 5.3.3). Second, while reporting an event, the participants linked it with other experiences, an indication of the ripple effects of affordances and constraints. Last, the participants sometimes reported that there was no positive option available.
152
5.4.3.1 Accepting differences
When participants faced challenges, they often looked back to their past experiences, critically reviewed the challenges, and found the best way forward for them. Holly went back to her home country when her husband obtained a job in China. She mentioned that she realised she did not want to live in China. She said, “Here slow and relax[ed]. There, it is very competitive. I also went to work for the original company. I could not do the same job anymore” (Interview 1). She experienced both ways and could see the differences which led her to decide what she preferred. The excerpt below is one of the examples of her understanding of the differences between her home country and the new home, Aotearoa NZ.
I think, everything, every person and every place, there is good sides, even China has good things. Here is the same, they have they have a good system, social welfare, they look after people who are poor, situation, when they are sick, there is a system to look after them. But the other thing, because of the system, too kind or too good, so people are just lazy, even asks for more, they ask for human rights. You know in jail, prison, they ask some, what they call, go to the jail to, they can ask for a lady to go to the jail too. (Interview 5) In the excerpt above, Holly could see differences and knew where she felt more comfortable. Mia also mentioned that it took a while for her to understand certain social practices. To her, calling in sick was not a good practice for a responsible employee. After a number of years of learning the reason through confrontation and persuasion, she later learnt to understand the different social and cultural practices.
Different ways of thinking here, using relievers and if I am sick, I spread germs to children. But it took me several years to realise and accept that concept. At the beginning, I went there even when I was sick, the first year. I was absent for only two days. Do you think I was not sick? I had diarrhoea, and it just happens in my tummy and what is wrong with that? That was how I thought. The boss yelled at me not to come [to work] several times. After a
153
few incidents like that I understood, it was English but also the culture; I couldn't get it. (Interview 4)
The excerpt showed how differences in discourses were accepted by the participant. The participants like Mia and Holly reported that they understood the differences as seen in the two excerpts above. However, the participants still struggled with the dominant discourses as seen in the statement, “What is wrong with that?” from Mia’s recount. They understood and accepted the differences, but it did not mean that they were comfortable with them.
5.4.3.2 Ripple effects of constraints and affordances
The participants often commented on their interpretation of an event. When they faced constraints to enter their imagined communities, they responded that they were the result of deeper or more serious constraints. For example, Mia reported that many challenges she recounted were rooted in one reason, her lack of English competency. When Mia’s responsibilities were removed from the committee she had initially established, and when she was blamed for being an incompetent leader at the Korean school (described in Section 4.4), she concluded that the reason for those incidents was her English competency.
Mia’s language learner identity affected the way she rationalized other negative incidents as well. One incident with the police, which was described in Section 4.4, changed her view about NZ, which had been considered home. Mia first mentioned how much she loved being a “Kiwi”, but then it changed. She even thought about the possibilities of moving to other countries such as Australia or the United States. The following recount of a conversation with her husband reflects on the unpleasant incident with the police officer who led them to feel like second-class citizens with limited rights in Aotearoa NZ.
My husband and I were talking about that incident and made a conclusion that there is nothing we can do because of English. This kind of incident is something we have to just bear because of English. My husband also had one incident something like that; he said: "if this kind of thing happened in Korea,
154
I would go nuts, there is no doubt I would do something about it." I said, "of course." Even we have something we feel unfair, make no claims or complain. We have a limitation. (Interview 4)
At the time, Mia reported unsettled feelings of resentment because of the incident. According to her, she sacrificed her career and financial stability for their children by immigrating to Aotearoa NZ. However, her children were also disregarded, which was previously illustrated in Section 4.4. She stated, “I really tried to raise them [the children] not to be like me [treated like a migrant with limited English]. But they were disrespected and disregarded the same way I got. That makes me crazy.” (Interview 3).
On the other hand, the participants also reported that affordances often rippled out to further affordances. Such cases are evident in Emily’s recounts. She belonged to a Chinese church, and she became a Sunday school teacher. Later she had an opportunity to attend training which she recounted as valuable in terms of learning English and the different teaching and learning methods in Aotearoa NZ. In Mia’s case, a neighbour helped her to get volunteer work at an ECE centre, and she obtained a part-time job. The reference from the ECE centre offered opportunities for volunteer work in a different city and later on, a full-time job. Such initial affordances led to more opportunities for some participants to access their imagined communities.
5.4.3.3 Acceptance and resignation
Some challenges such as regulation changes often made the participants feel that there was no option available. There was no negotiability so they had to accept it. When Jessica was placed in a lower level course after being declined for an ECE programme, and when Mia could not register as an ECE teacher, they both mentioned that there was nothing they could do about it.
It is just a nightmare for me. Returning from level 7 to level 4, and I have done whatever I could do. There is nothing I can do more. I am stuck. There is no solution. (Jessica: Interview 3)
155
My boss rang NZQA [New Zealand Qualifications Authority] to help me to register, and they said no. Then she wrote a letter explaining everything. They said no. And children's parents wrote reference letters, but didn’t work. . . . NZQA said law is law, and I had to follow. (Mia: Interview 4) As seen above, Jessica and Mia both claimed that they did all they could do, but there was no other option but to accept the decision.