Desarrollo de la Propuesta

While negotiating a new academic context, many international students are simultaneously navigating their way through an unfamiliar cultural and social context. This section examines the notion of cross-cultural adjustment, relating “recuperation models” and “culture learning models” to the experiences of some international students.

Recuperation models

Coates (2004) argues that recuperation models are “commonly represented by a U-curve and focus on recovery from ‘culture shock’ as the mechanism by which life in a foreign land is accommodated” (p. 2). Advocates of these models have argued that cross-cultural adjustment starts off with a “honeymoon” period, characterised by excitement with entering a new culture, before moving into culture shock. The term “culture shock” was first used by Oberg (1960), who

identified six underlying characteristics of this construct: (1) stress relating to psychological adaptation; (2) a sense of loss resulting from the removal of friends, status, role, and personal possessions; (3) fear of rejection by, or rejection of, the new culture; (4) confusion in role definition; (5) unexpected anxiety, disgust or indignation regarding cultural differences; and (6) feelings of helplessness, including confusion, frustration and depression. In recovery models, the stage of culture shock is then followed by adjustment to the new culture and finally mastery, where the newcomer can successfully function in the new culture (see Figure 2.2) (Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Townsend & Lee, 2004; Ward, Okura, Kennedy & Kojima, 1998).

Figure 2.2: U-Curve of cross-cultural adjustment (adapted from Black & Mendenhall, 1991) The U curve model was extended by Adler’s (1975) cross-cultural adjustment theory, which incorporates five stages of adjustment: (1) ‘initial contact’, similar to the first stage of the U curve model; followed by (2) ‘disintegration’ where individuals experience confusion about the new culture; then (3) ‘reintegration’, which is characterised by a strong rejection of the new culture and a reintegration with their original culture. In this phase individuals may seek out relationships with others from the same culture as they wrestle with the negative feelings for the

Time in Months Absence of

stess / Well-being of an expatriot

new culture and positive feelings of their original culture. Individuals who then choose to accept their new culture, move into (4) the ‘autonomy’ phase, during which they become independent as they overcome negative feelings towards the new culture; and finally they move to (5),

‘independence’, whereby individuals accept and learn from the new culture and display behaviours and attitudes which are “independent but not undependent of cultural influence” (Adler, 1975, p. 18).

The U curve has been further expanded into a W curve to explain the adjustment experienced when individuals return to their home country and readjust to their former life and culture (Best, Hajzler & Henderson, 2007).

There has been some critique of recuperation models. In their longitudinal study, Ward et al. (1998) found that newcomers often do not experience euphoria when first entering a new culture; that in fact adjustment problems are maximised at the start of the journey and decline with time. Ward et al.’s study was, however, conducted at an institution which catered mainly for Japanese students pursuing an English degree at a New Zealand university, and may reflect highly

contextualised factors that cannot be generalised more broadly. Ward, Bochner and Furnham (2001), who conducted longitudinal research in the 1990s, have also argued that the “U curve hypothesis appears to be largely atheoretical, deriving from a combination of post hoc

explanation and armchair speculation” (p. 81). This was supported by Coates (2004), who added that “identifying mutually exclusive indicators for each stage is difficult; the expression of each stage may vary by culture” (p. 3). Bochner and Furnham (2001) contend that the U-Curve theory is still popular because “the field has not produced a critical and credible mass of research findings that consistently support an alternative theory” (p. 83).

Culture learning models

Perhaps to address this gap, other models have been developed to explain how individuals adjust to a new culture. Some research has focused on Furnham and Bochner’s social skills and culture learning model (Alexitch & Chapdelaine, 2004), which purports that international students experience adjustment issues because they are unaware of the social norms of the host culture and so adopt inappropriate interaction practices. Using this model, cultural adjustment is seen as a reflection of the difficulty experienced when navigating socially in the host culture.

Another model used to explain cross-cultural adjustment is Hofstede’s (1986) four dimension theory, which presents cultures as differing along four dimensions: (1) the Individualist-Collectivist dimension; (2) the Power Distance dimension; (3) the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension; and (4) the Masculinity-Feminity dimension. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) then added a fifth dimension (5), the Long versus Short Term Orientation (LTO), making it a five dimension theory. Culture shock, in this model, can be the result of individuals moving into cultures which differ greatly from their native culture in any of these dimensions. (1) Individualist-Collectivist dimension

Individualistic cultures (for example, some “Western” cultures), tend to focus their primary interest on the individual and their immediate family, which usually comprises a partner and children. Conversely, collectivist cultures’ (for example, some “Eastern” cultures) primary interest lies with the group, with group needs being regarded as more important than those of individuals. International students who move from a collectivist culture to an individualistic one, such as the transition of Asian or Indian students to an Australian context, might experience difficulties accessing services that are associated with personal weakness in their cultures (see

section 2.3.7); and difficulties accepting the ability to question authorities such as their lecturers (Bailey & Dua, 1999; Seo, 2010).

(2) Power Distance (PD) dimension

According to Hofstede (1986) “all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others”. Power distance (PD) addresses the degree of equality within a culture and how power difference is accepted among its members. Countries such as Australia are considered to be relatively egalitarian and so have a low tolerance for PD, whilst Eastern countries such as China are viewed as hierarchical in nature, and so have a high tolerance for PD. International students from high PD countries may find it difficult to approach people in authority to seek help, to challenge ideas, or to advocate on their own behalf.

(3) Uncertainty Avoidance dimension

Countries with strong uncertainty avoidance rely on structured and ordered environments. Individuals from these cultures may find it difficult to handle ambiguous situations and in the case of international students moving from high to low uncertainty avoidance countries, may be viewed as not having an appropriate level of independence and maturity.

(4) Masculinity-Femininity dimension

This dimension refers to the social roles that males and females are supposed to play in different cultures. Masculine cultures have more defined roles for men and women and clear expectations regarding how each should behave and contribute to society. Such cultures expect men to be strong, competitive breadwinners, whilst women are expected to bear children and be submissive. However, feminine cultures have less defined roles for men and women (Pritchard & Skinner, 2002). International students whose roles as defined in their home cultures are highly

inconsistent with the roles they are expected to play in the western context may face difficulties. Further, moving to a culture with less defined roles can also raise problems with the development of personal autonomy and identity (Erikson, 1963; Gould, 1978; Levinson, 1978).

(5) Long versus Short Term Orientation (LTO vs STO) dimension

According to Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), LTO “stands for fostering virtues oriented towards future rewards” whilst STO refers to “fostering virtues related to the past and present _ in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of ‘‘face’’, and fulfilling social obligations” (p. 210).

The applications of Hofstede’s (1986) and Hofstede and Hofstede’s (2005) ideas to

international students’ socio-cultural adjustment recognises that the larger the distance in the five dimensions of culture, the more difficulties they are likely to face when adjusting to the host culture (Alexitch & Chapdelaine, 2004). Studies have shown that when international students from collectivist cultures study in individualistic Westernised cultures, they experience greater culture shock as the two cultures are very different (Pines et al., 2003; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). In a study conducted by Yanhong and Kaye (1998), 155 international students at a UK university were surveyed. Significant differences were found between Asian (45.8%) and Western European (54.2%) students, with the former experiencing more difficulties adjusting to a Western culture, in which values and beliefs were different from those of their original culture. Conversely, students who came from the UK and decided to study in the United States found it less difficult to adjust culturally since the cultures of the two countries are similar (Feldman & Tompson, 1992; Mortenson, 2006; Parker & McEvoy, 1993; Ying, 2003). However, there have been researchers who caution against using Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions to infer the beliefs and values of individuals (Hewling, 2005; Macfadyen, 2006). This was discounted by Hofstede

(2002), who argued that the dimensions were not intended to draw conclusions about individuals but rather to gain an insight into the differences among cultures.

The move across cultures, therefore, has varying effects on the individual. For some international students, adjusting to the new culture might be difficult and, when coupled with other factors associated with cross-cultural learning, some students might not know how and

where to access help in their new culture. This may not be unique to international students

however, since the above models could apply to any individual who is adjusting to a new culture, for example, refugees and immigrants, or domestic students from very different environments.

Caution is needed when drawing conclusions from research which uses cultural backgrounds to differentiate between student groups, as these ignore individual differences among individuals from the same cultural background. As noted in a personal communication from Ziguras to Sanderson (2006) about Hofstede’s theory:

I’m not convinced that Hofstede’s cultural profiles are useful. Even if they are accurate averages for the Malaysian population, Malaysian international students in Australia are not typical Malaysians. Only around one per cent of the tertiary age population in Malaysia studies overseas and compared with the Malaysian norm, they are younger, richer, more Chinese, more urban, more likely to have parents who have studied overseas, etc. Also, these are people who are seeking an education which is different to the Malaysian educational norm, indicating that they may not share the same values as are ascribed to the Malaysian norm. (C. Ziguras, personal communication, as cited in Sanderson, March 24, 2006). (p. 65)

Further, recent research has cautioned against grouping all Asian learners together, arguing that students coming from the same cultural background may possess quite different learning

preferences. Ryan and Slethaug (2010) further noted that a number of studies carried out with ‘Chinese’ or ‘Asian’ students lacked a clear definition of who was included in these groups. It is important that research into the experiences of international students differentiates the various groups to understand the impact of cultural background as well as the individual differences that exist amongst the student cohorts.

As Clark and Gieve (2006) point out:

[T]here is a notable tendency in the applied linguistics literature to report the perceptions and reactions of Western instructors which, rather than being interrogated for ethnocentric bias and stereotyping, are validated by recourse to a Confucian heritage explanation which appears plausible rather than being empirically established . . . Much of the evidence produced for the way Chinese students behave in classroom settings has been drawn from reports and perceptions by Western instructors, thus filtered through their own values, expectations and standards. (pp. 60–63)

Culture shock thus affects individual students differently (Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Kiley, 2003; Lewthwaite, 1997; Mehdizadeh & Scott, 2005; Mori, 2000; Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007; Singh and Thuraisingam, 2007; Suen, 1998; Wang and Shan, 2007; Zhang, 2002). It can include language difficulties, experiences of discrimination, lack of social support and mental health issues with reports of loneliness, depression and helplessness during some international students’ first few months at university (Mori, 2000; Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007; Singh & Thuraisingam, 2007;Wang &Shan, 2007). Suen (1998) also reported that international students experiencing both language difficulties and mental health problems were more likely to withdraw from forming friendships, with few of the students in her study having any Australian friends.

Accessing social support

One way in which universities seek to support students and so reduce the potential for culture shock is the provision of specific services designed to support engagement (see section 2.1.4). As well as the formal support services offered by universities, international students can access social support through friendships with other students.

According to Berry (1997a, 1997b, 1998, and 2005), the benefits of having friends from the same ethnic background are fewer than those associated with having friends from a broader cultural mix, including the host country. Making friends with domestic students, however, can be difficult and complex. Even though research demonstrates that social support is associated with successful adjustment (Buote et al., 2007), some international students experience difficulties including perceived language difficulties, cultural barriers and discrimination in social situations (Williams & Johnson, 2011). Research carried out in the US has shown that some international students reported feeling lonely, sad and depressed because of a lack of social support. They also reported experiencing racial and ethnic discrimination, which was more common amongst non- white students. These were reported as barriers to making US friends and socialising in the host country (Biasco, Goodwin, & Vitale, 2001; Constantine et al., 2005; Hodson, Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2002; Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Stroebe, Van Vliet, Hewstone, & Willis 2002). The factors influencing interaction with the cultural “other” will be discussed in section 2.4.