The stress-adaptation-growth model has not been widely used in study abroad research—its use here derives from a desire to know more not only about what students learn abroad, but to better understand the learning process. The stress- adaptation-growth model is one of a long line of theoretical attempts to explain and predict the experiences of individuals who transition to a new environment. To move to a new environment inevitably involves coming face-to-face with differences of various kinds. This has the potential to be transformative, but early theories that attempted to explain and predict the experiences of individuals who transition to a new environment tended to view differences between the new environment and home from a problem-orientated perspective (Milstein, 2005). The rationale being that differences in any number of areas can cause problems (Furnham & Bochner, 1982). For example, Oberg (1960) noted that strange food can upset people. He also said: “If individuals come to a tropical area from a temperate one they quite often suffer from intestinal disturbances” (Oberg, 1960, p. 144). Meanwhile, E. T. Hall (1959) observed that even things such as small architectural differences can affect outsiders. He illustrated this by referring to
25
four technicians from the United States living in Latin America where houses are “often built around a patio that is next to the sidewalk but hidden from outsiders behind a wall” (E. T. Hall, 1959, p. 199). The technicians complained that they felt left out of things, or shut off. To make matters worse locals often won’t understand a newcomer’s problems and may seem indifferent to their suffering (Oberg, 1960). The newcomer may also find him or herself in a different role as Ying and Han (2006, p. 624) note, “that of a stranger, an outsider, a minority,” or even experience prejudice and discrimination. It can also be trying to be continually thrust into the role of ambassador as Furnham and Bochner (1986, p. 125) note, referring specifically to the experiences of international students, “often by well meaning people politely inquiring about their home customs and national origins, but sometimes by prejudiced individuals who may denigrate the policies or achievements of the student’s country of origin.” The overall effect can be so severe that an individual is said to be suffering from culture shock. This term was coined by Oberg (1960, p. 142) to describe what he considered a disease associated with living in an unfamiliar environment, which “like most ailments… has its own symptoms, cause and cure.” The symptoms include angrily rejecting the new environment and irrationally glorifying home (Adler, 1975; Oberg, 1960). Furnham and Bochner (1982) argue that while unfamiliarity with any or all aspects of a new setting can contribute to culture shock, the most likely cause is problems encountered in an individual’s dealings with host members. Research shows that there are many differences in how people communicate from one society to another (Ward et al., 2001). These differences are both linguistic and non-verbal (Adler, 1975; E. T. Hall, 1959; Oberg, 1960; Ward et al., 2001). For example: “Some gestures are used in one culture and not in others, and the same gesture can have quite diverse, indeed opposite, meanings in different cultures” (Ward et al., 2001, p. 58). A raised thumb is one gesture that can mean very different things: “In the United States a raised thumb is used as a signal of approval or approbation, and even has a name, the 'thumbs up' signal. However, in Greece the same sign is employed as an insult” (Ward et al., 2001, p. 58). The consequence is that when an individual communicates in another society his or her messages may be ambiguous, difficult to interpret, or even offensive “and
26
since receivers are also senders, the spiral of miscommunications can quickly accelerate into a vicious circle of misunderstanding” (Ward et al., 2001, p. 53). There are also many differences in what Ward et al. (2001) describe as the rules and conventions that regulate interpersonal interactions. They note that “cultures differ in the extent to which people are direct or indirect, how requests are made, and more importantly, how requests are denied or refused” (Ward et al., 2001, p. 54). In addition, rules about punctuality also vary across cultures and there are differences in how an individual should address specific people: “Mainly in terms of whether to use first names, last names, and titles” (Ward et al., 2001, p. 60). To further complicate matters, the rules and conventions that regulate interpersonal interaction often operate below the level of consciousness, therefore “unless they have a host culture friend who can serve as a mentor in this regard, even sensitive sojourners may miss some vital cues and behave inappropriately from their hosts' perspective” (Ward et al., 2001, pp. 59-60). These theories remain popular today, but they have been heavily criticised for having limited empirical support (Church, 1982; Ward et al., 2001). For example, they suggest that the transition to a new environment typically involves a number of distinct phases, starting with an initial period of excitement, fascination, enchantment, optimism and elation or euphoria upon arrival (Adler, 1975; Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963; Lysgaard, 1955; Oberg, 1960). This is followed by a period of crisis when culture shock strikes. It is defined by feelings of confusion, disorientation, anxiety, frustration, anger and depression. However, these feelings eventually pass as an individual becomes more comfortable in his or her new environment, although there will still be “moments of strain” (Oberg, 1960, p. 143). The exact number of stages that an individual is said to pass through varies, but the general pattern is the same according to these early theories. Lysgaard (1955) describes this pattern as a U-curve, although Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) argue that it is more accurate to speak of a W-curve because a process of shock and recovery also follows the return home. Nonetheless, Ward et al. (2001, p. 81) argue that “in contrast to beginning cross-cultural transition in a state of euphoria… it is more probable that the transition commences in a state of at least moderate distress.” Research undertaken by Murphy-Lejeune (2002)
27
focussing on intra-European mobility adds support to this thesis. The experiences of the students in her study generally started with a period of stress, something that she describes as “a phase that varies in length with each individual according to their personality and the context of their stay” (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002). Subsequent research also suggests that the process of adjustment is more irregular than early theories imply. For example, most of the students involved in the study by Murphy-Lejeune (2002) did not follow a smooth path. Instead, they described experiencing a series of ups and downs throughout their time abroad. The concept of culture shock has also been heavily criticised, especially the way in which this it is used. Beaven (2012, p. 40) notes that “although instances of culture shock have been reported in the literature, in some cases the terms discomfort, fatigue or simply culture stress… may be more appropriate.” People go abroad under different circumstances. Indeed, Beaven (2012) contrasts the experiences of refugees with those of study abroad students. For this and other reasons, individual responses can vary significantly and the term culture shock may not always be applicable. The students involved in Murphy-Lejeune’s (2002) study considered it too severe to represent what they experienced. She argues that the pathological traits associated with the term “are not relevant to the average student experience” (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002, p. 132). This is because there are a number of variables that “differentiate the traditional migrants’ experience from that of the student traveller” (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002, p. 127). These include motives, previous experience, language competence and duration of the stay. Regarding duration of the stay, Schartner (2014, p. 18) argues that “members of the host society tend to expect greater cultural conformity from those who stay for longer periods.” Kim (2001) agrees, noting that the host population tend to be more forgiving of mistakes made by short-term sojourners. The point is that student travellers are relatively privileged visitors and while this won’t prevent them from facing challenges, “the duration and severity of the personal crisis is lessened as a result” (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002, p. 132). This may have implications for student learning, a theme that is returned to later in this chapter. The students involved in Murphy-Lejeune’s (2002) study also rejected the term culture shock as being too negative. One student noted that she felt “it is the type
28
of term that one would use if witnessing a fatal accident, but not an experience which prompts one to change position” (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002, p. 131). The term has traditionally been used in an overly negative way, to describe something akin to a disease or illness from which an individual must recover. However, over time there has been increasing recognition that despite, or even because of the difficulties that accompany the encounter with difference implicit in any transition to a new environment, this encounter provides an important opportunity for growth. For example, Adler’s (1975, p. 13) model of the transitional experience provides “an alternative view of culture shock.” This model does not deny the existence of the phenomenon. Adler (1975, p. 15) notes “that specific psychological, social, and cultural dynamics occur when new cultures are encountered.” Specifically, he argues that “differences become increasingly noticeable as different behaviors, values, and attitudes intrude into the perceptual reality of the sojourner,” and as these “cultural distinctions come into the perceptual foreground tension and frustration increase” (Adler, 1975, p. 16). He also notes that this often leads to the rejection of the host culture “through stereotyping, generalization, evaluation, and judgmental behaviour and attitude,” a central feature of the idea of culture shock (Adler, 1975, p. 17). Nonetheless, Adler (1975, p. 15) contends that “a successful cross-cultural experience should result in the movement of personality and identity to new consciousness of values, attitudes, and understandings.” Despite culture shock “often being associated with negative consequences,” he considers it to be a necessary and important stage in this process “of cultural learning, self-development, and personal growth” (Adler, 1975, p. 14). Murphy-Lejeune (2002, p. 145) similarly claims that culture shock constitutes “a step in the process of cultural discovery.” She argues that it actually provides a necessary jolt; it spurs learning and growth. The demands placed on an individual by environmental differences are also seen as an important source of growth according to the stress-adaptation-growth model. They are considered important because the resulting stress is said to “spur adaptive responses in individual participants” (Kim, 2015, p. 5). Specifically, it is believed to compel cultural learning in an attempt “to establish (or reestablish) and maintain a relatively stable, reciprocal, and functional relationship with the environment” (Kim, 2015, p. 5). The stress that individuals experience as a result
29
of these demands are said to trigger a process of adaptation through acculturation. Kim (2001, p. 31) describes adaptation as the dynamic process by which individuals achieve environmental fit “upon relocating to new, unfamiliar, or changed cultural environments.” Facilitating this is acculturation, the process of learning the new cultural system, especially in areas of direct relevance to an individual’s daily functioning in the new environment – “from attire and food habits to behavioural norms and cultural values” (Kim, 2001, p. 51). This includes learning the host language and wider communicative norms, as well as new “aesthetic and emotional sensibilities,” “moral and ethical values,” and practises, such as the appropriate dining etiquette (Kim, 2001, 2008; 2015, p. 5). Kim (2001, p. 51) acknowledges that diversity is inevitable, but argues that while “acquiring minority cultural patterns is a part of the overall adaptation process of newcomers, the most forceful pressure to conform generally comes from the dominant group.” Over time, this process of adaptation via acculturation is believed to “bring about a gradual transformation” in the individual towards a more intercultural identity or personhood, something that Kim (2008, p. 364) describes as a “self-other orientation” defined by two central elements: (1) individuation, or the ability “to see oneself and others on the basis of unique individual qualities rather than categorical stereotypes,” and (2) universalisation, or the ability “to see the common humanity among different cultures and ethnicities, and locate the points of consent and complementarity beyond the points of difference and contention.” However, this study uses the stress-adaptation-growth model to examine the relationship between study abroad challenges and the idea of deep understanding.
Kim (2015, p. 6) argues that “the stress–adaptation–growth dynamic does not unfold in a smooth, steady, and linear progression.” Rather, it involves a series of withdrawals in response to the stress associated with new difficulties and leaps forward as an individual responds to these, “with the overall forward and upward movement in the direction of greater adaptation and growth” (Kim, 2015, p. 6). However, is the stress-adaptation-growth dynamic inevitable when one moves to a new environment, especially when it is only for a matter of months as is the case for study abroad students? The research mentioned above found that the concept of culture shock is not always relevant to the experiences of many study
30
abroad students. This raises the question of whether study abroad students are likely to experience sufficient challenges to initiate the above chain of events, especially students from Australia and New Zealand who go to the seemingly similar shores of Europe? If not, does this limit the potential for growth? On the other hand, can the challenges that they experience actually have a regressive effect? For example, research shows that study abroad students often resort to generalisations or stereotypes to make sense of their difficulties (Beaven, 2012; De Nooy & Hanna, 2003).The data collected as part of my study was analysed with these questions in mind and they sit at the centre of the present dissertation.