Lee estos textos de un foro y complétalos.

2.3.1. Institutional culture

The chapter now goes on to discuss institutional dimensions with respect to foreign students’ experiences at universities. It particularly focuses on the notion ‘institutional culture’ in reference to the university’s reception dynamics that students experience throughout their university studies.

According to Higgins, (2013:115), institutional culture is seen as “the prevailing ethos - the deep-seated set of norms, assumptions and values that predominate and pervade most of the environment”. Steyn and Zyl (2001:20), as quoted by Higgins (2013:116), refer to institutional culture as the “‘sum total’ effects of the values, attitudes, styles of interaction, collective memories – the way of life of the university, known by those who work and study in the university environment, through their lived experiences.”

According to Toma, Dubrow and Hartley (2005:6),

… at universities and colleges, institutional culture conveys a sense of identity (who we are), facilitates commitment (what we stand for), enhances stability (how we do things around here), guides sense making (how we understand events), and defines authority (who is influential).

Institutional culture and institutional climate are often used interchangeably, with the assumption that they are the same, when in fact these two concepts are different and explain different phenomenon. Mentz (2007), as quoted by Portnoi (2009:375), refers to institutional

culture as specific situations, norms, values and communication styles and behaviour of staff

set by management. Mentz indicates that culture is firmly established; therefore, it is not easily changed. Institutional climate on the other hand, according to Peterson and Spencer (1990), also quoted by Portnoi (2009), is the perception and understanding of staff and students of how the climate is like, it is about the unspoken reality of the institution. Mentz states that institutional

21

climate, in comparison to institutional culture, is more likely to fluctuate. As Portnoi puts it,

“[institutional culture] is concerned with perceptions and attitudes rather than deeply held meanings, believes and practices” (p. 375). Institutional climate is discussed further in the next chapter.

It is important to have a strong institutional culture as it stimulates a sense of connectedness between members of staff and students in an institution (Toma, et al. 2005:1). As they put it, “[a] strong institutional culture yields the institutional identification and brand equity that encourages successful external relations (p. 2)”. Cross and Johnson (2008) state that the “[c]ampus environment … produces feelings of alienation, hostility, social isolation and invisibility and can hinder the recruitment of new students, their social adjustments and retention as well as satisfaction rates and graduation rates” (p. 303). Institutional culture is very important in the recruitment of international students, because it affects the non-academic elements of such students. According to Jansen (2004), it is important for universities to create an inclusive institutional culture in which students from different backgrounds will ‘feel at home’ (p. 7). Findings on a study conducted by Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson and Covarrubias (2012:1192) illustrate that American universities function on middle and upper class cultural norms, which promote an invisible disadvantage for students, which make it difficult for working class students to transition into and function in universities. They use the notion of cultural

mismatch to show that students from American working class backgrounds experience a form

of discomfort at universities; they find tasks difficult to do, and therefore perform poorly in assigned tasks. Ancis, Sedlaceck and Mohr (2000:180) state, “students of colour enrolled at predominantly [w]hite universities …experience lack of support and an unwelcoming academic climate.”

Owens (1991), as cited by Van der Weisthuizen and De Bruyn (2002:123), defines (organisational) culture in an institution as “the shared philosophies, ideologies, values, assumptions, beliefs, expectations, attitudes and norms that knit a community together”. Owens points out that institutions use mechanisms, rituals and symbols to influence and control the behaviour of its occupants to fit its culture. Owens also points out that understanding these

22

rituals is important for students, as it makes it easier for them to understand the institutional culture. He suggests that institutional culture is a critical factor in student behaviour and achievement, and to the learning and development of students. It is important for students from all kinds of cultures to know exactly how their institutions culture functions, as it makes it easier for them to co-exist with other members of their campus.

Ingram (2009:424) discusses the institutional habitus, which he describes as a system of lasting, similar dispositions. Ingram (2009) posits that just like an individual’s habitus, institutional habitus is a product of historical, social and cultural actions and interactions within the institution. Ingram states that the school’s history and experiences as well as its pupils and staff (past and present) play a part in the evolving habitus, and therefore makes the culture of the school. The school imparts its habitus to its members, which reinforces its institutional habitus rather than transform it, which leads to students’ conformity to the status quo.

2.3.2. Institutional culture and cultural misrecognition

As student intake at universities continues to diversify, the question of how the institutional culture affects students from different cultural backgrounds gains urgency. Literature shows that students from different cultural backgrounds do not get recognition in institutions.

Misrecognition is a widely discussed term, but for the sake of this study, we will look at only two definitions. Fraser (2008:58) states that:

To be misrecognised, is not simply to be thought ill of, looked down on, or devalued in others’ conscious attitudes or mental beliefs. It is rather to be denied the status of a full partner in social interaction and prevented from participating as a peer in social life -not as a consequence of a distributive inequity […] but rather as a consequence of institutionalised patterns of interpretation and evaluation that constitute one as comparatively unworthy of respect and esteem.

23

Bourdieu refers to misrecognition as processes and situations in terms of which power relations are perceived, “not for what they objectively are but in a form which renders them legitimate in the eyes of the beholder” (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977, p. xiii). According to Fraser (2008), cultural injustices occur when institutionalised or hierarchical patterns of cultural value generate misrecognition or status inequality for particular social groups. And according to Bourdieu, misrecognition is the way processes and structures in society function to legitimise unequal power relations, and present these as acceptable, while Fraser’s use of misrecognition refers to how processes of inequality that are produced in society and institutions discriminate against specific groups such as foreign students, students of different racial or ethnic groups.

Thompson and Yar (2011) make a clear distinction between misrecognition and non- recognition, two terms that are often used interchangeably. They explain that misrecognition entails distorted or partial recognition, while non-recognition is the “absolute refusal to acknowledge the existence of the other as a human subject” (p. 172). When students come to an institution, they bring with them different norms, meanings and assumptions, norms that describe their culture and who they are, based on their cultural background. Students from cultural backgrounds that are different from one that the institution functions within, find it hard to operate in such an institution. Their cultures are misrecognised. Honneth (1995: x) in support of this, states “members of marginalised and subaltern groups have been systematically denied recognition for the worth of their culture or way of life”. Cultural misrecognition happens consciously and unconsciously, and it happens due to not taking into consideration the next person’s culture. When cultural misrecognition occurs, inequality among students of different cultures is fuelled, and when that happens, the minority students’ stress levels increase, and their comfort in that place decreases, that is when students feel that ‘they do not belong’ in that particular institution.

According to Fabretti (2015:25), institutional misrecognition operates less visibly or openly, because it is not some form of harsh and conflictual refusal, but rather a soft and silent marginalisation. Those who are misrecognised find that people are usually kind to them and that life goes on as if everything is normal. The victims often feel disoriented and abandoned,

24

“as if [they] do not exist in the eyes of the institution, like [they] are a foreign body, not part of the institution’s official life”. Fabretti (2015:25) states that a participant in their study “perceived a lack of consideration, a lack of inclusion, and a lack of involvement. This is what is meant by ‘misrecognition’”. A person may be present, but they are invisible to the institution. The group that is misrecognised feel invisible and inaudible, and they want to be recognised on their own terms, for who they are. As Thompson and Yar (2011:3) posits, this particular group feels overlooked and unvalued, they want acknowledgment for the distinctive contribution they make at the university as students from a different country and culture.

According to Brandt (2012:582), “[m]isrecognition operates through a tacit acceptance of particular practices that are neither challenged, nor probed”. Taylor (1995:225) states that misrecognition can cause harm and oppression to the misrecognised group…, and can “imprison someone in a false distorted and reduced mode of being.” Ingram (2009) in her study of working class boys and their educational experiences shows that sometimes schools misrecognise working class culture and promote assimilation and acculturation, and ultimately spreads educational and social inequalities. Honneth (1995: xi) states that people need to be recognised for who and what they are so that they form integrated identities, identities that will make it easier for them to achieve self-realisation.