Paper Presented at SCUTREA 34Th Annual Conference, University of Sheffield, UK

Intercultural communication research and lifelong learning: perspectives from a European project

Brec’hed Piette

University of Wales, Bangor, Wales, UK

Paper presented at SCUTREA 34th Annual Conference, University of Sheffield, UK. 6-8 July 2004

Introduction

‘Insofar as we understand at all we understand differently’ (Gadamer)

Several papers in recent SCUTREA conferences (e.g. Alheit and Merrill, 2001; Sork, Walters, Larsson, Dahlgren and Boud, 2003; Edwards and Usher, 2001) have addressed the increasingly common phenomenon of initiatives in adult education in both research and teaching being developed by teams working across several countries. As Edwards and Usher say ‘With new settings and wider groups of practitioners entering the terrain of pedagogical work, education itself becomes a diaspora rather than a disciplinary space.’(2001, p.97).

There are several reasons why such international partnerships are considered a good vehicle for developing adult education courses; for instance, the product may be more attractive and relevant to a wider group of international students through having been developed by a cross national group. Additionally, it is possible to pilot courses on a more varied group of potential students and the planning team may have a wider range of experiences that would be obtained within one country. In the European context many such developments have taken place under initiatives such as Gruntvig and Leonardo. In addition to the actual outcomes of individual projects, the stated aims of these programmes include that of increasing understanding and collaboration between academics and teachers in the different European states. However, the process of developing courses of this kind is often considerably more problematic than course-planning by a team from within a single country. There are numerous challenges and risks to participants arising from the different traditions and expectations of those involved, the timing and the funding constraints operated by the funding bodies, and the stresses and strains arising from the interactions of the people involved.

In this paper I will address this relatively recent development in lifelong learning with specific reference to the experience of working as part of an international team developing a vocationally oriented distance learning course for adults. I will attempt to throw light on some of the difficulties that have arisen in this collaborative development by drawing on insights from research in intercultural communication. I will consider approaches in the intercultural communication literature that concentrates on psychological and linguistic dimensions at the interpersonal level, but will also consider how a more complete picture may be obtained by considering wider issues of context and power.

The ‘Home Care’ project1

The particular project I will be referring to in this paper is known as the ‘Home Care in Europe project and is funded under the ESF Leonardo programme with a team drawn from five different European countries - Great Britain, Sweden, Finland, Italy and Hungary. The main task of the project is that of developing a distance learning course for those involved in the domiciliary care of the elderly. The course is aimed at those who are either already working in the field or have experience as unpaid carers in the home They will generally have limited education and may come from socially excluded groups. A crucial part of the course development process consists of three-day meetings at different points in the project when all five groups come together to plan and monitor the work.

The official language of the project is English, a language which is the native language of the members of one of the participating groups (Great Britain), spoken well or reasonably well by most of the members of two participating countries (Sweden and Finland), spoken less well by members of the fourth country (Italy), and not spoken at all by those from the fifth country - Hungary - who operate entirely through translators.

The project has undoubtedly made considerable progress, but for the purpose of this paper, I will concentrate on some of the difficulties that have arisen, during the face-to-face group meetings of international partners. I will concentrate particularly on those that seem to relate to the different cultures and languages of the participants, rather than on problems that might arise in any group work situation.

Problems

Problems seem to fall into four main areas – those relating to different understandings of fundamental concepts underpinning the project, those relating to different views and expectations of partnership working, those relating to different expectations around the conduct of meetings, and those relating to language and translation issues.

Understanding of fundamental concepts

It soon became clear during discussion that certain of the underpinning concepts of the project were not understood in the same way by all the participants. One clear example is APEL (accreditation of prior experience and learning). Not only were different terms used to refer to (nearly) the same thing (accreditation, validation, recognition of prior learning) but there was a wide range of experience of the practice. In relation to APEL this ranged from partners (Sweden) whose everyday practice of course development almost invariably accommodated an APEL element to other partners (Italy) who were completely unfamiliar with the concept and found it difficult to see its relevance. A deeper discussion around this topic revealed markedly different values accorded to formal and informal learning and different attitudes towards non-traditional learners. Another less obvious difference in the understanding of concepts arose with the term level of study – while the general concept was used by all, national systems varied considerably in the degree of specification, with UK participants having a far more differentiated concept of educational level than other countries. It followed from this that some participants felt that it was essential to be quite specific about the ‘level’ of the course at the very beginning of discussions. Others were less concerned about this.

Discussions that were meant to be about detailed planning of modules consistently became bogged down in debates about the differences in the practices of the various countries and institutions. Attempts to find compromise positions that were different from these could be seen as challenging people’s normal day-to-day practices, and were sometimes perceived as quite threatening.

Different views and expectations of partnership working

There was some difference between the partners in the extent to which they felt bound by the initial parameters of the project, and the degree of flexibility that could be applied in interpreting them. There was also some disagreement about the extent to which individual partners could be allowed to work somewhat separately within the project, and whether this was allowed in the ‘spirit’ of partnership working. Some partners were under pressure from their full-time employers to use the project to solve particular problems within their own work contexts that were not necessarily applicable to the partnership as a whole.

Different expectations around the conduct of meetings

One of the main issues that arose here were differences in expectations relating to formality and informality in the conduct of meetings. Some partners seemed more comfortable with set-piece presentations about what had been done, whereas others felt that the real purpose of the meeting was discussions around moving forward on specific work-packages. When discussions did take place there were also differences of opinion as to whether meetings needed to be fairly firmly chaired with clear objectives being set, or whether they could be run in more open ways. Essentially what might be seen by some as necessary creative discussion could be seen by others as merely chaotic!

The status of the individual participants was also a potentially relevant issue in the conduct of meetings. The team members came from a range of different types of institutions and were themselves of quite varying statuses within these. In the context of the project such status differentials were not really relevant, but it is possible that individuals themselves, particularly those whose status was quite high within their own institutions, were used to being treated with some deference. That this degree of deference was not necessarily accorded to them by all participants within the project meetings appeared to be uncomfortable for some.

In addition to the actual business of the meeting some of the limited time available had to be spent by partners in social interactions and fairly formal events with various dignitaries and visitors connected with the institution that was hosting that particular meeting. The local culture tended to determine the nature and formality of such events to a greater extent than the actual project meetings. While it is fair to say that most people very much enjoyed experiencing the different cultures in this way, extensive events of this sort could also bring their own strains.

Language and translation issues

This was the area where the difficulties and problems were most apparent. As is common in many such initiatives English was the official language of the project, but the facility in English of the group members varied from native to non-existent. This meant that everything said had to be translated to and from at least one other language (Hungarian), and sometimes two or even three. For the more formal presentations this was not a major problem although the lack of instantaneous translation facilities meant that it was quite time-consuming. However, in the more informal parts of the meetings important points could often be missed by at least some of the participants unless they were repeated several times. An additional problem was the ability of the translators (who sometimes lacked background knowledge in what was being discussed) to communicate the subtleties of the discussions. The time-lag which the translation imposed on the discussion meant that arguments were often not fully developed and points were not followed up. There was a tendency too for the meeting to be dominated by those who were most fluent in English, and it was much more difficult for those whose English was limited to get their ideas adopted by the group. Subtleties of expression were difficult to convey leading to an over-simplification of often complex ideas. Those whose native language was English or who spoke it very well did not always accommodate sufficiently to the others there and would sometimes use unfamiliar colloquialisms and slang.

Intercultural communication

Although some of the problems described above could arise in any group planning situation it seems likely that at least some of these problems were due to differences in the languages and cultures of the participants. It therefore seems useful to consider whether the intercultural communication literature offers any useful insights into the problems and perhaps offer some amelioration of some of them.

Generally the intercultural communication perspective is based on social psychological and sociolinguistic theories and it assumes that the success or failure of intercultural communication depends on an individual’s competence in the relevant cultural and linguistic system (see, for example, Clyne, 1994; Kim and Gudykunst, 1988; and Scollon and Scollon, 1995) .The more similar the other culture is to yours, the easier it is to communicate with people from it. If one places different cultures on some kind of a continuum according to similarity the closer two cultures are on the continuum the easier it should be for individuals to communicate with each other. In a European context, one can assume that North European countries have fairly similar cultures, and individuals from these countries should therefore find communicating with each other easier than with Southern Europeans, who in turn will share more similarity with each other. However not all groups who are culturally similar communicate well with each other. One has only to think of the two communities in Northern Ireland who are in many ways very similar and who share language and cultural history but still seem to have many problems in understanding each other’s perspectives (Shi-Xu and Wilson, 2001)!

The concept of misunderstanding is a central one in the intercultural literature as it is considered to be the major problem in intercultural communication. Gudykunst (1995) says

Communication is effective to the extent that the person interpreting the message attaches a meaning to the message that is relatively similar to what was intended by the person transmitting it. Stated differently, communication is effective to the extent that we are able to minimise misunderstanding. (1995, p.15)

In addition to the breakdown in the transmission of messages misunderstanding according to Gudykunst is frequently accompanied by uncertainty and anxiety. Uncertainty can include both cognitive uncertainty and behavioural uncertainty. In the international situation discussed here there is likely to be far more uncertainty than one would find in normal encounters with colleagues. Such uncertainty will include cognitive uncertainty (we lack knowledge of the background of the people we are working with, we know much less about their values and beliefs), and behavioural uncertainty (they may behave in ways we find unpredictable, for instance they may be more sexist, or seem over familiar). Anxiety is another important concept. While it is present to a degree in most communication situations, and should not be seen as entirely negative, high uncertainty is likely to lead to high anxiety. This in turn leads to a greater likelihood of dealing in stereotypes. Such stereotypes (for example, the obsessive German, the histrionic Italian) are of course very available in the context of European projects. Gudykunst’s argument is that in order to minimise miscommunication, both anxiety and uncertainty need to be ‘managed’ in a mindful way, mindfulness referring to the activity of being aware, that is giving a high degree of attention and careful thought to an interaction

Additional insights on the problems of intercultural communication come from approaches that focus more on the discursive and linguistic aspects of the process. Clyne (1994) argues that cultural value systems influence the way people communicate, and that there are real differences between cultures in discourse patterns. One example given by Scheu-Lottgen and Hernandex-Campoy (1998) is the relative use of silences in speech. They suggest that North Europeans tend to interpret a large amount of speech as indicating superficiality or a lack of deference. Southern Europeans on the other hand may interpret silences or pauses as a sign of mental slowness or ignorance. Other differences between cultural and linguistic groups include differences in the speed of speech and in turn-taking. These are very important in determining the whole rhythm of a communication. Different turn-taking patterns and different patterns of pausing can be seen between North European and South European countries, with the latter tending towards longer turns and shorter pauses. Such communicative patterns may be perceived quite negatively by North Europeans leading to communication breakdowns. Politeness is another area where differences are found, with some countries being fairly casual in their approach to politeness rituals, and others expecting stricter adherence to them.