exam questions

qingtian

Topic9.Interculturaltransitionandadaptation.pdf

Home >Literature homework help >exam questions

Intercultural Communication

Topic 9. Intercultural Transition and Adaptation Dr. Oksana Shkurska Dalhousie University

Intercultural Transition and Adaptation

Ê  Culture shock and stress

Ê  Bennett’s Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

Ê  Adaptation and the social context: Berry’s Acculturation Model

Culture shock and stress

Ê  “Psychological (and physical) consequences of changes in circumstances” (Spencer –Oatey & Franklin, 2009).

Ê  “The traumatic experience that an individual may encounter when entering a different culture” (Rogers & Steinfatt, 1999)

Ê  A psychological condition characterized by a high level of anxiety, annoyance, and feeling lost in new cultural surroundings leading to stress and (sometimes) negative physical consequences.

Culture shock and stress

Ê  Common experience

Ê  Not a disorder

Ê  Has stages and characteristics

Ê  Is experienced in a different way by different individuals

Ê  Can be relieved with other people’s help and support

Characteristics

Ê  Sense of loss and feeling of deprivation

Ê  Feeling of helplessness

Ê  Irritation/anger about “foreign” practices

Ê  Feeling of isolation and rejection

Ê  Confusion in role, values, and self-identity

Ê  Frustration, depression, and self-pity

(Spencer –Oatey & Franklin, 2009)

Oberg’s stages of emotional reaction to cultural change

1. The ‘honeymoon’, with emphasis on the initial reactions of euphoria, enchantment, fascination, and enthusiasm;

2. The crisis, characterized by feelings of inadequacy, frustration, anxiety and anger;

3. The recovery, including crisis resolution and culture learning;

4. Adjustment, reflecting enjoyment of and functional competence in the new environment.

(Oberg, 1960)

U-curve Theory

http://www.isa.provost.nagoya-u.ac.jp/

W-curve Theory

http://mythsdreamssymbols.com/images/w99hartf2.jpg

Kim’s stress-adaptation-growth theory

growth

stress adaptation

•  All the elements are interdependent

•  Each stressful experience leads to drawing back and then to the release of adaptive energy to “leap forward”

(Kim, 2001)

Managing Culture Shock and Stress

What helps to manage culture shock and stress effectively?

Ê  Emotion regulation

Ê  Openness

Ê  Flexibility

Ê  Critical thinking

(Matsumoto, Yoo & LeRoux, 2007)

Managing Culture Shock and Stress

Ê  Resilience (ability to cope with stress and bounce back after making mistakes)

Ê  Coping (having well-developed methods for dealing with stress; building local support networks and using humor to relieve tensions)

Ê  Spirit of adventure (searching for new experiences)

Ê  Inner purpose (inner strength, personal values, and determination that gives a clear direction)

(WorldWork, n.d. as cited in Spencer-Oatey and Franklin, 2009).

Bennett’s developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS)

Ê  Adaptation=modification of behavior

Native cultural context èèèanother cultural context èèModification of behavior to become “more appropriate” for a new context

Ê  Adaptation=assimilation

Through

1.  “re-enculturation” (original worldview is changed into a new one)

2.  “simple emulation”

(Bennett, 2013)

Bennett’s developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS)

1.  Denial of difference

2.  Defense against difference

3.  Minimization of difference

4.  Acceptance of difference

5.  Adaptation to difference

6.  Integration of difference

(Bennett, 2013)

Limitations of the theory

Ê  Do people have to move sequentially through each stage?

Ê  Do the stages people move through depend on their cultures?

Ê  How are these stages connected with a person’s cultural identity and their willing to retain it?

Berry’s acculturation model 166 Conceptualizing Intercultural Interaction

However, as Berry (2006) rightly points out, people cannot neces- sarily pursue independently their preferred acculturation orientations; they are also constrained or facilitated by the preferences of others. For example, people can only pursue integration or separation if other members of their cultural group similarly want to maintain their heri- tage culture. Perhaps even more importantly, the attitudes and social policies of the dominant group may restrict people’s opportunities for integration. He explains this as follows:

[...] integration [...] can only be freely chosen and successfully pursed by non-dominant groups when the dominant society is open and inclusive in its orientation towards cultural diversity [...]. Thus a mutual accommodation is required for integration to be attained, involving the acceptance by both dominant and non-dominant groups of the right of all groups to live as culturally different peoples within the same society. This strategy requires non-dominant groups to adopt the basic values of the larger society, while at the same time the dominant group must be prepared to adapt national institutions (e.g., education, health, labor) to meet better the needs of all groups now living together in the plural society. This latter arrangement [...] [is] called multiculturalism.

(Berry 2006: 35–6)

Unfortunately, however, the policy of multiculturalism does not necessarily promote integration, as societies across the developed

−

Issue 1 How important is it to maintain

one’s heritage culture?

Issue 2 How important

is it to build relationships

with the larger society?

Integration

Separation

Assimilation

Marginalization

Figure 7.1 Berry’s acculturation orientations (based on Berry and Sam 1997: 296).

9781403_986313_08_cha07.indd 1669781403_986313_08_cha07.indd 166 6/25/2009 2:11:42 PM6/25/2009 2:11:42 PM

(Berry, 2006 as cited in Spencer-Oatey and Franklin, 2009)

Berry’s Acculturation Model

Ê  Integration (maintaining their old cultural identity while at the same time participating in the larger dominant culture. The level of acculturative stress is low)

Ê  Assimilation (giving up their old culture and adopting their new one. The level of acculturative stress is moderate)

Ê  Separation (maintaining their old cultural identity and avoiding contact with the new one. The level of acculturative stress is high)

Ê  Marginalization (losing or rejecting their old culture, but not being able to replace it by a new (dominant) culture. The level of acculturative stress is extremely high)

(Suderman, 2008)

Berry’s acculturation framework

(Berry, 2006 as cited in Spencer-Oatey and Franklin, 2009)

Points to consider:

Ê  Integration can be successful only if the dominant society is open and positive towards cultural diversity

Ê  Both dominant society and non-dominant communities recognize the right for culturally different people live in the same society

Ê  Non-dominant groups should be ready to accept the basic values of the dominant society

Ê  National institutions (education, health, labor) should be prepared to meet the needs of non-dominant groups

What do immigrants in Canada say?

Analytical Studies – Research Paper Series - 21 - Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 11F0019M, no.322

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive results Most LSIC respondents have positive assessments of their life in Canada. Six months and four years after landing, just over 54.2% said they were satisfied with life in Canada and almost 19% said they were very, or completely, satisfied (Table 3). Combined, 73% of respondents provided a favourable response to this question, 17.7% of respondents were neutral in their assessment, saying they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with life in Canada, while 9.4% said they were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Respondents were somewhat less positive about the extent to which their expectations about life in Canada had been met. In all three waves, almost 25% said that life in Canada was somewhat, or much worse, than they had expected. Whether or not these individuals had overly optimistic expectations at the outset cannot be determined. The largest share of respondents— 39% in Wave 1 and about 33% in Waves 2 and 3—said that life in Canada was about what they expected it would be. Finally, 36% of respondents said life in Canada was somewhat better or much better than they had expected at Wave 1, with this share increasing to 41% and 43% at Waves 2 and 3. Considering our third measure, the vast majority of LSIC respondents (87% to 91%) said that, if they had to make the decision again, they would still come to Canada. Table 3 Descriptive overview of subjective assessments of life in Canada

Wave 1, six months

after landing

Wave 2, two years

after landing

Wave 3, four years

after landing

Satisfaction with life in Canada Very/completely satisfied 18.8 .. 17.5 Satisfied 54.2 .. 55.9 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 17.7 .. 19.4 Dissatisfied 8.0 .. 4.2 Very/completely dissatisfied 1.4 .. 2.9

Total 100.0 .. 100.0

Met expectations - Life in Canada is…

Much better than expected 13.4 14.4 14.8 Somewhat better than expected 22.9 26.9 28.3 About what expected 39.4 33.8 32.7 Somewhat worse than expected 20.4 20.5 19.2 Much worse than expected 3.9 4.4 5.0

Total 100 100 100

If had to make the decision again would you come to Canada?

Yes 91.2 88.2 86.5 No 8.8 11.8 13.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

percent

Note: The percentage distribution of assessments for each question may not add to 100%

because of rounding.

Analytical Studies – Research Paper Series - 21 - Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 11F0019M, no.322

4 Results

Wave 1, six months

after landing

Wave 2, two years

after landing

Wave 3, four years

after landing

Total 100.0 .. 100.0

Met expectations - Life in Canada is…

Total 100 100 100

If had to make the decision again would you come to Canada?

Yes 91.2 88.2 86.5 No 8.8 11.8 13.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

percent

Note: The percentage distribution of assessments for each question may not add to 100%

because of rounding.

(Statistics Canada, 2010)

Bibliography

Ê  Alagiah, G. (2006). A Home from Home: From Immigrant Boy to English Man. London: Little, Brown.

Ê  Bennett, M. J. (2013). Basic concepts of intercultural communication. Paradigms, principles, & practice: Selected readings (Second ed.). Boston: Intercultural Press, A Nicholas Brealey Pub. Company.

Ê  Berry, J. W. (2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In D. L. Sam and J. W. Berry (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ê  Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ê  Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H. and LeRoux, J. A. (2007). Emotion and intercultural adjustment. In H. Kotthoff and H. Spencer-Oatey (eds), Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bibliography

Ê  Statistics Canada (2010). New immigrants’ assessments of their life in Canada. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11 F0019M — No. 322. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11f0019m/ 11f0019m2010322-eng.htm

Ê  Suderman, J. (2008). Understanding intercultural communication. Toronto: Nelson Education.

Ê  Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177–182.

Ê  Spencer-Oatey, H. & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural Interaction: A multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.