AllRoundBest Tutor

Reflective Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, October 2003

Bridging Perspectives of Parents,

Teachers and Co-Researchers:

methodological reflections on

cross-cultural research

SOYEON PARK Department of Family Studies, 202 Pettee Hall, 55 College Road, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA; e-mail: [email protected]

MARIA K. E. LAHMAN Department of Applied Statistics and Research Methods, Mckee Hall 518, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639, USA; e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to discuss how researchers situated themselves and how they learned to effectively communicate each other throughout the process of collabora- tive cross-cultural research. Co-researchers, with diverse cultural backgrounds (Korean and Caucasian-American), reflect on the meanings and implications of their collaborative experiences. The implications of multicultural collaboration in qualitative research, includ- ing challenges and benefits, are presented. In the paper the authors introduce themselves as researchers, overview the cross-cultural research that the authors collaborated on, detail the method used to reflect on the collaborative research, and highlight areas or themes that seemed particularly salient in the research experience.

By having real researchers tell their own stories of ‘mucking around’ … in qualitative research, we get a more realistic, human story of the process. (Kathleen Bennett DeMarrais)

Collaborative research relationships involve a variety of challenges and barriers. In qualitative studies, the researcher is the main research instrument in terms of research design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation (Woods et al., 2000). When this ‘main instrument’ is composed of co-researchers collaboration becomes another issue that the researchers must be aware of including possible strengths and challenges. Despite possible obstacles in collaborative research having more than one researcher perspective when examining the research question offers an array of benefits. In particular, successful collaboration of experts from different cultures in a cross-cultural study may make the study more rigorous.

ISSN 1462-3943 print; 1470-1103 online/03/030375-09  2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1462394032000112264

376 S. Park & M. K. E. Lahman

As a multicultural being in a multicultural society, we believe it is of vital importance to be aware of the numerous influences surrounding human beings as well as to try to understand ourselves in relations to these influences. Multicultural- ism is the belief that there is no single right way to live and no single set of cultural practices is predetermined as the superior or ‘right’ way to be (Kimball & Garrison, 1999). Respect for other people’s experiences and their interpretation of those experiences is fundamental in multicultural perspectives.

As Gates and Hinds (2000) point out, the triangulation of researchers with different experiences or other resources enhances the data interpretation. In any collaborative research, it is important to establish effective tools for open communi- cation among the researchers. In this paper, we, Soyeon and Maria, will discuss how we learned to communicate with each other effectively and the implications of what we learned from our collaborative experiences.

During the process of conducting a collaborative qualitative inquiry, one of the main tools we used for our reflections was a research journal. In the journals we reflected on the process of the research—struggles, joys, new insights, wonderings— and our efforts to work with each other. We found that some valuable struggles were articulated in the journals that reflected our attempts to understand the cross-cul- tural research we were engaged in. Eventually we decided to write our experience in a manner that might help others to reflect on their own research experiences. This idea was intriguing and challenged us to write about, what we have since come to understand as, the researcher experience (Moch & Gates, 2000).

Our Stories

Given that qualitative research values interpretive meanings of both participants’ and researchers’ experiences within a context, it is important for the researcher to be aware of her/his own bias that might be brought to the research context. In the view of interpretive perspectives, researchers are not neutral beings and several aspects of their biographies may affect the decisions they make and the behavior in which they engage as they observe, select, and document any set of events (Kelly-Byrne, 1989).

In order to fully understand the cross-cultural implications of our study it is imperative that we introduce ourselves as researchers. Given that our lives may be represented through stories or narratives (Fu, 1999), it is important to share our researchers’ narratives since these are the lens we wear as we probe the context of the researched.

I, Soyeon, first came to the USA as an international graduate student specializing in child development. Although I already had two degrees in child development and various education related work experiences in Korea, I felt I was dropped in the middle of the desert since everything, including language and culture, seemed different and new to me. I realized that as a member of predominantly monocultural and homogeneous society, Korea, I had been ‘a frog in the well’ (A traditional Chinese expression used to describe someone who has limited experiences and

Reflections on Cross-cultural Research 377

perspectives) even though I had always enjoyed adventures and new challenges in order to gain a better understanding of various people and contexts.

As a newly arrived international student in a small college town in Virginia, I began to establish relationships in the community. I came to the university town without knowing anyone. However, I easily connected to the local Korean com- munity since there were a number of graduate students from Korea. In addition to Korean students and their families, one of the major sources for my relationships was the graduate school that I was attending.

When I began my first year as a lead teacher in the university laboratory school, I became close to Maria who was a teacher in the next classroom to mine and a doctoral student in the same program. The hesitance to discuss concerns or worries that I might have as a ‘beginning teacher in an American school’ changed to active questioning and involvement in conversations with others due to Maria’s encourage- ment and support as a ‘peer and mentor’. Through our long-term relationship as not only friends but also peer colleagues, we challenged as well as supported each other. Both of us had major interests in multicultural education and diversity issues in class. My questions about American schooling initiated active conversations regard- ing cultural differences and similarities and eventually provoked our collaborative research. Our infinite conversations and dialogues were extended to numerous places such as hallways, classrooms, cars, restaurants and even movie theaters as we spent time together and formed a collaborative relationship.

I, Maria, am a Caucasian-American and have taught children in US private and public schools for 10 years. I met Soyeon in our doctoral program in child development when we began to teach together at the same pre-school. Our relation- ship naturally evolved from a more one way dispensing of knowledge, with me trying to orient Soyeon to what I thought the US school expectations were, into a mutual relationship where she also shared with me and informed my practice regarding Korean perspectives on education. For example, on one occasion Soyeon asked me what to do when an American parent gave her money as a present. In her experience in Korea a teacher would never take money as a present from a parent. In a Korean schooling culture the money gift might be misconstrued as a bribe. Whereas in my experience, in America, it is common for parents to give the teacher gift certificates and money gifts on special occasions.

Along with many small example of exchanging cultural ideas Soyeon and I also began to understand more fully what we believe to be a basic difference in Western and Eastern societies. This difference is captured in the Western value of the individual and the Eastern value of the group (Kim & Choi, 1994). Rather than pitting our ideas and values against each other we began to see how the idea of ‘individual’ and ‘group’ could inspire our beliefs and practices. This give and take of ideas led to a close relationship that caused us to collaborate on a research project.

What We Studied

The primary purpose of the research study we collaborated on was to explore what parents from other countries’ thoughts, understandings and desires for their child’s

378 S. Park & M. K. E. Lahman

schooling in the USA were and how teachers’ and parents’ perspectives relate to each other. Korean and Chinese parents were interviewed using a semi-structured format about their parental views and values. The interview guide was piloted with an international parent and reviewed by a professor with international Chinese origin as part of the research process. In all cases the mother and father were interviewed separately. The children of these families were observed both in school and home settings interacting with teachers and parents where they speak different languages (English and their original language). The teachers of the children were also interviewed and documents provided by the teachers were analyzed. Docu- ments consisted of portfolios and work samples. A final source of data was the researcher’s personal experiences teaching children from other cultures. Themes that emerged include: (a) a desire by the parents for their child to be educated in America; (b) the parent valuing the acquisition of English language; (c) the parents feeling conflict over the acquisition of English possibly causing the original language skills to diminish; (d) teachers valuing international parents yet feeling it is difficult to communicate with them; and (e) teachers not distinguishing clearly between different, Asian nations.

How We Purposively Reflected on Our Study

Initially, we reread our journals and final paper as well as relistening to our interviews through a new lens, the lens of researcher experience. This process helped us focus on key methodological issues in our cross-cultural study. In order to reflect on our research experiences in a thoughtful manner, we participated in several ‘stretching exercises for qualitative researchers’ (Janesick, 1998). One of the exer- cises involved interviewing each other regarding our research experiences (Moch & Cameron, 2000). In addition, we engaged in creating a collage that represented ourselves (Janesick, 1998). We analyzed the collages together asking how our interpretations offered us a new ‘opportunity for self-awareness’ (p. 45). Further- more, extensive conversations with each other, about several issues emerged through the research process and allowed us to understand the topic from different angles and perspectives.

Different Nationalities and Race

Initially we were excited about the possibility of conducting research with each other and we saw nothing but the strengths of collaboration. Maria had the experience of teaching various young children from cultures other than hers, many of whom had entered her classroom knowing only a few English labels such as ‘no’ or ‘pee-pee’. At the time she met Soyeon, Maria was teaching three Chinese boys who did not speak English. Two of the boys’ mothers also spoke little English and Maria spoke no Chinese.

She began to express her wonder to Soyeon about how difficult it must be to leave your child with a teacher who you cannot communicate with. Soyeon described this phenomenon as being a part of everyday life for her Korean friends and colleagues

Reflections on Cross-cultural Research 379

studying in the USA. Maria worried that the parents were not fully able to express to her their knowledge about their sons and their desires for their sons’ experience in her classroom. We realized that by pursuing this wondering together Maria’s knowledge of early childhood education in USA and Soyeon’s expertise in Child Development and Asian children could combine to allow a more clear understand- ing of our study.

In all qualitative research and in particular research that addresses issues regarding culture or people from different backgrounds, it is important to consider what biases the researcher may have brought to the study and what kinds of obstacles the researcher might have faced (Stromquist, 2000). Feminist and contextualist theories have deconstructed the assumption that researchers of vastly differing backgrounds from the participants can easily respectfully yet rigorously penetrate the perspectives of the participants (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 2000). While this type of research is possible we felt our collaboration would make our research process ‘easier’. Swadner and Marsh (1998) state, in their collaborative research, that one of the downsides to their research is that both of them ‘were European-American, middle-class women, which in itself biased our perspectives or research lens and influenced our ability to interrogate and interpret our shared data collected in a classroom context rich in cultural, racial, and religious diversity’ (p. 169). We were in full agreement with these critiques and felt pleased with our opportunity to work with each other.

However, as we developed our interview guide, we began to see the difficulties that cross-cultural research and researchers may present. Certainly we came to know that the word ‘easier’ has no place in any type of research. We both had different ideas regarding how we wanted to construct the interview questions that reflected not only our cultural background, but also Maria’s emphasis on education and Soyeon’s emphasis on development. At times Maria worried about questions since she knew she would be seen as ‘teacher’ and Soyeon was concerned about certain questions since she would be interviewing people from the local Korean community. To help us focus, make our bias explicit, and to gain a clear perspective we piloted the questions with an international mother and sought the advice of a Chinese American professor. These forms of member and expert checks (Merriam, 1998) challenged our perspectives and moved the questions into open-ended exchanges that did not have preconceptions and assumptions. We began to see our different perspectives as strengths again and not as hindrances. Belgrave and Smith (1995) discuss similar issues concluding their collaborative research is ‘complementary rather than contradictory. Our collaboration, however, has produced a richer in- terpretation than either of us would have produced alone’ (p. 85). Collaboration may take longer and seem harder at times, but it is more fulfilling and allows multiple perspectives to be gained.

Maria wrote about this process in her journal: Soyeon and I have noticed that when we interview at times we have very different ways we would question or probe. I think this can be strength of our study. We decided to write our interview questions separately and then meet and worked on meshing the questions. I tend to have more questions about actual schooling and she has more about parenting. This really made

380 S. Park & M. K. E. Lahman

our questions more full. Then for the final step we interviewed an Eastern Indian parent using the questions as a pilot study. We found that a conversational format with the questions as a guideline was the most preferable technique. At times participants talked for long periods of times with only simple probes.

Different Interview Languages

In addition to the issues related to collaborative research, we faced other issues through the process of cross-cultural study. One such issue was language. For example, implicit nuance and assumption of shared understanding in language play an important role during interviews. However, most of the parents who participated in our study were able to communicate in English, but not fluently. We could not decide whether we should interview in English or in the parents’ first language. We were aware of the debate over emic and etic stances in research, but felt our collaboration would strengthen our lack of being fully situated in the cultures of study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 2000) Since neither of us speaks Chinese, it was impossible to interview the Chinese parents in their language although we could consult with a Chinese American professor for help. After many discussions, we concluded it was more respectful to conduct interviews in Korean for Korean participants. We challenged ourselves to employ our own approach for the research. Soyeon interviewed the Korean families in Korean and then translated while Maria interviewed the Chinese families in English. Both of the approaches had pros and cons. Soyeon felt comfortable interviewing in Korean and was able to gain rich data from interviews yet translation was a complicated issue as it relied heavily on Soyeon’s decision for which words or expressions to choose. Maria’s problem was the opposite. Interviews themselves were challenges where she had to be extremely careful and sensitive in probing and continuing the interviews to ensure she was understanding the parents’ perspectives. However, there was no translation prob- lem.

During the research experience Maria wrote in her journal:

We know there is an interesting methodological issue in our study regard- ing the fact that Soyeon interviews in Korean and interprets into English. I interview Chinese families in English so the interview questions are in much more simple language. We know we need to include this in the discussion but aren’t really sure if it is a limitation. Recently a classmate said to us that she thinks it is strength. She said if we are finding the same types of themes and are interviewing in two different languages at different levels of speech she thinks that shows our findings are strong. Would this possibly be a source of triangulation? It is pretty interesting to think about.

When Soyeon was reading literature on qualitative research methodology, there was not much information about bilingual issues in qualitative research. Soyeon reflected on this difficulty in her journal.

Reflections on Cross-cultural Research 381

In my opinion, there is no perfect bilingualism since a person usually relies on one language more than the other even if they’re bilingual. Some of my friends say that I am bilingual but I’m not because my English is not as fluent as my Korean. I have some friends who are perfectly fluent in both languages but they still prefer one language to the other. So what are some of the issues when I interview in Korean or English? Is it really possible to do ‘reliable’ cross-cultural study? Translation is another issue in presenting data since I conducted interviews in Korean. I think these kinds of issues are important and should be stressed as our society becomes more multi- cultural and many studies deal with cultural topics. Choosing a language to conduct research for bilingual or ESL researcher is important not only in interviews but also in participant observation.

Maria’s reflection agreed:

We have asked many people about the issue of interviewing in other languages and have gotten little feedback. The [qualitative research course] text (Rossman & Rallis, 1998) agreed with our decision to interview in the language that the participants were most comfortable with even though this meant we would have to translate. Soyeon has noted that when she interviews in Korean the participant often says, ‘You know what I mean’ and does not expand on something that they assume Koreans would know. I have never had this experience with the Chinese interviews for obvious reasons. I think we need to make an appointment with you [the methodol- ogy class professor] to discuss this also. What are the implications for our study? I wonder if bilingual studies are not done often.

Although we have to accept that we have language barriers, the fact that different researchers interview in different languages, we feel confident that our experience of researcher collaboration is strengthened by an exploration of the perplexity and dilemmas of multicultural research. Having both the emic and etic view has benefits. While Maria could not speak Chinese she provided a firm location in American school culture and Soyeon brought a deep understanding of Eastern perspectives and traditions. So interestingly enough we were both outsiders and insiders in this research collaboration. We believe that the awareness of potential problems and bias at the beginning of the research process increases the study confirmability. Clarifying emerging issues as we proceeded with the research study helped us identify our research stance and bias.

Themes We Avoided

We had a striking finding in our research that we had in no way anticipated. It was not directly related to our topic, but seemed important. However, it was so controversial that we hesitated to include it and in the final draft of our paper did not. As part of the research experience we feel the need to confess our reluctance and reflect on what our choices might mean. All of the children’s parents reported their child having extreme anxiety when they were left in the care of an African

382 S. Park & M. K. E. Lahman

American teacher for the first time. One of the children was so upset, over the course of many days that the parents took the child out of the classroom. We were aware that there is a stereotype that Asians and African Americans have poor relations. We worried that this important ‘side’ issue would detract from the main thrust of our research. Soyeon worried about Asians seeming racist and Maria was concerned that as a White teacher it would reflect on her negatively to report these conversations.

Maria has taught several Chinese and Korean children who cried for days in her classroom. One of the little girls would sit on Maria’s lap until an Asian teacher entered the room. Then she would immediately jump up and run to the Asian teacher. Within the framework of this experience we felt we could understand the parents’ comments. It seemed the children identified with a teacher from their race. We also speculated that perhaps the children were used to seeing White faces on TV and certainly there are more White faces in the areas where we live than African American.

So what is the consequence of our not reporting these findings? Perhaps our original paper was more palatable to readers. However, our questions were focused on helping teachers understand children from other cultures and their parents’ wishes for their children. We had hoped this research would allow children’s transitions into American schools to be easier. However, we then avoided infor- mation that may have been helpful to all teachers in general, because we felt the issue was controversial and might reflect negatively on us. What implications does this scenario have for qualitative research, which must ultimately rely on the researcher’s decisions about data interpretation and even inclusion of data?

Reflections on Reflections

Wolcott (1995 ) has said that while we may hope to understand other’s better and to bring about positive change in participants lives ‘we do well to examine the extent to which whatever we would like to see happening to and for others is happening to ourselves’ (p. 240). With this admonishment in mind we have tried to examine the research process in a manner that will allow our experiences to influence the next research we embark upon. Behar (1993) points out that while willing to make the participants vulnerable the researcher, for the most part, remains invulnerable. We are willing to walk the readers through the trials of the participant but unwilling to share ours. Hertz (1997), agrees wondering at the risk one takes in letting ‘the cloak of authority’ slip (p. xvi). We look to both our mistakes and success as areas to be learned from and shared. Mutual trust based on trustful relationships, willingness to communicate each other regarding both regrets and satisfaction and efforts to find creative ways to triangulate multiple experiences and findings are some the themes in successful collaborative research.

References

BEHAR, R. (1996) The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology That Breaks Your Heart (Boston, Beacon Press).

BELGRAVE, L. & SMITH, K. (1995) Negotiated validity in collaborative ethnography, Qualitative Inquiry 1 (1), pp. 69–86.

Reflections on Cross-cultural Research 383

DEMARRAIS, K.B. (Ed.) (1998) Introduction, in: K.B. DEMARRAIS (Ed.) Inside Stories: Qualitative Research Reflections (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

FU, V.R. (1999) Stories of we the people: an invitation to join in the conversation on diversity in a democracy, in: V.R. FU & A.J. STREMMEL (Eds) Affirming Diversity Through Democratic Conversations (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall).

GATES, M.F. & HIND, P.S. (2000) Qualitative researchers working as teams, in: S.D. MOCH & M.F. GATES (Eds) The Researcher Experience in Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

GUBA, E. & LINCOLN, Y. (1994, 2000) Major paradigms and perspectives, in: E. GUBA & Y. LINCOLN (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

HERTZ, R. (1997) Introduction: reflexivity and voice, in: R. HERTZ (Ed.) Reflexivity and Voice (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

JANESICK, V.J. (1998) ‘Stretching’ Exercises for Qualitative Researchers (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage). KELLY-BYRNE, D. (1989) A Child’s Play Life: An Ethnographic Study (New York, Teachers College

Press). KIM, U. & CHOI, S. (1994) Individualism, collectivism, and child development: a Korean

perspective, in: P.M. GREENFIELD & R.R. COCKING (Eds) Cross-cultural Roots of Minority Child Development (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).

KIMBALL, S.L. & GARRISON, J. (1999) Hermeneutic listening in multicultural conversations, in: V.R. FU & A.J. STREMMEL (Eds) Affirming Diversity through Democratic Conversations (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall).

MERRIAM, S.B. (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).

MOCH, S.D. & CAMERON, M.E. (2000) Processing the researcher experience through discussion, in: S.D. MOCH & M.F. GATES (Eds) The Researcher Experience in Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

MOCH, S.D. & GATES, M.F. (2000) Introduction: what about the researcher experience? in: S.D. MOCH & M.F. GATES (Eds) The Researcher Experience in Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

ROSSMAN, G.B. & RALLIS, S.F. (1998) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

STROMQUIST, N.P. (2000) On truth, voice, and qualitative research, Qualitative Studies in Education 13 (2), pp. 139–152.

SWADNER, B.B. & MARSH, M.M. (1998) Reflections on collaborative, and not so collaborative, research in early childhood settings, in: K.B. DEMARRAIS (Ed.) Inside Stories: Qualitative Research Reflections (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

WOLCOTT, H.F. (1995) The Art of Fieldwork (Walnut Creek, CA, AltaMira Press). WOODS, P., BOYLE, M., JEFFREY, B. & TROMAN, G. (2000) A research team in ethnography,

Qualitative Studies in Education 13 (1), pp. 85–98.