������

Understanding Culture in International Education

^{By Philip Stiles, ������}

Often used, but not necessarily understood, the term culture is of particular importance in the international education sector; for students, who travel to experience another culture and must navigate a range of norms and values; for the agents who need to anticipate friction before the student leaves home; and for the institutions whose role it is to provide ongoing support throughout their studies. 

In this article, we take a look at how culture is defined, we explore what makes culture more complex than it might appear at first glance, and we work through a practical example of how a failure to address multiple cultural perspectives can cause problems for students, teachers, and academic staff.

What is culture?

At a most basic level, culture can be defined as “the way of life of a group of people, including symbols, values, behaviours and other shared aspects” (Baldwin et al., 2014). As such, culture is both inclusive – binding a group of people together and providing a sense of shared identity; and exclusive, for culture is as often defined by what we are not by what we are. This is, in part, why we refer to “culture shock” when a person moves from one culture to another – it can be a daunting experience that causes confusion, disorientation, and even depression, and it requires both time and understanding for an individual to adapt. 

Further complicating the picture is the fact that culture is by no means straightforward. It comprises a series of values, beliefs, rules, norms and mores, with behaviour, if not following these structures, at least influenced by them. 

Observable and invisible culture

Culture can be divided into two broad components: objective and subjective. Objective culture refers to the observable artefacts a culture produces, while subjective culture refers to the unwritten rules that give meaning to an act. 

For this reason, culture is often described as an iceberg. Above the surface are the elements of objective culture – easy to see, understand, and learn (even from a distance), they include language, food, dress, music, drama, celebrations, and games. 

Most international students arrive in a country with a working knowledge of some or all of the above. They will have studied the language, read about the food, listened to local music, and watched local movies. All of these things can be a wonderful form of preparation, and they do make the transition from one culture to another easier. However, familiarity with objective forms of culture can also mask wider cultural issues for which the student is not prepared. Moreover, they can leave agents and institutional staff with the impression that the student does not need support. 

Beneath the surface, we find subjective culture. Defined as what people believe, value, think, and feel, subjective culture is often learned implicitly and unconsciously – through interactions with authority figures such as parents, teachers, employers, and state officials – and is difficult to change. 

Examples of subjective culture include concepts of courtesy, personal space, time, body language, eye contact, leadership and decision making, and class, none of which are easy to unpack when arriving in a new culture. 

Let’s focus on one of these – time – because it’s one of the fastest ways a mismatch in expectations can escalate into a real problem for the student.

Subjective culture – an example

A simple example of subjective culture, particularly relevant to international students, is the concept of time. 

Ask yourself: when you go to a meeting, do you turn up strictly on time and expect others to do the same? Or do you allow yourself to be sidetracked by an interaction on the way to a meeting, and understand when the same happens to others? 

Your approach, likely embedded in you from a very young age, will tell you something about your experience of subjective culture. 

The potential for cultural conflict

Let’s explore this further. Edward T. Hall – a researcher known as “the father of intercultural studies” – studied “chronemics”. It sounds complicated, but it simply looks at how time is perceived in human interaction. Hall defined two approaches, “monochronic” and “polychronic”. It should be noted that these are tendencies within cultures that can vary enormously by individual, generation, and context, and so Hall’s theories should be treated accordingly. However, they do provide a useful starting point for discussion. 

A monochronic approach sees time as a commodity that can be earned, used, shared, won, and saved. This perception, common in countries such as the US and Germany, leads to the expectation that people will be on time for meetings, plan ahead, keep to schedules, do one thing at a time, and finish tasks when and as expected. 

A polychronic approach, often seen in Latin American, African, and South Asian countries, values relationships above time. As such, someone from a polychronic background is more likely to turn up late to a meeting, having been delayed by a social interaction along the way. They will easily change their plans, juggle several things at once, and will complete tasks according to what they think is needed rather than strictly on time or exactly as asked. 

Neither a monochronic nor a polychronic approach to time management is wrong, of course. 

However, if there is a mismatch between expectations, it can lead to serious consequences. 

A business meeting can fail if one participant views the other as discourteous for turning up late. A relationship can break down if one person sticks to the plan and another changes things at the last minute. And, an international student arriving late can be ejected from their class by a teacher with a strict sense of time-keeping, with a corresponding impact on their confidence and sense of self-worth. 

The U-Curve theory of adaptation 

As can be seen from the example, the potential for culture shock among international students is significant. Unfortunately, the model for supporting students is less straightforward. 

For many, the Lysgaard model of cultural adaptation – also known as the U-Curve theory of adjustment – remains common. The model argues that, following a short honeymoon period, where the traveller experiences primarily objective culture (such as language, music, and food), a period of culture shock follows. This is the bottom of the “u”. Then, as the traveller learns more about their adopted culture (with varying degrees of support), they adapt and master it. 

The U-Curve theory of adjustment is seductive because it implies that a student only needs support in the early stages of their education. This support can then be removed as they increasingly master their cultural surroundings. 

For an institution following this example, an induction that clearly explains the importance of turning up to class on time is enough. The student, once they know the rule, will adapt accordingly and fit in. 

Those working in international education will know this is rarely the case. 

Adapting to a new culture

Young Yun Kim’s research into Korean immigrants travelling to the US challenged the U-Curve theory. Kim argued that the model did not adequately capture the immigrant experience. Instead, Kim pictured cultural adaptation as cycles of stress and adaptation. 

Adaptation would take place when an immigrant successfully navigated a new problem, such as turning up to a meeting exactly on time and sticking to the discussion. Stress would then occur when a new problem arose, such as failing to bring a meeting strictly to its conclusion once the topics for discussion had been covered. Kim named this the stress-adaptation-growth dynamic, likening the process to exercise. 

With Kim’s model underscoring the fact that adaptation is very much “one step forward, two steps back”, it is clear that the institutions and agents involved in the recruitment of international students need to recognise the cultural differences that exist between the student and their chosen study destination, and that support needs to be extensive, ongoing, and rooted in the understanding that mistakes can (and will) be made. 

Providing the right support

To return to our example, an institution following the stress-adaptation-growth model would:

• Identify the differing concepts of time reflected across the student body
• Establish rules but stagger their introduction
• Provide an induction that outlines expectations
• Follow this with regular sessions, repeating and expanding upon expectations
  • Sessions could include organisation and task prioritisation
  • However, these should not be taught all at once
• Tutors and staff would be asked to adopt a flexible approach to time-keeping, establishing firm boundaries, but introducing any punitive measures over time

By allowing the culturally embedded expectation of punctuality to develop slowly, the institution demonstrates respect for the student’s culture, helps the student to develop an understanding of what is expected of them, and promotes a student experience built on mutual respect and empathy. 

A summary

In this introduction to culture and intercultural communication, we have looked at the concept of culture and, through the example of a single cultural dimension – time – considered how easily mistakes can be made and offence caused. 

We have also looked at how, by considering different cultural approaches and providing structured, long-term support, these issues can be overcome. In the next article, we’ll look more closely at some of the ways in which we can explore cultural differences.  

References

Baldwin, J.R., Means Coleman, R.R., Gonzalez, A. and Shenoy-Packer, S. (2014) Intercultural Communication for Everyday Life. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.