UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Listening with the heart : learner and facilitator perspectives on intercultural training Margolis, Rhonda L. 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2002-732029.pdf [ 16.06MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0055480.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055480-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055480-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055480-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055480-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055480-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055480-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

LISTENING WITH THE HEART: L E A R N E R A N D FACILITATOR PERSPECTIVES O N INTERCULTURAL TRAINING by RHONDA L. MARGOLIS M.A. , The University of British Columbia, 1987 B.A. , The University of British Columbia, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Department of Educational Studies, Educational Leadership and Policy We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A December 7, 2001 © Rhonda L. Margolis, 2001 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) A B S T R A C T This study explores the effects of intercultural training from the perspectives of learners and facilitators. Three central questions are addressed: How does participation in an intercultural studies program affect the way learners approach intercultural interactions? How do learners engage learning between the educational and practice contexts? What are the implications for program planning? In-depth interviews were conducted with eleven learners and eight facilitators from a certificate program in intercultural studies at a Canadian university. The program is delivered through a combined on-site and online format. With its emphasis on practice-based learning, this program offered a unique opportunity to explore learner change and the application of learning in the workplace. This study was undertaken to inform program planning for intercultural training. The conceptual resources that guided the study are frameworks for program planning and transfer of learning. Perceived learner change as a result of training is explored through multiple lenses of transfer, including application (engaging and creating knowledge in practice) and diffusion (sharing ideas with others formally and informally in the workplace). Factors that contribute to engagement of learning between the practice and training contexts include the integration of theory and practice and the building of an online learning community. The study explores the concept of emotional safety, the impact of identity and representation on intercultural interactions within the training context, and the challenges of facilitating difficult dialogues related to race, power and identity. This study is situated within the larger context of the field of intercultural training. This is contested terrain comprised of two major streams: international and domestic training. Domestic training is represented by three frameworks: diversity, multicultural and anti-racism training. The study indicates that learning is influenced by the degree to which analyzing power or respecting differences is emphasized in the exploration of intercultural interactions. The study concludes with suggested reflective questions for planners of intercultural programs. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iii Acknowledgements vii Dedication viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 Organization of the Chapters 2 What is Diversity Training? 3 What is Intercultural Training? 8 Explaining My Practice 14 Becoming a Diversity and Intercultural Trainer 14 Conceptual Framework 15 A Different Approach to Intercultural Training 17 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 18 Effects of Diversity Training 18 Effects of Cross-cultural Training 19 Statement of Purpose and Research Questions 21 General Approach to the Research 21 Significance of the Study 23 Use of Terms 25 Training and Education 25 Race 28 Ethnicity 31 Culture 32 Summary 36 CHAPTER TWO: MAPPING THE INTERCULTURAL TRAINING FIELD 38 International Training 41 Attribution Theory 42 Perceptual Field Theory 43 Intercultural Communication Theories 45 Multicultural Training 48 Anti-Racism Training 50 Summary 55 iii CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUAL RESOURCES 56 Program Planning 56 Power and Negotiation in Planning Programs 58 Technical, Social-political and Ethical Domains in Planning Programs 62 Transfer of Learning 64 Historical Overview of Transfer 64 Multiple Lenses for Assessing Learning 66 Using Transfer Concepts in this Study 67 Summary 69 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH SITE AND METHOD 71 Research Site 71 Document Review 72 Current Program Status 72 Development of the Centre for Intercultural Communication 73 Development of the Certificate in Intercultural Studies 74 Program Design '. 76 Who are the Learners? 77 Who are the Facilitators? 78 Research Method 80 Research Design 80 Rationale for Selecting Participants from the Certificate Program 81 Selection of Study Participants 83 Data Collection 85 Development of Interview Questions 85 Interview Procedure 86 Data Management 87 Data Analysis • 90 Summarizing the Data 90 Aggregating the Data 91 Key Themes 93 Trustworthiness 9 3 CHAPTER FIVE: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES TRAINING MAKE? 97 Learner and Trainer Motivation 98 Learner Motivation for Enrolling in the Certificate Program 99 Learners' Cross-cultural Experiences 101 Facilitator Motivation for Becoming Involved in Intercultural Training 103 Preparation for Being an Intercultural Trainer 105 What Does Learning Mean? 108 Individual Change ("I think it through more carefully") 1 1 2 iv Sharing Learning ("Offering other perspectives") 118 Spontaneous Diffusion ("I don't see myself as abeacon, but...") 119 Planned Diffusion ("You win some, you lose some") 122 Perceptions of Change ("It was something that evolved") 126 Defining Cultural Competence ("I almost think it is an oxymoron") 129 Learner Views of the Courses ("You butt up against your own intercultural biases") 137 Defining Intercultural Training ("Everybody has a different definition") 141 Summary 143 CHAPTER SIX: LEARNING IN THE MIDST OF EVERYDAY PRACTICE 147 Theory - Practice Connection 147 Online Learning Community 155 Building the Community ("The learning multiplies") 160 Power of Story ("The good stuff is storytelling") 166 Summary 169 CHAPTER SEVEN: DIFFICULT DIALOGUES 171 Safety, Challenge and Support 172 Experiential Approaches ("That was a real eye opener") 174 Culturally Responsive Training ("Come up and tell us a little bit about yourself) 175 Frameworks for Understanding Difference ("I'm a master of nothing") 178 Critical Thinking ("Get everybody to change?") 183 Identity and Representation 193 Incident One - "Dead Man Walking" 196 Incident Two - "It's not a race thing" 204 Can We Have this Conversation? 209 Summary 210 CHAPTER EIGHT: LOOKING BACK - MOVING FORWARD 213 Summary of Findings 214 Perceived Changes 214 Factors Affecting the Engagement of Learning 215 Challenges in Facilitating Difficult Dialogues 216 Implications for the Intercultural Studies Program 217 Strategies to Support Learners 219 Online Learning 219 Critical Reflection 220 The Use of Story 221 v Conversations for Facilitators Conceptual Framework Ethical Issues Facilitator Development Implications for Program Planning Possibilities for Future Research Implications for My Practice Closing Comments REFERENCES APPENDICES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank Dr. Thomas Sork, Dr. Kogila Adam-Moodley, and Dr. Shauna Butterwick for their support and encouragement as I explored the contested spaces of intercultural training. I am truly fortunate to have worked with a committee who cared about my work, who pushed me to reflect more deeply, who challenged me with provocative questions, who shared their wisdom and who continue to inspire me. I am indebted to the learners and facilitators who agreed to participate in this study. Their open reflections on their experiences and their personal stories are the heart of this thesis. I am deeply grateful for their generosity. To Mackie Chase, Director of the Centre for Intercultural Communication, Katherine Beaumont, Director, Student Exchange Programs, UBC (former Associate Director of the Centre), Sally McLean and Christina Pikios, Intercultural Trainers and Consultants, I offer my deepest gratitude for their support throughout this project. To Dr. Judith Ottoson for invaluable conversation, to Dr. David Coulter for fostering reflective practice, and to Dr. Garnet Grosjean for patiently working with me during the last stages of this thesis, I express my appreciation. To the 1998 EdD cohort, I appreciated the many conversations about educational practice, and the opportunity to benefit from their experience and insights. In particular, I extend my thanks to Joanna Ashworth, Jerry Hinbest, and Jennifer White whose thoughtful exploration of ideas moved me forward. To my brothers Robert, Murray, and Conrad, and sisters-in-law Glenda, Susan, and Sue, and my nephews and nieces, Zachary, Leah, Taro, and Hannah, my thanks for understanding when this project kept me from being with family. To Kathleen Boland, Kathryn Maurer, Barbara O'Neill, Violet Rose, Kamala Tiyavanich, and Anne Coates, who passed away too soon, I take this opportunity to acknowledge their friendship. To Linda Rainaldi, for reading and discussing my work, and countless gestures of caring, I am immensely thankful. And To Ty Haller, my partner, for his unwavering support. vii DEDICATION For my mother Ruth Margolis and In memory of my father Leo Margolis viii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION This project has taken me on a journey of discovery exploring the foundations of my practice. I began with the idea of developing an understanding of how individuals negotiate or engage learning between an intercultural training program and their work environment. As the study proceeded I began to explore the embedded concepts about culture and intercultural relations that influenced program planning and facilitation. These concepts contributed to the learners' experience in the program, and the nature of their learning about intercultural interactions. The study has given me an opportunity to examine my own practice through the eyes of the learners. For the past fifteen years, I have been planning and facilitating diversity and intercultural training programs in the public, private and non-profit sectors in British Columbia, Canada. I have worked with several thousand learners in hundreds of workshops and the learner reactions, based on informal comments and end-of-training feedback forms, are generally very positive. In the last few years, however, I have questioned the meaning of my work. Workshop reaction forms do not help me understand what learners feel, think or do differently in their workplace contexts. I became increasingly preoccupied with the question "what difference does training make in the way learners think about and respond in intercultural situations?" I hoped that understanding more about the learners' experiences of training could inform the way I design programs. In 1997,1 learned of the University of British Columbia's doctoral program in Educational Leadership and Policy (EdD program). This new program was "designed to provide advanced preparation for education practitioners with leadership responsibilities in both formal and nonformal settings."11 was attracted to this unique program because of its goal to encourage a "critical reflection on practice." I had reached a place in my career where I was hungry for the opportunity to engage in understanding, constructively criticizing and improving my 1 Program Overview, Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership and Policy, University of British Columbia, February 1997. 1 practice. The program provided the opportunity to conduct an "applied research project" related to my practice and to produce a document that would enhance my own practice and provide leadership for practitioners in my field. For my research site I selected the Intercultural Studies Certificate program at the University of British Columbia (UBC). I have been a contract facilitator with the program since its inception in 1996. This study and the EdD program have provided an opportunity to bridge the distance between traditional academic literature and lived experience in practice. The program has allowed me to systematically examine my practice through dialogue with others in my cohort and through exposure to new literature. As a result of my involvement in the EdD program, and my work on this study, I bring to my practice a new "wide-awakeness," intentionality and leadership. Other individuals frequently approach me asking how they can become diversity or intercultural trainers. I hope this study will help others understand the complexities of intercultural work, the dilemmas with which they will grapple as they undertake the work, and the factors to consider in planning and facilitating intercultural training. Organization of the Chapters In this chapter, I introduce diversity and intercultural training, explain my own practice, state the purpose of the study and research questions, review the general approach to the research, discuss the significance of the study and examine the use of terms. The intercultural training field is multifaceted and diffuse, requiring elaboration beyond the introduction in this chapter. In Chapter Two, I map the development of the field of intercultural training. In Chapter Three, I discuss the conceptual resources that inform this study: program planning and transfer of learning. In Chapter Four, I describe the research site and explain the methodology and data analysis process. This chapter sets the stage for the analysis of the findings by introducing the themes explored in Chapters Five, Six and Seven. In Chapter Five, I examine learner and facilitator definitions of intercultural competence, learner views of the program, perceptions of change as a result of participation in the program, and efforts to share their learning with others. In Chapter Six, I discuss the learners' experience of engaging learning between the training context and their practice contexts. This 2 chapter includes participant perceptions of the connections between theory and practice and their experience of building an online community. In Chapter Seven, I explore factors that contributed to the learning experience. These include safety, support and challenge, and the difficulties of engaging in dialogue around issues related to ethnic and racial identity. In Chapter Eight, I discuss the implications of the study for program planning, possibilities for further research, and implications for my practice. What is Diversity Training? To establish the context for discussing diversity training I will briefly explore the genesis of the concept of diversity. "Many corporations' quest for diversity is motivated by their need to influence organizational members to value and respect human differences in an effort to maximize their ability to work together productively" (Chung, 1996, p. 3). Diversity training is intended to help people recognize, accept, respect, and welcome differences. It is intended to foster positive relationships among coworkers, with customers, and between managers and employees. Larry Gardner, Labor Relations Manager for the City of San Diego, captures the prevailing notions of diversity with the statement " A diversity commitment is conceptual in nature; [it is] not tied to specific legislation. Diversity is a state of mind, a fabric that becomes woven into the workplace" (AARP, 1994, p. 9). It has been a long road to this perspective on diversity. The term diversity began appearing in the human resource management literature in the 1980s and gathered momentum with the publication of the Hudson Institute's Workforce 2000 report (Carrell & Mann, 1995). This report, widely cited in the United States and Canada, predicted dramatic changes in workplace demographics. The authors forecast that increasing numbers of women, people of colour, persons with disabilities, and older workers would enter the labour pool by the year 2000. The report was issued in 1988 at a time when "people had begun to reframe the work of eliminating discrimination in organizations toward creating an organizational work culture, environment, system, and infrastructure so that each person could offer her or his full potential in the workplace" (Swanger, 1994, p. 18). The concept of diversity gained strength with the publication of Roosevelt Thomas' (1990) now-classic 3 Harvard Business Review article From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity. Thomas said this about diversity: The reason you then want to move beyond affirmative action to managing diversity is because affirmative action fails to deal with the root causes of prejudice and inequality and does little to develop the full potential of every man and woman in the company. In a country seeking competitive advantage in a global economy the goal of managing diversity is to develop our capacity to accept, incorporate, and empower the diverse human talents of the most diverse nation on earth. It's our reality. We need to make it our strength.(p. 117) This pronouncement came 26 years after the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States that prohibited discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex (Swanger, 1994). The Civil Rights Act marked the requirement for legislative compliance. When the Act did not result in significant change in hiring practices, "affirmative action became the strategy used to force organizations to comply with the law" (Swanger, p. 10). The concept of equal opportunity defined hiring practices in the 1960s, the concept of affirmative action defined the 1970s, and the concept of diversity defined the late 1980s to the 1990s (Gordon, 1992). Swanger (1994) points out that by the 1980s the "salad bowl," "stew pot", and "mosaic" analogies were replacing the melting-pot paradigm of the 1950s. Instead of insisting on assimilation, society and organizations were recognizing the value of individuals retaining their unique characteristics. In both the United States and Canada, the concept of diversity grew out of human rights legislation. "When Canada became a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, it embarked upon a series of social changes which, although unintended at the time, has helped to create an infrastructure that facilitates democratic citizenship"(Ungerleider, 1996, p. 38). In 1944, the province of Ontario passed what is considered to be the first Canadian human rights statute in order to "counter the discriminatory treatment which lay behind signs proclaiming 'Whites Only' or 'No Jews or Dogs Allowed'" (Ungerleider, 1996, p. 20). During the 1950s, other provinces enacted legislation to address discrimination in employment and accommodation. 4 Lum (1995) points out that in this "heightened social and political environment of justice, human rights, and equity, the Progressive Conservative government passed the Employment Equity Act in 1986" (p. 46).2 The purpose of the Act is to reduce employment discrimination by eliminating systemic barriers and increasing access and opportunity for historically marginalized citizens: women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and aboriginal people. Equity legislation requires employers to set targets for change rather than establishing the hiring quotas associated with affirmative action. Employers charged with implementing employment equity were required to implement a workforce analysis to determine representation among members of the so-called "designated groups". The legislation also required a systems review to find and eliminate barriers to employment and career opportunities. As part of developing "positive policies and practices to accelerate the integration of designated group members" (Employment Equity Guidelines, 1996, p. 4) employers implemented training for staff and managers. The purpose of the training was to explain the rationale for the legislation and the organizational plan for implementing change. In the early 1990s, Canadian employers adopted the "workplace diversity movement" (Bond & Pyle, 1998) that had begun in the United States. The shift from employment equity training to diversity training evolved in response to the changing demographics predicted by Workforce 2000 together with the recognition that dominant culture individuals and those who were not members of the designated groups did not see themselves as part of the diversity discussion. In an effort to create a broader sense of employee inclusion employers began to develop diversity policies. They began to focus their communication and training initiatives around diversity which (in the case of federally regulated companies) includes employment equity. Cox (1993) suggests that there are three goals that motivate organizational leaders to pay attention to diversity: (1) moral, ethical, and social responsibility goals; (2) legal obligations; and (3) economic performance goals. Employers make a business case for diversity citing such factors as keeping and gaining market share by providing better service to a diverse customer base in domestic and 2 For more information about the history of employment equity in Canada, see the Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment (Abella, 1984). 5 international contexts; reducing turnover costs through attracting and retaining employees from a larger pool of candidates; increasing productivity by drawing on the potential of diverse skills, knowledge, and perspectives; and improving management practices by creating flexible, responsive work environments (Jamieson & O'Mara, 1994; Loden & Rosener, 1991; Thomas, 1990). "While affirmative action is known to be a legal duty, in much recent writing, 'diversity' is described as a desirable condition to be sought as an internal or external benefit to the organization" (Carrell & Mann, 1995, p. 100). The term cultural diversity training is often used synonymously with diversity training because many organizations define culture broadly. DeSensi (1995) links the concepts of multiculturalism and valuing diversity. She defines cultural diversity as "differences associated with gender, race, national origin, ethnicity, social class, religion, age, and ability/disability, but it can also be extended to include differences in personality, sexual orientation, veteran status, physical appearance, marital status, and parent status (Kessler, 1990; Morrison, 1992)" (p. 34). There is a concern that broadening the definition of diversity minimizes recognition of the oppression and marginalization faced by the groups who have been systemically oppressed (Bond & Pyle, 1998). On the other hand, broadening the definition diminishes the "us versus them" situation that was set up within the circumscribed definition in employment equity legislation and recognizes the intersection of multiple identities. Definitions of culture are discussed in more detail in the "use of terms" section of this chapter. Diversity training is frequently considered within the concept of multicultural organizational change (Cox, 1993). For example, Chung (1996) suggests that the goal of diversity programs is to "create a multicultural organization which facilitates and endorses the training that organizational members receive to help them understand and value diversity and consequently increase their ability to function productively within that multicultural organization" (p. 12). Diversity training generally has three main objectives: increasing awareness about diversity issues, reducing biases and stereotypes, and changing behaviours to manage or work more effectively within a diverse workforce (Hanover & Cellar, 1998). Diversity training takes many forms, ranging from one-hour auditorium style sessions to lunch and learn sessions to 6 half-day or one-day workshops to week-long residential training. It may be designed to increase awareness of all the dimensions of diversity (Loden & Rosener, 1991); it may focus on specific issues (e.g., cross-cultural communication, sexual orientation, intergenerational differences, gender communication) or on a specific group (e.g., persons with disabilities, First Nations). It could include components on prejudice, discrimination, human rights, harassment and creating respectful workplaces. The training might focus on increasing sensitivity to the impact of differences in the workplace; it might focus on challenging personal assumptions and stereotypes; it might emphasize eliminating systemic barriers; it could address changing individual or team behaviours to create a more inclusive and welcoming workplace. It is important to note the complexities surrounding First Nations or aboriginal issues, terms that appear to be used interchangeably in the literature.3 The division of policy issues related to multiculturalism and aboriginal peoples is represented by separate federal government ministries and legislation. The historical, social, and political context of First Nations in Canada has lead to sensitivity among most dominant culture trainers with regard to speaking for First Nations. There are some cases of dominant culture individuals presenting "how to's" of communicating with aboriginal people. For example, McDonald (undated publication, approximately early 1990s) states that "Al l staff should become familiar with the different meanings of various communication devices; i.e., lack of eye contact is more a sign of respect than the mainstream Canadian meaning of disrespect; silence is acceptable in conversations with Aboriginal people but most other Canadians tend to fill all the gaps in a conversation" (pp. 47-48). In the early days of equity and diversity training, this type of training, which serves to exacerbate stereotypes and does not address the realities of the aboriginal experience in society or the workplace, was common. More recently, First Nations individuals have begun to offer training that focuses on the historical and current perspectives of aboriginal peoples in Canada. This training addresses myths and misunderstandings (e.g., 3 Michael Marker (2000) states in his article Lummi Identity and White Rracism: When Location is a Real Place that "In this article I use the terms Indian, Native, First Nations, and aboriginal to refer to the indigenous people of North America. First Nations is the preferred term in Canada while in the USA, tribal peoples tend to refer to themselves as American Indians. All of these terms are somewhat interchangeable and selected for particular tone or emphasis" (p. 412). I follow Marker's (2000) lead, and the increasingly common convention of using lower case for the term "aboriginal" except when quoting an author who uses the upper case. 7 the impact of the Indian Act and Residential Schools Act), examines exclusionary practices in society and organizations, and explores strategies for community consultation and partnerships (Key an ow Consulting, 1998). Like much diversity training material, the content is available as workshop handouts and is generally unpublished. While there is some attention to First Nations issues in the education literature, the topic is largely absent from the intercultural literature. The question of where the subject of First Nations "fits" in intercultural training came up in several interviews for this study and wil l be discussed in the final chapter of this thesis. Thomas (1991) differentiates between valuing diversity and managing diversity, suggesting that "conceptually, valuing differences assumes that lack of understanding, not racism or sexism, is the major challenge" (p.31). It is incumbent on facilitators to clarify an employer's intentions and expectations about diversity training. Facilitators cannot assume that their definition of and expectations about diversity training are the same as those o f the individual who requests the training. As Roosevelt Thomas says: Unless you take time to define "it" conceptually and insist on precision with terminology, you risk chaos. Individuals have agreed to do "it," but vastly different understandings of "it" guide their efforts. There is a great deal of bumping around. (1991, p. 37) What is Intercultural Training? The terms cross-cultural, intercultural, transcultural and multicultural are used interchangeably in the literature and by practitioners. Hoopes and Pusch (1979) stated that: "Intercultural" and "cross-cultural" refer to interaction, communication and other processes (conceptual analysis, education, the implementation of public policy, etc.) which involve people or entities from two or more different cultures. There has been some effort to limit "intercultural" to that which is interactive between cultures and "cross-cultural" to that which is comparative or conceptual, but the distinction doesn't hold. In fact, they are used more or less synonymously and tend to vie with each other for predominance, (p. 6) Hoopes and Pusch (1979) described cross-cultural, or intercultural, training as "all kinds of programs that train people to live, work, study or perform effectively in a cultural setting 8 different from their own. Several other phrases are sometimes used, such as "race relations training" or "cultural awareness training" (p. 7). Intercultural training, at that time, clearly had an international focus. In a more recent paper on the development of the intercultural communication field4, Pusch (1997), building on Hoopes' (1979) history of the field, describes the development of intercultural training in response to three factors: Americans going overseas to study or work after World War II, and in large numbers with the Peace Corps in the 1960s; cross-cultural adaptation issues for students and business trainees entering the United States; and the civil rights movement that raised racial consciousness during the 1960s and was the impetus for efforts to understand interethnic relations. Pusch (1997) traces the literature that informed an understanding of culture. She highlights Edward T. Hall's (1959, 1976) books on culture and communication, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) on value orientations, Gordon Allport (1979) on prejudice, and Carl Rogers (1961) and Abraham Maslow (1970) on human relations. Although Pusch (1997) does not make this explicit, as a practitioner I see that different aspects of the literature were used to develop training for different purposes. The literature on communication patterns within societies and comparative values across cultures was widely used in the development of cross-cultural training for international sojourners. The literature on race and prejudice provided the foundation for training related to domestic race relations. I explore the distinction between the two streams in Chapter Two, Mapping the Intercultural Training Field. Humanistic psychology influenced the personal growth dynamic present in both training contexts. Pusch (1997) notes that early funding for intercultural communication workshops and training materials came from international education, from the training of Peace Corps volunteers, and from the military. "Much of what is known about cross-cultural training and contact is due to research with Peace Corps volunteers" (Brislin, 1977). As multinational corporations expanded during the 1970s, cross-cultural training emerged in international business. Training 4 The paper does not address the development of the field of intercultural communication outside of the United States. Implicit in Pusch's (1997) review is that the field was founded in the United States and expanded internationally with the establishment in 1975 of the Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research (SIETAR). 9 materials were adopted and adapted for pre-departure briefings for business professionals and existing and new research on comparative cultural values was applied to management strategies across cultures (Trompenaars, 1993; Harris & Moran, 1991; Hofstede, 1997; Rhinesmith, 1996). At the same time, during the 1960s and 1970s, "the inherently culturally pluralistic nature of American society could no longer be ignored. The demand for minority and ethnic group rights, coupled with an assertion of cultural identity, brought intercultural communication home to the United States" (Pusch, 1997, p 5). Even within the domestic focus, there is significant debate about the relationship between multicultural/intercultural training and race relations or anti-oppression training. In their meta-analysis of research on programs designed to change teacher attitudes and behaviours toward ethnic minority groups, McGregor and Ungerleider (1993) outline the differences between cross-cultural training and anti-racism training. They define the purposes of cross-cultural training as "a) convey social, cultural, economic and political information about other cultures and countries; b) train people to communicate and interact with people from different cultural backgrounds; and c) develop cultural self-awareness by examining one's cultural values, beliefs and assumptions" (p. 60). They define the purposes of a racism awareness approach as "a) increase people's understanding of the dynamics of racism; and b) increase people's ability to combat harassment based upon race" (p. 60). These brief definitions served the purpose of highlighting the differences in the programs examined in McGregor and Ungerleider's (1993) review. In actuality, the definitions are more complex, and are examined in Chapter Two. May (1999) points out that cross-cultural training has been criticized for not addressing racism, discrimination, and prejudice. In a critique of multicultural training Gillborn (1995) states that: Work on difference and diversity is important, but it is not an end in itself. Unless teachers retain a concern with 'race' and racism, as distinctive factors (that connect directly with issues of power and oppression) antiracist work might revert to the worst kind of multiculturalism (typified by a fascination with difference and exotica): what is sometimes disparagingly referred to as 'the three Ss' - saris, samosas and steel bands, (p. 137) 10 Kehoe and Mansfield (1993) take exception to this type of attack on multiculturalism. They respond to criticisms of multicultural education with this comment: Critics who define multiculturalism as "food, clothing, song and dance" are simply creating a "straw person" which can easily be destroyed. Certainly since 1971 no one could seriously suggest that such a narrow definition of multicultural education is accurate, (p. 3) From their perspective, "in most instances the differences between multicultural and anti-racist education appear to be a matter of emphasis" (Kehoe & Mansfield, 1993, p. 3). Ungerleider and Sherlock (1988) found that practitioners of domestic cross-cultural training would agree with this statement. Practitioners describe their work as including both cross-cultural and race relations issues. Nieto (2000), writing about multicultural education in the public school sector, states that: To be effective, multicultural education needs to move beyond diversity as a passing fad. It needs to take into account our history of immigration as well as the inequality and exclusion that have characterized our past, our present, and our educational record, (p. 3) Attention to the dichotomy between multicultural and anti-racist training is mirrored in recent efforts to bring together the fields of international and domestic intercultural training. Paige and Martin (1996) define intercultural training as: Educative processes intended to promote culture learning, by which we mean the acquisition of behavioral, cognitive, and affective competencies associated with effective interaction across cultures. Such interactions can occur within and across societies ~ that is, in both domestic and international settings, (p. 36, italics added) Pusch (1997) suggests that the two streams of intercultural training are merging, stating that: One of the more significant problems in the field has been its division into two parts which have remained unnecessarily separate — the international/intercultural focus and the domestic interethnic/interracial focus. The international focus initially found its place in higher education and in training personnel for overseas service. The interethnic interest was initially located in elementary and secondary education and the civil rights movement, and has concentrated on teacher education at the university level. Eventually 11 domestic diversity efforts in both the public and private sector burgeoned in the United States in the 1980s. In the 1990s the movement toward globalization is bringing the two elements—international and domestic —together within the rubric of culture. The thrust of both communities is in the same direction: toward the development of knowledge and skills needed to interact effectively across cultures and to bring about a more equitable distribution of the social good. (p. 5) While practitioners and theorists alike agree that cross-cultural interactions occur both domestically and internationally, there has been no discussion in the literature of what it looks like to bring these elements together. Issues of race, power, and oppression are not addressed in the international literature, which focuses on interpersonal communication and adaptation. Pusch (1997) does not explain how the social justice approach to which she alludes would become a part of international cross-cultural training. To date, there is slim evidence of a movement in this direction. In the same volume that includes Paige and Martin's (1996) definition of intercultural training, the editors note that since the first edition of the handbook "the intervening years have not changed the conclusions [about the positive effects of cross-cultural training]" (Landis & Bhagat, 1996, p. 10). They go on to present an international focus as they describe positive changes in people's thinking, affective reactions and behavior. They use such language as "a greater understanding of host nationals", "an increase in the feeling, from a given person's perspective, that he or she has a good working relation with hosts", and "better adjustment to the everyday stresses of life in another culture" (p. 10). A recent publication by the Centre for Intercultural Learning5 presents a profile of the interculturally effective person. There is an attempt to recognize both domestic and international components as stated in the following introduction to the profile: Someone who is interculturally effective has three main attributes: • an ability to communicate with people of another culture in a way that earns their respect and trust, thereby encouraging a cooperative and productive workplace that is conducive to the achievement of professional or assignment goals; 5 The Centre for Intercultural Learning (CIL) is part of the Canadian Foreign Service Institute in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 12 • the capacity to adapt his/her professional skills (both technical and managerial) to fit local conditions and constraints; and • the capacity to adjust personally so that s/he is content and generally at ease in the host culture. The first two elements apply to any intercultural situation, including multicultural relations in Canada, but the third is unique to the international situation — a principal focus of the current document. (Vulpe et al., 2001, p. 6) The profile makes a contribution to the international field with its identification of nine "essential qualities" or "major competencies", divided into thirty "core competencies". The major competencies are 1) adaptation skills, 2) an attitude of modesty and respect, 3) an understanding of the concept of culture, 4) knowledge of the host country and culture, 5) relationship building, 6) self-knowledge, 7) intercultural communication, 8) organizational skills, and 9) personal and professional commitment. The authors note that "with some adaptation, this profile could be useful in defining the intercultural competencies required of workers in many domestic fields where multiculturalism is a major factor in the work environment (diverse workforces, police, educational organizations)" (Vulpe, 2001, p. 13). While I recognize the efforts of the authors to create an inclusive document, I suggest that the profile would require substantial modification to be applicable for a domestic intercultural training context. The approaches, assumptions, and theories that guide intercultural program planning will be explored in Chapter Two. I have attempted to illustrate the relationship between the development of the two streams of intercultural training, domestic and international, in the diagram that follows. 13 History of Intercultural Training: Two Streams 1 Intercultural, Transcultural, Cross-Cultural 2 Cultural Diversity Training 3 Intercultural, Cross-Cultural 4 Race Relations, Anti-Oppression, Unlearning Racism Explaining My Practice I will introduce this section with a short autobiographical note. My personal motivation for engaging in diversity and intercultural work is grounded in a social justice perspective, informed by the lives and histories of my parents and my own experiences as a child from a mixed heritage home (Jewish with roots in Eastern Europe and West Indian Catholic with roots in India). In the small Canadian community in which I was raised I learned the lessons early about being "other". This experience has shaped my way of being in the world and influenced the direction of my work and education. Becoming a Diversity and Intercultural Trainer Let me start by noting that the terms intercultural trainer and diversity trainer are not well-defined. Individuals may have studied sociology, psychology, anthropology, education, or business. They may have had personal experience living or working overseas. Trainers have developed their skills by working as ESL teachers, human resources practitioners, counsellors, 14 and international business professionals. Their experience may derive from multi-national corporations, non-governmental organizations, grass-roots community development, or personal experience of living and working in diverse cultural contexts.6 Trainers may work primarily from an international perspective or from a domestic perspective. Their work may be framed by multicultural, international, or anti-oppression conceptualizations of "difference". My own background includes a bachelors degree in psychology, ten years as a human resources practitioner in progressively senior roles in the public and private sectors, over ten years of experience teaching human resources courses at the post-secondary level, a masters degree in counselling psychology focusing on cross-cultural counselling, and several years counselling international students and students with disabilities at post-secondary institutions. I learned about group process in the counselling psychology program and about corporate training from hands-on experience developing management and staff development programs. I explored cultural identity, cross-cultural adaptation, and cross-cultural training in the counselling psychology program and while working as a counsellor. Before enrolling in the EdD program, I attended several "training for trainer" workshops, which were less about theory and more about training techniques. My learning about adult education, program planning, and diversity training is grounded in practice. Like most people who are involved in diversity and intercultural training, I have developed my understandings about how to design and lead this type of training in the spaces where I teach. As one of my colleagues describes the process, we have "learned on the ground" through co-facilitation, informal conversations with other trainers, and interaction with diverse learners in varied contexts. Conceptual Framework My work is shaped by both multicultural and social justice7 or anti-oppression frameworks within a domestic context. As a result of conducting this study, I have a heightened awareness of the degree to which, depending on the circumstances, one or the other of these frames dominates my workshop design. The demand for my work is generated both by business 6This introduction was adapted from Finding a Good Diversity Trainer (Margolis & McLean, 1998). 7 The notion of social justice encompasses the distribution of rights, responsibilities, and economic goods, as well as relational dimensions and power, including how people treat each other (Gewirtz, 1998). 15 imperatives and by public policy (e.g., multiculturalism, employment equity, and human rights legislation). These two driving forces shape my practice. I design and facilitate training in cross-cultural communication, building intercultural teams8, and cross-cultural customer service. This training has a multicultural, interpersonal relations focus — acknowledging, respecting, welcoming and including individuals with diverse backgrounds. I also facilitate training in valuing and managing diversity, understanding employment equity, and harassment and intervention skills. This training includes both an interpersonal relations and organizational systems focus — addressing prejudice, discrimination, and systemic barriers. I work with employees in many different functions at all organizational levels. The training approach is informed by the nature of my client requests, the organizational context in which the training occurs, and the time allotted for the training. It is difficult to open up meaningful conversations dealing with discrimination, oppression, and power relationships in a two- or three-hour session, especially if the training is a one-time delivery without ongoing work by either the organization or myself. In the last year, I have created opportunities with organizations committed to making systemic changes to combine intercultural team work with harassment and discrimination work. I still struggle with how to do this because, although I have the chance to work with all the employees, I work with each employee group for only one day. Doing what I think of as the "real work" around intercultural issues requires high levels of trust in the workshop group and in the organization. I have developed the habit of checking in with participants at the breaks, although it is difficult to obtain privacy for this. For example, ' during a break in a recent team session, I encountered one participant in the hallway. She seemed somewhat hesitant when I asked for her thoughts about the workshop. When I pursued her answer of "it's fine", she asked if I could address an issue without drawing attention to her. At the time, there was extensive media coverage of the ethnic conflicts in Eastern Europe. This person, along with her colleagues from the same ethnic background, 8 The overlap of international and multicultural training is particularly evident in this training. For example, I facilitate "Strengthening Intercultural Teams" workshops in the high tech industry in which a ten-member team based in Canada may include individuals from half a dozen different cultural backgrounds, most of whom are recent immigrants. 16 was faced everyday with negative comments from co-workers about her peoples' role in the conflict. It was causing her great distress and exclusion from her work group. Later in the day I asked the group to look at what factors in the environment contribute to prejudices and stereotypes, what role the media plays, and how people might have conversations around sensitive topics that they hear in the news. During the small-group activity, as she heard other people sharing examples, the woman who had talked with me expressed her feelings. She said that if her co-workers were interested in learning more about the situation in her country, she would answer questions; she just did not want to feel attacked. The group explored the appropriateness of such conversations in the workplace and how they could talk about cultural and political issues in a respectful way. This, of course, does not address all the issues that the learner's situation raises, but it is a small step to shifting the awareness of her co-workers about her experience and the impact of their behaviour. Organizational constraints related to time, staffing and budgets result in most training being offered in short-term instructional formats such as half-day or one-day workshops. I was becoming increasingly frustrated with "one-shot" training approaches to intercultural issues when I was invited to join the facilitation team for a new program. A Different Approach to Intercultural Training The Intercultural Studies certificate program offered through the Continuing Studies Department at the University of British Columbia was designed to engage learners from various organizational contexts in long-term intercultural training. The only program of its kind in Canada, the program takes approximately one year to complete. It is offered in a combined face-to-face and online format. While they are working, learners participate in five courses designed to integrate formal and practical knowledge. The program is unique in its length, its format, and its integration of theory and practice. In the Intercultural Studies program, I have the chance to work with a team of people who are passionate about intercultural training, in its many forms, and learners who have made a long-term commitment to participating in the program. The program, a significant part of my practice, is the site for 17 my research. The program development, objectives, learners, and facilitators will be described in more detail in Chapter Four, Research Site and Method. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions In recent years, I have been troubled by several events that fueled my questions about what difference training makes in the way people interact with others who are different from themselves. A couple of examples will illustrate the tensions that have surfaced for me. One participant wrote on an evaluation form how much she had enjoyed the training and stated "The training is Rhonda, Rhonda is the training!" While I was pleased that she had had a positive experience, I was left with nagging questions about what the training would mean "after the applause" (Ottoson, 1997b). In another situation, some months after an individual attended a one-half day session on cross-cultural communication, she attended an Intercultural Studies course. I facilitated both courses. It seemed from her responses that she was treating all the information in the Intercultural Studies course as new. In yet another example, a manager expressed concern that an employee's behaviour toward "culturally different" clients had not improved after several cross-cultural courses. The person was still abrupt with clients who had non-Canadian accents and unhelpful with new immigrants who did not know the system. Incidents like these contributed to my questions about what difference training makes in the way learners approach intercultural situations and spurred my interest in conducting the current study. To set the stage for my research questions, I will briefly review the research on the effects of diversity and intercultural training. Effects of Diversity Training In the past 10 years, in response to globalization, demographic changes in the cultural make-up of Canada and the United States, and increased competition in the marketplace, organizations have devoted extensive resources to training management and staff in diversity issues (Hayles & Russell, 1997; Loden & Rosener, 1991; Morrison, 1992; Thiederman, 1991). Demographic imperatives have spawned a new field of "diversity management" and few organizations have stopped to question what difference the training actually makes (Friedman & Friedman, 1993). 18 A review of the literature indicates that some attention is now being paid to whether or not diversity programs are successful. Rynes and Rosen (1994) conducted a survey of human resources practitioners in the United States asking about characteristics and effects of diversity programs. Thirty percent of the 785 respondents reported positive long-term effects, including "reduced grievance and lawsuits, increased diversity in hiring and promotion outcomes, increased employee self-awareness of biases, and increased consultation of human resource specialists on diversity-related issues" (Rynes & Rosen, 1994, p. 70). The published article did not provide examples of employee self-awareness. The assessment of diversity success in organizations has primarily focused on collecting data to demonstrate the hiring, promotion, and salary information related to the hiring of women and minorities (Majors & Sinclair, 1994; Taylor, 1995; Van Eron, 1995). While these numbers may indicate changes in the makeup of the organization, they do not tell us anything about what kinds of relationships and communication occur within the changing workforce. Few organizations have assessed the effects of the diversity training that typically accompanies diversity hiring efforts. The assessment work that has been done has generally consisted of post-workshop reaction forms, or survey-based self-reports of increased levels of knowledge and awareness about diversity issues, stereotyping, prejudice, and harassment (Tan, Morris & Romero, 1996). As a facilitator, I am interested in what aspects of the training or post-training environment help learners understand, articulate, apply, or share what they have learned. This type of research is not a priority with organizations that have limited budgets for training follow-up. Effects of Cross-cultural Training In their extensive review of studies pertaining to cross-cultural adjustment in international assignments, Black and Mendenhall (1990) suggest that there is some evidence that "cross-cultural training is effective in developing important cross-cultural skills, in facilitating cross-cultural adjustment, and in enhancing job performance" (p. 133). However, they point out that most of the research lacked a theoretical framework to explain why cross-cultural training is effective and that "more rigorous research designs [are needed] before definitive conclusions about the impact of training over time can be made" (p. 119). 19 Kealey and Protherhoe (1996) suggest that Black and Mendenhall (1990) are "too optimistic" (p. 156) in their views of the positive effects of cross-cultural training. They state that the literature review "treated 'cross-cultural' training as an undifferentiated, generic entity, which unfortunately makes it impossible to identify more precisely the different impacts that various types of cross-cultural training might have" (p. 156). Kealey and Protherhoe (1996) are concerned about the lack of "scientific rigour" in evaluating the effects of cross-cultural training. They recommend that interculturalists undertake a major study of expatriate training to answer the question "Is cross-cultural training for expatriates effective?". They outline five criteria for assessment: experimental group controls, random assignment, pre- and post-tests, longitudinal outcome measures, and multiple outcome measures. I recognize the potential value of this type of research for governments and organizations that invest in employee training. As a practitioner, my interests lie primarily in domestic cross-cultural training. I am interested in understanding not only what the outcomes are, but in how learners experience the process of the training. In their comprehensive review of race relations and cross-cultural training, Ungerleider and Sherlock (1988) created a data-base with examples from three sub-categories of cross-cultural literature: description of training methodologies, evaluation of training effects, and conceptual research. Priority was given to the first two categories. The latter was reported only briefly. As with the review conducted by Black and Mendenhall (1990), domestic and international cross-cultural research was undifferentiated, although the majority of the studies reviewed represented a domestic context. In contrast to Black and Mendenhall's (1990) "optimistic" discussion of international cross-cultural training, Ungerleider and Sherlock (1988) found that "the outcomes of race relations and cross-cultural training, in the research reviewed, demonstrated a low success rate in improving interracial or cross-cultural attitudes and behaviour" (p. 54). Nevertheless, Ungerleider and Sherlock (1988) caution that it is difficult to draw overall conclusions about the effects of cross-cultural training because "a survey of the research reveals a wide range of training methods, populations [primarily students, police and military], settings, experimental procedures, measurements and results" (p. 55). 20 Based on their review of the international cross-cultural training literature, Gannon & Poon (1997) contend that "there seems to be general agreement that cross-cultural training can be beneficial [although] there is no consensus as to what instructional approaches are most appropriate or effective for delivering this kind of training" (p. 430). Wide variations in the study populations and methodologies make it difficult to comment unequivocally on the effects of cross-cultural training. The general confusion in the cross-cultural training field, which gives rise to the question, "what is the field?", has contributed to lack of agreement on the effects of training. There does, however, seem to be consensus about the value of further exploration of the effects of cross-cultural training (Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Gannon & Poon, 1997; Kealey & Protherhoe, 1996; Ungerleider & Sherlock, 1988). Statement of Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study was to explore learners' and facilitators' perceptions of the effects of intercultural training in order to inform program planning. The study explored learner and facilitator experiences in the Intercultural Studies certificate program and learner perceptions of change as a result of participating in the program. The central question for this study was: How does participation in the Intercultural Studies program affect the way learners approach intercultural interactions? Related questions included: What are the learners' experiences of the program? How does training contribute to changes in the way individuals think about and respond to people from cultural backgrounds different from their own? What aspects of the training environment contribute to change? How do learners engage or negotiate learning between the educational and practice contexts, including sharing their learning with others? What are the implications for program planning and facilitator training? General Approach to the Research I conducted in-depth interviews with nineteen individuals — eleven learners who completed the certificate program in Intercultural Studies and eight facilitators who participated in designing the program and/or individual courses. The learners represented a mix of gender, age, ethnic backgrounds, and occupational environments. During the interviews, I explored 21 learner reasons for participating in the training and the aspects of the training which contributed to a change in how they perceive and work with others from different cultural backgrounds. During the interviews with facilitators I explored their intentions, their conceptual frameworks, their dilemmas, and their reflections on learner change. Before beginning the interviews, I reviewed course curricula and materials related to the development of the program. This document review helped me understand the context for the planning, development, and implementation of the program. A discussion of the approach to the research would not be complete without commenting on my role as the researcher. Marshall & Rossman (1995) state: In qualitative inquiry, initial questions for research often come from real-world observations, dilemmas, and questions and have emerged from the interplay of the researcher's direct experience, tacit theories and growing scholarly interests.. .Especially in applied fields, such as management, education, and clinical psychology, a strong autobiographical element often drives the scholarly interest, (p. 16) This is certainly the case in my situation. I am researching part of my practice and thus am intimately involved with the research setting. Marshall and Rossman (1995) state that in such cases "the researcher's challenge is to demonstrate that this personal interest will not bias the study" (p. 17). I do not think it is possible to make such an assertion. Instead, I have endeavoured to make my biases transparent by "openly discuss[ing] values that shape the narrative and including my] own interpretation in conjunction with [the] interpretation of participants" (Cresswell, 1998, p. 75). Sumara and Carson (1997) state: The educational researcher must, in some way, find ways in which to represent not only the conclusions of inquiry, but, as well, the path of thinking and inquiry that has led to these conclusions.. .It means showing the connections between the researcher and the subject of inquiry, (p. xvi) Throughout this paper I have tried to give precedence to the voices of the individuals I interviewed and, at the same time, include my thoughts and questions in the discussion. In the final chapter, I bring my own voice to the foreground as I consider implications for practice. 22 I must acknowledge the particular challenge of examining my own practice. The Intercultural Studies program is more than a research site. It is a site of work and learning for me. The facilitators I interviewed are more than participants in a study. They are my colleagues, my teachers, and my friends. The learners I interviewed are not simply participants in a study. They are my co-learners in the contested territory of intercultural relations. At times, I have struggled with my dual role as an insider with the program and a researcher of the program. The opportunity to examine my practice, which was what drew me to the EdD program, carried with it an ethical responsibility that I only fully appreciated when I found myself standing in the middle of the program while trying to stand outside it. In a true partnership of theory and practice, I found that using the conceptual resources of program planning and transfer of learning helped me clarify my thinking and frame my discussion, particularly in the last chapter, in which I discuss implications for planning. These conceptual resources have helped me negotiate the challenges of studying my own world by giving me some theoretical understandings with which to connect my practice. I have also made every effort to ensure that I "make [myjself think of unlikely possibilities" (Becker, 1998, p. 24) and not define the problem so well that I have "ruled out of consideration a lot of potentially interesting processes" (p. 23). For example, I conceived the study within the framework of program planning and transfer of learning. The interviews led me on new paths. I have explored conceptual frameworks for intercultural training, cultural identity, safety, challenge, and learning community — critical factors in intercultural learning. Significance of the Study This study has the potential to be of value to planners and facilitators of intercultural training because it makes known the experience of individuals who participated in, and those who designed and facilitated, an intercultural training program. I hope the study will contribute to our knowledge about how learners integrate their new understandings into their thoughts and actions. Hayles and Russell (1997) state that: Diversity work for individuals involves what we know, how we act, and how we feel ~ head, hand and heart. If we focus on any two of these three, the third is consistently likely to follow. Diversity change begins in the head as we learn 23 more about people who are different from us. It continues as a process of modifying behaviour - the "hand" - to become more effective in our interactions with people who reflect different cultures, speak different languages, communicate with different styles, or bring different experiences to their interactions with us. Third, diversity change involves emotional growth in the heart as we develop authentic relationships with people who are different. (P- 1) I do not know if focusing on two of the three will result in changes in the third element and I would not state with such certainty that diversity change begins in the head. It might just as easily be said that diversity change begins with the heart. Diversity and intercultural trainers hope to contribute to change in all three areas. This study can make a unique contribution to the literature on intercultural training by exploring in depth with learners what they know, how they feel and how they act as a result of participating in intercultural training. I hope these understandings will inform the ways in which planners and facilitators think about their practice. I would like the study to spark reflection, discussion, and action around questions such as what is the conceptual framework for their program plan — international, multicultural, anti-racist, integrated? How does each approach affect the training design? How do they define culture and intercultural competence? Who is invited to participate in the planning? How do they establish the opportunity and the guidelines for difficult conversations around culture, race, and power? After all, as Cervero and Wilson (1994) say: "[Progam] planning is worldmaking, which is why it matters and why planners should care about doing it better" (p. 171). As discussed in the final chapter, I have been able to use what I have learned from this study in other aspects of my practice. Readers of the study will have to make their own decision about the degree to which the findings can be applied to their training contexts. Of particular importance for me, as a practitioner, is that the study has the potential to make a significant contribution to the practice of intercultural training by providing a foundation for the reexamination of the frameworks within which planning decisions are made, the reconceptualization of the design of training programs, and the training of trainers. 24 Use of Terms Understanding language as competing discourses, competing ways of giving meaning and of organizing the world, makes language a site of exploration, struggle. (Richardson, 1994, p. 518) Of necessity in introducing my practice, I have already begun to explore the imprecise language that surrounds my work — diversity, intercultural, multicultural, anti-racism — and the tensions that are at the core of developing intercultural training programs. Debate abounds in two other areas relevant to this study: definitions of training and education, and more importantly, definitions of race, ethnicity, and culture and the related terminology such as dominant, mainstream, and minority. Without attempting to duplicate the depth of discussion available from other sources, I will provide a brief discussion of the terms, beginning with some thoughts on training and education. Training and Education I include a short discussion of training and education to respond to perceptions readers may hold about the meaning of the term training. Historically, when contemplating the learning activities of adults, the term training was used to describe practical, "vocational, utilitarian or specialized pursuits" (Peters et al., 1973, p. 19). Peters and associates (1973) suggest that in contrast to achieving a skill such as pottery making or ballet dancing through training, "an educated person must also have an understanding of the 'reason why' of things" and that 'education' implies that a [person's] outlook is transformed by what he knows" (p. 19). (Pottery makers and dancers might disagree with the distinction). In the past, education has been associated with universities and training has been linked to technical, trades or non-formal organizational learning. Marsick and Watkins (1990) suggest that training generally refers to short term courses or workshops that emphasize practical skills, while education is longer-term and formal (i.e., taking place at post-secondary institutions). These distinctions between learning opportunities for adults have become less precise in recent years. As new definitions of work and learning are emerging, the boundary between employer training and academic education is becoming blurred. An increasing number of employers are 25 using terms such as leadership education and corporate university and there is a trend toward using the term learning centre and learners in place of training, education, and students. The distinctions among formal (post-secondary), nonformal (organizational training), and informal (self-directed, team-based) education are further blurred by technology (Russell, 1999). There is a strong growth in business and post-secondary partnerships to offer e-learning opportunities for employees that ladder to post-secondary credentials (Frankola, 2000; Kaeter, 2000). With respect to intercultural training, Gudykunst and Hammer (1983) review a number of characteristics that have been used to describe how training differs from education. These include "an awareness of the different approaches which are most appropriate to the teaching of content..., special attention to how adults learn, a strong preference for the experiential approach, emphasis on learning how to learn, and special attention paid to the sequence and mix of training activities" (Kohls 1980, pp. 86-87, cited in Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983, p. 120). In my experience teaching at post-secondary institutions, I include many of the activities that have been defined as training. In my experience conducting training in organizations, I include many of the activities that have traditionally been identified as education. I am not alone in seeing the two as overlapping. Gudykunst and Hammer (1983) note that they "see a high degree of conceptual similarity between the activities that Harrison and Hopkins (1967) and Kohls (1980) label 'training' and those activities that Nadler (1970) and Miller (1979) call 'education.'" (p. 120). In their chapter in the Handbook of Intercultural Training, they stipulated that their use of the term training includes activities that have been considered as education. Stringer and Taylor (1991), on the other hand, differentiate between diversity education and training, stating that: Training includes both information giving and skill building. For example, training can help managers communicate more effectively across gender, negotiate with Japanese visitors, or do teambuilding with physically challenged individuals. Training is often chosen as a response to specific problem areas or challenges within a work setting. Education includes broader information about culture, values, perceptions and behaviors. This approach helps participants understand their own responses and contrast their cultural values, behaviors and perceptions with those of others.. .Education programs are preferred if an 26 organization wants long-term effects across a variety of groups, and if it is seeking changes in its organizational culture, (p. 10) Similarly, Acton (1997), based on her interviews with diversity trainers, describes diversity training content as "having two components: an education component and a training component. The education part involves information sharing and increasing knowledge. The training portion is described as practicing skills, techniques, and developing strategies to apply back to the work environment" (p. 82). These definitions seem to me to be imposing an artificial dichotomy between training and education. When I facilitate diversity training, I typically include the areas Stringer and Taylor (1991) call education - understanding culture, values and perceptions. Teambuilding, negotiation and communication cannot be decontextualized from these concepts. Like Gudykunst and Hammer (1983), throughout this study I use the term training to describe my work, the Intercultural Studies program and the field at large. The term includes activities that others may call 'education'. I make this choice because training is the term typically used to describe the educational activities offered within the organizational contexts where much of my work is situated, it is the term used by the facilitators in describing the Intercultural Studies program, and it is the term used in most segments of the field. The exception is multicultural education, which reflects the work in the public school sector and teacher education. The use of the term training to describe the Intercultural Studies program may be because it is part of a continuing studies area at a university where such programs have historically been identified as training. Facilitators may also use the term training because that is the language of the environments in which they do their other work, for example, organizational development and international briefings. When referring to the literature I use the language used by the authors. In the case of training practitioner and human resources journals, continuing education and organizational development literature, the word of choice is training. In the case of adult education journals and texts, the term used is education. It is not the purpose of this thesis to resolve the training versus education debate. I do want to alert the reader, though, that the use of the label 27 training does not connote a narrow conceptualization of diversity and intercultural training, or the Intercultural Studies program. The terms used to describe the people who teach adults also vary. Post-secondary institutions use the terms faculty or instructors. Organizations use the term trainer or facilitator. The term program planner is used in the planning literature to describe people who have multiple responsibilities for planning educational programs. These may include identifying training needs or program ideas, developing learning objectives, designing curriculum and instructional plans, budgeting, scheduling, staffing, marketing, and evaluating programs (Caffarella, 1994). Some program planners also deliver training. The individuals who design and conduct the learning activities for the Intercultural Studies program are officially called facilitators. In describing themselves, the facilitators use the term trainer interchangeably with facilitator. None of the facilitators I interviewed use the term program planner to describe themselves although they are involved to different degrees in program planning activities as are many trainers, including myself. I have, therefore, used the terms planner, trainer and facilitator interchangeably. At points in this paper where I felt that the terminology might be unclear I have offered a clarifying comment or explanatory footnote. Race The complexity of the language around race, ethnicity and culture is well-documented (Elliott & Fleras, 1992; Helms, 1990; James & Shadd, 1994; MacNiel, 1997; Nieto, 2000). These few pages cannot do justice to the multilayered dimensions of race, ethnicity and culture. The New Webster's Dictionary (1993) defined race as a "distinct group of people, the members of which have inherited physical characteristics (skin color, form of the hair, etc.) and transmit them." The resulting socially created ranking of races, with non-whites at the bottom rung of the ladder, has caused a rethinking of the term race (Rattansi, 1999). In recent years "scientific racism, which was biologically rationalized.. .has also gone out of fashion and has become largely discredited" (Moodley, 1999, p. 151). Race, instead, is recognized as "...a social construction [and] racism is based on sociopolitical attitudes that demean specific racial characteristics" (Robinson, 1999, p. 76). We cannot, however, simply do away with the term 28 race. To do so would be to deny that race is a "sociological reality with devastating effects" (McLaren & Torres, 1999, p. 49). It is within the context of these discussions on race that we understand white9 to be more than just a colour. It "is socially and historically embedded; it is a form of racialization that carries with it a history of social, cultural and economic relations" (McLaren & Torres, 1999, p. 61), relations which are generally characterized by white privilege (Helms, 1999; Mcintosh, 1988). Helms (1999) states that "terms such as mainstream, majority, and dominant have been used to refer to European (and other White) Americans" (p. 27). In the Canadian context, when I use the terms mainstream culture, majority culture, or dominant culture I am referring to people of white, Anglo European heritage who hold the social and economic power in Canada. Schick (2000) points out, ".. .whiteness is experienced differently across various identifications. .1 observed the construction of various shades of whiteness, premised on distinctions of class, ethnic background, personal experiences, public and private histories, liberal attitudes, education, gender, sexual orientation and other associations..." (p. 93). Tatum (1999) too, notes that "White lesbians sometimes find it hard to claim privileged status as Whites when they are so targeted by homophobia and heterosexism" (p. 104). Nonetheless, "the salience of whiteness cannot be overstated" (Schick, 2000, p. 87). As Mcintosh (1988) observes in her classic essay on white privilege, "I can be reasonably sure that if I ask to talk to 'the person in charge', I will be facing a person of my race" (p. 80) and "I can be fairly sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race" (p. 79). In her poignant description of "growing up as a Chinese woman in Canada", Yee (1993) describes her experience of not being white, of "never quite belonging" saying "at home in one's skin — taken for granted by most people in this society, but not if that skin is not white" (p. 13). Thus, notions of privilege and power are embedded in my use of the term white/ 0 In the absence of universal agreement, I use the more common lower case "black" and "white" except when quoting an author who uses a different form. 1 0 This discussion is informed by a Canadian and American context. Definitions of dominance will vary in other contexts. Even within Canada, in Quebec, white is not the sole determinant of dominance. 29 In contrast to white, the term visible minority is used to describe non-white racial minorities, including both recent immigrants and second or third generation Canadians. While visible minority is a term widely used in Canada, particularly with the entrenching of the words in the federal Employment Equity legislation, people of color is more commonly used in the United States. This phrase is not without its own problems. Nieto (2000) describes her discomfort with the phrase, saying: The term people of color encompasses those who have been labeled "minority", that is American Indians, African Americans, Latins, and Asian Americans, and it emerged from these communities themselves. Two problems are] a shared historical experience among all people of color is an illusion [and] people of color is also inaccurate when referring, for example, to Latinos of European background, as is the case with many Argentineans and Cubans... (p. 28) Bannerji (1993), too, is uncomfortable with the language and its connotations, describing visible minority as a "perplexing" concept. She notes On the surface it seems to be a simple euphemism; it seems to work as a way of classifying or categorizing, without appearing to be in any way racist.. .But its first impact is one of absurdity to anyone who bothers to reflect on it. All forms of material existence except air, have visibility... Some people, it implies, are more visible than others.. .The category visible minority, then is actually based on notions such as "different," "not normal," "not like us," "does not belong." This category of "visibility," and the construction of one's self as a "minority" ( a suffered member of society, even though a citizen and socially productive), are ways of rendering people powerless and vulnerable. (pp. 148-149) Helms and Cook (1999) echoe Bannerji, stating that the "use of the terms minority-majority serve to codify the existing racial power" (p. 28) Minority is used to describe people from visible racial/ethnic groups and "majority is used to describe Whites regardless of the reality of their numerical circumstances" (Helms & Cook, 1999, p. 28). Visible minority does not account for the experiences of immigrants who are white in colour. Thus, the phrase invisible or non-visible minorities has evolved in Canada to describe white individuals of "northwestern European extraction (as well as Australia, New Zealand, or United States)... [who] have in common their light skin colour and common cultural heritage 30 which, together make them virtually indistinguishable from the mainstream in the West" (Elliott & Fleras, 1992, p. 334). Non-visible minority is also used to describe white eastern European immigrants who have different linguistic and cultural backgrounds than mainstream Canadians. Both visible and non-visible minorities are included in the term ethnic groups which "is used primarily to refer to immigrants from non-British and non-French backgrounds" (Ng, 1993, p. 185). The less common term, white ethnics, is used to "refer to those White people who themselves or whose ancestors were not successfully assimilated into White American culture, and for whom cultural markers signaled the group's lowly racial or cultural status relative to other White Americans" (Helms & Cook, 1999, p. 41). In Canada the terms visible minority and ethnic group are generally not used to describe indigenous peoples who are referred to as First Nations or aboriginal peoples. The history of cultural genocide, oppression, and exclusion of First Nations in Canada adds another layer of complexity to the already complicated terrain of intercultural training. Ethnicity Van den Berghe (1978) points out that "there is considerable debate in the literature on the meaning and definition of both race and ethnicity" (p. xv). He states that "ethnic groups, like race.. .are socially defined but on the basis of cultural criteria [instead of physical criteria]" (1978, pp. 9, 10, italics in original). He notes that the word ethnicity was coined during the 1960s when "it became fashionable to discover, cultivate and cuddle 'ethnic identities' and 'roots'" (Van den Berghe, 1981, p. 4). He suggests that in theory, ethnicity is defined by kinship and geography. He contends that ethnicity is "defined in the last analysis by common descent.. .and that ethnic boundaries are created socially by preferential endogamy [rules for marrying within kinship groups] and physically by territoriality" (1981, p. 24). However, he goes on to-call the notion of kinship a "biological fiction" and states: Clearly for 50 million Frenchmen or 100 million Japanese, any common kinship that they may share is highly diluted, and known to be so. Similarly, when 25 million Afro-Americans call each other "brothers" and "sisters", they know that they are greatly extending the meaning of these terms.. and yet, the fiction of 31 kinship.. .has to be sufficiently credible for ethnic solidarity to be effective. (Van den Berghe, 1981, p. 27) Van den Berghe (1981) suggests that markers of ethnicity include "genetically transmitted phenotype such as skin pigmentation",... "body mutilations and/or adornments carried a visible badges of group belonging",... [and] "speech [language], demeanor, or manners... characteristic of the group" (p. 29). Consistent with Van den Berghe, Elliott and Fleras (1992) define ethnicity as "a sense of identity and belonging among those who share an identification or affiliation with a common set of symbols pertaining to birthright, homeland, language, culture and heritage" (p. 133). In their view birthright means "persons with descent from a common source" and homeland means "territory" (p. 135). These characteristics serve to identify who is included and who is excluded from a particular group. Similar definitions, recognizing biological and social aspects of ethnicity, are presented by others in the cross-cultural field. Christensen (1980) defines ethnicity as "biological and sociological criteria such as actual or assumed common ancestry, cultural heritage and a territorial homeland" (p. 12). Aboud and Skerry (1984) suggest that an ethnic group is "a socially or psychologically defined set of people who have a common culture or cultural background, often because of similarity of race, nationality, or religion" (p. 3). Although a number of authors have included biology in their definitions of ethnicity, according to Allport (1979) "Unlike 'race', the term [ethnicity] does not imply biological unity" (p. xviii). Ponterotto and Pedersen (1993) noted that: Ethnicity has been conceptualized by Rose (1964) as a group classification of individuals who share a unique social and cultural heritage (e.g., language, custom, religion) passed on between generations. Here the focus does not rest on a biological or genetic foundation as was the case for race.(p. 6) Culture Elliott and Fleras (1992) contrast ethnicity and culture, describing culture as "a complex and evolving system of shared knowledge that contributes to community adaptation and survival" (p. 136) and "ethnicity [as the] collectivities who are aware of their cultural distinctiveness because of wider social trends.. .they become conscious of themselves as unique and threatened, with a heritage and lifestyle worth preserving despite pressure to do otherwise" (p. 32 136). As Banton (1983) points out, the usage of the term ethnicity has been called "a 'minus one' definition of ethnicity: the dominant group insists upon its power to define; members of that group perceive themselves not as ethnic but as setting the standard by which others are to be judged" (p. 65). The common thread among definitions of culture is the emphasis on the "learned, non-biological aspects of human society, including language, custom and convention" (Abercrombie, Hill & Turner, 1994, p. 98). Samovar, Porter and Stefani (1998) note that: As early as 1952, Kroeber and Kluckhohn listed 164 definitions of culture that they found in the anthropology literature. And of course, many new definitions have appeared since. Definitions of culture range from all-encompassing ones ("it is everything") to narrower ones ("it is opera, art, and ballet")... We define culture as the deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, actions, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and artifacts acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving. Culture can therefore include everything from rites of passage to concepts of the soul. (p. 36, italics in original) The collective and learned nature of culture is captured in the following definition: Culture is about how people interpret the world around them by developing shared understandings. People learn collectively how to interpret what is important and unimportant and how to behave in specific circumstances. Culture provides people with rules about how to operate in the world in which they live and work. (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 20, italics in original) A similar notion of culture is presented by Schein (1992) who defines culture as "a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration... " (p. 12, italics in original) and by Hofstede (1997) who defines culture as "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category or people from another." (p. 5, italics in original). These writers also suggest that culture has different layers or levels. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) describe three levels of culture — national or regional society, corporate or organizational culture, and professional and ethical orientations within organizations. Hofstede (1997) states that "as almost everyone belongs to a number of different groups and categories 33 of people at the same time, people unavoidably carry several layers of mental programming within themselves, corresponding to different levels of culture" (p. 10). Hofstede's (1997) layers of culture include a national level, a "regional and/or ethnic and/or religious and/or linguistic affiliation level" (p. 10), a gender level, a generation level, a social class level, and a corporate level. A number of other writers have suggested that all encounters are cross-cultural, broadening their definition to include not only ethnic or racial background, but also characteristics such as gender, ability, age, lifestyle, socioeconomic status, norms, values, and belief systems (Pedersen, 1978; Paradis, 1981; Atkinson, Morten & Sue, 1998; Thiederman, 1991). Ponterotto and Pedersen (1993) describe the complexity of culture in this way: The narrow definition of culture is limited almost totally to anthropological descriptors such as nationality and ethnicity. A broader social-systems definition of culture includes demographic variables, such as age, gender, and place of residence; status variables, such as social, educational, and economic level; and affiliation variables to formal and/or informal groups, in addition to ethnographic variables of nationality, ethnicity, religion, and language, (p. 127) Ponterotto and Pedersen (1993) point out that culture sometimes refers to artifacts or behaviours that can be seen by others or it may be subjective and invisible to others as defined by attitudes, feelings, opinions, and assumptions held to be important by a group. The broader social-systems definition of culture has received increasing attention as organizations have implemented diversity training in the last decade. Such a definition is not without controversy. Does subsuming all differences under the heading of culture make the concept meaningless or does the broadening of the concept encourage people to understand the complexity of culture? Hayles and Russell (1997) acknowledge that "diversity leaders are sometimes accused of diluting the much-needed work on racism and sexism by discussing 'all the ways in which we differ'" (p. 13). They make a strong statement that: It must be made clear that broad inclusion will enhance the work on race and gender, not dilute it. Initiating diversity by dealing exclusively with race and gender often causes disengagement on the part of those who most need to face 34 race and gender issues.. All of us must do this work; all of us will benefit from it. (p. 13) Robinson (1999), too, argues for a recognition of the "multiple identities that compose our lives. Included are race, gender, class, sexual orientation, ability and disability" (p. 73). She discusses in detail the dominant discourses across intersecting identities. She introduces her discussion with the following comments about "invisible isms": Far too often, many of us erroneously believe that if we do not have membership in a particular group, then we are immune from the ways in which this group is affected by oppression...One of the dominant discourses of race is that European Americans think that they do not have to think about being White and what this means because race is often not viewed as salient to their identities. As a consequence, many Whites do not consider race or racism to be an issue that directly affects them and those who look like them.. .For some time, many women have been and need to continue pondering the effects of gender on their lives, yet neither gender nor sexism is the sole domain of women. Men, as gendered beings, are influenced by rigid and sexist discourses whereby they are oriented toward success, competition, and the need to be in control.. Is there room for substantial concern among heterosexuals about the dominant discourse of heterosexism that blankets this nation? If there are adverse consequences of heterosexism for persons who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and there are, then surely there are consequences for me as a heterosexual, professional woman residing in the "conservative South", (pp. 73, 74) As we see from this short discussion of race, ethnicity and culture the terms are not easily defined nor are they easily separated. "Because of the centrality of'whiteness' within the dominant national identity, Americans generally make few distinctions between 'ethnicity' and 'race' and the two concepts are usually used interchangeably" (Marable, 1988, p. 364). Rattansi observes that "the difficulties of drawing neat boundaries around concepts such as ethnicity, ethnocentrism, 'race', racism, and so forth are now becoming more widely acknowledged as are the difficulties of finding unambiguous and acceptable ethnic labels in practices of regulation and policy..." (1999, p. 84). It is a constant challenge to find language that represents the experience of the people about whom I speak. I am painfully conscious that any labels "oversimplhTy] how race is experienced" (Thornton, 1988, p. 97). A number of the individuals I interviewed voiced 35 similar concerns about their choice of language. They tended to use the terms white, mainstream, majority and dominant cultures interchangeably, and used both person of colour and visible minority to describe non-white identities. Both of the latter terms seem to be preferred to non-white, which privileges whiteness. In avoiding non-white, there is an attempt to "resist the white referent point while knowing full well that the language we use and the systems we live in daily still bind us to it" (Sheth & Handa, 1993, p. 41). It is important to have a discussion about terms like culture, ethnicity, and race, not to arrive at a definition, but to illustrate the plurality of meaning surrounding the language and the assumptions embedded in the use of terms. In the field of intercultural studies, there are many questions that have no answers. It is the process of inquiry and dialogue that creates opportunities for learning. Summary In this chapter I explored the history and current state of diversity and intercultural training, explained my practice, described the research questions and significance of the study, and elaborated on the terminology of the intercultural training field. In short, I laid bare the messy world in which I practice. The intercultural training literature divides into two major streams: intercultural11 training for the international context and intercultural training for the domestic context. International training emphasizes preparation for expatriate work assignments or study opportunities, cross-cultural adjustment, and cross-cultural management. Training within the domestic context encompasses three major areas: multicultural or cross-cultural training, anti-racist or race relations training and cultural diversity training. Cross-cultural or multicultural training tends to focus on increasing awareness of the impact of culture on values, communication and 1 1 The terms cross-cultural, intercultural, multicultural, and cultural diversity are used interchangeably in the literature. The UBC program uses "intercultural" because it "implies a dynamic or movement between cultures. As in a cross-cultural situation, there is a comparison of cultural systems in an effort to better understand one another and to build ways of working well together. In addition, the term implies the potential that the interaction between the two or more cultures will lead to a changing of the cultures themselves" (Foundations course manual, 1997). Despite this differentiation, facilitators agreed that they use intercultural and cross-cultural interchangeably. 36 behaviour and developing cross-cultural communication and problem-solving skills. There is some overlap with the goals in international or expatriate training. Race relations, anti-racism, or anti-oppression training addresses prejudice, discrimination, power and racism. Cultural diversity training is offered within organizations in an effort to eliminate systemic barriers and improve working relationships and productivity. This training includes elements of multicultural and race relations training. It evolved out of affirmative action initiatives in the United States and employment equity legislation in Canada and often encompasses broad diversity factors including gender, disability, sexual orientation, and age. In my practice, as in the practices of a number of the facilitators with whom I spoke, elements of multicultural and anti-racism training may overlap. The impetus for the Intercultural Studies program came from expressed needs of international student advisors. The program design was influenced by both international and multicultural perspectives. Efforts to determine the effects of intercultural training have been hampered by the lack of differentiation in the field, the multiple contexts in which training occurs, and the varied research methodologies used to assess training effectiveness. Evaluation of training has focused on training outcomes with little attention being paid to the experience of the learners or facilitators during their participation in the programs. In this study, I interviewed learners and facilitators in an intercultural studies program to gain an understanding of what difference training makes to learners, and what factors in the training contribute to learner change. This study has the potential to make a unique contribution to practitioners who plan and facilitate intercultural training. In order to situate the Intercultural Studies program and the experiences of learners and facilitators, Chapter Two maps the development of the field of intercultural training. 37 CHAPTER TWO MAPPING THE INTERCULTURAL TRAINING FIELD It is not surprising, given the varied interests of the people involved, that there has been little agreement over the meaning and focus of the concept of intercultural training or education. For instance, these terms have been applied to such diverse activities as "taking a bus in Japan" to "synergystic management practices in multinational corporations". Similarly, definitions of intercultural training/education have ranged from sensitizing managers to "the influence of culture on their own behavior and the behavior of the host nationals" (Thiagrajan, 1971, p. 69) to "teaching members of one culture ways of interacting effectively with minimal misunderstanding in another culture (Brislin & Pedersen, 1976, p. 1)." (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983, pp. 118-119) The field of intercultural training is interdisciplinary. It has roots in anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and political science. As discussed in Chapter One, training programs for intercultural communication developed in two streams: first, from the practical needs of international sojourners and second, from the American civil rights movement. In 1979 Hoopes wrote. Intercultural communication as a field in itself is relatively new. Anthropologists, political scientists and linguists have for a long time, of course, been concerned with various dimensions of culture and communication, but until recently, none put them together in a broad framework of intercultural relations... [The field] is most easily dated, however, from the publication in 1959 of Edward T. Hall's Silent Language. This book gave us the first comprehensive analysis of the relationship between communication and culture, (p. 10) Almost twenty-five years later, intercultural training is still considered an emerging field. Paige and Martin (1996) review the characteristics of a profession, stating that: It possesses a distinctive body of knowledge shared by its members. It has a sanctioned and specified program of academic study and related experience leading to the acquisition of knowledge and skills. It has strict procedures by which its members are certified and equally strict membership rules. It has a set of professional ethics that governs behavior and that sets standards against which the activities of members are judged, (p. 39) 38 Paige and Martin (1996) observe that "given these criteria, one could argue that the field of intercultural training has not yet achieved the status of a profession" (p. 39). One of the efforts toward achieving this goal was the formation of The Society for International Education, Training and Research (SIETAR) in the early 1970s. SIETAR grew out of a cultural training conference sponsored by the US Peace Corps in the 1960s and its purpose, according to Wight (2001), was to "promote intercultural, interracial, and international understanding, communication, and cooperation" (SIETAR website). Paige and Martin (1996) describe the purpose in different terms, stating "it was formed expressly for the purpose of legitimating and promoting the fledgling field of intercultural training" (p. 40). SIETAR holds annual conferences around the world and attracts presenters and participants from a range of disciplines including education, psychology, social work, linguistics, and business. In the 1980s SIETAR established a committee to develop a certification procedure, however the idea was dropped when the committee could not reach agreement (Paige & Martin, 1996, p. 42). Symbolic of the growing pains of the field is the fact that SIETAR is currently "in a state of transition" and the Executive has extended "an open invitation to all the Society's members to participate in the discussion of our future" (SIETAR website, 2001). A second organization that has made a significant contribution to the field is the Intercultural Communication Institute (ICI) in Portland, Oregon. The directors, Janet Bennett and Milton Bennett, and the associate director, Margaret Pusch, have had a strong influence on the field. The ICI is home to the Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication (SIIC). M . Bennett's (1993) Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity is widely cited in the intercultural literature. Bennett and Bennett (1996) and Pusch (1994), along with Paige and Martin (1996) have been at the forefront of recommending sequencing training activities with attention to risk levels and learning emphasis (cognitive, affective, behavioral). The work of these authors is included in the examination of safety, risk, and challenge in Chapter Seven, Difficult Dialogues. The SIIC was founded in 1976 at Stanford University, and since 1986 it has come under the auspices of the ICI. So well known is the SIIC that among intercultural trainers it is described 39 as "going to Portland". The SIIC offers workshops in six topic areas: intercultural consulting, training, and organization development in business; intercultural teaching and training design and methods in organizations; domestic diversity topics and diversity training in education and business; intercultural conflict, counseling, and leadership; intercultural identity development; and special application and culture-specific topics. Like the SIETAR conferences, the SIIC attracts individuals from multiple disciplines in an international context. In recent years, the SIIC has offered an increasing number of workshops related to domestic diversity and anti-racism issues. The SIIC provides a forum for the sharing of academic research and unpublished practitioner knowledge. In Canada, two organizations offer professional development for individuals interested in intercultural relations, including intercultural trainers ~ UBC's Intercultural Studies program, which has an international/multicultural focus, and the Cultural Diversity Institute (CDI) at the University of Calgary, which has a domestic diversity focus. The U B C program was developed in the early 1990s in response to the needs of international student advisors. The program is described in detail in Chapter Four. CDI was established in 1998 through an agreement between the Government of Alberta (Ministry of Community Development) and the University of Calgary. Its mandate is to "create and disseminate knowledge and information regarding cultural diversity and effects on human interaction, and to look at ways of developing greater understanding and appreciation for the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to fully realize the benefits of cultural diversity" (CDI website, 2001). CDI hosts a Diversity Institute each summer. The workshop topics relate to implementing organizational diversity programs, designing diversity training and addressing racism. It is evident from the nature of the organizations that have been established and the types of training programs offered that the separation between international and domestic intercultural training continues. Other problems exist in the field. Gudykunst and associates (1996) described seven issues that affect the design of intercultural training: 1) unrealistic expectations of short-term training, 2) lack of theoretical foundation, 3) confusing terminology (e.g., intercultural training, diversity training, cultural diversity training, multicultural training, multicultural education, cross-cultural training), 4) cultural bias in 40 training design, 5) reluctance of organizational representatives or program planners and trainers to include the confrontation of prejudices in training, 6) political pressures that influence the allocation of resources and the objectives of training and 7) lack of organizational support to reinforce training. These issues are reflected in the analysis of learner and facilitator experiences in this study in Chapters Five, Six and Seven. In the next three sections I review approaches to international training and two forms of domestic training, multicultural training and anti-racism training, and explore the differences and similarities. International Training Kealey and Protheroe (1996) describe three major purposes of intercultural training interventions in the context of overseas adaptation: "increased knowledge and appreciation about a country, its culture, and its development challenge; increased awareness of the skills and behaviour needed to be successful in another culture; and increased skills in communication, negotiation and leadership" (1996, p. 146). Stringer and Paige (1997) state that "unlike diversity training, which is often social change oriented, the emphasis in international training is generally on preparing individuals to live and work in another culture by and large on its terms" (p. 102, emphasis in original). They point out that intercultural training is "strongly informed by the intercultural communication perspective" (p. 101). Training components include practical, specific information on the destination country, language phrases for everyday use, and communication styles across cultures (e.g., titles, degree of formality, eye contact, gestures, degree of directness of conversation). In addition to this culture-specific content, the training includes culture-general aspects including increasing understanding of one's culture in comparison to other cultures, exploring the impact of culture on values, thinking patterns, and behaviour, and developing strategies to cope with culture shock (Brislin et al., 1986; Chase & de Silva, 1995; Stringer & Paige, 1997). Developing cultural self-awareness is a key component of intercultural training (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983). Training techniques include didactic approaches (giving information, lecture), experiential approaches (simulations, role plays), analytical approaches 41 (case studies, critical incidents, group problem-solving) and self-reflection (inventories, values exploration and sharing) (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1983; Paige & Martin, 1996; Hoopes & Pusch, 1979; Stringer & Paige, 1997). Lectures and discussions are considered to be low risk or challenge, critical incidents and case studies are medium risk or challenge, and role plays and simulations are considered high risk or challenge (Bennett & Bennett, 1996; Paige and Martin, 1996; Pusch, 1994). Brislin and associates (1986), in their book, Intercultural Interactions, A Practical Guide, propose a critical incident training methodology based on their three-part criterion of success for international sojourners: good personal adjustment, good interpersonal relations with hosts, and attainment of goals or performance in another country. They point out that individuals make judgments about others based on their own perceptions of "right and wrong". They suggest that when sojourners are confronted with unexpected and perceived "improper" behaviours of others they may experience "intense dislike of culturally different others (leading to prejudice), negative labels (stereotypes), and a refusal to interact with the others (discrimination)" (p. 16). Within a framework of attribution theory, they created 100 critical incidents related to host customs, interacting with hosts, tourist experiences, making adjustments, the workplace, family, schooling, and returning home. The training is designed to encourage learners to explore interpersonal situations from the perspective of another culture. Although the incidents are prefaced and followed by brief discussions of prejudice, without the guidance of a facilitator, it would be easy for readers to ignore issues of prejudice and discrimination. Before discussing multicultural training, I will provide a short review of attribution theory, perceptual field theory and intercultural communication theory. Attribution Theory Attribution theory developed in the field of psychology in an attempt to understand the perceptual and cognitive processes involved in explaining behaviour. Brislin and associates describe attribution in this way: Attributions refer to the conclusions we make after observing behavior: whether other people (or the observers themselves) are competent, well-intentioned, effective, naive, power-hungry, pressured by external forces, and 42 so forth. One type of judgment which has received a great deal of attention is causal attribution... [for example] A graduate student from Saudi Arabia studying in the United States has a term paper assigned to him by a professor. The student turns in a paper, but the professor marks it "F" and writes "plagiarized" on the front page. This is a problem that demands disciplinary action at American universities. But given that it is a student from overseas, the professor calls the foreign student adviser on campus rather than the college dean. The professor asks "Is there something going on here that I don't know about?" (1986, p. 320) In this example, the professor is uncertain as to the reason for the student's behaviour. According to Brislin and associates (1986), if the professor labels the student "a cheat", he or she may be making a fundamental attribution error, that is assigning a trait label without taking into account situational factors, one of which is the student's cultural context. At the same time, the professor would have to be careful that in looking for a cultural explanation, he or she did not respond to the individual, or others, based on a cultural stereotype. I like the critical incident approach (Brislin et al., 1986) for its intention to encourage individuals to step outside their own cultural frame of reference. I have some concerns about the potential that learners will assume that a particular set of traits applies to everyone from that cultural group, and that certain behaviours will be appropriate in response to those traits. The critical incident approach may inadvertently reinforce learner stereotyping of individuals from different cultures than their own. Although it is not always explicitly acknowledged, attribution theory underpins much of the training in intercultural interactions. It is conveyed in the messages asking learners to look for alternative explanations from the perspective of other cultural values, norms, and communication patterns. Brislin (1993) emphasizes the importance of context in the communication process and suggests that to understand behavior we must have knowledge about individual personalities, attitudes and values, and situational variables such as formal and informal rules, amount of structure, and notions of public and private information. Perceptual Field Theory Related to attribution theory is perceptual field theory. Lewin (1997/1948), a social psychologist whose work in field theory is foundational to the field of perceptual psychology, 43 proposed that the conceptualization of a person's "life space" or "perceptual field" is fundamental in understanding behaviour. The perceptual field is constituted by the individual's perception of self and others. It is "the experience in which each individual lives the everyday situation of self and surroundings which each person takes to be reality" (Snygg & Combs, 1949, p. 15). Rogers (1961) uses the terms "private perceptual worlds" and "cognitive maps of experience" to describe an individual's perceptions of reality. Perceptual psychologists suggest that "people do not behave according to the facts as others see them. They behave according to the facts as they see them" (Combs et al., 1976, p. 20, italics in original). They suggest that people are more comfortable with others whose perceptual fields have more in common with their own, for example, people who share a common culture. A perceptual model of intercultural interactions was proposed by Marshall Singer (1998) in the late 1960s. Drawing from work in psychology, linguistics and anthropology, Singer proposed that "people behave as they do because of the ways in which they perceive the external world" (1998, p. 97). Hoopes (1979) builds on Singer's work describing a theoretical framework for cross-cultural training. He states that: The key to achieving effective cross-cultural relations is to become functionally aware of the degree to which our behavior is culturally determined... One of the simplest and yet most difficult ideas to internalize is the concept of perceptual difference — the idea that everyone perceives the world differently and that members of one culture group share basic sets of perceptions which differ from the sets of perceptions shared by members of other culture groups... The way we perceive the world, what we expect of it and what we think about it, is so basic and so ingrained, is buried so deep in us and in our unconscious that we continuously act and react without thinking why — without even realizing that we might think why. (pp. 13-14) One of the key aspects of intercultural training is the facilitation of awareness of one's own and others' "cultural maps". The intention in training is that an understanding that individuals are influenced by different maps or worldviews will lead to fewer faulty attributions and greater willingness to accept different ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving. In this view of intercultural relations, power is alluded to only in passing. Singer (1998) notes that: 44 There is one additional concept I would like to introduce here. Every communication relationship has a power component attached to it. We might as well recognize that and deal with it openly and consciously.. .It is also my contention that any study of communication relationships that ignores the power aspect of those relationships is one that misses a very important element of all communication, (pp. 106-107) Like Singer (1998), Hoopes (1979) acknowledges power but does not explore it. Hoopes (1979) comments that "dealing with prejudice tends to be political. You have to defuse and render powerless the prejudiced person. Behavior based on contrary cultural assumptions and values, on the other hand, is a different matter and may be approached through the communication process" (p. 34). It seems that at the same time as he recognizes power, he separates it from the study of intercultural interactions. Intercultural Communication Theories This review of intercultural communication theory is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a backdrop from which to understand the experiences of the learners interviewed for this study. In introducing an anthology of intercultural communication theories, Kim (1988) states that "The term, intercultural communication, is conceived in the present theories primarily as direct, face-to-face communication encounters between or among individuals with differing cultural backgrounds" (p. 12, italics in original). She suggests that intercultural communication theories can be classified as following one of three traditions: "1) Positivist tradition, emphasizing the goal of prediction; 2) Humanist tradition emphasizing the goal of understanding; and 3) Systems tradition emphasizing the goal of understanding and prediction" (p. 16). I have some difficulty with this definition of systems theory which I will return to later in this section. An often-cited representative of the positivist tradition is William Gudykunst. His uncertainty reduction theory is based on the premise that individuals experience anxiety when confronted with unfamiliar individuals and situations and that "reducing uncertainty/controlling anxiety are necessary and sufficient conditions for intercultural adaptation" (1988, p. 124). Gudykunst and Kim use the term strangers to refer to "those people in relationships where there is a relatively high degree of strangeness and a relatively low degree of familiarity" (p 1997, p. 26). Gudykunst (1988) suggests that both 45 interpersonal and intergroup communication involve predicting the behaviour of strangers using cultural, sociological, and psychological data. Anxiety will be reduced by such things as increasing knowledge of the host culture, second language competence, recognizing stereotypes, and having positive contact with "outgroup" members. Individual factors that influence the process of uncertainty reduction include willingness to seek information, ability to modify behaviour to accommodate different social situations, and control over emotional reactions. Fundamental to uncertainty reduction theory is the notion of "adaptive communication" due to the fact that "the power of individual strangers to change the host environment is minuscule, at least in the short run" (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997, p. 338). Like Brislin and associates (1986), Gudykunst and Kim (1997) emphasize the role of biased perceptual processes and misattributions in causing cross-cultural misunderstandings. Kim (1988) points out that the positivist tradition has been challenged by alternative humanistic approaches including interactionist and constructivist approaches that emphasize description and understanding of behavior, not prediction and control. From a constructivist perspective, intercultural training would focus on producing "process competency, enhancing communicators' ability to flexibly adapt to situations through accessing strategies at multiple levels" (Applegate & Sypher, 1988, p. 57). Samovar and associates (1998), for instance, emphasize the dynamic process of culture and communication. They suggest that, not only do cultures change, but that individuals change in the process of communication. They state that "Communication is an ongoing activity. We constantly are affected by other people's messages and, as a consequence, are always changing" (p. 24). They also underscore that communication occurs in context and is part of a larger system. Starting with the premise that systems theories are about understanding and prediction, Kim (1988) includes in this category models that are related to acculturation, "the changes that occur as a result of continuous firsthand contact between individuals of differing cultural origins" (Ward, 1996, p. 124). Kim included adaptation theories in the anthology of intercultural communication because an individual's stage of acculturation affects their interactions with others. There are a number of theories of cross-cultural adaptation, all of which recognize both individual psychological variables and societal variables (Berry, 1985; 46 Kim, 1997; Ward, 1996). The models may differ in the description or portrayal of the adaptation process, however they have in common a recognition that each individual's acculturation process will include psychological and social adjustment that will be affected by the interaction of individual characteristics and societal receptivity. The models are predictive in that culture shock "is viewed as an integral and inevitable part of the process" (Kim & Ruben, 1988) of adaptation. My understanding of systems theory is different from Kim's (1988) portrayal. It is informed by the notion that "Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than 'static' snapshots" (Senge, 1990, p. 69). It is not about prediction. One systems model, developed by Jacques Proulx, a French-Canadian researcher, incorporates notions of cultural identity and representation of self to others, situational variables, and context. The key elements of Proulx's (1997, 1998) systemic approach to intercultural interaction are the identities of the individuals, the situation in which individuals are involved, the context in which the interaction takes place, and the strategies the individuals use to work through the situation. Potential stress points in each interaction can result from contextual, individual, and interpersonal differences. Each person brings different levels of identity (e.g., national, ethnic, religious, professional, organizational) to the situation and represents a particular image to the other. Individuals understand and respond to that image from their history, personal experience and societal knowledge. "In problematic intercultural situations, identity boundaries are stressed [and] individuals often feel attacked and reluctant to disclose their perspective on the situation" (Foundation course notes, 1997, p. 34). The model encourages an analysis of the interaction of all the variables. Not surprising, as the model grew out of the particular political context of Quebec, is the recognition of "economic and political forces in culture and communication" (Martin & Nakayama, 1997). Proulx could strengthen the model by explicitly addressing the issues of power embedded in his description of context and identity. Proulx uses the model for intercultural training within the university, corporate, and public sectors. Proulx's work is available only in French. I have had access to his model by hearing him present at a summer 47 institute held by the Intercultural Studies Program and through translated material in the program course notes.12 With its attention to context and interaction of multiple aspects of individuals and situations, it is a model deserving of wider attention in the intercultural training field. Like international training, multicultural training draws on intercultural communication theory, attribution theory and perceptual field theory in its intention to encourage individuals to explore the impact of culture on values, communication styles, assumptions, expectations and judgments. Martin and Nakayama (1997) observe that. Early scholars and trainers in intercultural communication defined culture narrowly, primarily as "nationality." Scholars mostly compared middle-class U.S. citizens to residents of other nations. Trainers tended to focus on helping middle-class professionals become successful overseas. One might ask why so few scholars focused on domestic contexts, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s when the United States was fraught with civil unrest. One reason may be the early emphasis of the FSI [Foreign Service Institute] on helping overseas personnel. Another reason might be that most scholars who studied intercultural communication were themselves middle-class; they gained their intercultural experience through international contexts such as the Peace Corps, the military or business abroad, (p. 28, italics in original) Unlike international training, multicultural training has its roots in social change in a domestic context. To varying degrees, multicultural training addresses prejudice, discrimination, exclusion, and systemic barriers. Multicultural Training The introduction of multicultural training into organizations has its beginnings around the same time as the multicultural education movement in the United States and Great Britain. Multicultural education developed in response to policy shifts that recognized cultural pluralism (May, 1999; Seelye & Wasilewski, 1979). The multicultural education movement at both the public school and the post-secondary levels include recruitment of teachers from 1 2 This raises an interesting question of how knowledge is disseminated. There may well be unpublished practitioner material or material in languages other than English to which English-speaking trainers do not have widespread access. Much of what we learn as practitioners is shared by other practitioners at conferences and informally. I have received permission from Dr. Proulx to have his manuals translated into English. 48 minority groups, training for teachers in cross-cultural understanding, and training for students in recognizing and valuing differences (Gillborn, 1995; McArthur-Blair, 1995, Seelye & Wasilewski, 1979; Nieto, 2000). It also includes infusion of ethnic and cultural content into subject areas, helping students analyze the cultural assumptions that shape knowledge construction, helping students reduce prejudice and develop positive attitudes toward different cultural and racial groups, modifying teaching to facilitate the achievement of students from all groups ("equity pedagogy"), and creating a school culture that empowers students from diverse groups (Banks, 2001). May (1999) raises concerns about the central claim that "multicultural education can foster greater cultural interaction, interchange and harmony both in schools and beyond" (p. 1). He holds out hope for the potential of multicultural education although he states that it "has had a largely negligible impact to date on the life chances of minority students, the racialized attitudes of majority students, the inherent monoculturalism of school practice, and wider processes of power relations and inequality that underpin all these" (p. 1, italics in original). As acknowledged in Chapter One, there is significant debate about the degree to which multicultural education is, or should be, focused on fostering "sensitivity and appreciation for all cultures" (Pusch et al., 1979, p. 95) or "invit[ing] students and teachers to put their learning into action for social justice" (Nieto, 2000, p. 314). Tatum (1999) points out that "Not only do children need to be able to recognize distorted representations, they also need to know what can be done about them. Learning to recognize cultural and institutional racism and other forms of inequity without also learning strategies to respond to them is a prescription for despair" (p. 49). Similar issues arise in organizations in the business sector which, as described in chapter one, has embraced intercultural or multicultural training to enhance harmony and productivity in the workplace. Stringer and Paige (1997) describe intercultural training in the workplace as: Help[ing] participants examine the nature of culture and the impact it has in shaping their lives. Through the exploration of cultural differences in values, perceptions, and patterns of behavior, and intercultural communication skill building, it is intended to provide the participant with an enhanced capacity to work effectively with persons from other cultures. This form of training also examines oppression and discrimination as a significant part of a culture 49 group's history and a major contributor to how members perceive the world, but it does not place the anti-oppression agenda at the center of training. Instead, it encourages each individual to see how other groups and individuals have been affected by their unique history", (p. 101) From a practitioner perspective, I am aware that cross-cultural or multicultural training, including some of my own work, is implemented with varying degrees of attention to discrimination or oppression. The focus is on individual awareness and interpersonal relations from a "respecting differences" perspective. Particularly in the case of short workshops in which in-depth explorations are not possible, prejudice and systemic oppression hovers on the periphery of the training and is not directly addressed. The impact of emphasizing a respecting differences approach over an anti-oppression approach is examined in Chapter Seven, Difficult Dialogues. The components in multicultural training are similar to those in international training with two key differences: multicultural training is culture-general instead of culture-specific, that is, the training is designed to prepare individuals for interaction with any culture (Brislin & Pedersen, 1976) and the training does not usually emphasize cross-cultural adaptation strategies. There is no unifying conceptual framework. Both international and multicultural training are shaped by intercultural communication theories, attribution, and perceptual field theory. Depending on the purpose of the training other theories such as cross-cultural adaptation, intergroup dynamics or stages of team development, may underpin the training design. Theoretical frameworks are rarely explicit, which may contribute to the confusion in the field (Black & Mendenhall, 1990; Gudykunst et al., 1996; Paige & Martin, 1996). Elements of anti-racism training may be included in multicultural training. Anti-Racism Training The groundbreaking work that informed anti-racist, anti-oppression, and unlearning racism training in the United States was Judith Katz' (1976) dissertation (and subsequent book) — Systematic Handbook of Exercises for the Re-education of White People with Respect to Racist Attitudes and Behaviors. Katz' training is designed from the premise that "racism is a 50 white problem in that its development and perpetuation rests with white people" (p. 14) and that: The racial prejudice of white people coupled with the economic, political and social power to enforce discriminatory practices on every level of life ~ cultural, institutional, and individual, is the gestalt of white racism. Therefore, the "race" problem in America is essentially a white problem in that it is white people who have developed racism, who perpetuate it, and who have the power to destroy it. (p. 15) Katz (1976) outlined the assumptions which form the basis for the training: 1) "racism is predominantly a white problem"; 2) "... no person in the US can grow up without being exposed to and developing some prejudiced attitudes about another person or group; 3) "white people can learn about racism with other white people"; 4) "white people need to be re-educated"; 5) "it is advantageous for whites to learn about racism for their own survival: physically, socially and psychology" (pp. 70-71). Katz (1976) draws on the fields of psychology and human relations training in the development of her training program. She references Festinger's (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance as the basis for analyzing how behaviour change occurs, that is, behaviour change will occur once people recognize the inconsistencies between what they do (behaviours) and what they say they believe (attitudes). The foundation for the use of dissonance theory is Myrdal's (1962) presentation of the American dilemma described as. The ever-raging conflict between, on the one hand, the valuations preserved on the general plane which we shall call the "American Creed," where the American thinks, talks, and acts under the influence of high national and Christian precepts, and, on the other hand, the valuations on specific planes of individual and group living, where personal and local interests... .group prejudice against particular persons or types of people.. .dominate his outlook, (p. lxxi) Katz adopts the premise that "once the inconsistency is discovered, it activates and directs a person to take action to reduce the tension caused by the awareness of the inconsistency" (1976, p. 26). In this way, she proposes, individuals experience an unlearning and relearning of attitudes and beliefs. The model presupposes an interest in confronting racism, which is not 51 always the case in organizational diversity training. Concerns and challenges with implementing this training in organizations are addressed below. Katz' adopted a "systematic training" method incorporating understandings from cognitive behavioural therapy. In response to concerns that black-white encounter groups serve "as another form of exploitation of black people for white people's purposes and learnings" (p. 32), Katz designed her training for "white-on-white" participant groups. Tatum (1999) concurs stating "... all-White support groups serve a unique function. Particularly when Whites are trying to work through their feelings of guilt and shame.. Even when Whites feel comfortable sharing these feelings with people of color, frankly, people of color don't necessarily want to hear about it..." (p. 111). The requirement for white-only groups is not universally held. For example, at the Portland Institute, I had the opportunity to attend a session led by facilitators who hoped to engage black and white participants together in critical reflection and coalition building for social action (Johnson & Smith, 1997). Katz reminds facilitators of several critical aspects in conducting the program: the workshop is designed in developmental stages and it is crucial that the design be followed in sequence; anyone who facilitates this training must be working on their own racism and have gone through a similar process of re-education; the program is a beginning - participants must continue to do their own work. The six stages of the twenty-six hour workshop (originally conducted over two weekends) are: Stage 1: Definition and awareness of inconsistencies between values and behavior: The American dilemma; Stage 2: Confrontation with the reality of racism; Stage 3: Guidance and support in dealing with feelings; Stage 4: Cultural differences: an exploration of cultural racism; Stage 5: Individual racism: The meaning of whiteness; and Stage 6: Developing action strategies. An exploration of prejudice, power and racism is part of Stage 1. Participants work with such questions as: "Is power part of your group's definition of racism? What is power and how do you define it (institutional, political, economic)? Who has the power in our society?" (p 105). Katz clearly situates her recommendations in an American race relations context. In Canada, one example of an anti-racism model, produced through the Ministry of Multiculturalism, is 52 Barb Thomas and Charles Novogrodsky's (1983) widely used anti-racism training guide entitled Combatting Racism in the Workplace: A Course for Workers. The course is designed in ten three-hour sessions. The guiding assumptions in the program design are as follows: 1) Although it can be divisive to talk about racism, not talking about it is worse; even though it can produce conflict, it is important to learn to deal with racism; 2) dominant workers (i.e., white, Anglo Canadians) must recognize and come to terms with their relative privilege; 3) framing training from a perspective of white guilt is not helpful; because racism affects everybody, dominant and minority workers need to share how racism affects them, and work together to "attack the conditions that breed such racism" (p. 5); 4) the term ethnicity does not refer only to those outside the dominant culture — English and French Canadians possess ethnicity; "this course encourages all workers to explore their own and each other's ethnic and cultural backgrounds" (p. 5); 5) a knowledge of Canada's history of discrimination (e.g., against Native peoples and other ethnic groups who settled and developed the country), class and cultural divisions "helps understand why visible minorities are among the most victimized by modern racism" (p. 6), 6) "a healthy learning environment allows for a fair amount of ambiguity in both learners and teacher... a particular explanation of the reasons for racism does not cover each and every historical case. It is by honestly confronting these questions that racism is combatted ~ not by moralizing and oversimplification" (p. 6); 7) "anti-racist education should avoid blaming individuals for systemic racism...a major course objective is to unearth old attitudes and patterns between people in order to help workers explore the larger, systematic, and historically-conditioned underpinnings of racism in society" (p. 7). The ten sessions address these topics: Session 1: Racism hurts workers; Session 2: Analyzing racial situations in the workplace; Session 3: The employer's connection to racism; Session 4. Canadian immigration history: the workers' experience; Session 5: Immigration policy and misconceptions about immigrants; Session 6: The creation and perpetuation of racist attitudes; Session 7: Legislation against discrimination: limits and possibilities; Session 8: Using the collective agreement to combat racism; Session 9: Union practices to resist racism; Session 10: Planning for action. 53 Common to both American and Canadian models is an understanding of prejudice informed by the work of Gordon Allport (1979) who defines prejudice in this way: Ethnic prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual because he is a member of that group, (p. 9) The definition leads to a framework for understanding racism that shows the development from stereotypes to prejudice to discrimination (behaviour based on prejudiced feelings) to racism (discrimination supported by institutional power) that might lead to segregation, expulsion or extermination (Thomas & Novogrodsky, 1983). Also common to both approaches is the recognition that a significant time commitment must be made for anti-racism training. This is not the kind of work that can be accomplished in a half-day session. Typically, in American anti-racism training, there is an expectation that individuals will explore their personal identity and racist attitudes and acknowledge white guilt (Barlas et al., 2000; Sue & Sue, 1990). In Canadian anti-racism training, the emphasis is generally on understanding historic inequities and ensuring that individuals do not feel blamed. American models tends to focus on "white on white" training, while Canadian models assume mixed ethnic and racial groups. In practice, organizational anti-racism work (sometimes implemented under the diversity umbrella), often requires attendance of all employees. This training can leave minorities feeling vulnerable (Caudron, 1993) and result in "backlash" from participants, particularly white males who feel blamed and excluded (Mobely & Payne, 1993; Riccucci, 1997). The result is increased tension, hostility, and separation in the workplace. Contributing to the problems with anti-racism training in an organizational context are: ethical issues about placing individuals in a mandatory situation where their identities will be challenged and they will be required to self-disclose; short time frames which do not allow for trust building in the group or with the facilitator; lack of control over the work environment to which the employees return; degree of facilitator skill; and extent of organizational commitment to address systemic issues instead of perceiving training as the way to "fix" intercultural or interracial issues. It is little wonder then, that, organizational managers and 54 trainers may be reluctant to address issues of prejudice in intercultural training (Gudykunst et al., 1996), or if they do, to keep the discussion at a level that requires minimal personal introspection. A "respecting differences" model may be a safer choice, although such an approach does not mean that racial issues will stay below the surface, and invites the question, "should they stay below the surface?" These issues are explored in greater detail in Chapter Seven, Difficult Dialogues. Summary The purpose of this chapter was to map the field of intercultural training and to contextualize the study findings. International training is designed to prepare individuals to live and work in other cultures. Particular attention is paid to culture shock, cross-cultural adaptation, and cross-cultural comparisons of values and behaviour. Multicultural and anti-racism training developed in response to cultural pluralism and racism in a domestic context. Multicultural training emphasizes awareness and sensitivity to cultural differences. Anti-racism training addresses power, prejudice and discrimination at both individual and societal levels. The choice of intercultural training framework has implications for program design. Multicultural training and international training draw on intercultural communication theories, attribution theory and perceptual field theory. Anti-racism training draws on theories of prejudice, racism, and identity. Multicultural and international training focus on respecting differences. Anti-racism training centers on analyzing power and challenging structures. While multicultural training sometimes includes elements of anti-racist training, international training and anti-racism training generally do not overlap. My decision to conduct this study is grounded in an interest in designing better programs. In the next chapter I explore the conceptual frameworks which underpin the study ~ program planning and transfer of learning. 55 CHAPTER THREE CONCEPTUAL RESOURCES This chapter provides an introduction to two areas in the adult education literature that are particularly relevant to the current study: program planning and transfer of learning. The site for this study - the Certificate in Intercultural Studies (CIS) — is a relatively new program. It was developed under the guidance of a small group of people who had the vision and commitment to create a unique approach to intercultural training. The program faces the challenge of meeting diverse learner needs and, at the same time, remaining financially viable in its tenuous location as part of a continuing studies branch of a university. Program planning and transfer of learning concerns have been largely the domain of adult educators and exist quite separately from the intercultural training literature. Yet, they hold promise for illuminating our understanding of learner and trainer experiences of the CIS, and for thinking about the planning of other intercultural training. Conceptualizations of program planning help us make sense of the design and sustainability challenges of the CIS; conceptualizations of learning transfer help us understand what difference training makes for learners. Program Planning Historically, program planning has been characterized as a rational process following a series of sequential steps. Wilson and Cervero (1997) trace these "rational roots" to the dominant discourse of scientific inquiry. They suggest that adult educators embraced rationality in an effort to legitimize and professionalize the field, and that a stepwise approach was a "comforting" one, that encouraged planners "to follow the same principles, regardless of the organizational context" (Cervero & Wilson, 1994, p. 4). In practice, planning is not a linear process. Caffarella (1994) describes the planning and evaluation of educational programs for adults as like "trying to negotiate a maze". Houle (1996) acknowledges the complexity of program planning in his statement that: The full reality of what occurs in the mind, emotions and body of each participant and the nature of its effect are so intricate that they defy complete 56 analysis, particularly since close scrutiny makes both teacher and learner self-conscious thereby altering the nature of the educative experience. (1996, p. 1) Houle (1996) attempts to address the complicated nature of program planning in his system which incorporates elements of Dewey, Tyler and Lewin. He draws on Tyler's (1949) sequential planning steps (defining purpose, producing objectives, determining instructional activities, evaluating the degree to which objectives have been achieved), Dewey's (1916) notion of education as growth, and Lewin's (1948) work in change theory. He points out that "the learning activities of men and women must ordinarily be introduced with some care into a complex milieu that includes work, home, civic and other responsibilities (1996, p. 67), and that "those who plan or conduct programs of adult education must sometimes confront the fact that the cultural or institutional climates in which they operate are indifferent or hostile" (p. 220). In recent years, the "cause and effect", stepwise model has been pushed aside in favor of more interactive notions of planning. Current conceptualizations include responsiveness to context, stakeholder involvement, negotiating power, and recognition of unintended outcomes (Adams, 1991; Ottoson, 1997b; Wilson & Cervero 1997). Cervero and Wilson (1994) are at the forefront of examining "program planning practice [as] a social [and ethical] rather than a scientific activity" (p. xiii). The acknowledgment of context has been important in moving the program planning field forward. One of the criticisms levelled at technical rational approaches is the notion that planning can be accomplished in a series of "neat" steps. The deeply entrenched technical-rational approach to planning crystallized by Tyler (1949) and widely adopted by practitioners is an attempt to bring order to what, in my experience, is not a tidy activity. Wilson and Cervero (1997) argue that technical rationality has "limited our understanding of practice" (p. 104). They suggest that in focusing only on the steps in the process, planners run the risk of not attending to the "people-work of adult education", which is "what really matters when imagining possibilities" in program planning (1997, p. 104). Their recognition of Freire's (1993) "profound influence" on adult education practice is evident in their encouragement of dialogue and reflection in the planning process and in the significance of power as a factor in planning. They point out that "without political savvy and an ethical vision, without knowing 57 who counts and why, without both a sense of "how to" and a vision of "what for", even faithful following of the prescribed planning process will have little consequence" (1996, p. 6). Power and Negotiation in Planning Programs The work of Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996) has been particularly useful in deepening my understanding of program planning. The challenges I experience in developing diversity training programs have derived from both the technical aspects, such as determining "reasonable" objectives and content for short instructional time frames, and the "people work", a term which only hints at the complexity of the issues. For example, I recently designed a two-day 'communicating across cultures' workshop for front-line service providers. During the discussions with the internal planning committee, I suggested that we consult with the First Nations coordinator. At my request the committee chair contacted the coordinator and was advised that the First Nations office would be conducting a separate workshop to address First Nations issues and would not participate in the development of the cross-cultural communication training. When I facilitated the workshop, an individual from the First Nations office attended. At the beginning of the session I acknowledged the importance of First Nations issues and explained that the First Nations office would offer a separate session. Afterwards, the person spoke with me privately and indicated that although it had been a good training session, she was concerned about the omission of First Nations issues. The political and emotional sensitivity of situations like these permeates my work. Power, politics and ethics are not just "noise" that interfere with planning - they are at the heart of planning (Cervero and Wilson, 1994). Cervero and Wilson (1996) assert that: All planners know that they are not free agents able to directly model the purposes, content, and format of a program to satisfy their own interests. Rather, planning is always conducted within a complex set of personal, organizational, and social relationships among people who may have similar, different, or conflicting interests, (p. 1) They propose four concepts central to planning programs: power, interests, negotiation, and responsibility. They define power as "the capacity to act, distributed to individual planners by 58 virtue of the enduring social relationships in which they participate" (1994, p. 119) and interests as "a complex set of dispositions, goals, values, desires, and expectations that lead people to act in certain ways and to position themselves in a particular manner when confronted with situations in which they must act" (1994, p. 123). They suggest that the interests of five groups of people are always represented in planning programs: learners, teachers, planners, institutional leaders, and the affected public (Cervero & Wilson, 1994). These groups, and individuals within the groups, hold asymmetrical power which affects their degree of influence on the planning process. For example, by virtue of their positions, institutional leaders, who hold the key to resource allocation, have the power to determine the nature of programs that will be funded. Teachers and planners, who might be one and the same, hold the power to make choices about course content and the degree of learner input into course design. Within a planning or teaching group, individuals may differ in their capacity to influence others in the group or to influence institutional leaders. The affected public (e.g., clients, co-workers) are typically the farthest removed from a place of power and influence. I would like to see more attention to the intersecting dynamics of race, gender, class, and other dimensions of diversity that are implicit in Cervero and Wilson's (1994) notion of "enduring social relationships". Cast in an anti-oppression framework, definitions of power and interests may be conceived differently. For example, power is not only the capacity to act, but also the capacity to exclude. To illustrate, I share this example from a recent workshop. In an exercise designed to promote a discussion about power, I showed a video scenario of two male coworkers. In the scenario, one of the men came out about his sexual orientation to his colleague, who had been persistent in encouraging him to date women. The straight male was not comfortable with this new knowledge and began to limit their formerly friendly contact. The gay male left the organization. In analyzing the scene, several participants felt that the gay male had power because he had chosen to leave rather than stay in a negative situation. Other participants recognized that the power in that situation resided, not in the employee who left, but in the dominant culture employee who excluded and marginalized the minority employee. This example illustrates the limitations of defining power as "the capacity to act". 59 Cervero and Wilson (1994) suggest that individuals enter the planning process with multiple and often competing interests, and that a key element of planning programs is the negotiation of these interests. Such negotiation is complicated by asymmetrical power relationships and by the existence of "real", "expressed" and "ideal" interests. Real interests are the implicit purposes, values and norms that guide planners' work. Expressed interests (which are also real) are the interests that are revealed to others. Ideal interests are the "shoulds" in planning practice, that is what we ought to do if we are involved in "good" planning practice. For example, a planner may have an expressed interest in making courses more responsive to learners from diverse backgrounds, and a real interest in ensuring the viability of the program by capturing larger markets. Further, he or she may have an ideal interest in ensuring equitable access and participation for diverse learners. This ideal principle of equity may be at odds with capturing larger markets. The internal tension this might cause for planners is not examined by Cervero and Wilson, who focus on negotiation of interests with others. While I can see that implicit purposes may differ from expressed interests, it is not clear to me how Cervero and Wilson differentiate between the values implicit in real interests and the concept of ideal interests. And since all interests are real, as Cervero and Wilson acknowledge, the language used to separate the three types of interests is somewhat problematic. Although Cervero and Wilson (1994) make the point that interests are not unchanging characteristics and are affected by the planning situation, I wonder if ideal interests might be better characterized as the "constant" that a planner carries with them. This constancy is implied in the ideal interest of democracy that is fundamental to Cervero and Wilson's notion of planning. Notwithstanding these questions, I find the concept of publicly expressed and privately held interests a useful one in understanding tensions that might arise among planners. For instance, a planner of intercultural training, who has experienced racism, may be guided by different interests than one who is not. Although both planners may express an interest in addressing cross-cultural conflict, for example, the planner who has examined racism may want to design a course that addresses power issues. The planner who has not examined racism may choose to design a course that focuses on communication style differences. I am not suggesting that only those planners who are minorities or who have been targets of racism care about confronting oppression. Majority culture trainers who have 60 engaged in a "deliberate practice of self-examination and experiencing" (Thompson & Carter, 1997, p. 17) of racial identity and privilege may choose to challenge racism. Embedded in Cervero and Wilson's concept of "responsible planning" is the assumption that all planners are committed to democratic planning processes. This is a culturally bound Western notion that may not be universally held. I value the idea of involving multiple constituents in the planning process. In practice, given time and other resource constraints, I, and other planners with whom I work, continually face the need to make choices about constructing programs without input from a broader constituent base. Whether the planning process occurs between a group of planners, between one planner and an institutional leader, or planners and learners, a negotiation of interests takes place. In my experience, the negotiation process is complicated when those involved do not share their private or underlying interests, which they may hold back for fear of being judged, ignored, or marginalized, but which nonetheless shape their expressed interests. The significant emotional component of negotiating interests is missing from Cervero and Wilson's (1994) analysis. Absent, too, is attention to relationship-building with its connotations of trust and empathy. Wilson and Cervero (1997) use the 1976 Webster's New World Dictionary definition of negotiation as "to confer, bargain, or discuss with a view to reaching agreement" (p. 10). They proposed a matrix identifying negotiation strategies which might be used in conflictual (different interests) and consensual (similar interests) situations (Cervero & Wilson, 1994). The matrix was framed as "rational action in planning" (1994, p. 126). I found this terminology somewhat jarring given the authors' attempts to move away from technical rational assumptions, although I appreciated the attempt to further define what negotiation might look like. The original four strategies - satisfice, network, bargain, and counteract -were expanded by Yang and associates to include seven tactics: reasoning, consulting, appealing, networking, bargaining, pressuring, and counteracting (Yang, 1998; Yang & Cervero, 2000). In a study designed to develop an instrument to measure power and influence tactics in program planning practice, Yang and associates categorized patterns of power and influence into four clusters: bystander, tactician, ingratiator, and shotgun. Although I welcome the efforts to extend Cervero and Wilson's work, I do not find the labeling of four types of 61 program planners to be a helpful approach. The terminology selected for the clusters carries potentially unfavourable connotations. The discussion of tactics, a word which itself may connote something other than ethical interaction, treats planners as existing in fixed categories instead of responding with contextually influenced choices of negotiation strategies. Cervero and Wilson (1996) have made a major contribution to the program planning field by drawing our attention to issues of context, power, interests, and negotiation. No theory can account for everything, and in the case of Cervero and Wilson's work, they have not adequately addressed ethical issues in planning. They state that ethical thinking "is the capacity to think about questions of values, significance, and responsibility when deciding what action to take" (1994, p. 137). However, they miss the opportunity to sharpen our understanding of ethical practice when they present a series of cases, absent critical examination, in their text, What Really Matters in Adult Education Program Planning: Lessons in Negotiating Power and Interests. In at least one of the cases, the strategies described contradict my notions of ethical practice (e.g., "withholding information", "clandestine strategy"). Although the intent may be to rebalance asymmetrical power, the strategies sound more like manipulation than negotiation (Sork, 1996). Technical, Social-political and Ethical Domains in Planning Programs While Cervero and Wilson (1996) foreground people work, particularly power and negotiation, Sork gives equal attention to the people work and the technical. Building on notions of interaction, non-linearity, context, and power in program planning, Sork's (2000) framework for planning educational programs brings together the technical and the people-work of planning in three key domains: the technical, the social-political and the ethical. Sork describes six basic elements of planning. These echo the elements described in traditional program planning approaches, with the addition of context: analyze context and learner community, justify and focus planning, clarify intentions, prepare instructional plan, prepare administrative plan, and develop summative evaluation plan. However, unlike traditional approaches which prescribe planning steps, Sork (2000) proposes these elements as descriptive categories, "which may be used to cluster related planning questions, decisions and actions" (p. 184). 62 Sork (2000) points out that critiquing the paradigm of technical rationality "does not lead to the conclusion that the technical domain of planning should be ignored, only that it should not be regarded as the essence of planning" (2000, p. 177). He extends the discussion of sociopolitical and ethical issues in planning stating that: Decisions about whose interests will be represented, what aims will be pursued, how the learner community will be defined, how resources will be allocated, what instructional approaches will be used, how the program will be financed, and how "success" will be determined all involve making moral commitments. (Sork, 2000, p. 178) Although Sork (2000) states that he considers the three domains - technical, sociopolitical and ethical "equally important", it seems to me that he places ethical considerations at the centre of planning and has infused them into the other two domains. As a practitioner, I appreciate the framework because it acknowledges the technical side of planning, which Cervero and Wilson minimize in highlighting power and negotiation. Sork's inclusion of the basic elements of planning is useful because these are the decision areas around which power and interests come into play. Sork (2000) acknowledges Cervero and Wilson's role in bringing power and interests to the forefront of program planning, although he notes that he has "some concerns about how well 'negotiation' works as a key analytical concept" (p. 174), an observation on which he does not elaborate. Sork's (2000) suggested question-based framework is a helpful guide for planners, directing our attention to important areas without being prescriptive. To explain how planners could use the framework, Sork (2000) gives examples of questions planners might ask themselves. In the technical domain one might ask "How should I define the learner community and what do I need to know about it?"; in the social-political domain the questions might include "Why aren't more women involved in planning this program and what will be the consequences of not changing this?"; and in the ethical domain planners could consider "How can this be done in a way that is consistent with the ethic of care that is the focus of the program?" This question-based approach is designed to help planners examine the dynamics of planning and to uncover biases and assumptions that affect how program intentions are developed, who is 63 included in program design, who the learners are, and what content and learning activities are included. In this section I provided a brief history of program planning and a review of several planning frameworks. I selected the work of Cervero and Wilson (1994) and Sork (2000) as conceptual tools for understanding program planning practice because they speak to my experience as a planner and facilitator and help explain some of the dilemmas and struggles I encounter in my work. I have been influenced by questions of power, interests, and representation as the reader will see in Chapters Seven and Eight. At .the core of this study is my interest in what difference training makes, that is, how do the programs I plan affect the learners who participate in them? To support my exploration of this question I examined the program planning literature for perspectives on how training relates to practice. This led me to the literature on transfer of learning. Transfer of Learning At the heart of developing adult education programs is the intent to facilitate change in adult learners (Dewey, 1916; Engstrom, 1994; Galbraith, 1990; Houle, 1996). Caffarella (1994) includes this intent as a key underpinning to her interactive planning model, stating that "planners should be able to articulate what change will or could come about as a result of the educational program" (p. 23). Just what "change" means has been widely discussed by educators. Tensions between an emphasis on individual growth and a focus on social change are evident in the literature. Arising out of the so-called "third force" of humanistic psychology, Knowles (1980) conceptualized educational endeavours as supporting the achievement of personal goals. In recent years, this focus on the individual has come under scrutiny as educators contemplate the role of education in changing individuals, institutions, and communities (Caffarella, 1994; Collins, 1991; Freire, 1993; hooks, 1992). Historical Overview of Transfer Historically, program planning models focused on determining needs and designing training with particular attention to developing clear objectives and instructional activities (Gagne, 64 1985; Knowles, 1980). It seems that transfer or application of learning was simply assumed. Explicit attention to application of learning is a more recent phenomenon, with recommendations in the adult education literature that more attention be paid to transfer of learning strategies (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Noe & Ford, 1992; Parry, 1990; Wenz and Adams, 1991). The terms "transfer of training" and "transfer of learning" tend to be used interchangeably, although it seems that training is used primarily in the business and human resource development literature, and learning is used in the adult education literature. For the purposes of this paper, the term transfer of learning will be used in preference to transfer of training unless the work of a particular author is being cited. The use of learning is congruent with my belief that a training or educational program should be primarily concerned with the experience of the learner, not the trainer. For this reason, I use the term learner in preference to trainee unless the work of a particular author is being cited. The concept of learning transfer is described in a variety of ways, typically encompassing the common themes of "change" and "application of learning". Definitions include "the degree to which trainees apply the knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes learned in training to their jobs" (Bates et al., 1996, p. 426), "the effective and continuous application, by trainees to their jobs, of the knowledge and skills gained in training - both on and off the job" (Broad and Newstrom, 1992, p. 6), and "the effective application by program participants of what they learned as a result of attending an educational program" (Caffarella, 1994, p. 108). The latter two definitions invite the questions "what is effective application?" and "who decides?" Baldwin and Ford (1988) reviewed seventy studies of learning application conducted between 1901 and 1987. Most of the studies dealt with easily measurable skills transfer such as mechanical skills, shipbuilding skills, basic military training, and time management. Based on their review Baldwin and Ford (1988) identified a combination of factors including trainee abilities and motivation, and workplace support as characteristics that may improve learning transfer. Other adult educators (Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Caffarella, 1994; Gielen, 1996; Bates et al., 1996) identify training design, along with trainee and work environment characteristics, as another major contributor to transfer of learning. I was pleased to find the literature related to transfer of learning because it addressed some of the questions I had been 65 asking in my own practice. I have struggled with the term transfer because of its connotations of intact transfer of knowledge, although I recognize that this is not necessarily how the term is intended by the authors cited above. The term has been broadened from its origins to represent both intact transfer and adaptive application. Multiple Lenses for Assessing Learning According to Ottoson (1997a), "the literature on transfer of training is rooted in industrial psychology and is concerned with the positive or negative influence of prior learning on later learning. Transferability is the ability to move between different jobs or tasks with little or no modification" (p. 88). Ottoson (1997a) notes that much of the research on transfer is related to immediate retention by college students of memory and psychomotor skill tasks. She states that "The transfer lens is used often in business and industry, the military and other skill training contexts [in which] it matters that the pilot, the surgeon, or the chemical worker transfer skills with fidelity and precision" (p. 89). Ottoson (1997a) suggests that 'transfer' is not the only way of assessing the effects of an educational or training program. The original concept of training transfer represents an instrumental view of learning and does not consider context. Ottoson (1997a) describes other lenses through which program effects can be viewed, such as knowledge utilization, application, diffusion, and implementation. Ottoson's (1997a) multiple lenses approach supported my thoughts that other terms than transfer may be more appropriate for describing how learners interact with the intercultural training environment and work contexts. Ottoson (1997a) distinguishes between a traditional academic perspective of knowledge as an end in itself and a program evaluation perspective of knowledge as a product that can be used in making decisions, solving problems, and taking actions. This notion of knowledge utilization "overlaps with the instrumental understanding of use found in the transfer-of-training models" (1997a, p. 90). By contrast, according to Ottoson, an enlightenment model of knowledge utilization posits that "enlightenment occurs over time, takes varied forms, and crosses multiple contexts" (p. 90). This model helps explain change over time, but "not to credit a single cause for the effect" (Ottoson, 1997a, p. 90). An enlightenment model seems particularly relevant for intercultural training, which sometimes focuses on skills building, but 66 more often emphasizes thinking about the way we think. Similarly to enlightenment, diffusion examines the movement of ideas into action over time. As one would guess from the word diffusion, this perspective involves the spread of ideas from an educational context into a larger practice context than the learner's immediate environment (Rogers, 1995). While transfer assesses how effectively individuals have moved skills from the training to the practice context, enlightenment considers changes over time, and diffusion considers the spread of ideas beyond the original learner, application looks for the contextual use and creation of knowledge. Instead of looking for the replication of an exact skill from training to practice, researchers would look for the ways in which principles of learning are engaged in practice. "This approach to application leads with the social consequences of knowledge rather than with the psychological processes of transfer" (p. 92). The final lens, implementation, overlaps with transfer, knowledge utilization and enlightenment. Ottoson (1997a) summarizes her discussion of these multiple lenses for assessing the effects of adult education programs, stating "In contrast with the in-depth view of transfer, utilization, and application and the wide view of diffusion, implementation takes the long view, linking ideas, programs, and practice" (p. 94). Using Transfer Concepts in this Study In exploring the changes experienced by learners in this study, I draw on the application lens (engaging and creating knowledge in practice) and the diffusion lens (sharing ideas with others formally and informally in the workplace). The transfer of exact skills is not a helpful tool for analysis of change in a program designed to support learners in developing understandings within the context of their own practice. From my perspective, enlightenment is embedded in both application (as the term is used by Ottoson) and diffusion. It was outside the scope of this study to explore the long term organizational systems and policy implications anticipated in using an implementation lens. Another lens that is relevant for this study is that of situated learning theory which suggests that critical reflection and adaptation of ideas and skills to the learner's real life experience is the key to a successful program (Lave & Wenger, 1991). 67 Situated learning theory is foundational to the integrative learning model proposed by Montgomery and Lau (1996) in their article exploring the links between work, learning and performance. They begin with the premise that "each person brings to a potential learning experience the sum total of his integrated experience and wisdom" (1996, p. 442). Borrowing from Schon's (1983) work on reflective practice, they suggest that as individuals are exposed to new information, perspectives and ideas, they engage in a reflective learning process which allows them to integrate the new experiences with their life experience, and to move beyond "pre-existing limits to thought, attitude, and action" (p. 442). Montgomery and Lau (1996) suggest that the learner will test their new learning over time in their work environments, continually reassessing its value. They identify four components for integrative learning: providing a learning-safe work environment that encourages learning from both mistakes and successes; working in teams to question the status quo and create innovative ideas; a resource person to coach the iearn-by-doing' team; and trust and synergy in the team. A limitation in the model is that it assumes cooperation and harmony within the team, and does not address potential intra-team or intra-organizational conflict. However, it is a useful addition to the transfer of learning literature because it focuses on learner reflection and sharing of learning with work teams, which in turn has the potential to challenge the status quo. This approach combines a situated learning approach and a diffusion of learning approach, both alternatives to a traditional transfer of training model. Integrating the research on transfer, situated learning and diffusion, Ottoson (1992) developed a conceptual framework to analyze the post-continuing professional education experience: 1) characteristics of the educational intervention (e.g., methods, design, practice time), 2) innovation or the nature of the proposed change, 3) predisposing factors (e.g., knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values), 4) enabling factors (e.g., support, reward), and 6) contextual factors (e.g., timing, organization, climate). In a study which tested this framework with thirty-five health professionals, participants were introduced to the framework and completed a follow-up survey three months later. Ottoson (1993) found that application of learning is a "multiphase process" and that "multiple contextual, personal, and educational factors affect application" (p. 218). Barriers to application were assigned to five categories: lack of support, 68 insufficient resources, no opportunities for use, difficulty in adapting technology and lack of authority. Ottoson (1993) suggests that i f application is judged solely on the basis of behavioural change, the factors which predispose, enable or reinforce participants' learning may be overlooked. In Chapter Five, I explore learner perspectives on change from cognitive, behavioural, and social perspectives, including some of the challenges in diffusing learning and implementing change in organizations. Caffarella (1994) suggests that the transfer of learning is the "so what, now what" phase of the learning process; "so what does this all mean and how can what was learned be applicable to my situation?" (p. 108). In talking through the issue of transfer with Judith Ottoson (1999), I explored language that might be more reflective of the learner's experience of negotiating between the formal learning and the practice environments. I was looking for language that would connote an active engagement with, and movement between, the training and practice environments, a term that would conjure images of interactivity, reflection and action. Thus, I have adopted the term engage learning to indicate the learner's active involvement and learning between the training and work environments. The Intercultural Studies program, from which study participants are drawn, is a form of situated learning. The program was designed so that the conversation continues when learners return to their worksites after a two-day on-site training session. They engage in six weeks of online assignments and dialogue. Learners are encouraged to integrate theory and practice as they work together to reflect on their feelings, thoughts and actions in intercultural situations. In Chapters Five and Six, I explore how study participants engaged learning between the formal training and practice contexts, and what factors contributed to the participants' application and diffusion of learning. Summary In this chapter, I explored the history and current perspectives on program planning and multiple lenses which might be used to assess effects of training programs. Technical rational notions of planning have been supplanted by concepts of planning that include attention to the interaction of various elements in the planning process, the influence of context on planning, 69 and the impact of power, interests, and representation in planning programs. Cervero and Wilson's (1994) analysis of the negotiation of power and interests and Sork's (2000) framework integrating the technical, social-political, and ethical domains of planning provide the conceptual tools for analyzing the experiences of trainers and learners in this study, particularly in Chapter Seven, Difficult Dialogues. The purpose of educational programs is to facilitate change in learners, and potentially to the wider community in which the learner lives and works. Learning can be viewed through multiple lens including transfer, knowledge utilization, application, implementation, situated learning, and diffusion (Caffarella, 1994; Ottoson, 1997; Rogers, 1995). Of particular relevance for this study are the lenses of application, situated learning, and diffusion. These will guide the discussion of findings in Chapters Five, What Difference Does Training Make? and Six, Learning in the Midst of Everyday Practice. Program planning theory has implications for the Intercultural Studies program. Initially, the Intercultural Studies program's intentions, learner community, instructional approaches, and notions of success appeared quite straightforward. The complexity of the program emerged as I reviewed program documents and interviewed participants. The program focuses on individual change, yet the individuals work in organizational and societal contexts that affect intercultural interactions. One of the issues that arose out of the interviews was how the program addresses individual and systemic racism. Another significant issue was the impact of resource allocation and funding, which have been major factors in the need for the program to expand its originally intended learner community. The inclusion of learners outside the international education group, for whom the program was originally developed, has resulted in a need to reexamine the intentions and approaches of the program. These issues are threaded throughout the study findings in Chapters Five, Six and Seven and elaborated in the final chapter. In Chapter Four, I describe the research site, research methodology, data analysis process, and trustworthiness of the study. 70 CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH SITE AND METHOD The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research site, the methodology and the data analysis process for this study. This section describes the Certificate in Intercultural Studies (CIS) program, how it developed, how it is structured, and who are the learners and facilitators. The information in this chapter was gathered through document review and interviews. Research Site My selection of the CIS as the context for my study seemed to be a natural outgrowth of my work as a facilitator with the program. When I was invited to work with the program in 1996 (on a course-by-course basis), my interest was captured by several unique elements of the program: the linking of theory and practice, the combined face-to-face and online learning format, and the opportunity to co-facilitate with other intercultural trainers. The benefits of joining a community of intercultural facilitators was echoed by several of the facilitators whom I interviewed. One facilitator offered this comment: "The certificate program has brought us together as colleagues and we're able to share our experiences.. I see it as part of my professional development...". Since I began facilitating intercultural and diversity training, I have typically worked alone to design and deliver training programs. My practice has been enriched by the opportunity to share joys, challenges, dilemmas, and strategies with the other facilitators in the certificate program. My questions about learning transfer, the integration of theory and practice, and the role of online learning in this process were shaped by the contrasts between my one-day training sessions and my involvement in the seven-week courses in the certificate program. In a typical one-day training session, I work with a group of 15-25 individuals from one organization, with little or no opportunity for pre-work, post-work or individual contact. Sometimes the training is offered within the context of a strong organizational commitment to diversity and respectful workplace. Sometimes it is "just in time" training, offered to meet a 71 particular need related to cross-cultural customer service, or building intercultural teams. Rarely do I have the opportunity to explore how individuals engage learning in their own "community of practice". The certificate program, which brings together individuals from different organizational contexts, to participate in five courses over an extended time, offered an opportunity to understand how learners might engage in an integrative learning process. Document Review In order to understand the history and development of the certificate program, I reviewed a number of documents provided by the CIS program assistant. These included two needs assessment surveys conducted in 1993, advisory committee minutes (October 1996), UBC Certificate in Intercultural Studies Program overview and curriculum (June 2000), administration/registration process (Summer 1999), Guidelines for online facilitators (2000), Continuing Studies brochure (2000), UBC-SFU M A in Applied Intercultural Relations working draft (2000), course manuals (1993-1999), CIS survey results (May 2000). Current Program Status The U B C Certificate in Intercultural Studies (CIS) is an exciting and innovative program for people from any sector who want to communicate effectively across cultures and adapt successfully to cultural change. This interdisciplinary program is practice-based and combines experiential workshops and online seminars, (marketing brochure Winter/Spring 2000) The CIS is one of the programs offered under the auspices of the Centre for Intercultural Communication (The Centre) in Continuing Studies at the University of British Columbia. Seventy-one individuals completed the program from its inception in the Fall of 1996 to the Spring of 2000. While the program was initially developed in response to expressed needs for a professional development certificate for international student advisors and international educators, learners include healthcare professionals, corporate managers, intercultural trainers, and workplace diversity specialists. The objectives as stated in the program brochure (2000) include "providing participants with intercultural knowledge and skills adapted to their professional and personal situations, a theoretical framework of intercultural studies and practice, references, materials and tools to 72 support their work, and a venue for networking and alliance-building with other professionals." The program reached a crossroads in 1999 with the departure of the associate director who led the program development process, and a quest to determine the viability of the program in the corporate marketplace. At the same time as efforts are being made to reach into the business community, a process is in place to expand the academic potential of the program by offering a UBC-SFTJ M . A . in Applied Intercultural Relations. The concept of the degree was initiated by the Centre in 1998 and has received approval to commence in 2002. This degree will build on knowledge and skills developed in UBC's CIS program and SFU's Certificate in Ethnic and Intercultural Relations, both of which will be pathways to the M . A . program. The departure of the associate director, the outreach to the business community, and the plans for the M A degree, significant developments in the life of the program, came to my attention after I had made the commitment to use the CIS as the context for my research. Although my focus has been on understanding the learning experience from learner and facilitator perspectives, I will acknowledge throughout my discussion issues associated with the sustainability and evolution of the program. I will preface my discussion of the CIS program with an overview of the Centre within which it operates. Development of the Centre for Intercultural Communication The Centre was started in 1994, and at the time was known as the Intercultural Training and Resource Centre. As the director describes it, the Centre was born out of the "dying moments" of the Canada - China Language and Cultural Program (funded by the Canadian International Development Agency - CIDA), the mandate of which was to prepare Canadian and Chinese professionals for technology projects and academic exchange programs: The director saw an opportunity to build on the knowledge, networks, and program planning work that had been done in the previous ten years. The then associate vice-president academic of continuing education, who had a strong commitment to developing intercultural communication, agreed to support salaries for the director and half of a support person's time 73 with the goal of achieving cost-recovery within one year. The cost for the program is $3100 (Program Brochure, 1999/2000). At the present time the Centre delivers a range of programs and services for UBC, other educational institutions and the private sector. The Certificate in Intercultural Studies is one of a number of programs offered by the Centre. Other Centre programs include the International Teaching Assistants Training Program; Executive Training Programs (in partnership with the U B C Faculty of Commerce) for European, Korean and Chinese managers; the Japan Coop program which involves preparing 3 r d and 4 t h year science and engineering students from across Canada for extended placements in Japanese companies; and a Faculty Development Program for Tech de Monterrey in Mexico. The Centre also offers business briefings, and on-arrival and pre-departure international student orientations. The Centre is increasingly being approached by, and marketing its services in, the private sector, focusing on both international and domestic intercultural issues. Development of the Certificate in Intercultural Studies When the Centre began to take shape in 1994, one of its first undertakings was a needs assessment of the interests and requirements in professional development for intercultural training. This project was funded by the Canadian Bureau of International Education (CBIE), the BC Centre for International Education (BCCIE), and The Commonwealth of Learning. The project arose out of the expressed interests of the membership of CBIE (primarily people involved in international student exchange and support services on campuses across Canada) for professional development. The first stage of the project, prior to the Centre's involvement, was the collection of information about resources which already existed in Canada. In the Fall of 1993, questionnaires were sent to CBIE members to gather details of training programs, professional associations, intercultural training expertise, and willingness to sponsor or participate in the project. There were a few places in the United States where individuals could access training, but CBIE members felt that the US perspective, which emphasized inner city racial issues and affirmative action, did not directly address the issues on Canadian campuses. These issues 74 included cross-cultural adjustment of international students and issues faced by students born in Canada to immigrant parents, and "caught between two worlds". In addition, CBIE members were often expected to generate revenue through international student initiatives and they wanted training to be able to provide support and advocacy for those students. After reviewing the results of the survey, two U B C faculty members who were on the board of CBIE approached the director of the Centre to conduct a needs assessment and develop a pilot program. The CBIE board, in consultation with UBC, supported the development of a certificate program because the message from CBIE members was that they wanted a credential, not just a professional development workshop. Timing played a role here, too, as the need for professional development was identified at a time when U B C was starting to offer certificates in continuing studies, and when funding was available to introduce online learning programs. During the Spring of 1994, the Centre sent questionnaires to international student advisors and international education professionals across Canada. The questions were designed to collect data about work experience, education/training, experience working or living with individuals or groups with different cultural backgrounds, and preferred format, timing and topics for the proposed certificate program. The respondents identified interests in cross-cultural counselling, theoretical foundations, preparation for international assignments, and cross-cultural communication. They were also concerned about accessibility, the ability to take courses while they worked full time, and an emphasis on the "practical" nature of the courses. The Centre produced a pilot module, Training for International Assignments, which was delivered to positive reviews at the CBIE conference in the Fall of 1994. Working with a thirteen member advisory committee which included faculty from UBC, SFU and University College of the Cariboo, CBIE and BCCIE board members, and several training consultants, the Centre developed and piloted the program in 1995, and received approval for the program in 1996. 75 Program Design Based on the survey feedback and input from the advisory committee and the Centre director, and her own vision of the program, the associate director designed the program to include two core courses — Foundations of Intercultural Studies (a prerequisite to other courses) and Intercultural Communication Skills, and three electives to be selected from Intercultural Problem-Solving and Advising, Training for International Assignments, Intercultural Negotiation, and Managing Intercultural Teams.13 Learners enroll on a course-by-course basis. Although this is not a cohort model, many of the learners encounter each other in several courses. To facilitate accessibility to training, each course consists of a two-day workshop followed by a four week online seminar. Until recently, the online piece was seven weeks. Due to a complex set of factors, including learner time pressures, maintaining learner involvement and momentum, facilitator availability, and budget, the online seminar has been compressed to four weeks. The facilitators I interviewed had not had enough experience with the new format to comment on it. The learners I interviewed were familiar with the seven-week format. During the face-to-face workshop, the learning approach includes small and large group discussions, case studies, role plays, lectures, and simulations. The online seminar is designed to continue the conversation which begins during the workshop. Each course has assigned readings and written assignments linked to the learner's "real world". Each learner has the opportunity to apply the workshop learning and readings to their personal and professional lives. They submit their assignments to the group for feedback from both the online facilitators and the other learners. Privacy and confidentiality guidelines developed in the workshops continue in the online seminar, to which only the learners, the facilitators for a particular course, and the web coordinator have access. 1 3 As part of the program review commenced in 1999, in 2001 the Problem-Solving and Negotiation courses were blended and reconfigured into a new course called Bridging Cultural Differences; Training for International Assignments was changed to Supporting International Assignments. 76 Who are the Learners? The program was originally proposed as professional development for people working with international students, but as the director noted "from the beginning we thought if [those are] the only people involved, that would be a big disadvantage, for two reasons. One, it would not be sustainable, and two it would not be very interesting because you need to expose [learners] to other people's perspectives." So, although the program started out with input from one group, there was an effort to encourage people from a wide variety of professional backgrounds to attend. The embedded conceptual framework in the program design comes primarily from an international intercultural perspective and is also influenced by multicultural perspectives. The inclusion of learners who work in a variety of organizations in the domestic context has introduced some challenges for the program. These are explored in Chapter Five. The learners have diverse cultural backgrounds and experiences. The educational backgrounds of the learners range from high school graduation to doctorates in a wide range of subjects including education, science, engineering, English as a second language, psychology, and business. The learners range in age from twenties to sixties, predominantly forties and fifties. While the majority of the learners are women working in the post-secondary institutions, the program attracts both men and women from the corporate sector, health care, social services, and government. The diverse professional backgrounds of the learners pose challenges for course developers. For example, there are differences between the needs and expectations of post-secondary service providers, who are concerned with the cultural adaptation experiences of students, and private sector workers, who are interested in international business relationships and team building. Some learners expect a focus on international intercultural issues and others look for an emphasis on domestic intercultural issues. On a course-by-course basis, all the facilitators make the effort to adapt their training to meet the needs of a broad range of learners. There have recently been suggestions from both learners and facilitators that the Centre consider developing two streams of courses, one for the education sector and one for the business sector. 77 As part of its planning process, in May 2000 the Centre sent a survey to learners to determine the courses they had taken, which were most useful, how they learned about CIS, the significance of certain factors in their decision to take certificate courses, how they learned about the program and to whom they would recommend the CIS services. The survey was sent to two hundred and thirteen individuals who have taken courses with the CIS; fifty-four responded. The most important features of the program were rank ordered as credit toward an M A , modular format, the course fee, the online seminar, granting of a certificate, workshop location, and face-to-face workshops. The most useful courses were Foundations of Intercultural Studies and Intercultural Communication Skills, a finding mirrored in my interviews with learners. The Centre is in the process of determining private sector needs, developing a corporate learner profile, and creating a marketing plan. Who are the Facilitators? The facilitators are men and women from diverse ethnic, personal, and professional backgrounds. The program draws on approximately eight to twelve trainers to facilitate the face-to-face workshops and moderate the online seminars. An additional dozen individuals across Canada and in the United States, and others in Australia and Europe, are available to facilitate the online seminars. The facilitators have extensive international experience, both living and working in different parts of the world, and in providing pre-departure briefings and re-entry sessions in the education and corporate sectors. The facilitators consult to the CIS program on a course-by-course basis, and many of them consult in the private, government and post-secondary education sectors, offering organizational development services and intercultural training around domestic and international issues. The educational backgrounds of the facilitators include bachelors degrees, masters degrees, and doctorates in a variety of areas including education, English as a second language, history, business, psychology, and counselling. Their work experience includes teaching, counselling, corporate training, private and public sector management, working with CIDA, managing organizational change, human resources management, and coordinating international student exchange programs. Each person brings a different blend of personal experience, academic 78 education, work experience, and intercultural training preparation to their facilitation approach. The Centre values the unique contribution of each facilitator and invites and welcomes different perspectives and facilitation styles. To both honour these differences and provide learners with some consistency, with the input of the facilitators, guidelines have been developed to ensure a common understanding of the role of the online facilitator. Facilitators are encouraged to engage in a conversation, continued from the face-to-face workshop. The guidelines state that the role includes the facilitation of "the learning of the participant by acknowledging, appreciating, reflecting, probing, questioning, or clarifying" and by offering relevant personal examples "to reinforce the learning". The guidelines advise that "evaluative comments like 'you did a great job' are not appropriate for this facilitator role". Facilitators are expected to provide concrete feedback, explaining specifically where the person has met the criteria or where they need to expand or deepen their analysis. Facilitators are responsible for determining whether or not each assignment satisfies the stated competency requirements, and for supporting individuals toward meeting those competencies. In order to support new facilitators, first-time online facilitators submit their responses to the first two assignments to the program coordinator for feedback before sending them to the group. The guidelines also provide information on the workshop process, the assignments, response times, guidelines for assessing competency and providing feedback, the role of the moderator, fees, and invoicing. Facilitating intercultural training is a complex, challenging endeavour fraught with the potential for triggering emotional pain, hurt feelings, and misunderstandings. For this reason, when the program was developed, the pool of facilitators was carefully selected. The director and program coordinator invited individuals they knew, and with whose work they were familiar, to participate as facilitators. Particular attention in the selection process was paid to previous experience facilitating intercultural training, willingness to learn with the learner group (not prescriptive in their approach), and lived cross-cultural experiences. There was a deliberate intent to involve men, people of colour and individuals from diverse ethnic 79 backgrounds. While "word of mouth" selection has advantages, particularly with the start-up of a new program, it may limit access to a broader network of facilitators. New workshop facilitators, regardless of how much other experience they have, work with existing facilitators before facilitating on their own. This "apprenticeship" includes attending the workshop as a participant, facilitating online, then co-facilitating with an experienced facilitator before. leading a workshop. This section has provided a description of the context from which study participants were drawn. Further information, collected during the interviews, about the motivations and expectations of the learners and the motivations and preparation of the facilitators is included in this chapter following the description of the research method. Research Method In this section I review the research design, the selection of the study participants, the data collection procedures, and the trustworthiness of the study. Research Design In order to understand what factors contribute to changes in the way individuals think about and respond to people from different cultures, I explored learners' experiences of the Intercultural Studies program, their insights into their own responses to the training, and the changes in how they interact with co-workers, staff and clients. To add depth to my understanding of these factors, I explored facilitators' intentions and experiences of learner change. I used in-depth, focused interviews (i.e., guiding the discussion using specific questions) to gather information from learners and facilitators. Additional sources of information included a review of program planning documents and course curricula. The learner interviews, facilitator interviews, and document review allowed me to view the information from several perspectives. Much of the research related to the effects of diversity and cross-cultural training has consisted of survey based self-reports of increased levels of knowledge and awareness about diversity issues (Kealey & Protheroe, 1996; Tan, Morris & Romero, 1996). Survey and 80 checklist approaches to determining the effects of intercultural training limit the information that is gathered. When an individual responds by circling a "three" on a five- point scale to a question like "[since the training] I am more sensitive to customers from minority groups", the response does not provide information about who the individual is (except, perhaps, general demographic information), who their customer is, in what context the interaction takes place, how the respondent defines sensitive or minority, or in what situations sensitivity is more or less likely to be demonstrated. Even with open-ended questions, as Patton (1980) points out, there are ".. .limitations related to the writing skills of respondents, the impossibility of probing or extending responses, and the effort required of the person completing the questionnaire" (p. 29). Conducting in-depth interviews afforded me the opportunity to explore words, phrases, nonverbal cues, and hesitations in a way that a survey would not have permitted. I wanted to know what was going on for learners as they participated in the training and as they encountered individuals different from themselves ~ what were they thinking, feeling, doing, and why. This is the type of information that will help inform trainers about the concepts, content, and processes that may be most useful in designing intercultural training programs. I decided that the trade-off of breadth (i.e., greater number of respondents that would be achieved with a large-scale survey) for depth would provide the richest information from which to generate some guiding notions for planners and trainers. It is important to note that this study is not an evaluation of the certificate program, nor of the facilitators in the program. The focus of this study is the exploration of learners' experiences of the training, their perceptions of change and the engagement of learning between the training and work environments. Rationale for Selecting Participants from the Certificate Program Short-term instructional formats, such as one-or two-day workshops, or two-hour seminars are commonly used in business settings. The advantages of such formats may include savings in cost and time, as well as being able to enroll greater numbers of employees in training. The limitations include "information overload", limited opportunity for individual learner feedback, 81 and difficulties in demonstrating that change in behaviour is attributable to the training intervention (Cervero, 1984; Sork, 1984). Kemerer (1991) states that "Most companies have found out the hard way that the 'garage approach' to skill development is not only expensive but is of limited value" (p. 73). He describes the garage approach as one in which employees are removed from their natural work environments and placed in short-term training to "get fixed". Wenger (1998) raises concerns that providing training separate from learner's "community of practice" is often ineffective and may lead to little improvement in the work practice. These observations echo the anecdotal evidence from my practice. The Certificate in Intercultural Studies has attempted to address some of the concerns with short-term training by offering courses over an extended time frame, engaging learners in online dialogue and linking the training to practice. The theory-practice link is a unique feature of the certificate program of particular relevance for this study, as it attempts to integrate the educational and practice contexts, and to encourage learners to take a "reflective practitioner" approach. A number of adult education researchers have proposed that integrative learning models are most likely to lead to improvements in work practice (Engstrom, 1994; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Montgomery & Lau, 1996). They suggest that as individuals are exposed to new information, perspectives and ideas, they engage in a reflective learning process which allows them to test and integrate their learning over time in their work environments. I chose the Intercultural Studies program as my research context for a number of reasons. First, it is an important part of my practice, and the EdD program is designed to encourage an in-depth reflection on practice. Second, the goals of the program are similar to the goals in other aspects of my practice, but offered in an innovative format which integrates on-site training with continuing dialogue embedded in practice, a model that may have some applicability for my other work. Third, I am concerned with how individuals engage learning between the classroom and their work environment. With its emphasis on "practice-based" learning, this program offers a unique opportunity to explore what aspects of the training situation contribute to the transfer of learning. 82 Selection of Study Participants I conducted in-depth interviews with eleven individuals who had completed the program between 1997 and 1999 and eight facilitators involved in various aspects of program planning and delivery. The CIS program director provided support and assistance in obtaining documents and in initiating contact with learners and facilitators. In order to protect the confidentiality of learner and facilitator records, the director contacted individuals for permission to give me their names and contact information (see Appendix One for letter from director). Once permission was granted, I contacted potential participants by letter (see Appendices Two and Three) and a follow-up telephone call or email to determine interest in participating in the study and schedule an interview. My aim was to interview ten to twelve learners. Anticipating a high response rate, fourteen learners — ten women and four men (a balance which reflects the predominantly female learner base) ~ were sent letters by the director. Learners were purposefully selected to meet the criteria of having completed the program and representing different gender, age, ethnic backgrounds, and occupational environments. This information was determined through consultation with the director of the Centre for Intercultural Communication and the coordinator of the certificate program. A conscious effort was made to include learners who had expressed both positive feedback and criticisms of the program. I discovered just prior to the interview that one of the learners had completed only four of the five courses, and decided to include that learner interview in the sample. Twelve learners replied with expressions of interest, and all agreed to be interviewed. One of the twelve was unable to participate due to changes in personal circumstances, and so the final number of learners interviewed was eleven, eight women and three men from diverse cultural and occupational backgrounds including government, private sector, and education. The director and coordinator also supplied the names of facilitators who participated in the design of the program or individual courses and are involved in both face-to-face and online facilitation and moderation of individual courses. Of the nine facilitators who received letters from the director, eight — six women and two men from diverse cultural backgrounds — agreed to be interviewed (see Appendix Four for consent form). I discovered during the 83 interview process that several of the facilitators had also been learners in the certificate program before becoming facilitators. The interviews focused on their experiences as facilitators. I have included one example provided by a facilitator of her experience as a learner. Treating the testimony of study participants with respect and honouring their privacy is of critical importance (Langness & Frank, 1981; Slim & Thompson, 1995; Spradley, 1979). Because of the small number of participants, I will not provide individual cultural, personal, or occupational profiles of the participants. To do so would affect confidentiality as they may be readily recognizable within the intercultural training community. Instead, below, I provide a summary of the learner and facilitator backgrounds, education, and age. I have used quotations extensively throughout this paper, for, as Spradley observed " A good ethnographic translation shows, a poor one only tells" (1979, p. 210). For the same ethical reasons noted above, I have not identified quotations. Coded quotations are available for audit purposes. Consistent with the general demographic profile of program participants, the learners ranged in age from late twenties to late fifties, with a majority of six in their forties. Further reflecting the general learner makeup, eight of the learners were white. One was American born and five were Canadian born — all of white Anglo European heritage. One person of French heritage and another of Dutch heritage had emigrated to Canada from Europe as adults. Three of the interviewees were visible minorities, one individual was second generation Japanese Canadian, one was of South Asian descent born in Canada, and one individual was Ismaili who emigrated from Kenya as a young adult. Six of the interviewees live in British Columbia, four in Ontario and one in Alberta. The educational backgrounds included two learners with post-secondary diplomas, six with bachelors degrees, one masters degree, and two doctorates. Four learners work in the corporate sector (including one self-employed), three in government, and four in post-secondary settings. All the learners work in culturally diverse settings, teaching or counselling international students, working with diverse colleagues and clients, or recruiting and managing diverse teams. In relation to socioeconomic status, the learners and facilitators live a middle-class lifestyle. 84 The facilitator group included six women and two men who were involved at various stages of the development of the certificate program during the last five years. They ranged in age from late thirties to early fifties. Their educational backgrounds included bachelor's degrees in Asian Studies, Business, Education, History, and Psychology. Three interviewees had masters degrees in Education and three were enrolled in masters or doctoral programs. One interviewee was Chinese, born in Hong Kong, and came to Canada as an adult. Seven of the interviewees were white. Three were born outside Canada - in the United States, South Africa, and Greece. Two came to Canada as adults; one came to Canada as a teenager. Four of the facilitators were born in Canada of white Anglo European backgrounds, one of whom is gay. Experience with intercultural training ranged from two to twenty years. Other work experience included diversity and intercultural consulting, organizational training and development, project management, public school teaching, and teaching English as a second language. All are involved in a wide range of consulting and training around cross-cultural issues in the workplace or with international students. Data Collection In this section I explain the development of interview questions and the procedures I used for participant interviews and data management, including audiotape transcription and participant feedback. Development of Interview Questions Drawing on the transfer of learning and intercultural training literature, as well as my professional and personal experiences (described as "sources of theoretical sensitivity" by Strauss and Corbin, 1990), I developed separate sets of interview questions for the learners and the facilitators (see Appendices Five and Six). Before piloting the guides with study participants, I asked myself the questions. Several of the questions sounded more like a test than invitations to a conversation. I rewrote the questions, retaining the content, and creating a warmer conversational style. For example, "what conceptual frameworks or theoretical foundations guided your decisions around content and learning activities?" became "I wonder who or what has guided your thinking? What ideas have influenced you?" Instead of "what is 85 .your formal education in intercultural program planning?" I asked "what led you to become involved in cross-cultural training?" and "I'm curious how you learned to do this". This conversational style felt more inviting than the original questions and demonstrated my genuine interest in the responses. The questions provided me with information about both formal education and informal learning processes that I might have otherwise missed. As my interviews proceeded, I adjusted the questions to reflect new understandings. For example, based on responses from early interviews with learners, I expanded my question about the role of other people in the learning process to include what aspects of the online seminar worked well or were particularly challenging. Within each interview I adapted questions and followed-up areas raised by participants. I piloted the guides with one facilitator and one learner before interviewing the study participants. Because the pilot interviews resulted in only minor changes in the questions, I included the interview results in the study. Interview Procedure The location and time of the interviews was arranged in accordance with the preferences of the interviewees. Al l the facilitator interviews were conducted in person, two in my home, two in interviewee homes, and four at their offices. Of the learner interviews, six (outside Vancouver) were conducted by telephone ~ one from the interviewee's home, and five from their offices. Five interviews were conducted in person, four in the interviewee's homes, and one in their office. The interviews were conducted during July and August 2000. Each interview was one and one-half to two hours long. As I reflect on this factual description of the study participants, I am struck by how little this description says about what the interview process was like. As part of creating a safe, respectful environment for the individuals that I interviewed, I considered the participants as "conversational partners". In the words of Rubin and Rubin: Unlike survey interviews, in which those giving information are relatively passive and are not allowed the opportunity to elaborate, interviewees in qualitative interviews share in the work of the interview, sometimes guiding it in channels of their own choosing. They are treated as partners rather than as objects of research. (1995, p. 10) 86 I am deeply grateful for the enthusiasm and openness with which all the participants welcomed me. Several interviewees continued the conversation in-person and by email, sending me additional stories and discussing cross-cultural resources. Everyone was generous with their time. When I interviewed people in their homes, they were gracious and hospitable. When I interviewed individuals in their offices, by telephone or in-person, they were unhurried and made every effort to minimize interruptions and distractions. Data Management I created a data management binder, or "fieldwork journal" (Spradley, 1979), with colour coded sections to store program documents, letters of invitation, signed consent forms, methodology notes, contact summary forms, interview schedules (coded by number), and transcription procedures. To protect interviewee confidentiality each interviewee was assigned a code known only to me. I tape recorded the interviews as well as taking notes, which were useful in capturing the occasional pieces of dialogue that were not picked up by the recording process, one of the potential drawbacks of telephone interviews. I conducted all the interviews personally and had the tapes transcribed by two transcriptionists, both of whom had previous experience. Both transcriptionists signed confidentiality agreements which included a commitment not to save the transcripts to their computer hard drives. The interview tapes were labelled with a code number, to which only I have access, to protect the identities of the interviewees. All participants were informed of the third party transcription process and the backgrounds of the transcriptionists, and agreed that they were comfortable with the approach. I kept the disks and hard copies of transcripts in a locked cabinet in my home office, and no one else had access to my computer. Following each interview, I sent a personalized thank you note by email to each individual, and following Miles and Huberman (1994), completed a "contact summary form" which allowed me to record where and when the interview took place, the interview length, my prior relationship with the interviewee, any interruptions or distractions, my sense of the "tone" of the interview, my feelings about the interview, and ideas or questions that the interview 87 provoked. These notes proved to be useful in helping me recapture the spirit of the interviews as I listened to the tapes and reviewed the transcripts. As part of my process of internalizing the data, I listened to each tape before I gave it to the transcriptionist. Before the transcriptionists began their work we agreed on a transcription protocol which included verbatim transcription including "urns" and "uhs", line numbering, inserting blank lines [ ] to indicate missing words, including notations to indicate pauses, laughter, sighing, and using curly brackets to contain my interjections. The turnaround time on the transcription was two to seven days. When I received a completed transcript, I reviewed it line by line, listening to the tape, filling in missing words or phrases with the help of my notes and correcting the spelling of names or jargon with which the transcriptionist was unfamiliar. Participants were sent a copy of their interview transcript within one to three weeks of their interview with an explanation of the transcript format and an invitation to review it for accuracy! Two of the facilitators replied, one by telephone to say "it looks fine", and one returned a marked up copy of the transcript with minor changes to "correct grammar, not substance". Two learners responded, one by email to indicate that the transcript was fine, and the other sent a marked up copy requesting that I not use information that might identify the interviewee or their employer, and adding the comment that reviewing the transcript was "a humbling experience!" I received informal comments from a couple of facilitators that they had received my package, but felt somewhat hesitant to open it right away. I had a similar reaction when I was interviewed for a project ~ I was not quite ready to look at what I had divulged and how I might have come across. When I informally checked in with these facilitators, they commented that they had enjoyed reading the transcripts and were satisfied with the accuracy of the transcription work. As I proceeded with the analysis, where I felt learners or trainers might have concerns about confidentiality I sent copies of specific sections for their comments. Everyone I contacted was satisfied that I had respected confidentiality and only minor changes were requested. In the final stages of the writing, I sent draft Chapters Four, Five, Six and Seven (which, at the time, were Chapters Three to Six) to all study participants. I requested their feedback to ensure that 88 I had appropriately protected confidentiality and not misunderstood, misinterpreted or misrepresented any aspect of the Intercultural Studies program or their interview. I was particularly concerned that the study participants have the opportunity to read my use of their comments in context. I had some trepidation about the process of decontextualizing individual stories and comments, and then recontextualizing them in the company of the stories of others and in the literature. It was an awesome responsibility and I am honoured by the participants' trust in me. In response to the draft, I received feedback from four facilitators who provided updates on the program status and minor corrections to historic and current information. These facilitators also engaged in conversations about the conceptualization of intercultural training and implications for the program. Two facilitators were planning to be outside of Canada for extended periods and did not have time to review the document. One learner contacted me by email to say she was "very impressed" with the chapters. Another learner, whom I met by chance, said she was enjoying reading the chapters and especially appreciated the clear explanation of how I developed themes from the interview material. I gave participants a further opportunity to respond by sending an email to advise them of my deadline. At the same time, I reassured them that I was not pressuring them for a response. There is a fine line between inviting people and pushing people. It was important for me to maintain the respectful relationships I had developed with the participants during the interviews and subsequent contacts. In response to the email I heard from two facilitators and six learners, one of whom had a minor clarification to a quotation I had used, and two of whom had several comments regarding editorial changes and structure unrelated to their examples. One of the facilitators commented on how the stories and quotations made the pages "come alive". Two learners said they appreciated the way I had synthesized and analyzed the material from the literature and the interviews. One wrote "I find it accurate where you refer to my comments" and another wrote "You very accurately and insightfully reflected parts of our discussion". In summary, all of the facilitators responded and all but three of the learners responded. I am satisfied that all participants had ample opportunity to reflect on, and respond to, my analysis of their stories. 89 Data Analysis Although there is no one best convention for analyzing interview data (Janesick, 1994, p. 215), the writings of Strauss and Corbin (1990), Denzin (1994) and Miles and Huberman (1994) were helpful in navigating the complex transition from "field to the text to the reader" (Denzin, 1994, p. 501). Carney's (1990) "ladder of analytical abstraction" was a useful framework for organizing the analysis. The steps include: 1) summarizing the data by first creating a text to work on and then trying out coding categories to find a set that fits; 2) aggregating the data by identifying themes and trends in the data overall and searching for relationships in the data; 3) analyzing the trends and synthesizing the data into one explanatory framework (Carney, 1990 cited in Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 92). The reality of working with the data was not as tidy as these steps might suggest. The "detection [of patterns] proceeds by a kind of'rummaging' process. The investigator must use his or her experience and imagination to find (or fashion) a match of the patterns evidence by the data" (McCracken, 1988, cited in Clinchy, 1996, p. 210). Nonetheless, the framework helped me organize my understandings as I sat down to discover the story that emerged from the interviews. In this chapter I will describe the first stages of data analysis — summarizing -the data and aggregating the data. In Chapters Five through Seven I synthesize the findings and expand the interpretation. Summarizing the Data As described in the data management section of this chapter, I created the text by verbatim transcription of recorded interviews. My first step in the data analysis was to create a "start list" (Miles & Huberman, 1994) of coding categories for facilitator and learner interviews. I created this list based on my interview questions (see Appendices Seven and Eight). To facilitate the data analysis, I began the coding process as I received the transcripts. Working with hard copies of the transcripts I coded interviewee responses in the margin and highlighted the response. Strauss and Corbin (1990) point out, "Since discovery is our purpose, we do not have beforehand knowledge of all the categories relevant to our theory" (p. 50). As I worked through the coding process, new categories became apparent that I had 90 not included in my original list. I highlighted these responses and added the new codes to my list. I also added notes such as "see L I and L3 for similar thoughts". The size of the data set allowed me to become quite familiar with the responses of each individual and I was able to link similarities and note differences in perspectives within a particular coding element. Next, I used the cut and paste option on my word processing program to combine all comments relevant to a particular category for each transcript. This was necessary because participant comments relating to particular codes were not located in discrete sections of the interview, but were dispersed throughout the conversation. After coding the individual transcripts, I moved to the next phase — aggregating the facilitator data, aggregating the learner data, and aggregating across facilitator and learner data. Aggregating the Data Again, using the cut and paste option in my word processing program, I pulled together all facilitator comments relating to each code and all learner comments relating to each code. I worked with hard copies of the comments looking for patterns and themes first within the facilitator group, then within the learner group, and finally across both groups. Orbe (2000) notes that the initial review of the transcripts "typically produces an overwhelming number of possible themes" and that subsequent reviews "typically reveal that several themes are interconnected, redundant or incidental" (p. 165). This observation reflects my experience as the final phase of the data review resulted in a number of overlapping codes being collapsed. For example, "insider/outsider" and "strengths and limitations" were collapsed under identity and representation; "embedded usefulness" and "organizational issues/support" were integrated into the concept of diffusion; "metaphors" were included in the context they were made, rather than separated out. Additional examples are provided in the explanation of key themes. The learners in this study brought an array of motivations, preparation, personal and professional experiences to the certificate program. The facilitators, too, brought a diverse set of lenses to the program. Both learner and facilitator voices are essential to the exploration of learning and change. It took me some time to find a structure and rhythm for writing the 91 themes. I started by writing separately about the experiences of learners and facilitators. This tack resulted in redundant discussions of key concepts and literature references. The separation of stories felt artificial and incomplete. Learners and facilitators.both shape, and are shaped by, each other. Interweaving the stories allows us "to adopt multiple perspectives in the process of comprehending [them]" (Kroeber, 1992, p. 105). I took to heart my responsibility in making "carefully considered judgments about what is really significant and meaningful in the data" (Patton,1980, p. 313). I was cognizant of the trust placed in me by the study participants and, at the same time, daunted by the task of presenting an "authentic portrait" (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 278). As Lincoln and Denzin (1994) observed: The problem of representation will not go away. Indeed, at its heart lies an inner tension, an ongoing dialectic, a contradiction, that will never be resolved. On the one hand there is the concern for validity, or certainty in the text as a form of isomorphism and authenticity. On the other hand there is the sure and certain knowledge that all texts are socially, historically, politically, and culturally located, (p. 582) The themes I have selected to explore are ones that emerged over and over again as I read the transcripts. They are themes that were expressed by at least half of the participants and in some cases, all of the participants. In the introduction to each discussion, I have noted the number of participants for whom a theme was implicit or explicit in their comments. I have made a conscious effort to foreground the voices of the learners and facilitators I interviewed. My discussion of the findings in the next three chapters elaborates my understanding of the experiences of the learners and facilitators who shared their stories. Inevitably, though, my voice is layered in the text by virtue of the fact that I am the "connection between the field text, the research text, and the consuming community" (Lincoln and Denzin, 1994, p. 577). My voice moves to the foreground in the final chapter as I explore the implications of this research. In most theses, the key themes uncovered in the analysis of the interviews would be described in a chapter on "findings". Because I have chosen to organize my findings into three chapters, each oriented thematically, I outline the key themes here. 92 Key Themes My discussion of the findings is found in Chapters Five, Six and Seven. In Chapter Five, What Difference Does Training Make?, I discuss learner and facilitator views of intercultural -competency, feedback on specific courses in the program, and learner perceptions of change and sharing learning. In Chapter Six, Learning in the Midst of Everyday Practice, I discuss two key themes related to how learners negotiate or engage learning between the program and their work contexts — "theory and practice" and "online learning community". Together these themes capture the key factors that contributed to how learners made sense of the course material individually and working together. In Chapter Seven, Difficult Dialogues, I discuss two strong themes — "safety, challenge and support" and "identity and representation". The first theme emerged from the original coded categories of emotional safety, gender issues, focused reflection and challenge strategies. The second theme emerged from the original coded categories of facilitator qualities, strengths and limitations, factors which hinder and facilitate learning and insider/outsider experiences. Together these two themes capture the key factors which affected how learners experienced the training program. Implications for program planning are foreshadowed in the chapter summaries and explored in the final chapter. Trustworthiness Marshall and Rossman (1995) point out that "all research must respond to canons that stand as criteria against which the trustworthiness of the project can be evaluated' (p. 143). Drawing on the work of Lincoln and Guba (1985), they discuss four constructs to demonstrate the soundness of a qualitative inquiry: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. The goal of the first construct, credibility, is to ensure that the setting and population are accurately described, and that the research has been conducted within a guiding conceptual framework. I have described the research site and process of selecting participants and collecting data in detail. I have also submitted these descriptions to participants for their feedback. The study was designed using conceptual frameworks from the program planning, transfer of learning literature and cross-cultural training literature. 93 The second construct is transferability. Marshall and Rossman (1995) point out that the first "span" of decision-making rests with the researcher to "generalize the findings about a particular sample to the population from which the sample was drawn" (p. 144). There are no other long-term intercultural training programs available in British Columbia, so the participants were drawn from one program. It might be the case that a certain type of learner, perhaps more academically inclined, was drawn to a continuing education program offered within the context of a university. This means that readers who are concerned with intercultural training in an organizational context (another facet of my practice), especially if such training is mandatory will need to carefully consider the applicability of these findings to that environment. With consideration for the amount of data that would be generated and the time involved in conducting, transcribing, coding and analyzing in-depth interviews, I kept the number of participants relatively small, eleven learners and eight facilitators. However, I made an effort to interview a cross-section of learners who reflected the age, gender, ethnicity and occupation of learners in the program. The findings of this study may be applicable to other learners in the certificate program. Marshall and Rossman (1995) note that other researchers "who make policy or design research studies within those same parameters can determine whether or not the cases described can be generalized" (p. 144) to their contexts. They and others (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Richardson, 1994) suggest that using multiple methods or gathering data from multiple sources, as I did in interviewing learners and trainers as well as reviewing program documents, can strengthen the usefulness of the study for other contexts. The third construct, dependability, contrasts with the positivist notion of reliability, which assumes unchanging conditions that would lend themselves to replication. Qualitative, interpretive researchers assume that the circumstance being studied is always changing. Dependability means understanding, responding to, and accounting for these changes. For example, the certificate program has been undergoing changes since I first requested permission to use the program as my research site. Changes in the Intercultural Studies program coordinator, in the structure of the online process, in the creation of a master's degree program all took place while I was conducting my research. During the final stages of 94 my analysis, changes were being made in the content of the courses themselves. I am aware that my research is a "snapshot of the events that occur[ed] when the research [took] place" (Jarvis, 1999, p. 31). I have tried to take into account these changes in the final chapter of this thesis. The fourth construct, confirmability, comprises two key elements: the possibility for confirmation of the findings by another researcher and processes for balancing researcher bias. A methodology audit trail including thorough notes on methodology decisions and procedures allows others to inspect the research design and strategies. I kept a "data management binder" that would allow another researcher to analyze the data collected at a particular point in time and in a particular context. As Marshall and Rossman (1995) point out: Qualitative research does not pretend to be replicable. The researcher purposefully avoids controlling the research conditions and concentrates on recording the complexity of situational contexts and interrelations as they occur. The researcher's goal of discovering this complexity by altering research strategies within a flexible research design, moreover, cannot be replicated by future researchers, nor should it be attempted, (p. 146) With regard to researcher subjectivity or bias, I believe that no research undertaking is value-free. In interpretive research, there is no one right answer to a question and no assumption that researchers can eliminate biases through objective data gathering (Howe, 1998; Clarke et al., 2000). Rather, there are many questions, which may change as the research develops, and multiple realities. It is the responsibility of the researcher to be aware of her own values and biases, to look for "contrary evidence" and seek input from others. For example, I struggled during the writing of a particular section of this thesis, "identity and representation" because it brought up issues around my own identity and my personal responses as a trainer. Realizing that my personal feelings might be shaping my interpretation of the data, I presented my dilemmas to several colleagues in the EdD program, while protecting the confidentiality of the study participants. Using Brookfield's (1995) three-role structure for setting up critical conversations my colleagues helped me "hunt for assumptions" (p. xiii) in my writing. Recognizing that there may be personal biases of which I was unaware, as I worked on different sections of the thesis, I received feedback from members of my committee and the 95 study participants. At times these readers brought to my attention areas where I could ask different questions or consider alternative explanations. I have also tried to clearly situate myself in the research by explaining the ways in which my personal, educational, and work history have shaped my interests in the cross-cultural training field and in this research project. I have been a facilitator in the Intercultural Studies program since 1996. This has certain advantages in that I understand the on-site and online processes and the program content. I was not involved in the initial program planning, although I have had input into the course that I usually facilitate, Intercultural Problem-Solving and Advising. I had personally worked with three of the interviewees in one of their five courses. This seemed to be an advantage in terms of an already established rapport and trust. While I considered the possibility that these individuals might be reluctant to share negative feedback about their learning experiences, this did not pose a problem. My focus was on their integration and application of learning, rather than on evaluating the program or facilitators. Additionally, I was just one of a number of facilitators with whom they had contact, so unlike my work in other settings, the learners did not identify me as "the program". My existing collegial relationships with the facilitators contributed to open and honest sharing of their perspectives and experiences. From a more traditional research perspective, my closeness to the program might be seen as problematic. From interpretive approaches to research, and from the EdD program perspective, which is designed to allow practitioners to shine a light on their practice, my familiarity with the certificate program has been valuable. In summary, I have made every effort to meet the tests of trustworthiness by honestly situating myself in the research, documenting my methodology decisions and procedures, acknowledging limitations for transferability of the findings, and carrying out the data collection, analysis and interpretation in an ethical and transparent fashion. 96 CHAPTER FIVE WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES TRAINING MAKE? [I've gained a] huge awareness — the cultural layers, and layers and layers. I'm less likely to react to a situation than I am to pull back for a minute or two and say "okay, what's actually going on here "first. [I try] to come at it a little slower and with, I hope, a little more perception on all levels. I think I've become a lot better at that. (Learner) Sometimes there's a huge surprise at the end when people write what the course meant to them and what they learned, and you think "oh really? You learned that? " [You 're] so surprised because this person didn 't seem to be doing much, and at the end you see that they 're expressing all kinds of [learning] ...Or there may be people who've learned a lot who don't give you feedback. (Facilitator) Educators discuss the goals of education in terms of changing individuals, institutions, and communities (Caffarella, 1994; Houle, 1996; Guy, 1999). Activist educators have argued that the purpose of education is to disrupt oppressive societal structures (Freire, 1993; hooks, 1992). Collins (1991) laments the "narrowing of the pedagogical focus.. .to individual behaviors" (p. 72). His vision of adult education is one which challenges "repressive social and political structures" (p. 72). Cross-cultural training has been criticized for not addressing racism, discrimination, and prejudice (May, 1999). One of the facilitators I interviewed commented "I think that there is a difference in where these two fields [international and domestic intercultural training] come from. There is a social justice dimension to [domestic] diversity work that doesn't seem to be there in international work." At the same time, several of the facilitators, who come from doing international work, expressed the goal that learners would translate personal growth into larger system changes. One facilitator said "We'd love to be agents of change on the grand scale." Another spoke of the potential for individuals to inspire institutional change, saying: Well, I guess ultimately as we change behaviour, which is what I think we 're working towards, there's an element of cognitive understanding that you can get with a program like this... There's also an "aha ", gut sense of "this feels different"... That still doesn 't necessarily change that person's relationship with three other persons back in the workplace. I don't think we, within the 97 certificate, can ever get at that piece ...It may be a different piece of a bigger puzzle... Now that doesn 't mean that you can't impact the system. Because if somebody goes back and re-engages with that system in a different way the system can be changed. The facilitators with whom I spoke wanted to know what learners carried away with them from the program. One of the difficulties with determining the effects of training is that "not all attitude changes and heightened awareness necessarily translate into actual behaviors" (Gannon & Poon, 1997, p. 443). The way in which learners think about cross-cultural interactions was a key factor for facilitators in contemplating learner change. As one facilitator said: [I would want to know] whether it made any difference in their visions of themselves and in the way they see or look at problems. I'd love to hear if they've got stories that show that they now stand back a bit or notice their own behaviour or assumptions in a way that is different for them. Another facilitator's comments reflect the unanimous goal of contributing to lasting behaviour change in learners. She commented: /'d like to ask [learners] six or twelve months down the line, not right after [completing the training] ...two or three ideas that they still carry around with them that came from their experience in the program. What, if any concrete strategies do they still use that were part of that experience? It's important to me that it be significantly after they have completed the program [because] I want to know whether [the learning] lasts and whether it can grow on its own. In this chapter, I discuss learner and facilitator perceptions of change. I introduce the discussion with a discussion of learner and trainer motivation followed by an exploration of definitions of learning. I then focus on learner examples of changes in the ways they think about and interact with others in intercultural interactions and the ways in which they have tried to share their learning with colleagues. In the remainder of the chapter, I discuss intercultural competence and learner views on specific courses within the program. Learner and Trainer Motivation To help situate the learners' experiences, and to add depth to my earlier sketch of the demographic backgrounds of the participants, I begin this chapter with a discussion of learner 98 and trainer motivation. I collected this information by asking the learners specific questions related to reasons for enrolling in the program, expectations of the program, and other cross-cultural experiences and training. I asked the facilitators specific questions about why and how they became involved in intercultural training and how they learned to be trainers. Learner Motivation for Enrolling in the Certificate Program When I asked about their reasons for enrolling, learner responses included curiosity, professional development, personal growth, and certification. Two individuals enrolled after hearing presentations by the associate director of the certificate program. One person was encouraged by a corporate training manager. Two people received program brochures "on their desks" and two were inspired to attend after participating in organizational diversity programs. One individual's interest was sparked in a positive way to get "tools I could use in personal life and work life as I coach and develop people." Another individual was frustrated by the negativity and adversarial approach of internal diversity courses. He wanted to see what other type of diversity training was available. Three people saw the program as an opportunity for personal and professional development. One individual hoped it would provide a "stronger base for my work," including more theory and a credential that would reinforce experience. Six of the learners received tuition support from their employers. One individual was self-employed. The other four learners did not request support, citing employer budget constraints, no need for financial support, and no expectation for employer support for personal development. "There are, of course as many reasons as students, and as Merriam and Caffarella (1991) remind us, the research on motivation is thick" (Daloz, 1999, p. 90). Houle (1961) proposed a widely-used typology of three adult learning orientations. These included goal-oriented learners, for whom continuing education is a means of achieving a particular goal; activity-oriented learners, for whom the activity itself and social interaction are most important; learning-oriented learners, for whom the enticement is in seeking knowledge for its own sake. The goal- and learning-oriented categories best describe the motivations of the learners in this study. For those with specific goals, the majority were motivated by wanting to do a better job 99 in their current work situations, although three were considering promotion or expanding consulting opportunities. Examples of learner comments included: • I felt like I was just floating in the air. I was drowning... where do you start to learn about this...I needed some grounding on what it was I was talking about [when implementing diversity training]. • I had been thinking that I would like to sort of add a little diversity to my own [consulting] work andfelt that because I lived in Vancouver and it was quite a culturally diverse area that this program would fit in with my work. • For me it was kind of forward thinking. I have an interest in taking a position internationally with the company ...sol wanted to get myself more tools to be successful in that environment. Learner motivation did not fall neatly into separate categories. Al l of the learners had multiple reasons, needs, and interests for participating in the program. For example, one learner, who felt that this program might give her tools with which to better do her job, also expressed an interest in learning about culture because of a passionate personal interest. As well, her children had grown up and she had the time to pursue her own interests. Another learner described his interest in the program as a "hobby", and at the same time found some application for the concepts personally and professionally. Three learners mentioned that they were in transition, a common experience of adult learners who enroll in formal education (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Two people described feeling the need for professional development but being uncertain as to what avenue to pursue until, by chance, they heard about the program. One learner said: / never thought about doing it before and then the brochure was put on my desk... and I thought hey, this sounds interesting and I've been wanting to go back to school and this seems like a good way for me to try it without getting into doing a degree. One learner cited work reasons as her primary motivation for taking the program, saying "I need to make people feel motivated and valued and I can only do that if I understand them and I understand their backgrounds and how they think and the differences they have from me so 100 I'm not caught in my paradigm." She also described herself as being "passionate about this area", explaining: I think of myself as being pretty open minded because of how I've been raised... I myself am a visible minority, an immigrant to the country, [I practice] a faith that's not of the majority. I've grown up with racism, grown up with gender issues. I face that at work all the time. There are not many women in [my industry]. So you become very aware of it. I think my awareness and desire to do something about it is very heightened because of those experiences. I grew up all my life knowing I was different. That was always a very poignant fact when I was at school — that I was different from everybody else. So that's driven me to want to make sure that people feel accepted... that they feel like they can be part of things, and still be different. Consistent with Houle's (1961) activity orientation, three learners also indicated that sharing experiences with others was an important factor. This interest was captured in the following statement: [I thought] this is something that's going to help me do my job better .. not just to fly by the seat of my pants, but to understand some of the theories and... to share with other people what their cultural experiences are and to form some kind of allegiance so that we can share common challenges and common success. Another motivating factor identified by six of the learners was the need for validation. This need was as expressed in their use of such phrases as "verification that I'm doing this right", "affirmation", and "external validity" [from having a certificate]. The push toward certification has been well-documented (Engstrom, 1994; Grubb, 1996; Matthews, 1998). However, for the four learners who felt that a certificate would add to their credibility with employers or colleagues, it was seen as valuable, but not the primary reason for participation. Learners' Cross-cultural Experiences When asked about cross-cultural learning experiences apart from the certificate program, all learners commented on their experiences travelling, living, or working outside of Canada, including Japan, Indonesia, South America, Western Europe, Africa, South East Asia, and the United States. Four of the learners described extensive experience with Canadian First Nations, either growing up with, or working closely with First Nations communities. Four 101 learners stated that they were married to someone from a different cultural background than themselves. Three learners commented that they had grown up in multicultural neighborhoods in Canada and have friends from diverse cultural backgrounds. Two learners described encountering racism while living in a large Canadian city. With regard to other experiences with cross-cultural training, six interviewees described prior training. One individual had received pre-departure briefings in preparation for working overseas. Two learners had participated in cross-cultural communication courses at the Portland Summer Institute (described in Chapter Two). One person had taken an international business course at a community college, and two people had participated in internal diversity training offered by their organizations. Three of the learners have been involved in coordinating and facilitating cultural briefings or staff diversity training. This, then, is a group of individuals with broad-ranging personal and professional interests and experiences, including experience with cross-cultural interactions domestically and internationally, and experiences with racism. This history means that it is sometimes difficult to link learning directly to participation in a training program. As two cross-cultural researchers have stated in traditional evaluation language, we "cannot unambiguously attribute all observed effects to the training intervention". (Gannon & Poon, 1997, p. 443). In the words of one facilitator interviewed for this study: "It's not an instant thing. It's not like they can say 'yesterday I was this way and today I'm this way.' It's something that is cumulative I think. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) state that "experiences that provide learning are never just isolated events in time. Rather, learners must connect what they have learned from current experiences to those in the past as well as see possible future implications" (p. 223). Despite the difficulties of separating life experience learning from formal education learning, all the learners were able to describe specific examples of learning they attributed to their involvement in the certificate program. As one learner commented: You can't really say for sure in this kind of thing...It all gets mixed up in the pot of course ...You can never prove it... but that [particular assignment] was actually quite illuminating. I would have never [have realized the cultural 102 differences between the workgroups] iflhadn't had that assignment because I would never have talked about it that way. Facilitator Motivation for Becoming Involved in Intercultural Training When I asked the facilitators how they became involved in intercultural training, two key themes emerged. Four of the facilitators became involved as a result of their own experiences living and working in different cultures. Three of the facilitators whose origins were in Canada or the United States began offering pre-departure briefings on their return to Canada from living overseas. Each one has been conducting briefings for about fifteen years. Such briefings involve helping individuals and their families prepare for temporary sojourns to different countries. The training includes psychological factors of cross-cultural adjustment, practical strategies for settling in a new environment, and discussion of culture-specific norms. After many years of business experience in several different countries, the fourth facilitator made a recent transition to intercultural training. The international sojourner experiences of these facilitators formed the foundation for their interest in working as intercultural trainers. The other four facilitators described early childhood, family and social experiences as being motivational in choosing to work in the field of cross-cultural training. One person grew up with the experience of being a white person in South Africa. Three individuals described early experiences of "being different" and "being an outsider," reflecting on ethnic background, family dynamics, and sexual orientation, as pivotal experiences. One facilitator reflected on her early experiences, saying "I think of coming to Canada and being the outsider and being the immigrant kid that found her parents jobs...". One facilitator commented: It [is] one of those things where you can then empathize with anyone else who's from any other cultural group trying to break in, trying to fit in... I don't think I was visible [as a gay person] so at least I had that level of protection, but it isn't a big leap to understand [the experience of visible minorities]. It would only take a small slip and I would be exposed, so I think that'sformative...It becomes a bigger issue [asyou] mature [and] come out to friends and family, and that process has parallels to being a minority. Questions of identity. Who you are. Very profound things. Each of these individuals has about ten to fifteen years experience doing intercultural consulting and training. The work of all the facilitators now encompasses pre- and post-103 departure training for international students and business people, and intercultural communication training for domestic situations. Common to all the facilitators is their interest in "making a difference" at an individual, organizational or societal level, as evidenced in these comments: • [The program] touches them at a core part of themselves... They have to think it through. [They ask themselves] 'Iwonder why I've done this [in] this way. And I wonder who I've excluded or included by doing that. And, I wonder if there's some other way I could do it.' • That's the exciting [part]. For people to really get past the 'me' and [starting to think about] the team. This is communicating. It's working successfully. It's sharing goals. • A fair amount of my work. ..was focused on issues related to... race relations issues, trust building across divisions ofpower and privilege ...[I try to work] in a more systemic way around organizational issues related to diversity and multicultural interaction and looking at organizational processes and obstacles... • It surprises me that these [race, culture, gender] are such important topics in our lives and we don 7 have the most fundamental words and tools to discuss them... People are scared of racism and diversity... They 're not such foreign concepts, but they do need to be organized... Think of the consequences when we don't know how to deal with these things in our lives - divorces, family breakdowns, and the worst end — wars. I found it surprising that it was easier to locate literature related to adult motivation to learn than it was to find material exploring what motivates people to become teachers of adults. There are many articles and books exploring how to teach, but not why we teach. Collins (1991) recommends that "adult education practice needs to be more concerned with the role of the educator, de-emphasizing a prevailing sharp and unremitting focus on the situation of the adult learner" (p. 48). He exhorts teachers to be less driven by "advancing] personal career aspirations" and a predominant "cult of efficiency", and more focused on "ethical considerations as a basis for day-to-day practice" (p. 42). He suggests that we think of teaching as a "calling" which "entails careful, self-conscious reflection about one's work" (p. 42). 104 Collins' (1991) beliefs about what motivates teachers (or perhaps what "should" motivate teachers) are echoed in the work of Apps (1996) who states that "Teaching from the heart is an authentic endeavor. Teachers strive to touch the hearts of learners, to form a connection" (p. 17). Palmer (1998), too, asserts that ".. .good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher" (p. 11). One of the learners I interviewed captured the feelings of most of the learners when she said "I was just so impressed by the calibre of their [facilitator] training, the support.. and the personal commitment." These qualities, along with facilitator knowledge of formal theory related to intercultural relations contributed in a positive way to the learning experience. Preparation for Being an Intercultural Trainer As indicated earlier, all the facilitators I interviewed have bachelors or masters degrees in such disciplines as Asian Studies, Business, Education, History, and Psychology. They all described their journey to becoming intercultural trainers as a self-directed process, combining personal experience, professional development workshops, and informal apprenticeships. The theoretical resources that the facilitators cited most frequently as influential on their work included Hall (1959, 1976), Hofstede (1997), Trompenaars (1993), and Janet and Milton Bennett (1996), whose work I touched on in Chapters One and Two. One facilitator noted that her work was informed by Schein's (1992) writing on organizational leadership, particularly as it applies to developing teams. Another commented on the helpfulness of Adler's (1997) work on cultural synergy in organizations. Another facilitator noted the influence of Proulx (1997, 1998), whose model is described in Chapter Two, on her approach to intercultural training. One of the facilitators critiqued some of the resources at the same time as she recognized their contribution to the field: Edward Hall's [work] was terrific in context, when it was all there was. It sounded as though [cross-cultural communication] was an American invention after the Second World War, a whole new field that was made up by people like him going off to the South Seas and then to Japan and labeling all cultures as high context or low context and it was just too facile and a bit too sure of itself. So, actually, we've come a long way just getting other voices in there...We try to put [the readings] in context [and to] encourage people to notice the bias behind it... Edward Hall, Hofstede, Trompenaars gave us some frameworks to look at and I still find those frameworks useful... I'm glad to 105 have those models, but, every time we come up with one more example [from 'real life'] you can see the weakness of the model and the strength of it at the same time. You can see that it's the not really quite concentric, or it isn't quite linear. The facilitator went on to describe the challenge of designing a training for First Nations and government officials in which "we had to throw out our agenda after half an hour and listen". The models that had framed the training design did not address issues of dominance, power, oppression, and pain. Although there are degree programs in intercultural relations, I am not aware of (nor were the facilitators I interviewed) a formal educational program for diversity or intercultural trainers. University programs in intercultural relations incorporate courses from sociology, psychology, political science, and anthropology. They provide a grounding in theories of intercultural or interethnic relations. They do not include courses in adult education, program planning, facilitation skills, or group process. There are various short-term (two to three day) "training for trainer" workshops for diversity, anti-racism or intercultural training that are available without prior experience or education. These courses tend to focus on training methodologies. Courses offered through the Portland Institute include a blend of theory and techniques. Two of the facilitators had attended courses at the Institute, and four had attended SIETAR conferences. The facilitators learned about cross-cultural issues through their personal experiences of being "outsiders", living and working in other cultures, teaching English as a second language, and coordinating student exchange programs. They use their first-hand experience to help others navigate the process of cross-cultural adaptation. Three facilitators who had taught English as a second language commented on their growing awareness that language was most effectively taught within the context of culture. Consequently, they began designing programs that integrated language and cultural awareness training. Building on their personal intercultural experiences and related academic education, the facilitators were largely self-taught through a combination of professional development courses, self-directed reading, mentoring and practice. One facilitator commented: 106 / always wonder about this question because I bring it up also in the course that I facilitate. What's more important - the actual experience and background or the training methodology... You could [have] all the techniques of being an effective trainer but if you haven't had the experience of actually living overseas yourself and going through all of this then[you 're missing a key element]...I have brought in resource people who have the theory...but it becomes apparent that they might not have had the experience ...and the issue of credibility has come up...whereas because I'm able to relate some of my stories and experiences, that says a lot [even] if I don't have the theoretical background. But I still believe it's really important to have both the theory and the [practical experience]. The cross-cultural literature offers recommendations about what to do in cross-cultural training, but does not address how to become trained in this field. For example, trainers can find writings on ethical issues (Paige, 1996), training interventions (Bennett, 1993), and cross-cultural training methods (Triandis & Brislin, 1984). They can locate a number of materials that provide instructions for conducting cross-cultural activities (Kogod, 1991, O'Mara, 1994; Singelis, 1998). They can draw content from large bodies of literature on cross-cultural communication, counselling, and management. I am not aware of a formal systematic approach for integrating program planning, training techniques, ethics, cross-cultural content, and self-exploration. To borrow Merriam and Caffarella's (1999) description of adult education, cross-cultural training is an "amorphous field of practice with no neat boundaries" (p. 45). Trainers have created their own varying paths for entering and developing in the field. The following comments illustrate the experiences of the facilitators who described being in on the "ground floor" of international briefing work in Canada: • / was overseas making a fool of myself and came back to [Canada]... and the CIDA [Canadian International Development Association] Briefing Centre called me to be a resource ...and they were really just getting going... trying to figure out how you could make people more effective and save them the time of adapting and all the mistakes you have to make to figure it out. So I was there when that was all coming along... and started with no academic knowledge at all but there wasn't much around, this would have been 1981.1 readjournals from SIETAR [Society for International Education, Training and Research]... I just listened to other trainers who were doing it too, were all kind of flying by the seat of our pants. 107 • All that stuff [CIDA briefings] was happening, and the federal government was paying for us to go to international conferences, forums and an opportunity to meet with each other. And it was a fabulous sort of learning. I'm just trying to think of the right word, but it was sort of like this cauldron of people who were struggling with how to solve a lot of crises and how to design programs and training that would be really useful... The "apprenticeship" nature of the trainer preparation was captured in these comments: • I got a contract and... I had absolutely no training. I had absolutely no adult education experience. I was terrified. So I just picked up another program and [used] it and brought in experts... to do cross-cultural communications ...I tried to pull it all together... and that's how it started. I learned by experience. • I worked with really good people and I learnedfrom them and I'm grateful to them for that... [I had] chances of working with really good trainers who taught me all kinds of things about what's effective and what's not. You know, there's no perfect model and some things work well in some places and they don't work well in other places Both learners and trainers bring a diverse set of experiences to the certificate program. As is apparent in the findings discussed in this and in the following chapters, these experiences influenced their views of the program and their interaction with others. As facilitators, it is important to "recognize that we are only a part - however important - of a whole set of forces affecting the growth of our students" (Daloz, 1999, p. 183). What Does Learning Mean? Merriam and Caffarella (1999) point out that "learning defies easy definition" (p. 248) "although.. most definitions include the concept of behavioral change [or potential for change]" (p. 249). Mezirow's (1991) theory of transformative learning offers one lens through which to view the individual changes described by learners. Mezirow (1991) states that "making meaning is central to what learning is all about" (1991, p. 11). He describes four processes of learning as meaning-making: extending existing frames of reference; learning new frames which complement existing "meaning schemes"; transformation of meaning schemes through a disorienting experience which leads to questioning assumptions underlying existing perspectives; and perspective transformation over time. 108 The first type of learning involves learning more about something we already know, such as "naming" an experience. For example, theory relating to women's ways of knowing may resonate with a learner who has experienced gender discrimination. In the second type of learning, a learner may integrate this understanding with theories of systemic discrimination in organizations. The third type of learning might occur when the learner interacts with a visible minority woman assuming they have the same experience. The woman may react to the learner with anger, throwing the learner off-balance and causing her to reflect on her assumptions. The learner then recognizes that there is a layer of systemic racism which, in fact, she may represent and enact to the other woman. This recognition changes the way she sees her relationship with the other woman and her understanding of the other woman's experience. It causes her to rethink her assumptions about gender and race. The fourth type of learning, gradual perspective transformation, is one which the learner may not recognize until some years later. Upon reviewing her hiring and training procedures from several years earlier, the learner may be surprised at how much her approach has changed.14 The four processes do not constitute a linear process. Individuals may experience any or all of these aspects of learning. All the learners in the study described extending existing meaning frames, learning new frames, and questioning their assumptions. Several learners described a cumulative, gradual transformation of perspectives of which they were not aware until some time after completing the program. Nonetheless, I have been hesitant to use the term transformative to describe the learning process. As Brookfield (2000) says: No matter how much it might be described as an incremental process, transformative learning has for me connotations of an epiphanic, or apocalyptic, cognitive event ~ a shift in the tectonic plates of one's assumptive clusters.. .having a more informed, nuanced, sophisticated, or deeper understanding of something (such as an idea, an assumption, or an educational practice) is not, for me equivalent to transformative learning.. .1 believe that many working adult educators have this understanding of the word transformative, (p. 139 -140) 1 4 This example was inspired by the experience of one learner in the study. It has been adapted for purposes of illustration and modelled after Dr. Dan Pratt's (1998) examples of Mezirow's four processes of learning. 109 Brookfield's reflections on the meaning of transformative have helped me identify my reluctance to characterize the learner experiences in this study as transformative. Several learners described "aha" moments in which they achieved new insight into intercultural interactions. However, only one learner described an experience that might be characterized as a disorienting catalyst for rethinking her core assumptions. Her story inspired my example of the four learning processes, and is included as part of "individual change" in this chapter. The lack of a disorienting episode is perhaps not surprising given the prior intercultural experiences and training experienced by the learners. Several learners talked about experiences outside of the training program which would be considered as transformative in the sense of "causing a fundamental reordering of the paradigmatic assumptions" (Brookfield, 2000, p. 140). One learner described an experience from many years earlier saying: I'm a perfect WASP. I came from a totally White Anglo Saxon Protestant family. We worked hard and [I assumed] we were only successful because we worked hard. It had nothing to do with anything else. [I had] a fairly protected life. We were economically fine. [I went overseas to work] and all of a sudden I discovered that I didn't really do all this by myself. I was just born lucky. [I was] in the right place at the right time and just happened to come from this culture that controls a lot of other things. And that [was] a battering to find that out because [I had] to turn around and examine everything about my own values. This event caused the learner to rethink her sense of self in the world; it was truly a disorienting experience. The learners I interviewed did not describe having this type of experience in the Intercultural Studies program. However, many of them did describe the program as an integrating experience. Clark (1993), cited by Taylor (2000) and Merriam and Caffarella (1999), pays attention to the influence of context on perspective transformation. Clark (1993) suggests that "integrative circumstances" also trigger transformative learning. Taylor (2000) describes these circumstances, for example, participating in an adult education program, as "a more subtle [event] and less profound, providing an opportunity for exploration and clarification of past experiences" (Taylor, 2000). From this perspective, the Intercultural Studies program may be seen as an integrating experience leading to transformation. 110 Mezirow's model has been critiqued for its focus on internal change without attention to social context (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). In recent years, Mezirow (2000) has acknowledged that learning takes place in a social, cultural, historical context but this context is not central to his theory. Situated learning theorists such as Lave and Wenger (1991), on the other hand, raise concern about the notion of "knowledge [as] largely cerebral" (p. 41) and argue that "learning, thinking, and knowing are relations among people in activity in, with, and arising from the socially and culturally structured world" (p. 51). They suggest that "in contrast with learning as internalization, learning as increasing participation in communities of practice concerns the whole person acting in the world" (p. 49). I am uneasy with an either/or proposition — learning as internalization or learning as social practice. Listening to the stories of the learners, it seemed to me that there was a process of internal change occurring at the same time as learners engaged in constructing knowledge through both the online learning community and their community of practice. I will explore this process in Chapter Six, Learning in the Midst of Everyday Practice. During my conversations with learners, I explored both what they learned and how they applied this learning, including sharing with others in their workplaces. As discussed in Chapter Three, these learner experiences can be viewed through multiple lenses, including situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), diffusion (Rogers, 1995), and application (Ottoson, 1997). Lave and Wenger (1991) describe sharing with others as the "social reproduction of communities of practice" (p. 57). Rogers (1995), too, contemplates the transfer of learning as a process of diffusing learning to others in a social context. He suggests that this occurs through "both the planned and the spontaneous spread of new ideas" (Rogers, 1995, p. 7). Spontaneous diffusion occurs when individuals seize an opportunity as it arises to share learning. Planned diffusion describes a dissemination of new ideas in a more formal way, such as a training session or policy implementation. Although learners in this study did not use the language "planned" and "spontaneous" diffusion, all the learners gave examples of one or the other, and sometimes both, of these methods of sharing learning. For ease of discussion I will separate the following discussion i l l into individual change and sharing learning. Individual change refers to the understandings, thoughts, feelings, or actions of the learner in interactions with others from different cultural backgrounds, what Ottoson (1997) would call application. Sharing or diffusion of learning refers to the ways in which the learners tried to share their learning with colleagues in order to contribute to change in others or in the system in which they work. Application and diffusion are forms of what I have called, borrowing from Ottoson (1999), "engaging learning". Individual Change ("I think it through more carefully") Many of the learners talked about challenging their assumptions in intercultural interactions. One learner said: / was working on gender issues fin my organization] and I said to L. fan aboriginal woman] "Aboriginal women are discriminated against and that must be a concern for you. " I made the assumption that it would be a concern for her... and it became a sore point with L. that I couldn 't understand that it was aboriginal people who were discriminated against [and that it wasn 't related to gender]. Now, the research I have supports aboriginal women are more discriminated against than aboriginal men. So it's not just aboriginal, it's a gender [issue], too. Especially in this organization. So the aha moment came when I [realized] that I had made this carte blanche assumption, thinking that she would understand because we were both women, and really for her, the primary identifier was that she was aboriginal, not a woman. Andfor me, I was a woman, not an aboriginal... Given the learning with the certificate I would not say [something like] that anymore. Iwouldn't even make that assumption with anybody I happened to meet ...I've got to be careful with my assumptions. You know, I probably would not have known that and I think that's the greatest gift that I've gotten from the course. I would not have know that if I hadn't taken the course. Challenging assumptions was at the top of her mind for another learner who said: / don't assume as much anymore. I don't assume that the person is thinking or seeing it the way I see it. I'm a bit more cautious. I've got it in the back of my mind that I can't make all these assumptions, that I have to check this out before I move forward. I have to think it through more carefully. It's heightened my sensitivity. I'm more aware of the complexity [of cross-cultural interactions] and I have to keep learning about it. Another learner summarized her learning in three key points, emphasizing the need for self-understanding as the first step to understanding and adapting to others: 112 Through the courses [I learned] that one - you '11 do it [make assumptions]; two - it's natural to do it [and] you need to understand your [preconceived] notions; three — that you can control it... In order to be successful in cross-cultural interactions you need to understand yourself first. You need to understand who you are, why you are the way you are [and] how you became that way. You need to... really explore that ...I think it's really important to understand, when you go into interactions with someone, why something they do bothers you... You can't explore that unless you understand who you are. Once you 're comfortable with that, then you '11 be willing to do what I think is really important. You '11 be willing to adjust and change. For one learner, what began as a necessity for tolerance has become something she welcomes. In her words: /'ve tried to do away with my own stereotypes, to look deeper, to take time to see where people are coming from, to see the value in the way they think, to be tolerant. At first, it was out of necessity, now I enjoy it. The process of "thinking it through" is an invisible one, although the effects might be visible to someone who has interacted with the learner before. For instance, it might be apparent that the learner is asking more or different kinds of questions or working through issues differently. Unseen cognitive processes contribute to the challenge of understanding what difference training makes for individuals. The changes are internal and their external manifestation is not necessarily obvious to others. One person described the following learning, which changed both her thinking and her behaviour in ways that would not be necessarily be apparent to someone else: I had a real aha experience when I was talking to a friend of mine [as part of a course assignment for Problem-solving] who is an aboriginal man and he said something like "Sometimes it's not a problem ". We 're always into this solving of problems. And I [had] this aha experience — maybe it's not a problem for [the other personJ but I see it as a problem ...I thought, he's absolutely right. We may see a problem from our cultural perspective but [the other person] might not recognize it as a problem. So, it 'syour problem, it's not their problem. So you don't have to take control. It's just letting it sit, you know? Sometimes you do. You just let something sit. We don't always have to act. I think it's a Western European belief that you have to fix it. You have to act on it. It was a real aha kind of thing for me. One learner described receiving feedback from employees who noticed her behaviour change: 113 The Communication Skills course...helped me a lot to bring back to my work... I [understood] that people use time and silence differently than I do and that's okay but I need to be more sensitive to that and allow them the time to digest what I was saying. And understand the silence. I shouldn't panic at silence. That helped me personally and professionally ...I've always been one to jump right in and just hear myself. But by listening, I could understand how to respond... A primary adjustment I've made is when I'm having one-to- one conversations with people at work, particularly those who work for me. [I allow ] periods of silence that I don't interpret as it's now my opportunity to speak or clarify. I allow them that time for processing... as a normal part of the conversation. I consciously wait so that the processing time is there and people can complete their thoughts versus jumping in. I used to talk in almost a staccato style because as soon as you finish your sentence I'm right there. Even before you've ended your sentence. It's made a lot of difference. I've received feedback [from colleagues] that they feel like I'm really listening to them. I give them the opportunity to share ideas with me and they feel comfortable to do that because there is no time limit, because I'm just listening. I'm focused on them and I'm quiet. And, because of that they just feel valued. So it's been very positive. While most of the learners described work related experiences, two learners described personal changes. For one person, her involvement in a specific activity in a specific course increased her sensitivity to her spouse: With "Ensuring Success in International Assignments" [there was] a checklist [which had] all of the things you need to think about when you go internationally. [It had] all of the things you think about for your spouse and your children and it was "Wow!" I never thought it was that much. To be honest, you don't always think about how your spouse is going to adjust. You just figure they 're going to because you have to. So that really jumped out because I wasn 't really thinking about my spouse ...It really sensitized me to what the spouse goes through. It made me think really hard about whether it's right for me and my spouse. For a minority culture learner, it was the opportunity throughout the program to address issues of race that created a shift in her perceptions of herself and others in interracial interactions: / think in the beginning when we started talking about issues of race, it really took me back to high school. There's still a lot of emotion around that stuff. When I started talking about it and opening up all these issues again, it became quite emotional for me. I started second guessing everything that happened to me. I got to deal with that. I found a way to go back and bring 114 closure to some things and then come back to a place where I have this happy medium, and hopefully a healthy outlook on how I see these things. One example of a shift for this learner was her willingness to engage in potentially conflictual discussions of culture, which she described as follows: There is one incident I remember with a woman from the Philippines...! really admired her research project and decided that I wanted to go out to dinner and pick her brains. I decided to open it up to other people in the office in case they were interested. As an introduction I sent out [the abstract from her thesis - research on violence against women in a small community] to people in the office and a couple offriends as well... One of my friends, who was the only guy invited, emailed me back with all of these questions and things that he didn't necessarily agree with in her abstract so we got into this debate. It lasted a month over email. We were getting into things about culture, and it was great. I don't know if I would have taken it that far if I hadn't had this training, [and developed] the confidence to talk about some of the [feelings I had]. The changes in confidence, empathy, and challenging assumptions described by these learners may not be immediately recognized by others, except perhaps friends or colleagues who observe the individual before, during, and after the training, or other learners or facilitators with whom they have interacted over time. One facilitator said "you will see some people [return to] some of the issues and you [think] they've tried something different or they are now really thinking hard about it". Another facilitator commented on the subtle changes they observed in language and "the attitudes that were implicit within the language", for example: Sometimes [I would see change in] the language and attitudes that were implicit within the language. Somebody talking about a particular group with whom they were working [might use] language of exclusion [like] "those people " and the stereotyping [that went along with the it]. Then [I would notice] a shift from that to self-questioning. [In a more obvious example] there was one person I remember particularly who started out saying "I struggled with this exercise you've asked me to do because this is all pat stuff and been there, done that". Later, on [she said] "Wow! Wasn't I arrogant? Look what I said in my first piece. I said X. Now I see that what I was saying was reflecting a particular attitude. I see that differently now and you've helped me to understand that. " Several learners commented on their increased empathy for others. One learner described taking the time to meet with an employee to get to know more about him. In the process she 115 discovered that he had experience delivering training in German. She invited him to design a new course and "his eyes lit up". She told him "I [will] take it to our manager and you're going to get credit for it." The learner attributed her increased empathy for the employee and willingness to spend more time with him to her participation in the "Managing Intercultural Teams" course. She described the learning as "a gift". One dominant culture learner gave a particularly detailed example of how her learning from the program changed her interaction with a young Asian student. She shifted from impatience to empathy and support as she understood the cultural values that may have been affecting the student's behaviours. For example, his reluctance to see a counsellor may be due to different cultural views of mental health professionals. His difficulty in speaking to his parents may have been related to traditional filial obligation. The learner described the situation and her response this way: I see so many students, and they have so many excuses for why they haven't done things. Sometimes you can just get jaded about it. I know from what I've learnedfrom Intercultural Studies that it would take a great deal for a young Asian man to break down to tears. I just have more empathy for him. And I treat him differently. I'm not — what's the word I want — cut and dry with him. It's like "Okay, I understand now that this is making him really upset. " Where before I would have [thought] "Oh, just another kid who isn 7 doing what he's supposed to in school and now he's upset. " [Now] I '11 listen to him more, find out what we can do, find out where he can go next, and understand why he doesn 7 go there. Then not get angry about the fact that he doesn 7 do what you tell him to do. Because it's not part of the cultural background to go and open up and tell [everything]. [For example] This would be the kind of student [to whom] I would tend to say "You need to go and see the counsellor. You need to go right away. Would you like me to make an appointment? " So then I would do that [but] I'm not allowed to ask whether they go or no...I [might] never see him again [and] he could end up being suspended. But I wouldn 7 [say to myself] "why didn 7 he do what I told him to do? " [I would realize that his behaviour] made sense... If I did end up getting him back into the office, I can ask him if he's gone to counselling and I can also ask him ...if there is someone in [the] family [who could help]. "If you 're having problems with your parents [about] how much time it takes you [to study] and therefore you can 7 work in the family store, is there someone else thai the family knows and respects. Maybe someone who's in business, like an uncle, who understands the importance of getting a degree, that could talk to your parents. Also, [I would] say to him, "It makes 116 sense that your parents wouldn 't understand this. They've never been through this. All they've done is work really hard to keep the store going. They haven't come to university and it would be very difficult for them to understand the demands that are made on you. " [And I would say] "Can you go to counselling, because they can teach you skills to talk about that with your parents. They 're not 'head shrinkers'. They are people who teach you skills. " While most of the learners discussed their learning in terms of verbal communications with others, several commented on how the training affected their sensitivity to racial, cultural, political and power issues in written documents. One learner described how her awareness had changed with regard to relationships with First Nations communities: [In one of our internal memos someone wrote] "We want to work with a [First Nations group] so that we can take advantage of their connections to [the community] ". [But] we don't want to "take advantage of". Three years ago I may not have even noticed that. All sorts of things came in [to my office recently] and I just crossed them off and put in other words. They say the same thing, but it doesn 't put us in a relationship of 'power over weak'...So we don't want to say "we want to take advantage of you. " We say "we would like to partner with you and together we will work ...to provide [opportunities] for your people. [When I was thinking about the words] "we want to take advantage of", [it sounds like] "we '11 use all of your resources. " Now, that may not have even phased me three years ago. That learning has come for the program and then it's been sensitized with working with the communities. A second learner who spoke about interacting with First Nations communities said: [Being in the program] just gave me a lot more confidence to keep going [with my recommendations for communications to First Nations communities]. I worked that way, anyway, but this gave me more confidence to [be assertive] about what will work and what won't work in communicating with [people in the First Nations community]. A third individual described his experience working with committees from a number of provinces to develop a strategic planning document. His participation in the Intercultural Studies program heightened.his sensitivity to language as a "trigger" for cultural and power issues between Canadians in Quebec and Ontario: On the basis of regular telephone conferences I drafted a strategic document. The document has been sent out to a whole lot of committees... [After receiving feedback] I sent out... the last draft... All of a sudden I got a letter 117 from Quebec directed two levels higher than me. It was not sent to me. It was not an e-mail. It was a hard copy letter which meant they were really upset. I had an hour conversation with the [person] in Quebec about what their [concerns] were. At that time I thought that the Intercultural Studies course came in handy because of course their context is different from our context. There's quite a cultural difference in the way the world is viewed. The particular example here is the use of the word strategy in the singular versus the use of the word strategies in the plural... I thought that if you use the singular it refers to Canada as a whole, and Quebec of course, does not subscribe to that notion, so the word strategies means that every province and territory has its own strategy. Together they form strategies and then you make them cooperative and it becomes cooperative strategies rather than cooperative strategy. ...I have no problem changing the singular to the plural... One thing I should say is that if I had not taken the Intercultural training I might have been much less equanimous to that request. I [was] not phased by this. I just took it all in stride. I wasn't irritated. Whereas if I hadn't taken the training I might not have been as quick to catch onto the fact that, of course, they live within their context, and I live within my context. Sharing Learning ("Offering other perspectives") Rogers (1995) suggests that innovations, ideas, or practices that an individual perceives as new, are communicated in a spontaneous or planned way by individuals to others in a social system. He proposes that there are five steps in the adoption of new ideas by others: knowledge of the idea; persuasion to view the idea favourably or unfavourably; decision to adopt or reject the idea; implementation of the idea and confirmation or reinforcement of the decision. He further suggests that there are five characteristics of innovations that make them easier or more difficult to adopt: the relative advantage of the new idea; the compatibility with existing values and norms; the complexity of the innovation; the trialability or opportunity for experimentation, and the observability of the results to others. In this study, I did not talk with other members of a social system. I had access only to the learner, or what Rogers (1995) would call an "early adopter"15 who embraced a new idea. I will discuss their perceptions of the diffusion or sharing process, beginning with a discussion of spontaneous diffusion. I use this term with caution in the context of organizational development. Kapoor (1999) points out that the notion of early and late adopters of innovation in an international development context contains value judgments symbolic of the power of whiteness. The terminology is emblematic of "The assumption, by the overindustrialized world, of 'knowing what is best' for the less industrialized world" (p. 261). 118 Spontaneous Diffusion ("I don't see myself as a beacon, but...") Rogers (1995) suggests that we are more likely to pay attention, and respond positively, to new ideas when they are introduced by someone with whom we have a common culture. He states that: When [individuals] share common meaning, a mutual subcultural language, and are alike in personal and social characteristics, the communication of new ideas is likely to have greater effects in terms of knowledge gain, attitude formation and change, and overt behavior change, (p. 19) From the work I have done with cross-cultural teams, Rogers' comments make sense. It is difficult for outsiders or newcomers, and especially difficult for someone who is both, to have their ideas heard. One of the key components of intercultural team building workshops involves looking at the factors that affect who is included, who is excluded, who is listened to, whose opinions and knowledge are valued. At the same time as it can be difficult for outsiders to be heard, there is also a risk for insiders who try to introduce changes. While a "like insider" may increase the potential for other individuals to listen to new ideas, the early adopter may be seen as breaking rank with the group. One learner described his informal approach to sharing knowledge as a process of persuading his co-workers of the value in changing their behavior toward clients. As can be seen in the following example, the learner communicates his insights and suggestions carefully so as to slowly build credibility. He does not want to alienate his colleagues by sending the message that he knows more than they do, as he expressed in the following statements: I'm dealing with a homogeneous group of [colleagues]. ...I reach into the tool bag of intercultural [techniques] and try to find something to get me over that hill [of other people's assumptions about the clients] ...I don't see myself as some beacon but hopefully what I have to say is going to have some effect when those people that I'm working with are out there [doing their jobs]. I try not to bring up [my ideas] ad nauseam because then it would just become "there's that guy saying that again ". Sol try to pick my shots and make an effect with it there. And it's generally accepted very well. I've never seen racists or bigot in our [organization]. What I have seen is people that have very strong personalities ...If I go in there and start to tell them exactly 119 how I want them to do everything, I'd get beat down pretty quick. [There are two approaches I can use]. One is to tell them what I think is going to happen [if they act in a certain way] and then they can accept it. The other one is they can ignore it and go out and if it happens I can phone them up and say "see I told you so ". Both of those really work. It's not so much rubbing their face in it, it's just that you know these things will [happen]... I would say that's my goal is [to build credibility]. Another learner who has a supervisory role described sharing of knowledge "in the moment": The people in [my] office have some need to be exposed [to the training]. One of the team leaders here is an American [woman] who had some difficulty understanding that in some other branches of the company people do not operate based on the same values. [For example, in Sweden] they have to pick up the kids from the State owned kindergarten. They are not going to stay late. [She questioned] "But why do we have to wake up early to meet [by conference video] with them? " [I answered] "Because we are not Swedes and we are dedicated to our work and we don't care about being here at six a.m. " Maybe we can accommodate both systems of values. I'd like her to...understand that there are different systems of values. Several learners commented in general terms about their informal approach to sharing their learning. One person said: I remember wishing I could take [one of the facilitators] and put [her] in my office because I thought that the [workshop] was amazing. By the time you got through the whole weekend, you really felt that you could do things with a group of people to get them more unified...I try to [share what I learned] informally because there are several distinct cultures in the group and they do tend to misunderstand each other's motives for doing things... my life would be a lot easier [if more people at work took the training]. It's too bad more people don't do it. In this case the individual does not have formal power in the organization, and was hoping that others would follow her example to participate in the training. To her disappointment, they did not. From her comments it sounded as though the lack of interest from the departmental supervisor may have contributed to the lack of participation by others. Another learner spoke about helping colleagues to see another point of view. She said: When I [have] discussion with my colleagues [when] they 're sharing with me... issues they 're having with certain people, I play the role of helping them 120 see it from the other side. I try to make sure they 're not stuck in their paradigm. [I suggest] maybe [the other person] was thinking this...just trying to open up their mind a little bit to that particular situation -- not agreeing or disagreeing but trying to add something useful. She offered this example of trying to help another manager think through misunderstandings about a co-worker from a different cultural background: / remember having a conversation [at work] with a manager. [I was] offering other perspectives because of something that had happened in the past with the termination of a manager who was from Hong Kong. The comment that the manager made was that they just weren 't performing. I was helping that individual, who is Canadian, to understand, or at least see it from the other side that the expectations could have been different, that there were some cultural differences. Some of the things he pointed out [as problems] were very North American. I was just sharing some thoughts and that person was very open to it. They said "hey, I never thought of that and I can keep that in mindfor the future ". So that was good. Another learner described an interaction in which he was not able to convince a team leader of the "validity of another [cultural] perspective". Instead, he found a way to intervene in the situation to try to save face for a team member: There was one case when we [had just gone] to self-managed teams. In one of the teams there was a Chinese fellow and I started discovering — it took a while to figure it out — hierarchy was very important to him. Culturally speaking [the team leader] was the opposite extreme of what we read in the books about oriental cultures. I tried to use what I learned but I'm not so sure I was successful. I could not convince [the team leader] of the validity [of another perspective]... He's a hard core computing expert. Here I'm stereotyping already but in his world things have lots of structure and if it ain't got structure it's worth nothing. The Chinese fellow was very obstinate in his ways but he used what I clearly recognized from our classes the methods open to him to express his obstinacy. He was very deferent to authority. He was never open in his criticism. Everything was implicit and there [were] lots of hints between the lines that never got recognized... It was very difficult for me to sort out the intercultural side from the work issues and so it became all a bit messy... In the end he had to leave the team because our teams were given full rights to vote a member out, and [we knew they were going to vote him out] which in my opinion [would] make him lose face...I did a lot of shuttle diplomacy and before he got kicked out by his team, I transferred him. On the surface face was saved. I think the [courses at UBC and another college] influenced me. 121 Another learner described her approach with a colleague who was frustrated with the behaviour of her teenage son who was about to embark on an overseas study trip. The learner explained how her learning from the program gave her the insight to coach her colleague: One of my staff members has a young son who... had an opportunity to go and live and work and study in China one summer. He was terribly excited about this wonderful opportunity. And as time went on, she was becoming more and more frustrated with him because he had done no preparation. He had done no packing. [With just two weeks before he left] he hadn 't done anything except get his passport. We were talking one day and I said, "Has it ever occurred to you that he's scared? He's excited, but he's frightened. He's going to something totally unknown. It's like walking off the pier and not knowing how deep the water is. " She came back a couple of days later and said "Thank you for that. That's exactly what was going on. " [Before taking the program] I wouldn 't have seen the cultural [aspect]. [I wouldn 't have recognized] that it was such a huge step to go into that setting without really knowing [what it would be like]... It's one of the things I try and keep in mind whenever I'm working with international students. How would I feel if I were in a like situation? How would I react? And would I just sit there and go "uh? " to every sentence because I [would be] working so hard, not only to [translate] the language, but to [translate] the meanings. [And I would be struggling] to interpret what was going on and what is expected [of me because] it's just so foreign to everything I've ever known and ever been taught. All the learners described informal, spontaneous efforts to share their learning as situations arose in their work environments. With regard to planned change, seven of the learners shared examples of efforts to introduce change in a more formal way. Their stories are highlighted in the next section. The other learners did not have the authority to initiate formal programs or policies. They were limited to trying to achieve change informally through their collegial spheres of influence. Planned Diffusion ("You win some, you lose some") One individual started with an informal approach before approaching his Human Resources department with a recommendation. He used a course assignment as a basis for sharing some of his thoughts with the team he managed. He felt that this led to a better understanding of head office and departmental unit dynamics: 122 I focused on the value orientations that I thought would have the biggest impact on getting the work done, and that is the approach to time. [I also considered] the approach to hierarchy [and] public versus private space [and] individualism versus collectivism. It was not a thorough study by any means. I talked to some people in my unit and I knew my unit inside out and I talked to a number of people at head office...I came to the conclusion that there were a couple of very noticeable and strong cultural differences. It made me recognize places where it was obvious that there would be problems in interaction because there was a different outlook on the work. .. With respect to hierarchy, [at] head office, the hierarchical structures were observed much more than in my unit. Second, with respect to the difference between public space and private space — in head office private space was more important than in our unit... Time in head office was much more structured. In our unit it was less structured but more urgent. The learner then made a proposal to the Human Resources department to do a survey of the groups to confirm his initial observations. There had always been tension between the field offices and the learner hoped that sharing the results of such a survey could contribute to improving communication and relationships. He had the authority to use the information within his own group, but "there was no money" to implement his proposal organizationally. He was disappointed but optimistic that he had planted the seeds for change. As he put it: You win some and you lose some... The very fact that I was able to get the unit of Human Resources interested was [an] achievement. [It] opened their eyes to this kind of approach [but] they didn 't have the resources to put behind it. Budget considerations were cited by other learners as a factor in implementing widespread change. Two learners discussed the challenges of organizing cultural orientation or briefing programs for staff with international assignments. One person commented on her frustration in trying to talk to people in her organization about offering international briefings, saying: When people are transferred internationally I have yet to see someone [receive] any type of training or acclimatization to where they 're going. They 're just sent. [I wonder why more corporations don't do this kind of training]. [They 're] moving people all over the place and this type of training is affordable, or [the organization] could work with the [academic] institution to get something catered to their specific needs. I was [surprised] because most of the participants [in the program] were from education and academia [not business] ...It could be funding. When corporations... are trying to save money, a lot of times [it is] pulled from the training budget. 123 Another spoke of her frustrations in trying to get organizational support to develop an orientation program: [When doing business with other countries] they didn 't allow us any time to get over those cultural differences. It was never included in the training plan. I said, "What we really need is an orientation program ". Now when we 're talking about doing work in other countries...I [try to] build that intercultural component [into the plan]. If we arefsending or receiving delegations] there should be a [cultural] briefing... [One of the problems, though] is that [it's hard] to get organizational support [because everyone] is pushing themselves to the very end to meet deadlines. [We were able to arrange a briefing] on the fly. And they didn 7 support it incountry so essentially a lot of the [people] took their manual and when [we] followed up on it afterward and asked 'did you actually use it? ", they said, "You know, I didn 7 even get a chance to open it. " I think in a way our company let them down and they still expected them to be fully functional with the customer, and they weren 7 interested in the cultural differences. Learners also faced challenges in implementing domestic diversity training. One learner was actively involved in a diversity working group that was trying to increase awareness, understanding, and acceptance of individuals with diverse backgrounds in the organization. She described her challenge in this way: "Sometimes when I talk about the diversity working group I get a negative response from others. Sometimes I am able to make them see [why we have this group]. Sometimes I don't have the energy." She felt that individuals in the organization have so many preconceived notions about what diversity means (i.e., employment equity or affirmative action for "special" groups) that it is difficult to implement change. Another learner who coordinates diversity training for her organization described the