56 |

References

Anderson-Umana, Lisa

2010 “Di erences in Power Distances May Make Harmony on a Multicultural Team More Challenging.” Common Ground Journal 8 (1): 21–32.

Azghari, Youssef, Erna Hooghiemstra, and Fons Van de Vijver https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1155.

2017 “ e Historical and Social-Cultural Context of Acculturation of Moroccan-Dutch.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 8 (1): 1–32.

Battaly, Heather

2017 “Responsibilist Virtues in Reliabilist Classrooms.” In Intellectual Virtues and Education: Essays in Applied Virtue Epistemology, edited by Jason S Baehr, 163–83. New York, NY: Routledge.

Berry, J. W., Uichol Kim, omas Minde, and Doris Mok 1987 “Comparative Studies of Acculturative Stress.” e International Migration Review 21 (3): 491–511. https://doi. org/10.2307/2546607.

Bourhis, Richard Y., Léna Céline Moïse, Stéphane Perreault, and Sacha Senécal https://doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629.

1997 “Towards an Interactive Acculturation Model: A Social Psychological Approach.” International Journal of Psychology 32 (6): 369–86.

Brown, George

2011 “E ective Cross-Cultural Ministry Teams.” In Re ecting God’s Glory Together: Diversity in Evangelical Mission, edited by A. Scott Moreau and Beth Snodderly, Kindle 2684-3036. Evangelical Missiological Society Series 19. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Crisp, Richard J., and Rhiannon N. Turner

2011 “Cognitive Adaptation to the Experience of Social and Cultural Diversity.” Psychological Bulletin 137 (2): 242–66. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0021840.

Danso, Ransford

2018 “Cultural Competence and Cultural Humility: ACritical Re ection on Key Cultural Diversity Concepts.” Journal of Social Work 18 (4): 410–30. https://doi. org/10.1177/1468017316654341.

Du , Patricia A

2008 “Language Socialization, Participation and Identity: Ethnographic Approaches.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, edited by N. Hornberger et al., 2nd ed., 3:107–19. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.

Foronda, Cynthia, Diana-Lyn Baptiste, Maren M. Reinholdt, and Kevin Ousman

2016 “Cultural Humility: A Concept Analysis.” Journal of Transcultural Nursing 27 (3): 210–17. https://doi. org/10.1177/1043659615592677.

Hockett, Eloise, Linda Samek, and Scot Headley

2012 “Cultural Humility: A Framework for Local and Global Engagement.” International Christian Community of Teacher Educators Journal 8 (1): 1–13.

Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov

2010 Cultures and Organizations: So ware of the Mind. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hook, Joshua N

2014 “Engaging Clients with Cultural Humility.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 33 (3): 277–80.

Jiang, Mei, Raymond J. Green, Tracy B. Henley, and William G. Masten

2009 “Acculturation in Relation to the Acquisition of a Second Language.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 30 (6): 481–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630903147898.

58 |

Jones, Ward E

2012 “Higher Education, Academic Communities, and the Intellectual Virtues.” Educational eory 62 (6): 695–711. https:// doi.org/10.1111/edth.12005.

Kidd, Ian James

2016 “Intellectual Humility, Con dence, and Argumentation.” Topoi 35 (2): 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-015-9324-5.

Kormos, Judit, Kata Csizér, and Janina Iwaniec

2014 “A Mixed-Method Study of Language-Learning Motivation and Intercultural Contact of International Students.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35 (2): 151–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.847940.

Lam, Clara

1994 “American Group Discussion Patterns as Viewed by ESL Students: e Turn-Taking Behavior of Eight Chinese Students Studying in America.” Atlanta, GA: SAMLA. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/234583503_American_ Group_Discussion_Patterns_as_Viewed_by_ ESL_Students_ e_Turn-Taking_Behavior_ of_Eight_Chinese_Students_Studying_in_America.

Moreau, A. Scott

2018 Contextualizing the Faith: A Holistic Approach. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic. http://rbdigital.rbdigital.com.

Porter, Tenelle, and Karina Schumann

2018 “Intellectual Humility and Openness to the Opposing View.” Self and Identity 17 (2): 139–62. https://doi. org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861.

Ritchhart, Ron

2004 Intellectual Character: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Get It. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tadmor, C. T., P. E. Tetlock, and Kaiping Peng

2009 “Acculturation Strategies and Integrative Complexity: e Cognitive Implications of Biculturalism.” Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology 40 (1): 105–39. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022022108326279.

Tervalon, Melanie, and Jann Murray-Garcia

1998 “Cultural Humility versus Cultural Competence: A Critical Distinction in De ...” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 9 (2): 117–25. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233.

Xia, Saihua

2009 “Are ey Ready to Participate? East Asian Students’ Acquisition of Verbal Participation in American Classrooms.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 17 (2): 137–57.

Yang, Ruby, Kimberly A. Noels, and Kristie D. Saumure

2006 “Multiple Routes to Cross-Cultural Adaptation for International Students: Mapping the Paths between SelfConstruals, English Language Con dence, and Adjustment.” https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.11.010.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30: 487–506.

Zhou, Yanqiu Rachel, Della Knoke, and Izumi Sakamoto

2005 “Rethinking Silence in the Classroom: Chinese Students’ Experiences of Sharing Indigenous Knowledge.” https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110500075180.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 9 (3): 287–311.

New wine into new wineskins? Cultural training for the Christian crosscultural workers in the 21st century

Sunny Hong1

Abstract

Most of the cultural training curriculums for Christian cross-cultural workers in the universities in North America have been established in the twentieth century, re ecting how they functioned in the twentieth century. e environment of the Christian cross-cultural workers in the twenty rst century is very di erent from the twentieth century because of globalization, urbanization, multilingual phenomena, technology, diaspora, shorter terms and more di cult visa platforms. erefore, cultural training for Christian cross-cultural workers in the twenty rst century should be di erent from that of the twentieth century to meet the needs of the changing environment. is research surveyed graduates from Dallas International University (formerly Graduate Institute of the Applied Linguistics) to understand what kind of cultural topics are helpful and essential, based on their work settings, and to include new topics to equip them to be more e ective in the twenty rst century.

Text

Most of cultural training curriculums for Christian cross-cultural workers in universities in North America that were established in the twentieth century re ect how they functioned in the twentieth century. e environment of Christian cross-cultural workers in the twenty rst century is very di erent from the twentieth century because of globalization, urbanization, multilingual phenomena, technology, diaspora, shorter terms based and more di cult visa platforms. Christian cross-cultural workers became more multicultural in the twenty rst century than previous centuries. For example, there are about 400,000 missionaries, with Brazil, South Korea and India in the top ten missionary sending countries in 2010 (Bellofatto & Johnson, 2010: 157). e geographic boundaries between the sending and receiving countries has become fuzzy. Technology changed many aspects of Christian cross-cultural workers’ endeavors. One of the potentially major impacts is that, while they are connected to their home through the internet to share their concerns anytime, this may hinder their emersion in the cultures they are working with. erefore, it is necessary to review and evaluate whether current cultural training available at universities where future cross-cultural workers are trained is meeting the needs in current changing environments.

is research surveyed alumni from Dallas International University

(formerly Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics) to understand what kind of cultural topics are helpful and essential, and to include new topics to equip them to be more e ective in the twenty rst century. Dallas International University was founded in March 1998 “to provide training and research opportunities leading to degrees in applied linguistics, culture studies, and development of languages” (Dallas Int’l). eir 1,300 plus alumni serve in over seventy ve countries.

To accomplish the purpose of this research described above, I sent out a survey to 852 Dallas Int’l alumni in April 2019. Ninety-eight surveys were returned. ose people who have served over een years in the eld and who have not taken any courses from the applied anthropology department at Dallas Int’l were eliminated from this research since the purpose of this research is to nd out the e ectiveness of cultural training in the twenty rst century. A er removing irrelevant data, this paper focuses on sixty-seven people who took at least one applied anthropology course at Dallas Int’l and had served in cross-cultural work for up to een years.

e Content of the Survey

e survey had three parts. e rst part was demographic information. e second part listed twenty topics from the various applied anthropology classes, and the participants gave them an evaluation of helpful topics based on a scale from one (not helpful) to six (very helpful). e third was qualitative, asking them for helpful topics and suggestions. e content of the survey is found in the appendix.

Quantitative Data Analysis

is section reports the results of the quantitative data based on the importance/helpfulness/ e ectiveness of the twenty anthropological topics.

Overall data

e participants ranked twenty topics that are covered by various applied anthropology courses at Dallas Int’l from one to six based on the importance and relevance to their cross-cultural work. Here are the topics in the order of signi cance with their scores.

1. Cross-cultural communication (4.8)

2. Worldview, kinship terms, family structure, social organization, ethnographic research methods, cultural di erences in leadership (4.6)

3. Religion, gender, and cultural marriage patterns, culture change, Cultural di erences in decision making, contextualization and syncretism (4.4)

4. Guilt, shame, fear-based culture (4.3)

5. Cross-cultural con ict resolution (4.2)

6. Globalization, multicultural teamwork, grid-group theory (3.9)

7. Multicultural partnership (3.8)

8. Economic systems (3.7)

9. Anthropological theory (3.5) e midpoint indicating between helpful and not helpful is 3.5, and the Anthropological theory marks 3.5 which is the topic that received the lowest evaluation. erefore, in general, the respondents felt that most of the topics they learned at Dallas Int’l are helpful. Cross-cultural communication ranked number one as the most important topic. Out of fourteen topics which were of average importance that received more than four (out of six, maximum value), more than een percent of the participants did not learn the topics of cultural di erences in leadership, contextualization and syncretism and cross-con ict resolution. is shows that a signi cant number of students at Dallas Int’l might have missed these very important topics that could be helpful to their cross-cultural work. e signi cance is not statistical di erent but it indicates that students could not take available classes due to time restrictions, and it opens a door to examine if a required course meets the needs of the students in the twenty rst century.

Data between language workers vs. non-language workers

In the corpus, there were forty-six language workers and twenty-one non-language workers who were involved with church planting, scripture engagement, ethno arts, administrative work, and as a teacher. Non-language workers considered all the topics more important (4.4) than the language workers (4.2), which will be good for further research to understand the reasons. While language workers considered kinship term, ethnographic research methods, and cross-cultural communication the most important topics (4.7), non-language workers thought cross-cultural communication the most important (5.1), then cultural di erences in leadership (4.9), and then guilt, shame, fear-based culture and Culture change (4.8) the next. Only cross-cultural communication overlaps between the two groups and language workers’ priority is traditional cultural anthropology while nonlanguage workers need more practical topics.

e biggest di erence between the two groups is in the area of globalization. While language workers scored 3.6, which is just above midpoint of 3.5, non-language workers scored 4.6. Language workers gave 3.6 on multicultural teamwork but the non-language workers gave 4.5. For both topics, it would also be good to do further research with non-language workers who interact with people from more diverse cultures than language workers.

Data About the Number of Service Years in Cross-Cultural Work

ere were nineteen people who have served up to three years (group A), twenty-seven people from four to ten years (group B), and twenty-one people from eleven to een years (group C). ere are two people who scored either six were not applicable for all twenty questions for both group A and group B.

For group A, economic systems (3.1), social organization (4.1) and worldview (4.2) were relatively low compared to the other groups. For nine people who gave the score from one to three on economic systems, six people live in cities, two people in villages, and one in multiple locations.

is re ects the data di erences between the city (3.5) and village (3.9) on economic systems. ere was no statistical reason detected why group A had low scores on social organization and worldview.

Group B was the most similar to the average score in most of the twenty topics among the three groups; the more important topics for the group B were multicultural partnership (4.2) and multicultural teamwork (4.3) compared to the other groups. Twelve people from group B gave scores between ve and six on both multicultural partnership and Multicultural teamwork but there is no common denominator among the twelve. However, eleven people out of twelve people who scored ve and six on both topics were the same people. is shows a correlation between the topics of Multicultural partnership important and multicultural teamwork.

For group C multicultural partnership (3.1) and multicultural teamwork score (3.6) were relatively low compared to the other groups. ree out of eight people who gave the score from one to three for the multicultural teamwork work in Eurasia and three out of the eleven people who scored from one to three on the multicultural partnership also work in Eurasia. It re ects how people who work in Eurasia score low on multicultural partnership (3) and Multicultural teamwork (3.2). Seven people who scored multicultural teamwork from one to three also scored multicultural partnership from one to three.

Helpfulness of cross-cultural con ict resolution scored 4.3 for group

A, 4 for group B, 4.6 for group C. Considering two people scored six for all twenty questions in both group A & B, these data re ect that longevity of years of service was the reason why this is very important because there is no other signi cant factor in the background for members of group C.

Comparison Between City/Urban vs. Village/Rural irty-four people live in city/urban environments, twenty- ve in village/rural environments, six people in both city and village, one at a translation center, and one in a suburban context. Twenty people out of twenty- ve who live in the village are language workers. According to the di erence between city and village, there was no signi cant di erence except that kinship terms are very important to people who work in rural (5) contexts compared to city dwellers (4.3). Among eighteen people who live in a rural environment, kinship terms scored from ve to six; sixteen people were language workers and one was a non-language worker who always gave six on all topics. A higher score on the kinship terms from language workers (4.7) as opposed to non-language workers (4.2) is not because of their residence but the types of work they are involved in.

Comparison Between SIL and Other Organizations

e di erences of all the topics between SIL and other organizations is less than 0.4 except on four topics where there was more than 0.5 di erences. e reason for SIL workers to consider contextualization and syncretism, ethnographic research and worldview are more important than for non-SIL people is that 70% of SIL workers are language workers in this survey, and those three topics have high scores with the language workers.

Comparison Between Di erent Geographical Locations

ere were seventeen people who work in Africa, twelve in the Americas, twenty in Asia, nine in Eurasia and six in the Paci c, and three people work in multiple continents. People who work in the Paci c valued their anthropology training the most (4.8), and Eurasia the least (4.1). By looking at the overall topics, workers in the Paci c value traditional language topics, as they have high scores for contextualization and syncretism, and worldview (5.5) and kinship terms (5.4), while the lowest is globalization (3.6), and for both economic systems and multicultural teamwork (3.7). Further research is needed to ascertain the reasons why Paci c workers have low scores on globalization, Economic systems, and multicultural teamwork.

Eurasia has the lowest score on anthropology theory (2.3), multicultural partnership (3), multicultural teamwork (3.2) but the highest score on both cross-cultural communication and contextualization and syncretism (5.1), and family structure (5). e reason for having Multicultural teamwork might be that workers in Eurasia are not able to work with crosscultural partners due to security issues but this needs further research to verify the reason. Seven out of nine people live in the city and seven out of nine are language workers, which might be another factor impacting the results.

ere are some signi cant di erences in how di erent topics are helpful in certain geographical locations. Contextualization and syncretism are very important in the Paci c (5.5) but not very high in Africa (3.9). For people who work in the Paci c, the common denominator is the organization they are with and no other common denominators are found. is is another place where more research is needed to understand why Africa scored low on Contextualization and syncretism.

Both the Americas and the Paci c considered cross-cultural communication very important (5.3), but Africa did not value it as high (4.4). ere is no common denominator among people who work in Africa of why cross-cultural communication is less important than in the other areas.

Paci c’s view of cross-cultural con ict resolution is very high (5.2), and Africa is not very high (3.8). ere is no common denominator about why workers in Africa did not value cross-cultural con ict resolution as high as in other places. However, three people who score between two and three on cross-cultural communication also gave a score between two and three on cross-cultural con ict resolution.

Paci c’s score on cultural di erences in decision-making was 4.8, but Eurasia was 3.9. Paci c scored 5 in the cultural di erences in leadership, but Eurasia scored 4.1. No reason is detected why the Paci c has higher scores versus Eurasia with lower scores on those issues.

While culture change for the Americas was 4.7 and Eurasia was 3.8, Eurasia’s family structure was 5 and the Americas was 4.2. ere is no common denominator which makes a higher score on culture change nor lower scores on the Family structure for the Americas, and the same goes with Eurasia. e score for globalization for the Americas was 4.7, but the Paci c’s was 3.6. Both grid-group theory and guilt, shame, fear-based culture for the Paci c was 5, the highest, and the Americas was 3.4, the lowest. Kinship terms were relatively high in all the continents and the highest was the Paci c (5.4); the lowest was the Americas (4). On these topics, there was no common denominator to produce highs and lows both in the Americans and the Paci c. e Paci c scored religion 5.2, the highest, but the Americas scored 3.8, the lowest. Paci c scored social organization 5.2, the highest, but Africa scored the lowest (4.3). ere are no common denominators indicating these di erences.

Both the Americas and the Paci c scored 4.3 on multicultural partnership, but Eurasia scored 3. Asia scored Multicultural teamwork 4.3, the highest, but Eurasia scored 3.2, the lowest. Out of seven people who score multicultural teamwork from ve to six in Asia, ve people are nonlanguage workers, and non-language workers (4.5) gave a higher score on the multicultural teamwork compared to the language workers (3.8) as a whole.

Paci c scored worldview 5.5, the highest, and the Americas scored 4.2, the lowest. e same four people who scored up to three on worldview in the Americas also gave low scores (up to three) to religion.

Comparison Between Master’s Program VS. Non-Degree Program

In terms of the comparison between people who nished a master’s program vs. a non-degree program, the di erences were not very signi cant. People who nished the master’s program valued their cultural training more (4.4) than people who did not work on a master’s program (4.1). Nineteen people out of twenty-two who scored ve to six on ethnographic research were language workers, and two non-language people were the ones who scored six on every topic. Twenty-two people out of twenty-seven people scored Kinship terms from ve to six were language workers, and two non- language people who scored six for everything are included. Twenty people out of twenty-six who scored worldview between ve and six were language workers, and two non-language people who scored six for everything are included. erefore, the reason why these three topics (ethnographic research methods, kinship terms, worldview) are more important to the masters’ degree must be that there are more language workers who need that knowledge for their work. e three topics that the master’s degree program considered more important than people who did not work on their master’s program are in the following chart:

Di erences Between Women vs. Men

ere were thirty-six female and thirty-one male respondents. Women (4.5) considered all the topics more important than men (4.1). e three topics that had the greatest di erence (0.8 di erence) were contextualization and syncretism, ethnographic research methods, and social organization. ere is no reason detected why women consider those topics signi cantly higher than men.

ere were y-nine Americans, seven people from other countries, and one person who did not specify the country. Non-Americans (4.7) in general consider most topics as more important than the Americans (4.2). Two topics di erences that non-Americans scored at least one pointy higher are: cultural di erences in leadership (+1.5) and cross-cultural con ict resolution (+1.2). All non-Americans gave the top score (6) to cultural di erences in leadership, which is the one category that made the maximum score (6). It is understood that most non-Americans are supervised by di erent nationalities than their own, and cross-cultural di erences in leadership are a very real issue for them. At the same time, non-Americans who are coming from harmony/unity seeking cultures consider Con ict resolution (5.3) very important.