Intercultural communicative competence in Hungarian and Slovak contexts
Constructing a qualitative interview schedule
Introduction
E
ffective communication is vital, and the need for it has never been more emphasized than these days when people from different national, cultural and linguistic backgrounds interact in the course of their daily lives. Successful intercultural communication requires a combination of attitudes, knowledge and skills, which became known under the construct intercultural communicative competence (ICC).The highly complex nature of ICC together with apparent inconsistencies in published research require further studies on the construct. To address this need, a series of studies were designed and implemented among Hungarian and Slovak university students between January, 2012 and March 2012. The aim of these studies was to better understand the nature of students’ ICC, to fi nd out how they perceive intercultural situations, how they communicate in intercultural situations, and most importantly to come up with an instrument that sheds light on which variables actually infl uence ICC, so that once knowing these variables, instructors could tailor their teaching to include activities developing ICC. These empirical studies were funded by the generous support of the International Visegrad Fund. This paper presents the construction of the fi nal qualitative interview schedule.
Theoretical Background
One way of describing whether an individual is competent in intercultural situations is to refer to their ICC. Byram (1997) argues for using the term ICC, as it displays and maintains a link with recent traditions in FLT, but at the same time it broadens the concept of communicative competence (CC) in different ways (p. 3). Although Byram places the construct in the context of FLT, he calls attention that FLT cannot and should not claim sole responsibility for the teaching of ICC.
Byram (1997) defi ned ICC in the fi rst chapter of his monograph as the ‘individual’s ability to communicate and interact across cultural boundaries’ (p.7). An individual with intercultural competence (term used by the authors), in Byram and Fleming’s defi nition ‘has the knowledge of one, or, preferably, more cultures and social identities and has the capacity to discover and relate to new people from other contexts for which they have not been prepared directly’ (BYRAM – FLEMMING 1998. 9.). Byram defi ned the IS as someone who, being aware of cultural differences and similarities can function
as a mediator between distinct cultures and diverse sets of beliefs, values and behaviors (BYRAM 2008. 78.).
This leads to the assumption that FLT should focus on educating intercultural speakers (IS), who possessing these qualities, are able to negotiate meaning in interactions involving interlocutors of various cultural backgrounds. The role-model of the native speaker (NS), as the desired outcome of FLT has frequently been challenged ever since Henry Widdowson (1994) raised the issues of ownership and norm-providing in his seminal article.
As Byram (1997) describes, there are at least two grounds for criticizing the NS as the model in FLT. The fi rst is a pragmatic concern: requiring learners to master the foreign language to the same extent its NSs do is an impossible target. Literature in FLT clearly demonstrates the differences in conditions under which learners and NSs learn and acquire the language. The second ground of criticism draws on questions of identity-formation: identifying with the NS model, learners of a language may abandon one language in order to perfectly master another language, and in striving to become accepted members of a new linguistic community they are at the risk of losing their identities (BYRAM 1997. 11., see also KRAMSCH 1998a; NORTON, 1997; 2000). The requirement that learners should adopt the NS as a model is labeled alarming by Jaeger (2001), emphasizing the threat inherent in shifts of power-relations in communication in favor of the NS.
Thus, literature suggests, substituting the NS model with the IS model as the ultimately preferred outcome of FLT is both appropriate and timely (BYRAM 1997, 2003; BYRAM – FLEMMING 1998, JAEGER, 2001, KRAMSCH, 1998b).
The next section aims at justifying the choice of the research design. Qualitative interviewing was regarded as suitable means of data collection for various reasons. I fi nd qualitative interview a useful approach as it provides unique opportunities to gain in-depth understanding of the ways participants shape their beliefs and develop their schemes in connection with intercultural experiences.
Interviews
Qualitative interviews are particularly valuable ways of gathering data in the social sciences. Rubin and Rubin (1995) use the term ’night-vision goggles’ to refer to qualitative interviews, hinting at the fact that this instrument enables researchers to see what is not ordinary on display. In their defi nition, qualitative interviews are extended discussions, in which the researcher gently guides the participant(s) (RUBIN – RUBIN 1995. 4.).
The interview is the most often used method in qualitative inquiries in a variety of contexts for diverse purposes (DÖRNYEI 2007. 134; MACKEY – GASS 2005. 1711). Its prevailing popularity might be due to the fact that it is based on an everyday practice:
conversation, i.e. a basic mode of human interaction (KVALE 1996; DÖRNYEI 2007).
Qualitative interviews go beyond everyday conversations as they employ a careful questioning and listening approach aiming at gathering thoroughly tested information (KVALE 1996. 6).
In the course of the interview the researcher and the interviewee develop a special relationship within a conversational framework that may infl uence the process of interviewing (RUBIN – RUBIN 1995. 79.). There are two metaphors to describe the interviewer’s role: the interviewer as a miner, and the interviewer as a traveler (KVALE
1996. 9). In the fi rst metaphor, the interviewer seeks to dig out knowledge from under the surface, whereas in the latter the interviewer explores the domains of an unknown world through a journey with a fellow traveler (the interviewee). These two metaphors may as well be viewed as representing two distinct understandings of knowledge formation: the miner metaphor depicts the modern understanding that knowledge is given, while the traveler metaphor portrays the postmodern, critical understanding of knowledge as constructed through experience (KVALE 1996. 5.).
The main strength of interviewing is that it is a socially accepted practice of obtaining information and most people feel comfortable with it (DÖRNYEI 2007. 143.). Another advantage is that interviews enable researchers to study participants’ self-reported perceptions and attitudes and in cases of vague answers further information can be elicited (CRESWELL 2003. 186; MACKEY – GASS 2005.173.).
Nevertheless, there are also drawbacks. The fi rst concern is that interviewing requires good communication and social skills. The researcher’s presence may as well bias responses, and it is also crucial that though relaxed atmosphere helps participants to provide fl uent accounts, the setting in which the interview is conducted is not the natural fi eld setting (KVALE 1996; CRESWELL 2003; MACKEY – GASS 2005; DÖRNYEI 2007.).
Interviews can be divided into different types according to the number of participants, thus, we can differentiate between (1) one-to-one interviews and (2) focus group interviews. One-to-one interviews are easier to set up, and they result in in-depth understanding of experiences, feelings and attitudes of a single individual. Focus group interviews on the other hand need more preparation to arrange, nonetheless it is popular, as it yields abundant data (DÖRNYEI 2007. 132–145.). Also, participants may infl uence one another …
Interviews can also be categorized by their degree of structure: (1) structured interviews follow a pre-prepared ‘guide’, and in the course of these interviews researchers have control of the conversation to a great extent and do not allow participants to be off-topic or too verbose. These interviews are ‘verbal questionnaires’ (MACKEY – GASS 2005. 173) and are basically used in situations where a questionnaire would be adequate but not feasible (DÖRNYEI 2007. 135). The second, less rigid category is (2) the semi-structured interview, in which a written list of questions is used by the researcher as a guide, however, the interview is open-ended, and the participant is encouraged to elaborate on arising issues. In case of (3) unstructured interviews only the opening questions are prepared in advance, and the researcher has no directive role in the course of the conversation (MACKEY – GASS 2005. 173–174; DÖRNYEI 2007. 135–136).
A third principle to categorize interviews is the number of sessions. Though (1) single sessions are typical in qualitative research (KVALE 1996. 45; DÖRNYEI 2007.
134), (2) multiple sessions have gained attention recently. However, as Dörnyei notes, the multiple session format is not to be confused with a longitudinal interview study, because the purpose of the former is to arrive at a full account of information, whereas longitudinal interview studies aim to record and document temporal changes (DÖRNYEI 2007. 135).
With regard to these classifi cations, the proposed study is a one-to-one, semi-structured single session interview study involving 2 participants. The study was designed to see how the data collection instrument works in Hungarian and Slovak settings, and to uncover which changes are needed prior to its implementation.
The Interview Schedule
This section presents the interview schedule designed to serve as a data collection instrument in the qualitative study. The interview schedule is meant to be administered with both Hungarian and Slovak participants. The semi-structured nature of the schedule allows for minor modifi cations to fi t the respective context to a greater extent. The language of the interview schedule is English, which is spoken as a FL by the participants. As the future participants are language majors, and have a C1 level English language profi ciency, it is expected that they will be able to speak about their experiences and ideas in English.
The questions were carefully selected based on repeated reading of corresponding theoretical literature and considering fi ndings of related empirical studies.
The questions in the interview schedule help to elicit basic information about the participants’ academic backgrounds, their beliefs about language learning, their ideas about intercultural encounters, their attitude towards other languages and cultures and their motivation.
The fi rst set of questions asks about participants’ backgrounds, their general learner characteristics, their motivation to learn English and become English majors and their attitudes towards foreign languages and cultures.
1. How old are you?
2. How long have you been studying English?
3. If you had to evaluate your English profi ciency on a six-point scale, where one is non-profi cient and six is highly profi cient, how would you evaluate it?
4. Why did you decide to become an English major?
5. Do you speak other languages as well? If yes, which ones?
6. Why do you think English (or other languages) are interesting to study?
7. What would you like to know about English culture?
8. What would you like to know about American culture?
9. Which other cultures do you fi nd interesting?
10. Why do you enjoy studying about culture?
11. How do you feel when you see foreigners in the city where you live?
12. How do you feel when you have the opportunity to visit other countries?
The second set of questions was more specifi c, trying to fi nd answers to how students defi ne and intercultural encounter, what feelings and ideas they associate with such encounters, and what factors they believe help them in overcoming possible breakdowns. These questions were the following:
1. Please describe a previous intercultural experience!
2. Where did it happen?
3. Who were the participants?
4. Can you please describe the context of the encounter?
5. What exactly happened?
6. Which language(s) did you use?
7. Was the encounter successful or unsuccessful? Why?
8. How would you describe your interlocutor?
9. What was your attitude towards your interlocutor?
10. Would you like to meet them again?
11. What would you do differently now?
12. What have you learned from the experience?
Administration
In order to fi nd out whether the questions are clear, and participants would understand them, I conducted a pilot interview with a Hungarian English major. In the pilot session the administration of the interview took 55 minutes. The pilot interview was digitally recorded and transcribed. The participant of the pilot interview understood all the questions and answered them in detail. No modifi cations were needed, as the questions elicited the type of information they were designed to elicit.
As a result, the interview schedule is no ready to be used in the qualitative study. Ten interviews will be conducted in May-June, 2012, fi ve in Pécs and fi ve in Bratislava. The qualitative content analysis of the interview will help us to better understand Hungarian and Slovak English majors’ ICC, and their ideas and feelings concerning intercultural encounters.
Conclusions
This paper presented the construction and piloting of an interview schedule that was designed to better understand Hungarian and Slovak English majors’ intercultural experiences. It was confi rmed that the schedule is ready to use in the study context in both countries. The qualitative studies to be conducted will provide detailed answers on how participants perceive intercultural encounters, what helps them and what hinders their success.
References
BYRAM – FLEMING 1998 = Byram, M., & Fleming, M.: Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective. Cambridge, 1998.
BYRAM 1997 = BYRAM, M.: Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Clevedon, 1997.
BYRAM 2008 = BYRAM, M.: From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship. Clevedon, 2008
CRESWELL 2003 = CRESWELL, J. W.: Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003.
DÖRNYEI 2007 = DÖRNYEI, Z.: Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, 2007
JAEGER 2001 = JAEGER, K. The intercultural speaker and present-day requirements regarding linguistic and cultural competence. In Sprogforum 19. 52–56. Letöltve 2010. szeptember 4-én: http://inet.dpb.dpu.dk/infodok/sprogforum/Eudgiv.html
KRAMSCH 1998a = KRAMSCH, C.: Language and Culture. Oxford, 1998.
KRAMSCH 1998b = KRAMSCH, C. The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram and M.
Fleming (Eds). Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: approaches through drama and ethnography, 16–31. Cambridge: 1998.
KVALE 1996 = KVALE, S.: Interviews: An introduction to qulaitative research interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996.
MACKEY – GASS 2005 = MACKEY, A., & GASS, S.: Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahvah, NY, 2005
NORTON 1997 = NORTON, B.: Language and Identity. Tesol Quarterly, 31(3). 1997
NORTON 2000 = NORTON, B. Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. Essex. 2000.
RUBIN – RUBIN 2005 = RUBIN, H., & RUBIN, I.: Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA, 2005
WIDDOWSON 1994 = WIDOWSON, H. G.: The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 377–389. 1994