Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence - Center for ...

Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence
Once completed forms were returned, RAs tabulated the data gathered from questionnaires and
interviews in their respective languages, following guidelines provided by the project director,
and converted results into English. As forms were received in Vermont, they were coded,
compiled, and inputted into a single combined set (i.e., the Banner Set). Our statistician then
transferred quantitative data into SPSS (the Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for analysis,
and qualitative data were separately analyzed directly from the forms themselves. Details
regarding these analyses are narrated below.
A. Advantages
7. Advantages and Limitations of This Project
As already stated, this initial Project was envisioned as part of a larger follow-on research effort.
Although it involved participants from only three countries, it provided a wonderful opportunity
to finalize the test instrument and pilot the initial survey. This has helped to advance FEIL’s
research interests by allowing us to conceptualize, implement, and pilot both the instrument and
the initial survey. In a follow-on worldwide survey, FEIL will engage all MOs with the capacity
to identify and contact their own alumni.
Two-way assessments (of self and others) like the one used with current volunteers in Ecuador
plus their mentors, are also important and unusual. They obtain dual perspectives and permit
comparing the views of sojourner and hosts. Even though both parties seldom concur, their
differing views are nonetheless instructive. The emic (or host) view of the hosts is seldom
addressed in most studies, yet it is an important research dimension and one that we will attempt
to get at in more depth in the follow-on study, building on our current experience.
Finally, it is instructive to view data from multiple groupings (in this case, the Ecuadorians,
British, and Swiss) and to compare and contrast results by nationality. Points of convergence and
divergence suggest aspects that are “particularist” (pertaining to a single group), while combined
data suggest potentially “universalist” aspects (applying widely to many or all groups).
B. Limitations
The Project’s limitations were primarily the constraints of time, resources, and staffing. For this
reason, a control group allowing the comparison of results with other populations was not
posited. This may be rectified in a continuation study. Possibilities exist for finding individuals
not directly involved in intercultural experiences through the local MOs. We would also like to
learn more about any potential “indirect” benefits accruing to hosts coming into contact with
sojourners.
The Initial Phase Project also faced many variables that cannot be completely controlled. In fact,
the project’s design was both its forte and its challenge; it allowed us to investigate senders and
receivers outside of the United States, but also meant working through research assistants at a
distance. Obviously, we could not directly supervise administration of the survey form nor the
compilation and analysis of initial data in each language involved. We attempted to minimize
discrepancies, however, through guidelines and close communication with our in-country
assistants.
Center for Social Development
Washington University in St. Louis
15