Middle East meets West: Negotiating culturaldifference in international educational encounters

Helen Goodall

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2014

Abstract This paper sets out to evaluate a proposed twelve-month programme of

development aimed at academic staff at a new university in the Kurdistan region of

Iraq. The author uses a model of cultural difference proposed by Dutch social

psychologist Geert Hofstede as her starting point. Reference is also made to the

work of other researchers and to the views of a number of people with first-hand

experience of education in Iraqi Kurdistan. Cultural differences between the Kur-

dish participants on the proposed programme and its British facilitator are a likely

challenge in this kind of project, in particular those associated with collectivist vs.

individualist traditions. Focusing on this divide, some marked differences emerge in

terms of how learning is viewed and approached in the two different countries.

Whilst acknowledging that cultural difference is not confined to national bound-

aries, the author argues that the degree of collectivism or individualism within a

society can be regarded as one of the many significant components of the complex

concept of ‘‘culture’’. She does not attempt to offer any empirical evidence to

support a ‘‘best way’’ to approach international educational encounters. Rather, the

author’s aim is to draw some conclusions to inform and facilitate the design and

delivery of the proposed programme. At the same time, this paper may also offer

some useful insights to those who find themselves in similar situations requiring

them to deliver programmes in environments which are culturally removed from

their own.

Keywords Cultural differences � Individualism � Collectivism � International

educational encounters � Iraqi Kurdistan

Resume Le Moyen-Orient rencontre l’Occident : gerer le fosse culturel dans les

rencontres educatives internationales – L’auteure de cet article se propose d’evaluer

H. Goodall (&)

Faculty of Health, Education and Welfare, University of St. Mark and St. John, Plymouth, UK

e-mail: hgoodall@marjon.ac.uk

123

Int Rev Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11159-014-9423-3

le projet d’un programme de developpement prevu pour douze mois, destine au

personnel enseignant d’une nouvelle universite dans le Kurdistan iraquien. Le

modele de difference culturelle propose par le psychologue social neerlandais Geert

Hofstede lui sert de point de depart. Elle se refere en outre au travail d’autres

chercheurs ainsi qu’aux opinions de nombreuses personnes ayant une experience

educative directe dans le Kurdistan iraquien. Les differences culturelles entre les

participants kurdes au projet et son animateur britannique constituent un defi

probable a ce type de projet, en particulier celles liees aux traditions collectivistes vs

individualistes. A l’examen de ce contraste, des differences marquees apparaissent

en termes de conception et d’approche de l’apprentissage dans les deux pays. S’il

est vrai que les differences culturelles ne s’arretent pas aux frontieres des pays,

l’auteure avance que le degre de collectivisme ou d’individualisme dans une societe

peut etre considere comme l’une des nombreuses composantes significatives de la

notion complexe de « culture ». Elle ne tente pas de fournir les preuves empiriques

etayant le « meilleur moyen » d’aborder les rencontres educatives internationales.

Son objectif consiste a tirer quelques conclusions en vue d’eclairer et de faciliter la

conception et la realisation du programme propose. Cet article peut en outre fournir

quelques eclaircissements utiles aux personnes vivant des situations comparables,

appelees a realiser des programmes dans des environnements culturellement

eloignes de leur propre contexte.

Introduction

There is little doubt of the growth in international education as more students travel

beyond their own national boundaries to study in other countries. Simultaneously,

an increasing number of academics take on assignments overseas (Godwin 2009;

Jones 2005). In particular, there has been a flow to ‘‘Western’’ higher education

institutions (HEIs); in particular to the USA, UK and Australia (Seah and Edwards

2006; Eldridge and Cranston 2009). Yet, at the same time and despite this rapid and

extensive growth, Po Li Tan (2011) highlights that there is still an appalling lack of

awareness of cultural differences within Western learning and teaching environ-

ments. It seems evident that a thorough understanding of the potential impact of

cultural differences on learning and teaching is required by providers to enable them

to respond appropriately in the design and delivery of international educational

encounters (Lawrence 2000; Shulruf et al. 2011; Turniansky et al. 2009; Frankel

et al. 2005).

In 2012, a new staff development initiative for academics in one of the

universities of Iraqi Kurdistan was agreed which will be delivered in four one-week

blocks over a twelve-month period. This will be a modified version of a

postgraduate programme which has proved successful in the UK. As the facilitator

of this programme, and having previously worked both in a variety of overseas

settings and with international learners visiting the UK, I am aware of the need to

pay attention to cultural differences. As with any social interaction, learning settings

are culturally mediated (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005). From my own experience, I

am sceptical of any attempts to simply transport a programme that may have

H. Goodall

123

successfully met its objectives in one environment or context directly into another.

Indeed, working with a variety of organisations within the UK already frequently

necessitates a bespoke approach to respond to organisational cultural differences. As

Troy Heffernan et al. (2010) argue, ‘‘one size does not fit all’’, and in order to

provide successful transnational education programmes, it is essential to understand

both the needs of the learners and how they learn.

Maureen Rabotin (2011) warns of the emergence of misunderstandings,

misjudgements and cultural bias through not understanding the influences of

culture. This supports my own position that a strengthened understanding of the

cultural differences which are likely to exist between the participants on the

programme and myself can only help in ensuring its success. Consequently, this

paper sets out to explore some of the potential issues and challenges associated with

cultural differences which might be encountered in the facilitation of the

programme, specifically focusing on the dimension of collectivism–individualism

(Hofstede 1980).

The context

During an interview in 2010, the Kurdish Prime Minster Dr Barham Salih stated that

his government’s goal was

to tap the energy, entrepreneurship, creativity and intelligence of our people.

We will do this by making sure that future generations will be provided with

the best education (The Middle East Magazine 2010, p. 47).

The main vision of the Ministry for Higher Education and Scientific Research in

Kurdistan (MHESR-K) is the establishment of an integrated education system that

utilises best practices from other countries to produce an educated and highly skilled

population (Kaghed and Dezaye 2009). The push to reform and improve higher

education is outlined in A Roadmap to Quality (MHESR-K 2011), which goes some

way to providing the transparency that is traditionally lacking in wider Iraq in terms

of ministerial decisions (Amin and Khoshnaw 2003). It places importance on the

economic aims and benefits of education and the development of human capital, as

do other governments and policy makers around the globe (Gilead 2009).

As an independent region of Iraq, Kurdistan is self-determined and has

experienced relative stability and peace since the late 1990s (Whitney 2008).

However, it should be noted that fewer of the world’s 25–30 million Kurds inhabit

the Kurdistan region of Iraq than live in the Kurdish areas of neighbouring Turkey

or Iran, and a further one million Kurds live in Syria (Gunter 2004). Iraqi

Kurdistan’s autonomy and relative affluence set it apart from the heavily populated

and economically underdeveloped peripheral Kurdish areas in Iran and Syria (Olson

2003). Similarly, there is socioeconomic underdevelopment in the Kurdish region of

Turkey (Sarigil 2010), although more than 60 per cent of Kurds have now moved

from the impoverished east to the more prosperous west of the country and have at

least been partially assimilated (Gunter 2004). Given its geographical position and

integration into the European Higher Education Area (Mizikaci 2005), Turkey has

Middle East meets West

123

less in common with Iraq than do Iran and Syria but, despite its universities

remaining under-resourced, they have almost doubled in number between 2001 and

2010 (Yagci 2010). This suggests increased educational opportunities for the

assimilated Kurds, but there appears to be neither evidence to support this nor any

account of higher education provision for the Kurds remaining in Eastern Turkey.

Meanwhile, government repression and an inability for outside scholars to work in

either Syria or Iran have left Kurdish communities in those countries largely

unrepresented in the literature (Rubin 2013, p. 91). Consequently, meaningful

comparisons of higher education and the development of academic staff in the

Kurdistan region of Iraq with the neighbouring Kurdish areas of Turkey, Iran and

Syria are necessarily limited in this paper.

There are some six public universities in Iraqi Kurdistan (Kaghed and Dezaye

2009). Lecturing staff in these universities are required to participate in continuous

professional development (MHESR-K 2011) and expected to use different and

‘‘new’’ approaches to teaching and learning, some of which are specified as Ministry

directives. The Kurdish university at the centre of the proposed staff development

programme is growing rapidly and intends to increase its student numbers

considerably in the future. The aim of the proposed staff development programme is

to provide academic staff with an opportunity to develop the way in which they

facilitate learning and approach teaching, enabling them to acquire greater

understanding, flexibility and confidence in their use of different learning and

teaching methods. There is a Ministry expectation that academics will ‘‘put in the

time and effort’’ (MHESR-K 2011, p. 109) required for their own development.

There is also a belief that adopting practices to be found in UK higher education,

held in high esteem in Kurdistan (Kaghed and Dezaye 2009), will contribute to

continuous academic development and, in turn, an improved educational experience

for students. The proposed programme has been identified by the senior leadership

team within the Kurdish university as a means of simultaneously meeting Ministry

expectations, developing increased understanding of pedagogic options and

improving practice.

Adopting this route poses some interesting and challenging questions on both

ideological and practical levels. How are the programme and these new practices

likely to be received and experienced by the participating Kurdish academics – as an

opportunity for development, both for themselves and their university, or as an

imposition with hegemonic undertones? On a practical level, if the programme itself

models some of the practices it aims to introduce, what impact will cultural

differences have on how it is both perceived and received? In the future, as

academics who have participated in the programme themselves employ those

practices with their Kurdish students, to what extent might they also be faced with

obstacles or challenges arising from cultural differences? And, as regards my own

role as the programme facilitator, to what extent might my own cultural positioning

be problematic?

Kathleen Pike and Jean Dowdall (2011) advise those undertaking educational

assignments overseas to familiarise themselves with the local culture and to

anticipate complexity. It seems evident that it is not only important to understand

the culture and needs of the learners and how they learn (Heffernan et al. 2010), but

H. Goodall

123

also to acknowledge my own cultural position and how that might provide a lens

through which I perceive and undertake every aspect of this initiative. In addition,

there is a dearth of research which focuses on the impact of undertaking short-term,

‘‘offshore’’ assignments1 on the academics engaged in them, other than the

anecdotal accounts of the academics themselves (Seah and Edwards 2006).

However, it seems that individuals may

experience high anxiety levels, related to preparation for the experience;

approaches to teaching and learning; shared meanings; resources; isolation;

and family and lifestyle disruption, to name a few (ibid., p. 299).

Culturally, the academic is in a minority in offshore educational encounters, as I

will be in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and there will be an onus on me to be aware

of and respond to cultural differences in the programme design and delivery

(Shulruf et al. 2011). At the same time, I may also have to negotiate some of the

additional challenges that Seah and Edwards highlight.

Methodology

This paper is an attempt at critical and reflective practice without the benefit of

hindsight. In essence, it is an interpretive and predominantly literature-based study

which looks at ‘‘how things might be’’ (Ball 2008, p. 4), and its limitations as such

must be acknowledged. It offers a perspective only, and

a perspective is not a recipe, it does not tell you what to do. Rather, it acts as a

guide about what to pay attention to, what difficulties to expect and how to

approach problems (Wenger 2009, p. 215).

This paper largely relies on the research of others. In addition to published

literature, I gained some insights from the reflections of two practitioners with

experience in Iraq whom I interviewed. I was also able to have some exploratory

conversations with Kurdish students and Kurdish academics during an initial visit to

the country. Appropriate permission has been received for the use of individuals’

contributions where relevant.

There is a significant amount of literature that focuses on cultural differences and,

in particular, on the collectivism–individualism dimension (Tamis-LeMonda et al.

2008), some of which is interrogated for the purpose of this paper. The two British

practitioners whom I interviewed using a semi-structured approach had both

undertaken similar assignments in the Kurdistan region of Iraq through short-term

visits. The aim of these interviews was to hear their reflective accounts of their own

experiences. Of particular interest were their perceptions of any cultural differences

between themselves and the Kurdish learners which may have impacted on the

programmes they facilitated and the chosen approaches to learning and teaching.

Finally, during an initial visit to the Kurdish university in question, formal

1 The term ‘‘offshore assignment’’, somewhat similar in meaning to ‘‘secondment’’, is sometimes used

for a posting abroad to work on a specific project.

Middle East meets West

123

discussions took place with some members of the university leadership team, and

informal meetings were held with a group of approximately 60 students and

academic staff and a further smaller group of 12 students. Whilst these meetings

explored a range of issues, each dwelt on approaches to learning and teaching within

the Kurdistan region of Iraq in general and within the university in question in

particular. Some students and academics and both of the two practitioners

interviewed were willing to share their personal stories, providing useful narrative

to sit alongside the literature with a view to informing my future practice (Connelley

and Clandinin 1990).

It should be emphasised that this paper makes no attempt to offer any empirical

evidence to support a ‘‘best way’’ to handle international educational encounters.

Rather, it adopts a pragmatic approach (Baert 2005; Bernstein 2010) and aims to

draw some useful conclusions from both the literature and shared experiences that

will enable me to make some practical, informed decisions about how I approach

the design and delivery of the proposed programme. At the same time, this paper

may also offer some useful insights to those who find themselves in a similar

situation to my own.

Defining cultural difference

There are numerous definitions of ‘‘culture’’ to be found. Heffernan et al. (2010)

refer to the identification of 164 definitions as far back as 1952. Expanding on the

straightforward definition of culture as ‘‘the way we do things around here’’

(Rabotin 2011), Geert Hofstede conceptualises it as

the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of

one group or category from another (Hofstede 1991, p. 51).

He emphasises that culture is a social product; that it has an effect on our thinking

and behaviour and that there are as many cultures as there are social systems or

groups (Signorini et al. 2009). Hofstede’s work focuses on national culture

(Hofstede 1980) and he asserts that values are at the root of national cultural

differences (Hofstede 2007a). The four cultural value dimensions he initially

identified encompass power distance, which indicates the expectation or acceptance

of inequality within a society; masculinity, representing the extent to which a

society values material achievement and assertiveness over consideration of others,

relationships and the environment (the former qualities are usually perceived as

typically masculine and the latter as feminine); uncertainty avoidance, being the

degree to which members of a society perceive unknown situations as threatening

and attempt to avoid them; and finally individualism, indicating the extent of

emphasis placed on the individual in a society and the integration of society

members with each other (Hofstede 1980).

It is this last dimension of individualism, later developed by Hofstede and other

researchers into an orthogonal partnership with collectivism (Oyserman 2006)

which is central to this paper and will be revisited shortly. My focus on

individualism reflects its more significant implications for pedagogy (Eldridge and

H. Goodall

123

Cranston 2009; Zha et al. 2006), although it should be acknowledged that the three

other dimensions interconnect with individualism and must be remembered during

transnational programme design and delivery.

Hofstede’s work on cultural differences has been seminal in the field and receives

both acclaim and criticism (Hofstede 2002). Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede

1980)

became a dominant influence and set a fruitful agenda […] although

Hofstede’s work invites criticism on many levels, one often finds that

Hofstede, in self-criticism, has been there first (Chapman 1997, pp. 18–19).

Other researchers assert that Hofstede’s analysis neglects change and is method-

ologically flawed (McSweeney 2002; Hollinshead and Leat 1995; Signorini et al.

2009). Cultures are not immutable, static entities which can be essentialised and

shoe-horned into pigeonholes (Eldridge and Cranston 2009). Further, Hofstede’s

equation of ‘‘culture’’ with ‘‘nation’’ is problematic in that it does not allow for

intra-cultural or intercultural differences in behaviour, or recognise other influences

such as socioeconomic factors (Signorini et al. 2009). Methodologically, although

Hofstede’s (1980) sample was significant (116,000 people in 72 countries), all

participants were employees of one global company, IBM, and the generalisability

of the data gathered is strongly questioned by Brendan McSweeney (2002).

However, similar criticisms have also been levelled at other culture theorists, largely

due to the common difficulty they all face in analysing ‘‘the diffuse and complex

concept of culture’’ (Hollinshead and Leat 1995, p. 14).

In response to the criticisms of his work, Hofstede presents a robust defence in

his more recent publications, clarifying his own views of the limitations of his study

(Hofstede 2002, 2003, 2007a, 2007b). He particularly emphasises later additions

and amendments to his initial conclusions as a consequence of his own and others’

further research (Hofstede 2002). He similarly highlights that his choice of

dimensions was aimed at making distinctions between national and maybe regional

and ethnic cultures and was not intended for discriminating organisational,

generational, social, class, gender or any other differences which he acknowledges

exist (Hofstede 1991). This counters some of the criticisms voiced by others such as

Paola Signorini et al. (2009).

Hofstede’s simplifying model of cultural difference has variously been taken at

face value and employed in a variety of further studies (Frankel et al. 2005;

Oyserman 2006; Zha et al. 2006), criticised and rejected for its ‘‘profoundly flawed

assumptions’’ (McSweeney 2002, p. 109), or utilised with acknowledgement of its

limitations, questioned and further developed (Seah and Edwards 2006; Eldridge

and Cranston 2009). For the purpose of this paper, the latter of these approaches has

been adopted and Hofstede’s framework, along with that of others, is critically

interrogated to seek some answers to the questions posed earlier. As Kaye Eldridge

and Neil Cranston (2009) conclude, despite the possible pitfalls of utilising

Hofstede’s model, it has nevertheless been usefully applied in a range of social

science studies, and his findings have been validated to a greater or lesser extent

through numerous replication studies.

Middle East meets West

123

Individualism and collectivism

As a concept, individualism can be traced back to sociologist Max Weber’s

proposition that the ideals of goal achievement, hard work, innovation and personal

responsibility associated with the Protestant work ethic are the values which

underpin individualism-oriented societies (Tamis-LeMonda et al. 2008). Identifying

individualism as the tension between the interests of the individual and those of the

group, Hofstede (2003) argues that highly individualistic cultures such as the USA,

Australia and Britain are characterised by the value placed on self-respect, speaking

one’s mind, coping with conflict and the need to communicate verbally. Early

independence of thought and action is encouraged, and people expect to be treated

as individuals and impartially. In educational settings, individuality – voicing their

own opinions and challenging the status quo – is expected of students (Hofstede

1986).

A collectivist culture, however, will typically value respect of elders, harmony

and the absence of confrontation. There is an emphasis on adopting or acquiring the

skills necessary to be accepted as a member of the group, and a concern for loss of

face. Loyalty to ‘‘the group’’ is important and people will create family-like

associations with non-family groups, including colleagues in the workplace.

‘‘Personal’’ views and opinions are unlikely, ‘‘they are determined by the group’’

(Hofstede 2003, p. 59). Hence, in a collectivist educational environment, students

are dealt with as part of a group rather than as isolated individuals. As harmony is

paramount, conflict, confrontation and challenge are avoided (Hofstede 1986).

Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner (2002) distinguish ‘‘individu-

alism’’ from ‘‘communitarianism’’ and cite Talcott Parsons and Edward Shil’s

definition of the former as ‘‘a prime orientation to the self’’ and the latter as ‘‘a

prime orientation to common goals and objectives’’ (Trompenaars and Hampden-

Turner 2002, p. 50). Simultaneously, Harry Hui and Harry Triandis argue that the

main difference between individualism and collectivism is ‘‘the basic unit of

survival’’ (cited in Ebren 2009, p. 1054). The basic unit and criterion of adaptation

is the self for individualists, whilst the group and its well-being are central for

collectivists and take priority over the well-being of individuals.

In addition, the World Values Survey’s (WVS) cultural maps of the world (WVS

2010) identify the opposing values of survival and self-expression, placing Iraq high

on the survival dimension while the UK is high on the self-expression dimension. It

is only in those societies where survival is taken for granted that there is a growing

emphasis on self-expression. As Kurdistan becomes an increasingly secure place to

live, both physically and economically, there is likely to be a shift towards greater

self-expression (ibid.).

Hofstede’s study positions Iraq within a group of Arab countries having a much

lower individualism score than Britain (38 out of 100, in comparison with Britain’s

score of 89). The Arab countries are ranked 27th for individualism out of the 50

countries included in the study, as opposed to Britain’s position as 3rd behind the

USA and Australia. So, whilst Kurdistan, as part of Iraq, may be more individualist

than a number of other countries ranked by Hofstede, it is evident that it is

H. Goodall

123

significantly less individualist than the UK, with a much greater inclination towards

collectivism (Hofstede 1980).

Cultural difference and learning

Hofstede (1986) suggests that academic achievement is frequently valued as a

means of improving economic worth and increasing self-respect through personal

achievement in individualist cultures. Meanwhile, it is more likely to be viewed as

preparation for becoming a contributing member of society in collectivist nations. In

the case of Iraqi Kurdistan, many academics left the country to study in the UK,

USA and elsewhere and have now returned to take up positions in Kurdish

universities (Lawrence 2000). Indeed, this is the case with the majority of the senior

leadership team at the university in question in this paper. Conversations with some

members of the leadership team revealed that they returned to Iraqi Kurdistan

precisely because of a desire to be part of its development as it moves forward from

its difficult recent history. This correlates with Hofstede’s proposition that

educational achievement is viewed as a means of contributing to society in

collectivist settings (Hofstede 1986).

In further examining values, the emphasis on personal choice, achieving one’s

goals, self-esteem and reaching one’s full potential is shown to drive educational

aspirations in many societies considered to be individualistic. Conversely, for many

collectivist communities, connection to the family, an orientation to the larger group

such as the community or country, and respect and obedience are paramount

(Tamis-LeMonda et al. 2008). The latter values promote interdependence and

relatedness whilst the former are likely to foster autonomy and independence. When

Eric Parsloe and Monika Wray (2000) stress the importance of individuals being

able to take personal responsibility for managing their own learning, this is a

premise originating in the UK, a country identified by Hofstede (1980) as being high

in individualism. Similarly, the argument that adults have a self-concept of being

responsible for their own decisions and for their own lives, which should be integral

to any adult education programme (Knowles et al. 2005), is also a concept rooted in

an individualist society, namely the USA. Whilst both of these concepts are

presented as universal truths by their respective protagonists, others highlight

cultural differences in approaches to learning and teaching which these concepts do

not appear to accommodate.

[In] the northern part of Europe, we place great emphasis on autonomous

learning, and expect students to work independently and critically present the

information they are presented (Karen Lauridsen, cited in Labi 2011, p. 23).

Elsewhere,

[…] teaching methods emphasise students’ listening to lectures, taking notes,

demonstrating their learning through written tests, and being able to repeat

what they have learned from professors’ lectures (Labi 2011, p. 23).

Middle East meets West

123

Both the proposed staff development programme and the Roadmap to Quality

(MHESR-K 2011) promote the approach associated with northern Europe, whereas

the experience of the practitioners interviewed for this paper predominantly

involved encounters with learners used to the second approach to teaching and

learning that Aisha Labi describes. In addition, Chris Whitney (2008) claims that

‘‘students from the public school system in Kurdistan learn by rote’’ (ibid., p. 60)

and are unable to complete critical thinking activities or decode text. On the other

hand, when comparing students from collective and individualist settings, Anna

Jones (2005) concludes that critical thinking is not inhibited by cultural background.

If properly briefed, learners from collectivist cultures are equally able to undertake

critical thinking tasks.

The students whom I met with in Iraqi Kurdistan concurred that their

‘‘instructors’’ adopted a ‘‘traditional’’ approach to teaching. When questioned

further about the use of the word ‘‘traditional’’, one student commented that ‘‘they

talk and we listen’’. Academic staff present at the same meeting agreed that this

accurately described their lecturing style. They saw themselves as subject experts

and the students as recipients of that expertise. ‘‘It’s the way we have been taught

ourselves and it’s all we know’’, one instructor commented. Kara Godwin (2009)

refers to the many international students whose predominant scholarly experience is

lecture-based. She describes an associated formal relationship between students and

academic staff and goes on to mention the limited interaction within the

relationship, with students asking few questions and viewing instructors as authority

figures not to be challenged. The very use of the word ‘‘instructor’’ by both the

Kurdish students and academic staff, and by Godwin, infers a didactic approach

whilst the proposed staff development programme advocates the employment of

other, more interactive styles with which the participants may be unfamiliar.

However, whilst instructors in Iraqi Kurdistan may be viewed as authority figures to

an extent, the willingness of students to offer their views in the presence of their

instructors (during the meeting mentioned above) appears to be somewhat at odds

with Godwin’s observation of the reluctance of students from similar lecture-based

traditions to question and challenge.

On the surface, it would seem that expecting self-direction, autonomy and

independence of the learners on the proposed programme, together with advocating

the same in their subsequent work with their own students, might be problematic in

a country which appears to be far more collectively oriented than individualistic.

Indeed, one of the practitioners interviewed described the ability of the learners they

worked with to adapt as ‘‘patchy’’. Interestingly, a noticeable difference was

observed between male and female learners, with male learners appearing to find it

more difficult to adapt. For female learners though, whilst the initial expectation

may have been that they would be learning in a manner reflecting the more

collectivist tradition mentioned earlier, when faced with a different approach they

seemed to adapt without major difficulties.

The ability to adapt has been also been noted in studies of international students

in similarly unfamiliar learning contexts (Jones 2005).What seems to be consistently

significant is the importance of clarifying expectations at the outset of the learning

encounters. Minimising misunderstandings by making expectations explicit appears

H. Goodall

123

essential for the success of cross-cultural educational encounters, both in terms of

the task to be undertaken (ibid.) and in terms of the nature of the learning

relationship between teachers and learners (Frankel et al. 2005). It seems fair to

assume that both learners and those facilitating the learning will have expectations

about how that relationship will be conducted and, whilst it may not be possible or

desirable to change the approach to learning which is on offer, sharing expectations

allows some management of the same (ibid.).

Robert Frankel et al. (2005) propose that educational service providers should

consider adapting their methods to suit collectivist tendencies in those cultures

where collectivism is high. Given the aims of the proposed programme, namely to

introduce methods which may be alien to collectivist participants, this may not be a

viable option, but it will be possible to modify the speed at which new methods are

introduced. In my capacity as facilitator of the programme, it seems crucial that I

avoid making assumptions about the starting point of the participants and, again,

ensure that there is an exchange of information at the outset. In addition, the

responses I received from students and academics during the informal discussions

suggest an openness and willingness to try new things.

There is growing evidence of the non-static nature of culture (Jones 2005) and of

collectivism and individualism in particular (Tamis-LeMonda et al. 2008),

supporting one of the criticisms aimed at Hofstede’s model; namely, that it does

not account for change. One of the most influential changes since Hofstede’s

original study (1980), which must surely have impacted on both cultural

understanding and education, has been the advance in communication technology.

The proliferation of information which can be accessed through the World Wide

Web and satellite television, together with the huge changes Iraqi Kurdistan has

experienced in recent years, could not have been anticipated by Hofstede almost

35 years ago and are not accommodated in his model. Signorini et al. (2009) also

argue that ‘‘individual interests can go hand in hand with collective ones and vice

versa’’ (ibid., p. 255). Hence, it is perhaps not surprising that one of the practitioners

interviewed observed a contradiction in that whilst he had to be sensitive in his

approach to providing feedback to learners to ‘‘avoid loss of face’’, the same

learners were nevertheless keen to receive feedback from which they could develop

their own practice.

Whilst national culture may be important, previous and current experiences will

also shape an individual’s ‘‘learning identity’’ (ibid., p. 263). From the conversa-

tions with both students and academic staff in Iraqi Kurdistan, and accepting that

current experiences will be influential, I am optimistic that although it will be

critical to be mindful of cultural differences when planning and delivering the

proposed staff development programme, it is realistic to expect participants to

respond to interactive approaches, provided there is sufficient dialogue to clarify

expectations at the outset. Cultural characteristics should be remembered, but it is

not necessary to view them as deficits (Jones 2005). Marianne Grey (2002) supports

this viewpoint and advocates that rather than seeing difference as a drawback,

teachers and students should take it up ‘‘as a productive element in the discourse of

the classroom’’ (ibid., p. 154), thus transforming the relationship into a negotiated

‘‘we’’ rather than two separately held positions.

Middle East meets West

123

The facilitator’s perspective

It is evident that a discussion of individualism and collectivism draws attention to

the interdependence of values and practice. Seah and Edwards (2006) conclude that

academics engaged in short-term ‘‘offshore’’ educational initiatives tend to use

multiple approaches in negotiating value differences between their own and their

host cultures. Whilst some may espouse the values of their home culture, others will

attempt to assimilate those of the host culture or to amalgamate the two. Both of the

practitioners interviewed had been tasked with facilitating staff development

programmes which introduced practices reflecting the individualist values of their

home culture. So too have I, but at the invitation of the host institution and with a

remit that responds to internal Kurdish policy and ministerial directives. However,

this does not indicate how participants will perceive and receive the programme and

I personally feel more comfortable with the amalgamated approach. Though tasked

to introduce practices with individualist origins, my intention will be to encourage

context-specific trialling which can later be reviewed and further adapted, as

required.

I remain concerned about my own capacity to really appreciate and understand

Kurdish culture, given our ‘‘limited ability as human beings to grasp the other in

terms different than our own and as cultural beings’’ (Turniansky et al. 2009, p. 39).

Much of this paper has focused on the learners’ receptiveness to practices which

will be new to them but, in negotiating the learning relationship and the ‘‘we’’

advocated by Grey (2002), it seems important to remain flexible as a facilitator and

mindful of the fact that I will be learning too. Seah and Edwards (2006) conclude

that academics employed in similar offshore assignments need to be empowered to

negotiate the cultural value differences associated with professional practice and

their own world view. In this instance, empowerment is not an issue, but how I

negotiate the differences will be critical to the programme meeting its aims.

Conclusion

Using the work of Hofstede as a starting point, this paper has also referred to the

work of other researchers and the views of a number of people with first-hand

experience of education in Iraqi Kurdistan, to evaluate a proposed staff development

initiative at a Kurdish HEI. In focusing on cultural differences, in particular those

relating to individualism and collectivism, some marked differences between the

UK and Iraqi Kurdistan in how learning is viewed and approached have been

identified.

Pragmatically, the need to clarify the expectations of both the learners and the

facilitator at the outset of the proposed programme is evident, as is the need to

negotiate the relationship between learners and facilitators at an early stage.

What emerges from this paper is that regardless of the light in which educational

achievement is viewed, whether seen as individually or collectively important, it is

valued in societies positioned at either end of the dimension. Perhaps stronger

allusions to and a greater emphasis placed on this similarity between individual or

H. Goodall

123

collectively oriented cultures is as useful and fruitful as the attention given to

differences.

Whilst individualism and collectivism may have received more attention from

researchers than the other dimensions associated with cultural difference, the

difficulty in disentangling them needs to be recognised (Oyserman 2006). Within

the confines of this paper, it has not been possible to explore Hofstede’s other

dimensions of power distance, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance or the links

between these dimensions (Hofstede 1980). Neither has it been possible to discuss

the many other cultural variations which he does not include in his model such as

organisational, generational, gender or social class issues. It is recognised, though,

that consideration of these many other aspects of cultural difference is also likely to

be critical in gaining a fuller understanding of the challenges associated with the

proposed staff development programme.

References

Amin, N. M., & Khoshnaw, M. Q. (2003). Medical education and training in Iraq. The Lancet, 362(9392),

1326.

Baert, P. (2005). Philosophy of the social sciences. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Bernstein, R. (2010). The pragmatic turn. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Chapman, M. (1997). Preface: Social anthropology, business studies, and cultural issues. International

Studies in Management and Organisation, 26(4), 3–29.

Connelley, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational

Researcher, 19(5), 2–14.

Ebren, F. (2009). Susceptibility to interpersonal influence: A study in Turkey. Social Behaviour and

Personality, 37(8), 1051–1064.

Eldridge, K., & Cranston, N. (2009). Managing transnational education: Does national culture really

matter? Journal of Higher Education Policy and management, 31(1), 67–79.

Frankel, R., Swanson, S. R., & Sagan, M. (2005). The role of individualism/collectivism in critical

classroom encounters: A four country study. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 17(1/2),

33–59.

Gilead, T. (2009). Human capital, education and the promotion of social co-operation: A philosophical

critique. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(6), 555–567.

Godwin, K. A. (2009). Academic culture shock. New England Journal of Higher Education, 23(5), 30.

Grey, M. (2002). Drawing with difference: Challenges faced by international students in an

undergraduate business degree. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(2), 153–166.

Gunter, G. (2004). Why Kurdish statehood is unlikely. Middle East Policy, 11(1), 106–110.

Heffernan, T., Morrison, M., Basu, P., & Sweeney, A. (2010). Cultural differences, learning styles and

transnational education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(1), 27–39.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 10(3), 301–320.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55(2),

1–7.

Hofstede, G. (2003). Cultures and organisations: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for

survival. London: Profile Books.

Hofstede, G. (2007a). A summary of my ideas about national culture differences. Retrieved January 28,

2008, from http://fewebuvt.nl/center/hofstede/page3.htm.

Middle East meets West

123

Hofstede, G. (2007b). A summary of my ideas about organisational culture. Retrieved January 28, 2008,

from http://fewebuvt.nl/center/hofstede/page4.htm.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Hollinshead, G., & Leat, M. (1995). Human resource management. London: Financial Times Pitman.

Jones, A. (2005). Culture and context: Critical thinking and student learning in introductory

macroeconomics. Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 339–354.

Kaghed, N., & Dezaye, A. (2009). Quality assurance strategies of higher education in Iraq and Kurdistan:

A case study. Quality in Higher Education, 15(1), 71–76.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th ed.). Burlington, MA:

Elsevier.

Labi, A. (2011). Europe’s push to teach in English creates barriers in the classroom. Chronicle of Higher

Education, 57(24), 23–24.

Lawrence, D. A. (2000). In their own universities, Kurds taste academic freedom. Chronicle of Higher

Education, 47(6), 55.

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A

triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.

MHESR-K (Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research – Kurdistan). (2011). A roadmap to

quality: Reforming the system of higher education and scientific research in the Kurdistan region of

Iraq. Erbil, Kurdistan region: MHESR-K.

Mizikaci, F. (2005). Prospects for European integration: Turkish higher education. Higher Education in

Europe, 30(1), 67–79.

Olson, R. (2003). Turkey and Kurdistan-Iraq. Middle East Policy, 11(1), 115–119.

Oyserman, D. (2006). High power, low power and equality: Culture beyond individualism and

collectivism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 352–356.

Parsloe, E., & Wray, M. (2000). Practical methods to improve learning. London: Kogan Page.

Pike, K. M., & Dowdall, J. (2011). Globalizing your academic career. Chronicle of Higher Education,

58(5), 31.

Rabotin, M. (2011). Culture savvy: Working and collaborating across the globe. Alexandria, VA: ASTD

Press.

Rubin, M. (2013). Kurds and the state in Iran. Middle East Quarterly, 20(4), 91–92.

Sarigil, Z. (2010). Curbing Kurdish ethno-nationalism in Turkey: An empirical assessment of pro-Islamic

and socio-economic approaches. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(3), 533–553.

Seah, W. S., & Edwards, J. (2006). Flying in, flying out: Offshore teaching in higher education.

Australian Journal of Education, 50(3), 297–311.

Shulruf, B., Alesi, M., Ciochina, L., Faria, L., Hattie, J., Hong, F., et al. (2011). Measuring collectivism

and individualism in the third millennium. Social Behaviour and Personality, 39(2), 173–188.

Signorini, P., Wiseman, R., & Murphy, R. (2009). Developing alternative frameworks for exploring

intercultural learning: A critique of Hofstede’s cultural difference model. Teaching in Higher

Education, 14(3), 253–264.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Way, N., Hughes, D., Yoshikawa, H., Kalman, R. K., & Niwa, E. Y. (2008).

Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and collectivism in cultures

and individuals. Social Development, 17(1), 183–205.

Tan, P. (2011). Towards a culturally sensitive and deeper understanding of ‘‘rote learning’’ and

memorisation of adult learners. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(2), 124–145.

The Middle East Magazine. (2010). Exclusive interview with Prime Minister of Iraq Kurdish Region Dr

Barham Salih. The Middle East Magazine, 414, 46–47. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from www.

exacteditions.com.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2002). Riding the waves of culture (2nd ed.). London: Nicholas

Brealey Publishing.

Turniansky, B., Tuval, S., Mansur, R., Barak, J., & Gidron, A. (2009). From the inside out: Learning to

understand and appreciate multiple voices through telling identities. New Directions for Teaching

and Learning, 118, 39–47.

Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp.

209–218). Abingdon: Routledge.

Whitney, C. (2008). Some needs of post-secondary students in Iraqi Kurdistan. Review of Human Factor

Studies, 14(1), 55–98.

H. Goodall

123

WVS (World Values Survey). (2010). Cultural maps of the world. Retrieved January 10, 2012, from

www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54.

Yagci, Y. (2010). A different view of the Bologna process: The case of Turkey. European Journal of

Education, 45(4), 588–600.

Zha, P., Walczyk, J. J., Griffith-Ross, D. A., Tobacyk, J. J., & Walczyk, D. F. (2006). The impact of

culture and individualism-collectivism on the creative potential and achievement of American and

Chinese adults. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 355–366.

The author

Helen Goodall is a senior lecturer and programme leader, working on post-graduate programmes in the

fields of academic and teacher development, leadership, and coaching and mentoring. She also has more

than 25 years of experience as an independent staff development consultant, facilitator, mediator and

coach.

Middle East meets West

123