Participatory Action Research to Facilitate University Cross-Cultural Learning

• In Event: 26.035 - Participatory Action Research for Institutional Change: Reconsidering Diversity Training, Access, and Retention of Historically Marginalized Populations

Abstract

Purpose
At SUNY Cortland, I helped faculty organize a campus wide response to a common read—Our America (Jones & Newman, 1998), a first person account of teens’ lives in South Chicago. A diverse panel of students and I came together to open a campus conversation about student, faculty, staff, and administrator conceptions of diversity and experiences of learning across cultures. To continue studying various approaches to teaching and learning about diversity and cross-cultural communication, the student panel and I pursued campus wide research.

Theoretical Framework
Multicultural education scholars reveal a range of instructional practices that ignore the privileging of whiteness and power differentials within and between culturally affiliated communities (Milner, 2008; Kandaswamy, 2008). Scholars cite the need for the constant interrogation of beliefs about diversity, relationships within and between cultures, power and privilege (Milner, 2009; Kandaswamy, 2008) in every dimension of education, from state and local policies to institutional implementation of policies and practices (Sheheen, 1988).

Methodology: Participatory Action Research
As a participatory action research study, students engaged data collection and analysis through cycles of inquiry (Klodawsky, 2007). Having completed the initial panel, students identified a prevailing campus wide separation among races as well as examples of cultural misunderstandings among students and faculty. We designed a study protocol, students collected and transcribed interviews with faculty and staff, and we examined campus wide surveys.

Data Sources/Methods of Data Collection
Having designed and administered a campus and alumni qualitative and quantitative survey and an interview protocol, we used open coding of data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to look for themes in participant talk and writing. These themes were in the service of identifying study participant language for conceptualizing cultural differences and cross-cultural teaching and learning. Using axial coding, I then constructed broader categories that captured emergent frameworks for cross-cultural learning and communication.

Findings
The student panel named possible barriers to the cross-cultural discussion they had attempted to foster. These barriers included a need for trust building and access to helpful language that would facilitate communication in the case of offense. Our 135 survey participants identified other barriers. For example, many shared their uncertainties about how to align communication with the cultural morays of different communities. People of color shared being hurt by white people who didn’t understand privilege.
Faculty and staff interviewees suggested including storytelling events and role-playing simulations where participants could attempt to distribute resources more equitably and build community. They desired required freshmen orientation multicultural readings and discussions and the teaching of definitions for ethnicity, race, privilege, and ally behavior. One identified communication patterns that foster honesty and ameliorate offense.

Significance
In every classroom, we need to learn how to tap into a diverse range of cultural knowledge if we are to interrogate the sources and solutions for inequalities. This research is intended to inform campus-wide endeavors to foster cross-cultural learning. Through ongoing PAR, we will continue to pursue systemic change to secure stronger access and retention through collectively shared multicultural knowledge.

Author

• Sarah Reed Hobson, SUNY - College at Cortland