The polyphony of cultures: how international students create a unique culture at a superinternational university.

• In Event: Politics and activism in higher education in Eurasia

Proposal

Introduction:
This project looks at the phenomenon of superinternational universities through the lens of national cultures and socialization. Superinternational universities are those where international students make up over 50% of the student population, and no single nationality accounts for more than 15% of students. We use the case of Constructor University Bremen in Germany to explore the interplay of national cultures at such an international university. Constructor hosts about 1500 students of 120 nationalities, and international students make up 84% of the student population.

We focus on cultural socialization and its perception by students. Frequently, the position of international students during their study abroad is seen as that of recipients of the host country’s culture (Adams, 2023). This view may be metaphorically termed “the culture monopoly”. In this view, international students absorb the host country's values, traditions and beliefs. The host country’s national culture takes precedence. In the case of superinternational universities, there is a tension for such a model. For Constructor University, the national German culture is not dominant. In fact, the university may be labelled an “extra-territorial international university”, and its national cultures may be considered to be in a state of competition, mixing and fusing. In such a context, it is thus not clear in what direction the diverse national cultures evolve. Are they converging towards a synthetical international culture? Are they becoming broadly “Western”, “European”, “German”, or “uniquely Constructor”?

In this context, students are not passively receiving the dominant culture of the host country. They are instead actively engaged in cultural exchange and contribute to the “polyphony of cultures”. The university assumes the role of the “mediator” or “manager” of diversity and implements measures to facilitate cultural cohesion (Binder et al., 2013).

Theoretical Framework:
Our theoretical framework relies on two traditions in the research on cultures: Geert Hofstede’s work on national culture (Hofstede et al., 1990, 2005) and the concept of socialization as elaborated by Edgar Schein (Schein, 1990). We explore the evolution of one’s national culture in the organizational context of the university.
Hofstede’s approach is instrumental in quantitatively estimating and comparing a national culture held by the respondents. According to Hofstede, culture is composed of values and practices. He contends that values are learned in early life and remain relatively stable in adulthood. In contrast, practices are learned at work. The school/university occupies the middle ground. We argue that at university, both values and practices are learned. Students are not yet fully in their adulthood, they are still in their formative years.
Schein conceptualizes culture as a hierarchy with three levels: artefacts, values, and assumptions and suggests a qualitative methodology for going deep into the underlying layers of culture via in-depth interviews

Research questions
1. How do national cultures evolve among students at a superinternational university?
2. What role does the host country's national culture (German) play in this evolution?
3. How do various national cultures interact in creating the unique “Constructor University culture”? How can it be described in terms of artefacts, values and assumptions?

Data Collection and Analysis:
We use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods corresponding with these two traditions. The study utilizes a survey of students at constructor university, we have obtained responses from representatives of 40 nations from among students of different years of study. We supplement these data with qualitative interviews with students and university administrators responsible for “managing the diversity” of the university. We collected 307 student responses, 25 student interviews and 5 interviews with university administration members. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed with MAXQDA software.

Research findings:
We find that the university deliberately practices interventions to promote intercultural understanding and cohesion. The results of the survey show that students view themselves as belonging broadly speaking to the “European” cultural realm. Our findings tentatively suggest that there is a cultural evolution towards the European domain (however, this is based on a cross-sectional study and requires further corroboration with a longitudinal study).
We also see evidence of the emergence of a unique “Constructor culture” resulting from being immersed in the mixture of the world’s cultures.

Relevance to CIES 2024:
The study is relevant for CIES 2024 as it highlights the process of socialization into European democratic culture by representatives of other cultures. Many students of Constructor University come from countries with authoritarian regimes. Yet, being immersed in the superinternational environment at a European university, many of them acquire a mindset uniquely tolerant of diversity and upholding European values.

Contribution:
Our study contributes to the literature on the internationalization of higher education and national/organizational cultures. We use the case of Constructor University as a unique case to show the interplay between national and organizational cultures among students in their formative years. We show how diverse national cultures contribute to the unique blend of the “Constructor culture” while gravitating to the European cultural domain. We highlight the role of German national culture as the cultural matrix on which the unique variety of national cultures coalesce.

References
Adams, I. (2023). NARRATIVES OF INTERCULTURAL TRANSFORMATION: Student Perspective Transition. In Developing Intercultural Competence and Transformation: Theory, Research, and Application in International Education (pp. 322–341). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003444169-20
Binder, N., Schreier, M., Kühnen, U., & Kedzior, K. K. (2013). Integrating International Students into Tertiary Education Using Intercultural Peer-to-Peer Training at Jacobs University Bremen, Germany. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(2), 273–285.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 2). Mcgraw-hill New York.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures—A qualitative and quantitative study across 20 cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393392
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109

Authors

• Alexander Kalgin, Constructor University Bremen

• Isak Frumin, Constructor University Bremen