Sociocultural adaptation and its triggers among international students in the context of Germany

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Department of Foreign Languages

Bachelor's thesis

Sociocultural adaptation and its triggers among international students in the context of Germany

Kolyasnikova Olesya

Moscow, 2019

Table of Contents

Introduction

1.1 Communication: Definition, Components and Characteristics

Appendix

Introduction

All throughout human history people tended to leave their motherlands to explore new countries in order to trade, teach, learn and gain intercultural experience. In former times traveling was considered to be a privilege of the highest cohorts in the society, an unaffordable luxury. In contrast, the current technological progress enabled the increase of the prevalence and the ability for individuals to move between various cities and countries with only minor boundaries (Bochner, 2006).

Therefore, intercultural contact is nowadays a common worldwide experience that can be gained by most of the population. However, it is crucial to emphasize that often sojourners such as tourists, immigrants, refugees, job seekers and international students experience a profound lack of necessary information on cultural norms, values, appropriate behavior and other information that is crucial for appropriate adjustment in the culture. Thus, it is suggested that the deficiency in necessary information may lead to serious psychological issues such as stress, depression and the basic inability of a sojourner to execute daily tasks, which can also be dependent on the level of dissimilarity between the home and host cultures (Yang & Clum, 1994).

Bochner (2006) in his study suggests that international students, both students fully receiving their degree in a foreign university, and exchange students (Verbik & Lasanowski, 2007) constitute a significant part of sojourners as they represent an important cohort in a considerable number of modern countries, which can be also related to Germany. According to the report published by DAAD, the German Academic Exchange Service, and DZHW, the German Centre for Research on Higher Education and Science Studies, (DZHW & DAAD, 2017) in 2017 international students composed approximately 13% of all university students in Germany and 23% of first-year students. It is also significant to highlight that foreign students in Germany are divided by DAAD and DZHW in two groups: Bildungsausländer (those students who received/will receive their degree outside Germany) composing 9.5% of all foreign students in Germany, and Bildungsinländer (those students who received/will receive their degree in German institutions) making up less than a fourth of international students in German universities (3.3%) (DZHW & DAAD, 2017). The statistics presented show that the number of exchange students, seekers of supplementary educational programs and other students receiving their degree outside Germany represent a majority of foreign students. Therefore, due to this reason the current Study will be focused on the comparison of adaptational processes of both Bildungsausländer and Bildunginländer.

Despite the differences of cultures, languages, behaviors and norms, international students in Germany tend to share similar adaptation issues, and thus compose a significant minority identity in the country (Schmitt, Spears & Branscombe, 2003). The experience of foreign students in Germany might considerably differ from the challenges that refugees, immigrants, job seekers and other sojourners face. The experience of adaptation of international students possesses certain characteristics that are the need to succeed in the academic environment of a German university, establish reliable relationships with peer students especially from the host culture, temporary nature of the stay in Germany and the need to effectuate day-to-day tasks (Johnson & Sandhu, 2007; Misra & Castillo, 2004; Mori, 2000). Of particular interest for the current Research is the cultural distance between the host and home cultures of international students which may highly impact the process of sociocultural adaptation. Previous research majorly indicated that individuals having a high cultural distance may face a more significant amount of difficulties while adapting to the host culture than their fellow sojourners whose native cultures do not display drastic discrepancy culture-wise (e.g., Furnham & Bochner, 1982; Galchenko & Van de Vijver, 2007; Redmond, 2000; Rienties & Tempelaar, 2013). Another aspect that will be examined in the current Paper is the heterogeneity of a national group of students. In other words, our Study will regard international students in Germany as a heterogeneous group consisting of diverse individuals and not as homogenous continental or national groups due to the subsequent use of appropriate research methods.

As our Study examines the sociocultural adaptation of international students in Germany, it is essential to analyze and evaluate the existing research that was already effectuated in the field of interest of the current Paper, and thus indicate the research gap that will be fulfilled by our Study. Firstly, it is necessary to emphasize that previous studies in the field of adaptation of international students in Germany were mainly focused on its academic aspect. In other words, a significant amount of research in the current field is devoted to various academic aspects of adaptation of foreign students in Germany that is mainly represented by differences between academic culture in the home and host countries; certain difficulties students face during the application and enrollment to German universities; academic performance; style and peculiarities of consulting lessons, etc. (Li, 2017). Our Research will thus fulfill the niche of examining and analyzing the sociocultural aspects of adaptation of international students such as the difficulties they face while communicating with the representatives of the host culture as well as accepting and adopting the peculiarities and traditions of the host culture, and also academic performance as a part of the adaptation process.

Secondly, it is crucial to indicate that a considerable number of existing studies are concerned with the processes of sociocultural adaptation and acculturation of a certain nation; the adaptation of Chinese students in Germany (Zhang, Mandl & Wang, 2010; Yu & Wang, 2011; Shim et al., 2013; Li, 2017) prevails in the current scholarly discourse. Our Study will examine the sociocultural adaptation of representatives of various countries, to be more precise world regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Latin America and Oceania) in order to effectuate a comparative analysis between them, find out important patterns and deduce vital for our Research conclusions.

Lastly, it is essential to point out that previous research was concentrated on the sociocultural adaptation of various types of sojourners, such as migrants (Schmitz, 1994; Diehl & Schnell, 2006), children of migrating parents (Milewski, 2007; Schenk, Elbert & Neuhauser, 2007) and families who changed their residence (Nauck, 2007) in the context of Germany. In contrast, the current Paper will regard international students as a particular type of sojourners as they face various difficulties that may significantly differ from those encountered by immigrants, refugees, job seekers, etc. due to the academic aspects of their stay, a crucial need in establishing contact with peer students and effectuate day-to-day tasks.

Basing on the research gap established above it is possible to deduce the purpose of our Research. The current Paper is aimed at defining the triggers, or factors that influence the sociocultural adaptation of international students in Germany. The notions “triggers” and “factor” will be used interchangeably in the Research. The Study will regard degree students receiving their full education at a German institution as well as exchange students on university mobility programs.

The research questions that our Study is to answer are the following:

RQ1: What are the triggers, or factors of sociocultural adaptation of international students?

RQ2: What are the differences between the peculiarities of sociocultural adaptation of students from different world regions?

As the current Study is focused on the sociocultural adaptation and is aimed at exploring its factors, both quantitative and qualitative research methods were applied. The former ones include a survey of international students enrolled at German universities that will be carried online. The survey was effectuated online and distributed among sample through social media platforms, E-mails and other online communication platforms. The sample size of the survey is 111.

The Survey comprises two parts: Demographic Questionnaire and Revisited Sociocultural Adaptation Scale, or SCAS-R (Wilson, 2013) based on the Sociocultural Adaptation Scale, or SCAS (Ward & Kennedy, 1999). In the Demographic Questionnaire participants are asked to complete a short questionnaire regarding their gender, age, world region, race/ethnicity, native country, length of stay in Germany, purpose of visit (full degree/exchange program/other) and the “Residency Plan” (Omonishi, Chung & Gagne, 2008) which means the intention of students to stay in Germany after their degree/exchange program is finished. The second part, the Revisited Sociocultural Adaptation Scale was utilized to measure participants' sociocultural adaptation in Germany. Through the analysis of the degree of competence of participants to cope with boundaries in the new culture it was possible to identify the difficulties they faced with in daily situations due to cultural differences and the triggers of sociocultural adaptation (Sümer, 2009). Likert Scale ranging from 1 (Not at all competent) and 5 (Extremely competent) was used to ensure accurate measurement. The results of the Survey comprised of two questionnaires were analyzed in order to make necessary conclusions for the Study.

The current Research will also apply a qualitative method of interviews. The interviews were conducted with international students studying or having studied in German universities as degree students or exchange students. The interviews are of the semi-structured type in order to ensure sufficient flexibility while interviewing and to reveal initial reasons, triggers and difficulties of international students' sociocultural adaptation.

The Study is composed of five main chapters, which will be briefly presented in this paragraph. Firstly, in the Literature Review chapter the major studies from the research field of the current Paper will be presented. Such notions as communication, culture and intercultural communication will be presented as they lay a basis for our Research that represents one of the phenomena of intercultural communication. Moreover, the theory on acculturation, its strategies and models, and adaptation, especially its sociocultural type, will be indicated. Secondly, the methods applied in the framework of the current Study will be dwelled upon in the Methodology chapter. Thirdly, the results of both the survey and interviews can be found in the Results and Findings chapter of our Thesis. The possible explanations of the patterns and relationships found in results as well as aspects limiting the Research will be indicated in the chapter Discussion and Limitations. Finally, the Conclusion and Provocations chapter will be devoted to the summary of the major results of the Study and possible ways of continuing and developing the Research in the future.

1. Literature Review

Communication between representatives of different cultures is not a new phenomenon; it has been taking place since the very appearance of trade and social exchanges between tribes and further individuals. Intercultural communication is the basis of the global human community, and nowadays interaction of different governments is essential for their appropriate functioning (Samovar et al., 2013). Globalization not only has commercial consequences, but also influences workforce distribution patterns. For instance, it was reported that almost 10% of Filipino workers are employed abroad, with almost one million working in Saudi Arabia's enterprises (Morong, 2011). One of the fields that experienced severe impact of globalization is education, especially higher education. Research has shown that from 1980 to 2010 the number of students studying abroad raised three times to almost three million (The Economist British Editorial Board, 2010), and it is predicted that these numbers will be only rising in the future due to various international facilitation programs (Labi, 2011). These examples prove that intercultural interaction, or communication is vital for the appropriate functioning of societies. It not only enables the economic success of the countries though certain received benefits, but also facilitates social interaction and vital exchange leading to mutual cultural enrichment. Therefore, we consider it necessary to examine intercultural communication as a global social and cultural interaction phenomenon.

In the current chapter we will, firstly, examine the notion of communication as well as its components and main characteristics defined by modern scholars. Secondly, the notion and phenomenon of culture will be observed in the chapter: we will present definition given by various researchers, beginning from Sir Edward Burnett Tylor (1871) and ending with modern scholars who effectuate their research activity in already 21st century.

1.1 Communication: Definition, Components and Characteristics

Before defining the notion of intercultural communication it is essential to establish what communication itself represents. Research of Dance & Larson (1972) that was conducted more than forty years ago found 126 various definitions of the word communication. Therefore, it goes without saying that it is highly complicated to give a definition to the notion in question due to its complex structure, abstractness and polysemantic nature. However, in our Research we will rely on the definition given by Samovar et al. (2013) as it involves basic characteristics of human communication and highlights the importance of the interaction of those involved in the communication: “Human communication is a dynamic process in which people attempt to share their thoughts with other people through the use of symbols in particular settings” (Samovar et al., 2013, p. 29).

The motives of involving into communication can be classified in three large categories: regardless of a situation and context communication takes place in people attempt to (1) persuade; (2) inform; or (3) entertain their interlocutor (McDaniel & Samovar, 2015, p. 7). Basing on the assumption that communication pursues a certain aim, it is possible to state that “communication is the management of messages with the objective of creating meaning” (Griffin, 2005). However, this definition tends to display a broader understanding of the notion as it indicates what happens during the process of communication yet does not specify what successful communication means. The degree of the success of communication is determined by the persons involved in the interaction process and the two qualifiers: intentionality and outer action: “if communication is considered to be purposeful [...], then we communicate with an intention, and we achieve our objective only by interacting with someone” (McDaniel & Samovar, 2015, p. 7).

Employing the definitions provided above we consider it crucial to examine major components of communication. The first component that defines the start of communication is the sender - the person or group who first produces and transmits the message. Secondly, the message, as we already mentioned, is the information that is to be delivered by the sender. Message, be it verbal or non-verbal information, is “the data used to create meaning” (McDaniel & Samovar, 2015, p. 8). Thirdly, there is a channel - the way or the path the message is transmitted to and encoded by the receiver, who is the intended recipient of the message. It is often considered that the whole communication process is receiver-based as the receiver encodes and assigns a meaning to the message. As soon as the message is decoded and perceived by the receiver, a response from the recipient's side might follow, that is, any form of action expressed by the receiver as a result of the perceived meaning. Another component that slightly differs from the response is the feedback - a reaction of the received on the interpreted message that enables the interlocutors to evaluate the efficiency of a message and further modify it in order to increase its understandability by the receiver. The effectiveness of communication is also defined by the location where interaction takes place, or environment, which can be both physical (e.g. classroom, airplane) or social (e.g. occasion, relationship with a receiver, etc.). The last component of communication is noise, which is various types of distractions and interference that may impede communication. Noise is divided into two types: physical noise - loud sounds in the street, music coming from the neighbor's flat, static on the cell phone, etc., and psychological one, which is related to the well-being of interlocutors (McDaniel & Samovar, 2015, pp. 7-8).

1.2 Defining Culture. Dominant Culture and Co-cultures

As well as communication, the notion of culture has been the object of scholarly interest for decades. Therefore, there exist multiple definitions of the term, and we will make an attempt to present the ones that present the ground of the discipline.

First of all, we consider it necessary to emphasize the interconnectedness of communication and culture, as Hall (1977, p. 14) points out: “culture is communication and communication is culture”. According to Samovar et al. (2013), the reason of this dual relationship is the fact that one learns the culture of their country, nation and/or social group through communication with its members and representatives, whereas the style, manners and other aspects of communication of group members is a direct reflection of their culture. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativism laid the ground for the further development of connection of communication and culture through the shaping of human behaviors, perceptions of the world affected by language and communication. As Rodriguez (1999, p. 20) indicates, “culture consist of how we relate to other people, how we think, how we behave, and how we view the world”. Peoples & Bailey (2009, p. 23) support the point of view by claiming that cultures differ in the manner people think and behave.

As for the definition of culture itself, Harrison & Huntington (2000) found out that there exist a wide range of definitions, even the simple ones such as “culture is the programming of the mind” or “culture is the human-made part of the environment” (Lonner & Malpass, 1994, p. 7), and the meaning changes depending on the sphere it is applied in. One of the earliest definitions of culture was formulated by Sir Edward Burnett Tylor back in 1871, who stated that culture is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by a man as a member of society” (Tylor, 1871, p. 1). A more compact definition was later suggested by Benedict (1959): “what really binds men together is their culture - the ideas and the standards they have in common (Benedict, 1959, p. 16). Geertz (1973) provided a more detailed definition, where he described culture as “a historically transmitted pattern of meaning embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz, 1973, p. 89).

Generally, it is possible to notice that many definitions, both mentioned above and the ones that were given by contemporary scholars and were not indicated in the current Paper (e.g., Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2011; Jandt, 2012; Lustig & Koester, 2006; Martin & Nakayama, 2018; Neuliep, 2011) emphasize the complexity of the notion of culture that includes such aspects as common beliefs, values, norms, recognized behaviors and material objects. For instance, Triandis (1994) defined culture in the following manner:

“Culture is a set of human-made objective and subjective elements that in the past have increased the probability of survival and resulted in satisfaction for the participants in an ecological niche, and thus became shared among those who could communicate with each other because they had a common language and they lived in the same time and place” (Triandis, 1994, p. 23).

The definition formulated by Triandis (1994) reflects major features of the notion of culture. Firstly, the “human-made” aspect indicates that culture embraces all non-biological objects and notions existing in a social group. Moreover, this definition indicates that it includes only the behaviors that are learnt and not innate or biological (sleeping, eating, etc.). Secondly, the definition given by Triandis (1994) points out the “subjective” aspect of culture, which is expressed through beliefs, values, attitudes, perceptions and other fundamental conventions. Thirdly, the definition also emphasizes the importance of language as a system of symbols that allows the intergenerational transmission of culture. However, it lacks the emphasis on the interconnectedness of representatives of a certain culture, therefore, it does not touches upon the social aspect of culture, which is crucial for our Research.

McDaniel & Samovar (2015) observed another perspective on the phenomenon of culture, having defined the notion as “the rules for living and functioning in the society” (McDaniel & Samovar, 2015, p. 10). This definition was based on the previous research carried out by Gudykunst (2004) and Yamada (1997) who admitted that culture provides rules and norms that are necessary for a proper organization of a collective of people. The scholars agreed that the learning of culture is a long-term process that begins in the early childhood and goes all throughout one's life. Consequently, the rules and norms accepted in a certain culture are used on a subconscious, ingrained level, which means that a representative of a certain culture acts appropriately with no necessity to think over a situation. However, when a person enters a new culture, they encounter certain difficulties with adaptation, which is caused by the change in cultural norms and rules (McDaniel & Samovar, 2015). In the current Paper we will adhere to the definition of culture based on the findings of Yamada (1997), Gudykunst (2004) and McDaniel & Samovar (2015) as it fits the context of our Research concerned with such phenomenon as sociocultural adaptation.

As far as the notion of dominant culture is concerned, this phenomenon exists in most modern societies (Samovar et al., 2013). Although in the U.S. this term is often interchanged by the notions of umbrella culture or mainstream culture, we would adhere to the term dominant culture as it indicates that the group whose culture is considered to be dominant exerts greater influence on the beliefs, values and norms of the society it functions in. Therefore, “a dominant group is characteristic of all cultures, and this collective of people possesses those instruments of power that allow it to set the broad societal agenda the majority of others will commonly follow“ (Samovar et al., 2013, pp. 8-9).

Although, as mentioned above, dominant culture exists in the majority of modern societies, these societies are not always homogenous and monolithic as they might consist of various interrelated co-cultures, which can be defined as “groups or social communities exhibiting perceptions, values, beliefs, communicative behaviors, and social practices that are sufficiently different as to distinguish them from other groups and communities and from the dominant culture” (Samovar et al., 2013:9). Co-cultures might have certain common features with the dominant culture, but they at the same time display a number of unique proper characteristics and communication patterns.

1.3 Elements of Culture

Even though culture is composed of endless components that are individual for every culture (food, social control, type of governing, purpose, shelter, etc.), Samovar et al. (2013) distinguished five main elements that can be found in the majority of cultures existing in the modern world. By analyzing and comparing the five elements enlisted and explained below it is possible to define differences and similarities between cultures in question. Therefore, the understanding and clarification of these components is important in respect to intercultural communication which will be examined in the following chapter.

Religion

Religion is considered to be one of the first elements that formed ancient cultures thousands of years ago. It produces a significant influence on the culture of a society as it effectuates crucial functions, such as “social control, conflict resolution, reinforcement of group solidarity, explanations of the unexplainable, and emotional support” (Ferraro, 2008, p. 344). Religion provides its believers with certain guidelines that correspond to their culture, which include style of life, worldview, beliefs; thus, these guidelines taken for granted unconsciously impact other spheres of people's lives, such as business, politics and behavior of individuals.

History

More than two thousand years ago Cicero, the legendary Roman orator, claimed that “history ... provides guidance in daily life, and brings us tidings of antiquity” (Munk, 2009). Nowadays this judgement is still relevant as history is considered to provide the background and stable basis for the cultures as well as lessons on how to function (Samovar et al., 2013). Another function of history is supposed to be the creation of “common culture” that unites people from a similar historical background, even if they live in different cultures in the present time. History with its significant events forms and modifies traditions and social norms, and therefore provides people with value systems and beliefs.

Values

Bailey & Peoples (2011) assumed that “values are critical to the maintenance of culture as a whole because they represent the qualities that people believe are essential to continuing their way of life” (Bailey & Peoples, 2011, p. 26). In other words, values can be perceived as the root of the standards and norms that are accepted by the society to be used in certain circumstances. Consequently, values can be defined as “culturally defined standards of desirability, goodness, and beauty that serve as broad guidelines for social living“ (Macionis, 1998, p. 34). The key word in this definition is guidelines as values determine the way the representatives of a certain culture are to behave in different situations. For instance, the value of elderly is displayed to different extents in various cultures. In China, Japan and South Korea elderly are considered as wise people to seek advice from, while in the U.S. the main emphasis of the society is on youth.

Social Organizations

Social organizations, also referred to as social systems to social structures, are various institutions and social units that co-exist in one culture (e.g. family, government, school, labour units, etc.). The main motivation of the appearance of social organizations is the need of interdependence and collaboration: “human interdependence means that we cannot survive as lone individuals but need to live with others” (Lavenda & Schultz, 2009, p. 90). Another function effectuated by social organizations in the increase of social cohesion inside of a culture and the satisfaction of certain needs through mutual cooperation with other members. Nolan (1999) provides the following example of the nature of social structures:

“Social structures reflect our culture, for example, whether we have kings and queens, or presidents and prime ministers. Within our social structure, furthermore, culture assigns roles to the various players--expectations about how individuals will behave, what they will stand for, and even how they will dress” (Nolan, 1999, p. 3).

Language

Language is considered to be crucial for the proper functioning of any culture (Haviland et al., 2011, p. 369). The employment of words, meanings they are assigned, the grammar of a language and its syntax are all considerably influenced by the features of a specific culture. Bailey & Peoples (2011, p. 36) further develop the interconnectedness of language and culture by pointing out that language form people's perception of natural environment, politics, family life and other aspects. Moreover, they illustrate their assumption with the fact that the key elements of socialization in and adaptation to a new culture is the knowledge of a local language.

1.4 Intercultural Communication

In the following chapter we are going to examine the interconnectedness of the notions of culture and communication that were observed above, namely, the role that both notions play in the sphere of intercultural communication and how cross-cultural communication is defined by modern scholars. Besides, various theories and concepts in the field of intercultural communication, such as Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions and Hall's Low-Context and High-Context Cultures, will be observed.

As for the intercultural communication itself, it is not only a separate notion, but also a discipline. Intercultural communication appeared as a branch of cultural studies relatively not long ago, 70 years ago, which arose form a need to study communication and interaction of nations and to further reconstruct the devastated cultures during World War II. Due to the explosive development of the discipline in 1970s and 80s as well as during the Cold War in 1990s intercultural communication possesses of a solid knowledge base that consequently created varying approaches of studying the central object of the discipline. For example, certain scholars regard intercultural communication from the Western perspective that emphasizes the central role played by the media and electronic technologies as the trigger of the increase of international interactions. Other researchers put interactions between governments - diplomacy, political issues, economical relations - in the centre of the study. Still others believe that the development of private business and the necessarily of businesses to interact with foreign partners and agents is the key idea in intercultural communication. The focus of the current Research is however on another factor which is the personal interaction of representatives of different cultures and the consequences of intercultural communication that are thus produced. Therefore, after examining various definitions given by renowned scholars we will select the most appropriate for our context formulation.

Larry A. Samovar with his colleague Richard E. Porter (1988) emphasized the process of messages exchange as the main component of intercultural communication, defining it as a phenomenon that “occurs whenever a message producer is a member of one culture and a message receiver is a member of another” (Samovar & Porter, 1988, p. 15). Even almost three decades after that, Samovar in his collaborative work with McDaniel (2015) agreed on the same definition of intercultural communication, where the exchange between cultures stands in the core of the phenomenon (McDaniel & Samovar, 2015).

Martin & Nakayama (2018) defined intercultural communication as the process in which people from different cultural backgrounds make an attempt to interact and create a shared meaning in order to pursue their individual aims and build relationships with representatives of other cultures. Lustig & Koester (2006, p. 46) claimed that intercultural communication is “a symbolic, interpretive, transactional, contextual process in which people from different cultures create shared meanings”, which partially corresponds to the previous definition by Martin & Nakayama (2018). Thus, it is possible to notice the usage of the notion “shared meaning” in both definitions as it plays a central role in the process of intercultural communication. The purpose of every intercultural information exchange is in most cases the creation of shared meaning - a mutual understanding of the representatives of interacting cultures.

Relying on the approach chosen for our Study, we adhere to the definitions explained above and thus we would define intercultural communication as the communication phenomenon in which the representatives of different cultural backgrounds exchange information and thus coming into direct or indirect contact with one another.

1.5 Major Theories in the Framework of Intercultural Communication

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions

In the last 30 decades, beginning from the late 1980s, Hofstede's concept of cultural dimensions has become one of the most widely and universally used tools in the theory and practice of not only cross-cultural communication, but also intercultural psychology and international management. In the following chapter we will examine 4 initial dimensions as well as two newly added ones, as Hofstede's Dimensions will be applied further in this Study in order to explain possible cultural differences between the participants of the Research.

In his seminal work “Culture's Consequences” Hofstede's (1984) explored the culture of large international organizations, such as IBM that he collected necessary data from. After analyzing the received data, Hofstede (1984, p. 252) found out that “organizations are cultural-bounded”, which led him to the conclusion that there exist four different cultural dimensions: power distance index (PDI), uncertainty avoidance (UAI), individualism vs. collectivism (IDV) and masculinity vs. femininity (MAS), which he further used to analyze work-related cultural issues in international organizations worldwide. After having carried out more research, especially in Asian cultures, Hofstede (1990) suggested the fifth cultural dimension: Confucian Work Dynamic, or, as it was later renamed by Hofstede (2001), long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation (LTO). This non-Western dimension was identified through the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) conduced by the Chinese Culture Connection (1987). Almost 25 years later, Hofstede (2011) proposed the sixth cultural dimension: indulgence vs. restraint (IND).

The first dimension, power distance, is related to the power inequality between upper and lower levels in the organizational hierarchy. In high power distance organizations there is a strict line between managers and subordinates, while low power distance organizational cultures have almost flat hierarchy. The second dimension, uncertainty avoidance, refers to the ability of people to tolerate ambiguity in work and personal life. In high uncertainty avoidance cultures rules and guidelines are stated clearly and beforehand and are supposed to be followed directly in order to avoid any possible ambiguity, while in low uncertainty avoidance cultures rules and rituals are not always clearly determined. The third dimension is individualism vs. collectivism which is concerned to which extent people value themselves (individualistic cultures) or their communities (collectivistic cultures) (Hofstede, 1984). Fourthly, masculinity refers to “a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material reward for success” (Hofstede Insights Editorial Board, n.a.), whereas feminine cultures express more “preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life” (ibid.). The fifth dimension is long-term orientation and short-term orientation which referees to the connection of the past experience with future plans and actions to be taken. Cultures with short-term orientation prefer to keep traditions and norms and regard any changes with suspicion, while countries scoring high on this dimension (long-term orientation) undertake a more pragmatic approach and perceive changes as a necessary measure to maintain the organization of society. Finally, cultures with high indulgence levels prefer regular gratification of needs and wishes related to enjoying life, while high level of restraint presupposes the suppression of gratification and maintenance of strict social norms (Hofstede, 1984).

Hall's Low-Context and High-Context Cultures

In the second half of the twentieth numerous scholars devoted their research to the nature of social problems of the modern societies, which is directly or indirectly connected to the cultural dimensions. The most common explanation used by the researchers was “economic evolution or modernity” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 3) as economic wellbeing of society has a considerable impact on people's behaviors and mental programming. However, the scholars did not provide at the time the reason of why economic and consequent technological progress is to suppress cultural variety (Hofstede, ibid). Therefore, there appeared a need in distinguishing dimensions that would be not related to the economic progress of societies.

Such dimension was proposed by Hall (1976) who divided cultures basing on the principles and manners of communication into low-context (LCC) and high-context cultures (HCC). A low-context culture is the one that “decodes messages from the words used to encode the message” (Klagge, 2012, p. 2). In other words, low-context cultures use commonly understandable language in order to deliver messages, and the final decoding by the receiver does not depend upon the degree to which they are acquainted with the sender and their social group. At the same time, high-context cultures use environmental clues and non-verbal communication in order to send and decode a message.

As Nam (2015) points out, “HCC, more common in collectivistic cultures, relies on communication patterns of indirect non-verbal cues, spiral logic, a self-humbling tone, and silence”, while “patterns of direct verbal assertiveness, linear logic, straightforwardness, and transparent messages are characteristic of LCC” (Nam, 2015, p. 378).

1.6 Acculturation and Adaptation

In the current Paper the notion “adaptation” was repeatedly mentioned. Therefore, the author finds it essential to provide fundamental information on the question of sociocultural adaptation. Firstly, the notion of acculturation will be observed altogether with different acculturation strategies proposed by Berry (1997) in the framework of his bi-dimensional acculturation model. Secondly, the definition of adaptation will be observed. Thirdly, the differentiating aspects of adaptation and acculturation will be presented in order to avoid ambiguity in terms used in the Paper. Finally, main types of adaptation will be discussed, and one of them - sociocultural adaptation - will be observed in detail as it represents a central notion for our Research.

Acculturation Defined. Uni-dimensional and Bi-dimensional Models

Although the phenomenon of acculturation is not in the centre of interest of our Research, we consider it necessary to define the notion as, firstly, acculturation strategies will be regraded as one of the factors of sociocultural adaptation in the empirical part of our Study, and, secondly, “acculturation” is often confused and used interchangeably with “adaptation”, as it was, for instance, in the research of Yu & Wang (2011), which, as modern scholarly discourse agreed, are not synonyms but two interdependent processes.

Literature displays that the research in the field of acculturation was mainly connected to the changes in political organization, social structure and economic status of groups and countries (Berry, 1990; Redfield, Linton & Herskovits, 1936; Sam & Berry, 2006). The term “acculturation” was first introduced by a group of American anthropologists in 1880, who describe acculturation as a process that appears when different cultures clash during an interpersonal contact (Rudmin, 2003). However, the first detailed and scientifically-proved definition was provided by Redfield et al. (1936, p.149) who described the notion as a phenomenon that occurs “when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups”. Another view on acculturation was proposed by Ohnishi & Farah (1999), who claimed that acculturation equals distress that appears due to differences and incompatibilities between the new culture and the native culture(s). In this case acculturation stress having its source in the process of acculturation appears as soon as an individual contacts with a new culture, and may take a negative form when adaptation is not achieved successfully (Yu & Wang, 1999, p. 192).

With the development of the branch of studies concerned with acculturation, scholars paid more attention to psychological factors as well as individual features including personal changes, changes in cultural identity, perception, worldview and behaviors (Berry, 1990; Sam & Berry, 2006). Johnson & Sandhu (2007) identified acculturation as modifications in one's behaviors and values that are connected due to a long-term contact with a host culture. This definition was adapted from Berry et al. (2006), who clarified that the modifications after an intercultural contact are of psychological and cultural nature. Cultural changes include modifications of customs, habits as well as economic and political aspects of one's life, while psychological changes are mostly concerned with the shift of cultural identity, modification of attitudes towards the host culture in general and the process of acculturation in particular, and social behavior in the group (Phinney, 1992). In the current Research we will adhere to the definition of the notion of acculturation given by Berry et al. (2006) as it takes into consideration the current situation of globalization and multicultural environment in the majority of societies. Besides, Berry (1997) added that acculturating individuals both develop host cultural practices, which is known as mainstream acculturation, and maintain their home cultural practices, which is called “heritage acculturation”. The extent of development and maintenance of both types of cultural practices may vary from one individual or group of individuals to another.

Due to differing reactions to a new culture (adoption, rejection, resistance, etc.), two models of acculturation appeared in the scholarly discourse: uni-dimensional and bi-dimensional models. Uni-dimensional model suggests that a cultural loss is a natural and unavoidable process of assimilating in a host culture. It is also assumed that in the framework of the uni-dimensional model a person experiencing acculturation acquires new properties of a host culture due to certain losses in the aspects of their hoe culture (Gordon, 1964). For example, certain scholars expected the decrease in the native language proficiency while learning and mastering the language of the host culture (Arends-To ìth & Van de Vijver, 2006). One of the most well-known uni-dimensional model was proposed by Wood (1969) who suggested that acculturation is connected to the modification of the direction of the host culture. To sum up, the uni-dimensional model proposes that one's acculturation level increases due to one's growing distance with the home culture (Grossman et al., 1985).

On the other hand, bi-dimensional model suggests a considerably different approach, which assumes that adopting a new culture and maintaining the aspects of home culture are two independent processes (LaFromboise, Coleman & Gerton, 1993). The most renowned bi-dimensional model of acculturation was created by Berry (1997), who distinguished four different acculturation strategies underlying in the two basic dimensions of acculturation: maintenance of original cultural identity and maintenance of relations with other groups (Sümer, 2009).

In the framework of bi-dimensional model, Berry et al. (1987) suggested two main factors that influence the type and strategy of acculturation that is chosen by an acculturating individual, either consciously or unconsciously:

1) The desire and necessity of an acculturating individual/group of individuals to identify with their native culture and maintain a contact with it;

2) The extent to which individual(s) consider it necessary to maintain relationships with the mainstream, or host culture.

Therefore, Berry and his colleagues (1987) developed four acculturation strategies that are the most common among acculturating individuals they studied:

A. Assimilation - increasing distance with home culture in order to fully participate in the host culture;

B. Integration - maintaining one's home culture while being involved into the new culture;

C. Separation - maintaining the home culture while expressing rejection to the host culture;

D. Marginalization - expressing adherence to none of the cultures (Berry et al., 1987).

It is important to notice that the acculturation strategies presented above are not static, they are always in the process of development and integration to one another. In other words, it is highly unlikely that an acculturating individual will become a representative of a certain acculturation strategy in its pure theoretical sense, in most cases the traits of all four strategies are present in the process of acculturation. Moreover, the acculturation strategies are not clear-cut from one another, which means that there are features and traits that are characteristic to more than one acculturation strategy (Yu, & Wang, 2011). Consequently, it is highly complicated to define which acculturation strategy an individual adheres to. Thus, in the Methodology and Discussion parts of our Research such generalizing words as “overall” or “generally” will be used to describe a person's strategy of acculturation in order to render the Study a more objective character. Nevertheless, this classification presents an essential insight into the process of acculturation and helps to understand the nature of adaptation of a certain individual.

Adaptation: Definition and Main Types

As far as the notion of adaptation is concerned, it can be defined as “the level of “fit” between the acculturation individual and the mainstream cultural environment” (Sümer, 2009, p. 12; Berry & Sam, 1997). Thus, in relation to acculturation, adaptation can be regarded to as the continuing results and outcomes of the process of acculturation. As for the notion of adjustment, this term will be used altogether with adaptation interchangeably, as it is suggested in the current scholarly discourse (Zhang et al., 2010).

It is of a substantial importance to accentuate on the different types of adaptation proposed by modern scholars. Ward and Kennedy (1993, 1994, 1999) suggested that adaptation can be generally separated into two types: psychological adaptation and sociocultural adaptation, the former being focused on the level of acculturative stress, depression, mood changes, behavior and attitudes to both host and home cultures, and the latter being concerned with the ability of an individual to properly function in a new cultural environment, execute day-to-day activities and maintain relationships with the representatives of the most culture. It is necessary to add that, coming back to the bi-dimensional model of acculturation which measures separately people's attitude and behaviors towards their heritage culture and mainstream culture, researchers suggest that higher level of heritage acculturation leads to a better psychological adaptation (Sam & Berry, 2006), while greater mainstream acculturation causes a more facilitated process of sociocultural adaptation (Ward & Kennedy, 1994; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999).

Certain scholars define other types of adaptation, for instance, Tseng (2002) distinguished four main categories of adaptation, which are general living, academic, socio-cultural and personal-psychological adaptation. Nevertheless, the investigators of sociocultural adaptation suggest that general living and academic or work-related adaptation are the aspects of sociocultural adaptation that need to be studied separately, and not independent types of adaptation in its general sense (Shaffer et al., 2006). In our Study we will adhere to the view suggested by Shaffer et al. (2006).