I had no idea what formal program evaluation entailed, as my experience with it has been limited and fairly specific in its efforts and intentions.  Institutions have their preferred methods of program evaluation spelled out, and the process and product is formulated in an expected format, with an expected outcome, yet this is not realistic.

Owen (2007) breaks down evaluation into four specific types:  policy, program, product and individual (p. 23).  Further, evaluations are broken down into specific formats, which Owen (2007) calls Forms:  proactive, clarificative, interactive, monitoring and impact (p. 40).

Project focus on realistic evaluation (Owen, 2007, p.48). . .

When asking the question “what would you do if. . .?”, we are asked to reflect upon the ethics involved in the introduction of new products/values into society (Jandt, 2013, p.299).  How does this pertain to intercultural communications?  

Change agents are defined as people in a position to influence attitudes and behaviours of others (whether peer group or larger groups within a society), who are positioned to make innovation decisions for their specific community (Jandt, 2013, p.298).  They are charged with the analysis of the adaptation potential (Jandt, 2013, p.299) of their target group/community, and to then make decisions about what should and should not then be introduced into that community.

Back to the “what would you do if. . .?” question; is it reasonable for industry, health care, government or education to decide what should or should not be introduced?  Who is responsible for policing these change agents, to stop them from interfering in the health and well being of their communities?  I am not comfortable with the idea that the capitalistic global marketplace has the ability to impact every aspect of life in any arena.  

Jandt (2013, p.299) discusses the ethics involved with the introduction of birth control in to developing countries; the impact on the roles of women, care of elderly, family size, etc., and whether or not products should be introduced based on the perceived changes to the situation in any community.  I would tend to argue about which agency or agent has the right to stop or restrict change in any community, with the intent to restrict the freedom of choice of any individual .  

I have never had difficulties with academic writing; it is a challenge I enjoy immensely, and is the source of my greatest learning experiences.  So why was it difficult this time?  It was just discussing indigenous decolonization through the lens of intercultural communication, and was inspired by the lecture Mark Pagel: How language transformed humanity (TEDGlobal, 2011).  It took me from the Old Testament (Genesis 11:1) through a brief history of colonialism globally, and back, full circle, to a common, colonial language with a new twist.  English as the language of empowerment instead of the language of oppression.  I do not know if I captured half of what my own head was screaming about the topic.

Where the real problem occurred was the realization that my own world views were changing as I was writing, and my arguments would no longer hold up to my own scrutiny (so how was I to hand in something I did not even believe in?).  Why such a change (and change. . .and change. . .and change!) in attitude and argument?  Because it was personal.  It was my history.  These were my struggles as much as they were the scholars I was studying.

There was no room to speak of traditional indigenous knowledge without speaking in traditional indigenous knowledge.  I could not talk about the indigenous struggle with colonialism, without using their words.  Suddenly, I was the storyteller and the scholar.  The two worlds I was discussing – colonial (white) and traditional (indigenous) became the same world, and the arguments lost validity (to me).  Can both worlds coexist in the same academic paper?  Why not?  Indigenous scholars do it all the time.  So, why then was this a struggle for a voice on the page, when the voice was speaking reason in my mind, and in spoken word?

I think I missed the mark on this paper.  It left me wanting to do more; to argue stronger, louder, and better.  This was just the exercise in self-reflection I needed, and it felt good.  It felt good!

 

I always find it difficult to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard), to reflect upon the learning process.  This is not to say that I do not mull over the information I take in from each course; or that I do not discuss it with peers, friends or family over the supper table.  How do I capture this process in a meaningful way?

I am reminded of Jandt (2013) in his discussion on the differences between emic and etic knowledge:

We learn values, what is competent, and what is desirable behavior from our culture.  This type of learning is called emic knowledge, or knowledge of the culture learned from the inside. . .(When a culture is learned by an outsider, the stranger tends to acquire theoretical and normative information called etic knowledge).  Because culture is widely shared and taken for granted, we have little experience in discussing how cultural values affect our behavior (Jandt, 2013, p. 197).

It can be argued that adult education is a culture, and those of us on the inside subscribe to emic knowledge of what being an educator entails, including all our cultural practices.  What I feel, when trying to carry out the cultural practice of critical reflection, is that of etic knowledge of the process – the proverbial outsider looking in.  

 

 

Linguistic determinism v. linguistic relativity:

I think that the theory of linguistic relativity (Jandt, 2013, p.138) is an evolution of linguistic determinism, where the belief that “language structure controls thought and cultural norms” (p.137) is challenged by the fact that cultures are not completely closed off.  In modern times people of differing cultures have the ability to travel and experience new culture.  Linguistic determinism is unable to explain how language is expanded by the experiencing of new cultures.  To explain this phenomenon, we turn to the theory of linguistic relativity, “culture is controlled by and controls language” (Jandt, 2013, p.138), to understand that with new cultural experiences our language will be expanded accordingly, and conversely, with the expansion of new language we then have the ability to expand our culture proportionately (Davidson, 2013, October 8).

“Steinfatt (1989), in an extensive review of the literature, argues that the basis of linguistic relativity is that the difference between languages is not what can be said but what is relatively easy to say” (Jandt, 2013, p.138); does this work with my hypothesis that linguistic relativity is an evolution of linguistic determinism?  If we focus on just the easy to say, are we not setting ourselves up for failure in communications by oversimplifying our language?  This ideology does not account for experiential equivalence (or lack thereof), “if an object or experience does not exist in your culture, it’s difficult to translate words referring to that object or experience into that language when no words may exist for them” (Jandt, 2013, p.143).

A TED Talk video:  Wade Davis on Endangered Cultures

I am a meat eater; a rare steak (grilled to perfection), is what I live for.  Going in to the supermarket, I have the understanding where my steak of choice came from.  We raise cattle (a living, breathing, animal) for the sole purpose of sustenance.  So, why then do we abhor the thought of another culture consuming a domestic animal (dog)?

Jandt (2013, pp. 62-69) discusses the issues of perception, and how the process of perception – selection, organization, and interpretation – affects how we process information.  Some of our perceptions, such as reacting to the idea of consuming dog meat, is “a culturally learned interpretation” (Jandt, 2013, p.67).  How do we control our perceptions based on our culture, so they do not have a negative impact on our communication interactions?

The idea that our preconceived notions, stemming from our own cultural identity, have the ability to influence our intercultural communications, leaves me with a few questions:

• What do I know specifically, about other cultures, that would cloud my perceptions while engaging in communications?
• How much of a negative impact does a lack of cultural awareness have on communications with persons of differing cultures than my own?
• Do I have biases that could negatively affect intercultural communication?
• Do I consciously use negative biases, stereotypes, or lack of cultural understanding while engaging in intercultural communications?

 

Bratton, Helms Mills, Pyrch, and Sawchuk (2008) discuss five core job characteristics (p.49):

1. skill variety
2. task identity
3. task significance
4. autonomy
5. feedback

Ideally, the more of these characteristics a job possesses, the more motivated the worker will be in completing the task.  Though how much autonomy do we really have in the workplace?  Allowing the flexibility to schedule work and process, as well as giving independence to workers can be the proverbial double-edged sword.  I am divided by traditional employee/employer relationships, with hegemonic power differentials between the two roles, and a more flexible, autonomous workplace, with more and more employee flexibility.  It leaves me wondering how an employer can maintain control over an organization.  Am I comfortable with this?

Reflective question:

“Is the term “team” simply a masculine metaphor to cultivate cooperative relations and support management goals?” (Bratton et al., 2008, p.47).  My question is what is wrong with supporting management goals?  Usually business decisions are made at the management level, and support the goals of the organization.  How the goals are achieved is also a management decision.  Hegemonic masculinity does not really equate, as it is not the place of the employee to decide how to achieve corporate goals without management approval.  Have we given up the right to manage a corporation?  Perhaps autonomy is more a deception, as management will continue with its function of guiding an organization.  Am I satisfied with this answer? [Something to revisit]