intercultural competence a gendered issue?! · 2016-04-01 · intercultural competence – a...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Intercultural competence – a gendered issue?!
Analysis of differences in intercultural competence in a Danish and
Norwegian sample of upper secondary school students.
Trond Solhaug
Program for Teacher Education Norwegian University of Science and Technology
& Niels Nørgaard Kristensen
Ålborg University Denmark
Abstract National and cultural diversification accompanies the pluralization of European societies. This
pluralization and difference call for several needs like communication and understanding in order to
achieve, recognition, equality and justice, self-determination and identification with others. This
paper responds to the increasing diversity and pluralization of identities by exploring antecedents of
the intercultural competence between young people in a selection of in Norwegian and Danish
schools. Although the sample is Scandinavian we believe that the issue of communication,
recognition and understanding is on most people’s lips in times of migration and immigration
throughout Europe. The diversity, difference and pluralization call for experiences of inclusiveness
and we apply Kabeer’s (2005) framework of Inclusive citizenship. This framework mentions issues of
justice, recognition of uniqueness and difference, self-determination, identify with others and
participatory parity to make friend s and show solidarity as important issues in feeling included. A
selection of 895 students in seven schools (two Danish and five Norwegian) was asked a variety of
questions on intercultural competence and relations in questionnaires. Data were analysed in IBM
SPSS using standard procedures in quantitative methodology. Although more variables seem to
influence intercultural competence we focus on differences between females and males. We find
that females display more positive attitudes and competences throughout six scales on intercultural
empathy and competence. On some scales the differences is unexpectedly large. The gender
differences are therefore focused, discussed and theorized.
2
Introduction Globalization, together with Denmark’s Norway’s policy of recognising free movement of people
from within the European Union, and subsequent signing of the 1995 Schengen agreement, various
regional conflicts and subsequent migration have increased diversity in both countries, particularly
in the central urban areas. Denmark as well as Norway has a long history of immigration, stretching
back over centuries (Brochmann & Kjeldstadli, 2008) (Togeby, 2003). Processes of globalization and
subsequent policy developments, closely tied to Denmark’s EU membership and Norway’s adoption
of various EU policies relating to the free movement of people and trade have brought a steady
increase in immigration since 1970 (Statistics Norway (SSB), 2015) (Statistics Denmark DST 2015). The
current minority population (migrants and children of migrants) in Norway is around 15% of the total
(SSB, 2015) and in Denmark around 12% of the total (DST 2015). Net immigration has increased from
0.3% in 2005 to close to 1% of the total population in 2011 (SSB, 2012). This places Norway among
top three immigration nations in Europe when net immigration is measured against overall
population, with a significant effect on population size and diversity (SSB, 2012). This article
addresses the interrelationship between individuals and groups by exploring intercultural
competence in the context of this fast changing demographic.
Official attitudes to immigrants and immigration are reflected in national rules for acquiring
citizenship. It may be useful to look at them briefly from a Nordic perspective. The Nordic countries
revised their citizenship rules in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Up till recently Sweden
requires five years of residence for citizenship eligibility, Denmark requires nine years together with
various several tests of Danish language and culture. Norway requires citizenship applicants to
complete seven years residence and to take language and social studies tests (Midtbøen. 2009).
Midtbøen (2009) highlights important differences in the justification of citizenship requirements
across the three countries: whereas the Swedish guidelines stress citizenship as a means for
integration, the Danish and to some extent the Norwegian ones present citizenship as a “reward” for
successful integration. Differences in justification reflect also quite different understandings of
diversity and its value to society. In the Swedish case, both immigrants and diversity are presented as
an asset. Midtbøen further suggests that in both the Danish and Norwegian cases, diversity is not
presented as an asset but rather as a challenge and a problem for society. With the arrival of over
one million refugees and irregular migrants in Europe in in 2015, mostly from Syria, Africa and South
Asia, the vast majority arriving by sea to Greece, as well as to Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, Malta and Cyprus
(IOM, 2015), the Scandinavian countries have introduced new restrictions, including additional
border controls and a review of language and cultural knowledge expectations of migrants. While
historically the three Scandinavian nations have perceived immigration and diversity somewhat
differently, their immigration policies are now similar after recent changes. And there is doubt that
immigration policy discourses is boosted by a flow of refugees and there is a danger that it transfer
into personal attitudes.
In recent decades, immigration has become a significant political issue in Norway, voiced in
particular by the far-right Progress party; every political party now responds with a political program
addressing immigration, integration and the societal impact of immigration (Aardal, 1999, 2007a,
2007c). This reflects a pattern across Europe, where in most nations far-right political movements
and parties are expressing concerns about immigration and making claims about the inevitability of
security threats, unemployment and ethnic, religious and cultural conflicts which they claim will
3
follow (Gutwirth & Burgess, 2011). In Norway, a mock election surveyi of students aged 14-20
(random sample N=4631) revealed that a majority of boys perceive immigration primarily as a threat,
while a small majority of girls disagree and appear to hold more positive attitudes to immigration.
Thus the study reveals important gender differences in attitudes to immigration among young people
in Norway (NSD, 2013). Among adult Norwegians there has been an increase in the number of people
who believe migrants abuse the Norwegian welfare system (SSB, 2011). Such accusations has been
prevalent in the public debate particularly following the Brochmann-commission report “Welfare
and migration”(NOU, 2011). Despite this, the overall picture of Norwegian attitudes to immigration
appears more positive: three out of four recognise immigrants’ contributions in business and
professional life; nine out of ten think migrants should have the same professional career options as
Norwegians; and seven out of ten think that immigrants contribute positively to the economy.
Nevertheless, around one of three Norwegians believe that immigrants are a source of insecurity
(SSB, 2015).
The recent rise in immigration and growth in diversity seem to be the context for report 6 (2012/13)
to the Storting (Norwegian parliament) from the Ministry of knowledge entitled: “A comprehensive
integration policy diversity and community”. A 5-year (2013-2017) follow up programme was
designed and lead by the Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training (Utdanningsdirektoratet).
This program is directed primarily at teachers while this article has as its primary focus students’
attitudes and experiences of diversity in schools. Increased interest in diversity is also reflected in
the research literature.
To summarize, immigration continues to extend rapidly population diversity in Norway and Denmark,
with a potential impact on daily life and citizenship practices. Attitudes to minorities are politically
contested and have become a major issue in schools and in professional life, public debate and
interpersonal relations.
Our research focus is: To explore predictors of intercultural competence in a selection of students in 2
Norwegian and 2 Danish upper secondary schools. Schools are public institutions in which youth can
engage with others across difference We are aware of that the way we have designed and phrased
our enquiry assumes that “intercultural competece” is a normative good and an asset particularly to
citizenship practice. We present some related research on this in the next section.
We have selected matching samples of students in general branch in two upper secondary schools in
Denmark and Norway with a total sample size of 895 students. Analysis of the Norwegian sample
revealed significant gender differences in intercultural empathy (Solhaug & Osler in press). Based on
these preliminary findings we decided to explore the relationship between gender and aspects of
intercultural competence in a two country samples. In our analysis we compare the gender
differences with variables such as parent’s education, coming from a bilingual home, coming from a
home with high cultural capital, having parents with higher education, student’s academic
achievement and attending a school with very diverse students.
Previous research In this section, we address a selection of research related in intercultural competence as well as
relevant aspects of gender research. As for intercultural competence, we particularly look at
intercultural empathy, but also knowledge, concern for others and willingness to take action.
4
Research has commonly held that empathy may be altered in the individual with impacts on
interpersonal relations (Duan & Hill, 1996). Significantly for our study, intercultural empathy is found
to increase perceived concern in other peoples’ welfare and enable attitude change towards groups
who experience oppression (Wang et al., 2003). Furthermore, lack of empathy has been linked to
intergroup aggression and social dominance orientation (Wang et al., 2003). Similarly, Le and
Johansen (2011) found that what they term “school multiculturalism” (whether youth felt and
thought that their school provided activities for diverse intergroup interactions) may work as an
important protective factor against youth violence. They further concluded that Initiatives to enable
and support school multiculturalism may in turn facilitate community engagement characterised by
greater ethno-cultural understanding, openness, and respect for diversity. Additionally, in a study of
the impact of school multiculturalism on Asian-American and Hispanic youth, Chang and Le (2010)
found that perceived school support for multiculturalism was not only positively related to cultural
empathy but it was also predictive of academic achievement, particularly among Hispanic youth.
Hofmann (2000) suggested that empathy is clearly linked to prosocial behaviour.
Immigration, increased diversity and growing recognition of long-standing diversity has generated
research and scholarship designed to support teachers and students in addressing social change and
social justice. Such scholarship includes the seminal works of James A. Banks (2006) and the
comprehensive collections he has assembled on diversity and multiculturalism in education (Banks
Banks & Banks 2004, 2010). Large scale studies addressing teacher understandings of cultural
difference and cross-cultural sensitivity among students (J. Mahon, 2006; J. A. Mahon & Cushner,
2014) complement these theoretical and empirical studies.
In the Nordic context, Eriksen and Sajad (2015) discuss a range of issues pertinent to increased
diversity in Norwegian society, while in the context of Finland, key research has been done by Dervin
and colleagues, specifically on intercultural competences in teacher education (Dervin, Paatela-
Nieminen, Kuoppala, & Riitaoja, 2012) In addition, a number of Norwegian publications address
dialogue, inclusion within teaching and learning without explicitly touch upon empathy (Børhaug,
2015; Dahl, Dybvig, & Keeping, 2013; Engen, 2010; Skrefsrud, 2012; Westrheim & Tolo, 2014).
Considering the nature of intercultural empathy and its possible links to people’s well-being in
diverse societies, we argue that it is important to examine implications for practice in increasingly
diverse schools.
Historically, since the development of equal political rights, the political participation of men has
been larger than the participation of women. Such differences, however, have been evened out over
time, and today women’s participation in political election is larger in the two countries, especially
among the younger generations, where the discrepancy at the latest parliamentary election in 2015
in Denmark reached 8 percentage points in the favour of younger females (Bhatti et al., 2016).
Further, there are gender related variations in ways and the extent of the political participation.
When it comes to participation in social movements, in political consume and in the “small”
democracy, women also generally surpass the participation of men (Torpe, 2006).
5
Theory
Inclusive citizenship The current study is theoretically framed by citizenship and its three fundamental axes – extent (rules
and norms of exclusion and inclusion), content (rights and responsibilities) and depth (thickness or
thinness) of citizenship (Isin & Turner, 2002). Citizenship is also a practice, involving “acts of
citizenship” (Isin & Neilsen, 2008). The degree to which an individual feels a sense of belonging is
likely to be connected to the ways in which rights are guaranteed or denied in a particular social
environment. In other words, it is related to practices of inclusion and exclusion. In school
environments, the application of formal rights or citizenship status, the feeling of citizenship and the
practice of citizenship is likely to vary between individuals and between groups.
Citizenship practices at school, which regulate processes of inclusion and exclusion reflects the
effectiveness of citizenship claims in the wider society. Despite the fact that most citizenship rights
are guaranteed either to a specific group (nationals) and human rights are universal , the practices of
citizenship may prevent particular group or individuals from effectively claiming rights to a. The gap
between formal and effective rights is a source of tension and conflict, undermining equality
between citizens. The current research on intercultural competence adresses how variation in such
competence may affect the perceived inclusiveness in some practice.
In order to realise a framework for inclusive citizenship, a number of additional elements need to be
stressed. We draw here on feminist theories of citizenship (Fraser, 2003); (Kabeer, 2005) to support
our empirical research. These theorists highlight four issues: justice, recognition, self-determination
and solidarity. Justice addresses the gap between formal rights and effective rights, and questions of
inclusion and exclusion. The concept addresses when it is just for people to be treated the same
(equal treatment) and when it is just that they are treated differently (equal outcomes). Our study
considers the effectiveness of some rights in schools Recognition is the second aspect of inclusive
citizenship, acknowledging not only the intrinsic worth of all human beings, but also the recognition
and respect for difference. Recognition may be institutionalized but still requires an interpersonal
response, something our study seeks to address. Our empirical focus on intercultural empathy
touches upon interpersonal recognition. Thirdly, our study addresses self-determination understood
as people’s ability to exercise some control over their own lives. This leads directly to the fourth and
final concept, solidarity. Solidarity can be seen both as a societal goal and as one of particular
importance in education. Linking justice, recognition, self-determination and solidarity, Kabeer writes
of “the capacity to identity with others and to act in unity with them in their claims for justice and
recognition” (2005: 3-7). Fraser (2003) and Lister (2008) also stress “participatory parity” or the
ability of members in society to interact with one another as peers (Lister, 2008). This fifth
characteristic of citizenship is of particular interest to intercultural empathy, reflecting the capacity
(or willingness) to identify with others in a spirit of solidarity, rather than one of charity or inequality.
Finally, Lister (2008:51) suggests the politics of difference requires an “ethos of pluralization” to
avoid an exclusive identity politics and an “us and them” vision. Lister stresses that to bridge barriers
one has to recognize the right to be different and to promote a reflective solidarity, one infused with
what she defines as a “universalism of difference”. This implies the recognition of difference and an
acknowledgement of intra-group as well as inter-group differences. The politics of difference are
discussed in a later section. Our study of intercultural empathy across difference brings to the
6
foreground everyday encounters between people and their feelings and understandings of difference.
It implicitly addresses questions of recognition, respect and the capacity to identify with the other. As
elaborated below, we see intercultural empathy as vital to understanding and solidarity across
difference.
On the term intercultural
The term interculture is composed of two elements. “Inter” points to the relational aspect between
two or more largely distinct and identifiable “culture(s)”. Attempts to define culture have produced a
variety of definitions ranging from culture as purely external criteria (historical) to purely internal
(Jagoda, 2012). Jagoda concludes that culture “is not a thing, but a social construct vaguely referring
to a vastly complex set of phenomena” (Jagoda, 2012:300). Following Jagoda we see intercultural
relations as subjective encounters between humans where perceptions of culture as similar or
different are defined and constructed by individuals. Here, we therefore avoid defining these
relations in terms of ethnicity, race, and nationalism or by cultural assets, partly because what we are
addressing is the perception of difference and understanding by those involved, and partly because
these various elements intersect in complex ways and socially and historically situated ways (Brah &
Phoenix, 2004) which cannot be assessed in quantitative measures such as we use here.
Dependent variables In the following section we discuss six aspects of intercultural competence and start with three
aspects of intercultural empathy.
Intercultural empathy
Why is empathy important to study? The reasons relate to empathy’s meaning in interpersonal
feelings and in understanding of the other. The concept is derived from counselling psychology and
psychotherapy and became particularly popular following after Carl Rogers’ introduction of the term
in the late nineteen-fifties. It became important in psychotherapy as a precondition for
understanding the development of patients’ needs and well-being. However, some refer to the term
as primarily emotional, understood as the “immediate experience of the emotions of and another
person” while others refer to empathy as “the intellectual understanding of another’s experience
(Duan & Hill, 1996:263). A third position is to view empathy as a mix of both cognitive and affective
components. There seems to be no consensus on what empathy is (DeTurk, 2001; Duan & Hill, 1996).
An important cognitive aspect in intercultural relations is to be able to take the role or perspective of
another person (Gladstein, 1983). In many other situations it is important to respond with similar
emotions (emotional empathy). Also a common understanding of empathy is that it is a personal
trait which is either inherited or developed through cognitive effort. This ability is characterized as an
ability to “know another person’s inner experiences” (Duan & Hill, 1996:262). This implies that some
people by nature or development are more empathic than others (Duan & Hill, 1996). Such a view
implies that empathy varies by situation regardless of the individual person’s traits and abilities to
empathize. This view allows us to study how contextual factors might influence person’s abilities to
empathize with his/her environment. Furthermore, the ability to empathize with others is not fixed
but may vary according to situations and dispositions. Consequently, it may be learned from
interaction. This view is implicit in the design of the current study where we compare students’
intercultural attitudes in schools which vary according to the degree of cultural diversity among
students.
7
Our position is that in most encounters between individuals there is an intellectual element, but
emotions also play a significant role. Consequently we see empathy as having both a cognitive and an
affective component. Furthermore, our view is that an ability to empathize with the social
environment is not fixed, but varies according to people’s experiences as well as contextual
situations. The ability to empathize certainly is vital to interpersonal relationships and understanding
in social relations, particularly in intercultural relations where the life and history of the other might
be significantly different from the individual’s own experience. In interpersonal relationships it is vital
to understand communication and the various views held by others. Particularly, when views and
behaviour are derived from different values, culture and religious traditions, there are potential
tensions between those involved.
Wang and colleagues discuss the specific nature of intercultural empathy and particularly its
measurement. They see intercultural empathy as having a cognitive component which can be
learned and developed through information and experience (Wang et al., 2003:222). There is also an
emotional component in developing the capacity to emphasize with the feelings of the other
(different) person. The emotional component is also expressed in positive personal feelings towards
persons from other identified groups. A particular aspect of this is empathetic perspective taking, or
the ability to see the “the world” from another person’s perspective. Finally, Wang and colleagues
emphasize the broad category of empathetic thoughts and actions which may be expressed in a
variety of ways, illustrating favourable judgements of cultural difference.
Indicators of intercultural empathy.
Note that for all variables we describe below, the item text, the factor loadings, the Chronbach α and
the percentage of construct items explained variance in the factor are listed in the appendix.
There are a number of scales measuring cross cultural sensitivity, cross cultural competence and
intercultural training assessments (J. A. Mahon & Cushner, 2014). Due to our focus on the concept of
intercultural empathy we are particularly indebted to the work of Wang et.al. 2003. We used a
selection of their items, based on our judgement of the specific political context of our study and the
current political context in Denmark and Norway. However, we draw attention to a more
comprehensive work developed by Mallinckrodt and colleagues who also draw on (Mallinckrodt et al.,
2014) who build on Wang et. al. It was published after the current data collection was well under its
way (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014).
We wish to stress the political nature of immigration and increased diversity in the history of Norway,
as discussed in the introduction. Questions of intercultural empathy, awareness, emotion, action and
perspective have normative and political meanings which may influence students’ responses. In our
measure we particularly emphasize “empathic feelings and expressions”. This includes willingness to
act upon perceived discrimination and injustice D1, D4 and D7. Also included in this measure are D5,
D6 and D8, which focus on emotional reactions to prejudice or injustice in the treatment of other
groups. Both cognitive (information/knowledge) and emotional components are reflected in the
items we use. Concerning intercultural awareness, we have two items D2 and D3, which express
indifferent attitudes to other people’s/cultures and perceptions of day-to-day injustices or
unfavourable treatment. The reason for using an “expression of indifference” within the items is to
invite students to take a more active stand in their empathetic expression, not simply to fulfil
perceived socially accepted behaviour standards as might normally be expected at school. Regarding
8
the measure of attitudes to difference we use two items (D11 and D12) which express negative
attitudes to invite students to take an active stand.
Multicultural attitude scale.
The Munroe scale builds on Blooms taxonomy as well as Banks’ transformative model of
multicultural education (comprising five inter-related elements: knowledge construction, content
integration, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy and an empowering school culture) (Banks, 2010).
Banks contends that when teachers draw on content from a range of cultures and students have an
understanding of how knowledge is constructed, they will feel empowered to contribute to an
inclusive and empathetic school culture. There is an implicit causality or developmental thinking in
the theoretical foundation of the Munroe scale. The scale build’s on Bank’s model to assume
knowledge influences empathy as well as concern and abilities to take action (Munroe & Pearson,
2006:822). We used a selection of items from the Munroe Attitude Scale Questionnaire (Munroe &
Pearson, 2006), which measure cognitive information, concern for social environment and
willingness to take action. However, in this article we explore how these aspects of intercultural
competence are predicted by a variety of variables.
Indicators of multicultural competence
We use a three item scale: F2, F3 and F4 to measure knowledge of diversity. As for concern we use a
three item scale G1, G2, G3 to measure concern, and we use H2 and H3 to measure action (see
appendix where all test data is provided for Norwegian and Danish sample).
All in all we use three intercultural empathy scales and three scales on multicultural competence (six
scales in total) as dependent variables.
Independent variables and expectations.
First and foremost we provide gender (Q1). We do expect differences men and women in
intercultural competence. Second we use a variable named “bilingual home” (Q2). We expect that
students from a bilingual home will display higher intercultural competence. Third we provide
cultural capital (Bordieu, 1986) with the standard indicator “number of books at home”(Q3) . We do
expect that students coming from a home with high cultural capital also have higher intercultural
competence. Fourth we provide a variable on parent’s education (Q4). We do expect that students
who have parents with higher education also have higher intercultural competence. Academic
achievements tend to be important in many aspects of life. We included a variable on student’s
grades (Q7). This scale is recoded to match the different scales in Denmark and Norway and also for
the IB classes. We expect that high achievers will have higher intercultural competence. Finally we
included a variable on extent of diversity (R2), which measures the proportion of bilingual students in
school. We expect (based on the contact hypothesis) that students from schools with high proportion
of bilingual students will have higher intercultural competence.
Methodology. The present study of schools in Norway and Denmark has an institutional design where we study a
large number of students, a selection of teachers and the school principle (interview) in a limited
number of comparable schools. The schools were selected from the geographical locations where
the students are assumed to live, but vary according to the diversity of their student populations.
9
There is an underlying assumption in the design that increased diversity in schools offers
opportunities for learning and development of inter-relational attitudes across diverse populations.
Sample and data collection Over the past decade there has been a significant increase in surveys in Norwegian as well as Danish
schools. This makes it quite difficult to get a research access to schools and thus has limited our
options for selecting schools. In particular, it has limited our options for selecting schools
characterised by high levels of diversity. Despite this, we tried to match samples from schools where
the student population is drawn from the mainstream population with schools which have larger
proportions of minority students. In the two countries schools were selected with one urban school
in a larger city and one school in a smaller city. We also aimed at two schools in each country with
one diverse and one “more homogenous” populated area. Facing the realities in the two countries
we had to compromise the selection of schools with what was possible to carry out. We selected
students from 3 classes in general branch on all 3 levels of study. In addition we included students
from International baccalaureate in one Danish and one Norwegian school. The sample sizes and
diversity is displayed in the table below.
Table 1 Sample diversity, number and diversity in upper secondary schools Norway and Denmark
general branches N= Norwegian, DK=Danish.
School 1N 2N 1DK 2DK
Number of different languages spoken 27 36 1 20
Proportion of bilingual students (%) 10 17 0 53
IB Students N= 45 66
Total N=895 270 237 155 233
Average respondent rates 91% 85% 72% 83%
The questionnaire was developed in Norwegian and English (for IB Students) in Norway using mostly
internationally tested scales (see operationalization). The Norwegian questionnaire was translated
into Danish using both the Norwegian and English version as a basis for translation. The translation
was partly carried out by the present co-author and an very experienced Danish teacher in one of the
selected schools. The questionnaires were printed and processed at NTNU.
Printed questionnaires were distributed with the help of research assistants in all schools. With the
permission of the head teacher, they made appointments with teachers; attended classes, informed
and sought the consent of students; distributed the questionnaires and collected responses. The
response rate is listed in table 1 above. The response rate is satisfactory. The questionnaires were
processed in a scanner at Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU and a research
assistant monitored and made corrections during scanning. The file was created by a technical
engineer at SVT_IT NTNU.
10
Analytical procedures Data were processed in IBM SPSS. We started the analysis of distributions, missing data and outliers.
All distributions were checked for skewness and kurtosis and all distributions were well below 1.0
(the critical threshold is 2.0) (Christophersen, 2012), (Field, 2009). There is between 1% and 3%
missing data on the items, which is also very low and most likely due to our careful data collection
procedure. With such few missing we chose to replace them using the default option in SPSS
replacing the missing using the mean, so as to keep as large a sample as possible. The replacement of
missing values causes only slightly more conservative estimates.
In our analytical approach our scales are developed from theory, which reflects a single factor and
we therefore used a confirmatory factor analysis approach. In SPSS we used a semi confirmatory
analysis of our items (principal axis factoring) with the non-rotation option. It is semi-confirmatory
because SPSS has a limited option in specifying the model and the results do not provide standard
SEM fit-indexes between model and empirical matrix. The factor analysis revealed major factor
structures in the empirical matrixes and we provide factor loadings, Chronbach’s α, and R2 square for
the proportion of variance in factors explained by the items as indicators of model fit in both
Norwegian and Danish sample. Considerations between concept validity and statistical validity were
made and served the basis for the decision on which items to include in the construct. Items, scales
and measurement data are provided in Appendix.
In further analytical procedure we started out by exploring possible correlations between
explanatory variables like, gender, bi-lingual home, cultural capital, parent’s education, academic
achievements (grades), school diversity, and aspects six aspects of intercultural competence in our
dataset. The significant correlations from this exploration are presented and serve the basis for the
regression analysis. As for the regression analysis the enter variables are the same as in the
correlations above. However, in order to achieve the scientific goal of parsimony of a simple model
which explain the maximum of variance,(Kline, 2005) new models with only significant β coefficients
were performed. The tables of multiple regressions below present only the latter parsimony models
for aspects of intercultural competence.
Results We start displaying the results by exploring the intercorrelations between the aspects of the
dependent variables to reveal the empirical similarities and differences.
11
Tabell 2A Intercorrelations between scales Norway and Denmark N=895 Numbers are Pearson’s r
and P (sig. probability). SI= Social indifference, IE= intercultural empathy, AD=accept of difference,
KD=Knowledge, CO= Consern, AC= Action willingness.
SI_D2D3 IE AD KD CO IE_D1D4D5D6D7D8 -.48
.00
AD_E1E2E3E4 .35 .00
-.35 .00
KD_F2F3F4 -.16 .00
.19
.00 -.16 .00
CO_G1G2G3 -.44 .00
.63
.00 .40 .00
.32
.00
AC_H2H3 -.29 .00
.49
.00 -.24 .00
.20
.00 .47 .00
Tabell 2B Intercorrelations between scales Norway Numbers are Pearson’s r and P. N=507 SI= Social
indifference, IE= intercultural empathy, AD=accept of difference, KD=Knowledge, CO= Consern, AC=
Action willingness.
SI_D2D3 IE AD KD CO
IE_D1D4D5D6D7D8 -.47 .00
AD_E1E2E3E4 .30 .00
-.33 .00
KD_F2F3F4 -.28 .00
.25
.00 -.21 .00
CO_G1G2G3 -.42 .00
.57
.00 -.39 .00
.38
.00
AC_H2H3 -.28 .00
.52
.00 -.25 .00
.24
.00 .50 .00
Tabell 2C Interkorrelations between scales Denmark N=388. Numbers are Pearson’s r and P SI= Social
indifference, IE= intercultural empathy, AD=accept of difference, KD=Knowledge, CO= Consern, AC=
Action willingness..
EA_D2D3 IE AD KD CO
IE_D1D4D5D6D7D8 -.46 .00
AD_E1E2E3E4 .32 .00
-.34 .00
KD_F2F3F4 -.06 .27
.13
.00 -.13 .01
CO_G1G2G3 -.43 .00
.68
.00 -.36 .00
.27
.00
AC_H2H3 -.32 .00
.46
.00 -.24 .00
.13
.00 .44 .00
Empirically, the intercorrelations between these scales in the whole sample are between r=.16
and .63, where most correlations are medium to strong (below.50). This shows that the scales
12
measure different aspects of intercultural competence in both samples. Concern correlates r=.63
with intercultural empathy. This is not surprising since the scales reflect similar attitudes, but the
correlations still shows that the scales empirically reflect different aspects of intercultural
competence. There are fairly moderate differences between the two countries which is a further
sign of construct and measurement validity.
In the following tables we present significant bivariate correlations between dependent variables and
independent variables.
Table 3 Bivariat correlation results, Numbers are Pearsons r and P (sig. probability) Norwegian (NO)
N=480 – Danish (DK) N= 386. SI= Social indifference, IE= intercultural empathy, AD=accept of
difference, KD=Knowledge of difference, CO= Consern, AC= Action willingness.
Variable SI NO SI DK IE NO IE DK AD NO AD DK Q1 Gender r=.41
P=.00 r=.26 P=.00
r=-.45 P=.00
r= -.38 P=.00
r=.22 P=.00
Q2 Bi lingual home r=.18 P=.00
r=-.13 P=.01
r=.22 P=.00
r=-.21 P=.00
Q3 Cultural Capital.
r=-.19 P=.00
r=.10 P=.00
Q4 Par Ed. r= -.10 P=.00
r=.13 P=.00
Q7 Grades r= -.10 P=.00
r=.12 P=.00
R2 School diversity r=-.10 P=.00
r=-.17 P=.00
R=.20 P=.00
r=.16 P=.00
Table 3 continued.
Variable KD NO KD DK CO NO CO DK AC NO AC DK Q1 Gender r= -.14
P=.00 r= -.15 P=.00
r= -.45 P=.00
r= -.32 P=.00
r= -.27 P=.00
r=- .20 P=.00
Q2 Bi-lingual home. r=-.19 P=.00
Q3 Cultural Capital.
r= -.27 P=.00
r= .18 P= .00
r= .10 P= .00
r= .12 P= .02
Q4 Parents Education. r= .17 P=.00
R=-.11 P= .03
Q7 Academic achievement r= -.19 P=.00
r= .12 P=.00
R2 School diversity r=-.14 P=.00
r=-.12 P=.02
We comment successively on the dependent variables. First of all women display significantly
stronger intercultural competence across all six variables except for AD (accept of difference in the
Danish sample). The correlations indicating gender differences are fairly strong for SI, IE, and CO in
Norway and a bit more moderate in Danish sample. As for AD, KD and AC the correlations are more
moderate in both national samples. The only exception is AD where there are no gender differences
in the Danish sample. Gender is by far the most important variable.
Mother tongue seems to play much less important and also a varying role between the samples and
only in the SI, IE, AD and KD. Cultural capital has moderate effects on SI, IE, KD, CO and AC and the
13
effects vary between the samples. Parents education have even smaller effects (quite noteworthy)
and only on SI, AD, KD and AC. The effects vary between samples. Academic achievement (Grades)
has similar moderate effects, but this is only in Norway. School diversity as a contextual variable has
varying moderate effects across the aspects of dependent variable and the samples.
We have performed multiple regressions with aspects of intercultural competence as dependent
variables and available independent variables below. Only significant results of final regressions are
presented.
Table 4 Regression results, Norwegian (NO) N=480 – Danish (DK) N= 386. SI= Social indifference, IE=
intercultural empathy, AD=accept of difference, KD=Knowledge of difference, CO= Concern, AC=
Action willingness.
Variable SI NO SI DK IE NO IE DK AD NO AD DK Q1 Gender β=.40
P=.00 β=.26 P=.00
β=-.45 P=.00
β=-.37 P=.00
β=.21 P=.00
Q2 Bi-ling home
β=.11 P=.01
β=.21 P=.00
β=.18 P=.00
β=-.29 P=.00
Q3 Cultural Capital.
β=-.17 P=.00
Q4 Par Ed.
Q7 Grades
R2 School diversity
β=.15 β.19 P=.00
R2
adjusted 20% 7% 21% 18%
6,4% 9%
Table 4 continued.
Variable KD NO KO DK CO NO CO DK AC NO AC DK Q1 Gender β=-.12
p=.00 β=-.15 P=.00
β=-.31 P=.00
β=-.24 P=.00
β=-.26 P=.00
β=-.20 P=.00
Q2 Bi lingual home
β=.14 p=.00
β=.14 P=.00
β=.09 P=.04
Q3 Cultural Capital.
β=.23 P=.00
β=.14 P=.00
Q4 Par Ed.
Q7 Grades β=-.18 P=.00
β=.13 P=.00
R2 School diversity
β.11 P=.00
R2
adjusted 11% 2% 14% 11% 9% 5%
Note, multiple regressions coefficients β are all controlled effects for all other variables in the
regression. It is beyond doubt that gender (females have the strongest competence) differences in
intercultural competence are the most striking findings in the current research in both Norway and
Denmark. There are also larger differences in the Norwegian sample compared to the Danish.
Largest are the differences in intercultural empathy. Measures in the Danish sample are a bit more
moderate, but confirm almost consistently the Norwegian pattern.
14
Coming from a bilingual home seems to be important, but the effects are consistently
moderate/weak and varying between samples on all aspects except CO. Also, cultural capital display
more moderate effects in the multiple regressions.
Discussion. Across all six aspects of intercultural competence in Norwegian sample and five aspects in Danish
sample girls have scored substantially higher on the intercultural competence than their male
counterparts. Elaborating on gender differences opens up a contested field of gender differences in
emotional expression, understanding and interpersonal relations (Lisa Feldman Barrett, Robin,
Pietromonaco, & Eyssell, 1998; Brody, 1997). Particularly the generalization of such male and female
differences pointed out here should be avoided. There is a large variety of males and females which
makes such generalizations problematic. Having said this, our findings in terms of gender differences
supports the picture revealed in a number of studies that women seem to report more empathy than
men (Albiero & Matricardi, 2013; Lisa Feldman Barrett et al., 2000; Brody, 1997; Neumann, Boyle, &
Chan, 2013). The findings about the gender differences are in line the gender differences in
aforementioned school election survey as well as the reported gender differences in attitudes to
immigration by (Blom, 2014) (Statistics Norway). Due to such a body of research (of which only
samples are shown here), as well as differences in political and value orientation pointed out above,
the differences are important because they have the potential to direct females and males
differently in their orientation towards cultural difference. The affective part of the intercultural
competence, may serve as a trigger of such different orientation. In accordance with Brody, we refer
to emotions as a multi-faceted motivational system which have experiential, cognitive, psychological
and expressive components (Brody, 1997). Emotions may serve as dispositions for cognitive
orientations and actions. So, the decomposition of actions may be one way of theorizing how these
gender differences operate. However, it is also important that when interpreting gender differences
there are contextual, situational and ethnic differences which may need to be borne in mind (Albiero
& Matricardi, 2013; Lisa Feldman Barrett, Lane, Sechrest, & Schwartz, 2000; Brody, 1997). Issues of
intercultural orientation may be a contextual field which may trigger feelings of empathy, knowledge
interest, concern and further engagement among females. The results of differences in intercultural
competence may therefore in a large picture imply different attitudes to other cultures from girls and
boys and have implications for an inclusive practice.
Inclusive citizenship? In our discussion above of citizenship theory, we highlighted four key features of inclusive citizenship:
justice (effective rights); recognition; self-determination; and solidarity across difference, addressing
citizenship status, feeling and practice. If we assume that similar gender differences in intercultural
competence might be obtained in replica studies and that these scores reflect significant differences
between boys and girls in their openness/willingness and ability to empathise with social
environment the finding is very noteworthy. The differences in intercultural competences may have
consequences for ability to identify with and recognize the diversity, as well as enable solidarity
across difference. This, in turn, may imply the need to give different emphasis to certain citizenship
education practices between girls and boys in culturally and socially diverse societies.
15
Conclusion. First and foremost we conclude that females in our Norwegian and Danish samples show at times
substantial differences in intercultural competence. The differences are quite similar in the two
samples but the differences are a bit greater in the Norwegian sample.
We may also conclude that coming from a bilingual home may be of some importance for their
intercultural competence. Similarly, cultural capital, students’ academic achievements and attending
a diverse school and in some cases parents education may also affect students intercultural
competence, but these predictions are all moderate even if they may be significant.
Limitations of study. First, the institutional design of the study and the accompanying school samples reduces the possible
variance in both the Danish and the Norwegian sample. This limits the generalizability of the results.
Second, as pointed out in the methodology section, although test data show fairly good results there
are also weakness in terms of uneven factor loadings and compromises needed in the measurement
of some scales.
Third, the test data for the Norwegian and Danish sample are fairly similar, but there are also some
varieties between the countries which may reduce the comparability.
16
Litterature Aardal, B. (1999). Velgere i 90-årene. Oslo: NKS-forlaget. Aardal, B. (2007a). Saker og standpunkter. In B. Aardal (Ed.), Norske velgere. En studie av
stortingsvalget 2005. Oslo: N.W.Damm & sønn. Aardal, B. (Ed.). (2007c). Norske velgere. En studie av stortingsvalget 2005. Oslo: N.W. Damm & sønn. Albiero, P., & Matricardi, G. (2013). Empathy towards people of different race and ethnicity: Further
empirical evidence for the Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(5), 648-655. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.05.003
Barrett, L. F., Lane, R. D., Sechrest, L., & Schwartz, G. E. (2000). Sex Differences in Emotional Awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Builletin, 26(9), 1027-1035. doi: 10.1177/01461672002611001
Barrett, L. F., Robin, L., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Eyssell, K. M. (1998). Are Women the ''More Emotional'' Sex? Evidence From Emotional Experiences in Social Context. Cognition & Emotion, 12(4), 555-578. doi: 10.1080/026999398379565
Bhatti Y., Dahlgaard J. O., Hansen J. H., Hansen K. M.(2016): ”Valgdeltagelsen og vælgerne til Folketingsvalget 2015”. Center for Valg og Partier, Institut for Statskundskab, Københavns Universitet.
Blom, S. (2014). Holdning til innvandrere og innvandring 2014. In S. Sentralbyrå (Ed.). Bordieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. S. Wells (Eds.),
Education Culture Economy Society (pp. 241-258). London: Oxford University Press. Brochmann, G., & Kjeldstadli, K. (2008). A History of Immigration. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Brody, L. R. (1997). Gender and Emotion: Beyond Stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 53(2), 369-393.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02448.x Børhaug, F. (2015). Når periferien utfordrer sentrum: interkulturell oppbygging som inkluderer
minoritetsungdommer i skolen (pp. S. [58]-72). Oslo: Universitetsforl. Chang, J., & Le, T. N. (2010). Multiculturalism as a Dimension of School Climate: The Impact on the
Academic Achievement of Asian American and Hispanic Youth. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(4), 485-492. doi: 10.1037/a0020654
Christophersen, K.-A. (2012). IBM SPSS/AMOS Databehandling og statistisk analyse. Oslo: Akademika forlag.
Dahl, Ø., Dybvig, P., & Keeping, D. (2013). Møter mellom mennesker: innføring i interkulturell kommunikasjon. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Danmarks Statistik (2015): ” Indvandrere i Danmark 2015”. Danmarks Statistik, November 2015. Dervin, F., Paatela-Nieminen, M., Kuoppala, K., & Riitaoja, A.-L. (2012). Multicultural Education in
Finland: Renewed Intercultural Competences to the Rescue?. . International Journal of Multicultural Education,, 14(3), 1-13.
DeTurk, S. (2001). Intercultural empathy: Myth, competency, or possibility for alliance building? Communication Education, 50(4), 374-384. doi: 10.1080/03634520109379262
Duan, C., & Hill, C. E. (1996). The Current State of Empathy Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(3), 261-274.
Engen, T. O. (2010). Literacy instruction and integration: the case of Norway. Intercultural Education, 21(2), 169-181. doi: 10.1080/14675981003696305
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Sage. Fraser, N. (2003). Social justice in the age of identity politics: redistribution, recognition and
participation. In N. Fraser & A. Honneth (Eds.), Redistribution of Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. (pp. 98-108). London & New York: Verso.
Gladstein, G. A. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating counseling, developmental, and social psychology perspectives. . Journal of Counseling Psychology,, 30(3), 467-482.
Gutwirth, S., & Burgess, J. P. (2011). A threat against Europe ?: security, migration and integration. Brussels: VUBPRESS.
Hofmann, M. L. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17
International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2015), Irregular migrant, refugee Arrivals in Europe top one million in 2015: IOM. 22 December. http://www.iom.int/news/irregular-migrant-refugee-arrivals-europe-top-one-million-2015-iom
Isin, E. F., & Turner, B. S. (2002). Citizenship Studies: An Introduction. In E. F. Isin & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of Citizenship Studies (pp. 1-10). London: Sage.
Isin, E.F. & Neilsen, G.M. (2008) Acts of citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY. Jagoda, G. (2012). Critical reflections on some recent definitions of ‘‘culture’’. Culture and Psychology,
18(3), 289-303. Kabeer, N. (2005). Introduction. In N. Kabeer (Ed.), Inclusive Citizenship. London New York: Zed Books. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. London: Guildford Press. Le, T.N. & Johansen, S. (2011). The Relationship Between School Multiculturalism and Interpersonal
Violence: An Exploratory Study. Journal of School Health, 81(11), 688-695. 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00645.x.
Lister, R. (2008). Inclusive itizenship. In E. F. Isin, P. Nyers, & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Citizenship between Past and Future (pp. 48-60). London: Routledge.
Mahon, J. (2006). Under the Visible Cloak? Teacher Understanding of Cultural Difference. Intercultural Education, 17(4), 391-405.
Mahon, J. A., & Cushner, K. (2014). Revising and updating the inventory of cross-cultural sensitivity. Intercultural Education, 25(6), 484-496. doi: 10.1080/14675986.2014.990232
Mallinckrodt, B., Miles, J. R., Bhaskar, T., Chery, N., Choi, G., & Sung, M. R. (2014). Developing a Comprehensive Scale to Assess College Multicultural Programming. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(1), 133-145. doi: 10.1037/a0035214
McPherson, & Abell, N. (2012). Human Rights Engagement and Exposure: New scales to Challenge Social Work Education. Research on Socila Work Practice, 22(6), 704-713.
McPherson, J. L. P. (2015). One Million Bones: Measuring the Effect of Human Rights Participation in the Social Work Classroom. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(1), 47-57. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2015.977130
Munroe, A., & Pearson, C. (2006). The Munroe Multicultural Attitude Scale Questionnaire - A new instrument for multicultural studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(5), 819-834. doi: 10.1177/0013164405285542
Neumann, D. L., Boyle, G. J., & Chan, R. C. K. (2013). Empathy towards individuals of the same and different ethnicity when depicted in negative and positive contexts. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(1), 8-13. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.01.022
NOU. (2011). Velferd og migrasjon - den norske modellens framtid. [Welfare and migration. the future of the Norwegian model.]. Oslo: Norwegian Governent.
NSD, N. S. D. (2013). Skolevalgsundersøkelsen - 2013. Retrieved 02.03.02, 2002, from http://www.nsd.uib.no/skoleveven/skolevalg/datasett.cfm
Skrefsrud, T.-A. (2012). Å være lærer i interkulturell kontekst: Om dialogens betydning for lærerkompetansen. (PHD), Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU, Trondheim Norway. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:no:ntnu:diva-16381
Solhaug, T & Osler, A (In press) Citizenship, diversity and the antecedents of intercultural empathy among Norwegian secondary school students.
SSB. (2011). Holdninger til innvandrere og innvandring 2011 Rapporter 2011/41. 2011, from http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/holdninger-til-innvandrere-og-innvandring-2011
SSB. (2012). Samfunnsspeilet 3. Oslo: Statistitsk sentralbyrå - innvandring. Togeby, Lise (2003). Fra fremmedarbejdere til etniske minoriteter.Århus:Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
18
Torpe L. (2006): "Køn og politisk deltagelse" In: Borchorst & Christensen (eds.): "Kønsrefleksioner - om magt og mangfoldighed". Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/242897 United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) (2015). 3RP Regional Refugee and Resilience
Plan in Response to the Syrian Crisis. Regional Strategic Overview. IOM. http://www.3rpsyriacrisis.org/
Wang, Y. W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003). The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 221-234. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.221
Westrheim, K., & Tolo, A. (2014). Kompetanse for mangfold: om skolens utfordringer i det flerkulturelle Norge. Bergen: Fagbokforl.
Appendix. Table shows scale name, item text, their factor loadings, Chronbachs α and the persentage of total variance in the factor which is explained by the items for Norwegian and Danish sample. Scale name Item Factor
loading N DK
Chronbachs α N DK
Explain-ed Variance N DK
Empathy feel and expression (Dependent Variable)
D1 I often speak up against anyone who tells jokes that could be perceived as discriminatory D4. When I know that my friends are treated unfairly because of their skin colour, I try to speak up for them . D5. I become angry or sad when someone at school is treated unfairly because of their skin colour or background. D6. I am easily affected by films and books in which someone who is different from me is discriminated against. D7. I will work actively to ensure that everyone, regardless of race or background, achieves equal rights. D8. I often feel sorry when people with a different skin colour or background than my own are discriminated against
.44 .50 .53 .58 .79 .74 .63 .69 .70 .64 .79 .89
.81 44% 46%
Empathetic awareness
D2. It does not bother me if people make statements that might seem racist towards some groups. D3. I don’t think much about how a joke about other people might be perceived by the victims themselves.
.64 .65 .64 .65
.58.60 44% 46%
Accept of difference
D11. Usually, I do not get on too well with people whose background is very different from mine. D12. I have little knowledge of people whose background is very different from mine.
.60 .65 .60 .65
.58.59 36% 41%
Knowledge difference
F2. I know that there are big differences in how people practice their religion. F3. I am well aware that people’s sexual orientations may differ. F4. I am well aware that girls and boys may experience inequality and injustice in schools
.66 .47 .84 .80 .40 .42
.65.55 44% 34%
Concern G1 I am very concerned about injustice towards people with different backgrounds .. G2. I try to take into account that students have different religions .............................. G3. I treat everyone equally regardless of their skin colour .........................................
.56 .58 .78 .74 .30 .34
.59.55 36% 33%
Action H2. I speak up when someone is discriminated against because of their gender .......... H3. I help others in a respectful manner if they struggle to say what they want to say ......
.70 .57 .70 .57
.66.46 50% 32%
19
Sex Q1 Sex, girl boy
Language at home
Q2 What language do you speak most of the time at home.
Cultural capital
Q3 How many books do you think there are at home?
Parents education
Q4 What is the highest level of education completed by one or both of your parents?
Class Q5 Class level
Grades Q7 Mark one box indicating most of your grades (on average)
Diversity R2 Percentage of bilingual pupils at the school.
i A survey of voting and political attitudes among secondary students in Norway before every parliamentary and local election