The Syndrome of the Boiled Frog:” Exploring International Students on US Campuses as Co-Cultural...

This article was downloaded by: [Western Michigan University], [Mr Ewa Urban]On: 13 February 2012, At: 10:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Intercultural CommunicationResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20

“The Syndrome of the Boiled Frog:”Exploring International Students onUS Campuses as Co-Cultural GroupMembersEwa Urban MA a & Mark P. Orbe PhD ba Western Michigan University, 2007b Ohio University, 1993

Available online: 16 Jul 2007

To cite this article: Ewa Urban MA & Mark P. Orbe PhD (2007): “The Syndrome of the BoiledFrog:” Exploring International Students on US Campuses as Co-Cultural Group Members, Journal ofIntercultural Communication Research, 36:2, 117-138

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17475750701478695

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17475750701478695

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Intercultural Communication ResearchVol. 36, No. 2, July 2007, pp. 117–138

‘‘The Syndrome of the Boiled Frog:’’Exploring International Students onUS Campuses as Co-Cultural GroupMembers

Ewa Urban & Mark P. Orbe

Through the lens of co-cultural theory, this study explored how international students’positionality as cultural outsiders affects their communicative practices. Sixty-two

narratives composed by international students representing 30 countries werequalitatively analyzed following McCracken’s (1988) guidelines. Five themes revealed

international students’ co-cultural standing: (1) assimilating into dreamland, (2)preparations, expectations, and misperceptions, (3) marked outside the norm asgeneralized other, (4) salient factors inherent in negotiating co-cultural selves, (5)

educating self and others in and beyond the classroom. The study extends existingscholarship on international students by demonstrating the impact of the negotiation of

the dominant systems on self-identity alteration. It also highlights co-culturalcommunicative practices that international students find effective in overcoming

challenges related to their status as outsiders.

Keywords: Co-cultural theory; International students; Qualitative research; Intercultural

communication

Introduction

Recent reports estimate that as many as two million international students, defined as

post-secondary students enrolled in colleges and universities in countries other their

own, exist worldwide (Campbell, 2004). In many Western nations, the export of

higher education continues to grow, so much so that by 2025 the number of

Ewa Urban (MA, Western Michigan University, 2007) and Mark P. Orbe (PhD, Ohio University, 1993) are at

the School of Communication, Western Michigan University. Correspondence to: Ewa Urban, 8058 Wimbledon

Dr., Portage, MI 49024, USA. Tel: 269.387.2750; Fax: 269.387.2555; Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1747-5759 (print)/ISSN 1747-5767 (online) � 2007 World Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/17475750701478695

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

international students is estimated to grow to seven million. In the United States

alone, the number of international students has remained consistently high over the

last decade, amounting to more than half a million people (Institute of International

Education, 2005).Despite the significance of the growing number of international students, we know

little of their communicative experiences. Of the small number of studies that

explicitly focused on international student communication, most were based on the

assumption that ‘‘international students must adapt or adjust to sociocultural system

which is different from their own’’ (Zimmerman, 1995, p. 322). Implicit in this

assumption is the belief that international students must develop an increased level

intercultural communication competency, the result of which is a reduction in

communication apprehension, enhanced communicative experiences in a second

language, and ultimately greater ability to succeed (Jung & McCroskey, 2004;

Zimmerman, 1995). While these studies provided some insight into international

student communication, they failed to recognize (and examine) the degree to which

international students were situated—through language, physical appearance, labels,

and the like—as cultural outsiders, and how this social positionality impacts their

communicative experiences.

This study analyzed the international student narratives in an attempt to explore

how communicative experiences reflected the negotiation of ingroup–outgroup

positionality. We chose co-cultural theory (Orbe, 1998) to guide our analysis for

several reasons. First, it allows for an exploration of lived communicative experience

that acknowledges the influence of majority/minority status—from the perspective of

those in the minority (Harris, Miller, & Trego, 2004). Second, the theory offers a

comprehensive framework that promotes a multidimensional understanding of the

diverse ways in which people negotiate being in the minority (Nakayama, 2005).

Lastly, unlike traditional intercultural communication theories, it centralizes a

recognition of the unequal power dynamics that are inherent to dominant and non-

dominant group interactions (Taylor & Richardson, 2006; Ting-Toomey, 2004).

In this regard, co-cultural theory is used as a frame to qualitatively explore how

international student communicative experiences reflect a negotiation of their status

as cultural outsiders.

Relevant Literature

International Students’ Communicative Experiences

As stated earlier, more than half a million international students study within the US.

This large group of individuals is extremely diverse in terms of nationality, ethnicity,

race, religion, language, political loyalties, socioeconomic background, cultural

norms, and behavioral patterns; yet, they are frequently viewed as a homogenous

outgroup unified by the status of being labeled as ‘‘foreign’’ and ‘‘different’’ (Schmitt,

Spears, & Branscombe, 2003; Spencer-Rodgers, 2001). The positioning of interna-

tional students as foreigners is coupled with the dominant society’s stereotypes of this

118 E. Urban & M. P. Orbe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

exceptionally heterogeneous group of individuals as maladjusted, deficient in

linguistic, academic, and cultural preparation, as well as struggling psychologicallyand socially (Paige, 1990). Although not all stereotypical beliefs of international

students are negative, as Spencer-Rodgers’ research revealed, attributing all-encompassing, albeit positive, characteristics such as ‘‘talented’’ to the whole group

of individuals may augment their stress related to the attempts to live up tounrealistic expectations (Paige, 1990).

Indeed, research indicates that international students do experience a number ofdifficulties related to the material, academic, sociocultural, and psychologicaladjustment in the country of sojourn (Tseng & Newton, 2002). Specifically, as

Tseng and Newton (2002) assert, these students are concerned with financial, healthcare, and transportation issues, as well as insufficient familiarity with the US

educational system and the lack of language proficiency; moreover, differingworldviews and cultural norms further aggravate their feelings of frustration and

isolation.International students’ interactions with host country members and other foreign

students are constantly guided by the clear academic and career goals that they cameto the host country to pursue (Trice, 2004). Oftentimes, coming to North America tocomplete higher education is one of the most desired accomplishments among

international students’ peers in the country of origin (Ghosh & Wang, 2003).To achieve their goals, international students can adopt common strategies such as

developing relationships with US American peers, instructors, and communitymembers, who could be asked for help in times of difficulty (Tseng & Newton, 2002).

The connection with co-nationals is also crucial during the period of sojourn, asthese relations assist in maintaining ties with the culture of origin and preserving

national identity (Ghosh & Wang, 2003). Similarly, bonding with other internationalstudents assists with psychological well-being (Kashima & Loh, 2006), and it allows

them to identify with other individuals who are experiencing common treatmentfrom the dominant society (Schmitt et al., 2003).Since international students are not always privy to the implicit rules that guide

interactions within the host country, they can experience social difficulties that theydid not encounter in their country of origin (Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004).

Establishing and maintaining close personal relationships may be especiallyimportant for those from more interdependent cultures (Yeh & Inose, 2003). The

lack of significant social interaction with host country members elevates the stressand anxiety accompanying sojourners’ accommodation in the new cultural milieu

(Chen, 1999). Thus, international students, as a minority in their host country,heavily rely on the opportunities and resources controlled by the majority groupmembers (Constantine, Anderson, Berkel, Caldwell, & Utsey, 2005).

These resources, however, may not be equally accessible for all internationalstudents: Significant differences between the culture of origin and that of the host

society and well as dissimilarities in students’ physical appearance as compared to themajority cause difficulties in establishing interpersonal relationships (Chapdelaine &

Alexitch, 2004). Thus, it is often less challenging for Europeans to make friends on

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 119

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

US campuses than it is for Asian, African, or South American students, who may

encounter racism and racial discrimination (Constantine et al., 2005; Trice, 2004).

White students from Europe, particularly those proficient in the English language,

are likely to more effortlessly ‘‘fit in’’ with the majority, especially as the cultural

norms and values of the dominant society are not as distant from their own (Yeh &

Inose, 2003). While some international students consciously choose to separate

themselves from their U.S. American peers and spend time with their co-nationals

(Alreshoud & Koeske, 1997), others wish to establish friendships with US Americans

although they feel that the cultural distance and linguistic barriers make it

challenging (Trice, 2004).

Apart from the attempts at direct contact with host country members,

international students frequently resort to the media, specifically television and the

Internet, in pursuit of social knowledge, cultural insights, and language mastery

necessary for the achievement of their goal to adjust to the social and academic life

(Yang, Wu, Zhu, & Southwell, 2004). Media exposure allows them to become more

open to and accepting of the distinct values and customs of the host culture; the

extensive usage of the Internet significantly enhances their language proficiency,

which consequently leads to decreased levels of psychological stress (Ye, 2005). Yet,

some scholars (e.g., Keshishian, 2000) argue that exposure to mass media can also

work to impede communication acculturation because it fails to reflect authentic

representations of cultural groups beyond unidimensional, stereotypical

characterizations.As cultural outsiders and foreigners and ‘‘one of the most quiet, invisible,

underserved groups on the American campus’’ (Mori, 2000, p. 142), international

students experience constant pressure to alter their own cultural rules and norms in

order to fit within the dominant structure as they struggle to achieve their social and

academic goals (Ye, 2005). In this regard, international students’ communicative

experiences can be studied from a co-cultural theoretical perspective.

Co-cultural Theory

Co-cultural theory, as initially described by Orbe (1998a), assists in understanding

the ways in which persons who are traditionally marginalized in dominant societal

structures communicate in their everyday lives. Grounded in muted group (e.g.,

Kramarae, 1981) and standpoint theories (e.g., Smith, 1987), co-cultural commun-

ication theory is derived from the lived experiences of a variety of ‘‘nondominant’’ or

‘‘minority’’ groups, including people of color, women, persons with disabilities, gays/

lesbians/bisexuals, and those from a lower socioeconomic background (Wood, 2005).

Recent scholarship in psychology has made the case that international students

construct a minority identity (Schmitt et al., 2003), and as such, the epistemological

assumptions inherent in co-cultural theory can apply (Orbe & Spellers, 2005).Co-cultural theory utilizes a number of concepts to provide insight into the

communication processes of those typically marginalized in dominant societal


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

structures, including international students. In its most basic form, the following

statement can summarize the primary idea behind co-cultural theory:

Situated within a particular field of experience that governs their perceptions of thecosts and rewards associated with, as well as their ability to engage in, variouscommunicative practices, co-cultural group members will adopt certain commu-nication orientations—based on their preferred outcomes and communicationapproaches—to fit the circumstances of a specific situation. (Orbe, 1998a, p. 13)

The description of co-cultural communication shared above contains the term

‘‘communication orientation’’, a concept referring to specific stances that under-

represented group members assume during their everyday interactions. As evidenced

by various studies (e.g., Harris et al., 2004; Miura, 2001), co-cultural group members

will adopt one or more communication orientations depending on a number of

interrelated factors (field of experience, perceived costs and rewards, ability, preferred

outcomes, communication approach, and situational context).Each communication orientation is primarily situated within a specific preferred

outcome (assimilation, accommodation, or separation) and communication

approach (nonassertive, assertive, or aggressive), but it is also directly influenced

by four factors (field of experience, perceived costs and rewards, capability, and

situational context). Given these issues, co-cultural theory suggests that under-

represented group members can assume one or more communication stances during

their everyday interactions with others (Orbe, 1996).Co-cultural theory lends insight into the process by which different groups

negotiate their ‘‘cultural differentness’’ with others—both with others like, and

unlike, themselves (Nakayama, 2005). Existing research has utilized the theory to

study a variety of different cultural groups, including people of color in the United

States (Gates, 2003; Miura, 2001; Parker, 2003), women (Lapinski & Orbe, in press;

Lev-Aladgem & First, 2004), people with disabilities (Fox, Giles, Orbe, & Bourhis,

2000), people without homes (Harter, Edwards, McClanahan, Hopson, & Carson-

Stern, 2003), gay men (Kama, 2002), and first-generation college students (Orbe &

Groscurth, 2004). Collectively this research provides significant insight in terms of

understanding the process by which individuals come to select how they are going to

interact with others in various contexts, including organizational (Buzzanell, 1999;

Orbe, 1998b), public (Harter et al., 2003; Lev-Aladgem & First, 2004; Miura, 2001),

and educational settings (Harris et al., 2004; Lapinski & Orbe, in press; Orbe &

Groscurth, 2004). While the studies here focused on a variety of cultural groups

within different settings, each was grounded in the assumptions inherent in co-

cultural theory. As such, we drew from the assumptions of theory to create a context

for our analysis of the communicative experiences of international students. While

additional research may be used to advance co-cultural theory through particular

hypothesis (see Conclusion), our primary objective for this analysis was the inductive

exploration of two qualitative research questions:

RQ1: How do international students describe their communicative experienceswithin ‘‘foreign’’ cultures?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

RQ2: Given the complexity of their lives, what similarities and differences exist interms of the ways that international students negotiate their ‘‘foreign’’ status?

Methodological Framework

Each year, International Student Service Offices across the US sponsor essay contests

whereby prizes are awarded for the best essays. These competitions are open to

undergraduate and graduate international students regardless of their class standing,

and none of the contests pose any restrictions in relation to how long a student has

been in the United States at the point of essay writing. While the particulars for each

contest may vary from university to university, all require international students to

write about their experiences. For instance, the topic of an essay competition

organized by the international student office at a large Midwestern state university

read, ‘‘Describe your feelings as you experienced the high points, low points, pleasant

surprises, disappointments, confusing situations, frustrating encounters, and

encouraging interactions you have had during your time in our community.’’ This

essay topic is representative of those posed by other universities and international

student organizations. By and large, all contests asked very open-ended questions,

which allowed students to select both positive and negative experiences which they

rendered significant.

For the purposes of this study, we utilized essays published on the Internet in 2006

to explore how international students describe their communicative lived

experiences, and how they describe negotiating ‘‘foreign’’ cultures. In this regard,

the essays represent extant texts and were chosen for this study based on several

factors (Charmaz, 2006). First, the essays were generated through a seemingly

objective manner, which featured general, vague prompts. Second, as extant texts, the

experiences captured in the student essays were produced without any researcher

effects. Third, these texts allowed us to gain insight into the experiences of

international students at a variety of colleges and universities throughout the United

States.

Data for this study were collected over a period of 2 months. Essays were located

by visiting international students’ online discussion groups, universities’ websites and

newsletters, and through search engines. In particular, 62 international student essays

were analyzed, reflecting lived experiences from 13 different college and university

campuses.1 Essays, usually approximately 1,500 words in length, were written by

international students representing 30 different countries.2 The 62 international

student essays resulted in 178 pages of extant text.In order to gain insight into the communicative lived experiences of international

students, the texts were analyzed through established qualitative methods.

Specifically, we utilized McCracken’s (1988) guidelines, coupled with Owen’s

(1994) criterion, in order to discover emerging themes with the texts. Initially used to

explore relational communication, this qualitative method for thematization has

been adopted by scholars in various areas of the discipline including organizational

communication and intercultural communication (e.g., Apker, Propp, & Ford, 2005;


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Wright & Orbe, 2003). According to McCracken (1988), analysis can follow these

steps: (a) initial sorting out of important from unimportant data; (b) examination of

the slices of data for logical relationships and contradictions; (c) re-reading of

transcripts to confirm or disconfirm emerging relationships and beginning

recognition of general properties of the data; (d) identification of general themes

and sorting of the themes in a hierarchical fashion, while discarding those that prove

useless in the organization; and (e) review of the emergent themes for each of the

transcripts and determination of how these can synthesized into themes (p. 19).

Van Manen (1990) describes the thematization process as an attempt to give ‘‘shape

to the shapeless’’ (p. 88). Therefore, while the procedures can be described in a clear,

linear manner, the actual process is often one that is less clear cut and more spiraling

(Wright & Orbe, 2003). For example, in the case of some reflections, a single

narrative was best placed in multiple general themes. This was especially true for

accounts that were lengthy as well as those that were concise but reflected multiple

points of analysis (Charmaz, 2006).The analysis of international students’ identity messages followed the process as

outlined by McCracken (1988). Specifically focusing on issues identified within our

two research questions, we used three criteria—repetition, recurrence, and

forcefulness (Owen, 1994)—to help shape the next step in the analysis process.

Repetition criterion refers to the repetition of key words and phrases, and words that

are ‘‘special’’ or significant in describing a certain experience or feeling. Recurrence

criterion examines the meanings that were threaded throughout the text, even if the

participants used different wording to represent the same meaning. The forcefulness

criterion enables the researcher to understand the importance or uniqueness of

certain words or phrases. Forcefulness is traditionally displayed through the use of

vocal inflection, volume, or emphasis (Apker et al., 2005). Within this analysis,

examples of forcefulness were seen in the ways that international students placed

emphasis on certain parts of their essays (e.g., through the use of bold/italicized text).In order to maximize the benefits from the multiple perspectives3 inherent in

collaborative research (Violanti, 1999), we initially analyzed the texts individually.

This initial stage of inquiry resulted in a total of 13 preliminary themes, many of

which were identified by both researchers (albeit organized differently). During

several face-to-face meetings, we discussed the similarities and differences within

both lists of preliminary themes and developed a consensus that reflected both

insider and outsider perspectives (Mirande & Tanno, 1993). Through this

collaborative process, thematic insights regarding the communicative experiences

of international students—as explicated in the next section—were identified.

Thematic Insights

International Students as a Co-Cultural Group4

As expressed throughout the essays, the experiences of international

students studying within the US clearly reflect their positionality as co-cultural


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

group members. One of the major premises of co-cultural communication theory

conveys the notion that the social hierarchy which inevitably exists within any societybenefits those who ‘‘have acquired dominant group status in the major societal

institutions’’ (Orbe, 1998a, p. 2). Many international students in this studycommunicated increased awareness of their social standing as it was implicitly

defined upon their arrival to the United States. They felt that it was expected of themto learn and adopt the new ‘‘rules,’’ which for the first time in their lives positioned

them as the minority. While the apparent cultural diversity within the US attractedmany international students, the realization of their new seemingly arbitrary status asan outsider frequently made it difficult to cope with everyday interactions with which

they had not expected to struggle.The second premise of co-cultural theory states that those at the top of the social

hierarchy have used their defining power to create and maintain communicationsystems that reinforce and promote their experiences (Orbe, 1998a). Throughout the

text, international students described various interactions—including those at localrestaurants, airports, and community events—whereby the ‘‘social hierarchy’’ of their

new culture became increasingly apparent. Yet, most examples reflected experienceson campus, most notably those in the classroom.Experiences in a classroom setting frequently challenged international students’

assumptions as to the nature of interaction between a professor and a student as wellas the norms of ‘‘valuable’’ participation while collaborating with peers on group

projects. Outside of the classroom, international students were perplexed by theirinability to correctly interpret US Americans’ communication patterns. The

ambiguity of Americans’ apparent openness and willingness to develop meaningfullong-lasting friendships as expressed during everyday casual interactions led

international students to constantly wonder whether they were welcomed among aparticular group of people.

According to the third premise of co-cultural theory, the structures created by thedominant group members impede the progress of those with differing backgrounds(Orbe, 1998a). International students in this study frequently encountered

communication difficulties that stemmed from their insufficient ability to conveyand decode messages in the foreign language, which they had believed to be

intimately familiar with. Their academic goal attainment was frequently hindered bythe rules of classroom interactions that significantly differed from those of their

country of origin, as one student from Taiwan indicated, ‘‘It is a little bit difficultfor the Asian student to talk in the beginning of their study in the United States.

These students are quiet in class but perform well in the assignment and exam.’’Some students also felt excluded or discriminated against due to the stereotypesmany US Americans held about their co-nationals or individuals who even remotely

resembled them.The fourth premise states that co-cultural group members share a similar societal

position as ‘‘outsiders’’ although they represent diverse perspectives (Orbe, 1998a).Despite international students’ differing experiences, they all felt ‘‘othered,’’ albeit to

a varying degree. People of color, those with heavy non-native accents, and students


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

whose culture significantly differed from the dominant US culture seemed to struggle

the most with their inability to ‘‘blend in.’’ For instance, one male graduate student

from India shared:

The ubiquity of American culture . . . is a constant reminder of my status as an‘‘outsider’’ . . . despite all these protestations of being ‘‘Americanized,’’ I have,practically every day, some experience which reminds me that I have, after all,crossed oceans and cultures, and that the process of ‘‘adjustment’’ is not completeand perhaps never can be.

Despite the commonality of being marginalized within dominant structures, the

experiences of co-cultural group members are far from homogenous (Orbe &

Spellers, 2005). In order to effectively function while interacting both with the

privileged and the underrepresented, the fifth premise of the theory posits that

co-cultural members strategically utilize various communicative behaviors (Orbe,

1998a). While initial thematic insights demonstrated the co-cultural positionality of

international students, the following sections describe how (and why) international

students negotiate their foreign status. Through the explication of five thematic

insights, the similarities and differences (Orbe, Allen, & Flores, 2006) inherent in the

experiences of a diverse group of international students are highlighted. Notably,

each student’s portrayal of interactions was unique, and it foregrounded what every

individual considered significant. Yet, the five themes explicated below consistently

recurred throughout the narratives irrespective of students’ class standing or the

location of their university. Therefore, a detailed description of each theme below

captures the voices of all the students by demonstrating both the commonality and

diversity among them.

Assimilating into Dreamland

The idealized nature of US American educational structures as the superpower that

dictates the dreams of individuals around the world was present throughout

international students’ narratives. For many of them, studying in the United States

‘‘has always been the first choice . . . the natural option to look for when searching for

schools’’ (Graduate student from Egypt), ‘‘the best place to be in the world’’

(Malaysian student), and a ‘‘once on a lifetime opportunity’’ (Undergraduate student

from China). The long-held dream of coming to this ‘‘ideal country’’ (Graduate

student from Armenia) was the major motivator to study hard and prepare

extensively before the sojourn in order to take full advantage of the study abroad

experience and relationships with host nationals.

Not only were international students willing to pay the price of extremely hard

work that was needed to succeed academically, but they were also prepared to

acknowledge the implied ‘‘requirement’’ to adjust and assimilate in order to be

accepted within the Dreamland. Some students even believed that a temporary

separation from other co-nationals may be beneficial as long as the core values of

one’s national identity remain intact. As one Chinese student shared,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

I often feel that American people would prefer the other world to be like theirs.Therefore, we foreigners all face the problem or, more precisely, the pressure ofbeing like an American. For me, this pressure is not too heavy a burden, since I loveEnglish and the great things and beliefs in this country. Yet in another angle ofview, this might be true that many of us were also pressed to change our culturalbeliefs and customs.

The desire and necessity to achieve their academic goals and fit within the Dreamland

motivated them to adopt US American customs, habits, and communicationbehaviors, which wasn’t effortless:

The transition was very hard, but I had to push myself to do it. I had to not justbecause a part of my grade depended on it; I had to because that was the trueessence of an American education. (Undergraduate student from Hong Kong)

Although the pressure to assimilate was a burden for the international students,

they realized that separating themselves was not a viable option if they wanted tobenefit from the great opportunity to study in the US. Therefore, they chose

assimilating behaviors even if it meant compromising their own cultural identity to

some extent. Yet, others insisted on the need to maintain their core cultural valuesand behaviors while simultaneously remaining open to the necessity of adjustment to

the new realities. Some students’ attempts to seek help and support within the foreignculture, however, turned out unsuccessful due to the perception that cultural

differences were insurmountable:

Students were kind of isolated clusters and groups that I felt for a while, it [was]impossible to crack. Actually, I realize how different we are. These differences werebuilding up every day and were too many to conclude. (Male graduate studentfrom Jordan)

Frequently, international students found themselves unconsciously adopting the local

patterns of interaction and behavior and even began to identify with the host culturemembers and began to refer to their host country ‘‘a new place to call home—a home

away from home’’ (Female graduate student from the Philippines).

Preparations, Expectations, and Misperceptions

Most international students had considered themselves to be comprehensively

prepared to effectively participate in the host culture and develop rewarding relationswith its members. They had not expected any significant struggles with cultural

differences in the United States since they were convinced that the extensive exposureto its culture through the media and perceived similarities between their own and the

US culture would make the transition rather seamless. However, nearly allinternational students expressed their disappointment with a distorted depiction of

the American culture in the sources of the cultural knowledge they had used prior to

their sojourn.

I can’t say that I knew nothing about the American culture. Most students from mygeneration are aware of the broad lines of the American culture as an outcome ofwatching Hollywood movies and listening to American music, so I can say that I at


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

least had a general idea about the culture. However, reality is different, and since Icame here, I discovered that no matter how much I knew about American culturein advance, living over here and interacting with different aspects of the cultureincluded a vast variety of cultural issues that were totally new to me. (Graduatestudent from Egypt)

Although many international students considered their linguistic preparation

adequate before coming to the United States, they experienced numerouscommunication difficulties upon their arrival. They had been convinced that the

language ability they had gained prior to their sojourn would be sufficient to engagein effective interactions; however, language nuances they had been unfamiliar with

became the barriers that consistently made them feel different, foreign, andmisunderstood.Sometimes the pressure of students’ own and their families’ high expectations of

succeeding in the ‘‘foreign promised land’’—combined with a sharp disconnectbetween students’ dream and their experiences in the United States—resulted in their

isolation. Especially after the initial excitement of finally being in the country ofwhich they may have dreamt about since childhood, a feeling of loneliness and self-

doubt occurred:

I was confused, disoriented, and generally overwhelmed by many of the thingsaround me . . . I started doubting myself and my ability to function in a society thatI once believed to the be best place to live in this world. (Female graduate studentfrom the Philippines)

While many students had expected their international experience to be moreeffortless since they had believed that they had been sufficiently prepared for it, others

were pleasantly surprised how similar people they encountered were to them. Theyfocused mostly on the commonalities they could find with the host country members

despite obvious cultural differences; one student from India stated:

People are similar in an elemental way. And it’s not just Americans, but all thestudents I’ve met so far who come from all parts of the world—while we’re alldifferent in a unique way, but the essence of all of us is the same.

The intercultural experience and the ability to find commonalities within the

‘‘foreign’’ culture helped many students dispel the stereotypes they had formed aboutthe host country members on the basis of the cultural knowledge exported through

the media:

When I came to the US, I thought I knew all about Americans and their way of life;I was startled to discover that there is no accurate way to define what is‘‘American.’’ I was overwhelmed by the diversity. (Female undergraduate student,p. 18)

Upon the realization that the stereotypes that international students had heldabout host country members were largely untrue, they hoped that the stereotypes

about them and their culture would be dispelled as well. This proved difficult,however, because many in the US perceived international students as a generalized

other—with little understanding to covert and overt differences in culture.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Marked Outside the Norm as Generalized Other

Despite many international students’ attempts to blend in with other host culture

members and their conscious efforts to adopt the ‘‘local’’ behaviors required forsuccessful achievement of academic goals, they still felt like ‘‘strangers’’ who haven’t

been able to alter their deeply ingrained cultural habits. Some students self-identified

themselves as outsiders despite others’ lack of recognition of this status. OneCanadian student struggled with the fact that the host country members refused to

acknowledge her unique experiences, which brought her much closer to other

international students. On the other hand, another student from Canada had not

expected to feel or be viewed as an outsider prior to coming to the United States, butshe was identified as such by US Americans. That experience motivated her to

develop many relationships with international students although she could have

easily passed as a US American.

Many [US] residents don’t seem interested in meeting international students,which is something my roommates have also noticed. Although it’s easy for me tomasquerade as an American with my northern accent, many people know I’mCanadian, but don’t seem interested in learning about my culture. But that doesn’tnecessarily mean you’re on your own. International students seem to runtogether—it’s like a mini-global community right here at (the university).

Many international students resented being labeled and treated as outsiders justbecause they looked different, spoke with a non-native accent, and behaved

differently than the majority of the host country members. They wished the host

country would recognize their personal qualities, their individuality, and their abilityto take risk and leave the familiar behind to come to a remote foreign country to

study. Being treated as an outsider for the first time in their lives made them become

aware of their skin color and their differentness, and it caused them to struggle withthe ascribed generalized identity of the ‘‘other.’’ For instance, one female

undergraduate student from India wrote:

I knew nothing about multi-racial situations. People asked me, ‘‘Are you Indian?’’all the time. To me I was just ‘‘me’’, I had never been classified before nor had I feltthe skin I was in. In class, I learnt about the racial make-up of this country. Neverbefore had I been ‘‘The Minority.’’ Prior to this, I didn’t even notice I was brownand here it was my identity!

This student went on to explain her frustration when US friends looked at their

relationship as ‘‘an experience.’’

I didn’t want friends who looked at me simply as an ‘‘experience.’’ I was oftenintroduced as ‘‘my Indian friend.’’ Those harmless innocent references wouldalmost always make me uncomfortable. As much as being Indian is my identity,that is not all I am. I am not just an ‘‘Indian’’; I am a woman, a business student, anartist, a writer, an adventurer, and a sensitive yet bold person who cannot besummarized in one word. I wanted to ask them, ‘‘Is that all you see meas?’’. . . Some people implement stereotypes and some don’t, but the possibilityalways made me dislike being introduced as an ‘‘Indian’’. I preferred my name,which was the only complete definition of me.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Throughout the text, international students describe some experiences where their

presence was met with hostility. The majority of these instances were directed at

international students perceived as ‘‘potential terrorists.’’ One student, who

witnessed a fellow student from the Middle East being physically attacked, wrote:

No matter where you go in the United States, racism and ignorance is still lurkingin the shadows. . . .The plain and simple fact was that most likely the individualwho hit my friend believed he was Arab, and was too ignorant to know thedifference. In the wake of 9/11 and the ‘‘war on terror’’ many Americans have[been] brainwashed into a new racism, being felt by honest, hard-working Arabsand Indians alike. The new anti-brown sentiment is an all inclusive stereotypicalhatred that encapsulates Arabs, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs in one gloriouscategory. . . .What happened to [my friend] left me fearing for my own safety,especially being Brown and Muslim.

While one experience, like the one described here, does not necessarily define the

international students’ experience, it is one that is not easily forgotten. Despite a

generally positive experience, another student from Syria captured the essence of the

post-9/11 reality by stating: ‘‘Every time I try to forget, something comes along and

reminds me, things such as the implementation of a special registration and the

‘random checks’ at airports.’’

Several international students were able to find commonalities with US Americans,

which made them feel included and allowed them to de-emphasize their status as a

‘‘foreigner.’’ However, some students felt that they were expected to keep at distance

from the host country members, who most of all value privacy and ‘‘their own

space.’’ Although they put in a lot of effort into finding connections and developing

relationships, they were unable to do so due to cultural differences and host country

members’ unwillingness to form connections. To alleviate the sense of isolation, these

students identified and joined other international individuals who were experiencing

similar difficulties in the foreign culture and who would be most likely to understand

their frustrations and disenchantment. Building a community with other ‘‘others’’

based on the shared experience of an outsider allowed them to gain a sense of

identification in the ‘‘foreign’’ land, as an Australian student expressed, ‘‘It was

reassuring to know that the hundreds of international students at (the university)

were riding the same roller coaster.’’

Salient Factors Inherent in Negotiating Co-cultural Selves

Throughout earlier sections, references have been made to how different co-cultural

factors were salient in terms of how international students communicated while

studying in the US. For instance, preferred outcome was apparent during our

conversations of assimilating into the Dreamland, and field of experience was

implicitly connected to discussions of expectations, preparation, and misperceptions.

Within this section, we utilized other co-cultural factors—namely ability, commu-

nication approach, and situation context—to demonstrate the various ways in which

international students negotiate their ‘‘foreign’’ status on campuses across the US.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Lack of ability

Many international students consistently emphasized their lack of language

proficiency and a non-native accent as critical barriers to effective communication

with both host culture members and other international individuals. Moreover, it

was quite disconcerting for many international students that their own perception of

possessing sufficient language proficiency to communicate effectively was not shared

by host nationals, as a South African female student wrote, ‘‘My words, although

English, were alien to American ears and for the first time in my life communication

was a bridge that I had yet to cross.’’US Americans’ insensitive comments ridiculing the international students’ manner

of speaking affected their self-confidence and frequently caused students’ disen-

chantment with the experience of studying abroad. This was expressed by a female

undergraduate student from India, who stated:

Although I have spoken English since five years of age and am very fluent in thelanguage, I have a strong Indian accent. People would talk to me assuming I don’tunderstand or as if I was stupid, speaking louder or slower. . . . I heard discourteouscomments like, ‘‘You speak very good English for an Indian.’’

As a result of communication difficulties, some international students chose to

separate themselves from host nationals while simultaneously associating with other

international students, ‘‘forming their own microcosmic habitat, a separate universe

amidst the beer and cheese Mid-Westernness of everything else in this town’’

(Undergraduate student from South Africa).

Adapting new communication approachesWhile overcoming language barriers was a salient concern for many international

students, general approaches to communication were also key in negotiating the new

US culture. Given the importance of academic success, many international students

wrote about how they negotiated the culture of the US college classroom. Most of the

adjustment in communication approach could be seen in expected student

participation, especially for students who were socialized into a formal learning

culture where students were respectful consumers of professor’s wisdom. This was

articulated by one student:

In Europe, universities are structured differently. Professor-student interaction isvery formal, and would never or very rarely extend to a first-name basis. A goodstudent over there is someone who bothers the professor as little aspossible . . . you’re a better student if you’re invisible throughout the semesterand then write a killer paper.

Many international students—especially those from Asia and Africa—experienced

cultural shock when faced with US cultural norms that directly contradicted those of

their home countries. One student from Africa felt the difference during her first day

of student orientation:

The transfer student orientation experience, where community didn’t seemimportant and instead the focus seemed to be on the individual, was repeated many


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

times as I walked to my first class on campus. Everything anyone did seemed toemphasize their individuality: ‘‘stand apart from the crowd,’’ ‘‘make a name foryourself,’’ ‘‘get what you want,’’ ‘‘you don’t need anybody.’’ Ironically, thisemphasis on the individual left me with a sense of having no identity at all—because I had no community.

This particular student, like others accustomed to a more collectivistic sense of self,

sought out opportunities where communication systems were less ‘‘foreign.’’ As

explicated in the next section, these different contexts prompted various commu-

nication approaches.

Communicating differently across contextsMany of the insights presented thus far have focused on attempts at cultural

assimilation as a means toward academic success. While this is accurate for most

classroom experiences, it does not capture the totality of the international student

experience. As such, a significant number of international students described how

part of their negotiation strategies involved locating places where their culture was

not situated as generalized other, but instead appreciated, valued, and respected. For

several students, this involved surrounding themselves—whenever possible—with

other students from their home country and separating themselves from others.

Other international students regarded cultural separation as less than ideal, given

that it would not allow them to maximize their study abroad experience.

Alternatively, these students sought opportunities to experience cultural accom-

modation where their authentic cultural selves could co-exist alongside others.

As one international student from France explained, ‘‘choosing to live in the new

International Language and Culture Residence Hall [where] languages, culture and

different experiences collide, creates a truly unique experience.’’ She added that this

decision, as well as ‘‘making American friends in classes and through other activities

gave me the best of both worlds.’’ Many, but not all campuses, had established

programs promoting this type of cross-cultural unity. Those without such

opportunities were likely to create their own, something reflected by one essayist

who described how international students worked together to form an International

Student Association—a ‘‘family’’ that could ‘‘help new generations of international

students with their unique needs.’’

Educating Self and Others in and Beyond the Classroom

While the academic gains of international students were apparent, most valued their

experience of studying abroad as a great educational opportunity that allowed them

to gain a new perspective on self and others. In this regard, becoming educated about

new cultures—and educating others about their own cultures—represented a great

journey of self-discovery and a life-altering experience. Most international students

recognized that their interactions within the ‘‘foreign’’ culture required perseverance

and a painstaking effort. To increase their ability to understand the intricacies of the

culture and language of the host country, some students consciously chose to educate


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

themselves and prepare for the interactions with US Americans by thoroughly

reading the local newspaper, enrolling in additional language classes, and enlisting

the help of their American acquaintances.

Apart from making a conscious effort to increase their own ability, international

students emphasized the need to help all the newcomers understand the nuances of

the host culture and its language. This was considered critical in order to ensure a

more complete participation in the host culture. Furthermore, many students

emphasized the benefits they had gained from the opportunities to participate in

formalized programs that promoted interactions with US Americans and other

international individuals.

Many international students were familiar with the US culture through varying

levels of exposure to the media and conscious efforts to increase their understanding

of the culture of sojourn; however, host country members were not as versed in the

cultures of international students. This often made it necessary for international

students to use intercultural interactions as teachable moments that were meant to

result in dispelling stereotypes about ‘‘foreigners.’’ One female student from Russia

wrote:

At times my fellow classmates wondered why I would not smile at them. They wereworried that I was sad, homesick, and even that I was not friendly and open forconversations. . . . I was simply not used to greet[ing] everybody, and smile everytime I have a small greeting-type conversation with someone. Therefore, in ordernot to offend my classmates, I explained them different way of salutation inRussian tradition . . . [this] brought the beginning to small cultural exchangeconversations we now have during lunches.

Apart from educating their new friends from all over the world, many international

students committed themselves to becoming and maintaining the role of cultural

educators and advocates for the host country once they have returned to their homes.

This was articulated explicitly by several students, including one student from

Taiwan:

It is my honor to play a role as a representative of the Chinese culture and share myextraordinary attributes with my classmates. Meanwhile, I think I will be glad Ihave ever come here and share my experience of interaction of different cultures in(this city) with my family and friends in Taiwan in the future.

Conclusion: ‘‘The Syndrome of the Boiled Frog’’

This research project was designed to explore the utility of studying international

students in the US as a co-cultural group. As explicated in previous sections, our

analysis of student essays revealed thematic insights that demonstrated how

international students negotiate a cultural system that renders them as cultural

outsiders. As such, co-cultural theory offered a useful framework by providing key

concepts (e.g., co-cultural premises, factors, practices) toward understanding the

complexities inherent in international student communicative experiences.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

This exploration of students’ experiences through the lens of co-cultural theory

can prove valuable for anyone interacting with international students both on the

professional and personal level. Our analysis has provided insights into international

students’ realities in the context of their social positioning as outsiders.

Simultaneously, it has illuminated various communicative practices that students

have enacted to help them overcome the challenges consistently highlighted

throughout the essays. Co-cultural communicative practices that emerged from

international students’ narratives alleviated the difficulties related to adapting to a

new social hierarchy and contributed to students’ positive study abroad experience.

Specifically, co-cultural communicative practices that emerged from the text

included educating others about one’s own culture to dispel stereotypes as well as

preparing extensively for interactions with the host culture. In addition, students’

essays pointed to the effectiveness of finding commonalities with others, building

relationships with co-nationals and other international students, as well as utilizing

US Americans as liaisons who can help international students learn cultural and

language nuances. In some regards, these co-cultural tactics resemble the

phenomenon of third culture building as explicated by Broome (1993); however,

the latter perspective does not foreground international students’ positioning

within the dominant structures of the host society. In addition, co-cultural theory

extends the concept of third culture building by explicating how and why interactants

adopt specific communication orientations (assimilation, accommodation, separa-

tion) in their efforts to effectively communicate with others whose backgrounds

differ from their own. Simultaneously, this framework allows highlighting both the

commonalities and distinctiveness of experiences within the diverse group of

international students depending on their preferred outcome, communicative

approach, field of experience, costs and rewards, situational context, and ability.

While the student essays that comprised the data for this project were valuable in

highlighting the diverse experiences of international students in the US, they also

elucidated a core element inherent in the international student experience:

‘‘irreversible Americanization.’’ Within his essay, one male student from Uruguay

studying at a large Midwestern university captured the essence of this idea when he

wrote:

They say that if you throw a frog in a pan with boiling water, it jumps outimmediately; but if you slowly heat up the water with the frog inside, it does notnotice it and becomes a soup. Once again I had to be taken out of the pond torealize the effect living in a new culture had had on me. Like the syndrome of theboiled frog, I had become numbed and I did not notice how I was changing.

Based on our analysis, it became apparent that negotiating the US higher educational

system inherently worked to change how international students perceive self and

others. While the magnitude of change would vary depending on particular sets of

experiences (e.g., adopting an assimilation versus a separation communication

orientation), the fact remains that some change in cultural self-understanding is

unavoidable. Interestingly, this aspect of co-cultural identity—how the negotiation of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

dominant systems over time facilitates a change in self-identity—has not been

explicitly addressed in existing work.While other theories of assimilation/integration, such as Kim’s (2005) integrative

communication theory, could shed some light on the experiences described ininternational students’ narratives, as described earlier, such theoretical frameworks

fail to take into account the power dynamics inherent in international students’realities. Although Kim does acknowledge both internal and external factors in

adapting to a new environment, she does not explicitly recognize communicativeexperiences of marginalized group members from their own perspective. Moreover,Kim’s framework is based on an assumption that ‘‘strangers’’ naturally strive toward

assimilation, which implies that their adaptation process will be successful as long asthey remain open to the new culture. However, research suggests that assimilation or

integration does not necessarily guarantee acceptance into the host society (Morrow,1997; Nasdale & Mak, 2002). Thus, traditional assimilation scholarship ignores the

hegemonic structures within which ‘‘the other’’ is inherently embedded, and itpresumes that newcomers’ adaptation is merely a function of individuals’ ability and

willingness to learn and accept interaction patterns of the country of sojourn (Hegde,1998). Based on this discussion, it should be apparent why we utilized co-culturaltheory in our analysis. However, future research can benefit from a triangulated

theoretical approach whereby scholars can draw synergistically from multipleintercultural communication approaches.

Clearly, this research provides interesting insight into the experiences ofinternational students, yet in some ways, it is limited by the use of extant data.

Future research should continue to use co-cultural theory to exploreinternational student experiences and work to actively engage research

participants through the generation of primary data. While this can beaccomplished either qualitatively (e.g., Miura, 2001) or quantitatively (Harris

et al., 2004; Lapinski & Orbe, in press), we encourage future studies that utilizea triangulated approach whereby thick descriptions of communicative experiencesand statistical evidence can work synergistically to provide the most productive

insight.Although all the themes described in this study resonated throughout the essays,

we are unable to ascertain whether some issues were more significant to specificgroup of students due to the limited availability of information regarding all

students’ class standing, programs of study, the length of their stay in the UnitedStates, and the exact location and demographics of the environments in which

students were embedded. In addition, the themes that emerged from the narrativesoverwhelmingly highlight students’ struggles even though the questions that wereasked by contest organizers did not explicitly ask to limit the descriptions to negative

experiences. However, the stories of how students dealt with the challenges they hadencountered pointed to the positive outcome of their efforts while at the same time

providing insights into the strategies that may ultimately contribute to internationalstudents’ academic and personal success. As advocated through co-cultural theory,

this involves a constant process of negotiation—one that necessitates ongoing


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

research that assumes a multi-dimensional approach to studying complex

communication phenomena.

Notes

[1] The essays were written by international students at four large state universities in the

Midwest (41 essays), one mid-sized state university in the West (3 essays), and one small

private undergraduate college in the Northwest (7 essays). One competition was organized

by a governor’s office in an Eastern state, and it represented voices of students from small

public (4 essays) and two large (2 essays) universities. One contest was organized by an

international student organization inviting participation of international students anywhere

in the US. The names of the institutions students attended were not available within the text

of the essays; however, we were able to identify that these students’ universitities were

located in New York (2 essays), Hawaii (1 essay), Colorado (1 essay), Nebraska (1 essay),

Miami (1 essay).[2] Of the 62 students who participated in the essay contests, 22 were undergraduate and 22

were graduate (master’s level) students. The information about the class standing of the

remaining 18 students was unavailable.[3] The first author of this paper was an international student during her undergraduate career

in England and Ireland, and a recently arrived immigrant to the US during graduate studies,

while the first author has no study abroad experiences.[4] While student essays included a small number of entries from US American students

studying abroad (of which were from a small northwestern private college), these were

decidedly different in terms of how they described their experiences negotiating a foreign

culture. Because these descriptions were not steeped in a perspective defined within the

premises of co-cultural theory, they were not included in our analysis.

References

Alreshoud, A., & Koeske, G. F. (1997). Arab students’ attitudes toward and amount of social

contact with Americans: A causal process analysis of cross-sectional data. Journal of Social

Psychology, 137(2), 235–245.Apker, J., Propp, K. M., & Ford, W. S. Z. (2005). Negotiating status and identity tensions in

healthcare team interactions: An exploration of nurse role dialectics. Journal of Applied

Communication Research, 33(2), 92–115.Broome, B. J. (1993). Managing differences in conflict resolution: The role of relational empathy.

In D. J. D. Sandole & H. van der Merwe (Eds.), Conflict resolution theory and practice:

Integration and application (pp. 95–111). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Buzzanell, P. M. (1999). Tensions and burdens in employment interviewing processes: Perspectives

of non-dominant group members. Journal of Business Communication, 36(2), 143–162.Campbell, N. (2004). Home(stay) is where the heart(ache) is: A study of Chinese international

students living with local families in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Communication, 31(2),

107–134.Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for

international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 167–184.Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Chen, C. P. (1999). Common stressors among international college students: Research and

counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling, 2, 49–65.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Constantine, M. G., Anderson, G. M., Berkel, L. A., Caldwell, L. D., & Utsey, S. O. (2005).

Examining the cultural adjustment experiences of African international college students:

A qualitative analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 57–66.Fox, S., Giles, H., Orbe, M., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2000). Inter-ability communication: Theoretical

perspectives. In D. O. Braithwaite & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and

people with disabilities: Research and application (pp. 193–222). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc.Gates, D. (2003). Learning to play the game: An exploratory study of how African American women

and men interact with others in organizations. Electronic Journal of Communication, 13(2/3),

35–47.Ghosh, S., & Wang, L. (2003). Transnationalism and identity: A tale of two faces and multiple lives.

Canadian Geographer, 47(3), 269–282.Harris, T. M., Miller, A. N., & Trego, A. (2004). A co-cultural examination of community building

in the interracial communication classroom. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 31(1), 39–63.Harter, L. M., Edwards, A., McClanahan, A., Hopson, M., & Carson-Stern, E. (2003, November).

Exploring street journals from a co-cultural perspective: The case of StreetWise. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Miami, FL.Hegde, R. S. (1998). Swinging the trapeze: The negotiation of identity among Asian Indian

immigrant women in the United States. In D. V. Tanno & A. Gonzalez (Eds.), Communication

and identity across cultures (pp. 34–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Institute of International Education. (2005). Foreign student and total US enrollment. Retrieved

July 2, 2006, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.orgJung, H. Y., & McCroskey, J. C. (2004). Communication apprehension in a first language and self-

perceived competence as predictors of communication apprehension in a second language:

A study of speaks of English as a second language. Communication Quarterly, 52(2), 170–181.Kama, A. (2002). The quest for inclusion: Jewish-Israeli gay men’s perceptions of gays in the media.

Feminist Media Studies, 2(2), 195–212.Kashima, E. S., & Loh, E. (2006). International students’ acculturation: Effects of international,

conational, and local ties and need for closure. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

30, 471–485.Keshishian, F. (2000). Acculturation, communication, and the US mass media: The experience of

an Iranian immigrant. Howard Journal of Communications, 11(2), 93–106.Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory.

In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 375–400).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Lapinski, M. K., & Orbe, M. (in press). Evidence for the construct validity and reliability of the

co-cultural theory scales. Communication Methods and Measures.Lev-Aladgem, S., & First, A. (2004). An Israeli community theater as a site of feminine self-image

reconstruction. Feminist Media Studies, 4(1), 37–50.McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Mirande, A., & Tanno, D. V. (1993). Labels, research perspective, contextual validation:

A commentary. International Journal of Intercultural Research, 17, 149–155.Miura, S. Y. (2001). New identity, new rhetoric: The Native Hawaiaan quest for independence.

Journal of Intergroup Relations, XXVIII, 3–16.Mori, S. C. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of

Counseling and Development, 78(2), 137–144.Morrow, N. (1997). Language and identity: Women’s autobiographies of the American immigrant

experience. Language and Communication, 17(3), 177–185.Nakayama, T. (2005). Muting and finding an Asian American voice. Women and Language, 28(2),

66–72.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Nesdale, D., & Mak, A. S. (2002). Ethnic identification, self-esteem and immigrant psychological

health. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 23–40.Orbe, M. (1996). Laying the foundation for co-cultural communication theory: An inductive

approach to studying non-dominant communication strategies and the factors that influence

them. Communication Studies, 47, 157–176.Orbe, M. (1998a). Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power, and

communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Orbe, M. (1998b). An ‘‘outsider within’’ perspective to organizational communication: Explicating

the communicative practices of co-cultural group members. Management Communication

Quarterly, 12(2), 230–279.Orbe, M., Allen, B. J., & Flores, L. A. (Eds.). (2006). The same and different: Acknowledging the

diversity within and between cultural groups. Washington, DC: NCA Press.Orbe, M., & Groscurth, C. R. (2004). A co-cultural theoretical analysis of communicating on

campus and at home: Exploring the negotiation strategies of first generation college (FGC)

students. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 5, 41–47.Orbe, M., & Spellers, R. E. (2005). From the margins to the center: Utilizing co-cultural theory in

diverse contexts. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication

(pp. 173–192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Owen, W. (1994). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70,

274–287.Paige, R. M. (1990). International students: Cross-cultural psychological perspectives.

In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology: Cross-cultural research and methodology

series (Vol. 14, pp. 367–382). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Parker, P. (2003). Learning leadership: Communication, resistance, and African American

women’s executive leadership development. Electronic Journal of Communication, 13(4/5),

46–59.Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minority group identity

out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 33, 1–12.Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston:

Northeastern University Press.Spencer-Rodgers, J. (2001). Consensual and individual stereotypic beliefs about international

students among American host nationals. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25,

639–657.Taylor, J., & Richardson, B. (2006). Powerless, resistance, and the understood ‘‘they:’’ Sexual

harassment at the intersection of race and gender. In M. Orbe, B. J. Allen & L. A. Flores (Eds.),

The same and different: Acknowledging the diversity within and between cultural groups

(pp. 68–94). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Ting-Toomey, S. (2004, November). Moving forward/looking back: The contribution of commu-

nication research to the field of peace and conflict. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

National Communication Association, Chicago.Trice, A. G. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions with American

students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 671–687.Tseng, W. C., & Newton, F. B. (2002). International students’ strategies for well-being. College

Student Journal, 36(4), 591–597.van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for action sensitive pedagogy.

Ontario, Canada: State University of New York Press.Violanti, M. T. (1999). So you want to work together: Strengths and limitations of collaborative

research. Communication Research Reports, 16(4), 377–385.Wood, J. T. (2005). Feminist standpoint theory and muted group theory: Commonalities and

divergences. Women and Language, 28(2), 61–64.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Wright, T. J., & Orbe, M. (2003). Turning the tables of analysis in intercultural communicationresearch: Studying the facework strategies used by ‘‘anonymous’’ European Americanreviewers. Howard Journal of Communications, 14(1), 1–15.

Yang, C., Wu, H., Zhu, M., & Southwell, B. G. (2004). Tuning in to fit in? Acculturation and mediause among Chinese students in the United States. Asian Journal of Communication, 14(1),81–94.

Ye, J. (2005). Acculturative stress and use of the internet among East Asian international students inthe United States. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 8(2), 154–161.

Yeh, C. J., & Inose, M. (2003). International students’ reported English fluency, social supportsatisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress. CounselingPsychology Quarterly, 16(1), 15–28.

Zimmerman, S. (1995). Perceptions of intercultural communication competence and internationalstudent adaptation to an American campus. Communication Education, 44, 321–335.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

tern

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

], [

Mr

Ew

a U

rban

] at

10:

49 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

The Syndrome of the Boiled Frog:” Exploring International Students on US Campuses as Co-Cultural...

Documents

Transcript of The Syndrome of the Boiled Frog:” Exploring International Students on US Campuses as Co-Cultural...