Conference Agenda

Children spend a great amount of time playing at school. Through play, they explore the world around themselves, discover their instincts, form survival skills and knowledge, step by step build relationships with other people. Play, therefore, plays an imperative role in children’s development (Smith & Roopnarine, 2018). Mentioning play also refers to a play environment which is the condition that can either support or impede and pose a threat to children’s play (Kyttä, 2003).

Children are not only the object of research in different fields such as psychology or education. They are actually the agents of their development; and they have their own opinions, thoughts and feelings when interacting with the world surrounding them (Corsaro, 2012; Kustatscher, 2017). Corsaro (2012) argues that ‘children do not simply internalise society and culture, but they actively contribute to cultural production and change. From the perspective of interpretive reproduction, however, children are always participating in and are part of two cultures - their own and adults’- and these cultures are intricately interwoven’ (Corsaro, 2012, p. 489). Similarly, Kusatscher (2017) also found out that children not only reproduce but also challenge the already established opinions of the society. Therefore, research on inclusive play environments for children needs to take into account children’s voice as children are the agent of their own development and they know what is appropriate and imperative for their own growth.

We are living in the world of globalization where, however, discrimination based on social-cultural and economic backgrounds is still a chronic issue. This happens not only in adulthood but also in childhood, which can impact children's development negatively. Therefore, it is necessary to build an inclusive play environment for children in order to support sustainable development as equity and inclusion are two sustainable development goals related to education that the United Nations promoted in 2015 (UN General Assembly, 2015, p.17).

Promoting an inclusive play environment requires teachers’ awareness, knowledge and skills. Therefore, exploring teachers’ perspectives of an inclusive play environment and the specific training or support which teachers need to be provided with is an initial step to create an inclusive play environment for children.

This research will be conducted in Spain (Andalusia) and Vietnam, which are two countries which follow different educational systems. While the former bases on Western-individualistic culture, the latter develops with the foundation of Eastern-collectivism. Both countries are diverse and rich in culture, where different social groups co-exist. The comparison between the two countries can bring a multi-cultural perspective to address a global issue of promoting inclusive play environments for children to ensure equality and equity in education. It is also noteworthy that it does not mean they are seen as two solid cultures as Dervin (2011) argues that it is necessary to move away from solidified, separate and objectivist perspectives of cultures; instead, it is imperative to have a liquid approach to intercultural discourses, which takes into account discursive choices and manipulations of speakers that often sink below speakers’ speech. In addition, culture does not cause behaviours, but summarises an abstraction from it (Dervin, 2011).

With the aforementioned aims, research questions of this study are the following:

1. Research question 1: What is the teachers’ perception of an inclusive play environment as well as the strategies that can promote such inclusive play environments?
2. Research question 2: What are children’s needs and their perspectives of an inclusive play environment?
3. Research question 3: What are the differences between Spanish and Vietnamese teachers, regarding their habits and beliefs of an inclusive play environment for children?
4. Research question 4: What training / support do teachers need to create inclusive play environments?

Topic & Objective:

By investigating the intercultural engagement of Chinese students in the UK as well as the ‘reverse cultural shock’ experienced by students who return to China after studying in the UK, this research identifies learning and social activities that effectively help students engage in intercultural communication and navigate the challenges these may cause, as well as their reflections of the culture of origin as former international students.

Research questions:

1. What intercultural communicative strategies do Chinese students adopt to deal with communicative difficulties in the UK?

2. What do returnee Chinese students think of Chinese culture through intercultural communication practices in the UK after moving back to China?

Theoretical framework:

This study adopts and blends a social constructivism alongside theand interpretivistm paradigm to guide the methodology due to the way I understand the social issues and the main concerns of this study. Social constructivism views cultural knowledge not as an object to be acquired but to be collectively identified, represented and interpreted through individuals’ experience and communication (Guilherme, 2002). From a constructivist perspective, knowledge is constructed by existing structures of foundation, that is human’s beliefs about realities through social interaction (Hollandar & Gordon, 2006), and influenced by the culture in a specific context and by personal reflections of experiences. Besides, In social constructivism, the world is interpreted through language and culture. That is, the world and its elements inside are not seen only as social constructions, but full of meanings made by ‘crucial participants’ (Crotty, 1998). Consequently, I am mainly interested in investigating human’s subjective understanding of the interrelations of cultures, strategies to handle cultural shock and how their knowledge and reactions to their culture of origin have been co-constructed and interpreted among all social elements.

Conceptual framework:

According to Bourdieu (1986), an individual’s cultural taste is related to acts of social positioning, so their preference for social practice is somehow decided by their social belonging and personal experience, reconciling with external social structures. That suggests if a human’s identity has been changed due to their social status, their choice of social behaviour will change. Besides, an individual’s prior knowledge has also an impact no matter how a human’s social identity changes. Cobern (1993) states that individual’s prior conceptions and self-positioning contribute significantly to their understanding of social events. When human’s new gaining of social beliefs contradicts with their prior knowledge, the decision has to be made whether to keep one side or abandon the other or objectively criticise both and choose the appropriate ones from both sides. Another thing that has to be noted is that humans’ ongoing learning experiences and social and physical milieu have an impact on their previous knowledge, which may be consistent, or against, or even fill in the gaps of ‘knowing’. This interchange of social impacts contributes to creating a different understanding of culture and interculturality, and also it keeps changing with the ongoing process.

Intercultural communicative competence (ICC) is regarded as an ability to communicate and interaction across cultures (Byram, 2012). As competence is a subjective term, since it depends on people’s personality, life experience, attitudes, learning styles, etc., the definition of ICC in academia is contested. Many studies focus on individuals, and regard ICC as an internal capacity of an individual. For example, Byram (ibid.) regards ICC as a set of intercultural skills (to interpret, relate, discover, and interact), knowledge about culture and interaction, attitudes and self-awareness of different cultures and education about critical issues in the host culture.. Among all ICC models, Byram’s (ibid) is the most recognised which divided IC competence into knowledge, skills, attitudes and awareness.

Researching diversity in education requires diversity-informed research methods and methodologies. Research methodologies must therefore be sensitive toward diversity in its variety of forms and peculiarities. Moreover, great adaptability of research approaches and researchers is necessary. Pre-given categories and structures thus may not allow for a sufficiently open and flexible capturing of the field’s characteristics. Hence, qualitative, inductive approaches that respect and reflect the circumstances and features of the field and the respondents are especially intriguing.

In light of international (comparative) research especially, some more aspects that require sensitivity must be taken into account. Here, three layers of reflection appear to be of relevance: Firstly, it is important to consider which terms and concepts are being used to describe the field. So, for instance, do we talk about cultures, contexts, or nations, and what is the underlying understanding of the corresponding notion that is applied (e.g., Dilley, 2002)? Secondly, it is important to consider how these concepts will be related to each other in the context of the research project. So, for example, do we apply an Inter-, Trans-, Multi-, or Cross-cultural research approach (e.g., Adick, 2010)? Based on this, it must thirdly be considered whether the research will rather focus on generalisations or observations of differences across fields (e.g., Dinkelaker et al., 2011)?

A critical reflection of these questions and considerations is crucial, especially as borders, nations, and cultures become increasingly blurry through migration, globalisation, and the ease of travel and information exchange across contexts (e.g., Fritzsche, 2012). Therefore, the Grounded Theory Methodology (Glaser/Strauss, 1967) appears as one promising methodology in this regard. Building on Falkenberg’s statement that Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) can be a valuable extension for international educational research (2018), the paper will engage in the question of how transcultural research on diversity in education can be conducted with GTM. To start with, the opportunities of GTM will be demonstrated by elaborating on two essential characteristics: Its sensitivity towards diversity and culture.

Firstly, the method allows for developing a theory that builds upon people’s diverse realities. Instead of applying pre-given theories and structures to the research field, GTM “is particularly helpful for uncovering processes or patterns of behavior that remain hidden in society” (Nayar/Wright-St Clair, 2020, p. 132). Thus, GTM allows us to conduct meaningful, qualitative research in complex, diverse, and so far, under-explored research fields. Under-explored fields can on the one side refer to thematic fields that have so far been rarely studied (e.g., tabooed research questions), but on the other side also to under-represented geographical fields (e.g., remote areas and communities). GTM, therefore, enables research in fields where little is yet known and the researcher must react and adapt to the unpredictable peculiarities of the field. Especially in light of diversity and international research, this feature is greatly important.

Secondly, the possibility to do culturally-sensitive research with GTM is essential. While in ethnography, culture is one of the concepts at the centre of attention, Nayar and Wright-St Clair (2020, p. 133) highlight that within GTM “it is the social process that is central to the study. Yet, this social process unfolds within a context, which means that culture cannot be ignored”. In addition to these culture-sensitive possibilities of GTM, Charmaz (2014, p. 1082) also explicitly mentions that “international researchers can adopt grounded theory strategies and adapt them to fit their cultural and research practices”. Especially in light of conducting research in diverse and multicultural settings with differing research traditions and realities and moreover, with regard to possibly uneven power relations, this is of great relevance (e.g., Robinson-Pant/Singal, 2013).