Identifying factors for CQ level enhancement: case study among the flacc students

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Faculty of Humanities

Identifying factors for CQ level enhancement: case study among the flacc students

BACHELOR`S THESIS

Field of study: Linguistics

Degree programme: Foreign Languages and Cross-Cultural Communication

Reviewer

Professor, PhD of Philology,

Faculty of Humanities

I. I. Chironova

Supervisor

Professor of Linguistics and Intercultural

Communication, School of Philology, Faculty of Humanities,

M. B. Bergelson

Moscow, 2019



Contents

intercultural communication intelligence

1. Introduction

2. Cultural Intelligence as a consequence of Intercultural Communication

2.1 Intercultural Communication: genesis and theories

2.2 Cultural Intelligence (CQ): definition, components, levels

3. Ang and Van Dyne`s CQ test: importance, structure, score calculation, accuracy, and limitations

4. Empirical identification of the factors of CQ level enhancement

4.1 CQ-level test

4.2 Research design, methods, and results

5. CQ level enhancement guide: steps to be taken on the basis of theoretical and practical approaches

5.1 Structure and design of the guide

5.2 Limitations and gaps

5.3 Further suggestions for the research

6. Conclusion

7. Bibliography



1. Introduction

Our century is considered to be the age of globalization. The humanity is exposed to the collision of different cultures within this process. People changing their residence and migrating abroad is one of the major trends these days. Whenever they happen to be in another country, even as tourists, people are automatically involved in the dialogue of cultures: their own and the culture of a different state. How should they behave? Do they know customs, traditions or norms which another culture encompasses? How good are they at communication with the bearers of another worldview?

Since such questions arise very often nowadays, there is no wonder why being effective at liaising with people from other cultures is one of the key skills, appreciated all over the world. To qualify for the 21st century demands, a person has to possess a high level of cultural intelligence, or CQ. According to the authors of the term, Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne, “CQ is a person's capability to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity” (Ang, Van Dyne, 2007). This type of intelligence was distinguished relatively recently, and it indicates whether one knows how to communicate with members of another culture productively, without hurting anyone`s feelings.

Thousands of migrants come to different countries every year and they have to adapt to the cultural reality of a host country in both social life and a work place. Most employers organize educational sessions on cultural diversity issues for their employees in order to provide their subordinates with a better understanding of tolerance towards representatives of different cultures. Such courses are also offered for those people who are not a part of office environment, but who just wish to get an insight into unfamiliar culture. Cultural training provides a deeper understanding of the ways how others think, act and perceive the world. Having acquired some information on how other cultures function, what values and believes they propagate, a person is likely to try to see the surrounding reality with the eyes of a person from a different culture. The spread of cultural awareness is vital for such aspects of our life as, for example, interpersonal and intergroup communication. That is why increasing the level of CQ is an issue of paramount importance. Unfortunately, however, there is no CQ-level enhancement guide, which would provide those wishing to increase their CQ-level, to find.

As it has been already mentioned, scholars have only begun to take interest in the phenomenon of CQ. The topic is relatively new, that is why only a few reputable works, such as the ones by Ang and Van Dyne, the pioneers of the field, on this theme could be found and analyzed. Nevertheless, scholars agree on the definition of CQ, on the spheres it could be applied to and on the fact that the level of CQ can actually be identified. This work attempts to combine different points of view on the question and devise a new, unique set of standards, according to which one can identify and enhance their CQ level. The paper is topical since it provides information on the branch of culturology which has been introduced relatively recently, thus the topic is not profoundly researched. At the same time, the demand on measuring CQ and developing it is high at the moment. As mentioned before, cultural studies are applicable to a bunch of spheres and are a crucial requirement for potential employees.

The methods employed in the study are contrastive analysis, in-depth interviews, and observation.

This research aims to devise a guide on how to improve the level of CQ. It would provide those wishing to improve and develop their knowledge of different cultures with useful advice and clear understanding of what needs to be implemented to boost CQ level.

The work pursues to accomplish the following tasks:

1. to briefly describe the concept of intercultural communication;

2. to define cultural intelligence and describe its components and levels;

3. to analyze Ang and Van Dyne`s CQ test and devise a new test, which it based on it;

4. to analyze the results of the test among students of the three specializations (teachers, translators/interpreters, cross-cultural communication specialists);

5. to conduct observations and take in-depth interviews on the basis of the observations;

6. to analytically access the received data and devise a guide on CQ level enhancement.



2. Cultural intelligence as a consequence of the intercultural communication phenomenon

2.1 Intercultural communication: genesis and theories

In order to understand where the instruments for CQ measurement stem from, one should take a closer look at the seminal works of the founding fathers of Intercultural Communication field.

In this research paper, the approaches introduced by Edward Hall, Richard Lewis and Geert Hofstede are being analyzed, since they provide the data which Paige relied on while identifying the key ten instruments for CQ level measurement (Paige, 2004).

Genesis

So, when was the term “intercultural communication” coined and what were the premises for it to emerge? It is widely accepted that Edward Hall is the father of the theory of intercultural communication (Rogers, 2002). Being an anthropologist, he wanted to grasp why some phenomena actually took place in one culture and did not in the other. To understand this, he devised a complex theory, which involves different components of a culture, analyzed his findings and classified cultures according to various categories.

After the Second World War the humanity witnessed relatively large waves of migration, especially to the United States, where Hall lived. The phenomenon of cultural diversity became even more ubiquitous than it used to be and there emerged a demand for people who could communicate effectively in the multicultural environment. That's when Hall came up with his first book on intercultural communication, “The Silent Language” (Hall, 1959), where he introduced a bunch of the basic ideas of intercultural communication studies: such terms as monochronic/polychronic time, high/low context cultures, proxemics and some others, which became a solid foundation for other scholars` works within the field.

Theories

Intercultural communication is a complex phenomenon which encompasses several aspects. A concept of a culture depends on its components, and the components analyzed depend on the approach which is used to describe a culture.

It is crucial to realize that the approaches to the description of cultural dimensions have some common concepts paid attention to, but the scholars specializing in the field view them from different angles and refer to them differently, with one concept being presented partially in several dimensions. The exception would be the notion of time perception, which is named the same in both Hall`s and Lewis`s dimensions yet treated dissimilarly.

Time perception

Edward Hall established the framework, in which time perception falls into the two categories: monochronic and polychronic (Hall, 1966), whilst Lewis is convinced that there are three types of time perception: linear, multi-active and cyclic (Lewis, 1996).

In Hall`s model, there is a division between a polychronic (PT) and a monochronic (MT) time perception. One of the basic criterion to determine division between the two is the factor of how many things are done at a time. If a person is focused on one activity within a time period and has a goal to accomplish it as soon as possible (often in order to proceed with some other type of activity), this person is likely to belong to a MT perception. Consequently, if someone prefers to maintain several projects simultaneously and does not really put an emphasis on how soon they are accomplished, especially when a person could be easily distracted from one activity by another one, the odds are he/she perceives time polychronically. Moreover, Hall implies that MT representatives place their job above the relationships, while PT perceivers do just the opposite.

Another way to analyze time perception was established by Lewis. Within a linear time model, people clearly distinguish between past, present and future. Time is viewed as an arrow and it is a great value. Within this time paradigm, those perceiving time in a linear way, “…are people of action; they cannot bear to be idle. The past is over, but the present you can seize, parcel and package and make it work for you in the immediate future. Americans, for example, talk about wasting, spending, budgeting and saving time” (Lewis, 1996).

In the multi-active time model people do not pay much attention to the value of time, they tend to do lots of things simultaneously, they also have a tendency not to be punctual. “As far as meetings are concerned, it is better not to turn up strictly on time for Spanish appointments. In Spain, punctuality messes up schedules” (Lewis, 1996).

A completely different model of time perception is the cyclic one. This model is widely popular in Asian countries. It is based on the idea of repetition of certain events, e.g. sunrise, sunset, occurrence of the seasons. “Westerners often expect an Asian to make a quick decision or to treat a current deal on its present merits, irrespective of what has happened in the past. Asians cannot do this. The past formulates the contextual background to the present decision, about which in any case, as Asians, they must think long term--their hands are tied in many ways” (Lewis, 1996).

Context and space perception

Hall also introduced the notions of context and space perception. A context can be either high, when “communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted parts of the message” (Hall, 1966, p. 91), or low, which must be detailed and exact (Hall, 1966). HC messages are difficult to interpret for anyone who does not belong to the culture where such codes are used. Like, for example, silence in Japanese culture can be an indicator of agreement, concern or just politeness. To decode the meaning of silence in each particular case, one has to pay attention to what is going on around him/her. Most Asian cultures along with some Indian and African tribes, belong to HC cultures. Low-context (LC) messages must be detailed and exact. LC cultures as the ones found in the United States and in most European countries belong to LC cultures. Probably this might be so because these countries are very business-oriented and are predominant in the world of finance, where everything is to be expressed clearly and in a straightforward manner. Others do not have to guess what a speaker implies if he/she belongs to a LC culture (Samovar et al., 2014).

Proxemics is also an important culture aspect to be considered. Proxemics is the study which determines our attitude to personal space and how we actually communicate within this space. In his book, “The hidden dimension” (1959), Hall firstly describes the territorial behavior of different types of animals and then transfers his findings onto the human communication. According to the scholar, our territorial behavior was initially determined by nature, but then, within the development of society, it varied depending on the culture a person was raised in. In order to provide readers with a better understanding of this term, Hall shows how people from Germany, France, the UK, Japan and Arab countries view personal and public space. Generally, Hall (1966) distinguishes between four major types of distance: intimate distance (from six to eighteen inches), personal distance (one and a half to two and a half feet), social distance (four to seven feet) and public distance (twelve to twenty-five feet). It should be noted, however, that Hall`s model of these zones is applicable in the USA and in some European countries, not all over the world.

All in all, Hall`s scheme is not applicable to every culture, especially given the fact that this book was written 52 years ago, and the things have changed in a way. Nevertheless, having a general understanding about how other cultures determine different space zones might be very helpful when communication with a representative of another culture takes place.

4-D model

Another way to dissect any culture is to present it with the help of a 4-D model, introduced by Hofstede. He established such notions as femininity and masculinity of a culture, uncertainty avoidance level, power distance level and drew a line between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. Together all these notions form the 4-D culture model. The scholar came up with a number of tables where he rated the cultures of different cultures according to this of that dimension.

According to Hofstede (2010), cultures can have masculine and feminine traits. A masculine culture implies that people are encouraged to be assertive, competitive. Usually there is a real difference between the behavioral patterns of girls and boys. Boys, for example, should be tough and never cry, they are to be bread-winners in the family, whereas for girls it is normal to show their feelings, have mild character and be housewives. In feminine cultures, though, it is considered to be a norm to be modest and tender for a man, both men and women are concerned about high standards of live quality, which sometimes does not view money as a solution to every problem. As Hofstede has calculated, Japan seems to be the country with the highest masculinity level, while Sweden is the leader among feminine cultures (Hofstede, 2010).

Another important factor to pay attention to while analyzing a culture is the level of uncertainty avoidance (UA). This index indicates whether the representatives of a culture are ready to deal with something new and unknown to them. The UA level also shows whether the cultures are open-minded towards new practices, unusual ways of doing something and, of course, towards new technologies. The cultures here are divided into two categories: cultures with weak UA and cultures with strong UA. The latter ones assume that if something is different from the order of things they are accustomed to, this means that this something is dangerous and it implies a hidden threat. Unsurprisingly, strong UA cultures are resistant to innovation. Furthermore, there are certain rules, especially for children on such a matter as what is good and what is bad. In the cultures with weak UA, on the contrary, parents try not to overwhelm their kids with strict rules. They expect the younger generation to learn about the laws of live themselves, since they are open to new ideas and opinions. Besides, the standards of etiquette are changing with time, thus, what was considered to be “good” fifty years ago may not be actually topical for the 21st century generation. Also, Hofstede (2010) writes that students which belong to a weak UA culture are not predominantly concerned with right answers, they tend to seek for interesting discussions where there is, in fact, no right answer. The students of strong UA cultures do not like open-ended discussions, they expect a teacher to possess all the necessary, right knowledge and pass it on to them. According to Hofstede`s observations, the countries with strong UA are Greece, Portugal and Belgium and the countries with weak UA are Singapore, Jamaica, Sweden and Denmark.

The index of power distance level is also crucial. This criterion demonstrates how people of lower positions (for example, in organizations) interact with those who stand higher in the hierarchy. The cultures fall into two types here: small power distance and large power distance. The small power distance cultures are characterized by very respectful and equal treat of subordinates and younger people (in families children are treated as equals to adults, they are not simply told what to do, but they are consulted). The perfect leader for such cultures is a democratic boss who listens to his/her employees and does not accumulate power only in his/her own hands. In sharp discrepancy with these principles, large power distance cultures view the relationship between a boss and a subordinate in a way that an employee should silently obey his/her boss (as well as children are to do what they are told to do by their parents) and treat the boss with great respect. Moreover, an ideal leader for this culture model is an authoritative person who has a lot of power. Hofstede (2010) has identified Malaysia, Guatemala and Panama as countries with a large power distance, while Austria, Israel and Denmark are the top three small power distance countries.

According to Hofstede, the collectivist societies are those societies in which the interest of the group prevails over the interest of the individual. As opposed to these collectivist societies and cultures, the scholar introduces some individualistic societies: “A minority of people in our world live in societies in which the interests of the individual prevail over the interests of the group, societies that we will call individualist. Children from such families, as they grow up, soon learn to think of themselves as “I.” This “I,” their personal identity, is distinct from other people's “I”s” (Hofstede, 2010, 91).

Types of cultures by Lewis

Linear-active cultures are those cultures where people are task-oriented, do not like multitasking, they follow logic and seek support in facts, not in relationships with others. They are active participants in the conversation, they try to be polite, but they can interrupt an interlocutor when they feel it is necessary. They respect personal space and try to minimize their body language. Linear-actives value time over relationships.

Multi-actives are those who, as a rule, speak most of the time, making some connections, which may be useful in the future. They are rather people-oriented and emotional, they do not try to hide any of this. According to Lewis (1996), for such cultures it is hard to separate personal relationships and business, which could cause misunderstanding between business partners, for example, from linear-active and multi-active cultures.

Reactive cultures are famous for being great listeners, who never interrupt others. They have to process every word their interlocutor utters in order to give thoroughly analyzed opinion of their own later, when they are asked to do so. People from other types of cultures sometimes view reactives as somewhat slow thinkers, but it is not particularly true. It is just reactives wish to be both polite and logical when they express their point of view. Reactive cultures employ subtle body language and put courtesy over truth, unlike linear-actives.

Correlation of the theories

The two Hall`s dimensions above (concerning context and space perception) are reflected in those introduced by Hofstede (2010), if to be more precise, in terms of collectivism/individualism. As it could be inferred from Hofstede`s work, in collectivistic cultures the identity of a person is based on his/her group belonging, whereas in individualistic cultures a person identifies himself/herself who they really are. If to draw connections to that theory about HC and LC cultures of Edward Hall, it could be claimed that collectivistic cultures tend to also be HC cultures, since a group of people shares norms, values and beliefs and all the members form a close-knit community, where everyone knows each other. Thus, they can decode the meanings of non-verbal messages, typical of HC cultures. This also works for LC and individualistic cultures, but, of course, not always.

Once the correlation between the works of Hofstede and Lewis is considered, it could be claimed that since taken from the Lewis`s (1996) paradigm linear-actives value tasks, achievements and business over relationships, they can be characterized as masculine from Hofstede`s point of view. Consequently, multi-actives would be the representatives of the feminine type of culture, with reactives being placed somewhere in between.

Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that these dimensions are not interchangeable and that despite their interconnectedness they encompass some features, only specific to this or that particular dimension. So, in order to have a clear and unbiased picture of a person`s CQ level, Paige (2004) decided to embrace all of them and devise a set of instruments for CQ level definition.

2.2 Cultural intelligence (CQ): definition, components, levels

Definition

Originally the term “cultural intelligence” was coined by S. Ang and L. Van Dyne. They defined it as “a person's capability to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity” and justified its importance (Ang, Van Dyne, 2007). According to these scholars, developing CQ is utterly vital since people nowadays are exposed to a multi-cultural world, where they have to convey appropriate and clear messages, which can be difficult to do without possessing a high level of CQ.

CQ pertains to how people adapt and thrive when they find themselves in an environment other than the one in which they were socialized. As a form of intelligence, comparable to social or emotional intelligence, CQ refers to people's capabilities across cultures. Sternberg (1985) suggests a general definition of intelligence as the abilities necessary to select, shape, and adapt to an environment. However, whereas general intelligence focuses on academic skills and emotional intelligence reflects the capability to interact and work with other people, CQ entails the ability to interact effectively with people who are culturally different. Thus, CQ is a specific form of intelligence focused on the ability to grasp, reason, and behave effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity (Ang, Van Dyne, 2008).

Also, it must be noted that CQ is not an inborn, but an acquired set of skills, which can be and should be developed. CQ could be obtained and then underpinned simply by living in society and communicating with people from different social backgrounds. If a person wishes to get some profound knowledge on the subject, they could attend specially devised courses, which are aimed at CQ development.

Components

According to seminal works of the field, there are four dimensions within the CQ concept: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral.

Metacognitive (Strategy)

This competence indicates a person`s ability to observe and understand intercultural context. It takes some time to get to the bottom of things and to correctly interpret the situation. That is why a meticulously planned communication strategy is the core notion for this dimension, which focuses not only on one person`s cultural knowledge and background, but also on other people`s. Metacognitive CQ encompasses awareness, planning, and checking. Awareness means being in tune with what's going on in one's self and others. Planning is taking the time to prepare for a intercultural encounter - anticipating how to interact with people, discuss a topic, and approach a situation. Checking is the monitoring we do as we take part in interactions to see if the plans and expectations we had were true. It's comparing what we expected with our actual experience - with what happened. This factor of CQ reflects whether or not we can engage in awareness, planning, and checking in ways that result in better contemporary leadership practices (Ang, Van Dyne, 2007).

Cognitive (Knowledge)

This dimension is also referred to as a “knowledge dimension”. Its main concern is connected to the awareness that cultures differ from one another and they actually shape the way people perceive the surrounding reality and behave. Moreover, this dimension encompasses the understanding that culturally determined phenomena vary from context to context. “Cultural norms and values are the varying ways cultures approach things like time, authority, and relationships. The value a culture places upon time and relationships becomes highly germane when an American is trying to get a signed contract from a potential affiliate in China or Brazil or Saudi Arabia or Spain, where cultural values provide different norms for what is considered appropriate in this type of situation” (Ang, Van Dyne, 2009). When a person`s level of cognitive CQ is high enough, they can communicate across cultures quite successfully. Nevertheless, Linn Van Dyne stresses the idea that only in combination with other three CQ dimensions can a person convey a message in the intercultural environment effectively.

Motivational (Drive)

The motivational factor is the driving force of all the four dimensions since it is responsible for demonstrating interest and desire to learn something about other cultures. What is more, this part of CQ implies being confident while dealing with the representatives from another culture, which is a crucial factor to consider in communication. Even though a person realizes that intercultural communication can be hard to go through at times due to the differences in world perception, they are still ready to tackle the problems and handle the situation. Thus, motivational CQ is linked to one`s effectiveness in intercultural communication processes. Motivational cultural intelligence includes intrinsic motivation--the level to which one gets enjoyment from culturally diverse situations, extrinsic motivation--the more tangible benefits one obtains from culturally diverse experiences, and self-efficacy-- one`s confidence that they will be effective in an intercultural communication process. All three of these motivational dynamics play an important role in how leaders approach intercultural situations (Ang, Van Dyne, 2007).

Behavioral (Action)

This CQ aspect has to do with both verbal and non-verbal messages which a person conveys in the intercultural environment. Those who possess a high level of the behavioral CQ know how to use gestures, phrases, posture, tone, etc. correctly, so that the messages are considered to be appropriate by the representatives of another culture. “The behavioral factor of CQ includes the capability to be flexible in verbal and nonverbal actions. It also includes appropriate flexibility in speech acts - the exact words and phrases we use when we communicate specific types of messages. While the demands of today's intercultural settings make it impossible to master all the do's and don'ts of various cultures, there are certain behaviors that should be modified when we interact with different cultures” (Ang, Van Dyne, 2009).

According to Soon Ang (Ang, Van Dyne, 2007), it would be helpful to develop these CQ parts in a certain order, though, all the dimensions are equally significant, and some individuals can acquire them in a different manner. So, the scholar suggests that the first aspect to develop is Drive, which would give rise to a person`s desire to get some information on the issue. Then follows the Knowledge step, where one grasps some basic cultural notions and phenomena. After this comes the metacognitive dimension, in which people observe and plan their communication strategy, sort of mastering the communication scheme. And finally, a person gets the Action CQ and can operate freely, confidently and appropriately in the intercultural environment.

Levels

Since the field of CQ has not been deeply and thoroughly researched yet, there exist only a few tests validated by the academic society. One of the most accurate and widely-accepted tests is the one devised by Ang and Van Dyne. It has been created on the basis of the test introduced by Paige (2004), but according to the scholars, Paige`s test “lacks coherent theoretic foundations and often mixes ability and nonability characteristics” (Ang, Earley, 2003). The CQ test describes both the level of each of the CQ components and an overall CQ level. A person can get one of the three levels on each category: deficient, average (normal) and high. In order to determine the score on each of the components, the scholars analyzed a three-part survey and calculated the score a person got on each of the categories.



3. Ang and Van Dyne`s CQ test: importance, structure, score calculation, accuracy, and limitations

As the authors themselves describe their test, it is aimed at identifying what a person knows and can do rather than the things they are not aware of and cannot perform. “We position CQ clearly as a set of capabilities, anchored in a multiple intelligence literature. Accordingly, CQ is a “cleaner” construct that assesses multiple aspects of intercultural competence in a single instrument based on a theoretically grounded, comprehensive and coherent framework” (Ang, Earley, 2003).

Importance

The authors claim that the higher a person`s CQ level is, the more effective and successful communicator a person is. Their test will help one to identify their strong and weak aspects and provide with an individual piece of advice how to master their skills. Furthermore, the scholars provide their readers with a scheme, which indicates what factors influence our cross-cultural performance and why it is important to possess a high level of CQ (Figure 1) (Ang, Early, 2003).



Structure and accuracy

As it has been already mentioned, Ang and Van Dyne based their research on Paige`s (2004) work, which contained ten instruments to determine a person`s CQ level. Ang and Van Dyne used the nine of them and distributed these instruments according to the four CQ components. The initial instruments established by Paige were Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), Cultural Shock Inventory (CSI), Culture-General Assimilator (CGA), Global Awareness Profile Test (GAPT), Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ISI), Multicultural-Awareness-Knowledge-Skills Survey (MAKSS), Overseas Assignment Inventory (OAI), Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SAS) and Cross-Cultural World Mindedness (the one which was not used in Ang and Van Dyne`s survey because it focuses primarily on nonability and on individual differences). Later these aspects fell into four categories:

* metacognitive (CCAI, IDI, MAKSS);

* cognitive (CSI, CGA, GAPT, MAKSS, SAS);

* motivational (CCAI, MAKSS);

* behavioral (CSI, IDI, ISI, OAI, SAS) (Ang, Van Dyne, 2007).

In order to get a full picture and make accurate conclusions about a person`s CQ, Ang and Van Dyne devised a three-part test, which includes both self-assessment and peer-assessment.

In the first test, a person is asked to complete twenty quick self-assessment questions, which are linked to the four components. There are such questions, as, for example, “I check the accuracy of my cultural assumptions as I interact with people from different cultures” (CQ Strategy) or “I know the predominant legal and economic systems of other cultures” (CQ Knowledge) and the surveyed are to answer whether they agree with the information provided in a question on a seven-point scale where “1” is an absolute “no” and a “7” is an absolute “yes”.

The second part of the test contains forty questions and is referred to as a self-inventory one. Here the principle is similar to the previous part of the test, where a person needs to express the level of agreement with various statements. The difference is, however, that this part of the test not simply determines ones score on each of the four components, but also determines the key skills belonging to each of the component categories.

The forty questions were tested and evaluated for such parameters as readability, clarity, and definitional fidelity so that at the end ten items for each of the components retained.

The final part of the test implies peer-assessment. It requires from four to five people, who a person knows, to answer the same questions as in part two about him/her. Later, the points gained on each question were added and then divided by two to get an average result.

So, this way, in the first test a person is provided with a very general overview on his/her CQ and they can get a detailed one by accomplishing the second and the third parts of the test.

The survey has been proved to be valid and is widely used to determine people`s CQ level all over the world.

Calculation

An obvious drawback of the test is certainly its very difficult result calculation. Apart from the survey, several factors, such as age, sex, the country of origin and the level of education are to be considered. They are closely tied to all the four components and the score of these parameters is to be added to the points gained by participants.

Limitations and gaps

As the authors admit it themselves, their test is not flawless, and it needs to be updated and extended. To begin with, they limited the number of constructs assessed in each survey in order to minimize participants` fatigue. To foster their understanding of links between CQ and other relevant constructs, they included different individual difference constructs in different studies. Thus, the consistency of design was sacrificed for the sake of findings. The authors recommend extending future research by examining additional predictors and outcomes of CQ. This could include individual difference characteristics such as self-monitoring, need for cognition, need for closure, self-efficacy, ethnocentrism, self-construal, and social identity as factors that may influence the formation and enhancement of CQ. It also could include supplementary aspects of intercultural effectiveness such as performance in intercultural negotiations, conflict management in culturally diverse groups, adjustment to working on global virtual teams, selection for jobs with international responsibilities, and expatriate performance (Ang, Van Dyne, 2012).



4. Empirical identification of the factors of CQ level enhancement: CQ-level test, research design, methods, and results

4.1 CQ-level test

Test design and structure

In order to get a detailed picture of each of the participants` CQ level, I decided to combine the second and the third parts of Ang and Van Dyne`s test, so that a person could do both evaluate himself/herself and receive the evaluation of others. The test itself will also focus on the abilities of the participants, not on their nonabilities.

Number of questions

As the scholars have already mentioned, one of the limiting factors is participants` fatigue and growing boredom as they move towards the end of the test. So, in order not to overwhelm the surveyed with a great number of questions, it was set to opt for only twenty questions instead of the original forty ones. Furthermore, the participants will only need two people to evaluate them.

Scale

The participants will be offered to estimate the degree to which they agree with the given statements. There will be seven levels of agreement:

1. strongly disagree;

2. disagree;

3. usually I would disagree, but sometimes this statement is true about me;

4. I`m not sure;

5. usually I would agree, but sometimes this statement is not true about me;

6. agree;

7. strongly agree.

Formula

* To calculate the score for each question, one adds up the score given by the participant himself/herself (N) and the score given by the peers (P) divided by two and divides the result by two:

(N+ (P:2)) : 2

The minimum score here and in all the other aspects is “1” and the maximum is “7”.

* To calculate the score for one component, one needs to add up all the scores for each question in the category (Q1, Q2, etc.) and divide the result by five:

(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+Q5) : 5

* To calculate the overall CQ score, one needs to add up the scores of each of the components (C1, C2, etc.) and divide the result by four:

(C1+C2+C3+C4) : 4

Levels

There are four major CQ levels, which can be identified with the help of this test. They encompass the following: low, satisfactory, normal and high with the corresponding ranges:

* Low: from 1 point to 2,5 points;

* Satisfactory: from 2,6 points to 4,5 points;

* Normal: from 4,6 points to 6,5 points;

* High: from 6,6 points to 7 points.

The number of participants

Since it was decided to conduct a detailed survey, which would be embedded in the case study research, the number of the initial participants (who evaluated themselves and were assessed by their peers) was limited to six.

Test questions

1. I am confident I can effectively socialize with people from a culture unfamiliar to me. (Drive)

2. I am eager to learn something new about other cultures. (Drive)

3. I am willing to communicate with the representatives of other cultures. (Drive)

4. I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me. (Drive)

5. I enjoy living in cultures that are unfamiliar to me. (Drive)

6. I know the predominant legal and economic systems of other cultures. (Knowledge)

7. I know at least four different wedding traditions typical to different cultures. (Knowledge)

8. I know the arts and crafts of other cultures. (Knowledge)

9. I know the rules for expressing non-verbal behaviors in other cultures. (Knowledge)

10. I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages. (Knowledge)

11. I check the accuracy of my cultural assumptions as I interact with people from different cultures. (Strategy)

12. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds. (Strategy)

13. I adjust my cultural knowledge as I interact with people from a culture that is unfamiliar to me. (Strategy)

14. I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I apply to intercultural interactions. (Strategy)

15. I analyze how representatives from other cultures act and what they believe in order to adjust my communication style to their needs. (Strategy)

16. I use pause and silence differently to suit various intercultural situations. (Action)

17. I have changed my behavior in order to adapt to other cultures. (Action)

18. I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when an intercultural interaction requires it. (Action)

19. I vary the rate of my speaking when an intercultural situation requires it. (Action)

20. I change my non-verbal behavior when an intercultural interaction requires it. (Action)

It should be noted that I have already analyzed the efficiency and accuracy of this test in the previous research by comparing the results of the original Ang and Van Dyne`s test with the results of my test, based on the original one. The comparative analysis revealed that the maximum difference index equaled 0,2 points (2,9%), which provided me with the basis to claim that the new CQ-level test could be relied on in terms of CQ-level identification.

Results of the CQ-level test

It was decided to examine the level of CQ of six students at the educational program called “Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication” at the Higher School of Economics. I found it sensible to conduct the test among the students with intercultural communication background, since it was assumed that they all have a relatively high CQ-level. Thus, I could observe and interview them with the purpose of identifying the factors, which contribute to obtaining a normal or a high CQ-level. The participants belong to all the three specializations of the program, each two of them representing intercultural communication specialists, teachers or translators/interpreters. All the students are at their final year of studies and they already possess some knowledge on intercultural communication, since all of them had an introductory course on intercultural communication. Each of the participants was asked to involve two more people in the experiment, so that they could get peer evaluation. According to the mutual agreement, the identities of the participants should remain anonymous. Since I am not at liberty to disclose this type of information, the participants will be given labels: Participants A and B, specializing on intercultural communication; Participants C and D, who are studying translation; Participants E and F, who have opted for teaching.

As it could be clearly seen from the graphs below, five of the students possess a Normal level of CQ, according to this test level classification, whilst Participant E has obtained the score, which could be identified as a high CQ-level. Despite the fact that I assumed that those specializing on intercultural communication would get the highest scores, the participant with the most points turned out to be a teacher. On the basis of this result, it could be assumed that it is not the profound theoretical knowledge on the subject of intercultural communication that necessarily boosts the CQ-level, meaning that there are some other important factors to be taken into consideration.

The highest level of CQ among the participants could be found in the Drive CQ, while the lowest one was explored in the Action CQ. This trend could be explained by Ang`s idea that despite the fact that all the components are equally important and interconnected, they are developed gradually, starting with Drive CQ and developing further, to the Action CQ. The participants were provided with theoretical basis on the issue, but, unfortunately, not all of them had much real-life experience in communication with the representatives of other cultures. That is why the Strategy CQ and the Action CQ are at a lower level than the other two CQ components.

In general, the average level of CQ among the surveyed is 5.9, which equals a Normal CQ level. This fact indicates that the students possess a decent level of knowledge on the subject. When the participants were shown their results, none of them was surprised. They confirmed that this test evaluated their CQ level quite accurately and that the survey was not too long to make them bored or tired from it. This fact supports the idea such CQ-level tests should neither contain any information overload nor encompass too many questions.

4.2 Research design, methods, and results

Observations and unprepared in-depth interviews

To achieve the set goals of this case study research, it was decided to opt for the following methods: comparative analysis, in-depth interviews, and observation. It should be noted that the author treats case study as an approach (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995; Scholz, Tietje, 2002), not as a method (Soy, 2015; Zainal, 2007) because it encompasses several qualitative methods within it, such as in-depth interviews, for example. Thus, it does not belong to the method paradigm, it has to deal more with the research design and structure.

The method of comparative analysis will be used to compare the results of the CQ level test among the students of different specializations as well as their answers to the interview questions.

Once I was provided with a clear image concerning the CQ-level of the participants with the help of the test, which identified that all the six students possess a decent CQ-level, I decided to place the participants in the multicultural environment and make observations. The method of observation was implemented in order to see how CQ works in real life, how the participants with normal and high CQ-levels react to different cultures, interact with the representatives of these cultures, and to challenge the results of the test itself. Moreover, whenever the participants did or said something being of a particular interest for I, they were asked a series of questions, which were aimed at assisting me with the understanding of the motivation behind their deeds or utterances. Thus, the method of unprepared in-depth interviews was employed at the research.

It should be noted that the participants were divided into smaller groups and taken to different events predetermined by a multicultural setting, in order to make the observations more precise. The participants were not informed beforehand about the fact that attending these events was the part of research, otherwise they could have behaved unnaturally. The three events were chosen for attendance: Moscow International Career Fair; cultural tour around Moscow with tourists from Germany, who happen to be friends of I; and the conference of the young researchers “Step into the Future” organized by the Bauman Moscow State Technical University.

Participants B, F, and D were the attendees of the International Education Fair, where the representatives of the universities from all over the globe disseminated information about their educational establishments. Participants B and F took great interest in one of the German universities, asking those in charge about academic life. Once they learned that in Germany students choose the schedule themselves, picking the subjects they want to study, they both were surprised. So, I inquired about their attitude to this topic.

“I think that`s pretty cool! You can do whatever you want. I think I could opt for this” said Participant B.

“That's great, but it`s pretty strange in comparison to what we do here. It`s like the educational process is not taken that seriously there” replied Participant F.

“That's why I won`t go study abroad! I mean, it`s nice to travel somewhere and be there for a while but living there on long-term basis can be weird…” answered Participant D. When this participant was asked for the reason why he attended the Fair, he said that he “just wanted to see what the world has to offer at the education market”.

Later we proceeded to the section of the oriental universities. Here all the participants agreed that Asian cultures are very different from the European ones and that we should use the knowledge we received during the Intercultural Communication course in order to behave appropriately. Thus, when our group approached the Japanese corner, we all bowed to greet the Japanese. Also, the Participant F reminded us of the fact that we should not look the Japanese directly in the eye and that we should respect their personal space. After this the participants were asked whether they always implement the knowledge of the peculiarities of different cultures, which they have at their disposal, during the communication process with the representatives of other cultures.

“Of course, we should do this! This shows others that we respect them. Also, our cultural competence, if you will” said Participant B.

“Just doing this because I know something about it. Still wishing to think that I don`t waste time at the university and I also don`t want to look like an idiot doing something inappropriate” answered Participant D.

“Looking at people`s surprised faces when I show the knowledge of their culture is cool. Then very often they ask me something about Russia, and I`m happy to share some info with them” replied Participant F.

During this event I spotted the behavior linked to various CQ components. First of all, Participants B and F demonstrated a high level of the Drive component, which is linked to the desire to embrace another culture. They showed their readiness to be immersed into another culture, as well as their motivation to learn something new. Participant D, however, expressed his concern about being exposed to another culture for a long time. These behavioral patterns are underpinned by the results of the CQ-level test, which revealed that Participant D has the lowest number of points regarding the Drive component. Moreover, all the participants have consciously implemented their knowledge in the process of interaction. This speaks for their decent levels of such CQ components as Knowledge and Strategy. Changing the non-verbal behavior in order to fit the situation (bowing to the Japanese) accounts for the Action component.

Participants C and E were offered to take a walk around Moscow with the guests from Germany. While we were walking, they asked Germans a lot of questions concerning their culture. Despite the fact that there were some things about German culture which are not typical of the Russian one, the participants described such phenomena as “interesting”, “curious”, and “great”, without expressing any negative attitude, such as with the help of the words “strange” or “weird”. Since the Participant E is fluent in German, she tried to speak German with the guests, if that was a one-to-one conversation. When our group attended a restaurant, and we gathered for a toast, the said “Prost”, which in German means “cheers”. When I made an inquiry regarding the fact of using the mother tongue of the representatives of another culture, Participant E explained: “It sort of brings us together, you know. The language barrier disappears, and communication becomes easier. Plus, being able to speak a language helps you understand a culture better, the way people view the world”.

...