Training models and myths

I attended a program at the Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication by a colleague, Kate Berardo. Kate is an intercultural consultant and the founder of the online resource Culturosity. I make effort to attend her programs at conferences. I am also on a list serve she is on, and I always look forward to opening messages by her. Very bright young woman, always insightful. The session was titled, Training for transitions: Moving beyond ‘culture shock’ and the U-curve of adjustment.

The U-Curve

When speaking about how people experience moving from one culture to another, there is a commonly used model, often referred to as the U-Curve. There are many versions, but basically the premise is there is an emotional adjustment curve that begins with a ‘honeymoon’ or euphoria period, followed by a sinking into ‘culture shock’ which levels out to a return to ‘adjustment’ over time.

Theory to Practice

Kate studied this model in her graduate program. It’s a quite interesting study, this summary does not do it justice. For anyone who might be interested in the full study, the library at the Intercultural Communication Institute has a copy. She looked at the academic and public domain documents as well as the web to see how the model was presented. She then surveyed and interviewed trainers to find out how it was being used in practice.

The original research was done over 50 years ago when the study of cross-cultural transitions was in it’s infancy. It involved a group of Norweigan Fullbright scholars. There was no depiction of a U-curve, rather a suggestion of an emotional adjustment process. Over time, the U-Curve visual emerges and a number of studies test the theory. Here is the thing, there is little support, and the academic consensus is that it is not statistically valid. Some people might go through a curve like this, but there are so many factors that influence an individual’ s cross-cultural adjustment that there are many other possibilities beyond this simplistic curve.

When Kate surveyed 84 intercultural trainers from 26 countries who provide relocation training for people moving to new countries she found over 90% of them use this model.

Benefits of a simple model

In the session I attended, as well as the interviews that Kate conducted, participants identified a number of benefits of using this model. While I don’t use it in training, I have referred to the concept when talking to parents who have unhappy children overseas, almost as a comfort offering. To reassure them that it is normal to have a period of uncertainty and discomfort. It offers hope.

For a trainer, it is simple to draw. Simple to understand. Visuals provide a concrete starting point for a discussion. Most people have had some experience in their lives where this curve applies. It makes intuitive sense.

Is it ethical to use a model that isn’t supported by research?

Is questioning the ethics even valid? Kate suggests if you do use a model with questionable backing, that you also reveal the limitations and controversial nature of the research behind it. She adds that kind of introduction rarely instills confidence in participants, so perhaps finding another option is worth considering.

Here is where is gets particularly interesting for me. Graduate school instills the importance of seeking out the source of your data, and developing the skills to interpret research findings. I have that ‘training’. But I also have the lived experience of life being far more complex than any data set. I have a hard time completely discounting things that make intuitive sense. I find value from both, and draw conclusions in practice from a balance between the intellect, emotion, and intuitive parts of life.

I agree with Kate, it is important to reveal the sources of where the idea is emerging from. It is important to understand which parts of the information I include in training is backed by research (and know something about how it was conducted and applied). I also may include something, like the U-Curve visual. Rather than present it as fact, I find it more useful to use it to surface stories where it was relevant. Perhaps contrast it with stories of other possibilities.

What do you think? There are lots of models and visuals used by trainers, some of which are backed by research, some are backed by myth. Is it a matter of good model versus bad? Or one perspective versus another?