Reflective Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, October 2003Bridging P.docx

Reflective Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, October 2003
Bridging Perspectives of Parents,
Teachers and Co-Researchers:
methodological reflections on
cross-cultural research
SOYEON PARK
Department of Family Studies, 202 Pettee Hall, 55 College
Road, University of New
Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
MARIA K. E. LAHMAN
Department of Applied Statistics and Research Methods, Mckee
Hall 518, University of
Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639, USA; e-mail:
[email protected]
ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to discuss how
researchers situated themselves and
how they learned to effectively communicate each other
throughout the process of collabora-
tive cross-cultural research. Co-researchers, with diverse
cultural backgrounds (Korean and
Caucasian-American), reflect on the meanings and implications
of their collaborative
experiences. The implications of multicultural collaboration in
qualitative research, includ-
ing challenges and benefits, are presented. In the paper the
authors introduce themselves as
researchers, overview the cross-cultural research that the

authors collaborated on, detail the
method used to reflect on the collaborative research, and
highlight areas or themes that
seemed particularly salient in the research experience.
By having real researchers tell their own stories of ‘mucking
around’ … in
qualitative research, we get a more realistic, human story of the
process.
(Kathleen Bennett DeMarrais)
Collaborative research relationships involve a variety of
challenges and barriers. In
qualitative studies, the researcher is the main research
instrument in terms of
research design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation
(Woods et al., 2000).
When this ‘main instrument’ is composed of co-researchers
collaboration becomes
another issue that the researchers must be aware of including
possible strengths and
challenges. Despite possible obstacles in collaborative research
having more than
one researcher perspective when examining the research
question offers an array of
benefits. In particular, successful collaboration of experts from
different cultures in
a cross-cultural study may make the study more rigorous.
ISSN 1462-3943 print; 1470-1103 online/03/030375-
Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1462394032000112264
376 S. Park & M. K. E. Lahman

As a multicultural being in a multicultural society, we believe it
is of vital
importance to be aware of the numerous influences surrounding
human beings as
well as to try to understand ourselves in relations to these
influences. Multicultural-
ism is the belief that there is no single right way to live and no
single set of cultural
practices is predetermined as the superior or ‘right’ way to be
(Kimball & Garrison,
1999). Respect for other people’s experiences and their
interpretation of those
experiences is fundamental in multicultural perspectives.
As Gates and Hinds (2000) point out, the triangulation of
researchers with
different experiences or other resources enhances the data
interpretation. In any
collaborative research, it is important to establish effective
tools for open communi-
cation among the researchers. In this paper, we, Soyeon and
Maria, will discuss how
we learned to communicate with each other effectively and the
implications of what
we learned from our collaborative experiences.
During the process of conducting a collaborative qualitative
inquiry, one of the
main tools we used for our reflections was a research journal. In
the journals we
reflected on the process of the research—struggles, joys, new
insights, wonderings—
and our efforts to work with each other. We found that some
valuable struggles were
articulated in the journals that reflected our attempts to

understand the cross-cul-
tural research we were engaged in. Eventually we decided to
write our experience in
a manner that might help others to reflect on their own research
experiences. This
idea was intriguing and challenged us to write about, what we
have since come to
understand as, the researcher experience (Moch & Gates, 2000).
Our Stories
Given that qualitative research values interpretive meanings of
both participants’
and researchers’ experiences within a context, it is important
for the researcher to be
aware of her/his own bias that might be brought to the research
context. In the view
of interpretive perspectives, researchers are not neutral beings
and several aspects of
their biographies may affect the decisions they make and the
behavior in which they
engage as they observe, select, and document any set of events
(Kelly-Byrne, 1989).
In order to fully understand the cross-cultural implications of
our study it is
imperative that we introduce ourselves as researchers. Given
that our lives may be
represented through stories or narratives (Fu, 1999), it is
important to share our
researchers’ narratives since these are the lens we wear as we
probe the context of
the researched.
I, Soyeon, first came to the USA as an international graduate
student specializing

in child development. Although I already had two degrees in
child development and
various education related work experiences in Korea, I felt I
was dropped in the
middle of the desert since everything, including language and
culture, seemed
different and new to me. I realized that as a member of
predominantly monocultural
and homogeneous society, Korea, I had been ‘a frog in the well’
(A traditional
Chinese expression used to describe someone who has limited
experiences and
Reflections on Cross-cultural Research 377
perspectives) even though I had always enjoyed adventures and
new challenges in
order to gain a better understanding of various people and
contexts.
As a newly arrived international student in a small college town
in Virginia, I
began to establish relationships in the community. I came to the
university town
without knowing anyone. However, I easily connected to the
local Korean com-
munity since there were a number of graduate students from
Korea. In addition to
Korean students and their families, one of the major sources for
my relationships
was the graduate school that I was attending.
When I began my first year as a lead teacher in the university
laboratory school,

I became close to Maria who was a teacher in the next
classroom to mine and a
doctoral student in the same program. The hesitance to discuss
concerns or worries
that I might have as a ‘beginning teacher in an American
school’ changed to active
questioning and involvement in conversations with others due to
Maria’s encourage-
ment and support as a ‘peer and mentor’. Through our long-term
relationship as not
only friends but also peer colleagues, we challenged as well as
supported each other.
Both of us had major interests in multicultural education and
diversity issues in
class. My questions about American schooling initiated active
conversations regard-
ing cultural differences and similarities and eventually
provoked our collaborative
research. Our infinite conversations and dialogues were
extended to numerous
places such as hallways, classrooms, cars, restaurants and even
movie theaters as we
spent time together and formed a collaborative relationship.
I, Maria, am a Caucasian-American and have taught children in
US private and
public schools for 10 years. I met Soyeon in our doctoral
program in child
development when we began to teach together at the same pre-
school. Our relation-
ship naturally evolved from a more one way dispensing of
knowledge, with me trying
to orient Soyeon to what I thought the US school expectations
were, into a mutual
relationship where she also shared with me and informed my
practice regarding

Korean perspectives on education. For example, on one
occasion Soyeon asked me
what to do when an American parent gave her money as a
present. In her experience
in Korea a teacher would never take money as a present from a
parent. In a Korean
schooling culture the money gift might be misconstrued as a
bribe. Whereas in my
experience, in America, it is common for parents to give the
teacher gift certificates
and money gifts on special occasions.
Along with many small example of exchanging cultural ideas
Soyeon and I also
began to understand more fully what we believe to be a basic
difference in Western
and Eastern societies. This difference is captured in the Western
value of the
individual and the Eastern value of the group (Kim & Choi,
1994). Rather than
pitting our ideas and values against each other we began to see
how the idea of
‘individual’ and ‘group’ could inspire our beliefs and practices.
This give and take
of ideas led to a close relationship that caused us to collaborate
on a research project.
What We Studied
The primary purpose of the research study we collaborated on
was to explore what
parents from other countries’ thoughts, understandings and
desires for their child’s

schooling in the USA were and how teachers’ and parents’
perspectives relate to
each other. Korean and Chinese parents were interviewed using
a semi-structured
format about their parental views and values. The interview
guide was piloted with
an international parent and reviewed by a professor with
international Chinese
origin as part of the research process. In all cases the mother
and father were
interviewed separately. The children of these families were
observed both in school
and home settings interacting with teachers and parents where
they speak different
languages (English and their original language). The teachers of
the children were
also interviewed and documents provided by the teachers were
analyzed. Docu-
ments consisted of portfolios and work samples. A final source
of data was the
researcher’s personal experiences teaching children from other
cultures. Themes
that emerged include: (a) a desire by the parents for their child
to be educated in
America; (b) the parent valuing the acquisition of English
language; (c) the parents
feeling conflict over the acquisition of English possibly causing
the original language
skills to diminish; (d) teachers valuing international parents yet
feeling it is difficult
to communicate with them; and (e) teachers not distinguishing
clearly between
different, Asian nations.

How We Purposively Reflected on Our Study
Initially, we reread our journals and final paper as well as
relistening to our
interviews through a new lens, the lens of researcher
experience. This process helped
us focus on key methodological issues in our cross-cultural
study. In order to reflect
on our research experiences in a thoughtful manner, we
participated in several
‘stretching exercises for qualitative researchers’ (Janesick,
1998). One of the exer-
cises involved interviewing each other regarding our research
experiences (Moch &
Cameron, 2000). In addition, we engaged in creating a collage
that represented
ourselves (Janesick, 1998). We analyzed the collages together
asking how our
interpretations offered us a new ‘opportunity for self-
awareness’ (p. 45). Further-
more, extensive conversations with each other, about several
issues emerged through
the research process and allowed us to understand the topic
from different angles
and perspectives.
Different Nationalities and Race
Initially we were excited about the possibility of conducting
research with each other
and we saw nothing but the strengths of collaboration. Maria
had the experience of
teaching various young children from cultures other than hers,
many of whom had
entered her classroom knowing only a few English labels such
as ‘no’ or ‘pee-pee’.

At the time she met Soyeon, Maria was teaching three Chinese
boys who did not
speak English. Two of the boys’ mothers also spoke little
English and Maria spoke
no Chinese.
She began to express her wonder to Soyeon about how difficult
it must be to leave
your child with a teacher who you cannot communicate with.
Soyeon described this
phenomenon as being a part of everyday life for her Korean
friends and colleagues
studying in the USA. Maria worried that the parents were not
fully able to express
to her their knowledge about their sons and their desires for
their sons’ experience
in her classroom. We realized that by pursuing this wondering
together Maria’s
knowledge of early childhood education in USA and Soyeon’s
expertise in Child
Development and Asian children could combine to allow a more
clear understand-
ing of our study.
In all qualitative research and in particular research that
addresses issues regarding
culture or people from different backgrounds, it is important to
consider what biases
the researcher may have brought to the study and what kinds of
obstacles the
researcher might have faced (Stromquist, 2000). Feminist and

contextualist theories
have deconstructed the assumption that researchers of vastly
differing backgrounds
from the participants can easily respectfully yet rigorously
penetrate the perspectives
of the participants (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 2000). While this
type of research is
possible we felt our collaboration would make our research
process ‘easier’. Swadner
and Marsh (1998) state, in their collaborative research, that one
of the downsides to
their research is that both of them ‘were European-American,
middle-class women,
which in itself biased our perspectives or research lens and
influenced our ability to
interrogate and interpret our shared data collected in a
classroom context rich in
cultural, racial, and religious diversity’ (p. 169). We were in
full agreement with
these critiques and felt pleased with our opportunity to work
with each other.
However, as we developed our interview guide, we began to see
the difficulties
that cross-cultural research and researchers may present.
Certainly we came to know
that the word ‘easier’ has no place in any type of research. We
both had different
ideas regarding how we wanted to construct the interview
questions that reflected
not only our cultural background, but also Maria’s emphasis on
education and
Soyeon’s emphasis on development. At times Maria worried
about questions since
she knew she would be seen as ‘teacher’ and Soyeon was
concerned about certain

questions since she would be interviewing people from the local
Korean community.
To help us focus, make our bias explicit, and to gain a clear
perspective we piloted
the questions with an international mother and sought the advice
of a Chinese
American professor. These forms of member and expert checks
(Merriam, 1998)
challenged our perspectives and moved the questions into open-
ended exchanges
that did not have preconceptions and assumptions. We began to
see our different
perspectives as strengths again and not as hindrances. Belgrave
and Smith (1995)
discuss similar issues concluding their collaborative research is
‘complementary
rather than contradictory. Our collaboration, however, has
produced a richer in-
terpretation than either of us would have produced alone’ (p.
85). Collaboration
may take longer and seem harder at times, but it is more
fulfilling and allows
multiple perspectives to be gained.
Maria wrote about this process in her journal:
Soyeon and I have noticed that when we interview at times we
have very
different ways we would question or probe. I think this can be
strength of
our study. We decided to write our interview questions
separately and then
meet and worked on meshing the questions. I tend to have more
questions
about actual schooling and she has more about parenting. This
really made

our questions more full. Then for the final step we interviewed
an Eastern
Indian parent using the questions as a pilot study. We found that
a
conversational format with the questions as a guideline was the
most
preferable technique. At times participants talked for long
periods of times
with only simple probes.
Different Interview Languages
In addition to the issues related to collaborative research, we
faced other issues
through the process of cross-cultural study. One such issue was
language. For
example, implicit nuance and assumption of shared
understanding in language play
an important role during interviews. However, most of the
parents who participated
in our study were able to communicate in English, but not
fluently. We could not
decide whether we should interview in English or in the
parents’ first language. We
were aware of the debate over emic and etic stances in research,
but felt our
collaboration would strengthen our lack of being fully situated
in the cultures of
study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 2000) Since neither of us speaks
Chinese, it was
impossible to interview the Chinese parents in their language
although we could

consult with a Chinese American professor for help. After many
discussions, we
concluded it was more respectful to conduct interviews in
Korean for Korean
participants. We challenged ourselves to employ our own
approach for the research.
Soyeon interviewed the Korean families in Korean and then
translated while Maria
interviewed the Chinese families in English. Both of the
approaches had pros and
cons. Soyeon felt comfortable interviewing in Korean and was
able to gain rich data
from interviews yet translation was a complicated issue as it
relied heavily on
Soyeon’s decision for which words or expressions to choose.
Maria’s problem was
the opposite. Interviews themselves were challenges where she
had to be extremely
careful and sensitive in probing and continuing the interviews to
ensure she was
understanding the parents’ perspectives. However, there was no
translation prob-
lem.
During the research experience Maria wrote in her journal:
We know there is an interesting methodological issue in our
study regard-
ing the fact that Soyeon interviews in Korean and interprets into
English.
I interview Chinese families in English so the interview
questions are in
much more simple language. We know we need to include this
in the
discussion but aren’t really sure if it is a limitation. Recently a
classmate

said to us that she thinks it is strength. She said if we are
finding the same
types of themes and are interviewing in two different languages
at different
levels of speech she thinks that shows our findings are strong.
Would this
possibly be a source of triangulation? It is pretty interesting to
think about.
When Soyeon was reading literature on qualitative research
methodology, there was
not much information about bilingual issues in qualitative
research. Soyeon reflected
on this difficulty in her journal.
In my opinion, there is no perfect bilingualism since a person
usually relies
on one language more than the other even if they’re bilingual.
Some of my
friends say that I am bilingual but I’m not because my English
is not as
fluent as my Korean. I have some friends who are perfectly
fluent in both
languages but they still prefer one language to the other. So
what are some
of the issues when I interview in Korean or English? Is it really
possible to
do ‘reliable’ cross-cultural study? Translation is another issue
in presenting
data since I conducted interviews in Korean. I think these kinds
of issues
are important and should be stressed as our society becomes

more multi-
cultural and many studies deal with cultural topics. Choosing a
language to
conduct research for bilingual or ESL researcher is important
not only in
interviews but also in participant observation.
Maria’s reflection agreed:
We have asked many people about the issue of interviewing in
other
languages and have gotten little feedback. The [qualitative
research course]
text (Rossman & Rallis, 1998) agreed with our decision to
interview in the
language that the participants were most comfortable with even
though this
meant we would have to translate. Soyeon has noted that when
she
interviews in Korean the participant often says, ‘You know what
I mean’
and does not expand on something that they assume Koreans
would know.
I have never had this experience with the Chinese interviews for
obvious
reasons. I think we need to make an appointment with you [the
methodol-
ogy class professor] to discuss this also. What are the
implications for our
study? I wonder if bilingual studies are not done often.
Although we have to accept that we have language barriers, the
fact that different
researchers interview in different languages, we feel confident
that our experience of
researcher collaboration is strengthened by an exploration of the

perplexity and
dilemmas of multicultural research. Having both the emic and
etic view has benefits.
While Maria could not speak Chinese she provided a firm
location in American
school culture and Soyeon brought a deep understanding of
Eastern perspectives
and traditions. So interestingly enough we were both outsiders
and insiders in this
research collaboration. We believe that the awareness of
potential problems and bias
at the beginning of the research process increases the study
confirmability. Clarifying
emerging issues as we proceeded with the research study helped
us identify our
research stance and bias.
Themes We Avoided
We had a striking finding in our research that we had in no way
anticipated. It was
not directly related to our topic, but seemed important.
However, it was so
controversial that we hesitated to include it and in the final
draft of our paper did
not. As part of the research experience we feel the need to
confess our reluctance
and reflect on what our choices might mean. All of the
children’s parents reported
their child having extreme anxiety when they were left in the
care of an African

American teacher for the first time. One of the children was so
upset, over the course
of many days that the parents took the child out of the
classroom. We were aware
that there is a stereotype that Asians and African Americans
have poor relations. We
worried that this important ‘side’ issue would detract from the
main thrust of our
research. Soyeon worried about Asians seeming racist and
Maria was concerned that
as a White teacher it would reflect on her negatively to report
these conversations.
Maria has taught several Chinese and Korean children who cried
for days in her
classroom. One of the little girls would sit on Maria’s lap until
an Asian teacher
entered the room. Then she would immediately jump up and run
to the Asian teacher.
Within the framework of this experience we felt we could
understand the parents’
comments. It seemed the children identified with a teacher from
their race. We also
speculated that perhaps the children were used to seeing White
faces on TV and
certainly there are more White faces in the areas where we live
than African American.
So what is the consequence of our not reporting these findings?
Perhaps our
original paper was more palatable to readers. However, our
questions were focused
on helping teachers understand children from other cultures and
their parents’
wishes for their children. We had hoped this research would
allow children’s

transitions into American schools to be easier. However, we
then avoided infor-
mation that may have been helpful to all teachers in general,
because we felt the
issue was controversial and might reflect negatively on us.
What implications does
this scenario have for qualitative research, which must
ultimately rely on the
researcher’s decisions about data interpretation and even
inclusion of data?
Reflections on Reflections
Wolcott (1995 ) has said that while we may hope to understand
other’s better and
to bring about positive change in participants lives ‘we do well
to examine the extent
to which whatever we would like to see happening to and for
others is happening to
ourselves’ (p. 240). With this admonishment in mind we have
tried to examine the
research process in a manner that will allow our experiences to
influence the next
research we embark upon. Behar (1993) points out that while
willing to make the
participants vulnerable the researcher, for the most part,
remains invulnerable. We
are willing to walk the readers through the trials of the
participant but unwilling to
share ours. Hertz (1997), agrees wondering at the risk one takes
in letting ‘the cloak
of authority’ slip (p. xvi). We look to both our mistakes and
success as areas to be
learned from and shared. Mutual trust based on trustful
relationships, willingness to
communicate each other regarding both regrets and satisfaction

and efforts to find
creative ways to triangulate multiple experiences and findings
are some the themes
in successful collaborative research.
References
BEHAR, R. (1996) The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology
That Breaks Your Heart (Boston, Beacon
Press).
BELGRAVE, L. & SMITH, K. (1995) Negotiated validity in
collaborative ethnography, Qualitative
Inquiry 1 (1), pp. 69–86.
DEMARRAIS, K.B. (Ed.) (1998) Introduction, in: K.B.
DEMARRAIS (Ed.) Inside Stories: Qualitative
Research Reflections (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates).
FU, V.R. (1999) Stories of we the people: an invitation to join
in the conversation on diversity in
a democracy, in: V.R. FU & A.J. STREMMEL (Eds) Affirming
Diversity Through Democratic
Conversations (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall).
GATES, M.F. & HIND, P.S. (2000) Qualitative researchers
working as teams, in: S.D. MOCH &
M.F. GATES (Eds) The Researcher Experience in Qualitative
Research (Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage).

GUBA, E. & LINCOLN, Y. (1994, 2000) Major paradigms and
perspectives, in: E. GUBA & Y.
LINCOLN (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage).
HERTZ, R. (1997) Introduction: reflexivity and voice, in: R.
HERTZ (Ed.) Reflexivity and Voice
(Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
JANESICK, V.J. (1998) ‘Stretching’ Exercises for Qualitative
Researchers (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
KELLY-BYRNE, D. (1989) A Child’s Play Life: An
Ethnographic Study (New York, Teachers College
Press).
KIM, U. & CHOI, S. (1994) Individualism, collectivism, and
child development: a Korean
perspective, in: P.M. GREENFIELD & R.R. COCKING (Eds)
Cross-cultural Roots of Minority
Child Development (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).
KIMBALL, S.L. & GARRISON, J. (1999) Hermeneutic listening
in multicultural conversations, in:
V.R. FU & A.J. STREMMEL (Eds) Affirming Diversity through
Democratic Conversations (Upper
Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall).
MERRIAM, S.B. (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study
Applications in Education: Revised and
Expanded from Case Study Research in Education (San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass).
MOCH, S.D. & CAMERON, M.E. (2000) Processing the
researcher experience through discussion,
in: S.D. MOCH & M.F. GATES (Eds) The Researcher

Experience in Qualitative Research
MOCH, S.D. & GATES, M.F. (2000) Introduction: what about
the researcher experience? in: S.D.
MOCH & M.F. GATES (Eds) The Researcher Experience in
Qualitative Research (Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage).
ROSSMAN, G.B. & RALLIS, S.F. (1998) Learning in the Field:
An Introduction to Qualitative Research
STROMQUIST, N.P. (2000) On truth, voice, and qualitative
research, Qualitative Studies in
Education 13 (2), pp. 139–152.
SWADNER, B.B. & MARSH, M.M. (1998) Reflections on
collaborative, and not so collaborative,
research in early childhood settings, in: K.B. DEMARRAIS
(Ed.) Inside Stories: Qualitative
Associates).
WOLCOTT, H.F. (1995) The Art of Fieldwork (Walnut Creek,
CA, AltaMira Press).
WOODS, P., BOYLE, M., JEFFREY, B. & TROMAN, G. (2000)
A research team in ethnography,
Qualitative Studies in Education 13 (1), pp. 85–98.

Reflective Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, October 2003
Bridging Perspectives of Parents,
Teachers and Co-Researchers:
methodological reflections on
cross-cultural research
SOYEON PARK
Department of Family Studies, 202 Pettee Hall, 55 College
Road, University of New
Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
MARIA K. E. LAHMAN
Department of Applied Statistics and Research Methods, Mckee
Hall 518, University of
Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639, USA; e-mail:
[email protected]
ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to discuss how
researchers situated themselves and
how they learned to effectively communicate each other
throughout the process of collabora-
tive cross-cultural research. Co-researchers, with diverse
cultural backgrounds (Korean and
Caucasian-American), reflect on the meanings and implications
of their collaborative
experiences. The implications of multicultural collaboration in
qualitative research, includ-
ing challenges and benefits, are presented. In the paper the
authors introduce themselves as
researchers, overview the cross-cultural research that the
authors collaborated on, detail the
method used to reflect on the collaborative research, and
highlight areas or themes that

seemed particularly salient in the research experience.
By having real researchers tell their own stories of ‘mucking
around’ … in
qualitative research, we get a more realistic, human story of the
process.
(Kathleen Bennett DeMarrais)
Collaborative research relationships involve a variety of
challenges and barriers. In
qualitative studies, the researcher is the main research
instrument in terms of
research design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation
(Woods et al., 2000).
When this ‘main instrument’ is composed of co-researchers
collaboration becomes
another issue that the researchers must be aware of including
possible strengths and
challenges. Despite possible obstacles in collaborative research
having more than
one researcher perspective when examining the research
question offers an array of
benefits. In particular, successful collaboration of experts from
different cultures in
a cross-cultural study may make the study more rigorous.
ISSN 1462-3943 print; 1470-1103 online/03/030375-
Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1462394032000112264
As a multicultural being in a multicultural society, we believe it
is of vital

importance to be aware of the numerous influences surrounding
human beings as
well as to try to understand ourselves in relations to these
influences. Multicultural-
ism is the belief that there is no single right way to live and no
single set of cultural
practices is predetermined as the superior or ‘right’ way to be
(Kimball & Garrison,
1999). Respect for other people’s experiences and their
interpretation of those
experiences is fundamental in multicultural perspectives.
As Gates and Hinds (2000) point out, the triangulation of
researchers with
different experiences or other resources enhances the data
interpretation. In any
collaborative research, it is important to establish effective
tools for open communi-
cation among the researchers. In this paper, we, Soyeon and
Maria, will discuss how
we learned to communicate with each other effectively and the
implications of what
we learned from our collaborative experiences.
During the process of conducting a collaborative qualitative
inquiry, one of the
main tools we used for our reflections was a research journal. In
the journals we
reflected on the process of the research—struggles, joys, new
insights, wonderings—
and our efforts to work with each other. We found that some
valuable struggles were
articulated in the journals that reflected our attempts to
understand the cross-cul-
tural research we were engaged in. Eventually we decided to
write our experience in

a manner that might help others to reflect on their own research
experiences. This
idea was intriguing and challenged us to write about, what we
have since come to
understand as, the researcher experience (Moch & Gates, 2000).
Our Stories
Given that qualitative research values interpretive meanings of
both participants’
and researchers’ experiences within a context, it is important
for the researcher to be
aware of her/his own bias that might be brought to the research
context. In the view
of interpretive perspectives, researchers are not neutral beings
and several aspects of
their biographies may affect the decisions they make and the
behavior in which they
engage as they observe, select, and document any set of events
(Kelly-Byrne, 1989).
In order to fully understand the cross-cultural implications of
our study it is
imperative that we introduce ourselves as researchers. Given
that our lives may be
represented through stories or narratives (Fu, 1999), it is
important to share our
researchers’ narratives since these are the lens we wear as we
probe the context of
the researched.
I, Soyeon, first came to the USA as an international graduate
student specializing
in child development. Although I already had two degrees in
child development and
various education related work experiences in Korea, I felt I

was dropped in the
middle of the desert since everything, including language and
culture, seemed
different and new to me. I realized that as a member of
predominantly monocultural
and homogeneous society, Korea, I had been ‘a frog in the well’
(A traditional
Chinese expression used to describe someone who has limited
experiences and
perspectives) even though I had always enjoyed adventures and
new challenges in
order to gain a better understanding of various people and
contexts.
As a newly arrived international student in a small college town
in Virginia, I
began to establish relationships in the community. I came to the
university town
without knowing anyone. However, I easily connected to the
local Korean com-
munity since there were a number of graduate students from
Korea. In addition to
Korean students and their families, one of the major sources for
my relationships
was the graduate school that I was attending.
When I began my first year as a lead teacher in the university
laboratory school,
I became close to Maria who was a teacher in the next
classroom to mine and a
doctoral student in the same program. The hesitance to discuss

concerns or worries
that I might have as a ‘beginning teacher in an American
school’ changed to active
questioning and involvement in conversations with others due to
Maria’s encourage-
ment and support as a ‘peer and mentor’. Through our long-term
relationship as not
only friends but also peer colleagues, we challenged as well as
supported each other.
Both of us had major interests in multicultural education and
diversity issues in
class. My questions about American schooling initiated active
conversations regard-
ing cultural differences and similarities and eventually
provoked our collaborative
research. Our infinite conversations and dialogues were
extended to numerous
places such as hallways, classrooms, cars, restaurants and even
movie theaters as we
spent time together and formed a collaborative relationship.
I, Maria, am a Caucasian-American and have taught children in
US private and
public schools for 10 years. I met Soyeon in our doctoral
program in child
development when we began to teach together at the same pre-
school. Our relation-
ship naturally evolved from a more one way dispensing of
knowledge, with me trying
to orient Soyeon to what I thought the US school expectations
were, into a mutual
relationship where she also shared with me and informed my
practice regarding
Korean perspectives on education. For example, on one
occasion Soyeon asked me
what to do when an American parent gave her money as a

present. In her experience
in Korea a teacher would never take money as a present from a
parent. In a Korean
schooling culture the money gift might be misconstrued as a
bribe. Whereas in my
experience, in America, it is common for parents to give the
teacher gift certificates
and money gifts on special occasions.
Along with many small example of exchanging cultural ideas
Soyeon and I also
began to understand more fully what we believe to be a basic
difference in Western
and Eastern societies. This difference is captured in the Western
value of the
individual and the Eastern value of the group (Kim & Choi,
1994). Rather than
pitting our ideas and values against each other we began to see
how the idea of
‘individual’ and ‘group’ could inspire our beliefs and practices.
This give and take
of ideas led to a close relationship that caused us to collaborate
on a research project.
What We Studied
The primary purpose of the research study we collaborated on
was to explore what
parents from other countries’ thoughts, understandings and
desires for their child’s
schooling in the USA were and how teachers’ and parents’

perspectives relate to
each other. Korean and Chinese parents were interviewed using
a semi-structured
format about their parental views and values. The interview
guide was piloted with
an international parent and reviewed by a professor with
international Chinese
origin as part of the research process. In all cases the mother
and father were
interviewed separately. The children of these families were
observed both in school
and home settings interacting with teachers and parents where
they speak different
languages (English and their original language). The teachers of
the children were
also interviewed and documents provided by the teachers were
analyzed. Docu-
ments consisted of portfolios and work samples. A final source
of data was the
researcher’s personal experiences teaching children from other
cultures. Themes
that emerged include: (a) a desire by the parents for their child
to be educated in
America; (b) the parent valuing the acquisition of English
language; (c) the parents
feeling conflict over the acquisition of English possibly causing
the original language
skills to diminish; (d) teachers valuing international parents yet
feeling it is difficult
to communicate with them; and (e) teachers not distinguishing
clearly between
different, Asian nations.
How We Purposively Reflected on Our Study
Initially, we reread our journals and final paper as well as

relistening to our
interviews through a new lens, the lens of researcher
experience. This process helped
us focus on key methodological issues in our cross-cultural
study. In order to reflect
on our research experiences in a thoughtful manner, we
participated in several
‘stretching exercises for qualitative researchers’ (Janesick,
1998). One of the exer-
cises involved interviewing each other regarding our research
experiences (Moch &
Cameron, 2000). In addition, we engaged in creating a collage
that represented
ourselves (Janesick, 1998). We analyzed the collages together
asking how our
interpretations offered us a new ‘opportunity for self-
awareness’ (p. 45). Further-
more, extensive conversations with each other, about several
issues emerged through
the research process and allowed us to understand the topic
from different angles
and perspectives.
Different Nationalities and Race
Initially we were excited about the possibility of conducting
research with each other
and we saw nothing but the strengths of collaboration. Maria
had the experience of
teaching various young children from cultures other than hers,
many of whom had
entered her classroom knowing only a few English labels such
as ‘no’ or ‘pee-pee’.
At the time she met Soyeon, Maria was teaching three Chinese
boys who did not
speak English. Two of the boys’ mothers also spoke little

English and Maria spoke
no Chinese.
She began to express her wonder to Soyeon about how difficult
it must be to leave
your child with a teacher who you cannot communicate with.
Soyeon described this
phenomenon as being a part of everyday life for her Korean
friends and colleagues
studying in the USA. Maria worried that the parents were not
fully able to express
to her their knowledge about their sons and their desires for
their sons’ experience
in her classroom. We realized that by pursuing this wondering
together Maria’s
knowledge of early childhood education in USA and Soyeon’s
expertise in Child
Development and Asian children could combine to allow a more
clear understand-
ing of our study.
In all qualitative research and in particular research that
addresses issues regarding
culture or people from different backgrounds, it is important to
consider what biases
the researcher may have brought to the study and what kinds of
obstacles the
researcher might have faced (Stromquist, 2000). Feminist and
contextualist theories
have deconstructed the assumption that researchers of vastly
differing backgrounds

from the participants can easily respectfully yet rigorously
penetrate the perspectives
of the participants (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 2000). While this
type of research is
possible we felt our collaboration would make our research
process ‘easier’. Swadner
and Marsh (1998) state, in their collaborative research, that one
of the downsides to
their research is that both of them ‘were European-American,
middle-class women,
which in itself biased our perspectives or research lens and
influenced our ability to
interrogate and interpret our shared data collected in a
classroom context rich in
cultural, racial, and religious diversity’ (p. 169). We were in
full agreement with
these critiques and felt pleased with our opportunity to work
with each other.
However, as we developed our interview guide, we began to see
the difficulties
that cross-cultural research and researchers may present.
Certainly we came to know
that the word ‘easier’ has no place in any type of research. We
both had different
ideas regarding how we wanted to construct the interview
questions that reflected
not only our cultural background, but also Maria’s emphasis on
education and
Soyeon’s emphasis on development. At times Maria worried
about questions since
she knew she would be seen as ‘teacher’ and Soyeon was
concerned about certain
questions since she would be interviewing people from the local
Korean community.
To help us focus, make our bias explicit, and to gain a clear

perspective we piloted
the questions with an international mother and sought the advice
of a Chinese
American professor. These forms of member and expert checks
(Merriam, 1998)
challenged our perspectives and moved the questions into open-
ended exchanges
that did not have preconceptions and assumptions. We began to
see our different
perspectives as strengths again and not as hindrances. Belgrave
and Smith (1995)
discuss similar issues concluding their collaborative research is
‘complementary
rather than contradictory. Our collaboration, however, has
produced a richer in-
terpretation than either of us would have produced alone’ (p.
85). Collaboration
may take longer and seem harder at times, but it is more
fulfilling and allows
multiple perspectives to be gained.
Maria wrote about this process in her journal:
Soyeon and I have noticed that when we interview at times we
have very
different ways we would question or probe. I think this can be
strength of
our study. We decided to write our interview questions
separately and then
meet and worked on meshing the questions. I tend to have more
questions
about actual schooling and she has more about parenting. This
really made

our questions more full. Then for the final step we interviewed
an Eastern
Indian parent using the questions as a pilot study. We found that
a
conversational format with the questions as a guideline was the
most
preferable technique. At times participants talked for long
periods of times
with only simple probes.
Different Interview Languages
In addition to the issues related to collaborative research, we
faced other issues
through the process of cross-cultural study. One such issue was
language. For
example, implicit nuance and assumption of shared
understanding in language play
an important role during interviews. However, most of the
parents who participated
in our study were able to communicate in English, but not
fluently. We could not
decide whether we should interview in English or in the
parents’ first language. We
were aware of the debate over emic and etic stances in research,
but felt our
collaboration would strengthen our lack of being fully situated
in the cultures of
study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 2000) Since neither of us speaks
Chinese, it was
impossible to interview the Chinese parents in their language
although we could
consult with a Chinese American professor for help. After many
discussions, we
concluded it was more respectful to conduct interviews in

Korean for Korean
participants. We challenged ourselves to employ our own
approach for the research.
Soyeon interviewed the Korean families in Korean and then
translated while Maria
interviewed the Chinese families in English. Both of the
approaches had pros and
cons. Soyeon felt comfortable interviewing in Korean and was
able to gain rich data
from interviews yet translation was a complicated issue as it
relied heavily on
Soyeon’s decision for which words or expressions to choose.
Maria’s problem was
the opposite. Interviews themselves were challenges where she
had to be extremely
careful and sensitive in probing and continuing the interviews to
ensure she was
understanding the parents’ perspectives. However, there was no
translation prob-
lem.
During the research experience Maria wrote in her journal:
We know there is an interesting methodological issue in our
study regard-
ing the fact that Soyeon interviews in Korean and interprets into
English.
I interview Chinese families in English so the interview
questions are in
much more simple language. We know we need to include this
in the
discussion but aren’t really sure if it is a limitation. Recently a
classmate
said to us that she thinks it is strength. She said if we are
finding the same
types of themes and are interviewing in two different languages

at different
levels of speech she thinks that shows our findings are strong.
Would this
possibly be a source of triangulation? It is pretty interesting to
think about.
When Soyeon was reading literature on qualitative research
methodology, there was
not much information about bilingual issues in qualitative
research. Soyeon reflected
on this difficulty in her journal.
In my opinion, there is no perfect bilingualism since a person
usually relies
on one language more than the other even if they’re bilingual.
Some of my
friends say that I am bilingual but I’m not because my English
is not as
fluent as my Korean. I have some friends who are perfectly
fluent in both
languages but they still prefer one language to the other. So
what are some
of the issues when I interview in Korean or English? Is it really
possible to
do ‘reliable’ cross-cultural study? Translation is another issue
in presenting
data since I conducted interviews in Korean. I think these kinds
of issues
are important and should be stressed as our society becomes
more multi-
cultural and many studies deal with cultural topics. Choosing a
language to

conduct research for bilingual or ESL researcher is important
not only in
interviews but also in participant observation.
Maria’s reflection agreed:
We have asked many people about the issue of interviewing in
other
languages and have gotten little feedback. The [qualitative
research course]
text (Rossman & Rallis, 1998) agreed with our decision to
interview in the
language that the participants were most comfortable with even
though this
meant we would have to translate. Soyeon has noted that when
she
interviews in Korean the participant often says, ‘You know what
I mean’
and does not expand on something that they assume Koreans
would know.
I have never had this experience with the Chinese interviews for
obvious
reasons. I think we need to make an appointment with you [the
methodol-
ogy class professor] to discuss this also. What are the
implications for our
study? I wonder if bilingual studies are not done often.
Although we have to accept that we have language barriers, the
fact that different
researchers interview in different languages, we feel confident
that our experience of
researcher collaboration is strengthened by an exploration of the
perplexity and
dilemmas of multicultural research. Having both the emic and
etic view has benefits.

While Maria could not speak Chinese she provided a firm
location in American
school culture and Soyeon brought a deep understanding of
Eastern perspectives
and traditions. So interestingly enough we were both outsiders
and insiders in this
research collaboration. We believe that the awareness of
potential problems and bias
at the beginning of the research process increases the study
confirmability. Clarifying
emerging issues as we proceeded with the research study helped
us identify our
research stance and bias.
Themes We Avoided
We had a striking finding in our research that we had in no way
anticipated. It was
not directly related to our topic, but seemed important.
However, it was so
controversial that we hesitated to include it and in the final
draft of our paper did
not. As part of the research experience we feel the need to
confess our reluctance
and reflect on what our choices might mean. All of the
children’s parents reported
their child having extreme anxiety when they were left in the
care of an African
American teacher for the first time. One of the children was so
upset, over the course
of many days that the parents took the child out of the

classroom. We were aware
that there is a stereotype that Asians and African Americans
have poor relations. We
worried that this important ‘side’ issue would detract from the
main thrust of our
research. Soyeon worried about Asians seeming racist and
Maria was concerned that
as a White teacher it would reflect on her negatively to report
these conversations.
Maria has taught several Chinese and Korean children who cried
for days in her
classroom. One of the little girls would sit on Maria’s lap until
an Asian teacher
entered the room. Then she would immediately jump up and run
to the Asian teacher.
Within the framework of this experience we felt we could
understand the parents’
comments. It seemed the children identified with a teacher from
their race. We also
speculated that perhaps the children were used to seeing White
faces on TV and
certainly there are more White faces in the areas where we live
than African American.
So what is the consequence of our not reporting these findings?
Perhaps our
original paper was more palatable to readers. However, our
questions were focused
on helping teachers understand children from other cultures and
their parents’
wishes for their children. We had hoped this research would
allow children’s
transitions into American schools to be easier. However, we
then avoided infor-
mation that may have been helpful to all teachers in general,

because we felt the
issue was controversial and might reflect negatively on us.
What implications does
this scenario have for qualitative research, which must
ultimately rely on the
researcher’s decisions about data interpretation and even
inclusion of data?
Reflections on Reflections
Wolcott (1995 ) has said that while we may hope to understand
other’s better and
to bring about positive change in participants lives ‘we do well
to examine the extent
to which whatever we would like to see happening to and for
others is happening to
ourselves’ (p. 240). With this admonishment in mind we have
tried to examine the
research process in a manner that will allow our experiences to
influence the next
research we embark upon. Behar (1993) points out that while
willing to make the
participants vulnerable the researcher, for the most part,
remains invulnerable. We
are willing to walk the readers through the trials of the
participant but unwilling to
share ours. Hertz (1997), agrees wondering at the risk one takes
in letting ‘the cloak
of authority’ slip (p. xvi). We look to both our mistakes and
success as areas to be
learned from and shared. Mutual trust based on trustful
relationships, willingness to
communicate each other regarding both regrets and satisfaction
and efforts to find
creative ways to triangulate multiple experiences and findings
are some the themes

in successful collaborative research.
References
BEHAR, R. (1996) The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology
That Breaks Your Heart (Boston, Beacon
Press).
BELGRAVE, L. & SMITH, K. (1995) Negotiated validity in
collaborative ethnography, Qualitative
Inquiry 1 (1), pp. 69–86.
DEMARRAIS, K.B. (Ed.) (1998) Introduction, in: K.B.
DEMARRAIS (Ed.) Inside Stories: Qualitative
Associates).
FU, V.R. (1999) Stories of we the people: an invitation to join
in the conversation on diversity in
a democracy, in: V.R. FU & A.J. STREMMEL (Eds) Affirming
Diversity Through Democratic
Conversations (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall).
GATES, M.F. & HIND, P.S. (2000) Qualitative researchers
working as teams, in: S.D. MOCH &
M.F. GATES (Eds) The Researcher Experience in Qualitative
Research (Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage).
GUBA, E. & LINCOLN, Y. (1994, 2000) Major paradigms and
perspectives, in: E. GUBA & Y.
LINCOLN (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (Thousand

Oaks, CA, Sage).
HERTZ, R. (1997) Introduction: reflexivity and voice, in: R.
HERTZ (Ed.) Reflexivity and Voice
JANESICK, V.J. (1998) ‘Stretching’ Exercises for Qualitative
Researchers (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
KELLY-BYRNE, D. (1989) A Child’s Play Life: An
Ethnographic Study (New York, Teachers College
Press).
KIM, U. & CHOI, S. (1994) Individualism, collectivism, and
child development: a Korean
perspective, in: P.M. GREENFIELD & R.R. COCKING (Eds)
Cross-cultural Roots of Minority
Child Development (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).
KIMBALL, S.L. & GARRISON, J. (1999) Hermeneutic listening
in multicultural conversations, in:
V.R. FU & A.J. STREMMEL (Eds) Affirming Diversity through
Democratic Conversations (Upper
Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall).
MERRIAM, S.B. (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study
Applications in Education: Revised and
Expanded from Case Study Research in Education (San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass).
MOCH, S.D. & CAMERON, M.E. (2000) Processing the
researcher experience through discussion,
in: S.D. MOCH & M.F. GATES (Eds) The Researcher
Experience in Qualitative Research

MOCH, S.D. & GATES, M.F. (2000) Introduction: what about
the researcher experience? in: S.D.
MOCH & M.F. GATES (Eds) The Researcher Experience in
Qualitative Research (Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage).
ROSSMAN, G.B. & RALLIS, S.F. (1998) Learning in the Field:
An Introduction to Qualitative Research
STROMQUIST, N.P. (2000) On truth, voice, and qualitative
research, Qualitative Studies in
Education 13 (2), pp. 139–152.
SWADNER, B.B. & MARSH, M.M. (1998) Reflections on
collaborative, and not so collaborative,
research in early childhood settings, in: K.B. DEMARRAIS
(Ed.) Inside Stories: Qualitative
Associates).
WOLCOTT, H.F. (1995) The Art of Fieldwork (Walnut Creek,
CA, AltaMira Press).
WOODS, P., BOYLE, M., JEFFREY, B. & TROMAN, G. (2000)
A research team in ethnography,
Qualitative Studies in Education 13 (1), pp. 85–98.

Reflective Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, October 2003Bridging P.docx

Reflective Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, October 2003Bridging P.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Reflective Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, October 2003Bridging P.docx

Similar to Reflective Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, October 2003Bridging P.docx (15)

More from sodhi3

More from sodhi3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Reflective Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, October 2003Bridging P.docx