AN INVESTIGATION OF CROSS-CULTURAL TRANSITION : THE ADAPTATION OF RUSSIAN
EXCHANGE STUDENTS TO
DUTCH CULTURE
2016
Svetlana Tompoidi, 5492149
Utrecht University, Faculty of Humanities, Master Intercultural Communication
First supervisor: Drs. H.E. Messelink
Second supervisor: Dr. J.D. ten Thije
Third supervisor: Dr. Roselinde Supheert
Summary
Dutch universities offer high-quality education and are famous for their exalted positions in various world
university rankings. This fact, together with the international orientation of Dutch universities and the
availability of a wide range of Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes offered in English, make them
attractive to students from all over the globe, including Russian ones. One of those Dutch universities
interested in collaborating with their Russian counterparts is Maastricht University. This paper will
attempt to provide useful information to Maastricht University regarding the intercultural and academic
problems of Russian students in the Netherlands. The problems experienced by Russian students during
their cross-cultural transition in terms of culture shock and adaptation to the new cultural environment are
investigated using qualitative research methods. Special attention is given to the coping strategies the
students use, the types of social support they seek, and their satisfaction with the support provided by the
Maastricht University staff. The students themselves also provided recommendations aimed at improving
the experience of Russian students in Maastricht.
Russian students seem to experience two kinds of problems in the Netherlands: culture-related ones and
academic ones. These problems are caused by differences in cultural values, communication style and
interpersonal communication with the host country’s nationals. The academic problems include
inadequate English language skills and the Problem-Based teaching approach used by Maastricht
University. The coping strategies employed by the students include seeking social support for practical
reasons, active coping, positive reinterpretation and growth, planning and mental disengagement. The
students first seek social support from their compatriots and only then turn for help to the host country’s
nationals. Despite their high satisfaction with the support provided by the Maastricht University staff, the
students recommended placing Russian students with Dutch nationals, encouraging Russian students to
participate in social activities, and providing useful cultural and general information about the
Netherlands before or immediately after the students’ arrival.
2
Acknowledgements
Numerous people have assisted me in conducting this research, and I would like to gratefully
acknowledge their contribution to this thesis. First of all, I would like to express my thanks to my first
thesis supervisor Annelies Messelink for her help, guidance, constructive feedback and support during the
realisation of this paper. I further extend my gratitude to my second supervisor Jan ten Thije and my third
supervisor Roselinde Supheert for their contribution to optimizing my paper. I would also like to thank
my thesis group members Saskia Borghans, Floor Damen and Frederiek Flik for the interesting
interaction they provided during our group sessions.
I am particularly indebted to Professor Dr. Herman Kingma, the chair of the Task Force Russia of
Maastricht University, who helped me to get access to the Russian exchange students and kindly provided
me with sundry relevant information for this research.
Last but not least, I am deeply grateful to the five Russian students for their participation in my research
project.
3
Table of contents
1. Introduction……………………………………..………………………………………………....6
1.1. Context of the research project.......................................................................................................6
1.2. Maastricht University……………………………………………………………………………..7
1.3. Purpose of the study........................................................................................................................8
1.4. Personal interest and formulation of the research questions...........................................................8
2. Theoretical framework………………………………...……...……………………………........11
2.1. Culture shock…………………………………………………………………………….............11
2.1.1. Models of culture shock………………………………………………………..……..12
2.1.2. Indicators of culture shock……………………………………………………………13
2.1.3. Stages of culture shock………………………………………………………………..13
2.2. Coping strategies………………………………………………………………...........................15
2.3. Adaptation……………………………….. .…………………………………………………….17
2.3.1. The stress-adaptation-growth dynamic……………….………………………...…….17
2.3.2. Cross-cultural adaptation rate factors………………………….………………….......18
2.4. Social support……………………………………………………………………..…..………....19
2.4.1. Bochner’s functional model of friendship networks………………………...………..19
2.5. Culture…………………........……………………………………………………………….......20
2.5.1.Scollon & Scollon model………………………………………………………….......20
2.5.2. Russian culture..............................................................................................................21
2.5.3. Individualism versus collectivism…………………..……………….…………..……23
2.5.4. Directness-indirectness and collectivism-individualism………………………...……24
2.5.5. Politeness……………………………………………………..……………………….25
3. Methodology…………………………………..……………………………………….………….27
3.1. In-depth interviews……………………………………………………………………...……….27
3.2. Qualitative research…………………………………………………………………...…………29
4
3.3. Decentring …………………………………………………………………………………….....29
3.4. Desirability of responses…………………………………………………………………………29
3.5. Institutional and Intercultural position……………………..…………………………………….30
3.6. Student background information……………………………………………………...….............30
3.7. Interview design………………………………………………………………………...…….….32
4. Results and Discussion……............................................................................................................33
4.1. Culture shock…………………………………………………………………………….............33
4.2. Coping strategies…………………………………………………………………………............37
4.3. Adaptive problems ………………………………………………….……………………...........38
4.4. Non-academic adaptive problems … ……………………………………………...…….............38
4.5. Academic problems. …………………………………………………………...………..............40
4.6. Social support………………………………………………………………………...………….42
4.7. Satisfaction with social support …………………………...…………………………………….43
4.8. Students’ Recommendations..…………………………………………………………………...44
5. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................45
6. Limitations and suggestions for further research………………...………………...………….48
References…………………………………………………………………………………………...50
5
1. Introduction
1.1. Context of the research project
Within the context of globalisation, the internationalisation of higher education is an important factor to
help guarantee the survival of an economy in a modern, rapidly changing world. The internationalisation
of higher education is closely related to and dependent on student mobility. Student mobility in its turn
presupposes cross-cultural transition, which is frequently accompanied by phenomena like culture shock,
adaptive problems and the inability to function successfully within the host culture. Such negative factors
may affect and even impede the process of internationalisation of higher education and therefore should
be studied and analysed to provide useful information to the educational institutions and other parties
involved in the internationalisation process.
This paper will focus on the cross-cultural transition of five Russian students in the Netherlands and try
to shed some light on both these students’ problems and their positive experiences during their integration
into an unknown culture so different from their own.
According to CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), there were 51,812 people from the former USSR,
including Russia, in the Netherlands in 2013. According to Nuffic Neso, there are currently 650 Russian
students in the Netherlands. The Netherlands have several institutions and organisations working to settle
and support Russian nationals and to provide them with information. The most important of these are the
Russian Embassy in the Netherlands, the Consular Department of the Russian Embassy in The Hague and
the Dutch Council of Russian compatriots. According to Rijksoverheid.nl, there are also approximately
12 Russian schools for children from Russian- speaking families or mixed Russian-Dutch families in the
Netherlands.
Russia and the Netherlands have had long-standing political, economic, cultural, scientific and educational
relations. The two countries are not only investment and business partners, but have also established
collaboration in scientific and educational areas. According to Rijksoverheid.nl, approximately 450 Russian
students come to study at Dutch higher education institutions each year. To stimulate the flow of Russian
students into Dutch universities, two institutions were established in Russia with the aim of promoting
Dutch universities in Russia: Nuffic Nesso Russia and the Dutch Institute in Petersburg (Nederlands
Instituut in Sint-Petersburg). In 2014, there was a tensing of political relations between Russia and the
Netherlands because of Russia’s involvement in the war in eastern Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea, in
response to which the EU imposed economic sanctions, and especially the crash of flight MH17 with 193
Dutch nationals on board. In addition, the 2013 anti-gay law had significantly damaged relations between
the two countries and caused a dispute concerning human rights. These political developments may have
6
had a significant impact on the attitude of Dutch nationals towards Russians both in the Netherlands and
abroad.
Having been part of the Soviet Union for many years, Russia had long been isolated from the Western
world, not only politically but also culturally. After the fall of the Soviet Union and its turbulent aftermath
Russia realized that internationalizing and modernizing its higher education system was an absolute
necessity to keep up with the rapidly changing and globalized world. This assumption led to the ambitious
Project 5-100, which aims to maximize the competitive position of Russia’s third-level education
institutions on the global market by placing five Russian universities in the world’s top-100 universities.
With this in mind, three 2nd year Master students in Physics and two 2nd year Master students in
Psychology from Tomsk State University enrolled in a 10-month exchange research programme at
Maastricht University in September 2014 (Amendment II to Educational and Scientific Cooperation,
2014). This exchange research programme is part of strategic five-year plan developed by Maastricht
University to expand its collaboration with Russian universities (Observantonline.nl, 2013). Some of
these students had already lived abroad before, some in Europe, some outside it, whereas others had
crossed the borders of their fatherland for the first time. For all five students acting as respondents in this
study, it was their first visit to the Netherlands and their first time to come into contact with Dutch culture
and the Dutch education system. The students’ academic transition was mediated by the Taskforce Russia
group, whose purpose it is to facilitate collaboration between Maastricht University and Tomsk State
University and provide assistance and support to the exchange students.
1.2. Maastricht University
Maastricht University is not a regular Dutch University in terms of language policy and teaching methods.
One of the slogans of Maastricht University is “Based in Europe, focused on the world” (Maastricht
University Strategic Programme 2012-2016: 13). This slogan shows that Maastricht University is an
internationally oriented university which attempts to attract students from around the world. According to
De Vries (2012), Maastricht University is a fully bilingual university. In addition to the Dutch language,
the English language is widely used in the academic context at Maastricht University (ibid.). Maastricht
University profile has two additional characteristic features: Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and an
integrated, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach to research and education. Problem-Based
Learning is a learning and teaching approach characterised by small-scale, student-centred, activating and
collaborative learning with the teacher acting as a facilitator, and the teaching being organised around
problems (De Graaf & Kolmos, 2003). A multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach to research and
education means applying, to varying degrees, multiple disciplines on the same continuum and
attempting to provide solutions to complicated global societal problems (Choi & Pak, 2006).
7
1.3. Purpose of the study
The 10-month exchange research programme is intended as a pilot before the two universities launch the
full, two-year double degree Master programme. For this reason, the impression of the Dutch culture and
education system these students will take home and share with other potential candidates is quite
important. Potential candidates who are considering studying at Maastricht University may base their
decision on the information received from students who have already been there.
In addition, research on the negative and positive experiences of these five Russian students regarding
their cross-cultural transition and culture shock in the Netherlands will provide useful information for
other exchange students preparing to come to the Netherlands. The results of this research project could
be used by the Taskforce Russia group to improve the experience of Russian students in the Netherlands
and contribute to a positive representation of Dutch culture by Russian students at home.
1.4. Personal interest and formulation of research questions
The choice of culture shock and adapting to a new cultural environment as the research topic for this
paper was not a random one. In 1998, my family and I emigrated from Russia to Greece and in 2011, I
changed countries for the second time by moving to the Netherlands. Once more, I had to face the
challenges of adapting to a new cultural reality and finding answers to various questions related to the
painful but rewarding experience of culture shock. Like many other people who have emigrated from
Russia to various European countries, my family and I experienced both culture shock and adaptive
problems caused by the lack of intercultural communication competences and the cultural differences
between Russia and the various host countries. I know from first-hand experience that ignorance of the
host country’s norms and rules and insufficient information during the pre-departure stage may lead, not
only to disappointment to the newcomers but also to depression, anger, deep dissatisfaction and other
acute symptoms of culture shock. Another aspect I found important to investigate is the way newcomers
cope with stress and what social support they seek and receive during their cross-cultural transition. The
quality and quantity of social support can contribute significantly to the psychological well-being of the
newcomers (Ward, Bochner and Furnham, 2001) and should therefore be investigated.
I chose the Russian exchange students at Maastricht University, because I was sporadically involved as a
part-time translator and interpreter within Taskforce Russia at Maastricht University. For this reason, I
wanted to contribute to the collaboration between Maastricht University and Tomsk State University by
researching the cross-cultural transitional problems of those Russian exchange students in Maastricht.
8
I come from a different region of Russia (the South) than the students interviewed for this research paper,
but I visited various parts of Russia, including the area the students came from (the North-East) before
starting my research. This made me aware of some regional differences within Russian culture itself and
was of great help to me when analysing and interpreting the data I had collected.
To chart the cross-cultural transition of Russian students in Maastricht, the following research questions
were formulated:
Main research question: How did the five Russian students experience cross-cultural transition in
terms of culture shock and adaptation to the new culture in the Netherlands with regard to coping
strategies and social support.
This main question was then split up into six sub-questions:
Sub-question 1: To what extent did the students experience culture shock?
Sub-question 2: What difficulties did they experience while adapting to the new cultural environment
in the Netherlands?
Sub-question 3: What kind of coping strategies did they use?
Sub-question 4: What kind of social support did they seek, and where?
To provide useful information to Maastricht University regarding the students’ views on the support they
received from Maastricht University, a fifth sub- question was formulated:
Sub-question 5: Were the students satisfied with the support they received from Maastricht
University?
Sub-question 6, finally, was intended to provide recommendations for Maastricht University as to how to
improve the experience of Russian students in Maastricht.
Sub-question 6: How can Maastricht University improve the experience of Russian students in the
Netherlands?
To start with, the relevant theories regarding culture shock, coping strategies, cross-cultural adaptation
and social support will be presented, together with theories concerning individualism, collectivism and
politeness. Following this, the methodology used in this paper will be presented and explained,
whereupon I will present and analyse the data gathered in the interviews. The last two sections will be
dedicated to the conclusion, the limitations of the research and suggestions for further research.
9
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Culture shock
10
During the cross-cultural transition from their country of origin to the unknown cultural environment of
another one, many students experience a psychological condition known as culture shock. According to
many authors, culture shock is essential for the newcomers’ successful adaptation to the new
environment. In the following paragraphs, the phenomenon of culture shock will be defined and the
models, indicators and stages of culture shock will be presented.
The term culture shock was first introduced by the Canadian anthropologist Kalervo Oberg in 1954, in an
informal talk to the American wives’ club in Rio de Janeiro. According to Oberg (1960), culture shock is
the anxiety an individual experiences as a result of losing his or her familiar signs or cues and symbols of
social intercourse. The term “cues” Oberg (ibid.) is to be understood as the words, gestures, facial
expressions, customs and norms acquired by the individual in the course of growing up. Most of these
cues do not occur at the level of conscious awareness, but they have an impact on the individual’s social
efficiency and on his or her psychological well-being.
Pedersen (1994: 6) defines culture shock as “an internalized construct or perspective developed in
reaction or response to the new or unfamiliar situation”. An unexpected change of situation urges the
individual to construct new perspectives on self, other people and the new environment, the purpose of
which is to enable him or her to function successfully in the new situation. In his book Five Stages of
Culture Shock: Critical Incidents around the World, Pedersen (1994) summarizes a variety of examples
of culture shock based on a wide range of critical incidents in which international students and host
nationals were involved. These examples show that culture shock: “1) is a process and not a single event,
2) may take place at many different levels simultaneously as the individual interacts with a complex
environment, 3) becomes stronger or weaker as the individual learns or fails to cope, 4) teaches the
individual new coping strategies which contribute to future success, and 5) applies to any radical change
presenting unfamiliar or unexpected circumstances” (Pedersen, 1994: 7). Later in the same book,
Pedersen uses the notion of culture shock to describe the adjustment process, which includes the
emotional, psychological, behavioural, cognitive and physiological impact on an individual of being in an
unfamiliar environment. Juffer (1987, as cited in Pedersen, 1994) suggests that every person exposed to
an unfamiliar environment will experience some degree of culture shock.
2.1.1. Models of culture shock
11
Traditionally, culture shock was associated with mental health and considered to be a disease that resulted
in temporary or permanent disability, but could be cured with the right treatment (Pedersen, 1994: 5).
This ‘”medical model”’ lists a number of symptoms which signalize the state of culture shock. Pedersen
(ibid.: 1) refers to six aspects of culture shock that involve various symptoms: “ 1) strain resulting from
the effort of psychological adaptation, 2) a sense of loss or deprivation as a result of the loss of former
friends, status, role, and/or possessions, 3) rejection by or rejection of the new culture, 4) confusion about
role definition, role expectations, feelings and identity, 5) unexpected anxiety, disgust or indignation over
cultural differences between the old and new ways, and 6) feelings of helplessness as a result of failing to
cope well in the new environment”.
More contemporary approaches suggest that intercultural contact that results in culture shock should be
seen as a learning experience rather than a medical nuisance (Zhou, Jindal-Snape, Topping, Todman,
2008). The current literature regards the phenomenon of culture shock as a positive educational process.
Advocates of this “culture learning model” are, amongst others, Furnham and Bochner (1986), who
describe culture shock as a learning process with a positive outcome. According to their view, the
sojourner goes through a learning process which results in the acquisition of new social skills and the
adoption of new roles and rules in the host environment (Pedersen, 1994). According to this model,
“shock” is understood as a stimulus for the acquisition of culture-specific skills (ibid.) that are important
for successful social interaction. According to Ward and Searle (1991), the process of adapting to and
learning from the new environment is also subject to a number of variables. Some of these variables are:
“general knowledge about a new culture (ibid.); length of residence in the host culture (Ward et al., 1998);
language or communication competence (Furnham, 1993); quantity and quality of contact with host
country nationals (Bochner, 1982); friendship networks (Bochner, McLeod, and Lin, 1977); previous
experience abroad (Klineberg and Hull, 1979); cultural distance (Ward and Kennedy, 1993 a, b); cultural
identity (Ward and Searle, 1991); acculturation modes (Ward and Kennedy, 1994); temporary versus
permanent residence in a new country (Ward and Kennedy, 1993c); and cross-cultural training
(Deshpande and Viswesvaran, 1992)” (Zhou et al., 2008: 65).
Another contemporary model of culture shock is the stress and coping model, in which “shock” is the
result of inherently stressful life changes. During such changes, people who are engaged in cross-cultural
interaction need to develop coping strategies and tactics which would render them resilient to the stressful
situation and assist them in their adaptation. This model sees adjustment as an active process of managing
stress, on both individual and situational levels (ibid.).
The difference between the culture learning model and the stress and coping model is that the former
focuses more on behavioural components, whereas the latter’s emphasis is on the subject’s psychological
12
well-being (ibid.). According to the former model, cross-cultural travellers need to develop coping
strategies to deal with stress, whereas in the latter model they need to learn culturally relevant social skills
to survive and succeed in the new host environment (ibid.).
2.1.2. Indicators of culture shock
According to Pedersen (1994), there are six indicators which signify that culture shock is taking place.
The first indicator is when familiar cues suddenly lose their accustomed meaning and no longer work,
which causes confusion to the individual. The second indicator is that the values one has grown up with
are no longer respected by the host culture; that is, things considered good, beautiful and benevolent are
not recognized as such in the new environment. The third indicator is an emotional state characterized by
anxiety, depression, hostility and even rage. The fourth indicator is a feeling of dissatisfaction with the
new ways of the host culture and idealisation of the home culture. The fifth indicator is the inability to fall
back on familiar recovery skills, such as the various coping techniques used before, because they no
longer function in the new environment. The sixth indicator, finally, is a sense of the culture shock being
permanent and unlikely to fade away.
2.1.3. Stages of culture shock
Oberg (1960) has divided the process of culture shock into four stages: “honeymoon”, crisis, recovery and
adjustment.’ In this division, each stage is characterized by certain attitudes, reactions and emotions
towards the host environment and its people and culture.
During the “honeymoon stage”, the individual experiences a sense of euphoria, excitement, fascination
and enthusiasm towards the host environment. This condition may last up to six months, depending on the
circumstances (ibid.). This emotional state may be explained by the friendly and welcoming attitude of
the host nationals towards the newly arrived individual, who is probably regarded as an important person.
He or she is shown around and pampered and petted by the hosts (ibid.). This stage normally lasts until
the individual has to start coping seriously with the real conditions of life in the host country (ibid.).
The second stage, called crisis, involves negative feelings toward the host environment. The newcomer
starts experiencing feelings like inadequacy, frustration, anxiety and anger (Spencer-Oatey and Franklin,
2009: 153). This hostile attitude is the result of the difficulties an individual experiences during his or her
adjustment period.
The third stage is the recovery period or culture-learning period. During this stage, the individual acquires
some knowledge of the language of the host culture and starts coming to terms with the new cultural
13
environment. The individual still encounters difficulties, but assumes a more positive attitude towards
them.
The fourth and last stage is the adjustment period. During this period, the individual acquires functional
competence in the new environment (Spencer-Oatey and Franklin, 2009: 153). Although there are
moments of strain, the individual will be able to operate in the new environment without experiencing
acute feelings of anxiety. He or she accepts the customs of the host country as just another way of living
(Oberg, 1960).
Authors such as Lysgaard (1955), Black & Mendenhall (1990) and Usunier (1998) have used the U-curve
model to describe the cross-cultural adjustment process of expatriate employees or sojourners within a
host culture. The U represents the emotional ups and downs experienced by individuals while adapting to
the host environment. The U-curve model resembles the culture shock model described by Oberg (1960),
but deviates from it in some minor aspects. In particular, the U-model suggests that the cross-cultural
adjustment process consists of the honeymoon, culture shock, adjustment and mastery phases, whereas
Oberg’s phases are honeymoon, crisis, recovery and adjustment. The U-curve model is visualised below.
Source: http://www.jgbm.org/page/22%20Dr.%20Lee,%20Hung-Wen.pdf (2015)
In addition to the U-curve model, Gullahorn & Gullahorn (1963) have created the W-curve model which
suggests that upon their arrival home after having experienced culture shock and its adaptive process
abroad, individuals go through the same process of adjustment at home. This time it is their home
environment that they have to become readjusted to. This phenomenon is also known as re-entry or
reverse culture shock, which is “the process of readjusting, re-acculturating, and re-assimilating into one's
own home culture after living in a different culture for a significant period of time” ( Gaw, 1995: 4). The
14
phenomenon of re-entry shock is outside the scope of this paper and will therefore not be analysed
further.
2.2. Coping strategies
When an individual is undergoing stress related to cross-cultural transition, the process of coping can take
place. This means that the person in question employs a number of strategies intended to diminish or
eliminate the stress with a view to returning to a more balanced emotional state. In the following
paragraphs, the phenomenon of stress will be described and various coping strategies will be presented.
Once the individual finds him- or herself in a stressful situation, a three-stage process takes place.
According to Lazarus (1966), stress consists of three distinctive processes: primary appraisal, secondary
appraisal and coping. Primary appraisal involves the individual’s recognition or perception of a threat.
Secondary appraisal is the individual considering his or her possible response to the threat. Coping,
finally, is the process of executing this response. These processes do not always occur in a linear
sequence, but the outcome of one process may generate the preceding one. For instance, the realisation
that there is already an adequate coping response available may cause the reappraisal of a threat as less
threatening (Carver, Weintraub and Scheier, 1989).
Since cross-cultural transition is closely associated with stress and coping, the methods an individual uses
to adapt are considered to be of great importance. Carver, Weintraub and Scheier (1989) developed a
measuring instrument − the Ways of Coping scale − consisting of 13 different coping strategies used by
individuals in stressful situations. This scale distinguishes between two general types of coping: problemfocused coping and emotion-focused coping. Problem-solving coping is an attempt to find solutions and
to alter the source of the stress, whereas the purpose of emotion-focused coping is to reduce or manage
the emotional distress associated with the stressful situation. According to Folkman and Lazarus (1980),
individuals tend to choose the first type of coping when they feel that something constructive can be done,
but usually prefer the second type when they feel that the stressor is something which must be endured.
The 15 scales or coping strategies proposed by Carver, Weintraub and Scheier (1989) are : 1) active
coping, 2) planning, 3) suppression of competing activities, 4) restraint coping, 5) seeking social support
for instrumental reasons, 6) seeking social support for emotional reasons,7) focusing on and venting
emotions,8) behavioural disengagement, 9) mental disengagement, 10) positive reinterpretation and
growth, 11) denial,12) acceptance, 13) turning to religion and two additional scales 14) alcohol-drug
disengagement and 15) humour .
15
Active coping involves taking action to eliminate or ameliorate the effects of the stressor. It includes
initiating direct action, increasing one’s efforts and a stepwise execution of coping. Planning involves
thinking about how to deal with the stress, and which steps to follow to achieve the best solution of the
problem. Suppression of competing activities means that the individual puts all activities that may distract
him or her from coping aside to concentrate exclusively on resolving the stressful situation. Restraint
coping includes waiting and not acting until the most appropriate moment to solve the stressful situation
presents itself. The following two coping strategies are associated with social support. The search for
social support occurs for two reasons − instrumental reasons and emotional reasons. The first strategy
includes looking for advice, assistance or information, whereas the second strategy focuses on getting
moral support, sympathy and understanding. The next strategy, which is focusing on and venting
emotions, refers to the tendency of the individual to focus his or her attention on the emotions that cause
stress or upset, and on releasing these emotions. Other tactics are behavioural disengagement and mental
disengagement. During behavioural disengagement, the individual reduces his or her efforts to deal with
the stressor, or even gives up all attempts to resolve the stressful situation. Behavioural disengagement
frequently engenders a feeling of helplessness. In mental disengagement, the individual draws away from
his or her thoughts and feelings and engages in alternative activities like daydreaming, escape through
sleep or immersion in TV. Together, the focusing on and venting of emotions, behavioural disengagement
and mental disengagement are often regarded as dysfunctional and counterproductive. The next strategy,
which is called positive reinterpretation and growth, focuses on managing the emotions caused by stress
instead of dealing with the stressor itself. Another approach is denial of the situation and the stressful
event, a strategy that may seriously interfere with adjustment process. The opposite tactic is accepting the
reality of the situation, and regarding it as positive. The final coping response is turning to religion. In
this case, religion might provide emotional support and stimulate positive reinterpretation and growth, as
well as becoming a tactic to assist in coping with the stress. Besides the above 13 coping strategies,
Spencer-Oatey and Franklin (2009) mention two additional strategies based on Carver, Weintraub and
Scheier’s (1989) list of coping strategies, viz. substance use or alcohol-drug disengagement and the use of
humour to diminish stress.
Carver, Weintraub and Scheier (ibid.) argue that the choice of a particular coping strategy possibly
depends on the fact that individuals do not approach each coping context anew, but use stable coping
“styles” related to the personality traits of each individual. However, this assumption has been criticized
on the ground that coping should be seen as a dynamic process that changes from stage to stage.
16
2.3. Adaptation
The desired outcome of cross-cultural transition is adaptation to the new environment. Adaptation is
related to the psychological well-being of the individual and his or her ability to function successfully in
the new environment. Since the present study focuses on the adaptation process of Russian students in the
Netherlands, it will be necessary to understand what this adaptation process involves and what kind of
factors are likely to influence it. In the following paragraphs, the process of cross-cultural adaptation will
be defined and described. The factors which facilitate the adaptation process of the individual will also be
presented.
Kim (1988) defines cross-cultural adaptation as an umbrella term comprising a number of other, narrower
terms. According to this assumption, cross-cultural adaptation includes: 1) assimilation or the acceptance
of “mainstream” cultural elements of the host society by the individual; 2) acculturation, which is the
process commonly defined as the acquisition of some, but not all, aspects of the host society’s cultural
elements; 3) coping and adjustment, which are psychological responses to cross-cultural challenges, and,
finally; 4) integration, which is social participation in the host society.
2.3.1. The Stress-Adaptation-Growth Dynamic
Upon entering an unfamiliar cultural environment a process of enculturation takes place (Kim, 1988).
This means that the individual sets in motion the process of learning about the cultural elements of the
host culture. This process of enculturation goes hand in hand with another process called deculturation, in
which the individual unlearns at least some of his or her old cultural habits (ibid.). The individual may
experience this process of losing the old and familiar elements of culture and acquiring new ones from the
host culture as unsettling and stressful. As a result, the individual may lose his or her emotional
equilibrium and suffer temporary personality disintegration.
Humans are by nature homeostatic, which means that they try to keep a great number of variables on an
even keel to achieve emotional equilibrium (ibid.). When stress occurs, this equilibrium is endangered.
The reaction to this loss of equilibrium is the activation of a psychological defence mechanism by the
individual in an attempt to hold the internal structure in balance (ibid.). Such a defensive stress reaction is
inevitable and constitutes part of the adaptive process of the individual to the new environment. At this
point, the individual starts implementing various coping strategies to diminish or eradicate the emotional
strain caused by the stress, and becomes successful in his or her functioning within the host environment
(ibid.).
17
The stress and the adaptive responses are followed by an internal transformation of growth (ibid.). The
individual has found creative responses to new circumstances and is able to deal with the situation that
caused him or her stress. The chain reaction stress-adaptation-growth is repeated in each new stressful
situation. The stress-adaptation-growth model is represented by a cyclic and continuous “draw-back-toleap” movement (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009). First the individual “draws back” under the
threatening stressful experience. This movement activates the adaptive energy which helps the individual
to recognize the problem and “leap forward”.
According to Kim (1988), the outcomes of the cross-cultural adaptation process are: 1) increased
functional fitness, 2) increased psychological health, and 3) the emergence of an intercultural identity.
Increased functional fitness is indicated by such factors as life satisfaction, positive feelings toward one’s
life in the host society, a sense of belonging, and greater congruence in one’s subjective meaning system
(Szalay & Inn, 1987), as well as one’s occupational and income status (Kim, 2001). Increased
psychological health is indicated by the successful communication between an individual and his or her
host environment. Both increased functional fitness and psychological health are likely to go hand in hand
with the emergence of an intercultural identity, which according to Adler (1975) means that the individual
is neither totally part of nor totally apart from his or her culture, but that instead, he or she lives on the
boundary. Intercultural identity may be regarded as a linkage of the individual not to one, but to more
than one cultural community (Kim, 1994).
2.3.2. Cross-cultural adaptation rate factors
The adaptive process does not unfold in the same way for all individuals. The rate or speed of the process
depends on a number of factors. According to Kim (1988), the adaptive process of an individual within a
host environment involves a number of factors that influence the rate or speed of the process. Such factors
are: knowledge of the host culture and its language, history, norms, beliefs, institutions, rules of
interpersonal conduct, and worldviews; the willingness to learn and make changes in one’s cultural
habits; and the ability to achieve the right combination of verbal and non-verbal behaviours so as to be
able to interact successfully with the host environment (ibid.). The degree of openness of a particular
environment toward the newcomers, and the degree to which the newcomers are welcome to participate in
the social communication networks, as well as the social support the newcomers receive from the host
society, also play an important role in the adaptation process of the newcomers (Kim, 2001).
In addition, the predisposition of the individual’s personal traits, such as preparedness, ethnic proximity
and adaptive personality, may influence the adaptation process of the individual in the new environment.
18
Being prepared helps the individual enhance his or her native ability to face the challenges of a changing
environment and may involve experiences like cultural learning, travel, personal contacts with host
nationals, media exposure, formal schooling or training and experience in dealing with people in various
cultural environments prior to relocating (Kim, 2001).
Ethnic proximity is the degree of similarity and compatibility between the mainstream ethnicity of the
natives and the individual whose ethnic identity is different. The adaptive process of the individual may
be impeded if there is insufficient compatibility between the norms and cultural values of the host
environment and those of the newcomer’s original environment. In addition, outstanding physical
attributes like skin colour may create psychological distance between the host country’s nationals and the
newcomers.
Another influential factor is the newcomer’s adaptive personality. An adaptive personality is
characterized by its openness to new experiences and unknown environments, as well as by its strength
and traits like resilience, hardiness, persistence, patience, elasticity, resourcefulness and risk-taking. A
final, but by no means trivial trait is the ability to maintain a positive attitude in the face of the challenges
of the host environment (Kim, 1988).
The factors described above should be taken into consideration when trying to understand why the
adaptation speed of one individual is higher than that of others.
2.4. Social support
Social support for sojourn students is quite important, because it has a noticeable effect on their adaptive
process in the host environment. Social support for overseas students may be viewed from two
perspectives. One can look at the friendship networks per se, or focus on the quality of the social support
instead of on the actual network. The former perspective is reflected in Bochner’s functional model of
friendship networks (Ward, Bochner and Furnham, 2001), while the latter is associated with the social
support hypothesis.
2.4.1. Bochner’s functional model of friendship networks
According to Bochner, McLeod and Lin (1977), foreign students develop three kinds of social friendship
networks: primary, secondary and tertiary. The primary network includes compatriots, and its function is
to provide close friendships (Spencer-Oatey and Franklin, 2009), as well as to rehearse, express and
affirm culture-of-origin values (Ward, Bochner and Furnham, 2001: 147). The secondary network
consists of links with host nationals and its function is of a more instrumental character. It assists foreign
students with academic and professional issues and helps them adjust to the new culture. The members of
19
this network are usually prominent host nationals, such as academics, fellow-students and university or
government officials. The tertiary network, finally, consists of other, non-compatriot foreign students, and
its function is both recreational and aiming to provide social support based on its members’ shared
foreignness.
While the functional model of friendship networks described above focuses on the actual support
networks, the research based on the social support hypothesis shows that both hosts and co-nationals can
successfully contribute to the psychological well-being of foreign students in the host environment.
2.5. Culture
2.5.1. Scollon & Scollon model
Different views and definitions of culture abound, because culture is quite a complex and multifaceted
phenomenon. This thesis assumes the definition of culture presented by Scollon and Scollon (2001),
according to whom “culture is a way of dividing people into groups according to some feature of these
people which helps us understand something about them, and how they are different from or similar to
other people” (Scollon and Scollon, 2001: 22). In this paper, Scollon and Scollon’s model will also be
used to investigate which aspects of Russian culture may be responsible for the culture shock and
adaptive problems in the Netherlands of the five Russian students interviewed below.
To identify the differences between two cultures, Scollon and Scollon (2001) follow a method called
discourse approach. In this method, the discourse system of one culture is juxtaposed against that of
another culture to compare the two discourse systems and detect the cultural differences between them.
Scollon and Scollon (2001) define the notion of discourse system as follows: “Any group that has a
particular way of thinking, treating other people, communicating and learning can be said to be
participating in a particular discourse system” (ibid.: 8).
The most significant aspects of culture in intercultural communication and the understanding of systems
of discourse of different cultures are: 1) ideology, 2) socialisation, 3) forms of discourse and 4) face
systems.
Ideology includes the history, worldview, beliefs, values and religion that shape and define the culture of
a particular nation. Socialisation refers to the process of internalising a culture and subscribing to it, as
well as mastering its system of discourse. An individual’s socialisation depends on the way he or she is
regarded within a society. Some societies regard the individual as their basic unit; other societies define
their basic unit as a group (ibid.). According to Scollon and Scollon (2001), it is of minor consequence
whether a society is collectivist or individualistic per se, but it is important to understand what a particular
20
society regards as its ideal, its overall orientation. Collectivism and individualism are present in all
societies, but the degree to which they are expressed may differ from society to society (ibid.).
Forms of discourse include functions of language and non-verbal communication. When comparing one
culture to another one, it is important to understand how they conceive the primary function of language
(ibid.). According to Scollon and Scollon (2001), it is commonly agreed amongst researchers that
communication involves both an information function and a relationship function. When people
communicate, they transfer information, while at the same time building a relationship with each other.
However, cultures may differ in terms of the importance they attach to one or the other function. Some
cultures may emphasise the transfer of information and underline the importance of individual welfare
during, for example, negotiations, whereas others may find it more important to build relationships and
preserve harmony (ibid.).
Non-verbal communication includes kinesics, which is the movement of our bodies; proxemics, which is
the use of space; and the concept of time, which may also vary significantly from culture to culture.
People may differ in their interpretation of moves, gestures, facial expressions and other forms of nonverbal communication. There may be differences between cultures regarding the use of space. In some
cultures people are used to standing close together when talking to each other, while in others people need
more space (ibid.). Cultures may also differ in their conception of time, which is expressed in their sense
of urgency (ibid.). Scollon and Scollon (2001) distinguish between two different conceptions of time:
Utopian and Utilitarian. Cultures in which people are used to a rapid pace of life may experience negative
feelings toward people who live at a slower pace, and vice versa.
Finally, cultures may differ with regard to their face systems; that is, in the way a cultural group organises
the relationships between its members, the way individuals are viewed by other group members and the
way those individuals perceive themselves within the group. Members of a group may perceive other
group members and themselves either as individuals, emphasising their independence, or as parts of a
larger social group, emphasising interdependence (ibid.).
2.5.2. Russian culture
As stated above, the adaptive process depends significantly on both the cultural baggage an individual
brings to the new environment and the new environment’s host culture. In this paper, the focus will be on
the adaptive process of Russian students in the Netherlands, so it is important to understand which
elements of Russian culture may influence their adaptive process in the Netherlands. The identification
21
and investigation of these differences will provide information which may be used in tackling the problem
of cross-cultural adaptation of Russian students in the Netherlands.
It should be noted that Russia is a multicultural country with many ethnic groups (Balykina, 2003) whose
national culture may differ from the one described in this paper. However, 80.9% of the total Russian
population define themselves as ethnic Russians (Census Russia, 2010). The cultural characteristics of
this group are regarded as dominant within Russia’s multi-ethnical landscape Russia and are important in
shaping the country’s national policy (Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO, Russian
Committee of the UNESCO Information for All Program, Interregional Library Cooperation Centre,
2008). Therefore, when references to Russian national culture are made in this paper, they should be
understood as relating to the cultural characteristics of this group, while the literature cited describes
Russian cultural characteristics.
According to Bergelson (2003), Russian culture may be subdivided into three main cultural sub-types: T
(traditional), S (Soviet) and W (westernised). It is not always easy to describe exactly which of the three
cultural patterns one is dealing with at any given moment with any given individual, and the description
of these cultural subtypes is outside the scope of this paper.
However, basing himself on a huge amount of linguistic and cultural facts reported in everyday speech
and behaviour, as well as in the philosophical and literary tradition, Bergelson (2003) suggests that four
generalisations can be made about the basic values of Russian culture to express its fundamental world
view. They are: emotionality, inclination towards judgmentalism, a no-control-over-the-world attitude,
and a perception of the world as irrational.
Emotionality, which is the way one feels and makes one pay attention to what people say about their
feelings, is considered to be good (ibid.). From this it follows that relationships are more important than
reality: In many contexts, interpersonal reality stands for external reality (ibid.: 3), and the lower material
world is seen as irrelevant compared to the divine world.
The inclination toward judgmentalism in Russian culture refers to the tendency to make moral judgements
and attach great importance to them (ibid.: 4). This means that people consider it appropriate to be
morally judged and equally appropriate to so judge others. People also expect and require from others that
they judge them on their loyalty, respect and sincerity (ibid.).
A no-control-over-the-world attitude assumes a fatalistic world view suggesting that the world is too
complex and chaotic to be controlled. This world view is sometimes set in opposition to the positivist,
22
pragmatic Weltanschauung frequently associated with the Eurocentric or Euro-American perspective of
the world (ibid.).
Finally, the perception of the world as irrational is evinced in the way people think and act without
relying on objective methods of analysis and logic.
It should be noted that the generalisations described above may manifest themselves in a variety of
behaviours, but remain abstract without contextualisation. To avoid essentialist descriptions of reality, the
generalisations about the basic cultural views of the Russian people and the attitudes relating to them
should be separately investigated in each specific context.
2.5.3. Individualism versus collectivism
Psychological adjustment to a new cultural environment depends on the extent to which the values of the
new society match the personality of the individual (Caldwell-Harris and Ayçiçegi, 2006). This means
that where the personal values of an individual conflict with the values of the host society, successful
adjustment to the new environment may be impeded, and various problems for the individual may arise.
Since this paper focuses on the adaptive problems of Russian students in the Netherlands, it is useful to
consider the collectivistic orientation of Russian culture (Bergelson, 2003) here. This orientation may be
responsible for some of the problems Russian students encounter in the Netherlands, insofar as they are
the result of the differences between Dutch and Russian cultural values in this area.
For the research carried out for this paper the following characteristics of individualism and collectivism
are relevant:
Collectivist values: maintaining harmony and avoiding direct confrontation; interdependency (cohesive
in-group relationships and strong in-group loyalty); more introverted; social network is the primary
source of information.
Individualist values: speaking one’s mind as proof of honesty; independence (loose ties between
individuals); more extroverted; media are the primary source of information (Hofstede and Hofstede,
2005).
In addition, a collectivist culture perceives self-reliance as a burden on one’s in-group (Triandis, 2001;
cited in Caldwell-Harris and Ayçiçegi, 2006). According to Caldwell-Harris, Ayçiçegi, collectivism on
23
the one hand provides social support and a feeling of belonging, while on the other hand creating anxiety
caused by the fear of not fulfilling social obligations (ibid.).
Russia re-emerged as an independent state after having been part of the strongly collectivist Soviet Union
for 70 years, whereas the Netherlands, being part of the western European world, are traditionally seen as
a country dominated by high individualistic values (Ting-Toomey, 1994). According to Vlachoutsicos
(1997: 5), “the Russian Collectivist Value System (RCVS) is an enduring feature of Russian society
which predated communism and major aspects of which still persist as a major social force in the postcommunist era. RCVS includes Russian cultural values, norms of behaviour and political as well as
geopolitical patterns”. Naumov and Petrovskaja (2008) also argue that Russian culture tends to exhibit a
collectivistic orientation. The roots of this collectivistic orientation can be traced back to various factors,
such as the cultural traditions of Slavic tribal society, the Russian Orthodox Church and the influence of
the Soviet political system on Russian national culture (Balykina, 2003: Bergelson, 2003).
2.5.4. Directness-indirectness and collectivism-individualism
Collectivist cultures are more likely to be characterized by high-context communication, which means
that the messages transmitted convey encoded, less explicit information because a large part of it is
assumed to be already present in the physical environment, or assumed to be known by the persons
involved (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Conversely, low-context communication, which is usually a
characteristic of individualistic cultures, involves a large amount of explicit information included in the
messages transmitted. Directness and indirectness of speech are closely related to the collectivismindividualism dichotomy, as well as to high-context vs low-context cultures. According to Marcus and
Kitayama (1991), collectivists are more inclined to exhibit interdependent personalities and are more
attentive in terms of communication with their in-group members. This means that members of
collectivist cultures weigh their words carefully to avoid “face loss” of their in-group members. The
concept of “face” is related to the need people have to claim self-respect in social interactive situations
(Ting-Toomey, 1994), which is very important for members of collectivist cultures.
According to Goffman (1967), “Face is a positive social value a person effectively claims for him or
herself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (ibid.: 5). Brown and Levinson
(1987) argue that face is something which can be lost or maintained and even enhanced. There are two
types of face, negative and positive. Positive face is the desire of an individual to be appreciated in social
interaction, whereas negative face is the desire for freedom of action and freedom from imposition (Viiki,
2006). Most speech acts like requests, offers and complaints are supposed to threaten the hearer’s or the
speaker’s face. To avoid this, the individual uses politeness during the performance of face-threatening
acts (ibid.).
24
2.5.5. Politeness
Indirect communication is generally linked to politeness. It should be mentioned that the notion of
politeness is twofold. On the one hand, politeness is related to social appropriacy, whose function it is to
provide routine strategies in social situations to coordinate social interaction. On the other hand,
politeness is linked to interpersonal interaction, whose function it is to preserve face and regulate
interpersonal relationships (Janney and Arndt, 1992 as cited in Dimitrova-Galaczi, 2005).
There are three types of politeness: positive, negative and off-record politeness. Positive politeness is
aimed at supporting or enhancing the addressee’s positive face, while negative politeness is aimed at
softening the threat to the addressee’s freedom of action or freedom from imposition (ibid.). Off-record
politeness involves the use of hints in a deliberate attempt to make one’s intentions ambiguous (ibid.).
Which of the three politeness strategies are to be used in each speech act depends on the weightiness of
this speech act and on three social variables: the difference between the participants, the distancecloseness between the participants and the degree of imposition or relational impact of the message
content (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009: 119).
Since this paper focuses on Russian culture, it is relevant to understand which kind of politeness is
preferred within Russian culture. Ogiermann (2009) argues that within Russian culture, there is a
preference toward positive politeness related to the assessment of social distance, which is generally low
in collectivist cultures. In relation to this, Rathmayr (2008) refers to the changes that have taken place
within Russian society regarding the use of politeness in the public sector. Rathmayr (2008) calls this
phenomenon the New Russian Politeness (NRP), and argues that after the fall of the Soviet Union and the
commercialisation and westernisation of discourse, politeness in the public sector, e.g. shops, increased in
comparison to the Soviet era, when service staff used to be routinely rude to customers (Rathmayr, 2008).
However, according to Rathmayr, “there was no consensus as to whether NRP was seen as something
positive or not. Some interviewees pointed out that NRP appeared to them in direct opposition to
genuinely Russian spontaneity, honesty and directness” (ibid.: 4). Moreover, in many shops in Russian
cities and towns, the NRP should still be seen as a pragmatic innovation (ibid.).
The theoretical framework presented above will be used to interpret the data obtained from the interviews
and to answer the research questions quoted at the start of Chapter 1 of this paper.
In particular, the theories presented in the theoretical framework regarding culture shock aim will be used
to diagnose the stage of culture shock of each student and answer research sub-question 1: To what extent
did the students experience culture shock?
25
The theories regarding the process of adapting to a new environment are meant to create a deeper
understanding of the adaptive process and the problems students are expected to encounter in a new
environment. These theories are related to sub-question 2: Which difficulties did they experience
regarding adaptation to the new Dutch cultural environment?
The theories related to coping strategies and social support provide an overview of the various coping
strategies and types of social support, which will be identified in the data provided by the five Russian
students. These theories will be used to answer sub-question 3: What kind of coping strategies did they
use? and sub-question 4: What kind of social support did they seek, and where?
The theories related to Russian culture and communication patterns are meant to facilitate the
interpretation of the data provided by the students, and to help understand which characteristics of
Russian culture cause or influence the problems the students encountered in the Netherlands, the coping
strategies they used to deal with them, and how cultural characteristics are related to the preferred types of
social support the Russian students sought. Finding the answers to these four sub-questions, will also lead
to an answer to the main research question: How did the five Russian students experience cross-cultural
transition in terms of culture shock and adaptation to the new culture in the Netherlands regarding
coping strategies and social support?.
After this, sub-question 5: Were the students satisfied with the support they received from Maastricht
University? and sub-question 6: How can the university of Maastricht improve the experience of Russian
students in the Netherlands? will be answered. These last two sub-questions are of a more practical
character and are intended to help Maastricht University assess the quality of the assistance which has
been offered to the five Russian students and to improve this quality, if necessary, for future exchange
students.
26
3. Methodology
In this chapter, the methodology adopted in this paper will be presented and described.
3.1. In depth-interviews
The research questions are based on the literature described in the theoretical framework and relate to the
five main topics under investigation, viz. cross-cultural transition, culture shock, adaptation to a new
cultural environment, and coping strategies and social support. Table 1 below contains the interview
questions in English and in Russian, while Table 2 shows which interview questions were used to
investigate each research question.
English
1.
Russian
Please, describe your first impressions of the
Netherlands when you first arrived (i.e.
people, culture, language etc.).
2. Have those impressions changed over time?
Probe 1: What exactly has changed?
Probe 2: Could you give me more information?
3.
What is the most difficult thing to get used to
in the Netherlands?
4.
Have you noticed any changes in your mood,
behaviour or interactions with other people
since arriving in the Netherlands?
Probe: Could you describe your feelings?
5.
In your opinion, what are the main
differences between Dutch and Russian
culture?
In your free time, do you have more contact
with Dutch nationals or with your conationals in the Netherlands?
Probe: why?
6.
7.
What causes you the most stress?
Probe: why?
8.
Where do you seek help if you are in a
stressful situation?
9.
For what kind of help do you turn to Dutch
nationals and for what help do you turn to
your co-nationals?
Probe: Why? Give examples of such
situations.
10. Would you describe your psychological
condition as Culture Shock ? (description of
the notion of Culture Shock).
1.Пожалуйста, опишите Ваши
впечатления от Голландии, когда Вы
впервые приехали сюда (пр. людей,
культуру, язык и.т.д.)
2.Эти впечатления изменились со
временем?

Что именно изменилось?

Можете рассказать по
подробнее?
3.К чему Вам труднее всего привыкнуть
в Нидерландах?
4.Вы заметили у себя какие-либо
изменения в настрoении, поведении, во
взаимоотношениях с другими людьми?

Вы можете описать Ваши
чувства?
5.Согласно Вашему мнению, какие
самые главные различия между
голландской и русской культурами?
6.С кем у Вас больше контактов в
свободное время? С лицами
голландской национальности или с
Вашими соотечественниками?

Почему?
7.Что причиняет вам больше всего
стресса здесь?

Почему?
8.Где Вы ищите помощи в стрессовых
ситуациях?
9.За каким видом помощи Вы
обращаетесь к лицам голландской
национальности, а за каким видом
помощи к Вашим соотечественникам?

Почему? Приведите примеры
таких ситуаций.
10.Вы назвали бы Ваше
психологическое состояние
27
Культурным Шоком? (Описание
понятия Культурного Шока).
11. How do you react to and cope with stressful
situations in the Netherlands?
12. Are you satisfied with the support of the
university regarding the adaptation of
Russian students?
Probe: Why? Why not?
13. What can Maastricht University do to better
support the adaptive process of Russian
students in the Netherlands?
Probe: Do you have any proposals?
14. When you get back home, what advice will
you give to other students who want to come
and study in the Netherlands?
15. Would you recommend for other students to
come to the Netherlands for study purposes?
Probe: Why? Why not?
11.Как Вы реагируете и справляетесь со
стрессовыми ситуациями в
Нидерландах?
12.Вы довольны поддержкой со
стороны университета относительно
адаптации российских студентов?

Почему? Почему нет?
13.Что Маастрихтский университет
может сделать, чтобы лучше
поддержать адаптационный процесс
российскиж студентов в Маастрихте?

У Вас есть какие-либо
предложения?
14.Когда Вы вернётесь домой, какой
совет Вы бы дали другим студентам,
которые хотят поехать на учебу в
Голландию?
15.Вы бы рекомендовали другим
студентам приехать учиться в
Нидерланды?

Почему? Почему нет?
Table 1. Interview questions in English and in Russian.
Research question
Interview questions
A.
Are the students going through Culture
Shock?
1,2,4,5,6,7,10,14,15
B.
Do they have difficulties in adapting to the
new cultural environment? What kind of
difficulties do they have?
2,3,4,7,14,15
C.
What kind of coping techniques do they
use?
6,8,11,14
D.
Where and what kind of social support do
they seek?
6,9,14
E.
What can Maastricht University change to
improve the experience of Russian students
in the Netherlands?
7,9,12,13,14
Table 2. Research questions and interview questions.
It should be noted that before the interviews took place, the main concepts investigated in this paper, such
as culture shock and adaptation to a new environment, were translated into Russian and explained to the
interviewees. In particular, the explanation of the concept of “culture shock” was intended to mitigate the
negative effect of the word “shock” on the interviewees, and to provide a broader perspective on this
phenomenon.
28
The data for this paper wеre obtained by means of in-depth interviews with five Russian exchange
students in an informal environment in the city of Maastricht, where these students live. In-depth
interviews are a technique used in qualitative research when the number of respondents is small, and is
intended to explore their perspectives on, ideas about and experiences of a particular situation or
phenomenon (Boyce and Neale, 2006). The in-depth interview technique was chosen for this research to
gain a deep and detailed insight into the experiences of the five Russian students regarding their crosscultural transition while in the Netherlands.
3.2. Qualitative research
To analyse the data obtained in this way, a qualitative research method was used. According to Dörnyei
(2007: 38), “qualitative research is concerned with subjective opinions, experiences and feelings of
individuals and thus the explicit goal of the research is to explore the participants’ views of the situation
being studied”. In this paper, the subjective opinions, experiences and feelings of the five Russian
students were used to form a picture of their cross-cultural transition in the Netherlands. The data were
submitted to the subjective interpretation of the researcher based on an existing theoretical framework.
One of the main weaknesses of qualitative research is the extent of the generalisability of the conclusions,
since they are based on such a small sample of interviewees (Dörnyei, 2007: 41). It should be noted that
in the case of this research project, the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the data cannot be
generalised, but applied only to the particular number of interviewees within the given context.
The present research project is of an explorative character and resembles the research conducted by
Rosanne Severs (2010). Severs (2010) investigated the intercultural and academic problems Chinese
students encounter within the Dutch academic context. In this paper, the same discourse analysis model as
used by Severs (2010) has been applied. This discourse analysis model, proposed by Scollon and Scollon
(2001) and described in the section on the theoretical framework of this paper research, is used to analyse
the results obtained during the interviews by focusing on the following aspects of Russian culture: 1)
ideology, 2) socialisation, 3) forms of discourse and 4) face systems.
3.3. Decentring
Spencer-Oatey and Franklin (2009) refer to the need of the researcher to decentre. This means that the
researcher should overcome the potentially biasing effect of her or his own cultural background while
conducting culture-comparative or culture-interactional research (ibid.: 269). The fact that this researcher
comes from the same cultural background as the students she interviewed and that she has experienced
the adaptive process in the Netherlands herself helped her to interpret the data obtained, but certainly
made the interpretation of the data more challenging. To overcome this challenge, the researcher
29
combined two different perspectives. On the one hand, she investigated the inner perspective of the five
Russian students with regard to their host environment, using her own knowledge of Russian culture to
better understand the students’ view of the host culture. On the other hand, she took the perspective of a
researcher conducting an intercultural investigation by using available and accepted research methods. By
balancing and combining these two perspectives, the data obtained in the interviews were interpreted and
analysed.
3.4. Desirability of responses
According to Phillips and Clancy (1972), interviewees may provide responses characterised by “social
desirability”, which is the tendency of people to deny socially undesirable traits or qualities and to admit
to socially desirable ones. Despite the fact that the students were provided with an explanation regarding
the nature of the research, some of them may have thought that the interviews would be used by
Maastricht University to monitor their academic progress. Some of the interviewed students appeared to
be trying to formulate their answers more carefully in an attempt to create a positive impression of their
feelings and experiences. It is not impossible, therefore, that the information obtained during the
interviews was partly filtered by the interviewees to paint a more positive picture of their experience in
the Netherlands.
3.5. Institutional and Intercultural position
To interpret the results obtained from the interviews, we should consider two positions: the institutional
position and the intercultural position (Ten Thije and Deen, 2009). In this particular case, the interviewees
were part of a Dutch academic community but at the same time Russian nationals contemporary located
in the Netherlands. This makes it necessary to make a careful distinction between the problems
encountered by the students as related to institutional factors and as related to intercultural ones. In our
case, the institution-related problems refer to the specific language policy and teaching methods of
Maastricht University, described in Chapter 1 of this paper. The intercultural problems, however, are
related to the students’ various cultural values, which seemed to clash with the cultural environment of
the city of Maastricht.
3.6. Students’ background information
All five students arrived in the Netherlands in September 2014 and were going to stay until June 2015.
Three of the students had had previous experience studying abroad, while two of them had never been out
of their country before. Their average age was between 23 and 26. As to the personal relationships
between them, it should be noted that all five students had known each other before coming to Maastricht,
but only two of them (respondents 1 and 3) shared a close friendship. As regards knowledge of the
30
English language, two students were of intermediate level, two were upper intermediate, and one of them
was an advanced speaker. Only one of the students had a basic knowledge of Dutch, and was following
Dutch language lessons. It should be noted that knowledge of the English language is of great importance
to students who want to study at Maastricht University, since English is the main language used in the
academic context within the university (De Vries, 2012).
After completing the ten-month exchange course, the students would receive a certificate from Maastricht
University testifying that they had been involved in research activities within Maastricht University. After
the completion of the course the students would return home and continue their studies at their Russian
university. The table below summarises the Russian students’ background information.
Respondent
Age
Gender
Duration of
stay in the
Netherlands
Place of
origin
Knowledge of
English
Knowledge of
Dutch
Faculty in
Maastricht
University
Faculty in
Tomsk State
University
Previous
experience
abroad
1
26
female
4.5 months
Tomsk
Upper
intermediate
No
Mental Health
&
Neuroscience
Yes
2
3
23
24
male
female
4.5 months
4.5 months
Tomsk
Tomsk
Intermediate
Intermediate
No
No
Physics
Mental Health
&
Neuroscience
4
5
24
24
female
female
4.5 months
4.5 months
Tomsk
Tomsk
Advanced
Upper
Intermediate
Yes
No
Physics
Physics
Genetic and
Clinical
Psychology
(MA)
Physics (MA)
Genetic and
Clinical
Psychology
(MA)
Physics (MA)
Physics (MA)
Table 3. Students’ background information.
The students were approached individually by the author after receiving permission to contact them and
after receiving their contact details from the chairman of the Taskforce Russia at Maastricht University.
The author was a member of the Taskforce Russia herself, which helped her to get access to the students.
The students received an email in which they were asked about their willingness to be interviewed on the
subject of culture shock and the adaptation of Russian students at Maastricht University.
The students were interviewed at a time when they had already lived in the Netherlands for four and a
half months. According to the theoretical framework on culture shock, this would suggest that at the time
the interviews took place, the students were likely to be in the first stage of culture shock, called the
“honeymoon” period (Oberg, 1960). This means that they would be expected to assume a positive stance
toward their experiences in the Netherlands, which would probably change later. To take this into
account, the results of this research project were interpreted in light of the fact that the answers to the
same questions would be different if the interviews were to be repeated at a different point during the
students’ stay in the Netherlands.
31
Yes
No
Yes
No
3.7. Interview design
The interview questions were based on the theoretical framework of this research project as described in
Chapter 2. The respondents were asked to provide answers to 15 open-ended questions meant to
investigate the students’ experience of cross-cultural transition in terms of culture shock, adaptation,
academic problems, coping techniques and social support. The students were provided with an
explanation of the phenomena of culture shock and adaptation to a new environment in order for them to
be able to answer the questions related to these phenomena adequately. The students were also asked
whether they were satisfied with the support they had received from Maastricht University thus far, and
what they would suggest Maastricht University do to improve the experience of incoming Russian
students.
The duration of each interview was approximately 30 minutes. All interviews were conducted face-toface and were recorded, transcribed and translated by the author. The language used during the interviews
was Russian, which is both the respondents’ and the interviewer’s mother tongue. The interview
questions were initially drawn up in English and then translated into Russian.
.
32
4. Results and Discussion
In this chapter, the data obtained during the interviews will be presented and analysed to provide answers
to the research questions formulated for this paper.
4.1. Culture shock
All five students described the experience of their stay in the Netherlands as positive or even “euphoric”,
especially during the first few weeks of their stay. They almost unanimously referred positively to the
politeness, openness and friendliness of the host nationals, as well as to the special treatment they had
received upon their arrival provided by the Taskforce Russia members as stated below:
During the first month… it was a positive shock, there was some kind of euphoria; everything
seemed to feel lighter… (Respondent 1)
Absolutely all people here are kind…they always apologize … They just simply smile, greet each
other… (Respondent 5)
Regarding the people, people are much friendlier here than in Russia. Mostly they smile a lot, try
to help, are not rude, they do not swear at you… They are much more correct in their behaviour,
more friendly… (Respondent 2)
The fact that the politeness of strangers caught the respondents’ attention may indicate that this is
something they do not come across frequently in their home environment. The respondents attribute
characteristics like friendliness and kindness to the people who smiled at them. This might be related to
their personal interpretation of politeness, as well as to the fact that, in many Russian cities and towns,
politeness in the public sector is still seen as a pragmatic innovation, as something that people are not
used to (Rathmayer, 2008). It also seems that the students interpreted the open and friendly behaviour of
the people around them, not as conventional social manners but as resulting from the personal character
traits of those people.
Despite the generally positive impression of their new environment, some students admitted that they had
experienced confusion regarding the behaviour of the host nationals, which they had not been able to
interpret successfully at first. They specifically mentioned the directness and superficiality of the host
country’s nationals during informal communication, and the considerable psychological distance between
the host nationals themselves and between them and foreign nationals. One of the interviewees had
problems with the direct communication style of the Dutch. She referred to an interpersonal
communication with a Dutch national during which this person expressed an opinion in such a direct way
33
that the interviewee experienced a feeling of “face loss” and indignation. This directness was felt to be
shocking and unexpected, and it was something she had not been used to in her home culture.
When people talk they are ready to tell you everything sometimes. Even things you didn’t want to
know… And here people do not think if you want to know about those [unpleasant] things or not.
They just decide to tell you about them. And they don’t regard it as something rude. In the
beginning I was surprised. I was like, “Don’t you think that this is rude what you are telling me
right now? No, this is true isn’t it?”. This is a quite big difference. (Respondent 3)
With regard to psychological distance, one of the respondents mentioned the following:
They [the Dutch] are always too distant to each other. Despite the fact that they may have the
warmest feelings toward each other, they are very distant from each other, and sometimes it
causes me discomfort… Sometimes my brain is about to blow up, because I do not know what is
happening. How is that possible? (Respondent 3)
Here I have many more acquaintances, but again they are generally more superficial in
comparison with my acquaintances at home…. The most important thing is distance. They have
little physical distance but a lot of psychological distance. You can even see it when you look at
the families. For example, when we were at a festival, we saw a family whose members were
physically quite close to each other, but at the same time didn’t show any interest in each other,
the way it happens in our culture. There are no hugs, no children standing next to their parents.
And you have exactly the same feeling when you meet people. They can sit next to each other on
the sofa and be physically very close, but psychologically you feel that they are distant.
(Respondent 1)
In the above fragments, the respondents refer to the social distance between people who have either
family ties with each other or share a friendship. Bergelson (2003) argues that in Russian culture, friends
are normally considered intimates rather than familiars. The level of intimacy amongst family members or
friends is experienced by the respondent as being lower than she had expected. This may be related to the
fact that the Dutch tend to show more independence in their attitude, whereas respondent 1 is used to a
more interdependent attitude between friends and family members. Thus, respondent 1 experienced the
people as being distant.
Some students experienced a clash between the values of their home country and the values of the host
country, as well as dissatisfaction with and rejection of the host country’s new ways. This clash was
reflected in the students’ statements about the incompatibility between their personal values regarding
34
drug legalisation and prostitution and the official Dutch policy regarding these issues. Some students
maintained that the fact that drugs and prostitution are legal in the Netherlands had come as “a shock” to
them. One of the students even regarded the legalisation of drugs and prostitution as part of the value
system of Dutch culture instead of simply as a “progressive” policy. He underlined the fact that these
values are not “traditional Russian values” and therefore shocked him.
Well, negative culture shock I experienced in Amsterdam... Well, I went for a walk in the centre,
took a look in the Red District Area. That was a real culture shock… Well, these are not Russian
values. These are not traditional Russian values. All those women standing behind the shopwindows selling themselves openly and paying taxes… (Respondent 2)
I would not like to stay in Holland permanently… Mainly, I do not like the drugs policy,
legalisation… I am against the moral decay, moral corruption and all those things that affect
children from the beginning. All children that are born here know that drugs are permitted, that
you are allowed to smoke, that in Amsterdam prostitution is legalized, there is a Red District…
For me it is a huge shock!... (Respondent 4)
In the abstracts above, the respondents assume a judgmental attitude toward Dutch culture, which is
expressed through a number of stereotypical ideas. In the first abstract, the respondent refers to
“traditional Russian values”, not naming them but defining them indirectly by contrasting them to what
he or she sees as negative Dutch cultural values. In the second abstract, the respondent gives a moral
judgment of the drugs and prostitution policy in the Netherlands by using a number of strong
generalisations.
Besides the psychological part of culture shock, two of the students experienced physical complaints
related to their change of environment. The statements below make it obvious that living in a different
climate had quite a substantial impact on these two students as regards their academic functioning.
Since I came here and up to this moment I have continuously been sick…This is what I cannot
understand. (Respondent 1)
The fact that I get sick… is probably the only stressful factor. Well, probably because I cannot
even do my work the way I want to do it because I am in bed. I often have to explain to my
supervisor, “Sorry, I cannot get out of bed”, that I cannot be present at the meeting, or something
like that. And it frustrates me… (Respondent 3)
The above responses lead us to conclude that all five students experienced culture shock to a different
degree. Going by the stages of culture shock as described by Oberg (1960), some of the students were still
35
passing through the first period of culture shock called “honeymoon”. These students’ feelings were
dominated by excitement with the new environment. They found it hard to mention any negative or
stressful situations they had experienced in the Netherlands. One such student is respondent 5. This
respondent admitted to having little social contact with people in the Netherlands and seemed to have
difficulty providing a detailed description of the situations which aroused negative feelings in her. In
contrast to this, respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 seemed to be entering the second stage of culture shock called
“crisis”. These respondents mentioned various situations that aroused negative feelings in them, such as
frustration and inability to adapt. These students, who constitute the majority of the interviewees, started
by casting their experiences in the Netherlands in a mainly positive light, but later admitted that they had
encountered and were still encountering a number of problems in the Netherlands. This suggests that
these respondents had had sufficient social contact with their environment to allow them to reflect upon
their adaptive process.
The degree of culture shock each student experiences depends on a number of variables (Pedersen, 1994),
such as the duration of their stay in the new environment (which was 4.5 months for all of the Russian
students); previous exposure to the new environment; the cultural compatibility between the two cultures;
social contact with host country’s nationals and knowledge of the host country’s language. In this case,
the Russian students had not had a chance to experience Dutch culture extensively because they had been
in the country for only a short period. It was also clear that the students who had been abroad before and
those who had had more extensive social contact with Dutch nationals were more tolerant of the cultural
differences than those who had never been exposed to unknown environments before. Respondent 4, who
had some knowledge of Dutch, seemed to be making a faster transition from the first stage to the second
stage of culture shock, because she received more information from her environment than her
compatriots. This respondent, who had started following a Dutch language course, stated the following:
Something has changed but I cannot characterize it. Something has changed only because I
started to learn the Dutch language. I started catching some words and somehow they contain
more information. I started understanding better what they say and feel. This is the only thing that
has changed. I started to understand them and this brings you closer to people. (Respondent 4)
It seems that by learning Dutch respondent 4 minimised the social and psychological distance between
her and the host country’s nationals, which accelerated her adaptive process in the new environment
(Holliday et. al., 2010).
36
4.2. Coping strategies
Cross-cultural adaptation and culture shock management are mediated by the coping strategies each
individual uses. According to Carver, Weintraub and Scheier (1989), some coping strategies may
stimulate growth and help the individual to adapt to the host environment, whereas others may impede
growth and get in the way of the adaptive process.
Most of the students stated that they had never experienced stressful situations in the Netherlands.
However, some of them admitted that when they found themselves in a problematic situation in the
Netherlands, the coping strategy they used was to seek social support for instrumental reasons. According
to the students, these situations usually occurred within the academic context at the university, in
particular during their research work in the laboratory or in their free time, when they needed practical
information regarding recreational facilities in Maastricht or general information about shops, cafes, etc.
In those cases they usually turned to Dutch nationals, who were either members of the academic or
guesthouse staff. However, when the students encountered problems related to everyday life or life in the
guesthouse that did not require special knowledge of life in the Netherlands (e.g. how to fix a bicycle,
where to borrow money), they admitted that they always turned to their co-nationals.
I first go to my compatriots... but if there are problems related to Maastricht University, it is
better to turn for help to our supervisor; and to the engineers if there are any problems related to
the research work. (Respondent 2)
I turn for help to Dutch nationals only for work-related issues, because I do not have Dutch
friends. For all everyday issues like “Do you have sugar?” or “Can I borrow 50 euros from you?”
I turn for help to my compatriots, Russian guys. (Respondent 4)
Other coping strategies used by the five students are: active coping, positive reinterpretation and growth,
planning, mental disengagement. These coping techniques are represented in the following students’
answers:
I do not have any stressful situations… I solve all problems before they turn into stress… If I see
there is a problem with my study, I immediately tackle it. I start working on it from the very
beginning… (Respondent 5)
I think the situation I am in right now has helped me… because I have become more independent
from people. (Respondent 3)
37
I have a strategy which is known to many people: hiding under the blanket for 24 hours. Then,
after a good sleep, I sit down and make a plan. (Respondent 1)
Some time ago my grandmother got sick and I could not get a plane home… this was the first
time I went to a crowded place… just to not think about what was happening… I have never
noticed such behaviour in myself before. (Respondent 1)
According to Carver, Weintraub and Scheier (1989), the first four coping strategies are regarded as
having a positive effect on managing stress, whereas the last strategy is frequently seen as being
counterproductive. The majority of the students stated that the coping strategies they used in the host
environment were the same as those they used to use at home. The majority of the students used coping
strategies in stressful situations in the Netherlands that have a positive effect on managing stress related to
cross-cultural transition. It seems that they had developed certain coping strategies through the years,
while dealing with various stressful situations unrelated to cross-cultural transition. Because these
strategies proved to be successful in tackling various types of problems, the students applied the same
strategies while dealing with the problems related to cross-cultural transition.
4.3. Adaptive problems
The data obtained from the interviews shows that the students encountered two kinds of adaptive
problems: non-academic ones, related to their cross-cultural transition, and academic ones. Despite the
fact that this paper focuses primarily on the problems of Russian students related to cross-cultural
transition, the author decided to include their academic problems as well, since they constitute useful
information for Maastricht University.
4.4. Non-academic adaptive problems
Successful adaptation to a new cultural environment should involve the following conditions: 1)
mainstream cultural elements of the host country should be accepted, 2) some elements of the host culture
should be acquired, 3) coping and adjustment, the usual responses to cross-cultural challenges, should
take place, and 4) social participation in the host society should occur as a sign of a successful integration
process (Kim, 1988).
In the interviews, the students frequently referred to the openness, friendliness and politeness, as well as
to the directness of the Dutch nationals. They regarded these four characteristics as prominent aspects of
Dutch culture. According to the testimonies below, some students had successfully acquired some of
these Dutch cultural elements and had adjusted their behaviour as a response to the cross-cultural
challenges, claiming to have become more independent.
38
I started saluting unknown people on the street, smiling at them. It started to happen pretty often.
Well, because many people do that here... (Respondent 2)
In the fragment above, the respondent has adapted his behaviour by making a pragmatic change in his
usual behaviour towards strangers. This pragmatic change is that the respondent started smiling at
strangers. Ogiermann (2009) refers to the anonymity of encounters between strangers in Russia, which is
expressed by lack of greetings, smiles or even eye-contact. The same author also argues that the
considerable social distance reflected in the absence of kinesic features, which are vital in establishing
relationships or acknowledging the presence of the other, leads to a perception among, for example,
people from an Anglo-Saxon cultural background, that Russians are less polite to strangers (ibid.: 31). To
avoid a negative reaction of the people around him, the respondent copied the behaviour of the strangers
toward him and responded with the same politeness. By doing so, he recognised the communicative
convention of smiling at strangers as a sign of politeness.
I think the situation I am in right now has helped me… because I have become more independent
from people. Because of the fact that people keep distance you understand that no one nowhere is
going to “save” you. You have to learn to do it yourself. You try not to see people as your
property… and I like that a lot in myself, that I can stay independent from people… (Respondent
3)
In this case, the respondent was referring to the social distance between her and the people around her,
which she relates to those people’s independence from each other. According to Bergelson (2003),
Russians tend to have less distance between equals than for example Americans, and regard friends as
intimates rather than as simply familiars. This means that respondent 3 had been facing a greater social
distance in her interactions with the people around her than at home, something that she had not expected.
Respondent 3 also referred to “seeing people as your property” as something she tried not to do in her
contacts in the Netherlands. This signifies that her expectation of loyalty in interpersonal contact with
people had not been fulfilled. However, she interpreted it in a positive way and saw it as a chance to
become more independent.
On the other hand, some students encountered difficulties in accepting crucial, “mainstream” elements of
individualistic and democratic Dutch society, which signalises an adaptive problem. “Progressive” Dutch
policy regarding sexual minority rights, drug legalisation and prostitution, which were not accepted by
some students, are not just “progressive” policies but reflections of important Dutch cultural values like
freedom of choice, tolerance and self-determination. What is more, the interviews show that the students
had limited knowledge of these issues and expressed mostly stereotypical opinions straight from Russian
society, criticising and rejecting many of the individualistic and democratic values generally accepted in
39
the West. One of the students mentioned that the subject of homosexuality was one that he found
“painful” in the Netherlands. The official anti-gay policy Russia has been pursuing over the few last years
is one of the delicate subjects on which Russia and the Netherlands hold opposing views.
I would say that the stereotypes about the Netherlands are true. So you have to be prepared...
Regarding homosexuals... It is a very painful issue for me. In Russia there is a radical opinion on
this matter and here they are quite liberal. (Respondent 2)
Dutch society is not only highly individualistic (Ting-Toomey, 1994), with a long democratic tradition,
but also “progressive” regarding sexual minority rights. This means that sexual and other minority rights
are respected within the legislation and are accepted and tolerated in society, where freedom of choice,
privacy and self-determination are important cultural values. Contrary to this, Russia is a country where
“traditional” collectivist values still prevail over individualist “progressive” democratic values in certain
aspects of social organisation, such as legislation. Human Rights Report 2013, reports that in 2010, the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) firmly rejected the Russian government’s argument that there
is no general consensus on issues relating to the treatment of “sexual minorities”. This means that
Russia’s views on the rights of “sexual minorities” differs from those of the European Court of Human
Rights and consequently from those in the Netherlands.
Some students denied having any stress in the Netherlands, and could not think of any problem or
dissatisfaction with the host country. This suggests that their process of coping and adjustment was either
limited or absent. The reason for this may be inadequate social participation in the host environment,
which may be caused by insufficient English language skills or by the fact that members of collectivist
societies tend to exhibit more introverted behaviour than members of individualistic societies, who tend to
be more extroverted (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). The lack of stress experienced by some of the
Russian students in the Netherlands may also be related to the better organisation of social and everyday
life in the Netherlands. In the interviews, the students referred frequently to the friendly atmosphere
during their interactions with host country nationals, which diminished or eliminated the experience of
stress and anxiety during these social interactions.
Some students, finally, admitted to having difficulties related to the organisation of everyday life in the
Netherlands, referring in particular to the opening times of the shops, which are different in the
Netherlands, and to the different food compared to what they were used to in Russia.
40
4.5. Academic problems
Two of the most substantial academic problems almost all the students faced were: 1) inadequate
language skills and 2) a mismatch between their original field of study at their home university the
research projects they were involved in at Maastricht University. The lack of sufficient linguistic skills is
one of the most common problems foreign students face upon their arrival in a host country (Furnham and
Bochner, 1986). In particular, poor knowledge of the English language, which is the official language of
study in Maastricht University, is the result of insufficient preparation on the part of their home
university, as one student said:
Well, this was the very first difficulty when we had just arrived in the Netherlands… We could
only speak the English we had been taught at our university. The English we had been taught was
meant to enable us to present our research work and to communicate with our colleagues. So we
didn’t really learn colloquial English. (Respondent 2)
The students also mentioned that they were not initially prepared to do research on their subject at
Maastricht University, because it was not related to their field of study. However, they eventually
managed to overcome this problem. This is illustrated in the following statement:
Another difficulty was that I had to get acquainted with a new subject. I spent about two months
just to understand this subject, what I could do and what had already been done... it was difficult
but I overcame this difficulty... (Respondent 5)
The students did not follow regular lectures, but were mostly involved in research projects where most of
the work is done, individually or together with a co-national student, under the supervision of a Dutch
professor. As already stated in Chapter 1, Maastricht University has adopted the so-called Problem-Based
Learning model, which includes an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach to research. From the
fragment above it seems that respondent 5 had not been prepared or adequately informed about the special
learning model followed at Maastricht University and therefore encountered problems at the start of the
course.
Some students admitted that they were not pleased by the fact that their social contacts consisted mainly
of co-nationals and other foreign students. According to them, this did not help them with their
integration into Dutch society. This shows that the students had expected Maastricht University to be less
international, although this is precisely one of the special characteristics of this university, which it uses to
try and attract as many international students as possible.
41
Actually, I didn’t want to hang out with the Russians I wanted to meet other people. (Respondent
4)
4.6. Social support
Foreign students use three kinds of networks to seek support in stressful, problematic situations and to
acquire useful information. These three networks are related to the nature of the problem or the stressful
situation they are confronted with and to the kind of information they need (Bochner, McLeod and Lin,
1977). In particular, the five Russian students claimed that they always turned to their compatriots for
help first, especially with personal issues. When the students needed information relating to academic
activities or to practical issues about the host environment, they usually turned to Dutch nationals or the
Russian-speaking university staff. The main informants of the students at Maastricht University were their
supervisors. Some students also mentioned that their contacts were not restricted exclusively to within the
circle of their compatriots and university staff, but included contacts with other foreign students as well.
This means that the students used the community of practice, which is “a group of people who share a
concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly”
(Wegner-Trayner, 2015: 1). In particular cases, the students sought social support from other students,
regardless of whether they were compatriots. Thus, the community of practice the students belonged to
was the academic community of Maastricht.
It should be mentioned that some of the students admitted that seeking social support was regarded as a
sign of weakness and was not very common among Russian students, as witness the statement below:
Well, we are not used to asking for advice... we see it as a sign of weakness. (Respondent 1)
Bergelson (2003) refers to the inclination of Russians toward judgmentalism, with a tendency toward
ethical evaluation. In the above fragment, respondent 1 equates asking for advice with weakness. Thus, if
one asks for advice, one will be morally judged by the person to whom the request is addressed. In such
cases, the addresser is threatened by face loss, which in this case is caused by being characterised as a
weak person. This means that Russian students would prefer to try to solve certain problems themselves
before asking for social support. This attitude may be related to the perception of members of collectivistoriented cultures regarding self-reliance, which is associated with not being a burden to other people
(Triandis, 2001; cited in Caldwell-Harris and Aycicegi, 2006).
To sum up, it seems that the Russian students followed a certain order in seeking social support. They
first tried to solve the problem themselves and avoided asking others for help. Then, when they found
42
themselves unable to solve the problem under their own steam, they turned to their compatriots. And
finally, if their compatriots were unable to provide the necessary assistance, the students sought support
among other foreign students or Dutch nationals. These results confirm the theory of the functional model
of friendship patterns of overseas students as proposed by Bochner, McLeod and Lin (1977), according to
which students have three kinds of social support networks: primary − seeking support from co-nationals;
secondary − seeking support from host country nationals, and tertiary − seeking support from fellowforeign students.
4.7. Social support satisfaction
All five students found the support provided by Maastricht University, both upon their arrival and during
their stay in the Netherlands, highly satisfying. In particular, all five students mentioned the support of a
Russian-speaking student assistant who provided them with useful and practical information about the
host environment and helped the students to get oriented in the city of Maastricht. The students also
mentioned the substantial help provided by academic staff members, who supported the students with
instrumental as well as practical help, e.g. entering them into English or Dutch language courses. Another
point the students mentioned was the excellent organization of academic activities and the easy access to
their supervisors, who were always available and ready to help. Some students expressed their satisfaction
with the research facilities and academic conditions they had been provided with by the university and
compared them to those in Russia. In particular, one of the students mentioned the following:
Here things are organised differently. They [the Dutch] are very well organised instrumentally. They
have very good tools. I mean, all kinds of equipment, etc. During my work with my supervisor I
learnt a lot of things which will help me in my professional career in Russia: how to set up a research
project, what kind of conceptions to use. I mean, many professional things which I would not have
been able to find in Russia. (Respondent 3).
It should be noted that the high level of satisfaction expressed by the students may be related to the social
desirability of their answers. Some of the students admitted to being in the process of considering the
possibility of pursuing their academic career at Maastricht University or elsewhere in the Netherlands.
This fact could have had an impact on the responses provided by these students, since they had been
informed that the results of this research project would be made available to the Maastricht University
faculty, in particular their supervisors. Also, Ogiermann (2009) argues that Russians tend to use more
positive-politeness than negative-politeness strategies. This means that it is likely that some students tried
to avoid face-threatening acts toward their supervisors and other staff members by not criticising the
social support provided by them.
43
4.8. Students’ recommendations
Despite the fact that the students were highly satisfied with their experience as exchange students at
Maastricht University, they mentioned a number of issues which Maastricht University might take into
account in order to optimize the cross-cultural transition of Russian students in the Netherlands.
First of all, some students admitted that they would have liked being placed together with Dutch nationals
or with other foreign students to improve their English-speaking skills. In particular, they mentioned that
they missed interaction with Dutch nationals, which would have been helpful to them in learning Dutch
culture and getting integrated into Dutch society. One of the students stated the following:
Well, if Maastricht University would arrange some meetings specifically with the Dutch students
it would be wonderful... I think that communication with Dutch people would really broaden my
perspective on this country. Also, I would be able to discuss some issues with them which I
cannot discuss with my [Dutch] supervisor. Well, I communicate with people from Spain,
America, Italy, but they cannot give me any advice about this country, since they have only just
arrived themselves... (Respondent 3)
Secondly, some students mentioned that they would have liked to receive some pre-departure intercultural
training or information about Dutch culture and society before coming to the Netherlands. Such a practice
would raise the awareness of potential exchange students about the academic and cultural differences
between Russian and Dutch culture, and might contribute to minimising stress.
Thirdly, Maastricht University should be aware that Russian students are inclined to be more introverted,
which is a characteristic of members of collectivist cultures (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). They may,
therefore, need extra support and encouragement to take part in social life activities in the Netherlands, as
stated by some of the students:
Maybe if Russian students were placed into groups with foreigners, then they would adapt
faster... It already exists, but it would be good if this process was... forced a little bit... Just saying
something like “Today you go there and talk to the foreign students”... Maybe advertise it in
some way... (Respondent 4)
To sum up, this chapter has attempted to provide information about and an analysis of the experience of
cross-cultural transition of Russian students in Maastricht and to present the problems inherent in this
transition.
44
5. Conclusion
This thesis has investigated the cross-cultural transition of five Russian exchange students at Maastricht
University in terms of culture shock, adaptation, academic difficulties, coping techniques and social
support. In addition, the students were asked whether they were satisfied with the support offered by the
host university and what Maastricht University could do to improve the adaptation process of Russian
students in the Netherlands.
In the following paragraphs the research sub-questions: To what extent did the students experience culture
shock?; What difficulties did they experience regarding adaptation to the new Dutch cultural
environment?; What kind of coping strategies did they use?; Where and what kind of social support did
they seek?; Were the students satisfied with the support they received from Maastricht University?; and
How can Maastricht University improve the experience of Russian students in the Netherlands? To round
off this paper, the main research question, How did the five Russian students experience cross-cultural
transition in terms of culture shock and adaptation to the new culture regarding coping strategies and
social support? will also be answered.
Culture shock was experienced by all five students. Respondent 5 in particular, who also seemed to have
the least social contact with the host environment, seemed still stuck in the first stage of culture shock,
known as the “honeymoon” phase. This respondent experienced mostly positive and euphoric feelings.
Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 seemed to be entering the second stage of culture shock, since they showed
signs of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the host culture, and experienced more stress related to
their cross-cultural transition.
The students encountered a number of difficulties during their adaptation to the new cultural environment.
While adapting to the host environment, students generally face two types of problems: intercultural and
institutional. Intercultural problems refer to the culture-related factors impeding the students’ adaptation
to the host environment. Institutional problems refer to the difficulties the students to face as members of
the academic community of Maastricht University.
The most prominent culture-related difficulties the students faced were differences in communication
styles and in interpersonal communication. In particular, some students experienced problems with the
direct way of communication of the Dutch, which is sometimes seen as face-threatening. Another
difficulty is associated with the social distance between friends and family members in the Netherlands.
Some students referred to the considerable social distance between them and the Dutch, which confused
and even shocked them. Also, the basic Russian cultural value of judgmentalism, with a tendency towards
social evaluation (Bergeslon, 2003), seemed to have affected some repondents; acceptance of certain
45
features of the host environment. Some respondents experienced in particular the official Dutch policy on
drugs, prostitution and the civil rights of homosexuals as incompatible with the moral values of Russian
culture, which aroused negative feelings in them. They tended to project their moral assessment and
ethical judgment regarding these issues on the values of Dutch culture, and were therefore unable to
accept them.
The main academic problems faced by the five students were: 1) a mismatch between their field of
research in their home university’s Master’s programme and the research projects they were involved in
at Maastricht University, and 2) insufficient English language skills. The first academic problem seems to
be related to the particular learning and teaching method used by Maastricht University, which is the
Problem-Based-Learning method. This method is based on an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
approach which the Russian students seem not to have been prepared for. The second academic problem
is related to the language policy of Maastricht University, according to which the students are expected to
have quite a good command of English.
The coping strategies used by the five Russian students included: seeking social support for instrumental
reasons, active coping, positive reinterpretation and growth, planning and mental disengagement. The
coping strategies used by the students to tackle culture-related, stressful situations in the host environment
were the same as the ones they used in their home environment.
Some of the students admitted that they saw seeking help from others as a burden, and tried to solve their
problems themselves, before turning for help elsewhere. Once they found themselves unable to solve a
problematic situation themselves, they admitted to seeking social support, first from their co-nationals and
only then from Dutch nationals or other foreign students. This confirms Bochner’s theory of the
functional model of friendship networks (1977), and it shows that Russian students tend to extract
information and social support from a circle of trust consisting of co-nationals. What is more, they use
informal sources of information before turning for help to official ones, like the academic staff.
In terms of satisfaction, all five students stated that they were very satisfied with the organisation, support
and opportunities they received from the staff of Maastricht University. They would certainly recommend
other Russian students to come to study in Maastricht. In particular, the students referred to the
availability and accessibility of the equipment needed to conduct their research, as well as to the excellent
organisation of the academic facilities. They also mentioned the practical knowledge they received about
setting up a research project, as well as the social support they had received from both supervisors and
Russian-speaking staff members.
46
There are a number of suggestions which, according the students that were interviewed, would improve
the experience of future Russian exchange students willing to come to study in Maastricht. These
suggestions are: 1) placing Russian students with Dutch nationals or other foreign students to speed up
adaptation and improve English language skills, 2) encouraging, or even requiring, Russian students to
participate in social activities, and 3) providing useful cultural and general information about the
Netherlands before or immediately after the students’ arrival in the Netherlands. The university should be
aware that Russian students may be hesitant to initiate social interaction with Dutch nationals and that
they are likely to have a more introverted and reserved attitude towards their new environment, which
might well adversely affect their adaptation process in the Netherlands.
This paper set out to investigate the problems of five Russian students regarding their cross-cultural
transition in Maastricht. Based on its findings, it seems fair to conclude that the cross-cultural transition
of those five Russian students did not run into barriers that would materially have hindered their
adaptation to the new cultural environment. None of the five students seems to have experienced culture
shock to such a degree that it would have constituted an impediment to him or her functioning normally
in the host environment. However, there are certain culture-related (intercultural) and academic
(institutional) problems that all foreign students in the Netherlands will have to deal with. These problems
are related to the differences in discourse systems between the students and the host environment. These
differences contain such aspects of culture as cultural values, communication style and interpersonal
communication.
The coping strategies used by the students appeared to accelerate the adaptive process and to have had a
positive impact on the students’ adaptation rate. It also appears that the five Russian students were prone
to hesitate to seek social support from others and tried to resolve their problems themselves. It was only
when this approach failed to yield the desired results that the students started seeking social support, first
from among their co-nationals and only then from among their host nationals.
47
6. Limitations and suggestions for further research
There are some limitations to this research. First, it took place four and a half months after the arrival of
the Russian students in the Netherlands. This paper, therefore, accounts for only half of the duration of
their stay, and the students’ experiences may have changed over time because adaptation to a new
environment is a dynamic and constantly evolving process (Kim, 1988). Moreover, the students were not
involved in full-scale academic activities, which prevented them from getting acquainted with Dutch
academic culture to the fullest extent. As a consequence, they seemed to be unable to provide detailed
information about the academic culture within Maastricht University, which would have been useful for
future Russian students planning to study in Maastricht. In addition, this particular group of students
received extra attention and support because they were pioneers in the pilot student exchange programme
between Maastricht University and Tomsk State University. All these factors played an important role in
the students’ positive experience because of the special conditions created by Maastricht University to
provide the students with all necessary assistance.
We should also be aware that the students’ answers to the interview questions may have been to some
extent geared towards proving to the interviewer that they had successfully coped with the challenges of
the new academic environment. Some of the students were pursuing an academic career and wished to
continue their research at Maastricht University. The fact that their answers would be made available to
the academic staff of Maastricht University and might impact on their career prospects may have caused
them to increase the desirability of their responses in the eyes of the university.
Another consideration is that the interview questions, as well as key concepts like “culture shock” and
“adaptation to a new cultural environment”, were translated from English into Russian. Although the
researcher is fluent in Russian, she had to consider carefully the available Russian-language literature
about culture shock and adaptation to avoid possible mistranslation of these concepts into Russian.
In order to paint a more complete picture of the cross-cultural transition and adaptive process of the five
Russian students at Maastricht University, a follow-up investigation will be needed. This follow-up
investigation should take place when the students’ exchange programme has run its course and would
enable us to evaluate the cross-cultural adaptive process of those five students in Maastricht in its entirety.
The results obtained in the course of this research project should not be generalised and applied to the
whole community of Russian students in the Netherlands, in view of both the relatively small number of
respondents having taken part in this project and the specific cultural and academic environment of
48
Maastricht University. Drawing a more accurate picture of the cross-cultural transition of Russian
students in the Netherlands in general would not only require a greater number of respondents but also a
different academic environment from that of Maastricht University.
To conclude, it should be noted that to investigate the phenomenon of culture shock, the researcher should
provide a detailed description of this phenomenon to the interviewees in order to mitigate the negative
impression of the word shock on the respondents. Therefore, the researcher should provide a very careful
explanation of the notion of shock in order for the respondents to associate the concept with positive
mental and physical connotations as well as with the inevitable negative ones.
49
References
Adler, P. (1975). The Transitional Experience: An Alternative View of Culture Shock. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology 15, 4:13–23.
Balykina, G. (2013). Cultural Dimensions and Modern Russian Business. Stolypin Volga Region Institute of
Administration Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
Bochner, S., McLeod, B. M., & Lin, A. (1977). Friendship Patterns of Overseas Students: A functional model.
International Journal of Psychology, 12, 277 – 297.
Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting In-Depth Interview: A Guide for Designing and Conducting In-Depth
Interviews for Evaluation Input. Pathfinder International Tool Series, Monitoring and Evaluation-2.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical
framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 113-136.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some language universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Caldwell-Harris, C. L., & Ayçiçegi, A. (2006). When Personality and Culture Clash: The Psychological Distress
of Allocentrics in an Individualist Culture and Idiocentrics in a Collectivist Culture. Transcultural
Psychiatry, 43(3), 331-361.
Carver, C. S., Weintraub, J. K., & Scheier, M. F. (1989). Assessing Coping Strategies: A Theoretically Based
Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 267-283.
Choi, B. C., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health
research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical
and Investigative Medicine. 2006 Dec; 29(6): 351-64.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2013). Immigratie uit de voormalige Sovjet-Unie sterk toegenomen. Retrieved
from: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2013/2013-3776wm.htm
Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO, Russian Committee of the UNESCO Information for All
Program, Interregional Library Cooperation Centre (2008). Preservation of Linguistic Diversity: Russian
Experience. Retrieved from: http://ifapcom.ru/files/publications/sb_eng.pdf
50
De Graaf, E., & Kolmos, A. (2003). Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning. International Journal of
Engineering Education. Vol. 19, No. 5, Printed in Great Britain.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Folkman S., & Lazarus R., S. (1980). Journal of Health and Social Behavior. University of California, Berkeley.
Vol. 21 (September): 219-239.
Gaw, K. (1995). Reverse Culture Shock in Students Returning from Oversea. University of Missouri-Rolla.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. London, Fakenham and Reading.
Gullahorn, J. E., & Gullahorn, J., T. (1963). An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues
19:33–47.
Holliday, A. R., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2010). Intercultural Communication: An Advanced Resource Book for
Students. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 2nd Edition, McGrawHill USA.
Hung-Wen, L. (2013). Perceptive of Expatriation and Cross-Cultural Adjustment. National Chiayi University,
Taiwan.
Janney, R., & Arndt, H. (1992). Intracultural tact versus intercultural tact. In Dimitrova-Galaczi, E. (2005). Issues
in the Definition and Conceptualisation of Politeness. Teachers College. Columbia University.
Kim, Y., Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural
adaptation. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In Kim, U., H.,
Triandis, C., Kagitçibasi, C., Choi, S., C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.). Individualism and collectivism. Theory,
method, and applications (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: McGrawHill.
51
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the United States.
International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45-51.
Maastricht University Strategic Programme 2012-2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/web/Main/AboutUM/OurOrganisation/UMOrganisation/MissionStrat
egy/StrategicProgramme20122016.htm
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological review, 98(2), 224-253.
Naumov, A., & Petrovskaia, I. (2010). Evolution of National Culture Impact on Managing Business in Russia. In
Balykina, G. (2013). Cultural Dimensions and Modern Russian Business. Stolypin Volga Region Institute
of Administration Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
Nuffic Neso. Information Package Russia. Information Package Russia. Retrieved from:
https://www.epnuffic.nl/en/files/documents/information-package-russia.pdf
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture Shock: Adjustment to New Cultural Environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177-182.
Observantonline.nl. (2013). De Russen komen eraan. Retrieved from:
http://www.observantonline.nl/Home/Artikelen/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1741/De-Russenkomen-eraan
Ogiermann, E. (2009). On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. University of Portsmouth.
Pedersen, P. (1994). The Five Stages of Culture Shock: Critical Incident Around the World. London: Greenwood.
Press.
Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J. (1972). Modeling Effects in Survey Research. Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 36,
246 – 253.
Rathmayr, R. (2008). Intercultural aspects of new Russian politeness. WU Online Papers in International
Business Communication / Series One: Intercultural Communication and Language Learning, 4.
Department für Fremdsprachliche Wirtschaftskommunikation, WU Vienna University of Economics and
Business, Vienna.
Rijksoverheid.nl. (n.d.). Betrekkingen Nederland-Rusland. Retrieved from:
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/betrekkingen-met-nederland/inhoud/rusland
52
Severs, R. (2010). Interculturele competentie als academische vaardigheid: een onderzoek naar de
succesfactoren van de deelname van Chinese studenten aan het Nederlands universitair onderwijs.
Universiteit Utrecht.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Frankin, P. (2009). Intercultural interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural
Communication. Palgrave MacMillan.
Szaly, L. B., & Inn, A. (1987). Cross-cultural adaptation and diversity: Hispanic Americans. In Kim, Y. Y.
(1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Ten Thije, J. D., & Deen, J. (2009). Interculturele Communicatie: Contrast, Interactie en Transfer. Tijdschrift voor
Toegepaste Taalwetenschap. Onvolledig.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing Intercultural Conflict Effectively. In Samovar, L., Porter, R. Intercultural
Communication, (7). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-Collectivism and Personality. In Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Ayçiçegi, A.
(2006). When Personality and Culture Clash: The Psychological Distress of Allocentrics in an
Individualist Culture and Idiocentrics in a Collectivist Culture. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(3), 331-361.
Vlachoutsicos, C. (1997). Russian Collectivism: An Invisible Fist in the Transformation Process of Russia.
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy.
Vilkki , L. (2006). Politeness, face and facework: Current issues. In A man of measure: Festschrift in honour of
Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday, vol. 2006/19. SKY journal of linguistics, special supplement, no. 19 ,
The Linguistic Association of Finland, Turku, pp. 322-332.
Usunier, J. C. (1998). International and cross-cultural management research. London: Sage
Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological and
sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 209-225.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of Culture Shock (2nd edition). East Sussex:
Routledge.
Wenger, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction. Retrieved 13
November 2015. Retrieved from: http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/07-Briefintroduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf
53
Zhou, Y., Jindal-Snape D., Topping K., & Todman, J. (2008). Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation
in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 63-75.
54