ACTIVITY TYPES INTERCULTURAL GATEKEEPING ENCOUNTERS
In this teaching unit we shall look at 'gatekeeping encounters', more specifically 'selection interviews' as activity types. The focus will be practical, starting with the identification of some features of selection interviews as an activity type, with the aim of exemplifying troubles in the interaction between participants coming from different cultural backgrounds. It is based on research that has been done and is being done on institutional interaction.
I. &n 525h73f bsp; &n 525h73f bsp; &n 525h73f bsp; &n 525h73f bsp; GATEKEEPING ENCOUNTERS
Gatekeeping encounters is a term that has been first used by Erickson and Shultz (1982) in their research on counseling interviews in academic advising. Gatekeepers have been identified as individuals who have been given the authority to make decisions on the behalf of institutions that will affect the mobility of others. Examples of gatekeeping encounters are:
· &n 525h73f bsp; Job interviews
· &n 525h73f bsp; Legal trials
· &n 525h73f bsp; Counseling sessions
· &n 525h73f bsp; Selection interviews (interviews involving the selection of applicants for training courses)
Because gatekeeping encounters have been seen as critical for the institution in controlling access and mobility and critical for the individual in determining major aspects of life experience, many institutional and legal constraints have been placed on their operation. These encounters are designed to be as objective as possible.
However, most of the studies of intercultural gatekeeping encounters have shown that differences in expectations about the event (the structure of the activity type) may result in negative outcome for the applicant.
II. SELECTION INTERVIEWS AS ACTIVITY TYPE
A selection interview can be analysed as an 'activity type' with specific norms and role-relationships which are different from those of, say, casual conversation. Here are some 'typical' characteristic features of selection interviews, according to Verschueren (1999:153)
· &n 525h73f bsp; The interlocutors are typically one interviewee and one or more interviewers. The goal of selection interviews is to assess the candidates' potential for the training course on the basis of educational qualifications and previous work experience. The interviewer's questions therefore focus on two specific things: background information about the applicant's education and work experience, and his/her motivation for applying for the course
· &n 525h73f bsp; The interviewee comes to the interview with the intention to present him/herself in such a way as to maximise chances of being selected. The interviewer's goal is to elicit the information needed to take the decision
· &n 525h73f bsp; One of the central features is their scheduled nature: interviews, unlike casual conversation, are arranged at certain times and places and the interviewers come to the interview with a pre-set agenda
· &n 525h73f bsp; The social context is asymmetrical, with an amount of power on the part of the interviewer, i.e. the interviewer legitimately establishing a 'right-to-know' persona, whereas the interviewee displays his or her abilities for judgement. In interethnic contexts, aspects of cultural background may enter the picture as well.
· &n 525h73f bsp; Different types of temporal references are involved depending on the topical segment of the interview. There is usually some talk about past events in the candidate's educational background, and an exploration of skills and attitudes.
· &n 525h73f bsp; The positioning of the interlocutors in physical space is typically face-to-face. The interviewee's physical appearance, gestures and gaze are carefully monitored.
Given that one of the goals of such interviews is to assess the suitability of the candidates for the course applied for, it follows that the interviewers' questions and the interviewees' answers should appear 'acceptable' both in terms of content and the manner in which they are presented.
In intercultural selection interview context interviewees are likely to face two major obstacles: first, a lack of knowledge of the rules and procedures of the activity type; secondly a lack of adequate linguistic knowledge (which will not be discussed here). We shall next look at the case of 'dispreferred answers' in selection interviews.
a. &n 525h73f bsp; The case of dispreferred answers (Sarangi, 1994)
This section is based on research done by Sarangi on intercultural selection interviews. In the case of selection interviews, the interviewer's questions have to be provided with preferred answers in order that the interviewee would stand a fair chance of being successful. For example, the expected, or preferred answer to the typical question like 'Why do you want to join this course?', would be for the interviewee to talk enthusiastically about the course applied for, but with a certain amount of modesty. If the expectations of the interviewer about the acceptable answer do not match the interviewee's expectations we can talk about activity-type mismatches
In the following example, the Asian interviewee gives a 'dispreferred response:
I: right, Jalal you've applied for eh an electrical course
J: yes
I: could you tell me why?
J: mhm because I came from
(from Sarangi, 1994: 'Mismatches in intercultural selection interviews')
The
answer provides no particular commitment on the candidate's part ('I don't know
any job about in
The question is how do we, as analysts, detect the occurrence of 'dispreferred' responses in these interview situations? If we adopt a perspective of how the activity type of interview is structured, we can assume that the simple factual questions give way to a series of other questions designed to discover the underlying ability of the applicant for the course (job).
A possible guide is the interviewer's reaction. For example:
· &n 525h73f bsp; the interviewer changes or abandons the topic to signal the dispreferred answer.
Eg.:I: can you remember anything you did in physics is there anything that you can remember electrical wires did you wire bulbs [unclear]
J: no [laughs] ten years ago I forgot everything
I: you've forgotten, I see, not likely to remember anything about it, yeah, fair enough, let me see I won't question any longer with that erm do you read anything eh like do you
J: yes yes
I: what sort of magazines you read
J: sometimes the telegraph
I: do you buy books on electric on electrical work?
J: no I don't.
(Sarangi, 1994)
If Jalal were to be admitted into an engineering course, he would need not only to have some background in physics but also to display some knowledge of physics. Jalal's response can be seen as dispreferred, although honest and true. The interviewer drops the topic but immediately afterwards introduces a topic about Jalal's current reading habits, which is also geared at finding out the interviewee's commitment to gaining knowledge in the field of physics. Once again Jalal misinterprets this question and provides information about his general reading habits.
· &n 525h73f bsp; Interviewers may reformulate the initial question to force the interviewee to expand or clarify the previous response until it passes as 'satisfactory'.
E.g. I: yes, you're applying for a course as a motor mechanic
R: yes I I like it
I: yes why do you want to be a motor mechanic
R: eh because I interested with it and eh I like it to learn motor mechanic
I: why?
R: why I say because I interest that's why I learn it
I: erm do you know what a motoc mechanic does?
R: yes something I know something I like to learn some more
I: uhm yes tell me what a motor mechanic does
(Sarangi, 1994)
This is another case of activity-type-specific mismatch, because in selection interview context R's response is 'unacceptable'. For R., the fact that he is interested in this particular course is an adequate response. But from the interviewer's point of view, R's interest in a motor mechanics course is 'given information', as he has applied for one. The interviewee's minimal response ('yes I like it') is therefore followed by the I's extended questioning. R's response, taken cumulatively, - 'I interested with it', 'I like it to learn', 'I know something I like to learn some more' - is regarded by the interviewer as inadequate, as R has failed to calculate the inference implied by the question. On R's part, he may have felt that a sensible answer would have been possible if the purpose of the question was made explicit, as for example, 'what is the job of a motor mechanic?'
The above examples show how interviewers' questions can be indirect and inexplicit with a hidden agenda, thus offering no clue, initially as to what would count as 'preferred' response. A candidate who routinely participates in the 'interview game' may be able to distinguish between what is asked and what is intended and thus focus on the interviewer's intended question. A further question that we could ask is 'What are the potential sources which cause these mismatches?" Here are some possible classifications of sources (cf. Sarangi, 1994):
b. &n 525h73f bsp; Sources of activity-type-specific mismatches
1. &n 525h73f bsp; Lack of knowledge of the interview agenda
Given that selection interview is a highly structured event, the range of topics to be covered is normally pre-defined by the interviewer. An interviewee with a reasonable experience of attending interviews will always expect a long march of questions, which are, normally, basically the same kinds of questions. The inexperienced interviewee, however, may lack knowledge about the potential agenda. For example, they may encounter difficulties if unexpected questions are asked.
2. &n 525h73f bsp; Lack of awareness of speaker rights
Selection interviews are characterised by what might be called an 'unequal distribution of speaker rights' to carry out actions such as initiate topic, interrupt, etc. The unequal distribution of speaker rights becomes apparent in the interviewer's questioning, which regulates the interviewee's answer. Question and answers may also appear in a casual conversation, but the difference is that in casual conversations there is no necessity for one participant to remain a questioner and another the answerer.
An example of awareness of the speaker rights is when a candidate is not aware that he may ask questions at the end of the interview.
3. &n 525h73f bsp; Slippage from one 'activity type' to another
Analysts agree that there is a distinction between all types of interview and casual conversation, with the interview lying at the formal end of the speech continuum. In this regard, some of the mismatches can be accounted for as attempts to slip into other, more informal, modes of talk. For instance, the interviewee may provide a response which may be perfectly acceptable in a casual conversation but inappropriate in the interview context.
E.g.:
I: do you know what wage a motor mechanic could earn?
R: [pause] no I don't know about this
I: how much money would you need?
R: I need a lot of money [laughs]
I: motor mechanics don't earn a lot of money
R: eh I know but I interested with it
(Sarangi, 1994)
The question about wages recurs as a fairly common theme in these interviews. The 'preferred' answer in this respect would be the candidate's awareness of the exact amount he/she will be paid if successful. R. seems to have no idea, but he chooses to provide a light-hearted response. The interviewer does not share his laughter, but, instead, shows irritation at R's reply. As a result, the interview at this point appears to be 'conversational'.
An alternative explanatory framework is offered by Gumperz (1984), and is called the 'discourse strategy' framework. Gumperz refers to the notion of 'discourse strategy' to different 'contextualisation cues' and 'sociocultural knowledge', which are learned in previous interactive experiences. He claims that mismatches in intercultural job interviews can be explained because of:
· &n 525h73f bsp; Different cultural assumptions
· &n 525h73f bsp; Different ways of structuring information
· &n 525h73f bsp; Different ways of speaking
For example, in the following example SN, an Asian, is being interviewed for a librarian position by a panel of three British interviewers. At this point in the interview NS is asked a 'typical' question about duties in his present job:
I: you say you're very busy in your present job, what exactly do you do, I mean what are your duties day by day?
SN: well, we've to receive the visitors, show them around and then we have to go out er to the factories you know, sometimes to attend the classes, how to do er cataloguing classification
(Gumperz, 1984)
Here is how Sarangi (1984) analyses the above sequences. The
interviewer's question has a two-fold function, but SN chooses to focus
on one aspect 'what exactly do you do'-, although he moves to answer
the second question (what are your duties day by day) rather marginally. This raises the question whether SN's reply is 'relevant' or
'satisfactory' from the interviewer's point of view. (Note that the interviewer's question is a conflation of two different questions).
According to Gumperz, SN's answer moves from general, irrelevant information, to more specific, relevant information. This is a clear indication of Asian's speakers' different ways of structuring an argument. Gumperz argues that, at a rhetorical level, it is a characteristic for Asian speakers to begin a response in a general way since a more direct answer is considered by them to be rather impolite. In other words, here is a case of Asian speakers' 'different ways of structuring information', and an example of the clash between two conflicting norms: the British interviewer preferring a 'direct and relevant answer' and the Asian interviewee opting for an 'indirect and polite' response.
From the above data it emerges that the 'activity-type' allows us to be quite precise in identifying sources of mismatch in intercultural selection interviews. However, Levinson's framework puts the responsibility for the mismatch with the speaker who deviates and thus encourages analysts to cast mismatches in terms of 'ignorance' of the 'rules of the game'. Gumperz's alternative framework seems to be more culturally sensitive.
III. SUMMARY
Gatekeeping encounters is a term that has been first used by Erickson and Shultz (1982) in their research on counseling interviews in academic advising. Gatekeepers have been identified as individuals who have been given the authority to make decisions on the behalf of institutions that will affect the mobility of others.
Selection interviews as activity type
A selection interview can be analysed as an 'activity type' with specific norms and role-relationships which are different from those of, say, casual conversation. Here are some 'typical' characteristic features:
· &n 525h73f bsp; The goal of selection interviews is to assess the candidates' potential for the training course on the basis of educational qualifications and previous work experience.
· &n 525h73f bsp; The interviewee's goal is to present him/herself in such a way as to maximise chances of being selected. The interviewer's goal is to elicit the information needed to take the decision
· &n 525h73f bsp; The social context is asymmetrical, with an amount of power on the part of the interviewer.
· &n 525h73f bsp; Different types of temporal references are involved depending on the topical segment of the interview. There is usually some talk about past events in the candidate's educational background, and an exploration of skills and attitudes.
Sources of activity-type mismatches in intercultural selection interviews:
· &n 525h73f bsp; Lack of knowledge of the interview agenda
· &n 525h73f bsp; Lack of awareness of speaker rights
· &n 525h73f bsp; Slippage from one 'activity type' to another
The 'discourse strategy' framework.
Gumperz refers to the notion of 'discourse strategy' to different 'contextualisation cues' and 'sociocultural knowledge', which are learned in previous interactive experiences. He claims that mismatches in intercultural job interviews can be explained because of:
· &n 525h73f bsp; Different cultural assumptions
· &n 525h73f bsp; Different ways of structuring information
· &n 525h73f bsp; Different ways of speaking
IV. TASKS
Analyse the following transcripts from selection interviews taken by two Native speakers of English (NS1 and NS2) two Romanian interviewers (RI1, RI2), to Romanian candidates (RC) for a post graduate course on social work. (source: Coposescu:2003)
You may want to look specifically for dispreferred answers and sources of activity-type mismatches:
I.
NS1: had you expected, if you got a place on this course that you go abroad, for practice? on placement? are you familiar.?
130 RC3: if I like to go?
NS3: mhm
RC3: yes.(laughs) of course I'd like.
NS1: and er are you happy with your English?
RC3: not so happy because
135 for three years, for almost three years I didn't practice and I feel it.
NS1: so what would you do.
RC3: at the university and at the faculty I had English courses.
NS1: and and how would you bring it up to a standard if it were necessary?
RC3: if I were in this kind of situation?
RI2: how would you improve your English?
RC3: improve my English? I think my English will be improved through the discussions, I'll be more motivated
er to to learn at home. I have some books.
NS1: if if it wasn't possible to offer you a place this year,
on this particular course,
what would you do?
RC3: if I don't get a place on this course, what I will do?
about what? (laughs)
what can I do?
150 NS1:if we said unfortunately we cannot offer you a place this year
RC3: ah, then what?
NS1: yes, what would you do then?
RI1: no
RI2: no if
155 NS1: if if if if
RC3: yes, I understand
RI2: nobody knows yet.
RC3: I would work, maybe I'll try next year.
NS1: yes, yes
160 RC3: I tried once to a master course in Cluj, I cum se spune a pica?
II.
RI2: how do you think you'll manage
from the time point of view
to do social service?
RC3: from my time? I understand that the course will be up to a year,
RI2: you work only er eight hours? start with
RC3: I don't understand
RI2: you have always only eight hours work ?
RC3: yes.
RI2: not more?
RC3: sometimes, now I I have to.
RI1: you have any financial support?
III
NS2: if you were the mayor of
RC5: if I were .?
NS2: the mayor of
RC5: ah, yes.
NS2: if you had all the money that you needed
80 RC5: (laughing) I don't know if that's possible
IV.
NS1: ok. just one more question. er
what you're doing now in the social system.
what what do you actually do
that is what is your work ?
RC3: yes. our er serviciu cum se spune?
RI1: office
RC3: our office. I work in the office,
NS1: you said you had your office
RC3: we're six,
we're six people who are working in this institution in this department.
er in an office
NS1: in an office, yes.
RC3: I I have to to to make an assessment about the institution,
to give a situation, er at the client,
to find er to, with the client, solutions
and er third, to try to prevent children (unclear) in these institutions.
NS1: but your primary goal,
RC3: primary goal, yes,
to to keep the children in a family, or to put them into other families.
20→ NS1: and you do that through counseling and
RC3: yes yes through counseling er we can er not too much,
we can support them in a way.
NS1: yes, yes, yes
RC3: to support with clothes and er to get (unclear)
NS1: ah that's fine. yes, thank you very much. E?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coposescu, L., 2003, The construction of meaning in the
Interaction between native speakers
of English and Romanians, Editura Universitatii Transilvania din
Sarangi, S., 1994, Accounting for mismatches in
intercultural selection interviews, in Multilingua,
|
