Links to other sites on the Web:
(for links to other chapters go to the end of the file)
Back to Chapter 10: Back to the Literature Review
Forward to Chapter 12: Research Findings
Back to the Academic Page
Back to Fruit Home


A. Research Design

This study uses a qualitative research design enhanced by descriptive statistics such as averages, rates, and percentages where appropriate. It attempts to measure to what degree Al-Dharra Madressor instills a secondary Western cultural proficiency, as explained in chapter one and chapter nine, in students. This dissertation asserts that the school design works in the following conceptual map (Figure 11.1). This map suggests that the two teacher groups, Arab and Western, influence the students such that they enhance or maintain their Kuwaiti cultural orientation while becoming more able to participate in Western culture, "Western cultural proficiency."

This dissertation employs the techniques of qualitative research such as "clinical analysis, interviews, questionnaires, diaries, journals, self-report and introspection" (Bradbury & Reason, 2001, p. 581). The goals of the qualitative research may include analysis of a phenomenon, interpretation, or evaluation. In this case, however, the particular goal entails measurement of a phenomenon or the extent of the phenomenon. That phenomenon, in this case, refers to cultural proficiency, level of "cultural adhesion" or "cultural orientation." This study uses four different types of instruments, each of which receives separate discussion below:

In addition, as explained in this chapter, the research design employs descriptive statistics such as averages. It uses these to group results, obtain averages, etc.

The following sections of this chapter will treat the first three tools in detail. Further comments on the critical incident analysis occur in chapter fourteen.

B. Further Comments Upon the Research Setting

A more general description of the school setting appears in several chapters, especially chapter eight that describes the social world of the school. However, some items on the Al-Dharra General Survey, the AGS, and The Kuwait Acculturation Two Way Identification Index, the KATWII, require separate treatment here for two reasons. First, these items provide evidence for some previous assertions about the school. Second, these items serve to show some of the uniqueness of the school and, consequently, the difficulty of extending conclusions regarding the school to other situations.

Some items on the AGS and KATWII further describe the school population. The student numbers below do not equal those on ECIS webpage because the ECIS webpage dates from a slightly earlier period in time (April, 2001); the ECIS webpage also does not include all of the information below. For all of the following sections, the information comes from three sources described later, the AGS, the KATWII, and both, as indicated with the following designations:

* from the AGS only
** from the KATWII only
*** combined totals + other

Again, note the staff division. The Arab staff primarily comes from Palestine and the Western staff from America. The students come primarily from Kuwait. In theory Al-Dharra includes "19 nationalities" (ECIS: Al-Dharra, 2001). In reality, the fact that Palestinian students hold passports of various countries somewhat exaggerates the number of supposed nationalities. Thus, ADM contains a more reasonable total of eight nationalities, those listed above along with one Egyptian and one Iranian student.

Originally, the AGS asked the question above that refers to country of origin prior to coming to Kuwait. The question sought to determine the percentage of Najdis, i.e., North Central Saudis, referred to in chapters four and five. However, the schoolís Arab principal thought this question too sensitive, in the political climate of September, 2002, even for an anonymous survey and cautioned that many students of Iraqi origin would either leave it blank or lie and call themselves "Saudi" in origin. Hence, he offered the estimates above.

Note the relative homogeneity of the student body as Kuwaiti and Sunni, i.e., the Asil merchant class described in the previous chapters. In contrast the Western teachers split between the Christians and the "NA," presumably atheist or agnostic, and the Arab teachers, while primarily Sunni, include the Druze, an offshoot sect considered Muslim by some and not by others, and one Lebanese Christian.

These three measures together show the unusual, family nature of the school as well as beginning to suggest its highly academic student orientation, considered below. Both the first and second two graphs depict largely the same phenomenon, the inter-connectedness of families and their relationship to the social center, described in chapter eight. On the former drawing, the size of the area indicates the number of students falling into each category. Thus, a very thin diamond indicates very few students. As the drawing shows, many students attend school with relatives other than their brothers and sisters, kindred. In fact, nearly everyone goes to school with a least one relative; some go with as many as eight or more. One student wrote on his survey, "I canít count the number of people. Iím related to nearly everyone at the school."

The item regarding connection to the school owner shows largely the same thing. One can conceive, again, of a school with a central core to which others relate in varying degrees. Note that the teachers, Arab and Western, would appear as outsiders to the drawing as, indeed, the social grouping of the school does not include them either. While impossible to correlate, the latter graph presumably serves to differentiate those in the central portion of Figure 11.7 into even smaller categories of relatedness.

The last measure, the "symbol of our school," somewhat reinforces this sense of uniqueness. In a Western school, again, students might well select either "Ahmad the jock" or "Ahmad the burn-out." They might even select a choice, not offered here, of "Ahmad, who leads all of the school activities." Instead students chose "Ahmad, whoís related to everyone" on about an equal basis with selecting the school jock. On occasion, these two individuals coincided, as when one of the school vice-presidents, the ownerís cousin, captained many of ADMís teams. However, the majority selected the most academically successful student, not the most related student. This indicates, as the next two questions show as well, a relatively high commitment to education.

These next three questions seek to measure community commitment to the bilingual school concept. The first question asks students to give parentsí primary reason for deciding on Al-Dharra. Not surprisingly, some of the parents decided to enroll their children due to the presence of their relatives or due to their employment at the school (11%). However, a much larger percentage enrolled their children because of the schoolís reputation and learning (62%), while another 10% selected the school for its bilinguality. Note, however, this contains the studentsí estimates of what their parents wanted, possibly distorting the findings.

Also, these results might not form as clear-cut a picture as might first appear. The question on "reputation," after all, referred to the schoolís reputation in the community, meaning parents might choose to enroll children for the social benefit it holds to their families, mentioned in chapter eight, not its educational value.

The other two questions tried to put the parentsí commitment to the bilingual portion of the school identity through a test situation. The first asked students in what type of school their parents enrolled them during the war. A true adherence to the bilingual concept would find the students evenly split between Arabic and English-language schools. In fact, a far greater percentage attended Western schools than Arab schools. Since relatively few bilingual schools exist abroad, and students often enrolled after only a few weeks of parental research, it should come as no real surprise that few attended bilingual schools during the war. Interestingly, a number of parents opted for more creative alternatives, including two who placed their children at Indian schools and another at a Swiss school.

In many ways, this question came too late for the group tested. All of the 9th graders, for example, did not go to school at all during the Gulf War. Their ages account for the much lower number of respondents (32) than on most previous questions (80).

The second question asked students where their parents would place them if ADM suddenly closed. An overwhelming number of students would presumably attend an American school (73%), but none would attend an English school. A greater number chose enrollment in another bilingual school (23%) than in the previous question. Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly in relation to the findings in the next chapter, none of the students predicted their parents would enroll them in an Arab school.

In general, then, these measures indicate some important features about the school. Clearly, parents seem to believe in the bilingual concept of ADM. Their apparently overwhelming endorsement of American schooling, also, suggests an implicit pursuit of secondary American cultural proficiency or, at least, the necessity of their children learning English from a native speaker.

ADM also comes across as a relatively unique school. The school holds a central core of Five Families to which the others relate in varying degrees, as explored in chapter eight. Further, the school does not contain any substantial minority groups, other than the Shia and foreigners. However, 12-15% of the student body does not relate to that family; that 12-15%, in fact, will reappear in a number of different measures in chapter twelve and probably includes those foreigners. That group includes the children of the faculty, who also appear as outsiders.

Having provided this information, one can discuss the tools designed to measure ADMís effect in instilling secondary American Western cultural proficiency.

C. Research Tool: The KATWII

First, this study used the KATWII, an adaptation of the ARSMA-II (Arnold, Cueller, & Maldonado, 1995). The authors of the ARSMA-II have shown its ability to predict the level of assimilation of its subject population, Mexican-Americans. The KATWII and the scoring tree for it both appear in Appendix II.

KATWII informants respond to questions such as the following by circling the correct response to Likert type items, such as:

The scorer then adds together all of the "Arab-oriented," ASOC, scores and "American (Western)-oriented," USOC scores, so that each survey creates a point with two coordinates, an X-coordinate, the ASOC, and a Y-coordinate, the USOC. This allows plotting individuals according to a scoring grid, comparing individuals on the basis of either or both scores, and placing them in scoring categories such as indicated below.

This scoring scheme means that an individual can score high in both dimensions simultaneously, registering as a "bicultural." It also means that an individual can score low in both dimensions and end up in the quadrant labeled "anomie." Thus, it corresponds to the view that an individualís obtaining a secondary cultural affinity does not necessarily detract from his original cultural identity, but if this subtractive effect does occur, the KATWII still allows measurement of an individualís placement and, through repeated testing, could even demonstrate this subtractive effect.

The KATWII creates the following categories, adapted again from the ARSMA-II:

Anomie = a person at home in neither culture
Arab= an Arab with little Western influence
American = a Westerner with little Arab influence
Ard= an Arab dominant personality with some American cultural aspects
USd= a Western dominant with some Arab cultural aspects
Ma= marginally bicultural, Arab dominant
Mu= marginally bicultural, US dominant
LowBi= low bicultural orientation
High Bicultural = high bicultural orientation

The test identifies individuals supposedly suffering from "anomie" as explained previously and the types "Arab" and "American." An "Arab" or "American" on this test would score with either a high ASOC or USOC score and a low score in the other. This does not, of course, mean an individualís placement in some other category makes him "less of an American or Arab." Rather, these "archetypes" depict individuals relatively unaffected by secondary cultural influences.

The types "Ard" and "Usd" and "Ma" and "Mu" portray progressively greater amounts of secondary cultural influence. An Arab or US dominant person, while fully at home in his own culture, would show a significant secondary cultural influence. A marginal bicultural, Arab dominant, "Ma," individual displays an even stronger secondary influence and a "Mu," the reverse.

Finally, the top, right quadrant contains those individuals classified as "bicultural." In this case, the individual shows a very high secondary cultural influence, possibly equaling that of his primary culture. An individual in the low bicultural category would show a lower USOC and ASOC score in his primary culture than the archetype "Arab" or "American." Thus, if the view of subtractive biculturality holds, a person may arrive in this quadrant through a simultaneous weakening of one score, ASOC or USOC, and a corresponding growth in the other; an extreme case of this could theoretically cause a person to move into the "anomie" category.

The KATWII applies and adapts the ARSMA-II (Arnold, Cueller, & Moldanado, 1995) to the Kuwaiti situation. One fundamental change lies in discarding the secondary use of ARSMA-II as a means of measuring acculturation. A person might come to Kuwait and live fifty years without ever considering himself a "Kuwaiti," due to citizenship laws explained in part one. Hence, this use of the ARSMA does not fit the KATWII.

As a substitute, the KATWII uses a five-point means of determining the status of the person filling out the form. A person with a "5" would have full, long-time Kuwaiti citizenship. Presumably, then, a long-term Palestinian resident would choose a "3," and a Bedouin would choose a "4." As Asil, few ADM students would select "4." However, this study does not predict any correlation between ASOC and USOC scores and Kuwaiti resident status. Rather it includes this solely to gather information regarding the residential status. For that reason, the KATWII also discards the optional assimilation subsection of the ARSMA-II.

A second change concerns some of the items on the original ARSMA-II. The ARSMA-II offers 13 test items for American identification and 17 for Mexican, perhaps appropriate in a study of a minority and majority culture. The KATWII simply balances both scales at 17. In general, the KATWII substitutes "Arab and Kuwaiti" for "Mexican" and "American, Canadian, and British" for "Anglo." A few specific items required alteration. The original ARSMA-II item about food concerns cooking; few Kuwaiti children cook anything, so this category became "eating." Further, the original ARSMA-II asked about "reading in Spanish." To literally translate this probably overstates the biculturality of Dharra students since all must read in both Arabic and English for their classes; therefore, the alteration to "read for pleasure."

All of the items on ARSMA-II regarding growing up, parents, and self-description also apply to the American subcultural experience. Hence, one can say, as the ARSMA does, "My friends when I was growing up were Anglos-[Americans]." Almost all of the students in this study would, undoubtedly, choose Arabs for all of these answers if this item underwent direct translation. A more reasonably equivalent distinction in Kuwait concerns Kuwaitis who act American, as suggested in chapter eight, versus those who act more traditionally Arab. To try to measure this sense of Americanization, the KATWII makes three changes. First, questions 21-25 and 26-30 all call for external identification rather than the self-identification of the original ARSMA-II. Thus one question asks if outsiders might "mistake a studentís father for an American," as sometimes happens, rather than the respondentís father would identify himself. To try to balance this, questions about friends (25-26) remain as direct translations. While some questions might yield more "American answers" through the one alteration, others should lead to less "American" answers, and the two effects should balance one another.

One final change concerns the last four questions. The ARSMA-II uses the categories of "American, Mexican-American, Anglo-Mexican, and Mexican." One cannot directly conjure an equivalent in terms of the acculturation process considered here, but some very Americanized Arabs do live in Kuwait and some falling into more intermediate categories. Thus, the categories of "more American than Arab, but still Arab" and its logical inverse.

Another problem with altering the ARSMA-II consisted in coming up with scoring categories. As indicated in the previous section, while two-dimensional scale measurements seem to consistently come up with the same categories, the dividing lines vary. For example, the BAS sets a higher standard (62.5%) for both cultures, which effectively decreases the size of the bicultural quadrant. The revised ARSMA-II sets a lower standard for Mexican cultural identification (48.9%) than for Anglo (61%), and it creates large territories of marginality. In this respect note that choosing 3 out of 5 ("moderately") yields a score of 60%, the cut-off on both tests for at least marginal biculturality.

For several reasons, the scoring of the KATWII uses the higher standard of the BAS and ARSMA-II highest category, i.e., over 60% as indicating full biculturality. That means, in short, that students on average, choose "moderately" on all items and "a lot" on at least one. That yields the cut-off score of dual 51s to escape the "anomie" category. An important question, considered in the next chapter, concerns the relative strength of the USOC score as well as whether one describes the borderline individuals, particularly the Ma and Ard, as indicating secondary Western cultural proficiency.

Needless to say, the KATWII does not constitute a perfect instrument for measuring biculturality. By changing many of the questions, the KATWII sacrifices the reliability of its predecessor. Also, it falls prey to the exact same kinds of criticisms mentioned in the literature review. One can question the choice of items and the alterations of the test. Not only that, the validity for the ARSMA lies in its ability to predict acculturation, i.e., the movement from one culture to another, not placement or strength of cultural adhesion.

Finally, the ARSMA-II and measures based upon or rival to it owe their creation to the particular situation of the United States in which subcultures struggle for survival, recognition, and identity. This explains, of course, the greater amount of alteration to the ARSMA-II in this instance than in previous studies of American subcultural situations. Certainly one can question if these alterations change it enough.

Prior to full administration of the KATWII, two dozens ADM students on the researchersí email list took the KATWII. This did not result in any substantive changes to the instrument since, with one or two exceptions, students scored approximately as this researcher predicted. If anything, they registered a slightly lower USOC score than expected, which did not seem sufficient to justify any further alterations to the instrument.

Students took the KATWII in a single setting the first week of school, September, 2002. Two homeroom per grade level out of three took the test. The researcher specifically instructed teachers to allow students not to take the test if any student expressed any reservations with it. Very few chose that option, so the completion rate equals 99%. Students did, however, sometimes skip certain items. In order to err on the side of a conservative estimate of cultural proficiency, scoring treated these incomplete items as "0," usually resulting in slightly lower ASOC scores. This seemed a legitimate procedure since incompletion possibly resulted from weak English skills in misunderstanding test items and, hence, indirectly indicated lower ASOC scores. Using this method of scoring blank items did not result in classifying any students as suffering from "anomie."

A small number of English and Arabic staff took the KATWII also, the Arab staff taking a translated version. The original plan called for all homeroom teachers to take the test, but it took several weeks to obtain an Arabic translation. With the school year well underway, it took considerable effort to get Arab or English teachers to commit to completing the KATWII, particularly as many remained convinced that only students needed to take the test. This resulted in the very small teacher comparison group.

E. Research Tool and Informants: The AWSIT

As a second research tool, this author constructed the AWSIT, the Arab-Western Situational Interview. Whereas the KATWII allows the possibility of increasing secondary cultural adhesion without decreasing the primary, the AWSIT purposely considers some of these situations of potential cultural clash in order to measure the degree of conflict and to determine which set of cultural expectations seems to more influence the interviewed person. The AWSIT questions appear in Appendix III. As the directions indicate, the researcher conceived imaginary situations to which the interviewed person responds as to how he would think, talk, and act. Two sample questions include:

1. Unlike your family, your cousin's family recently had some financial problems. Their daughter, Noor, still wants to go to the University. She comes visiting with her family and hints that she needs financial help. [K, Y, OS]

2a. (student version). After finishing school in the UK, a professor tells you that a company in the UK wants to hire you and offer you a two-year-contract. [Am, Y, OS]

The following grid shows how the questions purposely vary the situations:

The questions simulate typical situations found in American and Kuwaiti life. As a result, some fall under the heading of "K," for a typical Kuwaiti situation, or "A," for a typical American situation. The last two, "Ei," could occur presumably in either place. The questions also alternate involving males or females, gender of any children described, the location as to the school or elsewhere, and the listenerís status as observer or participant.

Student interviews in this context make no sense without having a population to whom to compare the studentsí responses. Hence, the researcher also interviewed five American and five Arab teachers with a translator for three of the latter interviews. After the interviews, the researcher created two sets of modal responses, one by Arab teachers and another by American teachers. If, indeed, attendance at Al-Dharra increases studentsí American (Western) secondary cultural proficiency, then the interviewing technique should show several things. First, the Arab staff and American staff should differ profoundly in their responses, allowing creation of group modal responses. Second, the studentsí answers should align with the Americans on certain questions, with the Arabs on other questions, and either on the last two questions.

Time constraints restricted the interviews to representative sampling for all three groups. The selection grids for all three groups of participants appear in Appendix III, which also contains the AWSIT and a spreadsheet summarizing the results.

For the students chosen, this study tried to satisfy three different, possibly relevant distinctions. Since all students at the high school level have spent anywhere between eight and ten years at ADM, this study selected some students from each grade of the high school. In addition, the selections chose foreign and Shia students to approximately equal their percentage in the student population. Karen Al-Jinnah suggested that Model United Nations experience (MUN) might tend to make students more bicultural; as this program typically involves about 20% of the student body, the interview group contains 20% MUN students.

Among the Arab teacher population, selection also sought to emphasize the diversity in the teacher population. The Arab teacher group includes more males than females and a majority of Moslems with a minority of Christians and Druze. The sampling also took representative numbers from each nationality. Further, while most teachers have spent many years in Kuwait and with the school, a smaller number came more recently, and selection sought to mirror this. Finally, knowledge of English varies. Some teachers, such as Ms. ArD, can actually teach in three languages (French, Arabic, and English). Others, such as Mr. ArC, know very little English, and in this respect, their level of English knowledge generally parallels the English staffís knowledge of Arabic. The sampling reflects all of these factors.

For the English-speaking staff, this analysis, again, sought teachers that reflect the English teacher group at the school. As in the case of the Arab staff, the percentage of male high school teachers surpasses that of women. Since none of the teachers knew any Arabic or showed much orientation revolving around their Christianity (or atheism), the selection process omitted these variables. On the other hand, the interviewed group displays a typical mixture of ADM Western teacher nationalities with Americans, Canadians, and an Australian who spent many years in the British system. The selection also shows a typical group of very new teachers, slightly more experienced, and relative veterans at the school. Due to the necessity of interviewing before the actual beginning of the school year, chance led to having a higher percentage of Canadians present in the teacher group at the expense of Americans.

Coding the AWSIT required creating a way to compare dissimilar responses. The researcher attempted to create an alignment of the range of responses from little to extreme. In order to deflect any criticism of potential cultural bias, the presumed Arab responses rates as "5" and the extreme American response as a "1." Of course, this required categorizing the often-diverse responses of the interviewed into categories. In the case of Arab speakers, this required the occasional question, via translation: "Is he angry?" as the tone of the language did not always correspond to the emotion.

Given the disparity of group sizes, a second step required arranging the responses by percentage along with numbers and then multiplying the percentage by the level of the response shown below on the far left:

This procedure allows plotting the responses on a scale of, again, 1 to 5. However, the resulting answer (such as in the example above) does not mean that the response directly associated with that number constitutes the modal response; instead, it shows the average response. Thus, one cannot conclude that all of the students felt "resignation" since their average equaled 4.0, but it does allow comparing the relative scores of the three groups.

This instrument also suffers from some obvious defects. A number of these result from the setting itself. Many of those interviewed, for example, would not regard the interviewer as neutral. Further, what a person says in a fantasy situation may considerably differ from that of a real situation. This may have particular significance in Arab culture given its purported tendency to prefer words to action. This study tried to overcome this by purposely differentiating three distinct choices: "think," "say," and "do," but few respondents classified their answers in this way.

Further, of course, one can criticize the choice of questions. The researcherís knowledge of even American culture bears challenge. These scenes selected may not represent either culture in a fair light. Finally, the coding system, of course, largely presupposes a modal response by the two groups; hence the arbitrary assignment of an Arab response versus an American one. Such a modal response may not exist, and, in two cases, trying to come up with a modal response simply did not work. Finally, one can question that legitimacy of these "modal" teacher responses given the very small group of five teachers employed to create them.

Prior to administering the AWSIT, the researcher sent the list of questions to several different students; also, after each interview, the researcher discussed the questions and their origins with the students. Students expressed genuine surprise as to the ability of these questions to conjure prototypical Kuwaiti situations, and the seniors, especially, easily differentiated between the Arab and Kuwaiti situations. A number of Arab teachers commented on the questions, with one Arab teacher saying, via translation: "These are just the sort of questions we ought to be asking!" The Arab teachers, in particular, seemed very pleased to have an opportunity to explain their answers and to clarify not only their responses, but the logic behind them.

The AWSIT interviews took place in the last two weeks of August prior to the beginning of school year. This created some difficulty in terms of finding students available that fit into the categories envisioned. Initially, this researcher intended to get four students per grade level with a mix of genders. However, many older students volunteered, so this allowed raising the number to five per grade level, except that getting two ninth grade girls to interview posed a particular problem worth mentioning as it relates to the cultural question.

Unlike the other grade levels, few ninth graders knew the interviewer, and parents expressed extreme reluctance to leave their daughters alone for an interview with a strange male teacher. One father actually agreed to have his daughter interviewed, but only with her mother present during the interview; she did not have his permission for the interview to take place with her mother sitting outside, so this interview did not take place. On three other occasions, girls agreed to the interview, only to cancel or not show up. Finally, the researcher called a family he already knew well and asked the father to send his daughter. Finding 9th grade boys to interview caused no difficulties.

F. Research Tool: The AGS

A final research tool, the AGS (Al-Dharra Madressor General Survey) serves several purposes. First, it helps expand upon the general picture of the student population in earlier sections and the conclusions appear earlier in this chapter. In addition, some specific questions attempt to deal with aspects of cultural adhesion. The AGS appears in Appendix IV along with a complete spreadsheet of the results.

The AGS gathers several types of data. A lot of the questions, appearances notwithstanding, function as Likert-scales. They attempt to measure specific attributes of the entire tribal model presented earlier in this analysis. Whereas the KATWII offers a quick categorization, the AGS allows for testing particular parts of the entire Asil cultural description, such as "acceptance of wastah."

The original plan of using the Arab and Western teachers as a comparison group failed when none of the bilingual Arab staff found the time to translate the rather long survey into Arabic. Thus, one cannot compare "modal responses" as on the AWSIT. Also, the relatively open-ended questions at the end of the AGS did not elicit the same level of responses as the AWSIT, possibly due to student weaknesses in writing English and possibly due to time considerations.

The major threat to validity of the AGS stems from its model of Arab culture in general and Kuwaiti culture in particular. If that model does not accurately portray Arab culture or expresses merely the biases of this author, then the conclusions drawn from it have no validity. In this respect, it shares a similar weakness with the surveys used to determine Arab identity in previous studies. In this case, the main means of overcoming this lies in using multiple tools of analysis.

Again, prior to administering the survey, the researcher sent several copies to students via email. This did lead to some changes as well as to omission of certain items. Further, it led to a reorganization of the survey to allow easier recording of the results.

One homeroom per grade level took the AGS in the second week of school, September 14th, 2002. This included those homerooms not taking the KATWII. Again, the researcher told teachers that students could elect not to complete the survey; few choose that option though a few complained afterwards as to the length of the survey which, like the KATWII, students needed to complete within a single homeroom period. This probably explains the relative brevity of the open-ended responses.

G. Data Gathering

Samples of data gathering appear below. The results appear in the following chapter.

1. Sample of Interview With Coding Adding


Interviewerís Direction: Iím going to tell you about some situations. In each situation, I want to know what you would think, say, and do. If you need me to repeat the question, I will. It is perfectly allowable to say you would "do nothing. " There are no "right" answers for any of these questions, so say your own best answer. Your answers may appear in my dissertation, but your name will not be revealed. For all questions male names are "Abdullah" and "Mohammad," and female are "Sheika" and "Noor." Unless otherwise specified, all students are 17.

Subject: SL
Status: junior
Student: female
Religion: Sunni
Nationality: Kuwaiti
MUN: no

1. Unlike your family, your cousin's family recently had some financial problems. Their daughter, Noor, still wants to go to the University. She comes visiting with her family and hints that she needs financial help. [K, Y, OS]

"I would help by giving her some. I would have to know about the problem first. Afterwards, I could go to the place she wants to go and be with her. I would help her with working somewhere. I would give her money. I would work for [the money to give to] her, and the money I would give to her." {5}

2a. (student version). After finishing school in the UK, a professor tells you that a company in the UK wants to hire you and offer you a two-year-contract. [Am, Y, OS]

"I donít agree (to leaving)." {5}

3. Abdullah laughs when hears someone say that Mohammad may fail a required class. "Are you kidding," he says, "with all of his wastah, he'll never fail." [K, T, S]

"So itís about the wastah? I donít agree with the wastah. I donít like the wastah." {DNA}

4a. (student version). Sheika, a friend, has written all of the answers down to the test on a piece of paper which she wants to give to you. "Mr. A will check me. Give it back when we get inside." [Ei, Y, S]

"I donít take the answers. I will not take it from her. I will refuse to take the paper. No, I wouldnít help her." {5}

5. Mr. A says, "When I reached eighteen, I told my father 'Hey, it's my life, and I will do what I want.í" [Am, T, OS]

"I donít know. I donít agree because doing the thing without asking his father or his parents is doing something wrong." {4}

6. Two cars collide, and the men inside get out. After threatening and almost screaming at each for ten minutes, while the other men hold them back, the two men get back in their cars and drive away. [K, T, OS]

"No. They have to go to the police station. What they did is something wrong, and they have to learn from it."

7. Noor and Abdullah are not related to one another, but Noor holds hands with Abdullah and says "He's my boyfriend." She explains the date she spent with him the previous week. [Am, T, S]

"Maybe she loves him? I donít know. I think she has to tell her parents first about her boyfriend, and then she can do anything." {3}

8a. (student version). After a long conversation with your brother, you realize that at the University he is spending all of his time hanging around with Kuwaitis. [Ei, Y, OS]

"I donít have any comment. Itís not good. He has to have another relations, not only Kuwaitis." {R}

9a. (student version). After agreeing to let you go on a much-anticipated student trip, your father suddenly forbids you to go. [K, Y, S]

"I would agree because heís my father. He knows the right thing to do." {5}

10a. (student version). Your class started at 720. It's now 800, and you're coming to the door. [Am, Y, S]

"After the class, I would go to the teacher and tell him why I was late. I would tell the truth [note: the student was late to this interview]." {N}


2. Sample of Informed Consent Form

I give my permission for my child to participate in a study conducted in association with Boston University by Daniel Richard Fruit. This study attempts to measure the extent to which an education at our school makes students bicultural.

The procedures used in this study have been purposely designed so as not to inflict any mental, physical, or emotional harm on my child.

I understand that the results of this survey or interview may appear in print or some other form of publication. I realize that my childís name and all identifying characteristics will be disguised so that his/her anonymity may be preserved.

childís signature date

parentsís signature date

researcherís signature date

department chairman's signature date

Onward to Chapter 12: Research Findings
Back to Chapter 10: Literature Review

Back to the Academic Page
Back to Fruit Home