Arqus University Alliance Staff Members' Linguistic and Intercultural Needs: Survey Results

2.1. Personal data information

Administrative staff constituted 65.6% of all survey participants and the remaining slightly more than one third of surveyees were academic staff. In the breakdown of responses for individual universities, the universities of Bergen and Graz were an exception to this general tendency, as the answers came mostly from the academic staff (55% and 54% respectively). The greatest numerical discrepancies between the two categories of staff is present in the responses of the universities of Padua (75.6% administrative, 24.4% academic) and Granada (83% administrative, 17% academic). (see Figure 1)

Figure 1: Number of completed questionnaires by university and staff category

In terms of age group, 60% of respondents were between 36 and 55 years old, approx. 20% were younger than 36, and 20% older than 55. About one third of the staff had worked at their university for between 2 and 10 years, the percentages were lower in the cohorts above and below this time range (see Figure 2).

Information on the subject areas most represented in the survey was provided by the academic staff members involved in EMI, with humanities, social sciences and law dominating with 44% of the responses, followed by STEM6^[6](33%) and life sciences (19%).

Figure 2: Years of employment at the respective university by age group

2.2. Current working environment

The highly multilingual and multicultural environment at the universities is reflected by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the survey respondents - 93% of academic and 84% of administrative staff members - encountered speakers of other languages and people from other cultural backgrounds in their professional context. For around half of the respondents (58% of academic and 36% of administrative staff) these contacts occurred often or very often. With regard to academic staff, frequent encounters were mainly with fellow academic staff at their own university, followed by encounters with students and guest visitors (see Figure 3). As for administrative staff, the most frequent encounters were with guests at the university, followed by staff and students (see Figure 4).

Figure 3: Academic staff: encounters and frequency

Figure 4: Administrative staff: encounters and frequency

Slightly more than half of the respondents stated that their own or their interlocutor’s level of language competence did not or only rarely caused communication difficulties in their working context (61% of the academic and 45% of the administrative staff). Cultural misunderstandings were even less perceived as a cause for communication barriers, as 71% of the academic staff and 61% of the administrative staff stated that they never or only very rarely had communication problems of this kind.

As to the foreign language in which the encounters took place, English was, rather unsurprisingly, in the top position (83% of the responses), followed by French and German (both 29%), Spanish (26%), Norwegian (25%), Italian, Swedish, Danish, Chinese and Russian. There were no significant differences between academic and administrative staff.

2.2.1. Reasons for communication problems

In the final question of the second part of the questionnaire surveyees were asked what other reasons for communication problems between speakers of different languages and/or people from different cultural contexts there might be. This free-form question prompted approximately 500 responses (23% of all survey participants). The answers helped to pinpoint common sources of misunderstandings and provided important information for fine-tuning training offers in this respect. Due to the free form nature of the responses, in order to gain insight from the data, the responses have been grouped into two main categories. The following is a descriptive account of the most relevant responses with a special emphasis on the professional environment.

2.2.1.1 Challenges generated by linguistic reasons

Among the most frequently mentioned linguistic barriers in communication were those related to terminology specific to the respective field of work, namely the lack of sufficient language skills for scientific or work-related purposes, such as scientific or technical terms. These difficulties relate in particular to the impossibility of translating or understanding, and distinguishing the correct meaning of terms that were specific to one language and/or culture.

Furthermore, the use of dialects and language varieties and accents, but also the tone in which one communicates were mentioned as obstacles that can cause misunderstandings. As one survey participant stated, “Tonality in addition to the language itself can imply rudeness, politeness and be interpreted differently” [administrative staff member, University of Bergen].

The use of a lingua franca, mainly English, for communication purposes, especially in the case of a discrepancy of language skills between speakers was mentioned as a possible cause of problems.

2.2.1.2 Challenges generated by cultural reasons

Cultural misunderstandings with fellow staff members and students with different linguistic/cultural backgrounds were cited as occurring in the university- specific context. A straightforward source of problems, for example, was the lack of knowledge or understanding of administrative procedures.

In the same vein, different academic cultures and backgrounds could also lead to different expectations as to how academia works, either as the interlocutors had known it before, or based on assumptions that did not match reality. Examples provided by surveyees were expectations of international or visiting students and staff regarding the range and scope of services provided by the university administration. Likewise the extend to students had been taught to think critically and independently versus the extent (they assumed) they were expected to repeat what they had learnt in the textbooks could create discrepancies.

One frequently mentioned source of misunderstanding was differences or uncertainties on how to interact across status, e.g. between junior and senior staff, between academic and administrative or technical staff, between students and professors. The social standing, and therefore deference towards professional academics could differ from one country to another, as well as attitudes related to gender.

Survey participants also referred to the problem of when an interlocutor was not stating clearly if something had not understood, especially within a cultural environment that was used to directness in communication. Possible explanations for this behaviour were given as not wanting to “lose face” or that asking again might be considered as impolite. One survey participant had a strategy for dealing with such a situation: “I don't think cultural misunderstandings is the problem, but cultural differences cause big problems. In Norway we are concerned of getting things done. If we don't understand how to solve a problem, we consult others to get help. If we don't understand the message given, we ask again. My experience is that a lot of foreigners not so easily do this.[sic] There is some kind of proudness involved. They go ahead with the information given, but never ask again if something wasn't understood. You always need to ask them to explain how they are planning to solve the problem, and that way assure that they have fully understood” [academic staff member, University of Bergen].

Some of the more elaborate responses from survey participants could be considered to implicitly reveal their attitude towards persons from different language/cultural background in their working environment. These statements demonstrated to a certain extent their level of intercultural openness and self-refection or their perception of the extent to which they - or “the others” - were expected to speak the local language or to know foreign languages during such encounters. In other words, according to the participants the question would be: Who should be adapting?

2.3. Language and intercultural training needs

The third group of questions of the survey was meant to investigate the participants’ training needs for language and intercultural skills in their working environment. In this section there was also included a set of questions for the teaching staff who taught courses through the medium of English.

Participating in Language courses in order to overcome difficulties in communicating with speakers of different languages and/or from different cultural backgrounds was seen as a useful or very useful tool by 65.5% of the survey participants. Considering the different staff categories this means that 58% of the academic staff and 69% of the administrative staff have responded in this way (see Figure 5)

Figure 5: Usefulness of participating in language courses to overcome difficulties in communicating with speakers of different languages and/or from different cultural backgrounds, by staff category

Figure 6: Usefulness of participating in intercultural courses to overcome difficulties in communicating with speakers of different languages and/or from different cultural backgrounds, by staff category

Intercultural courses have been considered useful or very useful for overcoming difficulties in communication by 45% (36.5% of academic staff; 50% administrative staff; see Figure 6).

Only a minority, namely 18% of the academic staff and 17% of the administrative staff had already participated in trainings with an intercultural component at their university. 47% of those had attended workshops or seminars on intercultural communication. 38% had participated in language courses with intercultural topics. Finally, for the remaining 15%, these trainings had consisted of learning or information material on intercultural communication. 46 survey participants had participated in other activities for staff that addressed intercultural issues. These included training in/on leadership, negotiations, educational systems in other countries, human rights, inclusion, gender, international reflection in teaching, etiquette, and work-related language courses. Several academic staff members from the University of Bergen had participated in a seminar for newly arrived international employees entitled “Working with Norwegians”.

Survey participants were then asked which of the above-mentioned three types of training they would be interested in. 65% of all survey participants were interested in taking a language course with an intercultural element. 52% were interested in workshops/seminars on intercultural communication, and 37% interested in receiving learning/information material (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Interest in initiatives in order to develop linguistic and intercultural competences, by type of initiative and staff category

2.3.1. Other training needs

Survey participants were invited to propose any other training opportunities that could be offered in order to develop linguistic and intercultural competence. The question generated approx. 400 individual responses. The majority of the responses can be grouped into the central themes below. The answers were provided by both academic and administrative staff members alike, unless stated otherwise.

Types of language courses

In relation to the characteristics of language courses, it was indicated that it would be useful to offer courses that exclude cultural topics and to have the possibility to attend language courses separate from those offered to students. Different needs emerged for the two different categories of staff: Responses from members of academic staff referred to training in English language teaching, scientific/academic English or terminology related to their field of research (language not specified). Administrative staff members expressed a need for training on terminology related to their field of work, e.g. finance, human resources, university routines and systems, terminology related to relevant academic disciplines or at least language guidelines.

Stays abroad and direct encounters

Spending time abroad in the form of staff exchange and mobility programmes, including internships (for administrative staff) or research stays (for academic staff) was mentioned as the best way to develop linguistic and intercultural. Also short stays abroad were seen as an option, from an organised visit including a linguistic and cultural component to an intensive/immersion language course.

In the context of training in intercultural competence, surveyees expressed the desire to learn more about the cultures of specific countries, which were those of the students or staff they have most contact with. The following countries were explicitly mentioned: (Sub-Saharan) Africa, Arabic-speaking countries, Bangladesh, China, India, Italy, Nepal Pakistan, Spain, Ukraine and USA. At the same time, respondents suggested offering training for newcomers from abroad to acquire the language of the host country, and which also covered information on university-specific regulations and administrative procedures.

Academic staff members in particular provided differentiated preferences with regard to intercultural training needs. Among the individual suggestions were the following:

• assist in preparing university educators to reflect on their own positionality and responsibility in the classroom;
• introductory course in work ethics and inter-social behaviour when starting at a new faculty;
• introductory course for newcomers on working with natives that is well tailored to the target group (usually academics with rich international experience) and not come across as stereotypical, condescending or paternalistic (several responses);
• sharpen understanding of unconscious or implicit bias on language, culture, appearance etc.;
• training in anti-racism and decolonialism, including awareness of microaggressions, institutional racism and white privilege, combined with awareness of exclusionary mechanisms related to gender, sexuality and class differences/stereotypes/hierarchies in academic institutions, involving both staff and student relationships;
• training on diversity, inclusion, belonging; critical examination of perception of cultures, stereotypes, racism, discrimination;
• global citizenship education;
• learn about values and expectations in various cultures;
• courses in leadership in an international setting (e.g. conflict resolution in international or bilateral projects).

As for training formats, administrative and academic staff were very interested in informal settings and flexible offers, as well as the employment of innovative learning methods. Informal settings included regular conversation groups, language cafés, but foremost 1:1 settings, e.g. through tandems or peer-to-peer sessions, preferably with a native speaker (esp. administrative staff). As for innovative learning methods, games (administrative staff) and role-playing sessions for different intercultural scenarios were proposed. In terms of learning material, survey participants proposed among other things audiobooks, audio-visual material such as video clips on different topics: language, culture, academic structure, and online access to learning materials.

Concerning the flexibility of training offers, staff members suggested having online, f2f and on-demand courses. One general issue that the respondents emphasised in this respect was that of the length and timing. Time constraints of staff should be kept in mind when organising a course.

2.3.2 Useful languages to learn for the working environment

In their working environment, the most useful language to attend a language course for was by far English, as stated by 64% of all respondents (50% academic and 74% administrative staff). English was on top of the list for all alliance member universities. Taking all survey answers together, English was followed by Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Norwegian, Arabic, Italian, Russian, Portuguese. Eight out of the ten most popular languages were so –called world languages, two of them non-European languages (Chinese and Arabic).

Common traits can be found when looking at the list of the 10 most requested languages for all universities, but the most significant information for each university context comes from examining the list of each university’s top ten languages. The five most useful languages to learn at each location were also among the top ten most useful languages at all locations (see Table 1). The exception to this is Polish, which Vilnius puts in fourth place, a language that doesn’t appear in anyone else’s top ten. (see Table 2).

The most desired language after English at each location was French or Spanish, except at Vilnius and Bergen, where these two languages were further down in the list and where the second and third positions were occupied respectively by German and Russian and by Norwegian and German. With the exception of the Lithuanian language, all national languages of the university locations happened to be included in the top ten list of the most useful languages to learn at each university location^[7]. This could be an indication of the rate of international staff at each location (as well as the rate of these staff members participating in the survey). Furthermore, each location had in their top ten of most useful languages to acquire at least one national language in geographical vicinity of the location, including non-global languages, such as Croatian and Slovenian at Graz, Polish and Latvian at Vilnius, and Swedish at Bergen. It should finally be noted that a wide range of different languages from all over the world were deemed useful; approximately 60 languages altogether.
Although all of the universities of the Alliance agreed on the importance of English, there were differences between them in the interest expressed in receiving specific training in this language (e.g. English language courses). For example, 86% of survey respondents at Granada compared to only 36% at Bergen.

Table 1: Percentage of staff members’ language training needs per university for the first five languages

Table 2: Top ten list of staff members’ language training needs per university

Foreign language skills at university are not only required for communication purposes with fellow staff members, guests at the university and students, but also for teaching purposes. As an increasing number of university courses are offered through the medium of English, the university needs to ensure that teaching staff have the necessary skills to deliver a course in English. Therefore, the final question of the survey asked respective staff members about their needs to this regard. 61% of the academic teaching staff who were already teaching in English or were planning to do so (this applied to 78% of academic staff), were interested or highly interested in receiving training in English medium instruction (EMI). More specifically, as regards the content of such training, 53% of those who replied to this question wanted to acquire skills in teaching methodology, 48% to improve their English language skills; and 44% aimed at gaining intercultural communicative competence (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: Interest in specific EMI-courses

4.1 For the Arqus Alliance

Since the rollout of the survey in May and June 2021 a joint strategy for staff development and a joint workshop series for staff members of the Arqus Alliance has already been developed and carried out.

The workshop series for staff members was designed and organised by the Universities of Graz and Padua and took place between October 2021 and July 2022. The great majority of workshops were held online and few also onsite at the respective university locations. The workshops were offered by the partner universities, altogether 40 events took place, with approximately 500 participants in total. The workshops took into account as far as possible the needs and wishes of the survey participants. They were open and free for all staff members of the alliance partners. Some were targeted to all staff, others tailored to specific staff groups, such as academic teaching staff or administrative staff.

The workshop series was designed on the basis of the analysis of the survey results. These informed the structure of the series in terms of content or theme, format, group size and timing. The survey evaluation along with the overall design was shared with the partner universities. These were invited to submit proposals for workshop offers accordingly.

As a result, several online and offline intensive EMI courses for academic teaching staff took place. Another course offered academic writing and presentation skills in English for academic staff. The series also offered intercultural communication skills for administrative staff. As for taking into account the wishes for different learning formats, an informal setting for practicing language skills was made available through the Arqus Language Café for staff, which was an online conversation meeting in small groups. As for learning the language in the country itself, staff members had the possibility to take a Spanish language course onsite in Granada. While some workshops consisted of several sessions, most of them were one-off sessions held on Friday afternoons, taking into account the time availability of staff members. Furthermore as regards learning formats, several workshops, especially on improving intercultural communication skills, included innovative offers, for example through process drama, digital storytelling, and multilingual communicative scenarios (“Language Village”).

Participants were asked to fill in a short evaluation survey after completing the workshop. While the overall feedback was positive, the critical remarks and suggestions helped in improving subsequent offers. Furthermore, the Arqus Alliance will be able to build on this experience and outcome in relation to one of its eight major goals for 2025, namely to “ensur[e] truly multilingual environments at partner universities using its language diversity to promote multilingualism” as well as “mov[e] beyond language competence in order also to promote intercultural communication competence amongst students and staff“^[8]. The skills the participants in the workshop series have gained means the alliance is already one step closer to this goal.

4.2. For individual alliance member universities

Although the main aim of the survey was to establish a basis for designing joint workshops for staff members at all member universities, the findings of the results were additionally intended to guide actions within the language policy of the individual universities.

To this effect, the results of the survey for each university were made available to the respective university. The data can thus be used to fine-tune or adjust existing language and intercultural communication training offers and/or to consider introducing new ones for their staff members, regardless of whether the university in question has already an official language policy in place. Furthermore, based on the analysis of the results of the survey, the universities are invited to consider the following recommendations:

1. Use the survey results to carry out further needs-based training offers. As regards those universities that had a low participation rate in the survey, carry out an internal survey on the training needs of staff.
   2. Carry out an evaluation of which foreign languages the university should offer^[9].
2. Offer work-related language courses and ensure that language training offers take existing language competence and time constraints of staff members into account.
3. Offer introductory courses to newly arrived international staff, including information on administrative procedures and university way of life. Carry out evaluation surveys on these courses for participants.
4. Where necessary, clarify the role of the English language in communicative situations for all university staff and students.

Simone Klinge: M.A., LLM, research associate at the Centre for Language, Plurilingualism and Didactics, University of Graz. Johann-Fux-Gasse 30/I, 8010 Graz, Austria. Email: simone.klinge@uni-graz.at

Barbara Gödeke: Centro Linguistico di Ateneo, Università degli Studi di Padova. Via Venezia, 16, 35131 Padova, Italia. Email: barbara.godeke@unipd.it

Annex: Questionnaire

University staff members' linguistic and intercultural needs

Personal Data

1. Which of the following is your university?

2. You are a member of the university’s

• academic staff
• technical or administrative staff

3. Age group
4. How many years have you been working at this university?

Current working environment

5. In your working context at this university (excluding periods you spent abroad) do you encounter speakers of other languages and/or people from other cultural backgrounds?

   Y/N

6. How often do these contacts occur? (1= rarely, 5 = very frequently)
7. The speakers of which language/s do you encounter?

• choose language
• Other language/s

8. Which of the following speakers of different languages and/or people from different cultural backgrounds do you encounter?

• Guests at the University (e.g. visiting professors, administrative staff in staff mobility, researchers from other universities)
• Academic staff at this University
• Technical or administrative staff at this University
• Staff of external enterprises or institutions
• Students (in the classroom)
• Students in other contexts (e.g. at the front-office)
• Other (please indicate)

9. By what means do you have these contacts?

• Telephone calls
• Online meetings (Zoom, Skype, Team, Meet etc.)
• Email
• Face-to-face
• Other (please indicate)

10. In your working context at this university, to what extent have your or your interlocutor’s level of language competence caused communication difficulties?

    1 = not at all, 5 = very much

11. In your working context at this university, to what extent have cultural misunderstandings (yours or your interlocutor’s) caused communication problems?

    1 = not at all, 5 = very much

12. Do you think there might be other reasons for communication problems between speakers of different languages and/or people from different cultural contexts? Please write other possible reasons in the space below.

• [free text]

13. Please indicate the usefulness of participating in intercultural courses to overcome difficulties in communicating with speakers of different languages and/or from different cultural backgrounds:

    1 = not at all useful, 5 = very useful

14. Please indicate the usefulness of participating in language courses to overcome difficulties in communicating between speakers of different languages and/or from different cultural backgrounds

    1 = not at all useful, 5 = very useful

15. Have you ever taken part in any course or workshop at this university that addressed intercultural issues?

    Y/N

16. Which kind of initiative?

• Language course that included culture-related topics
• Workshop/seminar on intercultural communication
• Provision of learning materials/information material on intercultural communication
• Other: [free text]

17. Please rate the extent to which you consider training in the following aspects of intercultural communication to be relevant to your professional activity:

    1= not at all relevant, 5 = very relevant

• Knowledge of the culture (practices, rituals, traditions, habits) of other communities/societies
• Reflection on the perception of my own culture (practices, rituals, traditions, habits) by people from other cultures
• Principles of intercultural communication (symbols, beliefs, values, norms of behaviour
• Linguistic skills for resolving cultural misunderstandings and dealing with culture shock

18. Which of the following initiatives would you be interested in?

• Language course that include culture-related topics
• Workshop/seminar on intercultural communication
• Learning materials/information material on intercultural communication
• None
• Other: [free text]

19. In your working environment, which of the following languages would you find it useful to attend a language course for?

• choose language
• other language(s)

  21/22 Please enter the language you specified as "Other language 1/2".

  23 What is your level of competence in the language(s) indicated and what official certification have you obtained so far?

  no Level Native CertifCicearttiiofCincearttiiofCincearttiiofCincearttiiofCincearttiiofoincfafitcioianl

  0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 Language A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

  24 In the following set of communicative uses, please indicate the importance of each communicative use in the specified language(s) in relation to your professional activity (1 = not important, 5 = very important)

• 25 Face-to-Face Interaction
• 26 Online interpersonal communication
• 27 Interactions and administrative formalities by telephone
• 28 Interactions and administrative formalities by telematic means (email, internet portals, chats, etc.)
• 29 Comprehension of written texts
• 30 Comprehension of oral texts
• 31 Production of written texts
• 32 Production of oral texts
• 33 Management of work meetings (including online meetings)
• 34 Participation in work meetings (including online meetings)
• 35 Facilitating access to information for L2-speakers (non-native speakers)
• 36 Mediating between L2-speakers and those who speak other languages.
• 37 In your opinion, are there any other training opportunities that could be offered in order to develop linguistic and intercultural competences? Please write your ideas in the space below: [free text]

EMI

38. This question is for academic staff who teach courses in English or who are likely to teach a course in English in the future (English-Medium Instruction).

    To what extent would you appreciate a course in: (1= not interested, 5 =very interested)

• English language skills
• Teaching methodology
• Intercultural communicative competence

39. Please indicate your area of study/research

• Sciences, Mathematics, Technology and Engineering
• Life Sciences
• Humanities, Social Sciences and Law