Contributory Factors to Returnees’ Re-adjustment

Both macro and micro-level factors have been found to affect adjustment and are addressed in acculturation literature (Ward, et al., 2001). Macro-level factors include characteristics of the society of origin, aspects of the host society, and inter-group relations (Schartner, 2013), while micro-level factors refer to attributes of the individual such as gender, age, personality, religion, prior intercultural experience, marital status, educational level, and characteristics of the

Passive Active

Pessimistic Optimistic

Resocialised mode

Proactive mode

Alienated mode

Rebellious mode

38 situation, for example, length of the sojourn, cultural distance, time since return, social contact and attitudes of individuals within the home country towards returnees and housing conditions (Szkudlarek, 2010). While both individual and situational variables have been found to affect readjustment, only those that are of direct relevance to this study are discussed in the following section.

2.7.1 Gender

While men and women have been found to experience re-entry quite differently (Cox, 2004), literature regarding the importance of gender in re-entry adjustment remains inconsistent and mainly reflects the context of the USA, whether it be American sojourners or foreigners in the American context. Empirical studies of international students who underwent education in the USA and returned to their countries state that women, in general, experience more difficulties upon re-entry, particularly those with children (Gama & Pedersen, 1977; Brabant, et al., 1990).

Both these studies contend that this may be the result of other factors, such as cultural distance (see Section 2.7.4). In addition, other studies (e.g. Brown & Brown, 2009; Jung, et al., 2013) report that females who develop a new gender role abroad find the return to be challenging as their new identity becomes incompatible with the traditional gender role expectations from their society i.e. returning from an individualistic to a collectivistic culture (see Sections 1.5.4 and 1.5.5).

In contrast, Rohrlich & Martin (1991) examined the experience of American students who sojourned in different countries in Western Europe for one semester and returned to the USA.

They found that females were more satisfied than males upon re-entry and attributed this to the fact that they returned to a more independent lifestyle than the one experienced overseas when living as part of a host family. This again highlights the active role of culture in re-entry and the significance of host and home cultural distance (see Section 2.7.4). On the contrary, Wielkiewicz & Turkowski (2010) explored the experience of American college students who sojourned to 13 different countries and returned home. They found that females were less able to cope with anxieties and had a stressful relationship with a significant other upon return.

Similarly, Stringham (1993) studied the repatriation of American missionary families and found that re-entry transition was relatively more difficult for women. However, Sussman (2001) found no relationship between gender and repatriation distress, calling for more exploration on this issue.

39

2.7.2 Marital Status

Some studies show that single sojourners experience greater difficulties upon the return than married ones (Cox, 2004; Hyder & Lövblad, 2007). According to Cox (2004), single sojourners identify more with the host culture and upon return experience higher levels of social difficulty.

Marriage, on the other hand, seems to provide a framework of social support upon return.

However, these empirical studies are limited to just one returning missionary group and further studies are needed to validate this conclusion.

2.7.3 Age

There is inconsistency in the literature regarding age as a factor in re-entry adjustment. Some research shows a positive relationship between age and re-entry adjustment, with the older the returnees, the fewer challenges they experience upon re-entry (e.g. Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963; Rohrlich & Martin, 1991; Cox, 2004; Hyder & Lövblad, 2007). Gullahorn & Gullahorn (1963), studied the experience of 5300 returning American scholars using cross-sectional methodology and applying culture shock theory. Their findings revealed that the readjustment process was not as stressful for older scholars as it was for younger ones. The researchers attributed this to the fact that older people are well established in their careers while younger ones felt lost upon their return. It seems likely that returning to a secure job minimises any feeling of uncertainty and contributes to a positive re-entry. However, it is the type of re-entry concerns that may affect readjustment, as young individuals are more concerned about rebuilding personal relationships while older returnees are more concerned about work-related issues (Szkudlarek, 2010). Thus, in relation to Gullahorn & Gullahorn’s (1963) study, older returnees experienced a change in their evaluation of certain situations and practices and sometimes felt nostalgic for their host universities while younger returnees faced identity conflict and discovered a shift in values as a result of ‘psychological relocation’ which they had never experienced before. Having experienced cross-cultural transition for the first time, young returnees are given the opportunity to feel independent and as a result, returning home could restrict this independence and contribute to any stress. On the contrary, Stringham (1993) examined the readjustment of missionary families and found that children seemed to readjust more easily than their parents. However, some researchers (e.g. Uehara, 1986) question the existence of any relationship between the two.

2.7.4 Cultural Distance

Cultural distance, the differences between the host and home country environments, has been shown to affect the adjustment process (Furnham & Bochner, 1982; Searle & Ward, 1990), as well as the repatriation experience (e.g. Kidder, 1992). In their study of international students’

40 adjustment to British society, Furnham & Bochner (1982) classified 29 different countries into three groups (near, intermediate and far), according to similarities in religion, language, and climate to British society. KSA was categorised as being far and very different. The authors found that culture distance and social difficulty are strongly related, i.e. the adjustment is more difficult for students coming from cultures that are very different from the host. This is consistent with other findings in the literature (Searle & Ward, 1990; Faragallah, et al., 1997;

Razek & Coyner, 2013).

Variables related to cultural distance include individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) some of these are discussed in (Section 1.5.5).

Another way to conceptualise cultural distance is through the categorisation of ‘tight’ or ‘loose’

cultures (Pelto, 1968; Triandis, 1989; 1994) (see Section 1.5.5).

It is theorised that sojourners who come from ‘tight’ cultures, where a behavioural code of conduct is, to some extent, strictly defined, and sojourn in a ‘loose’ culture, with few confining norms, experience negative re-entry compared to those who come from ‘loose’ cultures and sojourn in ‘tight’ cultures (Rohrlich & Martin, 1991). This could be related to the increased restriction on personal freedom during the sojourn which makes the return home a chance to regain this freedom, resulting in a positive re-entry. By contrast, in an ethnographic study of postgraduate international students in the UK, Brown & Graham, (2009) found that students from ‘collectivist’ societies, which could be considered ‘tight’ due to mutual obligations and expectations of conformity, develop individualistic characteristics while aborad, particularly independence and personal freedom, which may be incompatible with the home country norms upon re-entry and, as a result, may cause some issues (e.g. McDermott-Levy, 2013). However, our individualistic and collectivistic tendencies differ according to the people with whom we interact and is different, for example, towards one’s family as opposed to strangers (Gudykunst, 2004). Where and when we tend to be more individualistic or more collectivistic also differs according to the situation and time. This point raises further questions about whether such labelling is in any way useful.

2.7.5 Relationships Dynamics

One of the challenges that returnees face upon their return to their home country is the possibility of needing to redefine their relationships with family and friends who did not study abroad (Martin, 1986). Martin (1986) explored the change in relationships between family and friends of returning US students and found that relationships with friends were more

41

challenging than with parents or siblings, which were perceived to have changed more positively. This finding was also supported by Kartoshkina (2015). Wielkiewicz & Turkowski (2010) found that romantic relationships with a significant other did not seem to be negatively affected by the return to USA from different countries.

From another perspective, Al-Krenawi & Graham (2005) examined the re-acculturation process in relation to the marital distress of two Palestinian families who lived in the USA and returned home. The authors concluded that marital distress upon re-entry was a result of a husband’s adherence to the traditional gender norms of the society (e.g. polygamy), while the acculturation process abroad challenged aspects of the wife’s traditional role (e.g. being part of the extended family), and this was further reinforced upon re-entry.