Considerations in regards to the survey tool memo - CHE Consult

Globalisation,
international competencies
and exchange studies:
Considerations in regards
to the survey tool memo
Hannah Leichsenring
Uwe Brandenburg
Henrike Engels
Anne-Kathrin Kreft
Translation: Fiona Rosbach
Berlin, 2012

Monitoring Exchange Mobility Outcomes
Without a doubt, internationalisation is currently
en vogue: Especially in the higher education sector
efforts are being made to implement internationalisation
strategies in manifestos, strategy plans and
university profiles. National and European institutions
give massive financial support to these developments.
The ERASMUS exchange programme alone
has a volume of 7bn Euro (programmes from 2007 -
2013). But what exactly are the reasons for promoting
the internationalisation of education?
The internationalisation of teaching is unanimously
considered “good”. Internationalisation professionals
mostly work on the basis of a concept of internationalisation
that is reflected in e.g. Jane Knight‘s
definition (Knight, 1993), which characterises the
internationalisation of the higher education sector in
four ways:
- As a process
- As a resource
- As a means to align the higher education system
with international standards and also as
- A chance to create a system that is open to a globalised
environment (separate from the globalisation
process).
In their paper The End of Internationalization?, published
in 2011, Uwe Brandenburg and Hans de Wit critically
reflect on these generally undisputed presumptions
(Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011). They reject
Knight’s defintion and claim that internationalisation
and globalisation are used in the current debate as
antagonistic termini, whose respective meanings are
contentious or, rather, have become devalued. One
often says globalisation, when one actually means
neoliberalism, the currently predominating economic
paradigm.
Especially in recent days, as de Wit argues in his
critical comment from 2011 (de Wit, 2011), ever new
labels for internationalisation are introduced to the
debate, e.g. the term “comprehensive internationalization”,
which John Hudzik (Hudzik, 2011) presented
in the same year. De Wit points out that this new label
did not contain any new dimensions of internationalisation
but instead relates back to the commonly
established definition by Knight (Knight, 1993). In
regards to further definitions the tendency towards
repetitions and a lack in content is similarly noticeab-
www.memo-tool.net
le: „There is no other conclusion but that these labels
are tautologies, using different words to say the same
thing even if the repetition does not actually make the
meaning even clearer.” (de Wit, 2011)
Brandenburg and de Wit demand for the term or
rather for the concept Internationalisation to be filled
with new meaning, for its value to be reinstated and
furthermore to question, which means and activities
are utilised as part in the internationalisation processes
of HEIs and why these in particular. Although the
future of HEIs will doubtlessly have a global or, as the
case may be, international character: “Called for is a
common commitment at the institutional and personal
level of how we and our students will be prepared
to live and work in a global community” (Brandenburg
& de Wit, 2011, p. 17).
Hereby the concern is not only for the scientific, but
also for the cultural context: In this regard, the acquisition
of intercultural competencies has to be
seen as an important strategy for the preparation for
living and working within a globalised world whose
complexity should not be underestimated and was
described by Hofstede (Hofstede, 2009). Intercultural
competencies are therefore an attribute of increasing
relevance to educational policies and are also
a deciding factor in the selection of new employees.
The large amount of competency measurement tools
or scales employed for (international) personnel development,
which directly refer to the measurement
of intercultural competencies, document their importance
(see, e.g. (Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991)
(Cui & Awa, 1992) (Cui & Awa, 1992) (Kühlmann &
Stahl, 1998) (Bird & Osland, 2004)).
In his paper Was heißt ,Interkulturelle Kompetenz‘?
Perspektiven für die internationale Personalentwicklung,
Jürgen Bolten (Bolten, 2007) considers different
approaches to defining, measuring and advancing intercultural
competencies. He notes:
Accordingly, process models understand intercultural
competencies as a holistic interaction of individual,
social, technical and strategic actions in intercultural
contexts. “Intercultural competence“ is hereby shown
to be a term for a synergetic process, which therefore
cannot be limited to the area of soft skills, i.e. personal
or social aspects. As the term encompasses me-
2

Monitoring Exchange Mobility Outcomes
thodical and technical competency aspects as well
as social and personal ones (or presents itself as the
result of the interdependent processes of these competency
components), it equally includes “hard” and
“soft” factors (Bolten, 2007, p. 6).
A slightly more precise definition of intercultural competence
is suggested by Stefanie Rathje:
Intercultural competence can […] be seen as the ability
to create normality, which intercultural interactions
initially lack, and to thereby foster cohesion.
Following this idea, intercultural competence leads
to unknown differences becoming familiar […]. Intercultural
competence can also be seen as the ability
to convert “fleeting” interculture, which is characterised
by foreignness, into culture by creating cohesion
through normality. (Rathje, 2006, p. 14)
The acquisition of intercultural competence that is
deemed to be so important is promoted at nearly every
HEI through exchange programmes and similar activities.
However, up until now, no competency measurement
tool or, as the case may be, survey exists
that explicitly deals with what the students actually
learned and which abilities they gained while abroad,
how they fared physically and emotionally and how
they coped with the academic, social and cultural demands
of their stay abroad. Vice versa, possible negative
effects, e.g. through the cultural shock (Oberg,
1960), are not systematically monitored either.
//
The survey tool
www.memo-tool.net
Study mobility and what it means for
the students
HEIs consider student mobility as something that is
positive in principle. But do they know, what really
happens to the students during their stay abroad?
Whether this experience is helpful to their studies?
Do they know, what is important for the orientation
in an increasingly globalised world? The survey tool
memo measures the added value of mobility. This
does not mean simply surveying a person’s satisfaction.
The point is to detect, how the time abroad
changed the person. Thus, the students are surveyed
before and after their stay abroad. Behavioural and
attitudinal aspects are looked at and are considered
– also in conjunction with socio-economic aspects.
1. The survey tool memo
The memo survey tool is available in a growing number
of language versions, because each institution
will have the possibility to conduct the survey in
their students’ native language 1 . The memo student
survey consists of three sets of questions: One asks
about facts, one about perceptions and one about
attitudes.
1 In November 2012, the memo survey was available in English, German,
French, Finnish, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Catalan.
Facts
Perceptions
Attitudes
- Family background
- Course of study
- ...
- Satisfaction with support
- Ideas about future career
- ...
- Personal dispositions such as
resilience or curiosity
- ...
3

Monitoring Exchange Mobility Outcomes
The memo tool provides HEIs with information not
only on these aspects, but more importantly about
the interrelations between facts, perceptions and
attitudes and how this affects the outcome of study
exchange.
A psychometric approach underlies the set of questions
on attitudes, which are based on a research project
conducted in Germany that resulted in the survey
tool CHE-QUEST. This tool covers aspects concerning
the social as well as the academic requirements
of studying (Leichsenring, Sippel, & Hachmeister,
2011); the memo tool is also closely related to existing
scales used for determining intercultural competency
levels. These especially focus on tolerance of
ambiguity, openness, the ability to integrate and resilience.
These scales are deemed appropriate for the
measurement of how well the academic, social and
intercultural demands of a stay abroad were handled.
1.1 Personal Aspects
One aspect which shapes the situation in which the
student finds himself or herself when studying are
personal traits. For the study’s context, we focus on
two major elements: The first is the individual emotional
state, which contains the specific individual
tendency but also reflects the student’s emotional
reaction to the study experience. This aspect is also
dependent on the individual state of health. The
seceond element is the character trait of extroversion,
which reflects an outward looking attitude.
For an intercultural environment, two more aspects
need to be taken into account: Resilience or psychological
resistance. This is the ability to internally
rebalance oneself, when faced with external disturbances,
which is especially important in demanding,
stressful situations (Resilienzskala RS-25 (Leppert et
al., 2002) based on (Wagnild und Young, 1993)). The
second personal aspect, which comes into play in an
intercultural environment, is tolerance of ambiguity.
While some people view as negative situations that
are ambiguous, unstructured, below expectations,
contradictory and unusual, others perceive them as
stimulating (Reis, 1997). Tolerance of ambiguity is
even seen as a prerequisite for intercultural competence
(Bolten, 2007).
www.memo-tool.net
1.2 Social Aspects
The social demands of studying are twofold: First of
all, studying is about social integration, i.e. the frequency
of social contacts and the satisfaction with
the social aspect of the HEI’s internal environment as
well as with the relationships to other people at the
HEI. Another aspect relates to the social environment
as a support structure relevant to academic success.
Specifically, it comprises students’ readiness to request
help and accept help that is offered, within as
well as outside of the HEI.
In an intercultural environment, two further aspects
that are even more important have to be taken into
account: openness and sociability, since these reflect
also the interest and willingness to repeatedly
adjust to new situations and make different experiences.
People differ in how far they enjoy change,
exchange and questioning the traditional or prefer to
stick to what they already know and value (Borkenau
& Ostendorf, 2008). Successful internationalisation
means to gain more openness – but experiencing
intercultural environments might also lead to less
openness. Another social aspect – especially in the
context of a student exchange – is the ability to integrate,
which comprises the aspects of managing
oneself, integrity and team ability as well as an interest
in foreign cultures.
1.3 Academic Aspects
Academic aspects of studying are, in the course of
the memo project, assumed to transcend cultural
aspects. While we are aware of field-specific cultural
aspects, in memo we are following the idea of an
internationally similar academic culture (Parsons &
Platt, 1973). Therefore, we identify three aspects to
be relevant to a student’s performance in academia:
First of all, an interest in theoretical approaches and
frameworks and also the transfer between theory and
practice. Secondly, diligence is a necessary aspect,
and comprises commitment, time management, the
willingness to do something as well as what is called
the locus of control: The extent to which someone
believes that successful performances can be achieved
through one’s own efforts. Thirdly, we take into
account the degree of intrinsic motivation, signifying
the will to do something for oneself, because it is fun,
4

Monitoring Exchange Mobility Outcomes
satisfies interests or presents a challenge (as compared
to extrinsic motivation, where the motivation
stems from external gratification, such as reputation
or money). Intrinsic motivation is known to positively
affect attentiveness and the willingness to learn (Deci
& Ryan, 1985). It can be the reason for the decision to
study, but it can also change throughout the course
of one’s studies.
1.4 Orientation Aspects
Orientation aspects have proven to be the most influential
aspects of adaptation to studying in the German
context: In QUEST, these factors explain 83% of
the total adaptation value (Berthold & Leichsenring,
2012). Because the orientation aspects are meant solely
as aspects of orientation in a higher education
environment, we assume that they are only indirectly
(via social and personal aspects) affected by intercultural
influences.
Orientation aspects are threefold. First of all, orientation
is about expectations: Does a student meet his
or her own expectations regarding his or her performance
within the study environment, i.e. does this
environment allow the student to flourish? Secondly,
it is about goal orientation, which reflects a structured,
planned and well organised approach to hand-
Overview of the memo Factors
www.memo-tool.net
Factors of Personality
- Self-Efficacy
- Serenity
- Reselience
ling the requirements of studying as well as the goals
within and beyond education. Thirdly, orientation includes
the identification with the HEI, measuring the
quality of the relationship between the students and
the institution, represented by the degree programmes,
areas of study/schools and/or the HEI as a whole.
This reflects the extent of the satisfaction with the
studies in general (e.g. thoughts about dropping out)
and the specific relationship to one’s own HEI (e.g.
thoughts about changing HEIs).
2. The memo Factors
The memo factors have been created by the following
process: On the basis of the considerations explained
above, we compiled a list of 155 items. In a pretest
with 80 students these items were subjected to a
statistical factor analysis. The factor analysis yielded
with 126 psychometric items related to one another
in ten factors. In the current testing phase, the following
ten factors have been identified:
- Factor 1: Confidence
- Factor 2: Tolerance of Ambiguity
- Factor 3: Self-Efficacy
- Factor 4: Sociality
- Factor 5: Vigor
Factors of Community
- Sociality
- Curiosity
memo
total index
Factors of Flexibility
- Disputability
- Tolerance of Ambiguity
Factors of Direction
- Confidence
- Vigor
- Decisivenes
5

Monitoring Exchange Mobility Outcomes
- Factor 6: Curiosity
- Factor 7: Serenity
- Factor 8: Decisiveness
- Factor 9: Disputability
- Factor 10: Resilience
The factor analysis will be tested for different cultural
backgrounds during the testing phase. Also, their
influence on the memo total index and their interconnectivity
with other study-related aspects will be
analysed for different cultural contexts.
In the following, we describe the meaning of the
memo factors as well as the meaning of the memo
total index. While the memo factors and the memo
total index are attributes of the students, the memo
data does not aim to provide solely an assessment
of the students’ abilities to interact in different international
and intercultural contexts but also an
assessment of how well the design and management
of study or internship abroad programmes are suited
to enhance the students’ international competences.
The analysis of the added value produced by mobility
programmes therefore has to be understood also as
an assessment of the roles of the home and host institutions
in preparing their students for, and guiding
them through, their experience abroad.
Factor 1: Confidence
High values on this factor point to a high degree of
self-sufficiency and a strong conviction of one’s own
abilities – aspects that may positively impact academic
success. Individuals with high values on this factor
may, however, also be inflexible and set in their
ways.
Low values show doubt about one’s own abilities and
perseverance, which might be grounded in negative
experiences or insecurity.
Factor 2: Tolerance of Ambiguity
High values on this factor mean that a person is capable
to tolerate the behavior and values of other people
without compromising his or her own values.
Low values mean that a person feels very uncomfortable
if confronted with other persons’ different values
and ways of life. Such individuals may espouse a
more traditional view of things, based on their own
www.memo-tool.net
perspective and experience as influenced by family,
society and established norms and values. Deviation
from what is conceived as “normal” is perceived as
threatening or at least discomforting.
Factor 3: Self-Efficacy
High values indicate that the person is convinced that
he or she can influence the outcome of his or her ambitions
and efforts (such as study results), and that
these are not a matter of luck or coincidence. This
perspective is accompanied by a high self-awareness
and a good assessment of what is expected.
Low values not only suggest that a person does not
feel that he or she really can make a difference with
respect to the outcome of a certain task or situation,
but he or she also feels a certain ambiguity about the
demands and conditions of the task or situation.
Factor 4: Sociality
High values refer to an individual, who not only likes
to socialise, but who cannot be alone very well. For
these individuals, an active social life coincides with
good emotional well-being.
Low values indicate that the individual does not like
to mingle, but is better able to deal with negative feelings
such as rejection and is less concerned about
the opinion of others.
Factor 5: Vigor
High values reflect a “problem-solver”, who does
not like to delve into the insolvable aspects of a task
but focuses on the doable and also likes a challenge.
Such individuals may either be very pragmatic in
their approach to academic education, considering it
as a means to solve practical problems, or else very
theory-oriented in that they are attracted to problemsolving
as an academic exercise.
Low values reflect an individual, who is well aware of
problems or problematic aspects of a situation and
might be more concerned with identifying the problem
than with solving it. Accordingly, such an individual
would be less goal-oriented and may have an altogether
less future-oriented perspective on things.
6

Monitoring Exchange Mobility Outcomes
Factor 6: Curiosity
High values on this factor indicate that a person is
not only open to new experiences but seeks them actively.
This also applies to new academic challenges.
Low values hint at an altogether more reluctant attitude
towards new experiences and a greater appreciation
of what is familiar.
Factor 7: Serenity
High values on this factor indicate that a person
knows his or her strengths and weaknesses. This
good self-assessment not only leads to a more relaxed
relationship to other people or new demands,
but also might prevent disappointments with the higher
education institution.
Low values, on the other hand, suggest an altogether
higher stress level, which can be caused by
a misjudgment of one’s own abilities, accompanied
by troubles to understand the demands and requirements
of the university.
Factor 8: Decisiveness
High values point to an active and decisive individual,
who may have a critical attitude toward the content
of his or her study programme.
Low values suggest that the individual is more likely
to reconsider his or her decisions to accommodate
the opinion of others.
Factor 9: Disputability
High values characterise an individual, who engages
easily in and enjoys discussions, feels passionately
about things and also does not hesitate to voice his
or her opinion in an academic environment.
An individual with low values keeps his/her opinion
to him/herself, not only because of a less fierce
conviction, but also in order to avoid confrontations.
Such an individual is more hesitant to engage in discussions
in seminars.
www.memo-tool.net
Factor 10: Resilience
An individual with high values deals well with negative
experiences and therefore does not fear possible
future setbacks. In the academic context, this goes
along with physical well-being and a belief in one’s
own strength and ability.
Students with low values on this factor feel exhausted
and overwhelmed, which can be accompanied
by further symptoms like sadness, sleeplessness or
a certain helplessness. Such students find it hard to
find and accept help or support.
memo total index
The above memo factor values have been combined
into a memo total index. The memo total index comprises
aspects of study adaptation as well as aspects
reflecting the ability to deal with foreign concepts,
cultures and values. High values on the memo total
index reflect a very comprehensive ability to adapt to
the demands of an international study context, while
low values may indicate aspects that leave room for
improvement – with help and support from the university.
//
The unique contribution of the memo study is that we
cannot only describe in great detail how the students
who go abroad differ from each other in socio-economic
terms, in their perceptions and in the attitudes
relevant to an international study context, but also
how these attitudes change between the pre- and the
post-stay abroad survey: By conducting the survey
before and after the stay abroad and comparing the
results, we can decribe the changes affected by the
exchange, and how these changes impact the students‘
attitudes towards studying. In this way, memo
measures the added value of the students’ stay abroad
towards their study success.
7

Monitoring Exchange Mobility Outcomes
3. Bibliography
Beck, U. (1997). Was ist Globalisierung. Frankfurt/M.
Berthold, C., Leichsenring, H. (Eds.) (2012). Diversity
Report. Gütersloh.
Bird, A., Osland, J. (2004). Global competencies: An
introduction. In H. Lane, M. Maznevski, M. Mendenhal,
J. McNett, Handbook of global management. Oxford:
Blackwell. p. 57-80
Black, J., Mendenhall, M., Oddou, G. (1991). Toward
a comprehensive model of international adjustment:
An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives.
Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 291-317.
Bolten, J. (2007). Interkulturelle Kompetenz. Erfurt:
Landeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Bolten, J. (2007). Was heißt „Interkulturelle Kompetenz“?
Perspektiven für die internationale Personalentwicklung.
In V. K. Berninghausen (Hrsg.), Wirtschaft
als interkulturelle Herausforderung. Frankfurt
a. Main. p. 21-42
Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F. (2008). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren
Inventar nach Costa und McCrae (NEO-FFI). Manual
(2nd ed.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H. (2011). The End of Internationalization.
International Higher Education, 62,
p. 15-17.
Chen, G. (1987). Dimensions of intercultural communication
competence. Ohio: Kent State University.
Costa, P., McCrae, R. (1989). NEO PI/FFI manual supplement
for use with the NEO Personality Inventory
and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Odessa, Fl.: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P., McCrae, R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI). Professional manual. Odessa, Fl.: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Cui, G., Awa, N. (1992). Measuring intercultural effectiveness:
An integrative approach. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 16(3), 311–326.
www.memo-tool.net
Cui, G., Van den Berg, S. (1991). Testing the construct
validity of intercultural effectiveness. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 227-241.
de Wit, H. (2011). GLOBAL: Naming internationalization
will not revive it. Download 14.03.2012 from
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.
php?story=20111021215849411
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation
and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum.
Dinges, N., Baldwin, K. (1996). Intercultural competence:
A research perspective. In D. Landis, R. Bhagat,
Handbook of intercultural training. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. p. 106-123
Dyal, J. (1984). Cross-cultural research with the locus
of control construct. In H. Lefcourt, Research with
the locus of control construct. San Diego: Academic
Press. p. 209-306
Hammer, M. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural
effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 11, p. 65-88.
Hammer, M., Gudykunst, W., Wiseman, R. (1978). Dimensions
of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory
study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
2, p. 382-393.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture‘s Consequences – Comparing
Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations
Across Nations (2. Ausg.). London, Neu Delhi:
Thousand Oaks.
Hofstede, G. (2009). Lokales Denken, globales Handeln
(4th ed.). DTV Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive Internationalization.
From Concept to Action. Download 14.03.2012
from http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_
Home/Resource_Library_Assets/Publications_Library/2011_Comprehen_Internationalization.pdf
Hull, W. (1978). Foreign students in the United States
of America: Coping behavior within the educational
environment. New York: Praeger.
Klineberg, O., Hull, W. (1979). At a foreign university:
An international study of adaptation and coping. New
York: Praeger.
8

Monitoring Exchange Mobility Outcomes
Knight, J. (1993). Internationalization: management
strategies and issues. International Education Magazine,
9, p. 21-22.
Knight, J. (2011). Is Internationalisation having an
Identity Crisis? imhe-info (OECD) .
Kühlmann, T., Stahl, G. (1998). Diagnose interkultureller
Kompetenz: Entwicklung und Evaluierung eines
Assessment Centers. In C. Barmeyer, J. Bolten. Interkulturelle
Personalorganisation. Berlin: Verlag Wissenschaft
Praxis. p. 213-223
Leichsenring, H., Sippel, S., Hachmeister, C.-D. (2011).
CHE-QUEST – Ein Fragebogen zum Adaptionsprozess
zwischen Studierenden und Hochschule. Download
01.09.2011 from http://www.che.de/downloads/
CHE_AP144_QUEST_Entwicklung_und_Test_des_
Fragebogens.pdf
Lüsebrink, H.-J. (2005). Interkulturelle Kommunikation.
Stuttgart.
Martin, J. N., Hammer, M. (1989). Behavioral categories
of intercultural communication competence:
Everyday communicators’ perceptions. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, p. 303-332.
Mendenhall, M., Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions
of expatriate acculturation: A review. Academy of Management
Review, 10(1), p. 39-47.
Münch, R. (1990). Code, Struktur und Handeln. In H.
Haferkamp, Sozialstruktur und Kultur. Frankfurt/M.
p. 54–94.
Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: adjustment to new
cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, p.
177–182.
Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A. (2004). NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar
nach Costa und McCrae, Revidierte Fassung
(NEO-PI-R). Manual. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Parker, B., McEvoy, G. (1993). Initial examination of a
model of intercultural adjustment. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 17, p. 355-79.
Parsons, T., Platt, G. M. (1973). The American University.
Boston: Harvard University Press.
Pruitt, F. (1978). The adaptation of African students to
American society. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 21, 90-118.
www.memo-tool.net
Rathje, S. (2006). Interkulturelle Kompetenz – Zustand
und Zukunft eines umstrittenen Konzeptes.
Zeitschrift für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht,
3/11, p. 1-17.
Reis, J. (1997). Ambiguitätstoleranz. Beiträge zur Entwicklung
eines Persönlichkeitskonstruktes. Heidelberg.
Ruben, B. (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence:
Traditions and contemporary issues. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, p. 229-239.
Ruben, B., Kealey, D. (1979). Behavioral assessment
of communication competency and the prediction of
cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 3, p. 15-47.
Satow, L. (2011). Psychomeda Big-Five-Persönlichkeitstest
(B5T): Skalendokumentation und Normen.
Schoen, H., Schumann, S. (2005). Persönlichkeit:
Eine vergessene Größe der empirischen Sozialforschung.
Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Searle, W., Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological
and socio-cultural adjustment during crosscultural
transitions. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 14, p. 449-464.
Varner, I., Palmer, T. (2005). Role of cultural selfknowledge
in successful expatriation. Singapore Management
Review, 27(1), p. 1-25.
Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis, R. Bhagat,
Handbook of intercultural training. 2nd Ed.
Thousand Oaks: Sage. p. 124-147
Ward, C., Kennedy, A. (1993). Acculturation and
cross-cultural adaptation of British residents in Hong
Kong. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, p. 395-397.
Ward, C., Kennedy, A. (1992). Locus of control, mood
disturbance, and social difficulty during cross-cultural
transitions. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 16, p. 175-194.
Ward, C., Kennedy, A. (1993). Psychological and socio-cultural
adjustment during cross-cultural transitions:
A comparison of secondary students at home
and abroad. International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 24, p. 221-249.
9

Monitoring Exchange Mobility Outcomes
Ward, C., Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of
sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 23(4), p. 659-677.
Ward, C., Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value
discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological
and socio-cultural adjustment of sojourners. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, p. 209-
225.
Contact
Uwe Brandenburg, M.A., MScEcon
CHE Consult GmbH
Warschauer Str. 32
10243 Berlin
Germany
Tel.: +49 30 30 2332267-44
Fax: +49 30 2332267-45
E-Mail: uwe.brandenburg@che-consult.de
www.memo-tool.net
10