Report on the evaluation of Interculture Project Experience
Murray Saunders
July 2000

_____________________________________________________________________
Introduction
This report is the final input from Murray Saunders as one of the project’s internal/external evaluators.  This role is described in appendix 1.  Importantly the role of evaluator has evolved rather derived from a pre-conceived evaluation brief.  The role and the evaluation outputs have not been conventional.  They have included the following activities

•	Attendance at steering group meetings
•	Participation in discussions during meetings
•	Comment and advice on the research and evaluative dimensions
•	Commentary on key features of the meetings
•	Informal discussion and comment with members of the central team at Lancaster

This report signals a shift from a solely formative role for evaluation to one which includes summative elements to coincide with the final project report submitted by the project team.  The focus for this strand of the evaluation is on what has been experienced  as a process by project participants rather than on the substantive content or quality of the project products.  To this end it will explore the following issues.

•	project management style, effectiveness and appropriateness.

•	partnership and inter-team relationships

•	expectations and uses which have been prompted by project participation.  This will  include both anticipated and un-anticipated outcomes

•	successes and difficulties in project participation

Method
The evidence for this strand was gained in two ways:

•	Telephone interviews with all key participants and stakeholders
•	Opportunistic discussions at workshops and meetings
•	
See appendix 2 for the interview schedule.  Interviews were carried out with nine individuals from the Lancaster University team and Department and other institutional partners.  This report contains illustrative quotes and thematic summaries.

Timing
The interviews and discussions will be undertaken between May and July of 200

Evolving expectations of project participation
The expectations of participation varied according to the role the individual had within or their connection to the project.  Expectations included both substantive expectations about the nature of the work and the potential outcomes and the way in which the project unfolded.

For some, there were no particular expectations or they were shaped by the nature of the original proposal, albeit broad in shape

‘I thought it would feed directly into our own understanding of the year abroad’

‘I didn’t really have any, I couldn’t say I had a very defined set of expectations other than doing something to make the experience of students better’

‘I thought it was going to be about identifying problems and working out how to prepare students better’

‘What has happened has more or less conformed with what I imagined but what we have achieved as a group has exceeded expectations’

For others, the implications of project involvement were stressed.  These expectations included potential institutional advantages and a sense the potential costs and benefits of participation.

‘The institution has been keen to get involved in it, it is quite a prestigious thing to do’

‘Initially there was an expectation that we would get a national profile for a collaborative project, there was a prestige component’

‘I thought we would be ‘trialling’ for others who had produced material rather in our own right.  This implied a small commitment, the amount of work involved was unanticipated’

The expectations span substantive issues concerning project emphasis and personal and institutional gains as well as elements of personal growth.  These expectations shifted during the evolution of the project.  The project clarity shifted over time.  The first part of the project involved building the data base with relatively little ‘independent’ work on the part of the partners.  Once this began, the project ‘came alive’.  The benefits of participation became clearer and in this way many positive expectations were realised.  The following headlines give a flavour of these changes

‘When we started interviewing and what we were doing was going to be of use to us and the project and also other projects, we got the ‘wheels in motion’ but, the amount of work was still more than we thought’ [partner]
‘What has been realised has been feeding directly into the away we manage our year abroad.  The whole issue is higher up the agenda than it was’[institutional stakeholder]

As a project process, the level of complexity was not anticipated and required an open and receptive approach from the perspective of project co-ordination both in terms of the diverse levels and nature of participation and the different emphases participants put on aspects of the project.

‘ I have learned to subordinate my own ego, not take things too personally or to heart and not to mind if people think I am daft, as long as agreed objectives are met [project co-ordinator]

‘What was not clear at the outset was how the collection of data and the material production would actually take place.  There was nothing stated in the original proposal.  There was a massive learning process going on in the first year’[project co-ordinator]

‘Basically, the project has remained as we thought it would but it has been interesting to find out how projects like this run’ [project co-ordinator]

‘There has always been a tension between the research and the material production in my view.  In the end though the two have come together quite well [Lancaster team]

‘I think it has been more about research from our point of view, working with the data’ [Lancaster team]

‘As the project went on, I got a clearer sense.  The project educated me in the theory of intercultural education’ [partner]

Unanticipated or unexpected aspects of project participation
What follows in this section are a series of summary points of the way in which participants describe the unexpected in the project.  These are both substantive elements of participation and elements of process.

•	The amount of work and commitment was more for all concerned than had been anticipated.  This involved considerable reorganising of priorities and pressure to complete before deadlines while undertaking other non project commitments.  This of course is the standard circumstances for anyone working on this kind of funded activity.

•	From some partners view, there was some uncertainty about how sub projects fitted or connected to the research dimension.

•	The research dimension was a stronger feature of the project than anticipated

•	The quality of the workshops and seminars exceeded expectations in terms of shared learning and exchange.

•	In the view of the project co-ordinator, partners were often able to exceed their own expectations of what was possible within budget and time constraints.

•	There was a realisation by members of the co-ordination team that there were quite high levels of devolved responsibility and individuals had unexpected responsibility for ‘making sure things happened’.

•	The management style was different to previous experience for some partners.  The evolving nature of the project and the personal style of project co-ordination resulted, in their view, both hands off and more administrative control at different points in project evolution.  Institutional pressures and the rhythm of project demands sometimes resulted in less than transparent decisions in the central team.

•	The project was complicated and difficult to predict or se how all the elements fitted together., particularly the balance between the teaching goals and those of research.

•	There was surprise by one of the partners at the centrality of the role of ethnography in some of the approaches

Positive aspects of project participation
While project participation had induced some anxieties and difficulties.  Participants were very clear about a range of positive dimensions of the experience

•	The quality and potential use of the data bases produced by the project were very high.  The use and potential of the materials produced by the project were unanimously endorsed as very worthwhile.

•	The research resources produced by the project are of an exceptionally high quality and make a real contribution to knowledge and practice in intercultural education.

•	The project acted as a model for the development of a research and project culture within departments along with immediate resources for teaching

•	The project enabled participants to engage in a strongly collaborative activity in which an idea ‘was made to happen’ in an intellectually challenging environment.

•	It provided a basis for positive external recognition

•	It provided good quality research training opportunities and networking

•	It developed a very collaborative culture in which ‘everyone had their say’

Particular difficulties of project participation

•	It provided an opportunity to rehearse the difficulties of time management under severe time constraints

•	It provided the opportunity to gain experience of managing a large data set.

•	There were very real ambiguities in the expectations of partners

•	There was far more work involved in participation than expected

•	From a broader perspective, there was an unclear relationship between this project and other projects funded under the same initiative-there were considerable areas of overlap.

•	From the perspective of project management, one of the most demanding aspects of the project was associated with managing the complex set of relations in the Lancaster team.  These issues centre on the degrees of transparency and open-ness in decision making, which varied, although the consensus was that real attempts were made to create ‘open-ness’.  The second area centres on personal style and the requirement to manage the relatively intense environment of diverse operating styles and agendas which inevitably characterise a project of this kind

•	Also from a project management perspective, the core ‘business’ of the project demanded a grasp of complex and demanding conceptual issues which were volatile and evolving.

•	Throughout the project, but in diverse ways, participants experienced the degrees and levels of responsibility and involvement sometimes difficult to judge.  This involvement appeared to be beyond what might be considered fair and appropriate on occasions.  Again, this uncertainty is inevitable in what is essentially an organic and evolving project operational brief.  Like most projects of this type, participants were involved for only part of their time and this ‘part’ hinged on personal negotiation and judgements on priorities and circumstance.  An outcome of these factors is a level of anxiety about appropriate involvement.  No amount of central steer can address this issue.  Interestingly, participants were able to report a reduction in this anxiety as the project evolved and roles and obligations became more stabilised.

•	Difficulties were also identified with managing the differences in style and priorities between partners on some occasions.

Project management process and style
There were several opportunities for participants to discuss aspects of project management style.  The following themes are drawn from the most salient observations.  What follows are the words and phrases used by participants to capture the project management style. While there are some continuities, the diversity of nuance is interesting.

‘The project was firmly managed in difficult circumstances in terms of project origins and extreme time pressures’

‘There was an open style, all staff involved have been allowed to make a contribution, in other projects that hasn’t always happened.’

‘The project embodied a combination of direction and decentralisation-a blend of the two’

‘It was good working within an agreed framework for action and responsibility’

‘We aspired to advance planning but because of pressures and circumstances sometimes planning became last minute’

‘the management style changed from open-ness at first with relatively little steer to more direction and formal agreements on tasks from projects’

‘Open-ness was characterised as a ‘lack of clarity of long and short aims’ on occasions.  Quite a lot of trouble shooting occurred which arose from the uneven rhythm of the project’

‘There was an open-ness in the project but also inexplicit agendas which had to be addressed, for example the RAE pressures were quite evident in terms of institutional expectations’

‘The style was also characterised as ‘straight talking’, straight forward, no nonsense and a sense of knowing where you were’

‘There was a ‘naive enthusiasm’ with only a broad idea of where the project would end up.  This resulted in some administrative rigidities with an ‘open-ness’ of vision.  For some people, this combination of features was not unexpected given the organic nature of the project, but could be difficult to manage’

Specific areas of project management
•	Overall, communication effectiveness in the project was considered high, the information flow was good, tasks were defined and deadlines agreed.

•	The extent to which there was a strongly shared vision of the project [ more extended notion of communication] is more difficult to assess.  The project was characterised by multi-dimensional personal and institutional goals within a broad framework.  Balancing these agendas within the parameters was challenging but participants considered that a balance had been achieved.

•	Inevitably the experience of decision making differed between the Lancaster team and the project as a whole.  Across the project, decision making was experienced  as open, particularly once sub projects were agreed.  The Lancaster team environment was more intense and some perceived a process of factoring into decisions, issues which embodied institutional pressures.

•	The clarity of project goals evolved from the development of the data base during the initial stages, during which the use and scope of the data base was inevitably uncertain and continuously developing to the relative stability in the latter stages of the project once the sub projects were agreed.

Learning points from the management experience
Because the Interculture project was complex, it seemed likely that it would yield a number of learning points for managing complex project processes for future participants.  This was indeed the case as the following themes suggest.

It is difficult to move at an early stage to precise specifications of roles, tasks and elements in an evolving brief.  This results in periods of ‘discomfort’ or ‘uncertainty’ for project participants.  However, clarity in this area as soon as possible militates against negative effects.

A tough stance on deadlines and adhering to agreed timescales is important in complex projects

The role of face to face meetings at regular intervals is important for clarifying nuances, building momentum and developing commitment.

Open styles of decision making were considered ultimately worth while despite periods of discomfort or uncertainty.  The balance between open-ness and leadership is difficult to broker.

Project management evolves and it is impossible to pre-specify all project elements.  In Interculture there was a sense from all participants that the quality of the management improved as the project moved on.  Judgements about agreed deliverables from each partner was considered a key turning point.  Explicit recognition of these uncertainties at the outset of the project might improve mis-matches in expectation.

There should be explicit confirmation of project members and their core and peripheral status in order to assess the limits and possibilities of their legitimate contributions.

In retrospect, an explicit recognition of the sub-group process at an earlier stage of the project might have reduced uncertainties and increased effective early use of time and resources.  To be concrete, data gathering and sub project work could have proceeded in parallel.

The need for large amounts of communication can be under-estimated, as one participant put it ‘always communicate more than you think you need to’

Project managers should try not to compromise on quality and standards.  While often difficult and risking accusations of unreasonable demands, all participants considered the quality of the outputs of the projects as very high.

Overview
Interculture is a complex project characterised by ambitious yet broad goals and a partnership structure in which the specification of implementation protocols, tasks, division of labour and the timing and balance of various elements and specifications of outputs were negotiated through project agreements and decisions.  The partners were heterogeneous working in quite different contexts with a variety of expectations, resources and aims.  Interculture had also a research led approach to much of its work which resulted in a two stage chronology to the project and a two stage character to partner relations.

Overall, co-ordination and management of the project has responded to these complexities but inevitably they have produced periods of discomfort and uncertainty which have been difficult to manage.  There has been an overall attempt at open-ness in decision making which all participants recognise and valued and they also recognise that a consistent balance between direction, responsiveness and open-ness is always difficult to achieve in such complex environments.
 
The cohesion of the project improved over time as tasks and goals became clearer and commitment grew.  Participants all ‘learned’ to work together and the effectiveness of the co-ordination of the project reflected this learning curve in a positive way.

Perhaps the quality of the management dimension of the project should ultimately be contextualised by the unanimously positive over view from all participants of the outcomes of the project.  That most partners expressed the view that the project had involved more work than they had anticipated or that they had put in and got out much more than they initially thought they would, we can say that that Interculture has produced excellent value for money!

Appendix 1

Progress report on the my activities as evaluation consultant to the Interculture Project 

Murray Saunders [Internal Evaluator]

Introduction
I have attended 5 meetings in my capacity as internal evaluator.  After these meetings I have endeavoured to provide both verbal and written feedback to the participants.  The meetings I have attended are detailed below. This report is intended to provide an account to external stakeholders of my role in the project.  In addition to summaries of the main contributions I have made to the project, I have included an overview of discussions with members of the central team on aspects of the management and implementation of the project.

The evaluation brief
Importantly my role as evaluator has evolved rather derived from a pre-conceived evaluation brief.  The role and the evaluation outputs have not been conventional.  They have included the following activities

•	Attendance at steering group meetings
•	Participation in discussions during meetings
•	Comment and advice on the research and evaluative dimensions
•	Commentary on key features of the meetings
•	Informal discussion and comment with members of the central team at Lancaster

It was decided that the he main involvement with the project would be this ‘participant observer’ role during meetings.  It is on this ‘presence’ that I will report.

Meetings attended

•	The second meeting of the consortium and advisory group, Lancaster University, 7/11/97

•	The first Interculture Workshop, Sheffield University, 28/2/98

•	The third meeting of the consortium and advisory group, CILT, London 22.5.98

•	The fourth meeting of the consortium and advisory group, Lancaster University, 16/9/98

•	The fifth meeting of the consortium and advisory group, University of Central Lancashire, 22/1/99

1.	Lancaster University 7/11/97
The first meeting I attended was mainly concerned with feedback from the central team on the main inquiry methods used on which to base the development work and brief overviews of the circumstances of each participating institution.  There was an overall understanding by all parties on the demands and expectations of this phase but some sensitivity on the part of the co-ordinating team at Lancaster on the rather differing circumstances in each site concerning the timing, quantity and quality of the data from the main instruments.  It seemed to me that this sensitivity has continued to be a feature of the management of the project.  The role of the evaluators was not discussed in any detail and their participant observer status emerged in a naturalistic way during the meeting.  This initial meeting created the basis for my future interactions which were primarily ‘formative’ with direct feedback on both process and content to the Lancaster team.

2.	Sheffield University workshop 28/2/98
This was the first workshop of the Interculture Project aimed at involving a range of project stakeholders in a consideration of the issues emerging from the pilot data gathering exercise to date. The stakeholders included project participants from the HI involved, representatives from FDTL and students who had undertaken study and work abroad. The brief as it unfolded, was to use the data as a resource to support discussion of key issues rather than a discussion of the status, quality and use of the data as such.  As established in the first meeting I attended, my role was as participant observer.  I gave a brief overview of aspects of the process and content of the workshop at the end of the day.

The pilot data

The exposition of the scope and nature of the pilot data was full and illuminating. 

Two key issues emerged from the brief discussion:

1. The data set was large and issues were arising concerning its use and analysis. The status and role of the pilot stage appeared to me to be an important yet slightly undeveloped area of discussion. It will be important to decide whether the year 1 data will be used solely to refine and evolve better instruments, clearer interrogative themes etc. for the main study or will be used as data in its own right.

2. The second point refers to the analysis of the interview data which was yielding a large number of separately coded items. It will be necessary to use techniques which progressively focus on a series of ‘layers’ or ‘levels’ of theme. This will enable the identification of ‘meta-themes’ under which the minutiae of individual examples can be identified. 

The workshops

The workshops were structured around the consideration of two broad issues. The first considered the experience of dysfunction and the second involved sharing good practice. The sessions were supported by examples of data from questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and diaries. This data was very evocative and useful for the discussions. However, there was not a clear brief to the groups to go beyond the use of the data as a prompt or aid for discussion, to a consideration of the data in its own terms. I will return to this issue later. 

The first session considered the notion of ‘dysfunction’ which referred to those areas of a student’s experience which had caused some difficulty. The operationalisation of the notion does have some difficulties in that it gives a ‘deficit’ view of problematic or complex aspects of any intercultural relationship. Dysfunction implies the possibility of entirely functional or ‘problem’ free experience. We should be careful not to identify quite proper areas of difficulty or discomfort as ‘dysfunction’. Each groups within the workshop was asked to consider dysfunction under one of five broad headings. 

sociolinguistic
social conventions
interpersonal
administrative
workplace culture and tasks

The second session provided a greater emphasis on sharing good practice from the different stakeholders’ points of view. Growing out of the first session foci, the groups were asked to consider practice in the preparation of students under the following headings

linguistic
cultural
psychological
administrative
workplace

Each group was asked to provide a summary to which they spoke during a plenary at the end of the session. The content of the group discussion is available to the project in the form of these summaries so I will not dwell on the content here. Rather I will make some general points about the nature of the group process, the summaries and their potential use.

•	The groups found large areas of overlap between the foci identified for discussion. This resulted in a ‘reining back’ process in the conversations as discussants felt they were straying into another territory. This serves to confirm the inter-relationships between cultural, linguistic and personal factors in social practice and to the fact that technical linguistic competence may not be the key or primary variable in determining an experience abroad.

•	Groups found the data a stimulating and evocative resource for their conversations. These data then, yielded further data drawn from the experience of the stakeholders. What was interesting about this process is that the sessions generated a series of contingent analyses of key dimensions of the ‘intercultural’ experience. The analyses were partly making sense of the examples of data but partly based on the ‘experiential data’ of workshop participants. This fusion provided a rich resource for the project.

•	The categories and interpretations produced by the workshop should be stored as potential analytical themes for use in three ways. First, to make sense of the year 1 data and to refine or check it to make sure it is of the right quality and form to illuminate discussion of the project objectives. Second, the analyses can be used to suggest changes or adjustments in the instruments ready for the main study. Third, the categories can be used as a way of gaining provisional analytical purchase on the data of the main study.
•	The data enabled the discussions to focus on a good range of critical incidents or sites in order to contextualise or check emerging analyses. There was high degree of ‘authenticity’ in the quality of the observations both of ‘dysfunction’ and ‘good practice’. In other words the data ‘felt’ right and raised issues which were professionally familiar to the discussants. However, it was not just a matter of confirmation. There were instances in which discussants were able to take their own understanding of the processes at work during study or working abroad further by the session interactions.

•	The quality of the dissuasion might be illustrated by reference to an interesting issue which arose around the nature and purposes of preparation. It was acknowledged that preparation should not scare or overface a student and that part of the excitement and power of the experience was precisely in the negotiation of the unexpected and unfamiliar. On the other hand it was considered very important to prepare students well for the procedural, legal and organisational differences they might encounter. This led to an interesting interchange on the extent to which good preparation was more to do with enabling students to manage the unfamiliar with grace and openness than trying to reduce ‘discomfort’. The preparation of students for potential feelings of one dimensionality [blandness] or marginality etc. was one way of addressing this issue.

•	The experience of students might be broadly divided into two broad categories. On the one hand were the experiences which made reference to cultural, legal, organisational procedures and on the other, were experiences which made reference to an individual’s personal style, personality and sense of self. The third category might be the contexts in which these features combine to impact on the overall experience.

Summary

•	The pilot project had generated a wide range of data.

•	There is a need to clarify the relationship of the data collected to date to the main project.

•	It may be used to check quality of the data, refine the research instruments and derive analytical themes.

•	The workshops enabled a valuable interchange of analyses and examples of good practice.

•	The experience of students was ‘holistic’ thus themes overlapped.

•	Themes involve procedural, personal and contextual dimensions which combine to determine the quality of the experience.

3.	CILT London 21/5/98
As in previous meetings, I was struck by the high level of engagement project participants had with both the substantive discussions of aspects of the project and the organisational issues. It is important to note that there was a 'problem solving' rather than 'problem spotting' mind set in the group. What I have included below are some thoughts which arise from observations/contributions during the meeting. They do not have any particular order and include both substantive points as well as matters of organisation etc.

Diaries
The idea of using diaries was a common theme. We discussed the way in which diarising can be 'unpacked' to include some rather different processes, all of which might have some uses as learning aids as well as research instruments.

Diary as log : logging events, moments, happenings, facts. Descriptive and relatively non analytical. Used as resource for later diarising activity.

Diary as confidant ; streams of consciousness, feelings, anxieties, highs, lows, highly emotive, unrestrained, unedited very personal. Not usually for external eyes but useful for priority setting and to reflect on personal impact etc.

Diary as journal : more measured accounts, reflections, based on sorting, sifting, analysis in retrospect, more stable feelings and conclusions about priority events. Meant for the more public domain, offering learning points for other's use. Drawing on both the previous types of diary as a main resource.

Diary as future plans : where do we go from here on the basis of these reflections and thoughts. Recommendatory, planning ahead, the 'I wouldn't have started from here' opportunity to pose alternative approaches.

Data analysis
There are many fascinating possibilities for interesting cross tabs from the data. These might include not just baseline variables but also comparisons between groups of different answers. i.e. groups who don't enjoy  x against those who do compared against a third variable e.g. preparation.

Integrating research and teaching
There was a very interesting debate about the integration of research and teaching and learning. I believe quite strongly that Universities should emphasise research led learning. The diary issue is a case in point. Other possibilities are through the guided focus group activity in which source material from the project is used as a cue or prompt. Other possibilities lie in the development of CPD[continuous professional development of staff] resources in which data from the project is used to prompt planning and consciousness raising activities amongst staff.

Year abroad and curricular integration
It seemed a good idea from where Mike and I were sitting to begin to consider the connections between preparation, experience and 'debriefing' or the integration of an experience abroad into the general curriculum of a student on return. Again this could be research led in a creative way to link with so called transferable or generic skills.

Institutional responsibilities
Finally, we had a very interesting discussion on the future organisation of the project in which central coherence might be maintained with a slightly more devolved development work amongst 'project groups' working on themes.  What follows is my understanding of key aspects of the discussion.

a] The overall project should be kept on track via three monthly 'milestone meetings' at which progress is checked, problems are identified, changes negotiated and to which thematic groups report. This is an horizontal action.

b] In between times, thematic groups based on interest and feasibility undertake further 'horizontal actions' for the whole project in which sub themes are pursued and work undertaken on behalf of everyone. These groups should circulate short docs at least one week before the milestone meetings to aid discussion.

c] Horizontal thematic group work can be negotiated at milestone meetings at which their brief is made clear and timelines are decided. In most cases, this work will build on the 'vertical' or institution specific work theme members are carrying out.

d] Resources for this thematic work will be allocated on the basis of transparent criteria developed by the central co-ordinating team.

e] The central team will continue with the horizontal work associated with the analysis and collation of data collected by all team members.

This broad approach was adopted by the central co-ordinating team in Lancaster

4.	Lancaster University,16/9/98
This meeting was intensive and concerned primarily with consideration of methodological issues and the nature of the main deliverables for the project.  

Questionnaires
There was an interesting discussion on the quality of the data from the questionnaire. Clearly the questionnaire had generated a wide range of rich data from which it should be possible to derive some more fine gained issues and themes to pursue in this current phase. It was clear however that the coding frame used with the questionnaire was operating at too greater level of specificity. It is important to derive categories of a generic enough level to not simply reproduce lists of individual responses which would appear to be the case in the current approach. The reason for this is that the cell sizes will be so small as to render any form of statistical analysis difficult.

Diaries
This work was very interesting and already yielding some fascinating possibilities in terms of the project’s core purposes. The use of sauce linguistic analysis and narrative content analysis should be useful in the identification of the way in which students from the UK tacitly position themselves in linguistic interactions with people from other cultures. The taxonomic approaches being developed will also serve to sort and sift the data effectively into the areas, events and sites of interaction. I was very struck by the evocative nature of the descriptions of critical incidents and how they might be used for the development curricular materials.

NUDIST
This was an important discussion. It seemed to me that one could distinguish between the general research potential offered by the qualify of the data emerging from the use of NUDIST to sort and sift the data and the requirements of the project. NUDIST is resource heavy in terms of entering all available data for analysis in the time available in the project. It may now be possible to identify a deadline for project purposes after which material is checked manually to see if any new categories of experience are emerging. The job of entering the material for research purposes, outside the immediate requirements of the project, might contribute on a long term basis. I am not convinced that NUDIST is the best mechanism for archiving the material for general use by students and staff. Critical incidents and vignettes might be categorised thematically and accessed more simply than NUDIST allows.

Deliverables

The project appears to me to be well on the way to addressing its central purposes. The discussion identified a number of important deliverables along with the forms they might take. There was general agreement that there should be a thematically organised core research report based on the central analyses of questionnaire, interview and diary material. This might also contain summary conclusions from the sub reports completed by the participating teams. However, the sub teams should submit reports on their activities which stand alone and can be included as deliverables to HEFCE.

The core and sub reports should form the main resource on which the development of curricular materials might draw. Although in their early stages, the following ideas were among those discussed and were subsequently developed.

•	General summary reports of experiences of time abroad students to sensitise prospective student to key issues. These could be simply used as tutorial group stimuli
•	Vignettes and scenarios to illustrate moments of potential culture clash or dissonance
•	Fine grained analysis of interactional incidents to alert students to tacit or unacknowledged linguistic coping strategies
•	Material for simulation design
•	Materials for comparative or contextualising purposes for use when students return
•	Materials for the design of interesting and evocative assessment items to incorporate the period abroad into mainstream curriculum assessments..

5. University of Central Lancashire, 22/1/99
I was only able to attend this meeting for part of the time but I can comment on an important discussion concerning the management of data, ownership of reports and the need for protocols and principles of procedure.  There are some genuine areas of ambiguity when data is used verbatim, out of context for illustrative purposes.  There was an expression of concern by one of the participating institutions when a fly-on-the-wall account of a student’s experience might be used mischievously or when an account, which is highly contextualised in time and place is used as a generalised version of a student experience.  These concerns were genuine but the status and nature of the data had been known for some time.  Issues of sensitivity lie in three areas which the meeting discussed at length.  It was relatively straightforward to guarantee anonymity, but complete confidentiality cannot because it is outside the control of the researchers.  However, reports and critical incidents can be used in such a way that non-atributability can be guaranteed, because that is in the gift of the researcher or developer.  The outcome of this discussion was that a protocol was developed which could be agreed by all parties.  This protocol was subsequently made available and is now in operation.

Meetings with the co-ordinating team at Lancaster
These meetings have taken place with discussions with three members of the central team during which the following areas were covered although not completely.

The team were clear about the original goals which were mainly to study good practice in a variety of environments which would act as a resource for the design of principles of procedure, tangible recommendations, examples of good practice and insights into the experiences of students during their year abroad.  Within the original design the relationship between the inquiry dimension and the teaching material development had not been specified.  In the event, the central team has been mainly concerned with the analysis and construction of a method of categorising and ‘modelling’ the data via the use of NUDIST.  This software has enabled the construction of a typology or taxonomy of student experience of the year abroad which might now act as a basis for material development.  The other institutions, alongside the provision of data for this exercise, has developed independent lines of action including the development of uses of the diary and searches for good practice.  To the extent that the first phase of the project was to procure data and resources for development, it is possible to say that it is more or less on target.  The main management problem has been associated with how to give each of the partners a clear enough framework for action and agree institutional activity while allowing institutions to build on their own areas of expertise and interests.

Appendix 2

Evaluation of Interculture Project
Project Process
Participants’ Interview Schedule

Date 							Interviewee

1.	Can you say a little about your role within the project

2.	What expectations did you have about participating in the project

3.	Did these expectations change during the project lifetime?

4.	Have there been aspects of project participation which have surprised you or were unanticipated?

5.	What would you say were the most positive aspects of project participation?

6.	What have been the most difficult?

7.	What would you say have been the principle achievements of the project?

8.	How would you typify the project management style?

9.	How would you describe the following aspects of project management: 

communication effectiveness
decision making
participation
goal clarity
overall coherence [inter-team relations, division of labour etc.]

10 What are the learning points from project management experience?

10.	What of the future?
Sustainability?