Discourses of multicultural teams : implications for policy practice in open and distance learning

Abstract

Although a number of researchers have attempted to identify measures to account for the core elements of effective intercultural/multicultural teams of community of practice (CoP) in open and distance learning (ODL) formal institutions, there is no consensus on those measures. Previous studies also suggest important differences in teamwork across cultures but they do not adequately address the complexity of issues affecting culturally diverse teams and do not identify the specific factors that contribute to these differences (Earley & Gibson 2002). The purpose of the study was to collect views and experiences of multicultural lecturers from the six Unisa colleges and the Directorate for Curriculum and Learning Development (DCLD) personnel on the operationalization of Unisa Framework for the implementation of a team approach to curriculum and learning development. Soon after South Africa’s independence in 1994, Unisa had to respond to a new paradigm shift by re-aligning their curricula to meet the new national and global economic demands and social justice. The process relates to major revisions of programmes and modules, as well as new programmes and modules. The study adopts a qualitative research approach and uses Van Dijk (2009) critical discourse analysis (CDA) as a methodology and data analysis strategy. Sociocognitive Approach (SCA) theory as espoused by Van Dijk (2009) is underpinned by a narrative research design. A purposive sampling method was employed to collect data and critically analysed views and experiences of interracial/multicultural academic lecturers, a Director and DCLD education consultants engaged in collective partnerships in the craft of ODL curriculum and learning development at Unisa in South Africa. I used the Unisa Framework for a team approach to curriculum and learning development at Unisa as a model. Previous discourse studies in this area suggest that differences in communication practices may be attributed to power differentials or language competence. In particular it surfaces key tensions within subject expertise autonomy, such as those between commitments to reform and efficiency that may have a significant impact on the outcomes of subsequent policy compliance. In my analysis of the research participants’ discourses, it emerged that a culture of dichotomy; “us and them” inhibits the operationalization of the Unisa Framework for the implementation of team approach to curriculum and learning development which may be attributed to the failure to manage multicultural identity issues.