|
1. The practice
2. Hints for an evaluation
2.1 Strenghts
2.1.1 The organisation’s perspective
This author of the website affirms that the web is the result of a project that has beeb thought to offer an instrument for the understanding of cultural differences. Therefore, the first strength is linked to the fact that the site addresses British young people, creating an effective and concrete occasion for the natives to learn more about cultural background of their classmates. Therefore, the main result is to help the whole community, but in particular the English one, to fight prejudices and negative stereotypes throughout the experiencing of virtual meeting and dialogues. This Project is very innovative, firstly because of the use of ICT and of language that can be considered appealing and close to young people; furthermore, the website innovation is due to the fact that it can be used by teachers in “white schools”, where students have few occasions to meet and know other students with different background.
2.1.2 Interculture map perspective
This Project is innovative because it uses the youth language so it addresses directly to them without the filter of adults. At the same time the website is not directed just at young with non British-background. This can be considered an intelligent effort to spread intercultural dialogue within the whole society, by starting with kids and teenagers. The website helps to understand how they live, by showing differences and similarities, without neglect diversity and neither by stigmatizing curiosity towards differences with exotic accent.
Furthermore the website pays attention to teachers who are guided through pages in order to allow them to use this tool at best in the classroom. In the “Serious issues” pages the author has published some useful materials for teachers who can use this product not just as a funny activity for students but as an opportunity for them to update and learn about diversity and also about national policies or other projects on this topic.
2.2 Critical Points
2.2.1 The organisation’s perspective
Having only nine characters makes oversimplification and stereotyping a constant risk. The author tried to avoid this by building in details which make the characters individuals, and illustrating some of the tensions and negotiations within their British identities: Balvinder, a Sikh girl, follows her faith but once cut her hair; Tzu Lee, a Chinese girl, wants to be a model against her family's wishes; David, a Jewish boy, is good friends with Mumtaz, a Muslim girl; Megan, a Welsh girl, is unsure about her African heritage.
At the same time, there are some contradictions in the decisions to use, or not use, statistical research to inform the characterisations whilst trying to avoid stereotyping. For example, one Chinese character can't “represent” all British Chinese people. Research shows that until recently the majority have worked in the restaurant trade, yet it could be seen as stereotyping to have Tzu Lee's family in such work. Similarly, evidence shows that Chinese young people are highly successful at getting into Oxford and Cambridge but to portray Tzu Lee aiming for this would also, arguably, be stereotyping.
The website creator could have attempted to subvert stereotypes in a more aggressive manner, by giving the characters no representative “burden” at all (the African-Caribbean girl's mother could be a barrister, the Gujerati boy's father a road sweeper, the Welsh mixed parentage girl's father a soldier in the Household Cavalry) but this would have given an entirely untypical picture and failed to make some essential points about the social ramifications of racism.
Some feedback has queried the extent to which the characters from minority ethnic groups practice their respective religions in comparison with their majority white peers. This reflects research showing that religious observance is far higher amongst minority ethnic groups with roots in south Asia, Africa and the Caribbean than amongst the rest of the population. Nevertheless, the Project decided to make some characters vague about religious details in order to distinguish them as characters rather than religious representatives. In reality not all young people would feel capable of giving a full account of all shades of opinion within their faith. Religion is also given some prominence because (as with language), there is often confusion about factual details and both are often exploited in racist arguments.
“ (…)There was some concern about the characters doing anything which could be criticised (having relationships without their parents' consent, talking ungrammatically, being rude to adults, watching 18-rated films and so on), since it might be seen to be condoning the acts and/or reflect badly on a particular group. There is an inevitable tension between this and trying to create fictional but realistic individuals.
These dilemmas the author had to cope with were further highlighted in the feedback received on draft versions. It is the nature of the topic that clear resolutions are difficult (sometimes impossible), and I have had to make some choices between contradictory options and advice (...)” (article from the author published on the website, Chris Gaine, University of Chichester, UK, www.chi.ac.uk).
2.2.2 Interculture map perspective
This Project shows a high level of self-awareness about the implications of choice, both related to representation of characters and to implicit message that users receive.
The description of critical aspects operated by the author is almost comprehensive.
The big effort spent to create a website that could talk to students while avoiding discriminating representation is clearly evident. Sometimes, in order to adopt languages closes to the ones of young people, the website use informal terms that can contribute to affirm the prejudice (i.e. the use of the term “Paki”, to refer to a Pakistani character). The author explains that this choice found reasons in the need for a realistic representation of dialogue among students. Some educators could not approve this approach, whilst preferring a more “cleaned-up”, or “sanitised” language, as said the author.
2.3 Conclusion: what is “exportable” in the project
2.3.1 The organisation’s perspective
The author of the website states that there was some concern about the characters doing anything that could be criticised (having relationships without their parents' consent, talking ungrammatically, being rude to adults, watching 18-rated films and so on), since it might be seen to be condoning the acts and/or reflect badly on a particular group. There is an inevitable tension between this and trying to create fictional but realistic individuals.
The author had to cope with these dilemmas, that were further highlighted in the feedback received on draft versions. “It is the nature of the topic that clear resolutions are difficult (sometimes impossible), and I have had to make some choices between contradictory options and advice” (Source: considerations of the author’s thinking, that are largely summarised in the “Seriuous Staff” page of the website).
2.3.2 Interculture map perspective
Themes: the Project has already had a dissemination in other European countries. In fact a new transnational Project has been financed by Socrates Comenius Programme of European Commission, with good results. The Project, called “Eurokid.org”, involved Spain, Sweden, Britain and Holland, and represents a good example of exportation of one good intercultural practice. See the link listed below for details.
Methodology: the Methodology is very innovative and can be exported by inviting teachers or web-authors to use the language of kids, without avoiding the “politically un-correct” or informal terms that are used in ordinary conversations between young people. This help to make the website closer to young by talking to students while avoiding, at the same time, discriminating representations.
|