University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

(USC Thesis Other)

Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Global Residence in Improving Resident Cultural
Intelligence

Shaun Rees Carver

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2022

© Copyright by Shaun Rees Carver, 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Shaun Rees Carver certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Kathy Stowe
Eric Canny
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
This evaluation is informed by a logic model approach to identify inputs, activities, and the
mechanisms Global Residence used to achieve the intended outcomes of improving the cultural
intelligence of the 2016 to 2019 alumni. Specifically, this evaluation addressed the alumni's
perceptions of their experience's impact on their cultural intelligence, which elements they
perceive as having the most influence on their awareness and understanding of other cultures,
and their overall satisfaction with their experience. This study used an online survey of 2,843
alumni that included items unique to this study, questions adapted from the Cultural Intelligence
Scale (CQS), and open-ended questions to provide more rich information. Descriptive statistics
were used to analyze the quantitative data, and thematic coding was used to analyze the open-
ended survey data. Findings from this study indicated an overall positive perception of the
impact the respondent’s Global Residence experience had on their cultural intelligence.
Respondents identified living in a diverse community and interacting with peers during social
activities as the main drivers of this sentiment. This study also revealed gaps in the formal cross-
cultural programming offered through the Center for Intercultural Leadership (CIL). The study
also measured the overall satisfaction the alumni had with their experience. This study offers
insights into the feasibility and efficacy of developing cultural intelligence through the Global
Residence experience. It provides information for administrators to refine their current resident
experience and opens the door for further research that addresses the limitations of this study.

v
Dedication
To Bei Bei, LiAnne and Max, I could not have achieved this without your patience, love, and
support. Never stop learning!
.

vi
Acknowledgments
Thank you to my family, who believed in me, supported me, and made it possible for me
to complete this program.
Thank you to cohort 17! You are an amazing cohort of colleagues that took on this
program, and COVID, at the same time! We faced uncertainty, life events, health challenges,
career changes, and relocations only to become better people. I would not have completed this
program without your support.
Thank you to my Chair, Dr. Malloy, and committee members, Drs. Stowe, and Canny,
for the pivot at my defense and the feedback, encouragement, and support that I needed.
Thank you to all faculty and administrators who make this program happen.
Fight on!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Overview of Global Residence ........................................................................................... 2
Evaluation Approach .......................................................................................................... 4
Importance of the Evaluation .............................................................................................. 8
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 12
Living and Learning Communities ................................................................................... 12
Cultural Intelligence.......................................................................................................... 15
Critics of CQ and Limitations of CQS .............................................................................. 21
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 21
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 23
Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................................ 23
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 23
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 24
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 25
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 26
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 26
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 26
viii
Quantitative Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 27
Challenges of Study .......................................................................................................... 27
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 28
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 29
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 31
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 31
Demographics ................................................................................................................... 32
Evaluation Question 1: What Are the Perceptions of Alumni Regarding the
Influence Global Residence Has Had on Their Cultural Intelligence? ............................. 35
Evaluation Questions 2: Which Elements of Global Residence Do Alumni
Perceive As Having the Most Influence on Their Awareness and Understanding
of Other Cultures? ............................................................................................................. 44
Evaluation Question 3: What Is the Overall Satisfaction of Alumni Regarding
Their Global Residence Experience? ................................................................................ 51
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 59
Interpretation of Findings ................................................................................................. 59
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 61
Implications and Recommendations ................................................................................. 62
Recommendation 1: Add Programming and Social Activities That Require
Residents to Interact With Multiple Peer Groups. ............................................................ 63
Recommendation 2: Update the Programs Offered Through the Center for
Intercultural Leadership (CIL) to Improve Cross-Cultural Awareness and
Motivation Among Resident Leaders. .............................................................................. 64
Recommendation 3: Increase Resident Participation and Interaction With the
Activities That Drive Improvement in Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Behavioral
CQ Subscales. ................................................................................................................... 66
Recommendation 4: Update the Application and Selection Process to Include
Applicant Suitability for Joining the Diverse Community. .............................................. 68
ix
Recommendation 5: Further Research Incorporating a Longitudinal, Pre-, and
Post-experience Cultural Intelligence Assessment on the Residents and Tracking
Resident Participation in the Formal and Informal Activities Throughout Their
Stay ................................................................................................................................... 69
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 70
References ..................................................................................................................................... 72
Appendix A: Survey ..................................................................................................................... 79
Appendix B– Survey Email .......................................................................................................... 85

x
List of Tables
Table 1 Reliability Analysis of Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) Subscales 29
Table 2 Demographic Comparison of 2016–2019 Respondent Group 33
Table 3 Response Sentiment Categories Question 7 36
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for CQS Subscales 38
Table 5 Metacognitive Subscale of CQS 40
Table 6 Cognitive Subscale of CQS 41
Table 7 Behavioral Subscale of CQS 42
Table 8 Motivational Subscale of CQS 44
Table 9 Descriptive Statistics of Influential Factors in Increasing Awareness 46
Table 10 Independent Samples T-Test (Citizenship) 47
Table 11 Comparing Survey Factors Across International and Domestic Groups 48
Table 12 Independent Samples T-Test (Gender) 49
Table 13 Comparing Survey Factors Across Gender Groups 51
Table 14 Response Sentiment Categories Question 7 53
Table 15 Distribution of Results Across NPS Scale Points 55

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1 Logic Model of Global Residence 6
Figure 2 Respondent Residency Duration (Terms) 35

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Watch any news channel, read a newspaper article or social media post, and it seems
conflict is at an all-time high. Hammer (2005) states that conflict “seems to be an essential
feature of human interaction (and) is based in part on culturally different styles for resolving
conflict.” Cervantes et al. (2015) define cultural-based conflict as competition between
individuals due to scarce resources, incompatible goals, or sources of power needed to acquire
resources. The competition occurs across cognitive and perceptual cultural boundaries, leading to
intercultural miscommunication and misunderstanding. Such miscommunication and
misunderstanding result in conflict; therefore, reducing intercultural miscommunication and
misunderstanding through improving an individual's cultural intelligence can help mitigate
global conflict.
Culture-based conflict arises when cross-cultural dynamics exist and an individual has a
consciousness of self and others (Nan, 2011). This conflict is different from conflict found within
a culture, which is often attributed to individualism (Triandis, 2000). Culture-based conflict
arises, in part, when there are differences in cultural group membership (Ting-Tomey & Oetzel,
2001). In their research, Ting-Tomey and Oetzel (2001) described a culture-based conflict model
that identifies four factors contributing to conflict spirals. These factors include conflict
interaction styles, emotional expressions, facework behaviors, and conflict competence skills. As
Ting-Tomey and Oetzel state, constructive intercultural conflict management requires sensitivity
to cultural differences and awareness of our own cultural biases.
Cultural intelligence, also referred to as cultural quotient (CQ), is defined by Van Dyne
et al. (2015) as a combination of policies, behaviors, structures, and attitudes that arise in a group
setting that enable the individuals within the group to operate through cross-cultural settings
2

effectively. According to Earnest et al. (2016), cultural competence is based on five essential
principles: valuing cultural diversity, understanding dynamic differences, conducting cultural
self-assessment, institutionalizing cultural knowledge, and adapting toward diversity. Programs
that institutionalize cultural knowledge and focus on developing these essential principles in
individuals have the potential to reduce intercultural conflict in communities.
This study aims to evaluate one particular organization, Global Residence, which focuses
on improving intercultural respect and understanding among individuals in their international
living and learning community (I-LLC) to reduce cross-cultural conflict. To measure the
effectiveness of Global Residence in achieving its stated outcomes, this study surveyed alumni to
understand their perception of the changes to their cultural competence due to their experience
and the factors they felt influenced those changes. Lastly, the study aimed to understand the
alumni's overall satisfaction with their experience.
Overview of Global Residence
Global Residence (a pseudonym) is an international living and learning community (I-
LLC) that has brought international and domestic students, visiting faculty, and researchers to
live in a communal setting to increase their intercultural understanding. Core to this mission is
the belief that people who go through this experience will develop better cultural intelligence and
cultural competence. Armed with better cultural intelligence and more profound cultural
competence gained through the Global Residence experience, it is believed that the alumni will
be less likely to engage in cultural-based conflict.
Potential applicants find out about Global Residence through word of mouth, referrals
from friends or family, or searching for student accommodations near the partner institution. The
Global Residence website is also a source of information and provides details about the history,
3

mission, notable alumni, and current events happening at the time. While efforts are made to
ensure that applicants are aware of the mission of Global Residence, anecdotal evidence points to
a significant number of residents unaware of the mission of the institution prior to arrival.
Global Residence only accepts applications from people who are affiliated with the major
state research university. In each recruitment cycle, applicants are selected based on maximizing
the diversity of the intake. Applicants from countries, or areas of academic study, are given
preference if they are the only person from that specific category. For example, an applicant
from a country not represented in the cohort will have preference over an applicant from a
country already represented. This approach is similar with regard to the gender identity of the
applicant. Economic diversity is achieved through scholarships intended to provide access to
those struggling to meet financial requirements. On average, one in three applicants is offered a
place at Global Residence.
Global Residence selects nearly 600 residents, representing over 70 nationalities, to live
in single or double-occupancy rooms each academic year. Roughly 250 of the selected residents
are in double occupancy rooms and, by policy, are partnered with a roommate from a different
nationality. It is believed that exposure to a different culture will improve the resident's cultural
intelligence. Along with providing a room to live in, residents are also provided meals delivered
in a communal setting through the dining hall. Throughout the resident’s stay at Global
Residence, they also have opportunities to participate in formal and informal programming
designed to raise cultural awareness.
Programming is delivered in formal and informal settings and is offered weekly, monthly,
per semester, or annually. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), programming is
defined as a type of modality in which individuals gain knowledge or skills and includes formal
4

training such as e-learning or class training and informal and social learning. The Center for
Intercultural Leadership (CIL) offers formal programming at Global Residence and introduces
the residents to the frameworks, theories, and skills needed for effective intercultural
interactions. The optional formal programming includes topics in conflict resolution,
unconscious bias, intercultural communications, leadership development, and career
preparedness and is offered bi-monthly throughout the academic year. The informal
programming aims to provide residents additional opportunities to engage and interact socially
with peers from different cultural backgrounds. These events allow residents to practice the
knowledge and skills they obtain in formal programs. Informal programs include weekly coffee
hours, movie nights, guest speakers, music, and various international celebrations held
throughout the year.
The participants in this evaluation study will be the alumni of Global Residence who
resided between 2016 and 2019. They include undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral
students and visiting faculty enrolled at or affiliated with the major university in California.
Some international alumni were part of a study abroad program affiliated with their home
university. The alumni range from 19 to 54 years old and represent over 130 unique nationalities.
The alumni stayed at Global Residence for a minimum of one semester (0.5 years) up to 8
semesters (4 years).
Evaluation Approach
This evaluation is informed by a program theory approach that aims to identify inputs,
activities, and the mechanisms Global Residence used to achieve the intended outcomes (Rogers
et al., 2000). A logic model is a systematic and visual way to present and explain the
relationships among the resources within Global Residence and show their connection to
5

delivering the desired outcome (Kellogg, 2004). Rogers (2008) suggests that program theory is
appropriate for interventions, such as Global Residence, that have “multiple components,
multiple agencies, and multiple causal strands and/or multiple alternative strands” (Rogers, 2018,
p.29). For these reasons, a program theory approach, specifically a logic model, was used to
frame the evaluation for this program.
As detailed in the logic model shown in Figure 1, several inputs support the operation and
programmatic activities of Global Residence. Inputs include the Global Residents facility (486
single and double occupancy rooms, communal bathrooms, dining hall, library, social areas, and
event spaces), the budget to fund operational and programmatic activities, student leaders, and
the human resources and institutional knowledge needed to execute the business plan. The
operating budget to support the business activities comes directly from the residents through the
room and board fees and a modest number of financial scholarships provided by Global
Residence donors. As an independent non-profit corporation, Global Residence does not receive
financial support from the State of California or the major State research university with which
Global Residence is affiliated.

6

Figure 1
Logic Model of Global Residence

Inputs Activities Outcomes (CQ) Impact
Residents lived
experience at Global
Residence

- Shared
Accommodations
- Shared Dining
Experiences
- Social
Programming
- Formal
Workshops
- Student
Leadership
Opportunities
Knowledge of norms,
practices, and
conventions of
different cultures
(Cognitive)
Ability to adjust verbal
and non-verbal
behavior when
interacting with a
different cultural
background.
(Behavioral)
Improve alumni
cultural
intelligence (CQ)
leading to less
cultural-based
conflict
Recruit
diverse
residents
Budget to
fund
operations
and
activities
Operation
and Program
Staffing
Facility for
residential
and
programmati
c activities
Awareness of cultural
differences when
interacting with people
from different cultural
backgrounds.
(Metacognitive)
RA’s,
Resident
Council,
Student
Leaders
Interest in engaging in
cross-cultural situations
and confidence in their
ability. (Motivational)
7

Each resident begins their Global Residence program with a pre-existing level of cultural
intelligence (CQ) based on their past experiences. Depending on the exposure to different
cultures the residents had before coming to Global Residence, they arrive with experiences
ranging from a little to a high level of cultural intelligence. Regardless of their prior experience,
as detailed in the logic model, Global Residence encourages all residents to engage with
individuals outside of their cultures and to participate in formal and informal programming
offered throughout the year.
Social, informal activities include a weekly themed coffee hour where residents of a
particular country share various aspects of their culture with the attendees. There are also trips to
museums, area hikes, sports, and other activities aligned with certain affinity groups found
within the community. These activities allow residents from various cultures to interact and bond
through a common interest. The Center for Intercultural Leadership (CIL) also offers formal
workshops to increase and enhance the resident's cultural intelligence. These programs include
conflict resolution, intercultural leadership, working effectively across cultures, and intercultural
effectiveness.
Engagement in Global Residence activities, formal and informal, is intended to lead to an
increase in their cultural intelligence (CQ). CQ is comprised of four dimensions, cognitive,
metacognitive, behavioral, and motivational. It is believed that residents will continually develop
their cultural intelligence (CQ) beyond their pre-existing level throughout their time at Global
Residence. As a result of this enhanced CQ, it is believed that the alumni will engage in less
cultural-based conflict by the end of their stay and throughout their lives.
8

Importance of the Evaluation
As LeBaron (2003) states, culture is a factor in all conflict situations, including
everything from the conflicts in individual relationships to long-standing global conflicts like the
Israeli-Palestinian or the Indian-Pakistan conflict. In many of these situations, the conflict is a
matter of life and death. Increasing cultural intelligence is a central strategy in the effort to
reduce cultural-based conflict. Global Residence aims to bring diverse groups of people together
in a residential community to improve their individual and collective cultural intelligence to
reduce global conflict.
Consistent with the principles of cultural competence (Earnest et al., 2016), the alumni
are expected to leave Global Residence with improved cultural intelligence as measured on the
Cultural Intelligence scale (CQS). Evaluating the Global Residence program's effectiveness in
developing the alumni's cultural intelligence is essential for determining if the organization
achieved its goal of reducing culture-based conflict in the alumni. If proven successful, the
Global Residence model can be used in various settings to improve cultural intelligence and
reduce culture-based conflict within other living and learning communities.
This evaluation aims to learn more about alumni’s perceptions of their cultural
intelligence and lived experiences at Global Residence. Specifically, this study addressed the
following evaluation questions:
1. What are the perceptions of alumni regarding the influence Global Residence has had
on their cultural intelligence?
2. Which elements of Global Residence do alumni perceive as having the most influence
on their awareness and understanding of other cultures?
9

3. What is the overall satisfaction of alumni regarding their Global Residence
experience?
To answer the evaluation questions, this study utilized the quantitative and qualitative
data from an online survey, with open-ended questions and demographic information provided
by the respondents.
Definitions
This section will introduce and define the key terms and concepts used throughout this
evaluation.
Cultural-Based Conflict
Competition by individuals over incompatible goals, scarce resources, or sources of
power needed to acquire them occurs across cognitive and perceptual cultural boundaries,
leading to intercultural miscommunication and misunderstanding (Avruch, 2009).
Cultural Intelligence (CQ)
A set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, policies, and structures that come together in a
system or agency or among professionals enabling the system, agency, or professionals to work
effectively in cross-cultural situations (Flaskerud, 2007).
Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS)
The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) is a tool that was developed by Ang et al. (2007)
as a way to measure cultural intelligence using the Rasch measurement model (Lee & Hong,
2021). The CQS assessment tool measures four dimensions (meta-cognitive, cognitive,
motivational, and behavioral) with a total of 20 questions.
10

Diverse Residential Community
A diverse residential community is a group of people representing a wide range of
nationalities, social and ethnic backgrounds, and different genders, sexual orientations, and
identities living together.
International Living and Learning Community (I-LLC)
A residential model that enhances domestic and international students' experience by
connecting their academic and social lives (González-McLean, 2021).
Programming (Formal and Informal)
Programming is defined as a “type of modality in which individuals gain knowledge or
skill” and includes formal training, such as classroom training and e-learning, as well as informal
and social learning (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). At Global Residence, formal
programming is offered in conflict resolution, unconscious bias, intercultural communications,
leadership development, and career preparedness. Informal programs include weekly coffee
hours, movie nights, guest speakers, music, and various international celebrations.
Organization of the Dissertation
This evaluation is presented in five chapters. The introduction chapter provides an
organizational background study, the aims and objectives of the evaluation, the significance, and
the evaluation approach taken throughout the study. The literature review in the second chapter
is essential in reviewing the existing literature and research for the covered topics. In Chapter
Three, I introduce the design of the methodology used in this evaluation and the methods for
obtaining the data. Further, chapter three discusses the reliability and validity of the data
collection method and the ethical considerations. Chapter Four provides the results for each
11

evaluation and the summary of the findings, and the last chapter discusses the evaluation
findings and provides recommendations.

12

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter’s primary objective is to review the existing literature revolving around
Living and Learning Communities (LLC), as well as examine cultural intelligence (CQ) and the
Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). This chapter introduces LLCs and the four dimensions (meta-
cognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavior) of cultural intelligence as measured by the
Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). I define and discuss LLCs and international living learning
communities (I-LLC), noting the criticisms of and gaps in the current literature. I then focus on
the CQS, noting the discussions between the four-dimension and two-dimensional structures.
Subsequently, I will discuss the literature relating to the validity of the CQS across various
cultures, languages, and contexts and evaluate the critics of CQS. The chapter summarizes the
literature and identifies research gaps that the evaluation seeks to denote.
Living and Learning Communities
Global Residence shares many similarities with Living Learning Communities (LLC).
LLCs are residential communities that allow diverse groups of people to live together and share
similar interests (Inkelas et al., 2018). LLCs allow students to live in diverse communities and
provide co-curricular activities that allow residents to engage with their peers (Inkelas &
Soldner, 2011). In a 2007 study, Inkelas (2007) identified over 600 LLCs in the United States.
LLCs have been the subject of several research studies, including the National Study of Living-
Learning Programs (NSLLP), a mixed-methods study at a well-established 4-year public
university, as well as a multisite case study of LLCs within three private Catholic institutions
located in different parts of the United States (Inkelas et al., 2018). The NSLLP study was a
national multi-institutional study of LLCs and is considered the most comprehensive study
today.
13

Structures of LLCs
LLCs can take many forms or typologies (Inkelas, 2007). Inkelas and her research team
used data from the NSLLP and created 17 primary categories of LLCs. In a follow-up study,
Inkelas et al. (2007) used the same data to create three structural types of LLCs based on their
size, budget, faculty involvement, courses offered, program director affiliation, special resources,
and co-curricular activities. There are three structural types of LLS identified; (a) small, limited
resourced, residential life models; (b) medium, moderately resourced student and academic affair
combination models; and (c) large, comprehensively resourced student and academic affair
collaborations.
The first structural type is small, limited resourced, primarily residential life emphasis.
This structure typically has less than 50 participants, is funded through the college or university
resident life and housing (RLH) staff and has little to no partnership with faculty (Inkelas et al.,
2007). The second structure is medium, moderately resources, student and academic affairs
combination. Inkelas et al. (2007) termed this as having roughly 100 participants, with some
RLH partnerships with academic affairs that allowed services and programming not typically
provided in campus student housing. The third structure, large, comprehensively resourced
student/academic affairs collaboration, has an average of 340 participants, with robust
collaboration between academic affairs and RLH that allows resident access to faculty (Inkelas et
al., 2008). While Global Residence, structurally, would be considered large (over 600 residents),
the lack of collaboration with the campus academic affairs limits this comparison.
International LLCs
The Global Residence community comprises approximately 75% of international
residents and 25% percent domestic residents. A such, Global Residence would be considered an
14

International Living Learning Communities (I-LLC), sometimes referred to as Transnational
Learning Communities (TLC). TLCs are a specific type of LLC that focuses on international and
domestic residents living together (McClanathan, 2014). I-LLCs are less common than typical
LLCs but have increased over the past decade in response to the rise of international students on
U.S. campuses (McClanahan, 2014). I-LLCs’ benefits include reducing prejudice, improving the
residents’ ability to think critically about important issues, and increasing confidence when
interacting with a different culture (Hornak & Ortiz, 2004). However, while research has shown
the benefits I-LLCs have had on resident critical thinking, sense of belonging, and willingness to
engage with people from different cultural backgrounds, little research has used quantitative
instruments to assess changes in cultural intelligence as a result of the I-LLC experience
(Blondin, 2015).
Criticisms of LLCs
Some have argued that LLCs have drawbacks. Talburt and Boyles (2005) point out that
LLCs fail to consider ways in which they alienate residents by taking “a coercive, prescriptive
tone rather than one that describes emerging identifications and purposes” (p. 216). Faculty and
staff of LLCs described a phenomenon termed hyperbonding (Inkelas et al., 2018).
Hyperbonding arises when residents enjoy the community’s support and isolate their entire social
peer group into a small community clique (Inkelas et al., 2018).
While a supportive peer group is beneficial (Astin, 1993; Tinto, 1993), hyperbonding
limits the resident from the benefits of living in a diverse community (Inkelas, 2018). Another
criticism is that while research has shown that faculty involvement is critical in these
communities, LLC work is not typically part of the faculty promotion or tenure process. Lack of
15

faculty promotion can make it difficult to recruit faculty into LLCs or limit the amount of time
faculty can commit to the residents (Inkelas et al., 2018).
Cultural Intelligence
Cultural intelligence is also referred to as cultural quotient or CQ (Ang et al., 2020; Ang
et al., 2015). Ang et al. (2020) define CQ as a trait that focuses on identifying, inferring, and
acting in an environment with diverse cultural perceptions and practices. Essentially, it is the
ability of an individual to be aware of their own cultural identity, recognize the cultural identity
of others, and being able to adjust their actions accordingly. Earley and Ang (2003) developed
CQ by analyzing intercultural competence and existing literature on intelligence and studying
managers with remarkable global experience (Gozzoli & Gazzaroli, 2018).
CQ goes beyond cultural awareness and political correctness to articulate the core skills
and competencies necessary for true diversity and inclusion in a community or organization.
Essentially, CQ pertains to how people adapt and sustain themselves in the different
environments they find themselves rather than the ones they were socialized with. In an
organizational context, culturally intelligent leaders make informed decisions in situations
characterized by cross-culture and help individuals negotiate and interact effectively.
Furthermore, CQ motivates employees from diverse cultures (Lenartowicz et al., 2014).
Livermore et al. (2021) define cultural intelligence as the necessary capability for
selection, shaping, and adaptation to new environments. In contrast to general intelligence,
cultural intelligence entails interacting with diverse cultures effectively, while general
intelligence has been termed to focus only on academic and emotional skills. Therefore, cultural
intelligence can be categorized into a specific form that focuses on adapting, interacting, and
behaving effectively in a community characterized by cultural diversity (Livermore et al., 2021).
16

Puyod and Charoensukmongkol (2019) highlighted the skills required in cultural intelligence as
accepting various cross-cultural confusion, the desire to understand cross-culture differences, and
suspending judgment on cross-cultural values and practices. In addition, CQ symbolizes a system
of combining skills and knowledge associated with cultural cognition that enables individual
selection, adaptation, and shaping of cultural aspects in their environments.
Measuring CQ
Several tools have been developed to measure cultural intelligence, including the Cultural
Intelligence Scale (CQS), Business Cultural Intelligence Quotient (BCIQ), Intercultural Conflict
Style Inventory (ICS), Short Form measurement of Cultural Intelligence (SFCQ), and the Global
Competencies Inventory (GCI). Of the available tools, the CQS is the most widely used, with
over 90% of quantitative studies using either the four-factor or two-factor CQS tool in their
research (Fang et al., 2018). The CQS has also been validated in research conducted in non-
English speaking populations and is the most appropriate when measuring across nationalities
(Bücker et al., 2015). For these reasons, the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) was selected as
the cultural intelligence assessment tool.
Cultural Intelligence Scale
One way to measure cultural intelligence is through the Cultural Intelligence Scale
(CQS). Ang and Early conceptualized the CQS in 2003, which is generally considered the most
representative tool globally to measure cultural intelligence in each country and cultural region
(Ang & Van Dyne, 2015; Lee & Hong, 2021). Studies have shown that the four-dimension CQS
is valid among different demographic groups across the economic spectrum in Western and non-
Western cultures. Notably, the CQS has been successfully used with populations with similar
demographic and professional backgrounds to Global Residence.
17

Lee and Hong (2021) used the CQS to evaluate the cultural competence of a population
of employees in a Korean organization with similar demographics to the Global Residence
alumni. They found that the survey values of the CQ items had good validity, with the point
biserial correlation coefficients above 0.4 (Lee & Hong, 2021). In Europe, Gozzoli and Gazzaroli
(2018) evaluated the validity of the CQS on Italian professionals who also showed similar
demographics to the Global Residence alumni. Their research identified that the CQS four-
dimensional model was valid, with composite reliability between 0.80 to 0.83 (Gozzoli &
Gazzaroli, 2018).
The CQS has also been successfully used to evaluate other populations in non-English-
speaking regions. Greischel et al. (2021) evaluated the CQS on German students and general
populations and found it statistically valid, even when translating the CQS into another language.
Khodadady and Golparvar (2011) evaluated the CQS in Persian, a non-Western, non-English
translation. Again, Khodaddy and Golparvar found the four-dimensional CQS structure
statistically valid.
CQ Dimensions
According to Ott and Michailova (2018), cultural intelligence impacts several key aspects
of cross-cultural relations. Crowne (2013) identified four factors that determine cultural
intelligence: cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral.
Cognitive Cultural Intelligence
Cognitive cultural intelligence is a cultural competence-based knowledge of cultural
practices, conventions, norms, and operations of a diverse cultural interaction (Gooden et al.,
2017). Cognitive cultural intelligence is acquired through personal experience or education.
Gooden et al. (2017) note that it includes knowledge of different societal determinants, such as
18

the economic systems, social developments, and the legal structure of diverse cultural practices.
According to Gooden et al. (2017), people with extensive cognitive cultural intelligence skills
understand the diversities (differences and similarities) within cross-cultures at a high rate.
Further, such individuals can easily interact and adapt to different cultures compared to other
individuals.
Metacognitive Cultural Intelligence
Metacognitive cultural intelligence is the awareness and consciousness one takes in their
approach toward other people with different cultural practices, beliefs, and norms. Van Dyne et
al. (2012) described it as the process people use in acquiring and understanding cultural
diversity. Individuals who presume meta-cognition cultural intelligence skills have a diverse
knowledge of others' cultural preferences, which they should be conscious of during their
interactions. Further, Dyne et al. (2012) noted that such individuals, when in pursuit of adapting
to new cultures, engage in high-order cognitive processes, including how they plan to learn about
new cultures and monitor their progress.
Motivational Cultural Intelligence
According to Verde (2017), motivational cultural intelligence is the ability to drive
remarkable concern toward understanding and operating in different circumstances denoted by
cultural diversities. Individuals with extensive motivational cultural intelligence skills have
confidence about being involved in cross-cultures and enjoying interacting with new cultures
(Verde, 2017).
Behavioral Cultural Intelligence
According to Gooden et al. (2017), behavioral cultural intelligence depicts one's ability to
have both verbal and non-verbal behaviors while associating with people in cross-cultural
19

interactions. Behavioral intelligence incorporates a flexible and broad repertoire of behaviors.
Individuals who presume high behavioral intelligence excel in different situations on how they
hold themselves because of their verbal and non-verbal capabilities. Crowne (2013) asserts that
such individuals have the art of using the correct cultural expressions, tones, words, and parts of
their body to expose culturally appropriate words, gestures, tones, and facial expressions.
Antecedents of Cultural Intelligence
Cultural intelligence research has identified several antecedents that are predictors of
cultural intelligence (CQ). While direct experience with different cultures is assumed to result in
the development of cultural intelligence through interventions (Thomas et al., 2008), others have
challenged this notion. Ang et al. (2007) identified two Big Five personality characteristics,
consciousness, and agreeableness, as positively related to behavioral CQ. Further research
conducted in academic contexts, similar to Global Residence, has revealed that several factors
predict cultural intelligence, including cross-cultural and experiential training, foreign language
skills, and intercultural social contact (Lee et al., 2018).
Cross-Cultural and Experiential Training
Cultural intelligence is a trait that can be improved through experience and training (Ang
& Van Dyne, 2008). According to Earnest et al. (2016), cross-cultural experiences are defined as
opportunities for individuals to interact with people from diverse cultures different from their
own. Cross-cultural training is one method for individuals to improve their CQ through cross-
cultural interviews, skits, discussions, and demonstrations (Lee et al.,2018). Cross-cultural
training has been shown to effectively increase intercultural awareness and motivation (Caligiuri
& Tarique, 2012; Fischer, 2011; Shapero, 2007).
20

Exposure to cross-cultural experiences requires people to develop an adequate
understanding of their own cultures and how those cultures interact with one another culture
(Baehr, 2013). Rehg et al. (2012) suggest that the main aim of cross-cultural and experiential
training is to develop awareness among individuals whose cultural framework does not exist to
bring them into successful existence and create good relationships. Furthermore, developing
effective cross-cultural communication should be critical. Before conducting cross-cultural
training, Zemliansky (2012) argues that there is a need to conduct more profound research on the
trained individuals to ensure efficient training is achieved without conflicts.
Foreign Language Skill
Research has shown that the ability to speak a foreign language (non-English in this
context) is a predictor of CQ (Lee et al., 2018; Ng et al., 2009). Shannon and Begley’s (2008)
study suggests that when individuals develop these language skills, they are required to interact
with different cultures, including gaining access to the core values, norms, rules, conventions,
and different thought patterns of those cultures. Harrison (2012) also showed that language was
positively related to CQ. Mastery of a foreign language also facilitates additional opportunities
for individuals to interact with those from a different culture. These studies have led researchers
to hypothesize that an individual’s foreign language skills are positively related to CQ.
Intercultural Experience
Central to the mission of Global Residence is the belief that living in a diverse communal
resident space increases an individual’s CQ simply through exposure. Allport’s (1954) study
hypothesized that prolonged contact between different cultural groups reduced prejudice,
stereotyping, and intolerance of other cultures (Lee et al., 2018).
21

Pettigrew (1979) found that these frequent cross-cultural interactions fostered increased
attitudes and social acceptance within the community. In 2008, Shannon & Begley found that
frequent exposure to diverse communities created opportunities for individuals to learn about
other cultures, leading to better cultural awareness and understanding of different social
behaviors.
Critics of CQ and Limitations of CQS
Bücker et al. (2015) argued that the growing CQ popularity had attracted criticism in
recent decades. Some authors, such as Ott and Michailova (2018), question the ability of cultural
intelligence to be learned, and there is a lack of accessibility to every individual. In another case,
Ang et al. (2015) criticize cultural and emotional intelligence by arguing that they have been
constructed in isolation instead of being studied together. The evaluation of Ang et al.’s self-
reported measure of CQ by Ott and Michailova (2018) suggests that cultural intelligence is not
sufficiently distinct from EQ despite the contrary claims concerning their correlations.
While the four-dimensional structure of the CQS has been used and validated in many
research projects, some argue that the two-dimensional structure is more accurate than the
original four-dimensional CQ scale and is likely to present better (Bücker et al., 2015). This
criticism is because despite the four-dimensional structure being termed meaningful, clear,
stable, and robust in all samples and being time effective, most of its validations are limited to
samples used or the test of discriminant validity.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has introduced international living and learning communities (I-LLC) and
measurements of cultural intelligence and highlighted the CQ overview and its dimensions.
Research has shown that I-LLCs, like Global Residence, reduce prejudice, increase critical
22

thinking, and improve cultural intelligence with their alumni. While the benefits of I-LLCs are
clear, there are also opportunities to alienate or marginalize some members who are not actively
involved with the community. I-LLCs, like Global Residence, can improve resident development
and cultural intelligence when designed and administered correctly.
Several cultural intelligence scales exist. The most commonly found in existing research
is the Cultural Intelligence Scale, or CQS. The CQS has been noted as the most efficient and
effective method to measure cultural intelligence. CQS validity has been verified for each county
and cultural region to be used in cultural intelligence measurements. While critics have cautioned
about the tools limitations (similarity to emotional intelligence and the limited ability to make
predictions about future behavior), it seems appropriate for this evaluation due to accessibility,
ease of use, and general validity across many different cultures. The significant benefits of
cultural competencies have been noted in various studies. Still, they lack a clear identification of
the influences on residents’ cultural competence (CQ) resulting from their experience living in a
diverse residential community using an existing cultural intelligence assessment.
23

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study seeks to understand alumni's perceptions regarding the influence Global
Residence has had on their cultural intelligence, which elements they perceive as having the
most influence on their awareness and understanding of cultures, and their overall satisfaction
with their experience. The aim is to understand how the alumni perceive that living in a diverse
communal environment improved their cultural intelligence (CQ).
Evaluation Questions
The following evaluation questions will guide this study:
1. What are the perceptions of alumni regarding the influence Global Residence has had
on their cultural intelligence?
2. Which elements of Global Residence do alumni perceive as having the most influence
on their awareness and understanding of other cultures?
3. What is the overall satisfaction of alumni regarding their Global Residence
experience?
Overview of Design
A quantitative study design, which includes open-ended questions to gather deeper
understanding, is appropriate when a researcher seeks to use both qualitative and quantitative
approaches for triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation, or expansion
(Shoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). Utilizing this approach allowed for a broader study with a
more significant number of subjects and greater objectivity and accuracy of the results (Babbie,
2010). This study employed an online survey design utilizing qualitative and quantitative data to
answer the research questions. The qualitative data was collected through open-ended questions,
and the quantitative data was collected through questions utilizing a Likert scale format. This
24

study was designed to (EQ1) examine the perceptions of alumni regarding the influence Global
Residence has had on their cultural intelligence, (EQ2) examine which elements of Global
Residence alumni perceive as having the most influence on their awareness and understanding of
other cultures, and (EQ3) understand alumni overall satisfaction regarding their Global
Residence experience.
The Researcher
As the Executive Director and CEO of Global Residence, I have spent most of my life
living abroad, working in multicultural organizations, and having a multicultural family
structure. Given my positive personal and professional experiences living and working in diverse
communities, my perceptions may bias the research toward a positive outcome (i.e., The Global
Residence experience increases an individual's CQ, which benefits the individual and the
community). Also, due to my positionality as a white, cis-male, upper-middle-class American
citizen, I may not understand the tensions and adverse outcomes resulting from deep-rooted
historical, cultural, and ethnic differences between the individuals within the Global Residence
community. The alumni experience of cohabitating near others who possess these historical and
cultural differences may reinforce the negative perceptions of others and escalate the conflict
between the alumni. When designing the research methods, I need to ensure there are
opportunities for this type of data to be captured and that they also allow the data interpretation
to take the analysis in a negative direction.
My position as Executive Director and CEO of Global Residence, along with the
accompanying power structure with the research subjects, may influence the participants'
response rate and the overall quality of the data. As a result, the survey will be sent through the
25

CFO and Business Manager’s office. The survey will also be delivered online rather than in
person to help minimize the impact of the power structure on the validity of the responses.
Data Sources
The primary source of data in this study was the online survey. The survey instrument
included both items unique to this study, as well as from an existing CQS scale, and was
comprised of four sections. Section 1 is an introduction and a validation question asking if the
respondent has resided at Global Residence for at least one semester. Section 2 comprises three
questions asking the factors the respondent felt were influential in increasing their cultural
awareness and understanding. Section 3 includes open-ended questions asking the respondent to
describe the impact Global Residence had on their ability to interact with people from other
cultures, the impact Global Residence had on them personally, and their overall experience.
Section Four of the survey are questions adapted from the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Cultural
Intelligence Center, 2005) and comprises the four CQS sub-sections: Cognitive, Meta-cognitive,
Behavioral, and Motivational. Each subsection included the CQS questions adapted for this
survey. Respondents rated their responses to the Section 4 questions on a 10-point scale ranged
from –5 (extremely negative impact) to +5 (extremely positive impact). Higher scores indicate a
higher cultural competency. Section 5 asks the respondents to rate their overall satisfaction with
their Global Residence experience and a Net Promoter Score (NPS).
Along with the five sections, demographic questions were added at the end of the survey
to capture respondents academic level, gender, primary nationality, secondary nationality, and
current country of residence. The survey instrument was created in Qualtrics, an online platform
for easy distribution and data collection.
26

Participants
The population for this study included adult alumni of Global Residence that resided for
at least one semester between August 2016 and June 2019. Alumni were the focus of this study
as it seeks to understand the impact the experience of living in the diverse community at Global
Residence has had on their cultural intelligence.
Instrumentation
The survey instrument included items unique to this study and from an existing scale.
Section Four of the survey are questions adapted from the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Cultural
Intelligence Center, 2005). Both the overall scale and the subscales of the Cultural Intelligence
Scale have shown acceptable validity and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.7) and have
been utilized in multiple cultural intelligence studies by other researchers (Earley & Ang, 2003;
Ang et al., 2007; Gozzoli & Gazzaroli, 2018).
Data Collection Procedures
Global Residence has one location in Northern California. Recruitment was conducted
electronically via emails to Global Residence alumni enrolled in the Fall semester of 2016 to the
Spring semester of 2019.
The recruitment email indicated that participation was entirely voluntary. Participant
rights related to not answering some questions or discontinuing participation were also presented
via the institutional review board (IRB) information sheet for exempt studies. Global Residence
management/supervisors did not add any text to the recruitment email, nor were they involved in
recruiting possible participants. The only contact with possible participants was from the
department staff member who sent out the recruitment email to all alumni via the email
addresses obtained in the 2016–2019 alumni query.
27

Recruitment was conducted electronically via emails to Global Residence alumni via the
query of the alum database. The company’s CFO and Business Manager agreed to have their
department send the emails through the information gathered in the query. I did not have access
to this listserv or any respondents' personal information. A copy of the invitation email can be
found in Appendix B.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics (such as means, standard deviations, median, counts, and frequencies)
were calculated for the survey responses. Thematic coding was utilized to
analyze the open-ended survey data.
Challenges of Study
A challenge of the study was the lack of accuracy in the email addresses found in the
Global Residence alumni database. This led to 11% of the total survey solicitation emails
bouncing back. This was likely due to the different email policies of the universities the alumni
used during the time they stayed at Global Residence. As a policy, many universities remove
alumni access to their university-sponsored email addresses after a certain period, which seemed
to be seen with the sizeable bounce-back number. Of the solicitation emails that did not bounce
back, there was a lower-than-expected participation rate. This may be a result of the email
accounts being active but not one of the primary accounts that the alumni regularly use.
Another challenge was that there appeared to be considerable attrition in the responses as
the respondents went through the survey. The number of respondents that replied dropped over
30% between Question 1 (n = 71) and Question 9 (n = 50). The limited number of responses to
the later questions, including the demographic questions, made it challenging to do rich
statistical analysis across some demographic groups.
28

Validity and Reliability
I selected the CQS as an instrument because it has been used in similar studies and has
been established as a valid and reliable instrument for measuring cultural intelligence. The CQS
has been validated in the United States (Early & Ang, 2003), Singapore (Ang et al., 2007), and
Italy (Gozzoli & Gazzaroli, 2018), as well as numerous other geographic locations. The
standardized loadings (0.50–0.79) had moderate correlations between factors (0.23–0.37) and
acceptable variances (0.87–1.05), demonstrating the internal consistency and reliability of the
model across different populations (Gozzoli & Gazzaroli, 2018). In examining the psychometric
properties of CQS, Ang et al. (2007) confirmed that the CQS is a valid and reliable tool.
Cronbach’s Alpha ( 𝛼𝛼) is a st atistical reliability measure for assessing the internal
consistency of a set of survey items (Lavarkas, 2017). Essentially, the measure gives the
researcher confidence that the respondent’s score is repeatable, predictable, or valid. Cronbach’s
alpha ( 𝛼𝛼) is a numerical value that ranges between 0 and 1, with a higher score indicating higher
reliability (Lavarkas, 2017). Using Cronbach’s Alpha with a threshold range greater than 0.70,
the four subscales of the CQS dimensions showed acceptable ranges from 0.812 to 0.928, as
shown in Table 1.

29

Table 1
Reliability Analysis of Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) Subscales
CQS dimensions Sample size (n) Cronbach’s alpha
Metacognitive 50 .897
Cognitive 51 .864
Behavioral 50 .928
Motivational 49 .812

A high response rate leads to higher credibility and reliability in the findings (Baruch &
Holtom, 2008). This study utilized follow-up emails to help ensure a high response rate on the
online survey. I sent the initial email inviting the participants to take the survey on July 11th,
2022. Follow-up emails were automatically sent to unfinished respondents on July 22nd, 2022,
and July 26th, 2022.
Ethics
As this study involved human participants, ethical considerations were addressed. Before
collecting data for this research, approval was received from my university’s institutional review
board (IRB). Informed consent was obtained from all study participants before they participated
in the study. In the email sent, which included the informed consent process, participants were
provided with an overview of the study and its purpose of the study. Participants were also
informed that their participation was voluntary and that they may discontinue their participation
by withdrawing their consent at any time, for any reason.
To protect participant privacy, identifiable participant information, including participants’
names, was not reported. Pseudonyms were used to replace participant names in the presentation
30

of the findings, where appropriate. I have not identified any harms or risks to participants
associated with their participation in the proposed study. The study was expected to be a low to
minimal risk to participants based on IRB categorization.
All data is kept in a locked filing cabinet accessible only to me for paper documents, and
all digital data are kept in a password-protected file on my computer. No personally identifiable
information was used in the publication or description of the study results or analysis. All the
data pertaining to this proposed study, except for the published data and the analysis results, will
be destroyed after 7 years.

31

Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter presents the quantitative results of the survey and an analysis of the
responses to the open-ended questions utilizing thematic coding. This study aims to investigate
the changes in cultural intelligence (CQ) of Global Residence alumni between 2016 and 2019
due to their exposure to the Global Residence community. Three research questions guided the
study:
1. What are the perceptions of alumni regarding the influence Global Residence has had
on their cultural intelligence?
2. Which elements of Global Residence do alumni perceive as having the most influence
on their awareness and understanding of other cultures?
3. What is the overall satisfaction of alumni regarding their Global Residence
experience?
An online survey was used to gather data from the Global Residence alumni group. The
survey was distributed to alumni who stayed at Global Residence from the Fall of 2016 until the
Spring of 2019 and stayed at least one entire semester.
Participants
A Global Residence alumni database query revealed 2,843 unique email addresses that
matched the initial criteria. Of the original query, 314 emails were bounced back to the sender.
Of the remaining 2,529 email addresses in the query, 133 surveys were started, and 117 were
finished. Of the 117 surveys, 99 answered affirmatively that they had resided at Global
Residence for at least one semester. Twenty-eight respondents stopped the survey after the first
question leaving 71 respondents that completed the second question or more. The respondents
showed some attrition throughout the survey; by Question 9, the number of respondents dropped
32

to 50. The attrition stopped at Question 9, and all of the 50 remaining respondents went on to
complete the survey. For this study, I evaluated the 71 respondents who completed the first
question or more.
Demographics
Of the 71 respondents for this study, 50 completed all, or part, of the demographic
questions at the end of the survey. Of these 50 respondents, 52% (n = 26) indicated that they
identified themselves as male, and 48% (n = 24) identified themselves as female. None of the
respondents selected the non-binary, third gender, or the prefer not to state options.
Undergraduates represented 54% (n = 27) of the respondents, 28% (n = 14) identified as
graduate students, 10% (n = 5) were PhD students, 6% (n = 3) were visiting faculty, and 2% (n =
1) selected other. Table 2 shows that these values are typical and consistent with the 2022–2023
Global Residence cohort (Table 2).

33

Table 2
Demographic Comparison of 2016–2019 Respondent Group and Current 2022–2023 Cohort
Category 2016–2019
respondents % (n)
2022–2023
cohort % (n)
Difference between
respondents and current
cohort
Gender
Male 52% (n = 26) 56.2% (n = 316) –4.2%
Female 48% (n = 24) 42.7% (n = 240) +5.3%
Non-binary/third
gender
0% (n = 0) 0.9% (n = 5) –0.9%
Nationality
Domestic 24.4% (n = 11) 21.9% (n = 123) +3.5%
International 75.5% (n = 34) 78.1% (n = 439) –3.6%
Academic Level
Undergraduate 54.0% (n = 27) 52.5% (n = 295) +1.5%
Graduate: masters 28.0% (n = 14) 35.4% (n = 199) –7.4%
Graduate: PhD 10.0% (n = 5) 8.7% (n = 49) +1.3%
Post Doc 0.00% (n = 0) 0.4% (n = 2) –0.4%
Visiting scholar 2.0% (n = 1) 3.0% (n = 17) –1.0%

Of the 50 respondents that completed the demographics questions, 45 responded to the
primary nationality question on the survey. Of the 45 respondents, 24.4% (n = 11) identified as
citizens of the United States, and 75.5% (n = 34) identified a country other than the United States
34

and were grouped as international students. Of the 34 international students, 21 different
nationalities were represented.
Of the 50 respondents, 43 answered the question about their current country of residence.
Thirty percent (n = 13) of the respondents stated that they currently reside in the United States,
with 9% (n = 4) residing in Norway. Germany (n = 3) and the United Kingdom (n = 3) each
accounted for 7% of the respondents. The remaining respondents indicated their current country
of residence as China (n = 2), France (n = 2), Ireland (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), Japan (n = 2), New
Zealand (n = 1), Peru (n = 1), Singapore (n = 2), Spain (n = 1), Sweden (n = 1), Switzerland (n =
1), Taiwan (n = 2) and the Netherlands (n = 1).
Global Residence, by policy, limits the total amount of time a person can reside in the
community to a maximum of 8 semesters. For this study, only alumni who resided for a
minimum of one semester and a maximum of eight semesters were considered. The 66
respondents who met this qualification resided at Global Residence for an average of 1.92
semesters, or approximately one academic year (Mdn = 2.0, SD = 1.44), as shown in Figure 2.

35

Figure 2
Respondent Residency Duration (Terms)

Evaluation Question 1: What Are the Perceptions of Alumni Regarding the Influence
Global Residence Has Had on Their Cultural Intelligence?
This study examined the alumni's perception of how Global Residence impacted their
cultural intelligence and which factors they perceived as having the most influence. Thematic
coding was used to analyze the responses to the open-ended questions on the survey.
Perceived Influence
The respondents discussed Global Residence's impact on their cultural intelligence and
identified several factors influencing their perception. Question 8, an open-ended question, asked
the respondents to describe in what way if at all, Global Residence impacted their ability to
36

interact with people from another culture. The responses were coded as either very negative,
negative, neutral, positive, or very positive. Responses were coded as very positive if they
included descriptive language such as “best,” “amazing,” “fantastic,” and “incredible.” In the
responses, the respondent replies were coded with 10.4% (n = 5) using very positive terms and
70.8% (n = 34) using positive terms. In total, 81.2% (n = 39) of the respondents were coded as
having a positive or very positive perception of their experience. A total of 18.8% (n = 9) of the
responses were coded as neutral, with none coded as negative or very negative, as shown in
Table 3.

Table 3
Response Sentiment Categories Question 8
Measures Very
negative
Negative Neutral Positive Very
positive
Total
Number of
responses (n)
0 0 9 34 5 48
Percent of
responses (%)
0 0 18.8 70.8 10.4 100

37

It was common for the respondents, 52% (n = 25), to perceive that the opportunity to
learn about different cultures while at Global Residence positively impacted their ability to
interact with people from another culture. For example, one participant (female, domestic,
graduate) described their experience as:
It helped so much—I learned a lot about many different cultures from the wide variety of
people I met at Global Residence. It made me much more comfortable with interacting
with different backgrounds, and gave me helpful insight into various cultures, as I kept
living there for multiple semesters.
It was also common for respondents to mention the impact of their exposure to different
languages, political viewpoints, and gender as factors influencing their ability to interact with
people from another culture. In the survey, 52% (n = 25) of the respondents who answered the
open-ended question mentioned that these factors were positively impacted due to their time at
Global Residence. For example, one participant noted (female, international, graduate), “I
learned a lot about many different cultures from the wide variety of people I met at [Global
Residence]. It made me much more comfortable with interacting with different backgrounds and
gave me helpful insight into various cultures.”
Cultural Intelligence of Respondents
This study examined the respondents’ Cultural intelligence (CQ) utilizing the modified
cultural intelligence survey (CQS) questions. Questions 9 through 12 of section 4 of the survey
asked respondents to rate Global Residence's overall impact for the 20 CQS items included in the
cultural intelligence survey. The Likert scale ranged from –5 (extremely negative impact) to +5
(extremely positive impact), with zero indicating no impact at all. As shown in Table 4, the mean
of each subscale ranged from 2.2 to 3.5, with the metacognitive and motivational subscales
38

scoring the highest. The cognitive and behavioral subscales both scored significantly lower.
Correlations were calculated to examine the relationships between the cultural intelligence
subscales. As shown in Table 4, strong positive correlations were observed for all subscales
(.673–.767; p < .05). The following sections provide a more detailed analysis of each subscale.

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for CQS Subscales
Variable n M SD 1 2 3 4
Metacognitive 51 3.55 1.1 –
Cognitive 52 2.19 1.2 .716* –
Behavioral 51 2.26 1.5 .650* .728* –
Motivational 40 3.36 1.2 .767* .694* .673* –

*r > .05. **r < .01.

39

Metacognitive CQ
The metacognitive items of the survey indicate the respondent's awareness of cultural
differences when interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds. The four items
measure the awareness of cultural differences and the ability and accuracy of the skills they
apply when interacting with people from a different culture. The mean scores for the
respondents’ metacognitive items ranged from 3.46 to 3.64, with median scores of 4.00,
indicating the perception of a strong positive impact the Global Residence experience had on
their cultural intelligence, as shown in Table 5. Respondents agreed that their experience at
Global Residence influenced their ability to adjust cultural knowledge and be conscious of their
cultural knowledge.

40

Table 5
Metacognitive Subscale of CQS
Item N M SD Mdn
MET2: Ability to adjust your cultural knowledge when
you interact with people from a culture that is
unfamiliar to you
51 3.64 1.382 4.00
MET1: Being conscious of the cultural knowledge you
use when interacting with people with different
cultural backgrounds
51 3.62 1.176 4.00
MET3: Being conscious of the cultural knowledge you
apply to cross-cultural interactions
51 3.54 1.282 4.00
MET4: Ability to check the accuracy of your cultural
knowledge as you interact with people from
different cultures
51 3.46 1.388 4.00
Total 51 3.55 1.145 3.63

Note. Likert scale ranged from –5 (extremely negative impact) to +5 (extremely positive impact),
with zero indicating no impact at all.

Cognitive CQ
Cognitive CQ indicates the respondents' knowledge of different cultures norms, practices,
and conventions, including economic, legal, and social systems, religion, and art and crafts. The
mean scores for the respondents’ cognitive items ranged from 1.67 to 3.00, with median scores
from 1.00 to 3.00, as shown in Table 6. The respondents rated all of the items, except for item
COG7 (knowledge of the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures), as having a
slightly positive impact on their cultural intelligence. Item COG7 was the only item in the
cognitive subscale with a strong positive impact. This may reflect the number and variety of
41

cultural and religious holidays the alumni were exposed to throughout the year in the social
programming.

Table 6
Cognitive Subscale of CQS
Item N M SD Mdn
COG7: Your knowledge of the cultural values and
religious beliefs of other cultures
52 3.00 1.371 3.00
COG10: Your knowledge of the rules for expressing
nonverbal behaviors in other cultures
52 2.33 1.545 2.00
COG9: Your knowledge of the art and crafts of other
cultures
52 2.10 1.664 2.00
COG5: Your knowledge of the legal and economic
systems of other cultures
52 2.02 1.749 2.00
COG6: Your knowledge of the rules (e.g., vocabulary,
grammar) of other languages
52 2.02 1.749 2.00
COG8: Your knowledge of the marriage systems of
other cultures
52 1.67 1.596 1.00
Total 52 2.19 1.247 2.17

Note. Likert scale ranged from –5 (extremely negative impact) to +5 (extremely positive impact),
with zero indicating no impact at all.

42

Behavioral CQ
Behavioral CQ measures the respondent's ability to adjust verbal and non-verbal behavior
when interacting with individuals from different cultural backgrounds. The items rate the
respondents’ ability to change their communication style by varying the accent and tone, use of
silences, or rate of speed, as the cross-cultural interaction requires it. The mean scores for the
respondents’ behavioral items ranged from 1.88 to 2.64, with median scores from 2.00 to 3.00, as
shown in Table 7, with all of the measured items being rated as having a slightly positive impact
on the respondents’ cultural intelligence.

Table 7
Behavioral Subscale of CQS
Item N M SD Mdn
BEH13: Your ability to vary the rate of your speaking
when a cross-cultural situation requires it
51 2.64 1.613 3.00
BEH14: Your ability to change your nonverbal
behavior when a cross-cultural situation requires it
51 2.38 1.665 2.00
BEH11: Your ability to change your verbal behavior
(e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction
requires it
51 2.26 1.816 2.00
BEH12: Your ability to use pause and silence
differently to suit different cross-cultural situations
51 2.16 1.646 2.00
BEH15: Your ability to alter your facial expressions
when a cross-cultural interaction requires it
51 1.88 1.745 2.00
Total 51 2.26 1.497 2.10

Note. Likert scale ranged from –5 (extremely negative impact) to +5 (extremely positive impact),
with zero indicating no impact at all.
43

Motivational CQ
Motivational CQ measures the respondent's interest in engaging in cross-cultural
situations and their confidence in their ability in these situations. The five items of the
motivational subscale examine the respondents' confidence and enjoyment when interacting or
socializing in a new or different culture. The mean scores for the respondents’ motivational items
ranged from 2.80 to 3.88, with median scores from 3.00 to 4.00, as shown in Table 8. All of the
items scored positive, except for item MOT20 (confidence that you can get accustomed to the
shopping conditions in a different culture). Both motivational items that scored the highest
measured the respondents’ enjoyment of interacting with people from different cultures and in an
unfamiliar environment.

44

Table 8
Motivational Subscale of CQS
Item N Mean SD Mdn
MOT16: Your enjoyment when interacting with people
from different cultures
50 3.88 1.317 4.00
MOT19: Your enjoyment living in cultures that are
unfamiliar to you
50 3.63 1.395 4.00
MOT17: Your confidence when socializing with locals
in a culture that is unfamiliar to me
50 3.57 1.594 4.00
MOT18: Your ability to deal with the stresses of
adjusting to a culture that is new to you
50 3.18 1.453 3.00
MOT20: Your confidence that you can get accustomed
to the shopping conditions in a different culture
50 2.55 1.894 3.00
Total 50 3.36 1.167 3.40

Note. Likert scale ranged from –5 (extremely negative impact) to +5 (extremely positive impact),
with zero indicating no impact at all.

Evaluation Questions 2: Which Elements of Global Residence Do Alumni Perceive As
Having the Most Influence on Their Awareness and Understanding of Other Cultures?
Understanding which specific factors of the Global Residence experience were perceived
as having the most influence on the respondent's awareness and understanding of other cultures
was an important outcome of this survey. Respondents were asked to rate on a scale the
influence pre-determined factors were in increasing their awareness of other cultures. The scale
ranged from 1 (little to no influence) to 10 (a great deal of influence). The respondents were also
given an option of not applicable if they did not engage in any of the factors. Non-applicable
responses were excluded from the calculations.
45

The respondents perceived the diverse community (M = 9.95) and overall community (M
= 9.55) as the most influential factors influencing their cultural awareness and understanding.
Opportunities to experience new cultures (M = 9.23), which often happen during social activities
(M = 8.94), were also perceived as having the strongest influence. Other factors, such as the
mission (M = 8.05), reputation (M = 7.59), location (M = 7.08), and the quality of the food (M =
7.08), were also perceived as having a positive influence. The formal programming offered
through CIL was not applicable to 23.9% of the respondents (n = 69). Of those who did
participate in the CIL programming, the perception of the influence on their cultural awareness
was ranked 7th out of the nine factors (M = 5.90), as shown in Table 9.

46

Table 9
Descriptive Statistics of Influential Factors in Increasing Awareness and Understanding of
Other Cultures
Influential Factors N M SD
Diverse community 62 9.95 1.431
Community 62 9.55 1.861
Opportunities to experience new cultures 62 9.23 2.199
Social activities 62 8.94 2.164
Mission 62 8.05 2.743
Reputation 61 7.59 2.889
Location 62 7.08 3.042
Quality of the food 62 7.08 2.865
Formal programming (CIL) 54 5.90 3.607

Concerning diverse communities and meeting people from different cultures specifically,
open-ended comments indicated that the personal interactions between alumni led to many of
their learnings. One respondent (female, international, undergraduate) stated, “Before [Global
Residence], I didn’t have hands-on exposure to other cultures regularly. [Global Residence]
taught me both through formal programming and networking with students, and I was able to
learn first-hand from them.” A second respondent (female, domestic, graduate) described the
benefits of personal interactions by stating, “I learned a lot about many different cultures from
the wide variety of people I met at [Global Residence]. It made me much more comfortable with
interacting with different backgrounds and gave me helpful insight into various cultures.”
Another respondent (female, international, graduate) continued by stating, “[Global Residence]
47

gave me an awareness that people’s culture is different from my own and are often really excited
to share their culture with you.”
Influence of Factors Across Citizenship Groups
The 45 respondents that self-identified their primary nationality in Question 19 were
grouped as domestic or international based on their responses. Respondents who identified as
“US,” “USA,” or “United States” were grouped as domestic (n = 11). All other answers were
grouped international (n = 34). Question 3 asked the respondents to rate how various factors of
the Global Residence experience influenced their awareness and understanding of different
cultures. The individual factors were combined into a composite with equal variances assumed.
An independent t-test showed no statistical relationship between the domestic (M = 65.5, SD =
15.9, n = 11) and the international group (M = 66.0, SD = 16.3, n = 34), t (43) = –0.089, p > 0.1,
as shown in Table 10.

Table 10
Independent Samples T-Test (Citizenship)
Domestic group International group t (43) p Cohen’s d
M SD M SD
Equal variances
assumed
65.5 15.9 66.0 16.3 –0.089 .180 .102

48

The individual factors were compared across their citizenship group, as shown in Table
11. Due to the small sample size, a Mann-Whitney U-test was used to test for significant
differences between citizenship groups and the individual influential factors. No significant
differences were found based on citizenship.

Table 11
Comparing Survey Factors Across International and Domestic Groups
Factors Domestic group (n = 11) International group (n = 34)
M Mdn M Mdn
All factors 7.38 8.00 7.49 8.00
Diverse community 8.73 10.00 9.06 9.50
Community 9.36 10.00 8.61 9.00
Opportunities to experience
new cultures
8.55 9.00 8.27 9.00
Social activities 8.64 9.00 7.97 8.00
Mission 7.55 8.00 7.48 8.00
Reputation 6.20 7.00 6.88 7.00
Formal programming (CIL) 6.90 6.50 6.63 6.00
Quality of the food 5.55 5.00 6.21 7.00
Location 4.82 4.00 6.06 7.00

* Significant difference of p-value < 0.05

49

Influence of Factors Across Gender Groups
The 50 respondents that identified their gender in question 18 were grouped based on
their responses and compared with the composite of the influential factors. The individual
influential factors were combined into a composite with equal variances assumed. An
independent samples t-test indicated no statistical significance between the male group (M =
7.09, SD = 15.10, n = 26) and the female group (M = 7.96, SD = 16.10, n = 24), t (48) = –0.197,
p > .01, as shown in Table 12.

Table 12
Independent Samples T-Test (Gender)
Male group Female group t (48) p Cohen’s f
M SD M SD
Equal variances
assumed
7.09 15.10 7.96 16.10 –0.197 .148 .256

50

Mann-Whitney U-tests were conducted to compare the differences in influential factors
between male and female participants due to the small sample size. The results of the analyses
determined that there is a significant difference in social activities (Z = –2.22, p = .026), quality
of food (Z = –2.342, p = .019), and formal programming (CIL; Z = –2.006, p = .045), all having a
p-value less than 0.05, as shown in Table 13.

51

Table 13
Comparing Survey Factors Across Gender Groups
Factors Male group (n = 26) Female group (n = 24)
M Mdn M Mdn
All factors 7.09 8.00 7.96 9.00
Diverse community 8.88 9.50 9.13 9.50
Community 8.54 9.00 9.13 9.00
Opportunities to experience
new cultures
7.96 8.00 8.87 9.00
Social activities* 7.88 8.00 8.58 9.00
Mission 7.52 7.00 7.39 8.00
Reputation 6.42 6.50 7.26 8.00
Quality of the food* 5.23 5.00 7.08 7.00
Location 5.15 4.50 6.67 7.00
Formal programming (CIL)* 5.90 6.00 7.44 8.50

* Significant difference of p-value < 0.05

Evaluation Question 3: What Is the Overall Satisfaction of Alumni Regarding Their Global
Residence Experience?
This evaluation question aimed to understand the level of satisfaction the Global
Residence alumni had with their overall experience. The survey used two questions to determine
the respondents' satisfaction levels. The first question asked the respondents to rate their overall
satisfaction according to a Likert scale range of very satisfied (5), somewhat satisfied (4), neither
52

satisfied nor dissatisfied (3), somewhat dissatisfied (2), and very dissatisfied (1). The survey also
utilized the Net Promoter Score (NPS) to measure alumni loyalty (Reichheld, 2006).
Alumni Overall Satisfaction With Their Experience
The average score of the alumni's responses to their overall satisfaction with their Global
Residence experience was calculated to answer the first question. The respondents' overall
satisfaction was 4.7 out of a 5–point scale, with 79.6% of the forty-nine respondents rating their
experience as extremely satisfied (n = 40). Eight respondents rated their experience somewhat
satisfactory, and one rated their experience extremely dissatisfied. Mann-Whitney U-tests were
conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference in respondents' overall
satisfaction between demographic groups. The results showed no significant difference in overall
satisfaction between the domestic group (4.82, n =11) and the international group (4.61, n = 33).
There was also no significant difference in the overall satisfaction between respondents who
identified themselves as male (4.65, n = 26) and those who identified themselves as female (4.70,
n = 23).
One respondent (female, domestic, undergraduate) summed up her experience by stating,
“Best year of my life! I met people from all over the world, learned so much, and now have
AMAZING friends for life.” Another respondent (male, international, PhD) echoed the sentiment
by stating, “It was a one-of-a-kind experience that I will cherish because of the global friendships
I made and favorable interactions I had, as well as the learning I undertook of how to interact in
social settings with diverse groups of people.” Several other respondents agreed by describing
their experience as “great,” “tremendous,” and “one of the best times not just in college, but in
my life.”
53

General Sentiment
The general sentiment of the respondents was positive. Question 7 asked the respondents
to describe Global Residence's overall impact on them. The responses were coded as either very
negative, negative, neutral, positive, or very positive. Responses were coded as very positive if
they included descriptive language such as “best,” “amazing,” “fantastic,” and “incredible.”
Respondents described the overall impact Global Residence had on them, with 21.6% (n = 11)
using very positive terms and 66.7% (n = 34) using positive terms. In total, 88.3% (n = 45) of the
respondents were coded as having a positive or very positive perception of their experience, as
shown in Table 14.

Table 14
Response Sentiment Categories Question 7
Very
negative
Negative Neutral Positive Very
positive
Total
Number of
responses (n)
1 1 4 34 11 51
Percent of
responses (%)
1.9 1.9 7.8 66.7 21.6 100

54

Along with general sentiment, responses were coded based on the factors that the
respondents provided in their answers. In their replies, 35% (n = 18) of the total respondents
perceived the other people in residence as an important factor driving their response. It was also
common for respondents to mention the importance of exposure to other cultures as an important
factor, with 33% (n = 17) of the respondents stating it as a reason they perceived their experience
as positive. Other positive sentiments reflected in the responses were the opportunity to learn (n
= 10) and the overall culture (n = 10) of Global Residence. One participant (female,
international, undergraduate) described their perception of Global Residence's impact by stating,
“The experience forced me to create new relations with people from different backgrounds. It
made me grow as a person and gave me a great group of friends that I will be treasuring for the
rest of my life”. Another Respondent (male, domestic, graduate) described their perception as;
It was a one-of-a-kind experience that I will cherish because of the global friendships I
made and favorable interactions I had, as well as the learning I undertook of how to
interact in social settings with diverse groups of people.
A total of 4% of the respondents described their perception of the Global Residence
experience using negative (n = 1) or very negative terms (n = 1). One of the negative respondents
(female, domestic, graduate) detailed her response by stating;
The impact hasn't been that lasting, as I've fallen out of touch with nearly everyone I met
at [Global Residence]. I have memories of course, but am not regularly spending time
with people from so many cultures, so that side is a bit rusty.
Alumni Net Promoter Score (NPS)
The second question asked the respondents to rate on a scale of zero to ten how likely
they were to recommend Global Residence to a friend or colleague. Scores of nine or ten are
55

grouped as “promoter” and considered loyal customers who will refer others to Global
Residence. Scores of seven or eight are grouped as “passive” and are assumed to be
unenthusiastic about their experience. Scores of zero to six are grouped as “detractors” and are
considered unhappy customers who impede growth through negative word-of-mouth. The Net
Promoter Score (NPS) is then calculated by subtracting the percentage of promoters from the
percentage of detractors, ranging from a low of –100 to a high of +100 (Reichheld, 2006). As
shown in Table 15, 76% of respondents were scored as Promoters, while 2% were scored as
Detractors.

Table 15
Distribution of Results Across NPS Scale Points
Measure Detractors Passive Promoter
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample n 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 8 30
Sample % 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 5% 16% 60%

56

The NPS for the respondents was +74, with no significant difference between domestic or
international respondents, genders, or length of stay. An NPS score above 30 indicates that the
organization has far more satisfied respondents than unsatisfied ones (Reichheld, 2006). An NPS
above 70 indicates that the respondents feel strongly positive about the organization and generate
a lot of positive word-of-mouth from their referrals.
Alumni Suggested Improvements
Question 16 asked respondents to suggest ways in which their experience could have
been improved. Several respondents mentioned the importance of social activities and resources
for social gatherings and suggested more “intimate social events” or “more venues for social
time.” A variation of the request for more social activities was mentioned by two international
alumni who requested more “Asian” and “African” “ethnic-themed” events. One respondent
(female, international, undergraduate) summed it up by stating,
More social events at the start of the semester, perhaps with a bigger focus on getting to
know a few people at a time rather than being in a large group where some people get lost
or don’t feel comfortable speaking up.
While the average time the respondents resided at Global Residence was well below the
8-term maximum, several respondents mentioned wanting to stay longer. One respondent
(female, domestic, undergraduate) had competing interests on campus and regretted being “super
involved in campus things and didn’t have enough time.” Another respondent (male, domestic,
undergraduate) stated they “would have stayed there longer” if they could.
For those respondents who had a roommate, several were frustrated with the policy of not
being able to select their roommate or frustrated with the cultural issues with their roommate.
One respondent (female, international, undergraduate) commented, “my roommate was a US
57

student and didn’t talk to me and also didn’t respect our different sleeping schedules.” A second
respondent (male, domestic, graduate) suggested residents “hav[ing] an influence on with whom
you share a room.”
Lastly, several respondents commented on the affordability and price of staying at Global
Residence. Several suggested that Global Residence become “less expensive” and “lowering the
price if possible.” One respondent (female, international, undergraduate) stated, “it was
expensive to live there, so inaccessible for many people.” Accessibility was echoed by a
respondent (male, domestic, PhD) stating, “If it were cheaper, then that would have let me stay in
the housing longer.”
Summary
This chapter presented the findings from the study to learn more about alumni
perceptions regarding changes in their cultural intelligence as a result of their lived experiences
at Global Residence. While a low participation rate and a minimal number of data points in some
categories limit the findings, the survey did identify several important findings. The respondents'
perception of their experience was very positive across all demographic groups. The strong
positive sentiment was also supported by the high overall satisfaction rate (4.7 out of 5.0) and an
NPS score of 74. In the overall satisfaction and NPS survey questions, 76% and 80% of the
respondents rated their experience at the highest level available. Many respondents cited the
influence of the other residents and the overall community as the drivers of their positive
sentiment. The overall metacognitive score was the strongest of the four individual cultural
intelligence dimensions measured. This implies that the diverse community the respondents
encountered during their stay at Global Residence made them more aware of the differences
when interacting with people from another culture.
58

This study also attempted to identify the factors of the Global Residence experience that
the respondents perceived as impacting their cultural intelligence. The respondents identified the
diverse community, which provided them with opportunities to interact with people from
different cultures, as the strongest driver. Social activities also offered opportunities for the
respondents to interact with people from different cultural perspectives and were identified as
one of the factors that impacted the respondents’ cultural intelligence.
While social activities were seen as one of the primary factors, formal programming
offered through the Center for Intercultural Leadership (CIL) was not perceived as having a
strong impact on the respondents’ cultural intelligence. One-quarter of the respondents stated
they did not participate in CIL activities during their stay. Of those who did participate, the
perception that the CIL activities had on their cultural intelligence was split, with 45% of the
respondents rating it below neutral and 55% rating it above neutral.
This chapter also asked the residents for suggestions on how their Global Residence
experience could have been improved. Suggestions for improvement from the respondents
centered around more resources for social activities, more time to stay at Global Residence, a
change to the roommate policy, and a reduction in the cost.

59

Chapter Five: Recommendations
This study aimed to evaluate one organization, Global Residence, which focuses on
improving intercultural respect and understanding (CQ) in the individuals in their international
living and learning community (I-LLC) to reduce cross-cultural conflict. Increasing an
individual’s CQ contributes to a reduction in cross-cultural conflict, which is aligned with the
stated mission of Global Residence. This study aims to investigate the changes in cultural
intelligence (CQ) of Global Residence alumni between 2016 and 2019 due to their exposure to
the Global Residence community. Three research questions guided the study:
1. What are the perceptions of alumni regarding the influence Global Residence has had
on their cultural intelligence?
2. Which elements of Global Residence do alumni perceive as having the most influence
on their awareness and understanding of other cultures?
3. What is the overall satisfaction of alumni regarding their Global Residence
experience?
In order to answer these questions, a mixed-methods study was undertaken through both
open-ended and Likert-scale questions posited in an online survey. The survey was distributed to
alumni of the Global Residence community who attended between 2016 and 2019. The project
returned 71 surveys that were acceptable for analysis.
Interpretation of Findings
This study found that most respondents had an overwhelmingly positive experience, with
76% rating their experience as the highest possible score. The qualitative responses yielded
similar results, with 88.3% coded as positive or very positive. Of the two students who reported a
negative experience, they stated that it was not due to any specific set of experiences within the
60

program but rather the lack of durability of the relationships after the program ended. This
sentiment could be understood as an endorsement of the experience itself, but the disappointment
that the relationships generated did not last. It also underlines the importance of interpersonal
connections and social life in evaluating the experience. Alumni perceptions of the program were
largely influenced by the nature and durability of the friendships and community they built.
The survey also generated data on perceptions of influence on CQ, broken into four
subsections. The most substantial impact was demonstrated on the metacognitive aspect of CQ.
Respondents reported an increased awareness of cultural differences as well as increased abilities
to navigate these differences. Motivational aspects expressing confidence and enjoyment of
multicultural interactions also increased. These findings largely fall into the wider literature on
International Learning Living Communities. Researchers have pointed out the benefits of living
in multicultural environments and the power of increasing confidence, reducing prejudice, and
increasing critical thinking (Hornak & Ortiz, 2004). Perhaps most relevant in the wider literature
of LLCs and CQ is the weak effects of the experience on the cognitive dimensions of CQ. These
refer to the explicit knowledge of other cultures norms, practices, and conditions. Due to the
multicultural and multinational nature of the community, the students were not exposed to or
educated on any single culture. Deep knowledge about specific social systems and economic
systems was limited (Gooden et al., 2017). However, this observation may be explained by the
limited interest in formal programming provided at the institution. Students ranked this as the
least important to their experience and could have improved their cognitive cultural intelligence.
The final question revolves around the elements of the program that were most impactful
on awareness and understanding. The respondents reported that the community and diversity
were the most important, with experiencing new cultures and social activities following behind.
61

The least impactful (though still slightly positive) were program formation and food (food was
provided in a cafeteria). This ranking provides some insight into some of the criticisms of I-
LLCs. Inkelas et al. (2018) noted the lack of faculty engagement among I-LLCs, saying that
other responsibilities (such as research) keep faculty from being involved in the community.
However, the findings in this paper show that faculty involvement through formal programming
is of limited importance. Indeed, the most salient variable for respondents was the interpersonal
relationships and diverse community in which they lived. This research suggests that the most
effective way to improve general CQ is to foster interpersonal relationships and interactions with
diverse communities. These interactions strongly affected metacognitive and motivational
aspects and slightly positively impacted behavioral and cognitive aspects.
Limitations
The data collection for this study faced various challenges, limiting this evaluation. First,
the study focuses on a narrow subsection of the population that studied in the United States.
These students are not necessarily a representative sample. They have the means to travel abroad
for a program in the United States and already have the language skills necessary for such an
experience. Speaking a second language is one of the predictors of cultural intelligence (Lee et
al., 2018; Ng et al., 2009).
Secondly, this study measured the respondents’ CQ at a single point, 6 to 9 years after
their intervention. This limited my conclusions about causality and durability (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Due to the time lapse since the intervention and the wide population dispersion,
I used an online survey and descriptive statistics to describe the variables' strengths, weaknesses,
and correlations.
62

Thirdly, all data is self-reported by the respondents, who may or may not have a good
understanding of cultural competence before taking the survey. This may have led to a common
method variance (CMV) error (Lindell, 2001). This evaluation only included alumni at this time
and excluded current residents.
Lastly, Global Residence did not record participation in the formal and informal
programs throughout the resident experience that is being measured. This did not allow the
researcher to use alumni participation or non
-participation in Global Residence programs in this study. Future research may consider a
broader study that includes more robust demographic data, data on individual participation in
formal and informal programming, and a pre-and post-experience longitudinal CQS survey that
would allow richer conclusions to be drawn.
Implications and Recommendations
This section presents recommendations based on the findings from the survey of the
Global Residence alumni. Three opportunities to improve Global Residence impact were
identified through the findings. First, social programming was an effective way of building CQ.
However, residents are reluctant to step out of their comfort zone and interact with peers from
other cultures. Second, participation in the formal programming through the Center for
Intercultural Leadership (CIL) was not impactful for those who participated. Third, the current
programming has a greater impact on the alumni motivational CQ sub-scale but less so in the
metacognitive, cognitive, and behavioral subscales. Lastly, this study had several limitations
which should be addressed with further research.
63

Recommendation 1: Add Programming and Social Activities That Require Residents to
Interact With Multiple Peer Groups.
Activities are part of the logic model and one of the primary ways in which Global
Residence delivers its programs. In this study, 88.3% of the respondents were coded as having a
positive or very positive perception of their experience, with 35% noting the other people in
residence as an important factor in their response. Not only were social activities perceived as a
positive experience, but they proved an effective tool to teach about other cultures, improve
cultural awareness, and increase recognition and understanding (Shannon & Begley, 2008).
Given that the program was both positive and showed utility through diverse community
interaction, future programs should focus on encouraging residents to interact with multiple peer
groups.
New Resident Orientation is an optional program that aims at introducing new residents
to the diverse cultures they are joining. Currently, about one-third of the residents take part in the
new resident orientation. Research has shown that orientation programs in higher education
improve student entry variables (i.e., race and gender), student experience, and in meeting
student expectations (Mayhew et al., 2010). Requiring New Resident Orientation can be an
effective way to introduce new residents to the diverse community and an opportunity to interact
with multiple peer groups.
However, there are some potential pitfalls to such programs. Diverse living communities
can alienate some residents by taking “a coercive, prescriptive tone, rather than one that
describes emerging identifications and purposes” (Talburt & Boyles, p.216). Requiring
participation in the New Resident Orientation may be seen as a coercive and prescriptive method
and alienate some residents. Programs should also be wary of hyperbonding, as it can limit the
64

benefits of living in a diverse community (Inkelas, 2018). Creating opportunities for residents to
become part of multiple peer groups, particularly in the new resident orientation, will reduce the
risks of hyperbonding.
Recommendation 2: Update the Programs Offered Through the Center for Intercultural
Leadership (CIL) to Improve Cross-Cultural Awareness and Motivation Among Resident
Leaders.
In the study, the participants reported that cognitive cultural intelligence was the least
improved CQS subscale from their experience. The respondents’ knowledge of basic
communication skills, such as the rules of other languages (M = 2.02), and rules for expressing
nonverbal behaviors (M = 2.33), were two of the lowest individual scores of the twenty
individual CQS items surveyed. Gooden et al. (2017) point out that cognitive cultural
intelligence is acquired through personal experience or education. While this study found that the
alumni perceived social activities, through personal experience, enhanced their cultural
intelligence, they did not feel the formal education activities did.
The Center for Intercultural Leadership (CIL) is an important activity in the Global
Residence logic model and is responsible for providing residents with the formal workshops
designed to improve their cultural competence. However, one-quarter of the respondents stated
that they did not participate in formal workshops run through CIL. Of those who did participate,
45% rated their experiences below neutral. Considering the rigor of an academic program at one
of the top public universities in the world, it is not a surprise that many alumni did not participate
in the optional formal workshops offered by CIL. It is clear, however, that those who chose to
participate in the programs did not feel that they had improved their cultural intelligence due to
65

participating. To address the gap in the logic model, additional programs will be added to
improve the cross-cultural awareness and motivation of the resident leaders.
Resident leaders are an important but underutilized input in the Global Residence logic
model. Resident leaders are resident assistants (RAs), program assistants (PAs), elected members
of the resident council, and student health workers. These resident leaders serve in various
formal roles in the Global Residence community and represent 12% of the total resident
population. Currently, minimal resources are put towards supporting the resident leaders in
enhancing the residents' activities or lived experiences. While each of these resident leaders has
an important role in the operations of Global Residence and in supporting the resident activities,
they do not receive any formal cross-cultural training. Cross-cultural training has been shown to
effectively increase cultural awareness and motivation (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2006).
One program to be added to the Center for Intercultural Leadership (CIL) is the Resident
Leadership Development Program (RLDP). The RLDP program aims at providing cross-cultural
leadership skills for resident leaders. Based on the grounded theory model of high-quality
leadership programs (Eich, 2008), the RLDP aims to introduce resident leaders to improved
leadership skills by understanding themselves, others, and the world around them. The outcome
will be improved knowledge of the norms and practices of other cultures with the resident
leaders.
Social Learning Theory (SLT) blends behavioral, environmental, social contact, and
cognitive aspects of learning and can be applied to experiential learning environments (Bandura,
1977). The two important factors of Social Learning Theory are learning and modeling
(Rumjaun & Narod, 2020). Following the SLT framework, the RLDP program can build
66

leadership skills and create an opportunity for these resident leaders to model intercultural
leadership values to the rest of the community through modeling.
Social Leadership Theory states that demonstrating and modeling behavior effectively
spreads the desired behavior throughout the community (Rumjaun & Narod, 2020). Thus, the
recommendation to encourage resident leaders to participate in formal cross-cultural training,
such as the RLDP, may increase the cultural awareness and motivation of the resident leaders
and provide them with the confidence and opportunity to model this behavior throughout the
community.
Recommendation 3: Increase Resident Participation and Interaction With the Activities
That Drive Improvement in Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Behavioral CQ Subscales.
Activities are a key part of the Global Residence logic model and are designed to
influence the four subscales of the CQS (outcomes). As such, all of the activities that are part of
the resident's lived experience are designed to influence cultural intelligence (CQ). The study
found that all the measured CQ subscales were perceived positively, but not all, to the same
degree. This result is similar to a recent study by Vale and Arnold (2019) that examined the
effects of an international experiential learning program on the cultural competence of college
students. Their study indicated a positive impact on the participants’ cognitive subscale but not
on the metacognitive, motivational, or behavioral subscales (Vale & Arnold, 2019). Similar to
the Vale and Arnold study, the alumni of the Global Residence study showed that the alumni had
the greatest improvement in their motivational cultural intelligence skills but less so in the other
CQS subscales.
Motivational cultural intelligence indicates confidence about being involved in cross-
cultural situations and enjoyment when interacting with new cultures (Verde, 2017). As a result
67

of the increased confidence, the alumni are more likely to engage in cross-cultural situations.
However, having the confidence to engage in a cross-cultural situation without having the
knowledge, awareness, or ability to interact effectively, as indicated in the other three
subcategories, is not a good result. To address the outcome gap in the Global Residence logic
model, the administration will increase resident participation in the activities that drive
improvements in the cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral subscales.
To ameliorate the outcome gap, administrators should ensure a more balanced CQS
development in the residents through inclusion and participation in the aspects of the experience
that drive the metacognitive, cognitive, and behavioral subscales. This includes more interaction
with the diverse community and ensuring the residents have opportunities to experience new
cultures. These factors are not just the most impactful in the eyes of the alumni, and they are also
effective to the entire community with no statistical differences across gender, as well as
domestic and international residents.
A New Resident Retreat offered at the start of each intake will expose the newly arrived
residents to the diverse community and provide an opportunity to experience new cultures. Based
on the research on hyper-bonding, the objective of the retreat is to create programming that
encourages extended discussions, collaboration across cultures, and time for personal reflection
(Watts, 2013). Reviving the “Day of Diversity and Global Celebration” program that ceased to
exist in the early 1990s can also be an opportunity for new residents to learn about other cultures,
collaborate on the execution of the event, and celebrate the diversity of the community in a
positive way.
Opportunities to experience new cultures are also important to improve the resident’s
cultural awareness. Traditionally, the weekly coffee hour is an opportunity for residents from a
68

particular country to share certain aspects of their culture through coffee, tea, music, food, and
talks. As noted in the study, alumni suggested increasing the number of social events that
introduce them to new cultures. Increasing themed meal nights that create a dining menu that
highlights one particular region, country, or culture is one way this can be done. Trying new
foods can improve the motivational subcategory of cultural intelligence (Cronshaw, 2017). The
recommendation to include a New Resident Retreat and increase the resident opportunities to
interact with new cultures may deliver better outcomes in the Global Residence logic model.
Recommendation 4: Update the Application and Selection Process to Include Applicant
Suitability for Joining the Diverse Community.
The Global Residence building is the closest student accommodation to the university
campus and has built a reputation for having the best food in the area. The Global Residence
room and board fees are less than comparable options offered to students. The price, proximity,
and reputation for good food in the dining room draw many applications from people simply
seeking room and board and not necessarily to be part of an international living and learning
community. This can lead to misaligning expectations and negatively impact the desired
outcome of improving residents’ cultural intelligence. To address this, Global Residence will
update the application and selection process to ensure better alignment and improved outcomes.
Recruiting diverse residents is an input to the Global Residence logic model. The current
selection process prioritizes diversity above all other selection criteria. For example, a resident
from an unrepresented country will take priority over a resident from a country currently
represented within the community. Similarly, if an applicant is studying in an academic program,
they will have priority over an applicant studying in an academic program currently represented.
69

While this policy ensures a diverse community, it places diversity above fit or suitability for a
positive outcome, which may not lead to the best overall outcome.
Prioritizing antecedents of CQ may sacrifice some diversity for an overall better
outcome. Research has shown that “openness,” previous cultural exposure, prior cross-cultural
training, and self-efficacy are antecedents to cultural intelligence (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008;
MacNab, 2012; MacNab & Worthley, 2012). Administrators will update the application to
include questions to assess the applicant’s suitability for a positive outcome (improving the
CQS). Along with the questions, they will develop a matrix for scoring the overall strength of the
applicant’s responses. Considering fit or suitability for a positive outcome, along with diversity,
might improve the overall outcome for Global Residence.
Recommendation 5: Further Research Incorporating a Longitudinal, Pre-, and Post-
experience Cultural Intelligence Assessment on the Residents and Tracking Resident
Participation in the Formal and Informal Activities Throughout Their Stay
This paper suffered from several limitations, including a small sample size, limited
demographic data, and a selection from a single institution in the United States. Respondents’
participation in the various formal and social programming offered throughout their Global
Residence experience was not tracked during their stay and could not be considered.
Furthermore, the research examined the respondents’ experience and CQS at a single point in
time, several years after their experience. These factors limit the usefulness of the data collected
and their interpretation.
The experiential learning framework (Kolb, 1984) states that an effective experiential
learning program should allow the learner to engage in an experience, reflect on the experience,
use the learned analytical skills, and apply those learnings to future situations. Following the
70

experiential learning framework by including a pre-experience CQS in the application process
would provide the baseline CQ subscales for the residents before engaging in the Global
Residence experience. A post-experience CQ assessment would allow residents to reflect on
their experience and provide a comparison of pre-and post- means of the CQ sub-scales. A
follow-up survey of alumni after they have had the opportunity to apply what they have learned
will provide useful data for future researchers.
Expanding future research to a larger and more diverse sample could provide further
insights into the effects of diverse environments on cultural intelligence. Measuring respondents'
CQ prior to arrival and after their experience would provide useful insights for future studies.
Furthermore, longer-term research that regards longitudinal data throughout the program and the
durability of effects afterward would be of interest to researchers and provide a complete
understanding of the Global Residence experience.
Conclusion
It is not an insightful observation that the globe is more connected than ever. Indeed, the
unoriginality of this statement lends credence not only to its veracity but also to its usefulness as
a widely observed and understood phenomenon. The relevant questions are not only about the
density and nature of these connections but how to improve their quality and foster cross-cultural
understanding and cultural intelligence. Cultural intelligence does not spring out of the ether but
is a skill that can (and should) be developed. Programs like Global Residence offer insights into
the feasibility and efficacy of developing the skillsets needed in a global community. The
participants in this study and their peers will likely continue to operate in a multicultural world
with far more efficacy due to their experiences gained through Global Residents and, in turn,
71

engage in less culture-based conflict. This paper seeks to understand the causal connection
between those experiences and the improvements in cultural intelligence.

72

References
Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice.
Ang, I., Tambiah, Y., & Mar, P. (2015). Smart engagement with Asia: Leveraging language,
research and culture.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K., Templer, K., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. (2007).
Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and Decision
Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance. Management and Organization
Review, 3(3), 335–371. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Fran.
Avruch, K. (2009). Cross-cultural conflict. Conflict Resolution, 1, 45–57.
Babbie, E., & Rubin, A. (2010). Essential research methods for social work. Belmont, Ca.
Baehr, J. (2013). Educating for intellectual virtues: From theory to practice. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 47(2), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12023
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall: Englewood
cliffs.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863
Blondin, J. E. (2015). Strategies for the Development of an Intercultural Environment.
In Internationalizing Higher Education (pp. 87-100). Brill.
Bücker, J., Furrer, O., & Lin, Y. (2015). Measuring cultural intelligence (CQ) A new test of the
CQ scale. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 15(3), 259–284.
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2012). Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership
73

effectiveness. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 612–622.
Cervantes, R. C., Cardoso, J. B., & Goldbach, J. T. (2015). Examining differences in culturally
based stress among clinical and nonclinical Hispanic adolescents. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3), 458.
Crowne, K. A. (2008). What leads to cultural intelligence? Business Horizons, 51(5), 391–399.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a
new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 3(1), 100–115.
Earnest, D. R., Rosenbusch, K., Wallace-Williams, D., & Keim, A. C. (2016). Study abroad in
psychology: Increasing cultural competencies through experiential learning. Teaching of
Psychology, 43(1), 75–79.
Eich, D. (2008). A grounded theory of high-quality leadership programs: Perspectives from
student leadership development programs in higher education. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 15(2), 176–187.
Fang, F., Schei, V., & Selart, M. (2018). Hype or hope? A new look at the research on cultural
intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 66, 148–171.
Fischer, R. (2011). Cross-cultural training effects on cultural essentialism beliefs and cultural
intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 767–775.
Flaskerud, J. H. (2007). Cultural competence: what is it? Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 28(1),
121–123.
Gadde, A., Rastelli, L., Razamat, S. S., & Yan, W. (2011). Four dimensional superconformal
index from q-deformed two dimensional Yang-Mills theory. Physical Review Letters,
74

106(24), 241602.
González-McLean, J. A. (2021). Living and Learning Community and Sense of Belonging of
First-Year Women of Color in a Predominantly White Institution Baccalaureate Nursing
Program (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College).
Gooden, D. J., Creque, C. A., & Chin-Loy, C. (2017). The impact of UK metacognitive,
cognitive and motivational cultural intelligence on behavioral cultural intelligence.
International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 16(3), 223–230.
Gozzoli, C., & Gazzaroli, D. (2018). The cultural intelligence scale (CQS): A contribution to the
Italian validation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1183.
Greischel, H., Zimmermann, J., Mazziotta, A., & Rohmann, A. (2021). Validation of a German
version of the cultural intelligence scale. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 80, 307–320.
Hammer, M. R. (2005). The intercultural conflict style inventory: A conceptual framework and
measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 675–695.
Harrison, N. (2012). Investigating the impact of personality and early life experiences on
intercultural interaction in internationalised universities. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 36(2), 224–237.
Hornak, A., & Ortiz, A. M. (2004). Creating a context to promote diversity education and self-
authorship among community college students. Learning partnerships: Theory and
models of practice to educate for self-authorship, 91–123.
Inkelas, K. K., Jessup-Anger, J. E., Benjamin, M., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2018). Living-learning
communities that work: A research-based model for design, delivery, and assessment.
75

Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Inkelas, K. (2008). National study of living-learning programs: 2007 report of findings.
Inkelas, K. K., & Soldner, M. (2011). Undergraduate living–learning programs and student
outcomes. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 1-55). Springer,
Dordrecht.
Kellogg, W. K. Introduction to Logic Models.
Khodadady, E., & Golparvar, E. (2011). Factors underlying religious orientation scale-a
methodological approach. Ilahiyat Studies, 2(2), 215–235.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Research design. In Encyclopedia of survey research methods (Vol. 1, pp.
725–731). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947.n471
Lebaron, M. (2003). Culture and conflict: Beyond intractability. Conflict Information
Consortium.
Lee, J.H., & Crawford, C., & Weber, M.R., & Dennison, D., (2018) Antecedents of Cultural
Intelligence Among American Hospitality Students: Moderating Effect of Ethnocentrism,
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 30(3), 167–183.
Lee, S. Y., & Hong, A. J. (2021). Psychometric investigation of the cultural intelligence scale
using the Rasch measurement model in South Korea. Sustainability, 13(6), 3139.
Lenartowicz, T., Johnson, J. P., & Konopaske, R. (2014). The application of learning theories to
improve cross-cultural training programs in MNCs. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 25(12), 1697–1719.
Livermore, D., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2022). Organizational CQ: Cultural intelligence for
76

21st-century organizations. Business Horizons, 65(5), 671–680.
MacNab, B. R. (2012). An experiential approach to cultural intelligence education. Journal of
Management Education, 36(1), 66–94.
MacNab, B. R., & Worthley, R. (2012). Individual characteristics as predictors of cultural
intelligence development: The relevance of self-efficacy. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 62–71.
Mayhew, M. J., Vanderlinden, K., & Kim, E. K. (2010). A multi-level assessment of the impact
of orientation programs on student learning. Research in higher education, 51(4), 320–
345.
McClanahan, S. (2014). The global neighborhood: Programming initiatives with international
living-learning communities. Journal of International Students, 4(2), 191–195.
Nan, S. A. (2011). Consciousness in culture‐based conflict and conflict resolution. Conflict
Resolution Quarterly, 28(3), 239–262.
Ng, K. Y., Ang, S., & Rockstuhl, T. (2022). Cultural intelligence: From intelligence in context
and across cultures to intercultural contexts. In Intelligence in Context (pp. 177–200).
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural
intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of
Management learning & education, 8(4), 511–526.
Ott, D. L., & Michailova, S. (2018). Cultural intelligence: A review and new research avenues.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 99–119.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative science
quarterly, 24(4), 570–581.
77

Puyod, J. V., & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2019). The contribution of cultural intelligence to the
interaction involvement and performance of call center agents in cross-cultural
communication: The moderating role of work experience. Management Research Review.
Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of
interventions. Evaluation, 14(1), 29–48.
Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T. A., & Hacsi, T. A. (2000). Program theory evaluation:
Practice, promise, and problems. New directions for evaluation, 2000(87), 5–13.
Rumjaun, A., & Narod, F. (2020). Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura. In Science
education in theory and practice (pp. 85–99). Springer, Cham.
Rehg, M. T., Gundlach, M. J., & Grigorian, R. A. (2012). Examining the influence of cross‐
cultural training on cultural intelligence and specific self‐efficacy. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal.
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research
design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107–131.
Shannon, L. M., & Begley, T. M. (2008). Antecedents of the four-factor model of cultural
intelligence. Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications,
41–55.
Talburt, S. & Boyles, D. (2005). Reconsidering learning communities: Expanding the discourse
by challenging the discourse. Journal of General Education, 4(54), 209–236.
Thomas, D. C. (2008). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business.
ReadHowYouWant.com.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively (Vol. 5).
Sage.
78

Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The
Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167–177.
Triandis, H. C. (2000). Culture and conflict. International journal of psychology, 35(2), 145–
152.
Vale, L. & Arnold, H. S. (2019). The Effects of International Experiential Learning on the
Cultural Competence of College Students in Communication Sciences and
Disorders. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 4(5), 1074–1084.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_PERS-SIG14-2018-0026
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2015). Development and validation of the CQS: The cultural
intelligence scale. Handbook of cultural intelligence (pp. 34–56). Routledge.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub‐dimensions
of the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and
measurement of cultural intelligence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4),
295–313.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Tan, M. L. (2016). Cultural intelligence.
Verde, A. (2017). Globalization: Definition and Phases. In Is Globalisation Doomed? (pp. 3-12).
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Zemliansky, P. (2012). Achieving experiential cross-cultural training through a virtual teams
project. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55(3), 275–286.

79

Appendix A: Survey
Global Residence Alumni Survey
Start of block: introduction
You are invited to participate in a study to examine the impact Global Residence has had
on the cultural intelligence (CQ) of the alumni that resided between 2016 and 2019. The study is
being conducted by a member of Global Residence as part of their doctoral dissertation. Your
participation in the study is completely voluntary and participant identities will not be known to
the Principal Investigator (PI). The survey consists of six sections and can be completed in 12
minutes, or less, and you may skip any question that you are not comfortable with answering.
1. Have you resided at Global Residence for at least one semester?
• Yes (1)
• No (2)
2. Total number of semesters that you resided at Global Residence.
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
80

3. How influential were the following factors in increasing your awareness and
understanding of other cultures? (0 = N/A, 1 = little to no influence, 10 = a great deal
of influence)
• location
• quality of the food
• reputation
• diverse community
• mission
• opportunities to experience new cultures
• formal programming (CIL)
• social activities (Sunday supper, coffee hours, hikes, yoga, etc...)
• community
4. How much influence did the following factors have on your ability to interact with
others from a different cultural background? (0 = N/A, 1 = little to no influence, 10 =
a great deal of influence)
• living in a diverse community
• eating meals in the I-House dining hall
• interacting with residents at social activities (Sunday Supper, Coffee Hours,
etc.)
• participating in formal workshops (CIL)
5. If someone asked you to describe your overall experience at I-House, what would say
(open-ended response)?
81

6. How would you describe the overall impact that I-House had on you personally
(open-ended response)?
7. In what ways, if at all, did I-House influence/impact/affect your ability to interact
with people from other cultures (open-ended response)?
8. How would you rate the overall impact of Global Residence on the following (–5 =
extremely negative impact, 0 = no impact at all, +5 = extremely positive impact)?
• being conscious of the cultural knowledge you use when interacting with
people with different cultural backgrounds
• ability to adjust your cultural knowledge when you interact with people from a
culture that is unfamiliar to you
• being conscious of the cultural knowledge you apply to cross-cultural
interactions
• ability to check the accuracy of your cultural knowledge as you interact with
people from different cultures
9. How would you rate the overall impact of Global Residence on the following? (-5 =
extremely negative impact, 0 = no impact at all, +5 = extremely positive impact)
• your knowledge of the legal and economic systems of other cultures
• your knowledge of the rules (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) of other languages
• your knowledge of the cultural values and religious beliefs of other cultures
• your knowledge of the marriage systems of other cultures
• your knowledge of the art and crafts of other cultures
• your knowledge of the rules for expressing nonverbal behaviors in other
cultures
82

10. How would you rate the overall impact of Global Residence on the following? (–5 =
extremely negative impact, 0 = no impact at all, +5 = extremely positive impact)
• your ability to change your verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-
cultural interaction requires it
• your ability to use pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural
situations
• your ability to vary the rate of your speaking when a cross-cultural situation
requires it
• your ability to change your nonverbal behavior when a cross-cultural situation
requires it
• your ability to alter your facial expressions when a cross-cultural interaction
requires it
11. How would you rate the overall impact of Global Residence on the following (–5 =
extremely negative impact, 0 = no impact at all, +5 = extremely positive impact)?
• your enjoyment when interacting with people from different cultures
• your confidence when socializing with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to
me
• your ability to deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to you
• your enjoyment living in cultures that are unfamiliar to you
• your confidence that you can get accustomed to the shopping conditions in a
different culture
12. Overall, how satisfied were you with your experience at Global Residence?
• extremely satisfied (5)
83

• somewhat satisfied (4)
• neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)
• somewhat dissatisfied (2)
• extremely dissatisfied (1)
13. How likely are you to recommend Global Residence to a friend or colleague?
• 0 (0)
• 1 (1)
• 2 (2)
• 3 (3)
• 4 (4)
• 5 (5)
• 6 (6)
• 7 (7)
• 8 (8)
• 9 (9)
• 10 (10)
14. In what ways could your experience at Global Residence have been improved (open-
ended response)?
15. Academic Level during your stay at Global Residence (choose all that apply)?
• Undergraduate (1)
• Graduate (2)
• PhD (3)
• Post-Doc (4)
84

• Visiting Faculty (5)
• Other (6)
16. Gender
• male (1)
• female (2)
• non-binary/third gender (3)
• prefer not to say (4)
17. Primary nationality (open-ended response)?
18. Secondary nationality, if applicable (open-ended response)?
19. Country currently residing (open-ended response)?
85

Appendix B– Survey Email
Subject Line: Survey Invitation
[Global Residence logo]
Dear Global Residence alums,
You are invited to participate in a study to examine the impact Global Residence has had
on the cultural intelligence (CQ) of the alumni that resided between 2016 and 2019. The study is
being conducted by a member of [Global Residence] as part of their doctoral dissertation. Your
participation in the study is completely voluntary and participant identities will not be known to
the Principal Investigator (PI). The survey consists of six sections and can be completed in 12
minutes, or less, and you may skip any question that you are not comfortable with answering.

If you are interested in participating in this survey, please click on the following link:
${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey}

[Name]
CFO and Business Manager
[Global Residence]
Email address and phone number

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Transgender experience in the U.S. military: opportunities for effective inclusion

PDF

An evaluation of employee perceptions of onboarding experiences: an evaluation study

PDF

Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program

PDF

Promoting well-being amid a global pandemic: evaluating the impact on nonprofit employees

PDF

Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

Workforce system collaboration

PDF

Uncovering promising practices for providing vocational opportunities to formerly incarcerated individuals

PDF

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches

PDF

Preparing teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices

PDF

A thriving culture of belonging: organizational cultural intelligence and racial minority retention

PDF

Evaluating the problem of college students graduating into underemployment and unemployment

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Carver, Shaun Rees (author)

Core Title Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 12/20/2022

Defense Date 12/20/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cultural intelligence,logic model,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email scarver@usc.edu,shaunrcarver@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112661523

Unique identifier UC112661523

Identifier etd-CarverShau-11394.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-CarverShau-11394

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Carver, Shaun Rees

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230104-usctheses-batch-999 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu