The Dialogical Self of Migrants
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE DIALOGICAL SELF OF MIGRANTS: EXPLORING THE MIGRATION EXPERIENCE THROUGH SELF-NARRATIVES Mariel Sanchez-Rockliffe Faculty of Health, Arts and Design Swinburne University of Technology Australia A Report of an investigation submitted as partial requirement for the degree of Doctor of Psychology (Counselling Psychology) December 2015 i Declaration I declare that that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgment any material previously submitted for a degree in any university, or other educational institution; and that to the best of my knowledge and belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text. I further declare that the ethical principles and procedures specified by the Psychology Department’s document on human research and experimentation have been adhered to in the preparation of this report. Mariel Sanchez-Rockliffe ii Abstract Hermans’ theory of the dialogical self and the self-confrontation method (SCM) are used to study the effect of migration on the self. A radical change in the social environment, in this case migration, is shown to be reflected in the structure of the dialogical self. Relationships between migrants’ I-positions relating to life in their countries of origin and in Australia are explored. The study is based on a sample of 38 migrants to Australia who perceived themselves as having two identities, one for their country of origin, the other for their new country. Participants were interviewed under the procedures of the SCM to elicit a total of 1500 valuations (narratives) relating to their I-positions. These were scored along the standard four SCM dimensions: self-enhancement (S), union-with-the-other (O), positive affect (P) and negative affect (N). Participants also provided demographic data, and self-reports of psychological well-being and distress. The first study employed cluster analysis to group participants into four types. “Progressives” steadily moved towards a valued goal; “Low-stables” experienced little affective change, remaining at a lower level than “High-stables”, who likewise changed little but were at a higher level of well-being. “Regressives” were the opposite of “Progressive”. The types were then characterised in terms of self-confrontation indices, demographics and psychological self-reports, and their differences identified. In the second study participants were classified according to the nature of their valuations and a transition matrix constructed linking the major themes of their valuations for country of origin and for Australia. The transition matrix was statistically tested for the null hypothesis that migration had no effect on I-position. The dialogical self was treated as a hypothetical probability distribution of themes of valuations whereby the SCM is a technique for generating a sample of valuations. The properties of the underlying iii distribution could then be inferred, as in standard sampling theory. The third study was idiographic, analysing case studies representing each of the participant types identified by the first study. The main finding is the overall stability of the thematic content of valuations. Where differences occur, they are intelligible. For example, many respondents seemed to be responding positively to the peaceful, liberal social conditions they find in Australia. The research corroborates previous research that identifies two modes of biculturalism: compatible and oppositional. Low-stable and High-stable migrants viewed their heritage and host cultures as complementary, whereas Progressive and Regressive migrants viewed them as discrepant and conflicting. Many migrants had I- positions with unambiguously different thematic content. This is evidence for Hermans’ dialogical view of the self and against the hypothesis of an underlying integrated self. Most migrants showed self-enhancement (S) in their Australian than in their country of origin I-positions, whereas union-with-the-other (O) did not differ significantly, suggesting that migration accommodates self-enhancement (S) proportionately more than union-with-the-other (O). Migrants varied in their psychological states in a plausible and consistent way. In general, Progressive and High-stable migrants were lowest on distress and highest on well-being; Regressive migrants were the opposite; and the Low-stable migrants were intermediate. Lastly, good matches were found between the case studies and the participant types they represented. iv Acknowledgments It is pleasure and deep gratitude that I acknowledge the help, support and advice extended to me in completing this thesis. I am indebted to Swinburne University for the opportunity to undertake it, and for their financial support and encouragement in attending international conferences pertinent to my research. To my supervisor, Glen Bates, I extend my deepest thanks for his guidance and support. Without his patience and understanding this thesis would surely never have been completed. To my friend and mentor, James Symons, I extend my thanks for his untiring efforts and advice in developing and testing hypotheses relating to the thesis. To my husband, I extend my gratitude for his assistance in data management and editorial matters. And to both I offer my sincere appreciation for their keen critical insights, which were all the more valuable as they were drawn from disciplines outside my own. Lastly, I extend my thanks to all those—friends, family and colleagues too numerous to mention—who have stood by me. v Table of Contents Declaration i Abstract ii Acknowledgments iv Table of Contents v List of Tables vii List of Figures ix CHAPTER 1: Introduction and Overview 1 CHAPTER 2: Self and Identity 3 2.1 James’ Theory of the Self 3 2.2 Symbolic Interactionism 6 2.3 Identity 11 2.4 The Dialogical Self 24 2.5 Summary 34 CHAPTER 3: Migration and Acculturation 36 3.1 Australian Migration 36 3.2 Acculturation 44 3.3 Acculturation Outcomes 58 3.4 Individualism versus Collectivism 67 3.5 Summary 73 CHAPTER 4: The Dialogical Self and Acculturation 75 4.1 Globalisation and the Illusion of Stability 75 4.2 A Dialogical Theory of Acculturation 82 4.3 Cultural Continuity 87 4.4 Research Aims and Questions 94 CHAPTER 5: Research Methodology 99 5.1 Participants 99 5.2 Self-report Measures of Psychological Distress and Well-being 104 5.3 Self-confrontation Method (SCM) 114 5.4 Procedure 118 5.5 Treatment of the Interview Data 121 5.6 Comparison with Previous Studies 127 5.7 Personal Reflections on the Experience of Migration 130 CHAPTER 6: Study 1 – Identification and Comparison of Migrant Groups 135 6.1 Preliminary Analysis 135 6.2 Distinguishing I-positions 143 6.3 Analyses of Participant Type 157 6.4 Comparison of Participant Types 170 vi 6.5 Summary 177 CHAPTER 7: Study 2 – The Dialogical Self as a Probability Distribution 180 7.1 The Dialogical Self as a Probability Distribution of Themes 180 7.2 Hypotheses 184 7.3 Analysis Based on Major Themes 185 7.4 Analysis Based on Self-confrontation Indices 195 7.5 Summary 199 CHAPTER 8: Study 3 – Case Studies 200 8.1 Euclidean distance 200 8.2 Case study: The ‘Progressive’ Migrant (Type 1) 204 8.3 Case study: The “Low-stable” Migrant (Type 2) 211 8.4 Case study: The “High-stable” Migrant (Type 3) 218 8.5 Case study: The “Regressive” Migrant (Type 4) 227 8.6 Summary 233 CHAPTER 9: General Discussion 236 9.1 Summary of the Empirical Work 236 9.2 Main Findings 239 9.3 Directions for Future Research 265 9.4 Conclusions 271 Glossary 273 References 275 vii List of Tables Table 3.1 Migrant stock: selected countries of large-scale immigration 39 Table 5.1 Characteristics of the sample, by gender 101 Table 5.2 Means and standard deviations for Years in Australia, Age and Individualism, by gender 102 Table 5.3 Number of participants, by Hofstede’s individualism index 103 Table 5.4 Dimensions of Ryff’s Psychological Well-being Scale (PWB) 110 Table 5.5 Questions of the Self-confrontation method 116 Table 5.6 Composition of indices in the SCM 122 Table 5.7 Composition of major themes 125 Table 5.8 Empirical studies using the Self Confrontation Method 128 Table 5.9 Demographic difference between minority and majority cultures for selected studies 128 Table 6.1 Means and standard deviations for the self-report measures 136 Table 6.2 Correlations among self-report measures 137 Table 6.3 Correlations among self-confrontation indices 139 Table 6.4 Correlations among self-reports and self-confrontation indices 141 Table 6.5 Means and standard deviations of self-confrontation indices 144 Table 6.6 Number of participants by cluster: country of origin 149 Table 6.7 Mean self-confrontation indices for country of origin I-position, by cluster in country of origin 151 Table 6.8 Number of participants by cluster: Australia 154 Table 6. 9 Mean self-confrontation indices for Australian I-position, by cluster in Australia 155 Table 6.10 Number of participants, by cluster in country of origin and in Australia 157 Table 6.11 Mean self-confrontation indices for the I-position, by location and participant type 159 Table 6.12 Tabulation of demographic characteristics, by participant type 171 Table 6.13 Mean and standard deviation of demographic characteristics, by participant type 172 Table 6.14 Mean psychological distress, by participant type 173 Table 6.15 Mean psychological well-being, by participant type 174 Table 6.16 Mean self-confrontation indices for country of origin I-position, by participant type 175 Table 6.17 Mean self-confrontation