Baseline Study – Development Needs Analysis Report: Report On The Analysis Of Qualitative Data Collected Form 8 Latin American Sample Universities

Between May and June 2019, study visits were organized to the seven Latin American PROFIC partner universities, in order to conduct individual interviews with members of academic and administrative staff and group interviews with students. The general aim was to - identify the learning needs of partner institutions’ staff in terms of supporting the development of students’ intercultural competence (IC) and - elicit staff members’ ideas about professional development (PD) activities that might help them better support students’ IC development. The resulting document, based on the analysis of data collected during the study visits, ensures that PROFIC PD activities not only - address the most prominent developmental needs, but also, to the extent possible, - do so in the format that future participants may find most congenial with their learning preferences. The Needs analysis report is divided into seven parts. Part 1 provides information on the data collection procedures, timing and sample, so as to situate the study in terms of its methodology and respondents’ profiles. Part 2 focuses on the diversity reported by the respondents – staff members, on the one hand, and students, on the other. The reason for including this part is twofold. Firstly, the more diverse one believes the environment to be, the more relevant IC development will appear. Secondly, if students and staff have similar perceptions about diversity around them, it will be easier for them to work towards the common goal of developing IC; if this is not the case, they might need to make sure they find a shared goal first, for any IC fostering efforts to be perceived as relevant by students. Part 3 presents staff’s ideas on whether students need IC, what for or when, as well as the aspects of IC our respondents saw as most important for their students; after which students’ views on what IC is for and on crucial IC elements are summarized. Similar to Part 2, a higher level of congeniality here will increase the face validity of the IC fostering activities offered to students. Additionally, should students’ ideas be too narrow, the task of first making students aware of the full potential associated with developing IC might be of utmost relevance and PROFIC PD programme will have to make sure that the participants find ways to motivate their students. Part 4 looks into the needs of the staff in terms of developing own IC, as well as better helping students to develop their IC. It starts with an overview of staff members’ reflections on own IC – something which is of great importance for any PD programme to try to meet its participants ‘where they are’ in terms of IC development. After this, students’ views on what staff might want to aim for in supporting student IC development and on the gaps in staff’ capacities to foster students’ IC development are reported. Part 5 gives an idea of some of the current practices staff interviewed put in place to develop student IC and on the existing counterproductive practices reported by staff members. Part 6 brings together staff and students’ ideas about what IC-focused PD programme for staff should or could look like. While this part could be seen as most directly related to the contribution that the Needs analysis report can make, it is important to read Part 6 in the broader context of the developmental level at which our respondents appear to be, and this is something that can be judged through their responses presented in Parts 2-5. Part 7 offers some conclusions on the lessons learned.