CC BY-NC-NDThis work is released under a CC BY-NC-ND license, which means that you are free to do with it as you please as long as you (1) properly attribute it, (2) do not use it for commercial gain, and (3) do not create derivative works.
Ross Woods, 2026
Educators and development workers are often motivated by a genuine desire to help others improve their educational opportunities. When work crosses cultural, economic, or national boundaries, however, good intentions alone are not enough. Based on my own experiences, this reflective article explores how unexamined assumptions, perceptions, and values can shape outcomes, sometimes in unintended ways.
International workers might think that their work is successful, but they can unconsciously depend on their own perceptions and values, and make many assumptions about what they do without considering the intercultural nature of their work. In these cases, they do not know that they do not know. This paper explores some of those assumptions, perceptions, and values that could differ between the involved parties. What are their consequences and implications, and to what extent must they be articulated and explored? Although these potential problems do not always arise, when they do, they negatively affect the effectiveness of the program.
This paper argues that unexamined assumptions and perceptions shape intercultural educational initiatives, and that effective praxis-based education requires intentional reflection, dialogue, and long-term relational engagement.
This experience highlights a recurring challenge in praxis-based education. Praxis refers to the ongoing relationship between reflection and action, where practice is continually examined and adjusted in light of experience. Effective praxis requires more than technical expertise; it requires attentiveness and a willingness to learn from those one aims to support.
One of the first challenges practitioners face is understanding who is involved. Educational and development programs rarely affect only one group. The usual term is now stakeholders, and it refers to anybody who depends in some way on the success of the program. In the case of education, these are usually the international team, school leadership, the teachers at the school, their students, and the parents of the students. The school might also have other gate-keepers, that is, people who provide access to key decision-makers or who must approve any program in their institution. It is tempting, but risky, to presume that all stakeholders will eagerly accept a good idea. In reality, different stakeholders often have different priorities, expectations, and levels of enthusiasm.
Finding out what a school needs is not necessarily straightforward. The phrase “Find out what they need.” assumes that they know what they need, that they can easily articulate it, that other people in the school have the same perception of their needs, and that they will express them to a foreigner. It also presumes that, if they express their needs, then the educator will understand them in the same way that they were intended.
Another aspect is “Who identifies and defines the need and approach to change?” To some extent, a person exercises power if they can diagnose the needs and decide the changes. Power dynamics further complicates communication when local participants feel pressure to please visiting experts or donors.
Context matters greatly when evaluating progress. A school might be starting from a very low base, and the first round of training might be for the most basic teaching skills. Academic achievements might not be exemplary, but they might be extraordinary considering the low base from which one started. This is especially the case where local teachers are working at the limit of their ability because they are pioneering something new.
Although teachers might lack basic skills, it is usually better to assume the contrary and find out why they think as they do; they might have very good reasons due to their contextual understanding.
Demographic and social realities also shape educational outcomes. Not all communities view education as a reliable pathway to social mobility, and one cannot assume that people always want their children to be successful in further education. People in some communities have very low aspirations and view future opportunities with a tinge of fatalism. If parents are poorly-paid workers in manual labor, they and their children perceive their opportunities of advancement to be limited and seldom aspire to higher education and middle-class lifestyles. Even so, education is the most accessible avenue to upward social mobility, in which case students must socialize into a middle class lifestyles and values.
Language can hide misunderstanding even if the plain, literal meaning is seldom in doubt. Differences in nuance and implied meanings might create miscommunication, especially if the one refers to something of which the other party has no knowledge. For example, locals might be painfully aware of specific government requirements, unlike foreigners.
Agreement may sometimes signal courtesy rather than commitment. Local standards of politeness might require that each party must prevent offending or embarrassing the other. In some cases, for example, one side might agree to save face, but then not do anything nor explain their inaction. Silence may reflect respect or hesitation rather than consent.
Next, the relative status of parties in the conversation might determine how one person sees the other. For example, an older foreigner with an impressive job title and educational qualifications might intimidate much younger teachers who presume themselves to be less educated and less wealthy.
What does it mean to “agree” to a project? It might be much less than a clear commitment, and both sides might have different views of what is an acceptable solution in context. Some might be satisfied with very basic improvements, while westerners might chase a set of western ideals.
Cultures can vary greatly in perceiving the goals of the project. For example, some see achievement of the literal stated goals. Others might focus on relationships and see achievement as group satisfaction only, with no other outcomes. Others might see process rather than goals, or immediate needs rather than long-term change. Yet others might see program objectives as moving targets that can be changed at any time. Others might think of it as a “try and see” experiment from which they can withdraw at any time without notice. Consequently, “Will it work?” requires clarifying what “working” means to different people. Expect different perceptions of success.
Implementation introduces further challenges; one cannot assume that people will make changes as soon as they know what to do. Change is rarely quick or easy, even within one’s own culture. Resistance is normal and does not necessarily signal opposition, and effective change management involves guiding people through uncertainty and allowing time for adaptation. People need time to understand and accept changes and to see how they will work in their own context.
In an intercultural context, local participants and external facilitators may anticipate different barriers and risks, and may have different priorities. They might differ in their view of intervention from other factors, such as government or other gatekeepers. Neither side is necessarily right. Local people might perceive real difficulties that foreigners do not see. Then again, the perceptions of local people can be distorted if they are aprehensive about something new and different.
As change agents, international workers need to take people through a change process, including helping people to respond to barriers that emerge during implementation. It is not uncommon for new timeframes to emerge. Some goals can be achieved in the short-term of a year or several years. Some, however, require generational change, that is, they are not feasible for most people in the current generation and need a new generation of people to arise. This is most often the case when the target culture is very conservative and traditional and when older people are key decision-makers.
What will happen if program recipients do not meet program expectations? If the foreigner rebukes or corrects the indigenous person, will people take offense?
Correction and accountability require sensitivity, especially across cultural boundaries. Any rebuke or unmet expectations can damage trust and cause offense. In educational programs, where participation is often voluntary, participants may quietly disengage rather than openly express dissatisfaction. Even without the intercultural challenges, students do not need much excuse to drop out of a distance education program, even if it leads to a formal qualification.
Concrete examples from education illustrate how assumptions operate in practice:
A crucial question remains: what happens after the foreigners leave? It is not safe to assume that Westerners will be effective drivers for long-term change; sustainable change depends on local ownership, initiative, and leadership. What will the local people do for themselves to take initiative and leadership? In fact, when local people take over with new ideas, they will drive long-term change in their own way.
Several practical lessons emerge from this reflection.
First, it is helpful to know people in a long-term good relationship and be fairly familiar with their context. Long-term trust is one of the main currencies in trade.
Second, the saying goes, “If you can’t see it, you can’t do it.” Many people have difficulty creating something real from an abstraction. Seeing a real working example makes a project look achievable, especially if it is done in a context similar to their own.
Third, people in change management need a coach or mentor to take the journey with them and accompany them through change.
Fourth, a system of ongoing dialog with open questions is essential. Exploring assumptions and perceptions is not much like locating a static datum, and more like a continuing discussion from which many meanings continually emerge.
Intercultural educational initiatives are shaped by complex layers of assumptions, perceptions, and values. Effective praxis-based education requires long-term relationships, contextual awareness, and a commitment to ongoing dialog and mutual learning. When these qualities guide action, educational transformation can be meaningful and sustainable.
CC BY-NC-ND
This work is released under a CC BY-NC-ND license, which means that you are free to do with it as you please as long as you (1) properly attribute it, (2) do not use it for commercial gain, and (3) do not create derivative works.