Title. Knowledge and participation rights as a predictor of

intercultural empathy.

A study of participation rights, knowledge and school diversity intercultural

empathy among Norwegian and Danish school students

Paper presented for ECPR conference Oslo 2017.

Author: Professor Trond Solhaug. Institute for teacher education (ILU),

Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU, Norway.

Trond.Solhaug@ntnu.no

Draft. Not to be cited

Abstract: In recent decades Norwegian and Danish schools experience increased cultural diversification among

their students. Growing heterogeneity in origin and culture may enhance the risk of students’

marginalization, segregation or exclusion. In response to these challenges, this study is theoretically

framed in an inclusive education perspective. It focuses on how knowledge of diversity and

participation rights in school predicts student’s intercultural empathy. The study draws on primarily

quantitative data gathered on paper questionnaires from 895 students in two upper secondary

schools in Denmark and two in Norway. First, knowledge and information about culture and diversity

predicts certain aspects of intercultural empathy. Second, participation rights is a more moderate

predictor of intercultural empathy. Third, we find that there are substantial differences between

boys’ and girls’ scores on intercultural empathy. Fourth school diversity context matters for

student’s intercultural empathy. The results and their implications for teaching are discussed.

Introduction

The Danish and Norwegian context The theme of this article is intercultural empathy among students in the context of immigration and

the rapid increase in ethnic and cultural diversity in schools in Denmark and Norway. Both Denmark

and Norway have long histories of immigration (Brochmann & Kjeldstadli, 2008); (DST, 2015

[Statistics Denmark]; SSB, 2014; Togeby, 2003). More recently, their policies of recognising the free

movement of people from within the European Union and their subsequent signing of the 1995

Schengen agreement have opened up migration and increased diversity, particularly in the central

urban areas. The current minority population (including both migrants and children of migrants) is

around 15% of the total in Norway (SSB, 2014) and 12% of the total in Denmark (DST, 2015). Net

immigration has increased from 0.3% of the total population in 2005 to close to 1% in 2011 (SSB,

2012).

At the beginning of this century, new laws and rules for immigration created several (Midtbøen,

2009) differences among Denmark, Norway and Sweden with respect to their approaches to

immigration. Denmark adopted the clearest assimilationist policy, while Sweden (compared to

Norway and Denmark) adopted the clearest multiculturalist policy. In preparing for the new laws in

Norway, a majority of the lawgiver’s commission joined forces to support a multiculturalist stand;

however, they were overruled by political decisions in favour of more assimilationist policies

(Midtbøen, 2009). With the arrival of over one million refugees and irregular migrants in Europe in

2015 (IOM, 2015), the European as well as the Scandinavian countries have introduced tighter

border controls, witnessed increasingly fierce public debate over immigration and ultimately become

more alike in their immigration policies.

Historically, the public debate over immigration has been voiced primarily by the far-right Progress

Party in Norway and the Danish People’s Party, but now, every political party follows a political

programme addressing immigration, integration and their societal impacts (Aardal, 2007). This

reflects a pattern across Europe in which far-right political movements and parties in most nations

are expressing concerns about immigration and making claims about the inevitability of security

threats, unemployment and ethnic, religious and cultural conflicts (Gutwirth & Burgess, 2011).

Among adult Norwegians, there has been an increase in the number of people who believe that

migrants abuse the Norwegian welfare system (SSB, 2011). Such accusations have been prevalent in

the public debate, particularly following the Brochmann Commission report ‘Welfare and migration’

(NOU, 2011). However, the overall picture of Norwegian attitudes toward immigration appears more

positive: 3 out of 4 Norwegians recognise immigrants’ contributions to business and professional life,

9 out of 10 think migrants should have the same professional career options as Norwegians and 7 out

of 10 think that immigrants contribute positively to the economy (SSB, 2014).

In Denmark, immigration has been a prime political issue for 25 years. Shortly after the 2015

election, the new government struck an agreement with the other right-wing parties to launch a new

introductory benefit for immigrants and refugees that matched the level of the national study

entitlements, reducing previous benefits by half. Furthermore, the government introduced a new

Danish language test for individuals seeking naturalization, requiring respondents to answer 32 of 40

questions correctly to pass the test and earn a monthly benefit supplement.

The 2013 ISSP survey ranks Denmark highly among countries supporting the concept of mono-

culturalism, with 7 out of 10 respondents stating that a country fares best when groups adapt to the

dominant culture. Timm and Horst and Gitz-Johansen similarly emphasised the Danish assimilationist

policy and the cultural hegemony in Danish schools (Horst & Gitz‐Johansen, 2010; Timm, 2009).

Younger generations, however, are significantly more supportive of multiculturalism; thus, it seems

reasonable to speak of a multi-cultural generation of individuals who are acquainted with and

tolerant of immigrants and descendants. These individuals are also more optimistic concerning

immigrants’ chances of becoming ‘real Danes’ without necessarily sharing Danish norms and

traditions (Larsen, 2016).

To summarise, immigration continues to rapidly extend population diversity in both Norway and

Denmark, potentially impacting daily life and citizenship practices. Attitudes towards minorities are

politically contested, and the accompanying questions of integration and segregation have become

major issues in both schools and public and professional life. While Denmark and Norway seem to

share similar immigration restrictions, scientific discourses suggest that Denmark has the clearest

assimilationist policies. This article addresses the challenges to integration accompanying

immigration by focusing on students’ intercultural empathy. The research question is;

How may participation and knowledge contribute to student’s intercultural empathy in school?

To address this focus, three aspects of intercultural empathy are included, which together comprise

the measure of intercultural empathy. Schools always face the challenges to provide equal

opportunities for all and provide a safe and learning environment. Also, schools task is to contribute

to students social integration and well-being outside school. To provide opportunities for students

participation as well as contributing to their knowledge of diversity are perhaps schools main ways to

fulfil their goal of an inclusive education and awareness of difference in a diverse society.

Matching samples of students have been selected from the general branches of two upper secondary

schools in Denmark and Norway, yielding a total sample of 895 students. Participation rights and

knowledge is particularly focused in the analysis and discussion as both these cover major options for

empathy support in schools. Also control variables such as gender, and indicators of school diversity

are included and discussed.

Previous research Rasoal and colleagues empirically investigate whether empathy and ethnocultural empathy were the

same or different. Using different scales, they find that the two share considerable overlap (Rasoal,

Jungert, Hau, & Andersson, 2011). Intercultural empathy has been found to increase perceived

concern about other people’s welfare, spark attitude changes towards groups experiencing

oppression (Wang et al., 2003) and challenge distinctions between the ‘citizen and the other’ (Hall,

2010; Zembylas, 2012). By contrast, a lack of empathy has been linked to intergroup aggression and

social dominance (Wang et al. 2003). Zhu regards intercultural empathy as a foundation of

communication and understanding of ‘the other’(Zhu, 2011), while Hofmann links empathy to

prosocial behaviour (Hofmann, 2000). A school culture of “multiculturalism” may prevent violence

and facilitate community engagement and respect for diversity (Chang & Le, 2010; Le & Johansen,

2011). Tangen finds that empathetic teachers may promote wellbeing and support motivation among

students (Tangen, 2009). Further research on teachers’ understanding of cultural differences and

cross-cultural sensitivity has been conducted by Mahon and Mahon and Cushner (J. Mahon, 2006; J.

A. Mahon & Cushner, 2014), and research on new scales has been done by Mallinckrodt et al., who

published their work after the present study was developed (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014). In Finland,

key research has been done by Dervin and colleagues and (F. Dervin, 2015; Fred Dervin, Paatela-

Nieminen, Kuoppala, & Riitaoja, 2012), who focus specifically on a much broader aspect of

intercultural competences in teacher education. In addition, a number of Norwegian publications

address dialogue, inclusion within teaching and learning without explicitly touching upon empathy

(Børhaug, 2015; Hylland-Eriksen & Sajad, 2015; Skrefsrud, 2012; Westrheim & Tolo, 2014). Research

and scholarship designed to support teachers and students in addressing diversity, social change,

inclusion and social justice has been most comprehensively conducted by Banks and colleagues

(2009), who explore multiculturalism in education (James A. Banks, 2009). By building on this body of

research, our study shows that intercultural empathy facilitates intergroup relations and may

promote a feeling of inclusiveness among students. We found no similar studies in Norway and

consider our study to be an original scientific contribution.

Theory

Inclusive citizenship. Immigration, increased diversity and calls for integration and inclusion in schools as well as society at

large is an important context for focus interpersonal relations and particularly empathy in this article.

A theory of inclusive citizenship addresses inclusiveness at both personal and system level and is

therefore applied to the analysis. Feminist theories of citizenship practices emphasise several criteria

of an inclusive citizenship; these are; justice, recognition, self-determination, solidarity (Kabeer,

2005). Lister ads to criteria, participatory parity and universality of difference (Lister, 2008).

To start with, justice is understood as when it’s fair to treat people equally and when it’s fair to treat

students differently. Such dilemmas of justice reflects that we are all different and should be treated

as such. It follows from this that recognition of equal worth across difference is of utmost

importance. It acknowledges the intrinsic worth of all human beings as well as respect for difference.

Thirdly, self-determination understood as people’s ability to exercise some control over their own

lives is vital to inclusive citizenship. Self-determination could mean quite few different aspects such

as self-efficacy, the person beliefs in own capabilities to attain goals in life as well as self-worth and

self-respect (Bandura, 1997). Also inclusiveness as self-determination is dependent on resources like

qualification in education and subsistence through work. Four, solidarity can be seen both as a

societal goal and as one of particular importance in education (Kabeer, 2005). The author believes

that participation rights (and knowledge) provides vital options in developing self-determination as

well as showing solidarity with groups within school or in society at large. Linking the four aspects,

Lister writes of “the capacity to identity with others and to act in unity with them in making claims.”

The ability to establish relations, join forces with others and act collectively is socially and politically

is vital to achieve obtain a favourable outcome. She therefore stresses “participatory parity” or the

ability of members in society to interact with one another as peers (Lister, 2008). The latter is of

particular interest to intercultural empathy, reflecting the capacity (or willingness) to identify with

others in a spirit of solidarity. Finally, (Lister (2008:51) suggests the politics of difference requires an

“ethos of pluralization” to avoid an exclusive identity and politics one has to recognize the right to be

different and to promote a reflective solidarity as “universalism of difference”.

Dependent variable: intercultural empathy A key debate is whether culture is “distinct, relatively homogenous and stable”, as in the culture

relativist approach, or neither clearly bound, tightly integrated nor unchanging (Hylland-Eriksen,

2009; Jagoda, 2012). Like Hylland-Eriksen (2009) and Jagoda (2012, 300), we regard culture as “a

social construct vaguely referring to a vastly complex set of phenomena”. Following these scholars,

we see intercultural relations as subjective encounters between humans in which perceptions of

culture as similar or different are defined and constructed by individuals.

The term ‘empatheia’ stems from the Greek language and means understanding others by entering

their world (Zhu 2011). In recent literature, empathy has been described as “the immediate

experience of the emotions of another person” or “the intellectual understanding of another’s

experience” (DeTurk, 2001; Duan & Hill, 1996). A cognitive aspect of intercultural empathy is the

ability to take on the role(s) or perspective(s) of another person (Gladstein, 1983). In many situations,

it is important to respond with similar emotions (emotional empathy), as this shows an ability to

“know another person’s inner experiences” (Duan and Hill 1996, 262). Building on this, we consider

empathy as having both cognitive and emotional traits and as being present in most encounters

between individuals. As pointed out in the previous section, experiencing a certain level of empathy

is important for wellbeing and feelings of inclusion (e.g. in school). Furthermore, empathy may be

learned through experience. This implies that schools might actively support the development of

empathy, a concept that is implicit in our regression models.

Empirically, intercultural empathy is multi-dimensional (Nicovich, Boller, & Cornwell, 2005). The

emotional and the cognitive aspects of empathy are built using dimensions proposed by Wang et al.

(2003), who identified four empirical aspects: empathetic feeling and expression, empathetic

perspective-taking, acceptance of cultural difference, and empathetic awareness. These four

dimensions reflect the multidimensionality of the concept. Empathic feelings and expressions are

measured with six items (D1, D4, D5, D6, D7 and D8), which reflects one’s willingness to act upon

perceived discrimination and injustice. Intercultural awareness reflects subjective indifferences to

perceived unequal treatment (D2 and D3). Attitudes towards difference are measured by D11 and

D12, which express negative attitudes towards inviting students to take an active stand. Finally, with

regard to intercultural perspective-taking, we used two items (D9 and D10), which aim to measure an

individual’s abilities to take another’s perspective (see Appendix for item text, factor loadings and

Chronbach’s α; explained variance for factors in all scales available at:

http://www.ntnu.edu/employees/trond.solhaug).

Independent variables –

Participation rights

Democracy requires effective participation rights in order to counterbalance power. To participate

also is about more than influence but also imply taking responsibility and learn from practice.

Mansbridge reviews the history of participation rights, learning and Bildung from the deliberative

assembly in Greece to present (Mansbridge, 1999). Pateman goes as far as to advocate participation

and learning as the major goal democracy (Pateman, 1970), while Barber advocates participation as

vital to the strength of democracy (Barber, 1984). From an educational point of view John Dewey

provide a comprehensive theory of participation in teaching and democracy (Dewey, 1938). Paolo

Freire and Ira Shor points to students involvement and the role of empowerment in participation

(Freire, 1993),(Shor, 1992). Gert Biesta advocates a political and social education building on Arendt,

Ranciere and Chantal Mouffes radical democracy (Biesta, 2007). Recent comprehensive research has

been done by Amnå and colleagues in Sweeden see their comprehensive report: (Amnå, Ekstrøm &

Stättin 2016).

Pupils have participation rights in all Norwegian schools, which are framed in Opplæringslova (The

Law on education) (Opplæringslova, 1998). The level of participation is being assessed yearly in the

“elevundersøkelsen” (The pupil study). The average level of participation has since late 1990-ties

until now been astonishingly consistent somewhat below mean of the scale. (Utdanningsdirektoratet

2015) [Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training].

The emphasis on children’s participation rights or political rights is what distinguishes the UN

Convention on Childs Rights (CRC) article 12 (UN, 1989) from previous efforts to codify children’s

human rights. The article goes like this:

1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own

views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the

views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity

of the child.

2.For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be

heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either

directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner

consistent with the procedural rules of national law

Items on participation rights in our measurement scale provide us with the possibility of assessing

whether, from the perspective of students, effective measures are in place to guarantee children’s

provision and protection rights. Since participation rights enable students them to claim their other

rights and speak out when these rights are being infringed they are of considerable significance in

schools, where regardless of whether democratic practices are adopted, there remain asymmetrical

power relationships between adults and children, as in the wider community. Participation is

authorized in the article 12 of the CRC of children’s right to be consulted in matters affecting them.

Perhaps the most important theoretical study of student voice and student participation rights, set

explicitly within the framework of children’s human rights, is that of Laura Lundy, who critically

examines commonly held notions of voice (Lundy, 2007). She points out that children need to know

they have the freedom to speak freely (CRC Article 19) and emphasises the overarching principle of

non-discrimination (Article 2) so that voice is extended to all. Her model for implementing Article 12

encompasses four key elements: space (opportunity); voice; audience; and influence. Influence

relates to the opinion of the child being given “due weight” as stated in Article 12. We started out

trying to include these aspects in our measure but did not fully succeed when we applied factor

analysis to our data. The author assume that participation, particularly open discussions and voice

generates contacts and learning of views of otherness and sameness, which provide basis for

understanding and reflections. It is also assumed that such information also might favour a positive

development of empathy among the students. The scale measures the effectiveness of participation

rights (C1, C2, C3, C4 and C6). We argue that students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of individual

educational rights in school are important contextual signs of respect and an effort to provide a true

“inclusive education” for all students. Therefore, we expect that these variables are positively

associated with aspects of intercultural empathy.

Knowledge

Schools have always focused on important knowledge. Much research has therefore been devoted

exploring what knowledge is important for political participation (Carpini & Keeter, 1993; Niemi &

Junn, 1998; Popkin & Dimock, 1999; Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, & Losito, 2010; Solhaug, 2006;

Torney-Purta, Lehman, Oswald, & Schultz, 2001; Verba, Burns, & Schlozman, 1997). However,

research has also shown that a much wider array of skills is needed for general participation in

society, not to mention for political participation. This has led to the exploration of a variety of skills

considered of vital importance for democracy (see below). Instead of “knowledge”, the term

“competence” has therefore been introduced as a more comprehensive description of knowledge

and skills. The idea of stimulating a variety of skills may be implicit in the idea of student participation

in schools as democratic institutions. In the present study, such knowledge and skills are related to

the growing diversity in our societies. Knowledge of “the other” is highly emphasised in the

literature as a basis for understanding, reflection, inquiry and solidarity (James A. Banks, 2009; James

A Banks, 2004). Our measure of cognitive skills is developed by Munroe and Pearson where we use

four items F1, F2, F3 and F4 (Munroe & Pearson, 2006). It is expected that to be informed about

diversity of cultures are positively associated with intercultural empathy.

Gender

The Scandinavian countries are known for gender equality (Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhuche, & Zadia,

2014), and gender differences among students in school are a much emphasised and debated issue

in Norway and Denmark. Much of the current research explores differences in academic

achievements (Aasen, Lekhal, Drugli, & Nordahl, 2015; Imsen, 2000). Knudsen discusses gender and

pedagogy, and Skelten has edited a large publication on gender and education, though she lacks

research on gender and empathy (only three hits)(Knudsen, 2012; Skelton, Francis, & Smulyan,

2006). It is expected that girls display more favourable attitudes toward diversity than boys.

The ‘contact hypothesis’.

The ‘contact hypothesis’ proposes that personal contact between social groups tends to make them

less hostile toward one another (Pettigrew, 1998). The hypothesis is particularly relevant in schools

because various groups may be present. If so schools become an arena for intercultural contact over

time and this contact may have a variety of qualities like common interest, collaboration, friendship

or just attending the same class. Also, the relationships in school last quite some time. This fact

makes schools important. Personal contact in schools, therefore, has the potential to ‘produce’ more

harmony and mutual understanding in society. However, as emphasized by (Allport, 1954)262–3),

the nature of contact is essential. Contact is most powerful when occurring under facilitating

conditions like status equality, the pursuit of common goals or cooperation. A recent Scandinavian

study is done by Frølund Thomsen on a large Danish sample (not schools) exploring the link between

interethnic contact and the development of tolerance (Frølund Thomsen, 2012). He finds some

support for the hypothesis that intergroup contact may promote tolerance. But this link is far from

unconditional. We measure contact with two variables; R1 The number of native languages spoken I

school. R2 percentage of bilingual pupils in school. It is expected that the more diverse the school is

the more likely it will be for students to me more empathetic toward different students.

Methodology. The study is based on a quantitative methodology supplemented by additional interviews with school

leaders and teachers.

Sampling Research pressure in schools has severely limited our options; however, we have attempted to select

schools and students experiencing a variety of cultural diversity. Specifically, we selected schools

from two different geographical regions that vary according to cultural diversity. The design assumes

that increased diversity in schools offers opportunities for the learning and development of inter-

relational attitudes across diverse populations.

We selected students from three general classes on each of our three levels of study. In addition, in

one of the schools, we included students from an international baccalaureate programme (N1 and

Dk2). The sample sizes and diversities are displayed in the table below.

Table 1 Sample and diversity of students.

School N1 N2 DK1 DK2

Number of different languages spoken 27 36 1 20

Proportion of bilingual students (%) 10 17 0 53

N=895 270 237 155 233

Research assistants made appointments with teachers, attended classes, informed and sought the

consent of students, distributed the questionnaires and collected responses. The response rate

varied from 85 to 94% and included between 77 and 85% of the student population, which we

consider to be high. On average, 9% of students were not present in their classes when the data

collection took place. The questionnaires and file were processed in a scanner at Norwegian

University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

Analytical procedures The data were processed using IBM SPSS. All distributions were checked for skewness and kurtosis,

which were well below 1.0 (threshold is 2.0). Missing data of 1 to 3% were replaced in the sample

and assigned the mean value.

Our scales were developed from theory and international studies. We used a semi-confirmatory item

analysis (principal axis factoring) with a non-rotation option. Factor loadings, Chronbachs α and R2

were used as measures for the factors’ explained variance and are reported in the Appendix (Ringdal,

2013). Considerations of concept validity and statistical validity were the basis for decisions on items

in sum scores, which were the basis for the empirical analysis.

Analytically, we started with correlations between explanatory variables and aspects of intercultural

empathy (see below). In order to achieve the scientific goal of a simple model explaining the

maximum amount of variance (Kline, 2005), the variables with significant bivariate correlations are

presented in the first multiple regression model. The second and final regression models include only

the significant variables from the first regression model. This procedure was followed for all four

aspects of our dependent variable. Methodology

Standard quantitative methodology using questionnaires to reveal a number of variables which is

assumed to influence intercultural empathy of which knowledge and participation rights is focused in

this study. Data is analysed in SPSS, using factor analysis and Cronbach’s α to validate concepts.

Correlations and regressions are used to analyse the results.

Results The analysis starts with using the whole sample from the two countries and then continue with

regression analysis country wise. First the results from bivariate correlations between three aspects

of intercultural empathy and participation rights, knowledge, gender, number of mother tongues,

percentage bilingual home.

Table 2. Correlations between three aspects of intercultural empathy and participation rights,

knowledge, gender, number of mother tongues, percentage bilingual home. Numbers are Persons r

and probability P. N=895

Intercultural empathy Social indifference Accept of diversity

Pearson r P Pearson r P Pearson r P

Participation rights

,15 ,000 -,05 ,063 -,20 ,000

Knowledge ,217 ,000 -,141 ,000 -169 ,000

Gender -,407 ,000 ,302 ,000 ,103 ,000

R1 Number of languages

,12 ,000 -,17 ,000 -,099 ,000

R2 Percent bilingual stud

,080 ,003 ,020 ,467 ,079 ,000

The results show that effective participation rights have moderate but significant associations with

both intercultural empathy and particularly acceptance of difference. Also having knowledge of

difference and diversity predicts all three aspects of intercultural empathy. There are substantial

differences between boys and girls in terms of intercultural empathy with girls being the more

empathetic. The variables measuring diversity in school have moderate but significantly associated

with the three aspects of intercultural empathy. An exception is R2 and Social indifference. The

significant associations lend some support for our assumptions in the theory section. The elaboration

of the results continue with the multiple regression on the whole sample.

Table 3. Multiple regression total sample. Dependent variables are three aspects of intercultural

empathy. Independent variables are; participation rights, knowledge, gender, number of mother

tongues, percentage bilingual home. Numbers are Persons r and probability. N=895

Variables Intercultural empathy Social indifference Accept of Diversity

β P β P β P

Participation rights

,17 ,000 -,05 ,063 -,19 ,000

Knowledge ,165 ,000 -,198 ,000 -149 ,000

Gender -,385 ,000 ,29 ,000 ,099 ,000

R1 Number of languages

,09 ,000 -,17 ,000 -,106 ,000

R2 Percent bilingual stud

,055 ,003 ,036 ,172 ,084 ,002

R2 ,23 ,13 ,09

Participation rights are still moderately but significantly associated with intercultural empathy and

willingness to accept diversity. This lends some support for our assumptions Knowledge is slightly

more than participation rights associated with intercultural empathy, social indifference and accept

of diversity. Gender has the strongest predictions on particularly intercultural empathy and social

indifference. As for the R1 and R2, the number of languages seem to be the stronger predictor of the

two, but still both are very moderate. The total variance (R2) accounted for by these variables range

from ,23 for intercultural empathy, more modest ,13 for social indifference and ,09 for accept of

diversity.

Table 4. Multiple regressions by country. Dependent variable three aspects of intercultural empathy.

Independent variable; participation rights, knowledge and gender. Numbers are Persons r and

probability. NDK= 386 NNO= 497

There are some important country differences between Norway and Denmark. First participation

rights seem to be predict less in Denmark compared to Norway, particularly intercultural empathy

and social indifference. Also in Denmark, knowledge predicts less variance in intercultural empathy

and social indifference. The gender differences follow much of the same pattern in the two countries

except for ‘accept of diversity’. The variables R1 and R2 have only two values by country and is not

included in the analysis. The models predicts more variance in Norway than in Denmark.

Discussion Starting with participation rights the participation framework in our measurement (see appendix)

emphasise children’s right to voice their views and that this right is provided them in teaching. It is

Variables Intercultural empathy Social indifference Accept of diversity.

No Dk No Dk No Dk

Participation rights

β=,17 P=,000

β=-,004 P=,939

β=-,076 P=,059

β=,000 P=,996

β=-,21 P=,000

β=-16 P=,000

Knowledge β=,16 P=,000

β=,07 P=,145

β=-,20 P=,000

β=-,015 P=,756

β=-,16 P=,000

β=-,14 P=,000

Gender Β=-,42 P=,000

β=-,37 P=,000

β=,39 P=,000

β=,26 P=000

β=,20 P=,000

β=-,036 P=,482

R2 ,25 ,15 ,21 ,070 ,12 ,046

quite implicit that they have an audience and that their views are respected is particularly

emphasised. However, the article emphasise that children’s views are given “due weight” and is not

included in our measure. To experience such a participation and diversity friendly framework and

seem to be important for experiencing otherness in views and culture which also provide leaning

opportunities. Such positive experiences from a diverse learning environment also may also

(according to our empirical findings) support the development of intercultural empathy among

children in the school.

Recall the framework for inclusive citizenship, participation in school may be perceived as citizenship

practices. Effective participation rights for all in school is a signal of equal worth and respect.

Participation in discussions may support the development of self-determination and learn from

others. It forms the basis for building relationship, to act in unity with others and practice solidarity.

Lundy rightly emphasise effective influence in her model for participation (Lundy, 2007). To

influence is often the motive behind participation in democracy and school. It has been pointed out

that being able to have effective influence is also vital to democracy. Enduring failure to give views

due weight may rapidly lead to dissolution and only legitimize the stronger part in school (Solhaug,

2003). A last comment on the significance of the participation climate in school, is the importance of

being respected and feeling safe from harassment and prejudice when voicing particular views. The

safe classroom/school climate is not part of Lundy’s model, but the author argue that feeling safe is

such of particular importance in school.

It seems that being informed (knowledge) about diversity is a steady predictor of intercultural

empathy. First, this supports that empathy is a matter of intellectual reasoning as well as feelings. It

is argued that there is dialectical relationship between participation and knowledge, which imply a

possible interaction effect between the two. Knowledge is a prerequisite for participation and is

enhanced from the participatory experiences while participation experiences imply active encounters

in school, which in turn feeds learning from the other. In most cases (according to the empirical

evidence), knowledge of the other supports empathy and positive feelings. However, there is a

complex relationship between the two. Encounters between humans also result in negative

experiences of major disagreement, clash of values and attitudes or simply disliking. Such

experiences may result in understanding but the emotional aspect may not support enhanced

empathy. Knowledge of diversity may also support inclusiveness in terms of showing solidarity, make

friends and accept of difference.

In our measure of the contact hypothesis, we use indicators of diversity, and not personal contact

variables. This is applicable to schools because they are such special institutions were children and

young people are obliged to attend, have close contact in class, get to know each other and often

find new friends. Schools are simply arenas for contact, which increases the likeliness for

development of positive attitudes. There are at least four theoretical/empirical processes which

support such development (Pettigrew, 1998). First, in school learning about the outgroup takes

place. Although such learning may result in positive as well as negative in terms of deeper relations,

learning is held to be the major source of the development of intergroup relations. Schools offer such

learning opportunities for long time in children’s life. The second follows from the first. If the

intergroup contact between individuals are optimal changing behaviour is likely to occur. The third

mechanism is related to emotions. Anxiety or tension often accompany first intergroup contact and

may lead to negative experiences. Positive emotions of liking and joy may on the other hand develop

relations more positively and result in affective ties. (Pettigrew, 1998) Schools are precisely and

important arena for making friends. The fourth rationale is that optimal intergroup contact may

support in-group reappraisal (Pettigrew, 1998). This is a process takes time, but may precisely take

place in schools because children and young people have the time it takes to develop such

favourable attitudes. Schools may thus be an arena for practicing inclusive citizenship.

Conclusion Students’ information and understanding of cultural diversity is an important predictor of

intercultural empathy, which offer opportunities for schools to support inclusive citizenship.

Effective participation rights matters in school, particularly because it facilitates learning.

Institutionalization of human rights particularly protection and participation rights predicts

intercultural empathy moderately but significantly.

There are important gender differences in intercultural empathy in both countries.

There are some important school/country differences in the effects of knowledge and

participation on intercultural empathy.

Limitations of study. First limitation is that the results are only valid to the selected students and schools.

Second, there are some deficiencies in the indicators used where influence is not included in

the participation rights measure. Also the author failed to create a good measure in

perspective taking as prat of intercultural empathy.

Third with only two schools sampled in each country one should avoid speaking of cluntry

differences but use the present result as an indicator of possible differences in larger studies.

Literature Aardal, B. (Ed.) (2007). Norske velgere. En studie av stortingsvalget 2005. Oslo: N.W. Damm & sønn. Aasen, A. M., Lekhal, R., Drugli, M. B., & Nordahl, T. (2015). Kjønnsforskjeller i skolefaglige

prestasjoner – forklaringer i elevenes holdninger til og væremåte i skolen, samt relasjonelle forhold. Paideia, 9.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Amnå, E., Ekstrøm, M., & Stättin, H. (2016). Ungdomars Politiska Utvecling [Young Peoples Political

Development] Slutrapport från ett forskningsprogram. Retrieved from Gøteborg Stockholm: Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy the Exercise of Control. New York: W.H.Freeman and company. Banks, J. A. (2009). The Routledge international companion to multicultural education. New York:

Routledge. Banks, J. A. (Ed.) (2004). Diversity and Citizenship Education. Global Perspectives. San-Fransisco:

Jossey-Bass Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Biesta, G. J. J. (2007). Education and the Democratic Person: Towards a Political Conception of

Democratic Education. Teachers College Record, 109(3), 740-769. Brochmann, G., & Kjeldstadli, K. (2008). A History of Immigration. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Børhaug, F. (2015). Når periferien utfordrer sentrum: interkulturell oppbygging som inkluderer

minoritetsungdommer i skolen. In P. O. Brunstad, S. M. Reindal, & H. Sæverot (Eds.), Eksistens og pedagogikk - en samtale om pedagogikkens oppgave (pp. S. [58]-72). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1993). Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First. American political Science Review, 37(4), 1179 - 1206.

Chang, J., & Le, T. N. (2010). Multiculturalism as a Dimension of School Climate: The Impact on the Academic Achievement of Asian American and Hispanic Youth. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(4), 485-492. doi:10.1037/a0020654

Dervin, F. (2015). Towards post-intercultural teacher education: analysing 'extreme' intercultural dialogue to reconstruct interculturality. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1), 71-86. doi:10.1080/02619768.2014.902441

Dervin, F., Paatela-Nieminen, M., Kuoppala, K., & Riitaoja, A.-L. (2012). Multicultural Education in Finland: Renewed Intercultural Competences to the Rescue?. . International Journal of Multicultural Education,, 14(3), 1-13.

DeTurk, S. (2001). Intercultural empathy: Myth, competency, or possibility for alliance building? Communication Education, 50(4), 374-384. doi:10.1080/03634520109379262

Dewey, J. (1938). Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.

DST (Producer). (2015 [Statistics Denmark]). Fra fremmedarbejdere til etniske minoriteter.[From Immigrant Workers to Ethnic Minorities]. Retrieved from http://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/befolkning-og-valg/indvandrere-og-efterkommere/indvandrere-og-efterkommere

Duan, C., & Hill, C. E. (1996). The Current State of Empathy Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(3), 261-274.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Frølund Thomsen, J. P. (2012). How does Intergroup Contact Generate Ethnic Tolerance? The Contact

Hypothesis in a Scandinavian Context. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35(2), 159-178. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2011.00282.x

Gladstein, G. A. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating counseling, developmental, and social psychology perspectives. . Journal of Counseling Psychology,, 30(3), 467-482.

Gutwirth, S., & Burgess, J. P. (2011). A threat against Europe ?: security, migration and integration. Brussels: VUBPRESS.

Hall, A. (2010). ‘These People Could Be Anyone’: Fear, Contempt (and Empathy) in a British Immigration Removal Centre. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(6), 881-898. doi:10.1080/13691831003643330

Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., Bekhuche, Y., & Zadia, S. (2014). Global Gender Gap Report 2014, World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR14/GGGR_CompleteReport_2014.pdf

Hofmann, M. L. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Horst, C., & Gitz‐Johansen, T. (2010). Education of ethnic minority children in Denmark: monocultural

hegemony and counter positions. Intercultural Education, 21(2), 137-151. doi:10.1080/14675981003696271

Hylland-Eriksen, T. (2009). What is Cultural Complexity. In H. Moxnes, W. Blanton, & J. Crossley (Eds.), Jesus beyond Nationalism. Constructing the Historical Jesus in a Period of Cultural Complexity (pp. 9-24). London: E=UiNOX.

Hylland-Eriksen, T., & Sajad, T. A. (2015). Kulturforskjeller i praksis: perspektiver på det flerkulturelle Norge. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.

Imsen, G. (2000). Kjønn og likestilling i skolen. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Jagoda, G. (2012). Critical reflections on some recent definitions of ‘‘culture’’. Culture and

Psychology, 18(3), 289-303. Kabeer, N. (2005). Introduction. In N. Kabeer (Ed.), Inclusive Citizenship. Meanings and Expressions

(pp. 1-27). London New York: Zed Books. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. London: Guildford Press. Knudsen, S., V. (2012). Intersektionel kønspædagogik. Norsk pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 96(06), 413-424. Larsen, C. A. (2016). Den danske republic. . Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel. Le, T. N., & Johansen, S. (2011). The Relationship Between School Multiculturalism and Interpersonal

Violence: An Exploratory Study. JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, 81(11), 688-695. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00645.x

Lister, R. (2008). Inclusive itizenship. In E. F. Isin, P. Nyers, & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Citizenship between Past and Future (pp. 48-60). London: Routledge.

Lundy, L. (2007). 'Voice' Is Not Enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927-942.

Mahon, J. (2006). Under the Visible Cloak? Teacher Understanding of Cultural Difference. Intercultural Education, 17(4), 391-405.

Mahon, J. A., & Cushner, K. (2014). Revising and updating the inventory of cross-cultural sensitivity. Intercultural Education, 25(6), 484-496. doi:10.1080/14675986.2014.990232

Mallinckrodt, B., Miles, J. R., Bhaskar, T., Chery, N., Choi, G., & Sung, M. R. (2014). Developing a Comprehensive Scale to Assess College Multicultural Programming. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(1), 133-145. doi:10.1037/a0035214

Mansbridge, J. (1999). On the Idea That Participation Make Better Citizens. In S. L. Elkin & K. E. Soltan (Eds.), Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions (pp. 291-323). University park Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Midtbøen, A. H. (2009). Statsborgerrettslig revisjon og integrasjonspolitisk variasjon i de skandinaviske landene. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 50(4), 523-550.

Munroe, A., & Pearson, C. (2006). The Munroe Multicultural Attitude Scale Questionnaire - A new instrument for multicultural studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(5), 819-834. doi:10.1177/0013164405285542

Nicovich, S. G., Boller, G. W., & Cornwell, T. B. (2005). Experienced Presence within Computer-Mediated Communications: Initial Explorations on the Effects of Gender with Respect to Empathy and Immersion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), 00-00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00243.x

Niemi, R. G. a., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic Education. What makes Student Learn? London: Yale University Press.

NOU. (2011). Velferd og migrasjon - den norske modellens framtid. [Welfare and migration. the future of the Norwegian model.]. Oslo: Norwegian Governent.

Opplæringslova. (1998). Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa (opplæringslova). : Kunnskapsdepartementet

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65-85.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 Popkin, S. L., & Dimock, M. A. (1999). Political Knowledge and Civic Competence. In S. L. Elkin & K. E.

Soltan (Eds.), Citizen Competence and Democratic Instutions. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Rasoal, C., Jungert, T., Hau, S., & Andersson, G. (2011). Ethnocultural versus Basic Empathy: Same or Different? Psychology, 2(9), 925-930. doi:236/psych.2011.29139

Ringdal, K. (2013). Enhet og mangfold. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). Initial Findings from International, Civic

and Citizenship Education Study. Retrieved from Roma: Shor, I. (1992). Empowering Education. Chicago: The Chicago University Press. Skelton, C., Francis, B., & Smulyan, L. (2006). The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Education. London:

United Kingdom, London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Skrefsrud, T.-A. (2012). Å være lærer i interkulturell kontekst: Om dialogens betydning for

lærerkompetansen. (PHD), Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU, Trondheim Norway. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:no:ntnu:diva-16381

http://hdl.handle.net/11250/242897 Solhaug, T. (2003). Utdanning til demokratisk medborgerskap. (Disertation), Unipub Solhaug, T. (2006). Knowledge and Self-efficacy as Predictors of Political Participation and Civic

Attitudes: with relevance for educational practice. Policy Futures in Education, 4(3), 265-278. SSB. (2011). Holdninger til innvandrere og innvandring 2011 Rapporter 2011/41. Retrieved from

http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/holdninger-til-innvandrere-og-innvandring-2011

SSB. (2012). Samfunnsspeilet 3. Retrieved from Oslo: http//www.ssb.no/innvandring http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/hvor-stor-er-egentlig-innvandringen-til-norge-naa-for-og-internasjonalt

SSB. (2014). Holdninger til innvandrere og innvandring, 2014: . Retrieved from Oslo: http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/statistikker/innvhold/aar/2014-12-02

Tangen, R. (2009). Conceptualising quality of school life from pupils’ perspectives: a four‐dimensional model. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(8), 829-844. doi:10.1080/13603110802155649

Timm, L. (2009). The case of Denmark: an example of bad practice in intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 20(4), 385-390. doi:10.1080/14675980903352035

Togeby, L. (2003). Fra fremmedarbejdere til etniske minoriteter.[From Immigrant Workers to Ethnic Minorities]. Århus: Århus universitetsforlag.

Torney-Purta, J., Lehman, R., Oswald, H., & Schultz, W. (2001). Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries. Amsterdam: IEA: The international Association for Educational Achievement.

UN. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November New York Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.

Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political Engagement. The Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1051-1072.

Wang, Y. W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003). The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 221-234. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.221

Westrheim, K., & Tolo, A. (2014). Kompetanse for mangfold: om skolens utfordringer i det flerkulturelle Norge. Bergen: Fagbokforl.

Zembylas, M. (2012). The politics of fear and empathy: emotional ambivalence in ‘host’ children and youth discourses about migrants in Cyprus. Intercultural Education, 23(3), 195-208. doi:10.1080/14675986.2012.701426

Zhu, H. (2011). From Intercultural Awareness to Intercultural Empathy. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 116-119.

Appendix. Table shows scale name, item text, their factor loadings, Chronbachs α and the

persentage of total variance in the factor which is explained by the items for Norwegian and Danish

sample.

Scale name Item Factor

loading

N DK

Chron

bachs

α

N DK

Explain-

ed

Variance

N DK

Empathy

feel and

expression

(Dependen

t

Variable)

D1 I often speak up against anyone who tells jokes that

could be perceived as discriminatory

D4. When I know that my friends are treated unfairly

because of their skin colour, I try to speak up for them .

D5. I become angry or sad when someone at school is

treated unfairly because of their skin colour or

background.

D6. I am easily affected by films and books in which

someone who is different from me is discriminated

against.

D7. I will work actively to ensure that everyone,

regardless of race or background, achieves equal rights.

D8. I often feel sorry when people with a different skin

colour or background than my own are discriminated

against

.44

.50

.53

.58

.79

.74

.63

.69

.70

.64

.79

.89

.81 44% 46%

Empathetic

awareness

D2. It does not bother me if people make statements that

might seem racist towards some groups.

D3. I don’t think much about how a joke about other

people might be perceived by the victims themselves.

.64 .65

.64 .65

.58.60 44% 46%

Accept of

difference

D11. Usually, I do not get on too well with people whose

background is very different from mine.

D12. I have little knowledge of people whose background

is very different from mine.

.60 .65

.60 .65

.58.59 36% 41%

Knowledge

difference

F2. I know that there are big differences in how people

practice their religion.

.66 .47

.65.55 44% 34%

F3. I am well aware that people’s sexual orientations may

differ.

F4. I am well aware that girls and boys may experience

inequality and injustice in schools

.84 .80

.40 .42

Sex Q1 Sex, girl boy

Language

at home

Q2 What language do you speak most of the time at

home.

Diversity R1 Number of mother tongues in school

Diversity R2 Percentage of bilingual pupils at the school.