CIICPD 2023

Even though national categories as “Finnish” (line 1, 2) and “Greek” (line 1) are mentioned, they are not further used for stereotyping or culturalisation. The narrated actions and reflections are not led back to cultural conventions. Stimuli for further pedagogical use: – Why does the narrator not intervene even though s/he seems to know the reason for the misunderstanding? Please write a dialogue where the narrator intervenes. – Could the Finnish guy be at fault? Explain. – Can you think of explanations of the two friends why they did not accept the invitation immediately? – How would you react to such an invitation? CI-narrative 3 Friendly criticism 1 As a group leader of an international project I had the task to distribute the tasks among the 2 members of the group equally. Therefore I made up my mind which tasks may fit best for whom 3 and asked everyone if he/she is fine with the task he/she received. I asked one team member to 4 give us a short overview about his country and home university, because it was important for our 5 international team to gain some first-hand experience of one student studying at this specific 6 university. When the student uploaded his task all the information was just copied from the 7 universities’ website, I send him a link in advance. I thanked him for his contribution and friendly 8 asked the student to add some of his own experience to the document. However, he just shortened 9 the sentences of the first version of the document and put it into keynotes. Since the group already 10 lost lots of time we decided to skip this part and do a questionnaire at the university in order to 11 receive the information we were looking for and especially to gain some first-hand and own 12 experiences of the students. I still don’t know if it was a lack of communication and the student 13 just didn’t understand the task I was asking him to do or if my “criticism” was expressed too 14 friendly and he didn’t understand it as criticism and more like just a comment from my behalf. The third example was again written by a student. 18 The narrated time of the CI is very difficult to define. The narrator indicates that the group had already “lost lots of time” (line 10). Within a student’s project, this may perhaps represent a period from two weeks to two months, which is rather atypical for scenic-episodic representations. As in our first example, the narrator does not give any indications about the origin of all the participants and their exact number. We only get to know that the main actor, besides the narrator, is a male student. The first three lines serve as the orientation. The title in contrast to the second example can be considered as an evaluative activity (Lucius Hoene and Deppermann, 2004, p. 157) related to the climax of the event, formulating a hypothesis about the origin of the conflict. Narrative sentences (line 3–6) introduce the complication, which starts “when the student uploaded his task” (line 6). The complication is represented in two phases. In both of them, the student fails the task formulated by the narrator/project leader. Specifically, the second narrative of the 18 As the critical inicident took part within the CIICPD project, we know that the group communicated mainly through MS teams. However, this and the specific means of communication are not mentioned in the narrative.

59