Talk:Third Culture Kids

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Is this just an American English term? I'm in the UK and have never heard of it. If it is specifically AmE, we should say so. If I'm just clueless, we don't need to say that. :P 86.143.53.52 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "The term third culture kid was coined by Ruth Hill Useem in the early 1960s." There are also a number of scholarly references. It seems to be an academic term, not in common use in any particular dialect, but well defined. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No. This is not (just) an American English term. I am a TCK and not from the US. My classmates and I have been called this our whole lives.--Thorwald 02:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Other uses 2 Adult Third Culture Kids (ATCKs) 3 Blog style creeping in? 4 Barbara Schaetti 5 Likely v Unlikely 6 Major Revamp 7 References needing to be cleaned up--self acknoledgment 8 The direction of the article 9 A Vote for The International Business TCK Block

[edit] Other uses

Can someone provide a source for the following:

The term "third culture kid" is sometimes used in an unrelated sense to describe autistic children and people with Asperger syndrome who grow up in their childhood in considerable isolation and without much social relationship, largely in a conceptual world.^{[citation needed]}

I have never heard of this and I have done a lot of reading on TCKs. It doesn't even make sense in this context. I suggest we remove it, unless someone can provide a reputable source.--Thorwald 20:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of it either, but before getting rid of it let's ask on the Autism and Asperger's syndrome pages for insight. I've made a post on both Autism and Asperger's Syndrom to come here to respond if it needs to stay.Balloonman 20:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard this term relating to people with Asperger's Syndrome/Asperger syndrome, and I have the condition myself. That said, I had never actually heard the term at all before seeing the link on the AS talk page. Though this may have something to do with me being from the UK, where some anon above also seems to be from. ;) --Dreaded Walrus 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any relation whatsoever. Just because we (people on the autism spectrum) grow up in our own world doesn't make it a seperate culture. That, and the fact that the quote can't seem to be cited means it should be deleted. --James Duggan 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I will removed the references to Asperger's syndrome tomorrow.--Thorwald 07:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adult Third Culture Kids (ATCKs)

I added a "citation needed" stamp to this phrase/term and abbreviation as I have never seen this used in literature. I also view it as a dichotomy of sorts (i.e. "Adult ... Kid"). I understand what the term is attempting to convey: These TCKs are now adults. I am an adult and a TCK. I view "Kid" as simply part of the term, TCK, and continue to refer to myself as a TCK. If you can provide a source for "ATCKs" I will agree to keep it in the article. Otherwise, I think it should be removed (it really adds nothing to the article and sounds forced).--Thorwald 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Do a google search on "ATCK" and "Third Culture Kids" and you'll come up with almost 200 references[1] ("Adult Third Culture Kids" came up with over 200 hits.[2]) Ruth Unseem, who coined the term TCK, uses ATCK in many of her writings. I'm very surprised you haven't seen it. From my experience it is a very common term used in a lot of literature and doesn't need a specific citation because it is in accepted parlance. Remember since the Kid in TCK is describing a cultural heritage, it does not necessarily reference person who is currently a kid.Balloonman 00:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, a Google search does not return a list of "references"; they are occurrences of the keyword on websites. These should not, in my opinion, be used as references in an encyclopaedia (other than to note the popularity of a phrase/term). Secondly, I have seen ATCK many times over the years. I wrote that I hadn't seen the term "used in literature". This is very different. Abbreviations are introduced all the time in literature (e.g. scientific papers), however, the vast majority of these are limited to use within the article and there alone. The few that are accepted by the general scientific community eventually enter the parlance and may later become actual defined terms/phrases. TCK has been defined; I am not presently satisfied that "ATCK" has likewise, thus my request for a citation. You wrote, "since the Kid in TCK is describing a cultural heritage, it does not necessarily reference person who is currently a kid". This was my point exactly. This is exactly what I am debating and promoting here. A TCK should not be used solely to describe TCKs as children; adult TCKs should also be simply referred to as "TCKs". This, in my opinion, negates the need for "ATCK" as a defined term.--Thorwald 01:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't understand the distinction that you were looking for. It is a very commonly used term, as demonstrated by the numberous web hits. But you are looking for something other than common parlance. A quick scan through the hits will reveal that many of the hits are of a scientific/authoritative nature. For example Third Culture Kids: Focus of Major Study by Ruth Useem, or “Educational and Occupational Choices of American Adult Third culture Kids” Pgs. 229-253 in Morten G. Ender (Ed) Military Brats and Other Global Nomads, or Ruth Hill Useem and Ann Baker Cottrell “Adult Third culture Kids” (1996) in Carolyn Smith (Ed) Strangers at Home, or TCKs AND OTHER CROSS-CULTURAL KIDS. The list can go on. On Amazon, I found Footsteps around the world, Raising Global Nomads, The Bamboo Chest, Overseas Americans, etc.Balloonman 03:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no problem with Awiseman's changing the ATCK's to TCK's... I would, however, have a problem with getting rid of the note that Adult TCK's are known as ATCK's. I think the two terms are more or less interchangeable, with ATCK explicitly discussin adults, while TCK's describe both the adult and the actual youth who is currently living said lifestyle.Balloonman 16:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought ATCK stood for "A Third Culture Kid" which I realize is wrong. If you want to fix that please do. My mistake. --AW 09:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not something I'm married to. I do think it is important to point out that ATCK is an acronymn that is used, but it is somewhat interchangeable with TCK. The only distinction, in my mind, is that ATCK explicitly refers to the adult and thereby implies the long term effects of being a TCK, while TCK is more encompassing. Every ATCK is a TCK, but not every TCK is an ATCK ;-)Balloonman 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the ATCK part to "have been called Adult Third Culture Kids (ATCKs) as a distinction", but someone changed it back. Here's the thing: I am a TCK and have been my entire life. I have never been called an ATCK (as an adult) nor have any of my friends. Dr. Useem may like the term, but I still don't think it has entered the parlance of the general community (sociological or otherwise). I still find the term forced and unnecessary. Simply stating "adult TCK" should suffice without the extra abbreviation (you don't need to abbreviate everything). I believe my change to "have been called . . . as a distinction" is a good compromise and shall change it back unless someone provides a good argument against it.--Thorwald 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that... I do think it's entered the lexicon, thus I think we need to mention it, but we don't have to use it. I suspect that your change occurred when we had to revert some changes below?Balloonman 18:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Time for the Tongue in Cheeck comment. You said, (you don't need to abbreviate everything). I'll respond, "you're obviously not a military brat... we have to abbreviate everything ;-)"

Good call. I am not a military brat. I am more of on the diplomatic side. ;-) --Thorwald 07:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog style creeping in?

I am not sure I like the new "Question" additions. They don't seem to be set in an encyclopaedia style. Also, the new references are not complete. For an example, "Brown, 1993" is not a reference. Where was it published? What is the title of the journal? Etc.--Thorwald 07:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and fixed the questions. However, while there are plenty of soruces listed, the article sort of seems like it's a lot of original research, like an essay or something. --AW 08:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't look at the changes made yesterday, except to note that some of the characteristics were the exact opposite of what I've seen/read in other sources (which is why I went through and tried to document them.) I didn't read the actual changes, but when I did I recognized it immediately. The questions and answers came verbatum from Third Culture Kids: Returning to their Passport Country so I reverted it back to the last changes made by Awiseman but kept the Characteristics with individual citations. I do think the article needs a lot of help, but cutting and pasting it from another website is not the help it needs.Balloonman 09:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, the last question and paragraphs that followed were not from the US State department website... but it looks familiar to me none-the-less and I suspect it was probably cut and pasted from somewhere.Balloonman 09:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call on the revert, Balloonman. Thanks. --AW 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Found the missing question by typing it into Google. It came verbatum from THIRD CULTURE KIDSBalloonman 09:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs are taken straight from What is a TCK?Balloonman 15:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that a non-encyclopedic tone pervades this article. Contractions and rhetoric are openly used. I'm going to style-tag it. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Schaetti

What are your guys feeling on Barbara Schaetti has proposed a developmental model for third culture kid identity development based on earlier identity literature, primarily on nigrescence, in which a number of different mechanisms are explained for the wide range of identity outcomes that third culture kids may have. Nigrescence literally means "the process of becoming black." I've found some questionable resources that define it loosely as the "Negro to Black Conversion Experience." I looked up Barbara and most things dealing with her relate to public speaking engagements/coaching on intercultural subjects. When I combined the two terms (Negrescene and Barbara Schaetti) the only thing that I could find were a few second hand sources that I don't consider to be authoritative mentioning her PhD dissertation. Most of the things I found for her were links that referenced Wikipedia as its source. Personally, the sources that I can find seem pretty weak and the fact that I can't find anything on Negrescene makes me question if this should be in here.Balloonman 15:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of removing it, as it adds nothing to the article and is questionable.--Thorwald 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been five days, and it's easy enough to revert this section if somebody wants to keep it, so I deleted it.Balloonman 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Likely v Unlikely

To the person who keeps changing, * TCKs are unlikely to work for big business, government, or follow their parents' career choices to likely. Please provide a reference to your assertation that TCK's are likely to do it. You wrote International School Service 8(4) on your response, but that isn't a recognizable reference. ISS, does however have Ruth Useem and Ann Cotrell's research article wherein they state, "One won't find many TCKs in large corporations. Nor are there many in government."[3] If you have a reference that is contrary to that, then let us know. But until you can cite something authoritative, I'm going with the major study's conclusion performed by Ruth Useem and Ann Cottrell.Balloonman 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The above research also states, Although they may have been influenced by their parents' work overseas, they have not followed in parental footsteps. Twenty percent of this sample were MKs, but only 2 percent have a career in the church. Likewise, 25 percent were military dependents, but only 6 percent are in the armed forces.Balloonman 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Revamp

Well, with the concern about blog style creeping in, I'm going to undertake the task of getting this article up to FA status. I think this article would make a great FAC... and I would love the assistance of those of you who are regular contributors here. Thus, I'll be making my changes directly to the actual article.Balloonman 09:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References needing to be cleaned up--self acknoledgment

I've made some changes last night. I'm still working on it, but if you need to know where the references are (which I haven't added yet) check the Military brat (U.S. subculture) page. Many of the references here are there as well... but there are a number that won't be there either. It is something I will add ASAP---I just didn't have the time to add it last night while working on the article.Balloonman 18:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The direction of the article

As a TCK, I have first-hand knowledge of what it "means to be a TCK" . . . however, because of this, I can be biased of/on my input. My "peers" (other TCKs) can back up my contributions. My concern is that this article is being written by those who only have "academic" knowledge of this phenomenon. There is too much more to the story than what very little the academics have studied. We are a very under-studied group of individuals and this article does not do justice to what we are really all about. It has been my experience that it is very much not the case that the majority of TCKs are "military brats" (as the article suggests). The vast majority of us are from diplomatic families (as I am; my father is a third-generation diplomat) and/or from philanthropic backgrounds (again; the case with my family). That is, there is a very concerted effort by certain families/groups who intentionally live in an international environment and who are, by the very definition, TCK-families . . . this article does not represent this group. I have purposefully abstained from contributing my very personal experience because I feel it could interfere with the "objectivity" of the article. However, I must challenge those contributing to this article to back up their contributions with very creditable information from the very sparse academic input; not just hearsay! I can, and will, summon my TCK-peers for pertinent information for this article.--Thorwald 10:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your assertations... I too am a tck. The vast majority are NOT diplomatic kids. The vast majority in your circle of TCKs may be from diplomatic families; but the largest group is military brats, followed by non-military government. The US Department of Defense Dependent Schools serves over 100,000 brat TCKs every year and that is a constantly changing group with high turnover. How many diplomatic brats are there? But since I am the one who has been adding to this article, you are obviously referring to me. The article was relatively uncited and POV (and thus earned an improper tone label---that was appropriate.) I am using very credible sources---from recognized scholars in the field (Useem, Cotrell, Ender, Reken, etc.)---not websites, but researched articles from bonifide scholars... NOT personal opinion/research. You've made an allegation, please point to something that I have added that is "hearsay." I have been meticulous not to use non-authoritative sources, but rather researched published works that are supported by scientific/published studies.Balloonman 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I just realized why you don't accept the notion that military brats are the largest group of TCK's and believe that diplomatic kids are the vast majority. It's because you are not from the US. As indicated in one of my additions, military brats are the largest group of TCKs, but only because of the U.S. If you only look at non-U.S. TCKs, then non-military government and bussiness becomes the two largest categories of TCKs. Non-U.S. military TCKs are almost unheard of---most countries do not send families of their military personell overseas. But the U.S. does so in such numbers that the U.S. armed forces single handedly propels military brats to the number one position overall.(Cotrell (2002) p 230 and Pearce (2002) p 168.) Why is this important? Because U.S. military brats distort non-US/non-military stats. For example, according to Karen Williams "Military Brats:Issues and Associations in Adulthood," 60% of military brats earn an undergraduate degree and 24% earn an advanced degree. That's pretty impressive, unless you compare it to TCK population as a whole where, depending on the study, 84-90% earn an undergraduate degree and 40% earn an advanced degree. If those numbers are accurate, then the next logical question is what are the percentages for non-military TCKs? If the overall average is 84-90% and military dependents are at 60%, then the non-military TCK population must be greater than 84-90%! Another example, TCKs largely come from highly educated families. For example, Missionary Kids and "Other" kids have at least an 83% probability of having at least one parent with a graduate degree. The U.S. military sends people overseas to fill military roles and is thus less likely to have somebody with an advanced degree. In fact, only 36% of military TCKs have a parent with a graduate degree. That is still impressive, but not quite as impressive as TCKs as a whole. It also has a bearing on the few comparisons that I've seen that compare U.S. TCKs with non-U.S. TCKs. On these comparisons, Non-U.S. TCKs are generally "better" off in most categories---but if the military brat population is the largest and almost exclusively U.S. are these comparisons accurate? Or are they essentially comparing "Non-U.S. non-Military Sponsored TCKs" with "U.S. military TCKs?" Finally, what impact do U.S. military brats have on ANY broad study of TCKs? If over a third of TCKs are military and they are predominantly from the U.S. then that will have a significant impact on various studies. What percentage of TCKs are from the US, if a third are US military? How does this bias the results of TCKs as a whole?Balloonman 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

An important consideration is that Wikipedia policy is to allow only verifiable information, and never original research. Your personal experience as a diplomatic TCK would, unfortunately, be considered original research (that is, "unpublished arguments, ideas, data"), rather than verifiable information ("material that has been published by reliable sources"). To be blunt, Wikipedia is not concerned with providing all information that is true, just verifiable. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, it is my desire to see this article reach FA status. In order to do so, the article needs to be better written and better referenced. There may be limited research out there, but there is plenty to have multiple independent sources and references. I would love for your assistance in getting it there---but it needs to be more than personal anecdotes. Trust me, when writing an article like this, you WILL be challenged on every sentence or fact--thus you have to have plenty of citations.Balloonman 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Vote for The International Business TCK Block

I am a TCK and an ATCK and the father of three TCK's. We live in communities in the middle east and in particular Saudi Aramco communities. We don't generate the numbers like the diplomatic and military folks but I think we have something to contribute.

Most expatriates with Aramco are long term employees and consequently, Aramco brats tend to stay their entire childhood, many are born here. Most view their peers as family and kids rarely date for that same reason. They progress up until ninth grade and then as a right of passage are sent to often elite boarding schools (education assistance is an employee benefit). Children who fail in boarding school and forced into other circumstances are often unfairly viewed as failing by their peers. Being a brat is so important to these kids that many keep in touch for years and years. As the film trailer link below indicates;

http://www.aramcobratmedia.com/site/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=8

Like recidivism in institutionalized people, many employees that leave, also tend to return after only a few years and stay until mandatory retirement age. In addition, like myself, there are also several second and third generation employees that can trace their memory almost to the days of the camel.

Those of us that have had the privilege to have a multigenerational view of such dramatic change in the Saudi culture and indigenous people feel very proud of our history here. We maintain the connection to the early Americans who arrived in a most inhospitable environment and built the largest integrated oil company in the world.

In either case Military, Diplamatic or Aramco, I suppose we all share a unique prospectives