1.2 Defining the Research Focus

In the field of acculturation, three questions have attracted the most scholastic attention and been investigated thoroughly:the strategies people use to acculturate, how well they adapt, and the relation between the way they acculturate and their adaptation outcomes（Sam,2006）.Theories and models developed from such research have deepened understanding of the impacts of intercultural contact and interactions.They have inspired and guided numerous studies and policies aiming to facilitate those in cultural transition.But, some criticized the acultural and acontextual nature of applications（see Chirkov,2009b）and called for efforts to go beyond the current framework.

This study addresses the same set of questions in a particular socio-cultural context, but uses the SNA approach instead of the conventional operationalization of the four acculturation modes.Such a choice is an attempt to complement the dominant framework and bring cultures and contexts back into the empirical picture.

The specific research questions are listed below:

· RQ1:What are the characteristics of intercultural relations within the multicultural community of the EWC?

· RQ2:How well do the EWC participants adapt academically, socio culturally, and psychologically?

·RQ3:What is the relationship between acculturation and adaptation in the EWC context?

The first question is about the structural characteristics and their explanations of the acculturation patterns based on the socialization and close friendship formed within the selected multicultural community.Berry（1997b）bi-dimensional model categorizes the identity strategies into four modes of acculturation in a discourse focusing on the dynamics between heritage and host cultures.Smith（1999）extended this logic to a network theory for acculturation, and proposed that“intercultural identity strategies are discernable within social network structure.”（p.646）In other words, the conventional way of applying the four-fold model and the network approach are connected by their shared assumption of agent-based acculturation choices, but they operationalize the options differently. Assimilation and separation are two different types in the original model, but similar structurally as they both indicate the association（or lack thereof）with a relatively homogeneous cultural group.They differ in whether the acculturating person's original culture or the host culture is the dominant one.Similarly, marginalization could manifest in a network as being less connected socially members because of lack of identification with any specific culture.It is trickier with the integration mode.Clearly, connections in the network denote a degree of integration, but questions such as whether bi-cultural, tri-cultural, and n-cultural connections result in different integration modes in a culturally diverse context need to be explored.

Structurally speaking, the ful-l network design of this study allows the visualization and analysis of acculturation modes specified in the original model, but is not limited to those predefined categories.This is necessary and desirable for an exploratory attempt to go beyond the bi-dimensional framework.If the same classifications of acculturation modes are imposed, relations that might matter in the multicultural context but do not fit neatly into the typology could be missed again.Moreover, the use of the full network in analysis could also reveal the structural constraints and opportunities allowed for by the hosting community and their impacts on the options for soj ourners'acculturation, thus make it possible to see whether the third proposition of the intercultural network theory is plausible that“as socio-structural heterogeneity increases, the probability of acculturation increases”（Smith, 1999, p.647）.

The second question aims to quantify the outcomes of acculturation in two maj or domains:socio-cultural adaptation and psychological well-being.The former, pertaining to the ability to“fit in”or negotiate interactive aspects of the new culture, comes from the cultural learning framework for understanding crosscultural transition.It is concerned with whether a person can function normally in a new environment.The latter, referring to psychological or emotional well-being, is best understood and interpreted in the stress-coping framework originating in research about“culture shock”.Research has indicated that the two adjustment outcomes, although interrelated, are conceptually distinct.Sociocultural adaptation, measured in relation to the amount of difficulty experienced in the performance of daily tasks, is more dependent on variables such as length of residence in the new culture, language ability, cultural distance, and the quantity of contact with host nationals.Psychological adjustment, operationalized in terms of depression or global mood disturbance, is strongly influenced by personality, life changes, and social support（Searle &Ward, 1990; Ward &Kennedy, 1993, 1994, 1999;Ward&Rana-Deuba, 1999）.In addition, as this is a student community, their academic performance is also considered as another indicator of their cultural adaptation in the educational domain.

The third question intends to link the structural characteristics identified by the first question to the adaptation status investigated in question two.Nguyen and Bennet-Martinez's（2013）study found general support for the positive relation between biculturalism orientation and integration, but the relation between other modes and adaptation outcomes are inconclusive.One reason for this result, as they pointed out, might be that most studies meta-analyzed in theirs did not include variables that account for the social contexts surrounding acculturating individuals. With a hybrid design that combines the theoretical framework of acculturation and the strength of network analysis, this study is able to explore the relations between acculturation and adaptation in a way that better incorporates the social contexts. In other words, the cultural composition and the cohesion of the acculturation networks bring the contextual influence directly into the equation, which is needed given the unique ecological environmentin this case.