Recognising cultural capital through shared meaning-making in cross-cultural partnership practices

There are growing scholarly conversations about involving culturally and linguistically diverse students in learner-teacher partnership practices—practices that can pave pathways toward greater inclusion in higher education. Theorising power and identity through the lens of culture invites recognition of differing ways of knowing, being, and doing that shape learner-teacher interactions in higher education. In this conceptual article, we offer a framework to further efforts of redistributing power through intercultural partnership praxis. Two vignettes drawing on lived experience of being in a cross-cultural learner-teacher partnership project are employed to reveal the theory-practice possibilities. We argue that the careful, critical attention on the role culture plays in the relational work of learner-teacher partnership advances more culturally responsive pedagogical collaborations in higher education. In doing so, partnership praxis moves closer toward recognition of cultural capital and redistribution of power for learners and teachers engaging in cross-cultural pedagogical partnership.

Zhang, M., . Recognising cultural capital through shared meaning-making in cross-cultural partnership practices. International Journal for Students as Partners, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v6i1.4893 66 participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same way, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualization, decision-making, implementation, investigation, or analysis" (Cook-Sather et al., 2014, pp. 6-7). Viewed through a critical lens, learner-teacher partnership challenges the legitimacy of who can contribute to educational processes. Questions of hierarchy and legitimacy in higher education structures are prompting scholars to grapple with power and identity in theorising partnership practices (Matthews et al., 2019).
While power is increasingly named in the partnership literature, it is both elusive and ever-present in analysis, reflection, and theorisations of SaP practices. In this article, we draw on the work of Bourdieu (1977;1984;1986;1990) and employ Navarro's (2006) analysis of Bourdieu to understand power as: … a set of active social processes that anchor taken-for-granted assumptions into the realm of social life and, crucially, they (forms of power) are born in the midst of culture. All forms of power require legitimacy and culture is the battleground where this conformity is disputed and eventually materialises amongst agents, thus creating social differences and unequal structures. (Navarro, 2006, p. 19) In SaP literature, scholars have asserted that power is always at play and is entangled with identity shaped by the hierarchical stratification of higher education (Matthews et al., 2019). Thus, power takes on a particular association in learner-teacher partnership literature. Many scholars seek to make visible the power dynamics between learners and teachers by renaming and re-defining the taken-for-granted relational dynamics. Matthews (2017) explained that: Students as partners (SaP) is a metaphor for university education that challenges traditional assumptions about the identities of, and relationships between, learners and teachers. Through the surprising (to some) juxtaposition of "student" and "partner," this metaphor imagines and makes way for respectful, mutually beneficial learning partnerships where students and staff work together on all aspects of educational endeavours. (p. 1) Healey et al. (2014) argued that "the distribution of power is likely to be fluid and vary over the course of a partnership relationship" (p. 31). Yet, assumptions about power, as Aquarone and co-authors (2020) observed, breeds frustration particularly when "from a student's perspective it may seem like staff on any level have 'all the power'" (p. 57). That teachers hold power in relation to students is implicit in much of the writing on power dynamics in SaP. Thus, a give-and-take of power between students and teachers arises in presentations of teachers having power over, or sharing power with, students in SaP literature. For example, Kehler, Verwoord, and Smith (2017) argued that power dynamics plays out in multiple different layers, including the inclusion or invitations of participation, students' vulnerability, and students' silence in the class, and concluded that power in SaP is underestimated. For Seale and co-authors (2015), power was framed through student expertise, dialogue, and negotiation of decisions, yet this proved problematic as they reported . Recognising cultural capital through shared meaning-making in cross-cultural partnership practices. International Journal for Students as Partners, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v6i1.4893 67 that students were "ill-equipped to negotiate decisions and communicate their personal ideas and objectives effectively and confidently." (p. 547) For SaP scholars, in the spirit of Freire (1970) and hooks (2010), shifting habituated learner-teacher power dynamics in educational systems unfolds through a process of ongoing dialogue and will come with obstacles expected of any journey challenging the status quo. Through ongoing dialogue about education practices and processes, learners and teachers in partnership begin to recognise previously unappreciated forms of contribution and expertise. Contributing expertise is a dimension of power dynamics commonly named in SaP practices. Mihans and co-authors (2008) situated this frame of power relations through reflection on a process of co-designing a subject: "we had to acknowledge that the students were, in fact, the experts on being college students; the curriculum design team needed this expert understanding of the student experience just as much as the team needed our disciplinary expertise" (p. 5). Thus, there is a current of power-sharing in SaP practices through processes of dialogue that recognise different forms of expertise and contributions (Matthews, 2017). Yet, there are mounting calls-from students-to pay attention to which students are involved in partnership practices (Dwyer, 2018) and the exclusion of equity-seeking students (Bindra et al., 2018). Challenging the assumptions of learner-teacher dynamics through SaP practices can unwittingly reproduce existing structures of exclusion for students (and teachers) historically marginalised in education systems.
In this article, we focus on the role of culture and power, specifically how power plays out in partnerships that involve learners and teachers from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

CROSS-CULTURAL PARTNERSHIP PRACTICES
Navigating the entrenched hierarchy of learner-teacher power dynamics involves different considerations when viewed through a cross-cultural lens. Drawing attention to marginalisation and inequality due to cultural-linguistic differences in higher education in partnership practices is a means to acknowledge and disrupt them. Otherwise, we risk what Bourdieu (1977) referred to as unconscious social reproduction, which Matthews (2017) reframed in writing about partnership: "without reflecting on diversity and inclusion, a risk is that SaP may be biased in favour of 'like students' partnering with 'like staff'" (p. 2).
The process through which individuals learn and construct meaning is influenced by culture. Culture teaches us significant rules governing roles and relationship development through values, beliefs, traditions, rituals, and communication styles (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2012). We discuss partnership practices through a cultural lens that recognises the unique possibilities of cross-cultural partnership practices and the risks of universalising SaP practices that mask cultural variation (Marquis et al., 2017).
Engaging in partnership with people from different cultural backgrounds necessitates an awareness of cultures and one's own culture. For example, in a scoping review of partnership practices and theorisations in Asia, Liang and Matthews (2021) found that Confucian culture norms, understood as teacher authority and respectful (unquestioning) students, was identified as a significant barrier to SaP in Asian universities. Kaur and co-authors (2019) reported that Malaysian students faced difficulties in navigating their new role and power relationship as partners because of the huge power distance between students and teachers in the Asian . Recognising cultural capital through shared meaning-making in cross-cultural partnership practices. International Journal for Students as Partners, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v6i1.4893 68 context. As practices are emerging outside of English-speaking contexts, scholars are raising broad questions through the lens of culture, country, and language. For example, Green (2019) included students from Ireland and New Zealand in discussions about the concept of partnership in teaching and learning and found that "by inviting participants to bring concepts of deep cultural significance into the pedagogical space they became quickly engaged," and the process of exchanging cultural and linguistic knowledge was "in itself a profound learning experience" (p. 85).
Thus, there is a growing recognition that navigating shared meanings through crosscultural partnership practices and accommodating communication more intentionally complicates power dynamics in ways that differ from, and add layers of complexity to, students and teachers who share a common cultural heritage, language, and context. In the following section, we present a vignette (Vignette 1) based on Zhang's (first author) lived experience, but we elaborate on and re-construct her experiences to represent more broadly those of international students from China engaging in pedagogical partnership projects or practices in anglophone universities. The vignette signals how easily power can be reproduced, instead of disrupted or re-shaped, through cross-cultural partnership practices.

VIGNETTE 1: REPRODUCTION OF POWER
Amy is a Chinese international student studying at a highly ranked Australian university with an established SaP program. In fact, "Amy" is not her real name, it is Anying. Like many other international students, she adopted an English name to make it easier for her peers and teachers to pronounce and remember. In her third semester, Amy applied to and was selected to be a student partner in a partnership project to co-design a postgraduate course on inclusive education with two Australian student partners and John (the course coordinator).
John was eager to have Amy involved because 40% of students enrolled in his course were Chinese international students. John wanted to create a more culturally responsive learning environment in the class and recognised that Amy could offer helpful insights. In preparation for the first meeting, Amy read some literature on inclusive education, a key topic in John's class. Based on her study experience in China prior to moving to Australia, Amy was aware that the term, and idea of, inclusive education would be unfamiliar to many Chinese students.
At the first meeting, John started with brief self-introductions and moved to the core task: "The first week's introduction of the course is well-structured, so today we can focus more on classroom Question & Answer activities. What do you think?" While Amy wondered if there was a better place to start, she nodded in agreement with John immediately. Another student agreed. However, the third student partner disagreed and suggested going through the course introduction together. Amy was surprised that the student spoke up because she knew it was not a good idea to challenge the teacher so directly. John looked a little surprised but not annoyed or angry. He accepted the suggestion and invited the student to start the discussion. A lively and excited discussion followed.
For Amy, it was like watching a table tennis match. Everyone kept coming up with new ideas and exchanging thoughts rapidly while she struggled to keep up. Her English was strong, but they were talking fast with lots of enthusiasm and leaving little room for her to think. It was clear that the two Australian student partners were much more familiar with the topic. Amy . Recognising cultural capital through shared meaning-making in cross-cultural partnership practices. International Journal for Students as Partners, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v6i1.4893 69 watched from her vantage point as an outsider. When asked, she did agree with the suggestion posed-an icebreaker activity with students forming groups of three to reflect on a time when they felt their education was inclusive and to come up with a metaphor describing the experience of inclusion. Although she framed questions in her mind several times and had concerns about the effectiveness of the icebreaker activity for Chinese students, she did not share them.
In the next meeting, a new task was posed by John, and the group moved on.
Anying's story shows the distance between aspirations for, and lived experiences of, learner-teacher partnership that we aim to draw attention to and understand in this conceptual article. There are many ways to react to and make sense of this vignette. On one hand, it would be easy to dismiss it as a poor partnership practice or a one-off example specific to the context. That partnership is context-dependent is well appreciated in the scholarly community . On the other hand, zooming in to the everyday and context-situated practice combined with zooming out to practices elsewhere and beyond moves us closer to theories of partnership practice (Niccolini, 2009;Trowler, 2014). Identifying the "connecting constructs," as Goodyear (2020) called them, can thread together practices across contexts to further praxistheory and action. Vignette 1 is an opportunity to zoom in to a complex cross-cultural partnership practice. Thus, we conduct an initial reflection.
Anying, by using an English name, was seeking to better fit into the social context of the university (and broader national community). She adopted, although without giving it much thought, an English name to build relationships with her peers and teachers. Through this action, she is navigating interactions with new people in a new context in the way many students from Asian countries do when they attend anglophone contexts-they make it easier for native speakers to name them by changing their names. Knowing the rules and legitimate cultural codes in the context of Australian higher education matters for Anying and international students. Yet, an underlying message in adopting an English name is that Anying's native language, and some of her own cultural knowledge, might not be well-received in Australia. Although the university markets itself as a diverse and inclusive learning institution where students can gain global learning experiences in the classroom, there is a paradox at play evident in Anying's story.
Learners from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds engage in a game with different rules-to recall Anying's table tennis metaphor-when they participate in learnerteacher partnerships in anglophone universities. While the course coordinator and academic, John, identified the cultural knowledge that Anying possesses and its utility for his course that comprises Chinese students (40% of enrolments), he and the Australian students played by the rules that have served them well in the Australian higher education system. In this case, Anying has not named or identified the cultural knowledge she possesses. Inclusive education, as a term and practice, is not well named or known in China and is consequential knowledge for John and how he might approach the course.
Anying also felt that the other students knew about the topic of inclusive education, and she doubted her own knowledge. Disciplinary knowledge-knowledge of the content-was recognised by Anying as important without reference to expertise that students can bring to partnership or cultural knowledge that Anying was uniquely qualified to contribute. Like Anying,

70
John and the other two students also did not make space or opportunity to think or act differently in ways that surface Anying's knowledge as a Chinese student. Her cultural knowledge and expertise remained hidden, and the aspiration of partnership and inclusivity were lost as the existing unwritten rules were reproduced.
Through Vignette 1, the challenges and possibilities of partnership across culturallinguistic structures of inequality and marginalisation surfaced (Bindra et al., 2018). There is much hiding under the surface of Vignette 1 when we approach it from a lens of culturelessons that apply across partnership practices elsewhere and into the future.

A VISUALISED FRAMEWORK FOR CROSS-CULTURAL PARTNERSHIP
We argue that learners and teachers engage in a complex relational process shaped by their cultures and cultural differences in cross-cultural partnerships. The dialogue that underpins how power flows through learner-teacher partnership processes (Matthews, 2017) takes on new meaning in cross-cultural practices. As Cook-Sather and Agu (2013) asserted, "developing ways of speaking and listening-across differences" is central to pedagogical partnership (p. 279). Thus, we propose a theoretical framework (Figure 1) that links Bourdieu's (1977Bourdieu's ( , 1984Bourdieu's ( , 1986) theory of social reproduction, specifically capital and field, and Ting-Toomey and Chung's (2012) work on intercultural communication. The aim is to investigate redistribution of power that makes power more visible and highlights how power is constructed among learners and teachers in cross-cultural partnership practices. By illuminating cultural negotiation at an interpersonal level, the structures of higher education are entangled as the broader field or context for partnership.

72
The broad field of higher education SaP practices involve everyday interactions, and the influence of university context is often unseen or not acknowledged. Yet, the rules, structures, and norms of higher education impact on learner-teacher relationships. From Bourdieu's perspective, power dynamics unfold in a specific social space or field which is "a network, or a configuration, of objective relations between positions" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 97). We conceptualise the context of higher education as the broad field. The field of higher education includes a set of rules-rules, often unwritten or taken for granted, that govern and shape the behaviours, interactions, and relationships between those labelled "academic" (or "faculty") and "student" in the system of education. For example, in the broad field of higher education, teachers usually occupy positions of decision-making in teaching and learning because teachers have more disciplinary expertise than learners (Seale et al., 2015).

The specific field of cross-cultural partnership
The social space of cross-cultural partnership is conceptualised as a specific field, which has independent logics and rules (Bourdieu, 1984). Through partnership-the specific fieldlearners and teachers are given permission to think differently and re-shape the rules of the broader social field of higher education-to play by rules they decide on together. In the specific field of cross-cultural partnership, learners and teachers bring partnership values into ongoing dialogue.

Learner-teacher partnership values
Respect, mutual benefit, shared responsibility, reciprocity, and accountability are commonly named values that underpin partnership. The values-based ethos of engaging students as partners in learning and teaching has a strong resonance amongst practitioners and scholars who are seeking a counter-narrative to market-driven, dehumanising rhetoric prevalent across the higher education sector (Cook-Sather & Felten, 2017;Matthews, Dwyer et al., 2018). Engaging in learner-teacher partnership is a relational pedagogy (Bovill, 2020) that creates space for learners and teachers to have different kinds of conversations about how learning and teaching can unfold through an ethos of partnership. In other words, partnership is defined by the dialogic process of learners and teachers interacting and embodying the values of partnership.

Intercultural communication
In partnership, learners and teachers challenge traditional assumptions of authority and learner-teacher relationship through ongoing dialogue. Building relationships with members from different cultural backgrounds involves navigating cultural differences and building shared understanding. Cross-cultural partnership can create possibilities for miscommunication. Thus, effective intercultural communication is essential in cross-cultural partnership. Ting-Toomey and Chung (2012) defined intercultural communication as "the symbolic exchange process whereby individuals from two (or more) different cultural communities attempt to negotiate shared meanings in an interactive situation within an embedded societal system" (p. 24). This definition suggests that intercultural communication in SaP involves negotiating different cultural perspectives and redefining cultural capital in higher education. The framework makes . Recognising cultural capital through shared meaning-making in cross-cultural partnership practices. International Journal for Students as Partners, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v6i1.4893 73 explicit that the social space (the specific field) of partnership, premised on dialogue, is a process of intercultural communication.

Recognition of cultural capital and redistribution of power
Cultural capital is defined as familiarity with the legitimate cultural codes in a social space (Bourdieu, 1984(Bourdieu, , 1986, including codes such as cultural knowledge, linguistic skills, and educational qualifications that contribute to maintaining positions in the field. Cultural capital has been discussed in research of higher education. Reay and co-authors (2005) stated that students' cultural capital is embodied in students' behaviour, attitudes towards learning, and academic confidence. For students from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, cultural capital has been linked with linguistic and cultural competence required by the educational system or institutions (Dumais, 2002). In a study on international student mobility, Tran (2016) defined international students' cultural capital as language ability, overseas educational qualification, work experience, and sensitivity to the new education system. Aschaffenburg and Maas (1997) argued that learners who have more cultural capital "are better able to decode the implicit 'rules of the game'" (p. 573). Thus, learners who are familiar with the dominant culture are able to develop strategies and skills rewarded in the educational context (Aschaffenburg & Maas, 1997). However, there are questions regarding the recognition of culturally and linguistically diverse learners' cultural capital in the field of higher education and in partnership (Green, 2019;O'Shea, 2016). Vignette 1 also raises such questions as existing learner-teacher power dynamics were reproduced. Bourdieu's (1984Bourdieu's ( , 1986Bourdieu's ( , 1990) theory of social reproduction enables consideration of power dynamics in SaP through the established lens of capital and the field. Investigating learner-teacher power dynamics requires a focus on relational aspects of SaP practices. In partnership, learners and teachers do not passively reproduce their positions but accumulate, transform, and negotiate capital and reshape their perceptions through ongoing dialogue. Through more deliberate practice in cross-cultural partnership, forms of cultural capital can be recognised that can shape more inclusive teaching and learning practices and more inclusive partnerships as power dynamics are disrupted and redistributed. To demonstrate this possibility, we revise Anying's vignette.

VIGNETTE 2: REDISTRIBUTION OF POWER
Anying is a Chinese international student studying at a highly ranked Australian university with an established SaP program. In her third semester, Anying applied and was selected to be a student partner in a partnership project to co-design a postgraduate course on inclusive education with two Australian student partners and John (the course coordinator).
John was eager to have Anying involved because 40% of students enrolled in his course were Chinese international students. John wanted to create a more culturally responsive learning environment in the class. Prior to the first meeting, John emailed Anying to thank her for joining the partnership. He welcomed her knowledge of Chinese higher education and lived experience as a Chinese student. Anying was excited to contribute to the first meeting given John's recognition of her contribution, although she was concerned about her level of content knowledge on inclusive education. . Recognising cultural capital through shared meaning-making in cross-cultural partnership practices. International Journal for Students as Partners, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v6i1.4893

74
The first meeting started with introductions. Anying was pleased when John wanted to make sure he was pronouncing her name correctly. One of the student partners had visited China and could speak a few words in Mandarin. John first discussed his views on partnership and the important contributions students could make to enhancing the class. He then discussed the course aims and the challenges he was observing in class with an uneven participation of domestic and international students. John suggested they start by reviewing the outline of content in the course. Anying instinctively nodded in agreement while wondering if they should consider pedagogy and classroom culture first. Anying had studied education in China as an undergraduate. Another student offered a counter suggestion-start with the first class and how John might set the tone for engagement. Anying was surprised the student disagreed with John and was pleased he offered a similar view to her thoughts.
John appreciated the suggestion and a lively and excited discussion followed. Anying enjoyed the collaborative way of working, but she struggled to join in the conversation. In fact, for her, it was like watching a table tennis match. Everyone kept coming up with new ideas and exchanging thoughts rapidly while she struggled to keep up. They were excited by the idea of an icebreaker activity: students would form groups of three to reflect on their previous experiences of inclusive education from their respective countries and create a metaphor to share with the class. Anying was not convinced this would work well for Chinese students.
John noticed Anying's silence and realised that the discussion had been dominated by him and the two Australian student partners. He paused and acknowledged that he was falling into old patterns of speaking too much. He asked Anying, "given your knowledge of being a Chinese student and having studied education in China, what are your thoughts about this idea? You know more about how Chinese students might respond than we do, so it is time for us to listen to your views, if you are willing to share them with us." Anying was relieved and anxious as now she had to shift from being a listener to a speaker with everyone watching her. John's words affirmed that Anying knew something about Chinese students.
She shared, "In my experience as a Chinese student studying education, the term inclusive education was not used nor was the concept discussed. I think Chinese students might feel ashamed or embarrassed that they lack important disciplinary knowledge for the course expected of them from day 1." John and the students realised the flaws in their idea. They decided that the student partners would meet and think through an idea for the first class, and then bring that back to John at another meeting.
Anying enjoyed working with the two students on a new idea that drew on her cultural knowledge and studies in undergraduate education at the next meeting.

TOWARD RECOGNITION AND REDISTRIBUTION THROUGH A CROSS-CULTURAL PARTNERSHIP FRAMEWORK
To connect theory with practices, we reflect on Vignette 2 through the lens of our framework (in Figure 1) to reveal the possible redistribution of power in cross-cultural partnership and to show how the framework can be applied to partnership practices. Challenging the taken-for-granted power reproduction in universities requires a deep reflection on the role of the broad context of higher education, and how learners and teachers perceive and position themselves within practices in the field. In the broad field of Australian higher . Recognising cultural capital through shared meaning-making in cross-cultural partnership practices. International Journal for Students as Partners, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v6i1.4893 75 education with increasing shifts toward student-centred approaches and active participation, Anying was learning to navigate her new role as an international English-as-another-language Chinese student partner in the partnership project. Anying introduced herself using her Chinese name, an approach more Chinese students are adopting when they study overseas. She recognised her potential contributions when John emailed her prior to the meeting and again in the meeting when John paused to acknowledge the initial patterns of dialogue (in which Anying was not involved). In articulating the values of partnership, John was articulating the rules of partnerships as a social space where students, and students from overseas with English as another language, can engage as knowledge-holders and knowers.
In the specific field of partnership, ongoing dialogue is crucial, and, for Anying, this involved navigating learner-teacher power dynamics and intercultural communication. John's invitation to Anying was an important shift in the vignette. That students can contribute their lived experience-that they have expertise of being students-to enrich and advance teaching and learning (Mihans et al., 2008) is a central premise of pedagogical partnership. Based on the value of partnership, John realised the importance of involving Anying in the discussion-of deliberately monitoring the patterns of participation. For Anying, John's invitation affirmed her ability to contribute as a student and as an international student with cultural knowledge that is a strength for enhancing teaching and learning (Green, 2019). That John had to invite Anying infers ongoing power dynamics commonly cited in learner-teacher dynamics (see Kehler et al., 2017;Cook-Sather et al., 2018). Power is ubiquitous in learner-teacher partnership and the intent is not to erase it, but rather to call into question taken-for-granted relational assumptions through a dialogic process that recognises and redistributes power dynamics (Cook-Sather et al., 2014;Matthews, 2017).
In cross-cultural partnership, ongoing intercultural dialogue provides learners and teachers a space to share cultural meanings and negotiate capital. Learners and teachers from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds create or find common ground to facilitate their collaboration as partners.

CONCLUSION
Learners and teachers engage in ongoing negotiations of power and cultural identity in cross-cultural partnerships. Our intention is to "stay with the trouble" (Haraway, 2016, p. 2) of the messy entanglements of power, identity, and culture in SaP practices. Doing so requires ways of surfacing, seeing, and talking about power in cross-cultural partnership in the scholarly community. By contributing a cross-cultural partnership framework, we aim to further the ongoing conversations by connecting the constructs of power and culture that thread through everyday partnership practices. The unique vantage point our framework offers on cross-cultural learner-teacher partnerships rests in the emergent possibilities of re-shaping power dynamics through intercultural dialogue through shared meaning-making across cultural differences. We zoom in to everyday practices with the two vignettes and zoom out applying the framework to practices elsewhere by naming and connecting constructs of power, culture, and partnership values that can give rise to new distributions of power and recognition in higher education, particularly for those in higher education navigating a system that was not created with them in mind. We call for further inquiry into the specific practices of crosscultural partnership that connect and expand our collective scholarly understanding. More . Recognising cultural capital through shared meaning-making in cross-cultural partnership practices. International Journal for Students as Partners, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v6i1.4893 76 broadly, we argue for greater and more explicit attention to the role of culture in (re)shaping the power dynamics that unfold in all partnership practices.