Jump to content

Talk:Third culture kid/Archives/2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


American English term?

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)
I've read this book and being a TCK-turned-ATCK, I am willing to stand for this article with every fibre. Whether or not it is an academic term, what I've learnt in my Teacher's Education programme is that it usually takes around 20-30 years (sometimes even more) for a term/phrase to be accepted in the general public. This book by social anthropologists Pollock and Van Reken is legitimate, and I have a copy of it where there are scholarly references. So the term is legitimate and the information resembles what is said in the book as well. 65.249.163.82 12:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC) dr. 08:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Its an academic term (used in Universities). Few American actual TCKs are familiar with the term. Nor is the average American. However it does accurately describe those of us who grew up this way. --Sean7phil (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've heard this used in international schools that mimic the British system. Has anyone else ever heard of the term "Expat Brat" though? It was tossed around quite a lot back in my international school Jademushroom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC).

Anglo-centric bias

This term (and the research it describes) seems to have an anglo-centric bias. What about the experiences of second generation (or more accurately, 1.5 generation) migrant children who accompany their parents to another country? It seems that these children's experiences mirror the TCK experience except in reverse - they are usually going from a non-English-speaking country to an English speaking one.

Why is there no mention of this in the article? Surely the experiences of non-English-background migrant children merits some research.


I think that's answered by the line under Intercultural Experiences: "TCKs are distinguished from other immigrants by the fact that TCKs do not expect to settle down permanently in the places where they live." While there would be multiple cultures in effect for those migrant children, the fact that they have migrated to a new country would lead them to adopt the culture of that new country, rather than forming the blend of cultures which earmarks the TCK. The direction of English to non-English or vice versa is irrelevant...more to the point is having continued mobility, which forms the "global" perspective. MFC21 16:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)ATCK
Exactly, TCK expliticly includes the return to the persons passport country. People who have immigrated to another country are explicitly NOT included as TCKs based upon the definition. THere is some research on non-american experiences in the article---including the notion that one of the major criticisms of TCK research is that it has been done via projecting expectations upon the results.Balloonman 22:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the term 'international TCK' is either American-centric or redundant. Naturally, more studies are needed to confirm that the conclusions drawn so far (that TCKs have more in common with each other than locals regardless of where we've lived exactly) are in fact generally correct and to address the possible problems with the studies, but as it stands the data support this conclusion, which posits the unique-to-TCKs relative irrelevance of coutry of origin. Per definition, TCKs are international. Using such language suggests a country bias, in this case toward America. If this research has any transformative value at all, surely it is that TCKs transcend the nation-state concept. In order to keep the focus on the key aspects of the research, I suggest we consciously write the article in such a way that it does not use any one country as a point of reference. If the data change later, of course the article will have to be changed to reflect that at that point. Globalistgirl 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with "Globalistgirl". Pollock and Van Reken use the term TCK in their book in a nationality-independent way. They never mention that TCKs are only American-born children.
Moreover, if we read their definition, we will see that they never mention what the first (or "home") culture is (ie they never mention it is American culture), so it can be any culture. Mairabay (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


I think there are two definitions being discussed here:
  1. Children of immigrants who move permanently with their parents to the foreign country (example: parents from China that move to Canada with a child or that have that child in Canada). This is called Cross-Cultural Kid. This definition was created by Ruth Van Reken and was on her web-page until last year (it is going through renovation now). You can still access the info on web-archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20060228042928/www.crossculturalkid.org/cck.htm (by the way we could create a wikipedia entry for this term too)
  2. Children of non-American parents who have lived in another country and then moved back to the original. Example: I was born in Brazil to Brazilian parents but I have lived in England and Wales a child. I returned to Brazil when I was 7, and I fit into many of the descriptions mentioned on Pollock and Van Reken's book. As I stated above, I think these should be considered TCKs too. Mairabay (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Military Brat Online Community

This is a new online service for all military brats (former and current). I just added this to the "external links" section of the article--

Career Decisions section issues

Does anybody else have no idea what the charts in the "career decisions" section is trying to portray? Hku04 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is listing the typical career choices made by TCKs...MFC21 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It does need a lead/intro, but basically it is in part concerned with the higher levels of education that TCK's typically receive and the career paths that TCKs typically take. It is an area of significant research.Balloonman 22:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [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)

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)

"Global cultural rainbow?" Who in the world wrote that?

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)

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)
I was the one that added that information. I didn't have a registered account at the time. The nigrescence information is all in her thesis: Schaetti, B. F. (2001). Global Nomad Identity: Hypothesizing a Developmental Model (Doctoral dissertation, The Union Institute, 2001.) Dissertation Abstracts, 9992721. Very little of that thesis can be found on the web for free, unfortunately. My university ordered it for me when I was writing a study on TCKs. I think members of the public can order it, but you'll have to pay for it. I'll add it back in if no one has further objections, as it's an academic reference and as such far more authoritative than any web page. Globalistgirl 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. --Ginkgo100talk 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)

Children of God Category

If the Category is added again, I will delete it again and call it Vandalism at that point. Children of God <> Missionary Kids. Missionary Kids is a sociological term that has specific connotations that "children of God" does not fit. Please provide sources before making this claim again. Right now I'm assuming good faith, but this is not a content dispute. Provide sources that indicate that you understand the term and that it is used to describe COG, and I will accept it. But right now, it is nothing short of OR that is unrelated to the subject and in my opinion inflamatory to TCKs/MKs.Balloonman 05:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May have acted in too much haste, will have discussion on Talk:Missionary Kids. Balloonman 06:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm a tck

as tck american, living in germany and going to an international school where the language we learn in is english, i found this article very intersting. for most of the points it made, i found its hypothesis correct, but some points also completely contradicted what i have experienced as a tck. for instance, the point that stated most tck's don't have a feeling of belonging to any one country, is quite the opposite. there are a few students (such as myself) who no longer feel they can call any one country home, but for the most part, being displaced from their home country has made my fellow tck's connection to it even stronger, not weaker. another point made that i found inncorrect was 'a desire to remain in close contact with friends from their adopted country as well as other TCKs that they have grown up with." because you make friends, and then lose them again so quickly, i know from observing and personal experience, that you purposly distance yourself. you never allow yourself to get too close, only on a superficial level. and once your fellow tck friends are gone, you often leave it at that, they are gone, the end, you knew it would happen so you didn't let yourself care as much. its the sad part of being a tck, you meet many people from different cultures, and learn from it, you are more worldly because of it, but also because of it you don't develop in the way that having a long lasting commited friendship could allow you to. as a tck, i am very lucky, and am introduced to so many experiences that most kids never get to imagine, but after all there is a downside to every good thing.

My guess is that you are a military brat? You sound like one, if so, then brats do have different experiences than non-brats. But not everything rings true to me either---but that is why it is important to have verifiable facts from independent sources. My experience will be different from yours. It will be different from non-American TCK's. Any study of a population will be on the trends that are true for all/most---not every member of said group.Balloonman 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a tck. I felt like this article was written by a bunch of tcks/atcks who feel that they themselves are "misunderstood." I get the sense that tcks are altogether the same as regular kids. I'm sure we've all met other tcks who love (and pretend to hate) that moment when people ask us where we're from because we get to show off our posh international upbringing and sound exotic and cultured as a way to impress. If anything, I'd say we're an overstudied social group, pored over by monolingual sociologists who want grant money to travel abroad but don't have the language skills to study anyone but "tcks"/expats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.15.240 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And to support your contention you offer what proof?Balloonman 09:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Because it is a huge article devoted to one minor demographic phenomena. The stay-at-home dad phenomenom is far more prevalent throughout the world and involves inverting the traditional family roles, but it's clear that their article is clear and not wracked by an inferiority complex (there's no "Studies have shown that stay at home Dads are more sensitive and smarter than dads who work").

There is no reason to include the cacaphony of statistics, particularly uncited ones like: Some studies show a desire to "settle down" others a "restlessness to move". I mean, how much more vague can you get? If you poll Americans as a whole, you'd probably get similar results. Statements like "Teenage TCKs are more mature than non-TCKs" are absurd and would never appear in a peer-published journal of sociology--and serve as obvious proof that the article was written by TCKs interpreting articles about themselves as they see fit. This applies to "More welcoming of others into their community." and "Lack a sense of "where home is" but often nationalistic." which doesn't even make grammatical sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.15.240 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure of why my link to http://www.globalistgirl.net is constantly being removed. I searched for COI and assume it means conflict of interest in this context, but I'm not sure of what SPA means. The website is a summary of cited academic research on third culture kids and globalization that in and of itself would be in line with Wikipedia guidelines on no original research. However, the material is synthesized by me but not published, so I am the legal copyright holder. I'm not sure what the problem with the link is - is it that I can't create a link to my own site? I would appreciate it if someone could clarify. Globalistgirl (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

About COI, see my reply at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#Link removal policy? SPA refers to WP:SPA. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, could one of you take a look at my site and consider adding it? It is a summary of academic research on TCKs, globalization and bilcultral people. Everything is properly referenced in APA style and I think it contributes something to this site to have a link to, for those who are more academically inclined. That way, this page can stay fairly informal, but access to more rigorous material is provided. Globalistgirl (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just rename the article to "US-American expatriate children"

Let's be honest, that's pretty much what it seems to be about. The categorisation is uniquely based on US citizens, most assertions are unsupported (the whole Intercultural Experiences section needs citing or removing, so does the third paragraph of the next one)and just about everything needs "US-American" slapped on the front of it (especially the statistics!). Some references are broken (#2 and other refences to tckworld) and reference #13 is a fluff piece that provides no evidence for the quoted assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.45.22 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also half the references are, to put it mildly, crap. "Pearce (2002) p158" is _not_ enough - the ISBN would be nice but failing which the title is pretty essential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.9.139 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with citations. An individual citation doesn't have to contain every detail, when the the reference is provided elsewhere. Since Pearce's work is cited in full elsewhere, "authorname (date of publication) page", is more than enough to find the source.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This subject has already been discussed. I am a TCK but not an American. I know many hundreds of fellow TCKs who are not American. Sure the article could do more to internationalise the content, but it should, by no means, go in the opposite direction. Also, please stop using "US-American". --Thorwald (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


I agree with the post just above this one. TCK is a much more accurate discription--

It references how children who grow up in more than one country become a cultural fusion (are a combination of all the countries that they grow up in). This is true whether you were an American or non-American overseas child. TCKs of all countries have more in common with each other than they do with their countries of citizenship. There fore TCK and NOT "US expatriate Children" is the proper terminology for this article and the subject in general.

By the way I am an American TCK and former military brat.

Sean7phil (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suicide and such

Hello. There is an unreferenced mention of TCK's being more suicide prone - unreferenced like all the other items on that list, but I'm especially interested in that particular statement, could somebody be a bit more detailed on this? Thanks. Fluttermoth (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, are you talking about this statement, "Depression and suicide are more prominent among TCK's.[27] " Where 27 is the link to the footnote which is the reference? And wherein every item on that list has a source? I don't see a list where "all the other items" are unreferenced. If you want more information, do a search on "Third Culture Kids" and suicide. There are plenty of resources out there talking about the connection, and how it is particularly the case during a TCK's first year back in the parent country.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spartacus, thank you yes sorry, I can see the references now. Chill, it was a genuine error. The point was not criticism but a request for information. Fluttermoth (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

NP, didn't mean to come off like it sounded... anyway, like I said there are numerous sources online that reference suicide amongst TCK's. From what I can see it is most prevelent the first year back in the home country, but that was only a cursory glance.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Spartacus, You are forgiven ;) Thanks again, I will look. You see! All these community psychiatry people and local social workers! what do they know about ME! WIKIPEDIA has the answers. I like this. Cheers. Fluttermoth 21:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluttermoth (talk • contribs)

Actually, the reference quoted (27) is for Cottrell's article, published on the TCK World website, and nowhere in it does she mention suicide. When I googled TCK's and suicide,as Spartacus suggests, there are lots of references to the claim, and 2 reprints of a personal anecdote about Caleb, a missionary's son? who committed suicide. Responders on the Denizen website think that he is a friend of Steph. Maybe so. Brittani Sonnenberg, in "Towards a TCK Curriculum" says the anecdote comes out of a published article (no reference) titled: "Keeping Third Culture Kids Emotionally Healthy: Depression and Suicide among Missionary Kids" by Esther Schubert,in which she reports that TCK suicide rates go up after their first year home. There is a comment on the Denizen website that implies the writer knew the same Caleb, and that his problems had alot to do with his parents religiosity. Informally (LOTS of blogging on the internet and original research)I am sure TCK's can relate to the idea of depression, and maybe even suicide (I personally have come across one suicider who was within his first 12 months back in passport country). The idea that TCK's are emotionally dysfunctional is one worth exploring, as alot of the websites seem to encourage the notion that TCK's are by and large so "successful" as a group - based on markers like higher education degrees. Indeed, through reference 27 of the Wikipedia article, if you go from Cottrell's Article 3 to her Article 4, she says that Adult TCK's by and large can NOT relate to feeling alienated. Personally, I would not like to see research which pertains specifically to Missionary kids being willy nilly extended to encompass claims made about all TCK's (despite my OPINION that depression/alienation/confusion is common). I would like to see this reference more academically researched please. I believe suicide is referenced in the Pollock/Van Reken book, but I do not have a copy.Genevievea (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


Third Culture Kids → Third culture kid — Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the article title should use the singular, "Third Culture Kid". Additionally, the leading characters should be in lower case unless it's a proper name, which this isn't. So the article should be moved to "Third culture kid". Dismas|(talk) 07:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The move

The move appears to have deleted the talk page and article histories... but I'm not sure I agree with it.. I didn't see notice of the move (but with the holidays it is possible I just missed it.) I can reluctantly accept the lower case use, but I have a problem with making it singular. The common form of the term is the plural, thus I would argue that it is the proper form per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I have all the talkpage history at this page now, and I'm not seeing any significant article revisions elsewhere. The singular/plural issue is covered at WP:SINGULAR, btw.  Skomorokh  20:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:Singular states, Article titles are generally in singular in form, e.g. Horse not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages). WP:COMMONNAME states that Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. It goes on to state: Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common. When searching, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". It may also be useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. Using those criteria:
I could go on and on, but the reality is that the plural form is the commonname, not the singular. Almost all of the research and articles on the subject will use kids not kid.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing – I just came to clean up the pagemoves! Given that only one editor commented in the above move discussion, it might be worth opening another and seeking greater participation if you feel strongly about it. Regards,  Skomorokh  20:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your fixing the problem with the history... I am raising the question here before immediately opening another move request. I'd rather discuss it before going down that path.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I initiated the move. But sociology is far from being my forte, so I don't have any idea how this is referred to outside WP. I came across this page the Wikipedia way... I stumbled on it while reading another article that linked here. According to the guidelines already mentioned as well as what is in use at Military brat (another term for children of a particular group), I proposed the move. All that being said, I still do not agree with the idea that it should be at "... Kids". So, move the article wherever you want. I don't really care. I was just trying to keep things organized and titled correctly in the way that I understand the guidelines here. Dismas|(talk) 21:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Useem's children

I believe that the names of Useem's children are incorrect (Flopsi, Penny, and Dipsi). According to this website with her obituary, their names are Michael, Howard, and Bert. --Gwen0511 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect, commentators can't see discriminatory forest for euro-centric intellectual trees

I am not a TCK nor have I contributed to a Wikipedia talk page before. I apologize for any failings here (of the experimental sort) but when I did as suggested and went to the "sandbox" (whatever that is) I got -- no kidding -- "Goatse in Wikipedia table format."

Anyway, sorry, this article is genuinely awful. It is full of unsupported assertions, e.g "Third culture kids have incorporated different cultures on the deepest level, as to have several cultures incorporated into their thought processes." And that is only one example. An assertion I will make, although I can't really support it, either, is that this entire article is very deeply biased culturally. That is, it appears to me that the whole agglomeration of unsupported -- and when supported, slanted in terms of very (dominant-)culture-specific concepts and terms -- pseudo-facts really needs a major overhaul. (Well, consider the title: "Third Culture Kids." Sheesh.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.58.144 (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


There has been a lot of research on this subjects and there are many citations available. But the work hasn't been done to include them (more since thhe post above, but more should be done).

Anyway the research does support the articles main assertions but the citations need to be worked in.

Sean7phil (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with the view that this is a terrible, terrible article. The whole idea of a 'third culture kid' seems conceptually-flawed at the outset. For example, what is a child's *own* culture? Your culture is simply your environment. To speak of a child having its 'own culture' is about as analytically perspicacious as talking about a child having its own oxygen. From these shaky normative underpinnings, it seems an entire subculture has grown up to explaint the experiences of children who have grown up in different countries. And, because everyone loves to have identity issues in order to feel special, the concept has been seized upon in order to help foreign-raised kids come to grips with their non-standard upbringing. Look, I don't doubt that being raised in different countries raises a lot of very interesting issues that are worthy of academic study. But all these folk talking about being TCKs and ATCKs? Get over yourselves. Wikipedia is not therapy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.188.53 (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's break this down another way. Would you agree that a child with two parents from the USA has the same (or very similar) culture as his or her parents? Now, what if one parent is from the USA and the other parent is from, say, Japan (two very different cultures) and (and this is important) the child grew up entirely in one of those countries (e.g., the child grew up only in the USA). Now that child really only has "one culture" (i.e., USA culture) with a bit of influence from the Japanese culture (through the Japanese parent). If, now, the child grew up in both the USA and Japan, we can say the child has strong influences from two (very different) cultures. The "third culture" in TCK comes from the case(s) where the child did not grow up in his/her "passport country". That is, he/she did not grow up in either the USA or Japan (in our example). Let's say he/she grew up entirely in India (a very different culture from both the USA and Japan). It is easy to understand that this child would have influences from three separate cultures. That is the distinction and that is why we have this article (along with its title). As far as this being a "terrible, terrible article": What are we supposed to do with that? Constructive criticism along with useful examples of changes would be a better route. --Thorwald (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

~

I apologize for any misconceptions I may have here, but it appears as though some of you are simply whining about the fact that third-culture kids are able to truly understand other cultures while you are limited by your own culture's bearings. I am a TCK. We really can understand other cultures, and our thought processes are fundamentally inclusive of cultures. We are able to step outside of a culture and evaluate what is truly "common sense" and what is simply the product of that culture. We can understand and adapt, and we are more accepting of other cultures and ideas than you are. I know you may not like to hear this, but our "third culture" is the ability to see and understand all world cultures in a way most people only dream of.

One of you says that Wikipedia should not be our "therapy" and that we are merely trying to make ourselves feel special. Wikipedia is superfluous. Our ability to understand cultures is not only documented, but really is special, depending on if you define special as unique. To say we have just incorporated two different cultures to form a combination of the two simply flies in the face of facts. Third culture kids from the US who lived in Africa behave in much the same way as kids with South Korean parents who grew up in Afghanistan. The combination of US culture and African culture does not equal the combination of South Korean culture and Afghan culture. The experience of having two different cultures incorporated into a developing brain, on the other hand, does in and of itself produce similar behavioral characteristics. These kids all adapt to their cultures. We all understand others and tend to have multicultural thought processes. At what point do we cross the line from fishy coincidence to discernible pattern? Think about it.

Also, to say a child is simply incorporating - say, Iranian culture with US culture - is absurd. Do we go to the beaches in Bikinis and then shower after every time we have sex? Because that's what we would look like if we were simply products of the two cultures combined. Of course not. What an inane assertion. Don't fool yourself.

And then you come to downright contradictions between cultures. In America, it is rude to interrupt people when they are speaking. It shows you don't care about what they're saying. In Italy, it is rude to not interrupt people while they are speaking. Unless you interrupt them, they will assume you do not care about what they are saying. How, pray tell, would someone who is simply a product of those combined cultures behave in a conversation? Would their head explode? Really? Who are you kidding here? Obviously, they have formed a culture outside of all cultures they were raised in - even more, their thought processes include, on an intimate level, the ability to step outside of (and into) two or more cultures. Once learned, this ability can be applied to any culture. It's like learning to run. When you go to a new location, do you have to learn how to run again? Of course not. You already know how. When we meet a new culture, do we have to learn how to understand other cultures again? Don't be silly. Once the skill is attained on a fundamental level, it can be applied anywhere. That's how we are able to be multicultural.

And we don't need Wikipedia to tell us that.

On the flip side, it would also seem as though you are, by your own upbringings, fundamentally incapable of understanding the concept of an individual who can truly step into and out of any culture and understand it with greater clarity than those in it. It is possible that you literally cannot wrap your head around that, and so you are denouncing it as impossible. Well, buddy, I have news: we exist, we are documented, and we understand the nature of what you believe and how you reason more than you do.

That's something you'll have to square with.

-A TCK

~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.149.124 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Notable TCKs

This section is in dire need of references. Since it deals with BLP's without references, it could be deleted.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am an Australian TCK, although I have only ever come across the terms dipkid and military brat before. I wrote my senior thesis in Anthropology at Swarthmore in the US 30 years ago on this subject: at the time I was very preoccupied with defining my experience of growing up as an outsider. I understand that the purpose of this page is to provide academically sound information and references on the Wikipedia website, but am intrigued by the conversation going on on this talk page. None of the references you've sighted are references I recognize from the research I did for my thesis, but oh what I field day I would have had! One of the contributors to this talk is very scathing ("Get over yourselves. Wikipedia is not therapy"). Obviously I have a biased interest in the topic, but delving into it can provide material that might helps us all to negotiate that balance between Individualism and concern for Community at a time when Community is becoming more and more Global, and families more and more fractured. The reference to Suicides in the first year back in country of Origin I find very interesting. Coming from a perspective of how it took me a long time to "pull myself together" as an adult, and having recently met a TCK who killed himself within the first year of his return to his supposed home country I am personally drawn to understanding what happens psychologically with TCK's. On the question of TCK's and ATCK's, I would suggest there is validity to the distinction IF most TCK's in the world over the age of say 30, were children of monoculture parents who grew up in one country: in other words that because of Economically/Politically driven changes during the 20th Century, the numbers of FAMILIES moving BACK AND FORTH from homeland to foreign land, worldwide, significantly increased. If there is indeed a unique (and newly formed) culture to be associated with TCK's, then ATCK's would be the first generation, and one would expect some evolution in terms of adaptation to be observable in subsequent generations. But other than looking at it from an Anthropological point of view, obviously TCK's will at some point become ATCK's, and the distinction is spurious (In every Culture there are adults and children). This notion of Third Culture is completely new to me, but intriguing. For instance: when I looked through the list of Famous TCK's, I am personally connected to 2 of them. This is literally evidence that I am part of a diaspora, almost. It would be fascinating to see how many random TCK's might have crossed paths with "famous" TCK's. 6 degrees of separation notwithstanding, can we find papers written on the CULTURE TCK's are creating, are part of, over and above their psychological experiences? Barack Obama is an example of a successul TCK, my recently suicided acqaintance not. The national dialogue happening around Obama has alot to do with his TCK-ness. I think this list is interesting and has some kind of purpose. I would be interested in a more blog type conversation with people around this: any links? Genevievea (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)genevieve 29.9.10

Hey Genevievea, I hope you've found some discussion forums/blogs since you posted. If not, I can post some on your user page, or a Google search should lead you to some.
I'm also a TCK (I think) though the literal thing about having actually "integrated" the non-passport/birth culture (or in my case cultures, being CCK as well) into the passport cultures is pretty hard to measure & evaluate (in my case, the country to which my parents moved us was culturally/ideologically closed/unwelcoming towards westerners - a fundamentalist Islamic state - so this was not really possible, however my life & that of my sister were obviously affected by the experience, so whether or not Useem would've called us TCKs or not I'm not 100% sure). The term is obviously generally used more loosely than that, but I wonder if Useem's idea was that the "third culture" was a personal/individual culture or a generic, shared, universal "TCK culture". At least, that's the only way it makes sense to me, since TCK experiences differ from each other in so many ways.
(p.s. I'm probably being a pedantic pain in the butt here but re. "from an Anthropological point of view, obviously TCKs will at some point become ATCKs" - that's except for the ones who don't physically survive for whatever reason, including, obviously, suicide. Sorry, I'm a bit OCD but then again, I do find it a concern about the suicide rates; I find it very understandable based on my own experience and I don't think those stats should be forgotten, or obscured/ignored/denied as some - not you - seem to want to do in order to be able to frame TCKness as 'predominantly good' rather than 'bad'. Anyhow, this is obviously potentially a very long discussion.) -- TyrS  chatties  23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Basketball TCKs

Someone just added a few new "TCKs". In my opinion, these do not meet the criteria of a TCK, as they only lived abroad in a single other country as children. The "T" in "TCK" means 'third'. That is, they are not "from" the one culture their parents are from or where they were born, nor are they "from" the second culture they grew up in. They are from a "third" culture, a mixture of all three. If you were born in one country but grew up in another, you are not a TCK. That would be many millions of people. The distinction is not being "from" two separate cultures (the one your parents and/or you were born into and the second you grew up in), but 'three': Neither of the the previous two, but a mixture of more than these two. These recent names should be removed, unless they are really TCKs. --Thorwald (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thorwald, Did you mean "a mixture of both" rather than "a mixture of all three" at the end of your fifth sentence?
It's impossible to really measure/monitor/restrict who calls themselves a TCK & what levels of 'cultural integration' they experienced, and also there's an obvious need for some term. When a child is was born in one country and grows up in another there is still the family's culture which they bring with them that is very much a part of the child's life & identity.
I'm not sure what's wrong with the term being applicable to many millions of people, as Pollock wrote, "[TCKs] are not new, and they are not few. They have been a part of the earth's population from the earliest migrations."[1].
 TyrS  chatties  22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it depends on the family's role. If a child is born and raised in a country, but his/her family is from another country, and the expectation is that they are only in the country temporarily, then yes they are TCKs. Temporarily can mean for a few years or for the child's entire childhood. Now, if the expectation is that they have made a permanent move and will never be returning to the parent country---and the child stays in the host country after becoming an adult, with the intention of staying there, then I agree. In other words, that missionary kid, whose parents lived in village in Africa for a child's entire life---but made annual visits "home" to raise money and always considered themselves to be "Americans" or whatever, then the child is a TCK. Part of being a TCK is that there has to be the expectation and/or acknowledgement that you are in a foreign country and will someday return home.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition

I'm not sure why credit for the definition quoted from the book Third Culture Kids (Pollock & Van Reken) is continually changed back to Useem. As the book writes "Coauthor David Pollock developed the following definition...." Useem did not write that definition, nor is the citation from her literature.

I've tried to correct it, but find it repeatedly reverted. Please stop changing it to an inaccurate statement.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.197.72 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no article on either author. Write the article, then they're notable, otherwise nothing can substantiate your claim. Oh, and leave edit summaries and sign your posts. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if there is no article about others authors, it is dishonest and unethical to attribute their writing to someone else. The citation given is from Pollock's book!--Globalfamilies (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The intro paragraph now has Useem's original definition (cited) followed by Pollock's definition (also cited). I hope this has helped towards resolving the problem.-- TyrS  make my day  00:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a bit of a mistake about Useem's original definition. The cited source (ACCORDING TO MY PASSPORT, I’M COMING HOME, by Kay Branaman Eakin) doesn't actually quote Useem directly, but uses Kay B. Eakin's words, though it could be taken to do so if not read carefully:
The term TCK was first used 40 years ago by Ruth Hill Useem in her research on North American children living in India. TCK refers to someone who has spent a significant period of time in one or more culture(s) other than his or her own, thus integrating elements of those cultures and their own birth culture, into a third culture. Useem and others have subsequently researched and written on the phenomenon and found that TCKs cope rather than adjust, becoming both “a part of” and “apart from” whatever situation they are in. Brought up in another culture or several cultures, they feel ownership in none. An American TCK may find more in common with an Italian or Indian TCK than she does with a monocultural U.S. teen.
Our intro paragraph could be taken to imply that the quoted words are Useem's. I am currently collaborating with Ruth E. Van Reken to fix this and several other problems with the article.
 TyrS  make my day  04:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

'terminology' section (uncited) quarantine

I'm just quarantining this section (which lacks any citations) here for now, since much of what it discusses is covered elsewhere, including the 'Origins and research' section (which has citations), and having both sections is excessive and repetitive. If people want to add material from here back to the article, please include citations.
Thanks! -- TyrS  chatties  10:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

Useem and her husband studied children, including their own, who grew up in two or more cultures, and termed them simply "third culture kids". Their idea was that children from one culture who live in another culture become part of a "third culture" that is more than simply a blend of home and host cultures.

Two circumstances are key to becoming a third culture kid: growing up in a truly cross-cultural world, and high mobility. By the former, Pollock and van Reken mean that instead of observing cultures, TCKs actually live in different cultural worlds. By mobility, they mean mobility of both the TCK and others in their surrounding. The interplay between the two is what gives rise to common personal characteristics, benefits, and challenges. TCKs are distinguished from other immigrants by the fact that TCKs do not expect to settle down permanently in the places where they live.

TCKs grow up in a genuinely cross-cultural world. While expatriates watch and study cultures that they live in, third culture kids actually live in different cultural worlds. TCKs have incorporated different cultures on the deepest level, as to have several cultures incorporated into their thought processes. This means that third culture kids not only have deep cultural access to at least two cultures, this also means that thought processes are truly multicultural. That, in turn, influences how TCKs relate to the world around them, and makes TCKs' thought processes different even from members of cultures they have deep-level access to, a phenomenon known as cultural jet lag. TCKs also have certain personal characteristics in common. Growing up in the third culture rewards certain behaviors and personality traits in different ways than growing up in a single culture does, which results in common characteristics. Third culture kids are often tolerant cultural chameleons who can choose to what degree they wish to display their background.

As a result, Pollock and van Reken argue, TCKs develop a sense of belonging everywhere and nowhere. Their experiences among different cultures and various relationships makes it difficult for them to have in-depth communication with those who have not experienced similar conditions. While TCKs usually grow up to be independent and cosmopolitan, they also often struggle with their identity and with the losses they have suffered in each move. Some may feel very nationalistic toward one country, while others call themselves global citizens.

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)

Hello, I have just realized that I've gotten a bit confused due to the section that was labelled "Further Reading" containing citations that belong in a References section (see WP:SFN). I've just changed "Further Reading" to "References" but I suspect that some of the contents still belong under a separate "Further Reading". Unfortunately I don't have time to go through & fix this all right now though.--RuthE.VanReken (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that using full inline citations WP:INCITE would be much better than the separate "notes" and "references" sections, with some of the contents of the latter presumably still being "further reading" rather than an elaboration on the "notes". This means moving much of what's currently in the References section into inline citations - arg, a lot of work.-- TyrS  chatties  12:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
p.s. also I'll be adding missing info (e.g. URLs, ISBNs, etc) to these citations wherever I can find it. (Just did so with the A.Hymlo reference.)-- TyrS  chatties  13:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
p.p.s. I noticed that page numbers had been mentioned in the notes, I have kept them, but because they were only ever a few pages referenced for each work, and the works don't seem to be available online, I mentioned all the page numbers in each work's citation, figuring that if someone is going to go to the trouble of getting a copy they won't mind reading through a few different pages. I hope this makes sense.-- TyrS  chatties  14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm going to go back & find the individual page numbers & restore them at some point. Someone did some fairly meticulous work and it's a shame to lose it.-- TyrS  chatties  02:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Note to self, wp:REFGROUP explains how to do this. (Also need to move uncited items from "References" to a new "Further Reading" section, or perhaps remove them altogether, depending on WP policy.)-- TyrS  chatties  03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Indeed. As a child of a specialist doctor who took a job in Riyadh independently of any passport country organization, I am on the margins of the margins as a TCK (also a CCK). We certainly do have unique perspectives, even from each other. When I was moved to a compound in Riyadh in 1979, the local culture was very closed off to me and my family. So it was kind of like being sent to jail on another planet in lots of ways. Extracurricular activities were not an option due to lack of transport (particularly with women not being allowed to drive, and the international school was an hour's bus ride away). I mean, as TCKs, we share some things but of course there are many differences.-- TyrS  chatties  03:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://books.google.com.au/books?id=eYK8vsA8K8MC&lpg=PP1&dq=third%20culture%20kid&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q=few&f=false. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third_culture_kid/Archives/2011&oldid=1137248965"