So much of what is said in the paper applies to native and non native that I don't see the point in the distinction.

An example:
"It may be that the ‘culture bumps’
(Archer 1986) experienced by the non-native trainees
in the classroom are real for all involved, as not only
are they interacting with pupils and colleagues who
have a different culture to them, but this is in Hungary,
yet another culture from the one where their
university is based; this ‘double layer’ of cultural
complexity may possibly hinder their confidence
and therefore their ability in the classroom."

Would a native speaker trainee not feel these 'culture bumps'?