Intercultural Competence in Higher Education

International Approaches, Assessment and Application

Darla Deardorff, Lily Arasaratnam-Smith, Darla K. Deardorff, Lily A. Arasaratnam-Smith

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315529233
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Intercultural Competence in Higher Education features the work of scholars and international education practitioners in understanding the learning outcomes of internationalization, moving beyond rhetoric to concrete practice around the world.

Devoted exclusively to exploring the central learning outcomes of internationalization efforts, this edited volume contains a refreshing combination of chapters and case studies from interdisciplinary and cross-cultural contributors, including:

• 
  
  

• cutting-edge issues within intercultural competence development, such as intersectionality, mapping intercultural competence, and assessment;

• 
  
  

• the role of higher education in developing intercultural competence for peacebuilding in the aftermath of violent conflict;

• 
  
  

• facilitating intercultural competence through international student internships;

• 
  
  

• interdisciplinary and cross-cultural contributions from over 19 countries including Japan, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, and Vietnam;

• 
  
  

• the latest research and thinking on global, intercultural, and international learning outcomes, with a unique emphasis on newer voices.

Intercultural competence has become an essential element in international as well as domestic education. This text provides the latest thinking and research within the context of internationalization, presents practical case studies on how to integrate this into the preparation of global-ready students and will be of interest to postgraduate students, international education administrators, and practitioners, as well as scholars and researchers in a variety of disciplines who have an interest in intercultural and global competence.

---

Part I
Introduction to intercultural competence

---

---

Chapter 1
Intercultural competence

An overview

Lily A. Arasaratnam-Smith (Alphacrucis College)

---

Our present understanding of intercultural competence today has been shaped by decades of research in multiple disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, education, and communication, to name a few. I must preface this chapter by acknowledging that this chapter is influenced by my particular familiarity with communication and informed by published works in English in communication and other disciplines. The section on early works in intercultural competence is particularly focused on known works arising from the United States. Hence, while this is a broadly representative account of research in intercultural competence, it is by no means a comprehensive account of the body of literature on intercultural competence.

A brief history

Much of the literature in intercultural competence can be traced back to works in the 1960s and some even in the 1930s in the United States. For example, Rachel D. DuBois (1982–93) is known to have planted seeds of understanding between culturally diverse groups through her contribution to curriculum in intercultural education and the founding of several groups devoted to intercultural programmes. In the 1960s, research of American service personnel travelling and living overseas produced understanding of some components of effective intercultural communication, which included flexibility, stability, curiosity, sensitivity, etc. (e.g., see Ezekiel 1968; Gardner, 1962; Smith, 1966). It is interesting to note that during the same period of time psychologist Robert W. White (1959) proposed that competence is ‘an organism’s capacity to interact effectively with its environment’ (p. 297). Hence the concept of competence was also present during this time. Anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1914–2009) is another noteworthy contributor to early works in intercultural studies, with classic publications such as The Silent Language (1959) that have shaped much of later thinking.

In the 1970s, there were some deliberate attempts to conceptualise and study what was called cross-cultural effectiveness (Ruben, Askling, & Kealey, 1977). Using quantitative techniques, researchers developed measures to assess cross-cultural competence; also labelled intercultural competence, or intercultural adaptation (Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Variables such as flexibility, openness, curiosity, etc., were identified as key contributors to communicating effectively across cultures or rather adapting effectively to another culture. Publishing outlets such as the International Journal of Intercultural Relations (IJIR) were started in the late 1970s, signalling the increased interest in the study of intercultural relations.

In the 1980s, researchers continued to develop and refine instruments to assess intercultural communication competence (such as Bennett, 1986; Dinges, 1983; Hammer, 1987); the interest in the topic highlighted by a special issue of IJIR in 1989 dedicated to intercultural communication competence. Intercultural communication was being studied from the perspective of individuals from two distinct (national) cultures interacting with each other (i.e. interpersonal communication between individuals from different cultures). In fact, Spitzberg and Cupach’s (1984) definition of (interpersonal) communication competence as effective and appropriate communication has been foundational in influencing later definitions of intercultural competence.

In the 1990s, the study of intercultural competence continued to mature, with the publication of several theories of intercultural competence, many of which have stood the test of time until this day (see Arasaratnam, 2016, for more). The momentum in research in intercultural competence has continued into the 2000s, with contributions to this research by multiple scholars from diverse disciplines. For a comprehensive review of intercultural competence research up to 2009, see Spitzberg and Changnon (2009). IJIR published another special issue of intercultural competence in 2015, some twenty-five years since the seminal 1989 special issue. In addition to commentaries from issue editors Lily A. Arasaratnam and Darla K. Deardorff, both of whom have contributed to research in intercultural competence (Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005; Arasaratnam, 2006; Deardorff, 2006, 2009) in the 2000s onwards, the special issue included reflections from some of the contributors in the 1989 issue as well as new research in intercultural competence from a variety of disciplines. This is one illustration of the fact that research in intercultural competence has endured the test of time and matured and grown into a rich interdisciplinary pursuit.

Labels and definitions

Because of the wide interest in intercultural competence in multiple disciplines, nuanced and varied labels of this concept are prolific. This has caused a measure of confusion, exacerbated by little cross-referencing between disciplines that research intercultural competence (Arasaratnam, 2014). Bradford, Allen, & Beisser (2000) recognised this in their attempt to synthesise existing definitions and labels of intercultural competence and concluded that intercultural communication competence and intercultural effectiveness have been used interchangeably in literature. In medicine and related disciplines, cultural competence is the known label. While some have used the label ‘intercultural sensitivity’ to describe intercultural competence, others have argued that sensitivity, while a necessary component of intercultural competence, is not equivalent to competence (Chen & Starosta, 2000). Possibly due to its origins in cultural acculturation studies, intercultural competence has also been sometimes used interchangeably with acculturation, adaptation, and even multiculturalism. Arasaratnam (2016) observes that these labels too are conceptually distinct from intercultural competence. What then, is intercultural competence?

Effectiveness (the ability to achieve one’s goals in a particular exchange) and appropriateness (the ability to do so in a manner that is acceptable to the other person) are two components of intercultural competence prevalent in literature. Scholars also generally agree that intercultural competence has cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions. Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) offer the following definition: ‘intercultural competence is the appropriate and effective management of interaction between people who … represent different or divergent affective, cognitive, and behavioral orientations to the world’ (p. 7). It is imperative to observe that, in defining intercultural competence, one must consider the concept holistically, seeing that there are multiple elements at play here not just an individual’s own abilities. That is, interpersonal communication inherently involves the perception and abilities of more than one person, which in turn are influenced by the individuals’ cultural worldview as well as the parameters of the context in which this communication takes place. There are critics among scholars who observe that study of intercultural competence and indeed intercultural relations has a distinct individualistic flavour that does not adequately take into account wider perspectives (for a detailed dialogue, see Alexander et al., 2014).

Models and frameworks

The variables that influence or contribute to intercultural competence have been of great interest to researchers since the 1960s. Relatedly, the way in which these variables interact with one another has also been of interest, resulting in various compositional, casual, developmental, and other models of intercultural competence. An overarching grand theory of intercultural competence is yet to be developed, though there are several widely used and tested theories.

As it is not within the scope of this chapter to provide a comprehensive account of models and frameworks of intercultural competence, this chapter will focus on the models proposed by the editors of this book and other known models of intercultural competence with which the case studies in this book engage, with the exception of one other well-known model from the field of intercultural communication. As such, these models are as follows: the Process Model of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff, 2006), the Integrated Model of Intercultural Communication Competence (Arasaratnam, 2006), the Intercultural Competencies Dimensions Model (Fantini, 2009), the Intercultural Competence Model by Byram (1997), and the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, 1986). Additionally, the Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) Model (Gudykunst, 1993, 1995) is also presented. This is not a comprehensive list of the models and frameworks to which the case studies refer; it is instead an overview of some of the more widely referenced models.

The Process Model of Intercultural Competence

Based on a study of twenty-three intercultural experts using Delphi methodology, Deardorff (2006) proposed a compositional model in which she identified the components of intercultural competence which in turn informed the Process Model of Intercultural Competence, which outlines relationships between attitudes, knowledge, and internal and external desired outcomes (see Figure 1.1). Deardorff advocates progressive assessment of intercultural competence, using multiple techniques. Qualitative and quantitative assessments are suggested, noting that it is important to not only consider the types of assessment used but also the purpose of the assessment. Deardorff’s model has been widely influential in international higher education, as illustrated by the fact that it is a key theoretical framework in several of the case studies in this volume.

Figure 1.1 Deardorff Process Model of Intercultural Competence (2006).

The Integrated Model of Intercultural Communication Competence

The Integrated Model of Intercultural Communication Competence (IMICC) was based on findings from a study in which thirty-seven participants from fifteen countries were asked to describe a competent intercultural communicator; from these descriptions, Arasaratnam and Doerfel (2005) used semantic network analysis to identify five key variables that were common among all responses, namely empathy, experience, motivation, listening, and positive attitude towards other cultures. The IMICC (see Figure 1.2) was designed and empirically tested, showing a causal relationship between these variables (Arasaratnam, 2006; Arasaratnam, Banerjee, & Dembek, 2010a). A variation of the model was further developed to include sensation-seeking and ethnocentrism as variables that influence intercultural competence (Arasaratnam & Banerjee, 2011). The inclusion of sensation-seeking is particularly interesting from an international higher education perspective because there is evidence to suggest that high sensation-seekers are predisposed to engage in intercultural contact-seeking behaviour such as study-abroad programmes, for example (Arasaratnam, 2006; Arasaratnam, Banerjee, & Dembek, 2010b).

Figure 1.2 The Integrated Model of Intercultural Communication Competence by Arasaratnam (2006).

Intercultural competencies dimensions

Based on a wide review of literature which informed the conceptualisation of intercultural competence and on empirical testing (Fantini, 2006), the intercultural competencies dimensions provide a framework for assessing intercultural competence (see Figure 1.3). It identifies eight attributes (empathy, openness, patience, curiosity, flexibility, suspended judgement, tolerance for ambiguity, and humour), three interrelated areas (formation and maintenance of relationships, communication without disorientation, cooperation for mutual benefit), and four dimensions (knowledge, skills, attitudes, awareness). Fantini (2009) proposes that introspection and self-reflection promote enhanced awareness. Fantini’s framework is widely used, as illustrated by case studies by Almeida and Oguro in this book.

Intercultural Competence Model

Byram’s Intercultural Competence Model (1997) allows for a distinction between those whose identities are conflicted due to exposure to two cultures (bicul-tural) and those whose identities seamlessly negotiate between cultures (intercultural). Unlike many other models of intercultural competence, this model places a heavy emphasis on language (see also Byram, 2014). The use of Byram’s model (Figure. 1.4) is illustrated in the case studies by Corder, Lazarevic, and Peck et al., for example.

Figure 1.3 Intercultural competencies dimensionsions (Fantini, 2009).

Figure 1.4 Intercultural Competence Model (Byram, 1997).

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) (Bennett, 1986) is a process model that outlines one’s linear progression from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativity through six distinct stages (Figure. 1....

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• About the contributors
• Series foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I Introduction to intercultural competence
• Part II Development and assessment of intercultural competence
• Part III Application of intercultural competence
• Index