The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence

Darla K. Deardorff

• Editorial: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Año: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781483342894
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Langues et linguistique
• Categoría: Études sur la communication

Bringing together leading experts and scholars from around the world, this Handbook provides a comprehensive overview of the latest theories and research on intercultural competence. It will be a useful and invaluable resource to administrators, faculty, researchers, and students.

PART I

Conceptualizing
Intercultural
Competence

CHAPTER 1

Conceptualizing
Intercultural Competence

Brian H. Spitzberg and Gabrielle Changnon

The Genesis narrative of the Tower of Babel tells of a time when all people of the earth were of one language, or one speech. Their ambition to reach the heavens through machinations of their own design led to their scattering and confounding of languages and lands. As long ago as only 500 years, “humans spoke 14,000 languages. Today, that number is below 7,000, and 40 percent of the world’s population speaks one of only eight languages. In 2008, we will lose between 20 and 30 languages” (Seed: Science and Culture, January/February 2008, p. 65). Whereas a world of one people and one speech is unlikely in any imminently foreseeable future, the objective of finding common purpose through mutually coordinated communication across cultures and languages continues to be a goal of many if not most people, organizations, and nations. In pursuing such objectives, scholars have been endeavoring not only to understand the nature of competence in native communication but also to extend such conceptions to the requisite adaptations across cultural contexts. If conceptualizing communication competence is difficult within a given culture, the challenge is clearly multiplied when extending such concepts across distinct cultural milieus. This chapter intends to review selective models of intercultural communication competence that have been proffered, with an eye toward identifying (a) common themes and distinct emphases that may assist in directing future efforts for integrative theorizing, (b) conceptual pathways that have been relatively overlooked, and (c) ideological presumptions that may need reevaluation in the formulation of future models. It is taken for granted that a single chapter cannot possibly either do justice to the models reviewed or be comprehensive in its representation of the breadth and depth of models available for analysis. Thus, this chapter should be viewed more as an attempt to provide a heuristic theoretical analysis. There are many excellent reviews of cultural (Tyler, 2001), communication (Rickheit, Strohner, & Vorwerg, 2008; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2002), and intercultural (see, e.g., Arasaratnam, 2007; Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005; Dinges & Baldwin, 1996; Hammer, 1989; Lustig & Spitzberg, 1993; Luszczynska, Gutiérrez-Doña, & Martin, 1993; Rathje, 2007; Spitzberg, 1989) competence available for the interested reader. With some illustrative exceptions, models of intercultural communication competence designed for specific contexts (e.g., educational: Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen, & Hubbard, 2006; Heyward, 2002; Kayes, Kayes, & Yamazaki, 2005; Milhouse, 1996; sales or service: Chaisrakeo & Speece, 2004; Hopkins, Hopkins, & Hoffman, 2005; conflict: Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007; Hammer, 2005; Ting-Toomey, 1988, 2007; health care: Gibson & Zhong, 2005; counseling: Li, Kim, & O’Brien, 2007; Sue, 2001; international adjustment: Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005; B. K. Lee & Chen, 2000; immigrant: Bourhis, Moïise, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997; organizations/management: Fisher & Härtel, 2003; Torbiörn, 1985; Valentine & Yunxia, 2001) are excluded from this review in order to focus on some of the more foundational models in the field. Investigations directed primarily to measurement development rather than model development are also excluded (e.g., Gamst et al., 2004; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Prechtl & Lund, 2007; Sheu & Lent, 2007). There is little doubt as well that some important models will be missed inadvertently in the process of review. Most of the theories and models reviewed were selected due to their importance to the field, evidenced by the existence of multiple citations referencing them, although in other instances, models were selected for purely illustrative purposes of a given type of model or set of components.

To pursue a reasonable review of conceptualizations of intercultural communication competence, several steps are undertaken. First, the rationale for conceptualizing the phenomenon at all is briefly examined. Second, several theoretical issues relevant to models and modeling are established, including the formulation of some basic terms, classifications, and selection criteria. Third, a brief history of the concept is provided. Fourth, a synoptic review of selective theories and models of intercultural communication competence is undertaken, with emphasis on the visual representation of these models, some of which are taken directly from researchers and others that have been envisioned by the authors of this chapter. It is proposed that the ability to translate theories and approaches to intercultural communication competence into a visual grammar involves its own theoretical rigor and helps identify key intersections of perspectives that are often missed in purely narrative readings. Fifth, given the catalog of models, a critical review is undertaken of the state of the art of conceptualizing intercultural communication competence. It is important to note that this discussion is provided from a Western perspective and thus highlights the development and evolution of intercultural competence primarily in Anglo cultures.

The Importance of Intercultural Competence

---

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2006 the United States accounted for $910 billion in exports, controlling 88% of the total value of exported goods worldwide (www.census.gov). This extensive amount of exports provides an important explanation as to why, in an ever globalizing society, intercultural communication competence is necessary. To compete globally, persons must be equipped with the knowledge and skills to behave in a manner becoming to a specific culture (Committee for Economic Development, 2006). Inevitably, cultural diversity will manifest within the global marketplace, making intercultural competence an extremely important skill. The ability to manage the interconnectedness of the diversity that is created is a major skill employers seek (Bremer, 2006; Deardorff & Hunter, 2006; Hulstrand, 2008). The ability to relate to and with people from vastly different cultural and ethnic backgrounds is an increasingly important competency both domestically and abroad (Lustig, 2005). Large companies such as Nike adopt cultural diversity as part of company policy, in a sense requiring employers to be interculturally competent. One way to receive this preparation is through the further development and expansion of college students studying abroad.

Currently, there are more than 200,000 U.S. students annually traversing countries and studying abroad (http://travel.state.gov). These numbers unfortunately only equate to about 1% of all students attending colleges and universities (Ashwill, 2004). In the 1998 American Council on Education (ACE) report, it was concluded that less than 7% of students in higher education are achieving basic standards of global preparedness (cited in Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006). However, U.S. officials want this number to increase and believe there is a great need for increased support for students to be able to study abroad (Herrin, 2004).

Not only is it important for these students to learn about other cultures, but it is also important to produce competent American citizens to teach others about our cultural views. With the current political situations around the world, it is vital that nation-states recognize what one another has to offer politically, socially, and culturally in the form of collaborative interaction (Ashwill, 2004; Herrin, 2004). In recognition of these kinds of stakes, a study published in College Learning for the New Global Century indicated that 46% of employers believe colleges should place more emphasis on proficiency in a foreign language, and 56% think more emphasis should be placed on the establishment of cultural values and traditions in the United States and other countries (National Leadership Council, 2007).

With ample opportunities for employment overseas, it becomes important for internationally competitive business to hire interculturally competent employees, if only for the future success of the business. In one study conducted in a Japanese industry, the lack of intercultural communication competence on the part of one expatriate employee led to a 98% loss of the company’s market share to a different competitor (Tung, 1987). Another study of 80 U.S. multinational companies found that between 10% and 20% of the expatriates “failed,” in essence being unable to perform effectively in a foreign country, leading to termination or reassignment (Tung, 1987). This failure not only damages a business financially but could also damage an employer’s public face, resulting in long-term damage to the company.

Beyond the need to be competitive in a globalized society, people are traveling abroad in mass quantities. According to the U.S. Department of State, for example, over 12 million U.S. passports were issued in 2006 (http://travel.state.gov). In 2004, 61.8 million travelers went abroad, creating a 10% increase from just one year prior (www.commerce.gov). Of those traveling, 38% cited traveling for leisure and 22% traveling for business. These expatriates become an extension of the United States, leaving impressions of the United States upon other cultures. Whether for business or pleasure, it is critical to continue to pursue research in how to be an interculturally competent communicator.

A Grammar of Intercultural Competence Conceptualizations

---

Conceptualizations of intercultural communication competence are highly diverse in their disciplines, terminologies, and scholarly and practical objectives. It is therefore essential to establish some basic premises to both assist with selection of conceptualizations for this review and establish a working grammar for analysis. In the process, no doubt sacred theoretical presumptions of some authors will be distorted in the sake of seeking the most useful implications of existing models.

There is no need to lose the proverbial forest in the trees of terms such as approach, perspective, paradigm, model, and theory. The purpose of this chapter is to overview conceptualizations, which will be taken as either relatively well-defined models or theories. There are many bases upon which theories and models may be defined and evaluated (see, e.g., Britt, 1997; Shoemaker, Tankard, & Lasorsa, 2004; Spitzberg, 2001). To be a “conceptualization” of intercultural competence, a core concept of “competence” or “adaptation” must be explained, either by narrative forms that are or could be stated in propositional form (e.g., X = f Y; or “As X increases, Y increases”) or represented in visual form that implies causal relationships. The visual and narrative expositional forms will need to represent an interrelated set of propositions that render the concept of competence or adaptation sensible. In essence, a reader should be able to interpret and experience the conceptualization by sensing an understanding of how competence functions, comes about, or operates in relation to a number of other concepts that systemically account for the competence. Many discussions and investigations of factors or variables are expected to influence intercultural competence, but this chapter focuses on more comprehensive models and theories.

A word is warranted on the concepts of process and causation. All explanations are at some level or another, implicitly or explicitly, causal in nature. No description of watch components, gears, or springs can hope to explain what a watch is or does. All theoretical explanations of human activity attempt to cope with the complexities of process. The concept of process is essentially a primitive theoretical term but broadly implies systemic aspects of ongoing or continuous change over time, functional interdependence, equifinality (different paths to the same outcome), and multifinality (one path to multiple outcomes). Process is far easier to explain in broad narrative terms than it is to depict visually or assess methodologically. Conceptualizations of intercultural competence all presuppose that they are envisioning a process, even if language and iconography are poor media for its communication.

The term competence is itself a contested conceptual site. For some time, the term has been too loosely bandied about in scholarly literatures (Deardorff, 2006), with surprisingly little attention to its many semantic and conceptual landmines (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, 2002). Competence has been variously equated with understanding (e.g., accuracy, clarity, co-orientation, overlap of meanings), relationship development (e.g., attraction, intimacy), satisfaction (e.g., communication satisfaction, relational satisfaction, relational quality), effectiveness (e.g., goal achievement, efficiency, institutional success, negotiation success), appropriateness (e.g., legitimacy, acceptance, assimilation), and adaptation. Each of these criteria of competence has been defended or criticized elsewhere (see McCroskey, 1982; Parks, 1985; Spitzberg, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 2000, 2003; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, 1989, 2002). Furthermore, competence is sometimes conceptually equated with a set of abilities or skills and at other times a subjective evaluative impression. The former meaning is by far the most common approach and fits with the more normative semantic sense of the term. There are, however, numerous problems with such an approach. The same behavior or skill may be perceived as competent in one context but not another or one perceiver but not another, and thus no particular skill or ability is likely to ever be universally “competent” (Spitzberg, 2000, 2007; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, 2002). Despite such problems, for the purposes of this review, any competence conceptualizations are considered relevant that attempt to account for the process of managing interaction in ways that are likely to produce more appropriate and effective individual, relational, group, or institutional outcomes.

Many conceptualizations, theories, and models of intercultural competence attempt to account for adjustment, assimilation, or adaptation. These concepts often are even equated with competence and therefore require some consideration. Assimilation typically represents the extent to which a sojourner blends in with or becomes similar to the host culture. Whether assimilation represents attitudinal and cognitive shifts toward the indigenous culture or merely requires behavioral mimicking of the culture is not always specified, but most conceptualizations of competence seem to imply that movement occurs in all these areas. Adjustment is widely used in clinical psychology literatures and typically implies a normalization process, such that a person becomes “well adjusted” to an environment and no longer experiences stress or culture shock. In contrast, adaptation tends to be used in two senses: micro and macro. Conceptualizations of adaptation at the micro-level are concerned with the interdependence and alteration of behavior in episodes of interaction, such that the actions of one interacta...