A learning model for becoming interculturally competent

Pergamon

Int. .I. Intercultural Rel., Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 389-408, 1994 Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0147-1767/94 $6.00 + .OO

0147-1767(94)EOO16-P

A LEARNING MODEL INTERCULTURALLY

ED WARD

FOR BECOMING COMPETENT

W. TAYLOR

Antioch University-Seattle ABSTRACT. The world is becoming increasingly interdependent with nation states struggling to work together and share limited resources. There is a growing demand for individuals who are interculturally competent, those who can work and live effectively with others in different cultures. Most of the research on intercultural competency over the last 25 years has focused on prediction, by identifying characteristics of sojourners indicative of successful intercultural experiences. Little if any research has taken a learning perspective- how it is that sojourners learn to become interculturally competent. Understanding the learning process is essential to developing more effective education programs and identtfying factors that can aid the sojourner during his or her intercultural experience. The field of adult education offers transformative learning theory that could act as a modet for this process. This essay illustrates a significant link between intercultural competency and the theory of transformative learning, in an effort to shed light on the learning process of becoming interculturally competent.

INTRODUCTION When a stranger travels to another culture to live for an extended period of time, he or she often experiences a transformation. It occurs out of necessity for survival and out of a need to relieve the stress and anxiety often experienced as the stranger struggles to meet basic needs. It is a transformation that requires the stranger to look at his or her world from a different point of view-a perspective of the world that is often in conflict with his or her values and beliefs. An American, for example, often struggles initially in the Middle East or Latin America with their less tangible concepts of time. The stranger who is successful at working through and learning from these kinds of cultural experiences becomes interculturally competent within the host culture and over time develops a more inclusive and integrated world view. Requests Graduate

for reprints should be sent to Dr. Edward W. Taylor, Programs in Education, Seattle, WA 98121.

389

Antioch

University-Seattle,

390

E. W. Taylor

A more inclusive and integrated perspective does not evolve naturally, in an effortless manner; it is indicative of a learning process. The learning process involves identifiable practices, actions, and experiences of the learner in becoming interculturally competent. Within the field of adult education, Mezirow (1978, 1981, 1991) offers a theory that seems to provide an explanation for the learning process. His theory explains learning as a process of making meaning from an experience where the learner interprets the event through the lens of his or her meaning perspective (world view). It also explains the process of revising meaning perspectives when confronted with incongruent experiences that cannot be assimilated by the learner’s perspective. This process of revising meaning perspectives seems denotative of what happens to a stranger as he or she takes up temporary residence in a culture other than his or her primary culture. In essence, as the stranger becomes increasingly more competent at living in the host culture, the growth in his or her intercultural ability is indicative of developing “a more inclusive, discriminating, and integrative perspective” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 167). This essay illustrates the relationship between intercultural competency and transformative learning theory, such that it provides a model for the learning process during intensive intercultural experiences. To accomplish this task, a link is established among intercultural competency, intercultural transformation, and the theory of perspective transformation along three dimensions. The essay concludes by discussing the shortcomings of present research on the learning process of intercultural competency and provides a critical analysis of transformative learning theory’s relationship to that process. INTERCULTURAL

COMPETENCY

Over the last quarter of a century, many studies have been conducted on the concept of intercultural competency. It has been explored and researched under many different labels, such as cross-cultural adjustment, cross-cultural awareness, cross-cultural effectiveness, multiculturalism, intercultural effectiveness, cultural competence, intercultural competence, and intercultural communication competence (Benson, 1978; Dinges, 1983; Hammer, 1987; Hannigan, 1990; Kim, 1991; Ruben, 1987, 1989; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Spitzberg, 1989). The primary focus of most of the research has been to identify predictors such as skills, traits, attitudes, and knowledge that are indicative of intercultural competence. This has often resulted in lists of attributes (empathy, respect, overseas experience, listening skills, tolerance for ambiguity, etc.) denotative of successful sojourners. Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) conducted a study involving 50 students who had lived overseas for at least 3 months. They found three factors related to successful

A Learning Model

391

intercultural experiences: “the ability to deal with psychological stress, . . . the ability to effectively communicate, [and] . . . the ability to establish interpersonal relationships” (p. 389). In a more recent article, Spitzberg (1989) argued that intercultural competency needs to be understood from the perspective of interpersonal communication theories. He focused both on the stranger and the individual of the host culture in the communication process. Spitzberg emphasized how people of different cultures strategically construct verbal acts in a reciprocal and compensatory manner to meet interpersonal objectives while in communication with each other. In other words, what is important is not only recognizing the characteristics, skills, and abilities of each person, but recognizing the manner in which they perceive and think about each other. However, these lists and models tell us little of the process of how one becomes interculturally competent.

INTERCULTURAL

TRANSFORMATION

Understanding the process of intercultural competency means looking at studies under a variety of different but related terminologies such as culture shock, sojourner adjustment, cross-cultural adaptation, crosscultural adjustment, intercultural identity, intercultural sensitivity, and intercultural transformation (Adler, 1975; Bennett, 1986; Benson, 1978; Church, 1982; Furham & Bochner, 1986; Hannigan, 1990; Kim, 1988, 1992; Kim & Ruben, 1988; Yoshikawa, 1987). Intercultural competency as transformative and adaptive is built upon research that focuses on the process of the intercultural experience. In essence, it examines what a stranger undergoes-mentally, physically, and behaviorally-in becoming interculturally competent. This process is often viewed in two ways: (a) that of a problem approach to understanding a stranger’s transition into a new culture (i.e., culture shock; Church, 1982), and (b) the learning/growth approach (Adler, 1975, 1982; Bennett, 1986; Kim, 1988, 1991, 1992; Kim & Ruben, 1988; Mansell, 1981; Yoshikawa, 1987). The literature in the problem approach tends to look at the transition as unsettling, frustrating, and characteristically described as culture shock, such that “entering a new culture is potentially a confusing and disorientating experience” (Furham & Bochner, 1986, p. 12). It is often reflected by feelings and behaviors indicative of anxiety, irritability, helplessness, and a desire to return to a more familiar environment: A common viewpoint in these studies of culture shock and adaptation has been that life is difficult in foreign lands. These studies also shared a common concern for minimizing the psychological difficulties and maximizing effective performance in an unfamiliar environment. (Kim & Ruben, 1988, p. 303)

392

E. W. Taylor

On the other hand, the learning/growth approach literature separates itself from the problem approach by focusing on a concept called intercultural transformation. Intercultural transformation, coined by Kim and Ruben (1988), means “a gradual change that takes place in the internal conditions of individuals as they participate in extensive intercultural communication activities” (p. 299). Within the framework of intercultural transformation, culture shock is a neutral concept that becomes a precondition, acting as the core experience (not the totality) that the stranger must transcend to achieve a higher state of cultural awareness and self-awareness. It is this outlook, a learning/growth perspective, that is the common thread that holds those who advocate this approach together. Even though each shares this same theme, each researcher describes the transformative experience from a different perspective and model. Furthermore, these articles propose various models of transformative processes in relation to successful or competent intercultural experiences. The conceptual framework of the learning/growth approach is a positive view of change in the successful intercultural experience. Adler (1975) implied that the “successful cross-cultural experience should result in the movement of personality and identity to a new consciousness of values, attitudes and understandings” (p. 15). Bennett (1986) took a developmental perspective where the interculturally successful are “people who experience differences as an essential and joyful aspect of all life” (p. 186). Manse11 (1981) saw the successful intercultural experience as more than competence of skills and essential communication attributes. Instead, it results in an aesthetic awareness-a “consciousness which transforms an individual’s perceptions of the world and imparts a sense of unity between self and surroundings” (p. 99). Yoshikawa (1987) saw a successful intercultural transformation as “a result of the individual’s transcendence of binary perception of the world” (p. 140). This binary perception is seeing one’s primary culture and the new culture for what they are and being able to identify the complementary and interdependent aspects from their often polarized positions. Last, Kim and Ruben’s (1988) perspective explains the intercultural transformation process as a “change in individuals beyond the cognitive, affective, and behavioral limits of their original culture. . . . projecting a personhood that transcends any given cultural group . . . not bounded by any specific cultural attributes” (p. 306). It seems quite apparent from this brief review of the various conceptual frameworks that all of these approaches would define a successful intercultural experience/intercultural competency as being inclusive of a higher state of consciousness and a more discriminating and integrative world view. Kim (1988, 1991) and Kim and Ruben (1988) apparently integrated the work of past researchers in intercultural competency and intercultural

A Learning Model

393

transformation into a systems theory of intercultural competency, of which the tranformative/adaptive process forms the core. It reflects a significant effort on their part to theorize what Adler (1975) initiated 15 years earlier-the learning/growth approach in relation to intercultural competency. Kim (1988) offered a different model from the other three, explaining the process as a continuous cycle of “stress-adaptationgrowth” (p. 308). Stress-adaptation-growth is a forward and upward movement involving ongoing cycles of degeneration. Periods (leaps backward) due to cultural disassociation and accompanying stress reflected by frustration and anxiety are followed by reintegration periods (leaps forward) of learning, growth, and creativity within the new culture. As mentioned earlier, Kim’s (1991) theory sees intercultural competency as anchored in the individual’s adaptive capacity to alter his or her perspective in an effort to accommodate the demands of a different culture. This capacity “means the capacity to self-reorganize by being open, flexible, resilient, and creative-not being closed, rigid, intolerant, and habitual” (p. 271) and having the ability “to manage the varied contexts of the intercultural encounter regardless of the specific cultures involved” (p. 265). Even though Kim (1988, 1991) and others have made tremendous strides in the area of conceptualizing the process of intercultural competency, their efforts fall short in the area of learning. The most significant concern about the research is twofold: First, they do not address specifically the learning that is taking place among adults during intercultural transformation from the theory and research of adult learning; second, when the learning concept is used, it is not explored in-depth in recognition of the intricacies of the learning process. The first concern is reflected in Adler (1975), Bennett (1986), Manse11 (1981), and Yoshikawa (1987), whereby they illustrate quite vividly the changes that take place in becoming interculturally competent, but these changes only imply the fact that learning takes place. For example, according to Mansell’s “duality” phase of intercultural transformation, “a continuing sense of exploration permeates the transcultural experience, and skills are developed to match opportunities found in the new environment. In turn, this can generate meaningful interaction with members of the host culture” (p. 103). This regard for exploration and newly developed skills seems to imply indirectly that learning is taking place; however, questions are left unanswered, such as: How are these skills developed? How are the old skills given up and the new ones taken on? By what learning process? Another example of this ambiguity of the learning process is found in Bennett’s (1986) development model where he stated: In this model, the assumption is made that a major shift from an ethnocentric to an ethnorelative approach to difference is necessary for the acceptance to occur.

394

E. W. Taylor

Characteristic of this shift is the subjective reconstrual of difference as a “thing” to difference as a “process.” . . . With this reconstrual, the extension transference and reification that may lead to objectification of culture is avoided and people are seen as dynamic co-creators of their realities. (p. 18.5)

The fact that Bennett identifies theoretically that a change in world view takes piace from the developmental process of intercultural sensitivity implies that learning is taking place. The question that needs to be answered is, Which learning perspectives and processes explain the shift from an ethnocentric to an ethnorelative perspective? Even when the concept of learning is used directly, it is not explained in-depth. For example, according to Kim (1991), intercultural competency depends upon adaptability- “the individual’s capacity to suspend or modify some of the old cultural ways, [and] to learn and accommodate some of the new cultural ways. . . , A person equipped with greater adaptability is likely to be more open to learning different cultural patterns” (1991, p. 268, emphasis added). This example, like the last, fails to adequately address questions about the learning process, such as: What is the process of learning that is taking place? Is it transformative? How is someone able to learn new cultural ways and at the same time discard old cultural ways? How does a stranger revise and change a former interpretation of a culture for a new and broader interpretation of a culture in the learning process? What does the stranger do that is central to the process of learning that allows him or her to develop a more inclusive world view? What factors have to be present and continuous for the learning process to arrive ultimately at a level of confidence and competence? These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered in understanding intercultural competency in the context of adult learning theory. Without understanding this learning process, it is difficult to determine what changes actually take place in the stranger and what the stranger does to facilitate or inhibit those changes. Moreover, without this insight into the learning process, real efforts cannot be undertaken to better educate adults for successful intercultural experiences .

What seems to be taking place during intercultural transformation in becoming interculturally competent is the process of transformative learning-a perspective transformation. To understand the relationship between the process of becoming intercuIturally competent and perspective transformation, a more in-depth description of perspective transformation is offered in the next section. INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCY TRANSFORMATION:

AND PERSPECTIVE THE LINK

The theory of perspective tr~sformation learning process of intercultural competency.

provides a model of the As a model of learning, it

A Learning Model

395

is linked on three dimensions with the learning process of becoming interculturally competent: the precondition to change, the process, and the outcome. To understand this relationship more clearly, it is important first to provide a more in-depth overview of the theory of perspective transformation, then follow with an explanation of each shared dimension.

Transformative Learning: A Perspective Transformation Transformative learning offers a theory of learning that is uniquely adult. It is a theory that is developmental, for learning is defined as the “process of making a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of an experience, which guides subsequent understanding, appreciation, and action” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 1). Transformative learning offers an explanation for change in meaning structures that evolves in two domains of learning. First is instrumental learning, which focuses on learning through task-oriented problem solving and determination of cause-andeffect relationships-learning to do, based on empirical-analytic discovery. Second is communicative learning, which is learning involved in understanding the meaning of what others “communicate concerning values, ideals, feelings, moral decisions, and such concepts as freedom, justice, love, labor, autonomy, commitment and democracy” (p. 8). When these domains of learning involve “reflective assessment of premises . . . [and] of movement through cognitive structures by identifying and judging presuppositions” (1991, p. 5), transformative learning is taking place. Transformative learning attempts to explain how our expectations, framed within cultural assumptions and presuppositions, directly influence the meaning we derive from our experiences. It is the revision of meaning structures from experiences that is addressed by the theory of perspective transformation. Perspective transformation explains the process of how adults revise their meaning structures. Meaning structures are inclusive of meaning schemes and meaning perspectives. Meaning schemes, the smaller components, are “made up of specific knowledge, beliefs, value judgments, and feelings that constitute interpretations of experience” (Mezirow, 1991, pp. 5-6). They are the tangible signs of our habits and expectations. Changes in our meaning schemes are a regular and frequent occurrence. Meaning perspectives are a collection of meaning schemes that are made “up of higher-order schemata, theories, propositions, beliefs, prototypes, goal orientations and evaluations” (1990, p. 2) and “they provide us criteria for judging or evaluating right and wrong, bad and good, beautiful and ugly, true and false, appropriate and inappropriate” (1991, p. 44). They also determine how we look at ourselves and the way we feel about ourselves-our “personhood” (p. 44). Meaning perspectives are often acquired uncritically in the course of

396

E. W. Taylor

our childhood through socialization and acculturation, most frequently during significant experiences with teachers, parents, and mentors. They “mirror the way our culture and those individuals responsible for our socialization happen to have defined various situations” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 131). Over time, in conjunction with numerous congruent experiences, these perspectives become more ingrained into our psyche and are changed less frequently. In essence, they provide a rationalization for an often irrational world, and we become dependent upon them. These meaning perspectives support us by providing an explanation of the happenings in our daily lives, but at the same time they are a reflection of our cultural and psychological assumptions. These assumptions constrain us, making our view of the world subjective, often distorting our thoughts and perceptions. They are like a “double-edged sword” whereby they give meaning (validation) to our experiences but at the same time skew our perception of reality. Meaning perspectives operate as perceptual filters that organize the meaning of our experiences. When we come upon a new experience, our meaning perspectives act as a sieve through which each new experience is interpreted and given meaning. As the new experience is assimilated into these structures, it either reinforces the perspective or gradually stretches its boundaries, depending on the degree of congruency. However, when a radically different and incongruent experience cannot be assimilated into the meaning perspective, such as an extensive intercultural experience, it is either rejected or the meaning perspective is transformed to accommodate the new experience. A transformed meaning perspective is the development of a new meaning structure. This development is usually the result of a disorienting dilemma due to a disparate experience in conjunction with a critical reappraisal of previous assumptions and presuppositions. It is this change in our meaning perspectives that is at the heart of Mezirow’s theory of perspective transformation. A perspective transformation is: The process of becoming critically aware of how and why our assumptions have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand, and feel about our world; changing these structures of habitual expectation to make possible a more inclusive, discriminating, and integrative perspective; and, finally, making choices or otherwise acting upon these new understandings. (Mezirow, 1991, p. 167) The process of perspective transformation can be more clearly understood if it is discussed in the context of learning to become interculturally competent. A link is established by reviewing the similarities between perspective transformation and the intercultural competency literature of the learning/growth approach in becoming interculturally competent intercultural transformation. In this comparative analysis, three shared dimensions (precondition to change, the process, and outcome) are dis-

A Learning Model

397

cussed concerning the relationship between the process of intercultural communication competency and perspective transformation.

Precondition to Change Dimension A perspective transformation can occur either through a series of cumulative transformed meaning schemes or as a result of an acute personal crisis, such as a death of a significant other, divorce, a debilitating accident, job loss, or retirement-a disorienting dilemma. Often these experiences are stressful and painful, and can threaten the very core of one’s existence. Furthermore, it can be inclusive of “efforts to understand a different culture with customs that contradict our own previously accepted presuppositions” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 168). This disorienting dilemma as shown in Figure 1 is the first phase of the process of perspective transformation and is similar in nature to the precondition in intercultural transformation. A precondition to change is a factor found in all the intercultural transformation studies that acts as a catalyst for change or transformation. In the intercultural studies, Kim and Ruben (1988), Kim (1988), Adler (1975), Manse11 (1981), and Yoshikawa (1987) refer to “culture shock” as this precondition. Culture shock “is a necessary precondition to change and growth, as individuals strive to regain their inner balance by adapting to the demands and opportunities of the intercultural situation” (Kim & Ruben, 1988, p. 310). Manse11 even goes as far as to associate this precondition to other struggles of change individuals experience in their life, such as “a loss of a partner, involuntary relocation to a new neighborhood, rehabilitation from an institution, or changing employment” (p. 96).

The Process Dimension Mezirow has identified 10 phases of perspective transformation, based on a national study of women returning to college after a long hiatus from school. The study involved in-depth interviews of 83 women from 12 programs in Washington, California, New York, and New Jersey (Mezirow, 1978). From the data, Mezirow (1991) inductively identified the following phases. 1. A disorienting dilemma. 2. Self-examination with feelings of guilt or shame. 3. A critical assessment of epistemic, sociocultural, or psychic assumptions .

4. Recognition that one’s discontent and process of transformation shared and that others have negotiated a similar change. 5. Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions.

are

Outcome

r

Process

1 Precondition

Dimensions

I

-I_

I

Denial

I

I

I

I dilemma

competent,

(Mezirow, 1991,X8-169)

9. Building of competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships and 10. A reintegration into one’s life on the basis of conditions dictated by one’s new perspective

2. Self-examination with feelings of guilt or shame 3. A critical assessment of epistemic, so&cultural, or psychic asumptions 4. Recognition that one’s discontent and process oj transformation are shared and that others have negotiated a similar change. 5. Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions 6. Planning of a course of action 7. Acquistion of knowledge and skills for implementing one’s plans 8. Provisional trying of new roles

1. A disorienting

Perspective Transformation

FIGURE 1. A learning model for becoming interculturally

As the ‘old’ person breaks up, the intercultural knowledge, attitudes and behavioral capacities construct a ‘new person’ at a higher level of integration (Kim & Ruben, 1988, p. 314)

(Adler, 1975; Bennett, 1986; Mansell, 1981; Yoshikawa, 1987

Integration

Duality and interdependence

Testing new habits and assump lions

Alienation,

Lower to higher levels of transformation:

Culture shock

Intercultural Competency

I-

I

A Learning Model

399

6. Planning of a course of action. 7. Acquisition of knowledge and skills for implementing one’s plans. 8. Provisional trying of new roles. 9. Building of competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships. 10. A reintegration into one’s life on the basis of conditions dictated by one’s new perspective. (pp. 168-169)

Over the last decade, several studies in a variety of other settings and situations- the effects of severe withdrawal, therapy for spouse abuse, critical reflection in the corporate setting, and professional development - have reaffirmed his findings (Brooks, 1989; Cochrane, 1981; Hunter, 1980; Lytle, 1989). Mezirow’s process of perspective transformation is similar in nature to the models of intercultural competency. Adler (1973, Yoshikawa (1987), and Manse11 (1981) each offered hierarchical stage models of the transformation process during the intercultural experience whereby people evolve from a lower to higher level of intercultural competence. Each of these models reflects similar processes of transformation beginning with a stage or pattern of alienation and initial contact, followed by a trialand-error period of testing new habits and assumptions, and concluding with a stage of duality and interdependence within the new culture (see Figure 1). Bennett (1986) also offered a developmental model, although not hierarchical, identifying six stages from an ethnorelative to an ethnocentric perspective. Mezirow’s (1991) process is analogous to those in that it reflects 10 stages or phases, beginning with a personal crisis and transcending through stages of critical reflection ultimately arriving at “a reintegration into one’s life on the basis of conditions dictated by one’s new perspective” (p. 169). Furthermore, Coffman (1991) showed in her study of perspective transformation that some stages are continuously repeated, indicating a “spiral of learning” (p. 52), which is similar to Kim’s (1988) model of cross-cultural adaptation.

Outcome Dimension The outcome dimension reflects a change in meaning perspectives that seems similar in nature to the kind of changes taking place in the process of becoming interculturally competent (see Figure 1). In the intercultural studies, Kim (1988), more than all the other learning/growth approach researchers, detailed these kinds of outcomes. They are seen in cognitive, affective, and behavioral abilities. Cognitive outcome is seen as an increase in a person’s “capacity for perspective taking (p. 94) [and flexibility] in dealing with ambiguity and unfamiliarity” (p. 97). Affective outcome is seen in a person’s development of “aesthetic and emotional

400

E. W. Taylor

co-orientation with the natives [and becoming] better able to understand and ‘feel’ their sentiments and moods” (p. 102). And behaviorally, a person is able “to perform many of the required social roles in the host society without having to formulate a conscious mental plan of action” (p. 103). Furthermore, Kim’s intercultural studies, as well as others, imply a potential for “competence” as a result of this process. It is this change during an intensive intercultural experience that is mirrored by Mezirow’s (1991) change in perspective transformation where significant personal experiences often initiate a revision in meaning perspectives and move individuals “toward a more inclusive, differentiated, permeable (open to other points of view)” (p. 7), and integrated world view (see Figure 1). Changes similar to Kim’s are also referred to by some of the empirical research that tested Mezirow’s assumptions. In Clark’s (1991) study on perspective transformation, she uncovered three dimensions of change in transformational learning: psychological, in which the structure or the understanding of the self is altered; convictional, where belief systems are revised; and behavioral, in which the life style is changed. These dimensions were manifested in all transformational learning experiences studied. (abstract)

Furthermore, a perspective transformation results in the “building of competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 169). Perspective transformation seems to provide a model of adult learning by explaining the process of how personal paradigms evolve and expand in adulthood. This process of perspective transformation seems to provide understanding into how a person makes meaning of new cultural experiences and at the same time integrates the new learning into a more inclusive and discriminating world view. From this brief discussion, it seems that there is a significant link between perspective transformation and the process of becoming interculturally competent based on their similarities on three dimensions: the precondition to change, the process, and the outcome. Exploring this relationship even further, the next section attempts to illustrate the learning process of becoming interculturally competent through the lens of perspective transformation theory. PERSPECTIVE TRANSFORMATION MODEL FOR INTERCULTURAL

AS A LEARNING COMPETENCY

As a stranger comes to live for an extended time in another culture, he or she often requires an immersion into the host culture in order to meet basic needs and to accomplish the tasks of living and working. Typically what happens is that the intercultural experience is initially exotic and exciting because of the new and interesting encounters, but eventually the

A Learning Model

401

novelty wears thin and culture shock sets in. Perspective transformation perceives culture shock as a disorienting dilemma. For example, this dilemma might occur because of a combination of trying experiences that culminate in a significant crisis. The stranger may become stranded in a Third World culture without many of the basic necessities one is so often used to in the United States, experience very difficult living conditions for the first time, have to exert a tremendous amount of energy to meet the most basic needs (food, transportation, directions), and/or be unable to communicate effectively with the host nationals. Furthermore, even when the language barrier is not a problem, the stranger may find out that many of the other primary message systems (play, territoriality, temporality) are often incongruous with his or her own (Hall, 1976). For example, The Russians’ lack of personal space at home in their apartments, on public transportation or on the job causes them to erect their personal space boundaries next to their skin. Therefore it is common for Russians to have deadpan or frozen expressions on their faces. We tend to perceive this as unfriendly and it may ruffle our feathers. (Perkowski, cited in Storti, 1990, p. 19)

What is happening to this stranger in the initial phases of the intercultural experience is that his or her new experiences in the host culture cannot be explained by his or her pre-established meaning schemes and meaning perspectives. Furthermore, what makes these kinds of experiences even more difficult are that most individuals are unaware of how their perspectives are shaped by factors of their own culture and are constraining their understanding of the new culture (Mezirow, 1978). One’s culture: is a mold in which we are all cast, and it controls our daily lives in many unsuspected ways. [It is a part] of a [person’s] behavior which [he or she] takes for granted-the part [he or she] doesn’t think about, since [he or she] assumes it is universal or regards it as idiosyncratic. Culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants. (Hall, 1959, p. 30)

The stranger’s meaning perspectives are distorted by his or her unawareness and uncritically accepted cultural and personal ideologies (psychocultural assumptions and habits)-reification such as believing that certain phenomenon produced by humankind are immutable (famine, homelessness, environmental destruction), unquestioning the belief systems that support the status quo (social prejudices), and inhibitions due to childhood trauma (anxiety and lack of confidence). In essence, criteria of habitual expectations (cultural and personal constructs-meaning perspectives and schemes) that the stranger uses to make value judgments

402

E. W. TayIor

and to validate his or her experiences are inadequate for explaining his or her new intercultural experience. At this point, the stranger is attempting to make sense of his or her experience and is in a phase of “selfexamination with feelings of guilt or shame” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 168). As intercultural events continue to unfold, the adaptive stranger is involved in a process of critical reflection, essential to perspective transformation, whereby he or she begins to challenge personal constructs built on prior experiences and knowledge. Critical reflection is “becoming critically aware of our habitual patterns of expectation, the meaning perspectives which have made sense out of our encounters with the world, others, and ourselves” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 12). In essence, he or she questions the very validity of long-held meaning perspectives. An example may be the prejudiced Western view of the “uncivilized” African native, which is questioned and changed through the development of friendship with a Masai (Tanzania) host. Transformation of these meaning perspectives takes place in the affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions. In a second example, maybe the stranger relinquishes a linear and future-oriented lifestyle (American) for a more natural-cycled lifestyle, found in many Native American cultures in this country (Hall, 1959). Critical reflection is central to the process of learning a more inclusive world view and also seems to be “the missing link” in intercultural transformation studies (Adler, 1975; Kim, 1988, 1991; Kim & Ruben, 1988; Mansell, 1981; Yoshikawa, 1987). These research studies refer to a stranger’s transformation in becoming interculturally competent as being “pushed toward the development of a broadened perspective on things” (Kim, 1988, p. 145), for example, a paradigm shift. Despite their insight into the transformation process, however, these researchers do not adequately explain what a stranger actually does to develop a new perspective of his or her world. They do not recognize that, for strangers to develop a broader world view, they must not only become aware of their long-standing and taken-for-granted meaning perspective (cultural and personal constructs) but must question its very validity through critical reflection. Furthermore, the stranger must begin a process of dereification through the questioning of personal and social ideologies. “One of the most effective ways to learn about oneself is by taking seriously the cultures of others. It forces you to pay attention to those details of life which differentiate them from you” (Hall, 1959, p. 32). Also, the intercultural studies broadly refer to the process of change as learning new cultural ways and do not realize that learning to change one’s frame of reference to a more inclusive and permeable perspective is much more involved than learning about and/or how to do something new. “By far the most significant learning experiences in adulthood involve critical self-reflection-reassessing the way we have posed problems and reas-

A Learning Model

403

sessing our own orientation of perceiving, knowing, believing, feeling, and acting” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 13). Critical reflection, the ongoing questioning and reassessment of our values and beliefs, seems to explain how people learn to accept new cultural ways at the same time they discard old cultural ways. Now back to our stranger. As the stranger critically self-reflects, he or she evolves through the various phases of perspective transformation. However, critical reflection alone will not lead to a perspective transformation; it needs to take place in conjunction with action and discourse. The stranger needs to explore and experiment with new roles in the host culture. It also means seeking out new skills and knowledge. For example, the stranger may begin taking classes in the local language and make a concerted effort to place himself or herself in situations that require its use, such as taking public transportation and shopping at the local market. Furthermore, the stranger ideally needs to be in dialogue with others - critical discourse that involves “a conscious exploration of the relationship between one’s own problematic situation and similar problems related to other places and other themes” (Wildemeersch & Leirman, 1988, p. 23). This dependency on others for feedback illustrates the significance of a strong relationship with the host members. It is through a learning process inclusive of critical reflection, seeking out new skills and knowledge, action, and discourse that the stranger interprets the meaning of his or her experiences and develops intercultural competence. As competence is developed, the stranger is “able to enjoy a special kind of freedom, making deliberate choices for actions in specific situations rather than simply being bound by the culturally normative courses of actions” (Kim, 1988, pp. 145-146). This latter example of a successful stranger also presents a picture of an unsuccessful stranger. Those disenchanted strangers that return prematurely could possibly be the result of a lack of critical reflection and an unwillingness or inability to view culture shock as a learning opportunity, to seek out new skills and knowledge, experiment with new roles, and conduct ongoing discourse with members of the host culture. In summary, a strong relationship seems to exist between the learning process of becoming interculturally competent and the theory of perspective transformation. This relationship is grounded in three dimensions (precondition for change, the process, and outcome) shared by both concepts. Further, the theory of perspective transformation offers a lostep learning model that addresses many of the questions about the learning process of intercultural competency that are not addressed by previous research. It offers an explanation of how a stranger revises and changes former interpretations of a culture for new and broader interpretations through the use of critical reflection. Critical reflection, questioning through reflection on long-held personal and cultural con-

404

E. W. Taylor

structs, allows the stranger to discard old cultural ways for new ones. The theory of perspective transformation recognizes that a change of a stranger’s perspective does not occur solely by a cerebral act of reflection but must happen in conjunction with action (practicing new behaviors and acquisition of new skills) and in discourse with others. It also conceptualizes the idea of an individual’s “perspective,” identifying its parts (meaning schemes and structure) and how it is central to the act of making meaning, connecting it to the process of learning. In essence, the theory of perspective transformation has the potential, as a theory of adult learning, to act as a model for the learning process of becoming interculturally competent. LIMITATIONS Although transformative learning theory seems to offer a strong theoretical explanation for the learning process of intercultural competency, it is important to identify gaps and weaknesses when it is explored in a cross-cultural context. Three major limitations are found-that of a Western bias, an assumption of a universal learning theory transcending cultural differences, and previous research. On one hand, Mezirow purports that “transformation theory seeks to elucidate universal conditions and rules that are implicit in linguistic competence or human development” (p. xiii), whereas, on the other, he cites cultural determinism by Geertz (1973), whereby culture acts a template “for the organization of social and psychological processes, much as a genetic system provides such a template for the organization of organic processes” (p. 216). It does not seem possible to have it both ways, such that there are universalistic aspects of learning across culturally induced world views. Moreover, what really seems to stand out is his attempt to impose his “Western” ways of knowing upon other cultures. For example, he cites Kohlberg’s adult development approach as analogous to the universalistic conditions of transformative learning (1991). However, Riesman (1986) noted that in “the case of Kohlberg’s ideas . . . studies have tended to be very critical of any attempt to apply them in non-Western settings; in fact, a number of scholars have done psychological studies in Africa which seriously call his ideas into question” (p. 79). This Western perspective is further highlighted by an autonomous and self-directed nature that permeates Mezirow’s world view: an emphasis on the individual orientation toward making meaning and the essentiality that the individual must be free to determine his or her own reality as opposed to mutually accepting the social realities defined by others. In contrast, studies conducted in South Africa between Whites and nonWhites found that “white students tended to see their goals in purely private, personal terms, while for Africans and Indians (especially the

A Learning Model

405

former) the goals tended to be social rather than private” (Riesman, 1986, p. 79). Furthermore, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) clearly showed that there are several different orientations that cultures take toward nature, time, activity, and social relations. Their work seems to beg the question; Is it not one’s culture that offers the “best” orientation to how one defines reality and negotiates and makes meaning? This conundrum between a universalistic approach to learning and cultural determinism can be further illuminated by the role Mezirow (1991) claimed that culture plays in thought. “Culture can encourage or discourage transformative thought” (p. 3). This statement implies the belief that transformative learning is a process of learning that all cultures should aspire to, even though it is discouraged and inhibited by some. Furthermore, Mezirow makes reference to the essentiality of critical reflection in transformative learning, implying it as a “higher” form of learning not found in all individuals and cultures. Could not critical reflection be a way of learning that develops its essentiality based on the needs of the culture from which it evolved? Who, by what means, and from what cultural perspective decides the best “ways of knowing”? Mezirow’s bias seems to be grounded in his hierarchical perspective of learning, such that transformative learning is possible for people in cultures that have risen above an emphasis on organic relationships (tradition and social responsibility) to an emphasis on contractual relationships (the individual over the group). “One must become dissociated from an organic relationship with society to move along the gradient of perspective transformation” (1978, p. 106). It is Mezirow’s Western bias and universal assumptions that limit transformative learning theory, such that it might not offer an explanation for the learning process of non-Western participants who become competent in a Western culture. In essence, it may only offer an explanation for the learning process of intercultural competency among Western participants. A final area of concern about the applicability of Mezirow’s theory as a model for intercultural competency is the prior research on which the theory is validated. A review of the studies finds that they are limited in number, with over half the studies taking place in academic or therapeutic settings, both of which provide a change-initiating milieu. Very few of the studies exist in the more practical, everyday context, dealing with challenges such as death, divorce, and living and working in different cultures (Brooks, 1989; Clark, 1991; Cochrane, 1981; Coffman, 1991; Hunter, 1980; Scott, 1991). This limited research makes it difficult to address questions such as, What factors within the host culture influence, inhibit, or enhance specific factors (critical reflection, planning a course of action, exploring new roles) in the learning process? How do language barriers influence the process of critical reflection? Can participants who experience only mild or insignificant culture shock still

406

E. W. Taylor

experience a perspective transformation? It is these questions and others that only can be addressed through actual research. The research would involve a naturalistic study into the learning process of participants who have become interculturally competent. CONCLUSIONS Despite its limitations, Mezirow’s transformative learning theory begins to provide a window into the learning process of intercultural competency and improving the practice of intercultural education. Transformative learning theory has substantiated through empirical research a learning theory indicative of a perspective transformation. This research is in contrast to the research in the area of intercultural transformation, which has only been able to substantiate the transformative process theoretically. Therefore, transformative learning theory offers an ideal conceptual framework for future research to study the learning process of intercultural competency. Furthermore, it offers an educational practice, that of fostering transformative learning, to train people for intercultural living and work. Fostering transformative learning in a cross-cultural context involves establishing the training within the practice and theory of adult education. Specifically, this means (a) recognizing that learning to be interculturally competent is a process, involving a series of interconnected events, a variety of approaches, and experiences over timetherefore training should be comprehensive, diverse, and long term in order to be effective; (b) creating supportive and safe learning environments and assisting the trainee to take increasingly more responsibility for the learning experience; (c) encouraging and training trainees to be critically reflective; and (d) emphasizing the experiential and participative instructional methods. Exploring the learning process of intercultural competency within the context of an adult learning theory offers a perspective from a discipline of study where the adult learner is on center stage and the facilitation of learning is primary. Furthermore, it gives greater credibility to training and education models that are similar in nature to the practices indicative of fostering transformative learning. Ultimately, it is the connection to the fostering of transformative learning that offers the greatest reward, because it provides the opportunity to facilitate and enhance the intercultural learning process, aiding the sojourner toward more successful intercultural experiences. REFERENCES ADLER, P. S. (1975). The transitional

experience: An alternative view of culture

shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15, 13-23.

A Learning Model

407

ADLER, P. S. (1982). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections on cultural and multicultural man. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 410-427). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. BENNETT, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179-l%. BENSON, P. G. (1978). Measuring cross-cultural adjustment: The problem of criteria. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 21-37. BROOKS, A. K. (1989). Critically reflective learning within a corporate context. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 2348A. CHURCH, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91,540572. CLARK, C. M. (1991). The restructuring ofmeaning: An analysis of the impact of context on transformational learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. COCHRANE, N. J. (1981). The meanings that some adults derive from their personal withdrawal experiences: A dialogical inquiry. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4250A. COFFMAN, P. M. (1991). Inclusive language and perspective transformation. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp. 49-55). Norman: University of Oklahoma. DINGES, N. (1983). Intercultural competence. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (Vol. I, pp. 176-202). New York: Pergamon. FURHAM, A., & BOCHNER, S. (1986). Cultureshock. New York: Methuen. GEERTZ, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. HALL, E. T. (1959). Thesilent language. New York: Doubleday. HALL, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. HAMMER, M. R. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11,65-88. HAMMER, M. R., GUDYKUNST, W. B., & WISEMAN, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382-393. HANNIGAN, T. P. (1990). Traits, attitudes, and skills that are related to intercultural effectiveness and their implications for cross-cultural training: A review of the literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 89111. HUNTER, E. K. (1980). Perspective transformation in health practices: A study in adult learning and fundamental life change. Dissertation Abstracts Znternational, 40,62A. KIM, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. KIM, Y. Y. (1991). Intercultural communication competence. In S. TingToomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication (pp. 259-275). Newberry Park, CA: Sage. KIM, Y. Y. (1992, May). Development of intercultural identity. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Miami. KIM, Y. Y., & RUBEN, B. D. (1988). Intercultural transformation. In Y. Y.

E. W. Taylor

408

Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 299-321). London: Sage. KLUCKHOHN, F. R., & STRODTBECK, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. New York: Harper & Row. LYTLE, J. E. (1989). The process of perspective transformation experienced by the registered nurse returning for baccalaureate study. Dissertation Abstracts

International, MANSELL,

50, 2752A.

M. (1981). Transcultural

experience

and expressive

munication Education, 30, 93-108. MEZIROW, J. (1978). Education for perspective

response.

transformation.

Com-

New York:

Center for Adult Education, Columbia University. MEZIROW, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning

and education. Adult Education Quarterly, 32, 3-24. MEZIROW, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. MEZIROW, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. RIESMAN, P. (1986). The person and the life cycle in African social life and thought. African Studies Review, 29, 71-139. RUBEN, B. D. (1987). Guidelines for cross-cultural effectiveness. In L. F. Lute & E. C. Smith (Eds.), Toward internationahsm (pp. 36-46). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. RUBEN, B. D. (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence. Traditions and contemporary issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13,

229-240. RUBEN, B. D., & KEALEY, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-47. SCOTT, S. M. (1991). Personal transformation through participation in social action: A case study of the leaders in the Lincoln Alliance (Nebraska). Disser-

tation Abstracts International,

52, 3505A.

SPITZBERG, B. H. (1989). Issues in the development of a theory of interpersonal competence in the intercultural context. International Journal of Inter-

cultural Relations, 13, 241-268. STORTI, C. (1990). The art of crossing cultures. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. WILDEMEERSCH, D., & LEIRMAN, W. (1988). The facilitation of the lifeworld transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 39, 19-30. YOSHIKAWA, M. J. (1987). Cross-cultural adaptation and perceptual development. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation (pp. 140-148). London: Sage.