- Email: [email protected]
Cultural and intercultural communication competence: Current approaches and directions for future research
Inrernirrionai Journal o/inrerm~rwai Rela~iom, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
Vol. 13, pp. 287-302.
1989 Copyright
0147~1767/89$3.09 + .@I 0 1989 Pcrgamon Press pit
CULTURAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE: Current Approaches and Directions for Future Research MARY JANE COLLIER Oregon State University ABSTRACT. Several critical issues in cultural and intercultural communication inquiry were overviewed including the need for clarity in conceptualizations of culture and intercultural communication, representational and statistical validity of constructs, consistency in ontological and epistemoIogica1 assumptions, clarity in culture general or culture specific goals in the research endeavor, and appropriate d~cussion of implications and appIications. Four selected approaches to the study of cultural and intercultural competence were discussed in fight of these issues: ethnography of speaking approaches, behavioral skills approaches, crosscultural attitude approaches, and, finally, an approach thematizing cultural identity and competence.
INTRODUCTION Two criteria among others may be used to evaluate the “truth” or value of a narrative or theoretical paradigm. The first is correspondence, the fit between the theoretical explanations, predictions and descriptions with our own experience as interlocutors. The second is coherence, the internal logic and interrelationships among the constructs and propositions of the theoretical paradigm (Fisher, 1987; Kaplan, 1964). The thesis being posited here is that researchers need to increase the correspondence and coherence of research and theory in cultural and intercultural communication competence research. Communication competence is a construct given a great deal of research attention by communication scholars during the last fifteen years. Although much has been discovered with regard to typologies of behaviors which are viewed as competent, many conceptualizations of competence exist and many issues continue to be unresolved. Three issues stand out in my review of our approaches to cultural and intercultural competence in the communication discipline. The first is the lack of clarity and sometimes inappropriateness with which culture and cultural/intercultural communication are defined. It is essential to clearly Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Mary Jane Collier, Department of Speech Communication, Oregon State University, Shepard Hall 104B, Cowallis, OR 97331-6199.
287
288
hf. 1 Collier
conceptualize culture and communication in research in order that readers understand the basic premises made about the phenomena under investigation. Different theoretical perspectives, methods, and conclusions are appropriate when culture is approached as national affiliation or approached as shared norms or rituals. Whether the conceptualizations are explicit or implicit in research, the conceptualizations may be limited by several of the assumptions that are made. One such assumption is that culture consists primarily of beliefs, values, attitudes, and feelings of individuals, “the inner, invisible thought life of human beings, either as individuals or in some difficult-to-imagine collective sense, as in notions of ‘collective purpose’ or ‘shared values.“’ (Wuthnow, Hunter, Bergesen, & Kurzweil, 1984, p. 7). The study of culture has also been limited by the assumption that culture should be studied in light of social structures and can best be explained by relating courting and marriage rituals for example, to social class or religion. Wuthnow et al. (1984) point out that the study of culture as social structure alone is reductionistic, and conversely, limiting the study of culture to thoughts and feelings of individuals is overly narrow in scope and focus. Finally, scholars argue that components of culture such as values and beliefs and language patterns are related but do not conceptualize or describe how the relationships work (Collier & Thomas, 1988). The relationships among constructs which make up competence (such as the relationship between appropriateness and effectiveness) are similarly overlooked (Cooley & Roach, 1984). A second issue which stands out in my review of the literature in cultural and intercultural communication competence is that of validity, and consistency between ontological and epistemological assumptions made by the researcher. Representational validity becomes an important question; in other words, how consistent are the research conclusions with what the respondents are experiencing? As theoretitians, the goals of our scholarship should include more than description of general patterns of conduct and developing generalizations across culture groups. If we, as researchers, wish to explain why different groups conduct themselves in different ways, we must endeavor to develop constructs and perspectives that represent the participants experiences. Sometimes, researchers argue that tests which reliably measure such skills as social relaxation, tolerance of ambiguity, expressiveness and altercentrism (reviewed in Hammer, 1988) are therefore valid and generalizable across cultures. Models of uncertainty reduction have similarly been tested and argued to be generalizable (Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1985). While the skills or processes may indeed be culture general, the validity needs to be given more attention. Uncertainty or altercentrism and social relaxation may not be the best predictors or the key constructs which can increase our understanding of communication competence.
Current Approaches and Future Directions
289
More specifically, the variable or process which may explain when and why some persons are more competent or are perceived to be more competent may not be on the list of choices given to respondents. In short, perhaps respondents’ impressions should be given additional emphasis. The origin of the actions included on lists of competencies and instruments constructed to measure those actions are important issues in that flexibility, respect, confidence, frankness, or self control may reflect a Western cultural bias on individualism or low social distance. Validity in terms of derivation of constructs or behaviors and statistical verification of the many interrelationships can certainly be discussed and tested, where appropriate, in more detail. Attention to culture (as well as gender) can increase the validity of research on communication competence in general. The incorporation of culture into notions of communication competence has had a rich history in sociolinguistics and cultural anthropology, and increases the clarity and precision of theoretical conclusions, as well as enhances the explanatory power of theories. Attention to intercultural communication competence, furthermore, is not only timely but essential in an increasingly international and culturally diverse world. A third and final issue is worthy of the attention of scholars interested in intercultural communication competence research; the goals of the researcher and assumptions underlying the theoretical perspective adopted need to be made far more explicit. I am referring to the need for a more developed rationale for doing the research in the first place. Essentially, the questions that ought to be answered in research on competence as well as cultural/intercultural competence include, “Why look at this phenomena and concomitantly, what will we know in the end?” The rationale for addressing the “problem” and implications sections of our studies need elaboration. In short, I am calling for more deliberate answers to the “So what?” questions. A question which is being addressed by several scholars in intercultural communication competence is whether researchers ought to be pursuing the development of culture-specific or culture-general theories of communication competence (Hammer, 1988; Ruben, 1976; Ruben & Kealy, 1979). Culture-general theoretical frameworks or processes can be posited only after representational and cultural validity have been demonstrated. Constructs and behaviors which are posited to be generalizable across culture groups should be based upon a research perspective which ensures representational validity. Culture-general theories can subsequently be developed after the cultural validity of assumptions is ascertained. For example Philipsen (1980) contends that ethnography can be utilized to develop testable hypotheses and theoretical propositions. Collier, Ribeau, and Hecht (1986), as well as Collier (1988) have shown that politeness appears to be a rule of appropriate behavior which applies to diverse ethnic group members in
290
hf. .l Collier
the United States, but the particular behaviors which are defined as polite and which are salient to each ethnic group, such as nonverbal tones and posture and verbal greetings, differ across groups. In addition to specification of the goals of the research, application is an important function of theory in communication (Reynolds, 1971) and can provide part of the rationale for investigating communication competence across cultures. Berger and Chaffee (1987) distinguish between scientific theory and critical theory in communication by pointing out that the latter has as its intent criticism of existing social order and positing recommendations for change. Gergen (1982) and others have called scholars to question the guiding assumptions of the culture or era and suggest areas in need of reconsideration. Communication competence, by definition, is a construct perhaps best approached by theories which are both “scientific” and designed to improve the effectiveness of communication and acquisition of resources, hence, “critical.” In summary, the application/implications of the theory is an important function and criterion by which the utility of a theory may be judged. Theory and research of cultural and intercultural communication competence can consequently benefit from clarification of several critical issues. In this paper, selected major approaches and research programs studying cultural and intercultural communication competence are overviewed to provide the reader with an appropriate frame of reference. Representative research programs and their conceptions of culture, cultural communication, intercultural communication, and competence are therefore compared and contrasted. Finally, an approach emphasizing cultural identity and intercultural competence is summarized which is appropriate to intercultural/interpersonal contexts, and which integrates foundational assumptions made by Hymes (1962, 1972), current arguments by Spitzberg and Cupach (1984), and is representative of an emerging trend toward studying culture as intersubjectively defined symbolic patterns by scholars in cultural anthropology, phenomenology, and critical theory (Wuthnow et al., 1984). The theme of the approach, cultural identity, and competence, allows researchers to answer several of the more “thorny” concerns raised about communication competence research and culture with regard to appropriateness of conceptualizations, validity, and ontological and epistemological clarity. APPROACHES
TO COMMUNICATION ACROSS CULTURES
COMPETENCE
Ethnography of Speaking Approaches The present paper focuses on cultural and intercultural communication competence. The work of Hymes (1962, 1972) on the ethnography of
Current Approaches and Future Directions
291
speaking is, therefore, foundational and has influenced cultural anthropologists such as Geertz (1973, 1983) and Schneider (1976) as well as communication scholars utilizing an ethnographic perspective (Carbaugh, 1988; Katriel & Philipsen, 1981; Philipsen, 1986, 1975). Hymes (1972) in his work on the ethnography of speaking broadened the term competence from previous use in linguistics to a sociolinguistic perspective and argued that competence must be contextually defined. The contextuality of competence has been shown to be an essential component of competence by Powell and Avila (1986). Philipsen’s research program is an appropriate representative of this approach to cultural competence. (Katriel & Philipsen, 1981; Philipsen, 1986, 1975). His program of research thematizes what one needs to do and know to be a functional member in particular Nacirema speech communities (within the United States). He defines culture similarly to Geertz (1973) and Schneider (1976) as an historically transmitted system of symbols and meanings (Philipsen, 1988). Culture therefore, is emergent in the discursive text and in conduct of interlocutors. Hymes (1972) defines communication competence as including both the knowledge of and demonstrated ability to carry out appropriate conduct in particular contexts. Saville-Troike (1982) elaborates, “communicative competence refers to knowledge and skills for contextually appropriate use and interpretation of language in a community. . . ” (p. 26). Saville-Troike argues that, “Communicative competence must be embedded in the notion of cultural competence, or the total set of knowledge and skills which speakers bring into a situation. This view is consonant with a semiotic approach which defines culture as meaning and views all ethnographers . . . as dealing with symbols” (p. 23). “Interaction requires the perception, selection, and interpretation of salient features of the code used in actual communicative situations, integrating these with other cultural knowledge and skills, and implementing appropriate strategies for achieving communicative goals” (p. 24). An ethnographic approach to cultural competence includes the ontological assumption that conduct, meaning, and cultural membership are interdependent. Individuals define their personhood and cultural identity through contact with others in various community settings. Epistemologically, researchers utilize interpretive perspectives which focus upon respondents’ conduct “in situ.” This approach, consequently, strives for subjective or what can be called representational cultural validity (Collier & Thomas, 1988). The goal of most ethnographies to date has been the description of membership in a particular culture or community, and therefore ethnographic approaches are sometimes criticized by social scientists as being limited in scope and theoretical explanatory power. As Philipsen (1980) has noted, ethnographies need not be limited to description, and certainly core symbols, ritualized speech and norms can be compared across con-
292
M. J. Collier
texts and ultimately across cultures. In addition, when culture is defined as emergent in the discursive text and different cultural identities are pinpointed as they emerge, then ethnography can be used as a tool to examine intercultural communication as well.
Cross-cultural Attitude Approaches Debate about conceptualizing competence as cognitive knowledge versus performance of behavioral skills has been discussed at length in recent years. A representative of a more cognitive approach is the “cross-cultural attitude” model of intercultural competence (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Gudykunst, Wiseman, & Hammer, 1977; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Wiseman & Abe, 1984; Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida, 1987). Understanding culturally specific information about the other culture, cultural general understandings and positive regard are key constructs. It is not stated explicitly in this approach whether culture is a set of characteristics which individuals have, or is a set of patterned behaviors shared by a group, or is equated to people with particular national affiliations. A definition of culture given elsewhere by Gudykunst and Kim (1984) thematizes shared ideas about societal, ordered patterns of behavior. According to this definition, cultures can be distinguished from one another on the basis of assumptions and world view as well as goals and objectives and norms and rules. Gudykunst, Nishida, and Ting-Toomey have turned their attention to respondents’ ideas about and perceptions of social patterns by researching dimensions of cultural variability (Gudykunst, Nishida, & Chua, 1986; Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988; Gudykunst, Yoon, & Nishida, 1987). Hofstede (1980) has outlined four important dimensions on which culture groups vary including individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty avoidance. Hall (1976) has also identified high and low context as a dimension on which cultures differ. Researchers such as Gudykunst are more interested in the manifest differences of groups along the cultural dimensions rather than answering why particular groups tend to be higher or lower context for example (Gudykunst, 1988). If the dimensions of cultural variability are the focus as predictors of other communication behaviors, then several questions emerge. Hofstede (1980) derived the dimensions based on a large number of respondents across many different countries in organizational contexts. Various nationalities were categorized on the basis of the four dimensions. Researchers now use Hofstede’s findings (1980) as a basis for equating national affiliation with a high or low score on the four dimensions of cultural variability. Japanese-Americans, for example, are described as
Current Approaches and Future Directions
293
high on uncertainty avoidance and masculinity, and relatively high on collectivism. I applaud the emphasis upon communication styles as a way of distinguishing culture groups, and the conceptualization of culture as similarities in communicative patterns. I am somewhat uncomfortable, however, with generalizations that are then made on the basis of insufficient validation with current samples. Situational factors, culture of the other, relationship with the other, and identity or face needs in the particular situation may affect the extent to which individuals behave with greater masculinity or collectivism. How do the dimensions of cultural variability apply to ethnic populations in the United States for third and fourth generation ethnic group members, influenced to some degree by an ethnic heritage and to some degree by a more mainstream culture in the United States, is a question which can be raised. The identity and conduct manifest in a particular situation may not be Japanese as much as North American even though respondents may identify themselves on a survey questionnaire as Japanese-American by heritage. The model discussed above is a cognitively based model with attention to understandings, attitudes, and knowledge. The extent to which the knowledge is enacted in situated speech or in situ merits more discussion. Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) as well as McCroskey (1982) have pointed out that knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition to identify communication competence. The importance of culturally related knowledge in identifying competence is indeed a critical theme worthy of research effort. Asking respondents to apply such knowledge in particular situations would increase the validity and generalizability of the theoretical findings. Culture is measured in the cross-cultural attitude approach to intercultural communication competence as national culture affiliation (Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida compared Japanese and U.S. subjects). It is not clear whether culture was conceptualized however, as the persons who affiliate with a particular group, as patterns of shared background characteristics such as world views, or as patterns of variability in collectivism/individualism, etc. When the conceptual foundation of culture is made clearer, the appropriateness of the operationalization can be better judged. The researchers utilizing this approach are to be commended for application value in that their goal is to “improve understanding, tolerance and acceptance of other cultures” (Wiseman et al., 1987, p. 17).
Behavioral Skills Approaches A third approach to the study of competence across cultures can be classified as behavioral skills approaches (Hammer, 1984, 1987; Ruben,
294
M. 1 Collier
1976; Ruben & Kealy, 1979). These researchers emphasize the identification of skills which can be adopted successfully and effectively in an intercultural encounter. Many of the skills approaches seek to identify culture-specific and culture-general skills (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1984). Culture is operationalized as national affiliation for the most part by the scholars interested in intercultural communication skills. Culturegeneral skills have been tested in various cultures and are predicted to hold in intercultural encounters regardless of the cultural affiliations of the interactants. The scholars using this approach define intercultural communication as contact in which respondents are primarily from two different nations. Ontological assumptions made in behavioral skills approaches include that humans are goal directed and choice making beings, and that humans can distinguish between skills which will be effective and skills which will not be effective. A Western bias may be reflected in the teleological assumption that humans have intentional goals and make choices in their behaviors to achieve those goals. A further assumption made is that the skills identified, for example, display of respect, empathy, and tolerance for ambiguity (Ruben, 1976) can be demonstrated by members of various cultures successfully. Researchers using such approaches have concentrated on self-reports for the most part, and perception of other to a lesser degree. It may well be that certain skills such as respect are generalizable across cultures. For example, Collier (1988, 1989) found that it was appropriate for acquaintances and friends to demonstrate respect for each others’ gender and role needs. Perspectives in addition to self-report can increase the representational validity of the measures. Additionally, as McCroskey (1982) notes, performance of a behavior does not mean that an individual understands why the behavior is competent and the same behavior will not always be equally effective. A discussion of this issue and rationale for emphasis on skills rather than knowledge would strengthen these approaches. The goal of this group of researchers is explicit in that practical application of results of research is expected. This goal is not only laudable but also necessary in light of increasing international and global interdependence.
Cultural Identity Approach The fourth approach to intercultural communication competence to be discussed here is exemplified by a newly proposed theoretical framework thematizing ethnic identity and communication competence. The focus is on symbolic text which emerges in a particular context, whether it is an organization, speech community, or friendship. Culture is thus an emer-
Current Approaches and Future Directions
295
gent phenomena (Collier & Thomas, 1988). This approach has been classified as more of a subjective or interpretive approach (Gudykunst & Nishida, in press). Culture is defined as an historically transmitted system of symbols, meanings, and norms (Collier & Thomas, 1988). The emphasis in this conceptualization is upon identities, intersubjectively defined by similarities in symbols and norms, which are posited to potentially change during the course of a conversation. In the early stages of intercultural communication research, the concentration was upon culture as background characteristics which predicted to other cognitive variables or social actions. These background characteristics included histories, beliefs, core values, attitudes, traditions, and verbal and nonverbal message styles (Dodd, 1987; Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981; Sarbaugh, 1979). A problem which emerges with these definitions of culture is that operationalizations of culture seldom measure all the components. In fact, culture is often measured by means of a check list of national or ethnic group labels. An additional problem is that the different components may vary in their degree of importance, and may be more or less relevant in particular contexts. For example, political representation and freedom of expression may be salient issues for Black South Africans, and taken for granted by citizens in the United States. Geertz (1973) also criticizes common eclectic conceptions of culture. Although in the past I have measured culture by having respondents generate their own label for their group, and describe generation, length of time in the United States, and other factors which can help pinpoint what is meant by their cultural affiliation; interviews and open-ended questionnaires have demonstrated to me that “Chicano,” let alone “Mexican American,” mean different things to different individuals. In addition, there are different intensities with which individuals identify with particular groups. My ultimate goal as a scholar is to understand why particular conduct is viewed as appropriate and effective and what can be learned to help individuals improve the quality of their own experience. In some encounters, nationality may be a key construct, but in others, gender, the relationship, or one’s professional position may be key constructs in the understanding and accounting for outcomes. Therefore, I believe that identity adopted, managed, and negotiated during an encounter can be an important focus. Culture can be measured thus as background and heritage, and as emergent patterned conduct around a particular thematic identity. Researchers can correlate, compare and contrast cultural background and emergent cultural identity. More specifically, two assumptions made in Collier and Thomas (1988) are that persons negotiate multiple identities in discourse and communi-
296
M. L Collier
cation is rendered intercultural by the discursive ascription and avowal of differing cultural identities. Cultural identities are identifications with and perceived acceptance into a group which has shared systems of symbols and meanings as well as norms/rules for conduct. Ting-Toomey’s research (1988, in press) on face needs in intercultural conflict is consistent with this approach. Cultural competence is conduct which is appropriate and effective for the particular cultural identity being adopted at the time in the particular situation. Ontologically, members of the culture group are expected to know how to use particular symbolic forms and what they mean, and are expected to conduct themselves appropriately. Given this definition of culture as emergent identity, competence then is also an emergent and dynamic phenomena. Epistemologically, it is however, possible to describe cultural identity and hence, cultural competence, by analyzing the text or considering cultural identity and cultural competence to be an impression of the respondents immediately following a conversation, for example. Cultural identities (and types of competencies) are posited to vary along three central, interdependent dimensions. Scope refers to the generalizability of the identity, or how many persons potentially share the identity. Salience refers to the relative importance of the identity in a particular situation relative to other identities. Intensity refers to the strength with which an identity is communicated (Collier & Thomas, 1988). Attention to the type of competency which is salient to particular identities in particular conversations addresses several very important issues. First, noting that particular rules and outcomes are salient to gender versus ethnic identities, for example, allows researchers to specify the scope of the competent action, and addresses the question, competent for whom? Secondly, explanations are strengthened by specifying the positive outcome resulting from following the rules of appropriate conduct for the particular identity. Collier (1986, 1988, 1989) and Collier et al. (1986) found that respondents described cultural, gender-specific, relational, as well as role-governed categories of appropriate actions and described a positive resulting cultural identity, gender identity, view of their relationship, and their role as outcomes from rule-following conduct. Communication emerges as intercultural when interlocutors identify themselves as different in cultural terms in the discourse or create impressions of each other as having different cultural identities. The distinction between cultural and intercultural communication competence thus becomes important. Intercultural communication competence is addressed, in this approach, as conduct perceived to be appropriate and effective for both
Current Approaches and Future Directions
297
cultural identities being advanced. In other words as one member of the dyadic conversation avows a particular cultural identity, for example, being a Chicana, the conduct of the other member should be appropriate and effective for the salient identity of Chicana. The same holds for the second member’s salient identity being competently reinforced by the other member of the dyad. Intercultural communication competence is mutually competent behavior for both cultural identities being advanced. Intercultural communication competence then can be identified in one or both of the following ways. The ascribed and avowed identities can be compared as they are evident in the discursive text and the more the cultural difference in identities and the higher the match between avowal and ascription, the higher the intercultural competence. In addition to that method, also researchers may choose to focus on competence as an impression of conduct. Respondents can be asked to identify the cultural identities adopted in particular encounters and when cultural differences are evident, to agree upon competent behavior for both the cultural identities being adopted. In this way, respondents negotiate intercultural competence together (Collier, 1989) and any inconsistency in self versus alter competence becomes moot. The epistemological method of measurement then is consistent with the joint competencies perceived by the respondents. In addition, the problem that some behaviors may be viewed as appropriate but not effective is overcome in that respondents can be asked to agree on behaviors which simultaneously meet both criteria and result in some positive outcome. Conceptualizations of culture as background or group affiliation or, on the other hand, as emergent communication patterns or impressions can be accommodated by the cultural identities approach. Cultural identities can be correlated with background or heritage to understand when persons with the same ethnic background adopt an ethnic identity and when they adopt a gender related or professional role identity. Assumptions that can be made about “lay” epistemology or the way interlocutors increase their knowledge about others and self include the foundational assumption that knowledge about self is based upon comparisons and information from others in discourse. Each individual has to know certain things in order to be a member of a cultural group. This kind of knowledge is evident in the text and is part of the theme of what is identified. An interpretive perspective is based upon the idea that interpretations from the interlocutors as they are revealed in discourse is the primary data source. Ontologically, persons are assumed to negotiate identity or face (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Ting-Toomey, in press, 1988). Personhood and identity which is salient in a given encounter may vary from situation to situation. Persons are assumed to be able to judge others’ behaviors as more or less competent.
298
A4. J. Collier
Ethnic identity, identification with and acceptance into a group with shared culture and heritage (Collier & Thomas, 1988) is not a simple predictor variable. Persons do not simply categorize another on the basis of national affiliation and judge their competence on that basis. The emergent identity adopted by an individual may be a more important factor in understanding conduct in particular in situations in which interlocutors have some history together, a working relationship or friendship. I have argued that consistency in epistemological and ontological conclusions is important in evaluating the theoretical utility of research. The experience of the interlocutors is conceptually important and is the focus of the methodology used. Representational cultural validity is increased by the focus on the actual text or upon respondents’ perceptions of the text. The correspondence value of the theoretical paradigm is consequently also increased. Coherence is addressed in that interlocutors can be asked why particular behaviors are judged appropriate and what outcomes result from following or violating the rules (Collier, 1988, 1989; Collier et al., 1986). The salience of rules and outcomes can also be described. CONCLUSION Certainly several promising research programs investigating cultural and intercultural competence exist. Each of the programs overviewed here thematizes different aspects of competence as a way of making sense of culture and communication. Emphases vary from emergent cultural patterns of conduct, an attitude adopted when persons are identified as culturally different, a set of behaviors which can lead to more effective contact, and emergent identities. The research programs can all benefit from clarification of conceptualizations of culture as well as competence, elaboration of metatheoretical foundations regarding ontology and epistemology which undergird the research, and more attention to application and implications. REFERENCES ABE, H., & WISEMAN, R. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of cross-cultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53-68. BERGER, C. R., & CHAFFEE, S. H. (1987). The study of communication as a science. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 15-20). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. BROWN, P., & LEVINSON, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness
Current Approaches and Future Directions
299
phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. CARBAUGH, D. (1988). Cultural terms and tensions in the speech at a television station. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 216-237. COLLIER, M. J. (1986). Culture and gender: Effects on assertive behavior and communication competence. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 576-592). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. COLLIER, M. J. (1988). A comparison of conversations among and between domestic culture groups: How intra- and intercultural competencies vary. Communication Quarterly, 36, 122-124. COLLIER, M. J. (1989, May). Cultural background and the culture of friendships: Normative patterns. Paper presented at the International Communication Association conference, San Francisco, CA. COLLIER, M. J., RIBEAU, S., & HECHT, M. L. (1986). Intracultural communication rules and outcomes within three domestic cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, IO, 439-458. COLLIER, M. J., & THOMAS, M. (1988). Identity in intercultural communication: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories of intercultural communication (pp. 99-120). International and intercultural Communication Annual, XII. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. COOLEY, R., & ROACH, D. (1984). A conceptual framework. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication (pp. 1l-33). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. DODD, C. (1987). Dynamics of intercultural communication. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. FISHER, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value and action. Columbia, SC: University of Southern Carolina Press. GEERTZ, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. GEERTZ, C. (1983). Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books. GERGEN, K. J. (1982). Toward transformation in social knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag. GUDYKUNST, W. B. (1988). Conference on Theory in Intercultural Communication, Arizona State University. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & HAMMER, M. R. (1984). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Culture specific or culture general? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, l-10. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & KIM, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & NISHIDA, T. (in press). Theoretical perspectives for studying intercultural communication. In M. Asante & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural and development communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. GUDYKUNST, W. B., NISHIDA, T., & CHUA. E. (1986). Uncertainty reduction in Japanese-North American dyads. Communication Research Reports, 3, 3946. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & TING-TOOMEY, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. GUDYKUNST, W. B., WISEMAN, R., & HAMMER, M. R. (1977). Determi-
300
M. 1 Collier
nants of a sojourners attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 1, (pp. 415-425). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. GUDYKUNST, W. B., YANG, S. M., & NISHIDA, T. (1985). A cross-cultural test of uncertainty reduction theory: Comparisons of acquaintance, friend and dating relationships in Japan, Korea and the United States. Human Communication Research, 11, 407-455. GUDYKUNST, W. B., YOON. Y. C., & NISHIDA, T. (1987). The influence of individualism-collectivism on perceptions of communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships. Communication Monographs, 54, 295-306. HALL, E. T (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. HAMMER, M. R. (1984). The effects of an intercultural communication workshop on participants’ intercultural communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 32, 252-262. HAMMER, M. R. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: A replication and extension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 65-88. HAMMER, M. R. (1988). Communication
skills and intercultural communication competence: A review and research agenda. In M. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), The handbook of intercultural and developmental communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. HAMMER, M. R., GUDYKUNST, W. R., & WISEMAN, R. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. Znternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382-392. HOFSTEDE, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Cross-cultural research & methodology series (Vol. 5). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. HYMES, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13-53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington. HYMES, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. l-72). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. KAPLAN, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing Co. KATRIEL, T., & PHILIPSEN, G. (1981). What we need is “communication”: “Communication” as a cultural category in some American speech. Communication Monographs, 48, 301-317. MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1982). Communication competence and performance: A research and pedagogical perspective. Communication Education, 31, l-8. PHILIPSEN, G. (1975). Speaking “like a man” in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role enactment in an urban neighborhood. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 13-22. PHILIPSEN, G. (1980). The prospect for cultural communication. Paper presented at the Seminar on Communication Theory from Eastern and Western Perspectives, East-West Communication Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu, HI. PHILIPSEN, G. (1986). Mayor Daley’s council speech: A cultural analysis. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72,247-260.
Current Approaches and Future Directions
301
PHILIPSEN, G. (1988). Conference on Theory in Intercultural Communication, Arizona State University. POWELL, R. G., & AVILA, D. R. (1986). Ethnicity, communication competency and classroom success: A question of assessment. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50,269-278. REYNOLDS, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. RUBEN, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation, Groups and organizational studies, I, 334-354. RUBEN, B. D., & KEALY, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-48. SAMOVAR, L., PORTER, R., & JAIN, N. (1981). Understanding intercultural communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. SARBAUGH, L. E. (1979). Intercultural communication. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden. SAVILLE-TROIKE, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication. Baltimore: University Park Press. SCHNEIDER, D. (1976). Notes toward a theory of culture. In K. Basso & H. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 197-220). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. SPITZBERG, B., & CUPACH W. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. TING-TOOMEY, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face negotiation theory. In Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-238). International and Intercultural Communication Annual, XII, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. TING-TOOMEY, S. (in press). Culture and interpersonal relational development: Some conceptual issues. In J. Andersen (Ed.), Communication yearbook 12. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. WISEMAN, R., & ABE, H. (1984). Finding and explaining differences: A reply to Gudykunst and Hammer. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 11-16. WISEMAN, R., HAMMER, M. R., & NISHIDA, H. (1987, May). Predictors of intercultural communication competence. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Montreal. WUTHNOW, R., HUNTER, J. D., BERGESEN, A., & KURZWEIL, E. (1984). Cultural analysis. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
?lusieurcissues critiquesce la recherdleck la wxunication culturelieet interculturelle sent exaihitis, y compisle ixesoin Oe cLart6 mnsla axxe;;ttiisationde ia muniction ollturelleet intercultladle,la valiaiti figurativeet statistiqu2cks wnstructio~s, wnsistnnce cks suGpsitions ontoloqiqws et epist&alo+qlles, clarte’ @s cuts LLculturegkeralc ou culture spe'cifiq~~ ransl'd~ort & recheralq et tiscussiona~~~opi@e ~2.9implicationset
302
M. J Collier
ap~ications. Cutre axn&ence culturelle
apgocfies amisies de l’&tuce ck la et interculturelle s0nt dbatues enterunt
a3npc Crsisslles suivants, a,qrobles &hnogrqhiques &I prier, approhes des aflitudes fonctionelles, appoches d'attitude intra-culturelle et finaliment, me apprmle Mhatisant
i@ntitk
culturelle
et aq35tence.
(author-supplied
abstract).
Se revisaron varios aspxkos critiws en 1s iluescigcih: sobrela a1xmmicaci6n aitural e interctittxd intiyelti la neasidad ck wncepu3lizaciones cl&as enla axuxnicxion cultural eintercultural, valoriztcidn estadistica y representativa de1 estado wnstructo, wnsistencia enlas supsiciones ontol6qicas y epistemolbcjicas, clari._i;c cn las mebs ckilturales generalesy espacir‘i~s dentrock eC;i‘ucrzO iruestigativo, ydiscusi&aacrcuaca [email protected] aplicaciones. Cuatro planteamientcs 3electos en el esttio de lil apitti cultural eintercultural se discuticron wnsiteralm 10s siguiertes wnspos: etrqraffia de las fomas ~2 hablar, ~antc-amientos enla M3ilic;lo ~21 wrnprtar,rier*o, $lantcamientx so&c actittzdes transculturales y ikk3lmsnte u1 +lante;r~~~ialto (author-supplier: tenatizancb apAtudeidcnticad.cultural. ahstrati).
Vol. 13, pp. 287-302.
1989 Copyright
0147~1767/89$3.09 + .@I 0 1989 Pcrgamon Press pit
CULTURAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE: Current Approaches and Directions for Future Research MARY JANE COLLIER Oregon State University ABSTRACT. Several critical issues in cultural and intercultural communication inquiry were overviewed including the need for clarity in conceptualizations of culture and intercultural communication, representational and statistical validity of constructs, consistency in ontological and epistemoIogica1 assumptions, clarity in culture general or culture specific goals in the research endeavor, and appropriate d~cussion of implications and appIications. Four selected approaches to the study of cultural and intercultural competence were discussed in fight of these issues: ethnography of speaking approaches, behavioral skills approaches, crosscultural attitude approaches, and, finally, an approach thematizing cultural identity and competence.
INTRODUCTION Two criteria among others may be used to evaluate the “truth” or value of a narrative or theoretical paradigm. The first is correspondence, the fit between the theoretical explanations, predictions and descriptions with our own experience as interlocutors. The second is coherence, the internal logic and interrelationships among the constructs and propositions of the theoretical paradigm (Fisher, 1987; Kaplan, 1964). The thesis being posited here is that researchers need to increase the correspondence and coherence of research and theory in cultural and intercultural communication competence research. Communication competence is a construct given a great deal of research attention by communication scholars during the last fifteen years. Although much has been discovered with regard to typologies of behaviors which are viewed as competent, many conceptualizations of competence exist and many issues continue to be unresolved. Three issues stand out in my review of our approaches to cultural and intercultural competence in the communication discipline. The first is the lack of clarity and sometimes inappropriateness with which culture and cultural/intercultural communication are defined. It is essential to clearly Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Mary Jane Collier, Department of Speech Communication, Oregon State University, Shepard Hall 104B, Cowallis, OR 97331-6199.
287
288
hf. 1 Collier
conceptualize culture and communication in research in order that readers understand the basic premises made about the phenomena under investigation. Different theoretical perspectives, methods, and conclusions are appropriate when culture is approached as national affiliation or approached as shared norms or rituals. Whether the conceptualizations are explicit or implicit in research, the conceptualizations may be limited by several of the assumptions that are made. One such assumption is that culture consists primarily of beliefs, values, attitudes, and feelings of individuals, “the inner, invisible thought life of human beings, either as individuals or in some difficult-to-imagine collective sense, as in notions of ‘collective purpose’ or ‘shared values.“’ (Wuthnow, Hunter, Bergesen, & Kurzweil, 1984, p. 7). The study of culture has also been limited by the assumption that culture should be studied in light of social structures and can best be explained by relating courting and marriage rituals for example, to social class or religion. Wuthnow et al. (1984) point out that the study of culture as social structure alone is reductionistic, and conversely, limiting the study of culture to thoughts and feelings of individuals is overly narrow in scope and focus. Finally, scholars argue that components of culture such as values and beliefs and language patterns are related but do not conceptualize or describe how the relationships work (Collier & Thomas, 1988). The relationships among constructs which make up competence (such as the relationship between appropriateness and effectiveness) are similarly overlooked (Cooley & Roach, 1984). A second issue which stands out in my review of the literature in cultural and intercultural communication competence is that of validity, and consistency between ontological and epistemological assumptions made by the researcher. Representational validity becomes an important question; in other words, how consistent are the research conclusions with what the respondents are experiencing? As theoretitians, the goals of our scholarship should include more than description of general patterns of conduct and developing generalizations across culture groups. If we, as researchers, wish to explain why different groups conduct themselves in different ways, we must endeavor to develop constructs and perspectives that represent the participants experiences. Sometimes, researchers argue that tests which reliably measure such skills as social relaxation, tolerance of ambiguity, expressiveness and altercentrism (reviewed in Hammer, 1988) are therefore valid and generalizable across cultures. Models of uncertainty reduction have similarly been tested and argued to be generalizable (Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1985). While the skills or processes may indeed be culture general, the validity needs to be given more attention. Uncertainty or altercentrism and social relaxation may not be the best predictors or the key constructs which can increase our understanding of communication competence.
Current Approaches and Future Directions
289
More specifically, the variable or process which may explain when and why some persons are more competent or are perceived to be more competent may not be on the list of choices given to respondents. In short, perhaps respondents’ impressions should be given additional emphasis. The origin of the actions included on lists of competencies and instruments constructed to measure those actions are important issues in that flexibility, respect, confidence, frankness, or self control may reflect a Western cultural bias on individualism or low social distance. Validity in terms of derivation of constructs or behaviors and statistical verification of the many interrelationships can certainly be discussed and tested, where appropriate, in more detail. Attention to culture (as well as gender) can increase the validity of research on communication competence in general. The incorporation of culture into notions of communication competence has had a rich history in sociolinguistics and cultural anthropology, and increases the clarity and precision of theoretical conclusions, as well as enhances the explanatory power of theories. Attention to intercultural communication competence, furthermore, is not only timely but essential in an increasingly international and culturally diverse world. A third and final issue is worthy of the attention of scholars interested in intercultural communication competence research; the goals of the researcher and assumptions underlying the theoretical perspective adopted need to be made far more explicit. I am referring to the need for a more developed rationale for doing the research in the first place. Essentially, the questions that ought to be answered in research on competence as well as cultural/intercultural competence include, “Why look at this phenomena and concomitantly, what will we know in the end?” The rationale for addressing the “problem” and implications sections of our studies need elaboration. In short, I am calling for more deliberate answers to the “So what?” questions. A question which is being addressed by several scholars in intercultural communication competence is whether researchers ought to be pursuing the development of culture-specific or culture-general theories of communication competence (Hammer, 1988; Ruben, 1976; Ruben & Kealy, 1979). Culture-general theoretical frameworks or processes can be posited only after representational and cultural validity have been demonstrated. Constructs and behaviors which are posited to be generalizable across culture groups should be based upon a research perspective which ensures representational validity. Culture-general theories can subsequently be developed after the cultural validity of assumptions is ascertained. For example Philipsen (1980) contends that ethnography can be utilized to develop testable hypotheses and theoretical propositions. Collier, Ribeau, and Hecht (1986), as well as Collier (1988) have shown that politeness appears to be a rule of appropriate behavior which applies to diverse ethnic group members in
290
hf. .l Collier
the United States, but the particular behaviors which are defined as polite and which are salient to each ethnic group, such as nonverbal tones and posture and verbal greetings, differ across groups. In addition to specification of the goals of the research, application is an important function of theory in communication (Reynolds, 1971) and can provide part of the rationale for investigating communication competence across cultures. Berger and Chaffee (1987) distinguish between scientific theory and critical theory in communication by pointing out that the latter has as its intent criticism of existing social order and positing recommendations for change. Gergen (1982) and others have called scholars to question the guiding assumptions of the culture or era and suggest areas in need of reconsideration. Communication competence, by definition, is a construct perhaps best approached by theories which are both “scientific” and designed to improve the effectiveness of communication and acquisition of resources, hence, “critical.” In summary, the application/implications of the theory is an important function and criterion by which the utility of a theory may be judged. Theory and research of cultural and intercultural communication competence can consequently benefit from clarification of several critical issues. In this paper, selected major approaches and research programs studying cultural and intercultural communication competence are overviewed to provide the reader with an appropriate frame of reference. Representative research programs and their conceptions of culture, cultural communication, intercultural communication, and competence are therefore compared and contrasted. Finally, an approach emphasizing cultural identity and intercultural competence is summarized which is appropriate to intercultural/interpersonal contexts, and which integrates foundational assumptions made by Hymes (1962, 1972), current arguments by Spitzberg and Cupach (1984), and is representative of an emerging trend toward studying culture as intersubjectively defined symbolic patterns by scholars in cultural anthropology, phenomenology, and critical theory (Wuthnow et al., 1984). The theme of the approach, cultural identity, and competence, allows researchers to answer several of the more “thorny” concerns raised about communication competence research and culture with regard to appropriateness of conceptualizations, validity, and ontological and epistemological clarity. APPROACHES
TO COMMUNICATION ACROSS CULTURES
COMPETENCE
Ethnography of Speaking Approaches The present paper focuses on cultural and intercultural communication competence. The work of Hymes (1962, 1972) on the ethnography of
Current Approaches and Future Directions
291
speaking is, therefore, foundational and has influenced cultural anthropologists such as Geertz (1973, 1983) and Schneider (1976) as well as communication scholars utilizing an ethnographic perspective (Carbaugh, 1988; Katriel & Philipsen, 1981; Philipsen, 1986, 1975). Hymes (1972) in his work on the ethnography of speaking broadened the term competence from previous use in linguistics to a sociolinguistic perspective and argued that competence must be contextually defined. The contextuality of competence has been shown to be an essential component of competence by Powell and Avila (1986). Philipsen’s research program is an appropriate representative of this approach to cultural competence. (Katriel & Philipsen, 1981; Philipsen, 1986, 1975). His program of research thematizes what one needs to do and know to be a functional member in particular Nacirema speech communities (within the United States). He defines culture similarly to Geertz (1973) and Schneider (1976) as an historically transmitted system of symbols and meanings (Philipsen, 1988). Culture therefore, is emergent in the discursive text and in conduct of interlocutors. Hymes (1972) defines communication competence as including both the knowledge of and demonstrated ability to carry out appropriate conduct in particular contexts. Saville-Troike (1982) elaborates, “communicative competence refers to knowledge and skills for contextually appropriate use and interpretation of language in a community. . . ” (p. 26). Saville-Troike argues that, “Communicative competence must be embedded in the notion of cultural competence, or the total set of knowledge and skills which speakers bring into a situation. This view is consonant with a semiotic approach which defines culture as meaning and views all ethnographers . . . as dealing with symbols” (p. 23). “Interaction requires the perception, selection, and interpretation of salient features of the code used in actual communicative situations, integrating these with other cultural knowledge and skills, and implementing appropriate strategies for achieving communicative goals” (p. 24). An ethnographic approach to cultural competence includes the ontological assumption that conduct, meaning, and cultural membership are interdependent. Individuals define their personhood and cultural identity through contact with others in various community settings. Epistemologically, researchers utilize interpretive perspectives which focus upon respondents’ conduct “in situ.” This approach, consequently, strives for subjective or what can be called representational cultural validity (Collier & Thomas, 1988). The goal of most ethnographies to date has been the description of membership in a particular culture or community, and therefore ethnographic approaches are sometimes criticized by social scientists as being limited in scope and theoretical explanatory power. As Philipsen (1980) has noted, ethnographies need not be limited to description, and certainly core symbols, ritualized speech and norms can be compared across con-
292
M. J. Collier
texts and ultimately across cultures. In addition, when culture is defined as emergent in the discursive text and different cultural identities are pinpointed as they emerge, then ethnography can be used as a tool to examine intercultural communication as well.
Cross-cultural Attitude Approaches Debate about conceptualizing competence as cognitive knowledge versus performance of behavioral skills has been discussed at length in recent years. A representative of a more cognitive approach is the “cross-cultural attitude” model of intercultural competence (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Gudykunst, Wiseman, & Hammer, 1977; Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Wiseman & Abe, 1984; Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida, 1987). Understanding culturally specific information about the other culture, cultural general understandings and positive regard are key constructs. It is not stated explicitly in this approach whether culture is a set of characteristics which individuals have, or is a set of patterned behaviors shared by a group, or is equated to people with particular national affiliations. A definition of culture given elsewhere by Gudykunst and Kim (1984) thematizes shared ideas about societal, ordered patterns of behavior. According to this definition, cultures can be distinguished from one another on the basis of assumptions and world view as well as goals and objectives and norms and rules. Gudykunst, Nishida, and Ting-Toomey have turned their attention to respondents’ ideas about and perceptions of social patterns by researching dimensions of cultural variability (Gudykunst, Nishida, & Chua, 1986; Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988; Gudykunst, Yoon, & Nishida, 1987). Hofstede (1980) has outlined four important dimensions on which culture groups vary including individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty avoidance. Hall (1976) has also identified high and low context as a dimension on which cultures differ. Researchers such as Gudykunst are more interested in the manifest differences of groups along the cultural dimensions rather than answering why particular groups tend to be higher or lower context for example (Gudykunst, 1988). If the dimensions of cultural variability are the focus as predictors of other communication behaviors, then several questions emerge. Hofstede (1980) derived the dimensions based on a large number of respondents across many different countries in organizational contexts. Various nationalities were categorized on the basis of the four dimensions. Researchers now use Hofstede’s findings (1980) as a basis for equating national affiliation with a high or low score on the four dimensions of cultural variability. Japanese-Americans, for example, are described as
Current Approaches and Future Directions
293
high on uncertainty avoidance and masculinity, and relatively high on collectivism. I applaud the emphasis upon communication styles as a way of distinguishing culture groups, and the conceptualization of culture as similarities in communicative patterns. I am somewhat uncomfortable, however, with generalizations that are then made on the basis of insufficient validation with current samples. Situational factors, culture of the other, relationship with the other, and identity or face needs in the particular situation may affect the extent to which individuals behave with greater masculinity or collectivism. How do the dimensions of cultural variability apply to ethnic populations in the United States for third and fourth generation ethnic group members, influenced to some degree by an ethnic heritage and to some degree by a more mainstream culture in the United States, is a question which can be raised. The identity and conduct manifest in a particular situation may not be Japanese as much as North American even though respondents may identify themselves on a survey questionnaire as Japanese-American by heritage. The model discussed above is a cognitively based model with attention to understandings, attitudes, and knowledge. The extent to which the knowledge is enacted in situated speech or in situ merits more discussion. Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) as well as McCroskey (1982) have pointed out that knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition to identify communication competence. The importance of culturally related knowledge in identifying competence is indeed a critical theme worthy of research effort. Asking respondents to apply such knowledge in particular situations would increase the validity and generalizability of the theoretical findings. Culture is measured in the cross-cultural attitude approach to intercultural communication competence as national culture affiliation (Wiseman, Hammer, & Nishida compared Japanese and U.S. subjects). It is not clear whether culture was conceptualized however, as the persons who affiliate with a particular group, as patterns of shared background characteristics such as world views, or as patterns of variability in collectivism/individualism, etc. When the conceptual foundation of culture is made clearer, the appropriateness of the operationalization can be better judged. The researchers utilizing this approach are to be commended for application value in that their goal is to “improve understanding, tolerance and acceptance of other cultures” (Wiseman et al., 1987, p. 17).
Behavioral Skills Approaches A third approach to the study of competence across cultures can be classified as behavioral skills approaches (Hammer, 1984, 1987; Ruben,
294
M. 1 Collier
1976; Ruben & Kealy, 1979). These researchers emphasize the identification of skills which can be adopted successfully and effectively in an intercultural encounter. Many of the skills approaches seek to identify culture-specific and culture-general skills (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1984). Culture is operationalized as national affiliation for the most part by the scholars interested in intercultural communication skills. Culturegeneral skills have been tested in various cultures and are predicted to hold in intercultural encounters regardless of the cultural affiliations of the interactants. The scholars using this approach define intercultural communication as contact in which respondents are primarily from two different nations. Ontological assumptions made in behavioral skills approaches include that humans are goal directed and choice making beings, and that humans can distinguish between skills which will be effective and skills which will not be effective. A Western bias may be reflected in the teleological assumption that humans have intentional goals and make choices in their behaviors to achieve those goals. A further assumption made is that the skills identified, for example, display of respect, empathy, and tolerance for ambiguity (Ruben, 1976) can be demonstrated by members of various cultures successfully. Researchers using such approaches have concentrated on self-reports for the most part, and perception of other to a lesser degree. It may well be that certain skills such as respect are generalizable across cultures. For example, Collier (1988, 1989) found that it was appropriate for acquaintances and friends to demonstrate respect for each others’ gender and role needs. Perspectives in addition to self-report can increase the representational validity of the measures. Additionally, as McCroskey (1982) notes, performance of a behavior does not mean that an individual understands why the behavior is competent and the same behavior will not always be equally effective. A discussion of this issue and rationale for emphasis on skills rather than knowledge would strengthen these approaches. The goal of this group of researchers is explicit in that practical application of results of research is expected. This goal is not only laudable but also necessary in light of increasing international and global interdependence.
Cultural Identity Approach The fourth approach to intercultural communication competence to be discussed here is exemplified by a newly proposed theoretical framework thematizing ethnic identity and communication competence. The focus is on symbolic text which emerges in a particular context, whether it is an organization, speech community, or friendship. Culture is thus an emer-
Current Approaches and Future Directions
295
gent phenomena (Collier & Thomas, 1988). This approach has been classified as more of a subjective or interpretive approach (Gudykunst & Nishida, in press). Culture is defined as an historically transmitted system of symbols, meanings, and norms (Collier & Thomas, 1988). The emphasis in this conceptualization is upon identities, intersubjectively defined by similarities in symbols and norms, which are posited to potentially change during the course of a conversation. In the early stages of intercultural communication research, the concentration was upon culture as background characteristics which predicted to other cognitive variables or social actions. These background characteristics included histories, beliefs, core values, attitudes, traditions, and verbal and nonverbal message styles (Dodd, 1987; Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981; Sarbaugh, 1979). A problem which emerges with these definitions of culture is that operationalizations of culture seldom measure all the components. In fact, culture is often measured by means of a check list of national or ethnic group labels. An additional problem is that the different components may vary in their degree of importance, and may be more or less relevant in particular contexts. For example, political representation and freedom of expression may be salient issues for Black South Africans, and taken for granted by citizens in the United States. Geertz (1973) also criticizes common eclectic conceptions of culture. Although in the past I have measured culture by having respondents generate their own label for their group, and describe generation, length of time in the United States, and other factors which can help pinpoint what is meant by their cultural affiliation; interviews and open-ended questionnaires have demonstrated to me that “Chicano,” let alone “Mexican American,” mean different things to different individuals. In addition, there are different intensities with which individuals identify with particular groups. My ultimate goal as a scholar is to understand why particular conduct is viewed as appropriate and effective and what can be learned to help individuals improve the quality of their own experience. In some encounters, nationality may be a key construct, but in others, gender, the relationship, or one’s professional position may be key constructs in the understanding and accounting for outcomes. Therefore, I believe that identity adopted, managed, and negotiated during an encounter can be an important focus. Culture can be measured thus as background and heritage, and as emergent patterned conduct around a particular thematic identity. Researchers can correlate, compare and contrast cultural background and emergent cultural identity. More specifically, two assumptions made in Collier and Thomas (1988) are that persons negotiate multiple identities in discourse and communi-
296
M. L Collier
cation is rendered intercultural by the discursive ascription and avowal of differing cultural identities. Cultural identities are identifications with and perceived acceptance into a group which has shared systems of symbols and meanings as well as norms/rules for conduct. Ting-Toomey’s research (1988, in press) on face needs in intercultural conflict is consistent with this approach. Cultural competence is conduct which is appropriate and effective for the particular cultural identity being adopted at the time in the particular situation. Ontologically, members of the culture group are expected to know how to use particular symbolic forms and what they mean, and are expected to conduct themselves appropriately. Given this definition of culture as emergent identity, competence then is also an emergent and dynamic phenomena. Epistemologically, it is however, possible to describe cultural identity and hence, cultural competence, by analyzing the text or considering cultural identity and cultural competence to be an impression of the respondents immediately following a conversation, for example. Cultural identities (and types of competencies) are posited to vary along three central, interdependent dimensions. Scope refers to the generalizability of the identity, or how many persons potentially share the identity. Salience refers to the relative importance of the identity in a particular situation relative to other identities. Intensity refers to the strength with which an identity is communicated (Collier & Thomas, 1988). Attention to the type of competency which is salient to particular identities in particular conversations addresses several very important issues. First, noting that particular rules and outcomes are salient to gender versus ethnic identities, for example, allows researchers to specify the scope of the competent action, and addresses the question, competent for whom? Secondly, explanations are strengthened by specifying the positive outcome resulting from following the rules of appropriate conduct for the particular identity. Collier (1986, 1988, 1989) and Collier et al. (1986) found that respondents described cultural, gender-specific, relational, as well as role-governed categories of appropriate actions and described a positive resulting cultural identity, gender identity, view of their relationship, and their role as outcomes from rule-following conduct. Communication emerges as intercultural when interlocutors identify themselves as different in cultural terms in the discourse or create impressions of each other as having different cultural identities. The distinction between cultural and intercultural communication competence thus becomes important. Intercultural communication competence is addressed, in this approach, as conduct perceived to be appropriate and effective for both
Current Approaches and Future Directions
297
cultural identities being advanced. In other words as one member of the dyadic conversation avows a particular cultural identity, for example, being a Chicana, the conduct of the other member should be appropriate and effective for the salient identity of Chicana. The same holds for the second member’s salient identity being competently reinforced by the other member of the dyad. Intercultural communication competence is mutually competent behavior for both cultural identities being advanced. Intercultural communication competence then can be identified in one or both of the following ways. The ascribed and avowed identities can be compared as they are evident in the discursive text and the more the cultural difference in identities and the higher the match between avowal and ascription, the higher the intercultural competence. In addition to that method, also researchers may choose to focus on competence as an impression of conduct. Respondents can be asked to identify the cultural identities adopted in particular encounters and when cultural differences are evident, to agree upon competent behavior for both the cultural identities being adopted. In this way, respondents negotiate intercultural competence together (Collier, 1989) and any inconsistency in self versus alter competence becomes moot. The epistemological method of measurement then is consistent with the joint competencies perceived by the respondents. In addition, the problem that some behaviors may be viewed as appropriate but not effective is overcome in that respondents can be asked to agree on behaviors which simultaneously meet both criteria and result in some positive outcome. Conceptualizations of culture as background or group affiliation or, on the other hand, as emergent communication patterns or impressions can be accommodated by the cultural identities approach. Cultural identities can be correlated with background or heritage to understand when persons with the same ethnic background adopt an ethnic identity and when they adopt a gender related or professional role identity. Assumptions that can be made about “lay” epistemology or the way interlocutors increase their knowledge about others and self include the foundational assumption that knowledge about self is based upon comparisons and information from others in discourse. Each individual has to know certain things in order to be a member of a cultural group. This kind of knowledge is evident in the text and is part of the theme of what is identified. An interpretive perspective is based upon the idea that interpretations from the interlocutors as they are revealed in discourse is the primary data source. Ontologically, persons are assumed to negotiate identity or face (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Ting-Toomey, in press, 1988). Personhood and identity which is salient in a given encounter may vary from situation to situation. Persons are assumed to be able to judge others’ behaviors as more or less competent.
298
A4. J. Collier
Ethnic identity, identification with and acceptance into a group with shared culture and heritage (Collier & Thomas, 1988) is not a simple predictor variable. Persons do not simply categorize another on the basis of national affiliation and judge their competence on that basis. The emergent identity adopted by an individual may be a more important factor in understanding conduct in particular in situations in which interlocutors have some history together, a working relationship or friendship. I have argued that consistency in epistemological and ontological conclusions is important in evaluating the theoretical utility of research. The experience of the interlocutors is conceptually important and is the focus of the methodology used. Representational cultural validity is increased by the focus on the actual text or upon respondents’ perceptions of the text. The correspondence value of the theoretical paradigm is consequently also increased. Coherence is addressed in that interlocutors can be asked why particular behaviors are judged appropriate and what outcomes result from following or violating the rules (Collier, 1988, 1989; Collier et al., 1986). The salience of rules and outcomes can also be described. CONCLUSION Certainly several promising research programs investigating cultural and intercultural competence exist. Each of the programs overviewed here thematizes different aspects of competence as a way of making sense of culture and communication. Emphases vary from emergent cultural patterns of conduct, an attitude adopted when persons are identified as culturally different, a set of behaviors which can lead to more effective contact, and emergent identities. The research programs can all benefit from clarification of conceptualizations of culture as well as competence, elaboration of metatheoretical foundations regarding ontology and epistemology which undergird the research, and more attention to application and implications. REFERENCES ABE, H., & WISEMAN, R. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of cross-cultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53-68. BERGER, C. R., & CHAFFEE, S. H. (1987). The study of communication as a science. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 15-20). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. BROWN, P., & LEVINSON, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness
Current Approaches and Future Directions
299
phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. CARBAUGH, D. (1988). Cultural terms and tensions in the speech at a television station. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 216-237. COLLIER, M. J. (1986). Culture and gender: Effects on assertive behavior and communication competence. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 576-592). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. COLLIER, M. J. (1988). A comparison of conversations among and between domestic culture groups: How intra- and intercultural competencies vary. Communication Quarterly, 36, 122-124. COLLIER, M. J. (1989, May). Cultural background and the culture of friendships: Normative patterns. Paper presented at the International Communication Association conference, San Francisco, CA. COLLIER, M. J., RIBEAU, S., & HECHT, M. L. (1986). Intracultural communication rules and outcomes within three domestic cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, IO, 439-458. COLLIER, M. J., & THOMAS, M. (1988). Identity in intercultural communication: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories of intercultural communication (pp. 99-120). International and intercultural Communication Annual, XII. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. COOLEY, R., & ROACH, D. (1984). A conceptual framework. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication (pp. 1l-33). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. DODD, C. (1987). Dynamics of intercultural communication. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. FISHER, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value and action. Columbia, SC: University of Southern Carolina Press. GEERTZ, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. GEERTZ, C. (1983). Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books. GERGEN, K. J. (1982). Toward transformation in social knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag. GUDYKUNST, W. B. (1988). Conference on Theory in Intercultural Communication, Arizona State University. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & HAMMER, M. R. (1984). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Culture specific or culture general? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, l-10. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & KIM, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & NISHIDA, T. (in press). Theoretical perspectives for studying intercultural communication. In M. Asante & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural and development communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. GUDYKUNST, W. B., NISHIDA, T., & CHUA. E. (1986). Uncertainty reduction in Japanese-North American dyads. Communication Research Reports, 3, 3946. GUDYKUNST, W. B., & TING-TOOMEY, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. GUDYKUNST, W. B., WISEMAN, R., & HAMMER, M. R. (1977). Determi-
300
M. 1 Collier
nants of a sojourners attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 1, (pp. 415-425). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. GUDYKUNST, W. B., YANG, S. M., & NISHIDA, T. (1985). A cross-cultural test of uncertainty reduction theory: Comparisons of acquaintance, friend and dating relationships in Japan, Korea and the United States. Human Communication Research, 11, 407-455. GUDYKUNST, W. B., YOON. Y. C., & NISHIDA, T. (1987). The influence of individualism-collectivism on perceptions of communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships. Communication Monographs, 54, 295-306. HALL, E. T (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. HAMMER, M. R. (1984). The effects of an intercultural communication workshop on participants’ intercultural communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 32, 252-262. HAMMER, M. R. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: A replication and extension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 65-88. HAMMER, M. R. (1988). Communication
skills and intercultural communication competence: A review and research agenda. In M. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), The handbook of intercultural and developmental communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. HAMMER, M. R., GUDYKUNST, W. R., & WISEMAN, R. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. Znternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382-392. HOFSTEDE, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Cross-cultural research & methodology series (Vol. 5). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. HYMES, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13-53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington. HYMES, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. l-72). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. KAPLAN, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing Co. KATRIEL, T., & PHILIPSEN, G. (1981). What we need is “communication”: “Communication” as a cultural category in some American speech. Communication Monographs, 48, 301-317. MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1982). Communication competence and performance: A research and pedagogical perspective. Communication Education, 31, l-8. PHILIPSEN, G. (1975). Speaking “like a man” in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role enactment in an urban neighborhood. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 13-22. PHILIPSEN, G. (1980). The prospect for cultural communication. Paper presented at the Seminar on Communication Theory from Eastern and Western Perspectives, East-West Communication Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu, HI. PHILIPSEN, G. (1986). Mayor Daley’s council speech: A cultural analysis. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72,247-260.
Current Approaches and Future Directions
301
PHILIPSEN, G. (1988). Conference on Theory in Intercultural Communication, Arizona State University. POWELL, R. G., & AVILA, D. R. (1986). Ethnicity, communication competency and classroom success: A question of assessment. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50,269-278. REYNOLDS, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. RUBEN, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation, Groups and organizational studies, I, 334-354. RUBEN, B. D., & KEALY, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-48. SAMOVAR, L., PORTER, R., & JAIN, N. (1981). Understanding intercultural communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. SARBAUGH, L. E. (1979). Intercultural communication. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden. SAVILLE-TROIKE, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication. Baltimore: University Park Press. SCHNEIDER, D. (1976). Notes toward a theory of culture. In K. Basso & H. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 197-220). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. SPITZBERG, B., & CUPACH W. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. TING-TOOMEY, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face negotiation theory. In Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-238). International and Intercultural Communication Annual, XII, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. TING-TOOMEY, S. (in press). Culture and interpersonal relational development: Some conceptual issues. In J. Andersen (Ed.), Communication yearbook 12. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. WISEMAN, R., & ABE, H. (1984). Finding and explaining differences: A reply to Gudykunst and Hammer. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 11-16. WISEMAN, R., HAMMER, M. R., & NISHIDA, H. (1987, May). Predictors of intercultural communication competence. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Montreal. WUTHNOW, R., HUNTER, J. D., BERGESEN, A., & KURZWEIL, E. (1984). Cultural analysis. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
?lusieurcissues critiquesce la recherdleck la wxunication culturelieet interculturelle sent exaihitis, y compisle ixesoin Oe cLart6 mnsla axxe;;ttiisationde ia muniction ollturelleet intercultladle,la valiaiti figurativeet statistiqu2cks wnstructio~s, wnsistnnce cks suGpsitions ontoloqiqws et epist&alo+qlles, clarte’ @s cuts LLculturegkeralc ou culture spe'cifiq~~ ransl'd~ort & recheralq et tiscussiona~~~opi@e ~2.9implicationset
302
M. J Collier
ap~ications. Cutre axn&ence culturelle
apgocfies amisies de l’&tuce ck la et interculturelle s0nt dbatues enterunt
a3npc Crsisslles suivants, a,qrobles &hnogrqhiques &I prier, approhes des aflitudes fonctionelles, appoches d'attitude intra-culturelle et finaliment, me apprmle Mhatisant
i@ntitk
culturelle
et aq35tence.
(author-supplied
abstract).
Se revisaron varios aspxkos critiws en 1s iluescigcih: sobrela a1xmmicaci6n aitural e interctittxd intiyelti la neasidad ck wncepu3lizaciones cl&as enla axuxnicxion cultural eintercultural, valoriztcidn estadistica y representativa de1 estado wnstructo, wnsistencia enlas supsiciones ontol6qicas y epistemolbcjicas, clari._i;c cn las mebs ckilturales generalesy espacir‘i~s dentrock eC;i‘ucrzO iruestigativo, ydiscusi&aacrcuaca [email protected] aplicaciones. Cuatro planteamientcs 3electos en el esttio de lil apitti cultural eintercultural se discuticron wnsiteralm 10s siguiertes wnspos: etrqraffia de las fomas ~2 hablar, ~antc-amientos enla M3ilic;lo ~21 wrnprtar,rier*o, $lantcamientx so&c actittzdes transculturales y ikk3lmsnte u1 +lante;r~~~ialto (author-supplier: tenatizancb apAtudeidcnticad.cultural. ahstrati).