D. Ray Heisey: Having lived life abundantly, “time is running out”

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

D. Ray Heisey: Having lived life abundantly, “time is running out” Michael H. Prosser ∗ 977 Grayson Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22903, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Advances in communication and culture China Conflict management and resolution D. Ray Heisey Damavand College Dialogic communication Middle East Professional leadership

a b s t r a c t D. Ray Heisey (1932–2011) was exceptionally well regarded both by professional colleagues and former students as an early promoter of the academic field of intercultural communication, with a lifelong commitment to the inherent value of dialogic communication at all levels of teaching and research. He was remembered as “a dedicated scholar,” “a generous soul,” as a “mentor, and model,” “extremely kind to international students,” “a great educator” who “practiced what he preached in his life,” and as Wenshan Jia eugulized him: “Ray’s professional life as an intercultural scholar, intercultural education, and intercultural practitioner was a unique success because he had integrated these three principles in his daily professional life” (Jia, 2011, May). One of Heisey’s major contributions was his advocacy of the dialogic approach to the teaching, study, and research in intercultural communication, a constant over his professional life and highlighted both in his leadership of Damavand College in Tehran and his exchange programs, teaching, and research related to China. On campus when the March 4, 1970 shootings occurred at Kent State University, he reflected well on this event. This important contribution led to his high level of interest in peace and conflict management and resolution, as seen both in his research on such conflict in the Middle East and the Soviet Union. Deeply spiritual, much of his research related to religion in communication, women’s rights, and peace issues. Visiting China eleven times, and teaching there for two semesters, his series editorship of “Advances in Communication and Culture,” following his co-editorship with Wenxiang Gong, saw the publication of five more books relating to Chinese communication, all of which enhanced the intercultural understanding of China. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction One of D. Ray Heisey, PhD’s (d. May 20, 2011) last messages to me around February 2011 was that he had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. We had last been together at the German–Chinese “Intercultural Communication Disciplinary Development Symposium” at Shanghai International Studies University in June 2010, followed immediately by the International Association for Intercultural Communication Studies Conference in Guangzhou, China. In both conferences, he was an academically very significant leader both with his keynote addresses and in leading and presenting at several sessions. Later, when he requested that I help him get his reflective article, “The Persian Jewel: Damavand College, Tehran,” published in The Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (in Asia), he wrote me “that time is running out.” He was eager to make his final academic contributions before his impending death. I assumed that this was his final article, which the Journal published in its January, 2011 issue in my condensed format, but indeed, in remembrances of him, several others have indicated that they were proud to have published a final article by him in other outlets.

∗ Tel.: +1 434 465 7468. E-mail address: [email protected] 0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.08.009

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

811

Ran An noted that she had written him in late March, 2011 to which he replied: In light of my health situation, I want you to know again how grateful I am that you gave me the wonderful opportunity in my career to be one of the keynoters at your [Guangzhou] conference last summer. It was a great honor and experience for me. Thank you again. . .” An continued: It was least expected that Prof Heisey’s keynote speech became his final academic work in his life, but fortunately that keynote speech already has been published in ICS XX(2), and I am feeling truly honored, although in great sorrow now, to be the editor who handled and published his final work. . .. Prof. Heisey remained a dedicated scholar, in every sense of the word “dedication.” (email to Dan Landis, 2011, June) Heisey was four years older than I, but we were both debaters on the national debate resolution: “The United States should recognize Red China.” Both of us received our doctorates in 1964 and shared similar intercultural and international characteristics. We were both trained initially at the doctoral level in rhetoric, including the usefulness of Plato’s Socratic dialogs, and we both later incorporated classical Greek rhetoric with Confucian ideals. Throughout our careers, both of us were very intercultural, international, and eclectic in our world views and encouraged dialogical approaches to intercultural communication (Heisey’s, “A dialog proposal for intercultural communication,” 2001/2011; Prosser, 1978). He was the chair of the [US] National Communication Association Division of International and Intercultural Communication and I was the first chair of the initial commission which led later to the establishment of the division; we each were president of an international communication organization, he for AICIS and I for SIETAR International; we both taught in China, he in 1996 and 2000, and I from 2001–2011; each of us was a series editor for Ablex Publishing Company, he for “Advances in Communication and Culture” and I for “Civic Discourse for the Third Millennium.” Each of us engaged frequently in research projects with various intercultural colleagues. Heisey reflected on his first academic publication, “The Rhetoric of the Arab–Israeli Conflict,” initially published in Quarterly Journal of Speech (1970), which was later included in my edited book, Intercommunication among Nations and Peoples (1973): I would like to comment on a quality that I feel Michael and I share. I was encouraged by his example, which helped me to model my behavior in similar ways. I refer to the interest in and commitment to the invitation to our students and colleagues to submit their scholarly work for publication consideration. He has always done this throughout his career as I have also. My first major publication in the intercultural field was my article in the Quarterly Journal of Speech on “The Rhetoric of the Arab–Israeli Conflict” in 1970 I can still remember how excited I was as a young scholar to receive his invitation to submit my journal article to his forthcoming book, Intercommunication. . .. I have always tried to encourage my students to submit their papers for conference presentation and publication consideration. When I taught those two times in China (1996; 2000), I always tried to invite my students to submit their work at NCA, Michael’s RIT conferences, the conferences of the International Academy for Intercultural Research in which I am a Fellow and other places. . ..” (Heisey in Zhang, 2009) Although he often claimed that I was a mentor for him, I believe that we were co-mentors for each other. Robert N. St. Clair and Nobuyuki Honna in their earlier essay “In Honor of Dr. D. Ray Heisey, President, IAICS, 2001–2003” (2005) gave him high praise: It should be noted that the International Association for Intercultural Communication is not the only organization that has honored Dr. Heisey. He was chosen as a Coolidge Research Fellow in the Association for Religion and Intellectual Life in 1991; he received a special citation from the Ohio Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Ohio as “one of Ohio’s finest educators” in 1996; he received the President’s Medal by the Kent State University Board of Trustees for “30 years of outstanding service to Kent State University” in 1997; and he received the Distinguished Alumnus Award for “Outstanding Service through Vocational Excellence” from the Alumni Association of Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, in 2002. (St. Clair & Honna, 2005, p. 1–2) Following his death, Guo-Ming Chen wrote: Dr. Heisey was one of the most generous souls I’ve ever met. . .. As a member of my dissertation committee and the director of the graduate program, he expected nothing but the best work from me, yet he was kind in offering personal and academic help whenever I needed it. Dr. Heisey’s enthusiasm, devotion to education and personal and scholarly integrity continue to impact me now, 28 years after I first met him. Dr. Heisey was my mentor and will forever remain my role model. (cited in Young & Garmon, 2011, p. 1) At his memorial service on May 28, 2011, Mei Zhong commented: I was honored to be his last doctoral student at Kent before he retired in the end of spring 1996. . .. Dr. Heisey was extremely kind to international students. So, beyond his interest and theoretical work in intercultural communication, he also practiced what he preached in his life. I especially remember and appreciate his inquisitive spirit in that he

812

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

was always eager and ready to explore anything. I think that is why he was able to maintain a fresh look at life till the very end. Dr. Heisey truly embodied a great educator and a wonderful human being. He was a beautiful soul and those of us who’ve had the good fortune to have met and worked with him are truly blessed. (Young & Garmon, 2011, p. 1; Zhong, 2011, May 31) Young and Garmon note that: “he was recognized in May (2011) for his earlier assistance and advice in the publication of ‘The Cultural Element of Falun Gong in China: A Rhetorical Perspective’, 2011). His work encompassed multiculturalism, cultural diversity, global communication, political communication, women’s roles and communication, religion in communication, genealogy, and history” (Young & Garmon, 2011, p. 1.) Dan Landis sent an email message to several of us, saying: “Ray was a long time Fellow of the Academy and a strong supporter of its work. He was a very valuable member of the editorial board of IJIR. We will miss him and his wonderful insights to intercultural communication and relations” (Landis, 2011, May 26). Wenshan Jia, in his eulogy presented at the July 2011 Singapore International Academy of Intercultural Research stated: I see Ray as an embodiment of some fundamental principles of intercultural communication. First and foremost, Ray recognized the existence of equal amount of potential for humanity, never more for some human groups and never less for other ones. Furthermore, he seems to have practiced the conviction that the more ideologically and culturally different certain human groups are, the more an interculturalist needs to immerse him/herself with them to achieve a better understanding and cultivate a working relationship. Last but not least, Ray seems to have practiced the conviction that the less communication scholarship there is on a given culture, the more such scholars need to be empowered. His successful efforts to go beyond the European model of rhetoric and explore rhetoric and communication in the Middle East and China illustrate the above very well. I believe that Ray’s professional life as an intercultural scholar, intercultural education, and intercultural practitioner was a unique success because he had integrated these three principles in his daily professional life. (Jia, 2011, May, http://www.michaelprosser.com) In my eulogy in CRTNET (presented by Kulich at the biennial IAIR conference, along with Jia’s, when we were unable to be in Singapore, July, 2011), I commented that: “he lived life abundantly, as a husband, father, grandfather; professionally as a major leader and contributor to the development of intercultural communication as a field; and as the prophet Micah said, ‘Walking humbly with his God”’ (Prosser, 2011, May 25). 2. Heisey’s intercultural dialogical approach In an essay during his presidency of the International Association for Intercultural Communication Studies at the crosscultural communication conference in Hong Kong, 2001, Heisey expanded on his notion that intercultural communication inherently requires the dialogical process to have any validity. He provided a number of examples by which dialog could be enhanced interculturally. 2.1. A dialog proposal I believe that if the intercultural communication field is to grow as it should, there must be more dialog both in teaching our students and in our research. It always fills me with greater confidence when I see the authorship of an intercultural communication research paper or chapter or book consists of an Eastern name and a Western name. . .. First, how can dialog be used in the substance of teaching intercultural communication? We obtain our materials from this text or that text, or from this journal article or from that journal article, on selected issues or topics, such as nonverbal, cultural identity, cultural adaptation and language codes. I am proposing in the dialogic approach that we purposefully select those texts that present differing views and interpretations of the data so that students can see that scholars differ and disagree on certain findings. . .. In the process of teaching, as well as in the substance of teaching, we should engage in dialog. We can do this at two levels. We can invite in a colleague from another department who may have a different perspective as an anthropologist or sociologist or psychologist, who can help create a real encounter of ideas, demonstrating to the student how ideas grow and develop confrontational dialog, where we question each other’s premises, methods, sources, data interpretation, and findings. . .. In the process of teaching, as well as in the substance of teaching, we should engage in dialog. . .. Of course, an ideal approach, which I admit is more problematic in implementing, is to have a course that is team-taught by two instructors who have differing points of view. . .. Still another approach to dialogic teaching is to engage students in the process. We know from our own experience that more learning takes place when both student and teacher are actively involved. Very early in my teaching career I mounted an honors course in argumentation that was based on the Socratic method of dialog, with question and answer, advancing and defending students’ ideas among themselves and with the professor. . ..

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

813

Second, this case study (which Heisey discusses as a dialog between him and a Chinese student at Peking University) is an excellent example of a creative mind at work, which grew out of an intellectual dialog where there was a disagreement between her and the professor’s position on a subject. The argument took on the form of a creative and artistic and intellectual answer instead of the usual for arguments with propositions, supporting arguments, evidence from well-established sources, and references from the literature. . .. Third, this case study serves as an example of a very useful tool for teaching intercultural communication to students who may not have had much opportunity experiencing other cultures (Zhang & Heisey, 2001, pp. 3–4). In summary on this point, I think that we don’t use dialog enough in our teaching of the substance of intercultural communication and in the process of teaching it in the classroom. I am proposing that as teachers of intercultural communication we each take on the responsibility of creating our own personal approach to dialogic teaching and do it this next semester, as a commitment to the central concept of our discipline that diversity and identity are two sides of the same coin. Finally, let me say a word about dialog in research. Again, in terms of both the substance and the process of research, we should engage in more dialog. Let’s try to engage a colleague who has a different perspective or is from a different culture to sound out our research questions, our research objectives, our research issues. We should make our efforts truly collaborative, not with someone who agrees with us, or has the same perspective, but someone who disagrees with us or who doesn’t share our assumptions. . .. Enriched by the new research and invigorated by our new dialog, let us continue the task and the opportunity of transforming our own minds, the minds of our students, and the communities in which we live, as exemplars of intercultural communication. . .. When we acknowledge the rule of transparency, we reach the conclusion of multidimensionality of intercultural communication. When we see the multidimensions of intercultural communication, we are confronted with the second rule, which is interconnectedness. The many dimensions of intercultural communication lead us to the conclusion that all these intercultural dimensions are related and connected and are interdependent. Positive interconnectedness is a hallmark of the postmodern era. Global economics and global information technology are creating a world-wide web of massive and infinite proportions such that more and more people are going to be faced with the necessity of intercommunication with all peoples and all places all the time. (excerpts from Heisey, 2002a, 2002b, pp. 1–9) Two new proposed joint unpublished articles came to my attention after his death, both of which explicitly follow his dialogic model: Mansoureh Sharifzadeh’s article with him, “A Case Study in Using Imagination to Teach English in Iranian Public Schools,” in which both Iranian and American secondary students wrote and drew pictures about their perceptions of the other culture, and “Iranian Communication Studies Perspective: D. Ray Heisey’s Interview Questions for Ehsan Shaghasemi of the University of Tehran,” about the development of communication and academic publications in intercultural communication in the Iranian university community, both of which I have later published in my blog, http://www.michaelprosser.com, posts 185 and 188. In his article, “The Persian Jewel: Damavand College, Tehran, Iran” (2011), Heisey wrote: “Because of that experience with Iran, I realized that Damavand, named for the highest mountain in Iran, was a symbol of reaching higher heights. It now had become a living symbol of my research agenda in intercultural communication leading me to many different culture and into leading intercultural journals and into the leadership of international associations of intercultural scholars.” Ending his article, he wrote: “What is remarkable is that I discovered that my reflecting on this Persian jewel helped me to see that these same benefits had been accomplished in my life as well” (2011, January). Because both Ehsan Shaghasemi and Mansoureh Sharifzadeh became aware of my CRTNET obituary for Heisey and my blog http://www.michaelprosser.com, we also began a dialog, based on our mutual friendship with Heisey. Shaghasemi’s obituary is posted also on my blog (2011, May, Post 189). Particularly in the case of Sharifzadeh, this has led to my publication of the following articles on the blog: Prosser, “Ten Professional Questions for Mansoureh Sharifzadeh” (2012, February 23, Post 352); Sharifzadeh: “Damavand College, Tehran, Iran: A Path to Intellectual Openness” (2011: June 28, Post 191); “Iran–America: Positive Intercultural Communication” (2011, July 12, Post 204); “The Iran Youth Is Getting Older” (2011, July 24, Post 212); “Fasting: A Spiritual and Physical Upgrading in Unity and Communication” (2011, August 18, Post 224); “The Impact of Common Ground in the Iranian–Iraqi Relationship” (2011, November 11, Post 295): and “Ten Friendly Questions for Michael H. Prosser,” (2012, February 18, Post 369). In this way, Heisey’s dialogical engagement with these two Iranian teachers, essentially through email, Mansoureh Sharifzadeh, his last international visitor at his home in Kent, Ohio, and Ehsan Shaghasemi who had many email exchanges with Heisey, although they had never met, has modeled, especially for Sharifzadeh and me, through on-going emails and blog posts, a whole new set of intercultural dialogs. Indeed, my exchanges with Sharifzadeh led me to write on the blog and for her to present to her own secondary students, “A Letter of Friendship for Young Iranians,” (2012, February 14, Post 353), thus potentially expanding the dialog in Sharifzadeh and Heisey’s “A Case Study,” between me and young Iranians whom Sharifzadeh was teaching when Heisey and she had their exchange. Now, as coeditors, I, Sharifzadeh and Zhang Shengyong are completing a book based on my blog and our blog contributions, Finding Cross-cultural Common Ground (forthcoming), further recognizing Heisey’s influence on us.

814

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

3. The May 4, 1970 Kent State shootings Heisey was teaching at Kent State University on May 4, 1970 when the same-aged National Guard soldiers as the students opened rapid fire on them at the order of the governor, killing four and wounding nine others (one of whom was permanently paralyzed). Heisey is listed in the Kent State University archives of Professor Jerry M. Lewis, who wrote frequently about the tragedy and collected files on the event then and subsequently. This tragedy was extensively reported in The People’s Daily in China. During the winter and spring quarters of 1978, I was serving as Heisey’s replacement during his final semester as President of Damavand College, and the haunting reminder of what happened on May 4, 1970 was still a strong negative reminder for members of Kent State University. Among his scholarly works on that event are articles in 1972, 1982, and 1983. Heisey’s essay, “Sensitivity to an image” (1982) discusses the reactions about establishing a monument and its image honoring the event. That particular monument was later erected at Princeton University, but in the 1990s a new monument was built near the knoll where the 1970 shootings had taken place. The University library has a very large collection of books, documents, magazines, and photos about the event.

4. His religious, women’s rights, and peace scholarship Through our lengthy professional friendship, I was aware of his deep spirituality, and even that after his retirement he had twice taught a semester at Messiah College, as he had done as well before joining the faculty at Kent State University, connected to the Church of the Brethern, one of the historic peace churches. I had not concentrated on his bachelor of theology, his ministerial ordination for the Church of the Brethern, or his extensive writing and scholarship relating to the Church, for example, his early and continuing articles and books relating to religious communication and the Church of the Brethern (1969, 1971, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2004). Like our late professional colleagues, Nobleza-Asunción Lande (Pennington, in this issue of IJIR) and K.S. Sitaram (Prosser, in this issue of IJIR), Heisey was definitely dedicated not only to women’s rights and peace studies, both as an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethern, but also from his own early to later scholarship, for example in several of his academic conference presentations and articles related to women (1979, 1980, 1981) and peace and conflict resolution studies (1990; 1991). One of his interesting religious articles was his “Christian Comprehensiveness” (1970) in which he discusses how the writer to the Hebrews [perhaps Paul?] was scolding the Roman Christians in their drift from the faith and suggesting at least four causes, one being formalism, a second being sluggishness, a third being a combination of persecution and disillusionment; and fourth being complacency. Then Heisey compares this first century situation to the contemporary drift from the church, again with four major responses: Christian radicals who say the church is sick and needs to break with its theological roots; the popularity of “the death of God” as expressed in J.A.T. Robinson’s book Honest to God (1963) which called into question many of the basic assumptions which Christians had held for years; Harvey Cox’s The Secular City (1965) (in contrast to Augustine’s fourth century, The City of God) which argued that many Christians were believing that living a secular life was more advantageous than living a spiritual life; and Joseph Fletcher’s Situation Ethics (1966), suggesting that all ethics were by that time relative to the situation in which people found themselves. Heisey analytically compared the arguments during the period of Paul and the contemporary period of the late 1960s, illustrating the logical faults in the negative arguments from both periods, and articulating the solutions for Christians to overcome these logical errors (Heisey, 1970a, 1970b). None of his articles about the role and rights of women, nor his essays on peace are available, although his essays on conflict management and resolution are found in Chen and Ma’s Chinese Conflict Management and Resolution (2002) and Chan and McIntyre’s Beyond Boundaries: Communication, Nation States, and Cultural Identity (2002) and in his essays on conflict management and resolution in the Middle East (as noted earlier).

5. His teaching and scholarship related to Europe Heisey and his family spent one year during his doctorate at the University of Edinburgh, which he said broadened his family’s intercultural and international outlook. He was a Visiting Professor at the University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium in 1972; a Visiting Professor of Communication at the Center for Communication Studies in the Department of Applied Psychology at the University of Lund, Sweden in the fall semester of 1992; and a Visiting Professor of International Communication in the Department of International Politics of the Estonian School of Diplomacy, in May 1993. Several of his articles indicate his scholarly interest resulting from these international teaching and scholarly exchange situations (1974, 1977, 1983, 1986, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996). In the interview with him by Qiu and Witteborn for the Journal of Chinese Communication (2008; Post 178 on http://www.michaelprosser.com), Heisey comments on these experiences and his scholarship: My intercultural journey that gave me overseas experiences in Belgium, Sweden, Estonia, and Iran influenced directly my approach to the study of the rhetoric of conflict and revolution. Whenever I had the privilege of teaching and researching in these international settings, I made a point of trying to learn my hosts’ approaches to transforming society, whether in small ways in social movements or in large revolutionary confrontations with the powers that be

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

815

In Belgium in 1972, opposition to the Vietnam War was in full swing, so I studied their posters and the rhetoric used in the anti-war rallies I attended as an observer In 1992 in Sweden, the peaceful opposition to the announced marches of the “skinheads” in Lund against immigrants and the reaction to the assassination of Olaf Palme created much influential rhetoric. In Estonia in 1993, I learned from students in my rhetoric class about the successful revolution against the Soviets by their effective “singing” campaigns. In Iran I learned from my hosts about their Persian and Islamic cultural values and how those values affect the communication process, including how to answer the threat of shutting down Damavand College where I was serving as president. Upon returning to the United States in the summer of 1978 and watching the Iranian Revolution of 1978–79 unfold, I examined the rhetoric of that revolution. I published, along with one of my doctoral students (I believe strongly in collaborating with my students), two major journal articles on the contrasting rhetoric of the Shah of Iran and the Ayatollah Khomeini with a focus on the concepts of authority and legitimacy Some of his most challenging European-based essays relate to his understanding of the Soviet Union and conflict management and resolution there and there is evidence from his son Ian Heisey that his father and his mother had personally been to the Soviet Union.

6. Heisey’s teaching, research, and administration in the Middle East In the essay, “Rhetoric of the Arab–Israeli Conflict,” noted above, Heisey indicates that the purpose of this article descriptively considers relational, ideological, and situational dimensions, adapted from Wayne Brockriede’s essay, “Dimensions of the Concept of Rhetoric” (1968) concerning the six day 1967 war and its aftermath. In fact, it appears to me to be appropriately analytical as well. Identifying these three dimensions, he noted that the first is relational (including acceptance – of Israel’s right to exist), power (Israel’s military strength and therefore an upper hand in negotiations with the Arab states), and the disparity of and distance between the rhetorical participants. In favor, however, of the Arabs was the world public opinion (seeing the Arabs being treated unjustly by the Israeli government). Second is the ideological dimension, with the Arab states wanting peace with justice – accusing the Israel of violating international law), and the Israeli government wanting security and peace – requiring the Arab governments to extend recognition of Israel with a sound peace treaty, while ending their belligerence toward Israel. Among the situational dimensions, Heisey notes that the Israeli position was rhetorically noncommunicative; there was an appearance on both sides of irrational propaganda; and both sides accepted the prevalent misconceptions about the other. As a part of this dimension, Heisey argues that the Israeli government claimed that the Soviet Union was strongly backing the Arab states against Israel, while the Arabs felt that the US and Israel were jointly involved in a state of moral confusion toward them. Heisey concludes by observing that both sides needed to deescalate their dysfunctional rhetoric and to accept minimal conditions for positive communication between the two sides. Heisey states that, “if this rhetoric continues, it can only create an escalation of the conflict. But if it can be modified, either by the will of the disputants themselves, or by the overwhelming moral force of world opinion, perhaps there is a ray of hope for a functional rhetoric that would assist in a resolution” (pp. 306–312). We can see in this early article Heisey’s goal of constructive dialog as a means of overcoming division and moving toward a successful conclusion. This idea is typical also in many of his later essays relating to peace, management and resolution of conflicts, as well as including among his five books as series editor for “Advances in Communication and Culture” (e.g. Chan & McIntyre, 2001; Chen & Ma, 2001) and his own essays in those books. He served as President and Professor of Speech Communication at Damavand College, a religious college for women in Tehran, Iran from 1975–78, the last American president of the College before the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which prevented the selected American woman president as his successor from completing her presidency. In several of his essays and comments on Damavand College, for example, his “The Persian Jewel: Damavand College: Tehran, Iran” (2011, January), he indicates how he had to engage in constructive dialog with members of the Damavand College community, and more importantly with local authorities to avoid having the College closed. As had occurred earlier in his European visiting professorships, his entire family, including his three sons, accompanied him during this period, meaning that at least marginally, they were also fully engaged in his own dialog there and in the Iranian society of that time from 1975 to the summer of 1978. Mansoureh Sharifzadeh, an undergraduate at Damavand College while Heisey was its President (1975–78), notes: In 1979 the Islamic Republic of Iran replaced Pahlavi Dynasty and the Iran–Iraq war broke out in 1980. The relationship between the USA and Iran became pale and dreams of cooperation seemed to find their way to an everlasting frustration. In 1998, an unexpected message of the [second] last president, D. Ray Heisey, of Damavand College was thrilling. For preparing a presentation [in 1998] on what had happened to graduates of Damavand, he appreciated hearing from me. The information gave life to some invaluable details that were recorded in “The Persian Jewel: Damavand College, Tehran, Iran” by Professor D. Ray Heisey [which I (Prosser) later condensed, reorganized, and published in the January 2011 issue of The Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (in Asia)].

816

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

The continuation of a 4-year constant contact brought the most prosperous memories and awareness that emphasized the importance of dialog between the two nations that have been considering each other as the ‘Axis of Evil’ and the ‘Great Satan’ during the last 3 decades. Our profound belief in a peaceful relationship between the two countries is the main concept of our joint paper, “The Visual and Artistic Rhetoric of Americans and Iranians of Each Other Impacted by Media” in which a sobering issue has been brought up. (Sharifzadeh, 2011, June 28, Post 191, http://www.michaelprosser.com) Ehsan Shaghasemi speaks of his collaboration with Heisey, despite never having met him: Our first contact goes back to five years ago and when my paper had been accepted for presentation in a conference in U.S. Professor Heisey emailed me then asked if I am planning to attend. My answer was negative given the hard procedure of getting a U.S visa for Iranian citizens. However, our communication continued and we together have done some important projects. Shaghasemi notes in an email to me on February 27, 2012 that, “The real story was a bit different. Professor Heisey asked me to go to Damavand College and take some photos for him. I went but they did not let me in. I climbed from the back wall and jumped in. After taking many photos, they noticed me and I ran away. . .. The first one was “The cross-cultural schemata of Iranian–American people toward each other: A qualitative approach.” It was published in the Journal of Intercultural Communication Studies and is acknowledged as a main contribution in the theory of cultural schemata. We also presented this paper in conferences in the U.S., China, and Iran. My second project with Professor Heisey was “Iranians, Americans, Beyond the Media Construct.” In this project Goudarz Mirani joined us. This paper was presented in the Netherlands and U.S. and now has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Intercultural Communication. Shaghasemi wrote me in an email on February 27, 2011, “After I wrote this note, the reviewers asked me to change the title. The article is now published: http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr27/shahghasemi.htm.” Our third common project was “A Comparative Rhetorical Analysis of the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso.” In this study we worked with Danielle Fisher from Hiram College. This paper was presented in the U.S. by Danielle Fisher but when I went to China to present the paper the Chinese security services banned its presentation and delimited my communication with other delegations. This paper is being reviewed by Sage Open for publication. I am also honored to be Professor Heisey’s consultant on many other projects. (Shaghasemi, 2001, June 27, Post 189, http://www.michaelprosser.com; Shaghasemi is also a member of the International Academy for Intercultural Research and Heisey was one of his sponsors). Later, commenting on the variance of thought on dialog and globalization from an Iranian communication perspective, Heisey comments on the views of an Iranian author, S.H. Sehhat: [The] interpretation of dialog from the communication discipline may be compared to that coming from the political world of a Third-World country, specifically, Iran. In a recent article, “Globalization and Different Perspectives,” the Iranian author says that globalization “is a positive force for all the people of the world” if it does not “push any nation to the margin on the basis of culture, economic, and political system” and if it creates “a discourse based not on power but love and spiritualism” and promotes “mutual respect among cultures, civilizations and spiritual traditions. (Sehhat, 2000, p. 13) If the view from the West, and from the East, and from the Middle East, sees the need for a dialog not only of cultures but of civilizations, perhaps the Dutch scholar, J.P. van Oudenhoven, has a point when he argues the need for “a cultura franca”, or “the formation of a common culture” that promotes “integration” without losing “identities” (van Oudenhoven & Willemsen, 1989, p. 250). In one of Heisey’s final academic papers, published in 2011, about which Ran An speaks in her eulogy, “Iranian Perspectives on Communication in an Age of Globalization,” he states in his abstract: Though much research is being conducted on Chinese and Asian communication, one area that has not received much attention in communication research is the Middle East, and more specifically, Iran. Iran is one of the leading nations in the Middle East region that has a culturally-rich history and civilization. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the state of the intercultural communication discipline in Iran and some of the recent thinking and writing in Iran that command this attention of scholars in intercultural communication. The movement in the University of Tehran, led by Dr. Saied Reza Ameli, toward the study of intercultural communication and globalization is examined for its impact on transforming Islamic identity Ameli’s research on cultural policy formation and cultural duality formation is also examined. The conclusion is that the efforts being made in Iran by Iranian scholars should be studied more and understood better by communication scholars so that research theory and practice in that country can take its rightful place in the globalization of communication study (Heisey, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d, 2011e, p. 36).

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

817

7. His exchange programs, teaching, and scholarship related to China Heisey told Mei Zhong and her PhD classmates at Kent State University that as a child he had a great eagerness to travel to China and kept maps of China at his home desk. As I have noted above, he debated the US national debate topic: “Resolved that the United States should recognize Red China.” This particular topic caused the US government to forbid any students from the US military academies from participating in these debates as it was considered impossible that the government would take such an action at that time. He spoke first in Haikou, Hanan Island, China in 1993 about the cultural characteristics of Chinese communication patterns. In 1994 in Beijing, he discussed the rhetorical aspects of Chinese modernization. The dean of the Chinese Language Department at the International Relations Institute gave him a book on rhetoric in China, which was a surprise to Heisey. At that time, there was a popular magazine started in 1984, Speech and Oral Discourse, which had nearly a million readers. Books were beginning to come out in China on public speaking and debate. Heisey brought McCroskey’s text, An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication (1993), which was then used at Kent State University. Discussions also took place about Jiazheng Wu’s The Rhetorical Art of the Modern Chinese Language (1992); Deqang Liu’s edited book, The Theory of Public Speaking (1992); and A.S. Cua’s Ethical Argumentation: A Study in Hsün Tzu’s Moral Epistomology (1985). Heisey comments that “The essential attitude of one engaged in argumentation is the willingness to keep engaged in this process of seeking understanding, not to become contentious, and second, the essential requirement is to demonstrate competence in discrimination” (Heisey, 2002a, 2002b). Heisey’s experience led to the exchange of professors interested in public speaking and debate between Kent State University and Beijing faculty. Heisey comments on his early Chinese experience in dialog in connection with the Guangming Daily newspaper: A Chinese scholar/journalist, Zhang Ming, whom I invited to my department for a couple months, ended up asking me if we would like to have an exchange program with his Guangming Daily newspaper, whereby 4 of our professors would be their guests in China for two weeks and 4 of their journalists would later be our guests for two weeks in the US. We could learn more about each other’s culture and have discussions with colleagues about common interests in research and teaching. We started that exchange in 1992 and just a couple months ago celebrated the 10th anniversary. Some of the Kent State professors, who come from many different departments, have told me that it has changed their lives and has enriched their teaching in ways they never could have imagined. Dialog in research should also include the give and take of building the concept right from the beginning in a dialectical fashion. The visiting scholar/journalist [Shijie Guan] who came to my school for a few months and I developed a regular meeting schedule in which we had a dialog on what we called the characteristics of each one’s culture. We sat down together and talked out our ideas, verbalized what we each thought were the primary characteristics of the Chinese culture as he saw them and as I saw them, and then we did the same for the characteristics of American culture. Each conversation helped us think through with clarity and precision how we wanted to characterize these elements in comparison to each other. We had some disagreements, as well. This dialog formed a basis for proceeding with other possibilities in searching the literature for the research findings on the issue. In this particular case, our dialogic efforts were put into a paper (Heisey, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c) that was presented at a conference in Haikou, Hainan Island. (Heisey, 2002a, 2002b, Communication and Culture) Heisey was a Visiting Professor of International Communication, School of International Studies, at Peking University, first in the fall semester of 1996–97 and later during the fall semester of 2000–2001, at Renmin University, Beijing, China. In 1998, because of the series editor vacancy in the Ablex series, “Advances in Communication and Culture,” I recommended to the company’s editor for my series, William Cody, that Heisey be named its series editor. As the series editor in my “Civic Discourse for the Third Millennium” series, I had two books related to China under contract: Randy Kluver and John H. Powers’ co-edited Civic Discourse, Civil Society, and Chinese Communities (1999), and Wenshan Jia’s The Remaking of the Chinese Character and Identity in the 21st Century: Chinese Face Practices (2001). In terms of Heisey’s interest in China, Cody and I agreed that as series editor of “Advances,” Heisey should concentrate essentially on Chinese communication. He and Wenxiang Gong had already published their co-edited book, Communication and Culture: China and the World Entering the 21st Century (1998). Subsequently, under his series editorship for “Advances in Communication and Culture,” five books were published (Chan & McIntyre, 2001; Chen & Ma, 2001; Heisey, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; Jia, Lu, & Heisey, 2002; Lu, Jia, & Heisey, 2002). Despite his expectation that new books would appear in 2003, Greenwood Publishing Group, which had purchased Ablex, decided that his series would end after 2002. At the Hong Kong conference of the International Association of Intercultural Communication Studies (IAICS) in 2001, Heisey discussed the expectation for the five volumes under his series editorship: The first volume, which I edited, which some of you have seen, was published last year under the title, Chinese Perspectives in Rhetoric and Communication. In this volume, I attempted to pick up where Professor Robert T. Oliver of

818

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

Penn State left off when he published his book, Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China (1971), close to the year in which our field of intercultural communication, as we know it, began to emerge. “In this groundbreaking work,” I argued, “Oliver acknowledged that his book was a ‘pioneering inquiry’ and one that ‘will lead to further and more definitive investigations’ (p. ix). . .. He stated an assumption that is evidenced over and over again in the present volume by these Chinese authors, ‘Rhetoric always is authentic only in its cultural matrix’ (p. ix). The present cultural perspectives in rhetoric and communication by authentic Chinese researchers may be considered advances beyond the interpretation offered by Professor Oliver. . .” (Heisey, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, p. 6). The first volume, then, begins with the examination of selected aspects of communication theory as found in the Chinese context and in political rhetoric, in order to bring into the dialog, or more accurately to continue the dialog with a Chinese perspective, because the year before, in 1999, Randy Kluver and John Powers edited the award-winning book, Civic Discourse, Civil Society, and Chinese Communities (1999). The second volume, to come out in January 2002, is edited by Joseph M. Chan and Bryce T. McIntyre, both of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who put together a book that is on the cutting edge. Its title, In Search of Boundaries: Communication, Nation-States, and Cultural Identities, suggests how its contents are pushing us at many different edges. Its chapters take up the concept of how boundaries are dissolving at cultural levels, in films, in marketing, in on-line relationships and in personal and political arenas. Then it presents chapters on how boundaries are also being reasserted as nations attempt to give answers, satellite broadcasting domesticates, media and national identities redesign boundaries, and finally, chapters on the crossing of boundaries in the media, in popular culture and in globalization at many levels. . .. The third volume in the Ablex series is entitled, ‘Chinese Conflict Management and Resolution’ (2002) edited by Guo-Ming Chen (University of Rhode Island) and Ringo Ma (SUNY at Fredonia). The purpose of this volume is to bring together some of the latest research on conflict management and its resolution from the Chinese perspective. With the WTO taking in the greatest nation on Earth in terms of its potential market, and with the economic reform movement in China moving headlong into the 21st Century, there is unparalleled interest in understanding how conflict can be managed from an Eastern perspective. The fourth volume in the series is Chinese Communication Studies: Advances, Challenges, and Prospects, edited by Jia et al. (2002). This volume continues the focus of volume number 3 on Chinese communication with an emphasis on describing the state of the art in Chinese theory and research. One of the chief contributions of this volume is the metatheoretical critique it provides. . .. The fifth volume that will also come out in this series next year is a companion volume to number 4 and is titled, Chinese Communication Studies: Contexts and Comparisons, edited by Lucy Lu, Wenshan Jia, and D. Ray Heisey. The lead editor of this volume, Lucy Lu, says, “It examines multiple factors that contribute to the dynamics of Chinese communication in different regions (mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan), across time (historical and contemporary), and through various means (e.g. media, political expediency, appropriation of traditional Chinese cultural values). The authors engage their studies through diverse approaches: historical, rhetorical, critical, ethnographic, and comparative.” As the impact of communication on culture and of culture on communication continues to fascinate scholars in our field, this series of five volumes, in the process of being published now, should offer us fertile soil for dialog and reflection and for building theory that may have uniquely Chinese characteristics as well as universal elements. One of the strong characteristics of these volumes is the implicit, if not explicit, way in which they serve as response in a cultural dialog between West and East, between traditional perspectives and different perspectives. Just as individuals engage in intercultural communication at the micro level, so cultures engage each other in intercultural communication at the macro level. This series highlights dialog and conforms to the rule of transparency – acknowledging that our sources are Western, or Eastern, or otherwise. (Heisey, 2002a, 2002b, Communication and Culture, pp. 6–7) St. Clair and Honna note that Heisey also served as a consultant in China: “Dr. Heisey has served as an international communication advisor to two international firms: (1) Beijing New Beicheng Industrial Development Company (an international company that produces and markets database CD-ROM projects) with offices in New York and Beijing, and (2) Guangming Public Relations Company (consultant in data acquisition, government policies, marketing strategies, and information transmission for international companies that wish to do business with China), Beijing, China” (St. Clair & Honna, 2005). One of Heisey’s important articles on China in 2010 was “The Chinese Characteristics of President Hu Jintao.” Analyzing Hu’s 2005 speech noting the 50th anniversary of “The War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression and the World Antifascist War,” he proposed five rhetorical examples of Hu’s rhetoric with Chinese characteristics: (1) Hu draws on lessons from recent history; (2) Hu uses the rhetorical language of his famous ‘comrades’; (3) Hu advances an independent foreign policy, like his predecessors; (4) Hu promises an improvement for the Party for its continued success; (5). Hu argues that international differences should be settled through dialog. Heisey concludes

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

819

his essay by stressing that these “features are consistent with the traditional rhetoric used by recent Chinese political leaders and are within the traditional Chinese ‘path of development and peace’. (Heisey, 2010, p. 58) On May 25, 2010, Heisey’s son Kevin helped him create a blog and get on Skype. To the best of my knowledge, there may have been only two posts for his wife, Susanne, and his sons and their families, as that is all that are identified. Heisey comments: Two weeks from tomorrow I leave for China. My three papers that I am scheduled to present are now finished except for last-minute revisions I may decide to make. One is a 20-min keynote address in Shanghai on my experiences in publishing Chinese communication studies and one is a 30-min keynote address in Guangzhou on Iranian perspectives on communication. The third is a jointly-authored paper with Ehsan Shaghasemi from Tehran on “Speaking Truth to Power”. In addition to these three papers, I am scheduled to be on a panel of former presidents of the IAICS to answer questions from the audience about where the organization and discipline are going I am looking forward to visiting China once again. I haven’t been there since 2005 but that was Taipei which some would not count as China. Counting Taipei and Hong Kong this will be my 11th trip – 1978 March and 1978 May, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2010. I expect that I will not recognize what I see because there will be so many changes. I expect to see two of my former Chinese students there – Olivia in Shanghai and Jiangmei in Guangzhou. (http://www.rayheiseyblog.com) Heisey was very well received both in Shanghai and in Guangzhou; he greeted us very warmly; provided an excellent keynote at each location; and enjoyed going with the German–Chinese symposium participants on June 14, 2010 to the World Expo in Shanghai after the symposium ended. In Guangzhou, when the conference was ending, he engaged in a line dance with the group. It was the last time that we saw each other – time was running out. He died on May 20, 2011. 8. His professional contributions, leadership and unpublished works St. Clair and Honna note that: Heisey also has belonged to numerous professional organizations: Speech Communication Association of Ohio, Central States Communication Association Eastern Communication Association, National Communication Association, International Communication Association, International Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research, Chinese Communication Association, Association for Chinese Communication Studies, International Association of University Presidents, Association for Religion and Intellectual Life, World Communication Association, Phi Beta Delta (Honor Society for International Scholars), Beta Zeta Chapter, International Association for Intercultural Communication Studies, Cleveland Council for World Affairs, Fellow in the International Academy for Intercultural Research. He was the program planner for competitive programs at SCA, SCAO, ISIETAR, and CSCA. He served a chair of the Peace Communication Commission of SCA in 1989–1990 and as chair of the International and Intercultural Communication Division of the National Communication Association in 2001–2002. And, of course, Dr. Heisey was the Vice President of IAICS in 1999–2001 and President in 2001–2003. (St. Clair & Honna, 2005, p. 3) St. Clair and Honna further note that: Dr. Heisey has not only served IAICS well, he also has a long record of service to his university and community. For example, in 2002, he served as the President of the Phi Beta Delta, an honorary chapter for international scholars. Earlier, he served on the Board of Directors of the United Christian Ministries. Within academia, he served on faculty exchange committees, faculty search committees, review committees, and directed eighteen doctoral dissertations at Kent State University. He also served as an External Reader for the PhD thesis of Liao Tizhong (1995) at Beijing Foreign Studies University. Dr. Heisey has been instrumental in establishing faculty exchange programs between Kent State University and the Guangming Daily in Beijing, Peking University in Beijing, Renmin University in Beijing, the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries in Beijing, and the University of Lund, Sweden. (St. Clair & Honna, 2005, p. 3) Additionally, they note the many local cultural and religious organizations and institutions for which Heisey played important leadership roles. Among Heisey’s unpublished works prior to 2005 were: “Dr. W.O. Baker and the Underground Railroad”; “Mediating Development Communication in Central Asia: Uzbekistan, A Case Study”; “Conversations in Intercultural Encounters in Iran and Sweden, and China”; A Personal Perspective on Chinese and American Cultural Characteristics”; “A Basic Course in Speech as an Approach to Intercultural Understanding”; “Horace Bushnell and the Meaning of the Negro in Nineteenth-Century America”; and a “Philosophy of Christian Higher Education” (St. Clair & Honna, 2005, p. 8). In 1998, he, an ESOL instructor at Rochester Institute of Technology, and I had a contract from Ablex for a guidebook for international students in US universities. Heisey promptly completed his section, but neither my Rochester colleague nor I finished our work in a timely fashion, and the contract date expired, without it being published. Attending all six of the Rochester Intercultural Conferences, 1995–2001, chaired by K.S. Sitaram and me, he was the keynoter for the 2000

820

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

conference, and received an award for his excellent scholarship in intercultural communication. In 2000, three additional full book manuscripts were completed and submitted to Ablex Publishing Co. but to our regret did not get published in the series, “Civic Discourse for the Third Millennium,” which was terminated by the new press: K.S. Sitaram and M.H. Prosser (Eds.), “Civic Discourse: Communication, Technology, and Cultural Values”; M.H. Prosser and K.S. Sitaram (Eds.) “Human Rights and Responsibilities; Communication Strategies among Nations and Peoples”; and my edited “Communication and Media in Africa.” Heisey would have had an essay in each of these three books, and I assume that they did not get published elsewhere. 9. Conclusion Without doubt, D. Ray Heisey was a Renaissance man, always promoting cultural dialog between teachers, researchers, and students; members of disparate academic fields; members of different faith traditions; colleagues both in the East and West, primarily in Iran and China; as an academic author or editor of multiple articles and books; and as a mentor and model for American and international scholars, researchers, and students. He represented the very best founding and lifelong interculturalists among those whom I have had the privilege to know, be mentored by, and enjoy as very good professional friends over nearly forty years. The entire intercultural field is much richer by his contributions. Whether he was President of local arts and cultural groups or of a college, President of associations or societies, Chair of association divisions, a Fellow in the academy, Visiting Professor in Belgium, Sweden, and Estonia, or Series Editor, all were accomplished with a sense of modesty and dignity, with a joy in his life, not only because of his wife Susanne, his sons Kevin, Alec, and Ian and their children, but because everywhere he went, often earlier with his family, he left a broad footprint of a truly remarkable interculturalist, “who lived his life abundantly and walked humbly with his God.” In their 2008 interview with Heisey for the second issue of The Journal of Chinese Communication, his former MA student Jack Linchuan Qiu and Saskia Witteborn probed into many of his motivations in his complementary study of rhetoric and intercultural communication, as well as his interest in conflict management and resolution, and his dialogic approach to communication between countries such as Iran and the US, and China and the US. Heisey’s final comments were: “When doors open, walk through them. Whether in teaching opportunities or in research projects, if a door begins to open, give it a push and see what awaits you for growth, understanding, and learning. . .. Take risks and say, “yes”, to other cultures. This attitude is what has enabled my intellectual journey” (Qiu & Witteborn, 2008, http://www.michaelprosser.com, Post 178). No matter whether time ran out or not, D. Ray Heisey filled it well. References An, R. (2011 June). Email to Dan Landis. Brockriede, W. (1968). Dimensions of the concept of rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54(1), 1–12. Chan, J. M., & McIntyre, B. T. (Eds.). (2001). In search of boundaries: Communication, nation states and cultural identities. Stamford, CT: Ablex. Chen, G. M., & Ma, R. (Eds.). (2001). Chinese conflict management and resolution. Westport, CT: Ablex. Cox, H. (1965). The secular city: Secularization and urbanization in theological perspectives. New York, NY: Collier Books. Cua, A. S. (1985). Ethical argumentation: A study in Hsiin Tzu’s moral epistemology. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Fletcher, J. (1966). Situation ethics: The new morality. Westminster, England: John Knox Press. Heisey D. R. (1970a). Christian comprehensiveness. Ashland Theological Journal, 06. Heisey, D. R. (1970b). The rhetoric of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Quarterly Journal of Speech, LVI, 12–21. Heisey, D. R. (1979). Values and outcome. In E. Shipstone, & N. Shipstone (Eds.), Role of the university in the women’s movement (pp. 108–111). Lucknow, India: The Asian Women’s Institute. Heisey, D. R. (1980). Women, the liberal arts and national development. Lux Mundi, 9, 33–39. Heisey, D. R. (1981). The role of Asian women in national development efforts. Communication, X, 67–82. Heisey, D. R. (1982). Sensitivity to an image. In S. L. Bills (Ed.), Kent State/May 4: Echoes through a decade (pp. 187–196). Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press. Heisey, D. R. (1993a). Contemporary Chinese cultural characteristics: A communication perspective. In Paper presented at the international colloquium on contemporary Chinese culture sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Hainan University, Haikou, China, Heisey, D. R. (1993b). The rhetoric of Anatoly Sobchak: Rule of law vs. nomenklatura? The Southern Communication Journal, 59(1), 60–72. Heisey, D. R. (1993c). The strategy of narrative and metaphor in interventionist rhetoric: International case studies. In D. Zarefsky (Ed.), Rhetorical movement: Essays in honor of Leland M. Griffin. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, pp. 186–209, 253–256. Heisey, D. R. (1998). Introduction: Communication and culture influencing each other. In D. R. Heisey, & W. Gong (Eds.), Communication and culture: China and the world entering the 21st century (pp. xvii–xxxvii). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Editions Rodopi. Heisey, D. R. (1999). China’s rhetoric of socialization in international civic discourse. In R. Kluver, & J. H. Powers (Eds.), Civic discourse, civil society, and the Chinese world (pp. 221–236). Stamford, CT: Ablex. Heisey, D. R. (Ed.). (2000). Chinese perspectives in rhetoric and communication. Stamford, CT: Ablex. Heisey, D. R. (2000b). Global communication and human understanding. In G. M. Chen, & W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society (pp. 193–214). Boston, MA: Peter Lang. Heisey, D. R. (2000c). Introduction: Chinese perspectives coming of age in the West and serving as a balance in theory and practice. In D. R. Heisey (Ed.), Chinese perspectives in rhetoric and communication (pp. xi–xx). Stamford, CT: Ablex. Heisey, D. R. (2001). A bit of history. In In 10th anniversary celebration of The Guangdongn Daily–Kent State University Exchange Program. CDROM. Heisey, D. R. (2002a). Communication and culture: Advances in communication and culture. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11(2), 1–20. Heisey, D. R. (2002b). Sources of Chinese conflict management in international affairs. In G. M. Chen, & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp. 205–221). Westport, CT: Ablex. Heisey, D. R. (2010, May 25). . Heisey, D. R. (2011a). A dialogue proposal for intercultural communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(2), 5–13.

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

821

Heisey, D. R. (2011b). International perspectives on cultural identity. The Review of Communication, 11(1), 66–82. Heisey, D. R. Iranian communication studies perspective: D. Ray Heisey, PhD’s interview questions for Ehsan Shaghasemeni of the University of Tehran. (2011, June 27, Post 188). . Heisey, D. R. (2011d). Iranian perspectives on communication in an age of globalization. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1), 36–48. Heisey, D. R. (2011e). The Persian jewel: Damavand College, Tehran. Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (in Asia), V(1), 19–44. http://www.mideast.shisu.edu.cn/../cbf078fb-fc0d-45dc-a8e6-56b632a9b9bf.pdf Jia, W. (2012). Eulogy for D. Ray Heisey for delivery. In International Academy of Intercultural Researchers July 2011 Singapore Conference. May 30, Post 177. http://www.michaelprosser.com Jia, W., Lu, X., & Heisey, R. D. (Eds.). (2002). Chinese communication theory and research: Reflections, new frontiers, and new directions. Westport, CT: Ablex. Liu, D. (Ed.). (1992). The theory of public speaking. Shanghai, China: Public Speech Research Committee of Shanghai, China. Lu, X., Jia, W., & Heisey, D. R. (Eds.). (2002). Chinese communication studies: Contexts and comparisons. Westport, CT: Ablex. McCroskey, J. (1993). An introduction to rhetorical communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Prosser, M. H. (1978). The cultural dialogue: Introduction to intercultural communication. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Prosser, M. H. Obituary for D. Ray Heisey: A founder of the field of intercultural communication. (2011, May 25). ; . Prosser, M. H. A letter of friendship for young Iranian students. (2012, February 14, Post 353). . Prosser, M. H. Ten professional questions for Mansoureh Sharifzadeh, Tehran, Iran. (2012, February 14, Post 352). . Qiu, J. L., & Witteborn, S. (2008). Interview with D. Ray Heisey. Chinese Communication Journal, 1(1), 131–137 (2011, May 30, Post 178). http://www.michaelprosser.com Robinson, J. A. T. (1963). Honest to God. London, England: SCM Press. Sehhat, S. H. (2000). Globalization and different perspectives. Echo of Islam, 19, 9–13. November Shaghasemi, E. D. Ray Heisey Obituary. (2011, May 25, Post 189). . St. Clair, R. N., & Honna, N. (2005). In honor of Dr. D. Ray Heisey, president, IAICS, 2001–2003. Intercultural Communication Studies, XIII(2), 1–8. van Oudenhoven, J. P. L. M., & Willemsen, T. M. (1989). Ethnic minorities: Social psychological perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swet, Zeitlinger. Wu, J. (1992). The rhetorical art of the modern Chinese language. Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University. Young, P., & Garmon, M. (2011). Remembering Professor Ray D. Heisey. Ph.D. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(2), 1–4. Zhang, J., & Heisey, D. R. (2001). A movie, I, and intercultural communication. In Paper presented at the Rochester Institute of Technology intercultural communication conference 19–21 July, Rochester, NY, Zhong, M. (2011). Remembering Dr. D. Ray Heisey. ACCS E-Newsletter, 19(2), 6–7. May 31.

Further reading

1

Gorden, W. I., Holmberg, K. A., & Heisey, D. R. (1994). Equality and the Swedish work environment. The Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 7(2), 1–20. Haridakis, P. Obituary for D. Ray Heisey. (2011, May 25). . Heisey, D. R. (1963). An honors course in argumentation. The Speech Teacher, 17(3), 202–204. Heisey, D. R. (1966a). H.J.C. Grierson—Modern Scottish rhetorician. Western Speech Journal, XXX, 248–251. Heisey, D. R. (1966b). The Warrack lectures on preaching. Preaching: A Journal of Homiletics, I, 5–14. Heisey, D. R. (1965). Some reflections on freedom of speech. The Bridge, I, 3–4. Heisey, D. R. (1969). On entering the kingdom: New birth or nurture. In D. Holland (Ed.), Preaching in American history: Selected issues in the American pulpit, 1630–1967 (pp. 150–167). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Heisey, D. R. (1971a). Directions in speech communication. Acta Symbolica, II, 13–18. Heisey, D. R. (1971b). On entering the kingdom: New birth or nurture. In D. Holland (Ed.), Sermons in American history: Selected issues in the American pulpit, 1630–1967 (pp. 176–203). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Heisey, D. R. (1971c). Rhetorical energy and student protest. Acta Symbolica, II, 61–62. Heisey, D. R. (1973a). The rhetoric of the Arab–Israeli conflict. In M. H. Prosser (Ed.), Intercommunication among nations and peoples. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Heisey, D. R. (1973b). Slavery: America’s irrepressible conflict. In D. Holland (Ed.), America in controversy: Speaking on issues in American history (pp. 103–121). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Co. Heisey, D. R. (1973c). Symbolism in the Middle East conflict. Politica, 23, 20–48. Heisey, D. R. (1974). A Swedish approach to international communication. Topics in Culture Learning, II, 41–47. Heisey, D. R. (1976). Damavand College. In A. P. Saleh (Ed.), Cultural ties between Iran and the U.S. (pp. 378–381). Tehran, Iran: Her Majesty’s National Committee for the American Revolution Bicentennial. Heisey, D. R. (1977). A Swedish approach to international communication. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Culture learning: Concepts, applications, and research (pp. 64–70). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii. Heisey, D. R. (1978). President’s report to the Board of Trustees 1975–1978. Tehran, Iran: Damavand College., pp. 1–39 Heisey, D. R. (1983a). Educational exchange models: Cultural approaches in Belgium, Iran and China. International Education, 13, 20–29. Heisey, D. R. (1983b). The role of Asian women in national development efforts. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(1), 85–96. Heisey, D. R. (1984). The ‘I Have a Dream’ speech of Martin Luther King, Jr. as a movement event. The Ohio Speech Journal, 22, 15–26. Heisey, D. R. (1986). Reagan and Mitterrand respond to international crisis: Creating versus transcending appearances. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 325–335. Heisey, D. R. (1988a). The force of narrative: Portrait of Bishop B.F. Hoover. Brethren in Christ History and Life, XI(3), 229–328. Heisey, D. R. (1988b). President Ronald Reagan’s apologia on the Iran–Contra affair. In H. R. Ryan (Ed.), Oratorical encounters: Selected studies and sources of twentieth-century political accusations and apologies (pp. 281–305). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Heisey, D. R. (1990). Reagan’s use of peace/war symbols justifying military intervention. In T. L. Brensinger, & E. M. Sider (Eds.), Within the perfection of Christ: Essays on peace and the nature of the church (pp. 191–208). Grantham, PA: Brethren in Christ Historical Society. Heisey, D. R. (1991). Defining peace communication. In R. Troester, & C. E. Kelley (Eds.), Peacemaking through communication (pp. 19–21). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association. Heisey, D. R. (1992a). Critical methods and ideology: An international perspective. Systems Practice, 5(2), 215–223. Also published in Samuelson, S. H., & Samuelson, K. (Eds.), vol. II. Advances in general systems theory and philosophy (pp. 100–105). Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the international society for systems practice. Ostersund, Sweden, June 14–20, 1991. Heisey, D. R. (1992b). Horace Bushnell’s rhetorical training. The Journal of Communication and Religion, 15(2), 55–69. Heisey, D. R. (1994). On preaching: A review essay. In E. M. Sider (Ed.), Preaching the word: Sermons by Brethren in Christ ministers (pp. 155–166). Grantham, PA: Brethren in Christ Historical Society. Heisey, D. R. (1996). Cultural influences in political communication. Journalism and Communication, 3(4), 52–61, in Chinese.

1

[This list includes all known publications by D. Ray Heisey].

822

M.H. Prosser / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 810–822

Heisey, D. R. (1997). Cultural influences in political communication. In A. Gonzalez, & D. V. Tanno (Eds.), Politics, communication, and culture (pp. 9–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Heisey, D. R. (1998a). A comparative analysis of rhetorical theory in China and the U.S. In K. S. Sitaram, & M. H. Prosser (Eds.), Civic discourse: Multiculturalism, cultural diversity and global communication (pp. 325–338). Stamford, CT: Ablex. Heisey, D. R. (1998c). Reflections on religious speech communication. The Journal of Communication and Religion, 21(2), 85–107. Heisey, D. R. (2003a). Changes in cultural arguments of Chinese political leaders. Human Communication: A Journal of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association, 6(1, Spring/Summer), 1–11. Heisey, D. R. (2003b). Introduction. In E. Morris Sider (Ed.), Windows to the church: Selections from twenty-five years of Brethren in Christ History and Life (pp. 1–5). Grantham, PA: The Brethren in Christ Historical Society. Heisey, D. R. (2004a). China’s President Hu Jintao’s rhetoric of socialization. Intercultural Communication Studies, XIII(3, Winter), 1–7. Heisey, D. R. (2004b). Healing body and soul: The life and times of Dr. W.O. Baker, 1827–1916. Grantham, PA: The Brethren in Christ Historical Society. Heisey, D. R. (2005). Examining the successes and problems of China’s policy on minority nationalities. Intercultural Communication Studies, 14(2), 23–37. Heisey, D. R. (2006). Cultural orientations as expressed in the public statements of political leaders. China Media Research, 2(1), 79–84. Heisey, D. R. (2007). Intercultural communication for a global society. In B. H. Michael (Ed.), The influence of culture in the world of business (pp. 45–72). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Heisey, D. R. (2008). Responses to questions about Michael H. Prosser. In P. Zhang (Ed.), Investigations into the influence of an intercultural communication founder—Michael H. Prosser and his contemporary scholars. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Shanghai, China: Shanghai International Studies University. Heisey, D. R., Brockett, M. A., & Phipps, K. S. (1990). Contextual dimensions in the rhetoric of the Arab–Israeli conflict following Camp David. World Communication, 19(1), 113–123. Heisey, D. R., Calkins, K., & Jones, D. (1972). Excerpts from the analysis of the Ohio Grand Jury report. In R. M. O’Neil, R. M. O’Neil, et al. (Eds.), No heroes no villains: New perspectives on Kent State and Jackson State (pp. 139–144). Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. Heisey, D. R., & Ericsson, E. (1991). Principles of equality in the Swedish educational system. International Education, 20(2), 31–41. Also published in Pedagogical Bulletin No. 14, Department of Education, University of Lund, Sweden. Heisey, D. R., & Gong, W. (Eds.). (1998). Communication and culture: China and the world entering the 21st Century. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Editions Rodopi. Heisey, D. R., & Phipps, K. S. (1993). The Hart and Biden apologies: The failure of apologetic rhetoric. The Journal of Communication Studies, 11(2), 53–65. Heisey, D. R., & Shashasemi, E. (2012). International perspectives on speaking truth to power. In S. Nago-Zehmi, & K. Hollis (Eds.), Global Academe: Engaging public intellectual discourse. Palgrave Macmillan. Heisey, D. R., & Trebing, J. D. (1983). A comparison of the rhetorical visions and strategies of the Shah’s white revolution and the Ayatollah’s Islamic revolution. Communication Monographs, 50, 158–174. Heisey, D. R., & Trebing, J. D. (1986). Authority and legitimacy: A rhetorical case study of the Iranian revolution. Communication Monographs, 53, 295–310. Heisey, D. R., Yu, Z., & Yan, J. (1998–1999). Persuasive strategies of the University Green Camp expedition to Bai Ma (White Horse) Snow Mountain, China, 1996. Intercultural Communication Studies, VIII(2, Spring), 131–140. Jain, N. C., Prosser, M. H., & Miller, M. H. (1974). Intercultural communication: Proceedings of the Speech Communication Association. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association. Onyekwere, E. O., & Heisey, D. R. (1992). A movement study of Chukwuemkea O. Ojukwue’s rhetoric of revolt in the Nigerian/Biafran war. The Ohio Speech Journal, 30, 39–49. Prosser, M. H. (Ed.). (1973). Intercommunication among nations and peoples. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Prosser, M. H., Sharifzadeh, M., Zhang, S. Finding cross-cultural common ground. Eugene, OR: Dignity Press, in press. Qiu, L., & Heisey, D. R. (1997). American–Chinese serendipity dialogues in intercultural communication. In Paper presented at the national communication convention Chicago, IL,. November. Rodgers, R. P., & Heisey, D. R. (1996). Perspectives on communication openness in the former Soviet Union. World Communication, 25(3), 111–124. Shaghasemi, E. (2009). Interview on ethnic differences in Iran between author [D. Ray Heisey] and Ehsan Shagasemi. Farasoo [Beyond], 5–6. May (in Farsi). Shaghasemi, E. Ehsan Shaghasemi’s responses to the author [D. Ray Heisey]. Unpublished paper providing answers to 16 questions about the state of the communication discipline in Iran (2011, June 27). (2010a). . Shaghasemi, E. (2010b June 29). Email to the author [D. Ray Heisey]. Shaghasemi, E. (2010). The image of the Other: Cross-cultural schemata Iranian bloggers have of American people. In Paper presented at the international communication and media conference Malacca, Malaysia,. June Shaghasemi, E., & Heisey, D. R. (2009). The cross-cultural schemata of Iranian–American people toward each other: A qualitative approach. Intercultural Communication Studies, 18(1), 143–160. Shaghasemi, E., Heisey, D. R., & Mirani, G. (2009). Iranians and Americans: Beyond the media construct. In Paper presented at the regional and Midwest conference of the Comparative and International Education Society Kent, Ohio,. October. Another version of it at the conference ‘challenges to the present order’, April 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Shaghasemi, E., & Heisey, D. R. Iranian communication studies perspective: D. Ray Heisey’s interview questions for Ehsan Shaghasemi of the University of Tehran. (2011, June 27, Post 188). . Sharifzadeh, M. Damavand College, Tehran, Iran: A path to intellectual openness. (2011, June 28, Post 191). . Sharifzadeh, M. Fasting: A spiritual and physical upgrading in unity and communication. (2011, August 13, Post 224). . Sharifzadeh, M. Iran–America: Possible intercultural communication. (2011, July 12, Post 204). . Sharifzadeh, M. The Iran youth is getting older. (2011, July 24, Post 212). . Sharifzadeh, M. The impact of common ground in the Iranian–Iraqi relationship. (2012, February 9, Post 293). . Sharifzadeh, M. Ten friendly questions for Michael H. Prosser. Tehran, Iran. (2012, February 18, Post 369). . Sharifzadeh, M., & Heisey, R. D. A case study in using imagination to teach English in Iranian public schools. (2011, June 22, Post 185). . Whaley, A. B., Kaminski, E. P., Gorden, W. I., & Heisey, D. R. (1983). Docudrama from different temporal perspectives: Reactions to NBC’s Kent State’s crisis. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 285–289. Xiao, M. (2011). The cultural economy of Falun Gong in China: A rhetorical perspective. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Xiao, X., & Heisey, D. R. (1996). Liberationist populism in the Chinese film Tian Xian Pei: A feminist critique. Women’s Studies in Communication, 19(3), 313–333. Xiao, X., & Heisey, D. R. (2005). Shifting the performative characteristics of opera and the status quo for women in China. In L. Lengel (Ed.), Intercultural communication and creative practice: Music, dance, and women’s cultural identity (pp. 195–210). Westport, CT: Praeger.