- Email: [email protected]
Intercultural Communication: Finding Common Ground
]OCi.\\' C L I N I C A L
I S S U E S
Intercultural Communication: Finding Common Ground TeresaA. Nance, PhD
Diversity has become a leading topic of discussion in virtually all sectors of our society. This is certainly true in health care; the nursing profession has long been dealing with issues of cultural appropriateness. This article looks at the relationship of culture to communication. The current approach to intercultural communication discussed in much of the nursing literature is judged to be short-sighted.An alternative approach based on the development of a functional cultural comniunication perspective is offered.
Dateloping a Consciousnessof culture Understanding the influence o f culture within the health care process is not ;I new consideration in the nursing profession. The field o f transcultural nursing has been a ubiquitous force for more than 30 years, emphasizing culture-specific care, culturally congruent care, and culturally sensitive care. Although this important work has addressed a number of key concerns for nursing professionals interested in cultural issues, it also has generated some criticism. Geist (1994) synthesized this research into three major object ions. 1. Transcultural nursing takes a simplistic view of
W
e may have often watched changing world affairs and thought of the issues as the concerns o f foreigners, overzealous missionaries, o r socially conscious college students simply passing through a phase. However, as Marshall McLuhan rightly predicted, with the technological advances of our multiple communication systems, the world has become a global village. Americans are not sheltered from the devastation of Somalia, the bloodshed in Tiananmen Square, or the brutality in Bosnia. We must learn how to interact with our once-distant neighbors. When changes precipitated by tumultuous world events occur, all members of the village are affected. Governmental and economic instability in s o m e countries translates into increased immigration, both legal and illegal, into others. In the United States there are increasing numbers of immigrants from all over the globe. In this way, health care providers are drawn into the processes of intercultural communication. In fact, in some parts of t h e country, particularly near large cities in the East a n d West a n d along the Southern border states, intercultural exchanges have become the rule, rather than the exception.
Murch/April1995
culture a n d fails to unclerstand culture as dynamic and individually adaptive. It has the tendency to generalize and presume that what is true o f the group is true of every individual in the group. 2. Transcultural nursing focuses o n specific cultural beliefs and practices without exploring the historic or political environments of particular groups of people. Too often cultural knowledge is limited to understanding simple behaviors, rather than the context or history that might have produced the behaviors. 3. Transcultural nursing does not account for changes to individuals occurring because they left their homelands a n d settled in the another country. A Vietnamese woman who spent time in boats, relocation camps, and settlement houses may not display the same cultural sensibilities as a Vietnamese woman w h o never left her country. I t is fairly safe to presume that her emigrating experience could have had a profound influence on her (Geist, 1994).
Understanding tbe 'Problem' of Culture T h e major objection raised by these criticisms is that the current response to problems generated by the cross-cultural encounters of nursing professionals is proceeding
J 0 G N N
249
CLINICAL ISSUES
in the right direction but has not gone far enough. I t seems that the goal of cultural awareness is to simply b e appropriate (i.e.,that is do or say the right thing), rather than come to grips with the difficult issue of developing intercultural sensibilities. Translating messages accurately, fashioning suitable gestures, and using appropriate eye contact is what s o m e have d e e m e d the goal of intercultural communication. In other words, intercultural communication has become defined behaviorally. For example, o n e might naively assume instant rapport with a group of young African-American males by wearing a Los Angeles Raiders football team cap backwards, a pair of baggy pants, and mastering the power handshake. This is, of course, an exaggeration, but it illustrates Geist’s point. T h e objections synthesized by Geist suggest that such a n approach is short-sighted. Logically, the goal of successful intercultural c o m munication cannot b e to discover a comprehensive set of communication tricks that when systematically applied to the correct culture, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic background will generate instant understanding. N o such magic exists. I t also is not possible for o n e person to remember all of the particular cultural communication behaviors of all of t h e possible cultures with which o n e may c o m e in contact. Communicationand Culture:A Functional Perspective The most logical alternative to this bag-of-tricks approach to communication is to develop a functional perspective toward communication and culture-to recognize that culture is not an extra thing with which o n e must deal in one’s professional life. In our world, functioning means realizing that culture and differences in culture are inherent and everpresent. All of our human interactions are affected by culture. Successful and satisfying human communication occurs only when we adopt an orientation toward the process of communication that accepts a n d adapts to difference.
tion. Given a functional framework from which to operate, effective intercultural communication strategies can be developed to respond to a wide variety of diverse situations.
Understanding Culture Culture Misunderstood Usually when we hear the term culture w e conjure u p images that distance us from the term. We may think of culture as distant and exotic countries with people who dress differently than w e do a n d eat foods called by names we can not pronounce. There is a tendency to conceive of culture as the stuff of travel brochures. When w e think of culture, w e may think of classical music, great works of literature, o r ballet. We think of what may be termed high culture. In either case, popular notions of culture allow us to think of culture as a “not m e ” experience. Such a n orientation is problematic because culture is thought to be exotic, alien, outlandish, and strange. Tbe Social Construction of Culture However, a close analysis of the term culture reveals that it is not inflicted o n human beings but rather created and sustained by them. Martin and Belcher (1986) define culture as “an integrated system of learned patterns of behaviour, ideas and products characteristic of society. It is a philosophy of life a n d death. Culture is passed o n as beliefs, values and mores by significant others, such as parents, other family members and teachers” (pp. 230-231). Another commonly accepted definition of culture, offering additional insight, comes from the work of Samovar a n d Porter (1991).
Culture is t h e deposit of knowledge, experiences, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, a n d material objects a n d possessions acquired by a large group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving (p. 51).
Such a perspective would enable people to mold situationally appropriate responses based o n a pragmatic view of culture and communication. In this way, both patient and health-care provider mutually achieve their communication a n d health-care goals. This essay supplies t h e clinical practitioner with a framework for thinking about culture a n d communica-
Finally, Philipsen (1992) writes, “culture is a socially constructed a n d historically transmitted pattern of symbols, meaning, premises, and rules” (p. 7 ) . These definitions present a view of culture as the most dynamic of all human processes. Culture thus becomes defined as the set of assumptions we learned from our environment about how to think and behave in order to survive. Culture is what w e think of as “just normal” ways of thinking a n d behaving. An element of t h e popular notion of culture is that s o m e people possess culture and some do not. However, based o n the definitions presented here, it b e c o m e s clear that o n e does not have culture so much as o n e reflects culture. I n other words, culture comes into being through the dynamic interaction of human beings. Culture is acquired through communication. You cannot get culture through a hypodermic needle, a n d you
250 J O C N N
Volume 24, Number 3
Successful and satisfying human communication occurs only when we adopt an orientation toward the process of communication that accepts and adapts to difference.
Cultural Conceptsin Clinical Care
d o not pass it along through the exchange ofbodilyfluids. I t is through communication that we learn the lessons of heritage from our parents a n d pass them o n to o u r children. When a little boy in North America is told that boys d o not cry, a child in Japan is told that the nail that sticks u p gets hammered down, a n d a Hindu child watches as the women eat after the men, they are learning culture. Culture as Process When w e stop viewing culture as a thing w e possess and know it as a process in which w e engage, w e c o m e to understand that culture is not intangible o r unchanging. We come to know that culture is individual and collective and is subject to all kinds of environmental transformations. In short, w e c o m e to understand that culture is not right o r wrong o r good o r bad but a way of getting along in the world. This observation will prove important as we move into our discussion of intercultural communication. Misunderstandings occur because the communication behaviors that have survival value in o n e cultural environment can create turmoil when introduced into another environment. As a result of these misunderstandings, communication partners become suspicious and distrustful of each other because neither partner understands the correctness of the other. Let us look at communication and understand h o w popular views of communication often mitigate against successful intercultural exchanges.
Tbinking About Communication We live in an age of constant communication. Telephones, televisions, fax machines, compact disc players, and computers keep us continually connected to multiple sources of news a n d information. I t seems at times the amount of communication w e experience is overwhelming. O n a more personal level, it seems we are all conscious of the need to maintain good communication in our professional and personal lives. Advice about communication comes from magazines, afternoon talk shows, and special news reports. It seems everyone knows about communication. Communication Misunderstood Although communication is a term often used, it also is a term that is frequently misunderstood. There is a sense that communication is an individual aptitude that s o m e people have finely developed. There also is a sense that certain communication skills can b e learned and used to manipulate others for personal gain. The problem with this popular notion of communication is that it reduces communication to a trait of personality or to a talent. Consequently, when problems in communication arise there is a tendency to either regard the problem as idiosyncratic because a person’s commu-
March/Aprill995
A superficial understanding of communication frequently generates inappropriate behaviors that often escalate -mhunderstandings, rather than resolve them.
nication style is a n unchangeable as fingerprints o r look for a quick fix, such as the special words o r gestures that will win the argument, soothe hurt feelings, o r accomplish tasks. This approach to communication is especially troubling when the communication issue centers around culture. A superficial understanding of communication frequently generates inappropriate behaviors that often escalate misunderstandings, rather than resolve them. Perhaps o n e of the best examples of this approach to communication happened when presidential candidate Ross Perot used the term “you people” in front of a gathering of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). H e used the term in an attempt to appear friendly and concerned, but his audience found the term condescending and offensive. Communication Defined Definitions of communication used to center around the idea of o n e person sending a message and another person receiving it. This view of communication made the process s e e m linear and mechanistic. Think about the last conversation you had with a friend. If you are a North American, you displayed your interest by looking at the person, nodding occasionally, and perhaps subtly vocalizing your approval from time to time. As a discerning human being, you are capable of sending a n d receiving messages at the same time, and so can your friend. A good definition of communication must account for this ability and address the goal of human communication. The following should serve as a starting point for our discussion: communication is the transactional process of people actively engaged in the creation of meaning. Communication as a TransactionalProcess When communication theorists refer to communication as transactional, they are attempting to illustrate that communication necessarily involves two people w h o are both capable of generating and receiving messages simultaneously. For a communication exchange to be considered transactional, there are four general characteristics. 1.Transactional communication requires mutual and simultaneous perception. Problems in communication can occur if w e do not have the other’s attention. When I was a teacher in Japan, I usually took a walk during my lunch break. O n e day while out o n my walk I noticed a student across the street. She s e e m e d to b e looking at me, so I waved at her. She did not return my greeting and
J O C N N
251
continued walking. I instantly regretted my behavior and was sure I had violated a cultural norm. When I saw my student in class the next day I wanted t o apologize for my rudeness. After explaining my story, the student smiled and informed m e that s h e would have waved but s h e simply had not seen m e . The point is simple. I t is difficult t o ascribe communication svatus t o behaviors when mutual contact has not been established. 2 . Transactional communication requires mutual assignment o f roles. A role is not just w h o you are, i t is also what you are. We assign roles t o everyone with whom w e communicate and every time w e communicate. Sometimes the roles are specific: supervisor, friend, co-worker. Sometimes the roles are more general: stranger, male, child. In each case, the role allows us t o categorize the person and call upon appropriate sets o f responsive behaviors. There are greeting behaviors that are suitable for those we call friends. For those w e call enemies, different behaviors must b e used. In short, transactional communication says that when w e recognize each other, w e inevitably enter into a role relationship with the other person. 3 . Transactional communication calls into practice an implicit set o f rules for both communication p r t n e r s . As children w e learn from our parents how w e should behave in a wide variety o f situations. As adults, these rules have been internalized and influence how w e behave and respond to behavior. For example, in North America when two persons meet for the first time, they smile and offer a hand in greeting. There were n o rules written o n the wall of the room that offer instructions in greeting behaviors. The culture furnishes its members with this information. Problems in communication occur when the set of implicit rules invoked by o n e of the c o m munication partners is inconsistent with the set of rules invoked by the other. This frequently is the case in intercultural exchanges. 4 . Transactional communication is context-bound. There is a great tendency to assume that all communication is roughly the same. Certainly, w e can acknowledge nuances of individual behavior, but overall, people are fundamentally the same. These presumptions are absolutely inconsistent with the idea of transactional communication. The context of communication can include any n u m ber of variables. Minimally it includes where a n d w h e n the communication takes place, w h o is involved, a n d the nature of the communication that precedes a n d follows it. The main idea here is that communication episodes are fundamentally unique, a n d successful communication encounters require adaptability a n d flexibility. Communication is far more than just an exchange of words between a n d among people. Communication is a complex process that includes t h e perception a n d judgment of all of the people involved.
o n e person t o another. We think of communication as a task o f shuffling pieces o f information back and forth. The problem with this approach is that i t fails t o account for the dynamic nature o f human beings. When w e speak to others, their experiences, information, feelings act as a filter for all w e have t o say. Conscquently, once the information passes through all o f their perceptual filters, it stands a great chance o f being distorted o r misinterpreted. To better unclerstand how communication works and how meaning is created, it is necessary t o look more closely at a number o f key issues.
Tbe Message-MeaningRelationship From a transactional perspective, the goal o f communication is more than just message transfer, it is the creation o f meaning. This observation rests on the transference o f messages not being the same as the creation o f meaning. Two examples illustrate the point. Students o f foreign languages are well acquainted with this problem as they learn not to take literally idiomatic expressions. A friend from Ecuador recently recounted an incident that occurred when s h e had just c o m e t o the IJniteci States to study. While s h e was telling o n e o f her classmates an exciting story, the classmate exclaimed said, “Get outa here.” Puzzled, s h e stood u p and got ready t o leave until her classmate explained the meaning o f her exclamation. Another example involved an older Chinese woman w h o was given instructions by her physician to come back for a follow-up visit. The woman smiled and nodded and never returned. Additional investigation revealed that the woman had n o intention of returning for the office visit. However, out of respect for the physician and a Chinese cultural norm of accommodation, s h e nodded her compliance (Geist, 1994). Clearly this was a case in which the message was relayed and received accurately but meaning was obscured. There are times when getting the message across without imparting t h e significance of the meaning is much like winning a battle but losing the war. Messages can b e recorded, but meaning cannot. To have meaning is to have understanding; that must b e the goal of effective communication. Tbe Content-RelationsbipComponents of Messages
When many of us think about the act of communicating, w e think about the process of transferring a message from
All messages generate two kinds of meaning: content meaning and relationship meaning. Take t h e simple question, “ H o w are you?” The content meaning can be described as the literal meaning of the message. A dictionary is all o n e needs to gain an understanding of the level of meaning. In terms of intercultural communication, if all meaning relies only o n accurate translation, most communication problems could b e resolved quickly. Often t h e most significant message is the o n e occurring o n t h e relational level of meaning. “How are you” asked by a physician is a far different question than “How are you” asked by a casual business acquaintance. Meaning from this level of the message is ascertained from the nature of the relationship existing between the communicators.
252 J O C N N
Volume 24. .Vumber 3
Communication as a Meaning-CenteredProcess
Culturul Concepts in Clinicul Cure
’The following example will make t h e point more clear. Pat says to Chris, “Let’sget back to work.” If Pat and Chris are friends, Chris understands the message as a comment made by a peer about what t o d o next. If Pat is a supervisor to Chris, the meaning o f the message could be very different. Instead o f a casual comment, the message could b e understood as a direct order. There is always a relational message i n all of o u r communication interactions. At the very least, underneath the most incidental o f messages, w e tell others who w e think w e are, w h o w e think they are, and most importantly, w e tell them how w e think they should respond. When I say “good morning” t o a colleague, I a m saying I am s o m e o n e in a position t o speak t o you; you are someone worthy o f speaking to; and by my use of a pause at the e n d o f the statement, 1 expect that you will acknowledge my greeting. Unfortunately, many times w e are so focused o n getting our message across that w e fail t o monitor closely this level o f meaning. Misunderstanding may develop d e spite the content being accurately conveyed. A new instructor full o f enthusiasm and commitment for her students and subject matter was intent on giving her students accurate and complete information about their next assignment. She spoke quickly, rarely looked at the group, and never smiled. The instructor complained t o her colleagues that her students s e e m e d quiet and uninterested. Class members thought her aloof, arrogant, and unconcerned about their well-being. They did not speak in class because they thought the instructor was uninterested.
Meaningful Communication Involves Multiple Message Systems Thcre arc many x l a g c s i n North American culture that relate t o communication: It’s not what you say that counts, it‘s what you don’t say; actions speak loucler than words; her actions spoke volumes. Clearly, there seems t o be a popular cultural awareness o f nonverbal coniniunication. Pioneering nonverbal theorist Albert Mehrabian ( 1971) suggests that almost 93% o f the total impact o f a message is t h e result o f nonverbal factors. Being aware o f nonverbal communication d o e s not necessarily equal understanding its pervasiveness or its import. There are many aspects o f nonverbal conimunication. The niost commonly referenced nonverbal messages include eye contact, hand arid body gestures, and move men t . I n addition, nonve rba I com m ;In i ca t ion can include personal artifacts (clothing, jewelry, hair arrangement), chronimics (sense o f time), smells, and touch. Each o f these elements has the potential to convey a message t o another person. However, the most important point t o remember is that o n c e two people have enjoined each other in a conimunication transaction, everything about them, what they do, what they wear, and how they behave takes o n message value a n d becomes part o f t h e complex fabric of their communication.
Communfcation Produces Botb Intentional and Unintentional Meaning Recall that implicit in the idea o f transactional communication is the fact that once two human beings perceive o n e another, they are capable of simultaneously sending and receiving messages. Given this observation, coupled with messages being generated by multiple message systems and on different levels o f meaning, it is small wond e r that they are times that meanings are received that were never intentionally sent. There is perhaps a tendency to assume that the unintentional messages sent during communication transactions are s o m e h o w troublesome, bad, or problematic. This is not necessarily true. There are times when the unintentional message fortifies the intentional message and enhances the meaning o f the communication exchange. F o r example, o n e of my students concluded that I was sincerely interested in homelessness, not because of anything I had said, but because I was wearing a pin that had b e e n sold to support the homeless cause. There are times when the unintentional message is in conflict with the intentional o n e . The frowning receptionist w h o says, “Welcome, 1 am happy to see you” does not convey warmth o r welcome. When such conflict exists, communication becomes confused, and goals are not met. Successful communication is not just a process of controlling oneself or sending only intentional messages. When two perceiving human beings are involved, it is always possible that each person can attach significance to behavior the other did not intend. The real issue here is t o keep all lines of communication o p e n and t o check perceptions often as a way of assessing the quality o f understanding created through your communicatic!n exchange. In communication, what is important is not the message sent, but the meaning understood. Monitoring meaning is the surest way to ac h ieve effective c o ni ni u n ica t ion.
Intercultural Communication Linking Culture and Communication Porter and Samovar ( 1994) see intercultural communication as occurring, “whenever a message produced in o n e culture must b e processed in another culture” (p. 7 ) . When w e communicate within our families or those with whom w e are familiar, the flow o f communication seems easy. This is because w e have much in common with each other and are confident that w e will b e understood. When w e engage i n intercultural communication, w e inevitably begin o n unfamiliar ground. ‘communication perceptions and behaviors often are marked by apprehension and doubt. Creating Productive Cultural Communfcation Clfmates The primary goal of intercultural communication must be the reduction o f uncertainty and the development of trust. T h e real goal o f intercultural communication is not finding t h e right words t o say t o each other, but rather
JOG”
253
discovering a common ground from which to communicate. Common ground is not a physical space as much as it is a social space created when both communicators share an earnest desire to understand and be understood by the other. I t is a safe space where cultural commonalties allow for mutual understanding. When intercultural communicators operate o n common ground, it is possible to get words wrong or gesture inappropriately without offending o r insulting the person a n d jeopardizing the relationship. Common ground is an environment marked by sincerity, patience, and a sincere desire to learn. Consequently, communication relationships are maintained and the move toward meaning continues. Intercultural CommunicationContexts
Once a positive social situation has been constructed it is important for communicators to acknowledge the place o r role of communication within the other’s culture. Hall (1976) refers to s o m e cultures as high context because “most of the information is either in t h e physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of t h e message” (p. 79). In high-context cultures, verbal messages are not always valued. Consequently, the amount of talk in highcontext cultures is not as much as that found in lowcontext cultures. High-context culture group members are skilled at perceiving and interpreting nonverbal messages and usually have the expectation that their communication partner also possesses these skills. A female Japanese student in an interpersonal communication class I taught found the emphasis o n talk in relationships confusing. She explained that a good wife knows what her husband needs o r wants. For him to have t o talk about it would mean that s h e was somehow inadequate. Conversely, low-context cultures are o n e s in which “the mass of information is vested in the explicit code” (Hall, 1976, p. 79). Emphasis is placed o n verbal messages. Communicators rely very little o n anything unspoken. People in low-context cultures often do not perceive nonverbal factors in the environment o r do not afford them much significance. O n the context continuum, many of the Asian cultures (Korean, Japanese, Chinese) would b e toward the high e n d , whereas the Swiss, German, a n d American cultures would be toward the low e n d . Attending to differences in context is important in establishing a useful framework for com m u nication. Overall, intercultural communication works best when uncertainty is decreased and trust is increased. Intercultural communication success is achieved when communicators recognize the significance each places on verbal and nonverbal messages and can create safe places to negotiate meaning.
tered at the right time. The underlying assumption has been that “right” behaviors will emanate only from people with a “right” perspective o n the task. Definitions and explanation of the key terms o f culture, communication, and intercultural have b e e n developed. Given this background, it seems appropriate t o offer s o m e suggestions for communicating interculturally. Orientation
Beginning any task in the right frame of mind is imperative. This is certainly true when the task involves communication. Taken together, the three perspectives listed here establish a solid framework for any intercultural e n counter. 1. MulticuIturuI. A multicultural perspective is o n e that recognizes all cultures as valid, significant, and reflective of the life experiences of the people w h o created it.
2 . Historic. T o make sense of the cultural behaviors of any group of people it is important to know understand their history and politics. Cultural behavior patterns e m e r g e for a reason. Often those reasons can be discovered through historic investigation. 3. Unique. Guide books or travel brochures often generate lists of the general characteristic of a particular people. T h e danger of such a list is that is could lead you to develop frozen evaluations. That is, the list predisposes you to interpret and evaluate people’s behavior in only o n e way. It is important to recognize that generalizations are the beginning of cultural understanding and not the e n d . In addition, o n e must recognize that having knowledge of the group d o e s not necessarily afford conclusive insight about an individual member of the group. Perhaps the best approach to take in all intercultural e n counters is “what’s new today..”
One must recognize that having knowledge of the group does not necessarily afford conclusive insight about an individual member of the group.
Investigation
This article began with the assertion that successful intercultural communication is more than the right words ut-
In is important to gather information about different cultures from a variety of different sources. Analyze closely the perspective from which the information is being presented and any implied evaluations. For example, in the early 1960s researchers w h o studied the speech a n d c o m munication styles of young African-American children labeled the children as uncommunicative and their speech as defective. Both conclusions were shown to b e false by other researchers w h o were grounded in an understanding of African-American culture and linguistic history. Look for cultural information based on a recognition and understanding of significant historic events. Such infor-
254 J O C N N
Volume 24. Number 3
Strategies fo r Creating Intercultural Communication Success
Cultural Concepts in Clinicul Care
mation provides a context for interpreting cultural beliefs and behaviors. Investigation should b e understood as a n ongoing process. An appropriate goal would be to compile a cultural profile o n t h e groups of people with whom you most often interact. I t is important to remember that t h e profile is never complete as long as there are people living together and working to survive in a common environment. Good information gathered within the context of a culturally sensitive orientation will facilitate creating sets of intercultural communication strategies. Realization
Throughout the entire process of engaging in intercultural communication perhaps the most important suggestion is to adopt a stance of genuine cultural relativity. Recognize the statement, “Why that person is just t h e same as us,” as a statement that really says, “I don’t accept difference; I can only deal with people w h o are the same as me.” Genuine cultural relativity means being able to acknowledge differences in other people as inevitable and valuable. Healthy intercultural communication begins with an authentic desire to understand s o m e o n e else’s way of seeing t h e world a n d acting within it. With this realization firmly in place, it is possible to develop specific c o m munication strategies for effectively creating meaning. Intercultural communication is not a trend o r fad o r simply this year’s hot topic of conversation. Intercultural communication soon will characterize most of our com-
munication. Preparing for intercultural communication must become a professional challenge and a personal goal.
References Geist, P. (1994). Negotiating cultural understanding in health care communication. In R . E . Porter CG L. A . Samovar (Eds.), Interculturalcommunication:A reader (7th e d . , pp. 31 13 1 9 ) . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyondculture. New York: Doubleday. Martin, B., CG Belcher, J . (1986). Influence o f cultural background o n nurses’ attitudes and care of the oncology patient. CancerNursirig, %5), 230-237. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silerit messages. Belmont. CA: Wadsworth. Philipsen, G . (1992). S p e a k i r i ~ c r t l f u r a lExploration ~~: in social communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Porter, R . E., CG Samovar, L. A . (1994). An introduction t o intercultural communication. In R . E. Porter and L. A. Samovar (Eds.), Intercultural communicafion:A reader (7th e d . , pp. 1-26). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Samovar, L. A , , Porter, R . E . (1991). Commuriication brtuwen culfures.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Address for correspondence: Teresa A. Nance, PhD, 5.30 Walnut Lane, Swarthmore, PA 19081. Teresa A . Nance is an associate professor tn the Communication Arts Department at Vtllanova Llniuerstty, Villanova, PA.
J O C N N
255
I S S U E S
Intercultural Communication: Finding Common Ground TeresaA. Nance, PhD
Diversity has become a leading topic of discussion in virtually all sectors of our society. This is certainly true in health care; the nursing profession has long been dealing with issues of cultural appropriateness. This article looks at the relationship of culture to communication. The current approach to intercultural communication discussed in much of the nursing literature is judged to be short-sighted.An alternative approach based on the development of a functional cultural comniunication perspective is offered.
Dateloping a Consciousnessof culture Understanding the influence o f culture within the health care process is not ;I new consideration in the nursing profession. The field o f transcultural nursing has been a ubiquitous force for more than 30 years, emphasizing culture-specific care, culturally congruent care, and culturally sensitive care. Although this important work has addressed a number of key concerns for nursing professionals interested in cultural issues, it also has generated some criticism. Geist (1994) synthesized this research into three major object ions. 1. Transcultural nursing takes a simplistic view of
W
e may have often watched changing world affairs and thought of the issues as the concerns o f foreigners, overzealous missionaries, o r socially conscious college students simply passing through a phase. However, as Marshall McLuhan rightly predicted, with the technological advances of our multiple communication systems, the world has become a global village. Americans are not sheltered from the devastation of Somalia, the bloodshed in Tiananmen Square, or the brutality in Bosnia. We must learn how to interact with our once-distant neighbors. When changes precipitated by tumultuous world events occur, all members of the village are affected. Governmental and economic instability in s o m e countries translates into increased immigration, both legal and illegal, into others. In the United States there are increasing numbers of immigrants from all over the globe. In this way, health care providers are drawn into the processes of intercultural communication. In fact, in some parts of t h e country, particularly near large cities in the East a n d West a n d along the Southern border states, intercultural exchanges have become the rule, rather than the exception.
Murch/April1995
culture a n d fails to unclerstand culture as dynamic and individually adaptive. It has the tendency to generalize and presume that what is true o f the group is true of every individual in the group. 2. Transcultural nursing focuses o n specific cultural beliefs and practices without exploring the historic or political environments of particular groups of people. Too often cultural knowledge is limited to understanding simple behaviors, rather than the context or history that might have produced the behaviors. 3. Transcultural nursing does not account for changes to individuals occurring because they left their homelands a n d settled in the another country. A Vietnamese woman who spent time in boats, relocation camps, and settlement houses may not display the same cultural sensibilities as a Vietnamese woman w h o never left her country. I t is fairly safe to presume that her emigrating experience could have had a profound influence on her (Geist, 1994).
Understanding tbe 'Problem' of Culture T h e major objection raised by these criticisms is that the current response to problems generated by the cross-cultural encounters of nursing professionals is proceeding
J 0 G N N
249
CLINICAL ISSUES
in the right direction but has not gone far enough. I t seems that the goal of cultural awareness is to simply b e appropriate (i.e.,that is do or say the right thing), rather than come to grips with the difficult issue of developing intercultural sensibilities. Translating messages accurately, fashioning suitable gestures, and using appropriate eye contact is what s o m e have d e e m e d the goal of intercultural communication. In other words, intercultural communication has become defined behaviorally. For example, o n e might naively assume instant rapport with a group of young African-American males by wearing a Los Angeles Raiders football team cap backwards, a pair of baggy pants, and mastering the power handshake. This is, of course, an exaggeration, but it illustrates Geist’s point. T h e objections synthesized by Geist suggest that such a n approach is short-sighted. Logically, the goal of successful intercultural c o m munication cannot b e to discover a comprehensive set of communication tricks that when systematically applied to the correct culture, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic background will generate instant understanding. N o such magic exists. I t also is not possible for o n e person to remember all of the particular cultural communication behaviors of all of t h e possible cultures with which o n e may c o m e in contact. Communicationand Culture:A Functional Perspective The most logical alternative to this bag-of-tricks approach to communication is to develop a functional perspective toward communication and culture-to recognize that culture is not an extra thing with which o n e must deal in one’s professional life. In our world, functioning means realizing that culture and differences in culture are inherent and everpresent. All of our human interactions are affected by culture. Successful and satisfying human communication occurs only when we adopt an orientation toward the process of communication that accepts a n d adapts to difference.
tion. Given a functional framework from which to operate, effective intercultural communication strategies can be developed to respond to a wide variety of diverse situations.
Understanding Culture Culture Misunderstood Usually when we hear the term culture w e conjure u p images that distance us from the term. We may think of culture as distant and exotic countries with people who dress differently than w e do a n d eat foods called by names we can not pronounce. There is a tendency to conceive of culture as the stuff of travel brochures. When w e think of culture, w e may think of classical music, great works of literature, o r ballet. We think of what may be termed high culture. In either case, popular notions of culture allow us to think of culture as a “not m e ” experience. Such a n orientation is problematic because culture is thought to be exotic, alien, outlandish, and strange. Tbe Social Construction of Culture However, a close analysis of the term culture reveals that it is not inflicted o n human beings but rather created and sustained by them. Martin and Belcher (1986) define culture as “an integrated system of learned patterns of behaviour, ideas and products characteristic of society. It is a philosophy of life a n d death. Culture is passed o n as beliefs, values and mores by significant others, such as parents, other family members and teachers” (pp. 230-231). Another commonly accepted definition of culture, offering additional insight, comes from the work of Samovar a n d Porter (1991).
Culture is t h e deposit of knowledge, experiences, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, a n d material objects a n d possessions acquired by a large group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving (p. 51).
Such a perspective would enable people to mold situationally appropriate responses based o n a pragmatic view of culture and communication. In this way, both patient and health-care provider mutually achieve their communication a n d health-care goals. This essay supplies t h e clinical practitioner with a framework for thinking about culture a n d communica-
Finally, Philipsen (1992) writes, “culture is a socially constructed a n d historically transmitted pattern of symbols, meaning, premises, and rules” (p. 7 ) . These definitions present a view of culture as the most dynamic of all human processes. Culture thus becomes defined as the set of assumptions we learned from our environment about how to think and behave in order to survive. Culture is what w e think of as “just normal” ways of thinking a n d behaving. An element of t h e popular notion of culture is that s o m e people possess culture and some do not. However, based o n the definitions presented here, it b e c o m e s clear that o n e does not have culture so much as o n e reflects culture. I n other words, culture comes into being through the dynamic interaction of human beings. Culture is acquired through communication. You cannot get culture through a hypodermic needle, a n d you
250 J O C N N
Volume 24, Number 3
Successful and satisfying human communication occurs only when we adopt an orientation toward the process of communication that accepts and adapts to difference.
Cultural Conceptsin Clinical Care
d o not pass it along through the exchange ofbodilyfluids. I t is through communication that we learn the lessons of heritage from our parents a n d pass them o n to o u r children. When a little boy in North America is told that boys d o not cry, a child in Japan is told that the nail that sticks u p gets hammered down, a n d a Hindu child watches as the women eat after the men, they are learning culture. Culture as Process When w e stop viewing culture as a thing w e possess and know it as a process in which w e engage, w e c o m e to understand that culture is not intangible o r unchanging. We come to know that culture is individual and collective and is subject to all kinds of environmental transformations. In short, w e c o m e to understand that culture is not right o r wrong o r good o r bad but a way of getting along in the world. This observation will prove important as we move into our discussion of intercultural communication. Misunderstandings occur because the communication behaviors that have survival value in o n e cultural environment can create turmoil when introduced into another environment. As a result of these misunderstandings, communication partners become suspicious and distrustful of each other because neither partner understands the correctness of the other. Let us look at communication and understand h o w popular views of communication often mitigate against successful intercultural exchanges.
Tbinking About Communication We live in an age of constant communication. Telephones, televisions, fax machines, compact disc players, and computers keep us continually connected to multiple sources of news a n d information. I t seems at times the amount of communication w e experience is overwhelming. O n a more personal level, it seems we are all conscious of the need to maintain good communication in our professional and personal lives. Advice about communication comes from magazines, afternoon talk shows, and special news reports. It seems everyone knows about communication. Communication Misunderstood Although communication is a term often used, it also is a term that is frequently misunderstood. There is a sense that communication is an individual aptitude that s o m e people have finely developed. There also is a sense that certain communication skills can b e learned and used to manipulate others for personal gain. The problem with this popular notion of communication is that it reduces communication to a trait of personality or to a talent. Consequently, when problems in communication arise there is a tendency to either regard the problem as idiosyncratic because a person’s commu-
March/Aprill995
A superficial understanding of communication frequently generates inappropriate behaviors that often escalate -mhunderstandings, rather than resolve them.
nication style is a n unchangeable as fingerprints o r look for a quick fix, such as the special words o r gestures that will win the argument, soothe hurt feelings, o r accomplish tasks. This approach to communication is especially troubling when the communication issue centers around culture. A superficial understanding of communication frequently generates inappropriate behaviors that often escalate misunderstandings, rather than resolve them. Perhaps o n e of the best examples of this approach to communication happened when presidential candidate Ross Perot used the term “you people” in front of a gathering of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). H e used the term in an attempt to appear friendly and concerned, but his audience found the term condescending and offensive. Communication Defined Definitions of communication used to center around the idea of o n e person sending a message and another person receiving it. This view of communication made the process s e e m linear and mechanistic. Think about the last conversation you had with a friend. If you are a North American, you displayed your interest by looking at the person, nodding occasionally, and perhaps subtly vocalizing your approval from time to time. As a discerning human being, you are capable of sending a n d receiving messages at the same time, and so can your friend. A good definition of communication must account for this ability and address the goal of human communication. The following should serve as a starting point for our discussion: communication is the transactional process of people actively engaged in the creation of meaning. Communication as a TransactionalProcess When communication theorists refer to communication as transactional, they are attempting to illustrate that communication necessarily involves two people w h o are both capable of generating and receiving messages simultaneously. For a communication exchange to be considered transactional, there are four general characteristics. 1.Transactional communication requires mutual and simultaneous perception. Problems in communication can occur if w e do not have the other’s attention. When I was a teacher in Japan, I usually took a walk during my lunch break. O n e day while out o n my walk I noticed a student across the street. She s e e m e d to b e looking at me, so I waved at her. She did not return my greeting and
J O C N N
251
continued walking. I instantly regretted my behavior and was sure I had violated a cultural norm. When I saw my student in class the next day I wanted t o apologize for my rudeness. After explaining my story, the student smiled and informed m e that s h e would have waved but s h e simply had not seen m e . The point is simple. I t is difficult t o ascribe communication svatus t o behaviors when mutual contact has not been established. 2 . Transactional communication requires mutual assignment o f roles. A role is not just w h o you are, i t is also what you are. We assign roles t o everyone with whom w e communicate and every time w e communicate. Sometimes the roles are specific: supervisor, friend, co-worker. Sometimes the roles are more general: stranger, male, child. In each case, the role allows us t o categorize the person and call upon appropriate sets o f responsive behaviors. There are greeting behaviors that are suitable for those we call friends. For those w e call enemies, different behaviors must b e used. In short, transactional communication says that when w e recognize each other, w e inevitably enter into a role relationship with the other person. 3 . Transactional communication calls into practice an implicit set o f rules for both communication p r t n e r s . As children w e learn from our parents how w e should behave in a wide variety o f situations. As adults, these rules have been internalized and influence how w e behave and respond to behavior. For example, in North America when two persons meet for the first time, they smile and offer a hand in greeting. There were n o rules written o n the wall of the room that offer instructions in greeting behaviors. The culture furnishes its members with this information. Problems in communication occur when the set of implicit rules invoked by o n e of the c o m munication partners is inconsistent with the set of rules invoked by the other. This frequently is the case in intercultural exchanges. 4 . Transactional communication is context-bound. There is a great tendency to assume that all communication is roughly the same. Certainly, w e can acknowledge nuances of individual behavior, but overall, people are fundamentally the same. These presumptions are absolutely inconsistent with the idea of transactional communication. The context of communication can include any n u m ber of variables. Minimally it includes where a n d w h e n the communication takes place, w h o is involved, a n d the nature of the communication that precedes a n d follows it. The main idea here is that communication episodes are fundamentally unique, a n d successful communication encounters require adaptability a n d flexibility. Communication is far more than just an exchange of words between a n d among people. Communication is a complex process that includes t h e perception a n d judgment of all of the people involved.
o n e person t o another. We think of communication as a task o f shuffling pieces o f information back and forth. The problem with this approach is that i t fails t o account for the dynamic nature o f human beings. When w e speak to others, their experiences, information, feelings act as a filter for all w e have t o say. Conscquently, once the information passes through all o f their perceptual filters, it stands a great chance o f being distorted o r misinterpreted. To better unclerstand how communication works and how meaning is created, it is necessary t o look more closely at a number o f key issues.
Tbe Message-MeaningRelationship From a transactional perspective, the goal o f communication is more than just message transfer, it is the creation o f meaning. This observation rests on the transference o f messages not being the same as the creation o f meaning. Two examples illustrate the point. Students o f foreign languages are well acquainted with this problem as they learn not to take literally idiomatic expressions. A friend from Ecuador recently recounted an incident that occurred when s h e had just c o m e t o the IJniteci States to study. While s h e was telling o n e o f her classmates an exciting story, the classmate exclaimed said, “Get outa here.” Puzzled, s h e stood u p and got ready t o leave until her classmate explained the meaning o f her exclamation. Another example involved an older Chinese woman w h o was given instructions by her physician to come back for a follow-up visit. The woman smiled and nodded and never returned. Additional investigation revealed that the woman had n o intention of returning for the office visit. However, out of respect for the physician and a Chinese cultural norm of accommodation, s h e nodded her compliance (Geist, 1994). Clearly this was a case in which the message was relayed and received accurately but meaning was obscured. There are times when getting the message across without imparting t h e significance of the meaning is much like winning a battle but losing the war. Messages can b e recorded, but meaning cannot. To have meaning is to have understanding; that must b e the goal of effective communication. Tbe Content-RelationsbipComponents of Messages
When many of us think about the act of communicating, w e think about the process of transferring a message from
All messages generate two kinds of meaning: content meaning and relationship meaning. Take t h e simple question, “ H o w are you?” The content meaning can be described as the literal meaning of the message. A dictionary is all o n e needs to gain an understanding of the level of meaning. In terms of intercultural communication, if all meaning relies only o n accurate translation, most communication problems could b e resolved quickly. Often t h e most significant message is the o n e occurring o n t h e relational level of meaning. “How are you” asked by a physician is a far different question than “How are you” asked by a casual business acquaintance. Meaning from this level of the message is ascertained from the nature of the relationship existing between the communicators.
252 J O C N N
Volume 24. .Vumber 3
Communication as a Meaning-CenteredProcess
Culturul Concepts in Clinicul Cure
’The following example will make t h e point more clear. Pat says to Chris, “Let’sget back to work.” If Pat and Chris are friends, Chris understands the message as a comment made by a peer about what t o d o next. If Pat is a supervisor to Chris, the meaning o f the message could be very different. Instead o f a casual comment, the message could b e understood as a direct order. There is always a relational message i n all of o u r communication interactions. At the very least, underneath the most incidental o f messages, w e tell others who w e think w e are, w h o w e think they are, and most importantly, w e tell them how w e think they should respond. When I say “good morning” t o a colleague, I a m saying I am s o m e o n e in a position t o speak t o you; you are someone worthy o f speaking to; and by my use of a pause at the e n d o f the statement, 1 expect that you will acknowledge my greeting. Unfortunately, many times w e are so focused o n getting our message across that w e fail t o monitor closely this level o f meaning. Misunderstanding may develop d e spite the content being accurately conveyed. A new instructor full o f enthusiasm and commitment for her students and subject matter was intent on giving her students accurate and complete information about their next assignment. She spoke quickly, rarely looked at the group, and never smiled. The instructor complained t o her colleagues that her students s e e m e d quiet and uninterested. Class members thought her aloof, arrogant, and unconcerned about their well-being. They did not speak in class because they thought the instructor was uninterested.
Meaningful Communication Involves Multiple Message Systems Thcre arc many x l a g c s i n North American culture that relate t o communication: It’s not what you say that counts, it‘s what you don’t say; actions speak loucler than words; her actions spoke volumes. Clearly, there seems t o be a popular cultural awareness o f nonverbal coniniunication. Pioneering nonverbal theorist Albert Mehrabian ( 1971) suggests that almost 93% o f the total impact o f a message is t h e result o f nonverbal factors. Being aware o f nonverbal communication d o e s not necessarily equal understanding its pervasiveness or its import. There are many aspects o f nonverbal conimunication. The niost commonly referenced nonverbal messages include eye contact, hand arid body gestures, and move men t . I n addition, nonve rba I com m ;In i ca t ion can include personal artifacts (clothing, jewelry, hair arrangement), chronimics (sense o f time), smells, and touch. Each o f these elements has the potential to convey a message t o another person. However, the most important point t o remember is that o n c e two people have enjoined each other in a conimunication transaction, everything about them, what they do, what they wear, and how they behave takes o n message value a n d becomes part o f t h e complex fabric of their communication.
Communfcation Produces Botb Intentional and Unintentional Meaning Recall that implicit in the idea o f transactional communication is the fact that once two human beings perceive o n e another, they are capable of simultaneously sending and receiving messages. Given this observation, coupled with messages being generated by multiple message systems and on different levels o f meaning, it is small wond e r that they are times that meanings are received that were never intentionally sent. There is perhaps a tendency to assume that the unintentional messages sent during communication transactions are s o m e h o w troublesome, bad, or problematic. This is not necessarily true. There are times when the unintentional message fortifies the intentional message and enhances the meaning o f the communication exchange. F o r example, o n e of my students concluded that I was sincerely interested in homelessness, not because of anything I had said, but because I was wearing a pin that had b e e n sold to support the homeless cause. There are times when the unintentional message is in conflict with the intentional o n e . The frowning receptionist w h o says, “Welcome, 1 am happy to see you” does not convey warmth o r welcome. When such conflict exists, communication becomes confused, and goals are not met. Successful communication is not just a process of controlling oneself or sending only intentional messages. When two perceiving human beings are involved, it is always possible that each person can attach significance to behavior the other did not intend. The real issue here is t o keep all lines of communication o p e n and t o check perceptions often as a way of assessing the quality o f understanding created through your communicatic!n exchange. In communication, what is important is not the message sent, but the meaning understood. Monitoring meaning is the surest way to ac h ieve effective c o ni ni u n ica t ion.
Intercultural Communication Linking Culture and Communication Porter and Samovar ( 1994) see intercultural communication as occurring, “whenever a message produced in o n e culture must b e processed in another culture” (p. 7 ) . When w e communicate within our families or those with whom w e are familiar, the flow o f communication seems easy. This is because w e have much in common with each other and are confident that w e will b e understood. When w e engage i n intercultural communication, w e inevitably begin o n unfamiliar ground. ‘communication perceptions and behaviors often are marked by apprehension and doubt. Creating Productive Cultural Communfcation Clfmates The primary goal of intercultural communication must be the reduction o f uncertainty and the development of trust. T h e real goal o f intercultural communication is not finding t h e right words t o say t o each other, but rather
JOG”
253
discovering a common ground from which to communicate. Common ground is not a physical space as much as it is a social space created when both communicators share an earnest desire to understand and be understood by the other. I t is a safe space where cultural commonalties allow for mutual understanding. When intercultural communicators operate o n common ground, it is possible to get words wrong or gesture inappropriately without offending o r insulting the person a n d jeopardizing the relationship. Common ground is an environment marked by sincerity, patience, and a sincere desire to learn. Consequently, communication relationships are maintained and the move toward meaning continues. Intercultural CommunicationContexts
Once a positive social situation has been constructed it is important for communicators to acknowledge the place o r role of communication within the other’s culture. Hall (1976) refers to s o m e cultures as high context because “most of the information is either in t h e physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of t h e message” (p. 79). In high-context cultures, verbal messages are not always valued. Consequently, the amount of talk in highcontext cultures is not as much as that found in lowcontext cultures. High-context culture group members are skilled at perceiving and interpreting nonverbal messages and usually have the expectation that their communication partner also possesses these skills. A female Japanese student in an interpersonal communication class I taught found the emphasis o n talk in relationships confusing. She explained that a good wife knows what her husband needs o r wants. For him to have t o talk about it would mean that s h e was somehow inadequate. Conversely, low-context cultures are o n e s in which “the mass of information is vested in the explicit code” (Hall, 1976, p. 79). Emphasis is placed o n verbal messages. Communicators rely very little o n anything unspoken. People in low-context cultures often do not perceive nonverbal factors in the environment o r do not afford them much significance. O n the context continuum, many of the Asian cultures (Korean, Japanese, Chinese) would b e toward the high e n d , whereas the Swiss, German, a n d American cultures would be toward the low e n d . Attending to differences in context is important in establishing a useful framework for com m u nication. Overall, intercultural communication works best when uncertainty is decreased and trust is increased. Intercultural communication success is achieved when communicators recognize the significance each places on verbal and nonverbal messages and can create safe places to negotiate meaning.
tered at the right time. The underlying assumption has been that “right” behaviors will emanate only from people with a “right” perspective o n the task. Definitions and explanation of the key terms o f culture, communication, and intercultural have b e e n developed. Given this background, it seems appropriate t o offer s o m e suggestions for communicating interculturally. Orientation
Beginning any task in the right frame of mind is imperative. This is certainly true when the task involves communication. Taken together, the three perspectives listed here establish a solid framework for any intercultural e n counter. 1. MulticuIturuI. A multicultural perspective is o n e that recognizes all cultures as valid, significant, and reflective of the life experiences of the people w h o created it.
2 . Historic. T o make sense of the cultural behaviors of any group of people it is important to know understand their history and politics. Cultural behavior patterns e m e r g e for a reason. Often those reasons can be discovered through historic investigation. 3. Unique. Guide books or travel brochures often generate lists of the general characteristic of a particular people. T h e danger of such a list is that is could lead you to develop frozen evaluations. That is, the list predisposes you to interpret and evaluate people’s behavior in only o n e way. It is important to recognize that generalizations are the beginning of cultural understanding and not the e n d . In addition, o n e must recognize that having knowledge of the group d o e s not necessarily afford conclusive insight about an individual member of the group. Perhaps the best approach to take in all intercultural e n counters is “what’s new today..”
One must recognize that having knowledge of the group does not necessarily afford conclusive insight about an individual member of the group.
Investigation
This article began with the assertion that successful intercultural communication is more than the right words ut-
In is important to gather information about different cultures from a variety of different sources. Analyze closely the perspective from which the information is being presented and any implied evaluations. For example, in the early 1960s researchers w h o studied the speech a n d c o m munication styles of young African-American children labeled the children as uncommunicative and their speech as defective. Both conclusions were shown to b e false by other researchers w h o were grounded in an understanding of African-American culture and linguistic history. Look for cultural information based on a recognition and understanding of significant historic events. Such infor-
254 J O C N N
Volume 24. Number 3
Strategies fo r Creating Intercultural Communication Success
Cultural Concepts in Clinicul Care
mation provides a context for interpreting cultural beliefs and behaviors. Investigation should b e understood as a n ongoing process. An appropriate goal would be to compile a cultural profile o n t h e groups of people with whom you most often interact. I t is important to remember that t h e profile is never complete as long as there are people living together and working to survive in a common environment. Good information gathered within the context of a culturally sensitive orientation will facilitate creating sets of intercultural communication strategies. Realization
Throughout the entire process of engaging in intercultural communication perhaps the most important suggestion is to adopt a stance of genuine cultural relativity. Recognize the statement, “Why that person is just t h e same as us,” as a statement that really says, “I don’t accept difference; I can only deal with people w h o are the same as me.” Genuine cultural relativity means being able to acknowledge differences in other people as inevitable and valuable. Healthy intercultural communication begins with an authentic desire to understand s o m e o n e else’s way of seeing t h e world a n d acting within it. With this realization firmly in place, it is possible to develop specific c o m munication strategies for effectively creating meaning. Intercultural communication is not a trend o r fad o r simply this year’s hot topic of conversation. Intercultural communication soon will characterize most of our com-
munication. Preparing for intercultural communication must become a professional challenge and a personal goal.
References Geist, P. (1994). Negotiating cultural understanding in health care communication. In R . E . Porter CG L. A . Samovar (Eds.), Interculturalcommunication:A reader (7th e d . , pp. 31 13 1 9 ) . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyondculture. New York: Doubleday. Martin, B., CG Belcher, J . (1986). Influence o f cultural background o n nurses’ attitudes and care of the oncology patient. CancerNursirig, %5), 230-237. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silerit messages. Belmont. CA: Wadsworth. Philipsen, G . (1992). S p e a k i r i ~ c r t l f u r a lExploration ~~: in social communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Porter, R . E., CG Samovar, L. A . (1994). An introduction t o intercultural communication. In R . E. Porter and L. A. Samovar (Eds.), Intercultural communicafion:A reader (7th e d . , pp. 1-26). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Samovar, L. A , , Porter, R . E . (1991). Commuriication brtuwen culfures.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Address for correspondence: Teresa A. Nance, PhD, 5.30 Walnut Lane, Swarthmore, PA 19081. Teresa A . Nance is an associate professor tn the Communication Arts Department at Vtllanova Llniuerstty, Villanova, PA.
J O C N N
255