Major ethical issues in the field of intercultural relations: An exploratory study

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Major ethical issues in the field of intercultural relations: An exploratory study Kyoung-Ah Nam a,∗ , Gary Weaver a , Robert delMas b a b

American University, School of International Service, 4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20016, USA University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology, 56 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Available online 3 April 2015

Keywords: Ethics Intercultural communication Intercultural relations Intercultural training Ethical standards Cultural relativism

a b s t r a c t A major initial step in professionalizing intercultural relations as an applied field of study is to determine the ethical concerns of people actively involved in both scholarship and practice. Some intercultural relations organizations have established committees to develop standards of ethical behavior. There are many anecdotal accounts of unethical practices but there have been few systematic studies of such practices. This is the first large comprehensive quantitative survey of intercultural experts that contrasts and compares the concerns of both scholars and practitioners. The purpose of this exploratory study is to identify major ethical issues in the field of intercultural relations. Members of two major professional organizations were asked to identify what they believe are the major ethical concerns in the field of intercultural relations. Members of one organization were mostly intercultural practitioners while the other included mostly scholars. The results revealed that although there were great similarities in ethical concerns, there were also differences that were most likely a result of the two different professions. Of course, there were also some respondents who were members of both organizations and both professions. We identify, differentiate, and prioritize ethical concerns of scholars and practitioners. Although some differences were found in the types and ranking of ethical concerns, members of both professions believe that perpetuating cultural stereotypes and deceptively presenting one’s intercultural relations training skills are the top two major ethical concerns, followed by misuse of training tools or instruments and delivering services that are not in the best interests of clients. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: the need for a preliminary study of ethical concerns and standards The field of intercultural relations is becoming a well-established profession. Various aspects of intercultural relations are now routinely taught at major universities around the globe and intercultural training and consulting are now wellestablished professions. On some campuses, intercultural literacy is considered as vital as Internet or computer literacy for a well-educated student. Hundreds of books and journal articles are now published each year in this field and dozens of professional associations hold meetings and conferences bringing together both scholars and practitioners. Intercultural practitioners are found in the international human resource divisions of major international companies and organizations, in the international or study abroad student services division of universities, and in a wide array of

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 612 226 1067; fax: +1 202 885 1517. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.-A. Nam), [email protected] (G. Weaver), [email protected] (R. delMas). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.015 0147-1767/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

59

intercultural consulting and training firms. They provide workshops and seminars for international exchanges, diversity and multicultural management training, joint venture consulting, and cross-cultural coaching. Given the dramatic increase of people interacting with those who are culturally different and the expansion of domestic and international areas of intercultural relations scholarship and training, this profession is expected to continue to grow into new areas of inquiry and practice (Weaver, 2014). With this growth will come demands for greater professionalization including the development of standards of practice and some kind of certification of competence in the applied field. Although there are understandable differences, scholars and practitioners need each other. All applied academic fields are based upon a body of research and publication that can be critically examined by others. This scholarship guides practitioners and often provides evidence of effectiveness. Conversely, those engaged in the practice of intercultural relations inform the scholarship. As with any applied academic field such as law, education, counseling, or business, many members are both scholars and practitioners. Cross-cultural trainers bring hands on experiences into their workshops, seminars, and consulting to help others to develop the cross-cultural communication, negotiation, management, and adaptation skills that are necessary in today’s practice of business, counseling, health care, and education. Their credibility is based upon actual interactions with those who are culturally different. With the increasing pressure to develop intercultural competence across fields and organizations worldwide, the question of ethics is becoming critical for both scholars and practitioners. Intercultural educators, trainers, and researchers are now members of a well-established profession and, as any applied area of studies becomes a profession, there is a growing concern for the establishment of ethical standards and practice. This is certainly true for such fields as counseling, education, business, law or medicine. Members of these professions have determined what ethical standards should guide the appropriate behavior and they would agree that those who engage in unethical behavior discredit their field of practice and study. 2. Overview of ethics study in intercultural relations The discussion of intercultural communication and intercultural training began in the post-World War II period of the 1950s (Paige & Martin, 1996; Pusch, 2004). In the late 1950s and the 1960s, intercultural training was carried out by government agencies for the U.S. Foreign Service, Peace Corps, and the military (Paige & Martin, 1996). At the same time training for Fortune 500 company managers and executives who were relocating overseas was provided by organizations such as the Business Council for International Understanding Institute (BCIU) at American University. During the 1970s, the field further expanded with the addition of more independent trainers and number of small consulting and training firms. The Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research (SIETAR International) was founded in 1974 in an effort to bring together these independent intercultural professionals (Hayles, 2012). It was during the early 1980s that scholarly literature began to consider the ethics of intercultural communication (Condon, 1981; Howards, Frank, Pusch, & Renwick, 1982; Paige & Martin, 1983, 1996). It was at that time that members of SIETAR-USA began discussing a code of ethics and certification system for intercultural trainers, and codes of ethics have continued to be drafted and revised in cycles since 1982 (Thacker, 2012). At its 2013 annual conference, SIETAR-USA presented the code of ethics it had developed. 2.1. Ethics in intercultural relations: key themes Previous works on ethics in intercultural communication fall on a continuum from the assumption that there are universal ethics or some universal set of values that are in common across all cultures to a version of cultural relativism which asserts that ethics are specific to particular cultures and cannot be judged by the standards of outside cultures. Another version of cultural relativism simply argues that ethics can only be understood in the context of each culture. However, understanding what motivates a behavior in the context of a culture does not necessarily mean that an interculturalist must deem that behavior ethical. Criticizing the relativist perspective, Richter (2012) argued that some cultural practices can be universally ethical or unethical. Evanoff (2004) also noted that using cultural relativism as an ethical norm for intercultural communication is counterproductive. Although relativism acknowledges and appreciates cultural differences it does nothing to help reconcile those differences when encountered in intercultural communication. Others have taken the position that nothing in a single culture’s ethical structure prepares its adherents to interact across cultures (Condon, 1981; Evanoff, 2004; MacDonald & O’Regan, 2012). According to them, cultural relativism, therefore, cannot be used as a basis for intercultural communication ethical standards on its own. Acknowledging cultural relativity, Morgan (1998) offered a framework for ethics based upon legality and appropriateness. That is, cultural practices should be understood based on whether they are legal, culturally ethical, just and fair, and culturally appropriate from the lenses of individual, community, and global perspectives. Fleischacker (1999), however, argued that existing international human rights laws and conventions are too vague and open to interpretation to form a strong and effective basis for intercultural ethics. Conversely, universal values have been a key discussion point in intercultural ethics. A few scholars have proposed that core values such as justice, fairness, truth, love, unity, and loyalty do exist in most cultures, but such values lay only the barest foundation for intercultural communication (Johannesen, Valde, & Whedbee, 2008; Pratt & Ogundimu, 1997). Others

60

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

posited that universal values may indeed exist, but these values are manifested in different ethics and practices dependent on the specific cultural context (Fleischacker, 1999; Morgan, 1998; Smart, 2012; Wines & Napier, 1992). To these authors, universal values are only minimally useful in defining intercultural communication ethics. Evanoff (2004, 2005, 2006, 2012) argued that, while basic universal values may exist, they do little to provide a foundation for the complex issues that arise out of intercultural communication. Instead, he offered a constructivist or communicative approach to ethics. Evanoff stated that a new system of ethics must be actively constructed from the interacting cultures in order to provide ethical norms sufficient for governing the new contexts of intercultural communication. Intercultural dialog should be used between specific individuals to solve a specific ethical issue at a specific time and place. This approach recognizes that intercultural ethics are dynamic and evolving, so each particular situation requires dialog and the creation of a new solution for each culturally-specific context. Raising yet another view on ethics, rather than ethical universality or relativity, Johannesen et al. (2008) stressed that intercultural communication should ultimately strive for peace and harmony between individuals while appreciating diversity. Martin, Flores, and Nakayama (2002), however, rejected the “peace principle,” as it stifles true dialog. Ethics centered on peace and tolerance leads to “ethical paralysis and inertia,” which is counter to the “transformative nature” of intercultural communication (MacDonald & O’Regan, 2012, p. 6). There is a broad consensus within the literature that intercultural ethics must be created collectively with equal input from everyone it concerns (Casmir, 1997; Deifelt, 2007; Evanoff, 2004; Fleischacker, 1999; Hopkins, 1997; Martin et al., 2002; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2013). However, MacDonald and O’Regan (2012) critiqued any attempts to create a transcendental, universal ethic. Intercultural communication, they argued, needs to respect and celebrate cultural differences, not diminish them. Rather than making ethical decisions based on what is right or wrong, ethics should be based on preserving and not silencing diversity. Establishing intercultural communication ethics is a continuous dialog process of critically evaluating various cultural and ethical components (Casmir, 1997; Evanoff, 2004, 2005, 2012; Fleischacker, 1999; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2013). Suggested methods follow a common pattern: begin with “self-other” reflections and then move into respectful, cooperative dialog (Casmir, 1997; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2013). A vital part of the dialog process of ethics is self-reflection on one’s own culture, values, and ethics (Evanoff, 2006; Hisano, 2012; MacDonald & O’Regan, 2012; Martin & Butler, 2001; Martin et al., 2002; Paige & Martin, 1996; Pedersen, 1997; Pusch, 2004; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2013; Shuter, 2000; Ting-Toomey, 2011; Wines & Napier, 1992). At the same time, ethical communicators must strive to understand the culture, ethics, and the cultural motivation behind the ethics systems of their dialog partners (Dragga, 1999; Fleischacker, 1999; Johannesen et al., 2008; MacDonald & O’Regan, 2012; Paige & Martin, 1996; Pedersen, 1997; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2013; Shuter, 2000; Ting-Toomey, 2011; Wines & Napier, 1992). Researchers have also cautioned that individuals cannot completely understand cultural “others” (Deifelt, 2007; Martin et al., 2002). As ethics are deeply rooted in cultural values and personal identity, dialog on creating intercultural ethics is often an emotional topic and should be approached cautiously (Romani & Szkudlarek, 2013). Power dynamics is another factor to keep in mind. While dominant groups often tend to view their ethics as universal (Deetz, Cohen, & Edley, 1997), structurally non-dominant groups tend to speak less, listen more, and have a better understanding of the dominant groups (Martin et al., 2002). 2.2. Practical applications: ethics in intercultural training and research Establishing a code of ethics in the field has been discussed with respect to under-qualified or unethical trainers (Fowler, 2012; Paige & Martin, 1996; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2013). Paige and Martin (1996) argued intercultural training cannot be considered a profession without a formal ethical code. In the business arena, for example, taking part in some form of intercultural training is increasingly becoming an important requirement in many global organizations. Intercultural trainers for these companies encounter various kinds of international business ethics issues. Beyond general corporate social responsibility, non-discriminatory hiring and promotions, and needing to understand the culture and ethics of business partners (Deetz et al., 1997; Hopkins, 1997; Wines & Napier, 1992), corporations often encounter behavior such as bribery that is unethical in their own culture but may not have the same ethical connotation to their business partners. Ting-Toomey (2011) suggested that if an ethically ambiguous practice, such as bribery, does not violate international human rights standards and business cannot be done without it, only then should a corporation accept the action. Some would argue that a company that has a reputation for being ethical actually builds trust and is more internationally successful than those who bend their ethics to fit the local culture. Others recognize that businesses frequently have their own corporate code of ethics, but note that care must be taken to include a full range of corporate stakeholders in the process of drafting ethics codes as well as ensuring that ethical behavior is demonstrated by management and understood by employees (Deetz et al., 1997; Hopkins, 1997). Trainers also encounter ethical dilemmas such as having to make a decision on whether or not to deliver an inadequate product—an overly shortened training at the request of a client—or not to give a training at all. Intercultural research raises another separate set of ethical concerns, primarily regarding power relations between researchers and researched. While different disciplines have already established various codes on informed consent, professionalism, and doing no harm, these are often challenging to put into practice (Martin & Butler, 2001). For example, written informed consent and research procedures, usually based on Western contractual practice, are often culturally insensitive

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

61

or inappropriate in other cultures, thus requiring researchers to be critical of their own cultural biases toward researcherresearched relations (Salinas Multer, Rance, Serrate Suárez, & Castro Condori, 2000; Shuter, 2000). Martin and Butler (2001) asserted that it is most ethical to treat research subjects as research participants and as a potential audience for the results, whereas Salinas Multer et al. (2000) found that to be impractical and overly idealized. Another common ethical concern in intercultural research is the question of who can speak for whom. While it is unproductive to only allow members of a particular ethnic group to research and write about that group, because it stifles intercultural communication and understanding, researchers should be wary of speaking for a group of which they are not a part (Martin & Butler, 2001). Instead, they should adopt a posture of speaking to or with that group (Martin & Butler, 2001; Martin et al., 2002). 2.3. Objectives of the study Our study aims to identify and prioritize the major ethical issues in the field of intercultural relations, as indicated by both scholars and practitioners in a comprehensive survey. There are a number of significant related questions that will necessarily be considered in the future as a result of this study, such as: How do we determine “intercultural competence” and who certifies it for what purpose? What does it mean to be “certified”? What are sanctions for unethical practices and who imposes those sanctions? Although the discussion of ethical issues in the intercultural field has been growing (Asuncion-Landé, 1978; Casmir, 1997; Cheney, May, & Munshi, 2011; Condon & Saito, 1976; Evanoff, 2006; Howards, Frank, Pusch, & Renwick, 1982; Jaksa & Pritchard, 1988; Kale, 1991; Paige & Martin, 1996), no sizable systematic survey has been done to identify what the primary ethical issues are according to those involved in intercultural relations as scholars and/or practitioners. We report the results of a survey on ethical issues in the intercultural field with a preliminary analysis and interpretation of the findings. The primary ethical issues in the field of intercultural relations based upon the quantitative data are first outlined, followed by an analysis of the findings. Given that there are few large or systematic empirical studies focusing on ethical issues in the intercultural field, this study contributes to a better understanding of the primary ethical issues identified by scholars and practitioners, and informs major policy and practice. 3. Methods The purpose of this exploratory/preliminary study is to determine primary ethical issues identified by scholars or researchers and practitioners or trainers who are involved in the field of intercultural relations. Data was obtained from scholars and practitioners including intercultural researchers, intercultural consultants, and key personnel in business, military, and governmental organizations through two key professional organizations in the field: the International Academy for Intercultural Research (IAIR) members and the Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research (SIETAR-USA) members. SIETAR began as a professional organizations of both scholars/researchers and practitioners/trainers. Although research informs practice and vice versa, as with any applied area of study, the needs of these two groups were different. Many practitioners were engaged in training and consulting as their primary occupation while scholars were often professors and researchers. IAIR was a smaller organization whose members are published scholars and membership requires a nomination from current members. Some respondents reported belonging to both organizations and some reported belonged to neither organization. Because 97% of respondent belong to these two organizations whose membership usually differs in terms of being primarily scholars/researcher or practitioners/trainers, it allowed us to contrast and compare our results. The research design uses a mixed-methods approach (Creswell, 2010) including quantitative measures from survey questionnaires and qualitative data obtained from in-depth interviews. In Phase I, an online survey was conducted from March to June, 2013 from IAIR and SIETAR-USA members. During Phase II, we continue to expand this research with followup in-depth interviews with key scholars and practitioners in the field. The initial findings from the online survey in Phase I are reported in this article. 3.1. Participants The survey participants were recruited through an email invitation sent to the mailing lists of the IAIR and SIETAR-USA. A total of 438 intercultural professionals responded to the survey and 398 participants completed the survey. Demographic information for the sample is reported in Tables 1 and 2. Two-hundred seventy one SIETAR-USA members (total surveyed = 1579; response rate: 17%) and 59 IAIR members (total surveyed = 240; response rate: 25%) responded (20 of these 310 respondents were members of both SIETAR-USA and IAIR). The most common organization other than SIETAR-USA and IAIR was the Association of International Educators (NAFSA). Twenty-three of the respondents indicated membership in NAFSA, however only five of those respondents were not members of either SIETAR-USA or IAIR. Twenty-one of the respondents indicated membership in a variety of other organizations, with only six of those respondents not being members of SIETAR-USA, IAIR or NAFSA. The six respondents who did not indicate being a member of SIETAR-USA, IAIR or NAFSA indicated membership in organizations such as AFS Intercultural Programs (originally called American Field Service) and the Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication (SIIC). Fifty-one percent of participants self-identified as practitioners (e.g., trainers, consultants, counselors, coaches) and 16% self-identified as

62

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74 Table 1 Demographic data of the respondents (N = 398).

Profession Practitioner only Scholar only Both Othera No response Organizational membership SIETAR-USA only IAIR only Both Otherb No responsec Gender Female Male Other Region(s) of focusd Africa The Americas Asia Australia & NZ Caribbean Europe Middle-East General Other No response

%

Total

51.3% 16.1% 25.9% 5.8% 1.0%

204 64 103 23 4

63.1% 9.8% 5.0% 2.8% 19.3%

251 39 20 11 77

70.9% 28.4% 0.1%

282 113 3

12.3% 55.5% 36.7% 7.0% 7.8% 38.2% 16.1% 4.0% 5.8% 7.5%

49 221 146 28 31 152 64 16 23 30

a

Respondents who did not indicate being a scholar or practitioner, but did indicate another profession. Respondents who did not indicate membership in SIETAR-USA or IAIR, but did indicate membership in another organization. c Some individuals on the SIETAR-USA mailing list may have been previous members of the organization who were not members at the time of the survey. d Respondents could select more than one response. b

scholars (e.g., professors, researchers, writers), with an additional 26% identifying as both scholars and practitioners. Of the 23 respondents who did not self-identify as a scholar or a practitioner, 12 indicated working in an intercultural workplace (e.g., study abroad advisor, working in an intercultural environment) and 9 identified themselves as students. The sample consisted of 282 females, 113 males, and 3 others. Participants had an average of 16.46 years of work experience (SD = 11.19) in the intercultural relations field (range: 0–52 years; see Table 2). Participants’ regions of specializations varied widely, with the largest number of participants specializing in the Americas, Europe, or Asia. 3.2. Procedure The online survey, distributed by the webmaster of each organization, consisted of both open- and closed-ended questions, such as Likert-type response scales, multiple-choice, and yes/no questions. The survey questions were derived from major literature in the field. The first survey question asked participants to rate their agreement with the statement “The field of intercultural relations should have an agreed-upon set of ethical standards” (Casmir, 1997; Condon, 1981; Evanoff, 2004; Fleischacker, 1999; Fowler, 2012; Johannesen et al., 2008; MacDonald & O’Regan, 2012; Martin & Butler, 2001; Martin Table 2 Years of experience (N = 398). M = 16.46 (SD = 11.19) Range: 0–52 years Years

%

Total

0–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31–35 36–40 41+

16.1% 22.6% 17.3% 12.6% 13.3% 7.3% 5.5% 3.3% 3.0%

64 90 69 50 53 29 18 13 12

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

63

et al., 2002; Paige & Martin, 1996; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2013; Shuter, 2000) on a four-point scale that ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The second survey question asked participants to rate how frequently they saw others in the intercultural relations field engage in behavior they considered unethical on a five-point scale that ranged from “never” to “very often.” Following this, the third survey item asked participants an open-ended question to define what separates unethical from ethical behavior in intercultural relations (Condon, 1981; Deifelt, 2007; Dragga, 1999; Evanoff, 2004, 2006, 2012; Johannesen et al., 2008; MacDonald & O’Regan, 2012; Martin et al., 2002; Morgan, 1998; Pedersen, 1997; Pratt & Ogundimu, 1997; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2013; Shuter, 2000; Smart, 2012; Ting-Toomey, 2011). In the fourth item, a fivepoint Likert-type scale question, participants rated how important ethical issues were in comparison to other issues they dealt with in the intercultural field. Then, participants were presented a list of seven key areas for potential ethical violations covered in the literature (Fowler, 2012; Hopkins, 1997; Martin & Butler, 2001; Martin et al., 2002; Paige & Martin, 1996; Pusch, 2004; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2013; Salinas Multer et al., 2000; Shuter, 2000; Ting-Toomey, 2011), with an eighth open-ended “other” option for areas not in the list. They were asked to identify the three issues that are most important in the field of intercultural relations. The sixth item asked participants to select the two forms of ethical violations they saw most often from the same list. Participants were then asked to provide basic demographic information about their profession, primary regional focus, years of experience in the field, member organizations, and gender. Several participants provided years of experience by a range with a “+” (e.g., “10+”). When calculating mean and standard deviation, these were rounded down, eliminating the “+” therefore the true mean is likely to be higher than 16.46 as illustrated in Table 2. Because of the “+” responses, years of experience responses were converted into an interval variable of 5-year intervals before conducting correlation analysis. Sets of dichotomous variables were created for responses to each of the other demographic questions where 1 indicated the selection of an item under a question and 0 indicated an item was not selected. For the gender item, a new variable named “female” was created where a 1 was coded if the respondent chose “female” and a 0 was coded if either “male” or “other” was selected. 3.3. Analyses Open-ended questions and “other” responses were categorized and coded (Creswell, 2009). Categories were determined by finding common keywords identified during the literature review phase. Where participants discussed more than one topic, responses were coded to multiple categories. Only categories from the first round of coding that had frequencies greater than three were retained. Response categories with frequency of three or less were combined into an “other” category. Any responses like “I don’t know” and those that were otherwise irrelevant to the question being asked were coded to the “none” category. Frequency distributions were produced for responses to the first six items on the survey. Analyses were then conducted to identify sets of demographic variables that were related to each variable represented by the first six survey items. Forward stepwise multinomial regression analyses were conducted for each Likert-type response variable (items 1, 2, and 4). When the dependent variable is measured on an ordinal scale, multinomial regression can be used to identify predictor variables that contribute significantly to predicting the likelihood that a respondent’s score on the dependent variable falls into each ordinal category (Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter, & Li, 2005). Forward multinomial regression (Kutner et al., 2005) was used to identify an optimum set of predictors for each of the three dependent variables. For each dependent variable, the forward selection method identified the predictor variable with the highest t-statistic greater than 2 and entered that variable into the model. On each subsequent step, among all the remaining variables not already in the model, the variable with the highest t-statistic greater than 2 was entered, iterating until no variables remained with a t-statistic greater than 2. A chi-square test of the difference between the null model and full model was conducted to test if the identified set of demographic variables accounted for a statistically significant amount of variance in the dependent variable. Responses to items 3, 5, and 6 consisted of categorical variables. For each type of definition given in response to item 3 or each key area of ethical violation selected in items 5 and 6, a response was coded as 1 if the respondent gave the definition or selected the key area and coded 0 otherwise. Forward stepwise logistic regression was used with each dichotomous variable from items 3, 5, and 6 to identify sets of demographic variables were related to each variable. The selection method was the same as the one used for the forward stepwise multinomial regression analyses described in the previous paragraph, except that the selection was based on a criterion of the highest z-statistic greater than 2. 4. Results The results are reported below. Descriptive statistics are presented first followed by the results of the regression analyses for each dependent variable. Finally, key themes from open-ended comments are presented. 4.1. Perceived need for ethical standards Regardless of their demographics or regional focus, a vast majority of respondents supported the need for ethical standards. Eighty-four percent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “The field of intercultural relations should have an agreed-upon set of ethical standards” as shown in Table 3.

64

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

Table 3 Response frequencies for the survey items on the need for ethical standards, frequency of observed ethical behavior and importance of ethics (N = 398). Response categories Survey item

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

The field of intercultural relations should have an agreed-upon set of ethical standards.

16 (4.0%)

46 (11.6%)

239 (60.1%)

97 (24.4%)

Response categories Survey item

Never

Rarely

Occasionally

Often

Very often

Which of the following best describes how frequently or infrequently you see others in the intercultural relations field engage in conduct you consider unethical?

33 (8.3%)

160 (40.2%)

161 (40.5%)

36 (9.0%)

8 (2.0%)

Response categories Survey item

Much Less Important

Less Important

About Equally Important

More Important

Much More Important

In terms of importance to your day-to-day work, how do ethical issues compare to other issues you deal with in the intercultural relations field?

17 (4.3%)

78 (19.6%)

203 (51.0%)

69 (17.3%)

31 (7.8%)

Results of the multinomial regression analysis identified three variables related to the need for standards scale: Being a member of the Association of International Educators (NAFSA), identifying oneself as a member of a profession other than scholar or practitioner, and having the Americas as a regional focus (see Table 4; 2 (3) = 9.889, p = 0.020). The likelihood of selecting Agree or Strongly Agree on the need for ethical standards scale decreases by 17 percentage points with membership in NAFSA, whereas being in a profession other than scholar or practitioner or having the Americas as a regional focus were associated with increases of 7 and 6 percentage points, respectively, of selecting Agree or Strongly Agree on the standards scale.

4.2. Frequency of observed unethical behavior The majority of participants (51.5%) reported observing unethical behavior occasionally/often/very often, while a nearly equal number reported observing it rarely or never (48.5%; see Table 3). The forward multinomial regression analysis for the frequency of ethical violations scale identified six predictor variables (see Table 5; 2 (6) = 33.212, p < 0.001). Not identifying a region of focus decreased the likelihood of selecting Often or Very Often on the observed unethical behaviors scale by 6 percentage points, whereas being a member of SIETAR-USA, identifying as a scholar, practitioner or female and having Europe as a focus region were all associated with higher likelihoods of selecting higher values on the observed unethical behaviors frequency scale (increases of 5 and 7 percentage points for SIETAR-USA and scholar, respectively, and of 4 percentage points for each of the remaining demographic variables). In addition, the likelihood of higher values for respondents who indicate they are both scholars and practitioners is 11 percentage points higher than those who are neither a scholar nor a practitioner, 6 percentage points higher than those who are scholars but not practitioners, and 8 percentage points higher than those who are practitioners but not scholars. Table 4 Results of forward multinomial regression with the need for ethical standards scale as dependent variable. Variable

Coefficient

Standard error

t-Statistic

Odds ratio

Change in probabilitya

NAFSA Other profession The Americas focus

−1.0148 0.6350 0.4592

0.4097 0.2655 0.2021

−2.477 2.391 2.273

0.362 1.887 1.583

−0.171 0.069 0.059

a Change in probability of giving a rating higher than Disagree on the ethical standards scale associated with each predictor variable holding all other predictor variables constant.

Table 5 Results of forward multinomial regression with the frequency of observed unethical behaviors scale as dependent variable. Variable

Coefficient

Standard error

t-Statistic

Odds ratio

Change in probabilitya

No region SIETAR-USA Scholar Practitioner Female Europe focus

−1.0024 0.6117 0.7654 0.5667 0.5043 0.4406

0.3537 0.2117 0.2079 0.2430 0.2132 0.2010

−2.834 2.889 3.682 2.332 2.365 2.192

0.367 1.844 2.150 1.762 1.656 1.554

−0.063 0.049 0.071 0.044 0.041 0.040

a Change in probability of giving a rating higher than Occasionally on the frequency of observed unethical behavior scale associated with each predictor variable holding all other predictor variables constant.

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

65

Table 6 Results of forward multinomial regression for the importance of ethics scale. Variable

Coefficient

Standard error

t-Statistic

Odds ratio

Change in probabilitya

The Americas focus Scholar Practitioner Female

0.5518 0.8458 0.6549 0.4308

0.1941 0.2071 0.2372 0.2120

2.843 4.085 2.761 2.032

1.736 2.330 1.925 1.538

0.099 0.159 0.108 0.075

a Change in probability of giving a rating higher than About Equally Important on the importance of ethics scale associated with each predictor variable holding all other predictor variables constant.

4.3. Perceived importance of ethics When comparing the importance of ethics to other day-to-day issues, roughly half (51.0%) of participants valued ethics as equally important, while approximately a quarter of participants saw ethics as more or much more important (25.1%), or less or much less important (23.9%), than other issues encountered in their daily work (see Table 3). The forward multinomial regression analysis for the importance scale identified four predictor variables (see Table 6; 2 (4) = 21.528, p < 0.001). Having the Americas as a regional focus, identifying as a scholar or practitioner, and identifying as a female each increased the likelihood of selecting More Important or Much More Important on the importance of ethics scale by 10, 16, 11, and 8 percentage points, respectively. In addition, the likelihood of higher values for respondents who indicate they are both scholars and practitioners is 26 percentage points higher than those who are neither a scholar nor a practitioner, 14 percentage points higher than those who are scholars but not practitioners, and 17 percentage points higher than those who are practitioners but not scholars. 4.4. Important ethical issues and most frequently observed misconduct Asking respondents to identify the three most important ethical issues and two most frequently observed misconduct resulted in similar distributions of responses. Although the rankings of which responses were selected most frequently do differ slightly between the two questions, respondents tended to select the same issues between the two questions as shown in Table 7. Moderate to high associations were found between all pairs of responses (e.g., perpetuating stereotypes as an important ethical issue and perpetuating stereotypes as a frequently observed ethical violation). Tetrachoric correlations ranged from 0.466 to 0.787 (p < 0.001 for all pairs of variables). Results from logistic regression analyses for sets of demographic variables associated with the likelihood of selecting each ethical issue as one of the three most important issues are reported in Table 8. None of the demographic variables were associated with identifying quality of service issues as an important ethical issue. Participants with more years of experience were less likely to see perpetuating stereotypes as an important ethical issue (2 (1) = 5.131, p = 0.024). For example, a participant who had 10 more years of experience than another participant would have a likelihood of selecting perpetuating stereotypes as an important issue that is 5 percentage points (0.005 × 10 × 100 = 5) lower than the participant with the fewer years of experience. Respondents who indicated Australia/New Zealand as a region of focus were three times less likely and those who indicated a profession other than scholar or practitioner were about 2 times more likely to see deceptive self-presentation as an important ethical issue (2 (2) = 13.025, p = 0.001). Three demographic variables (indicating scholar as a profession and indicating Asia or being a generalist as a region of focus) were each associated with a greater likelihood of indicating misuse of training tools or instruments as an important ethical issue (2 (3) = 20.17, p < 0.001). Respondents without a specific regional focus had the greatest impact on the probability of selecting misuse of training tools, increasing the probability by 36 percentage points, whereas identifying as a scholar and having Asia as a region of focus had similar impacts (increases of 13 and 14 percentage points, respectively). Being female (two times more likely than non-females) or belonging to an organization other than or in addition to SIETAR-USA or IAIR (2.6 times more likely) were both associated with a greater likelihood of indicating harmful training as an important

Table 7 Important ethical issues and most frequently observed misconduct (N = 398). Most important ethical issues 1. Perpetuating Stereotypes 2. Deceptive Self-Presentation 3. Quality of Service Issues 4. Misuse of Tools 5. Harmful Training 6. Plagiarism 7. Other 8. Use of Human Subjects

Most frequently observed violations 237 (59.5%) 195 (49.0%) 174 (43.7%) 154 (38.7%) 148 (37.2%) 96 (24.1%) 67 (16.8%) 54 (13.6%)

1. Perpetuating Stereotypes 2. Deceptive Self-Presentation 3. Misuse of Tools 4. Quality of Service Issues 5. Plagiarism 6. Harmful Training 7. Other 8. Use of Human Subjects

Note: Participants were asked to select the three most important ethical issues and two most frequently observed ethical violations.

192 (48.2%) 149 (37.4%) 96 (24.1%) 80 (20.1%) 75 (18.8%) 67 (16.8%) 49 (12.3%) 14 (3.5%)

66

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

Table 8 Results of forward logistic regression for identifying demographic variables related to indicating each ethical issue as one of the three most important issues. Dependent variable

Independent variables

Coefficient

Standard error

z-Statistic

Odds ratio

Change in probabilitya

Perpetuating Stereotypes Deceptive Self-Presentation

Years Aus/NZ focus Other Prof. Scholar General focus Asia focus Female Other Org.b No Org.c Europe focus Aus/NZ focus Teacher

−0.021 −1.103 0.666

0.010 0.451 0.282

−2.255 −2.447 2.364

0.980‘ 0.332 1.946

−0.005 −0.240 0.160

0.523 1.519 0.591

0.213 0.562 0.218

2.460 2.706 2.707

1.687 4.569 1.805

0.128 0.362 0.144

0.697 0.948 0.678 −1.112 1.118 2.116

0.245 0.462 0.274 0.371 0.505 0.974

2.849 2.053 2.472 −2.998 2.212 2.172

2.008 2.581 1.972 0.329 3.058 8.299

0.170 0.216 0.136 −0.049 0.222 0.457

Misuse of Tools

Harmful Training Plagiarism Use of Human Subjects

a Change in probability of identifying an ethical issue as one of the three most important issues associated with each predictor variable holding all other predictor variables constant. b Respondent indicates belonging to an organization other than or in addition to SIETAR-USA or IAIR. c Respondent did not indicate membership in any organization.

ethical issue (2 (2) = 12.18, p = 0.002). Not indicating any organizational affiliation almost doubled the odds of considering plagiarism as an important ethical issue (2 (1) = 5.868, p = 0.015). Finally, having Europe or Australia/New Zealand as a region of focus and identifying teacher as a profession were all associated with a higher likelihood of indicating use of human subjects violations as important (2 (3) = 18.803, p < 0.001). Whereas having Europe as a region of focus decreased the probability of selecting use of human subjects violations by 5 percentage points, both having Australia/New Zealand as a region of focus and identifying as a teacher increased the likelihood (22 and 46 percentage points, respectively), with being a teacher having the largest impact on the probability of selecting use of human subjects violations. Results from logistic regression analyses for sets of demographic variables associated with the likelihood of selecting each ethical issue as one of the two most frequently observed violations are reported in Table 9. None of the demographic variables were associated with selecting misuse of training tools, plagiarism or harmful training practices as frequently observed ethical violations. Having Africa as a region of focus decreased the probability of selecting perpetuating stereotypes by 15 percentage points (2 (1) = 4.177, p = 0.041). Being a member of SIETAR-USA was associated with identifying deceptive self-presentation as a frequently observed ethical violation (2 (1) = 7.974, p = 0.005), increasing the probability by 14.5 percentage points. Indicating Australia/New Zealand as a region of focus more than doubled the likelihood of indicating quality of service issues as a frequently observed ethical violation (2 (1) = 3.995, p = 0.046). Finally, being a member of IAIR, having Australia/New Zealand as a region of focus and identifying teacher as a profession all increased the likelihood of observing use of human subjects violations most often (increases of 18, 14 and 26 percentage points, respectively), whereas having the Americas as a focus region decreased the likelihood slightly (2 (4) = 27.883, p < 0.001). Comparison of Tables 8 and 9 shows that although moderate to high correlations were found between the ethical issues identified as most important and most frequent, different demographic variables were associated with the two measures for a given ethical issue. Use of Human Subjects is the only ethical issue that is associated with some of the same demographic variables (having Australia/New Zealand as a regional focus and Teacher as a profession) for being selected as one of the most Table 9 Forward logistic regression results for identifying demographic variables associated with selecting each ethical issue as one of the two most frequently observed violations. Dependent variable

Independent variables

Coefficient

Standard error

z-Statistic

Odds ratio

Change in probabilitya

Perpetuating Stereotypes Deceptive Self-Presentation Quality of Service Issues Use of Human Subjects

Africa focus SIETAR-USA Aus/NZ focus IAIR Aus/NZ focus The Americas focus Teacher

−0.638 0.646 0.868 1.746 1.787 −1.626 2.708

0.319 0.234 0.416 0.595 0.653 0.737 1.272

−2.003 2.767 2.085 2.934 2.738 −2.206 2.130

0.528 1.909 2.381 5.730 5.972 0.197 14.999

−0.154 0.145 0.168 0.184 0.142 −0.001 0.263

a Change in probability of identifying an ethical issue as one of the two most frequently observed violations associated with each predictor variable holding all other predictor variables constant.

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

67

Table 10 Forward logistic regression results for identifying demographic variables associated with giving each type of definition of what separates ethical from unethical behavior. Theme

Independent variables

Coefficient

Standard error

z-Statistic

Odds ratio

Change in probabilitya

Culturally Relative

Europe focus Scholar No Prof. Scholar SIETAR-USA The Americas focus Years Female No focus region IAIR

0.688 0.639 2.209 −1.205 2.692 0.989 0.039

0.271 0.271 1.014 0.466 1.026 0.434 0.017

2.538 2.361 2.178 −2.587 2.625 2.278 2.293

1.989 1.894 9.103 0.299 14.775 2.689 1.040

0.100 0.091 0.401 −0.001 0.477 0.027 0.001

1.356 1.021 1.128

0.620 0.504 0.414

2.185 2.028 2.727

3.879 2.776 3.090

0.140 0.043 0.108

Self-serving Deceptive Self-Presentation

Perpetuate Stereotypes Need for Standards a

Change in probability of giving a type of ethical definition associated with each predictor variable holding all other predictor variables constant.

important and most frequent issues. For two of the ethical issues, Perpetuating Stereotypes and Deceptive Self-Presentation, completely different sets of demographic variables are associated with a greater likelihood of selecting an issue as most important for selecting an issue as most frequently observed. In addition, there are three ethical issues that have demographic variables associated with a greater likelihood of selecting the issue as most important but no demographic variables associated with a greater likelihood of identifying the issue as most frequently observed, with exactly the opposite pattern for one of the ethical issues (Quality of Services). 4.5. Key themes: what separates ethical from unethical behavior? Item 3 on the survey asked respondents to define what separates ethical from unethical behavior in intercultural relations. Of the 398 respondents, 293 (74%) provided a definition. The definitions were used to identify 22 different themes, where a definition could represent more than one theme. While some definitions represented up to six themes, the vast majority (269, or 92%) represented one to three themes, with close to half (141, or 48%) representing a single theme. Definitions given by more than 30 respondents were identified as major themes among the responses and are reported below. This resulted in six major themes. Results from logistic regression analyses for sets of demographic variables associated with the likelihood of providing each type of definition are reported in Table 10. When asked to define what separates ethical from unethical behavior in intercultural relations, the most common theme (69 responses) was that ethics are culturally relative, and therefore, many were hesitant to define any universal ethical behaviors. Some asserted that because ethics were culturally relative, ethical standards could not and should not be established, while others stated that ethical behavior took cultural relativity into account and behaved respectfully within each different cultural context. This latter perspective was perhaps best phrased by one participant, “unethical behavior is that which does not honor the context.” In other words, any ethical behavior in intercultural communication needs to take into account the ethics of all cultures involved. Results from the logistic regression analysis indicated that respondents who identified Europe as a region of focus or scholar as a profession were more likely to give this type of definition (2 (2) = 11.037, p = 0.004), with membership in either group increasing the probability by about 10 percentage points. As a whole, participants largely supported the view that no universal ethical standards for the intercultural profession can or should be established. Forty-four participants defined ethical and unethical behavior by whether or not the actions cause harm (Howell, 1981). There was some disagreement, however, within this group whether behavior must knowingly cause harm for it to be considered unethical or not. Logistic regression did not identify any demographic variables that are associated with the “do no harm” definition of unethical behavior. Additionally, 41 respondents defined ethical behavior as that which puts the interests of others—clients, students, or the intercultural field as a whole—above one’s own interests. Self-serving behavior, on the other hand, is unethical according to this group. Participants who did not identify with any type of profession were nine times more likely to give this type of definition that those who identified with a profession (2 (1) = 4.051, p = 0.044). Thirty-three participants defined unethical behavior as deceptive self-presentation among intercultural trainers. That is, ethical trainers deliver services as promised and are honest about their skills, abilities, and knowledge while unethical trainers misrepresent their abilities or promise services that they cannot or do not plan to deliver. SIETAR-USA members (48 percentage point increase), those who identified the Americas as a regional focus (3 percentage point increase), and respondents with more years in the field of intercultural relations (1 percentage point increase per 10 years) were more likely to define unethical behavior with respect to deceptive self-presentation, whereas respondents who identified as scholars were slightly less likely (0.1 percentage point decrease) to do so (2 (4) = 35.947, p < 0.001). Thirty-one respondents defined unethical behavior as that which knowingly, or in some cases unknowingly, perpetuates cultural stereotypes. Results from the logistic regression indicated females were almost four times more likely than non-females and participants without

68

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

a regional focus were almost 3 times more likely than those with a regional focus to discuss perpetuating stereotypes as an ethical issue (2 (2) = 11.001, p = 0.004). A final major theme (31 responses) was a discussion of whether ethical standards ought to be established in the field. While some respondents favored establishing standards from shared universal values, such as love and justice, many more respondents opposed establishing formal standards due to cultural relativity, and thought imposing ethical standards on cultural minority groups would be unethical in itself. Still others did favor establishing ethical standards for one sub-group of the intercultural field such as for trainers, researchers, or business people, but not for the intercultural field as a whole. Identifying as an IAIR member increased the likelihood of discussing ethical standards when defining ethics by 11 percentage points (2 (1) = 6.580, p = 0.010). 5. Discussion This large and comprehensive survey of scholars and practitioners included respondents who disproportionately (78%) described themselves as practitioners and members of SIETAR-USA or scholars and members of the IAIR. Roughly 63% of respondents identified themselves as members of SIETAR-USA. About 10% of respondents were members of only the IAIR and a smaller percentage were members of both SIETAR-USA and IAIR. About 70% of respondents identified themselves as female, and most respondents were very experienced with an average 16.46 years of work in the field of intercultural relations. There was overall agreement on basic ethical concerns of both scholars and practitioners, but there were also some significant differences that may be a consequence of the different professions of respondents. The following sections describe these findings in detail and provide some possible explanations for the results. 5.1. Similarities and differences between scholars and practitioners Scholars and practitioners were associated with many of the same variables. Both scholars and practitioners were more likely to indicate seeing ethical violations often and to see the need for ethical standards to be important. However, in both cases scholars had a higher likelihood than practitioners, possibly placing a greater emphasis than practitioners on ethical issues in the field of intercultural relations. In addition, scholars were more likely to identify misuse of training tools as an important ethical issue and to discuss the contextual, culturally relative nature of ethical issues. By contrast, practitioners were not associated with any of the issues related to the most important ethical issues, which violations are seen more often, or any of the themes when discussing the differences between ethical and unethical behavior in the profession. However, participants who identified as both a scholar and practitioner were more likely to give higher ratings on both the frequency of ethical violations scale and the importance of ethical standards scale compared to participants who identified as only a scholar, only a practitioner, or as a member of neither profession, with the differences most pronounced for the importance of ethical standards scale. 5.2. Similarities and differences between SIETAR-USA and IAIR members SIETAR-USA and IAIR members had clear differences in their responses to several survey items which perhaps reflect the different ways in which scholars and practitioners view their work in the field of intercultural relations. Identifying as a member of SIETAR-USA was associated with slightly higher probabilities of reporting a higher frequency of observing unethical behaviors and with being more likely to observe and cite deceptive self-presentation as an important ethical issue. Trainers are often hired because of their cross-culture experiences or expertise in a particular cultural region. Distorting or exaggerating one’s depth or breadth of experience or culture-specific expertise may garner a contract or grant but is unfair to other trainers and clearly unethical behavior. By contrast, IAIR members are mostly scholars and academics who were more likely to observe human subjects violations and to discuss the need for ethical standards. At all universities there are very rigorous reviews of any research involving human subjects often conducted by entities such as an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This is to be certain that the research will not cause any psychological or physical harm to human subjects. One characteristic that members of the two organizations shared in common was that members of either or both organizations were more likely to indicate plagiarism as an important ethical issue compared to respondents who did not indicate an affiliation with any organization. 5.3. The need for ethical standards in the intercultural field The vast majority of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “The field of intercultural relations should have an agreed-upon set of ethical standards.” The likelihood of selecting Agree or Strongly Agree on the need for ethical standards scale decreases with membership in NAFSA, whereas being in a profession other than scholar or practitioner or having the Americas as a regional focus were associated with slight increases in the likelihood of selecting Agree or Strongly Agree on the standards scale. It is difficult to venture an explanation as to why those with the Americas as a regional focus would be most interested in establishing standards. In addition, these results are not expected to generalize to the broader

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

69

NAFSA membership given that NAFSA members were not actively recruited for this study, resulting in a small, arguably non-representative sample of NAFSA members. Although an overwhelming majority believed that ethical standards ought to be established, a small majority had actually seen unethical behavior. The majority of participants reported observing unethical behavior occasionally/often/very often, while a nearly equal number reported observing it rarely or never. Those who identified themselves as intercultural scholars, practitioners, or both, and who had been in the field longer, were more likely to have witnessed unethical behavior. They were also more concerned about the issue of ethics. When comparing the importance of ethics to other day-to-day issues, roughly half of the participants valued ethics as equally important. In addition, respondents who indicated they are both scholars and practitioners had a noticeably higher likelihood of higher values on the importance of ethics scale compared to those who are neither a scholar nor a practitioner. This tendency to observe more unethical practice and to be more concerned about the issue of ethics in intercultural relations is perhaps because they are fully immersed in this field over a longer period of time and their professional identity is based upon this work. 5.4. The most important ethical issues and observed unethical practices When asked to identify the three most important ethical issues and the two most frequently observed unethical behaviors, the results showed a similar distribution of responses. Although the rankings of which responses were selected most frequently differed slightly, respondents tended to select the same issues between the two questions. Moderate to high associations were found between all pairs of responses (e.g., perpetuating stereotypes as an important ethical issue and perpetuating stereotypes as a frequently observed ethical violation). The top three most important ethical issues were perpetuating stereotypes, deceptive self-presentation and delivering services not in the best interests of the clients. The top two most frequently observed unethical behaviors were perpetuating stereotypes and deceptive self-presentation. Misuse of tools had the fourth highest frequency among important ethical issues and ranked third for most frequently observed violations. Participants with more years of experience were less likely to see perpetuating stereotypes as an important ethical issue. This is perhaps because they realize that useful generalizations are often confused with stereotypes and there are significant distinctions. By definition, culture is a generalization but it should not be a stereotype. Generalizations that are made of a particular culture can never apply to everyone in every situation at all times. The question is one of overgeneralization, inaccuracy and usefulness. When the cultural generalization is no longer accurate or useful, it should be discarded. Stereotypes are both inaccurate and not useful. This distinction might be more apparent to those with years of experience and they may take it for granted that experienced professionals would not engage in stereotyping. Being a member of SIETAR-USA was associated with identifying deceptive self-presentation as a frequently observed ethical violation. Most members of SIETAR-USA would view themselves as practitioners and training or service providers, and they know that clients hire them not only for their knowledge, but also for their hands-on, in-depth experience. For example, one would lack credibility to train business managers to go overseas if the person had never lived overseas or had no experience in the culture to which they are going. Without extensive personal knowledge of a region or culture, it is easy to perpetuate stereotypes instead of useful and accurate generalizations. These stereotypes are ultimately counterproductive when it comes to cross-cultural communication, adaptation, negotiation, or management. An honest presentation of a trainer’s experience and knowledge allows the client to judge the value of the training and is fair to others who are competing for the opportunity to do the training. Falsely claiming expertise of a particular region or cultural group is not only deceptive but also undermines the field and the status of those with extensive experience. Even worse, this type of deceptive self-presentation can be psychologically harmful to others. Much of intercultural training involves the participation in such experiential exercises as simulations, games, and role-playing. The possibility of embarrassment, shame, and unexpected interpersonal conflict can produce enormous emotional stress that could be psychologically damaging to participants. An experienced trainer understands these risks and knows his or her limitations. An inexperienced trainer who presents himself or herself as capable of handling these situations is not only misleading the client but also is risking the emotional well-being of participants. Bad intercultural relations training can be worse than no training. Delivering services not in the best interests of the client would be a concern of practitioners whose livelihoods often depend upon training contracts or grants. It fits together with deceptive self-presentation. To win contracts, some unethical trainers not only inflate their experiential and scholarly backgrounds, but may also provide services that will win a contract but might be worthless or even harmful for the client. For example, an unethical trainer might claim that a two-hour program with a list of dos-and-don’ts will be sufficient to prepare anyone for working in a particular country. This training is superficial at best and may very well prevent successful adaptation to a new culture. It could perpetuate stereotypes, provide little understanding of the complexity and depth of the culture, and give participants a false sense of competence. Furthermore, it would be difficult to acquire cross-cultural communication and adaptation skills with this type of two-hour workshop. 5.5. Profession and other demographic variables Three demographic variables (indicating scholar as a profession and indicating Asia or being a generalist as a regional focus) were each associated with a greater likelihood of indicating misuse of training tools or instruments as an important

70

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

ethical issue. Scholars know that some tools that are very useful for training can be easily misused for selection or de-selection of employees to be sent to work overseas. For example, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and other instruments used to determine personality characteristics or traits can be very useful in showing how personality type can interfere with or promote cross cultural understanding or produce a good multicultural team. These instruments have been used by researchers and practitioners for many years and are very reliable. However, the MBTI and other such tools have little predictive validity when it comes to overseas success and should never be used to select people for overseas assignments (Pelikan, 1992). Certainly many simulations and role-plays are useful training tools but are artificial representations of real situations. In the laboratory of a workshop, one could easily do poorly in a simulation and yet there may be no evidence that this will predict failure or success overseas. Being a member of IAIR was associated with an increased likelihood of observing use of human subject violations most often. Scholars are required to observe very clear restrictions on their research and teaching methods that could cause harm to their students or others. IRB approval or some other form of certification that an experiment, survey or exercise will do no harm to subjects is expected of all researchers and teachers at universities. 5.6. Cultural relativism and ethical relativism The vast majority (84%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there ought to be established ethical standards. Yet, the most common response when asked what separates ethical from unethical behavior was that ethics are relative to the culture, making it very difficult to establish universal ethical standards. In fact, some argued that no such standards could, or even should, be established. Others claimed that was mostly a matter of respecting local culture when determining what is ethical. Of course, no one would suggest that, just because people within a culture practice firstborn female infanticide, it should be viewed as “ethical” or even acceptable. Such ethical relativism leads to acceptance of any behavior—genocide of an ethnic minority within a country, female genital mutilation, or torture. On the other hand, cultural relativism usually is defined as understanding behavior (not necessarily accepting that behavior) in the context of the culture. In other words, all behavior is relative to the culture. Taking this approach, we might explain female infanticide as a result of a high value placed on firstborn male children, genocide as a result of racism or anti-Semitism, female genital mutilation as a religious practice, and torture as a result of extreme fear. However, this does not mean that such behavior is ethical or acceptable. Certainly, there are some practices that may be acceptable in one culture and are unacceptable in another. A modest bribe might be part of the cost of doing business comparable to a service fee in one culture and yet there could be zero tolerance for such practices in another culture. Separate schooling for men and women may be a result of sincere religious beliefs for one culture and yet a form of sexism in another culture. Not serving pork may be required in one culture and yet in another such a restriction could be viewed as unnecessary and unacceptable. Avoiding interpersonal conflict by avoiding the use of the word “no” may be a way to preserve harmony, yet could come across as unethical because of its deceptiveness to those unaware of the subtly of the local customs. All of these examples can only be understood in the context of the culture. If respecting or “taking into account” these local cultural practices is what we mean by “honoring context,” it would be unethical to impose our standards or code of ethics on others’ behavior which are simply culturally different than what we are accustomed to in our own culture. Of course, it is indeed a matter of degree. Genocide, mutilation, or torture is surely unethical to anyone in this profession and this is a long way from avoiding the use of “no” or not serving pork. Some respondents supported the view that no universal ethical standards for the intercultural profession can or should be established. This is perhaps a strong reaction to cultural essentialism. Carried to its extreme however, this position can indeed be a form of ethical, rather than cultural, relativism. This is not a minor distinction or a matter of semantics. Governments of most countries certainly do agree that there ought to be certain ethical standards such as those found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is but the first step in trying to come up with some agreed upon “universal” ethical standards for intercultural relations. As in any professional field such as counseling, consulting, and providing legal or financial advice, a number of participants defined ethical and unethical behavior by whether or not the actions cause harm, although there was some disagreement whether behavior must knowingly cause harm for it to be considered unethical or not. Additionally, some respondents defined ethical behavior as that which puts the interests of others—clients, students, or the intercultural field as a whole—above one’s own interests. In this same realm of professionalism, some defined unethical behavior as deceptive self-presentation. Ethical trainers deliver services that are beneficial to the client or promised and are honest about their skills, abilities, and knowledge while unethical trainers misrepresent their abilities or promise services that they cannot or do not plan to deliver. SIETAR-USA members, those who identified the Americas as a regional focus, and respondents with more experience in the field of intercultural relations were more likely to define unethical behavior with respect to deceptive self-presentation. This may be because scholars are not dependent upon training or consulting contract to ensure their livelihood and any deception on one’s resume, vita, or publication record would lead to dismissal at most universities. This is part of the established ethical standards of academia. A final major theme was a discussion of whether ethical standards are even needed in the intercultural field. Some respondents favored establishing ethical standards from shared universal values such as love and justice, while many more

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

71

opposed establishing formal standards due to cultural relativity, and thought imposing ethical standards on cultural minority groups would in fact be unethical. Still others favored establishing ethical standards for intercultural trainers, researchers, or business people, but not for the intercultural field as a whole.

6. Conclusion This study identifies major ethical concerns of a large number of current scholars and practitioners in the field of intercultural relations. Although there are many differences between scholars and practitioners, there is great agreement that the profession of intercultural relations research and practice ought to have a set of ethical standards. Furthermore, there is agreement on the primary ethical issues in this field of study and practice. From this initial study, there is an emerging set of issues that could become the basis for agreed upon standards. Stereotyping, deceptive self-presentation, and misusing tools such as training exercises or survey instruments were considered unethical by most researchers and trainers. In addition, both scholars and practitioners agreed that it is unethical to misuse human subjects, or to plagiarize the ideas, research, training designs and methods of others. Most professionals in this field agree that ethics should be understood in the context of specific cultures, which makes it difficult to come up with universal ethical standards. On the other hand, there is a vast difference between this cultural relativity and ethical relativity. For example, all of the practices listed above as unethical would be considered unethical by intercultural scholars and practitioners in almost any culture. Most would agree that it is necessary to contextualize such behavior in each culture. On the other hand, there are gross violations of human dignity, freedom, and basic human rights that would be unethical in all cultures and amongst professional in the field of intercultural relations. This is only a first initial or preliminary step in further professionalizing the study and practice of intercultural relations. The research methods used in this study are mostly quantitative. Further qualitative analysis of narrative comments and in-depth interviews with identified experts in the field will give us a better understanding of why intercultural professionals view some practices as more unethical than others. In turn, this will perhaps lead to a preliminary list of ethical behaviors appropriate to the profession. This leads us to many other questions such as: Are the ethical standards primarily Westerncentric and inappropriate for other areas of the world? Could intercultural relations knowledge and skills be used to harm people through manipulation or coercion? Does cultural relativism allow professionals to avoid dealing with such hard issues such as racism, power, sexism, and oppression? What are the sanctions for unethical behavior? Who establishes ethical standards and sanctions? How do you enforce these sanctions? Should there be certification of competence and professional behavior that includes adhering to ethical practices? Who certifies and with what criteria? Both scholars and practitioners in all professions have had to answer these questions as their field grew with an established body of literature and practices We found some differences in concerns between scholars and practitioners. Scholars may not view ethical concerns in the same way as practitioners. For example, the ethical standards required of all scholars in any academic field are also upheld in intercultural relations studies. Sanctions exist in almost every academic field of research for such unethical practices as plagiarism and inflating or distorting one’s academic record. However, although among practitioners there are concerns about using someone else’s training designs or techniques and misrepresenting one’s abilities or expertise, there are no established sanctions for such unethical practices which are upheld by professional organizations. Again, it is important to state that this study is only preliminary and exploratory. This is the first large survey of members of two major professional organizations, SIETAR-USA and IAIR. Most members of SIETAR-USA are U.S.-American while IAIR has a more international membership. It is fair to assume, perhaps, that SIETAR members reflect U.S.-American and so-called Western values whereas IAIR members have more international perspectives with countries from around the world represented in their membership. We did not expand the study to include other intercultural associations such as the Association of International Educators (also known as NAFSA), the International Association of Languages and Intercultural Communication (IALIC), the International Association of Intercultural Education (IAIE based in Greece), and SIETAR Japan or other branches of SIETAR outside the United States. Certainly future research should move well beyond this initial study. We have focused on the responsibility of intercultural relations scholars and practitioners to first identify major ethical issues and then, in further studies, to develop a code of conduct that is appropriate to the profession. As with any other profession, it is expected that individuals would take it upon themselves to abide by the highest ethical standards that are acknowledged by their peers, professional organizations, and clients.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Intercultural Management Institute at American University for its support of this study. We also wish to express our appreciation to Joshua Joseph for his important contributions to this study during the survey design phase and Jenna Lindeke for her assistance as a graduate research assistant during the data collection and analysis process. Our thanks are also extended to the respondents who took time to participate in our survey questionnaire.

72

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

Appendix. Questionnaire

1. The field of intercultural relations should have an agreed-upon set of ethical standards. Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly

Agree

2. Which of the following best describes how frequently or infrequently you see others in the intercultural relations field engage in conduct you consider unethical? Never

Rarely

Occasionally

Often

Very Often

3. In your own words, please help us to understand or define what separates ethical from unethical behavior in intercultural relations: 4. In terms of importance to your day-to-day work, how do ethical issues compare to other issues you deal with in the intercultural relations field?  Ethical issues are much less important  Ethical issues are less important  Ethical issues are about equally important  Ethical issues are more important  Ethical issues are much more important

5. From the list below, please select up to three (3) ethical issues that are the most important ones in the field of intercultural relations?  Use of human subjects in intercultural relations research  Plagiarism  Deceptive Self-Presentation (e.g., claiming to have an expertise/experience that you do not have or lacking qualifications for training)  Perpetuating stereotypes  Delivering services that are not in the best interests of clients (e.g., knowingly providing insufficient training, advocating or selling more services than necessary)  Conducting training exercises that maybe harmful to clients (e.g., cutting an intervention short, closing without providing an opportunity to fully debrief, or attempting exercises which you do not have the skills or preparedness to facilitate)  Misuse of training tools or instruments (e.g., using a tool as the sole criterion in a selection process, making exaggerated claims about a tool, or using a model/framework that has not been validated for the culture in which it is being applied)  Other ethical issues that are most important to you:

6. Which forms of misconduct do you see most often? Please select up to two (2) responses.  Use of human subjects in intercultural relations research  Plagiarism  Deceptive Self-Presentation (e.g., claiming to have an expertise/experience that you do not have or lacking qualifications for training)  Perpetuating stereotypes  Delivering services that are not in the best interests of clients (e.g., knowingly providing insufficient training, advocating or selling more services than necessary)  Conducting training exercises that maybe harmful to clients (e.g., cutting an intervention short, closing without providing an opportunity to fully debrief, or attempting exercises which you do not have the skills or preparedness to facilitate)  Misuse of training tools or instruments (e.g., using a tool as the sole criterion in a selection process, making exaggerated claims about a tool, or using a model/framework that has not been validated for the culture in which it is being applied)  Other ethical issues that are most important to you:

7. How would you identify yourself in the field of intercultural relations? (Check all that apply):  Scholar (e.g., professor, researcher, writer)  Practitioner (e.g., trainer, consultant, counselor, coach)  Other (please specify):

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

73

8. What is your primary regional focus of your intercultural relations work? (Check all that apply)  Africa  Americas  Asia  Australia and New Zealand  Caribbean  Europe  Middle-East  None )  Other (please specify:

9. How many years have you been involved in the field of intercultural relations? Number of years: 10. Please check each of the organizations below that you belong to (check all that apply):  SIETAR  IAIR

11. Please list any additional intercultural professional organization(s) to which you belong: 12. What is your gender?  Female  Male  Other

13. What are we missing? Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts or observations about ethics in intercultural relations that you feel would be helpful for us to know.

References Asuncion-Landé, N. C., & SCA Conference on Intercultural Communication. (1978). Ethical perspectives and critical issues in intercultural communication. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association. Casmir, F. L. (1997). Ethics, culture, and communication: An application of the third-culture building model to international and intercultural communication. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Ethics in intercultural and international communication (pp. 89–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Cheney, G., May, S., & Munshi, D. (2011). The handbook of communication ethics. New York, NY: Routledge. Condon, J. (1981). Values and ethics in communication across cultures: Some notes on the North American case. Communication, 6, 255–265. Condon, J. C., & Saito, M. (1976). Communication across cultures for what? A symposium on humane responsibility in intercultural communication. Tokyo, Japan: Simul Press. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Creswell, J. W. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London, UK: SAGE. Deetz, S., Cohen, D., & Edley, P. P. (1997). Toward a dialogic ethic in the context of international business organization. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Ethics in intercultural and international communication (pp. 183–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Deifelt, W. (2007). Intercultural ethics: Sameness and otherness revisited. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 46(2), 112–119. Dragga, S. (1999). Ethical intercultural technical communication: Looking through the lens of Confucian ethics. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 365–381. Evanoff, R. J. (2004). Universalist, relativist, and constructivist approaches to intercultural ethics. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 439–458. Evanoff, R. (2005). Integration in intercultural ethics. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 421–437. Evanoff, R. (2006). Intercultural ethics: A constructivist approach. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 9, 89–102. Evanoff, R. (2012). A communicative approach to intercultural dialogue on ethics. In L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (13th ed., pp. 476–481). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Fleischacker, S. (1999). From cultural diversity to universal ethics: Three models. Cultural Dynamics, 11(1), 105–128. Fowler, S. (2012). Introduction. In M. Thacker (Ed.), Eye on ethics: A conversation for intercultural professionals. St. Paul, MN: Bethel University Print Services. Hayles, R. (2012). Are we ready now? In M. Thacker (Ed.), Eye on ethics: A conversation for intercultural professionals. St. Paul, MN: Bethel University Print Services. Hisano, Y. (2012). Self-awareness and ethics. In M. Thacker (Ed.), Eye on ethics: A conversation for intercultural professionals. St. Paul, MN: Bethel University Print Services. Hopkins, W. E. (1997). Ethical dimensions of diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Howards, S., Frank, T., Pusch, P., & Renwick, G. (1982). The ethical imperative. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 6, 225–226. Howell, W. S. (1981). Ethics of intercultural communication. Anaheim, CA: Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association. Jaksa, J. A., & Pritchard, M. S. (1988). Communication ethics: Methods of analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in human communication (6th ed., pp. 221–238). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Kale, D. B. (1991). Ethics in intercultural communication. In Larry A. Samovar, & Richard E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2005). Applied linear statistical models (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. MacDonald, M. N., & O’Regan, J. P. (2012). The ethics of intercultural communication. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1(13). Martin, J. N., & Butler, R. L. (2001). Toward an ethic of intercultural communication research. In V. H. Milhouse, M. K. Asante, & P. O. Nwosu (Eds.), Transcultural realities: Interdisciplinary perspectives on cross-cultural relations (6th ed., pp. 283–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Martin, J. N., Flores, L. A., & Nakayama, T. K. (2002). Ethical issues in intercultural communication. In J. N. Martin, L. A. Flores, & T. K. Nakayama (Eds.), Readings in intercultural communication: Experiences and contexts (2nd ed., pp. 363–370). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Morgan, E. (1998). Navigating cross-cultural ethics: What global managers do right to keep from going wrong. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. Paige, R. M., & Martin, J. N. (1983). Ethical issues and ethics in cross-cultural training. In D. Landis, & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (Vol. 1) (pp. 36–60). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

74

K.-A. Nam et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 58–74

Paige, R. M., & Martin, J. N. (1996). Ethics in intercultural training. In D. Landis, & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 35–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pedersen, P. (1997). Doing the right thing: A question of ethics. In K. Cushner, & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-cultural training programs (Vol. 2) (pp. 149–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pelikan, H. L. (1992). Psychological type and culture: An interview with Katharine D. Myers and Gary R. Weaver (monograph). Bethesda, MD: Pelikan. Pratt, C., & Ogundimu, F. (1997). A developing-region-based model of proto-norms for international and intercultural communication. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Ethics in intercultural and international communication (pp. 153–182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Pusch, M. D. (2004). Intercultural training in historical perspective. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 13–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Richter, A. (2012). Ethics and the limits of cultural diversity. In M. Thacker (Ed.), Eye on ethics: A conversation for intercultural professionals. St. Paul, MN: Bethel University Print Services. Romani, L., & Szkudlarek, B. (2013). The struggles of the interculturalists: Professional ethical identity and early stages of codes of ethics development. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 1–19. Salinas Multer, S., Rance, S., Serrate Suárez, M., & Castro Condori, M. (2000). Unethical ethics? Reflections on intercultural research practices. Reproductive Health Matters, 8(15), 104–112. Shuter, M. (2000). Ethics, culture, and communication: An intercultural perspective. In L. A. Samovar, & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (9th ed., pp. 443–450). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Smart, N. (2012). Worldview: The ethical dimension. In L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (13th ed., pp. 481–489). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Thacker, M. (2012). Preface. In M. Thacker (Ed.), Eye on ethics: A conversation for intercultural professionals. St. Paul, MN: Bethel University Print Services. Ting-Toomey, S. (2011). Intercultural communication ethics: Multiple layered issues. In G. Cheney, S. May, & D. Munshi (Eds.), The handbook of communication ethics (pp. 335–352). New York, NY: Routledge. Weaver, G. R. (2014). Intercultural relations: Communication, identity and conflict. Boston, MA: Pearson. Wines, W. A., & Napier, N. K. (1992). Toward an understanding of cross-cultural ethics: A tentative model. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(11), 831–841.