- Email: [email protected]
Revisiting intercultural communication competence: Where to go from here
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 6–8
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Revisiting intercultural communication competence: Where to go from here Judith N. Martin ∗ Arizona State University, School of Human Communication, Box 871205, Tempe, AZ 85287, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 20 March 2015
a b s t r a c t This short essay is a reflection and assessment of 25 years of scholarship on the important topic of intercultural communication competence. The essay acknowledges significant theoretical contributions to date, including the ‘ABC’ (affect, behaviors and cognition/knowledge) triumvirate of most current models and describes three suggestions for future theoretical research: (1) move beyond individual-focused, reductionistic models to frameworks to capture a more holistic, relational, and spiritual view of intercultural communication competence. (2) Move from a focus on national culture groups that are presumed to be homogenous, and from an implicit conceptualization of culture as bounded and stable to conceptualizations that acknowledge the fluid, dynamic, contested nature of cultures, multiple cultural identities, and intercultural interactions and (3) acknowledge that power relations are part of every intercultural encounter. Looking forward, the essay proposes a dialectical approach – emphasizing the ongoing, processual, the both/and (contradictory) – that allows for a complex, dynamic, historically- and contexually-situated conceptualization of intercultural communication competence. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Revisiting intercultural communication competence Twenty-five years after the 1989 special issue of IJIR, intercultural communication competence remains an important focus of intercultural scholars and practitioners, perhaps even more important in a world that has ‘catapulted people, practices and beliefs from different cultures into shared and contested physical and virtual spaces. . .in unprecedented ways’ (Sorrells, 2012, p. 372). And yet, a satisfactory, comprehensive conceptualization remains elusive. Most models/theories still reflect the ‘ABC’ (affect, behaviors and cognition/knowledge) triumvirate (see Chen, 2014; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009), described thusly: two (or more) motivated interactants, characterized by their cultural differences, through accommodation and mutual display of the ‘ABC’s’, achieve shared meaning, mutual understanding, and arrive at a mutually satisfying relationship (Kupka, Everett, & Wildermuth, 2007). While there has been important theoretical clarification and synthesis (see Arasaratnam, Banerjee, & Dembek, 2010; Byram, 2012; Chen, 2014; Deardorff, 2009), this conceptualization seems limiting. Yep’s (2000) suggestions for researchers and practitioners remain viable today: (1) Move beyond individual-focused, reductionistic models to frameworks that capture a more holistic, relational, and spiritual view of intercultural communication competence – reflecting how most of the world’s peoples view human
∗ Tel.: +1 480 965 5095. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.008 0147-1767/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.N. Martin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 6–8
7
behavior (including competence). Asian and Asian-American scholars provide some excellent contributions (Kim, 2002; Miike, 2007; Xiao & Chen, 2009; Yum, 2012). (2) Move from a focus on national culture groups that are presumed to be homogenous, from assumptions that “one’s culture (and identity) and that of the other are singular” (Dervin, 2010, p. 162), and from an implicit conceptualization of culture as bounded and stable to conceptualizations that acknowledge the fluid, dynamic, contested nature of cultures, multiple cultural identities, and intercultural interactions (Jenks, Bhatia, & Lou, 2013). (3) Acknowledge that power relations are part of every intercultural encounter and that all encounters (and notions of competence) are impacted (and constrained) by larger societal, historical, political forces (Block, 2013; Halualani & Nakayama, 2010; Holliday, 2012). As Collier (1998) reminded us: “Competence and acceptance from whom? Who decides the criteria? Who doesn’t? Competent or acceptable on the basis of what social and historical context?” (p. 142). For example, individuals of historically marginalized identities (women, ethnic/racial minorities, gays) – no matter their demonstrating “competent” behaviors as defined by traditional competence frameworks–in some contexts are never viewed as competent (Willis, 2011). In sum, these challenges seem to call for a complex, dynamic, historically- and contexually-situated approach to intercultural competence. A dialectical approach, which emphasizes the processual, the both/and (contradictory), relational dimensions of intercultural encounters – show some promise (Martin & Nakayama, 2015; Nakayama & Martin, 2014). 2. Here are a few brief thoughts about how a dialectical approach might contribute Intercultural competence is a relational process as is all intercultural communication and the dialectical perspective underscores this. A dialectical approach places individual competence traits in relational tension with the motivations, knowledge and skills of the others, organizational contexts and the larger cultural contexts. A dialectic approach emphasizes the dynamic contradictory (both/and) nature of intercultural encounters. Individuals can be both communicatively competent and not competent. A recent study shows how young Korean American workers are seen by their older Korean supervisors as not Korean/competent enough in their work ethic, and simultaneously very competent in their English language skills (Kim, 2004) and also shows how age and gender interact dynamically in negotiating notions of competence. Finally, a dialectical approach emphasizes the ongoing, processual nature of the continual configuring and reconfiguring of the context. Context in a dialectical approach is not simply another variable to be added on to the existing frameworks, but rather a rethinking of ‘context’ in which context is a fluid and dynamic space that is shaped by both local and global forces that constantly reconfigure it. For example, Leonard (2010) describes the complex (and dialectical: privilege/disadvantage, past/present) intercultural negotiations of white Britishness and local workers in postcolonial Hong Kong. This shows how the individual’s competence can only function within a range of effectiveness, given the shifting global contexts. References Arasaratnam, L., Banerjee, S., & Dembek, K. (2010). The integrated model of intercultural communication competence (IMICC): Model test. Australian Journal of Communication, 37(3), 103–116. Block, D. (2013). The structure and agency dilemma in identity and intercultural communication research. Language & Intercultural Communication, 13(2), 126–147. Byram, M. (2012). Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and intercultural citizenship. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 85–98). New York: Routledge. Chen, G. M. (2014). Intercultural communication competence: Summary of 30-year research and directions for future study. In X.-d. Dai, & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence: Conceptualization and its development in cultural contexts and interactions (pp. 14–40). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Collier, M. J. (1998). Researching cultural identity: Reconciling interpretive and postcolonial perspectives. In D. V. Tanno, & A. González (Eds.), Communication and identity across cultures (pp. 122–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dervin, F. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence in language learning and teaching: A critical review of current efforts. In F. Dervin, & E. Suomela-Salmi (Eds.), New approaches to assessing language and (inter-)cultural competences in higher education (pp. 157–174). New York: Peter Lang. Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Halualani, R. T., & Nakayama, T. K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of critical intercultural communication. (pp. 51–83). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Holliday, A. (2012). Culture, communication, context and power. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 37–51). New York: Routledge. Jenks, C., Bhatia, A., & Lou, J. (2013). The discourse of culture and identity in national and transnational contexts. Language & Intercultural Communication, 13(2), 121–125. Kim, J. H. (2004). ‘They are more like us’: The salience of ethnicity in the global workplace of Korean transnational corporations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(1), 69–94. Kim, M.-S. (2002). Non-western perspectives on human communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kupka, B., Everett, A., & Wildermuth, S. (2007). The rainbow model of intercultural communication competence: A review and extension of existing research. Intercultural Communication Studies, 16, 18–35. Leonard, P. (2010). Organizing Whiteness: Gender, nationality and subjectivity in postcolonial Hong Kong. Gender, Work and Organization, 17(3), 340–358. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2015). Reconsidering intercultural competence in the workplace: A dialectical approach. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1), 13–28. Miike, Y. (2007). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in communication theory. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 272–278. Nakayama, T., & Martin, J. (2014). Ethical issues in intercultural communication competence: A dialectical approach. In X.-d. Dai, & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence: Conceptualization and its development in cultural contexts and interactions (pp. 97–117). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
8
J.N. Martin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 6–8
Sorrells, K. (2012). Intercultural training in the global context. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 372–389). New York: Routledge. Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Willis, P. (2011). Laboring in silence: Young lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-identifying workers’ negotiations of the workplace closet in Australian organizations. Youth & Society, 43(3), 957–981. Xiao, X., & Chen, G.-M. (2009). Communication competence and moral competence: A Confucian perspective. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 61–74. Yep, G. A. (2000). Encounters with the other: Personal notes for a reconceptualization of intercultural communication competence. CATESOL Journal, 12(1), 117–144. Yum, J. O. (2012). Communication competence: A Korean perspective. China Media Research, 8(2), 11–17.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Revisiting intercultural communication competence: Where to go from here Judith N. Martin ∗ Arizona State University, School of Human Communication, Box 871205, Tempe, AZ 85287, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 20 March 2015
a b s t r a c t This short essay is a reflection and assessment of 25 years of scholarship on the important topic of intercultural communication competence. The essay acknowledges significant theoretical contributions to date, including the ‘ABC’ (affect, behaviors and cognition/knowledge) triumvirate of most current models and describes three suggestions for future theoretical research: (1) move beyond individual-focused, reductionistic models to frameworks to capture a more holistic, relational, and spiritual view of intercultural communication competence. (2) Move from a focus on national culture groups that are presumed to be homogenous, and from an implicit conceptualization of culture as bounded and stable to conceptualizations that acknowledge the fluid, dynamic, contested nature of cultures, multiple cultural identities, and intercultural interactions and (3) acknowledge that power relations are part of every intercultural encounter. Looking forward, the essay proposes a dialectical approach – emphasizing the ongoing, processual, the both/and (contradictory) – that allows for a complex, dynamic, historically- and contexually-situated conceptualization of intercultural communication competence. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Revisiting intercultural communication competence Twenty-five years after the 1989 special issue of IJIR, intercultural communication competence remains an important focus of intercultural scholars and practitioners, perhaps even more important in a world that has ‘catapulted people, practices and beliefs from different cultures into shared and contested physical and virtual spaces. . .in unprecedented ways’ (Sorrells, 2012, p. 372). And yet, a satisfactory, comprehensive conceptualization remains elusive. Most models/theories still reflect the ‘ABC’ (affect, behaviors and cognition/knowledge) triumvirate (see Chen, 2014; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009), described thusly: two (or more) motivated interactants, characterized by their cultural differences, through accommodation and mutual display of the ‘ABC’s’, achieve shared meaning, mutual understanding, and arrive at a mutually satisfying relationship (Kupka, Everett, & Wildermuth, 2007). While there has been important theoretical clarification and synthesis (see Arasaratnam, Banerjee, & Dembek, 2010; Byram, 2012; Chen, 2014; Deardorff, 2009), this conceptualization seems limiting. Yep’s (2000) suggestions for researchers and practitioners remain viable today: (1) Move beyond individual-focused, reductionistic models to frameworks that capture a more holistic, relational, and spiritual view of intercultural communication competence – reflecting how most of the world’s peoples view human
∗ Tel.: +1 480 965 5095. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.008 0147-1767/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.N. Martin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 6–8
7
behavior (including competence). Asian and Asian-American scholars provide some excellent contributions (Kim, 2002; Miike, 2007; Xiao & Chen, 2009; Yum, 2012). (2) Move from a focus on national culture groups that are presumed to be homogenous, from assumptions that “one’s culture (and identity) and that of the other are singular” (Dervin, 2010, p. 162), and from an implicit conceptualization of culture as bounded and stable to conceptualizations that acknowledge the fluid, dynamic, contested nature of cultures, multiple cultural identities, and intercultural interactions (Jenks, Bhatia, & Lou, 2013). (3) Acknowledge that power relations are part of every intercultural encounter and that all encounters (and notions of competence) are impacted (and constrained) by larger societal, historical, political forces (Block, 2013; Halualani & Nakayama, 2010; Holliday, 2012). As Collier (1998) reminded us: “Competence and acceptance from whom? Who decides the criteria? Who doesn’t? Competent or acceptable on the basis of what social and historical context?” (p. 142). For example, individuals of historically marginalized identities (women, ethnic/racial minorities, gays) – no matter their demonstrating “competent” behaviors as defined by traditional competence frameworks–in some contexts are never viewed as competent (Willis, 2011). In sum, these challenges seem to call for a complex, dynamic, historically- and contexually-situated approach to intercultural competence. A dialectical approach, which emphasizes the processual, the both/and (contradictory), relational dimensions of intercultural encounters – show some promise (Martin & Nakayama, 2015; Nakayama & Martin, 2014). 2. Here are a few brief thoughts about how a dialectical approach might contribute Intercultural competence is a relational process as is all intercultural communication and the dialectical perspective underscores this. A dialectical approach places individual competence traits in relational tension with the motivations, knowledge and skills of the others, organizational contexts and the larger cultural contexts. A dialectic approach emphasizes the dynamic contradictory (both/and) nature of intercultural encounters. Individuals can be both communicatively competent and not competent. A recent study shows how young Korean American workers are seen by their older Korean supervisors as not Korean/competent enough in their work ethic, and simultaneously very competent in their English language skills (Kim, 2004) and also shows how age and gender interact dynamically in negotiating notions of competence. Finally, a dialectical approach emphasizes the ongoing, processual nature of the continual configuring and reconfiguring of the context. Context in a dialectical approach is not simply another variable to be added on to the existing frameworks, but rather a rethinking of ‘context’ in which context is a fluid and dynamic space that is shaped by both local and global forces that constantly reconfigure it. For example, Leonard (2010) describes the complex (and dialectical: privilege/disadvantage, past/present) intercultural negotiations of white Britishness and local workers in postcolonial Hong Kong. This shows how the individual’s competence can only function within a range of effectiveness, given the shifting global contexts. References Arasaratnam, L., Banerjee, S., & Dembek, K. (2010). The integrated model of intercultural communication competence (IMICC): Model test. Australian Journal of Communication, 37(3), 103–116. Block, D. (2013). The structure and agency dilemma in identity and intercultural communication research. Language & Intercultural Communication, 13(2), 126–147. Byram, M. (2012). Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and intercultural citizenship. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 85–98). New York: Routledge. Chen, G. M. (2014). Intercultural communication competence: Summary of 30-year research and directions for future study. In X.-d. Dai, & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence: Conceptualization and its development in cultural contexts and interactions (pp. 14–40). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Collier, M. J. (1998). Researching cultural identity: Reconciling interpretive and postcolonial perspectives. In D. V. Tanno, & A. González (Eds.), Communication and identity across cultures (pp. 122–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dervin, F. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence in language learning and teaching: A critical review of current efforts. In F. Dervin, & E. Suomela-Salmi (Eds.), New approaches to assessing language and (inter-)cultural competences in higher education (pp. 157–174). New York: Peter Lang. Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Halualani, R. T., & Nakayama, T. K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of critical intercultural communication. (pp. 51–83). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Holliday, A. (2012). Culture, communication, context and power. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 37–51). New York: Routledge. Jenks, C., Bhatia, A., & Lou, J. (2013). The discourse of culture and identity in national and transnational contexts. Language & Intercultural Communication, 13(2), 121–125. Kim, J. H. (2004). ‘They are more like us’: The salience of ethnicity in the global workplace of Korean transnational corporations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(1), 69–94. Kim, M.-S. (2002). Non-western perspectives on human communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kupka, B., Everett, A., & Wildermuth, S. (2007). The rainbow model of intercultural communication competence: A review and extension of existing research. Intercultural Communication Studies, 16, 18–35. Leonard, P. (2010). Organizing Whiteness: Gender, nationality and subjectivity in postcolonial Hong Kong. Gender, Work and Organization, 17(3), 340–358. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2015). Reconsidering intercultural competence in the workplace: A dialectical approach. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1), 13–28. Miike, Y. (2007). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in communication theory. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 272–278. Nakayama, T., & Martin, J. (2014). Ethical issues in intercultural communication competence: A dialectical approach. In X.-d. Dai, & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence: Conceptualization and its development in cultural contexts and interactions (pp. 97–117). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
8
J.N. Martin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 48 (2015) 6–8
Sorrells, K. (2012). Intercultural training in the global context. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 372–389). New York: Routledge. Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Willis, P. (2011). Laboring in silence: Young lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-identifying workers’ negotiations of the workplace closet in Australian organizations. Youth & Society, 43(3), 957–981. Xiao, X., & Chen, G.-M. (2009). Communication competence and moral competence: A Confucian perspective. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4(1), 61–74. Yep, G. A. (2000). Encounters with the other: Personal notes for a reconceptualization of intercultural communication competence. CATESOL Journal, 12(1), 117–144. Yum, J. O. (2012). Communication competence: A Korean perspective. China Media Research, 8(2), 11–17.