A Roadmap to Intercultural Proficiency: Navigating Through Cultural Diversity and Inclusion (Diversity and Inclusion Research) [1st ed. 2022] 3031048989, 9783031048982

Citation preview

Diversity and Inclusion Research

Frauke Bender

A Roadmap to Intercultural Proficiency Navigating Through Cultural Diversity and Inclusion

Diversity and Inclusion Research Series Editor Thomas Köllen Institute of Organization and HRM University of Bern Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Frauke Bender

A Roadmap to Intercultural Proficiency Navigating Through Cultural Diversity and Inclusion

Frauke Bender Anderson College of Business and Computing Regis University Denver, CO, USA

ISSN 2662-5997     ISSN 2662-6004 (electronic) Diversity and Inclusion Research ISBN 978-3-031-04898-2    ISBN 978-3-031-04899-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04899-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

With deep gratitude and special thanks to my wonderful mom for giving me the wings to fly, my beloved husband for his everlasting and loving support, and my brave children for following us around the globe.

Preface

How to avoid culture shocks and culture clashes? How to approach people from other cultures in an inclusive way? How can humility help us to better navigate through cross-cultural environments? What is the link between diversity and inclusion in this context? These are some of the questions that prompted me to write this book. The book takes as its starting point the value of the intercultural experience and aims to develop a careful linkage between both worlds of culture and inclusion based on the concept of Intercultural Proficiency (IP). Due to the current absence of a universal model that integrates the intercultural research with diversity and inclusion, I will be using existing theories and models and put them into a common context. I commence with a synopsis of relevant interdisciplinary research and will come up with a suggestion how to amalgamate the different areas into one single concept. Throughout this book, IP is understood as an individual capacity (clearly a Western perspective), and gaining individual intercultural proficiency is an ongoing process that might never be completed. Thus, it cannot be taught in any single book or training session. In fact, it is a never-ending journey involving critical reflection, learning to understand how people perceive the world and participate in different systems of shared knowledge. The learning process is developmental, and individuals involved in intercultural contact advance through different stages of progressively more sophisticated levels of comprehension. The focus lies on the development of self-awareness, both individually and in relation to others. The better we understand ourselves, the better we understand others and vice versa. Respect for the plurality of cultural identities, combined with universally, applicable skills, such as perspective taking, active listening and observing are at the core of this approach. So how do we become interculturally proficient? What factors have a relevant impact on our learning progress? These questions led to the explanatory framework of IP as the operating mode of an individual engaged in an ongoing intercultural learning process. The conceptualization of Intercultural Proficiency does not occur in a vacuum, about 60  years of research and approximately 300 models of Intercultural Competence already exist. So, what is new? The concept of IP is designed for the specific context of inclusion. It is based on already existing theoretical frameworks of intercultural competence, taking the criticism regarding limitations of the concept of intercultural competence into account, merges intercultural vii

viii

Preface

competence with cultural humility, and attempts to explore if an integration of the intercultural and inclusion approach is possible and meaningful. This book aims to foster an understanding of human interaction across cultures acknowledging the interdisciplinary nature of the existing research and building on it via the introduction of an own framework for global learning. The framework can be instrumental to conceptualize the individual transformation through shaping a mindset and enhancing cultural awareness. It also seeks to motivate students and working professionals alike to self-reflect existing biases and learn how to leverage and embrace diversity. The development of individual IP draws attention to the personal experience as a learner. It provides guidance for students, early working professionals as well as seasoned working professionals on how to thrive and succeed when interacting with different cultures. It allows us to think outside our narrow cultural boundaries and decode complex cross-cultural interactions. Thus, the IP approach can be applied in academic and corporate settings, as it facilitates potential for solution of the issues associated with multicultural workforces and global operations of organizations. This book is organized in six chapters: The first four chapters explicitly explain what must be learned to gain Intercultural Proficiency by providing an overview of major cross-cultural differences that may represent barriers in intercultural encounters. Chapter 1 introduces the topic by validating that Intercultural Proficiency matters. Globalization, migration and mobility, cultural diversity and frequent intercultural encounters present a huge challenge for individuals, organizations, and society. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the meaning of culture and identity, explains the components and determinants of culture, discusses various classifications of cultures, and gives an insight into stereotypes and implicit bias. Chapter 3 investigates the role of language and nonverbal behavior in intercultural interactions and explores why cultural differences in communication styles can cause misunderstandings and conflicts. Chapter 4 provides a review of existing acculturation strategies revealing how differently individuals perceive intercultural contact and thus cope in divergent ways with unfamiliar settings, situations, and “otherness” in general. Based on these concepts, Chapter 5 further details the concept of IP. The traditional approach of “intercultural competence” has its limitations in the form of being binary and focusing only on the status of being competent rather than on the process of developing the skill. The development of IP is viewed as an individual growth path. In addition, the IP concept goes beyond “cultural competence” by linking it to the notion of cultural humility. This helps to avoid cultural stereotypes by using a dynamic cultural reference point. I will demonstrate that the main factors influencing IP are the personality of an individual, its language proficiency and communication competence, intercultural knowledge as well as the intercultural experience. Additionally, the text carefully aims to reconcile the intercultural and inclusion approaches by emphasizing the inclusive identity.

Preface

ix

The combination of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and the Challenge and Support Model allows an assessment of the individual’s readiness and the necessary level of challenge and support in order to facilitate the process of gaining intercultural proficiency. Chapter 6 provides a conclusion regarding the challenges and opportunities in bridging the intercultural and inclusion approach. Lastly, directions for future theorizing and research efforts in the intercultural learning domain are suggested. Bern, Switzerland Denver, CO, USA 

Thomas Köllen Frauke Bender

Contents

1 Introduction: Why Intercultural Proficiency Matters������������������������������  1 1.1 Living and Working in a Globalized World������������������������������������������  2 1.1.1 What Is Globalization? ������������������������������������������������������������  2 1.1.2 Global Mobility Trends and Development��������������������������������  3 1.2 Cultural Convergence or Diversity?������������������������������������������������������  5 1.3 Perspectives on Diversity and Inclusion ����������������������������������������������  7 1.3.1 Institutional Definitions of Cultural Diversity��������������������������  7 1.3.2 Different Perspectives on Diversity������������������������������������������  8 1.3.3 Defining Diversity and Inclusion����������������������������������������������  9 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 10 2 Understanding Cultural Differences���������������������������������������������������������� 11 2.1 Meaning and Classification of Culture and Identity ���������������������������� 11 2.1.1 Definition and Characteristics of Culture �������������������������������� 11 2.1.2 The Concept of Identity������������������������������������������������������������ 14 2.2 Classification of Culture ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 2.2.1 Dissecting Cultural Components���������������������������������������������� 17 2.2.2 Categorizing Cultural Dimensions�������������������������������������������� 19 2.3 Mapping Cultural Differences�������������������������������������������������������������� 21 2.4 Cultural Paradoxes and Stereotyping���������������������������������������������������� 24 2.5 Self-Awareness and Unconscious Bias ������������������������������������������������ 25 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 27 3 Communicating Across Cultures���������������������������������������������������������������� 31 3.1 What Is Intercultural Communication?������������������������������������������������ 31 3.2 The Role of Language�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 3.3 Intercultural Nonverbal Communication���������������������������������������������� 34 3.4 New Technologies and Intercultural Communication�������������������������� 36 3.5 Intercultural Communication Competence ������������������������������������������ 38 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 41

xi

xii

Contents

4 Dealing with Acculturative Stress and Cultural Adjustment������������������ 43 4.1 Experiencing Culture Shocks and Culture Bumps�������������������������������� 43 4.2 Acculturation and Adaptation Strategies���������������������������������������������� 46 4.2.1 Acculturation and Identity�������������������������������������������������������� 47 4.2.2 Stress and Coping, Culture Learning, and Social Identification ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 49 4.2.3 Developing Intercultural Sensitivity ���������������������������������������� 51 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 53 5 Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency ���������������� 55 5.1 The Conceptualization of Intercultural Proficiency������������������������������ 55 5.1.1 Rethinking Intercultural Competence and Cultural Humility �������������������������������������������������������������� 55 5.1.2 Reconciling Intercultural and Inclusion Approaches���������������� 59 5.1.3 An Integrative Approach of Intercultural Proficiency�������������� 61 5.2 From Intercultural Contact to Intercultural Learning �������������������������� 63 5.2.1 Language Proficiency and Communication Competence �������� 64 5.2.2 Knowledge of Cultural Differences������������������������������������������ 66 5.2.3 Influencing Factors on Learning and Behavioral Outcomes���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 67 5.3 Developing Intercultural Proficiency���������������������������������������������������� 69 5.3.1 Individual Growth and Transformation������������������������������������ 69 5.3.2 Assessment, Challenge, and Support���������������������������������������� 71 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 72 6 Reflecting Thoughts and Outlook�������������������������������������������������������������� 77

1

Introduction: Why Intercultural Proficiency Matters

Diversity is the one true thing we all have in common. Celebrate it every day. —Author Unknown

Within the context of an increasingly diverse1 society, our ability to interact effectively and appropriately with members of different cultures in our communities and at our workplaces is paramount. It significantly impacts if we succeed or fail in an unfamiliar intercultural setting.2 Hence, the ability to communicate and interact effectively and the process of acquiring this ability via intercultural learning matters. In order to develop an understanding of intercultural learning, it is key to recognize and comprehend variances in values and beliefs across cultures as well as the nature of our own cultural background including our potential biases. This forms the basis of developing an inclusive approach regarding cultural differences via intercultural learning.

1  In the context of this text, diversity is defined as cultural differences in values, beliefs, and behaviors learned and shared by groups of interacting people (see Sect. 2.1.1 for the meaning of culture and identity). 2  The term “intercultural” refers to interaction among members of two or more distinct cultural groups, whereas the term “cross-cultural” refers to contact between cultural groups.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Bender, A Roadmap to Intercultural Proficiency, Diversity and Inclusion Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04899-9_1

1

2

1.1

1  Introduction: Why Intercultural Proficiency Matters

Living and Working in a Globalized World

Our global system is tightly interconnected through human migration, trade integration, direct investments, global value chains, and information and technology flows. This worldwide interdependence has been referred to as globalization.3 As the process of globalization continues to deepen, these transformations increasingly shape our lives and daily routines at home as in our workplaces. Increasing numbers of people are able to access information, goods, and services from around the world because of the ongoing expansion in distance-shrinking technologies. With millions of migrants worldwide (World Migration Report 2022), societies are internationalizing, and more and more people are confronted with the requirement to navigate across cultural differences even when not living abroad themselves. This internationalization is not only affecting workplaces but society in general, thereby calling for an identification of effective intercultural learning methods to develop the competencies that individuals, societies, and economies need.

1.1.1 What Is Globalization? Globalization encompasses the increasing international interdependence of individuals, firms, and countries through the movement of goods, services, capital, knowledge, and people across national borders (Stiglitz, 2003). The shift towards a more integrated world economy is mainly caused by the globalization of markets through the reduction of cross-border trade and investment barriers (Hill & Hult, 2017) as well as the worldwide unfolding convergence of preferences for consumer goods (Levitt, 1983); the globalization of production based on the “sourcing of goods and services from locations around the globe to take advantage of national differences in the cost and quality of factors of production” such as land, labor, and capital (Hill & Hult, 2017, p. 7.); increasingly large numbers of multinational companies (MNCs);4 and the profound advances in information, communication, and transportation technology (ICT) which led to substantially reduced costs promoting economies to become more linked together and integrated through outsourcing, long-distance trade, and global value chains (Hill & Hult, 2017). The evolution and widespread use of digital technologies has not only transformed information and communication flows through Internet and instant communication but also augmented the dimension of globalization. Globalization not only connects people, companies, organizations, and states but significantly enters the lives of people. People’s life is affected by an increasing amount of foreign-­ made goods traded globally and services that are disseminated on a global scale by 3  To address the entire range and the complexity of the multifaceted topic of globalization is beyond the scope of this book. 4  MNCs play a major role in facilitating and intensifying the process of globalization due to their cross-border production, distribution, and the associated mobility of people. MNC or MNE (multinational enterprise) is any business that has productive activities in two or more countries.

1.1  Living and Working in a Globalized World

3

social and mass media. Globalization fueled by global trade of goods and services has become a crucial part of daily life for most people. The balance of costs and benefits of globalization has been controversially discussed.5 Most recently, the coronavirus pandemic that started in 2020 shed a new light on this debate: disruption of global supply chains and lockdowns in various countries revealed old and new perils of globalization. The accelerating interconnectedness carries benefits as well as severe risks of contagion which means that disruptions like lockdowns in one country can have overspreading effects around the world exposing most national economies to the uncertainties of the global economy (Guillén, 2016). In the wake of a continuing pandemic, the term “deglobalization” gained new momentum. Even before the pandemic, there was intense pressure from protectionist policies and nationalist movements around the world. Nevertheless, it is too early to see if these backlashes will result in a reversal of globalization. In any case, globalization has entered a new phase where increasing and decreasing streams of globalization meet and form a new reality that is best referred to as “re-globalization.” These profound global transformations mean that we are living in a period of substantial uncertainty due to the pace of these historic changes at the global level that has been accelerating beyond all expectations and predictions (“the age of transformation,” Mauldin, 2019).

1.1.2 Global Mobility Trends and Development While the economic benefits of the growing intensity of trade and investment have been positively received in general, the associated cross-border mobility of people has faced varying degrees of opposition. Human mobility is a phenomenon that dates back to the earliest periods of history and civilization. However, as the world has become more globalized, its dimensions and impacts have changed significantly driven by global economic, social, political, and technological transformations. Due to these continuously occurring shifts that are shaping our world—from environmental and climate change to conflicts, economic and political instability, as well as a global pandemic—it can be anticipated that mobility becomes a permanent circumstance of our global life (Henley Passport Index and Global Mobility Report, 2020). The last five decades have seen a constant rise in cross-border mobility and migration. An estimated 281 million migrants “changed their country of usual

5  According to the economic theory of Adam Smith, the advantages of free trade permitting countries to concentrate on activities in which they enjoy comparative advantages lead to higher productivity and increased living standards, while consumers enjoy access to a wider variety of goods and services at lower cost. Recent crises have made that a more controversial proposition, and critics of globalization point to job losses, environmental degradation, the cultural imperialism of global media, and the enhancement of the monopoly power of large MNCs.

4

1  Introduction: Why Intercultural Proficiency Matters

residence” in 2020,6 equating to 3.6% of the world population, with nearly two-­ thirds being labor migrants (International Organization for Migration, 2021). “More than ever before, migration touches all states and people in an era of deepening globalization” (United Nations, World Migration Report 2018). As a result, the estimated number as well as the proportion of international migrants has enlarged at a faster rate than previously anticipated. It is already surpassing the projections made for the year 2050 in some studies (International Organization for Migration, 2019). Though the vast majority of the world population does not move, it has to be noted that “mobility is an inherent characteristic of all populations unless specific policies or other factors are in place that limit or control that mobility” (International Organization for Migration, 2019). Highly diverse in terms of the forms it may take, human mobility encompasses a broad range of movements of talent, labor, wealth, refugees, and other groups “whose behavior reflects shifting realities on the ground” (International Organization for Migration, 2019). Hence, mobility can be within or across borders; voluntary (for work, study, or family reasons) or forced (because of conflict or natural disasters); regular (with documentation) or irregular (without documentation); and temporary, seasonal, or longer term/permanent. Moreover, a shift between categories might occur at any given point during the process of migration. Considering that the economic potential of globalization significantly relies on the international mobility of individuals transferring knowledge, new technologies, ideas, etc., global mobility represents an important element of many global talent management systems run by MNEs (Solimano, 2009). This is evidenced by a continuously increasing number of employees sent on assignments over the last 20 years.7 Although numerous shocks, such as the global recession of 2008, affected the expatriate numbers and led to a slower growth, respective downturns have proved to be temporary so far. Additionally, nontraditional types of expatriation assignments, such as short-term assignments, frequent business travel, and cross-­ border commuting, have emerged and contributed to a transformation of the landscape of global mobility. Another factor in rapidly increasing migration, affecting countries and their academic systems, is the surge in international student mobility. In 2019, nearly six million students were enrolled in higher education institutions outside their country.8 For comparison, in 2007, only 2.5 million students were

6  The United Nations Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration defines an international migrant “as any person who has changed his or her country of usual residence,” distinguishing between “short-term migrants” (those who have changed their countries of usual residence for at least 3 months but less than 1 year) and “long-term migrants” (those who have done so for at least 1 year). It has to be stated though, that “differences in concepts and definitions, as well as data collection methodologies between countries, hinder full comparability of national statistics on international migrants.” 7  Finaccord report and interactive ExpatriateBASE: Global Expatriates: Size, Segmentation and Forecast for the Worldwide Market 8  Data.uis.unesco.org. Retrieved 8 February 2022. “An internationally mobile student is an individual who has physically crossed an international border between two countries with the objective

1.2  Cultural Convergence or Diversity?

5

enrolled in a university outside their own country which shows the globalization of higher education. However, especially during the last decade, various economic and sociopolitical trends started to create resistance to this trend in form of protectionism and rising populist movements. Some studies already see a tendency of deglobalization (Witt, 2019). Concerns regarding rising migration and increasing inequalities (Narula & Straaten, 2020) create a habitat for populist movements. These concerns persist even though the aggregate and longer-term economic effects of migration are mostly positive (Docquier et al., 2012). At the same time, environmental trends are raising similar concerns. The climate change debate puts pressure on the ever-increasing number of air travel for climate reasons. Lately, the Covid-19 pandemic not only reduced both the frequency and extent of global mobility, but fundamentally questioned its need (Caligiuri et al., 2020). Nevertheless, a revival of global mobility is expected to happen driven by increasing experience on how to manage the pandemic as well as the approval and administration of vaccines (International Organization for Migration, 2021).

1.2

Cultural Convergence or Diversity?

For the purpose of this research, globalization is not understood as an economic but as a cultural phenomenon. Whether globalization will eventually result in increasing cultural convergence9 or in cultural diversity is part of an ongoing debate. Traditionally, the impact of ICT has been considered to be an important driver of global convergence of cultures: the distances10 between nations and cultures are perceived to be shrinking via use of the Internet, new communication devices, and increasing global travel numbers. The Internet is often seen as the relevant medium that connects people throughout the globe by allowing anyone with an Internet connection to communicate across physical and cultural boundaries. Even though time has not ceased, and space has not vanished as predicted by McLuhan (1962), we are moving towards this prediction. Since we are living in a globally connected world, certain cultural boundaries are swept away indicating that we are gravitating towards a single homogenous world culture. Critics of globalization state that larger, more dominant cultures will shape the global monoculture and eventually will determine cultural standards for the rest of the world (Dixon, 2008). In this view, globalization promotes particularly the to participate in educational activities in a destination country, where the destination country is different from his or her country of origin” (UNESCO, 2015). 9  Cultural convergence implies that globalization will eventually lead to the homogenization of national cultures based on the assumption that the technology factor is stronger than the cultural factor. For further details, see Georgiadis (2008) and Guillén (2000). 10  Both distance and diversity are conceptually close, acting as “two sides of the same coin” (Doh, 2021). While distance captures differences between countries, diversity refers to differences between individuals (Lumineau et al., 2021). For a more detailed definition of the term “diversity,” see Sect. 1.3.

6

1  Introduction: Why Intercultural Proficiency Matters

proliferation of Western ideals of values and norms at the expense of many smaller local cultures. Others vision a multicultural “global village,”11 arguing that globalization enriches the world by the exchange and appreciation of cultural diversity, thus promoting tolerance and inclusion. However, an increasing amount of literature suggests that the world is still not “flat,” and the view that the world becomes a “global village” is controversial even though the world seems smaller and globalization is on the rise especially since the early 1990s. Significant national differences still exist, and local preferences still matter because of heterogenous embedded cultural values. Also, national differences in terms of business systems, legal regulations, and distribution channels are still valid and need to be considered by companies when internationalizing their businesses. Not all values in today’s business world are shared values between cultures, and we tend to forget how different cultures can be in that regard: Huntington, 1993, p. 22) claims that “The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.” Spitzberg and Changnon (2009,p. 2) note that “[W]hereas a world of one people and one speech is unlikely in any imminently foreseeable future, the objective of finding common purpose through mutually coordinated communication across cultures and languages continues to be a goal of many if not most people, organizations, and nations.” Underneath the surface of globalization, deep cultural differences remain and create challenges for individuals and organizations alike. The “global village” and thus the global convergence might be an observation that neglects a deeper underlying layer of cultural differences that I will describe in more detail. On the contrary, there is a wide recognition that globalization in fact leads to more migration. This means that individuals will continue to have to master the challenge how to effectively interact in diverse cultural settings domestically and abroad.

 The term “global village” was coined by Marshall McLuhan almost 60 years ago describing the phenomenon of the world’s culture shrinking and expanding at the same time due to technological advances that allow for instantaneous sharing of culture. McLuhan envisioned a time when different forms of communication could be used to break down traditional boundaries and borders between people and nations. He argued that electronic technology was shrinking the planet and that “Time has ceased and space has vanished.” McLuhan predicted that these developments not only could bring us closer through greater communication but also could contribute to reinforcing nationalistic, religious, and cultural boundaries by challenging traditional structures. In the early 1960s, McLuhan’s concept reflected a world of telephones and televisions, but the emergence of the World Wide Web in 1993 and proliferation of digital hardware (e.g., cell phones, tablets) and software (e.g., social media platforms) have provided the means for greater communication (McLuhan, 1962).

11

1.3  Perspectives on Diversity and Inclusion

1.3

7

Perspectives on Diversity and Inclusion

Culture is a very powerful undercurrent in intercultural interactions12 due to its potential of being both ubiquitous and subtle as it tends to manifest itself in many forms. Culture explains much of the behavioral and institutional differences around the globe. Not understanding the cultural backgrounds, beliefs, and attitudes of the people around us creates the risk of failure in cross-cultural settings. Additionally, awareness levels of one’s own cultural background in form of our own cultural values, norms, and attitudes differ and are nontrivial because of a blend of conscious and unconscious components. At times, the awareness level increases when other individuals break our own cultural rules or norms which is perceived to be disappointing or even offensive. Cultural misunderstandings may lead to severe conflicts. This raises the question if situations that are perceived to be unpleasant or uncomfortable can be avoided. The literature offers numerous cases where a lack of understanding of cultural values and norms resulted in mistrust and even missed business opportunities. What works in one culture may not work in another. Certain misunderstandings might be created by miscommunications and unfortunate mistakes in translation and language barriers. This can even happen when two individuals technically speak the same language, e.g., English (United States and Great Britain) or German (Germany and Austria). Hence, we need to comprehend the differences between cultures also on a language level which is an area of growing research and attention. The outcomes of intercultural contact on the level of the individual range from denial of cultural differences to full adaptation of the other culture. Typically, the integrative approaches are seen in a positive light, while full rejection and full adaption (sometimes equated with assimilation)13 are regarded to be negative from a diversity and inclusion perspective. The term “diversity” is widely used in everyday conversations and political discourses alike. However, the perception of diversity across various parts of the society differs and is subject to change. A current, positively connoted perspective on diversity has shifted from valuing or managing diversity to inclusion and the development of an intercultural society. Hence, the creation of a framework for the affirmation of cultural identity in all aspects of life on an equal basis is at the center of the development.

1.3.1 Institutional Definitions of Cultural Diversity The UNESCO adopted the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO 2002) in 2001. The first two articles define cultural diversity as follows:

 An intercultural encounter/contact can be seen as an experience with someone from another cultural background. 13  For a definition of the terms acculturation, adaptation, assimilation, and integration, see Chap. 4. 12

8

1  Introduction: Why Intercultural Proficiency Matters

Article 1—Culture takes diverse forms across time and space. This diversity is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind. As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognised and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations. Article 2—In our increasingly diverse societies, it is essential to ensure harmonious interaction among people and groups with plural, varied and dynamic cultural identities as well as their willingness to live together. Policies for the inclusion and participation of all citizens are guarantees of social cohesion, the vitality of civil society and peace. Thus defined, cultural pluralism gives policy expression to the reality of cultural diversity. Indissociable from a democratic framework, cultural pluralism is conducive to cultural exchange and to the flourishing of creative capacities that sustain public life.

1.3.2 Different Perspectives on Diversity Beyond these institutional definitions, there exists a wide variety of dissimilar perspectives on diversity, depending on how people perceive divergence. Different attitudes towards diversity are mainly categorized in positive or negative. Individuals who perceive diversity as a positive characteristic value the potential for progress, whereas individuals who consider it to be a negative characteristic point out to the potential for conflict. The application of Schulz von Thun’s value square model to diversity (Fig. 1.1) can be visualized as shown below: both attitudes (positive and negative) can act as a starting point to initiate a constructive dialogue with individuals who are strongly opposed to diversity and the corresponding topic of intercultural learning, based on

Tension of

Exaggeration

Opposites

Conflict Loss of Identity Fig. 1.1  Value square model applied to diversity

Cultural Heterogeneity („Sameness“)

Exaggeration

Cultural Diversity („Differentness“)

Uniformity Loss of Uniqueness

1.3  Perspectives on Diversity and Inclusion

9

hidden fears or various other reasons causing resistance. The individual assessment if diversity is positive or negative might also rely on the specific group it refers to. Some individuals/groups are more appreciated than others, and people might be more open to interact with groups they sympathize with than with those they do not value or respect.

1.3.3 Defining Diversity and Inclusion In the context of this book, diversity will be defined as “cultural differences in values, beliefs, and behaviors learned and shared by groups of interacting people defined by nationality, ethnicity, gender, age, physical characteristics, sexual orientation, economic status, education, profession, religion, organizational affiliation, and any other grouping that generates identifiable patterns” (Bennett & Bennett, 2004, p. 256).14 This definition is shared among several scholars that characterize diversity as “differences in people based on their various identifications with group membership...a process of acknowledging differences through action” (Carnevale & Stone, 1995, p. 89); “a multidimensional mixture” (Thomas, 1992, p. 307); or “every individual difference that affects a task or relationship” (Griggs & Louw, 1995, p. 6). Definitions of the term inclusion vary broadly and literature continues to lack conceptual clarity (Nilholm & Göransson, 2017). For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that inclusion starts with oneself. Hence, inclusion will be regarded as the individual “action of including.” The major aim of actively “doing inclusion” is to provide equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized. In this sense, inclusion is applied to the individual capacity of a person to practice inclusion. A person who has a positive attitude towards inclusion respects and understands diversity and is willing to implement inclusive practices to accommodate diverse individuals in various cultural settings. It is assumed that the individual capacity to practice inclusion will have a broader impact by spreading out to the surrounding environment, such as workplaces, organizations, communities, and neighborhoods. To my knowledge, the definition of inclusion regarded as an individual capacity is a new approach. Diversity can be seen as a controversial topic, and it is vital to acknowledge that people’s willingness and ability to live together in a diverse society might differ significantly. Throughout the book, diversity is seen as a positive construct, and differences in cultural patterns and traits are regarded as valuable and not considered obstacles serving as justification for exclusion. The individual capacity to practice inclusion is key to bridge these differences and results in the key question of how intercultural learning and the concept of intercultural proficiency can foster this capacity.

14

 See also Sect. 2.1.1.

10

1  Introduction: Why Intercultural Proficiency Matters

References Bennett, J.  M., & Bennett, M.  J. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 147–165). SAGE Publications, Inc.. Caligiuri, P., De Cieri, H., Minbaeva, D., et al. (2020). International HRM insights for navigating the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for future research and practice. Journal of International Business Studies, 51, 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-­020-­00335-­9 Carnevale, A.  P., & Stone, S.  C. (1995). American mosaic: An in-depth report on the future of diversity at work. McGraw-Hill. Dixon, V. (2008). Understanding the implications of a Global Village. Reason and Respect., 4(1) Article 13. Docquier, F., Rapoport, H., & Salomone, S. (2012). Remittances, migrants’ education and immigration policy: Theory and evidence from bilateral data. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42(5), 817–828. Doh, J.  P. (2021). Distance as diversity: Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Management Studies, 58(6), 1640–1643. Georgiadis, G. (2008). The convergence-divergence debate revisited: Framing the issue. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 8(4), 313–323. Griggs, L. B., & Louw, L. (1995). Valuing diversity: New tools for a new reality. McGraw-Hill. Guillén, M. F. (2000). Corporate governance and globalization: Is there convergence across countries? Advances in International Comparative Management, 13, 175–204. Guillén, M.  F. (2016). Coupling. In The architecture of collapse (pp.  49–74). Oxford University Press. Henley Passport Index and Global Mobility Report (2020) Hill, C. W. L., & Hult, G. T. (2017). International business: Competing in the global marketplace. McGraw-Hill Education. Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22–49. International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2019). In M. McAuliffe & B. Khadria (Eds.), World Migration Report 2020. IOM. International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2021). In M. McAuliffe & A. Triandafyllidou (Eds.), World Migration Report 2022. IOM. Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review. Lumineau, F., Hanisch, M., & Wurtz, O. (2021). International management as Management of Diversity: Reconceptualizing distance as diversity. Journal of Management Studies, 58(6), 1644–1668. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12686 Mauldin, J. (2019). Age of transformation: Navigating and investing in an area of massive change. Wiley & Sons. McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy. University of Toronto Press. Narula, R. and Straaten, K. (2020). A comment on the multifaceted relationship between multinational enterprises and within-country inequality. Critical perspectives on international business. Ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-­10-­2019-­0080. Nilholm, C., & Göransson, K. (2017). What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and north American journal articles with high impact. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32, 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1295638 Solimano, A. (2009). The international mobility of talent: Types, causes, and development impact. Oxford University Press. Spitzberg, B.  H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing Intercultural Competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–52). Sage. Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). Globalization and its discontents. W. W. Norten. Witt, M.  A. (2019). De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50, 1053–1077. https://doi. org/10.1057/s41267-­019-­00219-­7

2

Understanding Cultural Differences

Today’s globalized world is shaped by frequent intercultural encounters.1 Certain individuals perceive cultural differences (and hence cultural diversity) in certain situations as interesting and enriching, but there are also encounters that create frustration and disappointment, sometimes for reasons we may not understand. Therefore, a good understanding of cultural differences including how they might impact our way of thinking, feeling, and acting is instrumental in order to better navigate in cross-cultural environments. The ability to thoroughly comprehend cultural diversity relies on understanding the idea of “culture” itself.

2.1

Meaning and Classification of Culture and Identity

A clear and precise conceptual framework of culture and the concept of cultural identity is essential in order to not only understand and analyze cultural differences but also achieve a high degree of awareness of our own cultural background.

2.1.1 Definition and Characteristics of Culture Culture as a term is widely used in academics as well as in our daily discourse. Referring to a variety of concepts and different understandings, culture has been defined in many ways. While the term originally stems from ancient Rome (Latin word colere, meaning to build on, to cultivate, to foster), it has various dimensions and is used by a vast variety of scientific disciplines including but not limited to anthropology, sociology, communication studies, and management.

1  The term “intercultural encounter” refers to an experience with someone from another cultural background, regardless of the location.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Bender, A Roadmap to Intercultural Proficiency, Diversity and Inclusion Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04899-9_2

11

12

2  Understanding Cultural Differences

Beginning with British anthropologist Edward Tylor in the 1870s who described culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Tylor, 1920, p. 1), scholars have long been debating about the appropriate definition of culture, and hundreds of definitions of the term culture exist. Franz Boas developed a working definition of culture that influences anthropologists to this day: “Culture is an integrated system of symbols, ideas and values that should be studied as a working system, an organic whole” (Kuper, 1999, p. 56). Realizing that the above definition might not apply to all cultures, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn proposed that “Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols...” (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952, p. 181) initiating a shift from the sole description of the behavior itself to the actual meaning of behavior. Geert Hofstede, an expert of cross-cultural differences in international business, called culture “the software of the mind” and referred to culture as “the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede, 1994, p. 5). Brown (2007), however, defined culture as a way of life, as the context within which people exist, think, feel, and relate to others, as well as the “glue” (p. 188) that binds groups of people together. Finally, according to Spencer-Oatey (2008, p. 3), “culture is a fuzzy set of attitudes, beliefs, behavioural conventions, and basic assumptions and values that are shared by a group of people, and that influence each member’s behaviour and each member’s interpretations of the ‘meaning’ of other people’s behaviour.” According to Barrett et al. (2014, pp. 13–14), culture is a combination of three different aspects: material, social, and subjective: “Material culture consists of the physical artefacts which are commonly used by the members of a cultural group (e. g., the tools, goods, foods, clothing, etc.); social culture consists of the social institutions of the group (e.g., the language, religion, laws, rules of social conduct, folklore, cultural icons, etc.); and subjective culture consists of the beliefs, norms, collective memories, attitudes, values, discourses and practices which group members commonly use as a frame of reference for thinking about, making sense of and relating to the world.” While these aspects are all accessible for the group, individual members might only use portions of “the total set of cultural resources potentially available to them.” Most commonly, the term culture is used for ethnic groups (in anthropology), for nations (in political science, sociology, and management), and for organizations (in sociology and management). Group refers to an “association of two or more individuals who have a shared sense of identity and who interact with each other in structured ways on the basis of a common set of expectations about each other’s behaviour” (Hill & Hult, 2017, p. 97). Based on this definition, groups of any form and size can have their own cultures, including but not limited to nations, ethnic groups, communities, corporate organizations, families, etc. Therefore, we might simultaneously identify with more than one culture. Although culture can be regarded as a collective phenomenon, a notable heterogeneity of individuals may exist within each culture. A culture may even have certain subcultures existing in parallel within the cultural framework of a society. The

2.1  Meaning and Classification of Culture and Identity

13

life span of these subcultures may vary considerably: they can vanish, they can overlap, or they become incorporated into the mainstream culture. Consequently, individuals influenced by multiple cultural backgrounds can be members of different cultures at different points in time or simultaneously. Even though formation of cultures takes time, and usually does not change rapidly, cultures are not fixed at all. In times of shifting experiences of its members, or interaction with other cultures, cultures do respond, sometimes even suddenly and drastically. Like the mentioned software synonym by Hofstede, culture can be “updated” occasionally as part of this ongoing evolution. In the constructivist view, culture is defined through interactions and is continuously evolving and adapting to the realities experienced by its members. The complexity of culture arises both out of the clash of modernity and tradition as it does out of various forms of networked interaction. According to Yamazaki (2000, p. 119), “Culture is by no means a fixed entity, but a set of dynamic processes of generation and transformation.” Built upon the reflection of the previous definitions, culture will be defined in the following as “a learned set of shared beliefs, values, and norms, which affect the behaviors of a group of people.” Although definitions of culture differ greatly in literature, there is a shared core of fundamental characteristics as presented by Damen (1987, p. 30): 1. Culture is learned. 2. Cultures and cultural patterns change. 3. Culture is a universal fact of human life. 4. Cultures provide sets of unique and interrelated, selected blueprints for living and accompanying sets of values and beliefs to support these blueprints. 5. Language and culture are closely related and interactive. 6. Culture functions as a filtering device between its bearers and the great range of stimuli presented by the environment. Based on the definition of culture used in this book, Damen’s list of characteristics is extended accordingly by adding that culture is shared. Sharing our culture with other members of our group allows us to act in socially appropriate ways as well as to predict how others will react. The following interpretation and implications for navigating across the diversity of cultures can be deduced (Fig. 2.1). The abovementioned implications are instrumental in the analysis of cross-­ cultural interactions. Especially the notion that culture is acquired via a process of learning has several important implications. First, such an understanding can facilitate greater tolerance for cultural differences, a prerequisite for effective intercultural communication. Second, the learned nature of culture serves as a reminder that—since we have mastered our own culture through the process of learning—it is possible (albeit more difficult) to learn about other cultures opening up the possibility of intercultural learning.

14

2  Understanding Cultural Differences

Characteristics

Interpretation

Culture is Learned

Culture is not something we are born with; we do not

Implications

inherit it. We learn it over our lifetime from families,

Culture is learned and therefore can

peers, institutions, and media (Enculturation). Much of

be taught.

it is learned unconsciously. Culture and Cultural Patterns

Culture is a dynamic system that responds to changes

change:

by striving to adjust. A culture must be flexible enough

Culture is dynamic and demands

to allow such adjustments in the face of unstable or

adaptation.

changing circumstances. Culture is a universal fact of

Cultural patterns are aligned with human needs. It is an

No human group exists without

human life

integral part of life.

culture. There is no No Culture.

Culture offers blueprints for

Values, beliefs, and norms are the central components

Understanding values, beliefs, and

living

of a culture.

norms is crucial for understanding

Language and culture are

Language is the most important symbolic component

Culture is conveyed through

related and interactive

of culture. It is a common code used in rituals,

language.

the differences in cultures.

education, institutions, politics, relgion and myths. Culture functions as a filter

Culture is a means of capturing differences in behavior and communications

Intercultural communicators need to be able to go beyond their own filters to be able to decode context.

Culture is shared

Culture is shared with other members of our group

A shared culture enables its members to act in socially appropriate ways and predict how others will react.

Source: Own illustration based on Damen´s characteristics (1987). Extension regarding Interpretation and Implications. Fig. 2.1  Characteristics and implications of culture. Source: Own illustration based on Damen’s characteristics (1987). Extension regarding interpretation and implications

2.1.2 The Concept of Identity In today’s globalized world with increasing intercultural encounters, our identification with a particular group, the so-called cultural identity, is constantly challenged. Created and maintained through the process of sharing collective knowledge, language, norms, and values, the cultural identity is important for people’s sense of self and how they relate to others. The term “identity” refers to a person’s sense of who she/he is and how they describe themselves. In fact, most individuals use a broad range of different identities when describing themselves, including personal and social identities (Fig. 2.2). A particular type of social identities are identities which people form based on their membership to a cultural group. These cultural identities are vital for this text. As already stated in Sect. 2.1.1, it is extremely challenging to define the term culture, partly due to the internal heterogeneity of cultural groups caused by the broad “range of diverse practices and norms that are often contested, change over time and are enacted by individuals in personalised ways” (Barrett et al. 2014, p. 13). Though people may identify with more than one culture, identifying with a particular culture gives people feelings of belonging and security. “One’s culture, in many cases, is not only a source of deeply felt pride and belonging, but it is often

2.1  Meaning and Classification of Culture and Identity

Personal Identities • caring • open-minded • introverted

Interpersonal Relationships and Roles • work colleagues • mother • friend

15

Social Identities • nation • ethnic group • organization

Source: Own Visualization based on Barrett et al. (2014) Fig. 2.2  Multiple identification. Source: Own visualization based on Barrett et al. (2014)

deeply ingrained as part of an individual’s worldview. This cultural conditioning denotes the most solid moral circle in which they feel included” (Hofstede, 2009, p. 90). “An intercultural encounter is an encounter with another person (or group of people) who is perceived to have different cultural affiliations from oneself.” So, what happens when an individual encounters another individual with a different cultural background? Differences can stem from different geographic, ethnic, linguistic, and religious backgrounds or be based on gender, age, sexual orientation, social class, etc. Encounters can happen physically or using ICT in form of email, videoconference, Skype/MS Zoom, or phone. These encounters are “made salient either by the situation or by the individual’s own orientation and attitudes” (Barrett et  al., 2014, p.  2). All those intercultural interactions require different aspects of cultural literacy in order to ensure an effective cross-cultural interaction. Certain situations that involve more than two cultures can be referred to as multicultural. In multicultural communities, people retain, pass down, celebrate, and share their unique cultural ways of life, languages, art, traditions, and behaviors. Proponents of cultural diversity argue that it makes humanity stronger and may, in fact, be vital to its long-term survival. In 2001, the General Conference of UNESCO took this position when it asserted in its Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity that “...cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature” (UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2002). According to the two primary theories of multiculturalism, the way different cultures are integrated into a single society can be best described by the commonly used metaphors of “melting pot” or “salad bowl” (Berray, 2019). Whereas the melting pot theory assumes that individuals abandon their individual cultures and become entirely assimilated into the predominant society (melt together), the salad bowl theory describes a heterogeneous society in which individuals coexist and retain their unique characteristics of their traditional culture (like different ingredients in a salad). From a diversity and inclusion perspective, assimilation and adaption for the sake of immersing into a single homogenous culture are equal with losing one’s distinctive identity which in turn is opposing the idea of diversity and inclusion. On the negative side however, it is noticeable that the maintenance of cultural differences encouraged by the salad bowl theory can potentially divide a society and foster prejudice and discrimination.

16

2  Understanding Cultural Differences

Built upon the premise that members of different cultures can coexist peacefully, an environment that encourages the existence of multiple cultures expresses the acceptance of and support for the harmonious coexistence of diverse cultures within one society. A truly diverse society is one that recognizes and values the cultural differences of its people manifested in various values, beliefs, communicative styles, and behaviors. Through exposure to and internalization of different cultures, individuals can experience different ways of learning, viewing, and reacting to the world. This multicultural experience can make cultural identities even more complex and layered. From the perspective of an individual identity, multiculturalism can be defined as the experience of having been exposed to two or more cultures (Hong et al., 2000; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2007). Hence, multicultural individuals identify with more than one culture and have strong attachments with and loyalties towards these different cultures (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). Fitzsimmons et al. demonstrate that “individuals’ cultural identities exist on a continuum called identity plurality, ranging from monocultural to multicultural.” According to Fitzsimmons the “dimensions of identity plurality and identity integration create a map of identity patterns used to test how personal, social and task outcomes vary among multicultural individuals, and across multicultural and monocultural individuals” (Fitzsimmons, 2013, in Fitzsimmons et al., 2017, p. 64) (Fig. 2.3). Additional support for the idea that individuals can simultaneously hold two or more cultural orientations is provided by recent socio-cognitive experimental work

Fig. 2.3 Mapping multicultural identity patterns. Source: Adapted visualization from Fitzsimmons (2017)

2.2  Classification of Culture

17

showing that bicultural individuals shift between their two cultural orientations in response to cultural cues, a process called “cultural frame switching” (CFS; Hong et al., 2000; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006). A salient consequence of the finding that individuals can simultaneously hold two or more cultural orientations is provided by studies that are showing that individuals shift between their cultural orientations in response to intercultural encounters, a process called “cultural frame switching” (CFS) (Hong et al., 2000, Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006). “Individuals are thought to be able to acquire more than one cultural frame even if these contain conflicting elements. However, these frames are not thought to guide thinking simultaneously” (Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006, pp. 312–313). As culture is the fundamental building block of identity, multicultural identity refers to “the capabilities of the bicultural or multicultural person who is able to readily shift into the frame of reference of two or more cultures, often with language fluency and equivalent cultural competence” (Bennett, 2013, p.  20). Yoshikawa (1987) suggests that the defining element of a multicultural identity is the ability of fluid adaptation from one culture to another. As it can be assumed that the ability of cultural frame switching or fluid adaptation to other cultures allows for a more effective and appropriate behavior in intercultural encounters, a major component in the ongoing intercultural learning process will be the ability to see the world from other perspectives than one’s own by using dynamic cultural reference points. In the following, I will explain how intercultural proficiency and intercultural learning can empower individuals to take attainable steps towards the ability of perspective-taking.

2.2

Classification of Culture

There are two approaches aiming for a deeper understanding of cultures. The first method is to identify the relevant components and elements of a culture in order to avoid a superficial perception and description of it (Dissecting Cultural Components Sect. 2.2.1). The second method is to find the key differences between cultures and thereby make descriptions of cultures more concrete and comparable (Categorizing Cultural Dimensions Sect. 2.2.2).

2.2.1 Dissecting Cultural Components It is widely accepted that culture consists of two layers: an invisible layer, which is made up of values, norms, and attitudes, and a visible layer consisting of the resulting behavior. This description of culture is also expressed in the popular “iceberg model” of culture, in which only a small part is visible on the surface but a big part is not observable to the naked eye. Hofstede (1991, p. 8) states that although certain aspects of culture are physically visible, their meaning is invisible: “their cultural meaning ... lies precisely and only in the way these practices are interpreted by the insiders.”

18

2  Understanding Cultural Differences

Central cultural components that will be discussed due to their importance as building blocks of a culture are values and norms. Values are abstract, overall ideas about what is perceived to be good, right, and desirable in a society, whereas norms are concrete social rules and guidelines prescribing a certain behavior for specific situations (Hill & Hult, 2017; Frese, 2015). A notable further differentiation within the concept of the “norm” is to distinguish between formal norms such as laws and informal norms such as customs. Each culture differs in its values, norms, and its respective expectations for behaving appropriately. Values and norms are determined by political and economic philosophy, social structure, religion, language, and education. Here, it is noteworthy to bear in mind that the causality goes both ways (Fig. 2.4). One of the defining determinants of culture is language with its spoken and unspoken dimensions of communication (see Sect. 3.2 for a more in-depth investigation of the relationship between language and culture). As language expresses the values, beliefs, and meanings which members of a society share with each other, we often find more than one culture in countries where more than one language is spoken (e.g., Canada, Belgium, Spain).2 While there are a large number of social institutions3 that can have an impact on a culture (also vice versa) and lead to cultural differences, there are three dominant types that guide how people act and behave:

Political Philosophy

Economic Philosophy

Religion

Social Structure

Education

Culture Norms and Value Systems

Language

Source: Visualization based on Hill & Hult, 2017: 96. Fig. 2.4  Major determinants of culture. Source: Visualization based on Hill and Hult, 2017, p. 96

 Hill and Hult (2017), p. 112  Social institution is understood as “a complex of positions, roles, norms, and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organizing relatively stable patterns of human resources with respect to fundamental problems in…sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment” (Nohria & Eccles, 1992, p. 47). 2 3

2.2  Classification of Culture

19

• Social structure (the basic social organization defined by the degree of individualism and by the extent of potential social mobility within a society4) • Education (“the medium through which individuals learn many of the language, conceptual, including technical skills that are indispensable in a modern society”5) • Religion (“system of shared beliefs and rituals”6 based on faith) Further forces that are determinant of the behaviors of individuals and thereby lead to cultural differences are the political and economic philosophy of a society. The political system is thereby considered to shape the economic system (as well as the legal system) of a country by emphasizing the primacy of either individualism or collectivism as well as the degree to which they are democratic or totalitarian. Subsequently, the economic system characterizes the distinguished degrees to which either a government or private individuals are allowed to make economic decisions (at one extreme resulting in a centrally planned economy and at the other extreme describing a capitalist market economy).7

2.2.2 Categorizing Cultural Dimensions A broad range of dimensions is commonly used to compare cultures, typically presented in the form of bipolar continua. These dimensions were developed to yield greater cultural understanding and allow for cross-cultural comparisons. One of the underlying themes of cross-cultural research is that countries tend to cluster around cultural dimensions. Edward Hall was one of the first researchers to classify cultures with the help of dichotomous dimensions, many of them related to communication behaviors. One of the dimensions refers to the amount of contextual information people use to give meaning to and draw meaning from social interactions. In his book Beyond Culture (1976), Hall divided all cultures into high-context or low-context cultures. He maintained that all behavior, including verbal and nonverbal communication, was either affected by the cultural context (high-context) or minimally affected by such context (low-context). In high-context cultures (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Japan, Italy, England) much of the information that is critical to understand, the meaning of communication and interaction among people is believed to be contained in the context in which communication occurs. In low-context cultures (e.g., Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia, the USA), the meaning of communication and interaction among people is explicitly articulated. Hall further introduced the concept of culturally specific temporal (monochronic time/polychronic time) as well as spatial dimensions (proxemics). He coined the term “polychronic” to describe the ability to  Hill and Hult (2017), p. 96 ff  Hill and Hult (2017), p. 113 6  Hill and Hult (2017), p. 102 7  Hill and Hult (2017), Chaps. 2 and 4 4 5

20

2  Understanding Cultural Differences

attend multiple events simultaneously, as opposed to “monochronic” individuals and cultures that tend to handle events sequentially. The theory of proxemics describes the human use of space and how it may differ between cultures.8 Although there are several frameworks to understand cultural differences, one of the most widely used models was developed by Geert Hofstede, derived in worldwide studies of different nations along certain characteristics. Comparing how culture relates to values in the workplace for different nations, Hofstede’s original survey of more than 88,000 employees of the 72 countries revealed 4 major cultural dimensions: power distance (PDI, the degree to which societies accept power differences and authority in society), individualism (IDV, the degree to which a society focuses on the relationship of the individual to the group), uncertainty avoidance (UAI, the degree to which people in a society are comfortable with uncertainty and unpredictable situations), and masculinity (MAS, the degree to which a society emphasizes traditional masculine qualities such as advancement and earnings) (Hofstede, 2001). In each dimension, Hofstede’s scores range from 100 (the highest) to 0 (the lowest). A fifth definition, the one of long-term vs. short-term orientation, was added by Michael Bonds research in 1991, followed by another extension, the sixth cultural dimension, covering the definition of indulgence vs. restraint by Michael Minkov (Hofstede et al., 2010). The application of Hofstede’s model is used worldwide in both academic and professional management settings. The framework provides important information about differences between countries and how to manage such differences. Furthermore, reviews of research have shown the utility of Hofstede’s cultural framework for a wide variety of managerial activities, such as change management, conflict management, leadership, negotiation, and work-related attitudes. Although Hofstede’s model is widely accepted in organizational communication and management theory, critics argue that the research is purely concentrating on economic and organizational values (Kirkman et al., 2006). While the Hofstede cultural framework was developed in the 1960s, a more recent attempt to understand cultural dimensions is the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project. Developed in the 1990s, it incorporates some of Hofstede’s dimensions but also explicitly looks at leadership issues across cultures. It provides managers with an additional lens through which they can better understand how to perform well in an international environment. The GLOBE project involves 170 researchers from over 60 countries who collected data on 17,000 managers from 62 countries around the world. GLOBE researchers (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004) grouped countries based on the relative similarity in work-related attitudes and behavior. To compare how the different clusters rate different forms of leadership, the GLOBE researchers considered six leadership profiles: • Charismatic type (degree to which the leader can inspire and motivate others) • Team oriented (degree to which the leader can foster a high-functioning team)  See Sect. 3.3 for more details.

8

2.3  Mapping Cultural Differences

21

• Participative type (degree to which leaders involve others in decision-making) • Humane-oriented type (degree to which the leader shows compassion and generosity) • Autonomous type (degree to which the leader reflects independent and individualistic leadership) • Self-protective type (degree to which the leader is self-centered and uses a face-­ saving approach) Even though the culture frameworks are certainly useful and can provide a solid basis for understanding cultural differences, these theoretical concepts are still limited. They often fail to recognize contradictions or ambiguities in each culture and downplay the fact that cultures change over time. Relying solely on cultural dimensions can lead to problems when professionals are confronted with cultural paradoxes (when reality does not coincide with expectations based on cultural dimensions) and cultural stereotyping (when it is assumed that everyone within the same culture acts and behaves similarly).

2.3

Mapping Cultural Differences

Though it is beneficial for intercultural learning to gain knowledge about the facts of foreign cultures, it might be more important to comprehend the values and attitudes behind the facts in order to develop an awareness of the diversity across cultures. The mapping of cultures has been a new approach to the study of global values. “Values have been recognized as having a crucial role in understanding cultures… They affect the way people perceive and interpret the world, and their preferences, choices, and actions” (Knafo et  al., 2011:178). A mapping concept for basic value dimensions was developed by Ronald Inglehart and Shalom Schwartz: while Inglehart based the cultural mapping of the world on data from value surveys, Schwartz used data from these surveys to validate his a priori theoretical constructs. Both, Inglehart and Schwartz, draw cultural maps of the world reflecting their approaches and their data. Inglehart expounds on his two-dimensional map of global values based on data collected from World Values Surveys since 1981.9 Inglehart and his collaborators (see, e.g., Inglehart and Baker, 2000; Inglehart and Welzel, 2010) have argued that although values and beliefs vary in many ways, they can be adequately summarized in two basic dimensions: the traditional/secular-rational dimension and the survival/ self-expression dimension. Inglehart’s global values map places all societies on

9  The World Values Survey (WVS) is a global research project that explores people’s values and beliefs, how they change over time, and what social and political impact they have. It is carried out by a worldwide network of social scientists who, since 1981, have conducted representative national surveys in almost 100 countries. The World Values Survey uses the sample survey as its mode of data collection, a systematic and standardized approach to collect information through interviewing representative national samples of individuals.

22

2  Understanding Cultural Differences

Source: World Values Survey (2005-2020). Fig. 2.5  The Inglehart-Welzel cultural map of the world (2020). Source: World Values Survey (2005–2020)

these two dimensions. Data shows that societies occupy meaningful and predictable positions on this map forming “cultural zones” (Fig.  2.5). The Inglehart-Welzel cultural map of the world has been updated and regularly modified along with the new data from the World Values Survey. Shalom Schwartz took a different approach: his cultural orientations are based on individual-level value dimensions that are theoretically derived. His starting point is the specification of “a coherent, integrated system of relations among the orientations” before he moves on to test this theoretical model. Thereby, Schwartz’ theory of basic values (2012) presents an empirically validated typology of value orientations to describe, map, and give insight into cultural differences by identifying ten basic personal values that are prevalent across national cultures and facilitate the explanation of diversity and conflict in values: self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence, and universalism. Though spirituality was considered as an additional 11th value, it was found that it did not exist in all cultures. Each of the ten universal values can be organized in four higher-order groups:

2.3  Mapping Cultural Differences

23

1. Openness to change (self-direction, stimulation) 2. Self-enhancement (hedonism, achievement, power) 3. Conservation (security, conformity, tradition) 4. Self-transcendence (benevolence, universalism) Schwartz’ approach is distinctive in its use of a priori theorizing to derive cultural dimensions and to specify how they form a coherent, integrated system. Another more recent culture map is provided by Erin Meyer (2014). Based on surveys and interviews, her culture map presents positions for a large number of countries along eight behavior scales (management styles) in business cultures: communicating, evaluating, persuading, leading, deciding, trusting, disagreeing, and scheduling. According to Meyer, fluidly moving back and forth between cultural profiles on the map along all eight dimensions of the value system is pivotal for success. Based on these eight scales, Fig. 2.6 shows the exemplary plotting of four cultures (France, Germany, China, Japan) on the map. The visualization enables a comparison of the various cultures presented in a multicultural team along the different behavior scales. The recognition of aspects of similarity and difference might help to overcome invisible (psychological) boundaries.

Source: Adaptation from Meyer (2014: 246) Fig. 2.6  The culture map. Source: Adaptation from Meyer (2014, p. 246)

24

2.4

2  Understanding Cultural Differences

Cultural Paradoxes and Stereotyping

As seen in the previous chapters, intercultural researchers tend to emphasize common cultural traits in a taxonomic approach to intercultural understanding. Cultural dimensions are seen as a fixed set of polar attributes. The cultural categorization of members of the same group with similar characteristics (as described in Sect. 2.2.2), as well as the mapping of culture clusters (Sect. 2.3), unequivocally provides some beneficial clues and meaningful insights when explaining cultural behavior. As indicated by Barna (1997), categorizing and classifying people helps us to cope with people and situations that are unfamiliar and thereby lessens the threat of the unknown. In fact, generalizations are a necessary piece in navigating intercultural situations as they allow us to analyze, comprehend, and anticipate cultural behavior in diverse settings like some sort of human survival mechanism we employ. Yamazaki writes (2000, p.  3) “Human beings seem to like to give themselves a sense of security by forming simplistic notions about the culture of other countries.” However, there are certain limitations of this framework of bipolar cultural dimensions, as it can be criticized for oversimplifying, overgeneralizing, and even stereotyping cultures. Stereotyping as used in the context of intercultural communication refers to a “rigid description of a group, … and consequently the rigid application of a generalization to every person in the group” (Bennett, 2013, p. 1). Accordingly, a cultural generalization may therefore become a stereotype if it is applied to all individual members of a group (Hinton, 2000). Samovar and Porter (1991, p. 280) define stereotypes as “the perceptions or beliefs we hold about groups or individuals based on our previously formed opinions or attitudes.” The latter definition implies that stereotypes are not made up abruptly but rather have been developed over time about a group of people. Jandt (2001) mentions several reasons why stereotyping can be considered destructive in the intercultural context. Stereotypes may not only maintain widely held beliefs that are untrue leading to prejudice and potential discrimination, but the persistent use of stereotypes may even emphasize these incorrect beliefs. This can make us employ these assumptions to any member of the group regardless of individual differences. In fact, the premise that every individual is a representative of this group is the essence of stereotyping. Additionally, the reinforcement of a prevalent stereotype may also lead to “self-fulfilling prophecies” for those who are stereotyped. Stereotypes cannot be avoided in toto as the idea of culture itself is a categorization of people, but accurate cultural generalizations about specific qualities of a group without stereotyping the individual is feasible. Based on the hypothesis how members of a group might behave due to the group’s cultural set of common characteristics, it is crucial to understand that the degree to which individuals share the group’s predominant characteristics might vary remarkably. According to Bennett (2013), it is crucial not to be misled by these two different levels of analysis when observing human interactions and respective behavior: the cultural group level and the individual level based on personal characteristics and traits. Consequently, the

2.5  Self-Awareness and Unconscious Bias

25

key for the usage of cultural generalization without stereotyping is to use them on the group level as they relate to predominant tendencies among groups of people and not for labeling individuals. Another limitation of categorizing cultures is the so-called cultural paradox that describes the “misfit between the learned cultural categories provided by the models, and the cultural reality, people who are working across cultures encounter on a frequent basis” (Osland et al. 2000, p. 67). To decipher and explain these discrepancies, Osland et al. (2000) introduced the idea of value trumping meaning that it is crucial to take the context of a specific situation into account as certain cultural values may overtake others. In conclusion, categorizing groups of people and learning about cultural dimensions is helpful when acknowledging the respective limitations. Societies are not culturally homogenous, and individuals within a given society are not always identical, and their cultural behavior might be different. Hence, it is rather useful regarding the comparison of cultures than in explaining the variety of behavior in a single culture. Adler (1997) encourages the use of cultural generalizations if these are consciously held, descriptive rather than evaluative, and accurate in their description of a behavioral norm, but he stresses that they need to be modified as we gain more experience. In other words, cultural generalizations that are based on cross-cultural research can be utilized as a starting point open to verification, while we continue to search for more information about individuals from other cultures. While this “sophisticated stereotyping” (Osland et  al. 2000, p.  66) might be beneficial to a certain extent, it might also hamper the development of a deeper understanding of a specific culture. Hence, the best way to successfully navigate across cultures could be to combine specific cultural knowledge with an openness to individual differences and thus translating this knowledge into a general respect for diversity. As we might deal with a vast variety of different cultures, we need a framework operating at a moderate level of abstraction that is general enough to translate across a wide range of cultures but specific enough to offer some guidelines for the understanding of specific behavior.

2.5

Self-Awareness and Unconscious Bias

“In the same way that fish don’t notice water, we don’t notice our own hidden cultural programming.” —Joseph Shaules

Most of the current literature in cross-cultural management focuses on the acquisition of knowledge about individuals, nations, and organizations that are culturally different from us. But, as already stated by Hall (1959), the biggest obstacle to the detailed analysis and understanding of intercultural encounters is our own cultural conditioning.

26

2  Understanding Cultural Differences Culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants. Years of study have convinced me that the real job is not to understand foreign culture but to understand our own (Hall 1959).

More often than not, the specific culture we have been immersed to has become invisible to us. Explicitly, the awareness and accurate understanding of the unconscious mechanism by which we categorize other individuals will allow us to comprehend how culture shapes our own mind, our perceptions, and our interactions with others. This unconscious preconceptualization is termed implicit bias, referring to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner (Payne et al., 2018). As Devine (1989, p. 5) states, these “well-learnt associations picked up during socialization form implicit stereotypes even for the individual seeking non-prejudiced views.” In brief, even when we strive to maintain an openness to diversity and a multicultural orientation, we often cannot avoid having an implicit bias. Based on our own lens on the world, adapted throughout our life within our own culture, we perceive people and interpret interactions differently than other individuals in the same situation. Now and then, we recognize that our patterns of beliefs and corresponding interpretations have been determined by our subjective filter. However, it is generally rather demanding to fully understand the entire impact of this filter on our decision-making and actions. Furthermore, while it is comprehensible that our unconscious beliefs impact the way we perceive others, unconscious beliefs also impact how we view ourselves. In addition, what if we make choices that discriminate against one group and favor another group without even realizing that we are doing it? Also, we might adhere to the subjective view that we are unbiased in our decision-making. Studies10 indicate that stereotypical associations and responses are largely unconscious and that we are often completely unaware of our blind spots. Consequently, our attitude—even if unconscious in most cases—may lead to misunderstandings, communicative conflicts, and inefficiency in the workplace or other social encounters. Our patterns of belief and their impact are so deeply ingrained and concealed in our unconscious that it is not trivial for us to fully understand their impact on our decision-making. Our minds might automatically justify our decisions, making us blind for the true source behind our decisions. Ultimately, we believe our decisions are consistent with our conscious beliefs. Awareness and understanding of unconscious bias require a new level of engagement regarding diversity. Not only does it need self-reflection, humility, and compassion, but above all, it requires the willingness to act. The awareness of this hidden bias and its respective influence on our actions is the first step to mitigate its impact. The research of unconscious bias or hidden bias has led to the development of tools

10

 Hinton, P (2017)

References

27

Specific to individual

Inherited and learned

PERSONALITY Specific to group of category

Learned

CULTURE

Inherited

Universal

HUMAN NATURE

Source: Adapted Visualization from Hofstede & Hofstede (2005). Fig. 2.7  Three levels of uniqueness in human mental programming. Source: Adapted visualization from Hofstede and Hofstede (2005)

for testing one’s own implicit pattern of beliefs as well as to the conception of strategies to actively disclose perceptions and patterns that have been hidden.11 Lastly, putting culture into a broader context, we must bear in mind that the concept of culture does not offer a complete explanation for all behaviors and interactions we encounter. Hofstede’s model of human mental programming which captures the unique mental constitution of a person distinguishes three different levels: personality, culture, and human nature (Fig. 2.7). Accordingly, the unique human mind is built upon a universal human behavior which is refined by learned cultural values as well as norms and finally formed by its individual personality. These three levels affect us all, in one way or the other. Nevertheless, the development of cultural self-awareness and intercultural literacy helps us to avoid miscommunications and misunderstandings when meeting individuals in a diverse intercultural setting. Being aware of the patterns of the cultures to which we belong provides the basis for understanding other cultures.

References Adler, N. J. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). South-Western College Publishing. Barna, L.  M. (1997). Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. In L.  A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication (8th ed.). Wadsworth. Barrett, M., Byram, M., Lázár, I., Mompoint-Gaillard, P., & Philippou, S. (2014). Developing intercultural competence through education. Council of Europe.  One of the tools available for testing one’s own unconscious bias is the Implicit Association Test (IAT) developed by Greenwald et al. (1998). Though critics claim that the stability of the test is low for predicting individual outcomes, they acknowledge the outcomes across larger entities such as counties, cities, or states (Payne et al., 2018).

11

28

2  Understanding Cultural Differences

Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015–1049. Bennett, M. (2013). Entry. In C. E. Cortés (Ed.), Multicultural America: A multimedia encyclopedia. Sage. Berray, M. (2019). A critical literary review of the melting pot and salad bowl assimilation and integration theories. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 6(1), 142–151. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Pearson Education. Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Addison-Wesley. Devine, P.  G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18. Fitzsimmons, S.  R. (2013). Multicultural employees: A framework for understanding how they contribute to organizations. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 525–549. Fitzsimmons, S. R., Liao, Y., & Thomas, D. C. (2017). From crossing cultures to straddling them: An empirical examination of outcomes for multicultural employees. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-­016-­0053-­9 Frese M. (2015). Cultural practices, norms, and values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(10), 1327–1330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115600267 Greenwald, A.  G., McGhee, D.  E., & Schwartz, J.  L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Doubleday. Hill, C. W. L. and Hult, G. T. (2017). International business: Competing in the global marketplace. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Hinton, P. (2017). Implicit stereotypes and the predictive brain: Cognition and culture in “biased” person perception. Palgrave Commun, 3, 17086. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/ palcomms.2017.86 Hinton, P. R. (2000). Stereotypes, cognition and culture. Psychology Press. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Harper Collins Business. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.  J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G.  J. (2009). The moral circle in intercultural competence. Trust across cultures. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 85–99). Sage. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M.  W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720. House, R. J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657288 Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1537592710001258 Jandt, F. E. (2001). Intercultural communication: An introduction (Third ed.). Sage. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of Inernational Business Studies, 37, 285–320. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202

References

29

Knafo, A., Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2011). The value of values in cross-cultural research: A special issue in honor of Shalom Schwartz. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110396863 Kuper, A. (1999). Culture: The Anthropologists’ account. Harvard University Press. Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Peabody Museum. Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. Public Affairs. Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). Biculturalism unpacked: Components, measurement, individual differences, and outcomes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 101–114. Nohria, N. and Eccles, R. G. (1992). Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action. : Harvard Business School Press. Osland, J., Bird, A., Delano, J., & Jacob, M. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural Sensemaking in context [and executive commentaries]. The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005), 14(1), 65–79. www.jstor.org/stable/4165609 Payne, K., Niemi, L., & Doris, J.  M. (2018). How to think about “implicit bias”. Scientific American. Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1991). Communication between cultures. Wadsworth. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally speaking. Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd ed.). Continuum. Tylor, E. B. (1920). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, language, art, and custom. John Murray. UNESCO Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity. (2002). unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Verkuyten, M., & Pouliasi, K. (2006). Biculturalism and group identification: The mediating role of identification in cultural frame switching. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2006(37), 312–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106286926 Yamazaki, M. (2000). Individualism and the Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Echo, Inc. Yoshikawa, M. J. (1987). Cross-cultural adaptation and perceptual development. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), International and intercultural communication annual: Vol. XI. Cross-­ cultural adaptation: Current approaches (pp. 140–148). Sage.

3

Communicating Across Cultures

Living in today’s dynamic and globalized world, we are constantly in contact with people who differ from us in various dimensions. There is a myriad of reasons why intercultural interactions may lead to discomfort, disappointment, or even embarrassment. Hence, gaining an understanding of how cultural elements influence the communication between individuals and groups is critical. A mindfulness to comprehend the complexity of these multilayered interactions is instrumental for the ability to communicate appropriately and effectively across cultures. The acquisition of culture-sensitive knowledge and the development of constructive interaction skills enhances our capability to navigate through the diversity of cultures with competence.

3.1

What Is Intercultural Communication?

We are communicating in a wide range of different contexts all the time. Often categorized as an interpersonal skill, communication is the act of sharing information from one person to another person or group of people. “[...][C]ommunication can be defined very simply as ‘sending and receiving messages’.” “A second and more complex view of communication is that, in addition to the transmission of messages, it involves their interpretation and meaning” (Steinberg, 2007, p. 39). We share information with each other in various ways employing verbal, nonverbal, written, and visual elements. The communication process between members of different cultures is called “intercultural communication.” Steinberg (2007, p. 21) states that “intercultural communication takes place when our cultural group membership factors (e.g., cultural norms and scripts) affect our communication process—on either an awareness or an unawareness level.” As communication promotes the values of a culture through interaction and exchange, it is vital to take the intercultural context into consideration when communicating. As a consequence, understanding intercultural communication means understanding the role of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Bender, A Roadmap to Intercultural Proficiency, Diversity and Inclusion Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04899-9_3

31

32

3  Communicating Across Cultures

communication within a culture in the first place. According to Hall “the essence of effective cross-cultural communication has more to do with releasing the right responses than with sending the right messages” (Hall & Hall, 1987, p. 199). While the term cross-cultural communication is highly related to intercultural communication, Matsumoto (2000, p. 357) stresses the difference between cross-­ cultural and intercultural research: “The former refers to the comparison of two or more cultures on some variable of interest (e.g., differences between cultures A and B in the expression of emotions). The latter refers to the study of the interaction between people of two cultures (e.g., differences in how people of cultures A and B express emotions when they are with people of cultures B and A, respectively).”1 Bennett and Bennett (2001, p. 6) define the science field of intercultural communication as “the study of face-to-face interactions between people who are culturally different” (Bennett & Bennett, 2001, p. 6).

3.2

The Role of Language

As many as 7000 different languages are spoken in our world today. Asia has the most of them, 2294, followed by Africa with 2144; there are 1313 tongues spoken in the Pacific region, 1061 in the Americas, and 287 different languages in Europe (statista 2022). Similar to the diversity of values, norms, and behaviors among cultures, languages may differ in a number of ways, such as by “language family,” written, as well as verbal systems; even within a single language, there can be many variations in accents and dialects. The most spoken languages across the globe in 2021 were 1348 million English, 1120 million Chinese (Mandarin), 600 million Hindi, 543 million Spanish, and 274 million Arabic (standard) native speakers (statista 2022). Languages remarkably differ from each other in various aspects, e.g., in their sentence structure (syntax), word structure (morphology), sound structure (phonology), and vocabulary (lexicon). Further variations regarding written language include types of scripts (e.g., Persian, Roman, Arabic) or the direction in which the language is written or read. Language “expresses, embodies, and symbolizes” cultural reality (Kramsch, 1998). It is the cornerstone on which culture is formed and the primary medium by which culture is transmitted from one generation to the next. In that regard, language is linked to every aspect of culture. A language is like a window to the world of another culture (Saint-Jacques, 2006). Without language, culture cannot be fully realized, understood, or transmitted to future generations. Brown (1994, p.  165) describes the relationship between culture and language as follows: “A language is 1  The study of intercultural communication which forms a part of communication research is a relatively young field. The starting point is said to be the book The Silent Language (Hall, 1959) by the anthropologist, Edward T. Hall, who developed several key concepts with which he attempted to explain the problematic nature of nonverbal communication in non-Western cultures. Hall’s main contribution to the field was to highlight the role that culture plays in influencing human behavior.

3.2  The Role of Language

33

a part of a culture, and a culture is a part of a language; the two are intricately interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without losing the significance of either language or culture.” In short, culture and language are inseparable. Concordantly, any definition of culture is incomplete without understanding the fundamental role language plays not only for individual identity but also for national identities (Kramsch, 1998). There exists a vast body of definitions in literature for the term language ranging from very simple to rather complex approaches: while Patrikis (1988) defined language as signs that convey meanings, Kramsch states that language is also “a system of signs that is seen as having itself a cultural value” (Kramsch, 1998, p. 3). From a linguistic perspective, Sapir (1929) defined language as an entirely human and non-­ intrinsic method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols. Consequently, language can be regarded as a system of verbal and nonverbal signs used to express meanings. The linguistic relativity principle, also known as Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, states that the particular language we speak directly influences the way we think and, as a consequence, speakers of different languages think differently. “The real world is, to a large extent, unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever so similar that they represent the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct, not merely the same with a different label attached” (Sapir, 1929, p. 207). Though the hypothesis has provoked manifold and controversial discussions among researchers regarding the strong impact language is supposed to have on our perception of the world around us, “the fact that language plays a role in shaping our thoughts, in modifying our perception and in creating reality is irrefutable” (Hussein, 2012, p. 645). There is a wide consent that language fulfills two major functions, an information function and a relationship function, and as Scollon and Scollon (2001) stress, language usually serves both functions in any context, but different cultures give different weightings to the importance of one function over the other. As a means of communicating and expressing values, beliefs, and customs, it not only fosters feelings of group identity but also ensures that traditions and shared values will be conveyed and preserved. Language as a tool of communication relies on verbal codes to transfer and share information. Verbal means “consisting of words” and includes both oral (spoken) language and non-oral (written) language. Verbal codes encompass rituals such as greetings and leave-takings, as well as arguing, negotiating, complimenting, or criticizing. For example, verbal greeting rituals might differ in terms of length (short to long), general content (impersonal to personal), and style (joking to serious). Most individuals tend to pay attention to spoken or written words; however, an integral part of the intercultural communication occurs nonverbally.

34

3.3

3  Communicating Across Cultures

Intercultural Nonverbal Communication

The human communication process is complex and often lies beyond language as many of our messages are sent and received wordless.2 Nonverbal messages are transported through various means such as facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, eye contact, and use of space, thereby revealing feelings and thoughts otherwise hidden beneath the surface of spoken words (Andersen, 1999, 2004, 2007; Buck & Van Lear, 2002). Hence, nonverbal communication refers to a nonlinguistic, more spontaneous behavior we are often not aware of. It is well established that a large part of a message during a conversation is communicated through nonverbal elements compared to the amount received from the verbal component of the message. Prior studies have even claimed that 90% of the meaning is obtained from nonverbal signals, but more recent findings state that it is closer to 65% (Guerrero & Floyd, 2006). In other words, we rely immensely on nonlinguistic features and nonverbal signals in a communication, even more so when verbal and nonverbal messages conflict each other and in situations where emotional or relational communication is taking place (Hargie, 2011). Nonverbal communication can be further distinguished between vocal and nonvocal elements of communication. As Fig. 3.1 shows, a vocal element of nonverbal communication is paralanguage, which is vocalized but not a verbal part of a spoken message, such as pitch, volume, and speaking rate. Nonvocal elements of nonverbal communication include body language such as gestsures, facial expressions, and eye contact. As most of our nonverbal communication techniques are shaped by cultural influences and thus could differ from one culture to another, it is critical to

Verbal Communication

Nonverbal Communication

Vocal

Spoken words

Paralanguage (pitch, volume, speaking rate, etc.)

Nonvocal

Writing, sign language

Body language (gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, etc.)

Source: Visualization adapted from Hargie (2011: 45). Fig. 3.1  Vocal and nonvocal elements of communication. Source: Visualization adapted from Hargie (2011, p. 45)  Andersen (2004, 2007).

2

3.3  Intercultural Nonverbal Communication

35

understand the divergence in nonverbal behavior since there is a considerable potential of misunderstandings arising from these differences across cultures (Brown, 1991). It can be assumed that almost all cultures have certain norms in terms of face-to-face communication, and the ignorance of the larger cultural framework may lead to disruptions in communication for various reasons such as making inappropriate gestures or maintaining an inappropriate personal distance, making uncomfortable eye contact, etc. Language can lead to misunderstandings, but nonverbal communication is even more ambiguous. Literature has provided multiple insightful anecdotes regarding intercultural differences in nonverbal behavior. In the following, nonverbal communication (NVC) will be divided into five components: 1. Kinesics (movements of our bodies and body language) 2. Proxemics (use of space and territory to communicate) 3. Chronemics (time as communication) 4. Haptics (touching behavior) 5. Paralanguage (variations in our voices to create or reveal mood and attitude) Kinesics, meaning body language, refers to those movements of our bodies such as gestures, expressions, and postures that convey a wide range of meanings in interpersonal meetings depending on our cultural background. From the use of smiling to the accepted form of greeting (handshaking, kissing, bowing), there is a considerable difference around the world leading to potential misinterpretations of behavior if not decoded correctly. Edward T. Hall introduced the concept of proxemics, the study of how people use space to communicate, and chronemics, the study of the use of time in nonverbal communication, as well as their respective effects on communication in different cultures. The use of space significantly varies between different cultures and is a constant source of confusion as individuals might, for example, experience discomfort when their interpersonal space is violated by a member of another culture who in turn might expect a smaller interpersonal distance. In addition, being aware of the variety of expectations and uses of time throughout the world is important as people might judge on others’ reliability, credibility, and competence based on cultural norms regarding the efficient use of time such as arriving timely to scheduled meetings. Haptics derived from the Greek term haptikos means “able to touch” and refers to the culturally sensitive differences in touch behavior. Individuals from a low-­ contact culture may feel that individuals from a high-contact culture are using physical touching to an uncomfortable degree and might even perceive touching behavior as a threat or insult to them, whereas individuals from a high-contact culture may consider people from low-contact cultures in turn as cold, unfriendly, and rejecting. Paralinguistic behavior is based on our general usage of language including tonal variation of our voices such as loudness, speed, intonation, rhythm, and pronunciation. Focusing only on the paralanguage when listening to an individual from another culture may lead to ignorance of the actual meaning of the spoken words and thus interpreting a message incorrectly.

36

3  Communicating Across Cultures

Understanding the broad range of various factors that are shaping nonverbal behavior across cultures is simply not feasible. We implicitly learn our own culturally specific techniques and norms by observing and imitating the behavior from our close circle of group members over many years when growing up in a particular culture. Hence, to navigate successfully across diverse cultures, it is recommendable to withhold judgments based on nonverbal communication until we have investigated whether our perception is justified by the language and the spoken word that are used in this specific encounter. Hall’s distinction between high-context and low-context styles provides a communication-­based perspective on cultural differences, and his work is widely acknowledged for popularizing the early study of intercultural communication. Hall’s continuum facilitates the decoding of the complex unspoken rules of cultures. High-context cultures are those that communicate in ways that are implicit and heavily rely on the situational context; thus “reading between the lines” becomes crucial. On the contrary, low-context cultures rely on explicit verbal communication to convey the real meaning. Consequently, misunderstandings along this high/low continuum occur frequently. Along this continuum, people with European roots tend to use the low-context communication style, whereas many people of African, Asian, and Latin American roots tend to use the high-context style. Based on Hall’s model of communication styles, Bennett (2013) exemplary explains how misunderstandings might happen: “European Americans may wait for Asians to request something explicitly before they offer it, leaving the Asians to wonder (silently) at American insensitivity and obtuseness. Some Asians, on the other hand, may create relational confusion by reading unintended meaning into European American behavior. In the face of confusion, European Americans are likely to become more direct and explicit, which may lead people who use a higher-context style to become more indirect and circumspect, thus creating a spiral of increasingly incompetent exchanges.”

3.4

New Technologies and Intercultural Communication

The emergence of technologically enabled channels of intercultural communication has increased the frequency, duration, and intensity of contacts between individuals and groups that do not share the same cultural background. The research of how technology facilitates or complicates interaction across diverse cultural groups is still in its infancy. However, new media development3 is challenging traditional ways of human communication by adding new facets to the way we engage with other individuals and how people understand each other in the communication process. Overall, the consequences of the speed and the impact of new media have two impact categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. On the one hand, intrinsically, new media creates a gap between traditions and innovations within a culture. According to 3  New information and entertainment products and services that use digital technologies ranging from established ones like the Internet and mobile phones to rapidly developing ones like short-­ form videos on social media and the widespread use of videoconferencing in business

3.4  New Technologies and Intercultural Communication

37

Bagdasaryan (2011), traditional values are not able to keep pace with the values initiated by the innovative new media and are causing difficulties in understanding and communicating between generations of the same culture. On the other hand, new media extrinsically cause disruptions between different cultural groups by altering “traditional cultural grammar, cultural themes, or cultural maps to a new pattern, resulting in the loss of traditional cultural logic. The rearrangement or restructuring of cultural patterns, or worldview, demands that members of a culture realign their communication behaviors within their own community, and to learn a new way of interaction with people from differing cultures” (Chen, 2012, p.  4). Hence, the level of ambiguity and uncertainty has increased in the process of intercultural communication and presents a significant challenge for the daily interaction of people from different cultural groups. Chen (2000) discovered three prominent cultural factors that determine how people behave in new media based on their cultural values: thinking patterns, expression styles, and cultural context. Built upon the distinction of high-context culture (HCC) and low-context culture (LCC), Chung and Chen (2007) suggest possible communication differences for members of the two respective groups in the process of electronic interaction (Fig. 3.2). Various research studies found out that cultural values have an impact on the social networking process in new media.4 Kim et al. (2011) emphasized that cultural value orientations affect a user’s attitude when using new media by demonstrating LCC

HCC

MEANING DISPLAY

explicit

implicit

VALUE ORIENTATION

Individual

group

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP

transitory

permanent

ACTION BASE

procedure

personal

LOGIC

linear

spiral

MESSAGE LEARNING TIME

short

long

VERBAL INTERACTION

direct

indirect

NONVERBAL STYLE

individualistic

contextual

IDEA PRESENTATION

logic

feelings

MESSAGE STYLE

detailed

simple

CREDIBILITY SOURCE

authority

communication source

Source: Chen (2012: 4) Fig. 3.2  Differences between low- and high-context cultures in e-communication. Source: Chen (2012, p. 4) 4  Hall’s (1976) high-context cultures and low-context cultures and Hofstede’s (2001) individualism and collectivism dimensions of cultural values are two of the most common models used in the study of the relationship between culture and media.

38

3  Communicating Across Cultures

that members of high-context cultures (collectivistic cultures) show more attention towards social support from existing social relationships, while members of low-­ context cultures (individualistic cultures) rather tend to seek entertainment than social relationships. In addition, Rosen et al. (2010) found that individuals of low-­ context cultures stress individual achievements and self-promotion in the process of new media interactions in order to extend their social network. Social interaction in the virtual community profoundly differs from the traditional face-to-face interaction. Nowadays, a large number of interpersonal interactions are centered on computer-mediated communication (CMC) and mainly occur through using text-based technologies like emails, text messages, online text chats, Facebook, or Twitter. The benefits of using or observing nonverbal behavior to gain a complete understanding of the hidden verbal codes have been reduced using these new electronic communication devices, thus causing eventually even more misunderstandings than in the traditional face-to-face communication. “At the level of identity, for example, speakers may now communicate with each other without foregrounding their cultural identities, or they may even choose to hide them on purpose” (Sharifian & Jamarani, 2013, p. 8). Hwang and Matsumoto address the issue of nonverbal behavior in computer-mediated communication and highlight the importance of being aware of culture-specific displays and rules such as text-based emoticons produced by one person that could be misunderstood (or not understood at all) by individuals from other cultural backgrounds. While an individual’s body language and the respective use of interpersonal space might be an obvious and visible difference in nonverbal behavior, other nonverbal indicators such as haptics and paralinguistics are different because they are missing when we use technology-based media of communication. In sum, new media facilitates the establishment of a different kind of community, without the limit of time and space. However, although we have witnessed an unprecedented rise in the size and complexity of communication due to technological advancements, we should not underestimate the continuous “prevalence of face-­ to-­face intercultural communication” (Sharifian & Jamarani, 2013, p. 13).

3.5

Intercultural Communication Competence

Technological advances have elevated intercultural communication to another level, and for many individuals around the world, “intercultural communication is now the default context of communication in everyday life” (Sharifian & Jamarani, 2013, p. 4). The rise in the prevalence of intercultural communication among individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds across many channels calls for adequate proposals on how to successfully navigate this increasing complexity of communication. According to Samovar et al. (2012) we live in an era “where intercultural communication skills are not just an asset; they are a requirement” (2012, p. 4). Based on their definition of intercultural communication as the study of communication between people whose cultural perceptions and symbol systems are distinct enough to alter their communication, Samovar et al. (2012) illustrate in their

3.5  Intercultural Communication Competence

39

model of intercultural communication how the meaning of a message changes in the communication process when it is encoded by a person in one culture and decoded by a person in another culture. Due to the differences in cultural backgrounds, this might even lead to an entirely different interpretation of the originally intended message. A better understanding of how people perceive the world allows for an anticipation of potential cross-cultural misunderstandings. Accordingly, intercultural communication competence is about “how to interpret and produce a spoken or written piece of discourse within a particular sociocultural context” (Usó-­Juan & Martinez-Flor, 2008, p. 161). Intercultural communication competence (ICC) is the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in various cultural contexts. According to Spitzberg, these dual standards ensure a competent communication in an intercultural context, defining that “appropriateness means that the valued rules, norms, and expectancies of the relationship are not violated significantly. Effectiveness is the accomplishment of valued goals or rewards relative to costs and alternatives” (Spitzberg, 1997, p. 380). Sharifian explains that “exposure to different systems of cultural conceptualizations, either explicitly, for example, through training, or implicitly through extended engagement in intercultural communication, could potentially develop speakers’ metacultural competence. This competence enables individuals to participate with flexibility in intercultural communication and effectively articulate their cultural conceptualizations to their interlocutors when the need arises” (2013, p. 7). Martin and Nakayama (2010, p. 4) regard the study of intercultural communication as significantly beneficial as “intercultural communication can allow us to step outside of our comfortable, usual frame of reference and see our culture through a different lens. Additionally, as we become more self-aware, we may also become more ethical communicators as we challenge our ethnocentrism, or our tendency to view our own culture as superior to other cultures.”5 Martin and Nakayama also claim that a person’s desire to experience intercultural encounters as a rewarding, lifelong learning process and the motivation to communicate across cultures will lead to a further acquisition of additional skills and attitudes. Ting-Toomey (2015, p. 507) conceptualizes intercultural communication competence “as the optimal integration of the necessary culture and ethnic-identity sensitive knowledge, ethnorelative attitudes, and interaction skills to manage identity-based issues appropriately, effectively, and adaptively and to achieve desired identity outcomes with interpretive attunement.” Due to the wide variety of separate strands of research that have been conducted on intercultural communication competence and intergroup communication in general, Ting-Toomey offers an integrative working model as a guiding framework for explaining the “big picture” of intercultural-intergroup communication competence (Fig. 3.3). The integrative working model visualizes the connective pathways between the core concepts of intercultural-intergroup communication competence criteria, mindfulness, competence components, and desired outcomes, and macro- to microsocial ecological contexts. According to Ting-Toomey’s model, the three relevant  See Sect.. 4.2.3 for further explanations regarding the term ethnocentrism.

5

40

3  Communicating Across Cultures

criteria to evaluate intercultural competence are appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability. While the first two, appropriateness and effectiveness, had been already introduced by Spitzberg and Cupach, the third feature of adaptability was added by Ting-Toomey. Communication appropriateness refers to the degree to which the exchanged behaviors are regarded as proper and match the expectations generated by the insiders of the culture. To behave “properly” in any given cultural situation, competent negotiators need to have the relevant value knowledge scheme of the larger situational norms that guide the interaction episode (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2002). Communication effectiveness refers to the degree to which communicators achieve mutually shared meaning and integrative goal-related outcomes in the interaction episode (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2011). Both criteria, appropriateness and effectiveness, are positively interdependent meaning that appropriate behavior induces effective interaction, and vice versa. Communication adaptability refers to the ability to change behavior and goals to meet the specific needs of the situation (Arasaratnam, 2007; Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005; Ting-Toomey, 2009). It implies mental, affective, and behavioral flexibility in dealing with the dynamically unfolding intercultural interchange.

Source: Ting-Toomey (2015: 505) Fig. 3.3 Intercultural and intergroup communication competence. Source: Ting-Toomey (2015, p. 505)

References

41

To move towards behavioral flexibility and adaptation requires a sensitivity regarding potential effects on communication due to cultural differences. Also, an understanding of how to apply verbal and nonverbal signals and an openness to continuously assess our communication context might be instrumental in this context. Individuals need to make mindful choices when aiming to communicate effectively in a culturally sensitive manner. The greatest challenge might be to lift the “blinders” imposed by our own culture.

References Andersen, P. A. (1999). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions (mountain view) (Vol. 36, p. 17). Mayfield Pub.. Andersen, P. A. (2004). The complete idiots guide to body language. Alpha Books. Andersen, P. A. (2007). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Waveland Press. Arasaratnam, L. (2007). Research in intercultural communication competence. Journal of International Communication, 13, 66–73. Arasaratnam, L., & Doerfel, M. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 137–163. Bagdasaryan, N. G. (2011). Intercultural communication in the context of new media. http://www. itas.fzk.de/eng/e-­ociety/preprints/mediaculture/Bagdasaryan.pdf Bennett, J.  M. & Bennett, M.  J. (2001). Developing Intercultural Sensitivity: An Integrative Approach to Global and Domestic Diversity. The Diversity Symposium, 2001. Bennett, M. (2013). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Paradigms, principles, & practices. Intercultural Press. Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. Temple University Press. Brown, L. R., Kane, H., & Roodman, D. M. (1994). Vital signs 1994: The trends that are shaping our future. W. W. Norton. Buck, R., & Van Lear, C. A. (2002). Verbal and nonverbal communication: Distinguishing symbolic, spontaneous, and pseudo-spontaneous communication. Journal of Communication, 52, 522–541. Chen, G. M. (2000). Global communication via internet: An educational application. In G. M. Chen & W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society (pp. 143–157). Peter Lang. Chen, G.-M. (2012). The impact of new media on intercultural communication in global context. China Media Research, 8(2), 1–10. http://www.wwdw.chinamediaresearch.net/index.php/ back-­issues?id=54 Chung, J., & Chen, G. M. (2007). The relationship between cultural context and electronic-mail usage. In M. Hinner (Ed.), The role of communication in business transactions and relationships (pp. 279–292). Peter Lang. Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2006). Nonverbal communication in close relationships (p. 176). Lawrence Erlbaum. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E.  T., & Hall, M. (1987). Hidden differences: Doing business with the Japanese. Anchor Press/Doubleday. Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal interaction: Research, theory, and practice. Routledge. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks.

42

3  Communicating Across Cultures

Hussein, B.  A. (2012). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Today. In Theory and Practice in Language Studies (Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 642–646). Academy Publisher. https://doi.org/10.4304/ tpls.2.3.642-­646 Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365–372. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford. University Press. Martin, J.  N., & Nakayama, T.  K. (2010). Intercultural communication in contexts (5th ed., p. 2010). McGraw-Hill. Matsumoto, D. (2000). Cross-cultural communication. In A.  E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 357–359). American Psychological Association. Patrikis, P. (1988). Language and culture at the crossroads. In A. J. Singerman (Ed.), Toward a new integration of language and culture (pp. 13–24). Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Rosen, D., Stefanone, M.  A., & Lackaff, D. (2010). Online and offline social networks: Investigating culturally-specific behavior and satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. http://www.informatik.uni-­trier.de/~ley/db/conf/ hicss/hicss.2010.html Saint-Jacques, B. (2006). The paradox of English learning in Japan: Problems and policies. International Political Science Association Fukuoka Congress, July 9–12. Samovar, L. A., Poeter, R. E., & McDaniel, E. R. (2012). Intercultural communication: A reader (13th ed.). Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Sapir, E. (1929). The Status of Linguistics as a Science. In Language, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Dec., 1929), pp. 207–214. Linguistic Society of America https://doi.org/10.2307/409588 Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers. Sharifian, F., & Jamarani, M. (2013). Language and intercultural communication: From the old era to the new one. In F.  Sharifian & M.  Jamarani (Eds.), Language and Intercultural Communication in the New Era (Vol. 1). Routledge Studies in Language and Intercultural Communication. Spitzberg, B.  H. (1997). Intercultural effectiveness. In L.  A. Samovar & R.  E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (8th ed., pp. 379–391). Wadsworth. Spitzberg, B.  H., & Cupach, W. (2002). Interpersonal skills. In M.  Knapp & J.  Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 564–611). Sage. Spitzberg, B., & Cupach, W. (2011). Interpersonal skills. In M. Knapp & J. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 481–524). Sage. Steinberg, S. (2007). An introduction to communication studies. Cape Town. Ting-Toomey, S. (2009). Intercultural conflict competence as a facet of intercultural competence development: Multiple conceptual approaches. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 100–120). Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. (2015). Intercultural and intergroup communication competence. In Handbook of communication science: Communication competence (Vol. 22, 1st ed., pp. 503–538). IC & IG Comm Competence Publisher, De Gruyter. Usó-Juan, E. & Martinez-Flor, A., (2008). Teaching intercultural communicative competence through the four skills. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses.

4

Dealing with Acculturative Stress and Cultural Adjustment

Communicating and interacting in culturally diverse settings can be demanding, inducing challenges and risks alike. Based on a variety of factors, individuals tend to respond differently when dealing with culturally contradictory encounters: Some persons may ignore cultural differences, some fail to manage them by choosing to not act at all, and some may interact in a proficient way by identifying and leveraging these differences. Recent research work on acculturation1 offers an important empirically based and practically useful framework to facilitate the comprehension of the processes and the impact of cross-cultural migration and cultural transition.

4.1

Experiencing Culture Shocks and Culture Bumps

Being unaware of cultural differences and unprepared in dealing with them, individuals might easily become “lost in translation.” “The collective impact of such unfamiliar experiences on cultural travellers in general has been termed ‘culture shock’ (Zhou et al., 2008, p. 63).” Culture shock refers to the unexpected, intense, and often negative psychological reaction of people to a change in cultural environment similar to “a fish out of water.” According to Oberg (1966, p. 179), “Culture shock is precipitated by the anxiety that results from losing all our familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse. These signs or cues include the thousand and one ways in which we orient ourselves to the situations of daily life: when to shake hands and what to say when we meet people, when and how to give tips, how to make purchases, when to accept and when to refuse invitations, when to take statements seriously and when not. Cues which may be words, gestures, facial expressions, customs, or norms that are acquired by all of us in the course of 1  Acculturation is viewed as the inevitable process human species undergo in an effort to manage and cope with stress and changes caused by migration and by being in a prolonged contact with a new host culture (Berry, 1997). See also Sect. 4.2.1.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Bender, A Roadmap to Intercultural Proficiency, Diversity and Inclusion Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04899-9_4

43

44

4  Dealing with Acculturative Stress and Cultural Adjustment

growing up.” Often, those cues are an integral part of our culture, the language we speak or the beliefs we accept. We might or might not be “consciously aware” of those clues, and the existence of these clues in social interaction might even have an impact on our mental condition. The unexpected and often unpleasant nature of a culture shock might harshly disrupt our worldview and our systems of acting, feeling, and thinking. Eventually, this might also impose a significant impact on an individual’s self-identity (Cupsa, 2018). Essentially, a culture shock refers to a dramatic adaptation challenge when realizing that behaviors, perspectives, and values of an individual are not shared by others. Though it is widely accepted that this experience is a normal stage in the adaptive process of acculturation, individuals differ greatly in the degree in which culture shock affects them. The impact can vary depending upon various factors that influence the severity of a culture shock such as personal factors (age, appearance, personality, language skills), interpersonal factors (social networks; finances), and spatiotemporal factors (place of visit; time spent) (Furnham 2019). Due to the necessity that sojourners (individuals who temporarily stay in places other than their home) adapt quickly in order to function effectively, many organizations attempt to prepare their employees for working in the new culture and dealing with culture shock (Cohen, 2007; Ward et al., 2001). Due to the costs for businesses sending employees abroad, organizations aim to manage the culture shock which they expect to eventually occur within most individuals (Kocak, 2014). It is also noteworthy that human resource experts are very interested in what sort of people make effective expatriate leaders (Engle et al., 2012; Lauring et al., 2017). Presumably the most well-cited theoretical model of culture shock has been Oberg’s culture shock model (1960) or the U-curve model of cultural adjustment (Lysgaard, 1955). Tailored to people who are living abroad or spending a significant time in another culture (sojourners), Oberg stated four specific stages every individual will encounter when experiencing culture shock: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Honeymoon Crisis Recovery Adjustment

The first stage in which the observed cultural differences are perceived as fascinating and attractive is labeled the “honeymoon stage.” The second stage, “crisis,” is a period of frustration and helplessness based on differences in language, values, etc. leading to frustration, anxiety, and even hostile attitudes towards the host culture. In the following “recovery stage,” the individual gradually opens up to the new environment by learning the language and culture of the host country, and the perspective shifts to a more balanced, positive one. Finally, individuals attain the phase of full acceptance and adjustment to the new culture (“adjustment stage”) even adopting a new bicultural or multicultural identity (Brown & Eisterhold, 2004; Pedersen, 1995). It is noteworthy that not all individuals may experience a culture shock with the same intensity or at the same time.

4.1  Experiencing Culture Shocks and Culture Bumps

45

Source: Lysgaard (1955). Fig. 4.1  The U-curve model. Source: Lysgaard (1955)

Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) extend the traditional culture shock model (Fig. 4.1) by adding that individuals often undergo a similar “re-acculturation process” when returning to their home country, again following the shape of a U curve, hence the double U = W. While the model has been applied and empirically tested over the course of time, the overall support in literature is heterogenous.2 Given the variety of individual cultural adjustment patterns, it is questionable whether there is “a single ‘one size fits all’ description of how cultural adjustment proceeds over time” (Demes & Geeraert, 2015, p. 317). Archer (1991) distinguishes between “culture shocks,” which are happening over an extended period, and “culture bumps” which are occurring instantaneously but might have a long-lasting effect on the individuum. Culture bumps arise when an individual from a particular culture finds itself in an incompatible or uncomfortable situation when interacting with an individual from another culture. “This phenomenon occurs when an individual has expectations of a particular behavior within a particular situation and encounters a different behavior when interacting with an individual from another culture. Expectations as used in this definition refer to the expectations of ‘normal behavior as learned in one’s own culture’” (Archer & Nickson, 2011, p. 407). It is noteworthy adding that culture bumps occur whether individuals are aware of them or not. 2  Hechanova-Alampay et al. (2002) did observe an inverse U-curve pattern of strain over three time points from the start of a semester to 3 and 6 months later. Ward et al. (1998), in line with a stress and coping prediction (that initial entry to a new country will involve the most life changes and thus the most stress), found support for an alternative pattern of cultural adjustment, a reverse J curve.

46

4  Dealing with Acculturative Stress and Cultural Adjustment

Culture Bump

Use new information to connect with Other about their meaning: Unending investigation

Experience emotional dissonance Form a culture-bound impression of Other

Use information to self-reflect on own experience and meaning of 'met" expectation

Attempt to alleviate discomfort by asking 'Why'?

Get informtion about "Other"

Source: Adapted Visualization from Archer & Nickson (2011) Fig. 4.2  Culture bump analysis. Source: Adapted visualization from Archer and Nickson (2011)

Though anyone who is not familiar with a new culture can be affected by culture bumps, Archer claims that these can also raise awareness of oneself and might eventually lead to the development of beneficial skills in a cross-cultural situation. “Approaching cultural differences from the perspective of a culture bump allows an individual to view cultural differences not as problems to be solved but as opportunities to learn more about oneself and others” (Archer & Nickson, 2011, p. 407) (Fig.  4.2). This corresponds with Abdallah-Pretceilles’s view to “learn to see, to hear, to be mindful of other people” (Abdallah-Pretceille, 2006, p. 476).

4.2

Acculturation and Adaptation Strategies

There has been a shift in recent literature regarding the term “culture shock” resulting in the replacement by the term “acculturative stress” for the explanation of the impact of a change in culture on the individual (Berry, 1997). Additionally,

4.2  Acculturation and Adaptation Strategies

47

acculturative stress refers to a process which underlies phases of both, stress and adjustment, instead of purely focusing on the negative outcomes (Berry 2006).

4.2.1 Acculturation and Identity Whereas the acquisition of a first culture is called “enculturation,” the process of learning or adapting to a new culture is termed “acculturation” (Berry 2006). “Acculturation involves the process of pulling out the world view or ethos of the first culture, learning new ways of meeting old problems, and shedding ethnocentric evaluations” (Dahmen, 1987, p. 140). Traditional views of acculturation claim that acculturation equals assimilation and thus rejecting one’s original culture in order to adapt to the new or dominant culture, hence conceptualizing acculturation as a unidimensional, one-directional, and irreversible process of moving towards the new (mainstream) culture and away from the original culture (Trimble, 2003). However, recent studies (see Sam and Berry (2006) for a review) support acculturation as a bidimensional, two-directional, multi-domain complex process, in which assimilation into the mainstream culture is not the only way to acculturate. Consequently, equating acculturation with assimilation is simply incorrect. Berry’s Acculturation Model (1997) (Fig. 4.3) categorizes four adjustment strategies when transitioning to a new culture depending on how individuals conceptualize home and host identities —assimilation, integration, separation, and

Source: Adapted visualization from Berry (1997) Fig. 4.3  Berry’s Acculturation Model. Source: Adapted visualization from Berry (1997)

48

4  Dealing with Acculturative Stress and Cultural Adjustment

marginalization. Assimilation means that individuals give up their own cultural identity and become entirely absorbed into the host culture. Integration means that individuals identify themselves with both home and host culture, while separation implies that individuals maintain their home identity but reject participation with the host culture. Lastly, marginalization refers to the strategy that individuals do not identify with or participate in either their own culture or the host culture. Berry’s conceptual analysis of the divergent acculturation attitudes of individuals had a significant impact on the research field as it explicitly acknowledges the fundamental tension between adaptation to another culture and conservation of own cultural identity. However, the fourfold model contains various limitations such as not providing the options of rejecting both, the original culture and the host culture, thus choosing a completely different third culture. Additionally, the model does not take the attitude of the host culture into consideration. Since the model does not allow to move within the four sections, acculturation itself is considered to be rather static compared to a process in terms of adaptation.

Source: Adapted visualization from Navas et al., 2005: 27. Fig. 4.4  The Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM). Source: Adapted visualization from (Navas et al., 2005, p. 27)

4.2  Acculturation and Adaptation Strategies

49

Due to the limitations of Berry’s fourfold model, Navas et al. (2005) proposed an extended model based on elements from previous conceptualizations while incorporating additional aspects of acculturation strategies (Fig.  4.4). Their Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM) offered new contributions regarding the explanation of acculturation strategies and attitudes: “The most relevant contributions of the RAEM can be summarized as, on the one hand, the consideration of different acculturation domains (political, work, economic, family, social, religion and ways of thinking) and on the other hand, the differentiation between the acculturation strategies adopted in reality and the acculturation attitudes ideally preferred by the groups in contact” (Navas et al., 2005, p. 21).

4.2.2 S  tress and Coping, Culture Learning, and Social Identification Contemporary approaches regarding the adaptation process due to intercultural contact have shifted the focus to psychological adjustment and sociocultural adaptation. According to Ward et  al. (2001), individuals respond rather proactively to stress induced by intercultural contact than endure the encounter passively. Consequently, “shock” is seen as a stimulus for the acquisition and development of adequate culture-­ specific skills to better manage the acculturation. In this context, three major theoretical approaches have become prominent and well established, termed the ABCs of acculturation (Masgoret and Ward 2006, p. 58): “stress and coping,” “culture learning,” and “social identification” (Fig. 4.5). The mentioned theoretical approaches offer a more comprehensive understanding of the processes involved “as they are considering the different components of response—affect, behaviour and cognition (ABC)— when people are exposed to a new culture” (Zhou et al., 2008, p. 65). The “stress coping and adjustment” approach points out that the adaptation process relies on various relevant personal and situational factors. “Both macro and micro level variables affect transition and adjustment and characteristics of both the individual and the situation mediate and moderate the appraisal of stress, coping responses and long and short-term outcomes” (Ward et al., 2001, p. 98). The “culture learning” perspective emphasizes the importance of the acquisition of culturally relevant skills particularly the development of language and communication competence in order to be able to thrive in the new culture. Additionally, the comprehension of nonverbal behavior is essential to avoid misunderstandings and miscommunication (see Sect. 3.3). The “social identity” approach is based on a person’s perspective of self-identity and intergroup relations. This sense of personal and group identity fundamentally determines how an individual deals with people from a different group and consequently affects how a person adapts to a new culture. When linked together, the three theoretical approaches provide a more complex but thorough and comprehensive model emphasizing the importance of affect, behavior, and cognition (the “ABCs of acculturation”). As presented in Fig.  4.6, Ward et al. (2001) proposed the “ABC model of intercultural contact” based on the integration of the stress and coping framework, the culture learning approach, and the social identification perspective.

50

4  Dealing with Acculturative Stress and Cultural Adjustment Theory

Theoretical Origin

Conceptual Framework

Theoretical Premise

Factors affecting Adjustment Adjustment factors involving both personal (e.g., life change, personality) and situational (e.g., social support)

Intervention Guidelines

Stress and Coping (Affect)

Social psychology – stress, appraisal, and coping (Lazarus & Folkman 1984); life events (Holmes and Rahe 1967)

Cross-cultural travelers need to develop coping strategies to deal with stress

Life changes are inherently stressful

Culture Learning (Behavior)

Social and experimental psychology – social skills and interpersonal behavior (Argyle 1969)

Cross-cultural travelers need to learn culturally relevant social skills to survive and thrive in their new settings

Social interaction is a mutually organized and skilled performance

Culture-specific variables such as: knowledge about a new culture, language or communication competence, cultural distance

Preparation, orientation and culture learning, especially behavioral-based social skill training

Social Identification (Cognition)

Ethnic, crosscultural and social psychology – self (Deaux 1996; Social Identity Theory, e.g., Phinney 1990)

Cross-cultural transition may involve changes in cultural identity and inter-group relations

Identity is a fundamental issue for the cross-cultural travelers

Cognitive variables such as: knowledge of the host culture, mutual attitude between hosts and sojourners, cultural similarity, cultural identity

Enhancing selfesteem, overcoming barriers to intergroup harmony, emphasizing inter- group similarities

Training people to develop stressmanagement skills

Source: Adapted from Zhou et al. (2008) Fig. 4.5  Three contemporary theories of intercultural contact. Source: Adapted from Zhou et al. (2008)

Whereas the micro-level refers to the importance of individual characteristics (personality, language competence, cultural identity) and situational factors (length of cultural contact, cultural distance, etc.), the macro-level considers factors such as the society of origin and social, political, economic, and cultural factors. Eventually, the development of stress coping strategies and culturally relevant social skills determine the psychological adjustment and sociocultural adaptation of an individual. Consequently, individuals, who are engaging in cross-cultural encounters, need to develop coping strategies and tactics to adapt to a new culture, whereby adjustment is regarded as an active process of managing stress and investing in learning appropriate behavior. The process of adaptation is influenced by several variables (adapted from Zhou et al. 2008, p. 65), including: • • • • • • • •

General knowledge about a new culture (Ward and Searle 1991) Length of residence in the host culture (Ward et al. 1998) Language or communication competence (Furnham 1993) Quantity and quality of contact with host nationals (Bochner 1982) Friendship networks (Bochner, McLeod, and Lin 1977) Previous experience abroad (Klineberg and Hull 1979) Cultural distance (Ward and Kennedy 1993a, b) Cultural identity (Ward and Searle 1991)

4.2  Acculturation and Adaptation Strategies

51

AFFECT: STRESS AND COPING THEORIES

Process involved in coping with cultural change

BEHAVIOR: CULTURE LEARNING THEORIES

Affective outcomes: psychological adjustment

Behavioral outcomes: socio-cultural adaption

Process involved in acquiring specific skills

Cognitive outcomes: cultural identity and inter-group perceptions

Processes involved in developing, changing and maintaining identity

AFFECT: STRESS AND COPING THEORIES

Fig. 4.6  The ABC model of cultural contact. Source: Adapted visualization from Masgoret and Ward (2006)

• Acculturation modes (Ward and Kennedy 1994) • Temporary versus permanent residence in a new country (Ward and Kennedy 1993c) • Cross-cultural training (Deshpande and Viswesvaran 1992)

4.2.3 Developing Intercultural Sensitivity A model that has been highly influential in training and research is Bennett’s (1986a, b) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) explaining the various reactions of people to cultural difference. Recognizing that competence evolves over time, the DMIS identifies a continuum of six stages of personal growth and increasing sensitivity, moving from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism (Fig.  4.7). Ethnocentrism can be defined as the “assumption that the worldview of one’s own culture is central to reality” (Bennett, 1993). “The underlying assumption of the model is that as one’s experience of cultural difference becomes more complex and sophisticated, one’s potential competence in intercultural relations increases” (Hammer et al., 2003, p. 423). Hence, “intercultural communicative competence is the forming of intercultural sensitivity into behavior that coordinates meaning across cultural contexts with more or less the same ease that one coordinates within one’s own culture” (Bennett and Hammer, 2017). Earlier stages of the DMIS continuum (ethnocentrism) are defined as the “denial” of difference, the “defense” against difference, and the position of “minimization” of difference. In the progressing along the continuum, later stages (ethnorelativism) are defined as the “acceptance” of difference, “adaptation” to difference, and the “integration” of difference into one’s world view. Each stage of development (Fig. 4.8) is illustrated with statements and behaviors of learners allowing trainers

52

4  Dealing with Acculturative Stress and Cultural Adjustment

Source: Adapted visualization from Bennett (1986).

Fig. 4.7  Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. Source: Adapted visualization from Bennett (1986a, b) Denial The default condition of DMIS is the denial of cultural difference – the failure to perceive the existence or the relevance of culturally different others. Denial is a condition wherein there are no structures (policies and procedures) to recognize and deal with cultural diversity. Defense When the resolution of Denial issues allows it, people can move into the experience of defense against cultural difference. The perceptual structure of this stage is a dichotomous categorization of “us and them,” where others are perceived more fully than in Denial but also in highly stereotyped ways. People experience “us” as superior and “them” as inferior. Minimization The resolution of “us and them” allows the move to the minimization of cultural difference. As the term implies, cultural differences that were initially defined in Defense are now minimized in favor of the assumedly more important similarities between self and others. Acceptance Movement out of the ethnocentric condition of Minimization allows cultural difference to be organized into categories that are potentially as complex as one’s own. In other words, people become conscious of themselves and others in cultural contexts that are equal in complexity but different in form. The acceptance of cultural difference does not mean agreement – cultural difference may be judged negatively – but the judgment is not ethnocentric in the sense that it is not automatically based on deviation from one’s own cultural position. Adaptation Resolving the issue of ethicality allows the move to adaptation to cultural difference. The perceptual mechanism is that of “perspective taking” or empathy. This is a kind of context-shifting, assumedly enabled by a neurological executive function, that allows one to experience the world “as if” one were participating in a different culture. Integration The resolution of authentic identity allows for the sustainable integration of cultural difference into communication. In this integrated condition, communication can shift from in-context to between- context states, allowing for the meta-coordination of meaning and action that defines intercultural communication.

Source: Adaptation from Bennett (2013). Fig. 4.8  Stages of DMIS. Source: Adaptation from Bennett (2013)

to diagnose levels of sensitivity and strategies to facilitate developmental movement from each stage to the next. “This ability to have more complex personal experience of otherness is termed intercultural sensitivity” (Bennett and Hammer, 2017). People who have reached the stage of integration are considered to be multicultural persons who no longer identify with one culture but are able to interact efficiently

References

53

between and among many cultures (Adler, 1975). The existence of multiple worldviews enables integrated persons to assess situations contextually and to make reflected choices regarding appropriate behavior. Open to learning, multicultural persons tend to enhance intercultural relationships and continue to develop further.

References Abdallah-Pretceille, M. (2006). Interculturalism as a paradigm for thinking about diversity. Intercultural Education, 17(5), 475–483. Adler, P. (1975). The transition experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(4), 13–23. Archer, C.  M. (1991). Living with strangers in the U.S.A.: Communicating beyond culture. Prentice Hall. Archer, C., & Nickson, S. (2011). Culture bump: An instructional process for cultural insight. In Handbook of college and university teaching: Global perspectives. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781412996891.n26 Bennett, M.  J. (1986a). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–195. Bennett, M. (1986b). A developmental approach to training intercultural sensitivity. in J. Martin (Guest Ed.), Special Issue on Intercultural Training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–186. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience. Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. (2013). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Paradigms, principles, & practices. Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J., & Hammer, M. (2017). A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, 1(10). Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46, 5–68. Berry, J. W. (2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 43–57). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489891.007 Bochner, S. (1982). The social psychology of cross-cultural relations. In S. Bochner (Eds.), Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction (pp. 5–44). Oxford: Pergamon. Bochner, S., McLeod, B. M., & Lin, A. (1977). Friendship patterns of overseas students: a functional model. International Journal of Psychology, 12, 277–297. Brown, S., & Eisterhold, J. (2004). Topics in language and culture for teachers. University of Michigan Press. Cohen, E. (2007). Surviving the culture shock. Cupsa, I. (2018). Culture shock and identity. Transactional Analysis Journal, 48(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.2018.1431467 Dahmen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The 5th dimension in the language classroom. Reading MA.: Addison-Wesley. Demes, K. A., & Geeraert, N. (2015). The highs and lows of a cultural transition: A longitudinal analysis of sojourner stress and adaptation across 50 countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(2), 316–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000046 Deshpande, S. P. & Viswesvaran, C. (1992). Is cross-cultural training of expatriate managers effective? A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 295–310. https:// doi.org/0.1016/0147-1767(92)90054-X Engle, R., Dimitriadi, N., & Sadrieh, F. (2012). Cultural intelligence: Antecedents and propensity to accept a foreign-based job assignment. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 17, 63–79. Furnham, A. (1993). Communicating in foreign lands: The cause, consequences and cures of culture shock. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 6, 91–109. https://doi. org/10.1080/07908319309525140.

54

4  Dealing with Acculturative Stress and Cultural Adjustment

Furnham, A. (2019). Culture shock: A review of the literature for practitioners. Psychology, 10, 1832–1855. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2019.1013119 Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An extension of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 19, 33–47. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman,R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421–443. Hechanova-Alampay, R., Beehr, T. A., Christiansen, N. D., & Van Horn, R. K. (2002). Adjustment and strain among domestic and international student sojourners: A longitudinal study. School Psychology International, 23(4), 458–474. Klineberg, O. & Hull, W. F. (1979). At a foreign university: an international study of adaptation and coping. New York: Praeger. Kocak, M. (2014). Management of Culture Shock. De Gruyter Open. https://doi.org/10.2478/ cris-­2014-­0011 Lauring, J., Selmer, J., & Kubovcikova, A. (2017). Personality in context: Effective traits for expatriate managers at different levels. The International Journal of Human Resource Management., 30, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1381137 Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45–51. Masgoret, A.-M., & Ward, C. (2006). Culture learning approach to acculturation. In D. Sam & J.  Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (Cambridge handbooks in psychology) (pp.  58–77). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511489891 Navas, M., García, M. C., Sánchez, J., Rojas, A. J., Pumares, P., & Fernández, J. S. (2005). Relative acculturation extended model (RAEM): New contributions with regard to the study of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 21–37. Oberg, K. (1966). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/009182966000700405 Pedersen, P. (1995). The five stages of culture shock: Critical incidents around the world. Greenwood Press/Greenwood Publishing Group. Trimble, J. E. (2003). Introduction: Social change and acculturation. In Chun Kevin M., Balls Organista Pamela, Marin Gerardo (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement and applied research (pp. 3–13). Washington: American Psychological Association. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Routledge. Ward, C. & Kennedy, A. (1993a). Psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students at home and abroad. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 129–47. https://doi.org.10.1080/00207599308247181. Ward, C. & Kennedy, A. (1993b). Where’s the culture in cross-cultural transition? Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 24, 221–49. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022022101032005007. Ward, C. Kennedy, A. (1993c). Acculturation and cross-cultural adaptation of British residents in Hong Kong. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 395–97. https://doi. org/10.1080/00224545.1993. Ward, C. & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329–342. Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological and socio-cultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 209–225. Ward, C. Okura, Y. Kennedy, & A. Kojima, T. (1998). The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transition. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 277–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0147-1767(98)00008-X. Zhou, Y., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Todman, J. (2008). Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. In Studies in Higher Education (Vol. 33(1), pp. 63–75). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701794833

5

Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

Based on the previous chapters, we have seen that the ability to operate effectively in cross-cultural environments is not static but subject to a learning curve. Hence, we can assume that the process of improving the understanding of cultural differences regarding values, communication styles, and the awareness of our own cultural background enhances the individual capability of navigating diverse cultural settings.

5.1

The Conceptualization of Intercultural Proficiency

The conceptualization of intercultural proficiency (IP) does not occur in a vacuum. About 60 years of research and approximately 300 models of intercultural competence exist already. So, how is the concept of IP contributing to the existing body of research? The concept of IP throughout this book is designed for the specific context of inclusion. It is based on already existing theoretical frameworks of intercultural competence, improving upon the intercultural competence concept, and merging both approaches and trying to investigate if an integration of the intercultural and inclusion approach is possible and meaningful.

5.1.1 R  ethinking Intercultural Competence and Cultural Humility The research field of intercultural competence has gained increasing attention from researchers, educators, and practitioners since its introduction in the cross-cultural discourse, particularly in Western contexts by various Western scholars. Due to its vital role in global encounters, Deardorff (2009) has edited a collection of articles, including a comprehensive overview of the literature by Spitzberg and Changnon (2009), covering the extensive range of theoretical approaches, models, assessments, and contextual applications that have been discussed in the literature. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Bender, A Roadmap to Intercultural Proficiency, Diversity and Inclusion Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04899-9_5

55

56

5  Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

Whether it is called “intercultural effectiveness,” “cultural intelligence,” “global competence,” “intercultural communication competence,” “culture learning,” or “intercultural competence,” there is a fair consensus regarding the framework proposing the development of culturally adequate knowledge and skills for the benefit of being able to navigate effectively across cultures. Inherently interdisciplinary, the academic exploration of intercultural competence comprises psychology, sociology, business, linguistics, intercultural communication, anthropology, and education. In the professional context, the concept of intercultural competence has taken an essential role not only in the global corporate world, at all levels of education, but also in other fields like healthcare (Bennett, 2014). Just as there are numerous definitions of culture, no consensus regarding the taxonomy of intercultural competence is apparent. As stated by Vegh and Luu (2019), “there are currently more than one hundred definitions of intercultural competence.” Similarly, diversity can be found in assessing and measuring intercultural competence. According to Fantini (2009), the variety of terms, such as intercultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity, intercultural effectiveness, and global competence (just to name a few), demonstrates the lack of consensus regarding theoretical concepts. However, most models see intercultural competence as a multidimensional capacity that includes the components of awareness (self-awareness as well as awareness of others), an open-minded attitude, intercultural knowledge, and skills that lead to effective communication and behavior as an outcome of intercultural competence (Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2006; Gudykunst, 1993). Other models, categorized as developmental frameworks, outline different stages of growth in the development of intercultural competence; among them are Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (1993; see Sect. 4.2.3), King and Baxter Magolda’s intercultural maturity model (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005), and Cross’s cross-­ cultural continuum (Cross, 1988). A key theoretical concept of intercultural competence is Deardorff’s compositional model (2006)1 (Fig. 5.1). This model aims to unite various, previously existing theoretical frameworks. According to Deardorff, intercultural competence refers to the ability of effective communication and appropriate behavior based on the individual’s attitude, intercultural knowledge, and skills. In this context, effectiveness means that an individual can achieve his/her goals in his/her interactions. Appropriate behavior indicates that interaction does not contravene cultural rules and norms (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009) “when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself” (Fantini and Tirmizi, (2006), p. 12). These attributes and abilities are often referred to as mindset, heartset, and skill set (Bennett, 2014) or as the “head, heart, and hand components.” Attitude is one of the key issues in intercultural learning, and according to Deardorff, “specifically, the attitudes of openness, respect (valuing all cultures), and 1  Deardorff’s research on the identification of components of intercultural competence based on a consensus reached by a panel of experienced interculturalists including researchers, trainers, and international educational program administrators within the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom

5.1  The Conceptualization of Intercultural Proficiency

57

Source: Deardorff, 2006. Fig. 5.1  Deardorff Pyramid Model of Intercultural Competence. Source: Deardorff, 2006. Used with permission

curiosity and discovery (tolerating ambiguity) are viewed as fundamental to intercultural competence” (2006). Knowledge of the self and others as well as awareness of cultural differences represent essential components of intercultural competence. “The specific skills delineated in this model are skills for acquiring and processing knowledge about other cultures as well as one’s own culture” (2006, p. 194). This means that the degree of intercultural competence depends on the acquired degree of attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Despite its wide dissemination in research and use in education and practice, the concept of intercultural competence has generated some controversy regarding its merits. The debate is mainly sparked by the thought “that we cannot ever be truly competent in another’s culture” (Greene-Moton & Minkler, 2020, p. 142) though the concept of competence itself suggests mastery (Chavez, 2018; Isaacson, 2014; Murray-Garcia & Tervalon, 2014). Further criticism stems from the view that the construct of cultural competence might be regarded as too binary, suggesting that individuals are either culturally competent or incompetent. Hence, individuals who are considered to be incompetent might not be regarded as a good fit to interact professionally with members of specific other groups (Chavez, 2018). Kleinman and Benson (2006) even pointed out that sometimes those who teach cultural competence hold the view that “culture can be reduced to a technical skill” (p. 3). Those opposing the concept of intercultural competence assert that it is an endpoint and assumes that we can learn a quantifiable set of attitudes and skills that will allow us to work effectively (Prasad et al., 2016).

58

5  Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

In the context of this controversial debate, various calls to replace intercultural competence with the concept of cultural humility (Fisher-Borne et  al., 2015; Tervalon & Murray-García, 1998) have been heard. The concept of cultural humility is often seen as an alternative approach to cultural competence and has been discussed in detail in the academic literature, most frequently in health-related and medical disciplines (e.g., Tervalon & Murray-García, 1998). Tervalon and Murray-García (1998, p. 118) differentiate between cultural competence and humility: “cultural humility is not cultural competence. One is a dynamic process involving empathy and listening, the other is about educational attainment of knowledge and skills.” “Cultural humility… is a process that requires humility as individuals continually engage in self-reflection and self-critique as lifelong learners.” “Cultural humility focuses on identifying one’s own implicit biases, self-understanding, and interpersonal sensitivity and cultivating an appreciation for the multifaceted components of each individual (culture, gender, sexual identity, race and ethnicity, religion, lifestyle, etc.” (Stubbe, 2020, p. 50). “It entails an ongoing process of self-exploration and self-critique combined with a willingness to learn from others” (Stubbe, 2020, p.  49), contrary to “The traditional notion of competence …as mastery of a theoretically finite body of knowledge, an endpoint …” (p. 119). Some authors consider the term “competence” as problematic because it may imply a top-down approach: one entity (often including some highly educated and privileged members of a given racial or other group) would unilaterally decide what content should be included and which benchmarks or criteria should be used to assess competence for their group(s). In the academic literature, “competence has been variously equated with understanding (e.g., accuracy, clarity, co-orientation, overlap of meanings), relationship development (e.g., attraction, intimacy), satisfaction (e.g., communication satisfaction, relational satisfaction, relational quality), effectiveness (e.g., goal achievement, efficiency, institutional success, negotiation success), appropriateness (e.g., legitimacy, acceptance, assimilation), and adaptation. Each of these criteria of competence has been defended or criticized elsewhere” (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 6). The most common approach is the conceptual equation of competence with a set of abilities or skills. However, Spitzberg and Changnon stress that the same behavior or skill may be perceived as competent in one context by a certain individual but not in another context when used by the same individual. The same is true for the use of a certain skill by one individual and the use of this skill by another individual in the same situation. Therefore, “no particular skill or ability is likely to be considered universally competent” (2009, p. 6). Despite this ongoing debate regarding the two concepts, there is indeed a potential for complementarity and synergy of both perspectives. Firstly, both concepts have been developed out of increasing need for professionals to understand and bridge cultural differences. Secondly, both, cultural competence and cultural humility, encourage self-reflection regarding our own beliefs, values, and biases in order to actively pursue understanding the individuals and groups we interact with. In fact, the acquisition of intercultural knowledge is based on self-awareness and the

5.1  The Conceptualization of Intercultural Proficiency

59

recognition of beliefs, values, and biases—explicit or implicit—resulting in the revelation of our own culture’s impact on intercultural encounters. Hence, the awareness of one’s own embeddedness in culture(s) is a crucial step when developing intercultural competence. Thereby, the concept of intercultural competence already incorporates the concept of cultural humility (Danso, 2018). Authors who contrasted “cultural competence” with “cultural humility” particularly stressed the binary concept of intercultural competence and the finite perspective regarding the acquisition of skills in their criticism. From an etymological perspective, the term “competence,” based on the Latin word “competentia,” means “sufficiency of qualification” and hence refers to the “quality or state of being able.” Consequently, the pure etymological perspective suggests that an individual is either considered to be competent or incompetent, and thus does not entirely clear up the criticism in terms of being too binary. Based on the reflection that a path of embracing both approaches is meaningful when dealing with people who are diverse along multiple dimensions,2 I introduce an integrative perspective by redefining intercultural competence and expanding it by adding the (synergetic) cultural humility perspective in order to introduce the new concept of “intercultural proficiency.” Proficiency comes from the Latin word “proficere,” meaning advancement, or making progress, and refers to the “degree of advancement.” The core of the IP concept is to amalgamate the concepts of intercultural competence and cultural humility. The process of becoming interculturally proficient is at the core of the IP concept. In this perspective, the identity capable of cultural frame shifting is the foundation for one’s journey towards IP.  IP can be understood as simultaneously being a process of becoming and the process of being; individuals must engage in the process of becoming interculturally proficient while synchronously being engaged in the process of cultural humility. Reframing intercultural competence as an ongoing process is critical in becoming interculturally proficient and practicing cultural humility. It is crucial to understand that IP relies on a lifelong dedication to learning in ever-changing shifts of cultural settings. Since situations vary in a range of different ways, IP is always susceptible of enrichment or further learning through exposure to, and acting in response to, this variation. Together with the integrated concept of cultural humility, IP provides professionals with learning guidance on how to live and work with individuals, groups, and organizations in today’s complex world.

5.1.2 Reconciling Intercultural and Inclusion Approaches The most serious barrier in the process of developing IP is the hazard to stereotype and discriminate individuals from different cultural groups. The acquisition of intercultural knowledge about the “others” based on cultural categorization creates the risk of bothering individuals and contributes to (implicit) discriminating against  Yancu and Farmer (2017) claimed that cultural humility may complement, rather than replace, cultural competence.

2

60

5  Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

them. It has been argued that a focus on intercultural semi-knowledge might lead to an overemphasis on shared group characteristics while undervaluing the unique differences of individuals. The “infusion” of cultural humility into cultural knowledge lays the ground to understand cross-cultural contacts in a more objective way and thus mitigates the risk of stereotyping. The question remains: how to ensure that the process of intercultural learning incorporates the inclusion and diversity? Another significant issue in the controversial debate between those two approaches deals with the nature of the concept of adaptability. Critics of the intercultural approach claim that adaptation is too close to assimilation and thus contradicts the idea of inclusion, understood as the practice of including and integrating all people. Many conceptualizations, theories, and models of intercultural competence have been aiming to account for assimilation, adjustment, or adaptation. In general, assimilation represents the extent to which an individual (mostly from a sojourner’s perspective) blends in with a host culture. Adjustment typically implies that a person becomes “well adjusted” to an environment and no longer experiences acculturative stress or culture shock. The concept of adaptability seems to be central to all models of intercultural competence. According to Spitzberg and Changnon (2009, p.  6), “adaptation tends to be used in two different contexts: micro and macro. Conceptualizations of adaptation at the micro-level are concerned with the interdependence and alteration of behavior in episodes of interaction, such that the actions of one interactant influence the actions of the other interactant(s) in the context. Adaptation at the more macro-level tends to refer to notions involving the overlaps of assimilation and adjustment. Macro-level adaptation means that a communicator is adept at making adjustments to the host culture across episodes and contexts of interaction within that culture. To some extent, therefore, these could be viewed as state versus trait conceptions of adaptation.” In the context of this book, adaptation does not refer to the ability to fit in; instead, it puts emphasis on the more context-specific learning outcomes such as shifting perspectives into different cultural worldviews and communicating respectfully and effectively according to the specific cultural setting. Behaving compatible with different worldviews requires the integration of multiple frames of reference, behavioral flexibility, as well as mindfulness to evaluate situations from a variety of perspectives. To support the practice of inclusion, “individuals need to be able to reflect on their multiple identities, attend to the identities of others, and develop the ability to communicate effectively across the boundaries of a wide range of differences in the context of complex organizational cultures” (Ferdman & Deane, 2014, p. 182). At the individual level, inclusive behavior demands cultural humility embedded in a considerable awareness of one’s own personal biases which is vital in developing engagement across differences. Furthermore, becoming aware of one’s own biases should be extended to the awareness of the presence of “isms” (e.g., racism, sexism, ableism, classism, ageism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, colorism, ethnocentrism, or ism-ism) and respective power imbalances and social injustices in our societies. This requires a simultaneous process of a realistic and ongoing self-reflection and a

5.1  The Conceptualization of Intercultural Proficiency

61

commitment to lifelong learning in order to be flexible and humble enough to let go of the false sense of security that stereotyping brings (Sect. 2.4). Individual intercultural proficiency is about our attitude and actions to be respectful and open to cultural perspectives, to work towards equality in opportunities, and to build understanding between people. The importance of respecting diversity and the ability of perspective-taking are the foundations of understanding each other’s expectations as well as addressing injustice, racism, exclusion, and inequity. The bridge between inclusion and intercultural approaches can probably be best made by focusing on the inclusive identity. Intercultural proficiency can facilitate the goal of inclusion, which is to respect and encourage the full participation of all individuals and groups. Various theories have explained that the individual’s perspective of categorizing oneself as “in the group” or “outside the group” can lead to the creation of stereotypes and even worse might maintain already existing prejudices. Built upon the positive association between inclusion in identity and the corresponding intercultural behavior, Kim (1988, 2001, 2005a, 2005b) introduced the concept of the “intercultural identity”3 “conceived as a continuous process of adaptive changes from a monocultural character to another which is increasingly more complex and inclusive, which lasts an individual’s whole life” (Kim in: Elosúa, 2015, p. 79). Due to extensive intercultural communication experiences, an individual undergoes two transformation processes: “individualization” and “universalization” (Kim, 2001, 2005a). Individualization refers to the perception of oneself and others based on individual qualities and not only as a member of a cultural group, thereby conquering the categorization of “in the group” and “outside the group.” The parallel development of recognition of synergies alongside the process of individualization leads to an awareness of the “relative nature of values and of the universal aspect of human nature” (Elosúa, 2015, p. 79). The transforming evolution of the individual through these two processes (“individualization” and “universalization”) fosters individual behavioral outcomes that go beyond the conventional norms embedded in a specific culture. A profound body of research provides empirical support for the theoretical concept of identity inclusivity being a facilitator of intercultural relational engagement and thus works as a foundation for the development of an individual’s intercultural proficiency.

5.1.3 An Integrative Approach of Intercultural Proficiency Throughout this text, intercultural learning is understood as the process of gaining knowledge and skills to deal with a wide range of cultural differences (not just one specific one). It is an educational approach that will lead to individual transformation. It means “acquiring increased awareness of subjective cultural context (world  Kim’s concept of intercultural identity is related to Adler’s (1982) concept of “multicultural identity” and the concept of Appiah (2006) of “cosmopolitanism,” a type of inclusive, global, and moral citizenship.

3

62

5  Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

view), including one’s own, and developing greater ability to interact sensitively and competently across cultural contexts as both an immediate and long-­term effect of exchange” (Bennett, 2009, p. 2). The definition puts cultural self-­awareness in the center as a necessary antecedent of intercultural learning. Stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination are critically analyzed. If individuals are not conscious of their own culture(s) and potential biases, they will find it difficult to recognize and manage cultural differences. Hence, becoming aware of our own cultural values and beliefs while reflecting on our interpretations of the other’s cultural practices and beliefs is important. As intercultural learning aims to reduce ethnocentric perspectives and continuously advances throughout this process, Bennett’s DMIS (Sect. 4.2.3) appears to be a useful framework to assess the stage an individual has reached in the intercultural learning process. It is also instrumental to deduce strategies for further improvement according to the specific abilities of the individual. Intercultural learning needs to be contextualized and adapted to the needs of the individual in order to facilitate a transformation towards intercultural effectiveness. The proposed concept of IP facilitates intercultural learning by integrating the perspective of cultural humility and carefully bridging the gap to inclusion theory through the inclusive identity approach. IP is conceived as a culture-general concept that is applicable to all intercultural encounters between individuals regardless of the particularities of the cultural backgrounds involved. IP emphasizes the ongoing intercultural learning process and the behavioral outcomes. Intercultural learning effectiveness refers to the degree to which a desired or intended result is successfully accomplished. The integrative approach of IP pursues to combine the concept of intercultural competence with cultural humility and aims to build a bridge towards the inclusion perspective. While the individual forms the unit of analysis, the establishment of authentic, ongoing intercultural relationships (i.e., more than a mere intercultural contact) is key in this intercultural learning process. Observing, active listening, and asking questions are vital for this dynamic and lifelong process focusing on self-­ reflection and personal critique. Based on the above reflection, I define intercultural proficiency as follows: IP is the operating mode of an individual engaged in an ongoing intercultural learning process.

The heart of the construct of intercultural proficiency is the inclusive, perspective-­ taking individual who constantly engages in reflection relating to her/his intercultural proficiency. In practical terms, it is a never-ending journey involving critical reflection of learning to understand how people perceive the world and participate in different systems of shared knowledge. A fundamental part of becoming interculturally proficient is to achieve an awareness not only of one’s own culture but of its influence on one’s behavior, values, and beliefs. Being able to listen actively and mindfully and viewing situations from more than one perspective is crucial. Consequently, IP is not static, but rather a process. Our level of IP is changing as a

5.2  From Intercultural Contact to Intercultural Learning

63

Intercultural Contact

Reflective

Cultural

Communication

and

and

Individual

Behavior

Self-Awareness

Intercultural Learning

Fig. 5.2  The self-reflective cycle of intercultural proficiency

response to new situations, experiences, and relationships. Throughout this text, IP is understood as an individual capacity; thereby it works as an addend in the inclusion equation. Each step in the transformative process guides the individual through a reflective practice leading to a cultural insight. Once individuals achieve new cultural and individual awareness, they can self-select new, more effective communicative and behavioral patterns (Fig.  5.2). The circle visualizes the continuous, never-ending process of learning due to the dynamic and the variety of intercultural contacts.

5.2

From Intercultural Contact to Intercultural Learning

Communication plays a central role in any intercultural encounter, and the effectiveness4 of this intercultural interchange relies on the individual’s language proficiency as well as her/his awareness and knowledge of cultural differences (Fig. 5.3). The learning and thereby the behavioral outcomes are influenced by relevant person-­ related factors as well as situational factors. 4  Intercultural effectiveness refers to the degree to which a desired or intended result is successfully accomplished.

64 Fig. 5.3  Interactive model of intercultural proficiency

5  Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

Intercultural Proficiency

Intercultural Learning

Language Proficiency Communication Competence

5.2.1 Language Proficiency and Communication Competence In the era of information and communication technology, people across the globe communicate with one another easily and more than ever before, thus boosting the need to deal with different languages. Consequently, more people have been learning languages for personal and professional purposes. As language is the one channel by which culture can be expressed, language takes up a salient role within the intercultural learning process. Most of the research carried out on language learning has focused on groups that have undergone a cross-cultural transition (e.g., immigrants, sojourners, international students). Within this framework, due to the symbiotic connection between language and culture, the development of language fluency and communication competence appear to be the most important drivers regarding culture learning and sociocultural adjustment (Ward, 1996). Several researchers have suggested that the level of proficiency in the language of the host country is associated with general adaptation to the new culture. This relationship has been often attributed to the newcomers’ increased ability to use the language in interactions with members of the receiving culture (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1966). As a consequence, a lack of language fluency will assumingly result in miscommunication with members of the host country. Recent research has highlighted the social, economic, cognitive, linguistic, and psychological benefits of multilingualism (Bialystok, 2011, 2018; Dewaele, 2016a, 2016b; Hirosh & Degani, 2018; Grin et  al., 2011). Multilinguals are defined as “people with at least partial mastery in a number of languages” (Dewaele & Wei, 2013, p. 231). Given the strong interrelatedness and interdependency of language

5.2  From Intercultural Contact to Intercultural Learning

65

and culture, learning a new language is mostly linked to also learning about another culture. Kramsch argues that globalization has initiated an increase in multilingualism as we are learning more foreign languages, resulting in a “symbolic competence” (Kramsch, 2002, p. 400) as “social actors in multilingual settings even if they are non-native speakers of the languages they use, seem to activate more than a communicative competence that would enable them to communicate accurately, effectively and appropriately with one another. They seem to display a particularly acute ability to play with various linguistic codes and with the various spatial and temporal resonances of these codes.” According to the National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (1996), students cannot truly master a new language until they have mastered the cultural context of the language. This means that understanding a new culture is an important element in achieving the success in new language acquisition. Inherently, language learning can no longer be regarded from a mainly linguistic perspective; the acquisition of a second language might hence be considered as part of the acquisition of another culture. Being proficient in more than one language will facilitate the ability to be aware of cultural differences and will lay the foundation to effectively interact within another culture. Additionally, the acquisition of another language has been shown to promote the development of attitudes and character traits that enhance intercultural proficiency in diverse cultural settings (Dewaele & Wei, 2013). While some studies have shown that language proficiency is less important than other factors when considering the ability “to adjust” to the new culture while working abroad (Hechanova et al., 2003), other studies indicate that the process of language acquisition promotes more overall empathy towards other cultures (Ward & Ward, 2003) and, through the process of language socialization, fosters the ability to construct a new cultural identity within the target culture (Byram, 1995; Kramsch, 2002; Aveni, 2005). Such an ability leads to more flexibility and more overall effectiveness in intercultural interactions (Jensen, 1995). Some research has been carried out showing that the advanced knowledge of multiple languages has also been linked to higher levels of cognitive empathy (Dewaele & Wei, 2013). According to Bender (2021), there is empirical evidence that knowledge of more languages has a positive effect on the level of intercultural proficiency. Additionally, the advanced proficiency in various languages (global language proficiency, GLP)5 also enhances the level of IP. The results of the empirical study indicate that multilingualism is indeed positively linked to intercultural proficiency. A way to ­rationalize this finding can be by a behavioral pattern where the acquisition of new languages often offers an opportunity to step into an additional culture, thereby providing the gateway to understand the world from a different perspective. Hence, the presence of various languages in one mind has effects “that go beyond the actual knowledge of language itself” (Cook, 2002, p. 7). 5  As the term “knowledge of languages” can cover different linguistic profiles, a more precise measure of multilingualism representing the sum of knowledge in various languages, namely, global language proficiency, was introduced.

66

5  Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

Though a positive causal relationship between multilingualism and a high level of IP is very likely, the results need to be considered thoughtfully. It could be argued that multilingualism is a booster for IP and enables individuals to communicate and act effectively in intercultural encounters and hence is a significant predictor of IP. However, multilingualism might be cause and effect at the same time. In fact, personal traits such as open-mindedness, respect for other cultures, and curiosity might also strengthen the interest in the acquisition of foreign languages. Consequently, multilingualism might also be seen as a component of intercultural proficiency. Language fluency plays a significant role in the intercultural communication process and hence is essential in the intercultural learning process. However, intercultural learning not only requires language proficiency but a profound understanding of nonverbal forms of communication. As described in Sect. 3.3 (Intercultural Nonverbal Communication), numerous aspects of nonverbal behavior, such as culture-­specific gestures, body postures, expression of emotions, etc., exist and frequently cause misunderstandings in the intercultural context due to the implicit messages that can vary widely across cultures in terms of their meaning. The acquisition of knowledge regarding these nonverbal communication styles might be even more challenging than learning another language. The knowledge of high- and low-context cultures is important for our comprehension about the cultural influence on our own and other people’s style of communication (Sect. 3.3). The more conscious we become in terms of our own and other people’s nonverbal cues, the more we will be able to communicate in an effective way, thereby narrowing the communication gap.

5.2.2 Knowledge of Cultural Differences In addition to the differences in communication practices based on implicitly learned nonverbal behaviors, variations in cross-cultural norms and values also contribute to occurring challenges and difficulties in social intercultural interactions. While Hofstede’s (1980) distinction of individualism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and masculinity provides one framework for organizing and analyzing value differences that dictate social behavior, Schwartz (1994) has identified seven cultural value dimensions on the individual level—mastery, hierarchy, conservatism, harmony, egalitarian commitment, intellectual autonomy, and affective autonomy—as sources of cultural variation. The more recent work of Leung and Bond on social axioms recognized five “operating principles” (social cynicism, reward for application, spirituality, social complexity, and fate control) that vary across cultures (Leung et al., 2002). Another recent work by Ting-Toomey (2004) on facenegotiation associating cross-cultural differences with rules and conventions points out that “all cultures engage in interactive processes to maintain and negotiate face in communication situations, but that the cultural dimensions of variability, particularly individualism–collectivism and power distance, influence the preference for self-versus-other facework. These preferences are manifest in making requests,

5.2  From Intercultural Contact to Intercultural Learning

67

gaining compliance, offering apologies and compliments, making decisions, showing politeness and dealing with conflicts.” She emphasized that competency in intercultural face-work is achieved through knowledge, mindfulness, and communication skills. Kurman and Ronen-Eilon (2004) who recently investigated how important the acceptance of new values is for an adaptation in a new cultural context provided the important finding that “values may help in understanding a culture, but they have less to do with concrete, mundane behaviors” (p. 203). Based on both, the individual-­ level value dimensions identified by Schwartz and colleagues (Schwartz et  al., 2001) and the social axioms distinguished by Leung et  al. (2002), Kurman and Ronen-Eilon researched native-born Israelis and immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia who were resident in Israel. Their conclusion is consistent with the research findings of Ward and Searle (1991) who were unsuccessful in finding causality between value discrepancies and sociocultural adaptation in a sample of international students in New Zealand. In essence, “the studies converge to suggest that adopting new axioms or accepting new values is not critical to the sociocultural adaptation process; knowledge and awareness of cross-cultural differences in axioms and values, however, exert a significant influence on adaptation outcomes” (Masgoret & Ward, 2012, p. 66).

5.2.3 Influencing Factors on Learning and Behavioral Outcomes As described in Chap. 4 (Dealing with Acculturative Stress and Cultural Adjustment), the learning outcomes regarding the acculturation process significantly vary across individuals. Following Masgoret and Ward (2012), major factors considered to impact intercultural learning and behavioral outcomes will be investigated. This implies person-related factors such as personality, motivation, and individual differences as well as situational factors such as previous experience, length of residence in a new culture, intercultural contact/relationships, and cultural distance.

5.2.3.1 Person-Related Factors A popular framework for the study of the relationship between personality and cultural adaptation has been the “Big Five” model of personality. Personality psychologists identified five basic dimensions to describe the essential traits that interact to form a personality6: • • • • •

Openness (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious) Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless) Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. critical/rational) Extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved) Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. resilient/confident)

 For example, McCrae and Sutin (2018)

6

68

5  Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

It is widely believed that personality arises from within the individual. Personality comprises a characteristic pattern of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that form a unique person. Personality traits can be understood as parameters of the adaptive system that vary from person to person. Ward and Searle (1991) verified with their research Ones and Viswesvaran’s (1997) suggestion that extraversion stimulates effective and satisfying intercultural relations. Furthermore, they proved that extraversion is a significant predictor of sociocultural adaptation (see also Masgoret et al., 2000). Openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness have also been linked to positive sociocultural outcomes (Ward et al., 2002). Further personality traits that have been associated with social adjustment and/or sociocultural adaptation during cross-cultural transitions include cultural empathy, flexibility, and emotional stability and resilience (Ward et al., 2004). Positive attitudes and expectations regarding a new language and culture can have a favorable influence on intercultural learning and the individual acculturation process. In the framework of “integrativeness,” studies established a positive link between attitudinal and motivational variables and succeeding to learn another language (Masgoret & Gardner, 1999). Integrativeness refers to an “individual’s attitudes towards the foreign language community, an openness to other cultural groups in general, and a willingness and interest in engaging in social interactions with members of the foreign language community” (Masgoret & Ward, 2012, p. 67). Early and Ang (2003) provided a novel perspective on acculturation by emphasizing personal differences. Their introduction of the concept of cultural intelligence (CQ) refers to “a person’s capability to adapt effectively to a new cultural context” (p. 59). Comprising cognitive (knowledge-based), motivational (sense of self-efficacy), and behavioral components (appropriate responses), individual differences in aptitudes (capacity) and abilities (actualities) can be assessed by psychometric scales and further improved by targeted training concepts.

5.2.3.2 Situational Factors In addition to person-related factors, several research studies have pointed out that situational circumstances can also have a salient impact on intercultural learning and the acculturation outcome of individuals. Factors such as general knowledge about a new culture (Searle & Ward, 1990) and previous cross-cultural experience (Klineberg & Hull, 1979) are considerably related to a person’s cross-cultural adjustment. While Masgoret et al. (2000) demonstrated that prior experiences with the language and culture of the host country facilitate sociocultural adaptation, Parker and McEvoy (1993) emphasized with their research findings that the acquisition of skills learned in a prior stay abroad and the resulting international experience fostered adjustment and the ability to cope with a new environment. Furthermore, several studies showed that adjustment increases with the length of the stay (Masgoret et al., 2000; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). Beyond previous intercultural experiences, one of the most salient drivers to deal with a new and unfamiliar setting in an effective way lies in the interaction with members of the host country. Many studies have suggested that the ability to establish intercultural relationships is an important and necessary foundation for

5.3  Developing Intercultural Proficiency

69

sociocultural adaptation (Hammer et al., 1978; Klineberg & Hull, 1979). Increased contact and satisfaction with that contact are associated with fewer sociocultural difficulties (Ward & Searle, 1991), and close intercultural friendships can foster social skills. Bochner and his colleagues (Bochner, McLeod & Lin, 1977; Furnham & Bochner, 1982) even propose that culture learning is directly linked to the number of host culture friends. Overall, it can be stated that individuals who have more extensive intercultural contact and are satisfied with these relationships tend to cope better with the sociocultural adaptation process. Another factor taken into consideration is cultural distance referring to the perceived similarities and differences between culture of origin and culture of contact. Furnham and Bochner’s (1982) research findings clearly show that intercultural transitions and the succeeding social adaptation are less difficult to cope with when the respective cultures are similar. More studies have generally validated that individuals who perceive more similarities between their own and the host culture tend to adapt more easily to their life in the new culture (Ward & Kennedy, 1999). These findings are in line with Furnham and Bochner’s (1982) original work on cultural distance, advocating that as cultural distance increases, individuals will tend to have more difficulty learning new culture-specific skills. An interesting additional perspective in this context that deserves more future research is cultural similarities between countries that are not related at first sight. There is empirical evidence from Ohlwein (2017) that—using the Hofstede metrics—certain clusters of countries can be formed that are very similar in their cultural profile even though they are not linked on a geographical or language level.

5.3

Developing Intercultural Proficiency

The acquisition of IP is viewed as an individual growth path built upon the ongoing intercultural learning process of a person. This learning process is developmental, and individuals involved in intercultural relationships advance through different stages of progressively more sophisticated levels of comprehension. The focus lies on the development of self-awareness, both individually and in relation to others. Hence, the willingness to learn from others by engaging in intercultural relationships, listening, and observing attentively is key.

5.3.1 Individual Growth and Transformation Intercultural contacts provide us with opportunities for individual growth by triggering a transformational process of self-reflection and learning. Progressing towards IP means embracing diversity and living constructively in a multicultural world. IP also requires us to move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism, being self-aware of one’s own cultural background and being able to shift the cultural framework in order to adapt to the contextual intercultural setting. Individuals who

70

5  Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

strive when acting across cultures establish inclusive systems that draw on the strengths of differences. As the previous reflections demonstrated, influencing factors that are positively linked to intercultural learning hence towards IP are the following (Fig. 5.4): • Language proficiency and communication competence • Knowledge (particularly regarding cultural self-awareness and cross-cultural differences based on values, norms, and rules) • Personality (particularly character traits and motivation) • Intercultural experience (particularly previous intercultural experience and intercultural network of friends and colleagues and cultural distance) Since IP is centered around a continuous learning process (without an endpoint), ongoing reflection is an essential element. Progress occurs when ongoing reflection and environmental feedback supports individuals to move along their interculturally proficient learning journey. The “wheel of IP” is a useful tool to identify how individuals are progressing along their learning journey towards IP.  The wheel illustrates the ongoing process (it may stop but it may also accelerate). The center of the wheel, the hub, is the inclusive identity facilitating intercultural relational

•Character Traits •Motivation

•Language Fluency •Profienciency in various languages /multilingualism

Personality

Experience • previous intercultural experience • intercultural relationships/ network (friends, colleagues etc.) • frequency of intercultural contacts

Fig. 5.4  The wheel of intercultural proficiency

Language Proficiency Communication Competence

Knowledge

•Cultural Self Awareness •Knowledge of cultural differences regarding values, norms etc.

5.3  Developing Intercultural Proficiency

71

engagement and thus working as a foundation for the development of an individual’s intercultural proficiency. As studies pointed out, the knowledge about differences in values and norms is undoubtedly beneficial but just serves as a preparatory step to engage in an intercultural experience. The acquisition of knowledge ideally results in a rise of awareness of cultural differences to prepare the ground for real-life learning to take place. Knowledge obtained from experience tends to be more deeply rooted than from books. In-depth exposure to unfamiliar cultures with emphasis on learning and reflection on this experience is vital for the individual transformation towards IP.

5.3.2 Assessment, Challenge, and Support Individuals react differently when in contact with an unfamiliar cultural setting; intercultural contact can cause shock or acculturative stress (as demonstrated in Sect. 4.1). So, how can individuals get support to progress on their intercultural learning journey? By combining the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) (see Sect. 4.2.3) and the Theory of Challenge and Support model by Sanford (1966), individual’s readiness can be assessed, and the corresponding level of support and challenge can be adjusted. The basic idea of the Theory of Challenge and Support, developed by Nevitt Sanford in 1966, is that for growth to occur, a person needs a balanced amount of appropriate challenge and support for the task. When we are in an unfamiliar setting, encountering the other, we may be irritated by things that are different from how we anticipated or expected them to be. We may have no experience how to cope with this situation and might be shocked by our own irritation. The intercultural contact might provide us a teachable moment and initiate our learning journey (Osland et al. 2007). The Challenge and Support Model offers a strategy for developing IP: too much support, the individual will never learn what they need in order to grow; too much challenge, the individual might become frustrated and possibly quit. Hence, intercultural learning initiatives must balance challenge and support in order to maximize the opportunity for progress and individual growth. A third factor of the Challenge and Support Model, that was later added, is the element of readiness. An individual is not able to grow until she/he is psychologically (or physically) ready. Furthermore, it might be possible that a sudden exposure is too unpredictable and too uncomfortable or produces too much anxiety. That would cause us to react with our flight mode. In fact, there is a broad range of literature studying the importance of reduction of anxiety and uncertainty to reach a manageable level during intercultural contact (Pettigrew, 2008; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Gudykunst (1995) argued that individuals tend to experience some degree of both anxiety and uncertainty while interacting with members of another group. The Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory states that both uncertainty (cognitive, involving knowledge and predictability) and anxiety (affective, involving

72

5  Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

emotional stability) must be carefully balanced to not exceed the maximum tolerable, but be over the minimal level to encourage learning (Gudykunst, 1995). Consequently, intercultural learning programs must be challenging enough to foster curiosity and facilitate engagement, as well as supporting enough so that the individual does not flee the learning context. The essence is to adjust the program to the stage of achieved IP development of the specific individual. Though the previous thoughts targeted individual growth, the essence of this concept might also encourage organizations to facilitate intercultural encounters for their employees (expats, sojourners).

References Adler, P. (1982). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections on cultural and multicultural man. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 389–408). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 28(4), 646–652. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10841806.2006.11029555 Aveni, V. (2005). Study abroad and second language use: Constructing the self. Cambridge University Press. Bender, F. (2021). Does multilingualism enhance intercultural proficiency? 47 EIBA conference, Dec 12, 2021. Complutense University of Madrid. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards Ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience. Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (2009). Defining, measuring, and facilitating intercultural learning: A conceptual introduction to the intercultural education double supplement. The Intercultural Education, 20(4), 1–13. Bennett, J. M. (2014). Intercultural competence: Vital perspectives for diversity and inclusion. In Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 155–176). Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 65(4), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025406 Bialystok, E. (2018). Bilingualism and executive function. What’s the connection? In D. Miller, F. Bayram, J. Rothman, & L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its subfields (pp. 283–305). John Benjamins. Bochner, S., McLeod, B. M., & Lin, A. (1977). Friendship patterns of overseas students: A functional model. International Journal of Psychology, 12, 277–297. Byram, M. (1995). Acquiring intercultural competence. A review of learning theories. In L. Sercu (Ed.), Intercultural competence. The secondary school (Vol. I, pp. 53–69). Aalborg University Press. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters. Campinha-Bacote, J. (2019). Cultural competemility: A paradigm shift in the cultural competence versus cultural humility debate, part I. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 24(1). Chavez, V. (2018). Cultural humility: Reflections and relevance for CBPR.  In N.  Wallerstein, B. Duran, J. Oetzel, & M. Minkler (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (3rd ed., pp. 357–362). Jossey-Bass. Cross, T. (1988). Cross-cultural continuum for agencies and individuals. http://www.cfilc.org/ atf/cf/%7BFF5A65B0-­F157-­496A-­80B2-­D0F5B1AE44C2%7D/CULTURAL%20AND%20 DISABILITY%20COMPETENCE%20CONTINUUM.ppt. Cook, V. J. (2002). Introduction: Background of the L2 user. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1–28). Multilingual Matters.

References

73

Danso, R. (2018). Cultural competence and cultural humility: A critical reflection on key cultural diversity concepts. Journal of Social Work, 18, 410–430. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Sage. Dewaele, J.-M. (2016a). Multi-competence and personality. In L.  Wei & V.  Cook (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp.  403–419). Cambridge University Press. Dewaele, J.-M., & Wei, L. (2013). Is multilingualism linked to a higher tolerance of ambiguity? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 231–240. Dewaele, J.-M. (2016b). Multi-competence and emotion. In L. Wei & V. Cook (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 461–477). Cambridge University Press. Early, P.  C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press. Elosúa, M.  R. (2015). Intercultural competence in the education process. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(1) Canadian Center of Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel. v4n1p72.URL Fantini, A. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Sage. Fantini, A. & Tirmizi, A. (2006). Exploring and assessing intercultural competence. World Learning Publication. Ferdman, B.  M. and Deane, B.  R. (Eds.). (2014). Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. Jossey-Bass/Wiley. Fisher-Borne, M., Cain, J. M., & Martin, S. L. (2015). From mastery to accountability: Cultural humility as an alternative to cultural competence. Social Work Education, 34(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2014.977244 Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interactions (pp. 161–198). Pergamon. Greene-Moton, E., & Minkler, M. (2020). (2020). Cultural competence or cultural humility? Moving beyond the debate. Health Promotion Practice., 21(1), 142–145. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524839919884912 Grin, F., Sfreddo, C., & Vaillancourt, F. (2011). The economics of the multilingual workplace. Routledge. Gudykunst, W. B. (1993). Toward a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup communication: An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) perspective. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 33–71). Sage. Gudykunst, W.  B. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory: Current status. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 8–58). Sage. Gullahorn, J. E., & Gullahorn, J. T. (1966). American students abroad: Professional vs. personal development. Annals, 368, 43–59. Hammer, M., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382–393. Hechanova, R., Beehr, T.  A., & Christiansen, N.  D. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of employees’ adjustment to overseas assignment: A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 213–236. Hirosh, Z., & Degani, T. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of multilingualism on novel language learning: An integrative review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 892–916. https://doi. org/10.3758/s13423-­017-­1315-­7 Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. International differences in work-related values. Sage. Isaacson, M. (2014). Clarifying concepts: Cultural humility or competency. Journal of Professional Nursing, 30, 251–258.

74

5  Navigating Cultural Diversity with Intercultural Proficiency

Jensen, A. (1995). Defining intercultural competence for the adult learner. In A. Jensen, K. Jaeger, & A. Lorentsen (Eds.), Intercultural competence: A new challenge for language teachers and trainers in Europe. Aalborg University. Kim, Y.  Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Multilingual Matters. Kim, Y.  Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-­ cultural adaptation. Sage. Kim, Y.  Y. (2005a). Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 375–400). Sage. Kim, Y.  Y. (2005b). Association and dissociation: A contextual theory of interethnic communication. In W.  Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 323–349). Sage. Kim, Y. Y. (2009). The identity factor in intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 53–65). Sage Publications. King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571–592. Kleinman, A., & Benson, P. (2006). Anthropology in the clinic: The problem of cultural competency and how to fix it. PLoS Medicine, 3(10), e294. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pmed.0030294 Klineberg, O., & Hull, W. F. (1979). At a foreign university: An international study of adaptation and coping. Praeger. Kramsch, C. (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization. Continuum. Kurman, J., & Ronen-Eilon, C. (2004). Lack of knowledge of a culture’s social axioms and adaptation difficulties among immigrants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 192–208. Leung, K., Bond, M. H., Carrasquel, S. R., et al. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 286–302. McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2018). (2018). A five-factor theory perspective on causal analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2134 Masgoret, A.-M., & Gardner, R. C. (1999). A causal model of Spanish immigrant adaptation in Canada. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, I, 216–236. Masgoret, A.-M., Bernaus, M., & Gardner, R. C. (2000). A study of cross-cultural adaptation by English-speaking sojourners in Spain. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 548–558. Masgoret, A.-M., & Ward, C. (2012). Culture learning approach to acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J.  W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge University Press. Murray-Garcia, J., & Tervalon, M. (2014). The concept of cultural humility. Health Affairs, 33(7), 1303. Ohlwein, M. (2017). Kultur- vs. regionenbezogene Abgrenzung von Ländergruppen. Eine clusteranalytische Untersuchung auf Basis der Kulturdimensionen nach Hofstede. ISM Working Paper No. 4. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1997). Personality determinants in the prediction of aspects of expatriate job success. In Z. Aycan (Ed.), New approaches to employee management (Expatriate management: Theory and research) (Vol. IV, pp. 63–92). JAI Press. Osland, J.  S., Bird, A., & Gundersen, A. (2007). Trigger events in intercultural sensemaking. Academy of Management Meeting. Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. M. (1993). Initial examination of a model of intercultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 355–379. Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 182–199. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Psychology Press.

References

75

Prasad, S., Nair, P., Gadhvi, K., Barai, I., Danish, H., & Philip, A. (2016). Cultural humility: Treating the patient, not the illness. Medical Education Online, 2016, 21. https://doi. org/10.3402/meo.v21.30908 Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society: Social change and individual development. New York: Atherton. Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(4), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(90)90030-Z Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 286–302. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., & Harris, M. (2001). Extending the cross-­ cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542. Spitzberg, B., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing Intercultural Competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Sage. Standards for foreign language learning: preparing for the 21st century. (1996). [Yonkers, NY]: [Washington, DC]: National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project; U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center. Stubbe, D. E. (2020). Practicing cultural competence and cultural humility in the Care of Diverse Patients. Published online, 24.01.2020. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20190041. Tervalon, M., & Murray-García, J. (1998). Cultural Humility Versus Cultural Competence: A Critical Distinction in Defining Physician Training Outcomes in Multicultural Education Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved (Vol. 9(2), pp. 117–125). Johns Hopkins University Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233 Ting-Toomey, S. (2004). Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 219–248). Sage Publications. Vegh, J., & Luu, L. A. N. (2019). Intercultural competence developmental models - theory and practice through comparative analysis. PEOPLE: International journal of. Social Sciences, 4(3), 882–901. Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 124–147). Sage Publications, Inc. Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological and socio-cultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 209–225. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329–342. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 56, 1–19. Ward, C., Berno, T., & Main, A. (2002). Can the Cross-cultural adaptability inventory (CCAI) predict sojourner adjustment? In P. Boski, F. J. Main, P. Van de Vijver, & A. M. Chodynicka (Eds.), New directions in cross-cultural psychology. Polish Academy of Sciences Publishers. Ward, M., & Ward, C. (2003). Promoting cross-cultural competence in pre-service teachers through second language use. Education, 123(3), 532–537. Ward, C., Leong, C.-H., & Low, M. (2004). Personality and sojourner adjustment: An exploration of the big five and the cultural fit proposition. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 137–151. Yancu, C., & Farmer, D. (2017). Product or process: Cultural competence or cultural humility? Palliative Medicine and Hospice Care Open Journal, 3(1), e1–e4. https://doi.org/10.17140/ PMHCOJ-­3-­e005

6

Reflecting Thoughts and Outlook

Our lives are shaped by intercultural encounters often on a daily basis, and we have to not only learn how to adapt to diverse cultural environments but rather learn how to leverage diversity in order to benefit from cultural differences. Intercultural proficiency understood as “as the operating mode of an individual engaged in an ongoing intercultural learning process” plays a crucial role in the self-selection of new, more effective communicative and behavioral patterns in different cultural settings. There is no secret formula on how to amalgamate intercultural approaches with inclusion, but the concept of IP can build a bridge between these contemporary approaches for several reasons: IP aims to foster appropriate and effective interactions in a variety of cultural contexts through intercultural learning. In order to be able to engage authentically with individuals from other cultural backgrounds, character traits like curiosity, openness, motivation, and a willingness to overcome differentness are required. This set of traits is also beneficial for “living inclusion” in form of acting empathically and demonstrating sensitivity to “differentness.” Ultimately, individuals who value differences as being equal to “sameness” are better prepared to practice inclusion than individuals that put differences over “sameness.” Individuals who are interculturally proficient show agility and adaptation to diverse cultural settings which requires perspective-taking (cultural frame shifting). Behaving compatible with different worldviews requires the integration of multiple frames of reference, behavioral flexibility, as well as mindfulness to evaluate situations from a variety of perspectives. The ability to see the world from other perspectives than one’s own by using dynamic cultural reference points indicates empathy, another vital characteristic towards a positive attitude regarding inclusion. Inclusion starts with the individual itself. Hence, knowledge, tolerance, and critical self-reflection foster openness and awareness which can create the basis to welcome inclusion. Cultural self-awareness, the key cognitive competency on the intercultural learning journey, requires a simultaneous process of a realistic and ongoing self-reflection as well as a commitment to lifelong learning in order to be © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Bender, A Roadmap to Intercultural Proficiency, Diversity and Inclusion Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04899-9_6

77

78

6  Reflecting Thoughts and Outlook

flexible and humble enough to let go of the false sense of security that stereotyping brings. Although the intercultural approach to diversity makes use of cultural generalizations, these generalizations need to be used cautiously to avoid stereotyping. As intercultural knowledge is mainly based on cultural generalizations regarding styles or values, a clear understanding of cultural generalizations without stereotyping is key. Generalizations should have a scientific foundation rather than being based on unfiltered personal experience or recitation of stereotypes. They should be seen as tendencies at an abstract level, rather than serving as labels for single individuals. The acquisition of intercultural knowledge, language proficiency, and communication competence are crucial but often intercultural experience, and experiential knowledge based on interactions, relationships, and sojourns are decisive. Individuals who are open to learning tend to enhance intercultural relationships and continue to develop further. The concept of IP revolves around the individual growth path of developing IP as well as the individual capacity to practice inclusion. At the individual level, inclusive behavior demands cultural humility embedded in a considerable awareness of one’s own personal biases which is vital in developing engagement across differences. Furthermore, becoming aware of one’s own biases should be extended to the awareness of the presence of “isms” (e.g., racism, sexism, ableism, classism, ageism, antiSemitism, heterosexism, colorism, ethnocentrism, or ism-ism) and respective power imbalances and social injustices in our societies. The inclusive identity overcomes the categorization of “in the group” and “outside the group” by recognizing synergies, the relative nature of values, and the universal aspect of human nature. Developing intercultural IP and being inclusive can be challenging and demands a great deal of presence and attention. How we connect, interact, and express the various facets of ourselves largely depends on the context we interact in. It might be either facilitating or hindering the progress towards IP and inclusion. The importance of respecting diversity and the ability of perspective-taking are the foundations of understanding each other’s expectations as well as addressing injustice, racism, exclusion, and inequity. Intercultural proficiency can facilitate the goal of inclusion, which is to respect and encourage the full participation of all individuals and groups. The bridge between inclusion and intercultural approaches can probably be best made by focusing on the individual’s capacity of “including.” This text is designed to provide orientation and encouragement to everyone who is interested in the topic of intercultural learning. The relevance to learn how to master these challenges of diversity and inclusion through the development of IP applies to educators and business professionals alike. Multidisciplinary research in this area is still emerging. Hence, I am offering a gateway with my research for further studies to bridge intercultural and inclusion research. In order to enable societies to cope with changing cultural demographics, it will become indispensable to continue to deepen the understanding of intercultural learning and intercultural proficiency. We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools. —Martin Luther King