2

CHAPTER

THE STUDY OF
INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION

THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISCIPLINE CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

Interdisciplinary Contributions After reading this chapter, you
PERCEPTION AND WORLDVIEW should be able to:
OF THE RESEARCHER 1. Identify four early foci in the
development of intercultural
THREE APPROACHES TO STUDYING communication.
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 2. Describe three approaches to
The Social Science Approach the study of intercultural
The Interpretive Approach communication.
The Critical Approach 3. Identify the methods used
within each of the three
A DIALECTICAL APPROACH TO approaches.
UNDERSTANDING CULTURE AND 4. Explain the strengths and
COMMUNICATION weaknesses of each approach.
Combining the Three Traditional Paradigms: 5. Identify three characteristics
of the dialectical approach.
The Dialectical Approach
Six Dialectics of Intercultural Communication 6. Explain the strengths of a
dialectical approach.
Keeping a Dialectical Perspective
7. Identify six intercultural
INTERNET RESOURCES communication dialectics.
SUMMARY

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

ACTIVITIES

KEY WORDS

REFERENCES

41
42 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

Now that we’ve described a rationale for studying intercultural communication, we

turn to ways in which the study of intercultural communication is conducted. It is
worldview U ­ nderlying studied worldwide, by scholars in many different disciplines, with different worldviews
assumptions about the (research philosophies), and different methodologies. How did the formal study of
nature of reality and
human behavior. intercultural communication begin? Before answering this question, let us pose a few
others: Whom do you think should be regarded as an expert in intercultural commu-
nication? Someone who has actually lived in a variety of cultures? Or someone who
has conducted scientific studies on how cultural groups differ in values and attitudes?
Or someone who analyzes what popular culture (movies, television, magazines, and
so on) has to say about a particular group of people?
Consider a related question: What is the best way to study intercultural com-
munication behavior? By observing how people communicate in various cultures? By
asking people to describe their own communication patterns? By distributing ques-
tionnaires to various cultural groups? Or by analyzing books, videos, movies, and
other cultural performances of various groups?
The answers to these questions help determine what kind of material goes into a
textbook on intercultural communication. And intercultural communication scholars
do not agree on what are the “right” answers to these questions. Thus, these questions
and answers have implications for what you will be exposed to in this book and this
course. By choosing some types of research (questionnaire, observation data), we
may neglect other types (interviews, travel journal, media analysis).
To help you understand why we chose to include the material we did, we describe
the origins of the discipline in the United States and the philosophical worldviews
that inform the current study and practices of intercultural communication. We then
outline three contemporary perspectives that recognize ­contributions from other dis-
ciplines. Finally, we outline our dialectical approach, which integrates the strengths
from all three contemporary perspectives.

THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISCIPLINE

The roots of the study of intercultural communication can be traced to the post–
World War II era, when the United States increasingly came to dominate the world
stage. However, government and business personnel working overseas often found
that they were ill-equipped to work among people from different cultures. The lan-
guage training they received, for example, did little to prepare them for the complex
challenges of working abroad.
In response, the U.S. government in 1946 passed the Foreign Service Act that
established the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) and hired Edward T. Hall and other
prominent anthropologists and linguists ­(including Ray ­Birdwhistell and George
Trager) to develop “predeparture” courses to assist the government and business
personnel to work more effectively overseas—acknowledging that these personnel
needed more than the existing language training. As they developed their courses,
these scholars emphasized four important foci that continue to today. That is,
the study is interdisciplinary, as FSI scholars came from many different disci-
plines; in addition, the study was internationally focused; was pragmatic and
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 43

emphasized the importance of nonverbal aspects of intercultural encounters. In

so doing, FSI theorists formed new ways of looking at culture and communica-
tion. Thus, the field of intercultural communication was born (Martin, Nakayama,
& Carbaugh, 2020).
Probably due to the urgency of international rebuilding, these experts defined
culture in terms of nationality and tended to focus on international contexts. Their
study was also very pragmatic, as the government and business personnel were not
interested in theories of culture and communication, but in learning how they could
adapt and effectively work in foreign cultures—eventually leading to a parallel “disci-
pline” of cross-cultural training and eventually to diversity training (Landis, Bennett, cross-cultural
& Bennett, 2004). E. T. Hall (1959, 1966) concluded that, just like language, nonver- ­training Training
people to become
bal communication varies from culture to culture and respecting these cultural differ- familiar with other
ences is critical to smooth communication. At the FSI, people were from different cultural norms and
cultures and he might observe that Greeks use a lot of hand gestures and Chinese use to improve their
interactions with
few, he could consult members of different cultural groups and test his theories about people of different
cultural variations and communication. domestic and
It was only later that scholars broadened the definition of culture beyond nation- international cultures.
ality. For example, Dreama Moon (2010) noted that how culture is defined deter- diversity training The
mines how it is studied, and argued for the notion of culture to include the study of training meant to
power and to expand the definition to include ethnicity, race, gender, etc. facilitate intercultural
communication among
Over the years, scholars worldwide in many different disciplines were motivated various gender, ethnic,
to study intercultural problems in their own regions as different ethnic, racial, reli- and racial groups in
gious, gender, and national groups struggle to find ways to live together peaceably the United States.
(Martin, Nakayama, & Carbaugh, 2020). While the study in the United States is
rooted in the communication field, there are important contributions from many dis-
ciplines—including linguistics, anthropology, psychology, and others.

Interdisciplinary Contributions
The scholars at the FSI came from various disciplines, including linguistics, anthro-
pology, and psychology. Not surprisingly, in their work related to communication,
they drew from theories pertinent to their specific disciplines. Contributions from
these fields of study blended to form an integrated approach that remains useful to
this day.
Linguists help us understand the importance of language and its role in inter-
cultural interaction. They describe how languages vary in “surface” structure and
are similar in “deep” structure. They also shed light on the relationship between
language and reality. French and Spanish, for instance, have both formal and
informal forms of the pronoun you. (In French, the formal is vous and the infor-
mal is tu; in Spanish, the formal is usted and the informal is tu.) In contrast,
English makes no distinction between formal and informal usage; one word, you,
intercultural
suffices in both situations. Do such language ­distinctions affect our culture’s ­competence The
notion of formality? This question is explored further in Chapter 6. Linguists also ability to behave
point out that learning a second or third language can enhance our ­intercultural effectively and
appropriately in
­competence by providing insights into other cultures and expanding our commu- interacting across
nication repertoire. cultures.
44 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

Anthropologists help us understand the role that culture plays in our lives and
the importance of nonverbal communication. Anthropologist Renate Rosaldo (1989)
encouraged scholars to consider the appropriateness of cultural study ­methods, and
other anthropologists have followed Rosaldo’s lead. They point out that many U.S.
and European studies reveal more about the researchers than about their subjects.
The so-called scientific study of other peoples is never entirely separate from
the culture in which the researchers are immersed. In his study of the Victorian era,
for example, Patrick Brantlinger (1986) notes that “evolutionary anthropology often
suggested that Africans, if not nonhuman or a different species, were such an inferior
‘breed’ that they might be impervious to ‘higher influences’ ” (p. 201). Consider the
famous 19th century case of Saartjie Baartman, a young African woman
who was lured to Europe with false promises of fame and fortune. She was paraded
naked before jeering mobs. She was exhibited in a metal cage and sold to an
animal trainer [and] died in Paris in 1816.
White scientists intent on proving the inferiority of Blacks dissected her body, bottled
her brain and genitals, wired her skeleton and displayed them in a French museum.
[However,] 192 years after she last looked on these rugged cliffs and roaring sea
[of South Africa], her remains were finally removed from the Musée de l’Homme in
Paris and flown back home. (Swarns, 2002, p. A28)
This return of Baartman’s remains is part of a larger movement away from a scientific
“era when indigenous people were deemed worthy of scientific study, but unworthy of
the consideration commonly accorded to whites” (Swarns, 2002, p. A28). Indeed, the
conclusions from such studies reveal more about the cultural attitudes of the research-
ers (e.g., ethnocentrism, racism, sexism) than they do about the people studied.
Psychologists such as Gordon Allport help us understand notions of stereotyping
and the ways in which prejudice functions in our lives and in intercultural interaction.
In his classic study The Nature of Prejudice (1979), he describes how prejudice can
develop from “normal” human cognitive activities such as categorization and general-
ization. Other psychologists, such as Richard Brislin (1999) and Dan Landis (Landis
& Wasilewski, 1999), reveal how variables like nationality, ethnicity, personality, and
gender influence our communication.
interdisciplinary An interdisciplinary focus can help us acquire and interpret information in a more
Integrating knowledge comprehensive manner—in ways relevant to bettering the intercultural communication
from different disci-
plines in conducting process, as well as producing knowledge. Thus, the field continues to be influenced by
research and con- interdisciplinary contributions, including ideas from cultural studies, critical theory, and
structing theory. the more traditional disciplines of psychology and anthropology (Martin, Nakayama, &
Carbaugh, 2020).
paradigm A
framework that serves
as the worldview
of ­researchers.
Different paradigms PERCEPTION AND WORLDVIEW OF THE RESEARCHER
assume different
interpretations A second influence on the current study of intercultural communication is the
of reality, human
behavior, culture, and research paradigm, or worldview, of the scholars involved. People understand and
communication. learn about the world through filtering lenses; they select, evaluate, and organize
 STUDENT VOICES

As a child, I did not consciously think of myself as a German or as a Norwegian. Since I

never viewed myself in terms of my culture, cultural heritage was something with which I
never used to identify others. When I communicated with others, the cultural background
of the person I was talking with never crossed my mind. To someone who constantly sees
racism and prejudice, this situation may seem ideal, but ignoring a person’s culture can
cause as much harm as judging someone based upon that culture. Knowledge of some-
one’s historical background is necessary when communicating on anything other than a
superficial level.
—Andrew
I grew up in northern Minnesota and we were very aware that we were Norwegian
and not Swedish. We ate lutefisk and lefse, but we also ate American food. I really
don’t like lutefisk. My dad belonged to the Sons of Norway, but I think he was
more interested in socializing with his friends than insisting that we learned about
Norwegian culture. I don’t speak Norwegian, but we always knew we were Norwegian.
I guess that I mostly feel like an American, and most of the time people probably see me
as white.
—Juliann

information (stimuli) from the external environment through ­perception. As Marshal perception The
process by which
Singer (1987) explains: individuals select,
organize, and interpret
We experience everything in the world not “as it is”—because there is no way that we external and internal
can know the world “as it is”—but only as the world comes to us through our sensory stimuli to create their
receptors. From there, these stimuli go instantly into the “data-storage banks” of our view of the world.
brains, where they have to pass through the filters of our censor screen, our decoding
mechanism, and the collectivity of everything we have learned from the day we were
born. (p. 9)
In this sense, all of the information we have already stored in our brains (learn-
ing) affect how we interpret new information. Some of our learning and perception
is group related. That is, we see the world in particular ways because of the cultural
groups (based on ethnicity, age, gender, and so on) to which we belong. These group-
related perceptions (worldviews or value orientations) are so fundamental that we
rarely question them. They involve our assumptions about human nature, the physi-
cal and spiritual world, and the ways in which humans should relate to one another.
For example, most U.S. ­Americans perceive human beings as separate from nature
and believe that there is a fundamental difference between, say, a human and a rock.
However, other cultural groups (Japanese, Chinese, traditional Native Americans)
see humans and human reality as part of a larger physical reality. For them, the differ-
ence between a human and a rock is not so pronounced.
The key point here is that academic research is also cultural behavior because
research traditions require particular worldviews about the nature of reality and knowl-
edge and particular beliefs about how research should be conducted. For example,
45
46 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

researchers studying communication often reflect their own cultural assumptions in

their research projects. Asian scholars say that U.S. communication scholars often
emphasize individuality and rationality—two strong ­cultural beliefs held by many
U.S. Americans—and ignore human interdependence and feeling in human encoun-
ters, important beliefs for many people around the world (Miike, 2007). And these
research paradigms are often held as strongly as cultural or ­spiritual beliefs (Kuhn,
1970). There are even examples of intercultural conflicts in which scholars strongly
disagree. For example, Galileo was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in
the 17th century because he took issue with theologians’ belief that the earth was the
center of the universe.
More recent examples of the relation between academic research and cultural
behavior can be seen in the social sciences. Some communication scholars believe
there is an external reality that can be measured and studied, whereas others believe
that reality can be understood only as lived and experienced by individuals (Casmir,
1994). Scholars’ cultural beliefs and experiences also influence them to focus on
particular areas of the world and not others—resulting in extensive research on U.S.,
European, and Asian communication, but neglecting many others (Africa, South
Asia, and the Middle East). Communication scholar Uttaran Dutta refers to these as
“silent zones,” where there is little study of cultural communication (Dutta & Martin,
2017). In short, beliefs and assumptions about reality influence research methods
and findings, and so also influence what we currently know about intercultural
communication.
At present, we can identify three broad approaches, or worldviews, that charac-
terize the study of culture and communication. All three approaches involve a blend
of disciplines and reflect different ­worldviews and assumptions about reality, human
behavior, and ways to study culture and communication. As you read about each of
these approaches, think about what kinds of assumptions concerning “culture” are
used in each approach. How we think about “culture” influences how it is studied.

THREE APPROACHES TO STUDYING

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Three contemporary approaches to studying intercultural communication are:

(1) the social science (or functionalist) approach, (2) the interpretive approach, and
(3) the critical approach. (See Tables 2-1 and 2-2.) These approaches are based on
different fundamental assumptions about human nature, human behavior, and the
nature of knowledge. Each one contributes in a unique way to our understanding of
the relationship between culture and communication, but each also has limitations.
These approaches vary in their assumptions about human behavior, their research
goals, their conceptualization of culture and communication, and their preferred
methodologies. As a student of intercultural communication, you may not see your-
self doing research on intercultural communication issues; however, it is important to
understand the assumptions behind the scholarship that is being undertaken. Think
about the strengths and weaknesses of each assumption and what each approach
reveals (and also hides) about other cultures and their communication patterns.
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 47

TABLE 2-1 THREE APPROACHES TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Social Science
(or Functionalist) Interpretive Critical

Discipline on Psychology Anthropology, Various

which approach sociolinguistics
is founded
Research goal Describe and Describe Change
predict behavior behavior behavior
Assumption of External and Subjective Subjective and
reality describable material
Assumptions of Predictable Creative and Changeable
human behavior voluntary
Method of Survey, Participant Textual analysis
study observation observation, of media
field study
Relationship of Communication Culture created Culture a site
culture and influenced by and maintained of power
communication culture through struggles
communication
Contribution Identifies cultural Emphasizes that Recognizes the
of the variations; recog- communication economic and
approach nizes cultural and culture political forces
differences in and cultural in culture and
many aspects of differences communication;
communication should be studied asserts that all
but often does in context intercultural
not consider interactions are
context characterized by
power

TABLE 2-2 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH APPROACHES

Social scientific This research style emphasizes statistical measures.

Understanding quantitative approaches is critical to
analyzing data and statistics. These are skills important
in any walk of life.
Interpretive Interpretive approaches emphasize using language to
describe human behavior. Understanding interpretive
approaches is important to understanding how news
is reported, how information is transferred, and how
most people make decisions.
Critical Critical methodologies analyze the large power
structures that guide everyday life. Understanding this
approach helps students grasp the invisible forces that
alter our lives.
48 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

To examine these three approaches, let us start with a situation that illus-
trates a communication dilemma—the continuing worldwide migration. 272 mil-
lion or 3.5% of the global population are currently on the move. Tragically, more
than 70 million of these (or about one person every two seconds) are forcibly dis-
placed from their home as a result of conflict or persecution ([Link]
.org/en-us/[Link]). Almost daily, we hear/see accounts of peo-
ple trying desperately to escape the war-ravaged and dangerous existence in their
home countries and find refuge in other countries. After leaving their homes with
a few possessions, many walk for hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles, and/
or risk their lives by crossing in treacherous waters in tiny unsafe boats (in 2016,
social science two children drowned every day on average trying to reach safely in Europe,
approach See
functionalist UNHCR; [Link] How are they welcomed
approach. once they arrive safely to foreign countries? News reports tell us that some are wel-
comed, processed, and given food, shelter, and aid by compassionate citizens and
functionalist
approach A study governments. Others are stopped by border fences, government security forces, and
of intercultural even citizens who feel threatened by these waves of foreigners (see Figure 2.1). Still
communication, also others encounter ambivalent hosts who want to be compassionate but are afraid that
called the social
science approach, their neighborhoods and countries are not able to assimilate these vast numbers of
based on the newcomers, and some are placed in crowded, unsanitary camps.
assumptions that (1) These situations provide good examples of intercultural encounters and offer
there is a describable,
external reality, (2) useful insights into how we might think about intercultural communication and how
human behaviors are different cultural groups understand (or don’t understand) each other. There are a
predictable, and (3) variety of ways that foreigners (migrants) and hosts can interact, and we will explore
culture is a variable
that can be measured. these in more detail in Chapter 8. But for now, let’s analyze these encounters to dem-
This approach aims to onstrate the characteristics of the three approaches to studying intercultural commu-
identify and explain nication—contributions and limitations.
cultural variations
in communication
and to predict future
communication. The Social Science Approach
(Compare with
critical approach The social science approach (also called the functionalist approach) is based on
and interpretive research in psychology and sociology. This approach assumes a describable external
approach.) reality. It also assumes that human behavior is predictable and that the researcher’s
quantitative goal is to describe and ­predict behavior. Researchers who take this approach often
­methods Research use ­quantitative ­methods, gathering data by administering questionnaires or observing
­methods that use ­subjects firsthand.
­numerical ­indicators
to capture and Social science researchers assume that culture is a variable that can be ­measured.
­ascertain the This suggests that culture influences communication in much the same way that per-
relationships among sonality traits do. The goal of this research, then, is to predict specifically how culture
­variables. These
­methods use survey influences communication.
and observation.
Applications So how might social science researchers understand the communication
variable A concept
that varies by existing issues of those migrants who find themselves in a foreign country, trying to adapt to
in ­different types or new ways of thinking and behaving? Social science researchers often use theories to pre-
­different amounts dict human behavior. What predictions might be made about intercultural encounters
and that can be
operationalized and between immigrants and individuals from the host country? One approach might be
measured. to investigate how various communication technologies affect cultural adaptation. For
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 49

FIGURE 2-1 A refugee couple sleeps in

the Serbian town of Presevo hoping to cross
the border to Hungary. (Dimitar Dilkoff and
Csaba Segesvari/AFP/Getty Images)

example, one study tried to find out whether Muslim migrants’ use of Facebook affected
their cultural adaptation to the United States. Specifically, the researchers predicted
that immigrants’ use of Facebook to communicate with other immigrants would impact
their rate of adaptation to the United States and their perceptions of America. Perhaps
not surprising, they discovered that, over time, these immigrants used Facebook mostly
to interact with other Muslims and were also less likely to culturally adapt to the U.S.
culture, and more likely to have a negative perception of the United States. They sug-
gest that one reason for this outcome is the negative political and social situation in the
United States and the War on Terror where Muslims have been the center of attention.
In such a situation, the length of time immigrants spent in the United States led to nega-
tive feelings about this country (Croucher & Rahmani, 2015).
However, another similar social science study found slightly different results.
Like the previous study, communication researchers Young Yun Kim and Kelly
McKay-Semmler (2013) measured Asian and European immigrants’ use of social
media and e-mail to communicate with people from their own country and also
with Americans. They also measured the immigrants’ face-to-face contacts with
the same two groups. Based on Kim’s integrative theory of adaptation, they pre-
dicted (and found) that the more immigrants communicated with people in the
United States (both face-to-face and on social media), the better adapted they
were to U.S. culture and the less they communicated with friends and family back
home. However, they also found that online connections did not replace direct inter-
personal communication with U.S. Americans. They stressed the importance for
immigrants to be directly and actively engaged with people in the host country as
they strive to adapt to the new culture (Kim & McKay-Semmler, 2013). Perhaps
the difference in the results for the two studies could be attributed to the difference
in the attitudes of the host culture (the United States) toward the two groups of
50 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

immigrants—Asian and European immigrants who experienced a more welcoming

reception versus Muslim immigrants from the Middle East who experienced a less
welcoming reception.
Another group of social science researchers predicted that immigrants’ degree
of acculturation in the United States might influence their perceptions of racial
discrimination and their need for social support (Hanasono, Chen, & Wilson, 2014).
They surveyed 345 racial minority first- and second-generation immigrants and
asked them to report how acculturated they felt to the U.S. society and also their
experiences with discrimination (how often they experienced discrimination and
how severe were these experiences). They also asked them to describe how likely
they were to ask for social support from others to cope with these experiences—for
advice or comfort in dealing with these experiences. Interestingly, the researchers
found that immigrants who were less acculturated, less integrated into the fabric
of U.S. society did express a higher need for social support in dealing with the
detrimental effects of discrimination, but they were not likely to seek support!
The researchers speculated that they did not ask for support because of language
barriers or perhaps because they come from cultures where directly asking for sup-
port from others is not socially approved. Other studies find that LGBT migrants
avoid asking for help because they assume that they won’t get help, because of
discrimination and rejection (Kahna et al., 2017) (see Point of View, p. 52). In any
case, the results suggest that there are members of immigrant communities in the
United States that need help, and community leaders should find culturally sen-
sitive ways to develop resources and programs (e.g., communication workshops)
that help less acculturated (especially marginalized) individuals to find, seek, and
receive social support (Chavez, 2011; Kahna et al., 2017).
All these studies provide insight into intercultural communication between immi-
grants and people in the host culture. Other contemporary research programs illus-
trate the social science approach. One such program was headed by the late William
B. Gudykunst (2005), a well-known communication researcher. He proposed the
anxiety ­uncertainty anxiety uncertainty management (AUM) theory, which explains the role of anxiety and
management uncertainty in individuals communicating with host culture members when they enter
­theory The view
that the reduction a new culture. This theory predicts certain optimal levels of uncertainty and anxiety,
of anxiety and and how they motivate individuals to engage in successful interaction. This theory is
uncertainty plays explained further in Chapter 8.
an ­important role in
­successful ­intercultural A related social science program is Stella Ting-Toomey’s (2005) face negotiation
­communication, theory. Face is the sense of favorable self-worth, and in all cultures people are con-
­particularly when cerned about saving face. Ting-Toomey suggests that conflict is a face negotiation
­experiencing new
cultures. process in which people often have their face threatened or questioned. She and her
colleagues have conducted a number of studies in which they try to identify how
face negotiation cultures differ in conflict style and face concerns (Neuliep & Johnson, 2016). For
theory The view that
cultural groups vary example, they found that members of individualistic societies like the United States
in preferences for are concerned with saving their own face in conflict situations and so use more domi-
conflict styles and nating conflict resolution styles. In contrast, members of collectivistic cultures, like
face-saving strategies.
China, South Korea, and Taiwan, are more concerned with saving the other person’s
face in conflict situations and use more avoiding, obliging, or integrating conflict
resolution styles (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Research also shows that Latino and Asian
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 51

Americans in the United States use more ­avoiding and third-party conflict styles than
African Americans and more than do ­European Americans (Ting-Toomey, Yee-Jung,
Shapiro, Garcia, Wright, & Oetzel, 2000).
Another social science research program focuses on cultural differences in
conversational strategies. In contrast to AUM, conversational constraints theory, conversational
developed by Min-Sun Kim (2005), attempts to explain how and why people make ­constraints theory
The view that
particular conversational choices. It suggests five universal conversational constraints, cultural groups vary
or concerns: (1) clarity, (2) minimizing imposition, (3) consideration for the other’s in their fundamental
feelings, (4) risking negative evaluation by the hearer, and (5) effectiveness. Kim and concerns regarding
how conversational
her colleagues have discovered that people from individualistic and collectivistic messages should be
cultures place varying importance on these various conversational concerns. Indi- constructed.
vidualists seem to be most concerned with clarity; collectivists, with concerns about
hurting the other’s feelings and minimizing imposition. Concerns for effectiveness
and avoidance of negative evaluation by others seem to be universally important
(Kim, 2005).
The communication accommodation theory is the result of another social science communication
program in which researchers attempted to identify how and when individuals accom- accommodation
­theory The view that
modate their speech and nonverbal behavior to ­others during an interaction. Unlike individuals adjust their
AUM and conversational constraints theory, communication accommodation theory verbal communication
focuses on adaptation during intercultural interaction. The researchers posited that to facilitate
understanding.
in some situations ­individuals change their communication patterns to accommo-
date others (Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2005). Specifically, individuals are likely to adapt
during low-threat interactions or situations in which they see little difference between
themselves and others. The underlying assumption is that we accommodate when
we feel positive toward the other person. For example, when we talk to international
students, we may speak more slowly, enunciate more clearly, use less jargon, and
mirror their communication. We also may adapt to regional speech. For example,
when Tom talks with someone from the South, he ­sometimes starts to drawl and use
words like “‘y’all.” Of course, it is possible to overaccommodate. For example, if a
white ­American speaks Black English to an African American, this may be perceived
as overaccommodation.
The diffusion of innovations theory, developed by ­communication scholar Everett diffusion of
Rogers (2003), explains how cultural practices can be changed—largely due to com- ­innovations t­ heory
The view that
munication. This theory explains why some innovations, like computer technology communication and
or the Internet, or certain behaviors, like “safe sex,” are accepted by some people relationships play
and rejected by others. The theory posits that in order for people to accept a new important roles in how
new ideas are adopted
technology, they have to see the usefulness of it and it has to be compatible with their (or not) by individuals
values and lifestyle. Communication also plays a key role; usually people first learn and groups.
of innovations through impersonal ­channels—like social media—but only decide to
adopt an innovation later, after asking the opinion or observing the behavior of some-
one who is known, trusted, or considered an expert—an “opinion leader.” If people
important to the individual (e.g., peers for adolescents) adopt the innovation first,
then the individual is more likely to adopt it. Opinion leaders can also be responsible
for innovations not diffusing, if they ignore or speak out against an ­innovation. There
seems to be a predictable, over-time pattern for the spread of an innovation, first to
early adopters and then to many more individuals (Singhal & Dearing, 2006).
 POINT of VIEW

Consider how LGBTQ migrants’ needs differ from those of the international
workers addressed by the Foreign Service Institute, described earlier. Could
intercultural training help ICE workers be more effective? Which of the three
research perspectives might be most relevant in studying these encounters
between ICE workers and LGBTQ refugees?
Many advocacy groups have drawn attention to poor conditions and mistreatment of
detainees, especially the LGBTQ:
**Jesus Mendoza, an HIV-positive gay Venezuelan, fearing political retaliation for his
job and unable to find medicine, fled to the United States and spent two years in ICE
detention. He almost died there. ICE refused to give him medicine or release him on
parole, even though he had a sponsor, and even after repeated requests from his attorney.
**Victoria Castro, a transgender woman from El Salvador, fled her home country
after almost losing her life to a hate crime, was held in solitary confinement in an
overcrowded ICE detention facility, and denied medical treatment. “The experience
was quite traumatic and disturbing. The situation is getting worse every day and this is
a fear that all trans people feel every day,” Castro says. “They can also lose their lives
while in ICE’s custody.”
Castro and Mendoza are the lucky ones. Castro was released to a sponsor in the
United States while her asylum case is being processed. Mendoza was admitted entry to
the United States while his asylum request is adjudicated. Of the 467 LGBTQ migrants
held in custody in 2017, 28 reported being abused or assaulted sexually, and some died.
**Johana Medina Leon, a 25-year-old transgender woman, fleeing violence in El Sal-
vador, died in a Texas hospital following six weeks in ICE custody in New Mexico.
**Roxsana Hernandez Rodriguez, 33, a transgender woman and asylum seeker from
Honduras, died in an ICE detention facility in New Mexico from untreated HIV
infection and AIDS-related complications. An autopsy found signs of physical abuse
before her death.
After these deaths, ICE issued a statement, reporting that they spend more than
$250 million a year on health services for detainees and claiming they do provide
medical care for detainees during their entire stay.
Adapted from: Mounting concerns about treatment of LGBTQ asylum-seekers. CQ Magazine July 8,
2019. [Link]

Many social science studies explain how communication styles vary from cul-
individualistic The ture to culture—often based on individualistic versus collectivistic values. For example,
tendency to emphasize
individual identities, many people in the United States who have strong individualistic tendencies see
beliefs, needs, goals, value in direct communication and self-promotion. In cultures with a more collectiv-
and views rather istic orientation such as Japan and China, people are more likely to use an indirect
than those of the
group. (Compare with approach (Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014). We will discuss more of these cultural dif-
collectivistic.) ferences in communication patterns throughout the rest of the book.
52
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 53

Strengths and Limitations Many of these social science studies have been useful collectivistic The
­tendency to focus on
in identifying variations in communication from group to group and ­specifying psy- the goals, needs, and
chological and sociological variables in the communication process. However, this views of the ingroup
approach is limited. Many scholars now realize that human communication is often rather than individuals’
own goals, needs, and
more creative than predictable and that reality is not just external but also internally views. (Compare with
constructed. We cannot identify all of the variables that affect our communication. individualistic.)
Nor can we predict exactly why one intercultural interaction seems to succeed and
another does not (Ting-Toomey, 2010).
Scholars also recognize that some methods in this approach are not cultur-
ally sensitive and that researchers may be too distant from the phenomena or
people they are researching (Kim, 2012). In other words, researchers may not
really understand the cultural groups they are studying (Lu & Gutua, 2014).
For example, if a researcher wanted to investigate differences between U.S. and
Chinese romantic relationships, they might distribute a questionnaire using a
common measure of intimacy used by U.S. American researchers. However, there
seem to be vast differences between these two cultural groups’ definition and com-
mon expression of intimacy (Tam, 2018), raising doubts about the accuracy of the
researcher’s results.
To overcome these kinds of problems, social scientists have developed strategies
for achieving equivalence of measures. A leading cross-cultural psychologist, Richard
Brislin (1999), has written extensively on guidelines for cross-cultural researchers. He
has identified several types of equivalencies that researchers should establish, includ-
ing translation equivalence and conceptual equivalence. For example, in cross-cultural translation
studies, literal ­translations are inadequate. To establish translation equivalence, ­equivalence
The linguistic
research materials should be translated several times, using different translators. Mate- sameness that
rials that proceed smoothly through these multiple steps are considered ­translation is gained after
equivalent. translating and
back-translating
In Chapter 6, we explore issues of translation in more detail and describe some research materials
of the impressive improvements being made in machine translation. While machine several times using
translation can be enormously helpful for common phrases and rough drafts, these different translators.
(See also conceptual
translations cannot yet do away with humans. Advances are being made rapidly equivalence.)
and, as the databases increase, the computer-generated translations will improve
(Schwartz, 2018). conceptual
­equivalence
Researchers can establish conceptual equivalence by ensuring that the notions The similarity of
they are investigating are similar at various levels. For example, problem solving is linguistic terms and
one aspect of intelligence that may be conceptually equivalent in many cultures. meanings across
cultures. (See
Once this equivalence is established, researchers can identify culture-specific ways also translation
in which problem solving is achieved. Another example is communication appre- equivalence.)
hension or a fear of communicating—viewed negatively in U.S. culture, whereas in
Japan, reticence is seen as socially desirable (Gudykunst, 2005). Thus, the construct
of reticence is not equivalent between these two groups because U.S. American and
Japanese individuals may not view it in the same way. Therefore, when establishing
equivalence, researchers need to be careful to determine that the construct is viewed
similarly in the cultures being compared (Fletcher et al., 2014). Establishing these
equivalencies allows researchers to isolate and describe what distinguishes one cul-
ture from another.
54 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

interpretive approach The Interpretive Approach

An approach
to intercultural The interpretive approach is a second approach to studying intercultural communi-
communication that
aims to understand cation. One interpretive approach, rooted in sociolinguistics, is the ethnography of
and describe human communication (Hymes, 1974). Ethnographers of communication are devoted
behavior within specific to descriptive studies of communication patterns within specific cultural groups.
cultural groups based
on the assumptions that Interpretive researchers assume not only that reality is external to humans, but also
(1) human experience is that humans construct reality. They believe that human experience, including com-
subjective, (2) human munication, is subjective and human behavior is neither predetermined nor easily
behavior is creative
rather than determined predicted.
or easily predicted, and The goal of interpretive research is to understand and describe human behavior.
(3) culture is created (Predicting behavior is not a goal.) Whereas the social scientist tends to see com-
and maintained through
communication. munication as influenced by culture, the interpretivist sees culture as created and
(Compare with critical maintained through communication (Carbaugh, 1996, 2017). This type of research
approach and uses qualitative methods derived from anthropology and linguistics such as field stud-
functionalist
approach.) ies, observations, and participant observations. A researcher engaging in participant
observation contributes actively to the communication processes being observed and
ethnography A studied (see Figure 2-2). The researcher thus is intimately involved in the research and
discipline that
examines the patterned may become good friends with members of the communities he or she is studying.
interactions and See Point of View, p. 58 for a unique example of this methodology.
significant symbols of Another example of interpretive research is the rhetorical approach, also used
specific cultural groups
to identify the cultural by critical researchers, perhaps the oldest communication scholarship, dating back
norms that guide their to the ancient Greeks. Rhetoricians typically examine and analyze texts or public
behaviors, usually speeches in the contexts in which they occur.
based on field studies.
Cross-cultural psychologists use the terms etic and emic to distinguish the social
qualitative m­ ethods science and interpretive approaches (Berry, 1997). These terms were borrowed from
Research methods
that attempt to linguistics—etic from phonetic and emic from phonemic. Social science research usu-
capture people’s own ally searches for universal generalizations and studies cultures objectively, with an
meanings for their “outsider’s” view; in this way, it is “etic.” In contrast, interpretive research usually
everyday behavior
in specific contexts. focuses on understanding phenomena subjectively, from within a particular cultural
These methods use community or context; in this way, it is “emic.” These researchers try to describe
participant observation patterns or rules that individuals follow in specific contexts. They tend to be more
and field studies.
interested in describing cultural behavior in one community than in making cross-
participant cultural comparisons.
­observation A research
method where
investigators interact
extensively with the Applications How might an interpretive researcher investigate the communication
cultural group being experiences of immigrants? One example is Rodriquez and Dawkins (2017), who inter-
studied. viewed undocumented unaccompanied Latino youth in Texas. They found that the
rhetorical approach youth were victims of crimes (exploitation by employers, border crossing abuse, etc.)
A research method, much more often than perpetrators of crime, and in addition, one of the primary deter-
dating back to ancient rents to crime and delinquency was the meaningful relationships they developed with
Greece, in which
scholars try to interpret schoolmates and family members. They enjoyed activities and friendships with U.S.
the meanings or students and found comfort and strength with family members they came to join.
persuasion used in A similar study involved focus groups (Korem & Horenczyk, 2015). In this study,
texts or oral discourses
in the contexts in researchers asked young immigrants from Ethiopia living in Israel about their expe-
which they occur. riences and specifically what communication strategies they used to adapt to live
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 55

FIGURE 2-2 One way to study and learn about cultural patterns is to
interview other people, which is this woman’s approach. What are the
strengths and weaknesses of interviewing as a research strategy?
(Digital Vision/Alamy Stock Photo)

there. These young men and women described the differences between Ethiopian and etic A term stemming
Israeli cultural values and communication preferences. They described their home from phonetic.
The etic inquiry
(Ethiopian) values as a strong emphasis on respect for elders and parents and the searches for universal
total loyalty one has for a friend, “if we are friends, you have to make me feel that generalizations
I can depend on you no matter what.” They also contrasted the strong emphasis on across cultures from
a distance. (Compare
gentleness and reservedness in Ethiopian relationships with the more assertiveness with emic.)
and directness preferred by Israelis. They described how they sometimes emphasized
cultural commonalities and sometimes differences in their interactions in the foreign emic A term
stemming from
country—depending on the context. In some situations, they emphasized their com- phonemic. The emic
monalities; for example, they tried hard to speak Hebrew without an accent. In other way of inquiry focuses
situations, they emphasized that they were different and the uniqueness of their cul- on understanding
communication
tural backgrounds, “If there are elements that I like very much in my culture and patterns from inside
they don’t limit me, I will preserve them” (p. 20). It also depended on whom they are a particular cultural
interacting with, as one said, “Next to Israelis, I allow myself to behave more openly. community or context.
(Compare with etic.)
Among Ethiopians I choose my words” although he goes on to say that this “double
life” can be “tiresome.”
We can see that immigrants in these studies describe some ambivalence and con-
tradictory feelings in their adaptation experience—on the one hand, recognizing their
own unique cultural background and values and at the same time, trying out the new
values and communication patterns. We see here the challenges of living with two com-
peting sets of values and expectations—a theme we will discuss more in later chapters.
 STUDENT VOICES

There are many different ways of encountering new cultures: as a tourist, a military
family, an immigrant, or a refugee. Think of how each of these individual’s experi-
ences create specific intercultural communication challenges:
Last summer my best friend and I visited Paris for the first time. The excitement of
finally being in the beautiful city we had been dreaming of left us feeling so happy and
grateful. It didn’t take long for us to adjust and get into the groove of the way the people
of the city communicate and work. Overall, the experience of my first trip to Paris was
a very positive one. Being in a culture outside of my own made me realize how big the
world really is and how the way we live here in America isn’t the only way to live and
that there is so much more out there to experience.
—Elizabeth
As a subculture, my father was in the military. Military families are subject to an entirely
different culture from other families as we were unable to have roots in one place due to
military transfers every 3 to 4 years. Military families were therefore dependent on each
other even more, and we had to learn to make new friends easily and accept change fre-
quently. We were exposed to many different cultures, which required us to be more open
and accepting of other people. I believe that my experiences as a military family have
allowed me to be a “people person.”
—Carrie
My father is a first-generation Hispanic who was certainly not given an easy start in life.
He was raised by his grandparents who did not speak a word of English and constantly
experienced economic hardships and challenges. Yet my father found a way to rise above
his circumstances and make something of his life; through hard work. My father is the
hardest working person I know, and instilled in me the importance and value of an
incredible work ethic.
—Charles

In a third study, interpretive scholars interviewed Turkish immigrants who

returned home from living in western Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, or France)
(Kunuroglu, Yagmur, van de Vijver, & Kroon, 2015). These researchers asked the
returned immigrants about their life back in their home country of Turkey; they
recorded, transcribed, and then analyzed the interviews for recurring themes. The
immigrants reported that their readaptation in their home country was almost as dif-
ficult as their adaptation in the foreign country. Back in Turkey, they found that many
of their friends and family did not welcome them with open arms, some were maybe
jealous of the immigrants’ experiences abroad and many criticized them for being
“too foreign” (too German, Dutch, or French)—even though the returned immigrants
reported that they hadn’t really adapted very much while in the foreign country. How-
ever, they were still regarded by Turks at home as not being Turkish enough! One

56
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 57

returned immigrant from Germany describes the sadness he feels when he is called
“almanci” (not-Turkish):
I never forget, I was traveling on the very first row in a bus and it was night time. I
warned the driver as he had the high beam headlamps on, thinking that the driver
on the car ahead of us can be distracted. I asked the driver why he was doing that.
And he replied, ‘they are almancıs, let them die’. (p. 206).
As you can see, in contrast to the social science studies that aim to predict
aspects of the immigrant experiences, the goal of interpretive researchers is to provide
us with in-depth descriptions of experiences, often in the words of the immigrants
themselves.
Some interpretive studies investigate the unique communication patterns of one
cultural group. For example, communication scholar David Engen (2004) describes
the communication patterns of his white working class community. He character-
izes the communication style in his home and community as direct, even blunt, and
sometimes impassioned and argumentative. It was also pretty functional (no need for
abstract language) and there was the role of humor—in working class life you laugh to
survive. He then describes the shock of discovering the communication norms of the
four-year American college classroom: abstract and philosophical, requiring “political
correctness” and “proper” English (he vividly recalls saying things like “I seen that”
and “I ain’t worried about that”) and his discomfort at realizing he did not have “the
appropriate classroom language and dialogue” (p. 236).
In similar studies, Communication scholar Todd Sandel and colleagues (2017)
describe the distinctive “Taiwanese” style of talk, indicated by a mix of Mandarin
and Taiwanese language, an identifiable accent and the discussion of safe and com-
fortable topics; Carbaugh and Berry (2001) describe the ­tendency of Finns to be
rather reserved in communication. More importantly, these scholars show how com-
munication patterns are inextricably tied to cultural identities in these communities
(Carbaugh, 2017).
A number of interpretive scholars have emphasized that descriptions of the com-
munication rules of a given people must be grounded, or centered, in their beliefs and
values (Asante & Miike, 2013; Miike, 2017). Most scholarly studies of communication
are rooted in a European ­American perspective, and this frame of reference is not
necessarily applicable to communication of all cultural groups. For example, Molefi
Asante (1987) developed the framework of Afrocentricity to apply to studies about Afrocentricity An
African or African American communication. He identifies five cultural themes orientation toward
African or African
shared by peoples of African descent: American cultural
standards, including
▪▪ A common origin and experience of struggle beliefs and values,
▪▪ An element of resistance to European legal procedures, medical practices, and as the criteria for
interpreting behaviors
political processes and attitudes.
▪▪ Traditional values of humaneness and harmony with nature
▪▪ A fundamentally African way of knowing and interpreting the world
▪▪ An orientation toward communalism
 POINT of VIEW

C
ommunication scholar Sarah Amira de la Garza proposes a unique ethno-
graphic methodology in studying cultural practices. It’s based on the sea-
sonal cycles of nature (spring, summer, winter, and fall) and honors unique
paces and rhythms of the natural world. She admonishes the culture learner to
surrender to the process, to become one with the process, the research instrument
(González, 2000).
Spring is a time of preparation, which involves self-searching and introspection,
opening oneself to the privilege of entering and being welcomed into another cul-
ture’s life-world.
Summer is the season of immersion into the culture, a challenging and sometimes
exhausting time, living with uncertainty, discomfort, testing one’s limits living in accepting
another’s way of living. May grieve the loss of the unfamiliar, and yearn for the familiar.
Fall is the harvest season—when the learner begins to understand some of the
cultural patterns, a tentative thesis starts to form in answer to the research questions
posed, vague, half-shaped insights start to take a coherent shape.
Winter, like summer, is a difficult season, when one wrestles with issues of
accountability, how to present one’s findings, how to represent the voices of those
who graciously shared their lives and cultural knowledge.
Many researchers have used this framework and gained interesting insights into
their own and other cultural patterns. For an example, read a study investigating the
tensions between indigenous child-rearing practices and modernizing influences in a
small village in the Copper Canyon of Mexico (Mendoza 2016).

Communication scholars have used this framework to understand various

aspects of contemporary African American communication. For example, communi-
cation scholar Janice Hamlet (2015) emphasizes the strong creative oral tradition of
African Americans, demonstrated in the interactive style of worship in many Black
congregations. As she describes it, the traditional African American preacher’s
job is to transform the congregation into an actively participating group, through
emotional, often poetic and rhythmic sermons, and the congregation is expected
to respond. Responses such as “Amen,” “Preach!”, “Tell it,” or “Go on Pastor” are
common and expected during the sermon. This interaction is often referred to as
call-response. Hamlet traces this communication tradition historically to the “hush
harbors” created by slaves where they could, out of the sight of their owners, enjoy
the warmth of their friends and family and vent their emotions by speaking, singing,
crying, or shouting.
Similarly, Asian scholars have developed Asiacentric frameworks to study the
communication of people from Asian cultures. Communication scholar ­Yoshitaka
Miike (2004, 2011) has identified five Asiacentric themes (circularity, harmony,
other-directedness, reciprocity, and relationality). Based on these themes, he

58
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 59

developed five propositions on human communication. Communication is a

process in which
▪▪ We remind ourselves of the interdependence and interrelatedness of the
universe.
▪▪ We reduce our selfishness and egocentrism.
▪▪ We feel the joy and suffering of all beings.
▪▪ We receive and return our debts to all beings.
▪▪ We moralize and harmonize the universe.
From this Asiacentric framework, other scholars are developing specific communi-
cation theories, for example, a Chinese model of human relationship development
(Chen, 1998), an I-Ching model of communication (Chen, 2009), and a Buddhist
consciousness-only model of intrapersonal communication (Ishii, 2004).
It is important to remember that scholars like Asante and Miike (2013) are not
suggesting that these culture-specific frameworks are superior or should replace the
traditional Eurocentric models, only that they are not inferior.
Another important interpretive theory, a communication theory of identity, was
developed by Michael Hecht (1993). He argues that communication is a communica-
tive process and our identities emerge in relationships with others and are expressed
in core symbols, meaning, and labels. He also contends that there are four identity
frames: personal, enacted, relational, and communal. These frames help us interpret
reality and understand the social world (Shin & Hecht, 2018). We will discuss this
theory further in Chapter 5.
Several scholars have used this framework to understand the identities of vari-
ous cultural groups. For example, Urban and Orbe (2010) used this same theoretical
framework to explore the identities of a group of immigrants to the United States
from many different countries. They found that, while most of the immigrants desired
to both fit into their new culture and retain a core of their own cultural identity, they
also expressed some struggles with identity gaps between the various layers of iden-
tity. One such gap was between their enacted and relational identities. That is, those
who had accents or were not white said they tried to enact American behaviors, but
many Americans would relate to them as foreigners. Other immigrants experienced
other identity gaps. So they were constantly negotiating their identity in relation to
those around them. Urban and Orbe stress that their study demonstrated that immi-
grants are a very diverse population and highlights the similarities and differences of
their experiences in negotiating their identities.

Strengths and Limitations The utility of the interpretivist approach is that it pro-
vides an in-depth understanding of communication patterns in particular com-
munities because it emphasizes investigating communication in context. Thus, for
example, we learn more about African American communication in religious con-
texts and more about U.S. white working class students in classroom contexts than
we would by distributing questionnaires with general questions on African American
or European American communication.
60 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

The main limitation of this approach is that there are few interpretivist stud-
ies of intercultural communication. Interpretive scholars typically have not studied
what happens when two groups come in contact with each other. However, there
are comparative studies, including ­Hammer and Rogan’s (2002) study comparing
the different ways in which Latino and Indochinese view and negotiate conflict
with law enforcement officers, and Wilkins’ (2017) comparison of the British “stiff
upper lip” and the Finnish matter of fact “Asiasta” styles, revealing central cul-
tural features of each cultural community. He shows how speakers in each search
for and employ an optimal form—recognizing and moderating the inadequacies of
each style.
A limitation is that the researchers often are outsiders to the communities
under investigation, which means they may not represent accurately the communica-
tion patterns of members of that community. For example, Fred Jandt and ­Dolores
Tanno (2001) recount the dilemma of many marginalized ­cultural groups who
have been studied by outsiders who characterize the group rather erroneously and
negatively. A number of scholars, members of these groups, are now trying to rewrite
these cultural descriptions.
One of these is Tuhiwai Smith (1999), a Maori scholar, who rejects the labels
scholars have used to describe her people, including “not fully humanized,” “illiterate,”
and she also describes their negative impact. She argues that scholars should develop
an indigenous research agenda (e.g., Maori-based code of research ethics that includes
the following: be respectful, be generous, don’t flaunt your knowledge, look, listen and
legisigns Culturally then speak).
appropriate low- Communication scholar Uttaran Dutta (2019a) agrees that indigenous com-
tech visual prompts
that complement munities have important contributions to knowledge and theory development and,
conventional in-depth along with indigenous co-researchers, developed several methods to meet the chal-
interviewing. lenges outlined above, including an innovative research technique—iconic legisigns
critical approach A (see Figure 2-3) (Dutta, 2019b). Legisigns are culturally appropriate low-tech visual
metatheoretical prompts that complement conventional in-depth interviewing, thus enabling ethno-
approach that graphic researchers in low-literate communities to co-create knowledge along with
includes many
assumptions of the the local participants. The legisigns help participants decide discussion pointers,
interpretive approach generate questions/probes, and ensure inclusivity and control of participants over
but that focuses more the research.
on macrocontexts,
such as the political
and social structures
that influence The Critical Approach
communication.
(Compare with A third approach to the study of intercultural communication includes many
interpretive approach assumptions of the interpretive approach. For instance, researchers who use the
and ­functionalist
approach.) critical approach believe in subjective (as opposed to objective) and material reality.
They also emphasize the importance of studying the context in which communi-
macrocontexts The
political, social, and cation occurs—that is, the situation, background, or environment. However, critical
historical situations, researchers usually focus on macrocontexts, such as the political and social struc-
backgrounds, tures that influence communication. Critical scholars, unlike most social scien-
and environments
that influence tists and interpretivists, are interested in the historical context of communication
communication. (see Figure 2-4).
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 61

Addiction

Transportation

Sanitation

FIGURE 2-3 These iconic legisigns, low-tech visual graphics developed by villagers,
help researchers to guide discussion and focus groups in low-literate indigenous com-
munities.
Source: Dutta, U. (2019). Conducting ethnographic research in low literate, economically weak under-
served spaces: An introduction to iconic legisigns guided interviewing (ILGI). International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 18, Appendix D, p. 10.

Critical scholars are interested in the power relations in communication. For

them, identifying cultural differences in communication is important only in rela-
tion to power differentials. In this perspective, culture is, in essence, a battleground—
a place where multiple interpretations come together but a dominant force always
prevails. The goal of critical researchers is not only to understand human behavior
but also to change the lives of everyday communicators. Researchers assume that by
examining and reporting how power functions in cultural situations, they can help the
average person learn how to resist forces of power and oppression.
Like interpretive scholars, critical scholars also use interviews, focus groups, and
rhetorical methods in analyzing encounters between immigrants and host groups.
They also use textual analyses. That is, they analyze the cultural products such as textual analysis
media (television, movies, journals, and so on) as powerful voices in shaping contem- Examination of
cultural texts such
porary culture. Critical scholars try to understand these encounters within a larger as media—television,
cultural struggle that has a much longer history than simply the current interactions. movies, journalistic
A critical scholar would want to understand the larger political, historical, and eco- essays, and so on.
nomical contexts of intercultural encounters.
62 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

FIGURE 2-4 German Chancellor Angela

Merkel delivers a speech in December 2015,
promising to “tangibly reduce” the number of
migrants allowed to enter Germany. How might
each of the paradigms study her message and
its influence in shaping the response to the
challenges of mass migration into Europe?
(Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images)

Applications For example, one critical study used informal, conversational

face-to-face interviews to understand the larger societal contexts of one group of
immigrants—Montagnards who settled in North Carolina. The Montagnards come
from the Central Highlands of Vietnam and fought with the United States against the
Vietnamese government in the 1960s. After the war ended, they were persecuted by
the Vietnamese for helping the United States and many fled the country and settled
in the United States. In this study, communication scholar Etsuko Kinefuchi (2011)
asked a group of Montagnard men to talk about their experiences in coming to the
United States and to discuss what place they see as their home and why. In analyz-
ing the interview data, she found that many of the men still thought of Vietnam as
home, had a strong emotional attachment to the people there and their indigenous
land, as one man said, “I’m here, but I’m not really here. My mind is with my people
in Vietnam” (p. 235). They also maintained strong ties to the Montagnard immigrant
community in the United States. All of them lived close to other Montagnards and
socialized almost entirely with other Montagnards, speaking their own language. They
found it very difficult to make friends and form relationships with U.S. Americans—
the cultural differences seemed insurmountable and they had limited opportunities
to interact with Americans. They thought that people in America are too busy, life
is too hurried and stressful, and no one has time to talk. Nobody just drops by unan-
nounced to see their friends—a common and cherished practice within their ethnic
community. In addition, they felt targeted by prejudice and racism. They were often
mistaken for Mexicans and said, “Americans don’t seem to like Mexicans” (p. 240),
and they thought this attitude toward Mexicans contributed to the U.S. Americans’
indifference toward them.
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 63

Unlike social science scholars who usually focus on the immigrants’ experi-
ence and initiative in adapting to the host culture, critical scholars like Kinefuchi
focus on the structural (societal) limitations that prevent the Montagnards from
having satisfying interpersonal encounters with Americans. She points out that
their “choices” of home and their attachment to their Montagnard community were
not only based on their individual preferences but were also significantly shaped by
the (lack of) opportunity for interactions and relationships with U.S. Americans.
Most lacked “cultural capital” (e.g., education and English proficiency) that would
help them build social networks and facilitate their integration into the mainstream
U.S. society, and in addition they were subject to a racialized U.S. society and a
racial hierarchy that was in place well before their arrival in the United States. She
describes a perpetual contradiction that many immigrants (due to such unequal sys-
tems as race, gender, and class) face in the United States; the expectation of assimi-
lation on the one hand and the structural limitations that prevent assimilation on
the other. She and other critical scholars question the assumption that immigrants
always wish to assimilate or that assimilation or acculturation is a good thing, and
urge other scholars to pay more attention to the importance of ethnic communi-
ties for immigrant well-being—that these communities can play active roles in help-
ing immigrants (especially refugees) by providing them with emotional, relational,
sociocultural, and political anchoring. They stress that when refugees are forced
to flee their homes because of abject poverty, political turmoil, ostracism, and/or
discrimination, it makes sense for them to resist assimilation into the new and often
unwelcoming host culture, that “holding onto one’s culture can be (and often is) a
source of comfort and strength, a source of rational survival, persistence, and posi-
tive self-identity” (De La Garza & Ono, 2015, p. 281). In addition, retaining certain
aspects of one’s culture (e.g. language, being bilingual) may facilitate academic suc-
cess of immigrant youth (McKay-Semmler & Kim, 2014).
A similar study analyzed the stories of foreign domestic helpers in Hong
Kong who recounted their intercultural encounters with host culture members—the
Hongkongese (Ladegaard, 2013). Most of the women come from the Philippines and
out of desperate financial situations, leave their families and migrate to find work in
Hong Kong. They report enormous challenges of their immigrant situation. They are
paid extremely low wages, have very few legal protections and rights, and are often
exploited and even abused by their employees. Ladegaard, like Kinefuchi, suggests
that researchers need to pay more attention to the larger sociocultural and political
contexts of immigrant–host interaction that allow for and even promote negative ste-
reotyping and prejudice.
Another critical study did just that. This study analyzed the speeches of several
right-wing leaders in France, the Netherlands, and Belgium to show how the social
and political landscape can be manipulated to promote attitudes of distrust and preju-
dice against immigrants (Mols & Jetten, 2014). Using rhetorical analyses, they found
that the speeches conveyed a feeling of collective nostalgia and perceptions of dis-
continuity to persuade people to take a tougher stance on immigration and refugee
asylum-seeking. They accomplished this in a three-step process. First, there were refer-
ences to the “glorious” past that was contrasted with the current bleak political and
economic situation (“we know who’s bringing the country down”). In the second
 STUDENT VOICES

I think 9/11 is an intercultural issue because what happens in Jerusalem (Palestine) is actu-
ally the real definition of terrorism. But people from the West (i.e., the United States, Canada)
don’t admit that, and the citizens of those countries don’t know what’s going on in the out-
side world. They claim that all Arabs are terrorists, but they don’t take a m ­ inute to discover
the truth. Also, in the news, you don’t see what actually is going on in the Middle East, and
this is just not fair to the Arab communities around the world.
—Mohammad

part, the speeches suggested that the glorious past was due to toughness against for-
eigners, and the third part then called for the country to be tough once again—a justi-
fication for harsher treatment of migrants and minorities.
Taken together, these various viewpoints emphasize how different migrant
groups experience cultural adaptation in a new country and their encounters with host
members there. A critical perspective would emphasize the economic, political, and
cultural differences among these groups, in understanding their experiences and their
reception by host members in the new culture.
postcolonialism An An important critical perspective is postcolonialism, an intellectual, political,
intellectual, political, and cultural movement that calls for the independence of colonized states and lib-
and cultural
movement that calls eration from colonialist mentalité, or ways of thinking. The legacy of this cultural
for the independence invasion often lasts much longer than the political relationship. “It theorizes not just
of colonialized states colonial conditions but why those conditions are what they are, and how they can be
and also liberation
from colonialist ways undone and redone” (Shome & Hegde, 2002, p. 250).
of thinking. Postcolonialism is not simply the study of colonialism but the study of how we
might deal with that past and its aftermath, which may include the ­ongoing use of
the colonial language, culture, and religion. For example, language specialist Garvida
(2013) investigated how Filipinos negotiate their postcolonial identity through a par-
ticular type of language use (conyo talk) in online discussions. Conyo talk is a mélange
of English, Filipino (tagalog), and Spanish. Filipinos who speak fluent Spanish and/or
English (the languages of former colonizers) are perceived to be from upper/middle
class and are treated with more respect, while Tagalog, a Philippine language, is con-
sidered inferior, as language of the poor and illiterates. Consequently, “conyo” talk,
a hybrid of colonizer and indigenous languages, is used by many Filipinos to affirm
their existence and demonstrate power, and often to criticize their colonizers. The
switching between languages clearly shows the speakers’ multiple and complementary
hybrid An identity hybrid identities (Filipino, Hispanic, and Anglophone), co-created online where only
that is consciously a other conyo speakers understand them.
mixture of different
cultural identities and
Hybrid identities form in locations where people mix and meld aspects of their
cultural traditions. cultural life from more than one culture. While Garvida looked at the case in Phil-
lipines, hybrid identities are emerging in many regions. The use of Kiswahili as a
regional language in East Africa is one example. Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania,
formerly British colonies, are looking for greater cooperation, as they were earlier
64
 STUDENT VOICES

H
ere are three different student perspectives on the various approaches to
studying intercultural communication:
I am an engineer, so I think that hypotheses and research are very impor-
tant in order to describe and predict a subject. On the other hand, it is impor-
tant to understand the individual more like a person and not like a number.
—Liliana
I like the interpretive approach. I think that it is important to understand and
to actually get involved hands-on to understand something so important and
complicated as intercultural communication. Even though outsiders may never
fully be considered an insider, they are better off than neither an insider nor an
outsider.
—Matt

Having three different paradigms allows me to view intercultural communica-

tion from three different perspectives. I can then incorporate all three into how
I interpret other cultures. I personally like the critical view the most because I
agree that often cultural groups are in a power struggle against one another,
and that’s just human nature.
—Andrew

closer under British colonial rule. Known as East African Cooperation, the former
colonies have a colonial past that they are using to forge a new postcolonial entity.
Kiswahili has emerged as the language on which this new integration has occurred,
rather than English (Robertson, 2016).
A final example of a critical study is Dreama Moon’s (1999) investigation of
gender and social class communication in the United States. In her study, Moon ana-
lyzed interviews of white women from working-class backgrounds. She discovered
that social class is a “marked feature” in the communication practices in academia
that restricts upward mobility. Subtle communication practices that reinforce social
class differences are not so invisible to women from working-class backgrounds.
Moon shows how culture, social class, and communication work together to repro-
duce the contemporary social structure. She also identifies some strategies used by
these women to resist this process of social reproduction. social r­ eproduction
The process of
perpetuating cultural
Strengths and Limitations The critical approach emphasizes the power relations in patterns.
intercultural interactions and the importance of social and historical contexts. How-
ever, one limitation is that most critical studies do not focus on face-to-face intercul-
tural interaction. Rather, they focus on popular media forms of communication—TV
shows, music videos, magazine advertisements, and so on. Such studies, with their
lack of attention to face-to-face interactions, may yield less practical results. Thus,
65
66 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

for example, although understanding different discourses about racism may give us
insights into U.S. race relations, it may not provide individuals with specific guide-
lines on how to communicate better across racial lines. However, one exception is
co-cultural theory, presented in Chapter 6, which is used to understand how people’s
location in a social hierarchy influences their perceptions of reality regarding, among
other things, relational issues or problems (Orbe, 1998).
Also, this approach does not allow for much empirical data. For example, Mols
and Jetten (2014) did not measure audience reactions to right wing political lead-
ers; instead their essay analyzed the speech content, using rhetorical frameworks for
understanding the persuasive elements of discourse.

A DIALECTICAL APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING CULTURE

AND COMMUNICATION

Combining the Three Traditional Paradigms:

The Dialectical Approach
As you can see from our discussion and the list of theories in Table 2-3, there are
many different ways to approach the study of intercultural communication. The social
science, interpretive, and critical approaches operate in interconnected and some-
times contradictory ways. Rather than advocating any one approach, we propose a
dialectical approach dialectical approach to intercultural communication research and practice (see also
An approach Martin, Nakayama, & Flores, 2002). The dialectical approach emphasizes the pro-
to intercultural
communication cessual, relational, and contradictory nature of intercultural communication, which
that integrates encompasses many different kinds of intercultural knowledge.
three approaches— First, with regard to the processual nature of intercultural communication, it is impor-
functionalist (or social
science), interpretive, tant to remember that cultures change, as do individuals. For example, the many cultures
and critical—in that constitute the war-torn areas of Syria include Syrian Arabs, Syrian Turkmen, Kurds,
understanding culture Armenians, Greeks, Muslims, Christians, Jews, gay, lesbian, and transgendered Syrians,
and communication.
It r­ ecognizes and and many other cultural and linguistic groups. Intercultural communication studies pro-
accepts that the vide a static but fleeting picture of these cultural groups. It is important to remember
three approaches that the adaptation, ­communication, and other patterns identified are dynamic and ever-
are interconnected
and sometimes changing, even if the research studies only provide a snapshot in time.
contradictory. Second, a dialectical perspective emphasizes the relational aspect of intercul-
processual Refers tural communication study. It highlights the relationship among various aspects
to how interaction of intercultural communication and the importance of viewing these holistically
happens rather than rather than in isolation. The key question becomes, Can we really understand cul-
to the outcome.
ture without understanding communication, and vice versa? Specifically, can we
understand the ways in which different cultural groups respond to forced migra-
tion and how they survive without looking at the values, beliefs, and histories of
the various cultural groups involved, the cultural institutions that different groups
have in place, the relative wealth available to different cultural groups, and so on?
A third characteristic of the dialectical perspective involves holding contra-
dictory ideas simultaneously. This notion may be difficult to comprehend because
it goes against most formal education in the United States, which emphasizes
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 67

TABLE 2-3 SUMMARY OF THEORETICAL NOTIONS IN THREE

RESEARCH APPROACHES

Social Science Interpretive Critical

Anxiety uncertainty Ethnography of Postcolonial

management (AUM) communication
Integrative theory of Afrocentrism Identity hybridity
adaptation
Face negotiation
Conversational Asiacentrism Social reproduction
constraints
Communication Communication theory
accommodation theory of identity
Diffusion of innovations Interpretive theory
of identity

dichotomous thinking. Dichotomies such as “good and evil,” “arteries and veins,”
and “air and water” form the core of our philosophical and scientific beliefs. The
fact that dichotomies such as “far and near,” “high and low,” and “long and short”
sound complete, as if the two parts belong together, reveals our tendency to form
dichotomies (Stewart & Bennett, 1991). One such dichotomy that emerged in
American and European public discourse from the mass refugee migration from
Syria was “terrorist” and citizen—where many lumped all immigrants into the “ter-
rorist” category and this led to increased anti-immigration attitudes and even to
governments closing their borders, and many refugees were then further victim-
ized. However, a dialectical approach requires that we transcend ­dichotomous
thinking in studying and practicing intercultural communication.
Certainly, we can learn something from each of the three traditional approaches,
and our understanding of intercultural communication has been enriched by all three.
One of our students described how the three perspectives can be useful in everyday
communication:
The three paradigms help me understand intercultural communication by g­ iving
me insight into how we can work with people. Understanding how to predict
communication behavior will make it easier for us to deal with those of other
cultures—the social science approach. By changing unfair notions we have
[about people from other cultures], we can gain more equality, as in the critical
approach. We try to change things. Finally, the interpretive perspective is impor-
tant so we can see face-to-face how our culture is.
Combining these approaches, our discussion of the migrant crisis provides us
with extensive insight into the problems and challenges of this and other intercul-
tural ventures. Clearly, if we limit ourselves to a specific research orientation, we may
fail to see the complexities of contemporary intercultural interaction in contexts.
68 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

Although this kind of paradoxical thinking is rather foreign to Western minds, it is

quite accepted in many Asian cultures. For example, people doing business in China
are advised to recognize this dialectical thinking: “It is not possible to overstate the
importance of ‘and’ versus ‘or’ thinking. It recurs, in various forms, throughout busi-
ness in China and the Orient as a whole” (Ambler, Witzel, & Xi, 2016).
In fact, research findings can make a difference in the everyday world. From the
social science perspective, we can see how specific communication and cultural dif-
ferences might create differing worldviews, which can help us predict intercultural
conflicts. An interpretive investigation gives us an opportunity to confirm what we
predicted in a hypothetical social science study. In the case of the current mass migra-
tion, a social science study might predict and discover why various groups of citizens
have negative attitudes toward immigrants, or what factors lead immigrants to suc-
cessful adaptation in a new country. An interpretive study might show in-depth how
different groups of immigrants experience cultural adaptation and encounters in the
new country. A critical approach might focus on the different access to economic,
political, and material resources among the cultural groups–such as which cultural
groups were or were not welcomed and how these power differentials influenced their
intercultural experience.
Employing these different perspectives is similar to photographing something
from different angles. No single angle or snapshot gives us the truth, but taking
pictures from various angles gives a more comprehensive view of the subject. The
content of the photos, of course, to some extent depends on the interests of the pho-
tographer. And the photos may contradict one another, especially if they are taken at
different times. But the knowledge we gain from any of these “angles” or approaches
is enhanced by the knowledge gained from the others.
However, a dialectical approach requires that we move beyond simply
acknowledging the contributions of the three perspectives and accept simultane-
ously the assumptions of all three. That is, we need to imagine that reality can
be at once external and internal, that human behavior is predictable and cre-
ative and changeable. These assumptions may seem contradictory, but that’s the
point. Thinking dialectically forces us to move beyond our familiar categories
and opens us up to new possibilities for studying and understanding intercultural
communication.

dialectic (1) A method Six Dialectics of Intercultural Communication

of logic based on
the principle that We have identified six dialectics that characterize intercultural communication and
an idea generates have woven them throughout this book. Perhaps you can think of other dialectics as
its opposite, leading
to a reconciliation you learn more about intercultural communication.
of the opposites;
(2) the complex Cultural–Individual Dialectic Intercultural communication is both cultural and
and paradoxical
relationship between individual, or idiosyncratic. That communication is cultural means we share com-
two opposite qualities munication patterns with members of the groups to which we belong. For example,
or entities, each Sandra, a fifth-generation Italian American, tends to be expressive, like other mem-
of which may also
be referred to as a bers of her family. However, some of her communication patterns—such as the way
dialectic. she gestures when she talks—are completely idiosyncratic (i.e., particular to her and
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 69

no one else). Consider another example, that of Amelia, who tends to be relation-
ally oriented. Although her role as a woman and the relationships she cultivates in
that role are important, being a woman does not completely define her behaviors.
In this book, we often describe communication patterns that seem to be related
to membership in particular cultural groups. However, it is important to remem-
ber that communication for all of us is both cultural and individual. We need to
keep this dialectic in mind as we try to understand and develop relationships across
cultural differences.

Personal–Contextual Dialectic This dialectic involves the role of context in inter-

cultural relationships and focuses simultaneously on the person and the context.
Although we communicate as individuals on a personal level, the context of this
communication is important as well. In some contexts, we enact specific social
roles that give meaning to our messages. For example, when Tom was teaching
at a Belgian university, he often spoke from the social role of a professor. But
this role did not correspond exactly to the same role in the United States because
Belgian students accord their professors far more respect and distance than do U.S.
students. In Belgium, this social role was more important than his communica-
tion with the students. In contrast, his communication with students in the United
States is more informal.

Differences–Similarities Dialectic Intercultural communication is characterized by

both similarities and differences, in that people are simultaneously similar to and
different from each other. In this book, we identify and describe real and important
differences between groups of people—differences in values, language, nonverbal
behavior, conflict resolution, and so on. For example, Japanese and U.S. Americans
communicate differently, just as do men and women. However, there also are many
similarities in human experiences and ways of communicating. Emphasizing only dif-
ferences can lead to stereotyping and prejudice (e.g., that women are emotional or
that men are rational); emphasizing only similarities can lead us to ignore the impor-
tant cultural variations that exist. Therefore, we try to emphasize both similarities and
differences and ask you to keep this dialectic in mind.

Static–Dynamic Dialectic This dialectic suggests that intercultural communication

tends to be at once static and dynamic. Some cultural and ­communication patterns
remain relatively constant, whereas other aspects of cultures (or personal traits of
individuals) shift over time—that is, they are dynamic. For example, as we learned in
Chapter 1, anti-immigrant sentiment traditionally has been a cultural constant in the
United States, although the groups and conditions of discrimination have changed.
Thus, the antagonism against Irish and Italian immigrants that existed at the turn of
the 20th century has largely disappeared but may linger in the minds of some people.
To understand interethnic communication in the United States today, we must recog-
nize both the static and dynamic aspects of these relations.

History/Past–Present/Future Dialectic Another dialectic emphasizes the need

to focus simultaneously on the past and the present in understanding intercultural
70 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication
STUDENT VOICES

When I was working in the Philippines there was a privilege–disadvantage dialectic with
the general population. My trip got extended for an extra week. I had to go out and buy
clothes at a department store in Manila. I did not speak any Filipino so this was a very
interesting experience. Knowing that the Filipino people can speak English and Spanish
somewhat I knew I would be able to get by. While the prices on the clothes were clearly
marked the lady at the register had inflated the price by 1,000 pesos ($20). Knowing
what the price should be I had to try to explain the situation to get the price down to the
correct level. Americans are envied in the Philippines for what we have. After spending
a good amount of time trying to explain my situation the Filipino lady appeared not to
understand anything I was saying. I ended up not getting the clothes from her.
—Bob
In the past African Americans have dealt with a lot of prejudice and discrimination
against them. There used to be separate water fountains, bathrooms, seats on a bus, etc.,
. . . the list could go on. So today when any African Americans come to dine at the
restaurant I work at, we try to avoid seating them at the back of the restaurant. Since
there has been a complaint, we don’t want them to feel as if we are discriminating
against them by putting them in a place where they are tucked away. The discrimination
that African Americans once felt should not translate over to the present since our society
has come so far. Some might say we are giving them special treatment to make African
Americans feel equal but I don’t see it like that. I see it as a sign of respect and a way of
showing the African American culture that the discrimination they once felt should not
exist anymore and they are just as equal as anyone else.
—Jodi

communication. On the one hand, we need to be aware of contemporary forces and

realities that shape the interactions of people from different cultural groups. On the
other hand, we need to realize that history has a significant impact on contemporary
events. One of our students described how this dialectic was illustrated in a televised
panel discussion on race relations:
The panelists frequently referred to and talked about the history of different cultural
groups in the United States and the present. They also touched on racial conflicts of
the past and future possible improvement for certain groups. They were, therefore,
communicating in a history/past–present/future dialectical manner. The discus-
sions of past and present were critical to the overall goal of understanding current
cultural identity. Without understanding the history of, for example, the slave trade
or the Jim Crow laws, can we truly comprehend the African American experience in
the United States today? The history of each cultural group plays a major role in the
present role of that group.

Privilege–Disadvantage Dialectic A dialectical perspective recognizes that peo-

ple may be simultaneously privileged and disadvantaged, or privileged in some
70
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 71

contexts and disadvantaged in others. For example, many tourists are in the posi-
tion of economic privilege because they can afford to travel, but in their trav-
els, they also may be disadvantaged if they do not speak the local language. We
can also be simultaneously privileged and disadvantaged because of gender, age,
race, socioeconomic status, and other identities. One of our Asian American col-
leagues relates how he is simultaneously privileged because he is educated, mid-
dle class, and male and disadvantaged because he experiences subtle and overt
mistreatment based on his race and accent (Collier, Hegde, Lee, Nakayama, &
Yep, 2002, p. 247).

Keeping a Dialectical Perspective

We ask that you keep a dialectical perspective in mind as you read the rest of this
book. The dialectics relate in various ways to the topics discussed in the following
chapters and are interwoven throughout the text. Keep in mind, though, that the dia-
lectical approach is not a specific theory to apply to all aspects of intercultural com-
munication. Rather, it is a lens through which to view the complexities of the topic.
Instead of offering easy answers to dilemmas, we ask you to look at the issues and
ideas from various angles, sometimes holding contradictory notions, but always see-
ing things in processual, relational, and holistic ways.
The dialectical approach that we take in this book combines the three traditional
approaches (social science, interpretive, and critical) and suggests four components
to consider in understanding intercultural communication: culture, communication,
context, and power. Culture and communication are the foreground, and context and
power are the backdrops against which we can understand intercultural communica-
tion. We discuss these four components in the next chapter.

INTERNET RESOURCES

[Link]
foreign-service-institute/
This is the State Department’s website for the Foreign Service Institute (FSI). The
FSI is the primary mechanism the federal government uses for training individuals
to go overseas to serve, in some capacity, as representatives of the U.S. government.

[Link]
Check out the the FSI’s School of Language Studies (SLS) that provides language
and culture training to U.S. government employees—for more than 65 languages. The
training addresses all aspects of language training, from classroom instruction and
distance learning to learning consultation services and testing.

[Link]
This is another section of the State Department, which lists useful info about travel-
ing, working and studying abroad, etc., including safety/security information as well
as special considerations for students, women, and LGBT travelers.
72 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

[Link]/world/
This is a website sponsored by the nonprofit Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA),
a national umbrella body for more than 200 organizations and over 1000 individual
members. Read about the various refugee programs sponsored by Australians. Click
on “Refugee Stories” and learn more about refugees, why they leave, where they go,
and how they are treated in their new country. Click on “Media & Publications” and
compare the national discussion about immigration in Australia to discussions on
the same topic in the U.S. media.

SUMMARY

▪▪ The study of intercultural communication in the 21st century is a global project,

studied by scholars in many different disciplines, with different world views or
research philosophies.
▪▪ This new field was interdisciplinary and pragmatic. It emphasized nonverbal
communication in international contexts.
▪▪ The perceptions and worldviews of scholars have an impact on the study of
intercultural communication and have led to three contemporary approaches:
the social science, interpretive, and critical approaches.
▪▪ This textbook advocates a dialectical approach that combines these three
approaches.
▪▪ A dialectical approach emphasizes a processual, relational, and holistic view
of intercultural communication, and it requires a balance of contradictory
views.
▪▪ Intercultural communication is both cultural and individual, personal and con-
textual, characterized by differences and similarities, static and dynamic, ori-
ented to both the present and the past, and characterized by both privilege and
disadvantage.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. How have the origins of the study of intercultural communication in the United
States affected its present focus?
2. How did business and political interests influence what early intercultural
communication researchers studied and learned?
3. How have the worldviews of researchers influenced how they studied
intercultural communication?
4. How have other fields contributed to the study of intercultural ­communication?
5. What are the advantages of a dialectical approach to intercultural
­communication?
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 73

ACTIVITIES

1. Becoming Culturally Conscious. One way to understand your cultural position

within the United States and your own cultural values, norms, and beliefs is to
examine your upbringing. Answer the following questions:
a. What values did your parents or guardians attempt to instill in you?
b. Why were these values considered important?
c. What were you expected to do when you grew up?
d. How were you expected to contribute to family life?
e. What do you know about your ethnic background?
f. What was your neighborhood like?
Discuss your answers with classmates. Analyze how your own cultural ­position
is unique and how it is similar to that of others.
2. Analyzing Cultural Patterns. Find a text or speech that discusses some intercul-
tural or cultural issues, and analyze the cultural patterns present in the text.
Consider, for example, the “I Have a Dream” speech by M ­ artin Luther King, Jr.
(Andrews & Zarefsky, 1992), or Chief Seattle’s 1854 speech (Low, 1995).
3. Analyzing a Film. View a feature film or a video (e.g., Chir-raq or Brooklyn) and
assume the position of a researcher. Analyze the cultural meanings in the film
from each of the three perspectives: social science, interpretive, and critical. What
cultural patterns (related to nationality, ethnicity, gender, and class) do you see?
What does each perspective reveal? What does each one fail to reveal?

KEY WORDS

Afrocentricity (57) diversity training (43) participant observation

anxiety uncertainty emic (54) (54)
management ethnography (54) perception (45)
theory (50) etic (55) postcolonialism (64)
collectivistic (52) face negotiation processual (66)
communication theory (50) qualitative methods (54)
accommodation functionalist quantitative
theory (51) approach (48) methods (48)
conceptual hybrid (64) rhetorical
equivalence (53) individualistic (52) approach (54)
conversational contraints intercultural social reproduction (65)
theory (51) competence (43) social science
critical approach (60) interdisciplinary (44) approach (48)
cross-cultural training (43) interpretive textual analysis (61)
dialectic (68) approach (54) translation
dialectical approach (66) legisigns (60) equivalence (53)
diffusion of innovations macrocontexts (60) variable (48)
theory (51) paradigm (44) worldview (42)
74 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Reading, Croucher, S. M., & Rahmani, D. (2015). A longitudinal
MA: Addison-Wesley. test of the effects of Facebook on cultural adaptation.
Ambler, T., Witzel, M., & Xi, C. (2016). Doing business in Journal of International and Intercultural Communica-
China (4th ed). New York: Routledge. tion, 8(4), 30–345.
Andrews, J. R., & Zarefsky, D. (1992). Contemporary De La Garza, A. T., & Ono, K. (2015). Retheorizing
American voices: Significant speeches in American adaptation: Differential adaptation and critical inter-
­history, 1945–present (pp. 78–81). New York: cultural communication. Journal of International &
Longman. Intercultural Communication, 8(4), 269–289.
Asante, M. K. (1987). The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia, Dutta, U. (2019a). Digital preservation of Indigenous cul-
PA: Temple University Press. ture and narratives from the Global South: In search
Asante, M. K., & Miike, Y. (2013). Paradigmatic issues in of an approach. Humanities, 8(2), 68.
intercultural communication studies: An Afrocentric– Dutta, U. (2019b). Conducting ethnographic research in
Asiacentric dialogue. China Media Research, low literate, economically weak underserved spaces:
9(3), 1–19. An introduction to iconic legisigns guided interview-
Berry, J. W. (1997). Preface. In P. R. Dasen, T. S. Saras- ing (ILGI). International Journal of Qualitative Meth-
wathi, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural ods, 18, 1–12.
psychology: Vol. 2. Basic processes and human develop- Dutta, U., & Martin, J. N. (2017). Theoretical perspec-
ment (pp. xi–xvi). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. tives in intercultural communication. In L. Chen (ed.),
Brantlinger, P. (1986). Victorians and Africans: The gene- Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Berlin:
alogy of the myth of the dark continent. In Mouton de Gruyter.
H. L. Gates, Jr. (Ed.), “Race,” writing and difference Engen, D. (2004). Invisible identities: Notes on class and
(pp. 185–222). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago race. In A. Gonzalez, M. Houston, & V. Chen (Eds.),
Press. (Original work published in 1985) Our voices: Essays in culture, ethnicity and communica-
Brislin, R. (1999). Understanding culture’s infiuence on tion (pp. 250–255). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
behavior (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Fletcher, C. V., Nakazawa, M., Chen, Y., Oetzel, J. G.,
Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating selves: The communication Ting-Toomey, S., Chang, S. et al. (2014). Establishing
of social identities in American scenes. Albany, NY: cross-cultural measurement equivalence of scales asso-
State University of New York Press. ciated with Face-Negotiation Theory: A critical issue
Carbaugh, D. (2017). (Ed.). The handbook of communica- in cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of International
tion in cross-cultural perspective. NYC: Routledge. and Intercultural Communication, 7(2), 148–169.
Carbaugh, D., & Berry, M. (2001). ­Communicating Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005). Communication
history, Finnish and American discourses: An accommodation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
­ethnographic contribution to intercultural communi- Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.
cation inquiry. Communication Theory, 11, 352–366. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Casmir, F. L. (1994). The role of theory and theory build- Garvida, M. M. (2013). “Conyo talk”: The affirmation of
ing. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Building communication hybrid identity and power in contemporary Philippine
theories (pp. 7–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. discourse. Lingue e Linguaggi, 8, 23–34.
Chavez, K. R. (2011). Identifying the needs of LGBTQ Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty man-
immigrants and refugees in Southern Arizona. Journal agement (AUM) theory of effective communication:
of Homosexuality, 58(2), 182–218. Making the mesh of the net finer. In W. B. Gudykunst
Chen, G.-M. (1998). A Chinese model of human relation- (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication
ship development. In B. L. Hoffer, & J. H. Koo (Eds.), (pp. 281–323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross-cultural communication: East and West in the 90’s González, M.C. (2000). The Four Seasons of Ethnog-
(pp. 45–53). San Antonio, TX: Institute for Cross- raphy: a creation-centered ontology for ethnography.
Cultural Research, Trinity University. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24,
Chen, G.-M. (2009). Towards an I Ching Model of com- 623–650.
munication. China Media Research, 5(3), 72–81. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY:
Collier, M. J., Hegde, R. S., Lee, W., Nakayama, T. K., & Doubleday.
Yep, G. A. (2002). Dialogue on the edges: Ferment Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City,
in communication and culture. In M. J. Collier (Ed.), NY: Doubleday.
Transforming communication about culture (Interna- Hamlet, J. D. (2015). The reason why we sing: Under-
tional and Intercultural Communication Annual), (Vol. standing traditional African American Worship. In
24, pp. 219–280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. A. Gonzaléz, M. Houston & Y-W. Chen (Eds.), Our
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 75

voices: Essays in culture, ethnicity and communication pian immigrants in Israel. International Journal of Inter-
6th edition. New York: Oxford University Press. cultural Relations, 49, 13–24.
Hammer, M. R., & Rogan, R. G. (2002). Latino and Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Rev.
­Indochinese interpretive frames in negotiating conflict ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
with law enforcement: A focus group analysis. Interna- Kunuroglu, F., Yagmur, K., van de Vijver, F. J., & Kroon,
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 551–576. S. (2015). Consequences of Turkish return migration
Hanasono, L. K., Chen, L., & Wilson, S. R. (2014). Iden- from Western Europe. International Journal of Intercul-
tifying communities in need: Examining the impact of tural Relations, 49, 198–211.
acculturation on perceived discrimination, social sup- Ladegaard, H. J. (2013). Beyond the reach of ethics and
port, and coping amongst racial minority members in equity? Depersonalisation and dehumanisation in
the United States. Journal of International and Inter- foreign domestic helper narratives. Language and Inter-
cultural Communication, 7(3), 216–237. cultural Communication, 13(1), 44–59.
Hecht, M. L. (1993). A research odyssey: Towards the Landis, D., Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (Eds.) (2004).
development of a communication theory of identity. Handbook of intercultural training. 3rd ed. (pp. 309–336).
Communication Monographs, 60, 76–82. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An eth- Landis, D., & Wasilewski, J. H. (1999). Reflections on
nographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of 22 years of the International Journal of Intercultural
Pennsylvania Press. Relations and 23 years in other areas of intercultural
Ishii, S. (2004). Proposing a Buddhist consciousness-only practice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
epistemological model for intrapersonal communica- 23, 535–574.
tion research. Journal of Intercultural Communication Low, D. (1995). Contemporary reinvention of Chief
Research, 33, 63–76. Seattle’s 1854 speech. American Indian Quarterly, 19(3),
Jandt, F. E., & Tanno, D. V. (2001). Decoding domination, 407.
encoding self-determination: Intercultural communica- Lu, Y., & Gatua, M. W. (2014). Methodological consider-
tion research processes. Howard Journal of Communica- ations for qualitative research with immigrant popula-
tions, 12, 119–135. tions: Lessons from two studies. The Qualitative Report,
Kahna, S., Alessib, E., Woolnera, L., Kima, H., & 19, 1–16, from [Link]
Olivieric, C. (2017). Promoting the wellbeing of /[Link]
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender forced migrants Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Carbaugh, D. (2020).
in Canada: providers’ perspectives. Culture, Health & A global look at the history and development of inter-
Sexuality, 19(10), 1165–1179. cultural communication and applied linguistics. In
Kim, M.-S. (2005). Culture-based conversational constraints J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language
theory: Individual and culture-level analyses. In W. B. and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 17–38).
Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural commu- NYC: Routledge.
nication (pp. 93–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Flores, L. A. (2002).
Kim, M.-S. (2012). World peace through intercultural A dialectical approach to intercultural communica-
research: From culture of war to a research culture of tion. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores
peace. International Journal of Intercultural Relations (Eds.), Readings in intercultural communication: Experi-
36(1), 1–16. ences and contexts (2nd ed., pp. 3–13). Boston, MA:
Kim, S-h, Carvalho, J. P., Davis, A. G., & Mullins, A. M. McGraw-Hill.
(2011). The view of the border: News framing of the McKay-Semmler, K., & Kim, Y. (2014). Cross-cultural
definition, causes, and solutions to illegal immigration. adaptation of Hispanic youth: A study of communica-
Mass Communication and Society, 14(3), 292–314. tion patterns, functional fitness, and psychological
Kim, Y. Y., & McKay-Semmler, K. (2013). Social engage- health. Communication Monographs, 81(2), 133–156.
ment and cross-cultural adaptation: An examination Mendoza, S. L. (2016). Doing “indigenous” enthography
of direct- and mediated interpersonal communication as a cultural outsider: Lessons from the Four Seasons.
activities of educated non-natives in the United States. Journal of International and Intercultural Communica-
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, tion, 9(2), 140–160
99–112. Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art
Kinefuchi, E. (2011). Finding home in migration: Mon- themes in cross cultural communication research: A
tagnard refugees and post-migration identity. Journal systematic and meta-analytic review. International Jour-
of International and Intercultural Communication. 3(3), nal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23.
228–248. Miike, Y. (2011). Culture as text and culture as theory:
Korem, A., & Horenczyk, G. (2015). Perceptions of social Asiacentricity and its raison d’être in intercultural
strategies in intercultural relations: The case of Ethio- communication research. In T. K. Nakayama and R. T.
76 Part I / Foundations of Intercultural Communication

Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural Sandel, T. L., Yueh, H-I. S., & Lu, P-Y. (2017). Some
communication (pp. 190–215). Malden, MA: Wiley- distinctive Taiwanese communication practices and
Blackwell. their cultural meanings. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Hand-
Miike, Y. (2017). Non-western theories of communication: book of communication in cross-cultural perspective
Indigenous ideas and insights. In L. Chen (Ed.), Hand- (pp. 118–129). NYC: Routledge.
book of intercultural communication (pp. 67–97). Berlin, Schwartz, L. (2018). The history and promise of machine
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. translation. In I. Lacruz & R. Jääskeläinen, eds.
Miike, Y. (2004). Rethinking humanity, culture and com- (pp. 161–190). Innovation and expansion in translation
munication: Asiacentric critiques and contributions. process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Human Communication, 7, 69–82. Shin, Y., & Hecht, M. L. (2018). Communication theory
Miike, Y. (2007). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric of identity. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.). International encyclo-
bias in communication theory. Communication pedia of intercultural communication (pp. 1–9). New
­Monographs, 74(2), 272–278. Jersey, NJ: Wiley.
Mols, F., & Jetten, J. (2014). No guts, no glory: How fram- Shome, R., & Hegde, R. (2002). Postcolonial approaches
ing the collective past paves the way for anti-immigrant to communication: Charting the terrain, engaging the
sentiments. International Journal of Intercultural Rela- intersections. Communication Theory, 12, 249–270.
tions, 43, 74–86. Singer, M. R. (1987). Intercultural communication: A per-
Moon, D. (1999). White enculturation and bourgeois ide- ceptual approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
ology: The discursive production of ‘good (white) girls’. Singhal, A., & Dearing, J. W. (Eds.). (2006). Communica-
In T. K. Nakayama, & J. N. Martin (Eds.), Whiteness: tion of innovations: A journey with Ev Rogers. Thousand
The communication of social identity (pp. 177–197). Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research
Moon, D. (2010). Critical reflections on culture and criti- and indigenous peoples. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
cal intercultural communication. In T. K. Nakayama, Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural
& R. K. Halualani (Eds)., The handbook of critical patterns: A cross-cultural perspective (Rev. ed.). Yar-
intercultural communication (pp. 34–58). Malden, MA: mouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Wiley-Blackwell. Swarns, R. (2002, May 5). France returns old remains to
Mounting concerns about treatment of LGBTQ asylum- homeland. The Arizona Republic, p. A28.
seekers (2019, July 8). CQ Magazine. Tam, L. (2018, July 15). How Chinese couples find it hard
Nakayama, T. K., & Halualani, R. T. (Eds.) (2010). Hand- to show their emotions, and why saying ‘I love you’
book of critical intercultural communication. Malden, is so important. Retrieved December 29, 2019, from
MA: Blackwell Publishing. [Link]
Neuliep, J. W., & Johnson, M. (2016). A cross-cultural com- /2155172/how-chinese-couples-find-it-hard-show-their
parison of Ecuadorian and United States face, facework, -emotions-and-why
and conflict styles during interpersonal conflict: An Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated
application of face-negotiation theory. Journal of face-negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), The-
International & Intercultural Communication, orizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71–92).
9(1), 1–19. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Orbe, M. (1998). Constructing co-cultural theory: An expli- Ting-Toomey, S. (2010). Applying dimensional values in
cation of culture, power and communication. Thousand understanding intercultural communication. Communi-
Oaks, CA: Sage. cation Monographs, 77(2), 169–180.
Robertson, E. C. J. (2016, Aug. 29). Kiswahili to become Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K. K., Shapiro, R. B.,
an official language of the East African Community. Garcia, W., Wright, T. J., & Oetzel, J. G. (2000).
[Link]. Retrieved February 4, 2020, from Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in
[Link] four US ethnic groups. International Journal of
language-east-african-community/. Intercultural Relations, 24, 47–81.
Rodriguez, F. A., & Dawkins, M. (2017). Undocu- Urban, E. L., & Orbe, M. P. (2010). Identity gaps of con-
mented Latino youth: Migration experiences and the temporary US immigrants: Acknowledging divergent
challenges of integrating into American society. communicative experiences. Communication
Journal of International Migration and Integration, studies, 61(3), 304–320.
18(2), 419–438. Wilkins, R. (2017). The optimal form and its use in
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New cross-cultural analysis: A British “stiff upper lip” and
York: Free Press. a Finnish matter-of-fact style. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.),
Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of Handbook of communication in cross-cultural perspective
social analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (pp. 129–141). NYC: Routledge.
 Chapter 2 / The Study of Intercultural Communication 77

CREDITS

[page 44, text] P. Brantlinger, quote from “ “Race,” intercultural communication.” Journal of International
writing and difference.” University of Chicago Press. & Intercultural Communication. [page 64, text] Moham-
[page 44, text] R. Swarns, quote from “France returns mad, excerpt from “Student Voices: I think 9/11 is an inter-
old remains to homeland.” The Arizona Republic. cultural issue because what . . . communities around the
[page 45, text] Andrew, excerpt from “Student Voices: world.” Original Work; [page 64, text] R. Shome and R.
As a child, I did not consciously think of myself. . . . Hegde, quote from “Postcolonial approaches to commu-
other than a superficial level.” Original Work; [page 45, nication: Charting the terrain, engaging the intersections.”
text] Juliann, excerpt from “Student Voices: I grew up in Communication Theory. [page 65, text] Liliana, excerpt
northern ­Minnesota and we were very aware . . . people from “Student Voices: I am an engineer, so I think that
probably see me as white.” Original Work; [page 45, text] hypotheses and research are very . . . not like a number.”
M. R. Singer, excerpt from “ Intercultural communication: Original Work; [page 65, text] Matt, excerpt from “Stu-
A perceptual approach.” Prentice-Hall. [page 56, text] dent Voices: I like the interpretive approach. I think that it
Elizabeth, excerpt from “Student Voices: Last summer my is important . . . neither an insider nor an outsider.” Origi-
best friend and I visited Paris for the first time . . . more nal Work; [page 65, text] Andrew, excerpt from “Student
out there to experience.” Original Work; [page 56, text] Voices: Having three different paradigms . . . and that’s just
Carrie, excerpt from “Student Voices: As a sub-culture, human nature.” Original Work; [page 68, text] T. Ambler,
my father was in the military . . . to be a “people person.” M. Witzel & C. Xi, quote from “Doing business in China.”
Original Work; [page 56, text] Charles, excerpt from “Stu- Routledge. [page 70, text] Bob, excerpt from “When I was
dent Voices: My father is a first generation Hispanic who working in the Philippines there . . . getting the clothes
. . . of an incredible work ethic.” Original Work; [page 63, from her.” Original Work; [page 70, text] Jodi, excerpt
text] A. T. De La Garza and K. Ono, quote from “Retheo- from “In the past African Americans have dealt with . . .
rizing adaptation: Differential adaptation and critical just as equal as anyone else.” Original Work.