Cultural competence

Draft

Introduction

This piece attempts to summarize some elements of cultural competence and related concepts, such as cultural intelligence, global competence or global citizenship. Cultural competence also is known as intercultural or cross-cultural competence.

This page also includes a series of sub-pages that include various instruments (surveys, self-assessment questionnaires, rubrics):

• Acculturation index (Ward and Rana-Deuba)
• Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Communication Effectiveness
• Business Cultural Intelligence Quotient
• Cause of culture shock scale
• Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory
• Cross-Cultural Orientation Inventory
• Cultural Competence Assessment Instrument
• Cultural Intelligence Scale
• Defense Language Office Framework for Cross-cultural Competence
• Global Competence Aptitude Assessment
• Integrated Measure of Intercultural Sensitivity
• Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale
• Intercultural Development Inventory
• Intercultural Effectiveness Scale
• Intercultural Knowledge And Competence Value Rubric
• Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory
• Intercultural Sensitivity Scale
• Measurement of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism
• Multicultural Personality Questionnaire
• Satisfaction with life scale
• Self-efficacy scale for adolescents
• Sociocultural Adaptation Scale
• Test to Measure Intercultural Competence
• Vancouver cultural acculturation index
• Global Perspective Inventory items 2012
• cultural intelligence self-assessment
• global competence survey items (Bill Hunter)

Definitions

Cultural competence, i.e. being able to cope with cultural diversity is becoming increasingly important. Cultural competence can been seen as a subset of so-called global competence laying the foundations for "global citizenship".

Cultural competence is a form of literacy, but note that the term "cultural literacy" often seems to refer to simple facts knowledge (history, geography, etc.). The latter can be seen as one of the prerequisites for cultural competence. Interestingly Hirsch et al.'s dictionary of cultural literacy was seen as basis for good information processing

With increasing cultural diversity as a result of globalization, intercultural competence (IC) to interact and to co-exist in multicultural environments is recognized as being very important. (Corder and U-Mackey, 2015).

Cultural competence seems to defined as either a list of attributes (traits, knowledge, attitudes, skills, behavior sets, etc.) of an individual or more simply as the ability to interact effectively with members of foreign cultures. The latter (being able to interact) is related to the former.

Byram (1997) cited by Deardorff (2004) defines interculturual competence as:“Knowledge of others; knowledge of self; skills to interpret and relate; skills to discover and/or to interact; valuing others’ values, beliefs, and behaviors; and relativizing one’s self. Linguistic competence plays a key role”. In Deardorffs (2004:184), Delphi study, the following definition achieved the highest rating: [Intercultural competence is] “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes.”. "Auxiliary" skills identified included “skills to analyze, interpret, and relate as well as skills to listen and observe. Cognitive skills emerged including comparative thinking skills and cognitive flexibility. These skills point to the importance of process in acquiring intercultural competence and the attention that needs to be paid to developing these critical skills”.

Cross et al. (1998), in the context of workplace diversity, laid the foundation of many further studies that have more practical aims: “Cultural competence is a a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency, or among professionals and enables that system, agency, or those professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations”. For exemple, Heyward (2002) cited by Deithl & Prints (2008), defines intercultural literacy as the competencies, understandings, attitudes, language, proficiencies, participation and identities necessary for effective cross-cultural engagement.

Culture itself is difficult to define. Billmann-Mahecha (2003) defines it [translated] in the following way: “Culture can be characterized as a character, knowledge, rule and symbol system that structures on on hand the human action space, and on the other hand is constructed and altered through the implementation of actions and their practice.” In more simple words, it is something that guides our activities, but that is also reshaped by those.

Hunter (2004) argues that “that the most critical step in becoming globally competent is for a person to develop a keen understanding of his/her own cultural norms and expectations: a person should attempt to understand his/her own cultural box before stepping into someone else’s.”

Reasearch and common sense agree that cultural differences do exist. On also can argue that cultures have common traits, and that people are far more similar across cultures than they are different (Spitzberg 2013) . Since people (and not cultures in the abstract) communicate, Spitzberg (p. 432) also argues that “a theory of intercultural communication competence is necessarily a subset of a theory of interpersonal communication competence”. And furthermore: “To the extent that cul­ture plays a role, it plays it through the motivation, knowledge, and skills of the interactants involved”.

The field seems to be divided according to areas of interest and also affiliation to an established field of study. With respect to application, we so far identified the following major areas of research and development:

• Health care
• Higher education (Internationalization of campuses, study abroad, and integration of minorities)
• International business

The first two seem to very popular in the USA and for diverse reasons, one of which is related to minority issues.

Models of cultural competence

Most cultural competence models are either component models, or process models or both. Component models can be hierarchical.

Intercultural commmunication

Intercultural communication competence can be seen as a specialisation of interpersonal communication competence.

According to Deardorff (2004:35), Chen and Starosta (1999) define “intercultural communication competence” as “the ability to effectively and appropriately execute communication behaviors that negotiate each other’s cultural identity or identities in a culturally diverse environment” (p. 28). They outline three key components of intercultural communication competence: intercultural sensitivity (affective process), intercultural awareness (cognitive process), and intercultural adroitness (behavioral process), defined as verbal and nonverbal skills needed to act effectively in intercultural interactions.”.

Deardorff (2004:196) in her PHD thesis and subsequent publications developed a pyramid model that formulates two underlying hypothesis: The degree of intercultural competence depends on the acquired degree of underlying elements, in particular, from personal level (attitudes) to interpersonal/interactive level (outcomes). Darla K. Deardorff's model includes 5 components. Below is summary of a component model presented in Theory Reflections: Intercultural Competence Framework/Model (retrieved Feb 2016).

1. Attitudes: respect, openness, curiosity and discovery. Openness and curiosity imply a willingness to risk and to move beyond one’s comfort zone. Respect demonstrate to others that they are valued.

2. Knowledge: cultural self-awareness, culture-specific knowledge, deep cultural knowledge (including understanding other world views, and sociolinguistic awareness. The most important element is understanding the world from others’ perspectives.

3. Skills (addressing the acquisition and processing of knowledge): observation, listening, evaluating, analyzing, interpreting, and relating.

4. Internal Outcomes: flexibility, adaptability, an ethnorelative perspective and empathy. If attained, individuals are able to see from others’ perspectives and to respond to them according to the way in which the other person desires to be treated.

5. External Outcomes is “the effective and appropriate behavior and communication in intercultural situations.

Between these dimensions there is a dependency. Desired external outcomes rely on desired internal outcomes and the latter rely on skills and knowledge. Skills and knowledge requires requisite attitudes. The full pyramid is shown in the figure below.

            desired external outcome (communicating effectively)
  desired internal outcome (adaptability, flexibility, ethnorelative view, empathy
              Knowledge and comprehension   <--> Skills
         requisite attitudes (respect, openness, curiosity)

Deardorff (2004) pyramid model of cultural competence

This pyramid model then can be turned into a process model. While it is possible to work on desired outcomes directly from attitudes or knowledge/comprehension or skills, it is preferable to start with attitudes, then work on knowledge and comprehension as well as skills, then work on the internal frame of reference.

Deardorff (2004) process model of cultural competence

Since attitude, knowledge, and skill acquisition and creating new frames of reference are tied to experience we also could interpret this model as perpetual cycle that just emphasizes that without having appropriate attitudes, certain knowledge and skill cannot be properly acquired. Useful and operational frames of reference in turn must be grounded in solid knowledge and know-how. Finally effective behavior and communication must be aligned with deeper beliefs.

Derald Wing Sue (2001:abstract) proposed “multidimensional model of cultural competence (MDCC) incorporates three primary dimensions: (a) racial and culture-specific attributes of competence, (b) components of cultural competence, and (c) foci of cultural competence.”

The MDCC allows for the systematic identification of cultural competence [of various US residents or citizens] in a number of different areas. It is a factorial combination of 3 x 4 x 5 items (below).

1. Components: Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills)

2. Foci: Individual, Professional, Organizational, and Societal

3. Racial and culture specific: African American, Asian American, Latino/Hispanic American, Native American, and European American

Aculturation

Aculturation strategies refer to the various ways in which groups and individuals seek to aculture. (Bennet, 2015:3). There are two issures concerning both the dominant and the nondominant group:

1. Maintaining one’s heritage culture and identity (+/-)
2. Seeking relationships to other cultural groups (+/-)

Combining the two dimensions we can define four strategies of ethnocultural groups and for larger societies.

Strategies of ethnocultural groups (e.g. ones that migrate)

		Issue 1: Maintenance of heritage culture and identity
		+	-
Issue 2: Relationships sought among groups	+	Integration	Assimilation
	-	Separation	Marginalization

Strategies of the larger society (expectations of the dominant one)

		Issue 1: Maintenance of heritage culture and identity
		+	-
Issue 2: Relationships sought among groups	+	Integration	Assimilation
	-	Separation	Marginalization

Acculturation has been measured with survey instruments, in particular by John Berry and associates. Ward and Rana-Deuba distinguish between 21 dimensions and a related questionnaire includes both attitudes and behavioral items

The simpler Cultural competence/Vancouver cultural acculturation index includes only 21 items

Van Selm et al. (1997) conducted a study of life satisfaction and competence of Bosnian refugees in Norway . The questionnaire include the following components: Locus of control scale, acculturation attitude scale, majority attitude scale, social support scale, life satisfaction scale and competence scale.

Cultural development

Cultural development theories understand cultural competence as something that has to be developed in stages. Most often the stages include at early stages cultural knowledge and awareness, followed by cultural sensitivity and ending with cultural competency as "knowing in action".

Wells (2000), summarizes several models and then presents her own that we shall present below.

The Cultural Competence Continuum (Cross, Bazron, Dennis, and Isaac, 1989) includes six stages ranging from cultural destructiveness (attitudes and behaviors that have a damaging or destructive effect on people of other cultures) to cultural proficiency (extension of cultural competence to professional practice, teaching, and research). These stages have been summarized in Stages and Levels of Cultural Competency Development as follows:

1. Destructiveness: Attitudes, policies and practices destructive to other cultures; purposeful destruction and dehumanization of other cultures; assumption of cultural superiority; eradication of other cultures; or exploitation by dominant groups. The complete erosion of one's culture by contact with another is rare in today's society.
2. Incapacity: Unintentional cultural destructiveness; a biased system, with a paternal attitude toward other groups; ignorance, fear of other groups and cultures; or discriminatory practices, lowering expectations and devaluing of groups.
3. Blindness: The philosophy of being unbiased; the belief that culture, class or color makes no difference, and that traditionally used approaches are universally applicable; a well-intentioned philosophy, but still an ethnocentric approach.
4. Pre-Competence: The realization of weaknesses in working with other cultures;implementation of training, assessment of needs, and use of diversity criteria when hired; desire for inclusion, commitment to civil rights; includes the danger of a false sense of accomplishment and tokenism.
5. Competence: Acceptance and respect for differences; continual assessment of sensitivity to other cultures; expansion of knowledge; and hiring a diverse and unbiased staff.
6. Proficiency: Cultures are held in high esteem; constant development of new approaches; seeking to add to knowledge base; advocates for cultural competency with all systems and organizations.

The Cultural Sophistication Framework (Orlandi, 1992) has three stages: cultural incompetence, cultural sensitivity, and cultural competence. Each stage consists of four dimensions: cognitive, affective, skills, and overall effect.

The Cultural Competent Model of Care (Campinha-Bacote, Yahle, and Langenkamp, 1996) is process oriented and includes cultural awareness, cultural knowledge, and cultural encounter.

Her own CDM model, applied to the health domain, includes six stages and includes a cognitive phase and an affective phase.

Cultural development model- Wells (2000)

Cognitive Phase				Affective Phase
Cultural Incompetence	Cultural Knowledge	Cultural Awareness		Cultural Sensitivity	Cultural Competence	Cultural Proficiency
A lack of knowledge of the cultural implications of health behavior	Learning the elements of culture and their role in shaping and defining health behavior	Recognizing and understanding the cultural implications of health behavior		The integration of cultural knowledge and awareness into individual and institutional behavior	The routine application of culturally appropriate health care interventions and practices	The integration of cultural competence into the culture of the organization and into professional practice, teaching, and research. Mastery of the cognitive and affective phases of cultural development.

Wells (200), argues that “cultural awareness, cultural sensitivity, and cultural competence do not achieve the level of cultural development necessary to meet the health care needs of a diverse population” and she defines barriers to cultural development: “The primary barrier to progression, ultimately change toward cultural proficiency, is the unwillingness of individuals and institutions to unearth, examine, and shed light on their underlying assumptions about people whose cultures differ from their own. These underlying assumptions are often undiscussed, unconscious, and unexamined. However, they define, shape, and prescribe individual and organizational behavior in relation to cultural diversity (Thomas, 1991).”

In more simple terms, she seems to argue that learning about other cultures and appropriate behavior does not automatically lead to transfer to practice (behavioural change). A main strategy to achieve cultural proficiency is more practice under mentorship of someone that is culturally proficient.

Papadopoulos, Tilki and Taylor (1988) proposed a similar model, also for the health care area Model for Developing Cultural Competence.

Cultural competence development model. Papadopoulos, Tilki and Taylor (1988)

This model for Developing Cultural Competence comprises four stages. The description below is adapted and shortened from IENE project, retrieved March 16 2016)

• The first stage is cultural awareness, which begins with an examination of our personal value base and beliefs.
• Cultural knowledge is the second stage and can be gained in a number of ways. Meaningful contact with people from different ethnic groups can enhance knowledge around their beliefs and behaviours as well as raise understanding around the problems they face. In addition one could read sociological or anthropological studies.
• The third stage is achieving cultural sensitivity, i.e. how people are viewed. Dalrymple and Burke (1995) have stated that unless clients are considered as true partners, culturally sensitive care is not being achieved. Equal partnerships involve trust, acceptance and respect as well as facilitation and negotiation.
• The fourth stage, cultural competence requires the synthesis and application of previously gained awareness, knowledge and sensitivity. Further focus is given to practical skills such as assessment of needs, clinical diagnosis and other caring skills.

Cultural adjustment and culture shock

Authors investigating adjustement and "culture shock" and suggest a model where development is not linear progress.

Berado (2012), defines four R's of culture change, cultural adjustment model that identifies five key changes: routines, reactions, roles, relationships and reflections about oneself that we face when we move across cultures.

• Routines are different for many things
• Reactions one receives for doing something can change. Ways people work and interact are different.
• One's roles in a different culture are not the same (e.g. being a "foreigner")
• Relationships will change, firstly with expats but then there will be new and new types of relationships
• Reflections about oneself change as certain habits are picked up or we start thinking explicitly vlaues (evolving and devolving)

Lysgaard (1995) defined a U-curve model: Honeymoon, culture shock, recovery and adjustment. Black and Mendenhall (1991) argue that the U-curve adjustment model may not be universal. Pedersen, in the five stages of culture shock presented a similar model: honeymoon stage, disintegration stage, reintegration stage, autonomy stage and interdependence stage.

As a practical example we reproduce a "W-curve" found in a culture shock page made for "study abroad" students.

Cultural adjustment curve. Source: Davidson college

Cultural and cross-cultural psychology

Triandis (1996:abstract) “An examination of a range of definitions of culture indicates that almost all researchers agree that culture is reflected in shared cognitions, standard operating procedures, and unexamined assumptions. Cultural syndromes consist of shared shared attitudes, beliefs, norms, role and self definitions, and values of members of each culture that are organized around a theme.”

Cultural psychology, after the rise of cognitivism, seems to have become a somewhat forgotten science (Allolio-Näcke, 2005). On the other hand, cultural dimensions are central to ethnology, anthropology, (cognitive) linguistics, literature critique, etc., i.e. disciplines that put emphasis on "sense" and "meaning".

According to Doris Weidemann (2001) , “investigation of intercultural interactions has demonstrated that individual psychological processes show distinct cultural patterns and, more important, that communication across cultural gaps often meets with difficulties.” She also adds, that “Communication across cultural divides is usually described as difficult and often results in misunderstandings and failure to achieve individual or even common goals. This is especially true for persons transferring to a different cultural context, as overseas students, expatriate managers or immigrants do, and adaptation to the new cultural environment can be frustrating and painful.”

In that context, literacies (not just cultural ones) cannot be compared in an abstract way or with respect to one culture, but rather as a predictor for a successful life in a given culture. This principle applies for example when comparing school systems. “Nur in dem Falle, "dass innerhalb eines jeden Landes, die erfassten Kompetenzen zur Vorhersage einer erfolgreichen Lebensführung beitragen", könnte das literacy-Konzept als tertium comparationis fungieren. In vielen Ländern aber spielt es keine bzw. nur eine untergeordnete Rolle, so dass "der Ausgang einer solchen Validitätsprüfung wahrscheinlich zu einer kulturellen Gruppierung der Funktionalität der Grundkompetenzen führen wird";” (Hermann-Günter Hesse, cited by Allolio-Näcke, 2005).

Cultural intelligence

Cultural intelligence (Ang & Van Dyne: 2008; Livermore: 2009) seems to be a way of defining cross-cultural competence and is developed in the business and military community. In business, it also is known as cultural quotient (CQ) in analogy to the Intelligent quotient (IQ). It is the ability to cope with other cultures.

Earley and Mosakowsky (2004) as someone's “natural ability to interpret someone's unfamiliar and ambiguous gestures in just the way that person's compatriots and colleagues would, even to mirror them.”. The authors distinguish three components: Cognitive CQ (head), Physical CQ (body) and Emotional/motivational CQ (heart).

Cultural intelligence seems to be natural to some people but can be effectively trained and measured, e.g. Earley and Mosakowsky suggest six steps, starting with their Cultural competence/cultural intelligence self-assessment instrument that includes 12 items.

Workplace diversity and international business

See also other sections, in particular the ones about assessment.

Simple models of cultural difference

Models of cultural difference are popular in management and management education since corporations do have to deal with different cultures.

Triadis (1966

Triadis , worked on "cultural syndroms". These are defined as patterns of of shared attitudes, beliefs, categorizations, self-definitions, norms, role definitions, and values that is organized around a theme that can be identified among those who speak a particular language, during a specific historic period, and in a definable geographic region. Examples identified in the 1966 article are:

• Tightness: Some cultures have many norms that are tightly applied as opposed to those who have few norms and that are loosely applied. Norms are situational, i.e. applied to certain domains, however, there also is an overall density of norms
• Cultural complexity: The number of different cultural elements can vary a lot, e.g. hunters and gatherers identify 20 "job" roles and information societies have hundreds of thousands.
• Active-passive: first described by Diaz-Guerrero (1967), “includes a number of active (e.g., competition, action, and self-fulfillment) and passive (e.g., reflective thought, leave the initiative to others, and cooperation) elements.”
• Collectivism: The self is described as an aspect of a collective entity and personal goals are subordinated to collective goals. Social behavior is ruled by norms, duties and obligations.
• Individualism: “The self is defined as independent and autonomous from collectives. Personal goals are given priority over the goals of collectives”
• Vertical and horizontal relationships: In some cultures hierarchy is very important, including within groups.

At the time of writing, Triadis, stated that “The number of syndromes for an adequate description of cultural differences is at this time unknown. It s hoped that a dozen or a score of syndromes, to be identified in the future, will account for most of the interesting, reliable cultural differences. There is also the problem that syndromes are somewhat related to each other. For example, tight, passive, simple cultures are likely to be more collectivist; loose, active, complex cultures are likely to be more individualistic. The higher these correlations, the less does any one syndrome provide independent information about cultural differences”. “Collectivism is maximal when a society is low in complexity and tight; individualism is maximal when a society is complex and loose” (p. 412)

Syndroms like individualism and collectivism can be defined by underlying attributes. Triadis (1995) suggests the meaning of self, the structure of goals, the function of norms and attributes to define behaviour, focus on the needs of the ingroup or social exchange. Moreover he identified about 60 attributes in total found in collectivist of individualist cultures.

Individualism and collectivism are relative and manifest in all cultures. In addition these traits appear combined with horizontalism and verticalism. {{quotation|Tt is possible to identify attitude items that measure horizontal-vertical, collectivism-individualism (Singelis,Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995). “The use of a particular pattern is likely to be culture-specific. Thus, in a specific culture, in some situations, people will be vertical collectivists (VC), in others, vertical individualists (VI); in some situations people may be horizontal collectivists (HC), and in others, horizontal individualists (HI).” From these tendencies one can construct profiles and distribution of scores within a culture could define it.

• Cultural competence/Measurement of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism items.

Hampden Turner and Trompenaars (1993)

According to Darlene Brannigan Smith et al. in the Seven Cultures of Capitalism, Hampden Turner and Trompenaars (1993:11) suggest that different countries champion different value propositions for creating effective organization.

• Universalism (call for universally applicable law and order) vs. particularism (allow for personal indulgence and idiosyncrasies),
• anlyzing (demand for facts and attention purely on the bottom line) vs. integrating (viewing everything within the context),
• individualism (applaud individuals for singular performance) vs. communitarianism (organization, groups and community above else),
• inner directed (self-starter) vs. outer-directed (approaching groupthink) orientation,
• time as sequence (time is money) vs. time as synchronization (all for one),
• achieved status (working hard to achieve) vs. ascribed status (status because of power), and
• equality (all get an even break) vs. hierarchy (some people are more important because of their hierarchical authority).

Inglehart and Welzel

Inglehart and Welzel identify two major dimensions of cross cultural variation in the world:

• Traditional values versus Secular-rational values and
• Survival values versus Self-expression values.

Using data from the World values survey, the authors created a well-known cultural map of the world where positions with respect to these two dimensions are overlayed with "nominal" criteria (e.g. religion, or geography). The map below is a modified version of the original made for Wikipedia by an unknown author.

Inglehart–Welzel values map (source: Wikipedia)

Hofstede

Hofstede distinguishes five or six dimensions of national cultures. Each of these is defined by a list of criteria. Hofstede (2011) , summaries these dimensions:

1. Power Distance, related to the different solutions to the basic problem of human inequality;

2. Uncertainty Avoidance, related to the level of stress in a society in the face of an unknown future;

3. Individualism versus Collectivism, related to the integration of individuals into primary groups;

4. Masculinity versus Femininity, related to the division of emotional roles between women and men;

5. Long Term versus Short Term Orientation, related to the choice of focus for people's efforts: the future or the present and past.

6. Indulgence versus Restraint, related to the gratification versus control of basic human desires related to enjoying life.

Wikipedia, based on Hofstede (2011) provides a nice summary.

National cultures are not identical to organizational or individual cultures. E.g. within a same town one can find companies that adopt a very different organizational-cultural model. The same is true for individuals. However, national (or even supra-national) cultures doe influence organizational and individual ones.

Instruments to measure cultural diversity and competence of individuals

There exist both quantitative and qualitative instruments. These instruments were created to learn about people's representations and not to assess cultural competence (whatever that means). Many researchers seems to agree that (at least for now) measuring cultural competence requires a mixed methods approach. Below we shall describe a few instruments that allow observing and systematizing cultures.

World Values Survey

According to Wikipedia, “The World Values Survey (WVS) is a global research project that explores people’s values and beliefs, how they change over time and what social and political impact they have. It is carried out by a worldwide network of social scientists who, since 1981, have conducted representative national surveys in almost 100 countries. The WVS measures, monitors and analyzes: support for democracy, tolerance of foreigners and ethnic minorities, support for gender equality, the role of religion and changing levels of religiosity, the impact of globalization, attitudes toward the environment, work, family, politics, national identity, culture, diversity, insecurity, and subjective well-being.”

The WVS started in 1981 and is now governed by the World Values Survey Association, based in Stockholm. The 6th wave started in 2008 and was finished in 2014, and the 7th is planned for 2017-2018.

Structure Formation Technique

Structure formation technique is a qualitative method that attemps to elicit representation structures.

Weideman's (2001) study focuses on subjective theories hold by German Immigrants in Taiwan and that can be verbally explicated and reconstructed by way of dialogue between researcher and participant. The research method goes through the following steps:

• A semi-standardized interview that will try to elicit the contents of the subjective theories
• A visualization of the theory structure ,using representational rules of the Heidelberg structure formation technique, (Heidelberger Strukturlegetechnik, SCHEELE & GROEBEN, 1988)

Based on this Heidelberg structure formation technique, she developed a set of interview questions and rules for representing the theory.: “a differentiation was made according to the outcome of actions (face gained or face lost) and the person concerned (self or other).” The combination of these two dimensions will define four semantic fields, namely a) to lose face, b) to gain face, c) to hurt the other person's face, d) to give the other person face.

Results then can be represented graphically, for example like this:

Part of a subjective theory structure on "face" (reproduced from Weidemann, 2001)

Arts-Informed Research

Arts-informed research uses artistic productions to elicit representations.

Over the last decade, a growing number of social scientists have become interested in visual methodologies. On could distinguish between "researcher created", "respondent generated" and "found" visual data. Visual arts can be found in all three.

Guruge et al. (2015) describe an arts-informed technique “to understand the changes in refugee youth's roles and responsibilities in the family within the (re)settlement context in Canada. The study involved 57 newcomer youths from Afghan, Karen, or Sudanese communities in Toronto, who had come to Canada as refugees. The data collection method embedded a drawing activity within focus group discussions.”

This study also included eight refugee youth peer researchers from the three communities. In line with community-based participatory research principles, {{quotation|Peer researchers received three months of research training and were actively involved in paid capacity in all phases of the study, including research design, data collection, data analysis, and writing. Guruge et al. (2015:[14]) describe the elicitation process as follows:

Each participant was invited to draw two pictures:

1. one depicting pre-migration roles and responsibilities,
2. and the second depicting post-migration roles and responsibilities.

The participants were given flip chart paper and color pens, and 10 to 15 minutes to complete the activity. The drawings were then displayed on the walls around the room. Each participant was asked to briefly present her/his drawing to the group. Once all participants had their individual turns reflecting on and explaining their drawings to the group, the floor was open to all for reflection and clarification of the drawings within the group. This was followed by a semi-structured focus group discussion of roles and responsibilities in which participants were encouraged to refer to their drawings wherever appropriate. In a later part of the focus group discussion, the youths were also asked to list the services they had used and the services they needed on sticky notes, which were added to the flip chart drawings.

A key lesson learnt was that adequate time and opportunities must be given to participants to (1) create the drawings, (2) to interpret and discuss the drawings and (3) to complete or change the drawings as a result of group discussions. Facilitators must attempt to clarify and expand links between drawings and discussions.

According to the authors [paragraph 38], “The multiple data collection methods (i.e., drawings and individual reflections on them, and focus group discussions) we used in this study were complementary: the drawings provided unique insights into certain aspects of their lives. For example, the magnitude of the difference in youth's (built and natural) environments came up in the drawings that were not discussed in the focus groups. The sense of cohesion versus scattered and chaotic patterns in the drawings is also interesting. On the other hand, the focus group discussions provided unique information on other aspects of their lives, such as racism. In addition, the drawings also provided more contextual information that enriched the understanding gained from the focus groups.”

Before and after drawing by Participant 3 in the Afghan female 16-19 years focus group

Data analysis and interpretation involved several levels of analysis and was based on participant's own explanations:

1. a reflective dialogue between each participant and his own drawing
2. a group dialogue concerning all the drawings of the group
3. reflections of the peer (refugee youth) researchers from each group in response to questions about (1) and (2) from the rest of the research team
4. the research teams reflections across the three groups

A list of themes and supporting excerpts was finally established in the form of a table.

Somewhat similar research was conducted by Frey and Cross (2011) on overcoming poor youth stigmatization and invisibility through art. Initially, a more traditional plan was to conduct interviews with various stakeholders, then creating focus groups, and finally a joint work on a common video to trigger dialogue with other actors. The team then found out the dramatization and video could (and did) have a more important role “We discovered that the inclusion of dramatization and video had three main effects: first, they favored the involvement of the young men and women; second, they allowed them to share their experiences, formerly blocked by stigmatization processes; third, they were a potent instrument to make their perspectives visible to other social actors concerned by this problematic (teachers, government officers, parents).” Frey and Cross (2011:69)

Tristan Bruslé's (2010) research examines the place that Nepalese immigrant workers occupy in Qatar. Visual images, mainly photographs, are use as one of the research tools to illustrate the divided nature of society.

“I have tried to put forward the hypothesis that photographs are not just an illustration, but that social realities can indeed be understood through pictures. The building of places, from collective spaces to very private ones, clearly stands out in the pictures. The use of pictures to analyze social and spatial division in Qatar has enabled me to grasp some realities that I had either overlooked or not fully understood. While carrying out fieldwork, and particularly new fieldwork, the researcher is continually bombarded with a flow of information, making it at times difficult to focus on everything of interest. Pictures are therefore a way of focusing on detail, especially in a migrant's room, which might not necessarily have been studied while talking to migrants. Looking at pictures taken in an almost random way is also a way of reactivating one's memory. Distant places, emotions and memories come to life when perusing pictures. Things that were not first noticed when the photograph was actually taken, but were "discovered" thanks to a careful study and comparison of pictures, come across as important and make sense. A juxtaposition of scenes has helped me identify common points between places. Moreover, pictures have helped me show the different levels of spatial segregation, from the town to the migrant's bed. Images of walls and of physical separation may prove to be speaker louder than mere words in making the reader realize what segregation really is. Indeed, pictures can play the role of backing up research and be a valuable tool in that they convey large amounts of information that would sometimes be harder to explain verbally.” (Bruslé's, 2010, [29])

Map making

Having individuals draw maps of their environments can help to understand how their environment is structures in terms of various opportunities and social relations.

Olga den Besten (2010) studied social and spatial divisions (urban segregation). Her study “explores children's and young people's experiences in two socially contrasted neighbourhoods in Berlin through subjective maps drawn by the children.”

“Children were asked to produce two maps: first, to draw their way home from school and all the objects that attracted their attention on the way. This task was chosen because all the children went to school, so the way home from school was their everyday, routine trajectory (see also ROSS, 2007). Coming back home from school was chosen because of the supposedly more relaxed, unhurried character of this trajectory and more opportunities for deviations from this way, like, for example, popping in to shops or playing in a park after classes. Second, the children were asked to draw their "neighbourhood" or "territory", i.e. a city area which they knew rather well and where they "felt at home". This drawing activity was done at school during one lesson.” (den Besten: 2010: [13]).

In addition, children were asked to place four types of emoticons on the maps: (1) A heart symbol to mark places they like, (2) a big dot for places where they hang out, (3) a cross inside a circle for places they disliked and (4) a square for places they fear.

Drawing 2b (by a Turkish boy aged 12 in Kreuzberg) shows his "way to school" with the school in the foreground, the building where he lives and a park that he likes, as well as a disco and a nightclub marked with the "emoticon" of dislike. Reproduced from den Besten (2010)

Results showed that the children's socio-spatial worlds were different in the two segregated areas of the city. Generally, drawings from children of the advantaged area are comparatively more elaborated, show a larger space, more places for activities, a denser network of friends, and so forth. This also reflects the situation that advantaged children have more access to extra curricular activities and therefore for personal development.

• 

  A map of her "subjective territory" by a 13-year-old German-American girl from the school in Zehlendorf. Reproduced from den Besten (2010)

• 

  Drawing 3a (by a Turkish boy aged 14 in Kreuzberg) features a youth club and a football field. Reproduced from den Besten (2010)

Instruments to measure cultural competence of organization and its members

The following tools rather focus on organizations and are mostly self-evaluation tools to help reshape their policies and training. Overall, there roughly seem to be three types of individual competences:

• The competence to understand oneself
• The competence to understand another culture
• The competence to intervene

Cultural competence self-assessment questionnaire

The Cultural competence self-assessment questionnaire (CCSAQ) Mason (1995), is designed to help health agencies cope with cultural difference, i.e. to assess their need for cultural competence training.

“In response to the growing body of literature promoting culturally competent systems of care, the Portland Research and Training Center developed the Cultural Competence Self-Assessment Questionnaire (CCSAQ). The CCSAQ is based on the Child and Adolescent Service System Program (CASSP) Cultural Competence Model (Cross, et al., 1989). This model describes competency in terms of four dimensions: attitude, practice, policy, and structure. The instrument helps child- and family-serving agencies assess their cross-cultural strengths and weaknesses in order to design specific training activities or interventions that promote greater competence across cultures” (Mason: 1995).

This manual publishes two variants of the questionnaire. One for assessing cultural competence training needs of mental health and human service professionals and the other to assess cultural competence training needs of human services organizations and staff.

TOCAR Collaborative Campus and Community Climate Survey for Students

The TOCAR Collaborative Campus and Community Climate Survey forStudents includes 25 questions and was made by Training Our Campuses Against Racism' (TOCAR) chapters at North Dakota State University, Concordia College, Minnesota State Community and Technical College, and Minnesota State University Moorhead.

The Culturual Competence Assessment Tool (CCAT)

The Cultural Competence Assessment Tool (CCAT), made by the Boston Public Health Commission is an answer to the 2001 United States Department of Health and Human Services Office ofMinority Health (OMH) issued National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care (CLAS).

“The Cultural Competence Assessment Tool (CCAT) contains three sections – each focuses on a key component in the provision of culturally competent health care. [...] The first section of the tool assesses organizational cultural competence in health care leadership, staffing, and community involvement. The second section assesses cultural competence in the institution’s delivery of health care. The third section assesses cross-cultural communication at the institution” (Cultural Competence Assessment Tool).

Cultural competence Checklist: Personal reflection

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2010) created a one-page checklist that was developed to “o heighten your awareness of how you view clients/patients from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) populations.”

Quality and culture quiz

Quality and Culture Quiz is a self-evaluation quiz that targets members of the health community.

The Cultural and Linguistic Competence Family Organization Assessment (CLCFOA)

Made by the National Center for Cultural Competence, the The Cultural and Linguistic Competence Family Organization Assessment (CLCFPA) survey was made to help family organizations concerned with children and youth disorders and disabilities. It requires approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. It consists of four sections: Our World View, Who We Are, What We Do, and How We Work. As several others of its kind, this survey helps to identify an organizational culture.

Teaching intercultural literacy

General principles

Deborah Corder and Alice U-Mackey (2015) argue that educating intercultural literacy is very challenging. Cognitive aims (e.g. learners being able to pass an exam) can be met, however, meeting affective and behavioral goals might be much more difficult. According to the authors, “research shows that the development of IC is a complex process that involves cognitive, metacognitive, affective and behavioural development, and has to be intentionally developed over time (Ehrenreich 2006; Stier 2006; Crossman 2011; Deardorff 2011). As Perry and Southwell (2011) and Witte (2011) point out, there is increasing evidence that the normal classroom or lecture context with a cognitive orientation alone cannot provide the environment for learners to develop the necessary competencies. Nor will IC automatically develop by just encountering other cultures whether in the classroom, through study abroad, overseas holidays, the workplace or social settings.”

Intercultural diversity is an important component of global citizenship. Vadura (2007: 17) argues that “The knowledge, skills and values that international studies graduates gain need now more than ever to reflect understanding of social responsibility and cultural inclusivity, embodied in the concept of global citizenship.”

Johanna E. Crossman led a qualitative study that aimed to “discover how undergraduate and culturally diverse students experienced a collaborative, international, online, experiential project to learn about intercultural communication. Student participants in the study endorsed experiential learning in culturally diverse groups about intercultural communication through intercultural communication.”. The study involved students from Australia, international students from Asia (in Australia) and students from the Netherlands. The task was to “to respond to a case study that concerned a franchisor in Australia considering two expressions of interest from potential franchisees in the Netherlands and Hong Kong.”. More specificially, members of the these three populations were required to act as "communication consultants" to advise the fanchisor of any potential intercultrual communication implications between the Australian organisation and the Dutch and Asian franchise. In other words, each type of student had to play and reflect upon his own cultural inheritage.

In this context, the author found that “learning about intercultural communication through intercultural communication is a powerful activity that responds to the need for learning approaches that internationalise the business curriculum in universities and develop global citizenship. The capacity of the experiential project appeared to engage students in ways that seemed to be perceived as authentic and relevant to their lives and work. The study has also illuminated how participants try to make sense of intercultural communication by juxtaposing personal experience with theoretical literature. Whilst stereotyping did occur, the observation can be used in the design of future activities so that the potential for meta-cognitive approaches can be developed further through asking questions about what stereotyping is and how, why and under what circumstances individuals might engage in it, particularly when tension and conflict exists in intercultural communication and indeed, culturally diverse learning contexts.”

The cultural development model

Marcia (2000) presents a cultural development model (CDM) that summarizes other models,

Lay theories

Before teaching intercultural competence, it may be interesting to see how people view cultural difficulties. Goldstein and Keller (2015) analyzed U.S. college students’ lay theories of culture shock. Results show that “Students’ beliefs differ significantly from those of intercultural experts. In contrast to the A, B, C model of culture shock which represents the scope of academic theories across affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains, college students’ lay theories emphasize the behavioral, or culture learning, approach over affective and cognitive components of culture shock. [..] Although some of the minimally endorsed internal causes of culture shock deserve such a rating (for example, the outdated and unsubstantiated notion that culture shock is due to emotional instability), other low rated causes warrant greater attention from potential sojourners, including those involving stress management, social support, identity confusion, and prejudice.” (Goldstein & Keller, 2015).

Strategies and tactics

• Roles games
• Cultural infusion activities, e.g. scavenger Hunts

Assessment of cultural competence

Besides trying to represent, summarize, visualize and compare different cultural representations, research also attempts to quantify cultural competence with psycho-metric tools. Education, for example is interested to measure learning within a student population that takes part in an internationalization program.

According to the Sage Encylopedia of Intercultural competence (2015:18), “Most of the existing intercultural competence tools, which usually fall into the indirect-evidence category [i.e. the perception of learning by the participants themselves], consist of some sort of questionnaire or inventory. These can generally be categorized into two broad categories: (1) external: cultural difference and (2) internal: personality traits/predispositions/adaptability. Most of these rely on the respondent’s perspective as the basis of the data collecte”.

Intercultural Knowledge And Competence Value Rubric

The association fo American Colleges and Universities developed an Intercultural Knowledge And Competence Value Rubric.

The authors, citing Bennett, (2008) define Intercultural Knowledge and Competence as “a set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills and characteristics that support effective and appropriate interaction in a variety of cultural contexts.”

“The intercultural knowledge and competence rubric suggests a systematic way to measure our capacity to identify our own cultural patterns, compare and contrast them with others, and adapt empathically and flexibly to unfamiliar ways of being”

This rubric is informed by two sources, Bennett's Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity and D.K. Deardorff's intercultural framework model .

The rubric is reproduced here.

intercultural communication sensitivity scale

Chen and Starosta (2000) developed an instrument to measure intercultural communication sensitivity. Its construction was conducted in three stages: (a) a pre-study to generate items (b) a factor analysis on 73 items found and (c) 24 items forming 5 factors were extracted:

• Interaction Engagement
• Respect for Cultural Differences
• Interaction Confidence
• Interaction Enjoymnent
• Interaction Attentiveness items

Fritz, Möllenberg and Chen (2002) , conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of the Chen and Starosta instrument and confirmed the validity of the overall structure of the instrument, but noticed some minor weaknesses.

A copy of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale published by Fritz et al. is here

Intercultural effectivenes scale (IES)

Portalla and Chen

“Based on a review of the literature, 76 items important for intercultural effectiveness were generated. A total of 653 college students rated these items in two separate stages and generated a 20-item final version of the instrument which contains six factors.” (Portalla and Chen: 2010:21)

In a literature review, the authors identified several components that could accound for interculturally effective behaviors: “message skills, interaction management, behavioral flexibility, identity management, and relationship cultivation (Chen,1989, 2005; Martin & Hammer, 1989; Ruben, 1977; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009).”

The Intercultural Effectivemeness Scale (IES) is here

Intercultural development inventory

“Bennett (1986, 1993b) posited a framework for conceptualizing dimensions of intercultural competence in his developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS). [...] Three ethnocentric orientations, where one's culture is experienced as central to reality (Denial, Defense, Minimization), and three ethnorelative orientations, where one's culture is experienced in the context of other cultures (Acceptance, Adaptation, Integration), are identified in the DMIS.” Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman (2003)

The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) was constructed to measure the orientations toward cultural differences described in the DMIS.

Global Competence Aptitude assessment (GCAA)

Hunter et al. (2006) define global competence broadly as “Having an open mind while actively seeking to understand cultural norms and expectations of others, leveraging this gained knowledge to interact, communicate and work effectively outside one’s environment,” (Hunter, 2004).

A panel of 17 experts participated in a Delphi survey in order to elicit a definition of "global competence" and a "Global Competence Checklist". The majority of participants either were experts in international education or human resources in companies. Hunter (2014:115) developed a Global Competency Check List that includes three sections:

1. Knowledge

• An understanding of one's own cultural norms and expectations An understanding of cultural norms and expectations of others An understanding of the concept of "globalization"
• Knowledge of current world events
• Knowledge of world history

2. Skills/Experiences:

• Successful participation on project-oriented academic or vocational experience with people from other cultures and traditions
• Ability to assess intercultural performance in social or business settings
• Ability to live outside one's own culture
• Ability to identify cultural differences in order to compete globally
• Ability to collaborate across cultures
• Effective participation in social and business settings anywhere in the world

3. Attitudes: Recognition that one's own worldview is not universal

• Willingness to step outside of one's own culture and experience life as "the other"
• Willingness to take risks in pursuit of cross-cultural learning and personal development
• Openness to new experiences, including those that could be emotionally challenging Coping with different cultures and attitudes.
• A non-judgmental reaction to cultural difference
• Celebrating diversity

A related "Determining Global Competence" survey was made and according to Hunter (21006) distributed to 133 representatives and about 40 companies involved or interested by this issue. A copy of the items is here.

Revised versions of these tools are now commercially available through Global Competence Aptitude Assessment. The underlying component model can by represented as a circle, based on the following hierarchy (inside out)

                           Self-awareness
          Risk taking + open-mindedness + attentiveness to diversity
                   Global Awareness + Historical perspective
           Intercultural capability + collaboration across cultures

Global Perspective Inventory (GPI)

The GPI has been developed in the context of internationalizing campuses, i.e. “the process of infusing an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, function, or delivery of postsecondary education” (Knight, 2003, pp. 2-3).” (cited by Braskamp: 2009:1)

“The Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) assesses a global and holistic view of student learning and development and the importance of the campus environment in fostering holistic student development. The GPI measures how students think, view themselves as people with cultural heritage, and relate to others from other cultures, backgrounds and values. It reflects how students are responding to three major questions: How do I know?, Who am I? and, How do I relate to others?” (About the GPI, retrieved March 1 2016).

The GPI is managed by The Research Institute for Studies in Education (RISE), a unit of the School of Education, at Iowa State University. This (commercialilzed) test exists in three variants: A "new student form", a "general student form" and a "study abroad form". As of August 2013, there have been nine versions, starting with a pilot version in 2007 (Manual, ). The questionnaires can be used in various conditions, e.g. a one-shot assessment, or as pre and post-test.

This self-assessment test includes three dimensions that we attempt to summarize below. Each of these dimensions is measured with two scale, each corresponding to a different type of theory, i.e. on scale reflects the theory of cultural development and the other reflects intercultural communication theory http://gpi.central.edu/supportDocs/manual.pdf[ manual, page 4]

A. Cognitive Dimension ("How do I know ?")

1. Knowing: understanding the importance of cultural context

2. Knowledge: understanding of different cultures and their impact, language skills

B.Intrapersonal Dimension ("Who am I ?")

3. Identity: level of awareness of one's own identity

4. Affect: respect and acceptance of different cultural perspectives and emotional confidence

C Interpersonal Dimensions ("How do I relate to others ?")

5. Social Responsibility: Level of interdependence and social concern for others

6. Social Interactions: Degree of engagement with others who are different from oneself and degree of cultural sensitivity in living in pluralistic settings.

The 2012-2013 version of items are here. Interestingly, most dimensions are weakly correlated and that includes the two respective scales within a same dimension (r=.145, .324, .241 in a large 2012/13 survey based on 9773 responses)

The authors, in their manual, page 10 argue that self-reports seem to be trustworthy for that kind of population since the instrument is not used for selection.

Discussion of assessment tools

Several tools use are questionnaires that ask users for self-assessment in fairly abstract terms. Few items refer to precise behavior and opinions about situations. While one can achieve good reliability we can wonder about their construct validity. Do they really measure cultural competence or rather people's perception of cultural competence ?

We also wonder whether some hierarchical component models of cultural compentency are accurate. Research conducted with the Global Perspective Inventory (above) does support the idea that components could be fairly independent. It seems logical that being able enter in intercultural dialogue requires prior knowledge, some openness, etc. but not necessarily acceptance. E.g., missionaries often do (or did) possess extended knowledge about cultures and were able to communicate but did not necessarily respect other cultures.

Technologies for cultural literacy

According to Anstadt (2015), an environment like Second Life has several affordances:

• The ability to role play simulations without compromising the identity of the individual. Yet at the same time there, is a relationship between users virtual lives and their real lives.
• A simulated environment offers the potential for a range of experiences that is not available in "real live", including connecting with people that otherwise cannot be met.

Links

Some Wikipedia articles

• Cultural competence (Wikipedia)
• Intercultural competence
• Intercultural communication principles
• Intercultural relations

Researcher's blog posts

• Some Thoughts on Assessing Intercultural Competence, May 15, 2014 1:15 pm by Darla K. Deardorff

Bibliography

Other

• Bird, A., & Stevens, M. (2013). Assessing global leadership competencies. In M. Mendenhall, J. Osland, A. Bird, G. Oddou, M. Maznevski, M. Stevens, & G. Stahl (Eds.), Global leadership: Research, practice, and development (pp. 113–140) . New York, NY: Routledge.

• Abbe, A., Gulick, L.M.V., & Herman, J.L. (2007). Cross-cultural competence in Army leaders: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Research Institute.

• Anstadt, Scott P. "Use of Second Life to Teach Cultural Diversity and Cultural Competency" (March 25, 2015). SoTL Commons Conference. Paper 162. http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/sotlcommons/SoTL/2015/162

• Bennet, Janet, Marie (2015), The Sage Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence, SAGE.

• Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712.

• Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). (Eds.). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

• Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. L. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

• Braskamp, L. A. Trautvetter, L. C. and K. Ward. (March/April 2008). Putting students first: Promoting lives of purpose and meaning. About Campus. 26-32.

• Braskamp, L.A. & Engberg, M.E. (2014) Guidelines to consider in being strategic about assessment. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Learningoutcomesasessmetn.org

• Braskamp, L.A. (Sept. 2007). Three Central Questions Worth Asking. Journal of College and Character. 10 (1), 1-7. www.collegevalues.org.

• Braskamp, L.A., & Braskamp, D. C. (Fall 2007). Fostering holistic student learning and development of college students: A strategic way to think about it. The Department Chair. 1-3.

• Braskamp, L.A., Trautvetter, L. C., & Ward, K. (2006). Putting Students First: How Colleges Develop Students Purposefully. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

• Bruckman, A. (1997). MOOSE Crossing: Construction, community, and learning in a networked virtual world for kids. Unpublished PhD, MIT.

• Cooper, V. (2009). Inter-cultural student interaction in post-graduate business and information technology programs: the potentialities of global study tours. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(6), 557-570.

• Corder, Deborah. & U-Mackey, Alice. (2015). Encountering and dealing with difference: second life and intercultural competence, Intercultural Education, DOI:10.1080/14675986.2015.1091213

• Cross, T.L., Bazron, B.J., Dennis, K.W. & Isaacs, M.R. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center

• Crossman, J. (2003). Secular spiritual development in education from international and global perspectives. Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), 503-520.

• Crossman, J. E. 2011. “Experiential Learning About Intercultural Communication Through Intercultural Communication. Internationalising a Business Communication Curriculum.” Journal of Intercultural Communication. Accessed Feb 18, 2016. http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr25/crossman.htm

• Dann, Hanns-Dietrich (1992). Variation von Lege-Strukturen zur Wissensrepräsentation. In Brigitte Scheele (Ed.), Struktur-Lege-Verfahren als Dialog-Konsens-Methodik. Ein Zwischenfazit zur Forschungsentwicklung bei der rekonstruktiven Erhebung Subjektiver Theorien (pp.2-41). Münster: Aschendorff.

• Deardorff, D. 2011. “Intercultural Competence in Foreign Language Classrooms: A Framework and Implications for Educators.” In Intercultural Competence: Concepts, Challenges Evaluation. Vol. 10, edited by A.

• Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Implementing intercultural competence assessment. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 477–491) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Deardorff, Darla K. (2009) (ed). The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence, SAGE.

• Diehl, W. C., & Prins, E. (2008). Unintended outcomes in Second Life: Intercultural literacy and cultural identity in a virtual world. Language and Intercultural Communication, 8(2), 17.

• Diehl, William, C. and Prins, Esther, Unintended Outcomes in Second Life: Intercultural Literacy and Cultural Identity in a Virtual World, Language and Intercultural Communication (Impact Factor: 0.65). 05/2008; 8(2):101-118. DOI: 10.1080/14708470802139619 Research gate

• Driscoll, A., & Wood, S. (2007). Developing outcomes-based assessment for learner-centered education: A faculty introduction. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Fantini, A. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 456–476) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J. & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural counseling training. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 70, 143-150.

• Earley, P.; Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence. Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books.

• Eblen, A.; Mills, C.; Britton, P. (2004). Walking the talk: teaching intercultural communication experientially. Communication Journal of New Zealand, 5(2), 27-46.

• Fantini, A.E. (2006). 87 Assessment tools of intercultural competence [Electronic version]. Brattleboro, VT: School for international Training. http://www.sit.edu/publications/docs/feil_appendix_f.pdf (dead link)

• Frey, Ada F. & Cross, Cecilia (2011). Overcoming poor youth stigmatization and invisibility through art: A participatory action research experience in greater Buenos Aires. Action Research, 9(1), 65-82.

• Gibson, K.; Rimmington, G.; Landwehr-Brown, M. (2008). Developing global awareness and responsible world citizenship with global learning. Roeper Review, 30, 11-23.

• Gudykunst, W.; Ting-Tommey, S. (1996). Communication in personal relationships across cultures: an introduction. In Gudykunst, W.; Ting-Toomey, S.; Tsukasa, N. (eds.): Communication in Personal Relationships across Cultures, pp. 3-19, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

• Guo, Y. 2010. “The Concept and Development of Intercultural Competence.” In Becoming Intercultural: Inside and Outside the Classroom, edited by Y. Tsai and S. Houghton, 23–47. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

• Halualani, R. T. 2011. “In/Visible Dimensions: Framing the Intercultural Communication Course Through a Critical Intercultural Communication Framework.” Intercultural Education 22 (1): 43–54. doi:10.1080/14675986.2011.549644.

• Hampden-Turner, Charles and Fons Trompenaars (1993), The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, Currency-Doubleday

• Harrison, J. ( 2001). Developing intercultural communication and understanding through social studies in Israel. The Social Studies, 92(6), 252-259.

• Heyward, M. (2002). From international to intercultural: Redefining the international school for a globalized world. Journal of Research in International Education 1 (1) 9-32.

• Hiller, G. G. 2010. “Innovative Methods for Promoting and Assessing Intercultural Competence in Higher Education.” Proceedings of Intercultural Competence Conference 1:144–168.

• Hofestede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

• Hofstede, Geert (1991), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage Publications.

• Holliday, A. 2011. Intercultural Communication and Ideology. London: Sage.

• House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

• Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M., & Trivedi, A. (2008).Exploration of learning in Second Life in an interdisciplinary communication course. Paper presentation at American Educational Research Association (AERA). New York, New York.

• Kanter, Rosebeth Moss (1995). World Class: Thriving Locally in the Global Economy, Simon & Schuster.

• Kimmel, K., and S. Volet. 2012. “University Students’ Perceptions of and Attitudes towards Culturally Diverse Group Work: Does Context Matter?” Journal of Studies in International Education 16 (2): 157–181. doi:10.1177/1028315310373833.

• Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285-320.

• Kluckhohn, C. (1962). Universal categories of culture. In S. Tax (Ed.), Anthropology today: Selections (pp. 304-20). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (first published 1952).

• He, J., & van de Vijver, F. (2012). Bias and Equivalence in Cross-Cultural Research. Online Readings

in Psychology and Culture, 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1111

• Leask, B. (2010). Beside me is an empty chair. The student experience of internationalisation. In Jones, E. (ed): Internationalisation and the Student Voice. Higher Education Perspectives, pp. 3-18. New York: Routledge Taylor Francis Group.

• Lummer, Christian (1994). Subjektive Theorien und Integration. Die Einwanderungsproblematik aus Zuwanderersicht, dargestellt am Beispiel von Vietnamflüchtlingen in Deutschland. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.

• Mak A.; Barker, M.; Logan, G.; Millman, L. (1999). Benefits of cultural diversity for international and local students: contributions from an experiential social learning program (The Excell Program). In Davis, D.; Olsen, A.; (eds.): International Education: The Professional Edge, a set of research papers presented at the 13th Australian International Education Conference, Education Australia, Freemantle, 1999.

• Mason, J.L. (1988). Developing cultural competence for agencies. Focal Point, 2(4), 5-7.

• Mayo, Andrew (2003) ―Culture: The Mother of all Hurdles, Training Journal, (May), p. 36

• Merrill, Kelly Carter (May 2007). Did we make a difference?: Contributors to intercultural sensitivity development in undergraduate students. Loyola University Chicago (Ph. D. Dissertation).

• Miller, E.K. (1994) ―Diversity and its management: Training managers for cultural competence within the organization, Management Quarterly, (Summer), Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 1723.

• Minkov, M. & Blagoev, V. (2011). What do Project GLOBE’s cultural dimensions reflect? An empirical perspective. Asia Pacific Business Review online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2010.496292 .

• Minkov, Michael (2007). What makes us different and similar: A new interpretation of the World Values Survey and other cross-cultural data. Sofia, Bulgaria: Klasika y Stil Publishing House. ISBN 978-954-327-023-1. PDF

• Mody, Bella & Gudykunst, William B. (2001). Handbook of international and intercultural communication. London: Sage.

• Morrison, Terri, Wayne A. Conway and George A. Borden (1997). Dun & Bradstreet’s Guide to Doing Business Around the World, Prentice-Hall

• Peacock, N.; Harrison, N. (2009). "It’s so much easier to go with what’s easy". "Mindfulness" and the discourse between home and international students in the united kingdom. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(4), 487-508.

• Perry, L. B., and L. Southwell. 2011. “Developing Intercultural Understanding and Skills: Models and Approaches.” Intercultural Education 22 (6): 453–466. doi:10.1080/14675986.2011.644948.

• Rosen, Robert (2000), Global Literacies, Simon and SchusterTrompennaars, Fons, and Hampden-Turner, Charles (1998). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business,2nded, McGraw-Hill

• Rosen, Robert H. (2000) ―In growing global economy, boost cultural literacy,‖ Computerworld (April 24), Vol. 34, No. 17, p. 35

• Rosen, Robert. (2000). Global Literacies: Lessons on business leadership and National Cultures, Simon & Schuster.

• Rossen, R.; Digh, P.; Singer, M.; Phillips, C. (2000). Global Literacies, New York: Simon & Schuster.

• Salmon, G., Nie, M., & Edirisingha, P. (2010). Developing a five-stage model of learning in second life. Educational Research.Special Issue: Virtual Worlds and Education, 52(2), 169-182. doi:10.1080/00131881.2010.482744

• Sam, D., & Berry, J. W. (2006). (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

• Scheele, Brigitte & Groeben, Norbert (1988). Dialog-Konsens-Methoden zur Rekonstruktion Subjektiver Theorien. Tübingen: Francke.

• Scheele, Brigitte (1992) (Ed.). Struktur-Lege-Verfahren als Dialog-Konsens-Methodik. Münster: Aschendorff.

• Schwartz, S. H. & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across culture: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268-290.

• Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitçibasi, S. C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications (pp. 85-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Sheridan, V.; Storch, K. (2009). Linking the intercultural and grounded theory: methodological issues in migration research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 36, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901363.

• Shiel, C. (2009). Global perspectives and global citizenship: understanding the views of our learners. The International Journal of Learning, 16(6), pp. 689-693.

• Smith, D. B., Desai, H., Cotner, J., & Kashlak, R. (2005). International Field Studies: Tools For Enhancing Cultural Literacy. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 2(2).

• Smith, P. B., Dugan, S. & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231-264.

• Stier, J. 2006. “Internationalisation, Intercultural Communication and Intercultural Competence.” Journal of Intercultural Communication 11: 1–12.

• Stuart, D. (2008). Assessment instruments for the global workforce. In M. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence (pp. 175–190) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Swift, C.; Denton, L. (2003). Cross-cultural experiential simulation in the global marketing classroom: Bafa-Bafa and its variants. Marketing Education Review,13(3), 41-51.

• Ting-Toomey, S.; Oetzel, J. (2001). Managing Intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

• Triandis, H. C. (2004). The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 88-93.

• Tung, R.; Thomas D. (2003). Human resource management in a global world: the contingency framework extended. In Tjosvold, D.; Kwok, L. (eds.): Cross-cultural Management Foundations and the Future. Hampshire, England: Ashgate.

• Turner, Y. 2009. “Knowing Me, Knowing You”, is There Nothing We Can Do?: Pedagogic Challenges in Using Group Work to Create an Intercultural Learning Space.” Journal of Studies in International Education 13 (2): 240–255. doi:10.1177/1028315308329789.

• Unesco (2009), Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue. World Report, home page PDF

• van de Vivjer, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Vadura, K. (2007). Enhancing conceptions of global citizenship in international studies in teaching and learning in an online environment. The International Journal of Humanities, 5(3), 17-21.

• Vernon, R., Lewis, L., & Lynch, D. (2009). Virtual worlds and Social Work education: Potentials for “Second Life”. Advances in Social Work 10(2), 176-192.

• Ward, Colleen; Bochner, Stephen & Furnham, Adrian (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Hove: Routledge.

• Weidemann, Doris (2001). Learning about "face"—"subjective theories" as a construct in analysing intercultural learning processes of Germans in Taiwan. Forum Qualitative Socialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(3), Art. 20, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0103208 [Date of access: March 10, 2008].

• Witte, A. 2011. “On the Teachability and Learnability of Intercultural Competence: Developing Facets of the ‘Inter’.” In Intercultural Competence: Concepts, Challenges, Evaluations, edited by A. Witte and T. Harden. Bern: Peter Lang.

• Yamazaki, Y.; Kayes, C. (2004). An experiential approach to cross-cultural learning: a review and integration of competencies for successful expatriate adaptation. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(4), 362-379.

• Yu, Elena & Liu, William (1986). Methodological problems and policy implications in Vietnamese refugee research. International Migration Review, 20(10), 483-501.