Internationalisation, intercultural communication and intercultural competence

This article assumes that the internationalization of higher education demands more elaborate pedagogical approaches to utilise the experiences of multiethnic student groups and to facilitate every student’s acquisition of intercultural competencies. Drawing from three internationalisation ideologies embedded in the educational discourse, it is argued that intercultural communication – as a field of study or a discipline – can play a key role in this endeavour. Twelve fields of consideration, when international educators work with students, are also identified. Journal of Intercultural Communication, Issue 11, 2006 J. Stier 2 Academia: A Global Play-Ground Contrary to common belief, the academic quest for knowledge has since the beginning of times been an international endeavour (Sjöstrand 1970; Egidius 2001; Stier 2003/2004a) where access to recent innovations and the transmission of up-to-date knowledge have depended on the mobility of the intelligentsia. Yet there is something unique about contemporary higher education, since the world of today is different; global conditions are local concerns and local actions have global repercussions, enable sustainable development or trigger global competition (see Giddens 1996; Appudurai 1996; Beck 1998; Bauman 2000; Castells 2002). Late modernity, and particularly globalisation, has produced a metamorphosis in self-images and goals among universities around the world. The hegemony of neoliberalism (or if you like; the fall of Cold War socialism) has prevailed in ideologies and policies of higher education. Accordingly, the European Union stresses mutual exchange of ‘know how’, strategic utilization of competencies, quality-improvement of higher education and the vital role of higher education for ensuring sustainable development and life quality for people (Stier 2003; see also the European Commission 2003). Most clearly these ideas are expressed in the Bologna Declaration (1999): A Europe of Knowledge is now widely recognised as an irreplaceable factor for social and human growth and as an indispensable component to consolidate and enrich the European citizenship, capable of giving its citizens the necessary competences to face the challenges of the new millennium, together with an aware of shared values and belonging to a common social and cultural space. The importance of education and educational cooperation in the development and strengthening of stable, peaceful and democratic societies is universally acknowledged as paramount...(Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education). The European Union also stresses the need for educating a future labour force that ‘possesses’ adequate intercultural competencies. Yet references to intercultural communication education (ICE) are seldom found in public documents. Assuming this description of the academic context is reasonably fair, there is a need for: (1) scrutinising the ideological basis of higher education; (2) drawing from these ideologies, discussing the role of ICE in higher education; (3) identifying the cornerstones of intercultural competencies; and (4) proposing an adequate model for ICE. Inspired by the discourse on educational ideologies and intercultural competence four concerns will be addressed in this article. It outlines the cornerstones of intercultural education and introduces a tentative pedagogical approach, the IPSO FACTO-approach, for ICE or overall intercultural education in academia. Journal of Intercultural Communication, Issue 11, 2006 J. Stier 3 Ideologies of Higher Education With Edward Hall’s (1976) discussion on education as a point of departure; is education simply an example of how humankind has created complex institutions to do and enhance what people once did for themselves? And is education up to par with the society of which it is an integral part? Almost seventy years ago John Dewey wrote: Learning...means acquisition of what already is incorporated in books and in the heads of the elders. Moreover, that which is taught is thought of as essentially static. It is taught as a finished product, with little regard either to the ways in which it was originally built up or to changes that will surely occur in the future. It is to a large extent the cultural product of societies that assumed the future would be much like the past, and yet it is used as educational food in a society where change is the rule, not the exception (Dewey 1938:19). Few people today would claim that the world is static. Rather, it is axiomatic that a rapidly changing and increasingly global, multicultural world requires increasingly complex skills and knowledge from people. Yet educational institutions are not fully prepared to accommodate the needs of late modernity, nor is the human potential to learn and obtain such ‘new’ competencies fully adequate – two facts which have lead higher education to formulate internationalisation-policies and develop ICE in various guises. Even if a trend toward convergence is visible, still diverging or even contradictory ideologies1 seemingly guide internationalization in higher education (Stier 2004a). I refer to these as idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism. Idealism draws from a normative assumption that internationalisation is good per se. It serves to highlight global life-conditions and social injustices and offers an emancipatory worldview: Common international concerns and an inter-dependence of nations demand that students and faculty members... are productive and aware citizens of the State, the US and the world. (Excerpt, Policy on Internationalisation at an American university) These insights are believed to urge students to actively demand a global resourceredistribution and to ensure every person in the world a decent living-standard. Internationalisation should also induce tolerance and respect, in students. With this being said it may contribute to a democratic, fair and equal world (Stier 2004a).2 1 Analytically, these ideologies are idealtype constructs – i. e. they are to be viewed as means of discussion on rather than mutually exclusive categories (Stier 2003). Also, typically universities and educational policy-makers do not adhere to merely to one of these ideologies, but vacillate between them. 2 Similar ideas can be found in Habermas’ notion of deliberative democracy. Journal of Intercultural Communication, Issue 11, 2006 J. Stier 4 The idealistic view of internationalisation can be criticized. Being clearly counterproductive to its ambitions, it may come across as arrogant and may sustain ethnocentric worldviews – i.e., it is seen as a one-way flow where ‘they can learn from us’ and ‘we have little to learn from them’. The others’ competencies are devalued and vast parts of the world are victimized. Internationalisation is seen as an efficient instrument to educate the ‘uncivilized’ and reflects Western cultural imperialism and claims of global hegemony. Instrumentalism considers internationalisation as a viable road to profit, economic growth, sustainable development or ideological goal-attainment of political regimes, multinational corporations or interest groups. Nowadays many employers seek multilingual professionals with knowledge of diverse cultural codes. Typically instrumentalists favour ‘real’, de facto competencies with wide application-ranges (Beck 1998). [An increasingly internationalised economy] will require larger and larger pools of welltrained, multilingual, internally knowledgeable employees. (Excerpt, Policy on Internationalisation at a Canadian university) The value of such competencies stems from how easily and rapidly they can be enacted in professional praxis and money-generating contexts (Stier 2004a). For identical reasons instrumentalists view internationalisation, life-long learning and inclusive education as means to ensure a sufficiently large and skilful labour force, adequate for an increasingly complex global and multicultural market: The university is responsible for providing students with the information, knowledge and skills they need to compete in a complex international marketplace. (Excerpt, Policy on Internationalisation at an American university). Against this background, it seems fair to suspect that higher education in general and ICE in particular will become an increasingly valuable global commodity. The instrumentalist approach can also be criticised for its lack of global solidarity: [w]ealthy nations attempt to attract academic staff and fee-paying students from the ‘poor’ world, not only for short-term financial gains, but with an intent to keep their competence in the country, thus risking to ‘brain drain’ their home countries. (Stier 2004a:91). Apart from economic incentives, internationalization may be used for ideological purposes, e.g., to impose the Western lifestyle on others or reflect a large-scale identityprojects, aiming at replacing local, regional or national identities with supranational ones (Stier 1998). The Bologna Declaration assumes that internationalization of higher education may contribute to ideological convergence, a European sense of community and cultural conformity – and, consequently, to social harmony. Journal of Intercultural Communication, Issue 11, 2006 J. Stier 5 Educationalism prescribes a distinct notion of education that is not limited to institutionalised education which easily allows for ‘practical application’. Resting on the German notion of Bildung (or in Swedish, bildning) it rather recognises the personal or societal value of learning itself. Exposure to ‘strange’ cultures with its features, social expectations and language-requirements is considered a unique multilevel learning experience where intercultural competence, knowledge of and respect for other cultures may be developed (Stier 2002/2003): Critical thinking, personal development career preparation, evaluation of one’s own activities in an international perspective and respect for other peoples and cultures, values remain a cardinal element of all education. Increased intercultural education also contributes to increases appreciation of one’s own culture. (Excerpt, Policy on Internationalisation at a Swedish university) Thus, ‘being an outsider’ may also shed light upon the home culture’s unique features and oddities, contribute to the person’s self-understanding and stimulate metareflection. What criticisms can be raised against educationalism? Macro-oriented sociologists may accuse educationalists for (though not necessarily intentionally) individualizing structural and global problems, where educating and ‘enlightening’ people is seen as the wonder cure par excellence for coming to terms with poverty, inequality or exploitation. Undoubtedly, there is a thin line between being a critical observer, interculturally competent participator and a self-righteous educator. In short – the educationalist’s ambitions must not end with merely analysing the actions and perspectives of others but must be followed by continuous scrutinies of his or her own. Nor should the educationalist routinely settle for the obvious and most convenient interpretations of reality. Intercultural Communication Common sense tells us that internationalisation, in one way or another is about intercultural communication. Gudykunst and Kim (2003:17) conceptualise the phenomenon of intercultural communication as ‘...a transactional, symbolic process involving the attribution of meaning between people from different cultures.’ The keyword here is process. In the Swedish discourse the term kulturmöte (literally cultural encounter) has frequently been designated to any contact (or clashes) between cultures (e.g., in literature, communication styles, management styles, customs, value orientations). Unfortunately, such encounters are commonly analysed without consideration to their processual character. Intercultural communication should, therefore, be viewed and analyzed as a complex process, not merely as an encounter. Journal of Intercultural Communication, Issue 11, 2006 J. Stier 6 Moreover, intercultural communication is by some social scientists seen as an academic discipline – that is to say, one branch of communication studies, anchored in its characteristical ontological, epistemological and axiological assumptions. At the same time, intercultural communication is a field of concern for several other academic disciplines (e.g., psychology, social psychology, sociology, education, media studies, cultural anthropology and management). For them, intercultural communication is viewed as an object of study or a problem within the realms of these disciplines. The ideologies discussed above have to varying degrees influenced these disciplines’ views on intercultural communication. Against this background, and despite the absence of an exhaustive or unequivocal meaning of the term, there is a common preoccupation with intercultural communication. Hence, people with these interests are more willing to take on the challenge of the global, multicultural world and are probably better equipped to live up to academic internationalisation-policies than any one else. With this said; the role of intercultural communication education in attaining the goals of internationalisation and, more specifically, in providing optimal intercultural competence-education is essential – if not conditional. Intercultural Competence A common denominator for internationalisation-ideologies and ICE is how they, albeit for different reasons, recognise the vital importance of intercultural competence and how they facilitate the acquisition of such skills. So to what does intercultural competence refer? Elsewhere I have suggested that intercultural competence, for the sake of discussion, can be divided into content-competencies and processual competencies (see Stier 2003).3 Content-competencies predominantly have a one-dimensional or static character and refer to the knowing that-aspects of both the ‘other’ and the ‘home’ culture. They include knowledge of history, language, non-verbal behaviour, world-views, ‘do’s and don’ts’, values, norms, habits, customs, taboos, symbols, behavioural patterns, traditions, sex roles etc. Typically much of such cultural ‘knowledge’ stems from ‘reductions’ or stereotypes and are attributed positive or negative value and emotional colour (Allport 1979). Content-competence does not ensure full culture functionality. The term processual competencies considers the dynamic character of intercultural competence and its interactional context (Hall 1976; Stier 2003/2004b/c). Such competencies are relative to the 3 In addition to these competencies are academic competencies. They will not, however, be discussed here. In discussing competencies, Rychen and Hersh Salganik (2001) book has been a source of inspiration. Journal of Intercultural Communication, Issue 11, 2006 J. Stier 7 cultural peculiarities, situational conditions and actors involved. This knowing how-aspect of intercultural competence, involves intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies. Intrapersonal competencies involve cognitive skills, that is to say, placing oneself in the position of the other (perspective-alteration), viewing oneself ‘from the outside’ (self-reflection), alternate between and acting according to ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ roles (role-taking), coping with problems originating in intercultural encounters (problemsolving) and keeping an open, receptive mind and noticing cultural peculiarities (culture-detection), without valuing them automatically and uncritically (axiological distance). Intrapersonal competencies also pertain to emotional skills, i.e., understanding why feelings occur and their implications (Ruben 1977; Triandis 1984), coping with diverse feelings (e.g., xenophobia, uneasiness, uncertainty, ambiguity, frustration, anger, ethnocentrism,) triggered by unknown cultural settings (Bochner 1982; Gudykunst 2003), and preventing them from automatically determining one’s actions or interpretations of behaviour or events. Interpersonal competencies refer to interactive skills, that is to say, detecting and accurately interpreting variations in non-verbal cues, subtle signals and emotional responses (interpersonal sensitivity), mastering verbal and non-verbal language, turntaking (see Ruben 1977; Triandis 1984), cultural codes surrounding conversations and being aware of one’s own interaction style (communication competence) and adequately responding to contextual meanings (situational sensitivity).