Intercultural Communication: An Overview

1 JoAnne Stein IPC 491 Intercultural Communication Training: An Overview The primary purpose of this essay is to explore the significant issues pertaining to intercultural communication and intercultural communication training. This includes outlining a definition of intercultural communication, providing a brief history of intercultural communication training, outlining current issues in this area of study, and providing an overview of the content involved in training programs. Intercultural communication can be defined as “the symbolic exchange process whereby individuals from two (or more) different cultural communities negotiate shared meanings in an interactive situation” (Ting-Toomey, 2005, p. 39). This definition suggests that intercultural communication is simply interpersonal communication that takes place between people from different cultures. However, such a definition leads to the need to define what a culture is. The aforementioned definition states that individuals “negotiate shared meanings.” This implies that what separates cultures are the different symbols used to communicate among individuals in that culture. Ting-Toomey (2005) provides a definition of culture that supports this by stating that it is “a learned system of meanings—a value-laden meaning system that helps you to ‘make sense’ of and explain what is going on in your everyday intercultural surroundings” (p. 27). Yet another definition states the intercultural communication is “a symbolic exchange process between persons of different cultures” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 21). This definition as well indicates the importance of symbols and various meanings when communicating. It can be inferred that what complicates communication between

2 individuals from different cultures is that the symbols used to communicate have different meanings which causes confusion and difficulty communicating. Although a single definition of culture has not been agreed upon by all the scholars researched, these two definitions provide an effective means of explaining culture in the context of intercultural communication. Furthermore, intercultural communication training strives to teach trainees how to effectively communicate in intercultural situations. This is accomplished by teaching training participants about the different meanings that are culturally constructed and complicate the communication process. The goal of intercultural communication training seems to be generally agreed upon by many intercultural communication scholars. According to Brislin & Yoshida (1976), “intercultural communication training refers to formal efforts designed to prepare people for more effective interpersonal relations when they interact with individuals from cultures other than their own” (p. 2). Another goal is to “encourage constructive and nonstressful interaction between members of different cultures” (Brislin & Pedersen, 1976, p. 2). Ting-Toomey (1999) states that the goal is “to create shared meanings between dissimilar individuals in an interactive situation” (p. 21). All of these goals seem to express a similar idea, maintaining that the primary goal is to facilitate effective communication. These goals also support the idea expressed in the definition that indicates the importance of symbols, acknowledges the different symbols present in various cultures, and the need to understand these symbols in order to communicate effectively. This is articulately summed up by Wiseman & Shuter (1994) in the statement that intercultural communication training “[encompasses] all activities

3 designed to facilitate effective interactions between culturally different persons” (p. 153).

Another view states that a good training program should have the following four goals: “enjoyment and benefit”, “attitudes of hosts toward sojourners”, “people’s own goals”, and “stress reduction” (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994, p. 6-10). Enjoyment and benefit refers to the idea that a training program should strive to be pleasant, perhaps even fun, and benefit its participants. The attitude of hosts towards sojourners indicates the importance of relationships between the participants. Having a positive and healthy interpersonal relationship between participants “allows skills transfer to take place” (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994, p. 8). A good training program also shows an awareness of people’s own goals and “provides information that will help people achieve their goals” (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994, p. 9). This will also ease the conveyance of information to the audience. If participants feel they are benefiting from the program and learning something that will benefit them personally, the training program will be more effective due to a more receptive audience. Finally, stress reduction is a very important goal of any intercultural communication training program. As a goal, stress reduction wisely notes that “the goal should be its reduction rather than its elimination” (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994, p. 10). This is important to realize because no matter how much one studies another culture, no matter how many hours are spent in training, one can never be fully prepared to enter another culture. It is nearly impossible to fully prevent culture shock, and having a realistic expectation for a training program is necessary for the success of the program. Lastly, it is important to be aware of another goal of intercultural communication

4 training: to minimize culture shock. York (1994) explains that culture shock is a feeling of anxiety that one gets when one loses “all familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse” because it is “these signs or cues” that determine the “ways we orient ourselves to the situation of daily life” (p. 177). This definition of culture shock acknowledges the importance of symbols in communication and indicates that it is important to understand cultural symbols and differences in order to have effective communication. Based on the goals of intercultural communication training, it is important to know which elements of cultural meaning must be known in order to facilitate effective intercultural communication. Throughout the literature that has been written on intercultural communication, almost all scholars agree upon a set of cultural dimensions that categorize cultures throughout the world. These dimensions are: individualism vs. collectivism, content specific vs. content diffuse, sequential time vs. synchronic time, short-term time vs. long-term time, universalism vs. particularism, neutral vs. affective, achievement vs. ascription, internal vs. external, large power distance vs. small power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity vs. femininity (Kim, 1999, p. 14-47). It is these cultural differences “that really ‘make a difference’ in intercultural encounters” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 3). Dimensions such as these influence how someone from a certain culture communicates. By understanding these dimensions and how they impact communication, one can begin to communicate more effectively in intercultural contexts. While there have been numerous volumes written on each dimension, I will provide a brief outline of several of these dimensions.

5 First, individualism and collectivism indicates the tendency to emphasize the importance of the individual or group within a culture. Individualistic cultures, for example, emphasize “the importance of individual identity over group identity, individual rights over group rights, and individual needs over group needs” while collectivistic cultures emphasize “the importance of the ‘we’ identity over the ‘I’ identity, group rights over individual rights, and in-group-oriented needs over individual wants and desires” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 67). Second, the power distance dimension illustrates “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions…accept that power is distributed unequally” (TingToomey, 1999, p. 69). Third, the uncertainty avoidance dimension tells “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations and the extent to which they try to avoid these situations” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 71). Lastly, a “masculine” culture means that “gender roles are clearly distinct” while a “feminine” culture means that “social gender roles overlap” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 73). In addition to the different cultural dimensions listed, there are other barriers to effective intercultural communication. These include language, nonverbal signals such as “gestures, postures, and other metamessages,” “preconceptions and stereotypes” of one’s own or another culture, “a tendency to evaluate…the content of communication received from others,” and the high levels of “anxiety that shrouds cross-cultural communication” due to the fact that communicating interculturally is a highly unfamiliar experience for most people (Brislin & Pedersen, 1976, p. 11-12).

6 Overall, this is only a brief outline of all the differences that are culturally constructed and that affect how one communicates. Such cultural differences influence how an individual thinks about themselves, others, and the world around them. They also attach different meanings to different things. If this meaning is not known to the person they are communicating with, there is a misunderstanding and effective communication cannot take place. Intercultural communication training attempts to analyze these differences and determine those necessary to study in order to understand how culturally different individuals communicate. Interestingly enough, the field of training is also a relatively new area of study. Kohls (1995) explains that “while learning and education have been with us for a very long time, training is a relatively new activity” and “has only been considered a field since about 1965” (p. 3). Briefly, training is a “field of expertise in and of itself, divorced from the content of any particular training program” (Kohls, 1995, p. 3). In other words, the field of training studies how to best transfer knowledge about a topic to an audience. In addition, an effective trainer does not need to be an expert in a certain field in order to effectively communicate information about a topic to an audience. Kohls (1995) sums this up by stating, “training is the master discipline which makes it possible to transfer other disciplines” (p. 3). A more in depth analysis reveals that the field of training is very broad and there are many topics to be considered. For example, there is a debate between whether a trainer should take the role of an experiential trainer or a traditional trainer. The experiential trainer “focuses on the process of learning—learning how to learn” while the

7 traditional trainer “focuses on teaching…content, facts and information” (Kohls, 1995, p. 5). As the field of training is relatively new, the specific area of intercultural communication training is consequently a young area of study as well. One researcher outlined several events that have contributed to the popularity and newfound need for intercultural communication training programs. York (1994) cites three main stages in the development of training. First, there was a transfer of technology between the United States and their global allies after World War II (York, 1994, p. 59). A second stage involved the “drive to transfer American life abroad” during the 1960s when the Peace Corps “was formed to help initiate cultural change abroad” and to “help unfortunates” (p. 59). Programs like the Peace Corps meant Americans had to enter new cultures and it was gradually realized that there was a need to understand the host culture in order to be effective in ones mission. Initially, programs like the Peace Corps “were based on the assumptions that certain cultural outcomes and styles were inadequate for survival in the modern world and that these outcomes could be remedied by the infusion of middle-class, white, American culture” (York, 1994, p. 59). However, the third stage was the realization that the emphasis should not be on “exporting American culture, or adapting to the local culture, but on finding a ‘match’ between cultures” (York, 1994, p. 60). In addition to the stages mentioned, there is also the question of globalization and the increasing disappearance of borders in business and international trade. According to Ting-Toomey (1999), “successful business today depends on effective globalization” and “effective globalization…depends on dealing with a diverse workforce” (p. 4). Overall, the world is becoming increasingly interconnected and as a consequence,

8 people from various cultures are interacting with people from various other cultures on a more frequent basis. While one can easily argue over the existence of globalization or the need for intercultural communication training, the point of this essay is not to debate the issue but merely provide an overview of the field. Intercultural training as a specific field of training has its own issues and debates. To illustrate this point, anyone studying this field will come across the argument for culture-specific versus culture-general training approaches. Other issues emphasizing the depth of this field exist but are too numerous to outline in an introductory survey of the topic. The field of intercultural communication training encompasses numerous topics that make up an effective training program and indicate the qualifications necessary in a trainer. Several topics include the characteristics, the structure and content, the motivating factors of a training program, and the evaluation of training programs. York (1994) states that “all cross-cultural training is united by five core characteristics” no matter what the content is” (p. 66). First, the training that takes place “occurs within a limited time” (York, 1994, p. 67). Second, “the goals and outcomes of training are tied to events people find distressing and confusing in a new culture;” third, “training is trainee-centered;” fourth, the motivations of trainees and “their intentions for success” vary from program to program; and fifth, the training may be culture-general or culture-specific (York, 1994, p. 67). By understanding these core characteristics, one can begin to design a training program based on them. After analyzing the various characteristics, one can determine the best approach for the program based on the needs of the participants.

9 The debate over how training programs should be structured is also a factor to be considered when designing a program. So far, six different types of training have been identified. These are (1) information-oriented training, (2) attribution training, (3) cultural awareness training, (4) cognitive-behavioral training, (5) interactive training, and (6) experiential training (York, 1994, p. 103). There have been countless works that address the issue of types of training and which is the most effective. The six types mentioned are the most commonly referenced one but there are more in existence. The pros and cons of each are numerous and can be reviewed along with the individual needs of the program participants to determine which approach is best. The prerequisite context for training programs is often some sort of conflict, whether past, present, or anticipated in the future. Fowler & Blohm (2004) state that “training is frequently requested to solve an existing identified problem or to prevent future problems” (p. 41). Therefore it is important to acknowledge that “difficulties of some kind are the motivating factors for many training programs” and that, consequently, the training “should be framed as a safe haven” (Fowler & Blohm, 2004, p. 41). In sum, it is important to realize the context of the training program in order to design an effective program. A trainer should know the history of a problem if one exists and then approach the situation with care. If the goal of the program is to prevent future problems, the training program must be adjusted to obtain this objective. In addition, there is the issue of qualifications needed in a trainer in order to effectively facilitate a training session. One training guide lists several areas of competence. These are: “area knowledge of the target country,” “living experience in the

10 target country,” “a positive attitude toward the country and its people,” “the experience of having lived through culture shock,” “a fundamental knowledge of basic American values and implicit cultural assumptions and how to articulate them,” “experience as a trainer,” and “interest in training for content as well as process” (Kohls, 1995, p. 19). The evaluation of training programs can almost be considered another field in and of itself. After one has spent so much time analyzing the needs of the participants, what the best training program is, what content to include, and how to communicate the content, there still remains the question of whether the training was successful. With intercultural communication training it is important to realize that the definition of a successful program will vary from culture to culture. Therefore, it is impossible to list universal attributes to measure the success of a program. Nonetheless, program evaluation is a very important aspect of the training process. Success can be assured through needs assessment and analysis of the specific needs and desired outcomes of a training program. But the process of measuring effectiveness of training is a complex process and involves many different methods not to be discussed at this time. In conclusion, intercultural communication training encompasses the fields of communication and training separately. It requires a definition of culture and an in depth analysis of cultural differences that affect communication. The training aspect involves numerous aspects that contribute to the overall success of a training program and has just as many aspects available to measure effectiveness. After reviewing the various elements of intercultural communication training, one can now begin to analyze each aspect in depth and acquire more detailed information. While this essay does not include an

11 overview on all aspects of the field, it provides a brief overview of some of the main points and provides a starting point for further research.

Works Cited Brislin, R. W. & Pedersen, P. (1976). Cross-Cultural Orientation Programs. New York: Garnder Press, Inc. Brislin, R. & Yoshida, T. (1994). Intercultural Communication Training: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc. Fowler, S. M., & Blohm, J. M. (2004). An Analysis of Methods for Intercultural Training. In D. Landis, J.M. Bennett & M.J. Bennet (Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc. Kim, H. (1999). Transcultural Customization of International Training Programs. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Kohls, L. R. (1995). Training Know-How for Cross Cultural and Diversity Trainers. Duncanville, TX: Adult Learning Systems, Inc. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The Guildford Press. Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). Understanding Intercultural Communication. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. Wiseman, R. L. & Shuter, R. (Eds.). (1994). Communicating in Multinational Organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc. York, D. E. (1994). Cross-Cultural Training Programs. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.