Intercultural
Communication in Higher
Education through
Reflective Dialogue
Dr Helen Kaufmann, Oriel College
(University of Oxford)
Intercultural Communication
in Higher Education
Lecturer/Supervisor
from culture A
Student
from culture A
Student
from culture B
The Basic Model
Intercultural Communication
in Higher Education
Lecturer/Supervisor
from culture C,
representing HE-culture A
Student
from culture A
The Advanced Model
Student
from culture B
Intercultural Communication
in Higher Education
Lecturer/Supervisor
from culture C, grew up in culture D
representing HE Culture A
Student
from culture A,
dad from culture E
and mum from culture F
Student
from culture B, attended
school in culture G
The Real Model
Introductory activity
• Aim: establish a real context for
intercultural communication
• Get together in pairs.
• Present an intercultural communication
challenge that you have experienced to
your partner.
• Take turns.
• Note each challenge briefly on a post-it
note.
Literature review I: From
recipes to concepts
• ‚Recipes‘: e.g. Arkoudis (2007),
McLean & Ransom (2005), Cortazzi
& Jin (1997), Ryan (2000)
• ‚Concepts‘: e.g. ‚becoming more
explicit‘ (Caroll, 2005), ‚metacultural sensitivity (Louie, 2005)
Literature review II:
questioning the concepts
• Most of the concepts used to discuss
intercultural communication in HE have
been criticised, e.g. ‚Confucian
education/Western education‘ (Ryan &
Louie, 2007), ‚culture‘ (Grimshaw,
2007; Piller, 2007), ‚intercultural
communication‘ (Holliday et al., 2004;
Holliday, 1999; Piller, 2007)
• This criticism provides much insight,
but goes against widely held
perceptions. Are they all wrong?
Literature review:
conclusions
• Concepts, not recipes
• Question the concepts, but continue the
discussion with them.
Why should we prefer concepts to recipes
and why should we question them?
• Learning as an uncertain process (cf.
e.g. Ramsden, 2003)
• Postcolonialism vs. (neo)colonialism (cf.
e.g. Fox, 1996)
Reflective dialogue
(Isaacs, Scharmer)
• Based on Bohm (1996).
• Dialogue as a process in which
participants move from representing
their own interests to developing
solutions for all through reflection of
self and other.
• Not designed for intercultural
communication nor communication in
Higher Education
• Adaptability?
The four fields of conversation (Isaacs, Scharmer)
Enacting emerging futures
4- Generative
dialogue
Whole
3- Reflective dialogue
•Solutions are generated
•Collective wisdom
•Listening from one‘s
future self
•Inquiry into assumptions
•Reflection of self and other
•Empathic listening
•Dialogue
•Rules are reflected
1- Politeness
2- Break-through
•Talking nice
•Listening=projecting
•Downloading
•Rules are reenacted
•Power is contested
•Talking tough (debate,
clash)
•Listening=reloading
•Anger, frustration
Reenacting patterns of the past
Parts
‚New capacities for
behaviour‘ (Isaacs, 1996:
419)
Voicing
Speaking the truth of one‘s authority,
what one really is and thinking
Suspending
Listening
Suspension of assumptions,
judgement and certainty
Without resistance
or imposition
Respecting
Awareness of the integrity of another‘s position
and the impossibility of fully understanding it
Adaptability to intercultural communication in
HE
• May not work in large classes due to
lack of time
• Can work when working with individual
students
• Crucial transition from field 2 to 3
• Western model, based on direct
communication styles. Should/can /may
we enforce direct communication when
talking to people who seem to be used
to indirect communication styles?
Direct communication for
everyone?
• Communication style preferences do not
only depend on origin/culture, also on
personality, speed of adaptation to
other styles, etc.
• Alternatives:
– discussion of/activities around
communication styles
– written conversation
– Mindfulness, knowledge, interaction skills
(Ting-Toomey, 2004 and 2005)
An attempt at reflective
dialogue (role-play)
• Aim: apply reflective dialogue to an
intercultural communication challenge
• Find a partner for this role-play
• Decide who will be the lecturer and who
the student.
• Take either one pair of role-cards (e.g.
Lecturer A and Student A) or choose a
real situation from the post-it collection.
• There will be 3x5 minutes to practice
fields 1-3 of the dialogue model. Your
role-cards will give you instructions for
1 and 2 only, field 3 is up to you.
• Between the 5 minutes slots for
lecturer-student dialogue there will be
2x 5 minutes for lecturer-lecturer and
student-student dialogue, to reflect how
you are behaving compared to the
model.
• Alternative activities: look through
intercultural communication activities
(Stringer & Cassidy, 2009), engage in
written conversation, exchange
solutions to intercultural communication
challenges.
Bibliography
•S. Arkoudis, Teaching International Students: Strategies to Enhance Learning (Melbourne,
2006), URL: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/resources_teach/teaching_in_practice/
(accessed 15/06/11).
•D. Bohm, On Dialogue (London and New York, 1996).
•J. Caroll, ‘Strategies for becoming more explicit’, in J. Carroll and J. Ryan (eds.)
(2005), Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for all (London and New
York) 26-34.
•M. Cortazzi & L. Jin, ‘Communication for learning across cultures’, in D. McNamara &
R. Harris (eds.) (1997). Overseas Students in Higher Education (London and New
York) 76-90.
•Ch. Fox, ‘Listening to the other: Mapping intercultural communication in postcolonial
educational consultancies’, in R. Paulston (ed.), Social Cartography: Mapping Ways of
Seeing Social and Educational Change (London, 1996) 291-306.
•T. Grimshaw, ‘Problematizing the construct of ‘the Chinese learner’: insights from
ethnographic research’, Educational Studies 33 (2007) 299-311.
•O. Gunnlaugson, ‘Generative dialogue as a transformative learning practice in adult
and higher education settings’, Journal of Adult and Continuing Education 12 (2006) 219.
•A. Holliday, ‘Small cultures’, Applied Linguistics 20 (1999) 237-64.
•A. Holliday, M. Hyde & J. Kullmann, Intercultural Communication: Advanced Resource
Book (London, 2004).
• W. N. Isaacs, Dialogue and the art of thinking together (New York, 1999).
• K. Louie, ‘Gathering cultural knowledge: Useful or use with care?’ in J. Carroll & J.
Ryan (eds.), Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for all (London
and New York, 2005) 17-25.
• P. McLean & L. Ransom, ‘Building intercultural competencies: Implications for
academic skills development’, in J. Carroll & J. Ryan (eds.), Teaching International
Students: Improving Learning for all (London and New York, 2005)) 45-62.
• I. Piller, ‘Linguistics and intercultural communication’, Language and Linguistics
Compass 1(2007) 2008-226.
• P. Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London, 2003; 2nd ed.).
• J. Ryan, A Guide to Teaching International Students (Oxford, 2000).
• J. Ryan & K. Louie, ‘False dichotomy? ‘Western’ and ‘Confucian’ concepts of
scholarship and learning’, Educational Philosophy and Theory 39 (2007) 404-17.
• C. O. Scharmer, Presencing: Learning from the future as it emerges (The Conference On
Knowledge and Innovation; Helsinki School of Economics, Finland, and the MIT Sloan
School of Management, 2000).
• C. O. Scharmer, Four fields of Generative Dialogue (Generative Dialogue Course Pack)
(MIT, Cambridge, 2003).
• D. M. Stringer & P. A. Cassidy, 52 Activities for Improving Cross-Cultural Communication
(Boston and London, 2009).
• S. Ting-Toomey, ‘Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice’, in D. Landis, J.
M. Bennett & M. J. Bennett (eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training (Thousand Oaks,
2004; 3rd ed.) 217-248.
• S. Ting-Toomey, ‘The matrix of face: an updated face-negotiation theory’, in W. B.
Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication (Thousand Oaks, 2005)
71-92.