Intercultural Competence, Ch3: Models & Frameworks
[excerpted from, Intercultural Competence ?2023]
Our Big Question: What are the primary models and frameworks of intercultural competence?
There are several significant models by which intercultural competence is understood, and frameworks that assist in cross-cultural understanding. We begin with the models: first, UNESCO’s Intercultural Competence Tree.
The tree has two primary roots: culture, trailing out from which are the smaller roots of identity, values, attitudes, and beliefs; and communication, the lesser roots of which include language, dialogue, and nonverbal behavior. The trunk of our tree consists of 3 factors: cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue, and human rights.
Some have questioned whether the very concept of ‘human rights’ is a ‘western’ construct, and if it applies to nonwestern cultures (i.e., most of the world); while surely well-intentioned, it’s based on individualism, and the rights of each individual without a parallel focus on the collective good, which doesn’t always suit collectivist cultures. (Again: very nearly all of the world.) While concepts of ethnics and morals can also vary among cultures, broad principles of human decency – such as not harming or enslaving another – are more universally applied.
Continuing with our tree model of intercultural competence, we reach the branches, which represent operational steps: clarifying, teaching, promoting, supporting, and enacting. Finally, we have the leaves, or outward manifestations of said competence: intercultural responsibility, intercultural literacy, resilience, cultural shifting, intercultural citizenship, conviviality, reflexivity, creativity, liquidity, contextualization cues, transvaluation, ubuntu [African philosophy of individual identity through social context], semantic availability, warm ideas, skills, uchi-soto [Japanese philosophy of in-/out-groups with responsibility of insiders to honor outsiders], multilingualism, disposition, emotions, knowledge, translation, and intercultural communicative competence, with several leaves on the diagram left blank for further development.
Two other models are widely applied. First, we have Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, by which one moves through 3 stages of ethnocentrism (one’s own culture as central to reality) followed by 3 more of ethnorelativism (one’s own and other cultures as relative to context). The first 2 stages are cognitive, or conceptual: denial (unaware of cultural biases), followed by defense (aware but refuses to acknowledge); the final ethnocentric stage, minimization (cultural bias, and differences, aren’t important), is now affective, or emotional. Only after we process this can we move into a state of ethnorelativism, the first stage of which is also affective: acceptance that one has cultural biases and the understanding that this serves as a ‘norm’ by which one assesses other cultures. The final 2 stages of development are behavioral: adaptation, in which we begin to broaden our perspective, and integration of these changes. Only now are we competent, seeing all cultures as equally valid, with no universal norm.
And, we have Deardorff’s spiral-shaped model of intercultural competence learning. We acquire cultural knowledge and skills in communication as well as conflict management; we develop attitudes of valuing cultural diversity and tolerating ambiguity. This acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes has both external and internal outcomes: external in constructive interaction, when we’re able to avoid violating cultural rules or can achieve our valued objectives such as effective cross-cultural negotiations; internal, in intercultural reflection as we shift and relativize our frame of reference (see again Bennett’s model) and are better able to empathize as we discover commonalities.
The spiral shape of the Deardorf model is especially meaningful to me. I can attest, in 20 years of intercultural engagement abroad with another 20 before in cultural study and practice, that the learning, changing, and adaptation is cyclic. I continue to progress in my development of competence (spirals move forward, after all) – and, the acquisition of even more knowledge and improved skills is ongoing.
We now move on to cross-cultural frameworks. As already mentioned, cultures are identified as either more individualistic in orientation or more collectivistic, and this appears in many a framework; this alone tells us much about any culture, though these and all features are on a continuum and not absolute. When I first left the US for example, one of the world’s most individualistic societies (and New York City, my home, especially so), I first lived in South Korea – my choice in part precisely because Korean culture, one of the most ethnically homogenous among developed nations, is also one of the world’s most collectivist based on its strong adherence to Confucian principles.
In one of the most well known cultural frameworks, that of Geert Hofstede whose definition of culture was included in our first chapter, this individualist-collectivist concept is included among 6 cultural dimensions. One of self- vs group-identification, it’s further delineated as based on achievements and rights (individualistic) vs loyalty and relationships (collectivist). Power distance, the next dimension, describes a culture as more hierarchical or egalitarian; uncertainty avoidance or risk aversion, whether a culture is more tolerant of change with fewer rules, or maintains strict rules and regulations to minimize the unknown.
Masculinity vs femininity, a valuing based on traditional qualities of gender, holds that the more masculine culture values assertiveness, courage, strength, and competition, while the more feminine places value on cooperation, nurturing, and quality of life. (It’s worth noting that Hofstede first developed his model in the 1960s-70s, when ideas about gender roles were just beginning to change; even so, these identifiers remain globally applicable today.) Short- vs long-term orientation speaks to a valuing of quick results, respect for tradition, and unrestrained spending often in response to some form of pressure, vs delayed gratification and a value of persistence, thrift, saving, long-term growth, and capacity for adaptation. These 5 dimensions made up his original framework, but a 6th such was later added: indulgence vs restraint, whether a society is more like to indulge in gratification, materialism, and leisure, or to suppress or regulate gratification through social norms.
We turn now to the Lewis Model of Culture Types, in the form of a triangle: 3 intersecting axes, or continuums. At their poles, forming the triangle’s points, the 3 identifiers: linear-active, reactive, and multi-active. Linear-active cultures tend to be emotionally more reserved and less demonstrative, factually based, decisive, and planners who work step-by-step toward some future goal; examples include Germany with US and UK just a degree away – the former a step toward multi-active, the latter just a hair toward reactive.
Reactive cultures tend toward the courteous, amiable, accommodating, and compromising; they tend not to plan ahead or work methodically, but rather work hard in a burst when the need arises. East Asian cultures tend to fall into this category, with social harmony valued well above individual expression, and preservation of the dignity of both self and other paramount. Korea, where I lived for a number of years, is identified in this framework as reactive. When organizing an international congress there, those executive committee members from more linear-active countries expressed concern that preparations seemed to be well behind schedule; I assured them that this was the Korean way, that closer to the time of the event local committees would begin working intensively around the clock, and that it would be spectacular – which it was.
领英推荐
In the multi-active category, we find many Latin countries, among others. A blend of proactive and reactive, where everything seems to happen at once, people in such societies tend to be quick to emotion and demonstrative, loquacious, and impulsive. In addition to Latin America (at the pole) and southern Europe as well as Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia is located on the linear- / multi-active continuum close to the latter; Türkiye, meanwhile, is also close to multi-active but on the axis with reactive countries instead.
It's clear that this framework is identifying very broad-stroke cultural features; in the complete scheme, more subtlety can be found as scatterplot diagrams indicate nuances. Overall, it’s a very useful tool indeed.
A 3rd framework is the Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map, its 2023 version recently released. This scatterplot diagram of cultures has traditional values at the low end of its vertical / y-axis and secular-rational at the high; on the horizontal / x-axis, survival is at the left extreme with self-expression as its opposite. We must note: the x-axis largely corresponds to economic status or wealth (survival mode vs ability of self-expression), while the y-axis equates tradition with religiosity and modernity with secularism; we may argue that ‘self-expression’ simply does not correspond to collectivist societies. Countries are clustered per African-Islamic, Latin America, Catholic Europe, Protestant Europe, Orthodox Europe, Confucian, West & South Asian, and English-speaking [the latter referred to as ‘Anglo’ in other schemes that we’ll see].
The African-Islamic cluster includes Sub-Saharan African countries and the MENA configuration of Middle Eastern and North African countries which share a religion and are often grouped together; with few exceptions, it falls at the low end of both axes. At the high end of both, we find Protestant Europe and English-speaking countries, with Catholic Europe slightly lower on both axes; the Confucian cluster of East Asia, primarily Northeast, tends to locate high for secular-rational values but low for self-expression. Interestingly, the US is situated at the low end of both axes relative to others in the English-speaking cluster, still above the median on both but not considerably so, considered one of the more conservative and religious/traditional of the English-speaking western world.
The Trompenaars & Hampden-Meyer 7 Dimensions of Culture continuums include 5 based on human relationships: individualism vs collectivism as well as universalism (consistency / standardization) vs particularism (flexibility / customization), neutral (reserved) vs affective (emotionally demonstrative), achievement (one’s actions) vs ascription (one’s identity), and specific (details) vs diffuse (holistic); the final two focus on time orientation: sequential (in order) vs synchronic (at the same time), and context orientation: internal (take control) vs external (go with the flow).
Our final two frameworks are used widely in intercultural competence for business. The GLOBE [Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness] model of Robert House includes Hofstede’s continuums of power distance and uncertainty avoidance, future orientation (Hofstede: short- vs long-term), and collectivism further divided into in-group (society) and institutional (social welfare); others are gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, and both humane and performance orientations. We’ll see this framework again, along with a few others above, in our ‘By Region’ chapters later on.
Finally, we have Meyer’s Culture Map, the most recent of these frameworks, which includes 10 areas (8 original and 2 added later). These are: communication (explicit vs implicit), evaluation (direct vs indirect), persuasion (deductive vs inductive), leadership (egalitarian vs hierarchical), decision-making (consensual vs top-down), trust (task- vs relationship-based), discord (confrontational vs avoidance), time management (structured vs flexible), appearance (formal vs casual), and space (proximity vs distance).
As you can see, we begin to understand the world’s cultures on these bases, and for a more nuanced view, we use several such systems and look at where a particular culture – and often, a region – falls on the spectrum. One framework alone may not be sufficient, but if we look at a few, we begin to gain understanding.
.
Exercises:
Discussion or Contemplation: Consider the frameworks presented, and how each resonates for you. Which of them is the most appealing?
Writing or Recording: Which model appeals to me the most, and why? What next steps can I take to learn more, and gain the skills to apply it to my cross-cultural studies?
Further Reading: Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity https://organizingengagement.org/models/developmental-model-of-intercultural-sensitivity/