Dear White Allies: A Literature Review of Intercultural Research Methods
Kelseigh Redmon
December 11, 2018
COM 565
“Never should you think to yourself, ‘You know what would be a great idea? Moving into a large house with 9 other people.’ One morning, I was awoken by this horrible smell from a pot of gumbo that had been sitting on the stove for past 36 hours. So, I was mad as hell. I lived with 9 other people and the gumbo wasn’t even mine! But I got up, flung my door open, stomped downstairs and cleaned it up myself. And it was this moment that I realized a profound lesson about society. It didn't matter anymore whether I was the one who made the mess. The only thing that mattered is that I was tired of living with that in condition.”
These words were spoken by writer and anti-racist activist, Tim Wise at Villanova University in March of 2010. Through a simple analogy of leftover gumbo, Tim Wise, a white man, urged a crowd of predominantly white students to take responsibility and clean up the mess that racism has left. This concept of solidarity, or privileged people joining forces with marginalized groups, is not new. In most history textbooks, we have read about white abolitionists aiding slaves on the underground railroad, white people marching in the streets of Selma, even white people on the front lines of Ferguson. More recently, however, this notion of solidarity has been labeled ‘allyship’. Allyship, in the 21st century, can come in many different forms. Whether it is using your internet platform to amplify the voices of others or using the internet’s vast archive of minority experiences to educate yourself, allyship is desperately needed to advance the fight against injustices. However, since there has not been a clear path or prescription for how privileged people should operate in marginalized communities, allyship can come with many limitations that ultimately disarm the struggle against injustice. As intercultural scholars, it is our duty to be allies, not only to the communities of which we don’t belong, but to the participants we involve in our research. The purpose of this literature review is to highlight the ways in which intercultural scholars can yield their privilege, help push the envelope, while simultaneously creating a welcoming and culturally sensitive environment. To gain a more holistic understanding, we will review the work of Dwight Conquergood, Mark C. Hopson, Martin and Nakayama, Yukako Sunaoshi, Chi-Yue Chiu, Razzante and Orbe, and Vaidehi Ramanathan. Through the concepts of intercultural competence, historical context, power relations, and self-awareness, this literature review gives future intercultural researchers a blueprint for cultural awareness and reflexivity.
How to be Interculturally Competent
First, C. Chiu, W. Lonner, D.J. Matsumoto, and C.D. Ward (2013) produced a literature review that surrounds the concept of cultural competence and intercultural knowledge. Intercultural competence is a concept that has been studied, theorized, and debated for decades. One of the first ventures exploring this notion was done by Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman in 1978 (Chiu et al., 2013). Their study compiled a group of North Americans who had been living abroad for a considerable amount of time. The Americans were interviewed about adjusting to their new cultures, their journey towards immersion, and skills are required to be successful living abroad. Hammer et al. sought to identify recurring themes and develop a range of competencies. Eventually, they created a list of 24 competencies like understanding social customs or navigating communication misunderstandings. The researchers, then, refined the list and “subjected [it] to exploratory factor analysis” and created a three-factor model (Chiu et al., 2013). “To achieve intercultural effectiveness, you need to have the ability to manage psychological stress, the ability to communicate effectively, and the ability to establish interpersonal relationships” (Chiu et al., 2013, pg. 844).
After Hammer et al., many intercultural scholars picked up the reins toward identifying key aspects of intercultural competency. Chiu et al. (2013) cites a few more researchers who published their own definitions. M.J. Bennet, in 1986, constructed a new model of intercultural competence called the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, which focused on life experiences to explain the transition from ethnocentricity to ethno-relation and highlights the need to understand cultural differences. Ethnocentricity is the belief that your cultural values, behaviors, and characteristic is ideal and anything else outside of the realm is wrong. Ethno-relativism is the ability to recognize those values, behaviors, and characteristics as a part of your culture and, in the same process, appreciating other cultures.
Eventually, W. Lonner moved past Bennet’s understanding of intercultural competency and simply described as a “set of attitudes, knowledge and skills that together form a personal attribute that facilitates smooth and effective communication and interaction with people who are culturally and linguistically different” (Chiu et al., 2013). Alternatively, J. Wilson, C. Wade, and R. Fischer, in 2013, defined it as “culture-specific skills required to (a) function effectively within a new cultural context and/or (b) interact effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds” (Chiu et al., 2013, pg. 844). While Lonner shaped competence to be a personal characteristic, Wilson et al. linked competence to acquired skill, however, both definitions emphasize engaging in cross-cultural interactions. However, G.M. Chen and W.J. Starosta split intercultural competency into the three areas: sensitivity, awareness, and skills. Sensitivity is the ability to understand, acknowledge, and celebrate cultural differences. Awareness is knowing how culture can consciously and unconsciously influence our behavior and subsequent interactions. Skills refers to effective communicative strategies.
What scholars can learn from Chiu et al. (2013) is the amount of effort that goes into obtaining cultural competence. Competence ultimately can be a personality trait and an acquired skill that should be honed through intercultural interactions. Reiterating Chen and Starosta: sensitivity, awareness, and skill. Sensitivity, like in Bennet’s model, requires that you understand and embrace cultural differences and push toward ethno-relativity. Awareness, like Lonner suggests, is absorbing how our respective cultures are expressed throughout our daily lives. Lastly, skills, like Wilson et al. highlights, give mobility with people of different backgrounds and in different contexts. Striving for intercultural effectiveness means having to juggle these three components while creating lasting relationships.
Understanding the Historical Context
Martin and Nakayama (2012) highlights the need to consider history within intercultural research. History, they note, is inherently intertwined with identity and largely impacts culture. “Histories are stories that we use to make sense of who we are and who we think others are” (Martin & Nakayama, 2012, pg. 74). It tells us who is significant, how our culture interprets with the past, and our vision of the upcoming future. History is can also shape perceptions of other nations and cultures that could lead to false narratives and stereotypes. On the other hand, ignoring history altogether is just as detrimental. For these reasons, Martin et al. (2012) suggest that reviewing the historical context of intercultural situations will enhance the understanding of intercultural communication
First, intercultural scholars have to recognize non-mainstream histories. Marginalized, or non-mainstream, cultures have difficulty retaining and maintaining their history. Excluded from history textbooks, these narratives end up lost, unrecoverable, or simply hidden. However, intercultural researchers must expose these non-mainstream histories because it is essential in understanding how that culture is perceived and why. It can even counter the grand narrative of history and provide even further insight into marginalization and oppression.
Next, Non-mainstream history also proves how history is connected to identity. Within every identity, like race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and others, we have a victim or victimizer dichotomy that is heavily influenced by historical events. Although at times, some people seem to simultaneously occupy both victim/victimizer social positions, hidden historical narratives still exist and can be used to contradict the dominant grand narrative. For example, when injustices and atrocities are swept under the rug, acknowledging identity and history can bring attention to and promote a renewed understanding of the victimized. (Martin et al., 2012).
Lastly, not only should researchers acknowledge the hidden history of the marginalized, Martin et al. suggest that they should how understand history and intercultural research intersect. Researchers must recognize the attitudes and notions that individuals bring to interactions. Called antecedents of contact, it is vital to the outcome of the research to review the participant’s personal history, as well as, the researchers. There are four elements of personal histories that researchers must consider: (1) childhood experiences (2) historical myths. (3) languages that people speak. (4) recent vivid events.
First, childhood experiences can set the standard for how we view people who are different from us. If someone grew up learning that black people were inferior to whites, this will obviously affect their interactions with black people in the future. Often times, we fall back on our prior experiences and lessons that we learned as children to help us navigate the world in the future. A researcher would need understand this aspect of when studying interactions with others in order to gain the full scope of their behavior.
Second, historical myths are widely common and have the ability to skew the interpretation of different situations. The example that Martin et al. (2012) gave is the anti-Semitic myth that “Jewish people are secretly in control of U.S. government and business” (Martin et al., 2012, pg. 147). Myths like this can lead to outdated and inaccurate perceptions of people. As researchers, it is our duty to recognize these historical myths that exist within the rhetoric of our participants and ourselves
Next, language, according to Martin et al. (2012), “can be an attraction or a repellent in intercultural interactions” (Martin et al., 2012, pg. 148). The way people understand languages and history affects their reaction to others. For example, the German language usually has a negative connotation among Americans, due to the Nazi regime. People think of it has a harsh and brutal language and ultimately thinking the same of its people. Researchers cannot unjustly interpret someone’s character based off their accent or native tongue, nor can they let their participants do the same without noticing.
Finally, recent, vivid events have an unparalleled impact on people’s understanding of others. The events that are fresh in someone’s mind will influence how to react to others. A great example that Martin et al. (2012) provides is the aftermath of 911. As a result, the attitude towards Arab-Americans was damaged by distrust and lead to stereotyping, mistreatment, and discrimination (Martin et al., 2012). To this day, some people harbor negative feelings towards this group of people. The researcher must review how historical events like this manifest in our interactions.
Ultimately, we all bring our own histories, some known, some hidden, into interactions. It is up to us to evaluate the role that history plays in our interactions identities and assumptions in order to give the most accurate results possible.
Next, Sunaoshi (2005) explores the importance of history in intercultural communication. “According to the Gumperzian model, miscommunication occurs as a result of different contextualization cues that workers from two different ethnic or national backgrounds bring (often unconsciously) when conversing with each other” (Sunaoshi, 2005, pg. 185). So, through video-recorded interviews, Sunaoshi (2005) examines the interactions between Japanese and American workers and demonstrates how they strategically used communicative resources to construct meaning throughout the interaction. Sunoashi (2005), also, determines how historical factors predetermines power dynamics and shapes the process and outcome of the interaction. The five historical factors are: (1) nationality (2) ethnolinguistic vitality (3) social positions (4) hierarchy (5) skills.
First, nationality matters because it can affect your social status. Within this study, Sunoashi weighed the economic and political status of the Japanese and American workers. As a result, the power relations of both Japan and the United States could mean different things. For example, for a Japanese company, setting up a plant in the United States means something quite different from the same company setting up a plant in Southeast Asia (Sunoashi, 2005, pg. 184)
Second, ethnolinguistic vitality refers to the global hierarchy of languages. The vitality between English and Japanese differs greatly. “Native speakers of English enjoy the most privileges, as is easily seen anywhere, from international business to second foreign language teaching” (Sunoashi, 2005, pg. 185)
Third, the social positions in the respective communities of the Japanese and American workers also have a profound effect on their interactions. “In the case of the Japanese, some supporters and managers on the one hand, and engineers and top managers on the other, were equipped with different cultural capital: The former were high-school educated, with limited exposure to English, whereas the latter were university graduates with more solid background in English” (Sunoashi, 2005, pg. 187)
Fourth, hierarchy refers to the corporate hierarchy within the company that Sunoashi (2005) is studying and hierarchy is reflected in their daily interactions. Since this company is owned by Japan, and the lower employees are American, the Japanese workers have an advantage based on the positioning of the employees and the corporate culture and practices.
Finally, skills make a major difference within in this study. The skills that Sunoashi (2005) examined were the ability of the employees to do the job correctly and fix problems. These experiences grant certain people capital within the company. “The fact that the Japanese, regardless of their official positions, had more experience in JDC’s various tasks granted them more interactional power in the context” (Sunoashi, 2005, pg. 190).
What intercultural scholars can learn from Sunoashi (2005) is how much historical factors influence the dynamics between cultures. It is important to examine the context of intercultural groups from all angles and draw information from how the groups interact on a global scale.
Dismantling the Hierarchy
Conquergood (1992) penned a letter to communication scholars, urging them to understand the benefit of ethnography and performance. He detailed that ethnographers and rhetoricians alike would gain immense insight that is not laden with privilege. This way of understanding intercultural research reveals how ethnocentric Western communication scholars are and requires observers to acknowledge their personal biases in research (Conquergood 1992). He challenges them “to do ethnography with, not of a group of people” (Conquergood, 1992, pg. 84). This level the hierarchy of observer and observed and changes the power relations that exist in fieldwork.
First, Conquergood (1992) reviewed James C. Scott’s Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, which explores the intricacies of power and oppression. Scott began by critiquing his colleagues and previous scholars for how they depicted marginalized people, stating that “oppressed people are double displace and degraded: first by the political and economic structures of violence and exclusion, then by armchair academics-cum-liberators who under the banner of ideological critique characterize them as naive, duped into false consciousness, compliant, dormant, mystified , and paralyzed by hegemony that they themselves have internalized” (Conquergood, 1992, pg. 89). Despite the good intentions the scholars may or may not have had, these hegemonic interpretations of marginalization have become a common occurrence. So, Scott denounces scholars and critical theories that shape oppressed people into passive, complacent puppets and provides a new outlook for future researchers; Despite what you may think, Oppressed people are not “fools, although at times they may act the part in the presence of power when it is in their own best interests to do so” (Conquergood, 1992, pg. 91).
Next, Scott points out two theories that influenced this narrative of the passive and disempowered people; thick theory of mystification and the thin theory of mystification. The thick theory infers that the dominant culture persuades oppressed people to believe that subordination is justified through various explanations. Whereas the thin theory claims that dominant culture persuades oppressed people to believe their subordination is inevitable and natural. “The thick theory claims consent and the thin theory settles for resignations” (Conquergood, 1992, pg. 89). However, Scott eviscerated the two theories based on their erasure of historical evidence of the countless peasant uprisings and the slave rebellions throughout humanity.
Lastly, Scott addresses the researcher’s lack of cultural understanding that ultimately contributes to the narrative of the passive and disempowered people. He recognized that scholars must take the steps to decode the hidden practices of the oppressed people and noted “Because of their acute vulnerability to retaliation, dominated people do not have “the luxury of direct confrontation” (Conquergood, 1992, pg. 92). Oppressed people, from slavery to present day, used hidden tactics to navigate in the presence of oppression. From a forest clearing to a gossip corner, “oppressed people must watch their backs, cover their tracks, hide their true feelings, and veil their motives” (Conquergood, 1992, pg. 89). In order to protect themselves, oppressed people cannot freely critique the hierarchy of power in the presence of oppressors, so they must create, what Scott defines as, a ‘hidden transcript’. The hidden transcript is a natural safe space for the oppressed to release what “must be choked back in public” and reflects the Ethiopian proverb: “When the great lord passes, the wise peasant bows deeply and silently farts” (Conquergood, 1992, pg. 89). These transcripts are purposefully difficult to acquire and not a part of public record, however, it is imperative for a researcher to understand. Conquergood (1992) explains that without access to the hidden transcripts, it is impossible to give an accurate description of oppressed people’s psyche.
Hopson (2007) addresses the racism within academic spaces in the US. He presents how space and power dynamics can function as a place that reaffirms white society or the dominant culture. Hopson ultimately determines that “it is not enough that marginalized group members are present in academia, it is imperative that our voices and experiences are heard as well (Hopson, 2007, pg. 2). In order to do that, the researcher must challenge their personal beliefs, recognize power relations, and dismantle its dominant structures.
First, Hopson (2007) recognizes organization as the embodiment of “the coordinated activities, or forces, of two or more persons involved in a common purpose or goal” (Hopson, 2007, pg. 4). Organizing is a unique process that relies on communication. However, when the group is intercultural, the communicative process differs. In intercultural organization, the past, present and future is vulnerable to implications and the communication of the organization is dependent on the previous context and future expectations. So, for example, a researcher who organizes an intercultural group must pay attention to the historical context and current power structures in which the group exists.
“Organization is implicitly and explicitly tied to larger societal structures” (Hopson, 2007, pg. 3). In everyday reality, oppressed people are not allowed to voice their concerns in the same way privileged people are. Thus, the organization may reflect this. For example, who holds organizational power is influenced by who holds societal power. It is up to the members of the organization, specifically the researcher, to manipulate the environment to offset the positions of power
Next, Hopson (2007) defines space and exposes the existence of Whitespace. Space is socio-historic phenomenon that embodies freedom or liberty and denied freedom is denied space which result in civil or human rights. Whitespace is the social construction of space that, either strategically or unintentionally, supports a dominant white culture. Whites inside whitespace are the subjects while people of color are objectified. According to Hopson (2007), whitespaces “disembody its subjects to the point they become anonymous and made invisible” (Hopson, 2007, pg. 4). Making whiteness and power relations, reviewing personal beliefs, and redesigning the space to reflect equality is vital to conducting a fair intercultural group.
To do this, Hopson (2007) highlights the need for intercultural sensitivity by exploring D. Marty’s Intercultural sensitivity model. This model is essentially a guide for members of the intercultural groups to engage in anti-racist dialogue. There are six steps to help tackle Whitespace: “1) employ self-reflection to recognize the benefit and detriment of power and privilege; 2) re-envision the surrounding world from other perspectives, and recognize other cultures as lending to the world; 3) be willing to contribute to intercultural interactions; 4) care about intercultural relationships; 5) reject racial privilege; and 6) move from admission of power and privilege to taking action against oppression” (Hopson, 2007, pg. 3). This series of challenges asks the group to acknowledge the kind of actions that perpetuate or deny the dominant power structure.
Hopson (2007) believes that going through Marty’s intercultural sensitivity model is vital to creating a safe multicultural environment and to our duties as agents against oppression. When the intercultural group members talk about oppression, describe its pervasiveness and how it attacks, they ultimately educate each other and encourage fighting back on an institutional scale. He furthers that as educators, researchers, and group members, it is our duty to dismantle the system, but the only way to do that is by emphasizing intercultural competence, sensitivity, and self-awareness in our field. “It is this culmination of cultivated knowledge, changed mindsets, effective communication skills, and increased cultural self-awareness that transforms our relationships” (Hopson, 2007, pg. 2).
Making Self Awareness a Priority
One of the best ways for a person from a place of privilege to reflect on their mindset and behaviors is to study dominant group theory. Razzante and Orbe (2018) conceptualizes this theory and highlights how it is intertwined with co-cultural theory and power. They, first, identify several groups that are considered to be the majority and therefore apart of dominant group theory: white people, men, heterosexuals, and Christians. Then, they layout 5 premises of dominant group theory and highlight a few ways these majority groups communicate.
According to Razzante et al., dominant group theory is an extension of co-cultural theory. This theory, and ultimately dominant group theory, is based on five premises: “(1) societal hierarchy exists, (2) those of dominant group membership use power consciously or unconsciously to reinforce systems of power, (3) dominant structures impede on co-cultural group members lived experiences, (4) different co-cultural groups communicate within similar power-laden contexts, and (5) co-cultural communication involves strategic use of specific communicative practices” Thus, Co-cultural theory explores how co-cultures, or groups that have been historically given a lower status in society communicate with majority groups. Co-cultural theory, basically, is centered around one question: “how do co-cultural group members use communication to negotiate their cultural identities with others (both like and unlike themselves) in a societal context where they are traditionally marginalized?” (Razzante & Orbe 2018). This theory ultimately focuses on variables that influence the communicative strategies employed by co-cultures. The six variables, or factors, that Orbe highlights are: field of experience, perceived costs and rewards, communication approach, preferred outcomes, abilities, and situational context” (Razzante et al. 2018). Each factor intersects one another, informs the strategy behind intercultural interactions, and determines the selection of communicative practices.
Because of co-cultural theory, Dominant group theory provides an alternative angle to this dynamic. Through oppressive systems like racism, homophobia, and sexism, dominant group theory uses tactics such as aggressive reinforcement and microaggressions to support the existing power structures on a macro level. Because of this, Razzante et al. suggests further reading of microaggression literature, being that microaggressions reflect a bigger picture of privilege and other oppressive systems. “It is integral to understanding ways in which dominant group members consciously or unconsciously work to reinforce discriminatory practices toward co-cultural groups” (Razzante et al. 2018). Razzante et al. (2018) establishes three ways in which dominant groups reinforce oppression: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. Each of them reiterate how dominant groups keep their social power.
Lastly, Ramanathan (2005) focuses on the role of the researcher. He believes that researchers should be transparent about, not only the motivations behind the research, but the researcher’s assumptions as well. They must work towards being self-reflective and examine the implications of the class, sexuality, ethnicity, and race of their participants, as well as themselves. Ramanathan insists that factors of social status in society greatly affects the researcher’s writing and depiction of others. As a result, there is an increasing number of scholars in the communication field who view self-reflexivity as an integral part of their research. Gone are the days of the “objective, distanced observer” because the researcher is just as important to the study as the participant.
Ramanathan explores an array of issues that researchers who employ self-reflexivity will encounter: “(a) anxieties around speaking for others, (b) insider–outsider dichotomies and some impossibilities around locating the “researcher,” (c) ways in which “language” or writing not only constructs selves but also adds layers to already existing selves (d)capturing multivocality without jettisoning conventional writing genres, and (e) the value of capturing the ongoing “inner monologue” of researchers in the “writing up” process” (Ramanathan 2005).
As meticulous as this may feel, asking ourselves these questions are important to pushing the intercultural field in a brighter direction. When we conduct studies, questioning our methods, the “languaging” of it, the representations of others and ourselves in it, the genres we have available to us in the writing process, as well as the difficulties inherent in intermeshing our “researcher” voices with those about which we are writing and speaking, is vital to conducting a culturally sensitive and thorough study (Ramanathan 2005).
Conclusion
As intercultural scholars, we are in a unique position to bring much-needed change to a vast amount of communities. There are people who are suffering that rely on us. They trust that we will be thorough, that we will do our due diligence, and that we will put our best effort into giving a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves. Through self-awareness, dismantling power dynamics, considering historical contexts, and being culturally sensitive, we can all improve our research methods, to not simply study a community, but to become a part of it, as well. We must use this academic platform to continue their fight and urge the public to be better communicators, and, in turn, become better communicators ourselves.
References
Conquergood, D. (1992). Ethnography, rhetoric, and performance. Quarterly Journal of Speech
(78): 80-123
Chiu, C., Lonner, W.J., Matsumoto, D., Ward, C. (2013). Cross-cultural Competence: Theory,
research, and application. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 44(6). 843-848 DOI
10.1177/0022022113493716
Hopson, M.C. (2007) Negotiations of organizational whitespace: Critical reflection on bodies of
power, privilege, and intercultural (in)sensitivity within academia. International &
Intercultural Communication Annual. 30. 1-20
Martin, J.N., Nakayama, T.K. (2012) Intercultural Communication in Contexts. 74 – 153
Ramanathan, V. (2005). Situating the Researcher in Research Texts: Dilemmas,
Questions, Ethics, New Directions. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. 4(4). 291
– 293 DOI: 10.1207/s15327701jlie0404_3
Razzante, R.J., Orbe, M. ( 2018) Two sides of the same coin: Conceptualizing dominant group
theory in the context of co-cultural theory.Communication Theory. 28(3). 354 – 375
Sunaoshi, Y. (2005). Historical context and intercultural communication: Interactions between
Japanese and American factory workers in the American South. Language in Society.
34(2). 185 – 217. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404505050086