Intercultural Education,Vol. 17, No. 4, October 2006, pp. 407–419

ISSN 1467-5986 (print)/ISSN 1469-8439 (online)/06/040407–13© 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14675980600971434

Towards intercultural communication: from micro to macro perspectives

Xiaoping Jiang*Guangzhou University, The People’s Republic of ChinaTaylor and Francis LtdCEJI_A_197044.sgm10.1080/14675980600971434Intercultural Education1467-5986 (print)/1469-8439 (online)Original Article2006Taylor & Francis174000000October 2006IsadoraJiangisadorajiang@yahoo.co.nz

This paper investigates intercultural communication and its significance to higher education. Thepaper briefly discusses culture, subculture and the meeting of cultures. It also provides a briefsurvey of developments in intercultural communication research. With reference to New Zealand,the paper further points to some limitations of intercultural communication theories, but mean-while acknowledges the significance of these theories to higher education. The author argues thatadopting interculturalism based on the principles of equality and respect at the national and insti-tutional levels is more crucial than merely mastering some intercultural competencies or applyingsome intercultural communication models outlined in intercultural communication theories.

Introduction

Today’s world seems to be shrinking as it becomes increasingly interconnected dueto advances in ‘high tech’ communication systems and transport and the processesof globalization. With this unprecedented interconnectivity, our perception of theworld is changing and becoming more complicated and sophisticated. Our socialnetwork correspondingly broadens, transgressing borders virtually and physically.Frequent contacts with people from different cultural backgrounds make us aware ofvast differences in the cultures that largely shape our identity. These interculturalinteractions challenge us to widen our outlook and expand in new directions.Research in intercultural communication focuses on these contacts between cultur-ally diverse people. The research is thought-provoking, as it prompts us to reflect onour own lives and our relationships with each other in this world.

With the intensified internationalization of higher education (HE), the field ofintercultural communication has gained in importance and prominence. Manyuniversities, mainly in the West, have experienced a large growth in their student

*School of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, People’s Republic ofChina. Email: isadorajiang@yahoo.co.nz

408 X. Jiang

population from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. This raises the issue ofhow to accommodate this cultural diversity on campus. Are intercultural communi-cation theories adequate to address this issue?

This paper provides a summary and critical review of intercultural communicationtheories. In particular, crucial issues in intercultural communication are discussed.First, the paper briefly outlines the concepts of culture, subculture and the meetingof cultures. The history of intercultural communication as a field of study is theninvestigated. Importantly, the paper critiques the limitations of interculturalcommunication theories, with special reference to New Zealand and China, whilst atthe same time acknowledging the significance of these theories in HE. Finally, inter-culturalism is advocated, as it adopts the notion that no culture dominates, henceshaping an environment that enables authentic, equitable intercultural communica-tion to occur.

Culture, subculture and the meeting of cultures

Before studying what does or should happen when cultures meet, a note is in orderregarding the term ‘culture’ itself. Culture can be seen as the ‘Sum total of ways ofliving, including behavioral norms, linguistic expression, styles of communication,patterns of thinking, and beliefs and values of a group large enough to be self-sustain-ing transmitted over the course of generations’ (Jandt, 2001, p. 499). Moreover, inaddition to culture, there is subculture. Subcultures are derived from larger culturesin a society and can be seen as a representation of fragmentation in culture (Fong,2004), yet boundaries between culture and subculture are complicated and fluid.Any individual is likely to belong to multiple orders of group, subgroup and super-group. For all these reasons, culture tends to defy the possibility of reaching a morespecific consensus about its definition.

The definition of culture stated above refers largely to stable practices happeningwithin an ethnically stable group of people within stable physical and legal nationalborders. Although this formulation remains serviceable, contemporary culture mustbe sketched as fluid, amorphous and unstable. In the 21st century, cross-ethnic andcross-border communication and transport complicate that concept of culturemuch more. Under these influences cultures cease to be limited by one’sgeographic location or one’s racial origin. Clearly, the infinitely more high techcommunications and rapid transport systems that drive today’s globalization andinternationalization exponentially increase the combinations and permutations ofcultural exchange. The result is that now, in an almost untrackably fast and compli-cated way, cultures, at whatever level and however they are defined, are in evercloser contact.

The meeting of cultures has generated a proliferation of intercultural communica-tion theories. This paper selects some key existing theories for critical review. Thesections that follow briefly explore the history of intercultural communication as afield of study, critically examine the major theories of intercultural communicationand address some crucial issues in intercultural communication.

Intercultural communication 409

A brief history of intercultural communication as a field of study

Intercultural communication as a human activity has been around since humanhistory began. It has been a human concern for millennia. It takes place when cultur-ally diverse people interact. Seen in this light, intercultural communication is not anew phenomenon. However, what is new is ‘the systematic study of exactly whathappens when cross-cultural contacts and interaction take place—when messageproducer and message receiver are from different cultures’ (Samovar & Porter,1985, p. 1). Furthermore, the degree and forms of intercultural communication aredifferent from those of centuries ago, as can be seen in the growth of populations,the advances in technology and transportation and the unprecedented interactionsbetween people from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. There are nowan increasing number of intercultural contacts leading to communication betweenpeople from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This communicationoccurs as a result of intercultural contacts, such as in the fields of business, massmedia, science and education (Allwood, 2003, p. 1). Since the mid 20th century,intercultural communication has been a developing discipline. Intercultural commu-nication as a recognizable sphere of education and research has been developedmore recently to respond to particular needs which co-occur with the growing move-ment of people who are going abroad to study, work and live (Pusch, undated,p. 11). However, intercultural communication research is still in its infancy. AsLeeds-Hurwitz (1990) observed, ‘the young field still has little history written aboutit’ (p. 262). Few researchers in this field provide any detailed discussion of thehistory of intercultural communication. One of the few studies which has investi-gated the history of the field in detail is Leeds-Hurwitz’s (1990) article, highlightingthe history of the US Foreign Service Institute (FSI), and the work of Edward Hall(1959). Kohls (cited in Hart, 1997, p. 13) also deals with the history of interculturalcommunication study through an exploration of several milestones, such as signifi-cant publications, the establishment of institutions and other important events.However, compared with Leeds-Hurwitz’s deliberately narrow and detailed investi-gation Kohls’ endeavour is broad, but lacks depth and a systematic structure. Thehistory which follows combines these two scholars’ approaches and presents asystematic, broad, yet also brief, detailed history of intercultural communication.

William Hart (1997, p. 13) divided the study of intercultural communication intofour stages: establishment of a conceptual framework in the 1950s, paradigm accep-tance in the 1960s and 1970s, theory construction in the early 1980s and upcomingmature, ‘normal’ science.

Intercultural communication research started with the conceptual frameworkpresented by Hall and others at the FSI in the early 1950s. This conceptual frameworkwas put forward mainly in The silent language (Hall, 1959), marking ‘the birth of inter-cultural communication since it synthesized what are now considered fundamentalissues in understanding culture and communication’ (Dodd, 1995, p. 26). Subcul-tures began to take themselves seriously. The events of the 1960s, such as thewomen’s rights movement and other human rights movements facilitated the testing

410 X. Jiang

(through training) of notions formerly developed in the intercultural communicationresearch of Hall and other researchers. By the 1970s, specialized interculturalcommunication courses, societies and journals were established, indicating the accep-tance of the field, which then ‘moved from its formative stage of carefree infancy to asomewhat mature stage of adulthood’ (Saral, as cited in Hart, 1997, p. 7).

In the late 1970s, the maturation process experienced an identity crisis; the fieldwrestled with a ‘definitional problem’ (Nwankwo, 1979, p. 325). Researchers in thefield attempted to seek a clear definition of intercultural communication, but withlittle success. By the early 1980s, the field experienced a surge in activity with thework of William Gudykunst and Young Yun Kim, who established interculturalcommunication-oriented theories. Yet in 1989, Gudykunst and Nishida observedthat there was still no single overarching theoretical paradigm to steer interculturalcommunication research, so that, from a positivist perspective, the field’s develop-ment was still immature. The 1990s continued theory construction and testing in thefield, but whether intercultural communication research has since reached a stage ofmaturity remains unclear, bearing in mind that culture is a dynamic phenomenon.Furthermore, the interaction between two or more cultures often1 leads to hybridiza-tion, ‘the ways in which forms become separated from existing practices and recom-bine with new forms in new practices’ (Rowe & Schelling, 1991, p. 231).

Thus the complexity of exchange has led to increased research, with variousattempts made to theorize the phenomena. Given the increase in research on inter-cultural communication, it is appropriate to critically examine the principal theoriesof intercultural communication and consider what really matters in any interculturalencounter.

A review of theories of intercultural communication

In the discussion of intercultural communication theories there have been threemajor scientific approaches, positivist, humanist and systems, as shown in Table 1.

The positivist approach follows the ‘analytic–reductionist–mechanic–behavioral–quantitative’ (Kim, 1988, original emphasis). Traditionally it has been acknowledgedas the most scientific approach, as it represents the essence of natural science. ‘If Athen B’ is the ‘practical reasoning’ that usually exists in everyday life, above all inWestern European and North American societies (Kim, 1988). It is believed that thispragmatic logic might help us simplify and predicate or even manage real phenom-ena through careful observation. For instance, Gudykunst’s (1988) Uncertainty andanxiety follows this approach.

Gudykunst (1988) studied individual intercultural experiences from a psychologi-cal perspective. He based his theory on the assumption that individuals might try toreduce uncertainty in their first intercultural encounters with people from differentcultural backgrounds by proactively predicting ‘others’ attitudes, beliefs, feelings,and behavior, as well as retrospective explanations about others’ behaviour’.Gudykunst presented a set of predicative statements linking the factors consideredto influence the psychological reactions. The factors comprise a ‘knowledge of host

Intercultural communication 411T

able

1.

A s

umm

ary

of t

heor

ies

in in

terc

ultu

ral c

omm

unic

atio

n (K

im, 1

988,

pp.

16–

17)

Met

a-th

eore

tica

l gr

ound

ing

Pos

itiv

ist

appr

oach

Hum

anis

t ap

proa

chS

yste

ms

appr

oach

Cha

ract

eris

tics

1.A

naly

tic–

redu

ctio

nist

– m

echa

nist

ic–b

ehav

iora

l–

quan

tita

tive

2.‘I

f A

the

n B

’3.

Vie

win

g th

eory

as

a se

t of

pr

inci

ples

, oft

en c

alle

d ax

iom

s or

law

s

1.S

ynth

etic

–hol

isti

c–id

eogr

aphi

c–

cont

extu

al2.

Des

crib

ing

the

natu

re o

f th

e ph

enom

enon

as

it u

nfol

ds3.

Foc

usin

g on

the

his

tori

cal m

eani

ng

of e

xper

ienc

e an

d it

s de

velo

pmen

tal

and

cum

ulat

ive

effe

cts

at t

he

indi

vidu

al a

nd s

ocia

l lev

els

1.In

tegr

atin

g th

e ex

tern

al ‘o

bjec

tive

’ pa

tter

ns a

nd t

he in

tern

al ‘s

ubje

ctiv

e’

expe

rien

ces

of in

divi

dual

s2.

Str

essi

ng in

tera

ctio

n of

co

mm

unic

atio

n ph

enom

ena

and

view

ing

inte

ract

ing

elem

ents

of

a gi

ven

enti

ty a

s co

-det

erm

inin

g th

e ou

tcom

e be

ing

inve

stig

ated

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

theo

rist

s an

d th

eir

theo

ries

1.G

udyk

unst

(19

88)

2.G

allo

is e

t al.

(198

8)3.

For

gas

(198

8)4.

Tin

g-T

oom

ey (

1988

)5.

Elli

ngsw

orth

(19

88)

1.A

pple

gate

& S

yphe

r (1

988)

2.C

rone

n et

al.

(198

8)3.

Col

lier

& T

hom

as (

1988

)

1.K

im &

Rub

en (

1988

)2.

Yum

(19

88)

3.K

inca

id (

1988

)

412 X. Jiang

culture, shared networks, intergroup attitudes, favourable contact, stereotypes,cultural identity, cultural similarity, and second language competence’ (p. 124),which are identified as being able to reduce uncertainty and anxiety. Four have animpact on uncertainty reduction, ‘intimacy, attraction, display of nonverbal affilia-tive expressiveness, and the use of appropriate uncertainty reduction strategies’,while the other four are concerned with anxiety reduction, ‘strangers’ motivation tolive permanently in the host culture, host nationals’ intergroup attitudes, hostculture policy toward strangers, and strangers’ psychological differentiation’(Gudykunst, 1988). Arguably, Gudykunst emphasizes psychological and linguisticaspects at the micro level and thus overlooks the impact of the macro or global envi-ronment and national foreign policies in his intercultural communication research.

The humanist approach challenges the positivist approach by focusing on present-ing the nature of the phenomenon as it unfolds and by emphasizing the freedom ofindividuals. This approach accentuates a ‘synthetic–holistic–ideographic–contextual’methodology (Kim, 1988, p. 17, original emphasis). Following the interpretativeapproach, humanist research is mainly concerned with the ‘historical meaning ofexperience and its developmental and cumulative effects’ at the individual and sociallevels (Kim, 1988). Thus, the theoretical goal is chiefly to describe and clarify agiven communication phenomenon. Guided by this goal, humanist theorists endeav-our to maintain the original structure engendered by the individuals who are parts ofthe communication event. This approach is well represented by the theoriesproposed by James Applegate and Howard Sypher, Vernon Cronen, Victoria Chenand Barnett Pearce, as well as Mary Collier and Milt Thomas, who primarily investi-gated the subjective and intersubjective processes of interpretation and perspectiveemployed in communication (Kim, 1988).

For example, in Applegate and Sypher’s (1988) A constructive theory of communica-tion and culture the impact of culture on individual communication behaviour isdelineated. The emphasis of the theory is on the interpretative nature of communi-cation, the interconnected culture and the individual’s cognitive construction ofreality. The constructive theory focuses on how individual differences in socialperception processes affect the development and use of ‘person-centered’ communi-cation behaviours (Applegate & Sypher, 1988, p. 44). This theory represents thehumanist approach to research into intercultural communication. As do the theoriesapplying the positive approach, this theory concentrates on micro perspectives as tohow to make intercultural communication effective through an analysis of individualdifferences, cultural identity and management of meanings. Although it does notexclude the social situation, the theory similarly overlooks the impact of the globalcontext that situates the intercultural event.

The systems approach highlights the interactive nature of communication phenom-ena and interactive elements of a given system as ‘codetermining the outcome beinginvestigated’ (Kim & Gudykunst, 1988, p. 18). It also identifies the structure of asystem and the forms of information exchange which arise in the system. Similarly tothe positivist approach, the systems approach highlights the importance of identifying‘lawlike principles and patterns of interaction among systems elements’ (Kim &

Intercultural communication 413

Gudykunst, 1988). Yet it critiques the ‘insensitivity’ of the positivist approach in thecomplicated, transactional, dynamic nature of communication phenomena (Kim &Gudykunst, 1988). Resembling the humanistic approach, the systems approachconsiders communication as ‘an emergent and interactive process’ and emphasizesthe whole of a communication system (Kim & Gudykunst, 1988). Therefore, thisapproach incorporates ‘the external “objective” patterns and the internal “subjective”experiences of individuals’ which operate concurrently and are inseparable (Kim &Gudykunst, 1988).

The representative systems theorists are Kim and Brent Ruben, June Ock Yum andLawrence Kincaid. As an illustration, Kim and Ruben (1988) presented Interculturaltransformation: a systems theory, which addresses the process of intercultural transfor-mation happening in the internal condition of individuals as they take part in wideranging intercultural communication activities. In this internal transformation thedevelopment of the individuals’ ‘cognitive, affective, and behavioral patterns’ is seen totranscend their culturally governed psychological constraints (Kim & Ruben, 1988,p. 299, original emphasis). This theory also elucidates why and how interculturaltransformation takes place. Its major theme is ‘the stress–adaptation–growth dynamic’which drives individuals to build up intercultural ‘capital’ (Kim & Ruben, 1988,p. 299, original emphasis). This theory is also constrained by a focus on psychologicaland interpersonal analysis in intercultural communication.

A comprehensive theoretical framework from which to understand interculturalcommunication is not possible through focusing only on psychological and interper-sonal analysis. It is necessary to take account of the impact of macro level processes,and this account must incorporate a social, political and economic dimension. Wecannot consider culture simply as a dimension of reality (frequently termed thecultural dimension) because ‘all economic, political, religious, legal, educational,scientific and technological activities are cultural activities, since they are part of acertain culture’ (Coll, 2002). Culture cannot be independent of these activities asthey are all expressions of a particular culture and constituents of a society and socialgroup. Particularly, national policies can also have profound effects on interculturalcommunication.

To take the Chinese in New Zealand as an example, many Chinese New Zealandersexperienced overt racism during times of anti-Chinese legislation. In 1881, the firstanti-Chinese legislation was passed, and this was followed by more legislation againstthe Chinese aimed at preventing more from settling in New Zealand. The Chinesewere the only ethnic immigrant group that underwent the insulting process of havingthumb prints taken whenever they entered and left New Zealand (Ip, 1996). Further-more, Chinese immigrants were the only racial community that was required to paya poll tax—£10 in 1881, increased to £100 in 1896. Altogether the New ZealandCustoms collected £308,080 in poll tax from Chinese immigrants. Moreover,between 1908 and 1952 the Chinese were the only racial minority required to pay anextra fee for their application for naturalization. Furthermore, denial of citizenshipduring this period meant a loss of access to political representation, voting rights andsocial welfare benefits, such as pension and unemployment subsidies (Ip, 1996, 1999,

414 X. Jiang

p. 15). During the period of anti-Chinese legislation few New Zealanders wouldcommunicate with the Chinese. Often they did not allow their children to play withChinese children. With such a hostile attitude prevailing, many Chinese people whostayed in New Zealand did not enjoy equal basic rights and little intercultural commu-nication took place. These days New Zealand recognition of the contributions madeby the Chinese community and the financial value of international students meansthat attitudes have shifted to some extent. This is further evident in the government’sformal apology in 2002 to the Chinese community with regard to the above historicalinjustices (People’s Daily, China, 2002) and Chinese representation, although stillminimal, at the governmental and local levels.

The significance of intercultural communication theories to higher education

Intercultural communication theories, despite their limitations, provide insights whichare becoming increasingly significant for providers of HE because of the growingcultural diversity brought about by international students and new immigrant studentsin HE institutions (HEIs). These insights could play a central role in that they mightforestall miscommunication, prevent misunderstandings and avoid mistakes and,beyond such damage control or evasive action, lead to positive gains from a broadeningof one’s—or an institution’s or a culture’s or a nation’s—intellectual horizons throughthe interplay and challenging of ideas.

Faced with culturally diverse campuses, HEIs should base their education onintercultural objectives so as to prepare students adequately for effective communi-cation between cultures on a daily basis. Cooperatively conducted interculturaleducation efforts may facilitate the transmission of appropriate knowledge andunderstanding through academic programmes and the development of new knowl-edge through research (Hinner, 1998). The concept of ‘knowledge’ in play herehelps offset some of the dominant economic imperatives based on rational utilitymaximization, such as the ‘lack of inwardness’ and the ‘splitting of the knower fromthe known’ (Magalhases & Stoer, 2003, p. 43). It could also help to counter the‘individualization’ of knowledge by explicitly recognizing that in a globalized worldthe individual shares knowledge not only with members of his/her own culture butnow also with members of other cultures.

International students and new immigrant students bring an international andintercultural perspective to course content, pedagogy and, particularly, to classroomdiscussions (Ward, 2001). Their different views present new perspectives on learn-ing and new world views to teachers and administrators. This poses a challenge forteachers and administrators as to how to meet their expectations and how to manageissues arising from cultural differences in their interactions with international andnew immigrant students. Intercultural communication theories are instructive indealing with this challenge. It is natural that intercultural incompatibility or conflictmight well occur when two or more cultures meet. This is because each person hashis/her own cultural values, ‘face’ concerns (a phenomenon most talked about with

Intercultural communication 415

reference to Asian, especially Oriental, students) and communicative styles in copingwith intercultural conflicts.

For instance, familiarity with Gudykunst’s uncertainty and anxiety theory canmake teachers, administrators and students realize the impact of ‘ethnolinguisticidentity, second language ability, expectations, group similarity, shared networks,interpersonal salience, self-monitoring, cognitive complexity and tolerance for ambi-guity’ upon uncertainty and anxiety reduction (Gudykunst, 1988, p. 129). Thistheory also has a particular implication for international students, teachers andadministrators that the prediction of others’ attitudes, beliefs, feelings and behaviourcan reduce uncertainty. However, they can also form stereotypes that could wellimpede intercultural communication.

In short, intercultural communication theories are of use and significance ininforming strategies designed to cope with concrete intercultural incompatibility orconflicts in HE. Yet this can only be realized under the condition that intercultural-ism, whereby no culture dominates and each one has a voice, is accepted as anational and institutional policy to create an equal and productive interculturalenvironment.

Interculturalism: desirable ‘policy’ for promoting equitable intercultural communication in higher education

The term interculturalism generally indicates a set of perspectives and attitudesaimed at ‘promoting an open and dynamic interaction and exchange between differ-ent cultures and is not limited to defending the right to their co-existence within adetermined space’ (Comedia Network, undated). Féral (1996, p. 10) argued thatinterculturalism begets ‘something deeper and more interesting than multicultural-ism: the idea of a mutual friction of cultures, an interaction, an exchange betweencultures’ (p. 1). She preferred the word interculturalism to cultural pluralism ormulticulturalism because, for her, the former ‘presupposes the latter but with theadded awareness that different cultures never sit quietly side by side, they alwaysintermingle or fight among each other’ (Féral, 1996).

Another point needs to be made as to nomenclature. Broadly, this paper uses theword interculturalism to refer to a ‘policy’ of promoting intercultural interaction.One notable feature of interculturalism is that the interaction is not always peaceful;far from it. Féral (1996) explicitly stated that cultures inevitably ‘intermingle or fight’(p. 1, emphasis added). The prospect of physical violence, or racial hostility, is whatmakes it so important that interculturalism be given careful attention. Indeed, ifmeetings between cultures were always peaceful and unproblematic they wouldprovoke infinitely less debate than is apparent all around the globe, including in thearena of HE. They would also require less urgent academic attention.

As Bhabha (1994) stated, ‘The differences between disjunctive sites and represen-tations of social life have to be articulated without surmounting the incommensura-ble meanings and judgements that are produced within the process of transculturalnegotiation’ (p. 162). Bhabha’s argument indicates that differences and divisions

416 X. Jiang

have to be uttered in intercultural communication without necessarily having beenresolved or removed, because disjunctions and discontinuities actually happen everyday when meaning is drawn out of an intercultural communicative event. Thus,differences should be accepted as an everyday reality, rather than overcome anderased in any intercultural encounter (see Coll, 2002). In the case of the internation-alization of HE in New Zealand this negotiation is more visible because of theupsurge in international and immigrant students since the 1990s.

With the growth in student diversity, New Zealand universities are faced with theissue of how best to assist their internal others (immigrant students) and externalothers (international students) in their internationalization polices and strategies.The multicultural classroom requires teaching staff to be inclusive and create aproductive learning environment where cooperation across cultures can occur. Thiscan be especially challenging, as Ward (2001) observed that New Zealand studentsare not keen on intercultural relations and interactions. Furthermore, Oettli, Pro-Vice Chancellor International at Waikato University, has considered the universities’capacity to provide adequate assistance to international students with respect to theirreported higher learning needs, extra demand on teachers and limited English abil-ity. He urges precaution in that that ‘to preserve the unique Kiwi experience’ whichmakes studying in New Zealand very appealing, ‘[the] international student popula-tion should not surpass the institutions’ capacity to support them’ (Evans, 2002,p. 21). Common considerations here are the infrastructure for managing diversityand the availability of learning and language support, as well as the pastoral care thata HEI can offer. While this infrastructure support is of use to internal and externalothers, more importantly interculturalism based on equality and respect should beincluded as a fundamental policy in the internationalization of HE to ensure thebasic value of equality in an intercultural encounter.

Yet, New Zealand largely lacks this essential element of policy at the governmen-tal, sectoral and institutional levels at present. The internationalization of HE inNew Zealand is economically oriented under neo-liberal ideology and policies.Although the social, cultural and academic rationales for this internationalization arementioned, no concrete policies and strategies have been formulated, let alone prac-tices. Chinese international students make up almost half of the total internationalstudent population in New Zealand (Scott, 2003), yet there are very few organiza-tions designed specifically to assist them to cope with cultural differences and otherintercultural challenges. Lack of an intercultural policy and specific support willjeopardize the development of a complete internationalization strategy that shouldinclude initiatives concerning curriculum, teaching, learning, research and adminis-tration. The other consequence of an economically oriented strategy is that it putsNew Zealand at risk of losing its competitive advantage in the international educa-tion market. A recent report has already revealed a large drop in the number ofChinese self-funded students in New Zealand (Howie, 2004).

Ideally, therefore, the principles of equality and interculturalism should informpolicy and practice at all levels of government and the education system. This shouldbe applicable to policy-makers, teachers and administrators, as well as educational

Intercultural communication 417

organizations, management bodies and support services (Kelly, 2002, p. 36). Futurepolicies on the internationalization of HE should focus on a rights-based equalityapproach, making provision for cultural diversity as a central criterion and making itintegral to the design of systems. In short, an inclusive interculturalism should be thebasis of policy and practice and be diffused throughout the education system. Thisapproach ensures that diversity is accommodated as the criterion and function in anequality framework that acknowledges all cultural differences and the way they inter-act (Kelly, 2002). Thus, interculturalization can be considered a desirable outcomeof the internationalization of HE, one that will ensure each person’s dignity andrights in any intercultural encounter.

Furthermore, HEIs, in order to maximize educational opportunities and honourtheir own mission statements, have a responsibility to help students gain a strongsense of personal identity through valuing and representing their unique cultural andtraditional heritage, thereby helping students develop, understand and respect othercultures and traditions. Administrators and educators need to provide students withopportunities to explore the characteristics and values that diverse cultural groupsstand for. The knowledge they acquire through their proactive exploration willenable students to cope with issues arising from stereotyping, prejudice, discrimina-tion and racism (Government of Manitoba, undated).

Conclusion

This paper points out that the concepts of culture and subcultures are amorphousand their complications and fluidity need to be acknowledged. The brief survey ofthe historical development of intercultural communication as a field of study showsthat intercultural communication is still developing and there is much space to beexplored. Theories of intercultural communication mainly apply a functionalapproach and foretell how culture affects communication. The theories approachintercultural communication predominantly from psychological, linguistic and inter-personal perspectives and overlook the macro context of the society in which it isrooted.

With special reference to New Zealand HE, the paper argues that interculturalismbased on the fundamental principle of cultural equality should be adopted as HEpolicy. Interculturalism offers the potential to enrich the mutual knowledge of differ-ent cultures and to create an authentic and productive learning environment forboth domestic and international students.

Note

1. The qualifier ‘often’ recognizes that sometimes a particularly strong trait will completelydominate and lead to assimilation into the relevant parent culture, in much the same way as astrictly dominant gene might. Nevertheless, nurture is arguably more important than nature inthe cultural context and dominance is at least as likely to result from an active favouring of oneculture, without any inherent superiority of the trait itself. This is all the more reason to fosterculture by means of respectful interculturalism.

418 X. Jiang

Notes on contributor

Xiaoping Jiang obtained her Ph.D. in education at the University of Auckland, NewZealand. She is currently an Associate Professor of English at GuangzhouUniversity, People’ Republic of China. Dr Jiang has published extensively,mainly in the areas of translation theories and skills, intercultural studies andhigher education.

References

Allwood, J. (2003) Intercultural communication. Available online at: http://www.immi.se/intercul-tural/ (accessed 26 March 2004).

Applegate, J. & Sypher, H. (1988) A constructivist theory of communication and culture, in: Y. Y.Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds) Theories in intercultural communication (Thousand Oaks, CA,Sage), 41–65.

Bhabha, H. (1994) The location of culture (London, Routledge).Coll, A. (2002) Proposals for intercultural diversity in the era of globalisation. Available online at:

www.alliance21.org/en/proposals/finals/final_intercul_en.pdf (accessed 3 April 2004).Collier, M. & Thomas, M. (1988) Cultural identity: an interpretative perspective, in: Y.Y. Kim &

W. B. Gudykunst (Eds) Theories in intercultural education (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 99–120.Comedia Network (undated) Interculturalism. Available online at: http://www.comedianet-

work.org/glossary/worddescription.php?url_wordid=6øp (accessed 12 March 2004).Cronen, V., Chen, V. and Pearce, B. (1988) Coordinated management of meaning: a critical

theory, in: Y.Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds) Theories in intercultural education (ThousandOaks, CA, Sage), 67–98.

Dodd, C. (1995) Dynamics of intercultural communication (Madison, WI, Brown & Benchmark).Ellingsworth, H. (1988) A theory of adaptation in intercultural dyads, in: Y.Y. Kim & W. B.

Gudykunst (Eds) Theories in intercultural education (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 259–279.Evans, S. (2002, 29 May) Too much of everything, Educational Review, pp. 20–23.Féral, J. (1996) Pluralism in art or interculturalism? Available online at: http://kvc.minbuza.nl/uk/

archive/amsterdam/ukverslag_feral.html (accessed 12 March 2004).Fong, M. (2004) Identity and the speech community, in: M. Fong & R. L. Chuang (Eds)

Communicating ethnic and cultural identity (Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield).Forgas, J. (1988) Episode representations in intercultural communication, in: Y.Y. Kim & W. B.

Gudykunst (Eds) Theories in intercultural education (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 186–212.Gallois, C., Franklyn-Stokes, A., Giles, H. & Coupland, N. (1988) Communication accommoda-

tion in intercultural encounters, in: Y.Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds) Theories in intercul-tural education (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 157–185.

Government of Manitoba (undated) Multicultural education: a policy for the 1990’s. Available onlineat: www.edu.gov.mb.ca/ks4/docs/policy/multic/#Education%20for%20Intercultural%20Understanding (accessed 20 April 2004).

Gudykunst, W. (1988) Uncertainty and anxiety, in: Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds) Theoriesin intercultural communication (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 123–156.

Hall, E. (1959) The silent language (Garden City, NY, Doubleday Press).Hart, W. (1997) A brief history of intercultural communication: a paradigmatic approach. Available online

at: http://web.odu.edu/webroot/instr/AL/wbhart.nsf/pages/histICC (accessed 26 March 2004).Hinner, M. (1998) The importance of intercultural communication in the globalized world. Available

online at: http://www.wiwi.tu-freiberg.de/englisch/downloads/Global.PDF (accessed 18 April2004).

Howie, C. (2004, 1 April) Chinese student number drop blamed for downturn, The SouthlandTimes, p. 3. Available online at: http://www.stuff.co.nz (accessed 10 October 2004).

Intercultural communication 419

Ip, M. (1996) Dragons on the long white cloud: the making of Chinese New Zealanders (North ShoreCity, New Zealand, Tandem Press).

Ip, M. (1999) Chinese political participation in New Zealand—the role of Taiwanese immigrants.Available online at: http://www.stevenyoung.co.nz/chinesevoice/participation/manyingapr0(accessed 3 September 2004).

Jandt, F. (2001) Intercultural communication: an introduction (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).Kelly, M. (2002) Promoting anti-racism and interculturalism in education: draft recommendations

towards a National Action Plan. Available online at: http://www.justice.ie/802569B20047F907/vWeb/flMJDE5NKJ5N/$file/education.pdf (accessed 3 March 2004).

Kim, Y. (1988) On theorizing intercultural communication, in: Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst(Eds) Theories in intercultural communication (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 11–21.

Kim, Y. & Gudykunst, W. (Eds) (1988) Theories in intercultural communication (Thousand Oaks,CA, Sage).

Kim, Y. & Ruben, B. (1988). Intercultural transformation: a systems theory, in: Y. Y. Kim & W.B. Gudykunst (Eds) Theories in intercultural communication (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage),299–321.

Kincaid, L. (1988) The convergence theory of adaptation in intercultural dyads, in: Y. Y. Kim &W. B. Gudykunst (Eds) Theories in intercultural education (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 280–298.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. L. (1990) Notes in the history of intercultural communication: the foreignservice institute and the mandate for intercultural training, The Quarterly Journal of Speech,76(3), 280–298.

Magalhases, A. M. & Stoer, S. R. (2003) Performance, citizenship and the knowledge society: anew mandate for European education policy, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1(1),41–66.

Nwankwo, R. (1979) Intercultural communication: a critical review, The Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, 65, 324–346.

People’s Daily, China (2002, 13 February) New Zealand Govt apologizes to Chinese community,p. 2. Available online at: http://english.people.com.cn/200202/13/eng20020213_90400.shtml(accessed 20 October 2005).

Pusch, M. (undated) The field of intercultural communication. Available online at: http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/psy561/ICC%20History.doc (accessed 26 March 2004).

Rowe, W. & Schelling, V. (1991) Memory and modernity: popular culture in Latin America (London,Verso Press).

Samovar, L. A. & Porter, R. E. (Eds) (1985) Intercultural communication: a reader (Belmont, CA,Wadsworth).

Scott, D. (2003) Participation in tertiary education 2003 (Wellington, New Zealand, Ministry ofEducation).

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988) Intercultural conflict styles: a face-negotiation theory, in: Y. Y. Kim &W. B. Gudykunst (Eds) Theories in intercultural education (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 213–235.

Ward, C. (2001) The impact of international students on domestic students and host institutions: a litera-ture review, paper prepared for the Export Education Policy Project, Strategic Information andResourcing Division (Wellington, New Zealand, Ministry of Education).

Yum, J. (1988) Network theory in intercultural communication, in: Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst(Eds) Theories in intercultural education (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 239–258.