Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence - Center for ...

Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence
Whereas the term ICC is increasingly used in the field of intercultural communication, it
represents only one term among many that are still used to address what transpires during
intercultural encounters. And even those who employ the notion of ICC at all, do not necessarily
intend to signify the same abilities. A glance at some of the terms used (there are many more)
helps to illustrate their diversity. Yet, most terms allude to only limited aspects of a more
complex phenomenon; for example: cross-cultural awareness, global competitive intelligence,
cultural competence, cultural sensitivity, ethno-relativity, international competence, intercultural
interaction, biculturalism, and multiculturalism, and so forth (cf. Appendix D: Alternate Terms
for ICC). Some of these stress global knowledge, others sensitivity, still others point to certain
skills. From our long involvement in the field of intercultural communication, we knew that most
existing terms, definitions, and concepts in use do not adequately capture all that occurs when
individuals engage in intercultural contact. Lacking any unifying concept, it is not surprising,
therefore, that so many different instruments are being created to measure its outcomes (cf:
Appendix F: Assessment Tools ICC). But the instruments themselves, of course, are only as good
as the concepts they attempt to measure.
For these reasons, we began by attempting to establish parameters for an expanded notion of ICC
used in this study. Expectedly, we began with an extensive review of the intercultural literature –
138 articles and books to date – to ascertain areas of convergence and divergence regarding ICC.
We compared these findings with the ideas we held, informed by our academic and empirical
work in the field over many years. These efforts resulted in a far more holistic and comprehensive
construct than any found in the literature (cf. Appendix E: Exploring Intercultural Competence: A
Construct Proposal). This construct, in turn, provided the basis for revising the survey
questionnaire form employed in this study (cf. Appendix G: Survey Form (American English
Original)).
As a result, the fundamental perspective undergirding this entire effort is its concept of
intercultural competence, briefly defined as: “. . . a complex of abilities needed to perform
effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and
culturally different from oneself.” The notions “effective” and “appropriate” are equally
important because they acknowledge both “etic” and “emic” perspectives – that of self and other,
so important in intercultural work, while also reducing problems of self-report by including the
views of both sojourners and hosts regarding outcomes.
This brief definition, of course, implicitly includes the following components:
• various characteristics;
• three areas or domains (i.e., relationships, communication, and collaboration;
• four dimensions (i.e., knowledge, attitude, skills, and awareness);
• host language proficiency;
• developmental levels.
A comprehensive survey questionnaire form incorporated all of these areas, including an
important question often ignored, which is the correlation between developing levels of host
language proficiency and other areas of second competence development. While everyone agrees
that both language and culture are interrelated, interculturalists tend to overlook the relevance of
host language proficiency and language educators to overlook the relevance of ICC abilities.
Creation of the word “linguaculture” (cf: Fantini, IJIR p.149) signals the integrated concept
employed in this study and signals an integrated perspectives; while use of the ACTFL Language
Center for Social Development
Washington University in St. Louis
9