Intercultural competence as an aspect of the communicative ...

UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD
FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
Intercultural competence as an aspect of
the communicative competence in
the tertiary level English language learners
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
Supervisor: Gordana Petričić, assistant professor
PhD candidate: Nina Lazarević, MA
Novi Sad, 2013

UNIVERZITET U NOVOM SADU
FILOZOFSKI FAKULTET
KLJUČNA DOKUMENTACIJSKA INFORMACIJA
Redni broj:
RBR
Identifikacioni broj:
IBR
Tip dokumentacije:
TD
Tip zapisa:
TZ
Vrsta rada (dipl., mag., dokt.):
VR
Ime i prezime autora:
AU
Mentor (titula, ime, prezime,
zvanje):
MN
Naslov rada:
NR
Jezik publikacije:
JP
Jezik izvoda:
JI
Zemlja publikovanja:
ZP
Uže geografsko područje:
UGP
Godina:
GO
Izdavač:
IZ
Mesto i adresa:
MA
Monografska dokumentacija
Tekstualni štampani materijal
Doktorska disertacija
Nina Lazarević
Dr Gordana Petričić, docent, Odsek za anglistiku
Interkulturna kompetencija kao aspekt
komunikativne kompetencije učenika engleskog
jezika na tercijalnom nivou
engleski
srpski / engleski
Srbija
Vojvodina
2013.
autorski reprint
Novi Sad, Zorana Đinđića 2

Fizički opis rada:
FO
6 poglavlja / 301 stranica /19 slika / 45 tabela /
368 referenci /11 priloga
Naučna oblast:
NO
Naučna disciplina:
ND
Predmetna odrednica, ključne reči:
PO
UDK
Čuva se:
ČU
Lingvistika, primenjena lingvistika
Interkulturna kompetencija
interkulturna kompetencija, interkulturna svest,
interkulturna osetljivost, kulturni asimilator,
kritički incident, nastava engleskog jezika kao
stranog
Biblioteka Odseka za anglistiku, Filozofski
fakultet, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu
Važna napomena:
VN
Izvod:
IZ
Ciljevi nastave engleskog jezika su se promenili kako su međusobna povezanost i moblinost
ljudi koje karakterišu moderni svet rasle. Interkulturna kompetencija se pojavljuje kao još jedan uz već
postavljene ciljeve lingvističke i komunikativne kompetencije u nastavi stranih jezika. Ipak, primena
teorije interkulturne kompentencije u nastavi stranih jezika nije zastupljena u velikom obimu i „malo
pažnje pridaje se istraživanju konceptualizacije interkulturne interakcije“ (Spencer-Oatey, Franklin
2009: 63,64). Iako postoji „potreba na svetskom nivou da diplomirani studenti budu „građani sveta“, i
da budu „svesni sveta““ (Paige, Goode 2009: 333), tehnike koje se primenjuju u nastavi nisu
najpogodnije za razvijanje afektivne i bihevioralne komponente interkulturne kompetencije. Štaviše,
nastavnici nemaju potrebnu teorijsku i praktičnu osnovu i nisu uvek spremni da uključe interkulturnu
kompetenciju u nastavu engleskog jezika (Byram 1997), a istraživanja koja bi trebalo da pomognu
nastavu u velikoj meri usmerena su na programe studiranja u inostranstvu, i tek manji broj studija bavi
se interkulturnom kompetencijom u kontekstu engleskog kao stranog jezika (Planken et al. 2004,
Korhonen 2004, Lundgren 2009, Lázár 2007). U Srbiji je polje interkulturne kompetencije relativno
novo i mali je broj istraživanja koja idu dalje od problema stereotipa (Cvetičanin, Paunović 2007,
Lazarević, Savić 2009, Paunović 2011).
Disertacija je imala za cilj da da uvid u interkulturnu kompetenciju studenata Univerziteta u
Nišu, sa posebnim osvrtom na pedagoške implikacije za nastavnu praksu na univerzitetskom nivou.
Drugo, cilj istraživanja bio je da se istraže i faktori koji mogu imati uticaja na nju. Stoga je posebna
pažnja data sposobnosti ispitanika da objasne određene interkulturne nesporazume.
U tu svrhu u istraživanju je korišćen kulturni asimilator kao najčešća tehnika koja u prvi plan
stavlja stavove studenata, a koristi se i za nastavu i za ocenjivanje. Asimilator koji je istraživač napravio
upravo za ovo istraživanje zasnovan je na dva pristupa: empirijskom (intervjui sa izvornim govornicima
engleskog jezika) i teoretskom (Bennett 1993, Cushner, Brislin 1996, Fowler 1995, Hall 1966, Hofstede
1984, Lambert and Myers 1994, Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner 1997).
Kako je interkulturna kompetencija suštinski kompleksan koncept, istraživanje je bilo ne samo
deskriptivno već i eksploratorno te koristilo kombinovanu metodu (Teddlie, Tashakkori 2009), kako bi
pružilo bolje razumevanje interkulturne kompetencije. U svrhu prikupljanja podataka, iskorišćen je
standardizovani upitnik koji se koristi za ispitivanje interkulturne osetljivosti, a koji su popunili studenti
sa deset departmana (koji su takođe pohađali i kurs engleskog jezika) kako bi se dobile informacije o
raznolikoj i velikoj grupi. U kvalitativnoj fazi korišćeni su kritički incidenti iz kulturnog asimilatora u
intervjuima sa dvanaest studenata sa različitih departmana kako bi se dobili podaci o kognitivnom i
donekle bihevioralnom i afektivnom domenu interkulturne kompetencije ispitanika. Za analizu podataka
korišćeni su statistički testovi u kvantitativnoj, a analiza sadržaja i kodiranje u kvalitativnoj fazi.
Rezultati pokazuju neslaganje između kvantitativnih i kvalitativnih rezultata. Prvi pokazuju
relativno visok stepen interkulturne perspektive, što ukazuje na viši nivo prihvatanja kulturno različitih
perspektiva, sigurnost u interkulturnim susretima kao i senzitivnost prema kontekstu koji je kulturno
raznolik. S druge strane, kvalitativni podaci daju skoro dijametralno suprotne rezultate, pokazujući

određen nedostatak interkulturne kompetencije jer su ispitanici uglavnom koristili kulturne okvire
sopstvene kulture kako bi objasnili interkulturne susrete i pribegavali stereotipima, generalizacijama i
atribucijama zasnovanim na ličnim karakterisitkama.
Mada je bilo manjih razlika u kvantitativnim rezultatima za različite departmane, kvalitativni
podaci ih nisu pokazali, već su kod ispitatnika ukazali na nisku interkulturnu senzitivnost i empatiju kao
i karakteristike faza Odbrana i Minimalizacija (Bennett 1993) kod studenata skoro svih departmana.
I kvalitativni i kvantitativni rezultati pokazuju da faktori kao što su boravak u inostranstvu,
poznavanje drugih stranih jezika i pol nemaju značajan uticaj na interkulturnu kompetenciju. Takođe se
pokazalo da intenzivna nastava engleskog jezika sama po sebi ne doprinosi boljoj interkulturnoj
kompetenciji, što su rezultati studenata engleskog jezika i književnosti i potvrdili.
Na kraju, rezultati ukazuju da interkulturna nastava treba da se uključi u opšte visoko
obrazovanje ako želimo da studenti pokažu interkulturnu kompetenciju u komunikaciji. Kako se
kulturne vrednosti i značenja prenose jezičkim funkcijama, njihovo poznavanje uključuje i „analizu
vrednosti i artefakta na koje se odnose“ (Byram 1989: 43) i svest o tome da one ne mogu biti i isključivo
lingvističke. Upravo tu interkulturni elementi (koji se uvode kroz interkulturne tehnike, od kojih je
kulturni asimilator samo jedna) mogu da umnogome poboljšaju nastavu stranih jezika.
Datum prihvatanja teme od strane
NN veća:
DP
Datum odbrane:
DO
Članovi komisije:
(ime i prezime / titula / zvanje /
naziv organizacije / status)
KO
03.12.2009.
predsednik:
član:
član:

UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD
FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY
KEY WORD DOCUMENTATION
Accession number:
ANO
Identification number:
INO
Document type:
DT
Type of record:
TR
Contents code:
CC
Author:
AU
Mentor:
MN
Title:
TI
Language of text:
LT
Language of abstract:
LA
Country of publication:
CP
Locality of publication:
LP
Publication year:
PY
Publisher:
PU
Publication place:
PP
Monograph documentation
Textual printed material
Doctoral dissertation
Nina Lazarević
Gordana Petričić, PhD, Assistant Professor, English
Department, Faculty of Philosophy, University of
Novi Sad
Intercultural competence as an aspect of the
communicative competence in the tertiary level
English language learners
English
Serbian/ English
Serbia
Vojvodina
2013
Author’s reprint
2 Zorana Đinđića, Novi Sad

Physical description:
PD
6 chapters/ 301 pages / 19 figures / 45 tables /
368 references / 11 appendices
Scientific field
SF
Scientific discipline
SD
Subject, Key words
SKW
UC
Holding data:
HD
Linguistics, Applied linguistics
Intercultural competence
intercultural competence, intercultural awareness,
intercultural sensitivity, culture assimilator, critical
incidents, TEFL
Library of the English Department, Faculty of Philosophy,
University of Novi Sad
Note:
N
Abstract:
AB
With the increased interconnectedness and mobility of people in a globalized world, the goals
of foreign language teaching (FLT) have undergone a change as well. Intercultural competence (ICC)
has become a proclaimed goal, adding to the already set goals of linguistic and communicative
competence. However, the application of the ICC theory in language teaching has not been extensive
and ‘little attention [has been paid] to researching conceptualizing intercultural interaction’ (Spencer-
Oatey, Franklin 2009: 63, 64). While there is a ‘world-wide demand for the graduates to be “global
citizens”, “world minded”’ (Paige, Goode 2009: 333), techniques applied in the classroom do not seem
to be conducive to the development of the affective or behavioural component of ICC. Furthermore,
teachers lack the tools and might be hesitant to include ICC in EFL classes (Byram 1997), while the
research that should support teaching is mostly focused on study abroad programs with few studies
investigating the ICC in the context of EFL (Korhonen 2004, Lázár 2007, Lundgren 2009, Planken et al.
2004). As for Serbia, the research in this area is quite recent, with only few studies that move beyond
exploration of stereotypes in EFL (Cvetičanin, Paunović 2007, Lazarević, Savić 2009, Paunović 2011).
The purpose of the present study was to gain an insight into the ICC of the university students
in Niš with a special focus on pedagogical implications for teaching practice at the university level.
Secondly, the aim was to explore possible factors that might influence ICC. In that respect, special
attention was given to the participants’ ability to account for particular IC misunderstandings in the form
of critical incidents.
For that purpose the study was structured around the culture assimilator as the most frequently
used student-centered technique for both teaching and assessment. The assimilator was designed
specifically for the study, employing two major approaches: empirical (interviews with English
language native speakers) and theoretical (Bennett 1993, Cushner, Brislin 1996, Fowler 1995, Hall
1966, Hofstede 1984, Lambert and Myers 1994, Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner 1997).
Due to the inherent complexity of the ICC concept, the study was both exploratory and
descriptive and employed a mixed methods approach (Teddlie, Tashakkori 2009), with the aim of
providing a rich description of ICC. The data source in the quantitative phase of the study was a
standardized Global Perspective Inventory questionnaire distributed to the students from ten
departments at the University of Niš (who also attended English language courses) with the purpose of
gathering information of a wide and diverse group. In the qualitative phase, the critical incidents from
the culture assimilator were used in the interviews with twelve students of different departments in order
to gather information on the cognitive and to a certain extent behavioural and affective domains of the
participants’ ICC. The data were analysed by applying statistical tests in the quantitative phase, while
content analysis and coding were used in the qualitative phase of the study.
The findings of the study suggested a disparity between the quantitative and quantitative
results. The former showed medium to high intercultural perspective, pointing to higher levels of
acceptance of different cultural perspectives, self-confidence in IC encounters, and sensitivity for
pluralistic settings. On the other hand, the qualitative data provided almost diametrically different

esults, showing a considerable lack of intercultural competence as the participants mainly relied on
their own cultural frames to account for IC encounters, and resorted to stereotyping, generalized
descriptions and dispositional attribution.
While there were slight differences in the quantitative results across different departments,
these were not supported by the qualitative data, which rather showed low intercultural sensitivity,
empathy and the characteristics of Defense or Minimization stage (Bennett 1993) of the participants
from almost all departments.
Both the results of qualitative and quantitative stages of the study showed that factors such as
stays or studies abroad, knowledge of other FL or gender did not have a significant influence on one’s
intercultural competence. The findings also showed that intensive EFL instruction in itself did not
contribute to ICC, as the results for the English language students illustrated.
Finally, the study shows that if students are to become interculturally competent learners and
communicators, IC instruction should be included in general education at the university level. Since the
functions of language are used to transfer cultural values and meanings, the knowledge of these values
and meanings entails ‘the analysis of the values and artefacts to which they refer’ (Byram 1989: 43) as
well as the awareness that they cannot be only linguistic. This is where the intercultural component
(introduced through IC techniques such as culture assimilator) can significantly improve EFL teaching.
Accepted on Scientific
Board on:
AS
Defended:
DE
Thesis Defend Board:
DB
3 rd Dec 2009
president:
member:
member:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
vii
ABSTRACT 1
APSTRAKT 3
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION 5
1.1. Background of the study 5
1.2. Purpose of the study 7
1.3. Significance of the study 8
1.4. Research questions 9
1.5. Limitations and delimitations of the study 10
1.6. Definitions of terms 11
1.7. Organization of the study 15
CHAPTER II – LITERATURE REVIEW 17
2.1. Culture 17
2.1.1. Introduction 17
2.1.2. Cultural awareness 27
2.1.3. Cultural competence 28
2.1.4. Culture and language teaching 29
2.1.5. Models of culture 32
2.1.6. Summary 37
2.2. Communicative competence 38
2.2.1. Introduction 38
2.2.2. Communicative competence models 39
2.2.3. Criticism of communicative competence 47
2.2.4. Summary 48
2.3. Development of intercultural competence 49
2.3.1. Introduction 49
2.3.2. The work of E.T. Hall 50
2.3.3. Conceptualisation of ICC 52
2.3.4. Criticism of ICC definitions 61
2.3.5. The importance of ICC and positive attitudes 62
2.3.6. Criticism against the intercultural elements in the classroom 64
2.3.7. Foreign language classroom as the context for ICC learning 67
2.3.7.1. Intercultural Competence and English language teaching 68
2.3.8. Summary 74
2.4. Models and approaches to ICC 74
2.4.1. Introduction 74
2.4.2. Models of ICC 74
2.4.3. Summary 105
2.5. Intercultural competence in teaching/ learning context 105
i

2.5.1. Introduction 105
2.5.2. Techniques for intercultural learning 106
2.5.3. Summary 113
2.6. Research into learners’ ICC 114
2.6.1. Introduction 114
2.6.2. Previous research 114
2.6.3. Culture assimilator in previous research 125
2.6.4. Summary 126
CHAPTER III – METHODOLOGY 127
3.1. Introduction 127
3.2. Mixed methods approach 127
3.3. The study 130
3.3.1. Research questions 130
3.4. Quantitative study 131
3.4.1. Introduction 131
3.4.2. Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) 131
3.4.2.1. Reliability of the GPI 134
3.4.3. Procedures 136
3.4.3.1. Data collection 136
3.4.3.2. Data analysis 136
3.5. Qualitative study 136
3.5.1. Introduction 136
3.5.2. Interviews 137
3.5.3. Culture assimilator 138
3.5.3.1 Developing the culture assimilator 139
3.5.4. Syllabi of English language courses 144
3.5.5. Field notes 146
3.5.6. Data trustworthiness 146
3.5.7. Methods for validation and trustworthiness – legitimation 146
3.6. Participants 148
3.7. Researcher 151
3.7.1. Human instrument 151
3.7.2. Researcher role and ethics 152
3.8. Procedure 153
3.8.1. Data collection 153
3.8.2. Data analysis 154
3.9. Summary 155
CHAPTER IV – RESULTS 157
4.1. Introduction 157
4.2. Questionnaire results 158
4.3. Summary 174
4.4. Interview results 174
4.4.1. Coding categories 175
ii

4.4.2. Attributions 179
4.4.2.1. National identity – awareness of one’s own culture 179
4.4.2.2. Establishing the first contact 181
4.4.2.3. Socializing 185
4.4.2.4. Student life 188
4.4.2.5. At the work place 190
4.4.2.6. Family life 193
4.4.2.7. Intercultural awareness 194
4.5. Summary 197
CHAPTER V – DISCUSSION 199
5.1. Introduction 199
5.2. Attributions 203
5.2.1. National identity – knowing who you are 204
5.2.2. Establishing the first contact 208
5.2.3. Socializing 211
5.2.4. Student life 215
5.2.5. At the work place 217
5.2.6. Family life 219
5.2.7. Intercultural awareness 221
5.3. Concluding remarks 223
5.4. Summary 227
CHAPTER VI – CONCLUSION 229
6.1. Conclusions 229
6.2. Pedagogical implications 231
6.3. Limitations 232
6.4. Suggestions for further research 234
REFERENCES 237
APPENDICES 265
Appendix 1 Informed consent form for English language native speakers 265
Appendix 2 Informed consent form for students 266
Appendix 3 Permission to use the GPI 267
Appendix 4 The Global Perspective Inventory 269
Appendix 5 The GPI subdomain items 271
Appendix 6 Transcription conventions 273
Appendix 7 Transcript sample 274
Appendix 8 Critical incidents used in interviews 279
Appendix 9 Culture assimilator – critical incidents and rationales 282
Appendix 10 Coding protocol, categories and codes 296
Appendix 11 Tables and figures 297
iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table
PAGE
Table 3.1 The GPI questionnaire 135
Table 3.2 Participants in the quantitative phase of the study 149
Table 3.3 Participants in the qualitative phase of the study 150
Table 4.1 ICC domains and the study stages 157
Table 4.2 Years of learning English 158
Table 4.3 Mean values of GPI subdomains 159
Table 4.4 Mean values on subdomains for all departments 160
Table 4.5 Test Statistics for Kruskal-Wallis Test for the grouping variable
‘all departments’ 161
Table 4.6 Fisher’s LSD test 161
Table 4.7 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test 162
Table 4.8 Test statistics for the grouping variable ‘English language
students’ 163
Table 4.9 Subdomain means for English language department students 164
Table 4.10 Comparison of mean values for the 1 st and 2 nd years 164
Table 4.11 Comparison of male and female participants 165
Table 4.12 Stays abroad 166
Table 4.13 Knowledge of other FL 167
Table 4.14 Correlations between questions 25, 29, 30, and 32 168
Table 4.15 Correlations between questions 8,13, and 19 169
Table 4.16 Correlations between questions 1 and 12 169
Table 4.17 Correlations between questions 29 and 39 170
Table 4.18 Correlations between questions 5 and 38 171
Table 4.19 Correlations of questions 28 and 29 171
Table 4.20 Correlations between questions 12, 25, and 32 172
Table 4.21 Correlations between questions 8 and 32 173
Table 4.22 Experience with FLL codes 175
Table 4.23 ICC codes 176
Table 4.24 Attitudes to IC contact codes 178
Table 4.25 Values codes 178
Table 4.26 Defining one’s own culture 179
Table 4.27 Critical incident 1 codes 182
Table 4.28 Critical incident 2 codes 183
Table 4.29 Critical incident 3 codes 185
Table 4.30 Critical incident 5 codes 186
Table 4.31 Critical incident 18 codes 187
Table 4.32 Critical incident 4 codes 188
Table 4.33 Critical incident 9 codes 189
Table 4.34 Critical incident 14 codes 190
Table 4.35 Critical incident 6 codes 191
iv

Table 4.36 Critical incident 7 codes 192
Table 4.37 Critical incident 8 codes 193
Table 4.38 Critical incident 17 codes 194
Table A.1 ANOVA test 297
Table A.2 Mann-Whitney U test for male and female participants 298
Table A.3 Stays abroad and sub-domain means 299
Table A.4 Means for English language students on all subdomains 299
v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
PAGE
Figure 2.1 Points of articulation between culture and language, adapted from
Liddicoat et al. (2003) 31
Figure 2.2 Cultural iceberg 33
Figure 2.3 Onion layers, taken from Hosfstede (1997) 35
Figure 2.4 Model of culture, taken from Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner
(1997) 36
Figure 2.5 Chronological evolution of communicative competence, adapted
from Celce-Murcia, M. (2007) 45
Figure 2.6 Development of Intercultural sensitivity, taken from Bennett,
Bennett, Allen (2003) 71
Figure 2.7 Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, taken from
Bennett (2004) 79
Figure 2.8 The development of intercultural competence: a transformational
model, taken from Glaser et al. (2007) 89
Figure 2.9 AUM Theory, adapted from Gudykunst (2005) 91
Figure 2.10 Worldviews convergence model, taken from Fantini (1995) 93
Figure 2.11 Components of intercultural competence, taken from Sercu et al.
(2005) 94
Figure 2.12 Byram’s model of intercultural communicative competence,
taken from Byram and Zarate (1997a) 95
Figure 2.13 Intercultural competence in foreign language education, adapted
from Kramer (2000) 101
Figure 2.14 A contextual model of intercultural communication, taken from
Neuliep (2005) 102
Figure 4.1 Years of learning English and Affect 167
Figure A.1 Department comparison on sub-domain Knowledge 300
Figure A.2 Department comparison on sub-domain Identity 300
Figure A.3 Department comparison on sub-domain Responsibility 301
Figure A.4 Department comparison on sub-domain Global Citizenship 301
vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CA Cultural awareness
CC Cultural competence
CEFR Common European Framework of Reference
DMIS Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity
EFL English as a foreign language
ELT English language teaching
FL Foreign language
FLT Foreign language teaching
IC Intercultural
ICC Intercultural competence
ICCC Intercultural communicative competence
L1 First language
L2 Second language
NNS Non-native speaker
TEFL Teaching English as a foreign language
TESL Teaching English as a second language
vii

ABSTRACT
With the increased interconnectedness and mobility of people in a globalized
world, the goals of foreign language teaching (FLT) have undergone a change as well.
Intercultural competence (ICC) has become a proclaimed goal, adding to the already set
goals of linguistic and communicative competence. However, the application of the ICC
theory in language teaching has not been extensive and ‘little attention [has been paid] to
researching conceptualizing intercultural interaction’ (Spencer-Oatey, Franklin 2009: 63,
64). While there is a ‘world-wide demand for the graduates to be “global citizens”,
“world minded”’ (Paige, Goode 2009: 333), techniques applied in the classroom do not
seem to be conducive to the development of the affective or behavioural component of
ICC. Furthermore, teachers lack the tools and might be hesitant to include ICC in EFL
classes (Byram 1997), while the research that should support teaching is mostly focused
on study abroad programs with few studies investigating the ICC in the context of EFL
(Korhonen 2004; Lázár 2007; Lundgren 2009; Planken et al. 2004). As for Serbia, the
research in this area is quite recent, with only few studies that move beyond exploration
of stereotypes in EFL (Cvetičanin, Paunović 2007; Lazarević, Savić 2009; Paunović
2011).
The purpose of the present study was to gain an insight into the ICC of the
university students in Niš with a special focus on pedagogical implications for teaching
practice at the university level. Secondly, the aim was to explore possible factors that
might influence ICC. In that respect, special attention was given to the participants’
ability to account for particular IC misunderstandings in the form of critical incidents.
For that purpose the study was structured around the culture assimilator as the
most frequently used student-centered technique for both teaching and assessment. The
assimilator was designed specifically for the study, with two major approaches employed:
empirical (interviews with English language native speakers) and theoretical (Bennett
1993; Cushner, Brislin 1996; Fowler 1995; Hall 1966; Hofstede 1984; Lambert, Myers
1994; Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner 1997).
Due to the inherent complexity of the ICC concept, the study was both exploratory
and descriptive and employed a mixed methods approach (Teddlie, Tashakkori 2009),
with the aim of providing a rich description of ICC. The data source in the quantitative
phase of the study was a standardized Global Perspective Inventory questionnaire
distributed to the students from ten departments at the University of Niš (who also
1

attended English language courses) with the purpose of gathering information of a wide
and diverse group. In the qualitative phase, the critical incidents from the culture
assimilator were used in the interviews with twelve students of different departments in
order to gather information on the cognitive and to a certain extent behavioural and
affective domains of the participants’ ICC. The data were analysed by applying statistical
tests in the quantitative phase, while content analysis and coding were used in the
qualitative phase of the study.
The findings of the study suggested a disparity between the quantitative and
quantitative results. The former showed medium to high intercultural perspective,
pointing to higher levels of acceptance of different cultural perspectives, self-confidence
in IC encounters, and sensitivity for pluralistic settings. On the other hand, the qualitative
data provided almost diametrically different results, showing a considerable lack of
intercultural competence as the participants mainly relied on their own cultural frames to
account for IC encounters, and resorted to stereotyping, generalized descriptions and
dispositional attribution.
While there were slight differences in the quantitative results across different
departments, these were not supported by the qualitative data, which rather showed low
intercultural sensitivity, empathy and the characteristics of Defense or Minimization stage
(Bennett 1993) of the participants from almost all departments.
Both the results of qualitative and quantitative stages of the study showed that
factors such as study abroad, knowledge of other FL or gender did not have a significant
influence on one’s intercultural competence. The findings also showed that intensive EFL
instruction in itself did not contribute to ICC, as the results for the English language
students illustrated.
Finally, the study shows that if students are to become interculturally competent
learners and communicators, IC instruction should be included in general education at the
university level. Since the functions of language are used to transfer cultural values and
meanings, the knowledge of these values and meanings entails ‘the analysis of the values
and artefacts to which they refer’ (Byram 1989: 43) as well as the awareness that they
cannot be only linguistic. This is where the intercultural component (introduced through
IC techniques such as culture assimilator) can significantly improve EFL teaching.
Key words: intercultural competence, intercultural sensitivity, EFL teaching,
culture assimilator, critical incidents
2

APSTRAKT
Ciljevi nastave engleskog jezika su se promenili kako su međusobna povezanost i
moblinost ljudi koje karakterišu moderni svet rasle. Interkulturna kompetencija se
pojavljuje kao još jedan uz već postavljene ciljeve lingvističke i komunikativne
kompetencije u nastavi stranih jezika. Ipak, primena teorije interkulturne kompentencije u
nastavi stranih jezika nije zastupljena u velikom obimu i „malo pažnje pridaje se
istraživanju konceptualizacije interkulturne interakcije“ (Spencer-Oatey, Franklin 2009:
63,64). Iako postoji „potreba na svetskom nivou da diplomirani studenti budu „građani
sveta“, i da budu „svesni sveta““ (Paige, Goode 2009: 333), tehnike koje se primenjuju u
nastavi nisu najpogodnije za razvijanje afektivne i bihevioralne komponente interkulturne
kompetencije. Štaviše, nastavnici nemaju potrebnu teorijsku i praktičnu osnovu i nisu
uvek spremni da uključe interkulturnu kompetenciju u nastavu engleskog jezika (Byram
1997), a istraživanja koja bi trebalo da pomognu nastavu u velikoj meri usmerena su na
programe studiranja u inostranstvu, i tek manji broj studija bavi se interkulturnom
kompetencijom u kontekstu engleskog kao stranog jezika (Planken et al. 2004; Korhonen
2004; Lundgren 2009; Lázár 2007). U Srbiji je polje interkulturne kompetencije relativno
novo i mali je broj istraživanja koja idu dalje od problema stereotipa (Cvetičanin,
Paunović 2007; Lazarević, Savić 2009; Paunović 2011).
Disertacija je imala za cilj da da uvid u interkulturnu kompetenciju studenata
Univerziteta u Nišu, sa posebnim osvrtom na pedagoške implikacije za nastavnu praksu
na univerzitetskom nivou. Drugo, cilj istraživanja bio je da se istraže i faktori koji mogu
imati uticaja na nju. Stoga je posebna pažnja data sposobnosti ispitanika da objasne
određene interkulturne nesporazume.
U tu svrhu u istraživanju je korišćen kulturni asimilator kao najčešća tehnika koja
u prvi plan stavlja stavove studenata, a koristi se i za nastavu i za ocenjivanje. Asimilator
koji je istraživač napravio upravo za ovo istraživanje zasnovan je na dva pristupa:
empirijskom (intervjui sa izvornim govornicima engleskog jezika) i teoretskom (Bennett
1993; Cushner, Brislin 1996; Fowler 1995; Hall 1966; Hofstede 1984; Lambert, Myers
1994; Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner 1997).
Kako je interkulturna kompetencija suštinski kompleksan koncept, istraživanje je
bilo ne samo deskriptivno već i eksploratorno te koristilo kombinovanu metodu (Teddlie,
Tashakkori 2009), kako bi pružilo bolje razumevanje interkulturne kompetencije. U svrhu
prikupljanja podataka, iskorišćen je standardizovani upitnik koji se koristi za ispitivanje
3

interkulturne osetljivosti, a koji su popunili studenti sa deset departmana (koji su takođe
pohađali i kurs engleskog jezika) kako bi se dobile informacije o raznolikoj i velikoj
grupi. U kvalitativnoj fazi korišćeni su kritički incidenti iz kulturnog asimilatora u
intervjuima sa dvanaest studenata sa različitih departmana kako bi se dobili podaci o
kognitivnom i donekle bihevioralnom i afektivnom domenu interkulturne kompetencije
ispitanika. Za analizu podataka korišćeni su statistički testovi u kvantitativnoj, a analiza
sadržaja i kodiranje u kvalitativnoj fazi.
Rezultati pokazuju neslaganje između kvantitativnih i kvalitativnih rezultata. Prvi
pokazuju relativno visok stepen interkulturne perspektive, što ukazuje na viši nivo
prihvatanja kulturno različitih perspektiva, sigurnost u interkulturnim susretima kao i
senzitivnost prema kontekstu koji je kulturno raznolik. S druge strane, kvalitativni podaci
daju skoro dijametralno suprotne rezultate, pokazujući određen nedostatak interkulturne
kompetencije jer su ispitanici uglavnom koristili kulturne okvire sopstvene kulture kako
bi objasnili interkulturne susrete i pribegavali stereotipima, generalizacijama i
atribucijama zasnovanim na ličnim karakterisitkama.
Mada je bilo manjih razlika u kvantitativnim rezultatima za različite departmane,
kvalitativni podaci ih nisu pokazali, već su kod ispitatnika ukazali na nisku interkulturnu
senzitivnost i empatiju kao i karakteristike faza Odbrana i Minimalizacija (Bennett 1993)
kod studenata skoro svih departmana.
I kvalitativni i kvantitativni rezultati pokazuju da faktori kao što su boravak u
inostranstvu, poznavanje drugih stranih jezika i pol nemaju značajan uticaj na
interkulturnu kompetenciju. Takođe se pokazalo da intenzivna nastava engleskog jezika
sama po sebi ne doprinosi boljoj interkulturnoj kompetenciji, što su rezultati studenata
engleskog jezika i književnosti i potvrdili.
Na kraju, rezultati ukazuju da interkulturna nastava treba da se uključi u opšte
visoko obrazovanje ako želimo da studenti pokažu interkulturnu kompetenciju u
komunikaciji. Kako se kulturne vrednosti i značenja prenose jezičkim funkcijama,
njihovo poznavanje uključuje i „analizu vrednosti i artefakta na koje se odnose“ (Byram
1989: 43) i svest o tome da one ne mogu biti i isključivo lingvističke. Upravo tu
interkulturni elementi (koji se uvode kroz interkulturne tehnike, od kojih je kulturni
asimilator samo jedna) mogu umnogome da poboljšaju nastavu stranih jezika.
Ključne reči: interkulturna kompetencija, interkulturna senzitivnost, nastava
engleskog jezika, kulturni asimilator, kritički incidenti
4

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the study
Intercultural competence (ICC) has been a debated and researched issue for a few
decades now, however, its inclusion in English language classes has not been that
successful (Kramsch 1993, 2003). Culture used to be a useful ‘aside’ in language classes,
then, the view has changed and culture was then seen as a ‘fifth dimension’ (Damen
1987), while in more recent years many authors agree that language teaching is culture
bound (Valdes 1986; Byram 1989; Seelye 1993; Bassnett 2003). However, the
application of any of the ICC theories is still not seen in language teaching, and there
seems to be ‘relatively little attention [paid] to researching conceptualizing intercultural
interaction’ (Spencer-Oatey, Franklin 2009: 63, 64). The reason for this might be what
Stern points to, that ‘the cultural component has remained difficult to accommodate in
practice’ (Stern 1992: 206), and other researchers agree with that statement, listing a
number of reasons for the current state of affairs. The research has shown that techniques
applied in the classroom are not conducive to the development of the affective or
behavioural component in students. On the other hand, ‘there is a world-wide demand for
the graduates to be ‘global citizens,’ ‘world minded,’ ‘globally engaged,’ […] 1 and there
has been an increase in programs that provide intercultural learning opportunities (Paige,
Goode 2009: 333).
As Chen and Starosta (1996) point out, there are a number of aspects due to which
the world has become a global society with ICC as a critical ability needed to face all the
challenges of that world. To name but a few aspects, these are the development of
communication and transportation, the globalization of world economy and
multinationals, migration of population among nations, diversification of workforce, as
well as regional alliances. The new characteristics of the modern world require greater
understanding, tolerance and sensitivity, but also greater competency of people from
different cultures.
The global market and interconnected world demand different and widened skills
when it comes to interaction and communication, which renders language proficiency as
1 Square brackets are used to indicate several changes in the original quotation text: missing text, changed
capitalization, changed inflection to fit the context or grammatical accuracy of the sentence.
5

not sufficient. Many people today live in ‘ephemeral social formations’ (Spencer-Oatey,
Kotthoff 2007: 1), they are simultaneously part of several cultures and one would be
tempted to assume that people do not belong to separate local cultures as there are
international influences from the mass media. However, this does not mean that
communities will become globalized. It is precisely in contact with others that a need for
distinction arises, and a particular group membership can be created as a relevant feature
for differences in contacts (Barth 1969). It is then that intercultural competence enters the
scene and helps people navigate intercultural encounters successfully.
To be more effective in a changing world ‘a conscious decision concerning our
basic attitudes towards ourselves and toward our relationship to others and the world at
large’ (Gudykunst, Kim 1984: 224) should be made. What is needed is repositioning
oneself in terms of our daily strategies and lessened ethnocentrism. However, changing
one’s views and habits, especially if one grows up in a monocultural milieu is difficult
and there usually lacks ‘a clear understanding of [the worlds’] fundamental dynamics and
a clear sense of direction for change’ (Gudykunst, Kim 1984: 224). That is the reason
why intercultural competence and communication should be learned.
Though the need for intercultural (IC) training has been recognized, the response
from the field of practice in Serbia has still to come. The new organization of university
studies after the Bologna reform could be a timely change if the courses with IC content
are to be introduced. That would be a useful continuation to EFL high school instruction
that has as one of the teaching goals culture learning and development of empathy for
other cultures, if still not completely implemented (Lazarević 2007).
Students continuing education at the tertiary level should be ready for the open
market, multiethnic and multinational working context. Therefore, European universities
have begun to introduce courses in international and intercultural issues, ‘regardless of
the disciplinary focus of the academic program’ (Otten 2003: 18), which is still not the
case in Serbia. Also, apart from a few courses at the Department of Journalism and
Sociology, much of ‘IC load’ seems to be left for foreign language courses. While IC
teaching cannot be done only through FL courses, they are surely an important element in
ICC teaching.
English language teaching at the tertiary level of education does not employ a
unified curriculum, and at various universities most of the courses in English are designed
as English for specific purposes. While the teaching follows different educational
profiles, thus giving a sound profession-related language base, it is questionable whether
6

enough attention is given to intercultural learning and the reality that would await
graduated students once they enter the global professional world.
Finally, since the researcher included ICC of high school students in her MA
thesis, though as a minor segment of the study, it was logical to continue to explore that
aspect of TEFL and the tertiary education was therefore the next step. Not forgetting that
our students face realistic prospects of interacting with other students and professionals
not only from the surrounding countries, but also from Europe and the world, their
linguistic competence should be on a par with the IC one. Intercultural instruction can
create ‘more interculturally trained citizens who would add on knowledge and coping
techniques, and consequently, enhance professional skills’ (Kealey, Protheroe 1996: 147).
1.2. Purpose of the study
The aim of the present study was to get an insight into the existing intercultural
competence of university students of humanities and social studies at the University of
Niš. Also, the present study explored the views of a smaller sample of students, their
opinions as well as their IC skills when presented with a potential misunderstanding in an
ICC encounter in order to closer examine their intercultural competence.
In order to better explore students’ ICC, the study is both descriptive and
exploratory (Patton 1990). It is descriptive in the sense that it tapped into the area which
has not been researched extensively in Serbia. There has been a small number of studies
dealing with culture and attitudes – the effect of accents and language varieties on
students’ attitudes (Cvetičanin, Paunović 2007), or stereotypes that students have
(Ignjačević 1998), culture competence of high school learners (Lazarević 2007),
knowledge of pre-service teachers of culture-teaching techniques (Lazarević, Savić
2009). However, there have been very few studies focused on intercultural competence,
for example, one study focused on the cultural elements and communicative contexts preservice
English language teachers found relevant in the field of ICC, exploring students’
cultural sensitivity, their attitudes towards cultural differences, and their critical cultural
awareness (Paunović 2011). Therefore, the present study provided data on a relatively
large sample of first year students with both their experience with EFL and views about
ICC.
The study is exploratory since it explores a relatively recent concept in the local
setting. Namely, it tries to show what elements, attitudes and opinions influence an
individual’s intercultural sensitivity and competence. Such gained experience with the
7

concept of ICC in the university setting may be a springboard for further research based
on intercultural competence and communication, and help define further and more
definite investigation. In order to achieve this, the approach employed was a mixed
methods approach (Teddlie, Tashakkori 2009), which presents ‘an integration of
statistical and thematic data analytic techniques, plus other strategies unique to mixed
method (e.g. data conversion or transformation)’ (Teddlie, Tashakkori 2009: 8). Such
research can address a number of questions which are exploratory in nature, might give
stronger inferences, and offer a wider range of views (Teddlie, Tashakkori 2009).
The study tried to establish whether students knew how to identify possible
troublesome areas (fixed points, Jensen 2006) through a culture assimilator. A number of
critical incidents comprising the culture assimilator were devised, specially focused on
the Serbian and Anglophone cultures in contact. These might be used in class to practice
both language and intercultural competence. In that respect the study has a concrete
outcome – a teaching (and potentially assessment) tool, which can be further honed and
tested. Hopefully, this may help English language teachers at a university and even high
school level in terms of including culture assimilators into their teaching practices.
Finally, the aim for the study was not to provide any a particular level of the
participants’ ICC, as it was focused on a ‘section’ of foreign language learning. Rather, it
might serve as a starting point for a wider study that would engage scholars from different
fields of Serbian language, English language, sociology, pedagogy, psychology in a joint
venture to provide training in ICC.
1.3. Significance of the study
There are several aspects that the study addressed, thus making it significant both
for the understanding of ICC in the Serbian context and the applied linguistics, especially
for the current TEFL practices at the tertiary level. While this is further commented on in
the concluding chapter, only several significant aspects are presented here.
Firstly, the field of ICC is relatively new, despite its having been developed over
the course of 60 to 70 years, there have not been many studies conducted to explore these
particular issues in Serbia. While there were studies that were concerned with the
students’ views on EFL or explored students’ stereotypes about a FL culture there have
not been studies aimed solely at students’ ICC.
Secondly, culture does not play a significant part in ELT, and the same goes for
IC elements. The research conducted so far (Kramsch 2003, Lambert 1999, Sercu 2005)
8

shows that in spite of an allegedly widely used communicative method, techniques which
are used for teaching culture are still based on a teacher-centered classroom, thus not
allowing learners to fully develop their ICC. The study might be an impetus for a more
interculturally-oriented foreign language classroom, providing data, teaching and
assessment formats.
Thirdly, the present study provided an insight into the ‘rationalization’ of
students’ attitudes and opinions. The data showed how particular IC ‘problems’ are
understood and would be responded to, therefore providing a starting point for further
research.
Fourthly, the research had in its center the culture assimilator as the most
frequently used technique for both teaching and assessment. It is a student-centered
technique, and requires an analysis of the elements of a foreign culture to be successfully
solved. The culture-specific assimilator was used both to probe for the ICC of the
participants, but could be used as a teaching tool in its own right.
Fifthly, the study uses a research tool which can easily be adapted as both
teaching and assessment tool. The culture assimilator that was designed to specifically fit
the purposes of an English language learner can be applied in different teaching contexts
or serve as an initial help for students in their individual work.
Sixthly, the study is significant as it employed a mixed methods approach which is
still not usual for the research done in the fields of EFL or ICC in Serbia. It provided
quantitative data for a larger sample of students and then compared and contrasted it with
qualitative data for a smaller sample. This paradigm might give an incentive to Serbian
researchers to use it more extensively.
Finally, the present study might be an encouragement for other researchers to
apply some other methods and methodologies in order to explore ICC in a more detailed
manner and to engage in an ongoing discussion on the assessment of ICC.
1.4. Research questions
The research questions that were set for this study had been arrived at after several
years of work on culture and intercultural competence. During the work on the MA
dissertation, some of the questions connected to the field of ICC emerged and the
researcher felt it was important to explore them in greater detail. The results of the MA
thesis showed that high school students received little cultural training in their English
9

language classes, and that the knowledge they did possess came from sources outside the
classroom. This only led to questions whether this was the case in higher education, more
precisely, whether university students received intercultural training alongside their EFL
or ESP classes and how interculturally competent they were.
To give a more detailed answer there are four main research questions:
RQ1 Are the Niš University students interculturally competent?
RQ2 Do certain factors (i.e. stays abroad, FL learning, year of study, gender)
significantly influence the ICC of students?
RQ3 Is the ICC of English language students different from the ICC of students from
other departments, due to intensive instruction in English coupled with culture
and literature classes?
RQ4 Are students competent to navigate certain intercultural encounters presented to
them and what do they use in terms of attribution to account for IC
differences?
It was hoped that answers to these question would contribute to a better
understanding of ICC in the university setting. Additionally, they might not only provide
an insight into attitudinal elements but also offer a further understanding of the skills and
knowledge needed for successful ICC, thus informing the practitioners of what students
need to master to become able interculturally competent EFL speakers.
1.5. Limitations and delimitations of the study
The study participants were the first-year humanities and social sciences students
of the University of Niš, so the data obtained cannot be generalized beyond the study
group to include the whole student population. Also, not all students enrolled in English
language courses participated in the quantitative phase of the study, but only those
actually present in the classroom at the time of conducting the questionnaire.
Also, since the students shared their attribution to critical incidents in an artificial
setting, the study does not claim that their behaviour would be the same in the real-life
situations.
10

1.6. Definitions of terms
A more detailed analysis of the concepts is given in the literature review section,
since many of the terms have been re-defined in different fields and disciplines. Here, the
most important terms for the present study will be defined, and they include:
Attribution
An important issue when discussing intercultural communication and competence
is the way new information is processed and how inferences about the other culture are
reached during the intercultural exchange. Jones and Davis (1965) (as cited in Gudykunst,
Kim 1984) offered a theory of attribution – that is, of making inferences about one’s
interlocutor in the intercultural exchange. The basic premise of the theory is that
attribution is a rational activity during which participants in the exchange are trying to
understand the other’s behaviour on the basis of their own situational factors. During this
process there is ‘an increased likelihood that we will attribute the cause of [the
participant’s] behavior to one particular characteristic – their cultural background of
group membership’ (Gudykunst, Kim 1984: 25). Inevitably, attribution will result in
mistakes, since participants ‘use different perspectives’ and therefore ‘there will never be
perfect agreement between them as to what behavior means’ (Gudykunst, Kim 1984: 88).
Wrong attributions may appear when it seems that cultures are similar enough, so
participants stop looking for ‘explanations’ and understanding as soon as they think they
have found a reasonable explanation. Also, wrong attribution may be a result of ‘the
principle of negativity’ (Kanouse, Hanson 1972 as cited in Gudykunst, Kim 1984) when
there is a tendency to overemphasise negative information about other people’s
behaviour.
In order to make any predictions about other people’s behaviour, one uses factors
from three domains – cultural, sociocultural and psychological (Miller and Steinberg
1975). The more experience one has with a particular culture, the more accurate
attributions will probably be. Also, the more one is familiar with the particular social
group the interlocutor belongs to, the better predictions there will be. Then, on a
psychological level, ‘predictions are based on the specific people we are communicating
with’ (Gudykunst, Kim 1984: 26). Finally, we put all these elements into categories
which we learn as part of our socialization into a particular culture and then use to make
sense of the world, and ultimately, to make sense of other people’s behaviour.
Individuals tend to make two kinds of attributions (Heider 1958) – one is
dispositional attributions where someone’s behaviour is explained by factors specific to
11

that person, their personality or some other characteristics. The second kind is situational
attributions where a person’s behaviour is explained by something ‘outside’ the
individual, by factors in the environment or social context.
The way to avoid a wrong attribution is to be informed and open to other cultures,
where intercultural education is of great importance. A participant in an intercultural
exchange should be able to recognize that certain behaviour might have more than one
meaning – the recognition of multiple interpretations of behaviour is a result of the width
of a participant’s categories. The wider the categories, the easier to place a new ‘object’
within them, while those people who use narrow categories tend to evaluate behaviour of
other people through their own cultural frame of reference (Detweiler 1975; Gudykunst,
Kim 1984).
For this particular study attribution is an important concept as it is an inseparable
part of a culture assimilator. The participants in the present study offered their
attributions, they justified them and in that way showed the underlying beliefs and
opinions that are presented in the Chapter V.
Culture
Since a section of the literature review is dedicated to culture and its importance
for ICC, here it will be explained which particular aspects are essential for further
exploration of ICC and this study in particular.
For research in the field of ICC, it should be remembered the culture is a ‘mental
programming’ that ‘comes from similar life experiences and similar interpretations of
what those experiences mean’ (Beamer, Varner 2001: 3). The authors also point out that
culture gives guidelines as to how to behave by giving justification for that particular
behaviour. In order to follow the rules, individuals have at their disposal ‘a particular set
of skills, ways of understanding, modes of feeling and […] productions’ (Bantock 1968:
1). This is important for ICC as it rests on three domains, cognitive, behavioural and
affective, which are based on these foundations that culture sets forth. For the present
study this view of culture as a ‘theory […], a means of interpreting the unfamiliar or the
ambiguous, interacting with strangers and in other settings’ (Keesing 1981: 89) is
important as it would be reflected in ICC, which would try to bring to awareness those
issues that for most part remain subconscious. In that sense, culture will be seen both as a
structure consisting of cognitive and behavioural elements, and as a process in which ‘a
group constructs and passes on its reality’ (Faulkner et al. 2006: 40). This is how one
12

group differentiates between in- and out-group members and ‘makes sense of their own
lives and sense of the behavior of other people with whom they have to deal’ (Spindler,
Spindler 1990: 2 as cited in Faulkner et al. 2006: 41).
Communicative competence
In order to participate in any communicative exchange, a leaner should possess
communicative competence which can be further subdivided into linguistic,
sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence. Hymes (1972: 282) describes it as a more
general and ‘superordinate term to encompass the language capabilities of the individual
that include both knowledge and use: “competence is dependent upon both (tacit)
knowledge and (ability for) use”’ (as cited in Lillis 2006: 97).
As a term that is today expanded by the inclusion of the IC competence, it is an
important element as much of the skills needed for communicative competence will also
be needed for IC competence, such as appropriateness, context, the ability to rephrase and
explain yourself.
Critical incident
The term critical incident is used to represent a situation in which members of
different cultures interact and fail to achieve an understanding due to misattribution,
cultural differences and most likely the lack of intercultural competence and/or
sensitivity. When used for IC teaching, each incident is followed by ‘multiple
linguistically-based explanation hypotheses’ (Müller-Jacquier 2004: 301). Learners then
discuss alternatives and ‘recapitulate latent tendencies to rashly attribute the observed
differences to different attitudes on the part of individuals or to whole nations’
mentalities, resulting in a first deliberate metalinguistic [and metacultural] reflection on
intercultural situations’ (Müller-Jacquier 2004: 301).
Intercultural competence
Just as culture is proverbially difficult to define, so is intercultural competence as
it essentially includes cultural elements. It has also been shown that authors use different
terms to mean the ability to relate to and understand people from other cultures (crosscultural
studies, intercultural sensitivity, communication studies, intercultural
communication competence (Bennett 1993; Byram 1997; Chen, Starosta 1996). The
inconsistency about the term stems from the definitions that ICC has in different sciences,
as each focuses on those elements important for that particular field.
13

With many definitions of intercultural competence, arriving at a particular one is
further made difficult by many researchers not making a sharp distinction between ICC
and intercultural communicative competence (ICCC). The choice of the term in many
cases is based on the areas that the researcher is exploring. Therefore, those who are more
interested in language teaching (Byram 1997) or language use (Giles, Franklyn-Stokes
1989) focus on ICCC. On the other hand, those who explore interpersonal development in
education (Bennett 1988; Hammer et al. 2003; Paige 2003) or adaptation (Gudykunst,
Kim 1992) are more concerned with ICC.
Byram (1997) offers a detailed explanation of the difference between ICC and
ICCC, and for him, ICC competence is ‘the ability to interact in [one’s] own language
with people from another country and culture, drawing upon [one’s] knowledge about
intercultural communication, [one’s] attitudes of interest in otherness and their skills in
interpreting, relating and discovering’ (p. 70). Byram believes that this ability stems from
one’s language learning, even though on a particular occasion that language will not be
used. As another example, Byram offers the ability that one has to interpret a translated
document from another culture. In this case a learner does not require knowledge of the
language but needs to possess the skills of interpreting and relating, knowledge about the
other culture, as well as interest in that culture (Byram 1997).
Intercultural communicative competence, on the other hand, is the ability ‘to
interact with people from another country and culture in a foreign language […], to
negotiate a mode of communication and interaction, and to act as mediator between
people of different cultural origins’ (Byram 1997: 71). Learners who posses ICCC link
the knowledge of culture and language with a proper use of sociolinguistic and discourse
competences, and are aware of the specific meanings, values and connotations of the
language. These learners use the skills of their first language to acquire new language and
cultural understanding (Byram 1997). Therefore, the difference between ICC and ICCC is
seen in the degrees of complexity and one’s ability to successfully navigate a wider range
of interactions in ICCC. This view is supported, also, by those authors who believe that
ICC competency is a ‘subset’ of ICCC competency (Deardorff 2004) 2 .
2 As a support that ICC and ICCC are two distinct constructs, Bhawuk and Brislin (1992) put forth a claim
that language learning has little impact on intercultural sensitivity, without, however, supporting it with
evidence, but saying that ‘it is difficult to explain why knowing more than one language has no significant
impact on sensitivity. Perhaps language learning and sensitivity are quite different concepts…’ (p. 428-
429).
14

For the purpose of the present study, Byram’s concept of intercultural competence
was seen as more fitting as the culture assimilator that students were asked to respond to
was in Serbian, therefore no use of sociolingustic or pragmatic ‘tools’ could be witnessed.
On the other hand, the students’ knowledge of the Anglophone cultures was taken into
consideration when the assimilator was created, and therefore ICCC was tacitly assumed,
if not for the interviews then for the next step – a manual that would include the critical
incidents discussion as well as linguistic concerns (functional language, register, language
practice, etc.).
Intercultural sensitivity
Intercultural sensitivity consists of a set of values that a learner should acquire if
one is to be successful in an intercultural exchange. From recognizing the importance of
one’s own culture, diversity and willingness to adapt one’s communication and behaviour
so that they are compatible with the norms of another culture (Stafford et al. 1997), these
values cover a wide range. If it is difficult to define ICC and hence to include it into a
FLT syllabus, it is even more difficult to do so for IC sensitivity.
For the purposes of the present study, the term intercultural sensitivity is used to
show where an individual could be placed following the description given by Bennett’s
model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) (Bennett 2004). As the model is described in
detail in Chapter II, here it should be only said that ‘each orientation of the DMIS is
indicative of a particular worldview structure, with certain kinds of cognition, affect, and
behavior’ (Bennett 2004: 76). Bennett’s approach uses the way an individual perceives
and describes a culture difference to account for ‘the individual’s ability to conceptualize
cultural difference, [that is, as evidence] for one’s degree of ethnocentrism or
ethnorelativism’ (Shaules 2007: 120).
1.7. Organization of the study
The thesis is organized in the following manner. The introductory chapter
presented the background of the study, its purpose and significance, research questions,
limitations and delimitations, as well as the definitions of the terms. The following
chapters are Chapter II: Literature review, Chapter III: Methodology, Chapter IV: Results,
Chapter V: Discussion, Chapter VI: Conclusion.
The second chapter presents definitions of culture form different perspectives, as
well as the models of culture which served as bases for intercultural models. Since
15

intercultural competence is closely related to the concept of communicative competence,
its models are also presented. Then, after a discussion of different intercultural
competence definitions, different approaches to intercultural competence, its models,
criticism against it as well as how it developed in foreign language teaching are
summarized. Then, teaching techniques for intercultural competence are presented, with
the special focus on the cultural assimilator as the one included in the interviews. Finally,
previous research done in the field of intercultural competence and FLT is presented.
The third chapter gives methodological considerations. Firstly, the mixed methods
approach is justified as the methodology used for the study. Then, the instrument used in
the quantitative stage, together with its reliability is explained. The qualitative stage is
then described, with the sample of the critical incidents used in the interviews, as well as
the process of creating the culture assimilator. This is followed by the discussion of the
methods for validation and trustworthiness. Then, the description of the participants, the
researcher as the human instrument, and procedures are described.
The results are given in the forth chapter, firstly those obtained in the first stage of
the study. Here, the results of different groups of participants are compared. Certain
questions from the questionnaire were highlighted as they were also used in the second
part of the study. The coding system is also presented here, together with the coding
categories and their illustrations taken from the interviews.
The analysis and discussion of the research questions are presented in the fifth
chapter. The stress is on the qualitative stage of the study, though these findings are
compared and contrasted to the statistical data from the first stage of the study.
Finally, conclusions and implications for further research, as well as the
limitations of the study are discussed in the sixth chapter.
16

CHAPTER II – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Culture
2.1.1. Introduction
Before exploring the concept of intercultural competence, it is important to point
to all important elements present it such a complicated concept. Therefore, at the
beginning of the chapter, the analysis of the concept of culture will be given. Then,
culture competence and awareness will be discussed. Finally, the overview of culture
models that serve as the basis for the intercultural models are analysed.
First appearing in Latin (colere), to mean ‘rearing plants and animals’, the term
culture only later incorporated the aspect of intellectual development. Today, dictionaries
define it as having several meanings, ranging from ‘the customs and beliefs, art, way of
life and social organization of a particular country of group’, over ‘a country, group with
its own beliefs’ to ‘art, music, literature thought of as a group’ (Hornby 2003: 306).
Baldwin et al. (2006) give a detailed etymology of the term culture, tracing it from
Latin, through mid-English, French and German, up to its various meanings at the present
time. These various definitions originate from different disciplines (philosophy,
sociology, anthropology, literature and cultural studies) where different emphases are
given to the term depending on the researchers and the frame of reference used. In spite
of extensive research, scholars have not come to one particular definition, rather, two
basic views of culture have emerged: the humanistic concept of culture and the
anthropological concept of culture (House 2007). The humanistic concept shows that
cultural heritage should be seen as a model to be admired, a collection of masterpieces in
literature, arts, music. On the other hand, an anthropological concept refers to the overall
way of life – obvious and more implicit patterns and rules that ‘act as potential guides for
the behaviour of members of culture’ (House 2007: 8-9). It is this second concept that
will be followed in the field of ICC.
The first section of the chapter will focus on different categorisations of culture,
starting from objective and subjective culture, over behaviourist, functional and cognitive
frameworks of culture to natural culture. Then, culture awareness and culture competence
will be discussed, as they form the basis on which IC instruction is laid. Also, as it shares
a number of similarities with IC teaching, different aspects of culture teaching (within
17

language teaching) will be mentioned. Finally, a number of models of culture will be
described, as they are used as the sketches from which intercultural models are
developed.
Objective vs. subjective culture
Another way to conceive of culture is to ‘divide’ it into objective and subjective 3 .
Objective culture refers to the institutions (political, economic, social), as well as the
artefacts of those institutions – art, music, theatre, a linguistic system, observable human
activities 4 , such as behavioural norms, interpersonal roles, child-rearing practices,
institutional structures, social and legal prescriptions, etc. On the other hand, subjective
culture is not that easy to pinpoint, as it changes with a particular perspective (Ting-
Toomey 1999). Also, subjective culture is dynamic, as the elements that comprise culture
are included or left out over time (Porter, Samovar 1997), can be influenced by the
environment and qualifies (describes) a group of people, their thinking, and behaviour
(Bennett 1998).
Some authors, like Tanaka (1978), see subjective culture as consisting of human
cognitive processes such as ‘values, stereotypes, attitudes, feelings, motivations, beliefs,
and most generally, meanings’ (1978: 190). These two cultures, subjective and objective,
are in contact, they interact, as member of a particular culture are socialized to behave in
a certain way by the institutions (Bennett 1998).
Static vs. dynamic culture
From these definitions it could be seen a differentiation between two views, or
approaches to culture: a static and a dynamic one. The static supposes that the knowledge
about a particular country is what culture is – a country’s history, institutions or customs,
works of art, laws, and their art. As Liddicoat (2002) points out ‘this knowledge may be
mediated in a way which separates the factual knowledge from the linguistic context in
which that knowledge was created and within which it is understood by members of the
cultural group’ (p.7). This view means that knowledge ‘about’ a particular culture can be
taught and learned, however this might also mean that one could interpret another culture
through conceptual systems of one’s own culture and, more importantly, resulting in
replacing the ‘conceptual framework of the original culture’ (p.7) without reflecting on
3 This division is also termed small c and big C, the former being subjective and the latter objective culture.
4 These will later be seen as a visible 1/10 th of the culture iceberg
18

the experience. Finally, the concept of cultural knowledge that stems from this view is
mostly based on information and the ability to recall it.
On the other hand, the dynamic approach ‘involves seeing culture as sets of
practices in which people engage in order to live their lives, to understand their world and
to produce and comprehend meaning’ (p.7). This is a newer view of culture, where it is
not a compilation of thoughts, artefacts, achievements, but ‘an active creation by a group
of people’ (Faulkner et al. 2006: 40). This view ‘allows’ a culture to be seen not as a
monolithic whole, but as composed of a number of variables (age, religion, ethnicity,
social status, etc.), as a ‘collective’ phenomenon that is ‘shared’ among members of a
culture (e.g. Hofstede 1984, 2001, Rohner 1984 in Fischer 2009). This ‘shared’
component distinguishes one group of people from another, and it ‘is passed on through
socialization processes within specific groups, which requires communication of key
symbols, ideas, knowledge, and values between individuals from one generation to the
next’ (Fischer 2009: 29). This particular aspect of culture will be important for
intercultural competence, as ICC requires from learners to recognize that what is shared
within their community need not be necessarily shared within another community or
culture. In order to illustrate this, Hofstede (1997) offers a model based on five culture
dimensions within which differences are expected and the focus is more on processes
than on states.
Behaviourist, functional and cognitive culture
Another way to conceptualise culture is a division into three different perspectives
– behaviourist, functional and cognitive 5 . The behaviourist view proposes that culture is
composed of sets of behaviour such as traditions, habits, customs all of which make
culture shared and easily observable. The individuals shape their responses due to the
contact with a society and culture (Faulkner et al. 2006).
The functionalist view tries to describe functions of particular behaviours, and the
reasons and rules of behaviours that are shared, but unlike in the behaviourist approach,
these are not visible or observable. ‘In the functionalist tradition, culture is seen as
background and resource, where the human subject is only seen in his/her role of executor
of functions’ (Roberts, Sarangi 1993: 97). As a result, culture can be simplified into
‘either behaviour (e.g. x people don’t smile in public), or […] fixed values and beliefs
5 Following the ideas of B.S. Bloom (1956)
19

[…] (e.g. x culture values the elderly)’ (ibid) which, while on one hand instils the sense of
belonging, on the other hand contrasts the experience of one culture to that of others.
Summarizing different definitions with functional elements, Faulkner et al. (2006) point
that in this view, culture is a design for life, a tool to organize collective life and to deal
with everyday problems. It is then transmitted to other members, including immigrants, as
this design reduces the number of interpretations of ideas, individuals, and events and
thus helps organize the world. However, it is such simplified framework that causes
intercultural misunderstandings.
Finally, in the cognitive approach the means of organising the experience are not
something observable, rather, ‘culture is a computer programme, with the programme
differing from culture to culture’ (Lochtman, Kappel 2010: 13), similarly to how
Hofstede characterized culture – as a programming of the mind (Hofstede 1997). While
agreeing that behaviourist and functional approaches can help students better understand
a foreign culture and predict some cultural behaviour and also heighten their awareness of
other culture, anthropologists believe that these approaches rely too much on empiricism
which might prevent, rather than promote, understanding. The view is that not everything
that is present in a culture and globally shared is observable.
For Goodenough (1964), who is one of the main representatives of cognitive
theories of culture (influenced by structural linguistic), culture is not static in its nature
and it is not only comprised of ‘things, people, behavior, or emotions’ (p 36).
Goodenough sees culture as a combination of all these things – the ‘model of perceiving,
relating, and otherwise interpreting’ (p. 36) things, people, behaviours, emotions. An
important view here is that culture is represented as a guiding and monitoring aspect of
relationships between individuals, what has been named ‘the socially transmitted
information’ (Cronk 1999: 12 in Faulkner et al. 2006: 34).
In more recent cognitive theories of culture, knowledge is still seen as the most
important element, since individuals need to possess it ‘in order to act as they do, make
the things they make, interpret their experiences in the distinctive way they do’ (Holland,
Quinn 1987: 4).
The criticism against cognitive theories of culture is aimed at their too narrow a
focus on internal mental processes and separation of them from external interactions. The
more recent theories are therefore taking into account relationship between those internal
processes and meanings that are shared in a society. Another criticism is that cognitive
theories present a static image of culture. Some changes have been made in regard to this
20

problem, but culture is still seen as durable, with enough widely shared understandings
between groups of people to make it a unit of analysis (Strauss, Quinn 1997).
Hofstede also warns against identifying the individual level with the level of
society, because a culture is not a combination of properties of an ‘average citizen’ but ‘a
set of likely reactions of citizens who share a common culture’ (Hofstede 2001: 112) 6 . He
(1984) defines culture ‘as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the
members of one human group from another’ (Hofstede 1984: 21) with patterns ‘rooted in
value systems of major group and stabilized over long periods of history’ (p. 13).
Post-modernist critique draws attention to Hofstede’s (1984) remark, as there
cannot be a pure culture, since different social groups influence each other. Members of a
particular culture are ‘constantly influenced by the society, […] public and cultural
representations’ (House 2007: 10). In addition to that, individuals simultaneously belong
to various cultural groups, which might correspond to different levels of culture –
ethnicity, religion, language, gender, social status (Hofstede 1984). Therefore, every
interpersonal contact will become to a degree intercultural, and ‘every interpersonal
communication must, to some degree, also be an intercultural communication’ (Singer
1998: 28).
Conceptualisation of culture
As for the individual authors who have tried to provide an all-round definition of
culture, here just a section is presented. While many authors from different fields tried to
define culture, here the emphasis will be on those authors who have worked mostly with
intercultural communication and/or competence and language teaching.
Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) published a seminal work that would be employed
widely for cultural comparison and intercultural interaction analysis. The authors claim
that people face similar problems and that all potential solutions exist in every culture –
just some cultures tend to prefer a particular solution to some other. Starting from that
conclusion, the authors go on to present five basic value orientations, that is, dimensions,
along which each culture is organized. These categories include 1) the relation between
man and nature, 2) the innate characteristics of human nature, 3) the value of time, 4) the
purpose of human activity and 5) the mode of human relationships. Therefore, their
definition of culture is that:
6 This renders incorporating of culture into language teaching/learning particularly difficult, as students
should not develop only stereotypical views of another culture.
21

22
‘Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and
transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including
their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e.
historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems
may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning
elements of further action’ (1952: 181).
The authors were able to come to this definition analyzing previous definitions,
which they grouped into six sets –descriptive, historical, normative, psychological,
structural, and genetic, each focusing on different aspects of culture. Such wide range of
definitions only proves that the concept was as elusive in the 1950s as it is today.
Hall has been a central character of cultural studies and his work The Silent
Language (1966) helped many researchers who followed the idea of the importance of
culture. His work ‘centered around the culture-general concepts of proxemics,
chronemics, and the low/high context continuum’ (Smith et al. 2003: 101). Hall pointes
out that different cultures ‘decipher’ differently the input information, and
communication failures occur because ‘neither of the parties was aware that each inhabits
a different perceptual world’ (Hall 1966: 5).
Hall (1966) states that culture provides a selective screen between individuals and
the outside world and ‘different cultures “program” their members to pay attention to
different aspects of the environment with a greater or lesser attachment of significance’
Gudykunst, Kim 1984: 120). For the understanding of culture, as Hall points out, and
with which other authors agree (Gudykunst and Kim 1984), contexting is important, as it
is the perceptual process of recognizing, giving significance to and incorporating
contextual cues in interpreting the total meaning of any stimulus in a particular
communication exchange.
Damen (1987) sees culture as ‘learned and shared human patterns or models for
living; […] which pervade all aspects of human social interaction’ (p. 369). Another
claim that Damen makes is that ‘culture is mankind’s primary adaptive mechanism’ (p.
369).
Banks and Banks (1989) define culture as consisting not only of ‘the symbolic,
ideational, and intangible aspects of human societies’ but also of the ways in which
members interpret, use and see the tangible cultural elements. They stress that ‘it is the
values, symbols, interpretations, and perspectives that distinguish one people from
another in modernized societies’ (p. 8). In this view of culture, material objects are not of
importance, as ‘[p]eople within a culture usually interpret the meaning of symbols,
artifacts, and behaviors in the same or in similar ways’ (Banks et al. 1989: 8).

Keesing (1974) proposes a definition of culture that combines a communication
theory and culture, which says that culture is ‘a system of competence shared in its broad
design and deeper principles, and varying between individual in its specificities’ (p. 89).
This system encompasses what a person knows and believes in and which codes one
should follow in a society one is born into. Another important point that Keesing includes
in his definition of culture is that the natives to a culture use it as a ‘theory’, as a means of
‘interpreting the unfamiliar or the ambiguous, interacting with strangers, and in other
settings peripheral to the familiarity of mundane everyday life space’ (p.89). However, it
should also be said that the ‘theory’ is unconscious for the most part, and will slightly
differ across different individuals from a particular culture. In an earlier work, Keesing
(1974), similarly to Damen (1987), focuses more on culture as ‘a system of socially
transmitted behavior patterns’ (p. 75), including technologies, economic and social
patterns, religious beliefs and so on, learned in one’s group. This wavering of a single
scholar when trying to define the concept also points to the fact that there is still not a
concrete definition of culture, and other authors will also be included into a debate on
whether culture refers to the mental frameworks or the behavioural frameworks.
A definition of culture in the management literature has been offered by Schein
(1985), who summarizes culture as ‘a pattern of basic assumptions – invented,
discovered, or developed by a given group’ who uses them to learn ‘to cope with its
problems of external adaptation and internal integration’. If the pattern is successful, then
it can be ‘considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way
to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems’ (p. 9). Schein’s definition
emphasizes the functionality of culture as providing solutions to problems of group
survival derived through collective experience.
Swidler (1986) claims that culture should be seen as offering a ‘repertoire of
capacities from which varying strategies of action may be constructed’ (p. 277). Each
culture provides a limited set of resources ‘which people may use in varying
configurations to solve different kinds of problems’ (Swidler 1986: 273), rather than
imposing a monolithic set of norms for thinking and acting. The definition continues the
view that Hall set forth, that a repertoire, or a program is at people’s disposal to be used to
solve problems.
Along the same lines, Triandis et al. (1993) define culture as ‘a set of humanmade
objective and subjective elements’ (p. 219) that help people survive, gave them a
place in the world and because of that people with the same language and common
23

territory started sharing it’ (Triandis et al. 1993). Triandis further says that ‘culture is a
shared meaning system, found among those who speak a particular language dialect,
during a specific historic period, in a definable geographic region’ (Trandis 2006: 23). It
includes the knowledge that people need in order to function effectively in their social
environment. This view, however, presents culture in a monolithic sense, as it disregards
different groups within culture.
Fay (1996) sees culture as ‘a complex set of shared beliefs, values, and concepts
which enables a group to make sense of its life and which provides it with directions for
how to live’ (p. 55). Fay believes that in order to become a member of a culture, one
needs to go through a process similar to that of learning to read, but here the subject
matter would be a culture’s text, or a set of beliefs, values and concepts. One important
observation put forward by the author is that cultures are open since they are ‘ideational
entities [therefore] susceptible to influence from other cultures’ (1996: 55).
Spencer-Oatey (2000) introduces a number of additional factors apart from values
that might condition behaviour and artefacts to the definition, including a description of
the functions that ‘culture’ performs. She sees culture as ‘a fuzzy set of attitudes, beliefs,
behavioural norms, and basic assumptions and values that are shared by a group of
people, and that influence each member’s behaviour and his/her interpretations of the
“meaning” of other people’s behaviour’ (Spencer-Oatey 2000: 4).
Samovar and Porter (1991) believe that culture reduces the chances of people
being surprised as it shields them from the unknown – offers a plan that the members of
culture can follow. That is why those who share the same culture ‘can usually be counted
on to behave “correctly and predictably”’ (Samovar, Porter 1991: 49) They define culture
as ‘the deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies,
religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material
objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations
through individual and group striving’ (p. 51).
Brislin’s definition of culture as ‘widely shared ideals, values, formation and uses
of categories, assumptions about life, and goal-directed activities that become
unconsciously or sub-consciously accepted as ‘right’ and ‘correct’ by people who identify
themselves as members of a society” (Brislin 1990: 27) shows that so-called ‘subjective
culture’ (associations, norms, attitudes, values) has received prominence in more recent
research. Also, earlier definitions of culture were more concerned with products,
objective representations of culture while Brislin’s 12-point framework of culture testifies
24

to the complexity of the concept (Brislin 2000, 2006). The framework of culture is
designed so as to provide a definition that would encourage a culture dialogue. Among
other points, Brislin emphasizes that people’s ideals, values and assumptions guide
behaviours, however, not visibly as culture is so fundamental that it is internalized and
not discussed. Therefore, one’s culture will inadvertently influence intercultural
competence, as a particular practice, value or belief of another culture will clash against
one’s own. It is only when there are ‘well-meaning clashes’ that culture becomes visible,
since then our internal rules are externalized and will allow us not to react negatively but
have a conscious choice (Novinger 2001).
National culture
There are certain practical drawbacks to an approach that presents a national
culture as a system that guides behaviour. Firstly, it classifies individuals in terms of a
single culture, without respect for minorities and subcultures. Secondly, it ‘assigns a
causal link between cultural values and behaviour that is too simple and deterministic’
(Friedman, Berthoin Antal 2005: 73). Swidler (1986), also critical of theories that tie
behaviour too deterministically to cultural values and conceive of culture as ‘a unified
system that pushes action in a consistent direction’ (p. 277), proposes that culture should
be seen as offering a ‘repertoire of capacities from which varying strategies of action may
be constructed’ (p. 284). While it is true that most cultures share various aspects of
patterned behaviour and thought, research shows that no two cultures have the exact same
patterns (Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey 1996; Hofstede 2001; Lustig, Koester 1996). These
patterns are known as dimensions of cultural variability. For an individual to be
interculturally competent, one should know not only what culture is in the theoretical
sense, but also in the practical sense.
With the rise of post-modernism in humanities, the view of culture changed, as the
supporters claimed that culture is simply an abstraction and should not be divided into
‘social groups’ as these ‘are constantly destabilized by external influences, internal
restructuring, and individual idiosyncrasies and actions’ (House 2007: 8).
Globalization, national cultures and the importance of ICC
Another influence on the conceptualization of culture has been the process of
globalization, as it has inevitably changed the way culture, and especially national culture
is seen. Blasco (2004) argues that there are two different conceptualizations of culture and
25

globalization in the literature, both of which support the idea that ‘the concept of
“national culture” is fast becoming obsolete’ (p. 20). One conceptualization leads to
cultural integration (Kramsch 2002), to the situation in which there will not be nationcultures,
but rather ‘a single place where diversity can take place’ (Featherstone 1990: 2).
Kramsch (2002) purports that ‘”[C]ulture” has become less and less a national consensus,
but a consensus built on common ethnic, generational, regional, ideological, occupationor
gender-related interests, within and across national boundaries’ (p. 276). Due to
different factors, the second conceptualization is that globalization will lead to dissolution
of the sense of national identity (Blasco 2004; Ladegaard 2007). Smith (1990) is among
the advocates of this view arguing that nation-states will no longer exist, and that we have
entered ‘a new world of economic giants and superpowers, of multinationals and military
blocs, of vast communications networks and international division of labor’ (p. 174).
Guest (2002) points out that ‘[y]oung male Japanese surfers are likely to have far
more attributes in common with their cohorts in Brazil than they would with, say, middleaged
Japanese art scholars’ (p. 156). Guest goes to say that ‘a national or racial matrix is
often a poor indicator of the actions and attitudes that exist within the subgroups and
social genres’ (p.156). While this may point to the fact that international and intercultural
encounters of different kinds will be easier in terms of understanding the values and
beliefs of others, the practice shows an unabated interest in intercultural competence.
Also, in spite of apparent similarities, members of different cultures still rely on the
deeply ingrained national culture patterns when interacting with members of other
cultures (Jackson 2010, Sercu 2002).
Another important point is that regardless of whence field a definition originates,
clear-cut and exhaustive categories are no longer used. Comparison of definitions from
the early to mid 20 th century and those from the beginning of 21 st century show a sharp
contrast. From the ones that listed artefacts and achievements, language and territory as
culture, to the postmodern ones that call for ideological, political and fragmented views
that purport that ‘there is no whole picture that can be “filled in” since the perception and
filling of a gap leads to the awareness of other gaps’ (Clifford 1986: 18 as cited in
Faulkner et al. 2006: 50). This is exactly due to a more globalized, more closely
connected world and perceived change in intercultural relations and the need to make
them work.
26

2.1.2. Cultural awareness
Cultural awareness (CA) is a concept which started to gain prominence in the
1980s and 1990s, used not only in the context of language learning but also in social
sciences. It is an approach that tried to connect culture and intercultural competence,
through values, beliefs, and opinions that a learner needs. Risager (2000) sees its
development as ‘closely linked with the development of post-modern society with its
interest in cultural difference and the relationship to ‘the Other’, no matter whether the
latter is different from a national, ethnic, social, regional or institutional point of view’ (p.
159). Just like with culture, where a number of definitions and approaches are in use, the
concept of CA is different depending on the conceptualisation of culture it is derived from
and reasons for its development, be that a reflexive role, cognitive and affective, national
or its relation to TEFL (Risager 2000).
The concept of reflexivity is important for CA as it is believed ‘that insight into or
experience of the practices or systems of meaning of other cultures is of significance for
the individual’s cultural understanding of self and their own identity’ (Risager 2000:
160). CA is therefore important for ICC teaching as it is practically a basis from which
ICC rises, because the development of CA should indicate a move from ethnocentrism to
relativity, engagement with national stereotypes and realization of a number of different
perspectives through which IC experience can be analysed (Byram 1989).
For Byram (1997) cultural awareness is ‘a central concept in his model’, as based
on it learners can ‘evaluate critically and on the basis of explicit criteria perspectives,
practices and products’ (Byram 1997: 53) both in one’s own culture and in those of other
countries.
Cultural awareness is ‘a conscious understanding of the role culture plays in
language learning and communication (in both first and foreign languages)’ (Baker 2012:
65). Learners should become aware of the ‘workings’ of their and other cultures, of
culturally based norms, beliefs, and behaviours. CA brings ‘an understanding of the
relative nature of cultural norms’ which leads to ‘an ability to evaluate, critically and on
the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other
cultures and countries’ (Byram 1997: 101).
Tomlinson and Masuhara (2004) also tackle the problem of cultural awareness
and its significance for language teaching and ICC. They make a distinction between
cultural knowledge, which is ‘information about a particular culture, and cultural
awareness which is a perception of both our and others’ culture’ (p. 6). While never
27

undermining the importance of cultural knowledge, they see certain challenges that might
undermine the seemingly straightforwardness of the term. For example, one should be
alert to a potential pitfall of stereotyping, as information is usually a summary of all the
available data, therefore inevitably slanted. The authors see cultural awareness as
dynamic as it is based on either first-hand experience – encounters, comparisons and
contrasting, or on various artefacts. This notion of cultural awareness is more in keeping
with a dynamic definition of culture and the fluidity that modern definitions of culture
stress. With language teaching in mind, the authors say that ‘cultural awareness is not
always included in language teaching activities’ (Tomlinson, Masuhara 2004: 11).
However, while many of the elements of culture awareness are relevant, there are
some drawbacks regarding its relation to intercultural competence. Learners should
develop an understanding of the dynamic way in which sociocultural contexts are
constructed (Baker 2012). Knowledge of specific cultures should be combined with an
awareness of cultural influences in intercultural communication ‘as fluid, fragmented,
hybrid, and emergent with cultural groupings or boundaries less easily defined and
referenced’ (Baker 2012: 66). For better understanding of others, cultural awareness
should evolve into intercultural awareness.
2.1.3. Cultural competence
Cultural competence (CC) comprises acceptance that there are differences
between people from different cultures, admission that one lacks knowledge about it and
finally, a decision that ‘there should be a search for knowledge’ (Ronnau 1994: 34).
Unlike intercultural competence where there are two (or more) cultures in interplay, with
CC there is introspection in the sense of how one is influenced by one’s own culture,
values and standards. Culture competence is ‘the ability to generate appropriate strategies
of action unconsciously’ (Friedman, Berthoin Antal 2005: 74). More importantly, moving
towards ICC, the authors see it as ‘the ability to explore one’s repertoire and actively
construct an appropriate strategy’ (ibid).
Kramsch (1991) purports that ‘cultural competence can be best developed in a
structured learning environment, where conscious parallels can be drawn’ (p. 229)
because language can be explicitly linked to ‘a particular sociocultural and historical
context’ (p. 229). Thus, language and a particular cultural issue can be connected and
analysed, with respect to both native and target language and culture (Kramsch 1991).
28

Ronnau (1994) states that CC requires: accepting that significant differences do
exist between people of different cultures; admitting the lack of knowledge; and
developing a commitment to search for that knowledge. Cultural competence requires
introspection if one wishes to see how we are influenced by our culture, ‘necessitating
identification of ‘the values, standards and messages which have been passed on to us’ (p.
34). Thus, willingness to recognize, explore and analyse cultural bias of one’s own
culture and become informed about other cultures forms the basis of interest in
multicultural education – to feel the need to search for and become open to critically
examine multicultural knowledge.
‘Reflective thinking leading to reflective judgement appears to be an important
aspect of cultural competence’ (McAllister et al. 2006: 370) so much so that it may be
more significant than some other aspects, ‘like possessing specific knowledge or having a
particular kind of attitude towards specific groups of people’ (ibid). As many authors
claim, culturally specific experience cannot be the only basis for developing culture
general abilities, however, ‘it could be argued that deep reflection on those specific
experiences can lead to the extraction of culture general understandings’ (McAllister et
al. 2006: 369-70). A critical thinker can identify the assumptions underlying thoughts and
actions, evaluate how accurate and valid those assumptions are, and if necessary, remodel
them.
Finally, intercultural competence rests heavily on similar grounds, the importance
of cognitive and affective elements, taking a reflective stand and showing curiosity about
other cultures as well as motivation to communicate.
2.1.4. Culture and language teaching
The discussion of definitions of culture is important for several reasons, one of
which is its introduction it into language teaching. Morillas (2001) suggests that ‘the
major stumbling block not only for success in culture teaching theory and practice, but in
progress in this area of applied linguistics, has been the very notion of culture’ (p. 297),
as many other authors claim.
Seen as a fifth language skill, knowledge of the foreign country’s culture has
become a part of the curriculum. That language learning entails not only linguistic
knowledge but also the awareness of the importance of the context and motives behind
communication is something many teachers claim. For the last few decades ‘scholars (e.g.
Bernhardt, Berman 1999; Byrnes 1996; Kramsch 1993; Peters 2003; Weiss 1971) have
29

argued forcefully for the integration of cultural knowledge and intercultural competence
into the foreign language curriculum’ (Schulz 2007: 10). Consequently, there has been a
number of approaches for integrating culture in language teaching (e.g., Byram, Zarate
1997; Crawford-Lange, Lange 1984; DeCapua, Wintergerst 2004; Kramsch 1993, Seelye
1993). Yet, there has not been any consensus as to how culture should be ‘defined
operationally’ (Schulz 2007: 10) in foreign language learning when it comes to objectives
and assessment. The sheer vastness of culture makes it impossible to tell the learner
everything they need to know about the target culture.
The view that culture is ‘everything […] is precisely what makes the concept of
culture nearly unmanageable’ (Morillas 2001: 297). A more realistic goal is to attune
(Corbett 2003) learners to the possibility of difference, and explore how ‘decentring from
one’s own taken-for-granted world can be structured systematically in the classroom’
(Byram, Fleming 1998: 7) and in that way create a ‘sphere of interculturality’ (Kramsch
1993). Culture learning should be ‘the process of acquiring the culture-specific and
culture-general knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for effective communication and
interaction with individuals from other cultures [engaging] the learner cognitively,
behaviorally, and affectively’ (Paige et al. 2003: 177). There should be ‘a systematic
framework for teaching culture and language together, in which the relationship between
them is explicitly explored with learners’ (Baker 2011: 4). This view of culture learning
shows that there has been a shift in perspective of culture learning. From an additional
language skill, learning of facts and information, culture now has more importance in
terms of learning objectives and outcomes. This is also a step away from the ethnocentric
approach ‘which focuses on mechanical communication beyond which learners retain
their own system of thought and perception of the world’ (Geoghean 2010: 144).
Liddicoat et al. (2003) also claim that language and culture interact with each
other in a way that culture connects to all levels of language use and structures; i.e. there
is no level of language which is independent of culture. The interconnection of language
and culture is important for language learning (Figure 2.1), as culture should be included
in all aspects of language learning – from general text structures to prosody and kinesics.
As a consequence, learners would not be ‘fluent fools’ (Bennett 1997), as ‘without
cultural insight and skills, even fluent speakers can seriously misinterpret the messages
they hear of read, and the messages they intend to communicate can be misunderstood’
(Pesola 1991: 331).
30

Culture
Language
world
knowledge
spoken/ written
genres
pragmatic
norms
norms of
interaction
grammar/
lexicon/ prosody/
pronunciation/
kinesics
culture in
context
culture in
general text
structure
culture within
utterance
culture in the
organization
and selection
of units of
language
culture in
linguistic and
paralinguistic
structures
Figure 2.1 Points of articulation between culture and language, adapted from Liddicoat et
al. (2003)
Kramsch proposes ‘a third place’ or a third culture in the context of foreign
language education. Many authors wanted to minimize the ‘discomfort of cultural
difference’ (Kramsch 1993, 2001: 235) and tried to conceive of the concept as one
monocultural global village, others dealt with foreignness in particular academic courses,
turning intercultural competence into a new discipline. On the other hand, Kramsch tries
to examine the concept as being shaped in a dialogue, adopting an interdisciplinary
approach. In such a way, learners have an opportunity to make a cultural statement
through learning a foreign language, and not simply to learn a new way to communicate.
Revisiting the concept almost 20 year later, Kramsch calls for a new notion, due to ‘the
explosion of global communication technologies’ (2011: 355). Kramsch believes that the
notion of the third place needs to be re-examined and seen as a process of meaningmaking
what would go beyond dualities of national languages and cultures. She believes
that communicative competence should include ‘a systematic reflexive component’ which
would include ‘[…] subjective […] and historical and ideological dimensions that
communicative language teaching has largely left unexploited’ (Kramsch 2011: 355).
31

2.1.5. Models of culture
Models of culture are important for the present study as they give the background
and the basis for it, especially those that explore dimensions such as, for example,
collectivism vs. individualism or synchronic vs. anachronic. Further, due to the lack of a
systematic approach to the development of ICC in language classes, research resorts to
the use of models of developing ICC in the field of intercultural training or business
management (Petravić 2011). Therefore, this section will focus on a number of models of
culture, starting from the early ones, for example Hall’s, to some more recent ones, like
Bennett’s.
Models of culture, or dimensions of cultures, are based on the work of some early
20 th century anthropologists, Ruth Benedict or Margaret Mead, for example. They put
forth the thesis that all societies face common problems, while the way they address those
problems is what actually separates, or differentiates those societies. It is therefore
important to devise ‘instruments’ that would be able to recognize those problems,
conceptualise them as dimensions and, consequently, devise tools which would describe,
or more concretely delineate, culture along dimensions.
During the second half of the twentieth century, especially in the 1950s, many
researchers tried to explain the problems of societies so that they would offer distinctive
dimensions of culture (Hall 1976; Inkeles, Levinson 1969; Kluckhohn 1952; Kluckhohn,
Strodtbeck 1961; Parsons, Shils 1951). The dimensions that were put forth ranged from
universal ones (such as the existence of two sexes, need to preserve oneself in the
biological sense), to categories of modernity and economical growth, relation to authority,
the concept of self, resolution of conflict, the relationship of man to the surrounding
natural environment, the orientation in time.
It is important to stress that models might be coloured by the subjective choices of
their author(s). Cultural dimensions might overlap to a certain extent, but they might also
show the ‘lack of clarity about and mixing of levels of analysis (individual-groupculture)’
(Samovar et al. 2011: 20). As any categorisation, these models are not the only
possible way to group culture dimensions, but they have been most widely used, have
been incorporated into IC models and, especially the more recent once, are based on an
extensive body of research.
32

The iceberg theory
Since culture is something acquired unconsciously, much of what affects one’s
behaviour and expectations is not visible, much is below the surface of the ‘cultural
iceberg’, and when encountering a different culture individuals are even less aware of
what is below the surface of other people’s ‘cultural icebergs’ (Friedman, Berthoin Antal
2005), as it is those internal dimensions that are the motivation behind the external
behaviour. It should be pointed out that observable differences, which make up around
one tenth of culture, are not the only cause for misunderstandings, and that even surface
similarities can mask significant differences at the deeper level. As Barna (1998) claims,
the ‘assumption of similarity’ is the biggest obstacle to intercultural communication. That
is why Friedman and Berthoin Antal believe that ‘conceptualizing culture in terms of very
general constructs at a national level provides a powerful explanatory framework for
making sense of intercultural problems in management’ (2005: 73).
behaviour:
spoken
and written
behavioural norms, values,
beliefs – basic assumptions
Figure 2.2 Cultural iceberg
The model of cultural iceberg had been used to describe culture for many years,
and in the 1950s through the work of Hall, it received additional popularity. Models that
came after it copied the main assumption about culture, that there are certain concepts
that are invisible, and that what is visible is only the surface, ‘the tip of the iceberg’.
Individuals do not dwell on how their cultural foundation affects their behaviour, talk, or
expectations, and even less so do they think about or see below the surface of somebody
else’s cultural iceberg. Unfortunately, only what is on the surface is judged and
interpreted, almost always wrongly, because it is interpreted according to one own
33

attitude, believes, assumptions and norms (Berthoin Antal, Friedman 2005). Surface
similarities, when perceived (e.g. in language, dress and etiquette), usually mask
significant differences at the deeper, submerged levels, and are, therefore, usually
misinterpreted.
Hall’s triad of culture
Hall (1966) suggestes extending the Iceberg theory by adding an extra level that is
sometimes visible and sometimes not. The model comprises three levels, the technical
culture, the formal culture and informal culture (or out-of-awareness) culture. Culture
seems to be comprised of formal behavioural patterns that form a core around which
certain informal changes might take place while all is supported by technical props.
Technical culture refers to communication at the level of science, where
everything can be measured accurately. Technical behaviour for example is completely
conscious behaviour. Formal culture is not objective, but it represents a way of doing
things in an accepted manner that can be taught. The formal changes almost unnoticeably.
This is the culture of traditions, conventions, customs and procedure. Individuals usually
do not perceive this level consciously, but its presence becomes obvious once the
conventions are broken since the reactions are rather emotional. Hall believes that the
language of these routines can be studied and taught, that is, that particular exchanges
(requesting information, counter conversations, ordering food) can be analysed and in that
way they become technical. This is what makes this level be sometimes above and
sometimes below the conscious waterline. Finally, informal culture is neither taught nor
learned, rather it is unconsciously acquired. Hall traces this term out-of-awareness to a
psychiatrist Sullivan and even further to Freud. The emotional responses are due to this
level.
Unlike other authors who put forth their models of culture, Hall does not offer
cultural dimensions as such, along which cultures might be compared or analysed. He
organizes culture into contexts – those of time and space. The context of time is explained
through anachronic/ polychromic distinctions, while proximics are the elements that
explain the context of space.
34

Hofstede’s onion layers model
Hofstede’s (1997) model has two main levels: practices and values. He lists
symbols, heroes, and rituals under practices, while stressing that it is values that form the
core of culture. The elements of practices are ordered from the most superficial, the most
visible ones, to the least visible ones – symbols. Hofstede describes them as signs which
show belonging to a particular group and which are easily visible – such as pictures,
dress, hairstyle, gestures, and words. The second layer is heroes, which Hofstede
emphasizes as typical for a particular culture, but might also be adopted (and adapted)
across cultures. As an example, Hofstede provides children’s heroes who show
similarities among cultures (Mickey Mouse or Pinocchio, for example). Finally, rituals
are the last layer of practices, and they are considered culturally relevant, though they
might not have a practical value (Hofstede 1997): formulaic expressions such as
introductory rituals are instances of these. These rituals are ingrained in our everyday
behaviour and members of one culture may have problems realising that members of
some other culture might have different ones.
Figure 2.3 Onion layers, taken from Hosfstede (1997)
Even though the layers in practices are visible, ‘their cultural meaning, however,
is invisible and lies precisely and only in the way these meanings are interpreted by the
insiders’ (Hofstede 1997: 8).
Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s layers of culture
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) believe that culture is composed of
three layers that differ in their content and visibility. The first level is the explicit level,
something that is immediately observable on encountering a new culture. The authors list
language, food, buildings, houses, monuments, agriculture, shrines, markets, fashions and
art in this level, pointing out that these are the symbols of a deeper level of culture. Also,
35

it is on this level that stereotyping starts, because members of different cultures perceive
immediate differences. The second is the middle level which refers to norms and values,
the approved behaviour patterns in a society and the rules (implicit or explicit) that guide
the behaviour. The last layer is not exactly a layer, but more the kernel of a particular
culture, its core. For the authors this ‘deepest meaning has escaped from conscious
questioning and has become self-evident, because it is a result of routine responses to the
environment’ (Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner 1997: 24). In this sense ‘culture is
anything but nature’ (ibid). What this core represents is the organization of a particular
culture with the aim of solving various problems over the period of the culture’s
existence. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner stress the stand which has been present in
the recent years, that culture is not a ‘”thing” […] it is made by people interacting’ (p.
24). Therefore, cultures differ from each other by the shared meanings they expect from
and attribute to their environment.
Figure 2.4 Model of culture taken from Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997)
This model also presents culture as created of visible and invisible parts. What are
practices in Hofstede’s model in Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s model are norms
and values, artefacts and products. Similarly, values in the former model are basic
assumptions in the latter. However, it is not easy to distinguish basic assumptions from
norms and values, (even though Trompenaars gives an example of human equality as an
unquestionable basic assumption), because values might also be implicit and
unquestionable.
36

Spencer-Oatey’s model
In order to avoid doubts about implicit assumptions and values, Spencer-Oatey
combines layers of practices and values into one ‘segment’ of the ‘culture onion’. The
layer of beliefs, conventions and attitudes influences another layer, which consists of
systems and institutions. Finally, both are encircled by a split outer layer of culture, with
artefacts and products and rituals and behaviours. By doing this, Spencer-Oatey separates
the manifestation of culture (behaviour and rituals) and non-behavioural pattern (artefacts
and products). Dahl, who favours this model in relation to those of Trompenaars’ or
Hall’s, believes that it ‘allows for another “mental” level of culture which is more
“practical”’, a level containing ‘attitudes, beliefs and behavioural conventions’ as a
‘useful distinction between values on the one hand, and their expression in a more
precise, but at a non-implemented level on the other’ (Dahl 2004: 6).
2.1.6. Summary
The section put forth some of the definitions of culture as they are important for
the models of culture based on the concepts the definitions offer. Further, it was shown
that culture has been redefined from a static entity to an ever-changing process, another
important point for the learners’ understanding of both their own and other cultures. It
was shown why cultural awareness and cultural competence, elements that intercultural
competence incorporates, are important. Finally, the dimensions show that relative to the
position one culture holds along the dimension one might expect a particular behaviour
while lacking that awareness more often than not leads to misunderstanding.
Another important issue it to have these models in mind when exploring
intercultural competence since it is expected that cultures (or its members) would view
other cultures from their own positions in a cultural model. From this premise stereotypes
are created (that all people within one culture behave, react, feel the same), as well as the
ethnocentric standpoint – seeing one’s culture as the only correct standard. Finally, and
most importantly, we can see that members of one culture expect the same behaviour
from members of other cultures, which inevitably results in false attributions and
unfulfilled expectations.
37

2.2. Communicative Competence
2.2.1. Introduction
With the change in foreign language learners’ needs, two paradigmatic shifts
happened in the 1960s, with the attempt to find an adequate answer to the new needs of
being able to communicate in a foreign language, rather than know about a foreign
language. The first was a move away from producing linguistic competence only, and
focusing more on communicative competence. While grammatical competence, as well as
syntax and semantics, was thought to be obtained through traditional grammar teaching,
communicative competence required that the focus of teaching be on developing model
phrases through imitation (as in the Audiolingual Method) and/or learning particular
utterances that would have specific function and be used in specific contexts (as in the
Notional-Functional Approach) (Kramer 2000). The second shift was away from speech
patterns and situations in which a foreign language is used, towards the people who use
them as a means of communication and interaction. Therefore, learners are no longer seen
as just passive participants in a particular situation to which they have to adapt. The focus
is now on negotiating meaning between the participants in a conversation and therefore,
the intercultural dimension has also gained prominence.
Communicative competence does not stay at the personal level, but is seen as
essential for public and finally, intercultural exchange. If social problems arise within one
culture because individuals are not sufficiently competent as to particular aspects of
communication, it is only to be expected that problems in intercultural encounters could
be similar or even graver (Rickheit et al. 2008).
Some of the models of CC discussed here explain the visible behaviour and focus
mostly on sociolinguistic and strategic competencies. However, one of fundamental
interaction skills – nonverbal communication skill, does not seem to have received much
attention until recently. Another aspect that has not been highlighted in some of the early
models is effectiveness (though strategic competence could be seen as an attempt at
reaching effectiveness). It important to mention these elements as both will later be
incorporated in intercultural models.
Finally, even though authors focus on sociolinguistic competence and skill with
which learners negotiate interactions, the cognitive component is also be stressed, as
‘these cognitive processes have implications for the CC of an individual’ to a great extent
determining ‘the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately’ (Rickheit et al.
2008: 26), something all other researchers of CC find very important.
38

2.2.2. Communicative competence models
Hymes
The linguistic divide in the late 1960s and the early 1970s had its proponents.
Chomsky (1976) advocated grammar competence while Hymes (1972) insisted on a
‘context-dependent’ competence. Also, while Chomsky saw linguistic competence as an
ideal situation, a competence of an ideal speaker, Hymes tended to give it a more
sociolinguistic turn 7 . Hymes criticized what he saw as a narrow approach to language
competence, and therefore coined a term ‘communicative competence’ that included
‘knowledge of sentences, not only as grammatical, but also as appropriate’ (Hymes 1972:
277). Just as Wilkins said
‘[…] those things that are not conveyed by the grammar are also understood, they too
must be governed by ‘rules’ which are known to both speaker and hearer. People who
speak the same language share not so much a grammatical competence as a
communicative competence’ (1976: 10, 11 italics in original).
Hymes claimes that it is equally important to know how, when, and in what
manner to talk to whom, that is, what is appropriate in any given context, in addition to
being able to form grammatical sentences. This comes as a challenge to Chomsky’s view
of language competence, adding the knowledge of conventions of use of language to the
knowledge of grammatical rules. His views also represent a criticism of a theory that
ignores the impact of social context on how language is used (Lillis 2006).
Hymes (1974) does not subscribe to the view that competence should be only in
terms of the ability to produce, understand and discriminate between the grammatical
sentences of a language. He stresses that there should be a certain likelihood with which
certain sentences might be produced. To clarify this, he takes a standpoint of a child
learning to speak, and who, besides the system of grammar, also acquires ‘a system of its
use, regarding persons, places, purposes, other modes of communication – all the
components of communicative events’ (Hymes 1974: 75). With this knowledge one
becomes ‘a communicating member’.
There is not a sharp distinction between competence and performance in Hymes’
theory. He sees performance as the observable part and competence as the ability to
produce the observable performance. However, both can be influenced by cognitive and
7 Unlike some other authors, Habermas saw communicative competence as ‘a system of rules generating an
ideal speech situation, not regarding linguistic codes that link language and universal pragmatics with actual
role systems’ (1970: 147), claiming that Hymes, among others, uses the term communicative competence
‘in a sociolinguistically limited sense’ (Habermas 1970: 147).
39

social factors. He set out to answer a set of questions in order to study language and
communication. 8
This view should be reflected in the teaching practice, therefore Widdowson
(1978), for example, states that teachers should include in their teaching both the
significance sentences have and the values they hold for language users. This new view
on language competence gave way to other researchers both in Europe and the States to
continue work on communicative competence and a communicative approach to teaching.
During the 1970s communicative competence was a ‘buzz word’ in the field of English
language teaching, but as Corbett (2003) notices, ‘this did not prevent cultural aspects of
communicative competence from being relatively neglected’ (p. 14). Similarly, some
authors in Europe (Buttjes 1990; Stern 1992) claimed that focus still remained on
behaviour and roles, rather than sociocultural dimension of language, and that culture was
only one of a number of aspects that had to be taken in account in order to achieve
communicative competence.
Wiemann
Other authors further explored the concept, Wiemann (1977) among them, who set
a model of communicative competence and placed interactive management at its centre.
As he wanted a model to explain communication behaviour in particular situations, there
were several elements that became important: importance of goals, strategies,
motivations, planning, emotions, cognitive abilities (Wiemann 1977). His model was
composed of five dimensions: ‘affiliation/ support, social relaxation, empathy, behavioral
flexibility, and interaction management skills’ (p. 197). This was a comprehensive,
definitional model as it was based on the earlier studies on competence and the humanrelation
approach 9 . The results of an experiment in which the model was tested showed
that
‘the competent communicator is one who is other-oriented, while at the same time
maintaining the ability to accomplish his own interpersonal goals. This other-orientation
is demonstrated by the communicator being empathic, affiliative and supportive, and
relaxed while interacting with others. […] It is this communicative competence which
enables a person, in a very real and practical way, to establish a social identity’ (p. 211).
8 The set consisted of four questions – whether something is possible, feasible, appropriate, and performed.
These questions refer to grammatical and cultural rules, psycholinguistic factors, relation of the
communicative actions to environment, and empirical observation of an event.
9 These were based on Argyris’ model (1962) that incorporated five skills - empathy, descriptiveness, i.e.,
the manner in which feedback is given and received, owning feelings and thoughts, self-disclosure, and
behavioral flexibility
40

This observation will be important for intercultural competence, as these skills will also
be the ones highlighted, though now in the intercultural context.
The model is still more concerned with the observable behaviour, and little
intention is given to those invisible elements that would account for ‘behavioral
competence’.
Canale and Swain
Among those who tried to redefine and improve communicative competence were
Canale and Swain in the USA, and their European counterpart, van Ek. Canale and
Swain 10 suggested one of the earliest models of communicative competence in 1980,
designed with a second language learner in mind. They define communicative
competence as ’the relationship and interaction between grammatical competence […]
and sociolinguistic competence’ (1980: 6). In this model, they added to the linguistic and
sociolinguistic competences strategic competence as well. Later on, Canale added one
more – discourse competence as the ability to produce and understand language above the
sentence level.
Canale and Swain point out that their view of communicative competence does
not suppose that it is ‘the highest or broadest level of language competence’ (1980: 7), but
rather, it is a ‘sub-component’ of a general language competence. The three-level model
is structured in the following way:
• Grammatical competence includes the knowledge of lexical items and rules of
morphology, syntax, sentence grammar semantics, and phonology.
• Sociolinguistic competence is made up of two different sets of rules: sociocultural
and discourse. The former focuses on the extent to which certain propositions and
communicative functions are appropriate within a given sociocultural context, and
the extent to which appropriate attitude and register or style are conveyed by a
particular grammatical form within a given sociocultural context. Rules of
discourse focus on cohesion and coherence of groups of utterances and are seen
by the authors as a combination of utterances and communicative functions, while
grammatical accuracy and appropriateness are not the main focus.
10 Their model/ theory should be understood against a backdrop of communicative language teaching, when
both approaches to teaching EFL and to CC were going under a major overhaul.
41

• Strategic competence is made up of verbal and nonverbal communication
strategies that the speaker may resort to when breakdowns in communication take
place due to performance variables or to insufficient competence. These strategies
may relate to grammatical competence (how to paraphrase or how to simplify) or
to sociolinguistic competence (how to address strangers when unsure of their
social status) (Canale, Swain 1980: 30).
Though they do not specify it, the authors believe that the theory of
communicative competence interacts with other systems of human knowledge, and that
this interaction can be seen in communicative performance. Canale and Swain claim that
second language learners should be prepared to use the grammatical features of language
that would be selected on the basis of sociolinguistic and strategic competences. Learners
would base their choice on ‘grammatical and cognitive complexity, transparency with
respect to communicative function, probability of use by native speakers, relevance to the
learner’s communicative needs’ (Canale, Swain 1980: 29).
Canale and Swain believe that, due to the classroom-based learning, students do
not have sociolinguistic training and therefore tend to have negative attitudes toward the
speakers of the foreign/ second language. In order to prevent these, the authors propose
that learners should be taught about the second language culture. Thus, learners would
gain the underlying sociocultural knowledge that would help them ‘infer the social
meanings or values of utterances’ (Aguilar 2008: 60).
van Ek
While Canale and Swain (1980) put forth their model in the context of the United
States of America, van Ek, in Europe, (1986) suggests his model of communicative
competence that partly coincides with theirs. van Ek applies the concept of
communicative competence to foreign language acquisition as he believes that foreign
language learning should always be about personal and social development of a learner as
an individual. van Ek’s model includes discourse competence as a separate competence,
as well as sociocultural competence and social competence 11 . Byram (1997) will later use
this model as a basis for his own model of intercultural competence – with one important
difference, not using a native speaker for a model. As Byram notices, van Ek’s
framework includes reference to ‘social competence’, ‘the promotion of autonomy’ and
11 Scarino (2009) will note that this is the only model that includes sociocultural competence understood as
familiarity with the frame of reference used by the target culture (p. 72)
42

the ‘development of social responsibility’ (Byram 1997: 9) which are perhaps inseparable
from the original discussions of communicative competence but not discussed by Canale
and Swain, for example.
van Ek’s model consists of six competencies, the first four are very similar to
Canale and Swain’s model, with few differences. van Ek extracts two competencies,
socio-cultural and discourse competence as separate competencies, and adds social
competence. In that way, sociolinguistic competence becomes more narrowly defined and
more closely related to appropriateness. Also, motivation becomes more prominent and
social skill and empathy are also seen as important elements of overall communicative
competence.
• Linguistic competence is the ability to form and understand utterances created in
accordance with the rules of the language, with their conventional meaning (p.
39).
• Sociolinguistic competence is the awareness that the setting, relations between the
interlocutors, and intention guide the choice of language forms, that is, it is
concerned with the relation between linguistic signals and their contextual or
situational meaning (p. 41).
• Discourse competence is the ability to apply appropriate strategies when
constructing and interpreting the text (p.47).
• Strategic competence is the ability to convey one’s meaning, or ‘deciphering’
what someone else means, using communication strategies, like rephrasing, asking
for clarification, repetition, etc. (p.55).
• Socio-cultural competence shows that, since every language is within a
sociocultural context, and implies the use of a particular reference frame, there
should be a degree of familiarity with the context (p. 35).
• Social competence is the skill and the will to interact with others, having
motivation, attitude, self-confidence, empathy as well as the ability to handle
social encounters (p.65).
What Byram (1997) finds particularly valuable in van Ek’s model are the aspects
of communicative ability that are offered for further analysis. As Byram is a strong
proponent of a NNS model, he believes that the fact that van Ek takes into consideration
schools and other educational institutions, their goals and functions might help further
43

work on the issues. It is this model that Byram uses as a starting point for his model of
intercultural competence.
Before moving to more recent considerations of communicative competence, it
should be noted that Stern (1983 as cited in Byram 1997), in his review of language
teaching points to the fact that sociolinguistic might have developed, but that it had not
been the case with sociocultural aspect. This could also be seen in the work of Council of
Europe, since the sociocultural component is not given as much attention as the
sociolinguistic (Byram 1997). It was not until a new version of the Threshold Level and a
Framework of reference for language learning and teaching were introduced that the
situation changed.
These new models represent an important move in the communicative language
teaching, as now the aim is to ‘acquire the necessary skills to communicate in socially and
culturally appropriate ways’ (Aguilar 2009: 247), therefore placing a focus on functions,
role-playing and real situations.
Other authors who continue in the same vein as Canale and Swain’s and van Ek’s
models, for example, Tarone and Yule (1989) find that communicative competence
consists of grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence (an ability to use
language according to a socio-cultural context) and strategic competence. Similarly,
Orwig (1998) regards communicative competence as consisting of linguistic aspects
(phonology and orthography, grammatical competence, lexical competence, discourse
competence) and pragmatic ones (functional competence, sociolinguistic competence,
interaction competence, culture competence), which are connected when language has to
be used to achieve the speaker’s goals.
Chen
On the other hand, Chen (1990) defines CC as ‘the ability to effectively and
appropriately execute communication behavior to elicit a desired response in a specific
environment’, without dividing CC into separate domains. A competent individual would
be able to both transfer one’s ideas and fulfill communicative goals. This definition will
later be used by Chen and Starosta (1996) for their description of ICC.
44

Celce-Murcia
In 1995, Celce-Murcia et al. propose the actional competence as part of
communicative competence – ‘the ability to comprehend and produce significant speech
acts and speech act sets’ (Celce-Murcia 2007: 42). The Figure 2.5 shows a graphic
representation of different communicative competence models, as presented by Celce-
Murcia – the development from Chomsky in the 1950s till the 1990s.
Figure 2.5 Chronological evolution of communicative competence, adapted from Celce-
Murcia (2007)
With the addition of another competence, Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) propose
terminology changes in Canale and Swain’s model – sociolinguistic competence is
modified into sociocultural competence, representing contextual knowledge needed to
understand and contribute to communication. Grammatical competence is changed into
linguistic competence to include sound system and lexicon as well as the grammar –
knowledge of syntax, sentence patters, word order, and coordination. For the authors,
discourse competence is in the centre of communicative competence. It is comprised of
knowledge of and the ability to use linguistic resources, but also of knowledge and ability
45

to use conversational conventions (holding the floor, turn taking, interrupting, providing
feedback, etc.). Actional competence is linked to sociolinguistic competence, comprising
knowledge and ability to match ‘actional intent with linguistic form based on the
knowledge of verbal schemata that carry illocutionary force’ (Celce-Murcia 1995: 17). It
is, therefore, the ability to know how to use language to perform certain functions (make
a promise, give orders, or complain). Finally, strategic competence includes knowledge,
skills and ability to resolve communicative difficulties and increase effectiveness in
communication.
In the 2007 model, Celce-Mercia highlights the importance of sociocultural
competence, as opposed to sociolinguistic, as she believes learners cannot be easily
dissuaded to ‘change their native verbal behavior’ (Celce-Murcia 2007: 46). Also,
formulaic (routines, collocations, idioms) and interactional (information exchanges,
interpersonal exchanges, expression of opinions and feelings, complaining, blaming,
apologizing, turn-taking, interrupting, getting, holding, and relinquishing the floor, back
channeling) (the latter used to be termed actional) competences gain in importance as
they are seen as essential for successful completion of speech acts. This change in the
conceptualisation of CC comes with a heightened awareness of the importance of learning
being contextualised in authentic material, and of the fact that learning ‘through content is
one of the most effective means available for achieving communicative competence in a
second or foreign language’ (Celce-Murcia 2007: 51).
Common European Framework of Reference
The importance of communicative competence is seen also in the fact that it has
been included as one of the main teaching aims in Common European Framework of
Reference (CEFR) (2001), a guideline for language teaching. CEFR defines
communicative language competence as comprising several components: linguistic,
sociolinguistic and pragmatic. Each of these components, in turn, consists of knowledge
and skills and know-how. Linguistic competences ‘include lexical, phonological,
syntactical knowledge and skills and other dimensions of language as system,
independently of the sociolinguistic value of its variations and the pragmatic functions of
its realisations’ (CEFR p. 13). This dimension of communicative competence stands for
both the quality of knowledge and cognitive organisation of that knowledge. This is an
important aspect of the linguistic competence because the cognitive organisation is seen
46

as dependent on ‘the cultural features of community or communities’ in which a student
has been brought up.
The sociolinguistic component consists of social conventions – politeness,
relationship between the sexes, generations, classes, use of a particular jargon, it shapes
language communication between people from different cultures.
Pragmatic competences refer to ‘the functional use of linguistic resources
(production of language functions, speech acts, irony, and text types), drawing on
scenarios or scripts of interactional exchanges’ (CEFR p. 13). This component too is
dependent on ‘interactions and cultural environment’ (CEFR p. 13) in which this
particular competence, as well as the others, develops.
These three components that form communicative competence represent
competencies that ‘a social agent’ would possess – internalised ‘representations,
mechanisms and capacities’ (CEFR p. 14) as well as the knowledge about them, all of
which is responsible for the visible performance. As in other models, authors also believe
that any learning process would improve a student’s capacities and competencies.
2.2.3. Criticism of communicative competence
The models of CC were not without some criticism raised against them 12
especially in the field of TEFL as some authors (Alptekin 2002) believe that a new notion
is needed, one that would see the English language as the world language, and therefore,
communicative competence should shift from the native speaker model. The
communicative competencies being different across the languages, members of a
particular culture ‘behave and […] interpret the behaviour of others in reference to the
communicative systems they have available to them’ (Alptekin 2002: 58). As particularly
detrimental for FL learner Alptekin sees monolithic cultures that try to enforce a native
speaker model, regardless of these communication style differences.
While it will be difficult to define a model that would fulfill Alptekin’s demands
on communicative competence, one of his proposals for the new pedagogical model is to
include intercultural communicative competence. Therefore, students will be ‘equipped
with linguistic and cultural behaviour’ (Alptekin 2002: 63), so that they would be
prepared to cope with the difference and communicate effectively.
12 With the native speaker no longer the model for the foreign language learner, it was more appropriate to
go a step beyond the concept of communicative competence and, with the connection with intercultural
competence reach intercultural communicative competence (Baxter 1983).
47

Kramsch is another author who calls for a changed view of communicative
competence, proposing a conceptual framework where the competence of the bilingual
NNS is offered as a pedagogic model. Here, the speaker will show the ‘adaptability to
choose which forms of accuracy and which forms of appropriateness are called for in
which social context of use’ (1995: 10).
Alongside the objections against the native speaker as a model, some authors are
not satisfied with the intercultural speaker (Byram, Zarate 1997a) as a model, as they fear
the standards of achievement will be lowered. While it might be the case that an
intercultural speaker will be less skilled than a native speaker regarding the language
proficiency, native speakers seldom achieve the rigorous standards set for NNS (Corbett
2003). Furthermore, the CEFR suggests that partial competence is desirable, as not
everyone needs the equal mastery of all the skills.
2.2.4. Summary
Despite the interest scholars have been taking in it, CC is not an easy concept to
define. ‘[T]he complexity of communication, the wide variety of related cognitive and
social abilities, and also the huge situational variability’ (Rickheit et al. 2008: 24) are just
some of the obstacles that need to be understood, analysis and overcome.
Since the context and the usage of language do depend on nuances of a particular
culture, cultural competence and communicative competence merge. Stern (1992) lists a
number of elements that are implicitly related to society and culture: ‘forms of address,
choices of register and style, differences in social and regional dialects’ (p. 83), and
without which a learner cannot achieve proficiency in language.
Gaining CC can be a valuable starting point in intercultural encounters, as
successful communication is not simply about acquiring a linguistic code – it is also about
dealing with different cultural values reflected in language use. The insistence on
linguistic competence has only ceased to be the main focus of language learning,
especially with the changing world and globalization tendencies that highlight some other
competencies as well. This builds the philosophical base for growing awareness that
communicative competence should be conceived as intercultural communicative
competence (Baxter 1983). This competence should not only be ‘the knowledge of basic
values and norms; verbal and nonverbal interactional competence in using English in
intercultural communication; competence in using language as social action; competence
in creating and interpreting linguistic aspects of social reality’ (Krasnick 1984: 218), but
48

also ‘the cognitive, affective, and behavioral adaptability of an individual’s internal
system in all intercultural contexts’ (Kim 1991: 259). The next section is dedicated to
intercultural competence, how it gained prominence, who some of the main proponents
are and its place in the English language teaching.
2.3. Development of intercultural competence
2.3.1 Introduction
In this section the importance of intercultural communication will be discussed
and the most widely used conceptualisations of intercultural competence will be put forth.
The definition has been reformulated a number of times by different scholars and
researchers, and the concept proves to be as difficult to define as culture. Also, the main
objectives of intercultural teaching and learning will be discussed.
An early definition of intercultural competence comes from Tewksbury in 1957
(as cited in Wilson 1994), when he created a list of 21 characteristics that a mature
international person should possess. While the characteristics are diverse ones, such as
having international friends, observing one’s culture objectively, Tewksbury organized
them into categories that would later, with minor alternations, be widely used: selfawareness,
cross-cultural awareness, willingness to learn, experience of a life abroad
(Wilson 1994).
There has been a lot of inconsistency about the term intercultural competence and
the ability to understand and relate to people from other countries or cultures has been
discussed widely in the literature (Lustig, Koester 2006; Samovar, Porter 1985; Wiseman
2002). Authors have been noted to use different terms to refer to one concept and ICC has
been labelled differently, mostly because authors come from different fields and with
different approaches. Therefore, terms such as intercultural competence (Knapp, Knapp-
Potthoff 1987), from the foreign language teaching perspective, intercultural
communication competence (Chen, Starosta 1996) and intercultural sensitivity (Bennett
1993; Hammer, Bennett 1998) by scholars in communication studies), or intercultural
communicative competence (Byram 1997) from an educational point of view ‘with a
special focus on the European foreign language classroom’ (Vogt 2006: 154, 155) have
been in use. Also, authors tend to use one term to refer to different conceptualisations
(cross-cultural, intercultural, culture awareness, etc). All this was then reflected in
numerous attempts to define and redefine the concept. The definitions range from
49

understanding other people’s motives and ‘overcoming intercultural misunderstanding’
(Kim 1998: 105), over a dialogical and relational attitude, where communication may be
at stake (Byram 1997), a respectful strategic attitude which can imply a commitment to
fulfil a task or persuade and/or influence others (Byram 1997), to a critical attitude,
awareness of motives and experience of others, of power structures and their relations and
interdependence (Guilherme 2002).
2.3.2 The work of E.T. Hall
The interest in other cultures has been present since the beginnings of
anthropology and is not a modern concept. Even though Sapir wrote about the topic that
resembles intercultural communication, and Whorf gave his contribution to the field in
the 1940s, the true appearance of intercultural communication can be traced back to the
post-war years and work of Edward T. Hall 13 . Hall was the one who in the 1950s offered
training to diplomats who were assigned task and missions outside the USA and is said to
be the first to use the term ‘intercultural communication’ 14 .
The training at the Foreign Service Institute where Hall taught consisted of
‘language instruction, orientation to the mission, limited study of the area’, as well as
‘limited anthropological and linguistic conceptualizations of culture’ (Leeds-Hurwitz
1990: 267). However, Hall was aware that some of his trainees believed there was
nothing to be learned from the members of a particular culture, which often resulted in
poor mission results and cultural misunderstandings (Hall 1956). This prompted Hall and
his associates to abandon the anthropological approach and to come up with a more
pragmatic and goal-oriented approach, which laid the direction for intercultural
communication as a field of inquiry. Leeds-Hurwitz (1990) believes there are links
between Hall’s work and present day research, since there is a comparison of cultures and
not a focus on a single culture, more attention is given to smaller cultural units – tone of
voice, gestures. Also, more focus is placed on interaction between members of different
culture, and communication is seen ‘as patterned, learned, and analyzable’ (Moon 1996:
72). Modern scholars also insist on using real life experience as teaching tools, as well as
descriptive linguistics.
13 Though the concept of IC had appeared in the 1930s in connection with cross-cultural psychology
(Guilherme 2002; Aguilar 2009)
14 Hall himself offered a number of variants of the term (intercultural tension, inter-cultural problems (Hall
1956)
50

The two prevailing comments on Hall’s work that came from the trainees in
Foreign Language Institute were that either ‘people are same wherever you go’ or ‘you
can learn best from your personal experience’ (Hall 1956). However, the field of
intercultural communication has shown that its scope is rather big and that those claims
are only the initial stages in one’s intercultural education, which will later be claimed by
Bennett through his Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. Therefore, Hall
wanted to focus on those hidden differences, or an unconscious framework of shared
meaning, which is usually the basis for cultural misunderstanding. He was particularly
interested in a difference between high and low context cultures 15 – the concept that is
most widely studied and used in intercultural teaching (Hall 1959, 1976). Making this
distinction, it was possible to compare different communication styles and cultural
groups. Hall’s work paved the way for other researchers working in the field of
intercultural competence. Also, Hall early noticed that studying culture could be a way to
alleviate ‘intercultural conflicts and develop human potential’ (Shaules 2007: 28). For this
aim to be achieved, Hall believed that one ‘must embark […] beyond culture, because the
greatest separation feat of all is when one manages to gradually free oneself from the grip
of unconscious culture’ (Hall 1976: 239-240). This is an issue that will be repeated by
other scholars and researchers, and will be one of the main points when teaching
intercultural competence: to self-reflect and critically analyse both the native and foreign
cultures.
Hall’s work has been in many ways groundbreaking. Firstly, it prompted the
development of the whole field, secondly, he narrowed the concept of culture from
general to specific, that is, to specific aspects of culture that would be manageable for
analysis. Thirdly, he ‘enlarged the concept of culture to include the study of
communication’ (Leeds-Hurwitz 1990: 263). Up to then, anthropology had been
concerned with interaction between two cultures only, while Hall introduced the analysis
of communication among members of different cultures, as he believed that
communication, just as culture, was patterned, learned, and analyzable.
In the 1940s and 1950s the idea that a group of people might be described as
having a unique culture, traditions, beliefs, and value system was new and Hall came up
against opposition. Therefore, he was led to focus on microcultural analysis: tone of
15 In the former speakers rely on the context of a message and less on the exact words, while in the latter, it
is the content of the message that defines the meaning, not the context
51

voice, gestures, so that his students could focus on smaller ‘chunks’ of culture and not
only generalized presentations of culture (Hall 1956).
Hall is also credited to have introduced the idea of proxemics – the importance of
space not only in terms of personal space but territoriality in terms of ownership of space.
In addition to space relationship, Hall drew attention to time relations, dividing cultures
into monochronic and polychronic. Just as with space, Hall saw certain patterns in terms
of organizing one’s time, planning and valuing human interaction over material matters
and schedules. Both these contrasting pairs were analysed against another distinction, that
of low and high context. Hall noticed that some cultures provided many contextual
elements to their members to help them understand the rules. On the other hand, some
other cultures prefer overt messages.
Finally, he set the foundation for a new discipline by extending his audience
beyond army and government officials to international business, ‘one of the largest
markets for intercultural training’ (Leeds-Hurwitz 1990: 264). It is interesting to note that
in Hall’s earlier work culture was seen as primary and communication was seen as one of
the aspects of culture. However, in his later work, he said that ‘culture is basically a
communicative process’ (Hall 1968: 89), and The Silent Language was proposed as ‘the
complete theory of culture as communication’ (Hall 1966: 41).
However, the model that Hall proposed has come up against some more recent
criticism, mostly because of the lack of sound methodology in creating the categories of
high and low context cultures. Hall never provided his method for creating the categories
or how he measured the rankings. Also, Hall seemed to be more favourable towards high
context cultures, and therefore jeopardized his position of an unbiased researcher (Cardon
2008). However, despite these weaknesses in his methodology, the work of modern
researchers such as Hofstede or Trompenaars draws on his premises as they organize their
IC models along similar lines (universalism vs. particularism in Tropmenaars, for
example).
2.3.3. Conceptualisation of ICC
After the field had been established, various authors from different fields
contributed to the definitions: from dealing with diversity in one’s own culture, over
adapting to a host culture to the basis for developing cohesive civil societies founded on
common value systems and public culture. Some of these definitions will be further
discussed in the following part.
52

The success in intercultural competence has long been defined as an interaction
that is appropriate and effective (Guilherme 2000; Smith, Paige and Steglitz 2003).
However, in more recent time, more attention is given to self-exploration, critical
thinking and construction during IC encounters. As Antal and Friedman (2008) notice,
while cultural competence is ‘the ability to generate appropriate strategies of action
unconsciously’, intercultural competence is ‘the ability to consciously explore one’s ways
of thinking and acting so as to actively construct an appropriate strategy’ (p. 365).
Most scholars agree that intercultural competence comprises three domains:
affective, cognitive and behavioural.
The affective domain is comprised of attitudes that are most often described in
terms of curiosity, positive views and openness towards other cultures. Some other terms
used range from ‘cultural sensitivity’, ‘tolerance of ambiguity’, ‘respect for otherness’
and ‘empathy’. Attitudes also involve a willingness to question assumptions and previous
‘knowledge’ about other cultures as well as our own (e.g. Fennes, Hapgood 1997; Fantini
1997) and to be willing to reconsider and rethink the previous beliefs.
Intercultural skills constitute the behavioural domain and are related to situations
of intercultural encounters, where interlocutors need to show not only foreign language
skill but also to be able ‘to interpret the new meanings that are being conveyed […] and
to relate this new input to the understandings that [they] already have’ (Lund 2008).
Furthermore, intercultural skills include acceptable and appropriate behaviour, nonoffensive
or counter-productive in the given communication situation (e.g. Corbett 2003).
The cognitive dimension of intercultural competence can be discussed from
different perspectives. The first one is that cultural knowledge is relevant only if it can be
useful in intercultural situations, providing learners with the means of coping with the
cultural challenges they might face (e.g. Guest 2002). However, this would present an
unrealistic task for teaching of culture, as the contexts in which students might find
themselves are countless. Therefore, some scholars have argued for focusing on cultural
traits in general, rather than on specific information about specific countries (e.g. Damen
1987). In that way students will get acquainted with possible challenging situations, from
everyday behaviour, politeness conventions to differences in religious beliefs, values and
attitudes (Cortazzi, Jin 1999).
What is important for the context of FL instruction is that these three aspects ‘can
be influenced through education, experience, and guided practice such that we can all
learn to be competent intercultural communicators’ (Wiseman 2002: 212).
53

In the 1990s, there were few shifts in research perspectives in the ICC paradigm
and little importance was given to questioning of core principles (Rogers and Hart 2002).
Up to that point much of the research had been done in the US, although ICC was also
researched in Japan and several other nations, which is important as it brought a global
perception of the field instead of a solely Western perspective on it. Also, at that time,
other disciplines started showing interest for the field of ICC, like feminist, critical and
cultural studies.
That the field has been eluding a precise definition can be seen from a seven-page
long list of concept and factor labels associated with interpersonal, communicative, and
intercultural competence that Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) compiled. This section will
focus on some of the most prominent researchers in the field of intercultural training and
FL teaching and their views on intercultural competence.
Kim
Kim (1992) states that ’the crux of intercultural communication that distinguishes
it from the rest of the (communication) field is the relatively high degree of difference in
the experiential backgrounds of the communicators due to cultural differences’ (p.372).
The underlying assumption is that people from the same culture share greater
commonality in their background and experience than those who are from other cultures.
This may not always be true, as the sub-groups within one nation (be they social, gender,
professional) may be very much dissimilar. Kim defines ICC through one’s adaptive
capacity comprised of cognitive, affective and operational/ behavioural dimensions,
relying on the three elements that many other authors rely on as well. However, while
others may see all three as equally important, Kim believes adaptability is the most
important as it is ‘the individual’s capacity to suspend or modify some of the old cultural
ways and learn and accommodate some of the new cultural ways’, and consequently
‘creatively find ways to manage the dynamics of cultural difference/ unfamiliarity,
intergroup posture, and the accompanying stress (1992: 377).
Paige
Paige (1993) believes that effectiveness is the major issue in IC communication
competence area and is influenced by six factors: knowledge of the target culture,
personal qualities (such as openness, flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity), behavioural
skills, self-awareness, technical skills, and situation factors (p. 171), which follow the
54

already mentioned categorisation of ICC elements into cognitive, affective and
behavioural dimensions. It is interesting to point out that Paige sees behavioural skills as
communicative competence, while technical skills are the ability to accomplish tasks, this
latter being a new and unique feature in ICC definitions. However, the knowledge of the
target culture puts more emphasis on the culture-specific rather than on culture-general
approach and overall intercultural competence.
Lustig and Koester
Lustig and Koester (1998) have been researching the field for many years and
they indicate four approaches to researching ICC: trait, perceptual, behavioural and
culture-specific approaches. They define intercultural communication as ‘a symbolic,
interpretive, transactional, contextual process in which the degree of difference between
people is large and important enough to create dissimilar interpretations and expectations
about what are regarded as competent behaviors that should be used to create shared
meanings’ (1998: 51 as cited in Lustig and Koester 2006). Later in their work they stress
three major elements of ICC: interpersonal and situational context, the degree of
appropriateness and effectiveness, and sufficient knowledge, motives and actions.
Similarly to other authors when talking about appropriateness and effectiveness,
Lustig and Koester stress that each behaviour should be ‘proper and suitable given the
expectations generated by a given culture, the constraints of the specific situation, and the
nature of relationship between the interactants’ (p. 67).
In Lustig and Koester’s definition, knowledge is composed of both culture-general
and culture-specific information. The former ‘provides insight into the intercultural
communication process abstractly and can help make sense of cultural practices,
regardless of the cultures involved’ (Lustig, Koester 2006: 69), while the latter is used to
understand one culture in particular. Another component of ICC is motivations as overall
feelings and ‘emotional associations’ that people may have when interacting
‘interculturally’. Finally, the last component is actions, which refers to ‘the actual
performance of those behaviours that are regarded as appropriate and effective’ (Lustig,
Koester 2006: 71). This last component is crucial in intercultural communication, since it
is the proof that a person possesses relevant knowledge, is motivated to interact (has
certain feelings and intentions) and is capable of channelling that into a proper behaviour.
It is important that they draw attention not only to personal traits but also to ‘the
relationships and situations within which the communication occurs’ (Lustig, Koester
55

2003: 65 as cited in Deardorff 2004), something that Pusch (1994) states too: that ICC
research focuses too often on a person, with little attention given to the ‘dynamics of the
situation’ (1994: 205) 16 . The authors say that ‘competence is not an individual attribute;
rather, it is a characteristic of the association between individuals’ (Lustig, Koester 2006:
66). In addition to that, intercultural competence also depends on ‘cultural expectations
about permitted behaviour’ that a particular setting demands, as it ‘limit[s] the range of
behaviours that are regarded as acceptable’ (Lustig, Koester 2006: 66). While granting
that personal characteristics may help in intercultural encounters, the authors believe that
there cannot be any specially prescribed set of those characteristics that would guarantee
competence.
Chen and Starosta
Chen and Starosta have long explored the field of ICC, defining and redefining the
concept. For them ICC is ‘the ability to effectively and appropriately execute
communication behaviors that negotiate each other’s cultural identity or identities in a
culturally diverse environment’ (1999: 28). When compared to their definition from 2006,
there can be seen a step away from the insistence on effectiveness and appropriateness
into an ICC definition. From a more global perspective, they redefined intercultural
competence as ‘the ability to acknowledge, respect, tolerate, and integrate cultural
differences that qualifies one for enlightened global citizenship’ (Chen, Starosta 2006:
357). Along the similar lines is their newest definition, which relies on knowledge and
skill of learners, that intercultural competence is ‘the effective means whereby individuals
can understand cultural commonalities and move beyond cultural differences in order to
reach the ideal goals advocated by cultural dialogists and cultural critics’ (Chen, Starosta
2008: 217).
In their view and in the view of other scholars as well (Byram, Zarate 1997;
Chamberlain 2000; Risager 1994), ICC consists of three components: intercultural
sensitivity, intercultural awareness and intercultural adroitness. The first one is actually
the affective aspect of competence, and relates to one’s readiness and willingness ‘to
understand and appreciate cultural differences’ (p. 357). Intercultural awareness
represents the cognitive aspect of ICC, which is an understanding of the conventions and
16 Unlike some other authors who define ICC though domains of which skills are only one, Pusch stresses
three skills: ‘the ability to manage psychological stress, the ability to communicate effectively, and the
ability to establish interpersonal relationships’ (1994: 206).
56

how they guide one’s behaviour. Finally, adroitness is the behavioural aspect, the skills
needed for an effective interaction in intercultural encounters, to know how to fulfill
one’s ‘communication goals by respecting and affirming the multilevel cultural identities
of those with whom they interact’ (Chen, Starosta 1996: 358-9). They place a special
emphasis on intercultural awareness as they see it as the minimum prerequisite for
intercultural communication and interculturally competent individual. If learners
understand the cultural variability, it provides them with modes of identifying how
communication differs across cultures, and thus learning the preferences of a culture
becomes important for effective interaction – ‘one must understand cultural variability in
order to modify communication patterns to be congruent with the cues of unfamiliar
interactants’ (Chen, Starosta 1996: 358).
Chen and Starosta even grade intercultural awareness: awareness of superficial
cultural traits, awareness of significant and subtle, and awareness of how another culture
feels from an insider’s perspective. The levels lead from a naïve and superficial view of
culture, based on stereotypes, over conflicting situations and analysis to gaining empathy
and flexibility, to the level on which learners are able to see the culture from an insider’s
perspective. However, this scale initiates another important and hotly debated issue –
whether ICC can be measured, that is, whether there is a certain objective mark above
which one becomes interculturally competent.
Fantini
Fantini et al. (2001) define ICC as ‘the multiple abilities that allow one to interact
effectively and appropriately across cultures’ (p. 8). Fantini sees ICC is ‘a complex
phenomenon with multiple components’ (1995, 2001). These components include: a
variety of characteristics or traits, three areas or domains, four dimensions, proficiency in
a second language and various levels of a longitudinal and developmental process. Some
commonly cited traits of ICC include: flexibility, humor, patience, openness, interest,
curiosity, empathy, tolerance for ambiguity, and suspending judgment, among others. As
for the areas, these are abilities in different domains: the ability to establish and maintain
relationships, the ability to communicate with minimal loss or distortion, and the ability
to collaborate in order to accomplish something of mutual interest or need. Four
dimensions that Fantini states are not dissimilar from the ones stated by other authors –
they include knowledge, attitudes and skills – with the addition of awareness.
57

Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)
The CEFR does not indicate ICC as one of the separate competences, rather, it
places it as one of general competences (together with declarative and sociocultural
competences). ICC is defined as ‘knowledge, awareness and understanding of the relation
(similarities and distinctive differences) between the ‘world of origin’ and the ‘world of
the target community’ (p. 103). What is stressed as an important characteristic is that
learners should be aware of a range of cultures different from their own as that would
help them place them into a correct context. Since the concept of ICC used for CEFR
heavily relies on Byram’s concept of ICC, ability to how one’s own community appears
from the perspective of others is also stressed.
As for the behavioural component to ICC, which is named intercultural skills and
know-how, it includes:
• the ability to bring the culture of origin and the foreign culture into relation with
each other;
• cultural sensitivity and the ability to identify and use a variety of strategies for
contact with those from other cultures;
• the capacity to fulfil the role of cultural intermediary between one’s own culture
and the foreign culture and to deal effectively with intercultural misunderstanding
and conflict situations;
• the ability to overcome stereotyped relationships (p. 104)
When incorporating ICC in language learning it should be kept in mind that
attitudes and personal factors might affect not only communication but learning abilities
as well. Therefore, ‘developing “intercultural personality” involving both attitudes and
awareness’ (p. 105) should be an important pedagogical objective that would tackle
questions such as cultural relativism and ethical integrity or personal development as an
educational objective.
The CEFR draws special attention to the context in which IC skills are acquired
and warns against a folkloristic and archaic stereotypes which though motivating bear
little similarity to the everyday life. The conceptualisation of ICC as offered in the CEFR
is not as clear and straight forward as other competences are, which might be ‘the result
of changes in the disciplinary fields’ (Zarate 2003a: 97), nor are educational goals
elaborated on. However, the IC component is seen as important for raising ‘awareness of
58

the experiential, cognitive and sociocultural backgrounds of learners and native speakers’
(CEF p. 148).
More recent views on ICC
Liddicoat
Liddicoat sees L2 communication as intercultural communication, because ‘when
a person uses their second language they are encoding ideas in a linguistic system which
is located within a cultural context and which will be interpreted as being located within
that context’ (Liddcoat 2005). Studying a new language will influence an individual’s
repertoire and its further development and complexity. Inevitably, a learner will have to
mediate between languages and culture, while development of ICC would ease that
mediation.
According to Liddicoat, ICC consists of several elements, but the principal is the
awareness that behaviours, both one’s own and that of others is culturally determined and
that there is no right way of doing things. As a result of the awareness, a sense of value
for one’s culture should also be developed. Then, as an important element is using
language to explore culture, as well as using one’s culture to explore that of L2. Finally, a
learner should find personal solutions for intercultural encounters and find one’s own
style and identity.
Such concept of ICC will be important for Liddicoat’s model for teaching ICC, as
he believes that only some cultural conventions spoken by the speakers of the language
could be taught, therefore, teaching strategies for learning more about a particular culture
should be an integral part of ICC.
Samovar and Porter (1985, 2001) claim that, although intercultural
communication takes place when culturally diverse people interact, each encounter
between culturally diverse people is intercultural. For them ICC is ‘the systematic study
of exactly what happens when cross-cultural contacts and interaction take place—when
message producer and message receiver are from different cultures’ (Samovar, Porter
1985: 1). Later in their work, they see a competent communicator as a person who
‘analyze[s] the situation (context) and select[s] the correct mode of behavior’ (Samovar
and Porter 2001: 277).
For Thomas and Inkson (2003) intercultural competence is the ability to
recognize, respect, value and use productively – in oneself and others – ‘cultural
conditions and determinants in perceiving, judging, feeling and acting with the aim of
59

creating mutual adaptation, tolerance of incompatibilities and a development towards
synergetic forms of cooperation, living together and effective orientation patterns with
respect to interpreting and shaping the world’ (p. 143). A similar view is expressed by
Crichton et al. (2003) who see ICC as developing the capacities for critical engagement,
self-reflection and awareness for interaction between the ‘self’ and ‘others’.
Hayward (2002) sees ‘intercultural’ as a combination of understanding, attitude,
participatory capabilities and foreign language skills that begin by observing, assessing
and accepting aspects that are different form one’s own culture, enabling participants to
react appropriately (as cited in Gesche, Makeham 2008: 242).
Davis, Chao and Hagenson (2005) present ICC as a process of incorporating
intercultural knowledge, attitudes and behaviuor, and of diversifying and individual’s
existing higher cognitive domain. What seems implicit in all these definitions is that they
all presume one’s own cultural orientation stays unchanged. Gesche and Makeham
(2008), however, believe that such perception is inadequate in the context of international
relationships and global interconnections.
As Liddicoat states, intercultural competence means ‘being aware that cultures are
relative. That is, being aware that ‘there is no one “normal” way of doing things, but
rather that all behaviours are culturally variable’ (Liddicoat 2005: 205). Or, as Taylor
states, it is an ‘adaptive capacity based on an inclusive and integrative world view which
allows participants to effectively accommodate the demands of living in a host culture’
(Taylor 1994: 154). It is, therefore, a transformative process through which a learner
develops an ‘adaptive capacity’ (Penbek et al. 2009) in order to effectively participate in
the interactions.
A similar view is put forth by Ramsey (1996), as he also stresses the reflection of
one’s actions and thoughts which then inform the actions. Ramsey believes that the most
important factor in IC communication is the awareness and responsibility for one’s
actions and ‘meanings we create and through which we then interpret our experience’ (p.
13). In addition to the transformative process that a learner should go through, one should
also do a ‘management of [one’s] own state of being’ (p. 13). The author places full
responsibility for the success of an encounter not only on appropriateness and
effectiveness but on one’s affective domain as well.
It can be seen that more recent views, as it has been stated, are more concerned
with the transformative process through which a learner goes, than only appropriateness
or effectiveness of communication. The authors who are from the field of TEFL or TESL
60

put forth not only definitions but whole models of ICC which are discussed in a separate
section.
2.3.4. Criticism of ICC definitions
Since ICC is a complex concept, it is no wonder that authors and researchers do
not always agree on its conceptualization. Some even claim that the term has become ‘an
educational cliché […] fashionable to use, although no one seems to know exactly what it
means’ (Simensen 2003 as cited in Lund 2008).
Some authors (Bennett 1998; Van de Vijver, Leung 2009) would argue that
intercultural competence relies mostly on personal characteristics. They list attitudes or
orientations (attitudes toward other cultures and diversity in an organization or country),
personality traits (cultural empathy and emotional intelligence), skills relevant in crosscultural
encounters (negotiation skills and mastery of relevant languages) and actual
behaviour in intercultural encounters as some of them. Bennett emphasizes the
importance of subjective culture over objective for successful intercultural interaction.
However, if this were so, then any research would be cumbersome and long and probably
would not include enough of background data to justify or explain particular behaviours.
There are scholars who criticize the definitions of intercultural competence which
personify culture, as individuals meet other individuals in the context of culture, and not
the culture itself (Dervin 2010; Hannerz 2001; Wikan 2002). Hofstede claims that
cultures ‘are wholes, and their internal logic cannot be understood in terms used for the
personality dynamics of individuals’ (Hofstede 2001: 17). With this criticism, scholars
also point out to the fact that cultures are presented as singular, that is, that when a learner
faces a particular situation in another culture, the presupposition is that there have not
been any previous cases of mixing, encountering of cultures, which is, more often than
not, unlikely.
The definitions of ICC may point to the feeling of cultural homogeneity,
especially those that have their roots in the positivist paradigm (Boumard 2006 as cited in
Dervin 2010: 162) and might suggest a ‘superadaptation’ when interculturality takes
place. It would seem that a learner would acquire a system of fixed cultural elements
which would allow them to communicate with the speakers of a particular culture (Dervin
2010). However, in one’s own culture there are many encounter with very different
people, so intercultural encounters cannot be simplified in that way.
61

Another criticism points to the absence of the interlocutor in definitions of ICC
(Ruben 1989), thus ignoring the influence of the interlocutor and the context on the
interaction. While one interlocutor may be completely interculturally competent, they can
be faced with an interlocutor who is not motivated, or has bad intentions or has poor
language skills – all of which might influence the process and outcome of the interaction.
There is no doubt that the concept of ICC will be defined and redefined, and these
issues point to weaknesses but also show directions in which the concept could be
redefined and strengthened. However, with the fluid nature of culture, ICC and possible
definitions will probably remain fluid as well.
2.3.5. The importance of ICC and positive attitudes
As it can be seen from definitions, attitudes or sensitivity does play an important
role in IC encounters and their successful resolution. Therefore, the next section deals
with positive attitudes and their significance for ICC in more detail.
Second language teaching in the 1970s and 1980s placed the focus on students’
attitudes as one of the important factors for success in language learning. Gardner and
Lambert (1972) researched the field extensively and argued that attitudes learners had
towards the target culture reflected on the motivation to learn the target language.
Gardner also argued that such positive attitudes would not only be seen in second
language learning but would also be a non-linguistic result of language learning.
Byram et al. (1994) also strongly support the development of positive attitudes in
language learning, stressing the fact that that premise, that positive attitudes are selfevidently
good, is sometimes taken for granted by teachers. However, learners usually
have both positive and negative attitudes, therefore a constant work on reinforcing
positive and discouraging negative attitudes is needed.
Some studies (Coleman 1998; Keller 1991) have shown that stereotypes and
negative attitudes could be reinforced without a proper training as was the case with their
exchange students. Coleman (1998) conducted an extensive study of British and Irish
third-level students on the Erasmus program which revealed that an extended residence
abroad did not do much to reduce stereotypes about the target culture, rather, it reinforced
them, so that up to 30% of the students in the study returned home with more negative
attitudes than before they had left. While this is a serious and rather negative outcome of
the activity whose one of main aims is to raise awareness and improve competence and
tolerance, Coleman highlights possible reasons for this. The author mentions the lack of
62

training which students received before leaving and calls for pre-residence abroad courses
in the home universities where students would work on their intercultural awareness of
stereotypes and how they are formed.
With the intercultural approach to language teaching, there has been a change in
the position and importance of positive attitudes of language learners. The intercultural
approach does not take for granted positive attitudes that learners should have towards the
target culture. As Byram and Zarate (1997a) state, these attitudes do not even have to be
positive, since even positive stereotyping can prevent true understanding. It is important
that learners show willingness to learn and to discover more, both about a target culture
and their own. Also, as it has been shown through his model of intercultural sensitivity,
Bennett (1993) claims that narrowing down diversity of cultures to ‘we are all the same’
attitude and minimising differences cannot bring a true understanding of cultural
diversity. In effect, this attitude prevents students from overcoming the stereotypes.
However, it should not be forgotten that the main function of ethnocentrism is ‘to
protect [us] from the narcissistic disappointment by implanting in our mind the belief that
our rules and values are superior to those of others’ (Bredella 2003: 226). Nevertheless,
this phase should be overcome in order not to lead learners to create stereotypes. There
have been voices in defence of ethnocentrism (Asante 1995; Lévi-Strauss 1985) which
justified it as a means of protecting certain culture from the experience of uncertainty and
insecurity, because these are the chief feelings in intercultural encounters, as Bredella
says. Intercultural experience is ‘essential for an enhancement of our self-awareness as
cultural beings; it helps us understand how we are shaped by our culture’ (Bredella 2003:
227). It is therefore essential for language learners to be aware of these cultural
differences and build positive attitudes and willingness to get other cultures better.
Finally, it has been shown that learners of foreign languages do not have a native
speaker as their goal and an ideal against which they should be measured (Byram, Zarate
1997; Kramsch 1993; Risager 2000). Therefore, learners become mediators, persons to
negotiate between two cultures, ultimately – intercultural speakers. While it might be true
that the intercultural speakers may have a lower level of proficiency regarding the
mastery of language, they will probably have ‘better communication abilities and
interaction with people from other cultures and with other languages’ (Aguilar 2008: 63) .
63

2.3.6. Criticism against the intercultural elements in the classroom
Just as there are differences of opinion about the definition of ICC, there are
confronted views on its importance. The basis for these differences is the complex nature
of the concept with the criticism mostly directed at ICC’s ‘bulkiness’ and unwieldiness
for the classroom.
From a sociological point and a point of cultural determinism, it could be
purported that learners cannot understand any other culture except their own. Even if
learners show a genuine wish to understand another culture, they would not be able to
because they would analyse and define the target culture issues and concepts against their
own cultural patterns. Lyotard sees comparison between two cultures as an act of violence
because ‘a universal rule of judgement between genres [and cultures, by the same token]
is lacking in general’ (Lyotard 1988: xi as cited in Bredella 2003: 231). Also, as Fish
(1997) says, we can claim to understand a foreign culture if we approve of what we
understand. However, understanding and approving are two distinct processes.
Further, this radical relativism would lead to the situation in which we would not
be able to criticise bad practices in a particular culture, we would be forced ‘to tolerate
the intolerable’ (Bredella 2003: 232). Another assumption of radical relativism is that it is
based on a concept of culture as a closed homogeneous system that determines an
individual’s behaviour. However, people sometimes do not follow these rules and act
differently, and radical relativism would not be able to account for instances of such
behaviour.
Another criticism comes from those who see intercultural understanding in the
light of abandoning one’s culture 17 (Harden, Witte 2000). However, understanding and
empathy that one can show are not connected to the loss of one’s own identity. McCarthy
believes that we can develop ‘a third position’ as a result of the interaction with other
cultures, that is, while not one culture holds the point of view that is absolute, learning
from experience can bring us closer (McCarthy 1989).
There have also been voices against intercultural learning as a superfluous aspect
of language learning, a stand taken by Edmondson and House (2000) (in O’Dowd 2004).
Basing their claims on the research conducted by Oller and Perkins (1978) which found
no correlation between the affective domain and the cognitive and skills domain, that is,
17 Some scholars have gone even further claiming that the cultural aspects taken into consideration are
solely those of the target culture, thus ignoring the learner’s culture (Alptekin 2002).
64

no link between positive attitudes and success at learning a language, they believe there is
little reason to introduce affective aims in the language classroom. O’Dowd offers a
response in line with Byram’s beliefs that positive attitudes towards a foreign culture
should not be equated with the affective aims of intercultural learning. The attitudes that
should be developed in learners should be those of openness and curiosity (Byram 1997)
and intercultural understanding (Bredella 2003). Attitudes and understanding should be
an integrative part of language learning.
Even though Edmondson and House (2000) believe that cultural awareness is
important, though not only in terms of attitudinal change, which is difficult to define and
explain, but closer to the relation to language awareness – ‘how culture determines the
linguistic aspect of communication’ (O’Dowd 2004: 45), House proposes a contrastive
discourse analysis of the native and foreign languages, to examine how speech acts and
discourse phases are used differently in both languages and how these differences may
affect ICC (House 1996 in O’Dowd 2004).
The arguments against such negative views have been given by Bredella and
Delanoy (1999) and Hu (2000) – the former disputing the claim that all foreign language
education is intercultural and thus the very term ICC is redundant. Bredella says that then
communicative language teaching would, by the same token, be redundant – however, it
is not, rather it improved the teaching methods. Hu highlights the point that culture and
language are closely connected through elements such as ‘identity, power, situational
conditionality’ (Hu 2000: 91 in O’Dowd 2004: 50) and therefore must be taken into
account, making the language classroom a place where cultural values and norms should
be dealt with.
Krashen (1982) with some other authors argues that classroom cannot be
conducive to learning culture, while others claim that there is not a real difference
between a classroom and a naturalistic setting for introductory level, since the linguistic
proficiency of students at that level is not sufficient for establishing any complicated
communication (Van Lier 1988). Damen (1987) claims that classroom-based learning is
cognitive and deductive in nature, and that too much stress is put on rule-ordering
pedagogy. Therefore, true learning does not take place as students memorize the material
without reflecting on it. Ellis (1992) further elaborates on this, claiming that the teacher is
always in control of the classroom interaction, thus preventing students to experience
proper ways in which to engage or disengage in communication. Similarly, Pica (1983)
thinks that the predictable classroom behaviour and the teacher’s error correction might
65

prevent students from gaining true intercultural competence. Finally, Jurasek (1995),
Robinson-Stuart and Nocon (1996) claim that the only learning that can take place in the
classroom will be along the cognitive lines, and that it will be only ‘cognitive boundary
crossing’ (Robinson-Stuart, Nocon 1996: 43) without any reflection on learners’ attitudes.
Some authors, like Herzog (2003) for example, claim that ICC must be based in a
particular knowledge of one culture. Herzog believes that generalised intercultural
competence is a just as hollow a concept as non-specific foreign language competence.
Such views would then equate ICC with and narrow it down to specific cultural
competence, and would be in a contrast to observations that individuals who have
experienced foreign environments would be better equipped to navigate through other
unfamiliar situations (as cited in Rathje 2007).
DeVoss et al. (2002) offer a discussion on possible challenges that teaching
intercultural competence may face. These are: focusing on the characteristics of students’
own cultures, replacing notions of cultural stereotypes (positive and negative) with more
fluid, dynamic understandings of tendencies, avoiding limiting the guidelines for good
intercultural communication to guidelines for good technical communication in general,
developing a more sophisticated sense of the design considerations necessary for
intercultural communication, encouraging students to move intercultural communication
beyond the classroom (p. 76).
Another challenge is the age of learners when they are ready to be engaged in
intercultural training so that they benefit from it. Byram et al. (1994) analysed available
research and concluded that while learners differ in their ability to mediate between
cultures and decentre from their own and feel empathy with others, teenage years – from
12 years and older, are the years when it can be expected that learners can do tasks that
involve intercultural issues.
It is impossible to equip students with all possible intercultural competence that
would last them a lifetime. Therefore, the acquisition of ICC is never complete as it is not
possible to anticipate all the situations in which a learner would need it which makes ICC
a life-long activity. This is in keeping with the current idea of life-long learning – that
academia does not give students knowledge that will last them all working life, but
equips them with necessary skills with which they will keep acquiring new knowledge
and competences.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the criticism against ICC teaching goes
against a considerable difficulty of assessing it, as learning and teaching ICC is a fairly
66

subjective process. Some authors raise concerns that it is questionable whether education
should prescribe attitudes or pass judgments on students’ attitudes or whether a teacher
should have the authority to influence developmental processes and attitudes of students,
especially as there are not any solid facts or figures to refer to. Another issue is whether
linguistic competence should be a backdrop to ICC and whether they could be tested
separately or jointly. That would present problems both for test making and test grading.
Lastly, as the descriptors for linguistic competence have proved to be difficult to
delineate, and some overlapping seems to be inevitable, it is understandable that some
authors (Byram et al. 2004) raise the same concerns for ICC and question whether
distinct levels of ICC could ever be defined (Manjarréss 2009: 147). Deciding on where
‘the passing grade’ should fall would prove to be extremely difficult.
Still, the benefits seem to outweigh these drawbacks, and intercultural awareness
should be the basis from which learners could start to develop their ICC. The importance
of ICC is recognized by many authors who endeavour to define it and apply it to FLT
setting (Byram, Fantini, Lazar, Risager are just some among them). Possible drawbacks
and weaknesses should be used to more precisely delineate all the elements important for
teaching and assessment, and not to dismiss ICC from teaching.
2.3.7. Foreign language classroom as the context for ICC learning
It has been perceived (Fleming 2009) that there is a gap in the intercultural field
between those who approach it as an academic discipline and study it in a university
setting and those who actually prepare people to be functional in different cultures.
Together with the often repeated clash of extremes – that ICC is either acquired through
experience or through formalized learning, there has been another dilemma of how to
approach ICC in a formalized setting. There is a possible pitfall of placing emphasis on
surface explanations while not exploring the depth, which leaves ICC without various
identities, affective dimensions and attitudinal change (Fleming 2009). Some authors
point out that training has been belittled in comparison to education, even seen as its
antithesis (Winch 1995, Barrow 1981 in Fleming 2009). These are just some of the
reasons why it has been difficult to include ICC into the curriculum.
Certain authors claim that the classroom as an artificial community may offer
some benefits, since it is a safe environment, where students can make mistakes without
any real detrimental consequences – as opposed to study abroad programs where students
might feel the real consequences of their mistakes (Kramsch 1993; Damen 1987). Sen
67

Gupta (2003) believes that the classroom is essential as learners can there reflect on their
experiences and learn from their peers. Here, learners can learn that they should not
‘make broad generalisations about a cultural practice’ and ‘should not express a personal
opinion as though it is a generally held belief’ (Sen Gupta 2003: 168).
Fleming (2009) posits that it would be difficult to have a pure experience and be
able to reflect on it in the real world, just as it would be difficult to acquire intercultural
competence in instructional setting without any application to some real situations.
Therefore, the ideal conditions in which a language leaner would become interculturally
competence would be to provide both instruction and personal experience.
Since it is rather difficult to outline recommendations about the cultural
component in a language course, Corbett (2003) believes that it might be possible to
make a distinction between those learners and communities who are more likely to have a
direct contact with L2 speakers and those learners who will have second language
training simply as a school subject. However, even in the second case ‘IC approach still
offers a way of enriching the language-learning experience and contributing to the wider
educational goals of better understanding one’s own community as well as those of
others’ (Corbett 2003: 34).
It must be pointed out that teachers do play an important role in language and
culture learning. In addition, they are important in assigning discourse roles to learners, in
setting the tasks and giving the purpose for doing them. Since in EFL classes a teacher
and students are from the same culture they usually do not ‘consciously attend to the
ways in which they are engaged in cultural transmission’ (Paige et al. 2003: 190), so
culture might get ignored or under-represented. Therefore, a particular effort should be
put into correcting these instances.
2.3.7.1. Intercultural Competence and English language teaching
When going abroad or meeting the native speakers of the language is not feasible,
the language learning classroom can be a suitable place for gaining intercultural
competence.
An aspect that tends to be overseen is what Oksaar points to as the correlation
between ‘knowledge of a language and of the culture, from the standpoint of the receiver.
The more competent a speaker is in a language, the better the hearer expects his cultural
competence to be’ (Oksaar 1990: 242). As a result of this expectation, if linguistic
competence is not followed by cultural competence the speaker will ‘not be excused
68

easily’ (Oksaar 1990: 242), as their linguistic fluency might be mistakenly seen as a sign
of being interculturally savvy, which need not be the case. The possible incongruous
behaviour by such a learner would then be even more disapproved by the participants in
an intercultural exchange, perhaps even more than with learners of lower proficiency,
where intercultural ‘slips’ might be ascribed to the inadequate language use.
Trying to explain the situation in foreign language teaching in Britain in the late
1980s and early 1990s, Byram et al. (1991) state that cultural studies are not present in
foreign language classes for a number of reasons: there is a greater focus on grammar and
literature, teachers are uncertain as to what to include in culture teaching and often have
to resort to their own experiences to make judgments related to culture. There is little
interdisciplinary research and collaboration as well as the lack of theoretical guidelines
for teachers. Finally, the teacher has to be very flexible when accepting students’
interpretations and opinions, which goes against a rather positivistic tradition in teaching.
In terms of methodology, there is a dilemma that ‘strategies proposed in class and used
for solving or describing an intercultural encounter should be the ones considered correct
or adequate’ (Manjarrés 2009: 147). As it has been mentioned, assessment also presents a
challenge, and important questions are whether education should prescribe attitudes and
whether intercultural competence should be evaluated separately from linguistic and
whether ‘levels of competence can be defined’ (ibid).
While the practices have not changed much since the late 1980s and early 1990s,
there has been an intuitive view that culture, cultural elements, understanding of other
cultures should be included in FLT. With the native speaker ceasing to be an ideal to
strive to in both linguistic and sociolinguistic competence, including ICC has even more
grounds 18 .
Authors who try to bridge culture and language, such as Byram, Scarino (2009),
Kramsh (1993), Risager (1998), strive to show that language courses should have a strong
intercultural component for a number of reasons. For example, Scarino (2009) sees
intercultural language learning is ‘about how language and culture come into play in
creating and exchanging meaning’ (2009: 69). Students develop an ability ‘to recognise
and integrate into their communication an understanding of themselves as already situated
in their own language(s) and culture(s) when they communicate with others’ (Scarino
2009: 69). Similarly, students learn to recognise that other people also perceive
18 The figures show that up to 70% of interaction in English is between non-native speakers, which should
be reflected in sociolinguistic, pragmatic and ICC elements that should be included in FLT
69

interactions from their own background and experiences within their own language(s) and
culture(s). Further, through intercultural language learning students should develop and
fine-tune interpretative frames of reference when they encounter communication in
intercultural encounters. Scorino (2009) also stresses the importance of meta-awareness,
the skill to see links between culture, language, and learning. Just like Byram, she also
believes that students de-centre from their own linguistic and cultural context and thus
become participants in diversity during the process of acquiring intercultural competence.
Scholars in the field of intercultural communication recognize the fact that
probably all good language teachers have always included cultural ‘asides’ when needed,
and many of those teachers claim that culture is implicitly in their classes, so learners will
simply automatically recognize and acquire cultural knowledge. However, this makes the
process of cultural learning mostly haphazard and without any clear objectives as to what
language learners should acquire culture-wise. It should be pointed out that the context
that gave rise to intercultural communication was not based on theoretical research or
university setting but, rather, stemmed from more practical needs of the American
administration and army. The true theoretical approach to this area started in the 1980s
with Gudykunst’s (1983) publication concerned specifically with theories in ICC. Since
then, many authors have tried to define ICC and include it in or add it to foreign language
teaching.
Fantini recognizes the importance of a second language for ICC, because learning
another language ‘challenges how one perceives, conceptualizes, and expresses oneself;
and […] opens the possibility of developing alternative communication strategies on
someone else's terms’ (Fantini 1995, 2001). This process may change the way one
perceives the world. Fantini believes that the lack of a second language limits one to
continue ‘to think about the world […] only in one’s native system’ (1995, 2001), and
thus denies the individual of what Fantini finds as the most valuable aspects of the
intercultural experience. Based on this definition of ICC, Fantini will also propose a coorientational
conceptual model of ICC (Spitzberg and Changnon 2009).
In the context of foreign language learning, intercultural competence means being
able to ‘mediate’ (Byram 1997) between two cultures, being able to ‘behave adequately in
a flexible manner when confronted with actions, attitudes and expectations of
representatives of foreign cultures’ (Meyer 1991: 137). This is why Byram places an
intercultural learner in the centre of his intercultural model, as it adds to the notion of
communicative competence seen as a capacity to ‘stabilize one’s self-identity in the
70

process of cross-cultural mediation, and […] [help] other people to stabilize their selfidentity’
(Meyer 1991: 137). From there learners can proceed to negotiating intercultural
encounters.
Bennett et al. (2003) rely on Sanford’s (1966) framework for promoting
development in student learning. The process should be based on the system of challenges
and support, (similar to Vygotsky’s scaffolding) as students need both new stimuli but
also the support for the risk taking and developing mastery. Bennett et al. (2003) believe
that it is possible to separate the challenge of the material and that of a process, and in
that way keep the balance between the challenge and support – ‘support the students with
the process, while challenging them with the content’ (Bennett et al. 2003: 254), that is
use a topic that is not demanding and engage students in a challenging activity, like
roleplay, for example. For intercultural learning and teaching context this would mean
that students in ethnocentric stages will find discussions of cultural differences as
challenging, so the methods to be employed should not be too challenging.
Figure 2.6 shows how language proficiency levels and intercultural sensitivity
levels might fit together.
Figure 2.6 Development of Intercultural sensitivity, taken from Bennett, Bennett, Allen
(2003)
71

Monitoring both language and intercultural proficiency stages, instructors can ‘increase
the level of cultural complexity in direct relationship to language proficiency’ (Bennett et
al. 2003: 256).
Based on his definition of ICC that every communication in a second (or foreign)
language is intercultural communication, which places awareness-raising at its center,
because when using a second language ‘[learners] are encoding ideas in a linguistic
system which is located within a cultural context and which will be interpreted as being
located within that context’ (Liddicoat 2005), Liddicoat offers an approach to teaching
culture in a particular way, based on work of Crozet (Crozet 1996; Liddicoat, Crozet 2001
as cited in Liddicoat 2005). The approach is organized into four stages: awarenessraising,
skills development, production and feedback. In the awareness-raising stage,
learners receive a new input about language and culture, and are expected to make
comparisons between their and L2 cultures and notice differences. Such a procedure is
backed up with the explanations of ‘the function of particular actions in the target
language to assist them in developing an explanatory framework for understanding what
the speaker is doing’ (Liddicoat 2005).
For skills development, learners need to work with their new knowledge and try to
perform ‘native speakers’ ways of acting and speaking’ (Liddicoat 2005). In that way
learners become familiar with a new speech situation.
In production, learners should integrate the elements they have tried out in the
previous stage. Liddicoat suggests using role plays, as learners ‘need to act out cultural
and linguistic information’ (Liddicoat 2005). Role plays can support culturally different
ways of interaction, where learners need to use, or assume different cultural roles and
might experience discomfort these might provoke. ‘If [learners are] unable to use the
culturally contexted practices comfortably’ (Liddicoat 2005), they need to develop ways
of negotiating interaction without using these practices. Simple avoidance is rarely
adequate as the practices involved are read by potential interlocutors in particular ways
and avoidance may lead to unwanted and/or untended readings of the speaker
The final stage, feedback, includes reflection on the experience of acting like a
native speaker (Liddicoat 2005). Learners discuss their feelings and language used.
Liddicoat hopes that feedback, reflection and discussion should bring learners closer to ‘a
third place’ (Kramsch 1993) where they ‘exist’ between their native culture and language
and L2 and second culture. Expressing negative and positive attitudes is expected in this
72

stage, but it is a teacher’s role ‘to acknowledge the validity of these feelings’ (Liddicoat
2005).
Liddicoat is against the view that L2 culture could be acquired, as he believes that
a native-like behaviour would then present itself as a goal, which should not be the case.
Liddicoat’s approach to teaching and learning ICC is more focused on the process that
brings a learner to a position where they could mediate between cultures. Also, as
awareness-raising is seen as being central for ICC in his approach, Liddicoat suggests that
production cannot be a good indicator of competence. What show that the learning
process is in place is the understanding that learners show, and that is behinds a particular
behaviour.
Therefore, Liddicoat suggests a more process-oriented approach to acquisition,
where ICC is constantly developing as a result of the reflection on one’s own linguistic
behaviour and that of other participants in the exchange.
The Common European framework for Languages also comments on intercultural
competence, with the authors basing their definitions of pluri- and multilingualism on
communicative competence. While the CEFR does make a distinction between
multilingualism (knowledge of many languages) and plurilingualism (composite
competence of a number of languages), the important idea that is highlighted is that
languages and the corresponding cultures are not kept in separate mental ‘boxes’, they
‘are compared and contrasted and actively interrelate and interact, mutually and positively
influencing one another’ (Aguilar 2009: 246).
When discussing intercultural competence, the CEFR clearly uses Byram’s model,
subdivides it and places IC within a category of general competencies – that of
declarative knowledge (savoir) – intercultural awareness, but also within the category of
IC skills and know-how (savoir-faire). Intercultural awareness represents ‘knowledge,
awareness and understanding of the relation […] between the ‘world of origin’ and the
‘world of the target community’ (CEFR p. 103). This awareness helps learners perceive
members of other cultures in context and also allows for learners to be open to other
cultures. Intercultural know-how includes ‘the ability to identify and use a variety of
strategies’ (CEFR p. 104) for contact with members of other cultures, to be a ‘cultural
intermediary’ between cultures and ‘deal affectively with intercultural misunderstanding
and conflict situations’ (CEFR p. 104).
73

2.3.8. Summary
The chapter put forth the most important views on ICC, starting with the work of
Edward Hall as the founder of the field. Then, different conceptualisations of ICC were
presented. It was also important to point out that the opinions on the importance of ICC
are not unanimous, and that some authors see ICC as a direct threat to one’s identity.
What is important for the local context is that the classroom, and especially the language
classroom, provides an opportunity for learners to develop ICC.
Authors have used these different ‘definitions’ and conceptualisation to work on
models of ICC that could be seen as a more operational way of managing ICC. These are
described in the next section.
2.4. Models and approaches to ICC
2.4.1. Introduction
Most of the authors who offered their models of intercultural competence and
sensitivity tackled the problems of assimilation/ acculturation, culture shock, mostly
because these models were fashioned for training of people who were to stay abroad over
a certain period of time. Unlike models of culture which aimed at explaining cultures and
differences between them, the aim of models of IC is to help an individual function in
intercultural encounters, through acquiring ‘cultural fluency’ (Hoopes 1979 in Fantini
2000) as then the learner would be able to apply the learned framework to new cultural
encounters. Also, the learner would gain ‘cross-cultural awareness’ (Hanvey 1976),
therefore becoming both aware of the diversity of ideas in the world and knowledgeable
of one’s own culture, thus being able to empathize with others.
2.4.2. Models of ICC
This section gives a short overview of the most prominent models and approaches
to ICC. The models come both from the fields of intercultural business, foreign language
learning and professional and student mobility as they all rest on the basic three domains
of ICC and show how ICC connects these diverse fields.
74

Ruben’s behavioural approach
Ruben’s (Ruben 1976) behavioural approach is one of the earliest frameworks that
deals with the concept and measurement of ICC. Rubens designs the model on the
grounds of three domains and wants to establish a connection between the cognitive and
the behavioural, between what a learner knows and the way in which a learner behaves
and acts in intercultural contacts. Also, the model shares a number of dimensions with
some other culture models (tolerance for ambiguity is similar to Hofstede’s high/low
uncertainty avoidance, for example) which is only a logical continuation towards ICC
models.
In order to enable a learner to act appropriately in an intercultural encounter, it is
important to use ‘measures of competency that reflect an individual’s ability to display
concepts in his behavior rather than intentions, understandings, knowledges, attitudes, or
desires’ (Rubens 1976: 337). This attitude is essential for ICC instruction, as it purports
that being able to regonize cultural differences and reflect on them should be at the center
of instruction. Some other concepts developed more recently share this attitude as well.
Based on literature and his findings, Rubens defines seven dimensions of intercultural
competence. From display of respect, interaction posture, orientation to knowledge, over
empathy, self-oriented behaviour to interaction management and tolerance for ambiguity,
Rubens tries to focus on respect for and tolerance to others, on recognition of differing
views among different people. It can be said that Ruben’s call for a behavioural model
and the assessment of behavioural outcomes is ‘a precursor to performance assessments
of ICC’ (Sinicrope et al. 2007: 5).
Even though the model proposes that learners have a grasp on concepts, which is a
rather ambitious goal, especially for the classroom setting, it incorporates all the
important elements which help learners become more aware of different perspectives and
ones’ own role in interactions.
Brislin, Landis, and Brandt’s developmental approach
Brislin, Landis, and Brandt (1983) propose a developmental approach in which
they suggest that six ‘antecedents’ that are being gradually developed constitute a model
that would explain how intercultural behaviour arises and ‘outline a strategy for personal
development’ (p.4). These six steps ask the individual to consider: past experiences with
people of the target culture; role and norm differences; anxiety; the goals of the
intercultural training; perceptual and cognitive sets of a world view, and self-image. What
75

is important is to see oneself able to ‘walk in the other's moccasins’ (p. 5). The model
purports that intercultural behaviour is successful when seen to be so in the eyes of a
person from the target culture which should make learners aware of others’ feelings.
Similarly to Ruben’s model, this one also relies on three domains – cognitive, affective
and behavioural to explain intercultural encounters. Possible drawbacks of the model are
that the application appears to be culture-specific, and to be limited to sojourners (Beamer
1992).
Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Bennett (1993) offered a framework for the conceptualization of IC dimensions in
his Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Bennett sees intercultural
sensitivity as ‘the construction of reality as increasingly capable of accommodating
cultural difference that constitutes development’ (Bennett 1993: 24). For Bennett,
learning means the integration of the assumptions, values, and beliefs (the invisible
elements) of another culture into one’s own world view. Therefore, as a consequence, one
would be able to adapt personal behaviour (the visible) to the norms of the target culture.
As Bennett believes that objective culture is of limited value for intercultural
communication, he situates the model in the domain of subjective culture, stating that
understanding objective culture ‘may create knowledge, but might not generate
competence’ (Bennett 1998: 3).
The DMIS constitutes a process through which one goes in moving along a
continuum from more ethnocentric stages to more ethnorelative ones, with potential for
more sophisticated intercultural experience. ‘The DMIS assumes that construing cultural
difference can become an active part of one’s worldview’, which could lead to a better
understanding of one’s own culture, as well as other cultures, ‘and an increased
competence in intercultural relations’ (Hammer et al. 2003: 423). Therefore, this model is
not a descriptive one, but a model in which ‘changes in knowledge, attitudes or skills are
taken as manifestations of changes in the underlying worldview’ (Bennett 2004: 75). In
terms of teaching ICC this is important because training is not aimed ‘at any particular
knowledge, attitude change or skill acquisition’ (ibid).
Bennett’s six-stage model of learning to perceive and work with cultural
differences comprises of six stages. The stages are then sub-grouped into ethnocentric
(the first three) and ethnorelative (the last three).
76

The first one is Denial of difference and is typically present in monocultural
societies, either because of the isolation or self-imposed isolation, thus there is little
intercultural experience. In this stage only the native culture is seen as the real and true
one, and its values and beliefs as only correct ones. Other cultures are not noticed or only
vaguely constructed and people ‘with a denial worldview generally are disinterested in
cultural difference even when it is brought to their attention’ (Bennet 2004: 63). What is
important for intercultural learning for learners at this stage is not that they refuse to face
‘the facts’ rather, they cannot ‘make the perceptual distinctions that allow cultural facts to
be recognized’ (p. 64). To help learners move past this stage, simple categories for
particular cultures should be created which would allow for the next stage to begin.
In the second stage of Defense, cultural differences are seen as a threat to the
worldview, since one’s culture is seen ‘as the only viable one’ (Bennett 2004: 65), and
cultural differences are experienced as stereotypes. Even though people at this stage are
more skilful at recognizing differences, their worldview is not complex enough to allow
for the same status of other cultures. ‘People of dominant cultures are likely to experience
defense as an attack on their values, [while those] of non-dominant cultures are more
likely to experience it as discovering and solidifying a separate cultural identity in
contrast to the dominant group’ (Hammer et al. 2003: 424). It only shows that people at
this stage are more ‘threatened by cultural differences than are people in a state of denial’
(Bennett 2004: 65) 19 . In terms of teaching intercultural competence, learners in this stage
should be helped to ‘recongiz[e] the common humanity’ (p. 65), and fight the polarized
worldview so that they could move towards the next stage.
The Minimization stage is a stage where superficial differences are acknowledged
while at the same time there is the assumption that people are basically the same because
‘the threat associated with cultural differences experienced in defense is neutralized by
subsuming the differences into familiar categories’ (Bennett 2004: 66). Although in
comparison to two previous stages this one appears quite forward and positive, it is
actually ‘negative’, because people in it avoid differences on universal grounds, claiming
that we are all humans and basing the assumption on religious or biological grounds.
Those in minimization stage may also expect other cultures to be similar to their own, and
therefore ‘become insistent on correcting others’ behaviour to match their expectations’
19 For individuals who are in a new, adopted culture, this stage might be experienced as a Reversal stage,
where the new culture is seen as superior to the native one. While individuals in this stage do not see other
cultures as a threat, they still perceive cultures in ‘us vs. them’ manner.
77

(Hammer et al. 2003:425). In spite of tolerance of people at this stage, they ‘are unable to
appreciate other cultures because they cannot see their own culture clearly’ (Bennett
2004: 67).
The research done with this model and the instrument that assesses the
intercultural experience shows that this stage is a transition between the ethnocentric and
ethnorelative stages. Still, this stage belongs to the ethnocentric side, since one’s own
culture is seen as central, behaviours of other cultures tend to be explained by the frame
of one’s culture, because there is not ‘cultural self-awareness’ (Bennett 2004). As a
consequence, ICC learners should be taught to perceive that their beliefs and values are
influenced by the context and, therefore, one needs to be able to perceive alternatives to
that context.
In the stage of Acceptance learners recognize the possibility of different cultural
norms with one’s culture seen just as one of many. Culture-general categories are created
in order to show a range of relevant cultural contrasts among cultures. Bennett calls this
‘cultural self-awareness’ (Bennett 1993: 50). Bennett (2004) points out that cultural
knowledge about a particular culture is not of any value for this stage, purporting that
‘people need to have a “critical mass”’ (Bennett 2004: 69)of information about another
culture in order to apprehend the worldview, and that even that amount of information is
useless unless basic minimization issues have been resolved. Also, individuals at this
stage might fall pray to political correctness, trying to show a liking of another culture,
since they should not think that IC sensitivity and competence are connected to agreeing
with others’ values as uncritical agreement is a characteristic of an ethnocentric view
(Bennett 2004).
An important issue when progressing though the stages is to be able to see value
relativity across cultures, that is, being able to see how different values differently
organize experience while being able to ‘maintain ethical commitment’ (Bennett 2004:
69).
At the stage of Adaptation individuals know enough about another culture to be
able to shift a frame of reference and modify behaviour to fit its norms, be able to engage
in empathy and from this stage progress into biculturality or multiculturality. People at
this stage can show empathy, and are able to make a whole ‘shift’ in all three domains –
cognitive, affective and behavioural. Individuals can understand other cultures and adapt
their behaviours and feelings according to a particular situation.
78

This stage is a goal of IC training (especially for international sojourners) which
stresses the ‘acquisition of culturally appropriate behavior’ as the most important
outcome. However, to be achieved, learners should be properly prepared, first to
experience other cultures and only then to train a particular behaviour.
Finally, the last stage is Integration of cultural differences. People at this stage
reconcile cultural differences and create a multicultural identity, even going in and out of
different cultural worldviews. Those in this stage are sometimes referred to as ‘global
nomads’ or long-term expatriates. However, this final stage need not be better than
adaptation (Bennett 1993) and might be difficult to achieve because it is relevant only for
sojourners with extensive experience during a longer period of time in other culture(s),
and might not be of the direct importance to learners who are to deal with cultural
differences in a classroom setting and/or from multiple cultures.
G
Denial Defense Minimization A Acceptance Adaptation Integration
Ethnocentric stages
P
Ethnorelative stages
Figure 2.7 Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, from Bennett (2004)
As with all learning, here too the progress from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism
is not linear, an individual might progress and slightly regress along the continuum, with
the aim of achieving at least the stage of adaptation 20 .
The whole model is based on the constructivist idea of cognitive complexity, as
the author believes that more cognitive complex individuals are better at discriminating
differences. Therefore, when the complexity of cultural categories increases ‘perception
becomes more interculturally sensitive’ (Bennett 2004: 73). Success in IC communication
means being able to see others as equally complex as one’s self and to ‘take a culturally
different perspective’ (ibid.). In that way increased IC sensitivity in turn increases the
potential for ICC. This is of key importance for monocultural learners who are usually
exposed to only one culture and one worldview. These learners need to develop IC
sensitivity and the ability to create an alternative experience, achieving ‘an intercultural
worldview’ (Bennett 2004: 74).
20 The DMIS is accompanied by the Intercultural Developmental Inventory (IDI) which measures the
orientation toward cultural difference.
79

Criticism of Bennett’s model
As Friedman and Antal (2005) suggest, intercultural effectiveness ’is most likely
to be achieved by actively engaging with cultural differences through adaptation and
integration’ (p. 75) due to the very form of the model – the underlying principle of
ethnocentrism. It is unlikely that people would resolve or learn from cultural differences
in the first three stages where the sense that one’s own culture is better than others is the
most prevalent. The transit stage between ethnocentrism and ethonrelativism is where
differences are appreciated but this might not be enough when it comes to making
decisions and acting on them. The phase of integration is important for sojourners and
individuals who experience a culture over a long period of time, therefore Friedman and
Antal (2005) focus on adaptation as the most suitable for their own model. However, they
see several flaws in it: they claim that Bennett’s model sees culture as a unified entity,
overriding subcultural differences. Also, the authors believe that Bennett’s model
supports a claim that if one knows a lot about a particular culture one can intentionally
change one’s behaviour. Being particularly wary of stereotypes, Friedman and Antal
believe that it is dangerous and even insulting to adopt a particular orientation ‘as a means
of adapting to the “typically Japanese” or “typically Spanish” behaviour expected of
one’s counterpart’ (Friedman, Antal 2005: 76).
Therefore, from their managerial, business perspective, they propose ‘negotiating
reality’ – ‘a strategy for effectively engaging intercultural interactions and generating a
richer repertoire of action strategies’ (Friedman, Antal 2005: 77). Negotiating reality
generates the necessary cultural knowledge for situations as they arise and, from this
knowledge, learners construct effective action strategies. Therefore, learners do not need
to learn about as many cultures as possible, on the other hand, they will have to be aware
of their own culture and how it could influence their behaviour and perceptions, and be
open to try different ways of perceiving and doing things.
Beamer’s Intercultural learning model
As with other models, this one is directed at developing one’s ICC through several
levels. The premise behind the model is that cultures can be learned, as they are whole
and coherent and ‘equally valid’ in terms of organizing the experiences. Beamer (1992)
believes that an IC competent learner will be aware of a possible cultural bias as culture
governs communication. In that respect Beamer repeats Hall’s conviction that culture and
communication can be used interchangeably.
80

Beamer proposes a model that has five levels of learning, each placed on top of
the previous one. The levels are: ‘acknowledging diversity, organizing information
according to stereotypes, posing questions to challenge the stereotypes, analyzing
communication episodes and, generating “other culture” messages’ (Beamer 1992: 291).
By going through these levels a learner will develop their ability to recognize signs from
other cultures, decode them, and encode 21 messages to convey the meaning. The model is
not linear as once acquainted with a new culture, new signs are discovered and
stereotypes formed, challenged and overcome.
The first level of acknowledging diversity is the basic one, as a perception of
difference is the initial stage of IC learning. Here learners should discuss concepts ‘such
as “bias”, “ethnocentricity”, “stereotype”, “value”’. Beamer stresses that though linguistic
difference is something to be noticed at the very beginning, cultural fluency does not
depend on linguistic fluency. The second level of organizing information is actually a
level on which categories are made based on stereotypes learners hold against particular
cultures. While these categories could be a useful tool for the first contact with other
cultures, they are ultimately a narrow and distorted view of a culture that is more often
than not reduced to lists of rules or ‘do’s and taboos’ (Beamer 1992: 294). This is also a
level where learners could get stuck if they do not challenge the categories, believing the
organization of information to be correct and sufficient. The third level on which learners
challenge the stereotypes brings them closer to true ICC. The model also offers particular
questions that a learner could ‘pose’ in order to better acquaint oneself with a new culture
– they range from how a culture organizes knowledge, over what achievements are
important, what value orientations are there to social structures. After understanding a
culture through these questions, the fourth level of analyzing communication episodes can
be achieved, where the focus is on culture-specific and depth of understanding. Finally,
on the fifth level a learner is competent enough to understand behaviour and behaves as if
from another culture. Beamer here refers back to Brislin’s model (walk in the other’s
moccasins, Brislin et al. 1983), because a learner is so ‘attuned’ with a culture. ICC is
seen in the flexibility that a learner expresses in behaviour and ability to integrate new
and already stored information to navigate encounters.
21 Beamer bases her model on the basic semiotic theory of a sign, a signified and a signifier believing that
‘[t]he receiver of intercultural messages is constantly adjusting and adapting the incoming signifiers to the
existing repository of signs, and adapting and adjusting the repository of signifieds to create new signs’
(Beamer 1992: 289).
81

The procedural model of intercultural communication competence
The procedural model of intercultural communication competence proposed by
Chen and Starosta (1996) also consists of affective, cognitive, and behavioural domains.
Intercultural sensitivity is its affective component and is influenced by four
personal attributes: self-concept, open-mindedness, being non-judgemental and social
relaxation. This domain of their model is more concerned with the ability of exchanging
positive emotional responses in intercultural encounters than is the case with some other
models (Hammer et al. 2003, for example, who emphasise appropriateness). Self-concept
refers to the way individuals perceive themselves, which the authors find important as the
more positive self-concept the more successful IC exchange seems to be. Openmindedness
stands for the willingness to become involved in an exchange that might
include ambiguities resulting from contrastive cultural perspectives. Expecting a negative
belief about a particular group to be true for each and every member of a group plays an
important part in guiding the negative affect toward culturally different groups and
individuals (Florack, Bless and Piontkowski 2003 as cited in Kim 2004). Finally, social
relaxation refers to one’s ability to reveal little anxiety in intercultural encounters, as
these negative feelings might lead to fear, hate and resentment as well. Therefore, for a
successful exchange, it is important that anxiety is kept at check.
The cognitive aspect of intercultural communication competence refers to
intercultural awareness, which in turn consists of self-awareness and cultural awareness.
Both are presented as cognitive processes, the individual’s ability to be aware of oneself,
and an understanding of cultures affecting people’s ways of thinking and behaviour. Also,
awareness helps individuals understand cultural differences and seek similarities.
The behavioural component of the model is intercultural adroitness, which stresses
appropriate actions or behaviour in intercultural communications. There are five of these
communication skills: message skills (knowledge of the L2 and its appropriate usage);
appropriate self-disclosure (being able to reduce uncertainty and help the IC exchange
develops appropriately); behavioural flexibility (being able to adapt to different
situations, to be mindful); interaction management (being able to respect turn-taking,
knowledge of conversation openings and closings); and social skills (empathy, ability to
take the perspective of the individuals from a different culture, identity maintenance).
While not strikingly different from other models based on these three domains,
this model does provide a detailed study of communication skills and affective
components needed for successful IC encounters.
82

Hofstede’s culture dimensions
Hofstede’s model is an extension of the previous iceberg theory model, since the
outer layer is extended and a finer ‘analysis of the visible results of cultural values’ (Dahl
2004: 5) can be conducted. The categories identified through Hofstede’s model ‘helped to
elucidate the possible dimensions along which groups of people can be ordered, and that
may account for differences in behaviour across groups’ (Fischer 2009: 38). Hofstede
introduced culture dimensions to account for differences between cultures 22 . The
dimensions of culture that Hofstede proposes are not too different from Hall’s, however,
the research data behind it are more extensive. Hofstede surveyed more that 110,000
people from 53 countries working for a multicultural corporation – IBM. The study
sprung forth four different dimension of culture, which influence patterns of thinking and
acting. These dimensions are power-distance, collectivism/individualism, uncertainty
avoidance, and femininity/masculinity.
Just like in other models, these dimensions are offered as the means of delineating
the world around an individual, the relationships one has with the community and the
norms and values of a culture.
Power distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations
and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. It
shows how all the members of a society accept the level of inequality. Large power
distance entails that hierarchy means inequality, corruption is frequent and income is
unevenly distributed. Those who are subordinate usually expect to be told what to do,
which is reflected in the manner any community is structured – family, school, and
workplace. On the other hand, small power distance characterises societies that respect
equality in terms of income, importance of one’s opinion, and religious beliefs.
Uncertainty avoidance indicates to what extent a culture prepares its members to
feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured, that is, new, surprising, or
unexpected situations. Countries with a high uncertainty avoidance index try to minimize
the possibility of such situations by strict behavioural codes, laws and rules, disapproval
of deviant opinions. On the other hand, those with a low uncertainty avoidance index are
more tolerant of different opinions, deviant individuals, and have fewer rules.
Individualism versus Collectivism dimension is a societal and not an individual
characteristic. It is the degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups. On
22 The purpose of the research was corporate culture, however, dimensions can be applied to everyday
encounters and account for everyday situation of misunderstandings between different cultures.
83

the individualist side everyone is expected to look after himself/herself and his/her
immediate family and the ties are rather loose. In collectivistic cultures people are
integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families that expect
unquestioning loyalty from their members (Hofstede 2011).
Masculinity versus Femininity dimension shows the distribution of values between
the genders. The more assertive end is masculine and the modest, caring end is feminine.
It has been observed that women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring
values as the men, while in the masculine countries women are somewhat assertive and
competitive, but not as much as the men. Masculine cultures show the maximum social
and emotional role differentiation between the genders, while feminine cultures show
minimum differentiation.
In 1990, under criticisms that his work is too oriented towards Western
philosophy, Hofstede added another dimension – Long versus short term orientation,
based on research done in the late 1980s. A Chinese Value Survey (CVS), based on
traditional Chinese cultural values, was conducted in 1987 and administered to university
students in 22 different countries. The factor analysis revealed that four factors were
extracted from the 40 scale items, three of which were correlated with Hofstede’s (1984)
work-related cultural dimensions. Only one factor that was not correlated with Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions was Confucian work dynamics. The new cultural dimension included
four items: ordering relationship, thrift, persistence, and having a sense of shame (Wu
2006). The new dimension was based on research by Michael Bond which had its support
in Confucian dynamism (Hofstede 2010). Values associated with Long term orientation
are thrift and perseverance while those associated with Short term orientation are respect
for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one’s face (Hofstede 2010).
Finally, only recently, in 2010, the model received a new addition, a sixth
dimension, ‘based on Michale Minkov’s analysis of the World Values Survey data for 93
countries’ (Hofstede 2011) and named Indulgence versus Restraint dimension. The
dimension was designed based on the aspect which is not much researched, that of
happiness, which is ‘related to the importance of controlling one’s own life, related to the
importance people attach to the freedom of expression. Low in indulgence and high in
restraint countries ‘will not think freedom of expression is important’ (Hofstede 2010).
On the other hand, societies that allow free gratification of natural human drives are high
in indulgence. This dimension is seen as complementary to Long versus Short orientation.
84

The model has been among the first to try and organize human experience into
dimensions based on empirical data and extensive research. The importance of the model
can be seen in the fact that some of its dimensions have been used by other researchers
and their models (Triandis 1995). The model is also important for the present study as
some characteristics of dimensions were used in the culture assimilator.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s’ seven dimension model
The definition of culture that Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) give has
logically led to the formulations of the responses a culture devises for the problems and
challenges it might face. Therefore, the authors propose the ‘Seven Dimensions of
Culture’ model, basing it on a database that included more than 30,000 survey results
done with managers in 28 countries. The questionnaires they used contained problems or
contrasting views and the participants were asked to answer some basic questions which
would provide understanding of differences between cultures. Out of the seven
dimensions, five are aimed at relationships between members of a culture, one dimension
aims at how members relate to environment and the last one investigates time orientation.
Similarly to Hofstede’s research, here too, the participants were managers in multinational
companies, and study too had a similar aim – to offer ways in which managers
would avoid culturally-based miscommunication and misunderstanding, as well as would
understand customers across cultures.
By classifying the solutions, the authors hope to bring an understanding among
individuals of different cultures, since ‘the solutions depend on the meaning given by
people to life in general and to their fellows, time and nature in particular’ 23 (p. 27). Their
dimensions are: universalism/particularism, individualism/collectivism, or
(communitarianism), achieved/ascribed status, neutral/affective, specific/diffuse,
internal/external, time as sequence/synchronic time.
Universalism vs. particularism dimension offers a continuum along which cultures
can be positioned according to the importance they place on rules and laws, as opposed to
the importance placed on personal relationships. Universalist societies depend on rules,
codes, values, and standards that are placed before the needs or preferences of friends.
The law is equal for everyone and applied to everyone, therefore standards, procedures
23 Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner rely on the work by F. Kluckhohn and F.L. Strodtbeck (1961) who
identified five categories of problems, as they believed all societies were aware of all possible kinds of
solution but preferred them to different extent. Therefore, every culture has a set of preferred value
orientations to these five basic problems: relational, time, activity, man-nature, human nature orientation.
85

and rules are defined in detail. On the other hand, members of particularistic (or pluralist)
societies are much more dependent on friendships and relationships than rules or laws.
That is why what is right is defined based on whether people concerned are friends or not.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner define Individualism vs. Collectivism in order
to distinguish between societies that give preference to individual and collective interests.
This dimension rather closely resembles Hofstede’s collectivism/individualism
dimension. Individualistic societies place the individual before the group, members are
able to make quick decisions, and their achievements are seen as individual since they
take personal, individual responsibility. On the other hand, collectivistic (communitarian)
societies give more weight to the interest of the group or community. People achieve aims
through joint effort and decisions are not made by individual, they are rather checked
with or provided by the authority.
Achievement vs. ascription dimension of the model shares some resemblance with
Hofstede’s power distance, though it does not discuss what power distance is acceptable
in society as Hofstede’s does. In achievement-oriented cultures status is measured by
what individuals have achieved, thus, the hierarchy is based on achievements regardless
of one’s age or gender. On the other hand, in cultures that are ascription-oriented, status
depends on one’s age, gender, or wealth. It is expected that respect will be shown towards
superiors, who are usually male, middle-aged and promoted based on seniority. While it
is not true for all cultures, there is a high likelihood that individualistic cultures would
also be achievement-oriented.
Whether members of a particular culture display emotions or not is shown by
Neutral vs. affective dimension. Neutral cultures do not openly demonstrate emotions,
they exercise cool conduct and there is not much of physical contact, gestures or facial
expression. In contrast, affective cultures allow non-verbal and verbal demonstration of
feelings, sometimes even passionately.
The distinction between specific- and diffuse-oriented cultures shows whether
members keep their personal and professional lives separate. In specific-oriented cultures
there is a clear-cut division between personal and professional lives, with different
relationship with authority in each of the groups. Members of such cultures are prone to
firstly analyse the elements of their lives separately and only then to put them together
which also leads to well-defined relations between members. Diffuse-oriented cultures
allow for blurry boundaries between personal and professional lives, since their members
see elements of their lives as interrelated.
86

Internal vs. external distinction shows cultures where the members either show
control over the environment or see the environment as controlling them. In an internal
culture members see nature as a complex concept which, however, can be controlled by
people. On the other hand, in external cultures there exists an organic view of nature,
where members believe they should harmonize with nature, which makes them more
flexible and adaptable to change, unlike members of internal-oriented cultures.
Sequential vs. synchronic dimension makes a distinction between cultures where it
is preferred to do one thing after another and those where several things are done at the
same time. The former respect timetables and schedules while the latter see time as
flexible, are not bound by strict schedules, and do not select priorities in any particular
way. In addition to this distinction, the authors believe that how cultures assign
importance to past, present or future is also important. Past-oriented cultures see future as
repeated past, and history is an important part of life, together with respect shown to
elders and tradition. Present-oriented cultures are focused on current events without much
importance given to past or future, therefore everything is appraised in terms of
immediate value or impact. Finally, future-oriented cultures are turned to future, with past
not playing an important or decisive role for future prospects, therefore, planning is
emphasized, there is interest in future potential and both past and present are basis for
future benefit.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s dimensions are important for the present
study since they were used in the assimilator. The USA, the UK and Serbia are at the
different ends of a number of dimensions, which provides a basis for a possible
misunderstanding or conflict. For example, the US is a strongly universalistic,
individualistic society, achievement-oriented and specific-oriented with the focus on
present and future. On the other hand, Serbia is an example of a particularist,
collectivistic and diffuse-oriented culture where status is ascribed and where more
importance is placed on the past.
Hofestede’s and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s models share certain
similarities – particularly in respect to two dimensions. Hofstede’s Collectivism/
Individualism is seen in communitarian/individualism value orientation. The second one,
the achievement/ascription value dimension, which describes how status is seen and
given, is similar to Hofstede’s power distance index which might be understood on
condition that status is accorded by nature rather than achievement, and that this reflects a
greater willingness to accept power distances. Understandably, there is not a one-to-one
87

match between the dimensions, since Hofstede’s power index represents what is the
acceptable power distance in a society which is not dealt with in Trompenaars and
Hampden-Turner’s model.
The two models on the whole are to a degree consistent in terms of country
qualifications. However, a certain mismatch seems to appear because of the different
items employed during the research, and different time-frames of the studies. What these
inconsistencies may show is that some cultural change has taken place, and that due to
globalization and socio-political changes cultures have been moving along the dimension
continuum.
Antal and Friedman (2008) suggest a critique 24 of these two models, stating that
they ‘treat national culture as an overarching unitary phenomenon whose influence on its
member is quite deterministic’ (Antal, Friedman 2008: 364). The models also narrow
down the cultural complexity of people which, in turn, may lead to false perceptions that
all people will behave exactly according a particular model, which is not the case.
Intercultural competence for professional mobility
Intercultural competence for professional mobility (ICOPROMO) was a program
carried out under the Council of Europe, together with another project, Leonardo da
Vinci. This programme was not directed only at professionals, but also at students who
might come in contact with people from other cultures through their work and/or studies.
The model that the project offers contains both theoretical grounds, but also a number of
activities, as it tries to reflect the differences and changes that might ensue after contacts,
and form what the team call ‘the new world order’. Thus, the model helps people prepare
for contacts and helps them ‘conceptualise the experience’. The model is also
transformational, as an individual changes through contacts and interactions with people
from other cultures.
The model provides ‘middle ground’ for both language and culture that inevitably
change due to challenges. Individuals need to cope with a current situation in terms of
being ‘able to process data and respond appropriately in order to achieve their objectives’
(Glaser et al. 2007: 15).
In terms of education, this model purports that learners would need to develop
both cognitive and behavioural competences, and importantly, the authors believe that
24 However, this criticism can be directed at all models that try to categorise and generalize a culture.
Nevertheless, models are invaluable in bringing culture into the classroom.
88

these ‘can be achieved through studying and training’ (Glaser et al. 2007: 15). As a
component in the model, there is an attitudinal change, which the authors believe will be
developed through training and ‘re-evalu[ation] of the attitudes which have been
accumulated as a monocultural entity’ (Glaser et al. 2007: 16). The authors believe that
the attitudinal change will lead to a behavioural change, as learners will have learned to
re-assess the situation, reflect on the context and be open for alternative solutions. With
all these elements, a learner becomes interculturally competent.
As many other authors stress, the creators of the model also believe that there is
not a ‘finite point’ for intercultural development as there are always new ‘incidents,
stimuli and challenges which need more information, learning and reflection to inform an
appropriate response’ (Glaser et al. 2007: 16).
Figure 2.8 The development of intercultural competence: a transformational model, taken
from Glaser et al. (2007)
Hamilton, Richardson, and Shuford’s compositional model
Hamilton, Richardson, and Shuford’s model (1998 as cited in Spitzberg,
Changnon 2009) represents a typical compositional model as it contains a typical conative
listing of competence components needed for a competent IC exchange. The model has
three main elements – attitudes, knowledge and skills. In the attitude component, learners
are expected to show positive attitude towards both their group and other groups, to be
89

prepared for risk-taking and the positive effect of intercultural contacts on their life.
Coupled with such values are knowledge competencies: ‘understanding cultural identities,
group boundaries and histories of oppression, and the influence of cultural differences on
communication processes (as cited in Spitzberg, Changnon 2009: 11). Finally, the last
element is basic skills of self-reflection, voicing of differences, being able to understand
multiple contexts, assertive challenging of discriminatory actions.
As a possible drawback of this and similar models, Sptizber and Changon state
that it is difficult to clearly present ‘internal affective or cognitive factor, as opposed to a
behavioral factor’, so self-reflecting is ‘internal information-processing activit[y]’
(Spitzberg, Changnon 2009: 11), as there is not a concrete or obvious referent in the
behavioural component.
Gudykunst’s anxiety/ uncertainty management (AUM) model
Even though it has not been as influential as Bennett’s or Byram’s model,
Gudykunst’s (1993, 1998) anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) model has also been
used by the USA Navy, thought the author ‘intended his theory to apply in any situation
where differences between people spawn doubts and fears’ (Gudykunst 2006: 427). The
author claims that the uncertainty reduction theory can explain initial anxiety that exists
when meeting a stranger from one’s own culture and be extended to intercultural
encounters, since there individuals from different cultures experience both anxiety and
uncertainty. Due to those feelings, individuals tend to ‘overestimate the effect of cultural
identity on the behavior of people in an alien society, while blurring individual
distinctions’ (Gudykunst 2006: 427). Therefore, individuals should develop the ability to
manage their anxiety through mindfulness (Gudykunst 2005). This means that learners
should identify and focus on the sources of anxiety, which may range from the concept of
self to a reaction to foreign culture, situations, and connections with the host culture.
The importance of the model is that the theory behind it was meant to apply in any
situation where differences might create doubts and fear and the author believed that
AUM is always ’under construction’ (Gudykunst 2006: 427). Another advantage is that
effective communication is seen as the key to minimizing misunderstandings, in terms of
being able to ’accurately predict and explain’ the behaviour of the interlocutor so that
these actions could be ‘tied into’ (Gudykunst 2006) encounters and communication.
Finally, what is another benefit of the model could be considered its drawback as well. It
relies heavily on the affective domain, which might render it more difficult for
90

implementation in the classroom. However, what Gudykunst highlights is that
mindfulness, which is conscious competence that is constantly improved in order to be
more effective, can help individuals negotiate encounters. This view was seen in previous
models as well, and is important for Byram’s model, especially because it is designed
with TEFL in mind.
Self-Concept:
Social identities
Personal identities
Collective self-esteem
Motivation to Interact:
Need for predictability
Need for group inclusion
Need to sustain self-concept
Reactions to Strangers:
Empathy
Tolerance for ambiguity
Rigid intergroup attitudes
Social Categorization of
Strangers:
Positive expectations
Perceived personal similarities
Understanding group differences
Situation Processes:
Ingroup power
Cooperative tasks
Presence of ingroup members
Connections with Strangers:
Attraction to strangers
Interdependence with strangers
Uncertainty
management
Anxiety
management
Mindfulness
Communication
effectiveness
Ethical interactions:
Maintaining dignity
Moral inclusiveness
Respect for strangers
Superficial cues Basic causes Moderating process Outcome
Figure 2.9 AUM Theory, adapted from Gudykunst (2006)
Ting-Toomey’s Identity negotiation process model
Ting-Toomey’s negotiation model (1993) also has the components that are usually
called on when intercultural encounters take place – cognitive, affective and behavioural.
They help individuals when they are interacting with foreigners and contribute to a
successful ‘identity negotiation’ (Ting-Toomey 1993: 106). Stemming from her definition
of ICC as a ‘negotiation process between [individuals] in a novel communicative episode’
(p. 73), the model identifies these components as important for mediating between
91

’multiple self identification and effective identity negotiation process’ (Arasaratnam,
Deorfel 2005: 142).
Later Ting-Tomey and Kurogi (1998) formulated a model similar to the previous
one, but it de-emphasized motivational factors and highlighted cognitive, behavioural and
outcome factors. Similarly to Gudykunst’s AUM model, this one introduced a
mindfulness dimension that consists of abilities such as mindful reflectivity, taking
multiple perspectives and being open to novelty. A knowledge component shows the
importance of understanding differences resulting from an individualism/ collectivism
divide, and power distance. Skills that an individual should have are mindful listening and
observation, dialogue collaboration and face management. All these combined should
bring about appropriate, effective and mutually adaptive outcomes.
Fantini’s model of ICC
One characteristic of models that started originating in the 1990s until present is
that they are more based on elaborate conceptual models (such as Byram’s 1997). Also,
they are more contextually or process-focused. Most of these stress skills and knowledge,
‘ignoring the affective or motivational component’ (Spitzberg, Changnon 2009: 9)
Fantini’s model (1995) could be categorized as one of co-orientational models
(Spitzberg, Changnon 2009) which usually include ‘understanding, overlapping
perspectives, accuracy, directness, and clarity’ (Spitzberg, Changnon 2009: 15). Also,
they are more contextually- or process-focused, and stress accurate understanding as the
criterion of competence.
Fantini (1995a) pointed to the inseparable nature of language and culture, the idea
that among others will later be taken up by Risager (2006), and uses the term
linguaculture to represent a culture-language nexus. From the definition of
communicative and intercultural competence, Fantini goes on to propose a model of ICC.
He believes that one’s language represents and reflects one’s world view and sets out to
analyse how effective and appropriate an individual can be in an intercultural encounter.
Fantini believes that foreign/second language competence is crucial for both effective and
appropriate functioning, while exposure to a second languaculture would help develop if
not different then ‘expended vision of the world’ (Fantini 1995: 150). Since world views
differ – despite certain universals (showed as a dark cross-section in Figure 2.8), they
‘result in a differing realization of the world for each group of speakers’ (Fantini 1995:
150), therefore development of linguaculture, or becoming bicultural, goes beyond
92

language mastery, and incorporates the understanding how different components and
details are reconfigured.
Figure 2.10 Worldviews convergence model, taken from Fantini (1995)
While there certainly are aspects across cultures that are the same, each world
view differs. Fantini warns that success with one’s ‘native linguaculture does not always
insure equal success with a [second linguaculture]’ (Fantini 1995: 151). The new world
view cannot be acquired without ‘serious questions, deep scrutiny, and reflection’
(Fantini 1995: 151), nor without traits such as flexibility, patience, openness, interest,
curiosity, empathy, tolerance of ambiguity which are from all three domains of ICC
(attitudes, skills, knowledge) (Fantini 2001 as cited in Spitzberg, Changnon 2009: 15).
Byram’s model for intercultural competence
Byram’s model deserves special attention because the author comes from the field
of language teaching and therefore takes a slightly different perspective on ICC. Byram
(1997) proposes a co-orientational model for intercultural competence that is composed
of five competences for which he relies heavily on the work of van Ek (1986) and his
model of communicative competence. Here, the competences are organized into three
categories, that of knowledge, skills and attitudes, in which Byram, as other researchers,
(Dodd 1995; Gudykunst 1986; Lustig, Koester 1996; Spencer-Rodgers, McGovern 2002),
93

follows the idea that intercultural competence should be built in cognitive, behavioural
and affective domains. All the competences are summarised in the following figure.
Knowledge Skills/behaviour Attitudes/traits
Savoirs
culture specific and
culture general knowledge
knowledge of self and
other
knowledge of interaction:
individual and societal
insight regarding the ways
in which culture affects
language and
communication
Savoir-comprendre
ability to interpret and
relate
Savoir-apprendre/ savoirsfaire
ability to discover and/or
interact
ability to acquire new
knowledge and to operate
knowledge, attitudes and
skills under the constraints
of real-time
communication and
interaction
metacognitive strategies to
direct own learning
Savoir-être
attitude to relativize self
and value others
positive disposition
towards learning
intercultural competence
Savoir-s’engager
general disposition
characterized by a critical
engagement with the
foreign culture under
consideration and one’s
own
Figure 2.11 Components of intercultural competence, taken from Sercu et al. (2005)
According to Byram, intercultural encounters will be successful if human
relationships are established and maintained, which again depend on attitudinal factors.
At the same time, both knowledge and attitude are influenced by the processes of
intercultural competence: the skills of interpretation and establishing relationships
between aspects of the two cultures and the skills of discovery and interaction (Byram
1995). Byram presents these factors as five savoirs that the learner has to acquire or
develop.
Savoir être is concerned with attitudes and values, where the learner should show
curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief
about one’s own. Savoirs refer to the knowledge of social groups and their products and
practices in one’s own and in others’ country, and of the general processes of societal and
individual interaction. This is knowledge of what an intercultural encounter might entail,
different body languages, values, and symbols. If learners are alert to possible referential
differences, if they possess culture-general knowledge, they will be more successful when
dealing with a particular culture. Savoir comprendre is related to the skills of interpreting
and relating, to the ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to
explain it and relate it to documents or events from one’s own. Savoir apprendre/faire is
94

connected to the skills of discovery and interaction, or the ability to acquire new
knowledge of a culture and cultural practices. (The previous model (Byram 1993)
included two separate competencies: savoir-faire and savoir apprendre, which are here
combined into a single competence). Also, the model entails the ability to gain and
operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under pressure of real-time communication and
interaction. Finally, savoir s’engager which means having the ability to evaluate critically
both one’s own and others’ cultures on the basis of explicit criteria perspectives, practices
and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries (Byram and Zarate 1997a: 31-
54).
Figure 2.12 Byram’s model of intercultural communicative competence, taken from
Byram and Zarate (1997a)
The competence in these elements should help an intercultural speaker recognise
misunderstandings and resolve them. A summary of the model, presented with Figure
95

2.10 shows where Byram sees potential places for acquisition of ICC and it also reflects
his ‘emphasis on educational dimension’ (Byram, Zarate 1997a: 72).
With his continued work on ICC, Byram comes to believe that attitudes are the
foundation of the intercultural learning of intercultural speakers. Savoir-être and savoirs’engager
both refer to a general disposition or a stand that is characterised by ‘a critical
engagement with the foreign culture [...] and one’s own’ (savoir-s’engager) and ‘the
capacity and willingness to abandon ethnocentric attitudes and perceptions and the ability
to establish and maintain a relationship between one’s own and the foreign culture
(savoir-être) 25 ’ (Byram 1997a: 54). What Byram (2009) emphasises as the advance of
this model (compared to a similar one from 1993) is that the main focus is on pedagogical
purposes of foreign language teaching, the fifth savoir – savoir s’engager, or critical
cultural awareness. It seems that this was a starting point for Byram’s education for
intercultural citizenship (Byram 2008) which he later developed.
It has been noticed that FLT theorists do not, (with some exceptions such as Doyé
1993, Kramsh 1993, Melde 1987), take an analytical approach but rely on comparison
and contrast of cultures to be conducive to consciousness- and awareness-raising. Further,
the notion of ‘empathy’ in particular, which is considered a basis for successful
communication may seem uncritical and normative as well as a highly subjective notion
on which to build competence. Learners cannot be expected to accept and understand the
viewpoint and experience of the other, without taking a critical, analytical stance (Byram
2003: 64-65). That is why Byram stresses the importance of critical (and cultural)
awareness.
What critical awareness prevents is ‘encoding of learners’ own culture-specific
meanings which are not necessarily comprehensible to other speakers of the language’
(Byram 2003: 63) because they might decode them in their own culture-specific context.
Critically aware learners would be able to predict possible intercultural communication
problems because they would be aware of the interlocutors’ cultural identity, shared
meanings and cultural-specific meanings. It is in the process of re-evaluating and
rethinking that cultural awareness is developed, where learners question their own
cultural identity and can relativize ‘their naturalized, taken-for-granted values, beliefs and
actions’ (Byram 2003: 64).
25 Zarate (2003) believes that some of the competencies, such as savoir-apprendre and savoir-être are
language-dependent, while savoir-faire is independent. Also, what is learned under the competencies of
savoir-être and savoir-faire can be transferred to other cultural systems, that is, can be ‘reinvested in the
learning of another language’ (Zarate 2003: 221).
96

Another important characteristic of Byram’s model 26 is that it is grounded in the
context of language learning and teaching of foreign languages, which is not the case with
other models. Some of the objectives are broad educational goals which would need
‘long-term exposure for their development’ (Spencer-Oatey and Franklin 2009: 67) and
would continue after and outside of the formal educational setting. Byram’s
comprehensive work is especially valuable for the teaching practice as it stresses the fact
that ‘language teaching has two sides: a language side and a culture side, and that one of
the greatest pedagogical challenges consists in integrating these two sides so that students
get a sense of their interconnectedness’ (Risager 2005: vii). Therefore, teaching culture is
no longer at the periphery of teaching, rather, intercultural knowledge and skills are
moved to ‘centre-stage’, thus becoming ‘an integral part of curriculum’ (Corbett 2003:
30).
Finally, what sets Byram’s model apart from other models of ICC is his concern
for the non-native speaker. Since his model is to some extent modelled after van Ek’s
model (1986), the greatest fault that he finds with it is its too great an insistence on the
native speaker and criticizes it on two grounds. Firstly, for a pragmatic educational
reason, as the native speaker sets an impossible target to attain as learners and native
speakers leaner and acquire languages under different conditions. Secondly, striving for
the native speaker competence would ask for a ‘wrong kind of competence’ (Byram
1997: 11), as the learner would become ‘linguistically schizophrenic’ leaving one
linguistic environment to ‘blend into another’ (p.11).
Models based on Byram’s model for ICC
Byram’s work inspired his collaborators and other authors to devise other
intercultural models of which two will be presented here.
Risager (2007)
Risager (2007) describes two models of intercultural competence, one of which
adopts an anthropological point of departure while the other has a linguistic point of
departure. The anthropological models describe intercultural competence as allied to but
26 While the model is widely accepted, some authors raise their concerns. For example, Scarino (2007)
believes that Byram’s model of savoirs does not focus on the ways in which language affects culture and
culture affects language, and does not explain enough how this relation between culture and language may
help the learner as an interactant or performer in communication.
97

separate from communicative competence (language-in-culture). The linguistic models
frame cultural competence within communicative competence (culture-in-language).
However, she believes that the very concept of competence has a ‘positivist slant’
(Risager 2007: 227) as it is related to the educational setting and assessment, therefore
Risager proposes a model that includes both resources and competences.
To do so, Risager extends Byram’s model of intercultural communicative
competence so that it includes resources an individual possesses together with the more
narrow competences (Sinicrope et al. 2007). She emphasises these resources therefore
giving to the model additional competences: languacultural competences and resources
and transnational cooperation – to the already stated structural, semantic and pragmatic
competences. While this is a step in the direction of bringing a multiple perspective that
plurilingualism can offer, and the model is surely a valuable addition to ICC, the
challenge is still how to relate all these dimension, especially in the teaching and learning
context (Scarino 2009).
The ten elements that she proposed are ‘manifested in linguistic developments and
proficiencies’ (Sinicrope et al. 2007: 6) and include: ‘Linguistic (languastructural)
competence; Languacultural competences and resources: semantics and pragmatics;
Languacultural competences and resources: poetics; Languacultural competences and
resources: linguistic identity; Translation and interpretation; Interpreting texts
(discourses); Use of ethnographic methods; Transnational cooperation; Knowledge of
language as critical language awareness, also as a world citizen; Knowledge of culture
and society and critical cultural awareness, also as a world citizen’ (Risager 2007: 227).
Risager places special attention on life-historical context of individuals and
believes that competencies are based on both psycho-social and psycho-dynamic basis
and sees them as connected to Byram’s savoir-etre component (though Byram uses social
psychology – attitudes to and motivation for interaction) (Risager 2007).
Sercu (2004) has also extends Byram’s construct, but in a different direction. She
introduces a ‘meta-cognitive dimension’ to enable learners to plan, monitor and evaluate
their own learning processes. However, what Scarino (2009) sees here as a potential
problem is that including meta-cognitive dimension does not necessarily bring awareness
of the interplay of culture and language in communication or of negotiating meaning
across cultures (Scarino 2009).
98

Intercultural Competence Assessment Project
Byram’s work influenced the development of the project team Intercultural
Competence Assessment (INCA) – the group of academics from Europe mostly from the
area of linguistics, who wanted ‘to develop a valid framework of intercultural competence
and robust instruments for assessing intercultural competence to meet the needs of
employers’ (Preschtl, Davidson Lund 2007). The model consists of two dimensions – one
for the assessor and one for the examinee, with three skill levels for each dimension
(basic, intermediate, and full).
The model purports that ICC consists of six dimensions: Tolerance for ambiguity,
where an individual is expected ‘to accept lack of clarity and deal with it constructively’
(Preschtl and Davidson Lund 2007: 5). Behavioural flexibility is a dimension where an
individual perceives that different situations have different requirements in terms of
behaviour, therefore making needed adaptations to one’s behaviour. Communicative
awareness is being aware of the relationships that exist between linguistic expressions
and cultural contents, ‘to consciously work with various communicative conventions of
foreign partners’ (p. 6). Knowledge discovery is directed at gaining knowledge about new
culture and being able to use it in real-life situations. Respect of others means be willing
to ‘suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own’ (Preschtl, Davidson
Lund 2007: 6). Finally, empathy means being able to understand others, how they think
and feel in a particular situation.
While there is not much difference between these categories than those set forth
by other authors, what is different is that model offers rather clearly defined levels of ICC,
so that each level out the mentioned six is broken down into descriptors for each skill
level.
Paige’s Model of intensity factors in IC experience
Paige designed a model based on those factors that might jeopardize an IC
encounter as they bring pressure and anxiety to them. The author relied on personal
experience, theory, research and anecdotal evidence collected over the period of 50 years.
The intensity factors that Paige collected are divided into two groups: external – Status
and Power and control, and internal: Cultural differences, Prior intercultural experience,
Ethnocentrism, Expectations, Language, Visibility, Cultural immersion, Cultural
isolation. Even though the main focus of Paige’s work is study abroad experience, the
issues he raises are important for our local context, too. Firstly because he believes that
99

cultural differences, which are ubiquitous, cause challenges and stress in IC encounters,
especially if they are perceived negatively. Secondly, the model states that language
proficiency in many ways alleviates the stress of new encounters. Finally, the factor of
visibility and cultural isolation could be explored and used to show to students the
existence of these categories even in their own culture, thus helping students develop
empathy and perceive (sub)cultures from different perspectives.
As an additional module to the model, Paige (2006) adds a map of five culture
learning dimensions. These dimensions restate some of the ideas that Byram (1997) and
Bennett (2004) propose and give a useful framework in which to organize intercultural
curriculum.
The dimension Learning about the self as a cultural being refers to becoming
aware of how one’s culture(s) contributes to one’s individual identities, our preferred
patterns of behaviour, our values, and our ways of thinking. Just as Byram (1997)
purports, here too cultural self-awareness is seen as the foundation for intercultural
competence ‘because understanding one’s own culture makes it easier to recognize other
cultural practices, anticipate where cultural differences are greater, and thus be better
prepared for those cultural challenges’ (Paige, Goode 2009: 336).
The dimension Learning about the elements of culture states that individuals must
understand culture, both objective and subjective. It should be pointed out that this model
too requires of learners to go beyond the visible layer of culture and the patterns of
communication and get acquainted with values beneath.
The cognitive domain of the model is represented through two dimensions. In
Culture-specific learning individuals should become familiar with the elements of
culture, while Culture-general learning ‘refers more broadly to the intercultural
experiences that are common to all who visit another culture’ (Paige, Goode 2009: 337).
This dimension more directly deals with study abroad experience (adjustment, adaptation,
culture shock, acculturation, and assimilation).
Finally, the last dimension, Learning about learning proposes that ‘effective
culture learners become more interculturally competent’ (Paige, Goode 2009: 337). Many
authors state reflection as the key element in learning therefore learners by ‘knowing and
using specific strategies, such as learning from the media and interacting with host culture
persons […] become more familiar with the host culture’.
For the local context of Serbia, all these dimensions can be adapted and modified,
therefore preparing learners for IC encounters.
100

Kramer
The model that Kramer (2000) suggests includes findings from the field of TEFL
and training of professional teachers. Its importance is in showing the relevance of
Second language acquisition (SLA) and L2-classroom research as well as applied
linguistics for ICC. Here, the linguistic and cultural competence are not simply functions
of L2- classroom research, SLA or applied linguistics, the model sees all these elements
as necessary links between linguistic and IC competence. In this model, ICC is ‘a
combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes held together by a critical engagement
with the foreign culture under consideration and one’s own’ (Kramer 2000: 45), thus
making it is similar to Byram’s. ICC is responsible for choosing and arranging linguistic
competence and communicative strategies, together with knowledge about the FL and
culture which would help the learner ‘confront their communicative practice’ (Kramer
2000: 46). The learner needs to negotiate the communicative processes and contexts, thus
developing their ICC (Kramer 2000).
INTERCULTURAL
COMPETENCE
L2 acquisition
L2 classroom research
Texts
Applied linguistics
LINGUISTIC
COMPETENCE
Figure 2.13 Intercultural competence in foreign language education, adapted from Kramer
(2000)
Neuliep’s contextual model of intercultural communication
Neuliep (2003) offered a contextual model of intercultural communication,
according to which communication occurs in a number of contexts: cultural,
microcultural, environmental, perceptual, and sociorelational. As can be seen in the
model, the largest context is that of culture, as it is present in all aspects of life. From this
general context, smaller groups can be recognized, those which form microcultural
context. Then, the ‘location’ itself determines the rules of communication as particular
places hold their own prescribed rules for communication. Finally, the sociorelational
context is where different individual cultures of communicators meet, including
‘cognitions, attitudes, dispositions, and motivations’ (Neuliep 2005: 26). The model gives
equal attention to both verbal and non-verbal communication.
101

Figure 2.14 A contextual model of intercultural communication, taken from Neuliep
(2005)
In order to design a new model, Neuliep uses as a basis the model of intercultural
competence, taken from Spitzberg and Cupach (1984). To their three original parts,
knowledge, motivation, and behaviour, Neuliep adds situational features. The cognitive
component is not too distinct from the same component in other models. Neuliep agrees
with Berger and Jordan (1992), communication theorists, who believe that knowledgeable
communicators have a repertoire of scripts with which they can better understand and
interact with other individuals. On the other hand, cognitive simplicity usually leads to
stereotyping, as people may have inflexible and narrow categories which they use to
explain behaviour of other people.
Within the affective component, Neuliep especially stresses intercultural
communication apprehension, which Neuliep and McCroskey (1997) define as ‘the fear
or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated interaction with persons from
different cultures’ (p. 148). A difference that might exist between people may cause
tension, anxiety, and lead to avoidance of any contact. Therefore, the more one is able to
manage novelty and anxiety, the greater is a possibility that there will be intercultural
contact. The third component, psychomotor features, consists of both verbal and
nonverbal performance and role enactment, that is, of the skills to engage in conversation
in an effective way, and to execute the appropriate (non)verbal messages ‘according to
one’s relative position and role in the host culture’ (Neuliep 2003: 372). Finally, the last
102

component is the situation in which the communication takes place, and some of the
features might be previous contact, status differential, third-party interventions, etc.
Jensen’s model
Jensen designed a model for intercultural communication from a poststructuralist
approach using four analytical tools (Jensen 1988, 2006): position of experience, cultural
presupposition, cultural self-perception, and cultural fix points (Jensen 2006: 41) which
he sees as tools for analysis of intercultural communication. In this model both ‘actors’
are an addresser and an addressee, and there is a focus on interconnectedness between the
participants since communication is seen as an infinite and ongoing process while fixed
cultural points arise in conversation.
This cultural model suggests that each person brings their own experience into the
interaction, which in turn, serves as a basis for understanding. In order to avoid coming to
a limited understanding, participants have to be aware of their position on the cultural
‘horizon’ (Jensen 2006: 42). Similarly, each participant in the exchange has cultural
presuppositions: knowledge, experience, feelings, and opinions towards people outside
their communities. Jensen introduces this concept in order to create awareness about
ordinary processes through which out-group members are usually negatively
characterised solely on the basis on in-group member values. Closely connected to
presupposition are cultural self-perceptions, the means through which one ‘expresses a
cultural community’ (Jensen 2006: 43). These can be compared to the feelings of
ethnocentrism. Finally, fixed points represent some patterns in conflicts that characterise
a particular period – those that provoke emotional statements. Through the application of
these four elements Jensen hopes to get a better understanding of intercultural conflicts,
so that learners can reflect on their everyday reactions to people of other cultures.
The model offers an aspect that is usually disregarded or excluded from other
models – the interlocutor in the exchange, which some authors see as an oversight in ICC
teaching efforts. .
Friedman and Berthoin Antal’s theory of action approach
Friedman and Berthoin Antal (2005) suggest a theory of action approach to
intercultural competence. They base the approach on a belief that in today’s world ‘the
ability to recognize and use cultural differences as a resource for learning and for the
design of effective action in specific context’ (Friedman and Berthoin Antal 2005: 70) is
103

the core intercultural competence. They too ‘suggest a way of thinking and acting’
(Friedman, Berthoin Antal 2005: 70) that they call ‘negotiating reality’, stressing the
importance of being aware of one’s own culture and its effect on one’s way of thinking,
an ability to engage with others, an openness to testing different ways of thinking
(Friedman, Berthoin Antal 2005). Three main beliefs that underlie negotiating reality are
that ‘all people are of equal importance and worthy of equal respect; [...] people differ
because they possess different repertoires of ways of seeing and doing things; and the
repertoire of no individual or group merits a priori superiority or right to dominance’
(Friedman, Berthoin Antal 2005: 77).
Arasaratnam and Doerfel
The research of Arasaratnam and Doerfel (2005) has taken a culture-generic
approach to intercultural competence and calls for a new, culture-wide model of
intercultural communication competence. The authors believe that the previous models
have often been subjective and partial because of the cultures of the individuals involved
in their conceptualization and assessment. They want to exchange the imposing factors
and dimensions in a top-down model with a bottom-up approach, in which themes and
dimensions come to light in interviews with learners. Semantic analyses of the
participants’ responses help Arasaratnam and Doerfel identify ten unique dimensions of
ICC: heterogeneity, transmission, other-centered, observant, motivation, sensitivity,
respect, relational, investment, and appropriateness.
Deardroff
Deardroff’s work (2006) is the most recent in terms of providing a systematic
approach to ICC. The author herself offered a model grounded in education, with
competencies in all three domains: attitudes (respect, openness, curiosity) cultural selfawareness),
knowledge (culture-specific information, sociolinguistic awareness), and
skills (to listen, observe, interpret, analyze, relate). She also added two more categories:
desired internal outcome (adaptability, flexibility, empathy), and desired outside outcome
(effective and appropriate communication and behaviour in an IC situation).
Deardroff also collaborated with 23 other researchers in an attempt to reach a
consensus among intercultural experts on a definition and components of intercultural
competence. The model was devised based on grounded-theory method on one hand,
since the researchers used their own perspectives to inform the process, and, on the other
104

hand, an inductive approach since a model was built from the data. The final model was
presented in two forms – a pyramidal model and a process model. Unlike other models,
this one attempts to represent figuratively a conception of foundational elements and an
implicit ordering of elements so that the resulting external (visible) outcome is the
effective and appropriate communication and behaviour in intercultural situations.
2.4.3. Summary
The section presented some of the models important for ICC and its inclusion in
teaching, both intercultural and foreign language. Different models foreground different
competencies, attitudes or skills, but there is still a lot of common ground and repetition
of elements. However, there is almost no empirical work in which the various models that
have been proposed are compared and tested. As a consequence, a leading theory of
intercultural competence is missing. We are still in this stage of conceptual development
in which overlapping, complementary, and incompatible models coexist.
2.5. Intercultural competence in teaching/ learning context
2.5.1. Introduction
The goals of intercultural training, or including intercultural training into language
classes should be the ones that would touch upon cognitive, affective and behavioural
components of the issue. Both Pusch (1994) and Fowler (1995) agree that students should
have the ability to manage psychological barriers, to communicate effectively and to
establish interpersonal relationships. Students should be taught to overcome
psychological barriers and should receive some training on ambiguity, tolerance and
flexibility (Fowler 1995). Also, in order to communicate efficiently, students should have
a sufficient cognitive base – be aware of the communicative styles of all parties involved
in the communication, and be flexible. Finally, students should be aware of ‘culturally
sensitive ways’ (Fowler 1995: xiii) in which to establish intercultural communication.
In order to achieve these goals, teachers have a wide variety of techniques at their
disposal, many of which are or can be shared with FL teaching. The ones discussed here
are chosen as the techniques most frequently used in training. They can, of course, be
combined and/or slightly altered depending on the learners’ profiles, proficiency and the
purposes of the instruction. The technique explained in more detail is the culture
105

assimilator, as it was used in the study during the interviews and a particular culture
assimilator was developed for the study.
2.5.2. Techniques for intercultural learning
Critical incidents
Critical incidents have been used in cross-cultural training since the early 1950s
(Wight 1995). The first to use them was Flanagan for task analyses when developing job
descriptions. Later in the 1960s they were used to ‘assess training needs and evaluate
training programs’ (Wight 1995: 127). In 1965, Wight transformed critical tests and other
situational tests into ‘instrumented, experiential exercises for use in Peace Corps’ (Wight
1995:127) but also in other educational settings. Critical incidents have been used in
preparing different types of people for a wide range of assignments: businesspeople,
students, diplomats, technical advisers, health-care professionals and many others.
A critical incident is essentially a brief description, a story, involving ‘two or more
well-meaning characters from different cultures’ (Wang 2000: 7) without a clear solution
or resolution so that there should be ‘ascribe[d] some meaning before it can be resolved’
(Fitzgerald 2001: 151). Throughout the story, certain details are given in order for the
readers to interpret the story. The main part of the incident is the description of a
misunderstanding, which happens despite the attempts of the characters to behave cultureappropriately.
Therefore, the individuals involved in the incident become confused about
the interaction because of cultural differences and problems they cause.
Wight lists a number of goals for cultural incidents (Wight 1995: 128) through
which students should:
‣ gain awareness of their own 'typical, idiosyncratic, or culturally determined
interpretations’ as well as explanations of other peoples’ behavior, attitudes and
responses in situations such as the ones described;
‣ analyze different interpretations and perceptions of participants;
‣ clarify the cultural differences in the incidents that brought about
‘misunderstandings, problems, and conflicts or influenced the various
interpretations and explanations of the participants’.
‣ understand the diversity among members of each culture and ‘normative
differences between the cultures’;
‣ achieve the understanding which will help them to behave more appropriately and
effectively in similar situations;
106

‣ gain awareness of the things they need to learn and will be motivated to continue
learning;
‣ have a basis to engage in role plays through which they will acquire skills for
handling cross-cultural situations.
What makes critical incidents effective is the example they offer that involves people,
interactions, behaviours that might lead to misunderstanding. Therefore, a critical incident
is not just a vague concept but refers to a specific event and people, thus making it easier
for learners to internalize it. The very design of critical incidents leaves them open to
multiple interpretations, therefore they represent ’a rich vein for exploring the
development of critical thinking and problem solving skills’ (McAllister et al. 2006: 371).
The practical application is diverse, as they can be used ’to facilitate and to enhance
critical reflection and intercultural competence, [...] an exemplar of practice, [...] a
stimulus for discussion or learning exercises’ (ibid).
Cultoons
A cultoon is a technique that presents a cultural misunderstanding through a oneto-four
frame cartoon, therefore, it might be seen as a visual culture assimilator. The
cartoon might be followed by a narrative which explains the situation in greater detail.
Students are asked to decide on the reasons why the characters in the cartoon reacted
incorrectly. The clues to the solutions should be present in the cultoon, however, they
might be seen or not, and even misinterpreted – all depending on ‘visual literacy’ of
learners (Morain 1983: 404).
Culture capsules
This technique is a ‘short (5-10) minute presentation that focus on one minimal
difference between the target culture and the native culture of the students’ (Taylor and
Sorenson 1961), and it can incorporate photos and other realia. The idea for culture
capsules was proposed by Taylor and Sorenson in the 1960s. The main advantage of
using culture capsules in class is that they are short and self-contained, and might be
easily incorporated in a daily practice. Also, the particular event can be presented in a
number of different ways: it can be a reading passage, an oral presentation, a simulated
role play, or a discussion with a representative of a particular culture other than that of
students. Unlike in culture assimilators, in capsules students do not have to reach a
solution to the episode on their own but are presented with the explanation. Also, since
107

the main focus is a difference, students can ‘review and intensify’ (Miller 1972) what
they already know about their own culture, while at the same time seeing new
information through comparison.
Culture clusters
Culture clusters were developed in the 1970s by foreign language teachers, Meade
and Morain in the States. The cluster is composed of three to four segments that can be
explained through culture capsules (Seelye 1974). The cluster usually consists of ‘three
illustrated capsules which develop related topics, plus one 30-minute classroom
simulation which integrates the information contained in the capsules’ (Seelye 1974:
113). Usually, one social act is examined from different points of view (Knop 1976: 59).
All the advantages of capsules can be also seen in culture clusters, with an additional one
that clusters help overcome possible superficiality (Knop 1976) present in capsules. Here
too, different aspects that are being explored through a cluster can be presented in
different ways, focusing on different skills, employing audio-visual aids, a study of nonverbal
communication, a reading passage, a dialogue, a presentation by a representative
of another culture, etc.
Role-plays
Role-play is an activity in which participants take on the characteristics of people
different from themselves, in order to achieve a particular goal (McCaffery 1995). While
skill development is the most immediate when employing role-play, there are other
purposes, such as ‘attempting to create attitudinal change […] or generating a sense of
empathy for a person from another culture’ (McCaffery 1995: 19). The skill building has
more face validity than other purposes of a role-play, as attitudinal changes usually
happen over a longer period of time.
Good role-play must be clear and concise, open-ended, and have dynamic tension.
While this technique might seem straightforward, there is a number of concerns that
should not be overlooked – such as purpose, design, and delivery. Role-play should not
leave participants wondering of its purpose, nor should it be used for teaching ‘a negative
model’. Also, in order to be a teaching tool, role-play must be properly structured, that is,
show a clear link between the rationale and role-play, and not be too much of a game for
participants, thus trivializing the activity. Finally, this technique should not be mistaken
with regular in-class role-play, where students practice functional language or are putting
108

into practice certain forms they should acquire, since active observation and being able to
comment on the things happening in role-play constitute an important part of the activity.
When learners who come from a particular culture have to role-play representatives of
different cultures, they learn how to modify their behaviour.
Role-plays, just like assimilators, can be grouped into culture-specific and culture
general. In both types, learners learn how to interact with a particular culture. As
McCaffery (1995) points out, role-play can be derived from a critical incident – when a
discussion of a particular event is acted out, and is similar to a simulation.
The benefits of using a role-play are manifold: learners practice their skills in
intercultural/ interpersonal situations, and might realise how a particular behaviour is
effective in a particular situation. Also, learners might experience the circumstances of
another person in a particular situation, and might have an opportunity during ‘debriefing’
stage after the role-play itself to comment on both their performance and feelings.
Simulation games
Training courses that help people to live, study and function in a new environment
usually employ simulation games in order to prepare them to interact with culturally
different people as an alternative to a theoretical approach with the maximal activity of
learners (Bhawuk, Brislin 2000). Fowler (1986) highlights the importance of intercultural
simulation games as they ‘can remove the cultural blindness that impede effective
interaction with people of different cultural, social, or ethnic backgrounds, or from
different departments, companies, or countries (Fowler 1986: 71). Some of the better
known examples are The tag game, Barnga, BAFA BAFA. Similarly to all other
techniques here, the simulation of a learning process mirrors the learning process that
would most probably happen in a new culture. For example, in BAFA BAFA, learners are
divided into two groups, each representing an imaginary culture with its own rules. After
a preparation time, groups need to interact and complete a particular task. The goal of the
exercise is for learners to achieve the ‘Aha!’ effect (Kolb 1976 in Fowler 1995) – that is,
learners should be engaged emotionally in the exchange and then realization (cognition)
should follow. Simulation games also include a feedback session, or debriefing, where
learners can compare what happened in a simulation to what it might be in a real-life
situation, and thus honing their skills.
Simulation games can be especially suitable for adult learners (Knowles 1989) as
they centre on experience and adult learners usually come from different backgrounds and
109

their cross-cultural experiences are varied. While sharing each individual experience is
time-consuming and may become tiresome, simulation games offer everyone involved a
shared experience like ‘the raw material that the trainer can use to develop learning for
everyone’ (Fowler 1994: 469). Simulations are a creative and engaging way of shedding
light onto ambiguous situations (Fowler 1994) and increase understanding and
intercultural awareness which are an essential first step in the process of intercultural
interactions. The only downside to this activity is that the interaction of learners takes
place in an artificial environment, and because of that a discussion following the activity
may end in superficial and general comments (Bhawuk, Brislin 2000).
Culture assimilator
Out of all the teaching techniques, culture assimilators have been proven to be the
most widely used and researched. Triandis and his associates working together at the
University of Illinois are said to have developed the first culture assimilator while trying
to find ways to improve ‘intercultural communication, interaction, leadership and
training’ (Triandis 1995: 179).
A culture assimilator is created when a large number of critical incidents are
prepared and organized ‘to communicate various important points about culture and
cultural differences (Fiedler, Mitchell, and Triandis 1971; Cushner, Brislin 1996)’ (Wang
2000: 9). In addition to that, ‘although the assimilator incidents may look like generic
critical incidents, they are constructed according to predetermined, empirical parameters,
making this an unmistakable method in its own right’ (Fowler 1995: xiv). This method is
characterized by its theoretical foundation in attribution theory, use of psychological
principles to increase learning (such as learner involvement, continuous feedback, selfpaced
learning) and research (Albert 1995).
Even though the culture assimilator is classified as a cognitive technique because
it firstly offers to students knowledge about other cultures, the process through which a
learner acquires the information is experiential – since a learner goes through different
options, attempting to find the best explanation/ solution, very much like in real life,
hopefully in the end honing their intercultural skills. Also, since assimilators are usually
drawn from situations in which people are provoked to react, show emotions and see
different values, assimilators cover a domain of affect. Along the lines of the theory Hall
(1966) laid out – deep emotions are associated with the violation of the formal aspects of
110

a culture (values and beliefs everyone takes for granted), therefore assimilators should
deal with those aspects of culture.
The culture assimilator describes one incident and is followed by a number of
possible, alternative explanations – usually four of them. Triandis (1995) calls these
explanations ‘attributions’, as they reflect different attributions that might be made about
the behaviour of the participants in the assimilator, depending on the background of
students. Some of the explanations might be completely wrong, while in some cases all of
the explanations might be to a point correct. Also, some suggested answers show ‘correct’
behaviour from the standpoint of the members of one culture, while another alternative
shows ‘correct’ behaviour in another culture (Bhawuk, Brislin 2000). Wang (2000)
explains this suggesting that sometimes people from different cultures in intercultural
interaction might know what the cause of misunderstanding is, but provide different
interpretations. While objective elements of culture might be seen easily, what presents a
problem to communication is the subjective elements of culture. Therefore, through
assimilator training learners ‘receive feedback on their responses, begin to understand the
subjective culture of the target group’ (Cushner, Landis 1996: 186). As a result,
misattributions that people might make when judging others might be avoided and
learners will start making ‘isomorphic attributions, or similar judgements about the causes
of another’s behavior’ (Cushner, Landis 1996: 186). Also, the important thing is that
making isomorphic attributions, students will not use their own cultural framework but
that of another culture.
Culture assimilators should be clear and complete (Flanagan 1954 as cited in
Triandis 1995), therefore they should express a contrast between the home culture and the
target culture, the customs or norms of the other culture, the contrasting values of the two
cultures, and various social interactions at work, home life (Fiedler et al. 1971; Bhawuk
2001). Through assimilators, students should ‘solve practical problems and develop broad
psychological principles’ (Flanagan 1954 cited in Triandis 1995) for which there should
be employed both specific and general assimilators. Through a culture assimilator
learners begin to identify behaviours that are appropriate in their but not in another
culture, and in that way start making attributions that are similar to those made by people
in the host culture. In order to do that, learners stop using only their own cultural
framework but use the framework of the other culture (Triandis 1975).
There are two types of culture assimilators: culture-general and culture-specific. A
culture-general assimilator (Cushner, Brislin 1996) is designed to help people adjust to
111

any other culture in which they might find themselves and any other role they might play
in that culture. The problems discussed relate to everyday issues: ‘feelings of anxiety,
negotiating ingroup and outgroup barriers, challenges to attributional processes,
confrontations with value differences’ (Wang 2000: 10)
On the other hand, culture-specific assimilators deal with the adjustment of people
from one designated culture interacting with people from a second designated culture
(Triandis 1995), where setting is highly specified. Students receive very precise
information and specific issues that people might face in another culture. The strongest
point of culture specific assimilators is that they offer a specific context in which to learn
a new behaviour (Bhawuk 2001). While they are useful and give good results when a
culture is well known, culture specific assimilators are too narrow and cannot be widely
used as they do not offer cognitive framework though which to understand cultural
differences (Bhawuk 2001).
The first culture-general assimilator that was developed was grounded in the work
done by Brisilin and Landis in 1983. Brislin organized the commonalities of crosscultural
exchange into nine categories: 1) the historical myths that people bring with them
to another culture, 2) people’s attitudes, traits, skills, 3) people’s thought and attribution
processes, 4) the groups people join, 5) the range of situations in which people have to
interact, 6) people’s management of cross-cultural conflict, 7) the tasks people want to
accomplish, 8) the organizations people’s are a part of, 9) the processes of short- and
long-term adjustment. With this analysis in mind, Landis and Brislin created assimilators
based on those situations that are bound to happen to people who have intercultural
exchanges, regardless of the cultures they are to encounter.
Based on the nine commonalities, Brislin (1996) defines 18 themes which he sees
as central for misunderstandings in cross-cultural encounters. They are grouped into three
categories. Emotional experiences, knowledge areas which incorporate specific crosscultural
differences, and the bases of cultural differences – concerning how people in
different cultures talk about and evaluate information (Brislin 1998). The themes
themselves range from disconfirmed expectations, ambiguity, confrontation with one’s
own prejudices, to time and space organization, roles, hierarchy, ingroup-outgroup
distinctions. Basing critical incidents in an assimilator on these themes could help
learners to better navigate intercultural encounters.
Early studies on the use of culture-specific assimilators show that people do have
better experience after undergoing the training (Fielder, Mitchell, and Triandis 1971),
112

eporting that people gave a more favourable self-report concerning contacts with other
culture. One of the first studies to compare the group that had received culture-general
assimilator training and that which had not was done by Broaddus (1986). The results
show that on various dependent variable measures the trained group scored better on
items they had never seen before. Also, the findings show that trained people are better
equipped ‘to analyse new cross-cultural problematic encounters to which they had not
been previously exposed’ (Cushner and Landis 1996: 191). In addition, on a scale
designed to measure aspects of people’s attitudes and behaviours concerning intercultural
encounters, the trained students also had significantly better results than untrained.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each type of assimilator, and training
programs often use both types. Because they are potentially of a widespread use, culturegeneral
assimilators can attract the attention of commercial publishers. Conversely,
culture-specific assimilators, exactly because they are highly specialised, are not readily
available to the general use. However, the specificity needed for people adjusting to the
actual culture in which they will be living is, by definition, absent. A culture-general
assimilator can be useful in helping those who will deal with individuals from a variety of
cultures to become more sensitive to the issues common to cross-cultural interactions
while it is not as useful for preparing individuals for a sojourn to a specific culture.
Finally, values of culture assimilators are manifold – firstly, they show a progress
that a student is making, because an assimilator cannot be solved without a previous
knowledge. Students need to find ‘where the misunderstandings are in the situation and
why (Knop 1976: 63, italics in the original). Secondly, here too students become more
aware of their culture, and finally, assimilators may serve as ‘a stimulus for learning more
about culture’ (Knop 1976: 63).
2.5.3. Summary
One thing that should be pointed out is that any of the techniques chosen should
have the ‘realistic’ feel to it. When creating or using these techniques, teachers should be
aware that they should not trivialize cultures, or be ‘too preoccupied with the relatively
insignificant, with the unimportant details of surface culture’ (Williams 1982: 604). Even
more importantly for assimilators, their explanations should not be oversimplified.
Learners usually already have a ‘monolithic’ view of a particular culture – watering down
interpretations might simply fortify the already existing stereotypes learners have.
Teachers should be aware that there is a variety of useful techniques that might serve
113

different purposes and educational objectives, as well as the linguistic proficiency of
learners.
2.6. Research into learners’ intercultural competence
2.6.1. Introduction
Various authors stress that there should be more research done in the field of
intercultural competence within EFL practice (ch. Spencer-Oatey, Franklin 2009; Fantini
1995) and point out as a striking omission that there are not many longitudinal studies of
training and behavioural changes in participants. Paige et al. (2003) also stress that there
have not been enough hypotheses formulated based on the observation of the classroom
practices concerning language and culture teaching. This might have resulted from the
fact that descriptive categories have not been consistent, and there were not any major
studies either qualitative or quantitative (Chaudron 1986 as cited in Paige et al. 2003) up
until 1983, therefore it was not possible to compare those results. Practices have been
changing – from the previous static and surface-level behaviour model of culture (Brooks
1975; Nostrand 1974; Paige et al. (2003)), a more dynamic model has been developed.
With the change of a model there was a change in culture learning goals and outcome.
The most important aspect of that learning would be learning about the self, learning
about culture and its impact on communication, and finally, learning how to learn and
becoming an effective language and culture learner. However, the research has not
followed the changes and newly set goals.
In this chapter some of the research studies into learning/ teaching of intercultural
competence combined with a foreign language will be presented.
The research is more present in multicultural settings such as the USA, Australia,
Canada, as it can be expected, but in recent years there has been research done in Europe
as well, and not only in multilingual countries. Also, more research is focused on the
study-abroad programs and their influence on students’ ICC.
2.6.2. Previous research
Trying to establish the impact language learning has on becoming more sociallysavvy,
Byram et al. (1991) did a research in Britain with secondary school students who
learned a foreign language. The authors point out that there has always been present a
claim that language learning is beneficial for personal development of students, as well as
114

for their preparation for a society in which they will have to interact with other
individuals. But this claim is not supported by any substantial research in the area, and is
based solely on intuition. Therefore the authors wanted to further explore the state of
language learning when the focus had been shifted from learning about language to
learning how to use language for practical purposes of communicating with native
speakers. The purpose of this research was ‘to study the relationships obtaining between
learning a language as a school subject, perceptions of the associated culture (or cultures)
and attitudes towards people of that culture’ (Byram et al. 1991: xiv).
A study conducted among high school students attending an international school
in Southeast Asia, found a positive relationship between the length of time spent at the
school and the level of intercultural sensitivity. Three hundred and thirty-six high school
students participated in the study and were administered the IDI test. The results showed
that the longer students were at the school, the lower their scores on Denial and Defense
and the higher their scores on Acceptance and Cognitive Adaptation (Straffon 2003).
In 2001-2002 there was a learning project organized at Nijmegen University in the
Netherlands that incorporated certain culture related tasks into the 1st-year intercultural
business communication (IBC) program. The authors wanted to see whether ‘tertiarylevel
foreign language (FL) courses can be contextualized to promote intercultural
learning’ (Planken et al. 2004: 308) so that it is possible to ‘achiev[e] an awareness of
cultural diversity and an understanding of different modes of living and behaviour’
(Krück 1992: 299).
The program included the content of other courses, although the aim of the project
was to facilitate foreign language awareness and acquisition. The tasks that the students
were given also heightened students’ cross-cultural awareness and encouraged them to
develop professionally so that they would be able to function in a multicultural context. In
order to do so, the students were given four business projects (dealing with relevant fields
in business) which were supported by language workshops (that offered practical
knowledge required for tasks – vocabulary, grammar, writing conventions, etc.). What is
important for this project is that the teachers wanted to initiate quasi-realistic situations in
which learners would ‘independently initiate and experience and practice using the
foreign language in relevant activities and contexts’ (Planken et al. 2004: 312). The
activities designed to help students develop their IC awareness could be grouped into two
categories: awareness-raising tasks and production tasks. Through the former, the
students were asked to observe and analyse mostly authentic instances of business
115

communication in the foreign language, therefore these tasks ‘may focus on specific areas
of FL pragmatics, relevant areas of business pragmatics, or both’ (Planken et al. 2004:
312). Through the letter, the students practiced being able to participate in business
communication activities, by assuming the roles of professionals, thus experiencing the
context that they would face in their professional life when they would have to use their
knowledge and skills.
This type of projects help create ‘a contextualized and efficient environment’
(Planken et al. 2004: 313), though teachers and students alike would need to be more
engaged in the process of learning. On the other hand, much of work and progress is left
for the student to control, which might be a difficult task for some. The authors have seen
this drawback and are working towards readjusting the tasks. The lack of reliable
assessment measurement is also evident here, since it is never simple to measure the
amount of intercultural progress in students.
Research by Endicott, Bock, and Narvaez (2003) explored the relationship among
moral reasoning, intercultural development, and multicultural experiences. Seventy
undergraduate students from a large Midwestern university were administered the
Multicultural Experiences Questionnaire (MEXQ), the Defining Issues Test-2, and the
IDI. Bivariate correlational analyses showed that there were significant associations on
several elements: firstly, between moral and intercultural development, then between
multicultural experiences and intercultural development, between depth of multicultural
experiences and intercultural development, and finally, between depth of multicultural
experiences and moral development. These results suggest that moral and intercultural
development were positively related, likely due to their common reliance on cognitive
flexibility which enables one to integrate and consider multiple frameworks (Endicott,
Bock and Narvaez 2003).These results are also important as Guilherme’s (2002) and
Byram’s work (2008) in the ICC field continued in the direction of an education of a
global citizen.
Korhonen (2004) did a training experiment in ICC, with 117 students of
engineering in Finland in 2000, trying to test the effectiveness of the use of culturegeneral
assimilators when applied in developing ICC of Bachelors of engineering. In
addition to this objective, the author wanted to see whether the students were interested in
becoming IC communicators and whether the students saw IC training and ICC as an
important part of their professional qualifications. The students were given a credited
course as part of their compulsory English studies, based on both face-to-face tuition and
116

web-based self-study. The course was organised so that students had lessons and a webbased
self-study period during which they used culture-general assimilators. The results
showed that the students’ cognition as part of ICC developed, while the affective
component developed only slightly. The quantitative scale (form 1 to 5) showed an
improvement from only 1 to 2, while qualitative scale based on students’ self-assessment
showed that students were aware of the knowledge they had received and that their
behaviour and intercultural skills ‘developed a little’ (Korhonen 2004).Similarly, the
students’ skills in analyzing and solving critical incidents increased only slightly. The fact
that the students did not have a full mastery of foreign languages proved to be the main
obstacle in their communication with foreigners, together with insufficient preparation for
their tuition classes. The research shows that developing ICC is a ‘slow, gradual
transformative learning process’ (Korhonen 2004), and that, though there are changes in
learners, the scope and nature of those changes are still problematic.
In Sweden, in 2005 there was a case study of a course done for Teacher Education
Programme, with the aim of enhancing teachers’ intercultural understanding, by creating
‘possibilities for the students to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes to meet these new
demands’ (Lundgren 2009: 133). The students comprised a multilingual and multicultural
group, and also had teachers from different countries. Though it is difficult to define the
development of processual competencies by showing evident measurable results (Stier
2002), the self-reflections of the students show that they believe they have developed
their intercultural competencies. The author herself does not have any concrete evidence
that intercultural teaching gave results, only that she ‘feel[s] convinced that the
combination of a formal course, including theories and methods, experiential learning in
an unfamiliar society, combined with continuous reflections and organized informal
discussions in peer groups have a good potential when it comes to developing IC’
(Lundgren 2009: 149).
Another project that drew students together was done with German and USA
students who participated in a tree-month long project in 2006-2007. The students were
paired and worked in an e-learning environment, which gave possibility of both
synchronous and asynchronous access to media. Aside from providing students with
opportunity to communicate with people from other cultures, the program stressed the
importance of self-reflection, through writing autobiography, biography of the partner
from a different culture and doing cross-cultural analysis of these two documents. This
work is part of ‘human global positioning system’ (Finkbeiner 2009), a model devised to
117

explain how students can become more interculturally competent – by gaining
information from different sources and reflecting on them.
The ICOPROMO project that took place between 2003 and 2006 in Europe
‘attempted to define intercultural competence for professional mobility’ (Guilherme et al.
2009: 194). The team of researchers wanted to arrive at the definition by analyzing
existing models and by proposing their team’s models. Also, they wanted to develop
materials aimed at professional education in the field. The reason for the introduction of a
new model was a fact that those in existence are more suited to the North American
contexts or global business while only a few focus on European contexts. The project was
organized into a number of topics, from diversity management to ICC and IC
responsibility. The important aspect of the project is the way mobility is defined – not
only as a geographical move, but as a ‘competence as a guiding framework for career
development and human resource management’ (Salganik & Stephens 2003: 24 as cited
in Guilherme et al. 2009: 195).
One project directed specifically at European Slavic countries took place from
2005 until 2007. The project ‘Network in Integrative Language and Intercultural Learning
of Slavic Languages and Cultures in Central European Context’, conducted within
CEEPUS II, was intended to coordinate institutions in eight countries in the Balkans and
East Europe that deal in the field of teaching, learning and research of Slavic languages
(Davcheva, Katsarska 2006). The main objective of the project was a meaningful
connection between communities who used Slavic languages, with the additional
objectives of ‘the introduction of ECTS in the Slavic majors taught at the partner
institutions’ (Davcheva, Katsarska 2006: 520) as well as giving an opportunity for
students to attend a multiple MA programme in Slavic Studies offered by three of the
partner universities. While the project was not ICC training in itself, it was designed as to
provide a support for teachers, as its objectives were developing of teaching material and
curriculum development. Also, another project aim was ‘to assist developing a model for
intercultural learning’ that would ‘provide grounds for the uneasy alliance between factbased
and skill-based knowledge’
This project shows that even seemingly similar countries within a close proximity
of each other (BiH, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Macedonia, Poland,
Romania, and Slovakia among others) do provide a ground for introducing intercultural
awareness and building ICC. It also proves that there is a need for further and deeper
118

esearch in the area of ICC in our region, and that foreign languages might be one of the
ways of introducing the topic into the educational system.
Another European project that involved 12 countries and lasted from 2003 till
2007 was ICC in teaching English (ICCinTE) of the European Centre for Modern
Languages (ECML). The main goal of the project was ‘to make the incorporation of
intercultural communication training easier and more systematic in language classes as
well as in pre- or in-service foreign language methodology or intercultural
communication courses and workshops’ (Lázár 2007: 9). This project was a follow-up to
a similar project that explored the inclusion of culture in foreign language classes.
Thought this particular project had training of teachers as its main goal, the theoretical
and practical guidelines were collected in a booklet and a CD-ROM Developing and
assessing intercultural communicative competence - A guide for language teachers and
teacher educators (Lázár 2007) to help teachers incorporate ICC aspects into their
teaching. The authors offer a list of possible teaching techniques to use (from role-plays
to ethnographic tasks). The projects like this one show how theoretical concerns and the
demands and needs in the field can be joined for the benefit of both teachers and students.
One study (Kovalainen 2005) focused, not on actual performance in language
classes, but on the students perception of their ICC and their being competent IC
speakers. The author compared three groups of students – one group of American
engineering students and two groups of Finnish students (communication and
engineering) trying to establish if there were any differences in the way the students see
themselves as competent communicators. The differences in their perception stemmed
from the differences in language, the amount of culture and culture studies, international
environment.
The questionnaire that was administered was divided into five parts each
concentrating on a different aspect of ICC situations. The students were asked to rate their
self-perceived communication competence manifestations (these included pronunciation,
facial expressions, tone, articulation, persuasion, clarity of ideas, answering questions,
etc.) on a 5-point Likert scale. The results showed that the Finnish engineering students
and the American students felt they were ‘not very mindful of or interested in other
cultures in intercultural communication contexts’ (Kovalainen 2005: 66). It is interesting
that The students saw intercultural communication being communication with a foreign
language, and they did not mention culture. Also, these students did not mention
differences between the communication in L1 and L2. On the other hand, communication
119

students realized that language skills were not the only necessary skills in intercultural
communication situations, and they relied on their communication skills as well. Like the
previous two groups of students, these students rarely mentioned cultural factors in
intercultural communication. What seemed to be the common element for all three groups
of students was the lack of motivation to communicate, for the Finnish students because
of the difficulties in mastering the language, and for the American students because they
failed to perceive any need to learn any other foreign language.
While this was a small-scale study, it still shows the prevailing attitudes of
students, especially those who had not studied communication or culture. Most of the
students appeared to be relatively ethnocentric without realizing it, the author states that
the students observed intercultural communication to be communication between national
or linguistic cultures with language skills as the key factor in intercultural communication
competence, not communication or cultural awareness or skills.
That ICC in FL classrooms is a fruitful field of studies is seen in a number of
doctoral dissertations that explore it, be it from the student or teacher perspective. One
important study was done on the exchange between students taking a degree in English
studies in Germany and two groups of American students. During the e-mail exchange
that lasted for one academic semester during the academic year 2001-2002, German
student were taking an Integrated Language Course, while American students were taking
a course in Intercultural Communication. During a month following this exchange
German students were involved in an email exchange with Irish students taking a course
in German.
The study set out to explore how Network-based language teaching can contribute
to development of learners’ ICC, whether different communication tools support the
development of ICC in different ways, and to what extent some particular characteristics
of online IC relationships can support the development of ICC.
The results of this study are important for different aspects of culture and
language teaching. Firstly, they show that having a direct contact with members of a
different culture contributes to the development of ICC. The author believes that the most
beneficial effects are on the development of critical cultural awareness. Then, networkbased
learning gives best results when different online tools and media is used, thus
providing students with an opportunity to develop a wider range of ICC components.
120

However, despite positive results that the study shows, the author stresses that IC
learning must ‘receive explicit guidance and training in various aspects of intercultural
telecollaboration’ (O’Dowd 2004: 366). In particular, O’Dowd here refers to the depth of
research the students conducted, engagement with the tasks, being able to ask effective
questions, lack of reflection on received information. Mistaking exchange of information
for exploring the contrasting cultures is something noticed in another study (Baker 2009)
that explored ICC of English learners in Thailand.
The importance of this study is that it shows why including IC instruction in
language teaching is important, despite the voices that claim that learners would use
English mostly as a lingua franca or that there cannot be any affective value in IC
teaching. O’Dowd stresses that learners have a predetermined and usually stereotypical
view of culture learning and culture which usually means high culture as propagated from
the media and in textbooks. Therefore, awareness raising activities of different kinds
should be included to ‘encourage learners to develop their critical cultural awareness and
to look for the values and beliefs which underlie the facts and behaviour’ (O’Dowd 2004:
374).
The author believes that, regarding the cultural dimension of FLT, IC learning at
the tertiary level should be supported by both cultural studies and ethnographic
approaches, that is, both top-down and bottom-up approaches so that learners gain insight
into a culture on a wider scale, while also being aware of everyday culture.
In a longitudinal study (2001-2004) the authors tired to assess the effect that a
four-year International Business Communication program at a university in the
Netherlands might have on students’ IC awareness and FL acquisition. The authors
designed a pre-test and post-test as a measurement instrument featuring everyday
(monocultural and intercultural) dialogues involving business associates. It was used to
assess IC awareness in a group of 39 students (those who completed both pre- and posttests).
Students also did a self-assessment of their interest in other cultures and
proficiency in a FL.
As the instrument, the researchers used four scenarios (two monocultural and two
intercultural), based on ‘the individualistic-collectivist perspective of culture and with
low-high context communication styles’ (Korzilius et al. 2007). The study should show
whether over time the participants would undergo an attitude shift and consequently
change their answers. It was expected that learners would develop IC awareness and
become more sensitive to a role cultural background could have in IC encounters. This
121

changed was expected to be shown in the results of the questionnaire. However, the
results did not support these expectations, as learners did not ‘shift their perspective. On
the other hand, there was a shift of perspective in monocultural settings in the dimension
‘attribution to the context’, which the researchers had not expected, but explained it with
students’ being exposed to intercultural teaching thus gaining a sense of IC awareness and
then ‘revert[ing] to an awareness of their own culture and communication patterns’ before
‘reflect[ing] on communication from the perspective of another culture’ (Korzilius et al.
2007).
The researchers believe that teaching programs have less abstract results than
heightened IC awareness. These are ‘interest in other cultures, open-mindedness, foreign
language skills, communication competence, and to tangible variables that are directly
related to course content’ (Korzilius et al. 2007). The results supported these claims as
students’ mastery of FL had increased, while there was little indication of the effects of
IC teaching program on the development of IC awareness.
This is not the only study to report such findings. Byram’s research also had
inconclusive results as to the influence of IC teaching on higher IC awareness.
In 2007 there was a study BRAVO!–SAS with the aim of assessing the benefits of
different intercultural experiences of university students who attended two study abroad
programs and a control group at the University of Arizona. The first program is Semester
at Sea (SAS) and the second one Biomedical Research Abroad: Vistas Open (BRAVO!).
Both programs set as their goals international collaboration, with SAS putting focus on
global, comparative education and interdisciplinary approach, and the BRAVO!
promoting individualized work in international science teams. The control group
consisted of undergraduate students honing their professional skills on their home
campus. Students included in the study were from all years of studies, with SAS students
from various fields, and the UA and BRAVO! students primarily from the field of
biology.
Students were not monitored during their experience, rather they did a pre- and
post- test – a survey which was designed to measure ‘the students’ motivation for
participating in their respective programs and to assess their self-reported learning and
cultural gains’ (Bender, Wright, Lopatto 2009: 310). The survey was adapted from ‘two
sources the national Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE) and a survey
developed at Grinnell College that was intended to assess gains in study abroad
programs’ (Bender, Wright, Lopatto 2009: 311).
122

Understandably, there was a clear difference in the results in self-reported selfawareness
of these three groups of students. The greatest number of students reported
they understood world differently due to doing research abroad (90% and 83% SAS and
BRAVO! students respectively). Students who stayed on campus had an opportunity to
collaborate with international students and they reported that shared interested connected
them and internationals. Even though there was not any comparison in terms of the
‘quality’ of the experience, as the research did not go further than the self-reporting of
students, these results show that interaction with members of other cultures in any form
promotes self-awareness.
An interesting finding was that both BRAVO! and campus students reported that
they achieved similar gains through their research experiences – perhaps because these
students closely collaborated with individuals from the same line of work.
The authors believe that BRAVO! students experience life as it is lived in the host
countries, while SAS students mainly observe. However, both types of experiences
provide undergraduates with ‘an informed world-view’ (Bender, Wright, Lopatto 2009:
319). Finally, ‘because science is international’ the authors believer that ‘UBRP students
tend to develop an indirect appreciation for different cultures through their interactions
with foreign students and scientists in research groups on their home campus’ (Bender,
Wright, Lopatto 2009: 319).
The research shows that study abroad programs, while perhaps more effective,
need not be the only motivation for a higher IC awareness in students. Providing students
with a possibility to have an internationalized setting in one’s home country, at one’s
home university, results in similar changes to self-awareness.
Spencer-Oatey and Franklin (2009) give an overview of the research done in the
area of intercultural competence, or, as they named it, intercultural interaction
competence. They highlight several topics, from conceptualization of ICC, over
relationship between ICC and broader measures of adjustment and success, the
significance of ICC and professional contexts to relationship between ICC and particular
culture groups. Spencer-Oatey and Franklin list the studies that tried to explore topics
such as cultural sensitivity in business relationships (Shapiro, Qzanne and Saatcioglu
2008), empathy (Arasaratnam 2006) empathy and bilingualism (Gibson and Zhong 2005),
the effects of ICC and the level of success in expatriate students (Lee and Chen 2000),
ICC measured in terms of a successful performance of multicultural terms (Matveev and
Nelson 2004), importance of ICC for tour guides (Leclerc and Martin 2004), impact on
123

ICC on negotiation style (Chaisrakeo and Speece 2004), effects of the national cultural
orientations of team members on their perception of ICC (Matveev and Nelson 2004).
As Franklin and Spencer-Oatey (2009) notice, the topics are mostly explored by
researchers from the fields of psychology, communication studies and management
studies, through a survey approach, by employing psychometric questionnaires. Most
authors develop their own instruments (Gudykunst and Nishida 2001, Matveev and
Nelson 2004), while some studies use public domain questionnaires (Neuliep and
McCoskey 1997 – Personal Report of Intercultural Communication Apprehension,
McCoskey and McCoskey 1988 – Self-perceived Communication Competency scale).
Finally, there are questionnaires that are modified from older ones (Leclerc and Martin
2004 – who adapted theirs from two inventories).
The area that is mostly explored by applied linguists is the study of ‘the conconstruction
of (mis)understanding and rapport in intercultural interaction’ (Franklin and
Spencer-Oatey 2009: 251). The data is usually collected through both surveys and
qualitative research, in the form of audio or/and video data gathering or online text
interaction.
Franklin and Spencer-Oatey (2009) state several studies which focused on
development of intercultural competence in an educational setting. What is stressed as the
most important point is the evidence that these inclusions of ICC training in in-service or
general education will lead to a more successful IC interaction. In order for these studies
to show effectiveness, practitioners usually conduct them immediately after any
intervention in educational process has been made. Most of the studies relied on
Intercultural Development Inventory to measure ICC and explore whether there has been
any attitudinal change.
The interest in FLT and ICC does not stop only at these listed themes. Researchers
are also interested in the implications of their research, drawing attention to the
importance of language competency. As Altshuler, Sussman, Kachur (2003) point out,
there should be further research that would tackle the relationship between ICC and
communication skills. An important aspect of research should also be the backwash effect
of whether ICC research is effective for the concept of ICC, as that would have direct
implications for teaching and the classroom. Finally, there has been a bulk of research
124

aimed at teachers 27 , or teachers in training and their views on culture orhow culture is
represented in language classes, with much less research dealing with intercultural
competence as such.
2.6.3. Culture assimilator in previous research
As far as the use of general assimilators at university level is concerned, there
were several projects conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. Broaddus (1986) showed that the
use of assimilators resulted in greater empathy for people who belonged to different
cultural groups than the students. The other research, conducted by Illola (1998), used a
combination of cooperative learning and culture-general assimilator. The research showed
that students were able to notice the issues in intercultural contact that were not present
on the surface level. Further, they could analyse their own experience based on the
knowledge gained. It can be said that the outcomes of these projects were positive ones,
as they showed students’ interest in and readiness for new intercultural encounters.
Similarly, in Cushner’s study (1989), exchange students were prepared to handle
intercultural encounters better after the intercultural training, as they were able to more
accurately see a particular situation, it dynamics and possible results.
Yarbro (1988, in Cushner and Brislin 1996) did a version of the culture-general
assimilator with school teachers attending teacher education courses. The testing was
done in the form of a guided discussion and group agreement on appropriate answers with
the experimental and control groups. The test contained dependent variables from ICCS,
in the form of subscales and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale among other
elements. The results showed that the experimental group had much higher scores on a
culture assimilator test while the results for ICCS and Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale were not significant. Yarbro tried to explain this with the short period
of administrating the test after the training and a small sample size.
27 It should be noticed that a lot of research has been aimed at developing the means of assessment of ICC:
Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Competence (BASIC) Bhawuk & Brislin (1992),
Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI) (Bhawuk, Brislin 1992), Assessment of Intercultural Competence
(AIC) Fantini (2000, 2006), Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) (Hammer et al. 2003; Paige et al.
2003), Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) (Kitsantas, Meyers 2001; Williams 2005; Zielinski
2007), Intercultural Sensitivity Index (ISI ) Olson and Kroeger (2001).
125

2.6.4. Summary
In previous chapters, culture and communicative competence were discussed as
important bases for ICC. Then, the concept of ICC was problematized and its
development was described. ICC models were explained as they too provide possibilities
for inclusion of intercultural competence in EFL teaching. In that respect, the foreign
language classroom as context for inclusion of ICC elements was also discussed, together
with teaching techniques that could be used in both ICC and EFL teaching. A special
focus was placed on the culture assimilator as one of the most widely used technique for
teaching and researching ICC. Finally, an overview of research done was presented, with
a special focus on research that combines foreign language learning and ICC learning.
What else could be seen was that, unlike study abroad, there is a scarcity of ICC-related
research that would inform the practice of FLT or L2. As for Serbia, there have not been
many studies done specifically focused on ICC and EFL. Therefore, some further steps
should be taken in order to better understand factors that might influence students’ ICC.
126

CHAPTER III – METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
This chapter gives an overview of and justification for the research approach
selected. Due to the nature of issues explored, the researcher believes that the mixed
methods approach is the most appropriate. Since the concept of ICC in Serbia still has not
been explored extensively, research techniques that allow a more flexible approach are
seen as more suitable. It is shown why mixed methods research permits researchers to
gain a better overall understanding of values and attitudes of the participants in the study.
The chapter then offers the overview of the study, how research questions were
arrived at, why and how specific research instruments were used. Then, the reliability and
trustworthiness of the instruments are discussed. Finally, the participants, data collection
and procedures are explained, as well as the role of the researcher and her biases.
3.2 Mixed methods approach
The questions that the study sets out to answer would be answered best if a mixed
methods approach is used, due to the complex nature of the concept. Setting out as an
exploratory study, the present study tries to gain the insight into a complex issue
comprised of attitudes, skills and knowledge. Mixed methods research is formally defined
‘as the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and
qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language in a single
study or set of related studies’ (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie 2004: 17-18), thus providing a
better insight into the issues explored. By using this approach the study has a sample that
is large enough for the researcher to be able to draw some general conclusion on the
population (Creswell 2007). The quantitative phase allows one to see differences between
students from different departments, in terms of their intercultural contacts, language
practices and intercultural competence and sensitivity. The qualitative stage, on the other
hand, gives a deeper insight into the attitudes, values and opinions of a smaller sample of
the population. While it has been less present in the researches in applied linguistics in
this region, a qualitative approach has been showing valuable results in practice in recent
127

years (Jones, Torres and Arminio 2006; Lazarton 2003; Lazarton 1995; Patton 2002) and
there are considerable benefits in employing it.
Some authors have expressed unease about the ‘whatever works’ position that is
usually associated with combining qualitative and quantitative research (e.g. Buchanan
1992; Pawson, Tilly 1997 as cited in Bryman 2006). However, a research practice shows
that this combination has become unexceptional and unremarkable in recent years. Some
authors believe ‘it is highly questionable whether such a distinction [between qualitative
inquiry and quantitative inquiry] is any longer meaningful for helping us understand the
purpose and means of human inquiry’ (Schwandt 2000: 210). Researchers see this
paradigm as a separate method in its own right, which has been named variously – multimethods
(Brannen 1992), multi-strategy (Bryman 2004), mixed methods (Creswell 2007,
Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003), or mixed methodology (Tashakkori, Teddlie 1998)
research. The reasons for taking a mixed position are various – it ‘allows researchers to
mix and match design components that offer the best chance of answering their specific
research questions’ (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie 2004: 15). Johnson takes into account that
what appears reasonable may differ across persons – what he calls the ‘light of reason’,
then whatever is observed is ultimately affected by the background knowledge and
experiences, also, that ultimately, each research is embedded in communities and
therefore affected by attitudes, values, beliefs, and value-laden inquiry – since human
beings are not value-free.
The foundation for the mixed methods research is a philosophical system of
pragmatism developed by Pierce, James, Dewey, and neo-pragmatists Davidson, Rescher,
Rorty, Putnam. Research methodologists and empirical researchers who discuss
pragmatism will provide a useful middle position both philosophically and
methodologically, since the pragmatists ‘were largely responsible for bringing down
positivism and would clearly reject the forced choice between the interpretivist and
positivist paradigms’ (Howe 1988: 13). A practical and outcome-oriented method of
inquiry will be offered, ‘based on action and [will lead] to further action and the
elimination of the doubt’ (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie 2004: 17). It is hoped that researchers
will better answer their research questions through a methodological mix. Also, authors
stress the importance of using different methods of interpreting the received data so as to
provide a more detailed image of the point under investigation. The use of several sources
of data is referred to as the triangulation and it has been shown that it strengthens a study
(Patton 2002). To mention but a few of these strengths: ‘it permits researchers to be more
128

certain of their findings; it enhances the development of enterprising ways of collecting
data; it can unravel contradictions, it can lead to thicker, richer data; it can lead to the
fusion of theories; and by virtue of its extensiveness, it may serve as the litmus test for
competing theories’ (Jick 1979: 600) and contribute to validity and reliability.
Even though the opponents of the method criticize the ‘everything goes’ approach,
the pragmatism behind the method is differently oriented. It is defined as ‘”deconstructive
paradigm” that debunks concepts such as “truth” and “reality” and focuses instead on
“what works” as the truth regarding the research questions under investigation’
(Tashakkori, Teddlie 2003: 713 as cited in Teddlie, Tashakkori 2009: 7). Following this
standpoint, there cannot exist the either/or choices associated with the paradigm wars –
the approach should not be seen as a simple choice of various methods and procedures
that work best for a particular research question. Pragmatists support the use of mixed
methods in research, stressing that the values of the researcher have an important role in
interpretation of results.
The important reason of mixing methods and collecting multiple data from various
sources (according to Turner and his fundamental principle of mixed research), is to get
results that would be stronger, being complementary, and would not have possible
overlapping weaknesses (Johnson and Turner 2003). The data collected should not only
support the results but also lead the researcher to gain a deeper understanding of a
phenomenon. This is why one of the important elements in mixed methods research is
validity 28 .
As the previous chapters showed, intercultural competence is still a hotly debated
issue, and for its understanding rich and deep description should be added to the
quantitative approach. Therefore, a qualitative line of research is suitable for the research
as it sheds more (and different) light on the data gathered in the quantitative phase.
28 Denzin (1978) recommended the use of between-method triangulation, saying that by using mixed
methods ‘the bias inherent in any particular data source, investigators, and particularly method will be
cancelled out when used in conjunction with other data sources, investigators, and methods’ (Denzin 1978:
14). In the case of the present study, the research is designed so that the quantitative phase gives the basis
for the qualitative research.
129

3.3. The study
The study being exploratory and descriptive in nature guided the formulation of
questions. Due to the scarcity of research and data on this particular topic – ICC in EFL
instruction, the researcher aimed at collecting data and providing the description of the
present state of affairs.
3.3.1. Research questions
The aim of the study was to explore ICC of the university students at the
University of Niš. To that end, a number of research questions, given below, were
formulated.
RQ1 Are the Niš University students interculturally competent?
RQ2 Do certain factors (i.e. stays abroad, FL learning, year of study, gender) significantly
influence the ICC of students?
RQ3 Is the ICC of English language students different from the ICC of students from
other departments, due to intensive instruction in English coupled with culture and
literature classes?
RQ4 Are students competent to navigate certain intercultural encounters presented to
them and what do they use in terms of attribution to account for IC differences?
The first research question (RQ1) aimed to ascertain the extent of the ICC of the
first year university students in Niš. The instrument used for this purpose was the GPI
questionnaire as well as the interviews, and the question is answered through the
quantitative and qualitative phases of the study.
The second research question (RQ2) focused on certain factors and their possible
influence on better ICC. The research done in the area of study abroad programs has
given mixed results (Bateman 2002, Jackson 2010), therefore this was an opportunity to
obtain some more data in that respect. Also, the knowledge of different languages might
point to heightened ICC, in terms of higher interest in other cultures, so RQ2 could
provide some data on that point too. This question was answered through both phases of
the study.
The third research question (RQ3) aimed to analyse differences between the
English language students and students from other departments. While it has been proven
that knowing a particular language does not necessarily bear upon one’s ICC (Byram
1997), the research set out to ascertain whether intensive instruction and a supposed
interest in language and culture result in higher intercultural competence. Even though the
130

students in the research are the first-year students, the English language students have
literature and culture studies (British studies) and more contextualised language
instruction. On the other hand, the students of other departments do ‘every-day’ English,
or English for specific purposes, without any specialised courses in culture. The third
research question is answered in both phases of the study.
Finally, RQ4 set out to ascertain what attribution students offered when they were
faced with an intercultural encounter. Actual involvement would be the most reliable tool,
however, in this study this was replaced by the culture assimilator, as it clearly showed
the line of thinking, the attitudes and opinions which could not be seen through a
questionnaire format. The question also aimed at discovering whether the students were
able to see the other’s perspective or they based their attributions on stereotypical
concepts. The fourth research question was answered in the qualitative phase of the study.
3.4. Quantitative study
3.4.1. Introduction
The quantitative phase of the study gave results that cut across a wide and diverse
group of students, since questionnaires are a practical way of gathering data in an
economic manner on a large population, thus, the sample is large enough for the
researcher to be able to draw some general conclusion on the population (Creswell 2007).
3.4.2. Global Perspective Inventory (GPI)
The quantitative data collection technique was in the form of a questionnaire
(Appendix 4) that consisted of two parts. The first attempted to gather background and
demographic data of the participants, including their age, history of English language
learning, knowledge of some other foreign languages, time spent abroad and reasons for
stays abroad. These questions were also added in order to provide answers to the second
research question. The second part of the questionnaire is a Global Perspective Inventory
(GPI) questionnaire developed by Larry A. Braskamp, David C. Braskamp, and Kelly
Carter Merrill 29 .
Braskamp et al. base their work and their view of holistic human development on
two theoretical perspectives: intercultural maturity and intercultural communication. The
questionnaire contains 42 questions on a 5-point Likert scale that cover three domains:
29 The use of the GPI questionnaire has been granted by the authors free of charge in exchange for the data.
For the permission, see Appendix 3
131

cognitive, intracultural, and intercultural. The questionnaire was developed on two
theories – the first is the work by a psychologist Robert Kegan, who described the process
of growing up as a process of meaning making. The connections that people form among
each other are based not only on their thinking but their feelings as well. Thus, three
domains of human development are identified: cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal.
The second theory used for the creation of the GPI questionnaire is based on the
assumption that the cognitive, affirmative, and behavioural domains, as well as the
competence in each of them are important for successful intercultural communication.
Braskamp et al. (2010) claim that these domains are intertwined and influence each other.
Therefore, in order to understand the communication there should be a holistic approach
taken to it. In doing so, the Braskamp et al. continue tradition of many other authors who
have seen a holistic approach to human development (Chavez, Guido-DiBrito, Mallory
2003, King Baxter-Magolda 2005, Chen and Storosta 1994, Parks 2000, Kegan 1994 as
cited in Braskamp et al. 2010).
The GPI is not designed for any particular age or culture group, though one part of
the questionnaire is focused on college life. The authors purport that the items are ‘meant
to portray markers in a journey in which persons of all ages are constantly asking
questions about how they think, feel and relate to others’ (Braskamp et al. 2010: 3). The
questionnaire is particularly suitable to measure intercultural sensitivity of groups,
therefore, it was an appropriate instrument to use to explore intercultural competence of
the university students, which was one of the research questions for the present study.
The authors designed the questionnaire to tap into three domains: cognitive,
intrapersonal and interpersonal. The cognitive domain is focused on one’s understanding
of the importance of knowing certain things – including multiple cultural perspectives.
Intrapersonal development is focused on the awareness of ‘one’s personal values and
identity’ (Braskamp et al. 2000: 2). However, the dimension is not solely focused on
being aware of one’s own identity, but also being able to ‘incorporate different and often
conflicting ideas about who one is from a […] multicultural world’ (ibid). The authors see
this aspect as an important one for development of self-identity. Finally, interpersonal
development is focused on one’s willingness to communicate with people who are from
different backgrounds, be it socially or culturally, and on one’s being comfortable ‘when
relating to others’ (Braskamp et al. 2010: 3).
The questionnaire consists of eight parts: six subdomains grouped into three
domains and additional two domains. For the cognitive domain there are Knowledge
132

which represents a degree of complexity of one’s view on the importance of cultural
context in judging what is important to know and value, and Knowing – a degree of
understanding and awareness of various cultures and their impact on our global society
and level of proficiency in more than one language. For the intrapersonal domain there
are Identity – a level of awareness of one’s unique identity and degree of acceptance of
one’s ethnic, racial, and gender dimensions, and Affect – a level of respect for and
acceptance of cultural perspectives different from one’s own and degree of emotional
confidence when living in complex situations. Thirdly, the interpersonal domain consists
of Social Responsibility – a level of interdependence and social concern for others, and
Social Interactions – a degree of engagement with others who are different from oneself
and the level of sensitivity. Finally, two additional domains are Well Being and Global
Citizenship. The first one consists of items that mostly relate to one’s own importance and
affirmative stand, while the latter domain consists of items that mostly correlate with the
ideas of ‘global citizenship’. These domains do not include new questions but are
comprised of the questions included in other subdomains. The grouping of the questions
into (sub)domains is given in Appendix 5.
The theory behind the Inventory is in keeping with the more recent models of
culture discussed here – those which see culture as more dynamic and variable, where
‘meaning is continuously being constructed through human interaction and
communication’ (Paige et al. 2003: 176).
The questionnaire has gone through several versions from 2007 when it was first
administered. The 2010 version includes a section on student life, with a focus on
community, curriculum and co-curriculum. This last intervention was done with an
intention of facilitating discussions on what can be done in terms of actions, programs or
courses to improve the progress students are making in becoming global citizens and
developing global perspectives. However, for the purpose of this study, this section was
not included in the questionnaire as it focused on the sociocultural characteristics of a
college campus which was not applicable to our setting.
For this study the questionnaire was translated into Serbian to avoid any
misunderstanding and possible language problems for the large number of participants
with a wide range of English language proficiency. Also, this part focused on ICC as the
participants drew on their knowledge of and interest in other cultures, so no direct ICCC
was expected, which was another reason for the translation.
133

3.4.2.1. Reliability of the GPI
The authors of the GPI have administered the questionnaire in educational and
study abroad settings, with the correlations between the two administrations reflecting the
stability and consistency of the respondents’ responses.
In terms of consistency of the subdomains, Braskamp et al. conducted analyses
using the coefficient alphas to indicate the internal consistency of all six subdomains. The
results gathered from more than 5000 undergraduate students at more than 40 institutions
were tested during the period of 2007 to 2012 and showed alphas from .650 to .748 on
different subdomains.
As for validity, the authors of the GPI purport that ‘no single statistical index
based on one study can be applied to the validity of the results’ (Braskamp 2012),
however, they addressed a number of issues of validity, including face validity,
concurrent validity, and construct validity.
Face validity is determined by a review of the items to which purpose the authors
compiled a pool of several hundred items and asked both students and experts to review
the items for clarity and credibility. After the review, the number of items was narrowed
down to sixty-nine for a pilot test.
Concurrent validity should show that a test correlates well with an instrument
designed to measure similar phenomena that has already been validated. The Intercultural
development inventory (IDI) created by Bennett (1993) was used to test the concurrent
validity of the GPI showing that the two survey instruments did not measure similar
characteristics. The authors do not present any other concurrence tests.
Finally, in terms of construct validity, or the degree to which the instrument
measures the concepts under consideration, the authors designed a number of empirical
tests to ascertain it.
For the sake of more reliable results for the present study, the GPI questionnaire,
which is originally in English, was translated into Serbian, using the ‘back-translation’ as
a reliability check. The members of the English department did an additional check and
revision of the questions. Also, the translated version of GPI was given to the students of
different backgrounds and interests to give comments and point to certain phrasing or
formulations that were not clear or difficult to understand. After that, the changes were
made and the GPI was given to a group of 25 English language students, whose responses
were also used to fine-tune the instrument. Finally, the instrument was piloted with two
134

different groups of students who had different education and intercultural contacts. The
Table 3.1 shows the English version of the GPI questionnaire.
Table 3.1 The GPI questionnaire
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1. When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have the better approach. SA A N D SD
2. I have a definite purpose in my life. SA A N D SD
3. I can explain my personal values to people who are different from me. SA A N D SD
4. Most of my friends are from my own ethnic background. SA A N D SD
5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to society. SA A N D SD
6. Some people have a culture and others do not. SA A N D SD
7. In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to determine. SA A N D SD
8. I am informed of current issues that impact international relations. SA A N D SD
9. I know who I am as a person. SA A N D SD
10. I feel threatened around people from backgrounds very different from my own. SA A N D SD
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to better understand myself. SA A N D SD
12. I tend to judge the values of others based on my own value system. SA A N D SD
13. I understand the reasons and causes of conflict among nations of different
cultures.
SA A N D SD
14. I am confident that I can take care of myself in a completely new situation. SA A N D SD
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am successful at navigating their
cultures.
SA A N D SD
16. I work for the rights of others. SA A N D SD
17. I see myself as a global citizen. SA A N D SD
18. I do not see cultural differences as important to my daily life. SA A N D SD
19. I understand how various cultures of this world interact socially. SA A N D SD
20. I get offended often by people who do not understand my point-of-view. SA A N D SD
21. I’m able to take on various roles as appropriate in different cultural and ethnic
settings
SA A N D SD
22. I put my beliefs into action by standing up for my principles. SA A N D SD
23. I can evaluate issues from several different perspectives. SA A N D SD
24. The role of the student is to receive knowledge from authority figures SA A N D SD
25. I know how to analyze the basic characteristics of a culture. SA A N D SD
26. I am sensitive to those who are discriminated against. SA A N D SD
27. I do not feel threatened emotionally when presented with multiple perspectives. SA A N D SD
28. I prefer to work with people who have different cultural values from me. SA A N D SD
29. I am accepting of people with different religious and spiritual traditions. SA A N D SD
30. Cultural differences make me question what is really true. SA A N D SD
31. I put the needs of others above my own personal wants. SA A N D SD
32. I can discuss cultural differences from an informed perspective. SA A N D SD
33. I am developing a meaningful philosophy of life. SA A N D SD
34. I intentionally involve people from many cultural backgrounds in my life. SA A N D SD
35. I prefer complex rather than straightforward interpretations of debatable issues. SA A N D SD
36. I constantly need affirmative confirmation about myself from others. SA A N D SD
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures teach me about our cultural
differences.
SA A N D SD
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a difference. SA A N D SD
39. I am open to people who strive to live lives very different from my own life
style.
SA A N D SD
continued
135

40. Volunteering is not an important priority in my life. SA A N D SD
41. I have a strong sense of affiliation with my college/university. SA A N D SD
42. I share personal feelings and problems with students and colleagues. SA A N D SD
43. I have felt insulted or threatened based on my cultural/ethnic background at
my college/university.
SA A N D SD
44. I feel that my college/university community honors diversity and
internationalism.
SA A N D SD
45. I understand the mission of my college/university. SA A N D SD
46. I am both challenged and supported at my college/university. SA A N D SD
47. I have been encouraged to develop my strengths and talents at my
college/university.
SA A N D SD
48. I feel I am a part of a close and supportive community of colleagues and
friends.
SA A N D SD
3.4.3. Procedures
3.4.3.1. Data collection
The students from ten different departments of the University of Niš filled in the
GPI questionnaire. The collection of these data lasted from March to May 2011. The
researcher was present at every administration of the questionnaire and explained the
purpose of the research.
3.4.3.2. Data analysis
The software program SPSS 17 was used to statistically process the data from the
quantitative phase of the research. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the
domain means between the departments. In order to see the distribution of the
subdomains, One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test was employed. The Man-Whitney
U test was used to compare male and female participants as well as to compare the
English language students with those from other departments. To this purpose both the Z-
test and Wicoxon W tests were used. Then, to see the correlations between certain
questionnaire questions, Spearman’s rho test was used. Lastly, as post hoc tests Fisher’s
LSD test and A-Nova were used.
3.5. Qualitative study
3.5.1. Introduction
It should be said that due to the constraints of the form of a questionnaire, the data
obtained cannot be seen as ICC itself but only as the participants’ views on ICC.
Therefore, the questionnaire represented only the first part of the research. In the second
136

phase, a qualitative technique, an interview, was employed to shed more light on the data
obtained through the questionnaire and more fully explain some correlations between
particular groups of students, their previous knowledge of language and possible stays
abroad.
3.5.2. Interviews
As a means of exploring participants’ attitudes, values and personal perspectives,
interviews are widely used, especially in studies of language and culture (Scollon and
Scollon 2001, Davis 1995). They enable the researcher to gain insight into attitudes,
opinions, motives and perspectives of participants in a manner that is quite dissimilar to
that in questionnaires.
What should be kept in mind is that the power relation between the interviewer
and the interviewee might have an effect on the performance of the interviewee,
especially if that relation, as it usually is, is asymmetrical. As a result, interviews are to be
seen as a culturally influenced interactional process with its dynamics and constraints.
Therefore, interviews are often coupled with other modes of investigation – in the case of
the present study: a questionnaire, researcher’s notes, and the syllabi analysis.
For the purpose of this research, the general interview guide approach was chosen,
the answers were transcribed, coded and analyzed in order to get a more intimate
knowledge of students’ experiences and intercultural competence. This approach outlines
‘a set of issues to be explored’, it is ‘a basic checklist’ (Patton 2002: 342) to be used
during the interviews so that all the topics are covered. Unlike the informal interview, a
guide ensures that the same areas and topics are covered with all the interview
participants, while the interviewer is free to word questions spontaneously. Lincoln and
Guba (1985) suggest that the unstructured interview is useful when researchers are not
aware of what they might find out, and therefore, rely on the respondents to tell them,
without completely framing the questions beforehand. Also, as Kerlinger (1970) notes,
although the research purposes govern the questions asked, their content, sequence and
wording are entirely in the hands of the interviewer in the unstructured interview.
However, the unstructured interview also has to be carefully planned and the questions
well formatted. The unstructured guide interview is based on open-ended questions for a
number of reasons. Firstly, as Kerlinger (1970) notices these questions provide ’a frame
of reference’ for the answers, while they do not limit the answers – neither in respect of
content nor the manner of speaking. Secondly, these questions are flexible, may leave
137

oom for the interviewer to probe deeper certain issues, to clarify any misunderstanding,
‘enable the interviewer to test the limits of the respondent’s knowledge’ (Cohen et al.
2008: 357) and give an opportunity to the interviewer to testify to the participant’s beliefs
and attitudes.
The interviews were all conducted in Serbian, for several reasons. As some studies
have shown (Penbek et al. 2009), the insistence on the English language might have been
a deterrent for students to take part in interviews or might have resulted in the data that
are not rich enough for a serious analysis. Also, the researcher was not familiar with the
students’ proficiency in English, and the exact phrasing or wording in English was not the
focus of the research, rather it was how students understood particular situations.
The aim of conducting interviews was to gather information about interviewees’
language learning histories, their current usage of English language and, finally, their
understanding of particular intercultural incidents. Also, some of the questions in the
interviews were closely related to the questionnaire, as they offered an opportunity to the
researcher to more closely explore the responses and see if and how they related to the
overall ‘picture’ that the questionnaire offered.
The answers obtained through the interview shed light on the attitudes of the
participants, as well as their feelings and knowledge about and skills in intercultural
competence. Therefore, the questions asked were feeling, knowledge, background and
distinguishing questions, thus ‘genera[ting] data which give an authentic 30 insight into
people’s experiences’ (Silverman 2006:118).
Interviews were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed. The answers were
coded in order to identify the patterns, values and attitudes that contribute to ICC. Also,
the interviews were followed by the researcher’s noting down immediate impressions and
possible changes to be included in later interviews.
3.5.3. Culture assimilator
A separate part of the interview consisted of the critical incidents from the culture
assimilator, where the participants had to provide their answers and explanations for the
given episodes. Their answers were used to further analyse the IC sensitivity, as well as to
further fine-tune the assimilator. The episodes were written down and given one by one to
the interviewees, mostly in the same order. However, as with the semi-structured format
30 The authors here believe that ‘authentic’ implies that the interviewee’s point of view can be granted ‘the
culturally honored status of “reality”’ (Miller and Glassner 2010:133).
138

of the interview, here too, the episodes and their ordering were based on the general
direction of the interview and answers of the participants. The intercultural incidents were
chosen ‘in order to provide a specific focus relative to the intercultural context’
(McAllister et al. 2006: 371). Due to their format, critical incidents are open to multiple
interpretations and the situations might enhance critical thinking, or provide an incentive
for further discussion. Finally, critical incidents are a useful research tool because they
can provide the researcher with an insight into a participant’s understanding of different
cultural concepts and strategies to negotiate cultural issues ‘without the obvious social
bias response associated with discussing such issues in general terms’ (Laws, Fitzgerald
1997: 36 as cited in McAllister et al. 2006: 371).
3.5.3.1. Developing the culture assimilator
When designing the assimilator, the researcher employed two major approaches:
empirical and theoretical (Triandis 1995). For the former, a number of interviews was
conducted with a purposeful sample of ‘biculturals’ (n=5) – individuals who have had
substantial experience with both Serbian and foreign cultures. The first group of
interviews was done with English native speakers who live in Serbia, are currently
working in Serbia or are visiting on a regular basis. The interviewees come from different
countries (USA, UK, New Zealand) and have been in Serbia for different periods of time
– from more than ten years to several months. Also, the interviewees have different
careers (teaching, NGO sector, IT), and are of different age (from 30 to 50). The
interviews lasted between half an hour to an hour, and were semi-structured. The issues
that the interviewees discussed were those that include different values expressed through
Hofstede’s dimensions – collectivism/ individualism, uncertainty avoidance, power
distance (Hofstede 1997), Hall’s distinctions – high/ low context cultures (Hall 1966),
speech acts (apologies, demands, asking for help, use of silence), attitudes and behaviour
that the interviewees noticed in intercultural contacts. The interviewees were asked to
describe their first encounters with the Serbian culture, misunderstandings and difficulties
that might have occurred due to the culture differences and low intercultural competence.
Another group of interviewees were Serbs (n=5) who have spent a certain period
of time abroad (from five months to a year), either in the UK or the USA. These
interviewees were from 25 to 35 years of age and also from different professional
backgrounds (teaching, economics, and tourist industry). They were also asked to
comment on their misunderstandings and difficulties they might have faced during their
139

stay abroad. However, these interviews were less structured, and more focused on the
ability of the interviewees to recall incongruities they had faced.
The data collected through these two groups of interviews were then organized
into particular cultural incidents with the support from various theoretical sources. Some
incidents were modelled after the already existing ones but were rewritten to comply with
the needs of the study and to be representative of the local setting (Cushner, Brislin 1996;
Lambert, Myers 1994; Levin, Adelman 1993; The INCA project 2004). Further
theoretical basis was found in Wang (2000) and Fowler (1995) which helped in
combining similar experiences into a single incident, as well as with editing of incident
explanations. Brislin (1996) defines 18 themes that are a basis for misunderstandings and
which are therefore employed in this assimilator as well. These themes range from
disconfirmed expectations, ambiguity, confrontation with one’s own prejudices, to time
and space organization, roles, hierarchy, in-group-out-group distinctions.
The culture assimilator consists of 21 situations, accompanied with four possible
attributions, or solutions 31 . After a pilot study had been conducted and based on the
feedback that the participants in the pilot study provided, the number of assimilators was
reduced from 28 to 21 for two reasons. The first one was to keep the topics and issues
discussed in the incidents close to student life or work prospects. Therefore, the incidents
included were those where new colleagues or students who just met interacted, or where
the atmosphere and expectations in a work place or in the classroom were ‘problematic’.
The second reason was the constraints of time, as going through the whole assimilator
would have lasted at least an hour, the number of incidents had to be reduced
considerably and not all were included in the interviews.
Many assimilators have dealt with either culture-specific or culture-general issues
in intercultural communication, however, as Bhawuk (2001) notices, no attempt has been
made to use culture theory in assimilators, individualism and collectivism for example, to
explain and predict social behaviours across cultures. Yet, the value of these constructs is
great and they might help explain the concepts of cultural distance, cultural influences on
the self, behaviour toward in-group and out-group members (Triandis, McCusker and
Hui 1990), predicting effects of social loafing (Earley 1989 as cited in Bhawuk 2001) and
competition in groups (Wagner 1995 as cited in Bhawuk 2001), among other things. For
31 For the purposes of the study, the incidents presented to the interviewees did not include the attributions.
140

these reasons the culture assimilator for the present study did include these theoretical
considerations.
Those critical incidents used for the interviews are presented in this section, while
the rest of the culture assimilator, where each critical incident is followed by a multiple
choice and a rationale, generated after the inital interviews with the native speakers and
the interviews with the students, is presented in Appendix 9 32 .
Critical incident 1. At an informal party there is a group of Americans who
are in Serbia on a study program. Milan is trying to get to know one of them,
Matthew, a bit better. Milan is an easy-going sociable guy, and has no
problems starting a conversation. They exchange a few questions, about their
home towns, age, girlfriends, but Milan has problems staying close to
Matthew. Every time he gets closer, Matthew takes a few steps back. Why
might this be?
Critical incident 2. Marija is asked as an international student at one US
college to meet with an American student in order to help the student work on
the project about world cultures. Marija meets Julie after class, and they try to
get to know each other better and to schedule a next meeting. However, Julie
does not stop staring at Marija directly in the eyes, and it makes Marija feel
uncomfortable. She starts wondering if she has something on her forehead.
She expects this to stop after a while, but during the whole conversation it’s
the same. Why might this be?
Critical incident 3. Vuk is attending a course with other American students.
He’s already had few classes, and now knows most of the name of his
classmates. But, he wants to get to know them even better, so he suggests
going out
Vuk: OK, maybe we can meet sometime soon.
John:. Yeah, we should.
Vuk: What do you think, Nicole? For coffee?
Nicole: Sure, definitely! See ya soon.
But, even after they have had a few more classes, they always talk about
going out and never actually go out, why might this be?
Critical incident 4. Marko arrived at an American university and started going
to classes. However, he was very disappointed to see the way students
behaved in class. They would take off their shoes, put up their feet on the seat
in front of them, would be laid back. What surprised Marko even more is the
fact that teachers didn’t mind this at all. There was one instance that a young
man, sitting back, with his feet up, raised his hand and asked for a
clarification, and the teacher calmly provided one. Marko couldn’t understand
this at all. What might be the reason for this situation?
32 Even though the culture assimilator was created for the purposes of the present study, it can be used as a
teaching and assessment tool in EFL teaching, since it can provide a basis for further work on linguistic
competence in terms of vocabulary, structures and functional language
141

Critical incident 5. A Serbian couple went to the States as Tomislav had got
an invitation to teach a semester there. He met his colleagues, was very nicely
received. He particularly liked the colleague from the same field of research,
John, but they didn’t seem to have time to get together. Tomislav had seen
John every other day – but only in passing, and John would shout ‘Let’s get
together some time!’ and then he would run off to class.
After a month Tomislav and his wife, Tanja, bought a car. One Friday
evening, they were driving back home from the supermarket and realized that
they were in John’s neighbourhood so they decided to pay him a visit. A very
surprised John opened the door, and though he invited them in, he kept them
in the hall until he tidied up the room. When they finally sat down, John
didn’t offer anything to drink, just said they had nothing in the fridge right
now. When John’s wife didn’t show up after another 10 minutes of an
awkward and strained conversation, Tomislav and Tanja left, feeling hurt by
John’s rudeness. What is behind this uncomfortable situation?
Critical incident 6. Jack came to Serbia to be a managing director of a
production process in a rather old and respected firm. He was introduced to
the board and shown around the factory. He was doing a similar job in
England, and at 28 everybody there predicted a bright future for him where
ever he might go. However, the things were not going so smoothly in Serbia
as he had hoped. His co-workers did not always follow his orders and they
would sometimes go to the director to check with him if the decisions Jack
had made were OK. That sort of thing had never happened in his previous
firm in the UK. On the other hand, Jack was very disappointed with the
atmosphere that was being created and very soon started job-hunting again.
Critical incident 7. Marianne, who just turned 32, has been working for an
international NGO in Serbia for two weeks as a project manager and
coordinator. Everything has been going OK, she’s met the local staff, seemed
to be able to function well with them. The nature of the job requires of her to
have a deputy because she has to travel a lot to the nearby villages and towns,
and because the project is a big and serious one. The organization driver has
been at her disposal for these two weeks and they got to know each other
quite well during numerous rides they had in those two weeks. Sometimes he
would ask about the job and she would inform him on different goings-on.
Today she was telling him that she has finally reached a decision on who her
deputy is going to be. “Marija will be great for that position, she has been in
this line of work for some time, she knows the people, and she’s good with
writing reports”. The driver has a bit hard time understanding that, he first
things Marija will be a secretary, then when he finally realizes she’s going to
be Marianne’s deputy, he tries not to show his disapproval, but repeats
several times that Marianne should reconsider some male candidates.
Critical incident 8. Dragan and Kate have been married for 8 years, they have
two kids, a boy who is 4 and a girl who is 8. Over dinner, the kids are poking
at their dinner, making silly jokes, and are not really behaving as they should
be. Kate says “Could you please finish your dinner?” addressing her son, and
“could you please not fidget, and finish your dinner too, please?” in a very
calm and peaceful voice. At the same time, Dragan is getting more and more
142

irritated by the kids’ behaviour and says to Kate “Why are you asking them
so politely to finish something they know they have to do? Just order them,
and that’s it”.
Why is there a misunderstanding between the parents?
Critical incident 9. Veljko is an exchange student of electronics, who is
spending a year in Chicago. He’s doing quite well, but since his test is
coming in two weeks’ time, he wants to check few problems with his micro
engineering teacher. At the beginning of the semester the teacher told the
class that he would be in his office every Tuesday from 1 till 3 p.m. should
they need him. So, Veljko is in front of the office a few minutes before 1 and
he knocks on the closed door and enters. The professor is surprised, and not
very willing to talk to Veljko – why might this be?
Critical incident 14. An American has achieved a managerial position at an
international bank’s office in Serbia. He is asked to be on the selection
committee for a new employee. The bank president is a Serbian citizen, and
one of the job applicants is his nephew. The American does not place much
weight on this fact and, instead, he is impressed by the education and
previous job experience of another candidate. However, everyone else on the
selection committee prefers the boss’s nephew, despite his rather mediocre
career accomplishments to date. Why would the American be surprised?
Critical incident 17. Maryanne, an American, has been in Serbia for two
months, she’s in her 30s and has been working with a local NGO. She met a
lot of people of different ages, occupation and social status. One thing that
she finds strange is when people ask her about her parents and family– how
they’re doing, whether they’re missing her. How would you explain this?
Critical incident 18. Ashley has been in Serbia for a month – she is here to do
conversation classes with the Law students. She’s met a lot of people, her
future colleagues from the Department, and she constantly gets invitations for
dinners and coffees after work. Every time she goes out with her colleague
she tries to pay, but usually the colleagues do not let her. There is always a
conversation that goes like this:
Ashley: Ok, so, let me pay.
Colleague A: Oh, c’mon, no way! This is on me!
Ashley: But it was on you last time as well.
Colleague A: No, no really, and besides, it doesn’t matter – you’ll pay next
time!
Ashley: Can’t we at least split it?
Colleague A: No, no, that’s OK! Let’s go!
This happens every time and Ashley is finding this situation quite irritating.
Why might it be so?
143

3.5.4. Syllabi of English language courses
As another element in the analysis of the participants’ answers, the syllabi for
English language courses were included for two reasons. Firstly, they were used as a
means of triangulating data. Secondly, in the analysis of the interviews, knowing what the
students had actually done in the classroom was used to account for attributions and
explanations. The analysis of the syllabi for the 12 departments of the University of Niš
showed what many research studies have shown (Lázár 2007; Paige et al. 1993; Young
2011) – that though teachers declare their support for ICC inclusion in teaching, little is
done in practice.
For all the departments, the topics covered are mainly professional vocabulary and
field-related issues. Language for business purposes is foregrounded, together with the
basic language skills. There is a heavy focus on grammar, with added functional language
and only sporadically is there a cultural element included. One lesson in the English
course at the Faculty of Arts (for all departments) deals with cross cultural habits
(greeting habits, socializing, life style, manners when paying a visit, eating habits, sports).
One unit on stereotypes and on living abroad is offered in the courses for the Faculty of
philosophy departments, as well as one unit dedicated to being polite in English for the
students of history.
At different departments of the Faculty of Philosophy there is a similar structure
of the EFL classes. The students are expected to achieve the B2.1 level of the Common
European Framework (CEFR) after the first semester and B2.2 after the second semester
of studying the English language. The textbooks used for all the departments are
textbooks for learning English (New Headway Intermediate), with the addition of the
textbooks authored by the teachers themselves, to follow more closely professional
issues, that is, the majors that the students take.
All the courses mainly stress the general knowledge of language, and only one
program mentions ‘widening of knowledge of Anglo-Saxon culture and civilization, and
mastering cultural knowledge and skills’. However, the syllabus does not show what
particular means are taken to fulfil that aim. All the courses as their aim put forth a
learner who has mastered general skills and is ready ‘for production of more complex
general linguistic content’. Again, the aims do not mention any competence other than
linguistic, and when the reference is made to the CEF it is only in terms of linguistic
competence, not mentioning communicative competence.
144

The curriculum of the Faculty of Economy is similar to the Faculty of Philosophy
departments’ curricula in several respects. The students are expected to master the
terminology related to their business field and more space is given to grammatical points.
Also, some of the thematic units are job-hunting, business etiquette, and chit-chat,
without any mention of international business encounters, although it is stated that the
students need to get acquainted with the USA an UK’s economy, as well as with
international institutions and relations.
The curriculum at the Faculty of Arts is slightly differently designed. The students
focus on grammar structures during the first semester, while the second semester is
dedicated to language functions and pragmatic aspects of language. One module is
dedicated to culture comparison, where the Serbian habits are compared to those of the
Japanese, American, English and Greek ones. This points to a strong communicative
language teaching approach, however, it does not bring any of the intercultural elements
into the foreground.
Finally, the curriculum of the English language department is quite different from
other syllabi, as it is only expected because it includes many courses both on language
and culture. The language courses that students have include the use of English with a lot
of functional language, focus on register and form, as well as situational dialogues that
are based on everyday situations. Even though only a limited time within the language
courses in dedicated to different elements of culture, students do attend courses of British
studies and literature. The syllabus for the course shows that more attention is given to the
historical points, and intercultural instruction is not one of the objectives of those courses.
The content analysis of the syllabi of English language courses offered at a
number of departments of the University of Niš showed a heavy linguistic focus, with
little concern for intercultural communication and competence issues. This may explain
the attributions received in interviews which proved to be unfounded and for the most
part, slanted and stereotypical. It also shows that students have to resort to some other
means of gathering information on which to base their attribution, mostly the media and
second hand experience.
145

3.5.5. Field notes
During the data gathering, the researcher was keeping notes of the stages and
dynamics of the research. After each interview the main ideas and a very rough analysis
of the answers were written down. The field notes helped in deciding which episodes to
include and whether the ordering should be changed. Also, the field notes gave the
researcher an initial insight into the opinions and beliefs of the interviewee. Even though
the coding was done after all the interviews had been completed, the field notes indicated
some preliminary code grouping.
3.5.6. Data trustworthiness
In order for the data in the qualitative stage to be trustworthy, there were measures
taken in each step of the study. The criteria used for the selection of participants were
formed and are explained in detail in the section describing the participants. Then,
through a semi-structured interview, similar questions were asked and were linked to the
GPI questionnaire. In each interview, a special care was given to the wording of the
questions so that they could be answered truthfully. Also, it prevented the conversation to
stray off the topic due to the constraints of time. As it is advisable not to have fewer than
ten individual interviews, twelve students were interviewed, all from different
departments and with different demographic backgrounds and intercultural experiences.
This ensured a sample that would offer the widest possible scope of potentially relevant
topics. In order not to include personal biases, the data were read through several times
before decisions on coding were made. Also, the number of themes was reduced after
each reading, narrowing down categories to four and codes to four to nine per category.
3.5.7. Methods for validation and trustworthiness – legitimation
Authors who employ a mixed methods approach claim that it should not be using
the terminology of either of the approaches it combines, therefore the literature offers a
number of different terms to be used instead of validity, reliability and objectivity, such as
credibility or legitimation (Onwuegbuzie 2003; Onwuegbuzie, Johnson 2006 as cited in
Teddlie, Tashakkori 2009), transferability, dependability, confirmability (Lincoln, Guba
1985).
There are various strategies that can be used to strengthen the credibility of a
study. For the present study a number of these were employed. Firstly, triangulation of
methods was applied because data collected through questionnaires were triangulated
146

with information gathered in interviews. Then, triangulation of sources was employed
because field notes and course syllabi were combined with interviews in order to analyse
and confirm the emerging findings. Finally, what Shenton (2004) offers as a possible
strategy for ensuring credibility, were ‘tactics to help insure honesty in informants’ (p.
66), since all the interviewees were given an opportunity to withdraw from the study at
any point. The researcher also emphasized her independent status where that was
appropriate so that interviewees felt free to share ideas.
There were various steps taken in order to ensure legitimation in the present study.
The two basic components of legitimation are design quality and interpretative rigour.
Design quality includes the standards used for the evaluation of the methodological rigour
of the mixed research study, while interpretive rigour includes the standards for
evaluating the validity of conclusions. As for the first component, there were measures
taken for each step of the creation of the instruments that should contribute to legitimation
(checks, back translation, pilot study, re-checks). For interpretative rigour, the researcher
performed several versions of coding, used field notes and syllabi of the courses in order
to triangulate the data in order to arrive at ‘generalizable’ and valid conclusions.
Reliability in the positivist paradigm is replaced with the concept of dependability,
referring to the possibility of repeating the study in the same context, with the same
methods and participants with the similar results. However, ‘the changing nature of the
phenomena scrutinized by qualitative researchers renders such provisions problematic’
(Shenton 2004: 71). Shenton believes that in order to secure dependability, the researcher
should provide a thorough description of a research design, which was done in the present
study. The research instruments were described as well as their implementation, data
gathering was discussed and finally, the researcher addressed ‘the effectiveness of the
process of inquiry undertaken’ (Shenton 2004: 72). While a great care was taken to
clearly delineate the codes and keep them consistent across the interviews, it is important
to point out that the researcher was the one who defined codes and classified the content,
therefore, some other researchers might offer different coding, as no two individuals
would code the same text in the exact same manner.
In the positivistic paradigm, external validity refers to the extent to which the
findings of one study can be applied to other situations and be generalized so that they are
relevant for a wider population. When it comes to the naturalistic paradigm and
qualitative research, this concept is represented with transferability and it should be
stressed that the paradigm from which the question is addressed is quite different. The
147

outset of qualitative research is to understand or clarify phenomena, understand how
participants perceive certain phenomena, or their roles or tasks (Merriam 1995).
Therefore, data gathered from a limited number of participants does not lend itself easily
to generalization.
Therefore, in order to provide transferability, some alternative approaches should
be used. Cromabach suggests using a working hypothesis, ‘observing effects in context’
(Crombach 1975: 124 as cited in Merriam 1995: 58) and only later coming to
generalizations. Erickson believes that concrete universals could be ‘discovered with
insights that transcend the situation from which they emerged’ (Merriam 1995: 59).
Merriam proposes a third approach where findings can be applied to a new situation to an
extent that a particular researcher determines.
Out of several strategies that Merriam proposes, the one used in the present study
was a thick description – the researcher provided information and descriptions of a
phenomenon by quoting the participants, so that future researchers should be able to
determine whether findings can be transferred.
Finally, the concept of confirmability in qualitative research is comparable to that
of objectivity in positivist research and should ensure the study against the researcher’s
biases. Triangulation is again emphasized here (Shenton 2004), while equal weight is
given to the researcher’s beliefs and decisions. In the present study this was done through
the sections on the researcher’s biases and justification of the method used. Also, the stepby-step
description of the study should help other researchers ‘determine how far the data
and constructs emerging from it may be accepted’ (Shenton 2004: 72).
3.6. Participants
In the first quantitative phase of the study, there were 336 students who completed
the questionnaire. There were 243 female and 92 male students from ten departments
(English n= 71, Economy n=83, Arts n=11, Music n=22, History n=15, Pedagogy n=13,
Psychology n=11, Sociology n=32, Serbian n=54, Journalism n=24). Since the English
language courses are usually offered in the first two years of the study, the students were
mostly from the first year (n=233), and then the second (n=97), and finally the third year
(n=5). The age range of the participants was 18–27 years, with the mean of 20.5.
Even though the original idea was to include all the students of the first year who
took a course in English in the quantitative phase of the study, the situations in the
148

classrooms varied greatly. Not only do different departments enrol different number of
students, but also students do not attend the classes regularly. Therefore, the number of
the participants mirrored the ‘found situation’ in the classrooms.
Table 3.2 Participants in the quantitative phase of the study
Department No. of SS Percentage
Arts 11 3%
History 15 4%
English language 71 21%
Economy 83 25%
Journalism 24 7%
Music 22 7%
Pedagogy 13 4%
Psychology 11 3%
Serbian language 54 16%
Sociology 32 10%
Total 336 100%
Taking all this into consideration, the criteria for selecting the participants were
the following: the participants had to attend an English course, as the critical incidents
were based on members of the Anglophone cultures interacting with members of the
Serbian culture, so it was believed that learning English might help them understand and
‘solve’ the critical incidents – following Fantini’s observation that ’intercultural
competence concerns both language and intercultural areas’ (1995: 143). The participants
had to have some previous knowledge of English, that is, they could not have taken the
beginners’ course.
The participants for the qualitative phase of the study were selected from each of
the departments. While on the one hand the researcher-participant relationship could not
have had any negative influence on the participants in any way, on the other, the
participants did not have any direct or indirect benefit from their participation. The
researcher was not a teacher to any of the students – not even to the English language
students at that time. Therefore, agreeing to be interviewed was solely based on the
students’ good will, which consequently may have implications for the results of the
study, on which there will be a further discussion in Chapter V. This is why the original
idea of sifting the quantitative data and making a sequential model of mixed methods
research was not applied. Instead, the qualitative phase of the research was organised so
that it included those students who participated in the survey and were willing to take part
149

in the interviews as well. The selection of participants was purposive in the sense of
keeping the balance between male and female participants and their experience with other
cultures. The sample thus organized proved to be the only solution to prevent students
from declining their participation in this phase of the study as they were not compensated
for the effort in any way.
The Table 3.2 gives an overview of the interviewees’ background information.
Table 3.3 Participants in the qualitative phase of the study
Interviewee
age gender years of
learning
English
(verbatim)
prolonged
contact
with other
cultures
short
contact
with
other
cultures
present
contact
with
other
cultures
knowledge of
other languages
1 19 M since the 5 th
grade
2 19 F since
preschool
the
USA
3 20 F for 10 years elementary
Spanish
4 20 M since the 4 th
grade
5 20 F since the 7 th
grade
6 19 M since
kindergarten
7 19 F since the 1 st
grade
8 20 M since the 5 th
grade
9 20 M since
preschool
10 20 M since
kindergarten
the
USA
elementary
Spanish
French
bits of French,
Spanish
11 19 F for 7 years
12 19 F for 11 years passive
knowledge of
Italian, French,
Portuguese,
Spanish
The procedure and purpose of the interview was explained to the interviewees,
they were given a consent form with the main points and with the researcher’s mail
address in case they wanted to read the transcript of their interview or follow up with any
questions (for the consent form, see Appendix 2). The students were also given a brief
150

insight into the research, but only at the very end of the interview in order not to sway
their attitude and affect their answers.
3.7. Researcher
Since part of the study was conducted through interviews, the researcher played a
role in them as well. Unlike a quantitative study, a qualitative study requires of a
researcher to be present and seen, since meaning is constructed in the interaction of the
researcher and those being observed or interviewed.
3.7.1. Human instrument
Lincoln and Guba (1985) defined a term human-as-instrument as a unique
position that a qualitative researcher takes (in Sheḳedi 2005: 45). This is the ‘only
instrument flexible enough to capture complexity, subtlety and constantly changing
situation which is the human experience’ (Maykut, Morehouse 1994: 26). Some
characteristics of the human instrument that set it apart from other data collection
instruments are that ‘the researcher is responsive to the context, he or she can adapt
techniques to the circumstance; the total context can be considered, what is known about
the situation can be expanded through sensitivity to nonverbal aspects’ (Merriam 1998:
7). It is the person with all their experiences and biases which is the source of all data
collection and analysis. That is why the human instrument has to ‘be responsive,
adaptable and holistic’ (Maykut, Morehouse 1994: 26). Since the researcher is present at
every point of the research, he/she has the opportunity to clarify, summarize or further
explore any interesting or unexpected responses, which is not the case with the
instruments constructed in advance.
While the human instrument might be the only data collection instrument versatile
and complex enough to record the elements of people’s experience and activity (Maykut,
Morehouse 1994: 27), there might still be an issue of the reliability of such data collection
process. However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) believe that ‘there is no reason to believe
that humans cannot approach a level of trustworthiness similar to that of standardized
tests’ (Lincoln and Guba 1985: 195 as cited in Shekedi 2005: 46). By being involved in
the subject of research, which is usually complexities of human situation and human
beings, a researcher learns about significant aspects of these complex issues. Eisner
151

elieves that the human instrument should be constantly improved and refined (as cited in
Shekedi 2005: 46), thus increasing trustworthiness.
3.7.2. Researcher role and ethics
Researchers bring in their inherent (researcher) biases, which must be
acknowledged and identified as they also may represent a rich source of data. Strauss
(1987) coined the phrase ‘experiential data’ when referring to the researcher bias and
warned that these data ‘should not be ignored’ (p. 11) as their avoidance might overlook
valuable information. The preexisting factors, such as personal experience and interest in
a particular topic, also contribute to the value-laden nature of research because they will
shape researchers’ understanding of a phenomenon. (Owen 2008). Therefore, the
researcher should be well aware of his/her position and the values and beliefs he/she
brings into the study.
To assure the unbiased stand in the present study, the researcher took measures
while preparing and piloting the interview questions, so that the wording of questions did
not reflect any of the beliefs and values held by the researcher. The form of the interview
was a semi-structured one, so that all the participants could comment on the similar
issues, and so that the sequencing of questions remained similar so as not to influence the
participants’ answers.
The insights and experience that the researcher gained during the work on her MA
thesis was crucial for this study, as the questions posed then opened new perspectives and
showed a further need for exploring the issue of culture in FL teaching, but from a
different standpoint. As the MA research was aimed at high school students, the
researcher now wanted to explore the freshmen and their understanding not simply of
culture, but intercultural communication, competence and sensitivity as well. In addition,
university students are an important population as their education will help them come to
certain positions in the society, be that education or business, so it is important to explore
what behavioural, cognitive and emotional potential they bring with them into the society.
As one of the English language teachers at the Faculty of Philosophy, the
researcher was savvy of the English course organization at different departments, which
might have made it difficult to preserve an ‘outsiders’ perspective. Therefore it was
important not to take any situation for granted and to include, together with the measures
already mentioned, measures that would ensure that every interview was objectively
conducted and every interviewee objectively analysed. Keeping a research diary, or
152

esearch notes, where the first interpretations and observations were recorded, helped the
researcher keep different perspectives open.
3.8. Procedures
3.8.1. Data collection
Material collection started in January 2011, with the interviews with the native
speakers of English, and continued until May with the interviews with the students. They
were asked to sign the consent form and were informed about the research. The
background information about them was discussed in the interviews themselves. These
interviews served as the basis for the creation of the culture assimilator.
The participants for the qualitative part of the study were selected on the basis of
their willingness to participate in the interviews which took place either immediately after
the questionnaire administration or were scheduled for a later time, according to the
students’ obligations. There was one intervieweee from each department and the malefemale
ratio was respected. The interviewees were given the consent form while the main
purpose of the interview was not given as straight-forward information in order not to
influence the participants.
The interviews were conducted in Serbian and the procedure of discussing critical
incidents was the same in all interviews: an introductory part, the analysis of critical
incidents and a short discussion on ICC. After the initial questions on language learning
and culture, the interviewees were invited to comment on the incident given to them in
the written form, one after the other. The interviewees were asked to analyse the incident,
which tackled their knowledge of the cultures in question, that is, it referred to the
cognitive aspect of the incident. Then, the students were asked what they would do in the
same situation, where they could have shown the ‘skill’, that is the awareness of how to
go about the problem. Finally, the students were asked about their feelings had they been
in the same situation (where that was appropriate). In that manner, the interviewees could
share their feelings, or imagine themselves in the other person’s shoes. As such the
critical incidents can be used to provoke and facilitate reflection and ‘serve as a stimulus
for discussion’ (McAllister et al. 2006: 371). The number of the incidents per interview
ranged from 7 to 12, depending on the readiness of the interviewees to answer them and
the attributions they offered.
The reason why the discussion about intercultural competence and sensitivity was
in the form of the analysis of culture incidents, and not in more general terms, was in
153

order for these issues to be addressed without the possible bias that might exist when
discussing cultural issues in general terms (Laws, Fitzgerald 1997 as cited in McAllister
et al. 2006). Also, it was the opportunity for the researcher to hear the rationalisation
behind the attributions given.
3.8.2. Data analysis
For the qualitative data a CAQDAS program Atlas.ti was used to transcribe, store
form the categories and then code the recorded data from the interviews. Evans (2002)
notes that ‘categories are important in the development of educational research because
they serve as stepping stones that lead the researcher towards theory development’ (p.
156). The categories were then grouped into larger themes, which were considered in
relation to other data gathered in the study.
The mixture of coding (bottom-up or data-driven, and top-down or a priori codes)
was employed and proved to have its advantages. Firstly, it connected the codes and
research questions, and the questions provided an initial focus for coding. Secondly, it
gave the coding process flexibility, since not all areas and codes could have been
designed prior to interviews. Also, the interviewees’ opinions were given a more
important role in the analysis (Richards 2003). Finally, a thorough analysis of the
transcript that produced the codes also provided the research with a detailed knowledge of
the transcript and pointed to connections and ideas that had not been obvious at the
beginning of the analysis.
The codes were reorganized during the analysis of the interviews, grouped and
regrouped. Some codes were reduced as they overlapped with other codes, however,
some degree of overlap still exists, indicated with co-occurring codes, though the
researcher tried to keep those instances to the minimum. These instances are where the
aspects discussed could belong to different areas, which was the case with attitudes, for
example, and therefore the same segment of text is coded with more than one code
(Johnson and Christensen 2007).
The codes were tabulated, however, the quantification was not applied to the
content but rather to the codes. The reason for this was that the analysis applied was not
discourse analysis, but rather content analysis, and it was important to see similarities and
differences between interviewees. While the enumeration of codes is helpful to clarify the
results and frequency (Johnson and Christensen 2007), it is not applied to specific phrases
and words, as that would not add to the understanding of attitudes and opinions.
154

3.9. Summary
In this chapter the research methodology, research questions and research
instruments for both phases of the study were presented. Some more attention was given
to individual phases, and especially the development of the culture assimilator used in the
qualitative phase. Then, since the mixed methods approach was used, methods for
validation and trustworthiness were discussed. The participants and procedures for both
phases were described, and finally, the researcher’s role, as the human instrument was
explained. In Chapter IV the results of the present study are presented.
155

156

CHAPTER IV – RESULTS
4.1. Introduction
The chapter presents the results of the research organized through research
questions. The chapter first presents the results from the quantitative phase of the study,
that is, the questionnaires, as it was the first instrument used. Then, the results obtained
through the analysis of the interviews are presented. Special attention is given to the
critical incidents that offered the closest insight into the participants’ intercultural
competence. At this stage, researcher’s notes are also included to triangulate the interview
data.
The data presented provide an insight into the participants’ attitudes and beliefs
and, to a certain degree, their skill regarding intercultural encounters. Also, results show
the participants’ understanding of culture, not only foreign ones but their own, as well as
understanding of and reflections on ICC. The following table shows which ICC domains
are represented in which research stages:
Table 4.1 ICC domains and the study stages
attitudes affect
identity
knowledge knowledge
knowing
skills
visible
through
social responsibility
interaction
survey
survey
Standard
deviation
interviews
interviews
interviews
Illustration
Demographic data of participants
The participants were asked to state how long they had been learning the English
language and almost two thirds said they had been learning the language between 7 and
10 years (n=200), with almost one third who had studied it for more than 10 years
(n=103). There were 167 students who did not speak any languages other than English,
which made up for 50% of the participants.
157

Table 4.2 Years of learning English
No. of years No. of SS percentage
7-10 200 60%
>10 103 31%
The participants were also asked if they had friends from abroad, where 215 stated
they had and 115 that they did not.
Out the whole sample, 84 students – which made a quarter of the whole number of
the participants, had never been abroad. Others stated as their trips abroad excursions and
tourist visits. Only eight participants had spent a longer period of time abroad, listing
various reasons – sporting events, competitions, participating in concerts or seminars,
visiting relatives. Two students listed being born abroad, one spent two years living
abroad, and two were on an exchange programs that lasted 10 months.
4.2. Questionnaire results
The questionnaire was distributed for the purposes of establishing the overall
intercultural sensitivity of university students, in particular those who had English
language courses. The second objective was to establish if there was a difference between
intercultural sensitivity of English language students and students of other departments.
The section presents the results of the questionnaire.
The three domains in the GPI questionnaire are cognitive, intrapersonal and
interpersonal, each subdivided into two subdomains. These categories can be seen in
Table 2.1, and in which phases of the present study they are explored (questionnaire or
interview). In the GPI, the higher the average of the six categories (on a scale from 1-5),
the more the group is considered to have a global perspective. For the purposes of
comparison, we would consider the mean 0-2 as showing lower global perspective, the
mean of 2-3.5 medium, and finally, the mean of 3.5-5 representing higher global
perspective.
The statistical analysis showed that the mean value for the cognitive subdomain
Knowing, the degree of complexity of one’s view of the importance of cultural context
when deciding what is important to know and value, was 2.8. Knowledge, the degree of
understanding and awareness of various cultures and their impact on our global society,
had the mean of 3.3.
158

For the Intrapersonal domain that is divided into Identity and Affect, the average
answers are higher. Identity, the awareness of unique identity; purpose in life; meaningful
philosophy of life, had a mean of 3.9, which is the highest mean out of all categories. The
subdomain Affect, which represents the level of respect and acceptance of cultural
perspectives different from one’s own and the degree of emotional confidence when
processing encounters with other cultures, had the mean of 3.7
Finally, for the Interpersonal domain that consists of Social Interactions, a degree
of engagement with others who are different from oneself and degree of cultural
sensitivity in living in pluralistic setting, the students scored 3.7, while Social
responsibility, a level of commitment of interdependent living, had the mean of 3.6.
The Table 4.3 shows the mean values of all the subdomains. It can be seen that the
subdomains Knowing and Knowledge had the lowest minimums, while the subdomain
Knowing had the lowest maximum too. All other subdomains fell into the range of 2-5.
Table 4.3 Mean values of GPI subdomains
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Knowing 336 1,56 4,00 2,8850 ,38611
Knowledge 336 1,40 5,00 3,3673 ,58244
Identity 336 2,00 5,00 3,9946 ,53741
Affect 336 2,22 5,00 3,6562 ,42831
Responsibility 336 2,00 5,00 3,6263 ,49234
Interaction 336 2,33 5,00 3,7365 ,46253
Well Being 336 2,14 5,00 3,8464 ,42243
Global Citizenship 336 2,20 5,00 3,7044 ,48827
Valid N (list-wise) 336
According to the GPI result scheme, the higher the mean for a subdomain, the
better participants performed, so the results placd the students at medium-level
competence. It should be pointed out that the lowest mean for all departments was on the
subdomain Knowledge which ranged from 2.7 to 3.
The questions grouped under the category of Identity asked of the participants to
‘assess’ themselves and their understanding of self as well as their preparedness to
appropriately (re)act in new situations. The participants showed a strong belief in their
identity, with the mean above 3.8. When compared to the answers given to another set of
159

questions that make up the Affect subdomain, another part of the Intrapersonal domain, it
can be seen that the means in the latter were lower, though not considerably (see Table
4.4). Here, the participants showed that their understanding of the self could be used as a
basis for intercultural encounters, and that they were ready and open to accept differences
that may occur during those encounters. This aspect was especially highlighted in the
Serbian department, with the mean for Affect 4.4, while for other departments the mean
ranged from 3.4 to 3.7. All the other means are given in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Mean values on subdomains for all departments
Department Knowing Knowledge Identity Affect
Responsibility
Well
Interaction Being
English Mean 2,9171 3,3437 3,8338 3,6698 3,4122 3,6690 3,7223 3,5761
N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
,37643 ,61985 ,48519 ,42496 ,51511 ,41832 ,49244 ,48239
Std.
Dev
Global
Citizenship
Economics Mean 2,8220 3,2217 3,9446 3,6185 3,6024 3,6884 3,8124 3,6301
N 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83
Std. ,38018 ,55437 ,55814 ,44687 ,46768 ,45369 ,40463 ,46975
Dev
Arts Mean 2,9899 3,0545 4,2182 3,6667 3,6818 3,7727 3,9091 3,9091
N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Std. ,29588 ,43901 ,49360 ,37185 ,39759 ,40327 ,30151 ,30151
Dev
Music Mean 2,8535 3,3909 4,2000 3,5505 3,6712 3,7424 3,8701 3,7894
N 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
Std. ,26646 ,46793 ,45774 ,38867 ,43817 ,43863 ,32068 ,34814
Dev
History Mean 2,7481 3,7067 3,8933 3,4296 3,7044 3,5778 3,8476 3,5933
N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Std. ,39276 ,76295 ,54441 ,52766 ,59413 ,62636 ,39849 ,61929
Dev
Pedagogy Mean 3,0855 3,3115 4,0000 3,4615 3,6795 3,7692 3,6813 3,7462
N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Std. ,43308 ,52605 ,50990 ,54024 ,24964 ,40562 ,26182 ,44086
Dev
Psychology Mean 2,7879 3,3818 4,1273 3,7071 3,6061 3,8939 3,8442 3,6545
N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Std. ,15279 ,49360 ,42212 ,33801 ,80716 ,42343 ,42115 ,56101
Dev
Sociology Mean 2,8785 3,5875 4,1938 3,7630 3,8177 3,8906 3,9866 3,9132
N 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Std.
Dev
,44477 ,69456 ,51427 ,43068 ,47398 ,45714 ,41903 ,49475
160

Serbian Mean 2,9182 3,4176 3,9778 4,4239 3,7284 3,7191 3,9625 3,7685
N 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
Std.
Dev
,42838 ,49613 ,61756 4,94691 ,44309 ,51480 ,42931 ,51316
Journalism Mean 2,9444 3,4667 4,1250 3,7332 3,7222 3,9236 3,9226 3,8167
N 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Std.
Dev
,40129 ,53297 ,45991 ,38440 ,41896 ,43121 ,37200 ,47701
Total Mean 2,8850 3,3673 3,9946 3,7662 3,6263 3,7365 3,8464 3,7044
N 336 336 336 336 336 336 336 336
Std.
Dev
,38611 ,58244 ,53741 2,02831 ,49234 ,46253 ,42243 ,48827
Table 4.5 shows that statistically significant relevance among departments exists
in four subdomains, Knowledge, Identity, Responsibility and Global Citizenship, for all
the departments.
Table 4.5 Test Statistics for Kruskal-Wallis Test for the grouping variable ‘all
departments’
Knowing Knowledge Identity Affect Responsibility Interaction
Well
Being
Global
Citizenship
Chi-
Square
9,883 20,568 19,632 11,739 20,436 13,661 16,509 17,323
df 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Asymp.
Sig.
,360 ,015 ,020 ,228 ,015 ,135 ,057 ,044
Further tests show differences among the departments on these four sub-domains,
which can be seen in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Fisher’s LSD test
Knowledge English Economy Arts Music History Pedag Psych Sociol Serbian
Economy 0,189
Arts 0,12 0,364
Music 0,736 0,219 0,113
History 0,026 0,003 0,004 0,101
Pedagogy 0,853 0,599 0,274 0,692 0,07
Psychology 0,837 0,384 0,181 0,966 0,154 0,765
Sociology 0,047 0,002 0,008 0,216 0,507 0,144 0,305
Serbian 0,475 0,051 0,056 0,854 0,085 0,55 0,85 0,185
Journalism 0,364 0,066 0,049 0,655 0,204 0,432 0,685 0,435 0,727
Identity English Economy Arts Music History Pedag Psych Sociol Serbian
161

Economy 0,196
Arts 0,026 0,108
Music 0,005 0,045 0,926
History 0,692 0,73 0,123 0,084
Pedagogy 0,298 0,726 0,315 0,281 0,595
Psychology 0,088 0,282 0,687 0,71 0,266 0,557
Sociology 0,002 0,024 0,895 0,966 0,07 0,266 0,719
Serbian 0,133 0,72 0,17 0,098 0,585 0,892 0,393 0,068
Journalism 0,02 0,142 0,629 0,631 0,184 0,493 0,991 0,631 0,257
Responsibility English Economy Arts Music History Pedag Psych Sociol Serbian
Economy 0,015
Arts 0,085 0,608
Music 0,028 0,552 0,953
History 0,034 0,451 0,906 0,837
Pedagogy 0,067 0,592 0,991 0,961 0,891
Psychology 0,215 0,981 0,713 0,715 0,607 0,71
Sociology 0 0,033 0,42 0,273 0,453 0,384 0,21
Serbian 0 0,136 0,77 0,639 0,865 0,743 0,443 0,407
Journalism 0,007 0,284 0,818 0,72 0,911 0,797 0,508 0,464 0,958
Global
Citizenship English Economy Arts Music Hist Pedag Psych Sociol Serbian
Economy 0,487
Arts 0,033 0,072
Music 0,07 0,168 0,501
History 0,9 0,785 0,099 0,224
Pedagogy 0,242 0,419 0,409 0,797 0,403
Psychology 0,615 0,874 0,216 0,448 0,749 0,642
Sociology 0,001 0,005 0,981 0,354 0,034 0,292 0,125
Serbian 0,027 0,101 0,378 0,864 0,213 0,88 0,474 0,179
Journalism 0,035 0,095 0,598 0,848 0,159 0,671 0,355 0,458 0,684
In order to see whether all the subdomains had the same distribution, One-Sample
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test was performed with the results presented in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Knowing Knowledge Identity Affect Responsibility Interaction
Well
Being
N 336 336 336 336 336 336 336 336
Sig. ,021 ,017 ,008 ,000 ,003 ,003 ,030 ,372
Global
Citizenship
Since only one variable, Global Citizenship, had a normal distribution, the tests
that were later conducted in the analysis were nonparametric tests.
162

English language students
In order to see whether the English language students differed in their answers
from other students at the University of Niš, the respective results were compared. Due to
the fact that the students were immersed in the English language on a daily basis and
studied literature and culture (historical developments and current affairs), the research
hypothesis was that the English language students would have scored better in the GPI
questionnaire and that some difference would be seen in the results. The analysis showed
that the statistically significant differences between the English language students and the
students of other departments existed on four variables: Identity, Responsibility, Well
Being and Global Citizenship.
Table 4.8 Test statistics for the grouping variable ‘English language students’
Responsi
Well
Global
Knowing Knowledge Identity
Affect
bility
Interaction
Being
Citizenship
Mann-
Whitney
U
8885,000 9219,000 7252,500 9131,500 6658,000 8416,500 7539,500 7675,500
Wilcoxon 44130,000 11775,000 9808,500 44376,500 9214,000 10972,500 10095,500 10231,500
W
Z -,722 -,261 -2,983 -,381 -3,804 -1,372 -2,584 -2,387
Asymp.
Sig. (2-
tailed)
,470 ,794 ,003 ,703 ,000 ,170 ,010 ,017
However, the values means of the English language students were actually lower
than the means of other students, yet the mean differences were not that striking (ranging
in the interval of 0.15 to 0.27). This could prove that being immersed in a foreign
language teaching, coupled with literature and culture teaching does not, on its own, bring
heightened intercultural sensitivity and competence (Appendix 11, Table A.1).
While there was not a statistically significant difference on the subdomain
Knowing, the English language students scored better on it (Appendix 11, Table A.4).
When individual values for the questions in the subdomains Identity and Global
Citizenship were analysed, it was seen that the average values on the questions did not go
to any extreme.
163

Table 4.9 Subdomain means for English language department students
English
students
Knowing Knowledge Identity Affect
Responsibility
Interaction
Well
Being
Global
Citizenship
no Mean 2,8764 3,3736 4,0377 3,7921 3,6836 3,7546 3,8797 3,7388
N 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265
Std. ,38891 ,57307 ,54336 2,27364 ,47074 ,47277 ,39608 ,48498
Dev
yes Mean 2,9171 3,3437 3,8338 3,6698 3,4122 3,6690 3,7223 3,5761
N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Std. ,37643 ,61985 ,48519 ,42496 ,51511 ,41832 ,49244 ,48239
Dev
Total Mean 2,8850 3,3673 3,9946 3,7662 3,6263 3,7365 3,8464 3,7044
N 336 336 336 336 336 336 336 336
Std.
Dev
,38611 ,58244 ,53741 2,02831 ,49234 ,46253 ,42243 ,48827
The average values for questions in Identity subdomain ranged from 0.42 to 4.33, while
those in the subdomain Global citizenship were from 3.04 to 3.77. Such results may point
to the fact that students were not certain about the answers or their stand on particular
issues and opted to gravitate towards the option ‘I don’t have an attitude’.
Factors for ICC
Differences between the answers of the students from different years of study will
be discussed for the 1 st and 2 nd year, as the number of students in the 3 rd year is not
statistically significant. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare students from different
years of study. The results showed a statistically significant difference only for the
subdomain Knowledge where the mean rank was greater for the students of the first year.
Table 4.10 Comparison of mean values for the 1 st and 2 nd years
Year of
study N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Knowing 1 233 171,04 39852,00 ,101
2 97 152,20 14763,00
Total 330
Knowledge 1 233 172,38 40165,00 ,041
2 97 148,97 14450,00
Total 330
Identity 1 233 169,87 39579,50 ,194
2 97 155,01 15035,50
164

Total 330
Affect 1 233 169,46 39563,50 ,240
2 97 155,98 15051,50
Total 330
Responsibility 1 233 166,32 38752,00 ,808
2 97 163,54 15863,00
Total 330
Interaction 1 233 171,24 39898,50 ,088
2 97 151,72 14716,50
Total 330
Well Being 1 233 167,41 39005,50 ,572
Global
Citizenship
2 97 160,92 15609,50
Total 330
1 233 170,52 39732,00 ,137
2 97 153,43 14883,00
Total 330
The differences between male and female respondents were found only on one
variable, Knowledge, which can be seen in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11 Comparison of male and female participants
Well
Gender Knowing Knowledge Identity Affect Responsibility Interaction Being
M Mean 2,8530 3,5283 4,0522 3,9867 3,5764 3,6630 3,8137 3,6793
N 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
,42573 ,69446 ,58016 3,82860 ,56826 ,48291 ,42078 ,48979
Std.
Dev
Global
Citizenship
F Mean 2,9008 3,3053 3,9687 3,6800 3,6429 3,7605 3,8547 3,7102
N 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243
Std. ,36652 ,52377 ,51683 ,39402 ,46010 ,44973 ,41922 ,48604
Dev
Total Mean 2,8850 3,3673 3,9946 3,7662 3,6263 3,7365 3,8464 3,7044
N 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 335
Std.
Dev
,38611 ,58244 ,53741 2,02831 ,49234 ,46253 ,42243 ,48827
This difference was also shown in the Mann-Whitney U test where the standard
deviation for Knowledge was .004, as can be seen in Table A.2 (Appendix 11).
As many authors (Sinicrope, Norris, Watanabe 2007, Deardorff 2004, Cushner &
Mahon 2002, Ruben and Kealey 1979) claim that study abroad programs, as well as
165

prolonged periods of stay in foreign countries may help individuals become more
tolerant, sensitive and competent in intercultural encounters, the analysis was conducted
to see whether the students had any personal experience with foreign cultures and
whether that had a correlation with their answers. The analysis showed that statistically
significant differences between those students who stayed abroad and those who did not
existed on the variables Knowledge and Affect, as presented in Table 4.12. The mean
rank was more prominent with those students who stayed abroad. This might be again
explained by the greater number of students who had some experience abroad that those
without any experience. The means for each subdomain are give in Table A.3 (Appendix
11).
Table 4.12 Stays abroad
Stays
Sig. (2-tailed)
abroad N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Knowing No 84 175,15 14712,50 ,433
Yes 251 165,61 41567,50
Total 335
Knowledge No 84 148,55 12478,50 ,033
Yes 251 174,51 43801,50
Total 335
Identity No 84 166,99 14027,00 ,911
Yes 251 168,34 42253,00
Total 335
Affect No 84 152,53 12740,50 ,009
Yes 251 173,18 43539,50
Total 335
Responsibility No 84 167,33 14056,00 ,942
Yes 251 168,22 42224,00
Total 335
Interaction No 84 158,53 13316,50 ,297
Yes 251 171,17 42963,50
Total 335
Well Being No 84 164,68 13833,50 ,715
Yes 251 169,11 42446,50
Total 335
Global No 84 157,79 13254,00 ,263
Citizenship Yes 251 171,42 43026,00
166

Even thought language instruction cannot on its own result in better ICC (Byram
1997), the results for the subdomain Affect were analysed against the number of years of
learning the English language. As Figure 4.1 shows, there seemed to be a slightly higher
mean value for those participants who had been learning the language for more than 7
years.
Figure 4.1.Years of learning English and Affect
In order to further explore the possible link between the knowledge of foreign
languages and the global perspective of the participants, it was concluded that a
statistically significant difference between the students who speak only English and those
who speak at least one more foreign language existed only on the subdomain Knowledge.
The mean was more prominent with the students who speak another foreign language, as
can be seen in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13 Knowledge of other FL
FL N Mean Std. Deviation Sig.
Knowing No 167 2,8762 ,39698 0.680
Yes 169 2,8937 ,37604
Knowledge No 167 3,2731 ,55142 0.003
Yes 169 3,4604 ,59873
Identity No 167 3,9976 ,54662 0.920
167

Yes 169 3,9917 ,52976
Affect No 167 3,8708 2,84547 0.348
Yes 169 3,6629 ,42625
Responsibility No 167 3,6176 ,48566 0.747
Yes 169 3,6349 ,50014
Interaction No 167 3,6934 ,48276 0.090
Well
Being
Global
Citizenship
Yes 169 3,7791 ,43891
No 167 3,8271 ,40339 0.404
Yes 169 3,8656 ,44079
No 167 3,6616 ,47642 0.110
Yes 169 3,7467 ,49750
To further explore a possible influence of foreign languages on the attitudes of the
participants, questions from sub-domains Knowledge, Knowing and Affect were analysed
for those participants who spoke a foreign language other than English.
Table 4.14 Correlations between questions 25, 29, 30, and 32
I know how to analyze the
basic characteristics of a
culture (Q 25)
I am accepting of people with
different religious and spiritual
traditions (Q 29)
Cultural differences make me
question what is really true
(Q30)
I can discuss cultural
differences from an informed
perspective. (Q32)
Other FL N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks sig
No 166 161,48 26806,00
Yes 168 173,45 29139,00 0,221
No 167 170,99 28555,50
Yes 169 166,04 28060,50
No 167 172,50 28807,00
Yes 169 164,55 27809,00
No 167 155,23 25923,50
Yes 169 181,61 30692,50
0,599
0,436
0,008
The statistically significant difference exists only on one question – question 32,
with a slightly higher mean rank for those students who know another foreign language.
Correlations
In order to check whether the participants’ answers were consistent for similar,
but differently worded questions, Spearman’s test was conducted for groups of questions.
Since factor such as sex, year of study and stays abroad all showed the statistically
significant difference on the subdomain Knowledge, the first group consists of questions
8, 13 and 19 from that subdomain. The analysis showed, as presented in Table 4.15, that
168

there was a statistically significant correlation between the answers to the questions 8, 13
and 19.
Table 4.15 Correlations between questions 8, 13, and 19
I am informed of current issues
that impact international
relations (Q8)
I understand the reasons and
causes of conflict among nations
of different cultures (Q13)
I understand how various
cultures of this world interact
socially (Q19)
Spearman's rho Q8 Q13 Q19
Correlation 1,000 ,145 ** ,172 **
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) . ,008 ,002
N 336 336 335
Correlation ,145 ** 1,000 ,201 **
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) ,008 . ,000
N 336 336 335
Correlation ,172 ** ,201 ** 1,000
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) ,002 ,000 .
N 335 335 335
Questions 1 and 12 are closely related, though they are not grouped into any of the
subdomains of the questionnaire. Spearman’s test showed that there was not a statistically
significant correlation between these two answers. The separate values also showed the
lack of correlation, which might mean that the participants did not see a link between
seeing one’s culture as better (Q1) and judging others by applying one’s own value
system (Q12).
Table 4.16 Correlations between questions 1 and 12
Spearman's rho Q1 Q12
When I notice cultural
differences, my culture tends to
have the better approach (Q1)
I tend to judge the values of
others based on my own value
system (Q12)
Correlation Coefficient 1,000 ,034
Sig. (2-tailed) . ,538
N 336 336
Correlation Coefficient ,034 1,000
Sig. (2-tailed) ,538 .
N 336 336
The first question had the mean value of 2.74 showing that the participants might
not tend to favourize their own culture and in general opted for the neutral answer.
However, it is interesting to point out that 43% of students agreed/ strongly agreed with
169

the statement, and 39% did not/ did not at all agree with it, with only 18% of the
participants being neutral.
For the question 12 the mean was 3.4 with the values distributed differently. The
answers showed that 55% of the participants agreed/ strongly agreed with the statement
of using one’s own value system to judge other people’s values. On the other hand, 22%
of the participants were neutral, and 23% did not agree/did not agree at all with the
statement. The correlation might have been expected to be even greater, since the positive
answers to the question 1 might have influenced the answers to question 12. However, the
lack of statistically significant relevance might point to the lack of awareness than one
culture’s frame cannot account for other cultures.
To further examine the consistency of the answers, we compared the mean values
for questions 29 and 39. These two questions asked from the participants to show
openness towards different religious and cultural make-up. The analysis showed that there
was a statistically significant correlation between the answers. The average value for
question 29 was 4.41 and 3.39 for question 39. A high percentage of the participants
agreed/ strongly agreed (89.6%) with the statement of accepting different religious and
spiritual tradition, which was similar to the case of question 39 on being open to other
lifestyles.
Table 4.17 Correlations between questions 29 and 39
Spearman's rho
I am accepting of
people with different
religious and spiritual
traditions (Q29)
Correlation
Coefficient
I am open to people who strive to
live lives very different from my
own life style (Q39)
,422 **
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 335
Another confirmation of the consistency of the answer was the analysis of
correlation between questions 5 and 38, where the participants shared their views on
contributing to a wider community. The analysis found a statistically significant
correlation.
Both questions are from the subdomain Social Responsibility in the Interpersonal
domain, and the answers showed that the participants’openness towards others and
170

willingness to engage with others who are different from them. However, when these
results were compared to the qualitative data, a certain incongruity emerged.
Table 4.18 Correlations between questions 5 and 38
Spearman's rho
I think of my life in
terms of giving back
to society (Q5)
Correlation ,314 **
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 335
I consciously behave in terms of
making a difference (Q38)
For the two questions, 28 and 29, from the Intrapersonal domain and its
subdomain Affect, the analysis showed that there was a statistically significant
correlation, as presented in Table 4.19. For the question 28, which asked whether students
would cooperate with people with different cultural values, the majority of participants,
55.2%, chose a neutral answer, with 25.6% of participants agreeing with the statement.
On the other hand, when answering the next question, about accepting people of different
religious orientation, most of the participants, 89.5% strongly agreed or agreed with the
statement, and considerably lower percentage stayed neutral 7.7%.
Table 4.19 Correlations of questions 28 and 29
Spearman's rho
I prefer to work with Correlation
people who have Coefficient
different cultural
values from me (Q28)
I am accepting of people with
different religious and spiritual
traditions (Q29)
,204 **
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 335
These two questions were one after the other, and it is interesting that there was a
statistically significant difference between the percentages of neutral answers. A
declarative agreement and support for issues that are perceived as having a ‘social load’,
such as religious tolerance and acceptance, even in anonymous questionnaires, may have
influenced the answers.
To continue with the issue of perceiving differences among cultures and
responding to them, answers to the question 25 in relation to the questions 12 and 32 were
171

analysed. The question 25 asked from the participants to qualify their knowledge of and
ability to analyse basic characteristics of a culture.
Table 4.20 Correlations between questions 12, 25 and 32
Spearman's rho Q12 Q25 Q32
I tend to judge the
values of others based on
my own value system
(Q12)
I know how to analyze
the basic characteristics
of a culture (Q25)
I can discuss cultural
differences from an
informed perspective
(Q32)
Correlation
Coefficient
1.000 -.080 -.041
Sig. (2-tailed) . .145 .452
N 336 334 336
Correlation
Coefficient
-.080 1.000 .428 **
Sig. (2-tailed) .145 . .000
N 334 334 334
Correlation
Coefficient
-.041 .428 ** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .452 .000 .
N 336 334 336
There was a statistically significant correlation between the questions 25 and 32,
while there was not any statistically significant correlation between questions 12 and 25,
or 12 and 32. These three questions had the component of ‘assessing’ other culture, being
confident in one’s ability to analyse other cultures, as well as being well-informed about
other cultures. Spearman’s test showed that the participants found themselves confident
when analyzing other cultures and also they claimed being well-informed about cultural
differences. The mean value on question 25 was 3.54, and almost equal percentage of the
participants was neutral (41.7%) or agreed with (40.8%) the statement. The mean for
question 32 was 3.20, with the greatest number of neutral answers (42.6%) and 36.6% of
those who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
The participants were also asked to rate their being informed about events that
influenced intercultural relations in question 8 and their answers gave the mean of 3.48.
The mean for question 32 that asked from the participants to assess their ability to discuss
cultural difference based on their being well-informed was 3.20. Spearman’s test showed
a statistically significant deviation between them, which can be seen in Table 4.21,
pointing to the consistency of answers. Also, it also showed that the participants again
172

showed confidence about their intercultural knowledge and sensitivity, though, again, the
interviews shed different light on the data.
Table 4.21 Correlations between questions 8 and 32
Spearman's rho
I am informed of
current issues that
impact international
relations (Q8)
I can discuss cultural differences
from an informed perspective
(Q32)
Correlation
.339**
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 336
The participants were also asked to rate their ability to explain their values to
people different from them in question 3. Here, the mean was high, 4.04, with 77% of the
participants agreeing/ strongly agreeing with the statement. When discussing a similar
question in the interviews, to explain what it meant to be Serbian to people of other
cultures, the interviewees had more difficulty pinpointing these particular elements. They
were more certain of what being Serbian meant in general, and would point out some
characteristics.
Question 14 asked from the participants to rate their ability to adapt to new
situations. Here, the mean was 3.71, with 63.7% of the participants agreeing/ strongly
agreeing with the statement. The interviewees showed to a certain extent that they would
show flexibility in terms of offering alternative modes of behaviour in a particular
situation. However, the attributions offered for the critical incidents would not uphold
such a high percentage of positive answers, as the alternatives offered in most cases were
not based on any insights or knowledge.
Based on Spearman’s tests, we can conclude that the participants’ answers to
similar questions were not always consistent, however, they showed some level of
consistency. Furthermore, the questions which did not show a correlation pointed to the
fact that the participants, in spite of the high values for these questions, did not see other
cultures as possessing their own value systems according to which they organize their
reality. This attitude may affect the understanding of behaviours in intercultural
encounters and may cause misunderstandings and inability to establish the common
ground.
173

4.3. Summary
The quantitative results showed that the students of the University of Niš
displayed a medium-to-high level of global perspective, with only one subdomain, that of
Knowledge receiving considerable lower mean score, but still within the boundary of
medium. Other factors (gender, year of study, stays abroad, other foreign language)
showed statistically significant difference on the subdomain Knowledge (with the mean
ranks slightly more prominent for the first year, males and those participants who stayed
abroad and spoke another foreign language), while no statistically significant difference
was seen on other subdomains. The correlation between similar or negatively worded
questions was intermittent which might point to the fact that the participants were not
always consistent in their answers.
The qualitative data provide a closer insight into the possible reasons for such
results and offer a thick description on the cognitive and affective domains, and to some
extent, the behavioural domain.
4.4. Interview results
In this section the results of interviews are presented. The benefits of using
interviews in the qualitative phase of the research were pointed out in the chapter on
methodology. This section gives an explanation of the interview procedure and presents
the interview results, highlighting the coding system. These coding categories are
illustrated with the examples and quotes from the interviews. The results from the
interview are triangulated with the questionnaire data and syllabi (as well as the
researcher notes). This provides a rounded-up report on the participants’ motivation,
attitudes and responses on intercultural incidents.
All interviews were recorded with the average length of the interview of 37
minutes and the total length of the recordings of 421 minutes (around 7 hours). The
interviews were semi-structured, with the questions prepared and then adjusted on the
spot, depending on the responses given. The ordering of the question was similar for all
the interviews in order not to influence the participants’ answers. The critical incidents to
be discussed were chosen according to the responses in the first part of the interview.
Therefore, the number of incidents per interview was not fixed, but it was never under
seven.
174

In order to be analysed, the interviews were firstly transcribed. The focus in the
interviews was on the content rather than on the manner of delivery, which was also
reflected in the transcription of the interviews. Only where some prosodic features or
body language were important for the message or meaning the interviewee was trying to
convey were these noted in the transcript which was then submitted to the qualitative
content analysis.
A qualitative content analysis defined as ‘any qualitative data reduction and sensemaking
effort that takes a volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core
consistencies and meanings’ (Patton 2002: 453) was applied to the data. It does not only
entail ‘counting words or extracting objective content from texts to examine meanings,
themes and patterns’ but also ‘allows researchers to understand social reality in a
subjective but scientific manner’ (Zhang and Wildemuth 2009: 308). Through inductive
process – examination and comparison, themes and categories were created from the data,
to which purpose Atlas.ti 5.0 was also employed.
4.4.1. Coding categories
The codes applied to the interviews are grouped into four categories, each is
explained here, while the examples and illustrations are given in the next section.
Experience with foreign language learning
The category of codes showed the interviewees’ view of foreign language learning
and how foreign language helped or prevented successful intercultural communication.
The codes in this category are given in Table 4.22.
Table 4.22 Experience with FLL codes
Experience with FLL
Codes
learn FL
learn English
language and comparing cultures
culture in language classes / culture learning
Five interviewees stated knowledge of more than one foreign language, though
none of the interviewees stated that their knowledge of other FL was as good as that of
English. In general, the interviewees thought that English could be a language of
175

communication between members of different cultures, and saw it as important: ‘It’s not
the only one, but it is important’ (I4).
Not all interviewees mentioned this, but I2 and I6 suggested that the proficiency in
language is something that might colour the IC encounters. ‘It depends on how well you
know the language’ (I6), ‘my friend had that language barrier, she didn’t know how to
say what she needed, so it happened that she sounded negative’ (I2).
Some interviewees had reservations about the usefulness of English in all
situations, and mainly pointed to the inability to express our culture completely ‘Not all
our words can be expressed in English in their right sense’ (I4).
Intercultural competence
The next category relates to the interviewees’ experience and attitudes in terms of
intercultural contact. Only two interviewees stated they had a prolonged contact with an
English-speaking culture, while other three stated they had had contacts with other
cultures. All codes in this category are given in the following table:
Table 4.23 ICC codes
ICC
Codes
stays in foreign countries/ contact
stays in English speaking countries
becoming IC competent
self-awareness
own culture awareness
mediation
multiculturality
bridging
adaptation
The interviewees also discussed the ways in which one could become more
interculturally competent, where they in most cases mentioned two principal ways. The
first one was a direct contact with a particular culture, and the second was learning about
that culture. Here, it should be said that what the interviewees had in mind was more
learning of facts about a country ‘We learn their language, we should know something
about their geography, history’ (I3), rather than going under the surface of the ‘culture
iceberg’ to explore invisible aspects of culture.
176

Then, the interviewees were asked to give a sketch of a typical Serb, in order to
show their attitudes towards their culture. In most interviews, their answers coincided, as
all interviewees mentioned some typical elements, like food, an easy-going attitude,
hospitality. Not all interviewees mentioned these in a favourable light, and in those cases
tried to distance themselves from such presentation.
Thee interviewees mentioned some other aspects of ICC, such as adaptation to
different cultures, trying to bridge two cultures and trying to find some middle ground on
which to operate in IC encounters. As one interviewee said, referring to the obstacles of
becoming IC competent, ‘A man shouldn’t belong to any culture, because, it is very
difficult, those norms they are really deeply ingrained, not just in us, but in everyone […]
it would be best if a person would be a member of a third culture, to have an objective
view of things’ (I7).
Attitudes to IC contact
This category of codes related to the interviewees’ attitudes expressed
through their attributions given to critical incidents. It should be pointed out that the
answers were rather similar which in turn dictated similar codes, as can be seen from their
number. For example, problems in particular incidents were seen as stemming from the
individual characteristics and traits of those involved in it (maybe he was just like that
(I6)). Also, discomfort that might be felt in IC encounters was also a frequent response,
especially when the interviewees were asked how they would feel in the similar situation
as the one presented to them in the critical incident. The participants tended to use the
term ‘normal’ to explain certain situations (individual merit in the States, for example), or
to explain something that might be considered a common practice in Serbia. When
‘solving’ the critical incidents it could be seen that the interviewees sometimes claimed
that different expectations might be a cause of misunderstanding (he hoped he would get
a job (I3)). Finally, on rare occasions the interviewees showed rather strong stereotypical
attitudes towards certain practices described in the incidents. Here, they either claimed
that foreigners lacked certain characteristics that should be present (they don’t know how
to keep in touch, how to socialize (I4)) or were negative towards the very idea of
discussing a certain issue (I think all that is blown out of proportion, that political
correctness dumb-talk (I11). All codes in this category are given in Table 4.24.
177

Table 4.24 Attitudes to IC contact codes
Attitudes to IC contact
Codes
comparison (us vs. them, how they see us)
discomfort
individual
normal
different expectations
cultural differences
strong stereotype
directness
distance (physical/ emotional)
Values
Finally, this category dealt with values that the interviewees showed in response
to both general questions and critical incidents.
As it can be seen in Table 4.25, these values were in terms of work ethics, the only
value that was seen as a positive characteristic of a foreign culture and a negative one in
our culture by all the interviewees. Then, some attitudes about gender roles were also
expressed. Those interviewees who mentioned them did so to challenge the ‘traditional’
division between the gender roles and to side with a more equal and ‘modern’ view of
them in the Serbian society. The interviewees often repeated and placed importance on
the social distance and bonding between individuals, showing that, as a trait of
communication, it accounted for some negative attitudes expressed in the critical
incidents. The interviewees also touched upon family values and discussed difference in
expectations of a younger generation in a family.
Table 4.25 Values codes
Values
Codes
family values
work ethics
gender and culture
social distance
customs
178

4.4.2. Attributions
The central part of the interviews was the attributions given by the participants.
These attributions are presented grouped around similar topics to which each critical
incident relates. The tables show the codes are also presented in order more clearly
present the attitudes and opinions of the participants. The quotes from the interviews that
are given in this section are the most illustrative for particular codes and the
understanding of attributions.
4.4.2.1. National identity – awareness of one’s own culture
Byram (1997) states that successful intercultural mediators are learner with a
sound knowledge of and heightened awareness about their own culture’s practices, values
and beliefs. Therefore, the participants were asked to describe a typical Serb and their
answers are presented in the following table.
Table 4.26 Defining one’s own culture
Codes
No. of references
family values 1
customs 2
stereotypes 3
comparison 1
The answers tended to be stereotypical, which was only understandable, as in the
limited amount of time, the interviewees had to provide short and meaningful answers. It
can be noticed that most of these ‘definitions’ focused solely on our culture, for example
in:
Hospitality, food, our specialties, to drink a bit […] Orthodox church,
belief in God, tradition that persists (I4);
Combativeness, optimism, cheekiness, resourcefulness (I7).
Other definitions included other cultures and how we fared in comparison to them:
Cuisine, a bit stubborn, of a friendly disposition, more than some western
countries, We think we’re very smart, smarter than others (I11).
Religion and tradition were also prominent among answers
Being Orthodox, religion is in the first place; (I7)
Orthodox church, belief in God, (I1)
179

which need not mean the interviewees represented conservative opinions, since three of
them openly stated their dissatisfaction with this picture of a typical Serb. Finally, the
participants mentioned nationalism
In contact with other nations we are big nationalists. (I2)
There is that sense of nationalism, in young people, is that the influence of
peers or society, I think that’s a wrong approach. (I11)
Another related issue was to investigate whether the interviewees saw certain
differences across their own culture, be they generational or those of affiliation to certain
groups. As they saw the older generation as different in terms of understanding the notion
of being Serbian, the interviewees stated some of the reasons:
Cultural differences are important for older people and those who are
closely tied to the tradition of culture because they think that is part of their
identity, they don’t want to blend into masses. (I1)
[Parents] are really negative, because they lived through the 1990s, they
see everything black. (I2)
My parents, no, […] they are not that extreme. They love their country,
but they aren’t, they don’t have such a strong nationalistic attitude. (I3)
My mother, due to the nature of her job is in contact with foreigners, so
her image [of Serbian culture] is different from the image of an average
Serb, but my grandparents, for them the Serbs are the top. (I12)
Here, stereotypical views were shown as representative of the older generation,
nationalism and exclusiveness were seen as its characteristics, however, all the
interviewees tried to distance themselves from these views.
When talking about the views of their peer group, the interviewees mentioned that
they had not discussed these issues with their peers, and said that there would be some
degree of agreement, for example:
[the peers] share my opinion on culture, but they don’t show it enough.
(I2)
My peers, more or less [agree]. (I6)
My peers, I don’t know how important it is to people nowadays, not much,
probably it simply means where we come from. Some are not even proud.
(I7)
As an additional question here, some of the interviewees were asked whether they
could compare the Serbian culture with some other cultures. The question was asked in
order to ascertain how the interviewees conceptualized culture, whether they made value
180

judgments and finally, to probe for any stereotypical views. The interviewees either said
they could not compare cultures, some of them adding ‘people are brought up differently,
so other cultures and behaviours suit them’ (I4). Another interviewee stated she was not
familiar enough with other cultures, but believed ‘we are a bit dyed in the wool
traditionalists’ (I3). Another view shared was that ‘it cannot be compared – what’s normal
here maybe wouldn’t be normal in America, maybe I’d like it, maybe I wouldn’t’ (I6).
This qualification of normalcy appeared intermittently in interviews and, while it might
show that the interviewees were aware of differences, it actually presented an
ethnocentric point of view.
Finally, two interviewees stated here openly that our culture was better, while
during the rest of their interviews showed other attitudes:
Taking into consideration customs and tradition, they are much more
developed here, the whole system – that system doesn’t exist in other
cultures. (I12)
With certainty I can say that our culture has bigger and deeper history,
tradition above all. (I9)
As the last question in this segment of the interviews, whose answers were all
coded as ‘comparing cultures [us vs. them]’, was how others see us. This question was
aimed at establishing the interviewees’ sentiments towards other cultures, but in a nonobtrusive
manner. Foregrounding other cultures, and not asking about the relationship of
our people with other nations and relationship between the countries, the interviewees
might have been provoked to give a more immediate and truthful response. While not all
the interviewees answered the question, the overall belief was that the Serbian culture was
seen in a negative light, due to the recent turbulent past, the media propaganda and
general ignorance of others. Therefore, negative attitudes and distrust of others might be
seen as the reflection of supposedly negative picture that foreigners have of us.
4.4.2.2. Establishing the first contact
There are two critical incidents that are directly based on establishing the first
contacts. Critical incident 1 is based on the recognition of personal space that different
cultures organize differently, while Critical incident 2 is based on maintaining eye contact
between people as a sign of showing one’s territoriality. Both culture characteristics were
highlighted by Hall (1966) as types of ‘spatial cues’ (Hall 1966: 190) and have been
181

discussed in ICC courses ever since as the visible behavour that is often misunderstood or
disregarded.
The attributions for the critical incident were various and could be seen in the
Table 4.27 together with the number of references to them.
Table 4.27 Critical incident 1 codes
Codes
No. of references
directness 4
distance (physical) 2
comparison 3
individual 2
strong stereotype (negative 3
preconceptions towards ‘us’)
bridging 1
Two out of 12 interviewees recognized Critical incident 1 for what it actually was
– the importance that body language, personal space and the value and meaning of
proximity of persons plays in IC encounters (kinesics and proxemics). These answers
were:
We did this in class [communication studies] it said that every nation has
an inborn distance for communication. It’s less for us and the Greeks, and
bigger for the Scandinavians or Americans […] it’s not on purpose that he’s
backing up, he’s unconsciously moving away. (I12)
They have that ‘balloon’ around them and don’t like you to enter it. (I2)
Most interviewees expressed negative feelings towards the Serbian culture, stating
pushiness, directness and excessive openness as presenting problems for communication,
but in most cases further qualifying their answers:
Milan is too pushy, Mathew doesn’t like it, perhaps he has some
prejudices. (I6)
Mathew is a bit confused, since Milan approached him like that, perhaps
he’s taken aback […] there’s an unknown person in a strange country, he
doesn’t know who to trust. (I7)
Perhaps Milan seems too pushy, he doesn’t feel comfortable in his
company, or he wants to meet some girls. (I11)
On the other hand, there were answers that proved that the interviewees saw Milan
as the one being threatened:
Some open hostility between our two nations… we learn more about
them, they have more prejudices towards us. (I3)
182

Some kind of prejudice that Serbs are a certain way, so I think he’s not
even glad he arrived in Serbia. (I8)
Then, some attributions were aimed at the personal level, at the individual features
and traits of the characters in the critical incident.
said that:
Mathew doesn’t like other people, not likely since he’s on the exchange,
perhaps has some prejudices, but why would he then come to a foreign
place? (I10)
Milan is by nature open, he wants to be friends with good intentions.
Mathew sees that more personally, perhaps he’s not the one who forms
friendships easily. Could be related to culture, upbringing is different. Like
here, the south is more open than Vojvodina. (I5)
Finally, there was one instance of ‘bridging’ the differences when an interviewee
Milan did everything from the best of intentions. I’d assume where the
problem is and try to explain the matter between what he assumed and what
really is. (I1)
While this response showed a willingness to address the possible problem, in the next
chapter it will be shown how it may also be an alley to further problems.
The next critical incident received similar types of attribution as it is also based on
the category of kinesics and proxemics. Being an important means of showing social
distance and respect and employed differently in different culture, misinterpreted eyecontact
may lead to further misunderstandings.
The attributions, that is, codes for this critical incident are given in Table 4.28,
together with the number of references to them.
Table 4.28 Critical incident 2 codes
Codes
No. of references
cultural difference 3
discomfort 5
distance 1
strong stereotype (hostility) 2
individual 1
*don’t know 1
Only one interviewee understood the critical incident correctly due to her training
in the communication studies course, where they
183

We did this as an exercise too. […] here it is not so common to keep
constant eye contact, you look to the side as well. There, if you don’t have
the eye contact, it’s a sign of disrespect. So it’s a cultural difference of a
kind, in behaviour. (I12)
these answers:
Other attributions, as the Table 4.27 shows, included dispositional attribution as in
I guess Julie is just observing Marija’s behaviour, she wants to find out as
much as possible about our culture. (I2)
I don’t know, maybe she wanted to get to her, to understand her a bit
better
Something drew Julie, perhaps a strange haircut. (I5)
Maybe Marija is too fat, or has a cleavage, or Julie is in love. (I11)
Several attributions mentioned cultural differences, and as it is seen later in the
chapter, even though the interviewees did not always mediate between cultures, they did
focus on particular cultural differences, those actions that are on the ‘surface’ of culture,
without including a deeper analysis.
Perhaps this is a cultural difference, maybe it is normal for Julie or
maybe she finds Marija interesting because of culture. (I6)
It’s uncomfortable, well, Marija is not used to being looked into the eyes.
It perhaps depends. Maybe they look in each other’s eyes. (I7)
Here too, in most cases the interviewees reported that the member of the Serbian
culture was in an uncomfortable situation:
Perhaps she’s got some prejudices, she’s prepared for something evil
from Marija, she tries to read her. (I8)
Could be some paranoia, some concern about Marija, or it might be
because of concentration that she’s looking straight into the eyes. (I9)
The participants with the US-experience offered attributions similar to others’,
which might be another support for instruction and training and their effectiveness for
heightened ICC.
From the attributions and their frequency it could be seen that ‘our’ directness and
‘their’ distance were the main explanations for misunderstandings. The next most
frequent attribution was the individual traits of those involved in an intercultural
encounter, and finally the comparison of cultures, that is ‘us vs. them’ contrast.
184

4.4.2.3. Socializing
As an important part of university and professional life, socializing was present in
three critical incidents. Here the aim was to see whether the participants knew the reasons
for one’s communication style, moving away from only non-verbal behaviour.
The following table gives answers coded and the number of references for Critical
incident 3.
Table 4.29 Critical incident 3 codes
Codes
No. of references
directness 1
cultural difference 2
individual 4
communication problem 1
uncomfortable 1
bridge 1
*don’t know 2
The episode presented time management and organization of time (Trompenaars
and Hampden-Turner 1997). Also, the answers of the interviewees touched upon the ingroup
vs. out-group orientation, and finally, the expectations that one had from people
one was on friendly terms with.
The attributions offered were aimed at the individual features, with three
interviewees trying to explain the incident by offering a possible solution without a
prompt from the researcher.
I don’t know, maybe they have some obligations, maybe they don’t want to.
(I3)
Maybe they simply don’t want to hang out with him. I do the same here, I
meet somebody, and we say let’s call and then we have some more pressing
obligations. (I4)
Maybe they’re too busy or simply don’t care. They say ‘OK’ and then they
forget. (I5)
Two interviewees who recognized the differences in phrasing invitations provided
these explanations:
They simply talk like that, ‘let’s hang out’ but nothing happens. Vuk
should’ve asked them directly, to suggest ‘see you on Friday at 8’. It’s a
norm there, if one does not say it directly, nothing happens. (I2)
185

I think that it’s because here you say let’s go for a coffee and we move
immediately, it’s not that formal. If they had said ‘let’s go for coffee on
Saturday at 5’ it would mean something, as it is, they just talked a bit and
that was it. (I12)
Finally, one interviewee saw the possibility of solving the misunderstanding:
Vuk should try, yes – they talk about it, but they should go for a coffee
straight away. (I11).
Another critical incident that problematized relationships between in-group and
out-group members, the levels of intimacy and predictions one had towards the concept of
friendship and how it wass constructed was Critical incident 5. Similarly to how they
answered in the previous critical incident, the interviewees provided attributions that
focused on the individual characteristics of the person, with the addition of contrasting
our two cultures, and stressing the behaviour of the couple as ‘normal’. The codes are
given in Table 4.30, followed with several quotes from the interviews.
Table 4.30 Critical incident 5 codes
Codes
No. of references
individual 4
uncomfortable 2
comparison 2
normal 4
custom 1
It’s a bit different there. Here, those friendly relations are more relaxed,
you literally just appear at the doors, and, nothing, it’s completely normal.
(I2)
There, it’s different, until one does not announce the visit, they’re not
ready, that’s why they are surprised and baffled. They’re not used to it, their
culture has not prepared them. Here it’s a normal thing. (I4)
It’s been like that for 100s of years here, and there it hasn’t. (I9)
Here you drop by unannounced, without anything – there, it’s a custom at
least to call. (I12)
Other interviewees explained John’s discomfort from their own point of view –
explaining his behaviour through dispositional factors:
Maybe he thinks they’re impolite for not announcing beforehand. Some
people are like that. (I11)
186

Maybe he wasn’t ready, maybe his house was mess, maybe he had
problems with his wife. (I3)
The last critical incident that was based on socializing is Critical incident 18,
which included both individualism and perception of gender roles. The attributions
offered were different for each interviewee, and, even though not all interviewees
analysed this critical incident, what could be concluded is that they again perceived the
episode primarily from the perspective of the Serbian culture. The interviewees
recognized in this critical incident our unique custom, something that is a way ‘to show
respect’ (I5), and also a way for people to show ‘their hospitality’ (I11).
Table 4.31 Critical incident 18 codes
Codes
No. of references
custom 2
individual 1
different expectations 1
false pretense [forced hospitality] 1
comparison 1
culture differences 1
They don’t have bad intentions. The Serbs, I mean, they want to show
respect [...], she’s probably used to paying for herself. (I5)
She doesn’t understand that it is really a custom here that a guy pays, not
necessarily to a girlfriend, to a female friend too. (I6)
It’s a nice ‘gesture’, why would she be irritated? We like to party, maybe
they got to like her, want to show their hospitality. (I11)
One of the interviewees used the comparison of cultures to explain the
misunderstanding, saying:
Well, if you invite someone out for a drink, it’s understandable to pay.
And there, everyone pays for themselves. And she’s a foreigner, we should
pay for her – that’s our view of things. She’s not used to it. (I12)
Even though it was represented in only several answers, the interviewees stressed
that representatives of our culture are ‘overdoing it’ (I5), and that this is ‘exaggerated
hospitality, it seems forced’ (I10).
187

For this particular group of critical incidents it could be said that dispositional
attribution was most frequently used to explain the misunderstandings, together with
customs and the sense that certain practices are simply ‘normal’ for our culture.
4.4.2.4. Student life
Moving on to the next section of critical incident, this is the first one of those
related to student life. The attributions that most of the participants offered were about the
relaxed and laid-back atmosphere ‘there’.
The codes for this critical incident are in the table, followed by some quotes from
the interviews.
Table 4.32 Critical incident 4 codes
Codes
No. of references
comparison [them] 7
comparing cultures 2
different expectations 2
*don’t know 1
They’re more relaxed, perhaps that is normal there, here is a bit different (I9)
Honestly, I’ve heard stories about that. They’re more relaxed, perhaps
that is normal there, here is a bit different, it is stricter. (I11)
Here there is some, almost awe towards a professor and institution,
we’re raised like that, there it is much less formal relationship. It is the
way of upbringing. (I12)
The professor lets them do that, it’s some kind of a relaxed atmosphere,
which you cannot see in Belgrade, or Nis. (I11)
The interviewees did show some emotions when discussing this critical incident,
which could be seen in the attributions themselves:
I guess they don’t disturb the class, and the professors don’t have the
right to throw them out. I guess the students don’t know that it is not right.
(I7)
They didn’t tell him what is OK, what should be, and why should someone
do that. The question is why this would be allowed here (I8)
The interviewees also reported on how they knew about these practices, and
except the two interviewees with the first-hand experience, others stated TV, readings,
and anecdotes heard from friends.
188

In another critical incident from student life, the interviewees had to account for
the behaviour of a professor. The attributions for the particular episode were in contrast to
the previous one form the university setting. While in the previous one the interviewees
claimed more freedom and flexibility of the professors ‘there’, here, the answers went
along a different track.
The interviewees’ attribution could be roughly grouped under two codes. The first
one was individual characteristics, both on Veljko’s and professor’s part, while the other
was ‘us vs. them’, or comparing cultural practices in this context where the explanation
contained this contrast, even when it was not asked for by the researcher.
Table 4.33 Critical incident 9 codes
Codes
No. of references
them 1
individual 4
comparing cultures 3
Perhaps he interrupted his call
The professor, if he’s in the mood, he’d explain. Perhaps it was his bad
day. It doesn’t have to do with him being an exchange student. (I11)
It depends on a teacher, some are forthcoming some are not (I9)
You need to be punctual there … being late is a sign of rudeness. […]
here it’s different (I2);
Professor found it troublesome that Veljko appeared early, probably he
demanded that others respect his time [...] Here the professors are more
flexible, a few minutes wouldn’t be a problem. (I5)
He was early, and barged in, without asking the permission [...] Here, you
enter, knock, without waiting for an answer (I12).
It should be added that one interviewee said that professors there usually had
secretaries in front of their offices, thus showing familiarity with certain aspects of
university life, even though they are not universally present.
For these two critical incidents the prevalent attribution was the comparison of
cultures, with only a few dispositional attributions. Interestingly, the explanations were
somewhat contradictory for the two critical incidents, a point which is further explored in
the next chapter.
189

4.4.2.5. At the workplace
The critical incidents that had to do with the workplace and work ethics were
included in interviews with the aim of getting an insight into the ability of the
interviewees to analyse their own culture as well as their ability to explain these practices
to someone from a different culture. 33
The themes in this section were high/low power distance, hierarchy and status, the
social and gender roles, as well as in-group vs. out-group attitudes.
The coding of the answers for this critical incident is presented in Table 4.34.
Table 4.34 Critical incident 14 codes
Codes
No. of references
work ethics 2
comparing cultures 7
distance [no familiarity] 1
custom 1
normal 2
different expectations 1
I can guess why he was surprised. Here, the clout is the most important.
Whether one is qualified, whether one is qualified for that post is
unimportant. (I2)
It’s very important for the Americans, I heard. They are more dedicated to
work, work longer hours, as I heard […] I guess this American wanted the
best for the firm. (I4)
The interviewees again referred to the practice as ‘normal’, however, now
presenting the domestic practice as deviating from the rule.
What is normal here is not normal there. Here it’s normal that a man
would hire his nephew, brother, aunt even though they’re not qualified. (I6)
Everyone normal would be surprised. (I10)
An American wouldn’t put in a word for his own son. There you get
success through work, not connections. Here, unfortunately it is not the
case. (I12)
Finally, one student pointed to a personal obligation towards family, stating that
he learned about this in a course:
33 For the assimilator itself this means a changed focus from an encounter of cultures where a member of
the Serbian culture is at a loss, to an encounter of cultures where it is presumed the members of the Serbian
culture would have a sufficient insight into a problem to be able to explain it to members of other cultures.
190

We talked about that in Sociology of work. Here it’s seen as an obligation
to hire one’s cousin. (I8)
Another critical incident with a new, foreign boss was aimed at the power distance
(Hofstede 1997) between people, as well as the expectations of a masculine culture, in
terms of social roles and seniority. The problem here was not perceived as that of power
distance, but more of an outsider in an already formed group. Seniority was not stressed
by the interviewees, and only one mentioned it as a possible problem for other coworkers.
Table 4.35 Critical incident 6 codes
Codes
No. of references
individual 4
distance 4
comparison [us] 3
contact [negative] 1
comparing cultures 1
different expectations 1
bridging 1
The attributions were mostly critical of our culture, where the interviewees
pointed to a distrust or open xenophobia towards a foreign newcomer.
The problem is in our workers, in a distrust of foreigners, and not only
foreigners, if there’s a new worker in the firm on a high position, well
educated, there’s some inborn distrust or envy. (I10)
I think we are distrustful of each other, when someone would come from
‘outside’, maybe they’re afraid, maybe he never used to work with those
machines. (I3)
So a new American arrived, a culture we generally have a low opinion of,
and now he is to order Serbs around. (I2)
I just think they’re xenophobic and have a problem with accepting
someone foreign. (I9)
Several attributions referred to individual characteristics, but even then referring
to some local cultural practices:
Maybe they got used to the former boss. (I10)
Probably those workers are not used to many obligations, that tempo that
he insist on, so they want to cut corners. (I12)
191

In the critical incident with a female project manager, the aim was to place gender
expectations and gender roles at the center of the episode. All major intercultural models
(Hall 1966, Hofstede 1984, Trompenaars, Humpden-Turner 1997) include the dimension
of femininity/masculinity, as an important indicator of the values that different cultures
have towards cooperation and interdependence. While this critical incident is perhaps too
obvious, exactly in order to provoke an immediate response, it turned out that gender
roles were not the only attribution that the interviewees gave, even though it was the
prevalent one. Coded responses for the critical incident are given in the following table:
Table 4.36 Critical incident 7 codes
Codes
No. of references
individual 2
gender and culture 5
different expectations 4
*don’t know 1
That’s probably the influence of our culture, that a man is smarter than a
woman. (I3)
I think it’s some kind of sexism, perhaps they have fewer male colleagues.
(I9)
At a first glance I’d say it’s male chauvinism, but on the other hand, he
accepted her as a boss, why wouldn’t he another woman. (I10)
Another group of attributions was aimed at the expectations of the driver:
I think the driver reacted like that because he hoped he would get the job. (I2)
Perhaps he expected she would choose him. (I8)
One of the interviewees added that political correctness that he sensed in this
critical incident was not a ‘real’ thing and that he believed it was ‘pushed on people’.
Even though it was only one remark, it is important to note that when ideas and practices
become lowered to only speech acts that are devoid of meaning and true application in a
social context, they become transformed into empty words and do the opposite of what
they have been intended for.
192

4.4.2.6. Family life
There were two critical incidents connected to family life, and not all interviewees
commented on them. The incidents were included in order to further probe a
collectivist/individualist divide, as well as to see whether the interviewees would be able
to draw some generalised conclusions from situations that might appear to be very unique
and individual. The following table gives an overview of the coded answers.
Table 4.37 Critical incident 8 codes
Codes
No. of references
individual 2
value of family 1
cultural differences 5
With only two dispositional attributions it could be seen that the interviewees
made comparisons of cultures and pointed out cultural differences in child raising.
This is well-known […] with the old, it’s spare the rod, spoil the child.
(I3)
Well, it’s a joint of cultures, Kate is trying to plead with the kids to finish
dinner, and father, of course with the Serbian mentality imposes his rule,
he’s the first in the family. (I4)
Well, Dragan is patriarchally brought up, that he’s the authority, and
expects the orders to be carried out without any discussion, while Kate is
differently brought up and thinks the kids should be handled differently. An
essential difference in child-raising. (I9)
These are cultural differences in child-raising. Here it’s not unusual if you
spank a kid, or some stricter measures to be used, while there it would be
seen as child battery. (I12)
They have a friendly relationship with their kids, and don’t get too upset if
the kids break the rules, because sanctions follow. Here, it’s sanctions first.
(I2)
The next critical incident dealt with family ties and how they differ across
cultures. Even though only several interviewees discussed this critical incident, their
attributions showed that they were aware of the differences between cultures,
interestingly, giving different explanations: from the schooling system, to the possibility
of moving across the country to the expectations children have from parents. The coded
answers are given in Table 4.38, followed by the quotes from the interviewees.
193

Table 4.38 Critical incident 17 codes
Codes
No. of references
comparison [them] 1
family values 2
cultural differences 1
distance [loose ties] 1
Me, too, though [my hometown] is not far away, people ask me that
[about the family] the most. [...] They [other cultures] are, I don’t know,
more independent. We wait for our parents to give us something, to help us,
and it’s different there. (I3)
They go to college, go to work don’t see their family. While here it is not
so, our education system is not like that, our county is not that big, so we
are tied to our family. (I4)
Students did touch upon the differences, and, just like with the previous critical
incident, they resorted to comparison based on family values.
It’s normal for them to leave their hometown, here it’s difficult to move
around. […] our families are more closely knit together (I9)
The attributions for the critical incidents that related to family life and the
importance of family showed that the interviewees showed a preference for ‘our’ family
relations in terms of closeness and loyalty, while child raising was seen in a slightly more
negative light.
4.4.2.7. Intercultural awareness
After the analysis of critical incidents, the interviewees were asked to share their
views on intercultural competence. The questions were straightforward, and it was
expected of the interviewees to describe the term ICC, as well as to self-assess
themselves.
While almost all the interviewees were a bit puzzled by the term itself, they gave
their ‘definitions’. Most of them defined the term ICC as ability:
To understand cultural differences, accept, not necessarily in our case,
but accept that someone is different and try not to rub his nose in it. (I1)
One can bring those cultures together and also differentiate between
them. Maybe some differences bother individuals, but would love to learn
about them. (I3)
194

The ability to create an intercultural connection where one can present
one’s culture to members of other cultures, or to work on clearing up
misunderstandings between cultures. (I6)
Understanding and acceptance (I7)
To accept the other. (I8).
The ability to accept someone. To understand and in a tolerant way
approach examination, tolerance, […] or to watch the National
Geographic. (I9)
How much you know about the culture you discuss, and how much we use
stereotypes, personal convictions which needn’t be true. How much we
know what we discuss, because the Serbs like to talk about everything,
regardless they know it or not. (I12)
Some interviewees stressed the perspective of knowledge – about other cultures
but also of one’ own culture. These views could be seen in the following answers:
To know what is that thing that is strange to you. Or if you don’t know, to
know that it is different, not good or bad but different. (I2)
To know one’s culture and customs, I mean history, its influence on
culture, together, how they intertwined. Being an expert on one’s own
culture, but also to know how to adapt one’s culture, when in contact with
other cultures, how to best present one’s culture. (I5)
One participant mentioned the importance of tolerance:
Except language, which is necessary, you have to be tolerant and listen to
someone. And to know about yourself, to tell others.... to know how to
explain things. (I11)
Another interviewee also touched upon the importance of tolerance, however, he
qualified this answer by showing a rather defensive attitude:
You have to be as open as you can, you shouldn’t underrate one’s culture
and tradition, but shouldn’t either show disgust and loathing. It’s their way
of behaving, it’s good for them, but it doesn’t mean I would behave like that.
(I4)
Finally, motivation and experience were also mentioned as necessary elements for
intercultural competence.
There must be, before all, motivation to meet someone. A person limited to
Serbia only cannot be competent. You have to be open to other countries
and nationalities. (I9)
195

When the interviewees were asked to suggest different ways in which one could
become IC competent, they also offered various answers. It is interesting that one
participant said that being of a third culture, mediating between other cultures could help
one become more competent in ‘that job’, as the interviewee said. This answer practically
showed a distance of the participant to the IC mediation, presenting it as someone else’s
work. Two of the participants said that experience was important for learning too, ‘The
more you travel, see other culture the more you understand why someone behaves like
they do’ (I8). Finally, learning about other cultures and being in contact with them was
also mentioned.
The participants for the most part believed that culture learning should be part of
English language training or their professional training:
If we’re studying their grammar, we should know something about their
culture, something basic. (I3)
Language is the way to express opinions. There is a reason why that
particular structure is used, it is the past that influenced that. Language is
the instrument of communication. (I5)
It is necessary [to know about culture] if we’re studying that language,
why not becoming acquainted with their culture. Not in detail, but as much
as we need, simply to know something. (I7)
It would mean much, but it is essential that the professor knows the
culture well and that he is a good mediator between cultures, because he
first has to bridge that difference. (I6)
Learning is not simply learning grammar and vocabulary, but get to know
a bit of the essence of that culture. You don’t learn a language to speak with
another Serb, but to someone who is not a Serb. (I12)
There was only one negative response to the questions about ICC. The participant
stated that tolerance between different groups was blown out of proportion. The
participant was rather defensive in his attitude and stated he did not see any purpose in
doing critical incidents in class, the choice of words when it came to awareness of ICC
was indicative of strong stereotypes. The participant stated that the media pressure was
‘demeaning’, adding that ‘only when you present something as a problem does it really
become a problem, otherwise, there are no problems’ (I10). The participant also showed a
negative attitude towards including cultural elements into English language classes,
stating that these ‘might be done but only as information, nothing else’ (I10).
196

Lastly, not all interviewees provided self-assessment of their ICC, but their
answers ranged from ‘not really’ over ‘I’m not an expert, but would try to objectively
present my culture’ to ‘let’s say 80%’.
4.5. Summary
The second section of this chapter gave the overview of the coding system and
short illustrations from the interviews. The attribution for the thematically grouped
critical incidents followed, supported by the interviewees’ quotes. The codes showed a
rather ethnocentric perspective, with the interviewees resorting to comparison, ‘us vs.
them’ explanations and dispositional attribution. Further analysis and more thorough
answers to the research questions partially answered in this chapter are presented in
Chapter V.
197

198

CHAPTER V – DISCUSSION
5.1. Introduction
The previous chapter provided a partial answer to the research questions 1, 2 and
3 which guided this study. The first research question sought to explore students’ attitudes
and invited them to ‘analyse’ their opinions in a reduced form of a questionnaire.
However, in order to have a full insight into the intercultural competence and whether the
participants had an ‘operational knowledge’ of it, some additional points should be
addressed. The participants’ attributions will be analysed in order to present a direct
answer to the final research question – what students use, in terms of attributions, to
account for intercultural misunderstanding that appear in encounters.
Since the data gathered were personal opinions and beliefs, a qualitative approach
to data was more appropriate. It was expected that data collection would guide the
themes, and the whole research so then the researcher would have some feedback to help
improve data collection. While research notes were kept during the whole interviewing
phase, early coding of the data was not employed. The provisional list of codes was based
on the interview questions, and most of the codes were derived from the data (Richards
2003).
Research question 1
The GPI provided a partial answer to the first RQ, while the discussion of the
attributions should give a more detailed account and further explanations, therefore given
in the next section of this chapter.
The answers for the questions in the GPI that pertain to the cognitive domain
showed that for the university students IC knowledge and the importance of cultural
context in judging what is important to know and value were not rated as very important,
rather it seemed it was an issue of neutral importance. Similarly, the mean value of the
Knowledge subdomain, where students showed understanding and awareness of various
cultures and their impact on our global society, was 3.3, showing a medium global
perspective.
When compared to the answers obtained through the interviews, there could be
seen some knowledge of the circumstances in different cultures, though this was mostly
199

ased on second hand knowledge of anecdotal kind and generalizations. Therefore, there
was some correlation between the quantitative and qualitative data.
The mean for the Intrapersonal domain, that is, for its subdomain Identity was the
highest mean of all: 3.9. The questions in this domain ranged from knowing one’s
purpose in life, knowing who one is as a person, having a purposeful philosophy of life.
Since the questions are not exact and have to do with one’s own perception of oneself, it
might be said that the participants were comfortable talking about this aspect of their
personality.
This attitude was also seen in the interviews, especially in the opening and closing
parts, where the students rather hotly defended their claims, at the same time showing
attitudes that could be described as belonging to the Defense or Minimalisation (Bennett
2004). While clearly stating advantages of their own culture over others’ the interviewees
inadvertently proved the ethnocentric worldview.
The mean of 3.6 for the subdomain Affect could be accounted for by the fact that
here the students were asked to assess themselves in terms of being comfortable with the
‘uncertain’. If the fact that a quarter of the participants had not had any personal
experience with other cultures as they had never been abroad, and that more than a third
(34%) did not have any friends from abroad, the statistical results should be seen as the
participants’ expectations about their own behaviour and feelings in those situations,
rather than their actual, experienced feelings.
The personal experience of the participants should also be kept in mind when
analysing the results for the third dimension of the GPI which did not receive the support
in the interviews. The subdomains Social Interaction and Responsibility, where the means
were 3.7 and 3.6 respectively, showed a bit higher global perspective which should mean
the participants had higher levels of sensitivity towards others and social concern for
them. However, as the detailed analysis of the attribution showed, this aspect was not
seen in the interviews, where the interviewees showed concern mostly for the in-group
members.
The last two domains are comprised of the questions from other subdomains and
are more closely related to one’s own contribution to the community (Well-Being
contains items from Affect and Social Responsibility subdomains) and one’s attitude to
global citizenship (Global Citizen contains items from Social Interaction, Affect, Social
Responsibility and Knowledge subdomains). Here, the means were rather high – 3.8 and
3.7 respectively and to a great extent coincided with the means for individual
200

subdomains. However, the idea of the global citizenship was not seen in the interviews,
where the interviewees claimed importance of tolerance and equality.
The questionnaire answers would show that the students of twelve departments at
the University in Nis have a global perspective, that is, they show a medium to high level
of intercultural sensitivity. Therefore, as the authors of the inventory claim, the students
should have a good prerequisite for intercultural competence and low ethnocentrism.
However, the qualitative data shed a different light on this issue.
Research question 2
In order to understand the answers to this question, the quantitative results should
be discussed through the data gathered in the interviews. A statistically significant
difference for the factors such as gender, stays abroad, knowledge of another FL, and the
year of study was on only one subdomain – Knowledge. Also, the mean value of the
subdomain was more prominent in males, those with the knowledge of another FL, with
some experience with other cultures, and the first-year students. The statistical analysis
did not show any other significant difference for other subdomains. If compared with the
quantitative data, it could be seen that these factors were not linked to the interviewees’
ICC. Both female and male students had problems explaining IC misunderstanding and
resorted to similar stereotypes, which the section on attribution illustrates, irrespective of
their experience with other cultures. Also, the students with personal experience of living
in another culture had difficulties accounting for behaviours and attitudes of characters in
the critical incidents. What this showed was that ICC could not be analysed as a function
of one particular external factor but that it required the analysis that would combine
different elements and explore both the individual attitudes and the reasoning behind
them as well.
The findings might appear counter-intuitive, because it might seem that language
learning should create greater tolerance of otherness since language ‘embodies the values
and meanings of a culture, refers to cultural artefacts and signals people’s cultural
identity’ (Byram 1989: 41), therefore providing information on a particular culture. In
order to transfer cultural values and meanings, the functions of language are used, so the
knowledge of linguistic meanings entails the ‘analysis of the values and artefacts to which
they refer’ (Byram 1989: 43) and which cannot be only linguistic. This is where
intercultural component can improve FLT.
201

The ‘common sense’ notion that foreign language learning and travel abroad
could create ‘tolerance of otherness’ has its roots in the ‘notion of all human experience
having, at some fundamental level, common ground’ (Byram 1989: 57). However, if
students set out with the positive impression that ‘people are the same wherever you go’,
the meeting of cultures can create resistance and prejudice because learners would
invariably notice differences where a similarity was expected. What should be analysed
and where similarities should be pursued is how global concepts – respect for elders,
gender roles, or expression of humour for example, are differently transformed and
adapted in different cultures. If learners remain on a superficial level of only being
acquainted with other cultures without reflecting on their experience, even when they
‘report a positive experience, [it] doesn’t guarantee that they have learned much about the
new environment or that they have had a particularly deep experience’ (Shaules 2007: 83-
84).
Research question 3
In order to see whether the English language students differed in their answers
from the students of other departments at the University of Niš, these answers were
compared. The research hypothesis was that the English language students would have
scored better in the GPI questionnaire. While some authors claim that language
instruction is not enough for intercultural competence and higher sensitivity (Byram
1997), the expectation was that some difference would be seen in the results (not only due
to the intense language practice and being immersed in language and some cultural
elements on a daily basis, but due to their assumed motivation to study English). The
analysis showed that statistically significant differences between the English language
students and the students of other departments on four variables: Identity, Responsibility,
Well-Being and Global citizenship. However, the values means of the English language
students were actually lower than or the same as the means of other students. Since the
GPI authors claim that the higher the mean the clearer the sign of intercultural sensitivity,
the results supported the line of thinking that language instruction on its own did not give
any visible results in terms of intercultural competence and sensitivity.
The qualitative part of the study also confirmed this. In order to gain a better
understanding of the group, three students of the English language were interviewed,
whose backgrounds and contacts with foreign cultures were quite different. Two out of
three interviewees had only superficial contact with other cultures, while one spent an
202

academic year in the USA. However, their attributions did not show any significant
difference – either among them or compared to the ones given by the students from other
departments. It should be pointed out that the English language student who had
international experience did not show better intercultural competence in terms of critical
incident attributions. Her answers were also ‘de-culturalised’ and levelled at the
individual characters and their relations. On the other hand, the economy student with the
similar study abroad experience showed a much better understanding of critical incidents.
The particular answers that showed this are discussed later, with particular critical
incidents.
5.2. Attributions
The discussion of obtained attributions answered all four research questions, as it
tapped into not only reactions and stated opinions of the interviewees, but also their
attitudes, beliefs and reasonings that became visible only through a reflection on the
critical incidents.
The attributions given by the participants should be read with several important
remarks in mind. The first one is that an individual’s repertoire of possible interpretations
is limited, if not controlled, by already existing culturally-based knowledge structures
(Adler 2002; Hong et al. 2003; Swidler 1986 as cited in Berthoin Antal, Friedman 2003).
It was expected that the participants would select particular information, or disregard
some other because they relied on their cultural frames, which inevitably led them to
misinterpretation, misunderstanding or even conflict (Friedman, Antal 2005) 34 . Observing
interactions from their own culture frames, people usually fail to see that that exact frame,
a concept, an image might be wrong or unfounded. Thus, intercultural encounters might
provide the experience of confusion or irritation, however, this does not necessarily mean
that an improvement in those encounters could not ensue. What those uneasy feelings
might provoke is re-examination (Osland, Bird 2000; Spencer-Rodgers, McGovern 2002)
of how one constructs situations and what images one brings to those encounters. The
results showed that the frame that the interviewees used was indeed culturally
conditioned, and that only in a few instances they were able to ‘step outside it’.
34 The concept behind this is that people usually accommodate new constructs if they have a matching
structure in their own culture and each individual has a culturally specific system or ‘learned associative
networks of ideas, values, beliefs, and knowledge, that are shared by individuals within the same culture’
(Benet-Martinez et al. 2002: 493).
203

The second remark is that the interviewees had only a limited contact with a
foreign culture, the longest being 10 months. Therefore, as the interviewees also
confirmed, they relied on various sources in order to navigate the cultural incidents, of
which English language classes were not the most prominent one.
5.2.1. National identity – knowing who you are
An important part of being IC competent is being able to objectively perceive
one’s own background and culture. Therefore, the participants were asked to describe a
typical Serb. The question served a two-fold purpose: firstly, it showed whether the
interviewees were aware of the already stereotypical mould that ‘a typical’ member of a
culture (any culture) would imply 35 . Secondly, to see whether the interviewees would be
able to see their culture as fluid, with the representatives of culture who are changeable.
To this purpose the participants were asked to provide a comparison of their and their
peers’ understanding of their nationality to that of an older generation.
Invariably, the interviewees were surprised by that question, which they showed
either with laughter, repeating the question or even with highly visible body language
(leaning away from the researcher, crossing the arms, I4, for example). The question
followed the one about English language learning and was a transition to the ICC-related
topics. The fact that interviewees were surprised could be understood as a sign of not
connecting culture in any way with foreign language and the context in which it is being
taught/ learned. On the other hand, people are very aware and conscious of their identity,
and ‘[o]ne’s culture, in many cases, is not only a source of deeply felt pride and
belonging, but it is often deeply ingrained as part of an individual’s worldview’ (Hofstede
2009: 90). Therefore, it is no surprise that the first reaction of some of the participants
was a defensive disbelief or distrust.
The answers included nationalism as a characteristic that might describe the
Serbian culture (There is that sense of nationalism, in young people, it’s that influence of
peers or society, I think that’s a wrong approach, because only that nationality and
traditional view of things are nurtured (I2)). Another interviewee mentioned that ‘in
35 The reference to a single culture as a characteristic of all its people might be misleading as there is never
one monolith culture, however, ‘research confirms that cultural differences between societies are generally
much larger than cultural differences within societies. In many cases, countries correspond with societies.
So using country data is in many cases a reasonably good way to obtain insight into the cultures of societies
and the ways in which individuals have been culturally conditioned’ (Hofstede 2009: 91) and that approach
was used for the present study as well.
204

contact with other nations we are big nationalists […] but not among ourselves’ (I2). This
is an interesting view, since it is only in relation to others that one nation can show this
‘attitude’. In many instances the interviewees wanted to stress their appreciation of
equality of cultures, they wanted to show respect and understanding towards cultural
practices. However, while trying to be objective and politically correct, they did
interpolate remarks that pointed to their preferences and actual opinions. For example
‘We are of a friendly disposition, more than some western countries’ (I4). This might
show that the students were in the Defense stage, where they experienced their own
culture ‘as the only viable one – the most “evolved”’ (Bennett 2004: 65). The individuals
at the Defense stage are more adept at noting difference, but their worldview is not
complex enough to account for equally ‘human’ (Bennett 2004) experience of others,
which might be detrimental for individuals’ further learning and might aggravate future
IC contacts.
In a related question the interviewees were asked to state whether their views of
what constitutes a typical Serb are shared by their peers. The question aimed at showing
whether the interviewees perceived themselves as typical representatives of their culture,
or whether they saw different representations of their culture. Most of them claimed they
did not know the attitudes of their peers but still managed to provide an answer, usually
distancing themselves from the peers who were ‘radical’ or ‘nationalistic’ (I1, I8, I9 and
I10), ‘like we are some heavenly people’ (I4), ‘more extreme’ (I3). The answers showed
that the interviewees did not see themselves as typical representatives of their people
(There are many groups, like Obraz, or something like that, and that is all wrong (I3), I
wouldn’t say I’m a typical, stereotypical Serb (I9), [the peers] share my opinion on
culture, but they don’t show it enough (I2)). One interviewee stated that her peers are not
patriotic enough, unlike her (I2), while another stated that her peers idealized other
nation, but not the people, mentioning America as an example.
While this might be an attempt to present oneself as different, or to provide
socially acceptable answers, what might support the answers is the ‘incident’ that
happened during this study. Some students of the History department declined doing the
questionnaire because it was typed in the Latin and not Cyrillic alphabet. They also
declined participating in interviews, when hearing that they were about learning English
among other things.
The importance of these findings is seen when compared to the results of the GPI,
which showed that the whole sample had a high mean score for Identity, 3.9 for
205

awareness of one’s unique identity and the degree of acceptance of one’s ethnic, racial,
and gender dimensions, and Affect with the mean of 3.7, for a degree of emotional
confidence in contact with other cultures. These results would suggest that the
participants indeed had a considerable awareness of their own culture and would easily
understand and accept other racial and ethnic groups. However, the analysis of the
attribution showed that these high scores, when it came to concrete situations and
decisions, were not grounded as the interviewees used a range of attributions, including
dispositional ones, adding different meanings to critical incidents in order to account for
them.
It remains to be further explored how the interviewees somewhat ‘detached’
themselves from their culture and the more radical elements in it, while they were not
able to, or did not want to, make a similar distinction for the members of other cultures
while solving the critical incidents. Almost all the interviewees tried to show that their
views were not the views of the majority. This might be seen an implicit criticism of their
own culture and the awareness of the existence of different subgroups within one’s
culture and their different values. However, this was not always seen in their analysis of
the critical incidents.
The interviewees also made a distinction between the older and younger
generations, claiming the former was more conservative (My mother would place religion
first (I6), My father would say that church should be attended by every Serb, but he’s not
a believer (I9)) and even nationalistic (but my grandparents, for them the Serbs are the
top. Others are stupid (I12), These radicals think that the Serbian culture was a monolith
that has never changed, always the same and therefore it shouldn’t be changed….
Cultural differences are important for older people and those who are closely tied to the
tradition of culture because they think that is part of their identity (I1), Some kind of
cheering, in that sense, some behaviour, more like we’re some kind of heavenly nation
(I4)). It seemed here that all the interviewees wanted to discard these ‘old-fashioned’
attitudes as silly, almost all answers were followed by laughter. Again, the analysis of the
attributions for critical incidents showed that their attitudes (as a younger generation), if
not explicitly, then implicitly showed similar views.
What should also be mentioned here is the answer of one of the interviewees, I11,
who pointed out that even her closest family, her sibling, did not share her ideas of what a
nation was and had a different view of the nature of tolerance. This is a valuable point
raised as it goes to confirm a whole interplay of different factors that make a basis for
206

one’s intercultural learning, sensitivity and ultimately competence. Also, the answer
should be kept in mind when introducing intercultural material or intercultural courses –
that different knowledge, attitudes and backgrounds that students bring into the
classroom, should be worked on and incorporated into teaching if progress is to be made.
On the whole, when this important question is summarized, it could be said that
the interviewees did not see a culture as a unique entity, a monolith (Steckley and Letts
2007, Renteln 2005), but recognized different groups and attitudes (for example, age
groups and nationalistic factions). On the other hand, when we compared this to the
attributions given for the critical incidents, we saw that other cultures were seen exactly
as the opposite – as groups of similar people who shared similar behaviour. Alternatively,
the interviewees would explain a particular behaviour as an idiosyncratic behaviour of
that particular individual. Therefore, this might be the first step in the direction of
becoming more interculturally-aware – if one sees differences and nuances in one’s
culture they might be more open to see the same in other cultures 36 .
It should be stressed that cultural identity was not the focus of the research, nor
were the interviews structured so that they probed for this question. However, in terms of
ethnocentrism vs. ethnorelativism and global culture, this was an important question.
Firstly, because it showed that the national identity was a very strong feature and that
should be kept in mind when discussing other answers. The researcher noticed the
interviewees’ discomfort when they had to address the question of their nationality and
membership. Secondly, it goes to disprove that the nationalist consciousness and national
boundaries are things of the past 37 (Billig 1995). Finally, this shows that the interviewees
were not aware of how much their own identity was formed by their culture (Weaver
1993 in Dunkley 2009). However, if one does not relativise one’s own experience and
36 It should be pointed out that two important elements that emerged in the answers were religion and
politics. As it was already shown, the interviewees tried to distance themselves from their own religious
beliefs, but claimed religion was an important part of being Serbian. Politics was another elements that was
introduced exclusively by the participants, mostly when describing Serbs, in order to divide the population
into pro-Western and those who are not so, and usually to side with the former fraction. These culture
dimensions were not present in any of the critical incidents, but it was obvious that both religion and
politics coloured the interviewees’ responses to a certain extent.
37 The interviewees did not mention the influence of globalization even though ‘one of the consequences of
globalization that has not been adequately discussed is the paradoxical stimulus of social convergence on
the rearticulation of distinct cultures’ (Niezen 2004: 2). The other extreme is ‘to go beyond all boundaries,
to emphasize cultural movement […] this makes it possible to arrive at dreams of perfect cosmopolitanism’
(Niezen 2004: 2). It would be valuable to explore those sentiments further and see how young people in
Serbia perceive their culture in the midst of these global changes and which solutions, ideas, and models
would be resorted to in order to face such a changed world.
207

does not value experiences of others, the individual is reduced to value-laden
interpretations of the experience (Byram 1997). Even though a completely value-free
interpretation is not possible, ‘the raising of awareness about one’s own values allows a
conscious control of biased interpretation’ (Byram 1997: 34-35) and a better
understanding of other cultures.
As a related issue, some interviewees discussed how other cultures perceived ours
(or what image our culture had) where the feeling of distrust prevailed. All three
interviewees were a bit hesitant to answer, but did offer terrorism and wars as associated
to our culture. Needless to say, if individuals enter IC encounters with such assumptions,
the chances of successfully resolving any misunderstanding are considerably lowered, as
the affective filters are higher. If cultural differences are examined in a positive light
(Paige 2006; Paige, Goode 2009), the students would then be able to proceed to the
exploration of different worldviews (Fantini 1995), hopefully reaching a successful
resolution of misunderstandings.
5.2.2. Establishing the first contact
The critical incidents where the individuals from different cultures meet for the
first time can serve as a showcase of intercultural hotspots. In the interviews, only two
participants recognized them as important, which showed that even those obvious
elements, as greeting or introducing oneself are not culture-free and therefore, should not
be overlooked in IC communication and instruction. That such misunderstandings might
set ground for strained and forced relations, or even hostility, is not unlikely.
The right attribution was given by a student with the first-hand experience of
another country, namely that of A-SMYLE program in the USA and another student with
her second-hand experience from a course on communication studies. However, the other
student with the same experience of A-SMYLE program saw in the critical incident
prejudice that foreigners had towards us and provided dispositional attribution. Therefore,
a study abroad on its own does not necessarily give results in terms of better ICC because
it needs to be ‘facilitated’, as can be seen from the interviews, and which has also been
documented through research (Paige, Cohen, & Shively 2004, Paige, Goode 2009, Berg,
Paige 2009). These two answers might be used to support the opinions of scholars that a
focused instruction can have an equally beneficial influence as a study abroad program
itself.
208

However, the knowledge of customs or mores is not enough for successful IC
communication since there is not a cause-and-effect relationship between knowledge and
attitudes, and increased knowledge need not directly create positive attitudes (Byram,
Morgan et al. 1994, Byram 1997). On the other hand, it would be expected that the
comparison of one’s own values, beliefs and behaviours with others’ is easier than
‘decentralising’ (Byram 1997), and would come as the first step. Being familiar with only
certain aspects of a culture and not the underlying values and beliefs might lead to
relativization of one’s experience, thus leaving an individual on the surface level of IC
communication. In that sense, the interviewees might be seen as having characteristics of
the Minimization stage (Bennett 2004). While the interviewees did not resort to ‘we are
all humans’ explanation that is usually connected to this stage, they did show the attitude
‘that typologies (personality, learning style, etc.) apply equally well in all cultures’
(Bennett 2004: 66) and thus minimized cultural differences.
As for the other attributions, coding the answers showed that interviewees
explained the critical incident through several variants: the directness of the Serbs, how
‘they’ see us, and individual features that affect communication. The similar choice of
attributions repeated for this and a number of different incidents as well showed that
participants were not able, or skilled to talk about the IC issues on a general level, but
needed to pinpoint particular behaviour to a particular individual. This could be seen in
the second critical incident where the participants relied on a non-existent context, trying
to describe the situation, adding the context to account for a particular behaviour. Another
illustration of such an attitude was the answer of I1, who said that ‘stepping away is the
clash of cultures’ only to proceed to explain that ‘Mathew is an introvert and Milan is an
extrovert’. Even though the initial answer was closer to the real reason for the
misunderstanding, a dispositional attribution was also applied.
When asked what they would do in Marija’s place in critical incident 2, the
interviewees stated they would either ask Julie whether there was something on their face,
with several added that they would feel uncomfortable. Only three interviewees
commented on the importance of eye contact, and only one recognized the element of
body language in this encounter.
The inability to understand the values behind body language led to the feeling of
discomfort and influenced the interviewees’ value judgements. Discomfort is detrimental
since, if a cultural difference is experienced or seen as a threat to one’s worldview and
209

known practices, an individual who is not interculturally competent would not want to
readjust his/her worldview to include the worldview of the other as valid (Shaules 2007).
These critical incidents that deal with first encounters between people of different
cultures showed that our students might not be prepared for them, and that their first
reaction would be negative, coloured by stereotypes and prejudice they might hold
against those cultures. This is a typical behaviour that would be experienced by an
individual in the Defence stage of Bennett’s model (1993), where cultural differences are
indeed perceived as a threat and usually experienced as stereotypes. Also, in terms of
Byram’s model, these attitudes would point to a certain lack in all five types of saviors.
The unease that the interviewees mentioned is in contrast with the GPI results,
since there the categories where the students scored highest were Global citizenship and
Identity (3.7 and 3.9 respectively). These categories contain ideas such as being able to
recognize culture differences and discuss them, or being able to perform different social
roles, and show that what students perceived as their competence was not sufficient for
them to navigate the first encounter.
The data show that there was not any particular difference between the English
language students and students from other departments. In this particular case, even
though one of the interviewees was from the English Department who had had first-hand
experience with a foreign culture, she still had problems finding a correct attribution and
recognizing the possible cultural elements at play in critical incidents. Compared with the
GPI results, it could be seen that the mean scores for these two categories – Global
citizenship and Identity were a bit lower than the average for all students (3.5 and 3.8
respectively).
These first two incidents proved what Byram states, that attitudes learners have
‘towards people who are perceived as different in respect of the cultural meanings, beliefs
and behaviours they exhibit’ (Byram 1997: 34) are usually stereotypical and based on
prejudice. While these need not be always negative, Byram stresses that that cannot be
enough as a pre-condition for a successful IC interaction, these attitudes should be based
on curiosity, openness and ‘suspension of disbelief and judgement’ (ibid).
Another point that could be made is that since knowledge about another culture is
relational it does not provide a sound base for ‘the second category of knowledge:
knowledge of processes of interaction’ (Byram 1997: 36) in that culture on both
individual and societal levels. This second knowledge would become instrumental in
encounters and would help an individual act correctly. Both attitudes and knowledge play
210

a significant role in each of the critical incident, but perhaps the first two incidents show
this in a more obvious way.
5.2.3. Socializing
In order to see how students understood the situations that are expected to happen
in the course of one’s prolonged contact with others, that is, socializing with fellow
students or colleagues, there were three critical incidents that addressed the issue. The
first one was arranging to go out for a drink, then visiting colleagues unannounced and
paying for the drink for oneself and those invited to the event.
Just like with personal space and eye contact, different cultures use different
linguistic means for social acts, depending on the high or low context of culture, and
interpret what has been said in a different way. Here, the participants showed that they
did not have the knowledge of these ‘rites’ and therefore had to resort to the already
known scripts in order to analyse the situations. As this led to many different attributions,
it could be said that discussions and training that could develop from these critical
incidents could be beneficial for learners, as they would see their attribution against
deeper values and beliefs and therefore understand why particular behaviour was
manifested.
The answers showed that time orientation as a cultural characteristic is important,
and that plans and obligations are pre-arranged in an individualistic culture as opposed to
a collectivistic culture, such as Serbia. The source of misunderstanding was that what was
different time-management was seen as a personal feature and existence of negative
feelings that immediately stood in the way of better understanding and possible
cooperation.
Some of the interviewees mentioned that Vuk in Critical incident 3 was a
newcomer and that this provoked distrust or feeling of unease in John and Nicole (There
are really strange people in the States, my friend is there now (I10)). Here, the
collectivistic outlook was again used to ‘decipher’ an individualistic culture which
provoked the interviewees to come to a false conclusion. Such misattribution is not rare
when individuals from cultures at the different ends of a cultural dimension come into
contact. Individuals are likely ‘to attribute the behavior of members of an out-group to the
same causes that would likely be true if members of our own in-group behaved the same
way’ (Thomas, Inkson 2003: 50).
211

Some general stereotypes – that the Americans are hard-working and busy, for
example, which were mentioned during the interviews, shaped the responses to this
critical incident. The knowledge that individuals have ‘of their own culture (on individual
and societal levels) and the knowledge of the same elements in other countries’ as Byram
says (1997:35), is instrumental for IC encounters, but ‘it is not acquired automatically’
(ibid). Therefore, these attributions need not be surprising if the lack of experience is to
be taken into consideration.
The negative attributions were fewer for Critical incident 3, with only one
interviewee referring to the ‘oddity’ of people in the USA. Also, there was only one
dispositional attribution that negatively presented Vuk, the interviewee said ‘Vuk is too
pushy […] they’re distrustful’ (I1). Unlike the attribution for the first critical incident,
where the interviewees showed a higher level of animosity, blaming prejudice of others
towards the Serbian people, here they mostly ascribed the behaviour to a busy lifestyle
and the lack of free time of the Americans (Maybe they’re too busy or simply don’t care
(I5); Well, I know that they’re busy round the clock, they study, work, they have no time to
socialize (I7); I’d say they are busy, it’s no big thing (I3)).
Finally, the interviewees offered a possible solution for the resolution of the
misunderstanding. A half of the interviewees stated that Vuk should be more precise in
his invitation, though they did not state any grounds on which they base their suggestion.
In this respect, the results obtained in the GPI were to some extent supported by this
willingness to communicate, as the score for Interaction subdomain was 3.7, albeit only
indirectly shown.
What Critical incident 3 also showed was how ‘linguistic evidence in the form of
conversational routines (and formulaic speech, collocations, discourse particles,
interjections) can be revealing of cultural norms’ (Goddard, Wierzbicka 2007: 14). It is,
therefore, necessary to combine ICC and ICCC, with TEFL being a suitable vehicle
because ‘the meanings of a particular language point to the culture of a particular social
grouping, and the analysis of those meanings, their comprehension by learners and other
speakers involves the analysis and comprehension of that culture’ (Byram 1989: 41).
When we turn to Critical incident 5, it could be seen that it received many ‘us vs.
them’ attributions where the interviewees in several instances referred to the ‘normality’
of our custom, contrasting it to a different expectation in a different culture (Here, those
friendly relations are more relaxed, you literally just appear at the doors, and, nothing,
it’s completely normal. And there, this is a really embarrassing situation. (I2)).
212

It is interesting that none of the interviewees said that it would be equally normal
to arrange one’s visit there, all of them stressed that ‘you have to announce the visit’, not
once stating the ‘normal’ situation in a foreign context. The interviewees implied a sense
of a cumbersome obligation of announcing your visit beforehand, in contrast to a
spontaneous custom in our culture.
An important remark was that ‘their culture was did not prepare them for that’
which could be a very insightful explanation that would help resolving certain IC
misunderstanding, however, the interviewee actually used it as a word of reproach to the
American culture, as something that is lacking in relation to our own culture, thus passing
a value judgement before arriving at true understanding. I4 pointed out that since the
couple was in the States now, they should get used to that pattern, and announce their
visit beforehand, though it was not clear whether he was being serious or perhaps
condescending towards the American culture, as he laughed while giving this
explanation.
Such answers support the finding that the majority of students in the questionnaire
said that they use their own system of values to explain and understand other cultures.
When asked whether they use their own value system to judge the values of others, more
than a half of the students opted for ‘agree’ and ‘completely agree’ – 54%. When the
quantitative findings are coupled with the interviews, it could be seen that the students
assumed that the policy of ‘treating others as you would like to be treated’ would be the
best, failing to realise its short-sightedness (Bennett 2004), proving that they could be
described as ethnocentric, showing some characteristics of the Defense stage, for
example, ‘us vs. them’ relations, with one’s own culture seen as superior.
The collectivist outlook is present in the last critical incident based on socializing,
Critical incident 18, since the interviewees were surprised at the American’s reaction.
These answers also supported the fact that the interviewees inevitably resorted to their
own system of values when explaining the behaviour of foreigners, in accordance with
the GPI results on the same issue. Just as Ashley from the critical incident behaved
according to the low-context communication principles of her home country and showed
different expectations, the interviewees too resorted to their own perspective. Belonging
to a high-context culture they felt offended by her annoyance and failed to see that there
might be a systemic difference between cultural practices. Such attitude showed that the
interviewees lacked culture-specific knowledge, which might render them less successful
in intercultural encounters.
213

Finally, in terms of Byram’s savoir s’engager (1997), these answers showed that
the interviewees did not critically evaluate cultural practices, most probably because they
were not conscious of them. A display of emotions, both verbal and non-verbal, is
something that characterises our culture and places it into an affective end of a
neutral/affective dimension (Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner 1997) which some of the
interviewees touched upon describing the practice as ‘overdoing it’ (I5) or ‘exaggeration,
forced hospitality’ (I10). Understanding the practices of one’s culture is as important as
knowing those of other culture because then one is able to account for one’s behaviour
and adapt it to an IC context, avoiding value judgments, which was not the case with the
interviewees.
These three critical incidents (critical incident 3, critical incident 5, critical
incident 18) showed that the distinction between different expectations of collectivistic
and individualistic cultures coloured the encounters. While the influence among cultures
is more obvious now, with the advent of the media, social networks, virtual meeting
points (virtual platform games, chat sites, etc.) the underlying values are mostly hidden
from the member of different cultures. Therefore, the students resorted to familiar
concepts of their culture to negotiate new situations, inadvertently misunderstanding the
situation or attributing false values to individuals and their culture.
The attributions offered could place the interviewees in the Defense stage of
Bennett’s model, which is particularly important for foreign language teaching. Some
researchers (Mantle-Bromley 1992; Durocher Jr. 2007) have noticed that ‘these attitudes
discourage teachers from addressing culture’ (Durocher Jr. 2007: 147), and, more
importantly, those attitudes seem ‘to be indicators of student success or failure in foreign
language classes’ (Durocher Jr. 2007: 147). If that is the case, then various techniques
should be introduced in order to create contexts that would show ‘mutual dependence
independent of gender or race’ and then proceed to ‘more sophisticated understanding of
difference’ (Bennett 2004: 66). Furthermore, it should be emphasized that, contrary to
widely held beliefs within the foreign language teaching community, some research
indicates that foreign language classes actually can result in more deeply entrenched
negative attitudes toward foreign languages and cultures. Brown (1987) writes about
‘inhibitions which may emerge to ward off ideas, experiences, and feelings that threaten
to dismantle the organization of values and beliefs on which appraisals of self-esteem
have been founded’ (p. 103) in adolescence. Therefore, instruction that combines IC and
214

FL training should be employed to help students improve linguistic competency and also
provide a meaningful cultural context where that competency can be applied.
Introducing cultures through critical incidents could also be beneficial to show
students how members of cultures who are positioned differently on a culture dimension
are prone to misattribute behaviours of members of different cultures (Hofstede 1997;
Paige, Goode 2009). Therefore, it is not surprising that the interviewees saw behavour of
characters in critical incidents 3 and 5 as a bit rude and inconsiderate because they
evaluated it from the perspective of a collectivist culture.
Finally, a discrepancy between the high scores in the GPI and attributions points
to the need to explore students’ competency through a qualitative tool as it would give
more concrete answers and would be more useful for arriving at students’ attitudes which
are important for FLT but may remain hidden if only quantitative instruments are used.
5.2.4. Student life
Apart from being the first incident to do with student life, Critical incident 4 was
the first to introduce the concept of distance (and hierarchy). The answers showed that the
opposition ‘us vs. them’ was prominent in attributions. Every previous incident had few
answers that compared our and other cultures, however, it was here that the interviewees
almost uniformly compared ‘our’ and ‘their’ schools.
The attributions offered explanations for the critical incident by referring to the
values and questioning those values. Several interviewees passed value judgments about
the behaviour, mentioning that ‘they don’t know better’, and that is ‘a reflection of their
culture’ (I4) – where ‘culture’ was used in the sense of being refined, polite or well
brought up. This was a rather ethnocentric attitude, where the interviewee believed that
‘their attitudes blind them to the fundamental truths that are self evident for us’ (Shaules
2007: 67). The interviewee I7 said ‘I guess the students don’t know that it is not right’.
The interviewee I8 also expressed strong feelings, saying ‘The question is why this would
be allowed at all?’ Some of the interviewees commented on the role of professor and the
authority that the professor had in the classroom, again seeing the American behaviour in
the negative light. The negative feelings that the interviewees had might have been caused
by deeper values or norms about authority and politeness that underline the visible
behaviour, and exactly because they are not visible make individuals uncomfortable when
they are violated.
215

These answers were surprising since the ongoing educational reform has the
learner at the centre of the process of learning/teaching. Therefore, the researcher
expected the interviewees not to be so judgemental of fellow students’ behaviour. The
possible explanation might be that what the interviewees saw as disrespect was ascribed
to less cultured, less refined peers. Only one interviewee thought Marko should have been
told that such behaviour is permissible, and half of them judged it as an inappropriate
behaviour.
There was only one attribution offered by I12, who compared Serbian and
American cultures in terms of differences in upbringing of children, which might point to
a deeper understanding of a particular practice.
These findings also have the support in the results of the GPI questionnaire which
showed that 54% of students claimed they judged other cultures according to their own
system of values. It might be interesting to mention here that the mean for question on
whether the role of a student should be to accept knowledge from the authority was 2.3,
which would mean that students did indeed see learning as an exchange rather than a oneway
process. The attributions did not directly comment on this, however, it could be
concluded that the authority of a professor was still expected and respected. It also
showed that the interviewees saw the classroom as a formal setting, where one’s attitude
should respect the implicit rules.
The misunderstanding in the second critical incident to do with student life was
based on non-verbal behaviour, or tacit practice that students were supposed to recognize.
Even though not all the interviewees commented on the episode, all that did (eight of
them) failed to see this ‘hidden’ aspect of communication. The closed doors in this case
meant that the professor signals his unavailability, which Veljko did not recognize since
the practice in Serbia is different.
The attributions for this critical incident were in contrast to the attributions for the
previous one, since here the professor was portrayed as either busy or dealing with
personal reasons not to see the student. On the other hand, in the previous critical
incident, the American professors were seen as understanding or lenient, judging by the
set of attributions given. Interestingly, in this situation, the Serbian professors were
portrayed as more open and forthcoming.
What the discussion on these two critical incidents showed was the inconsistency
in the analysis of situations in the same context, as well as a wrong ‘reading’ of social
scripts. This should not be surprising because cultural patterns are integrated (Samovar et
216

al. 2012) and, since authority of institutions is an important value in the Serbian culture,
those who do not comply with this view are criticised.
If looked from another angle, the mean for the GPI question whether students
would be offended by those who did not understand their views was 2.48. Therefore, it
would be expected that the attributions showed similar inclinations, which was not the
case. While positive attitudes are a prerequisite for successful intercultural encounters and
help in the development of ICC, the mere declaration of such attitudes cannot be enough
if it is not supported by either training or personal experience. For the individuals who are
well-meaning it is only natural to apply to others those standards they believe they live
by, thus showing the characteristics of the Minimalisation stage (Bennett 2004).
5.2.5. At the workplace
A characteristic of a collectivist culture is that help would always be provided to
the immediate family and friends, even if that involves going around set rules and social
expectations (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1997). The interviewees saw
favouritism and nepotism not on a strictly individual/ personal level, as could be seen
from only one dispositional attribution given, but as a cultural characteristic.
Even though our culture is somewhere at the middle of the collectivist/
individualistic scale (Hofstede 2001), characteristics that ‘collectivists’ have and ‘tend to
be concerned about the results of their actions on members of their ingroups, tend to share
resources with ingroup members’ (Triandis 1989: 509) are still present, as the attributions
of the interviewees proved. One attribution touched upon reliance on the group for
support and reciprocal loyalty to the group (Samovar et al. 2012), suggesting the values
embedded in the notion of the collectivist clout, recognizing ‘the obligation’ one feels
towards in-group members. It was not expected that the interviewees would go into a
deeper analysis, but it was expected that they would recognize it. Therefore, their
attributions were more a statement of a cultural phenomenon that was there, even though
they all expressed sharp disagreement and strong condemnation.
The interviewees’ attributions for this critical incident showed the American
culture in a more favourable light. When justifying their answers, the interviewees in two
cases pointed to the values and work ethics in America, basing their answers on second
hand knowledge (as I heard...).
It is interesting that the interviewees did not find any ‘fault’ with other cultural
elements that are representative of a collectivistic culture. The choice of words was not
217

judgmental (a bit pushy, it’s our culture, it’s simply like that…), however, when it came
to this critical incident, responses were quite critical 38 .
The responses for the next critical incident related to the workplace were again
seen from the perspective of either distrust towards a newcomer or personal/individual
characteristics. The interviewees also mentioned nationality, adding that some
xenophobic feelings might have existed. One interviewee used a verb ‘to serbify’
[posrbiti] in a rather negative context, together with other negative comments, might
show that students can objectively talk about their culture when a particular practice may
have a detrimental effect on them. However, such awareness was only shown in the
workplace-related critical incidents.
None of the interviewees referred to the age difference between workers and a
new boss, even though a collectivistic culture such as Serbian does tend to place more
weight on what the older generation thinks, expects and values than on the younger
generation’s views. As a related concept, seniority is also seen as a sign of knowledge,
experience, therefore young experts might have difficulties proving their expertise. Still,
the interviewees did not touch upon this issue, which might show that the concept is so
deep that they are not aware of its effects.
A discussion aimed at intra-cultural relations followed, where the interviews were
asked if the same situation would happen if a compatriot junior boss came to the firm.
Most interviewees agreed that some possible friction could be expected, however
considerably lower since they were now of the same nationality. The interviewees much
more stressed the in-group/ out-group distinction, confirming in that way their
understanding of the practice.
Finally, the gender roles and expectations were discussed in the critical incident
that introduced a foreign female NGO project coordinator and a local male NGO driver.
The interviewees saw certain gender bias, some of them even ascribed it to our culture.
However, the values that were behind these practices were not discussed, although as the
members of a masculine-oriented culture (Hofstede 2001) the interviewees showed an
understanding of gender expectations: that seniority and leading positions were in general
preferably given to males. On the other hand, some interviewees mentioned the status of a
driver, commenting that that position did not provide room for questioning decisions of
38 When analyzing this critical incident it might have been valid to assume that the interviewees felt as outmembers
and therefore saw nepotism as a disappointing characteristic of the Serbian culture. The researcher
could have proceeded with the questions about them in the position of the nephew but believed that she
would receive only socially desirable answers and therefore did not pursue the issue further.
218

the seniors in the firm. However, this comment was given always as an afterthought,
rather than the first attribution.
Another attribution, that of different expectations, showed that the interviewees
used their own culture’s values, stating that ‘he expected to be chosen’ (I4, I8, I11). The
perspective stems from the Serbian collectivistic culture where proximity and prolonged
period of work/ life together might suggest that such ‘partners’ are put in favour over
some other people, or are placed at an advantageous position simply because of
familiarity.
One particular comment could have provided a more extensive discussion on the
topic of tolerance, diversity and consequently, ICC, had the interviewee not been too
defensive and unwilling to elaborate on his opinion. Namely, he said that ‘these are
personal things, there are changes here, but that tolerance is a bit pushed on people, that
diversity. All that is a bit corny in my opinion’ (I10). Such ethnocentric views could be
seen intermittently during the interview with him, and at times in other interviews as well.
The negative and stereotypical attitudes might be seen in the light of the lack of contact
with other cultures. However, an additional obstacle certainly was the perception of all
the critical incidents from a uniquely personal perspective, in some cases coloured by
primarily negative customs and values (nepotism that the interviewee’s father faced in his
job application, nepotism in schools). There were few interviewees who were able to
make the metaphoric ‘step back’ to keep the encounters in perspective, and those were the
ones with either personal experience or undergone instruction (the A-SMYLE alumna and
the student who attended a communication course).
5.2.6. Family life
Even though only two critical incidents dealt with family life and family values,
they provided enough evidence that the interviewees saw cultural differences, and they
resorted to culture comparison in order to analyse the behaviour of the characters in the
critical incidents.
The first one, with child raising differences, had an additional aspect of a
linguistic difference between Serbian and English, which was seen in the way politeness
was perceived. As the knowledge of social interaction processes is an important part of
intercultural competence (Byram 1997), competent IC speakers should be able to
recognize the level of formality and conventions in those exchanges.
219

All interviewees understood ‘please’ as a polite request and negotiation with
children, rather than the usual conversation convention. Even though the attributions
stressed respect and authority, they did not have any negative connotations and all
interviewees jokingly described the Serbian stand on the issue. This showed that speech
acts grounded in culture might be misinterpreted and be a cause of misunderstanding.
Again, this should not be so surprising, since ‘unless students are also taught how to use
the second language, we may expect that they will fall back on language patterns acquired
in the course of learning to use their first language’, as a result, ‘students will commonly
employ forms that are contextually inappropriate in that they differ in style, politeness,
and register from what native speakers would employ’ (Geis, Harlow 1996: 129). This
should also point to the fact that focusing only on culture studies or only on intercultural
training in terms of ‘dos and don’ts’ might not be enough for a wholesome ICC, as
‘language pre-eminently embodies the values and meanings of a culture, refers to cultural
artefacts and signals people’s cultural identity’ (Byram 1989: 41). Thus, learners’ ICCC
should be equally worked on and developed.
The interviewees mostly commented on the patriarchal characteristic of the
Serbian culture, contrasting it with the English, proving deeply ingrained cultural scripts
representative of a collectivistic, masculine culture.
The second critical incident on this topic was not discussed by all the
interviewees, yet, it also touched upon parent-child relationship. All interviewees gave
different attributions, and, since this critical incident invariably was discussed towards the
end of the interview, it seemed with all participants that they were losing interest in the
topic. Still, it could be said that they perceived ‘our’ family relationships as closer than
‘theirs’, but provided answers such as the size of our country and opportunities to move
away as the reasons for the closeness, rather than recognizing cultural elements in the
behaviour. However, ‘FL teaching within an institution of general education has a
responsibility to develop a critical awareness of the values and significance of cultural
practices in the other and one’s own culture’ (Byram 1997: 41). Therefore, a critical
analysis not only of the foreign language and culture but also of one’s own should be a
valid teaching and learning aim in TEFL. With higher education this might be even more
important as those learners seem to have the greatest opportunity to meet other cultures
through study abroad programs and various projects.
220

5.2.7. Intercultural awareness
Finally, in the concluding part of the interview, the participants were asked to
comment more on the term ICC itself, to self assess themselves and to comment on the
ways they saw fit to improve one’s ICC.
There was only one interviewee who provided what might be called a ‘negative
definition’ – ‘You need to be open, you should not support each culture and tradition, but
definitely you shouldn’t, like, create disgust and despise. It’s their way of behaving, and,
OK, it’s for them, but it doesn’t mean I will behave that way’ (I4), showing in this way
characteristics of an individual in the Defense stage of Bennett’s model (2004). The
confirmation for this could be seen in his next comment, ‘everyone is against us, OK, not
all, but it seems so’. To a lesser or greater extent, these attitudes could be ascribed to half
of the interviewees. Another similar answer came from the interviewee who showed
negative attitudes to some other questions as well, who explained that ‘we are too open
for those things’ (I10). Such view is characteristic of an ethnocentric outlook, a Denial
stage, of individuals who are ‘disinterested in cultural difference even when it is brought
to their attention, although they may act aggressively to avoid or eliminate a difference if
it impinges on them’ (Bennett 2004: 2). Although these were not prevalent views, it is
important to note them and find both their roots and strategies in which they could be
dissuaded, since it seems that discussion of one’s national and cultural identity in the
view of the meeting of cultures can be a step out of one’s comfort zone that many
individuals do not undertake lightly.
It seems that the interviewees believed that the absence of open hatred (or any hint
at it) and the use of ‘politically correct’ speech made them interculturally competent. The
attitude that the interviewee I4 showed illustrated this point, and also showed that the
interviewees exhibit what could be called a minimalist-like behaviour according to
Bennett (2004).
Another illustration of this attitude was the answer of I7, who said, describing
differences between the schooling systems, that ‘we have greater knowledge’ qualifying
this by adding ‘it does not mean we are smarter’. Again, it was these insights during the
interview that showed a more realistic image of the participants’ ICC that directly
discussed questions might not have provided.
When compared to the qualitative data, the results in the subdomains of Affect or
Interaction were only partially corroborated, proving that ICC is a complex issue that
needs a detailed probing. The reasoning behind certain attitudes is important for
221

understanding the learners and providing them with necessary ‘tools’ in order for them to
understand the workings of their own and other cultures.
Even though two interviewees had some first-hand experience and a prolonged
stay in another country, their answers did not show a true meta-cognitive awareness of
ICC. While I2 was much better at discriminating different situations and behaviours, she
only sporadically mentioned that she was learning about the other culture, rather, she
mentioned different anecdotes to illustrate certain differences. The findings, thus, could
be used as a support of researchers who claim that unstructured study abroad programs
without IC instruction do not give good results in terms of achieving better ICC
(Ehrenreich 2006, Tarp 2006, Vande Berg 2006).
The interviewee who showed awareness as well as some knowledge of other
cultures and the best understanding of different cultural scripts in a number of instances
was the one without any personal intercultural experience in terms of stays abroad, but
who had undergone some instruction in the educational setting (coupled with internet
contacts with members of other cultures). However, she also qualified our tradition as
richer and more complex than that of other cultures. She singled out folklore and common
people beliefs, thus showing that even though she said that due to learning about new
cultures, meeting people, and discussing different aspects of culture there could be an
understanding, there were still value judgments and unfounded beliefs that influenced the
attitude and opinions.
If we understand competence as having an implicit ‘ability to intelligently select
one’s behavior or course of action in response to the various opportunities and challenges
of daily living, including managing social and work focused relationships as well as
conceptualizing and executing solutions to an array of human problems’ (Lonner and
Hayes 2004: 91 as cited in Cushner and Mahon 2009: 322), it can be concluded that some
prejudice, stereotypes as well as a certain lack of knowledge guided the interviewees in
these set-up intercultural encounters. Conversely, if we see ICC as ‘readiness and
preparation to be empathetic and to control one’s emotions, […] be patient and tolerant
with the other’ (Guilherme et al. 2009: 194), it could be said that students showed
awareness of the importance of differences and equality, but but not an empathy for outgroup
members.
One interviewee in particular (I10) was very negative towards the choice of
questions and critical incidents. While the lack of detail has been singled out as a
shortcoming of assimilators (Bhawuk 2001), the incidents mentioned during the
222

interviews were basic and very simple in nature, with not many conflicting values and
customs at play. They were designed with the idea that students in general do not have an
opportunity for many contacts with other cultures other than the media and second-hand
experience. Therefore, the researcher was surprised at that level of resistance and distrust,
as well as the unwillingness to provide any complex answer other than ‘I don't know’.
Comparing the answers obtained from two other interviewees to the previous one,
it is obvious that the I10’s views were not the dominant ones. Another interviewee said,
referring to the way cultural differences are perceived that ‘It’s individual but also
conditioned by something more general’ (I11). The comment actually pointed to a
heightened level of intercultural sensitivity, as the interviewee seemed to show a good
grasp on how people are influenced by some characteristics of their culture, even though
each member of a culture is unique. However, this was not always mentioned in her
attributions, which points to a complex interplay of conscious beliefs and opinions and
unconscious, ingrained values.
Finally, the stress that other interviewees placed on the individuality of characters
in the incidents showed that they could not recognize the underlying context and other
cues which would help them ‘decode’ misunderstandings. Even those interviewees who
showed eagerness to provide answers and to show their willingness to explore other
cultures included stereotypical attitudes in their analysis. For example, I9 stated that ‘with
certainty I can say that our culture, has bigger and deeper history, tradition above all’
while in the rest of discussion stated openness for other cultures. This might confirm the
discrepancy between the qualitative and quantitative results – that ‘stated’ IC sensitivity
was unsupported in quite concrete situational analyses. The interviewees might have had
the attitudinal component – they knew that diversity should be accepted and other
cultures respected, but ‘becoming IC competent is more complex than just realizing that
there is a “they” and a “we”’ (Guilherme 2000: 299). However, since the critical incidents
simulated real life situations, where all three domains, affective, cognitive, and
behavioural, should be employed, they showed that the last two were not developed.
5.3. Concluding remarks
The examination of attributions against different models of intercultural
competence showed several important findings. Firstly, in the cognitive domain, the
participants showed some knowledge of the practices and some patterns of behaviour of
foreign cultures. However, the knowledge of certain cultural specifics was not followed
223

y the knowledge of values (savoirs, Byram 1997) which invariably led the interviewees
to having defensive attitude towards other cultures (Bennett 2004).
For the affective domain, the interviewees showed mild to strong interest in the
critical incidents and IC misunderstandings they presented. They showed willingness to
analyse and reflect on them but did not show the ability to ‘suspend disbelief about other
cultures’ (savoir-être, Byram 1997). Since most of the critical incidents show the
members of the Serbian culture as experiencing stress and discomfort, perhaps it was not
surprising that the participants showed empathy to them (Rubens 1976). On the other
hand, when the situation was reversed, the interviewees did not seem willing to do the
same. This again showed that the participants were not able to take a different, changed
perspective when analysing critical incidents (Glaser et al. 2007), but followed the ingroup
vs. out-group division and empathised only with the in-group members.
That there was interdependence between attitudes and other factors (Byram 1997)
can be seen in the case of I10, who showed strong stereotypes and negative attitudes, and
consequently provided scarce and oftentimes sarcastic attribution. Also, the participants
offered a rather stereotypical portrait of Serbia and its people, which is in line with
Byram’s view that if there is not a raised awareness about one’s own cultural values it is
unlikely that one’s biased interpretation will be under control.
As opposed to the results obtained through the questionnaire, the interviewees
showed attitudes that were rather ethnocentric. However, the negative and stereotypical
attitudes may be ascribed to the lack of both a prolonged contact with other cultures and
the first hand experience with other cultures. Since it has been shown that short
encounters with foreigners or second-hand experience (the media, friends, and relatives)
develop stereotypical beliefs which subsequently guide beliefs, opinions and evaluation
(Gamilton, Sherman 1994; Strangor, Lange 1994 in Spencer-Rogers, McGover 2002), the
findings might be understood as being a result of the lack of experience.
The interviewees analysed critical incidents and gave attributions from a uniquely
personal perspective, especially if they personally had contact with that cultural practice,
custom or value in their own culture (for example, nepotism that the interviewee’s father
faced in a job application, nepotism in schools). There were few interviewees who were
able to make the metaphoric ‘step back’ to keep the encounters in perspective (the A-
SMYLE alumna and the student who attended a communication course).
It is difficult to analyse the findings in terms of the behavioural component, since
the interviewees did not participate in actual IC encounters and therefore their skills could
224

e only implied. Although the mean of the sub-domain Interaction was 3.7, it could be
said that students did not critically interpret and relate to the misunderstandings (savoircomprendre,
Byram 1997).
The reactions to critical incidents could be grouped into several categories:
stereotypical, those relying on rules governing speech events, and those based on the
Golden rule theory. The interviewees did not show a high level of flexibility and in some
cases showed dissatisfaction with the ambiguity of the critical incidents (Preschtl and
Davidson-Lund 2007). That they resorted to stereotypical explanations is also not
surprising, if stereotypes are seen as ‘heuristic devices when social perceivers lack
familiarity and experience with members of an out-group (Hamilton & Sherman 1994,
Neuliep & McCroskey 1997)’ (Spencer-Rogers, McGover 2002: 625).
Successful IC communication is based not only on an effective exchange of
information (Byram 1997) but also on established friendship. On the other hand,
responding to a critical incident from the assimilator is not a real-life situation between
friends or acquaintances where one’s knowledge, attitudes and skills would be fully
expressed and used. The skill that the interviewees showed was only indirect, while they
relied on knowledge and attitudes. As Byram (1997) notices, the skill is two-fold –
individuals should be ‘able to interpret and establish relationships between the two
cultures’ (p. 34) – that is, analyse information from both cultures, and secondly,
individuals should be able to discover novelty and interact in the new context.
What was noticeable in all attributions was that ‘using “rules governing speech
events” from one’s first language speech community when interacting with members of a
second language speech community […] may lead to pragmatic failure, to a negative
judgment about a speakers such as his or her being impolite or uncooperative (Leech
1983: 281)’ (Nelson et al. 2006: 110). Falling back on one’s L1 usually results in
communicative interference, and the person is seen as committing ‘a communicative sin’
(Platt 1989: 14), which usually leads to negative consequences.
As another strategy that could be analysed from the assumed skills perspective
was what Bennett explained as the theory of the Golden rule, typically used as a kind of
template for behaviour. The ‘rule’ states that individuals who are not comfortable in the
new context or when facing a new situation will ‘imagine how he/she would like to be
treated and thus treat the person from another culture in the same way’ (Bennett 1998:
191). This was not the case only in one critical incident – 14, while all others were
225

discussed from the Serbian cultural framework, showing that the interviewees are also
characterized by this feature of a Minimalisation stage (Bennett 2004).
With the last remark in mind, it could be said that the inability or unwillingness to
provide alternative behaviour for the characters in the critical incidents should not be
surprising. Cultural assumptions are for the most part unconscious and ‘we cannot readily
imagine alternatives to them’ (Stewart, Bennett 1991: 12). Therefore, the interviewees
tried to find a middle way, just as the Golden rule states.
Common themes that emerged from the attribution and interviews which could be
valuable for the teaching practice were the ‘us vs. them’ contrast and dispositional
attribution. In terms of ICC instruction, this points to a need to dissuade ethnocentric
views as the dynamics behind them rests on the assumption that one’s own culture is
normal and natural which leads to the degradation of others and formation of value
judgment.
The attitude ‘us vs. them’ might be even more detrimental if analysed within one’s
own culture, as it would mask the recognition of one’s own culture and possible
institutional privilege that might offer to its members. This would consequently prevent
learners from understanding subcultures or minorities in their own society. As Bennett
points out, this stand minimizes differences by applying ‘the same universal standard to
all the groups without bias’ and when this results in ‘group differences, the explanation
[…] is that groups differ in intelligence, skills or preparation’ (Bennett 2004: 68) at the
expense of ‘others’.
As for dispositional attribution, if in an educational framework critical cultural
awareness is to be developed, relativisation of one’s own and valuing of others’
meanings, beliefs and behaviours ‘can happen only with a reflective and analytical
challenge to the ways in which they have been formed and experienced’ (Byram 1997:
41). The learners should be made aware of those unconscious values, beliefs and norms
and instructed not to see particular visible features as an exhaustive account of the
characteristics of an individual or a culture but aspects of a different worldview that needs
to be explored to be understood.
226

5.4. Summary
In this chapter the results of both quantitative and qualitative phases of the study
were discussed and interpreted. The data gathered through two instruments were
compared and the qualitative data were used to cross-validate the quantitative data. The
attributions of the interviewees were analysed against some cultural models in order to
show their intercultural competence. Special attention was given to this last segment as it
most completely answers the research questions.
227

228

CHAPTER VI - CONCLUSION
6.1. Conclusions
The study into the ICC of university students and its results led to a number of
conclusions presented in this section.
Firstly, the results gathered through different research tools were somewhat
different. The ICC of the University of Niš students as tested on the GPI was in general
not very high but still high enough (the highest mean being 3.9) to show an average-tohigh
level of IC sensitivity, which would suggest that the students showed average-tohigh
global perspective. On the other hand, the interviews showed a somewhat different
picture – with students opting for stereotypical and sometimes unfounded attributions.
Therefore, this data demonstrate ICC which is rather low. Such discrepancy might have
appeared due to several reasons. When filling in the questionnaire, the participants might
have wanted to present themselves as open and ‘worldly’ despite the obvious lack of
experience and/or IC instruction. Then, some participants might have indeed seen
themselves as interculturally sensitive and possessing a global perspective, while not
being aware what particular elements such IC competence and sensitivity entailed.
However, when the interviewees faced a particular problem that needed to be solved and
they had to reflect on it, many of the invisible attitudes and values surfaced. That might
have been the reason why the interviewees could not choose only one attribution, but
usually offered several, almost always including the one that sounded ‘politically correct’.
The mixed methods research thus proved to be better suited for the analysis of a complex
phenomenon such as intercultural competence.
Secondly, if different departments are compared against the type of the research
data, we can see that there is some difference between the departments in quantitative
data, but not to the advantage of the English language department. There are statistically
significant differences on subdomains of the GPI (Knowledge, Identity, Responsibility,
and Global citizenship) where the mean values of the English language students are the
lowest on all subdomains except Knowledge. When the qualitative data were analysed, it
was shown that the English language students did not differ significantly from other
interviewees. What this proved was that English language instruction on its own cannot
influence ICC, as some authors also purport (Kramsch 1982; Robinson-Stuart, Nocon
229

1996; Byram 1997). On the other hand, it might also point to a relative earnestness of the
English language students when answering the questionnaire. Also, the present study
shows that at the very beginning of their studies the English language students do not
receive any guidance in terms of IC learning and are mostly left to their own devices, the
media and second-hand experience, not unlike students from other departments.
Thirdly, the study showed that stays and studies abroad, either for shorter or
longer periods of time, do not directly influence one’s ICC. The quantitative data showed
the mean difference only on one subdomain, Knowledge (the degree of understanding and
awareness of various cultures and their impact on our global society), with a slight
advantage for those students who had stayed abroad. The qualitative data showed that
even those students with the first-hand experience of a whole academic year abroad need
not show heightened ICC. While the study shows that some direct training and teaching
indeed gives positive results, in terms of students being able to recognize and understand
certain cultural practices, it might not have a direct effect on the affective and behavioural
components, which was also proved by some authors (Tarp 2006; Vende Berg 2006).
The participation of the students with the intercultural experience and those with
some classroom training proved invaluable for the study as it clearly showed that both
these venues of learning about another culture could give some positive results and
improve one’s ICC, however, without structured training and reflection on students’ part
they are not likely to do much.
The students for the most part proved incompetent to handle intercultural
encounters as they lacked either the knowledge of different cultures or the ability to
mediate (Byram 1997), that is, to distance themselves from their own cultural frame of
reference. In terms of attributions used, and, regardless of their background, education or
interests, the students offered similar attributions, resorting to stereotypes, generalized
descriptions or dispositional attribution. Such an approach was expected because it was
assumed the participants did not have an extensive experience with other cultures and
would therefore rely on their own cultural frames (Friedman, Antal 2005). While trying to
be politically correct when directly addressing issues of ICC, the passing remarks and
associations revealed that they perceived their culture as better and believed that ‘the
others’ mostly have a negative attitude towards ‘us’.
The insecurity when answering and having multiple attributions for critical
incidents showed that students in general were not accustomed to discussing the issues
related to ICC, cultures in contact and behaviour of individuals in such exchanges. Also,
230

the students for the most part found these issues unrelated to language instruction and
learning. This might be seen as a possible weak area in teaching of English at the
university level where further work on ICC is still needed.
The culture assimilator used for the study was developed further and can be used
as a teaching and assessment tool in the educational context. Since there have not been
any techniques developed specifically for the Serbian context, the culture assimilator
might provide the starting point for material development for our local purposes.
Since no similar research has been done in Serbia on the topic of ICC, the study
gives a contribution to applied linguistics and a significant first step in terms of offering
both the relevant literature review and the data for further research.
The mixed methods approach used in the study is not a preferred method of choice
for applied linguistic research in Serbia, therefore the study shows the importance of
applying multiple perspectives to complex problems as they can provide a greater range
of divergent views.
The study provided an insight into the functioning of the ICC of probably the most
important population – students, as future educators and social agents, thus showing what
aspects should be taken into consideration when educating students to be global citizens.
6.2. Pedagogical implications
There are several pedagogical implications for students at the university level that
follow this study. Firstly, since many students would work directly with others and many
of them in education, it is essential that students have some intercultural training
incorporated in their classes – of a foreign language or as a separate course. Stereotypical
perceptions of other nations, in this case, Anglophone ones, are still present and should be
dissuaded, while at the same time one’s own culture should be explored and analysed.
More specifically, for the English language students, as most definitely future
language teachers, ICC training and instruction would be invaluable for their improved
teaching skills. The current practice at the English language department in Niš has shown
that one elective course on ICC is not enough, especially since ICC is closely related to
sociolinguistic and pragmatic knowledge. As some authors show, the linguistic
proficiency signals to interlocutors’ intercultural proficiency as well which is why IC
misunderstandings look graver and more serious in their eyes.
Even though the use of linguistic means was not in the focus of the study, a closer
attention could be paid to the choice of linguistic functions as an additional step when
231

introducing or teaching ICC in language classes. In that way learners would learn not to
use or rely on the linguistic resources of their own culture which inevitably leads to
negative judgments and pragmatic failure (Nelson et al. 2006).
Finally, both in-service and especially pre-service teachers should become
acquainted with the ICC teaching tools, of which the culture assimilator is only one, and
try to incorporate them into their teaching practice, in that way combining IC, pragmatic,
sociolinguistic, and linguistic elements.
6.3. Limitations
As other authors have noticed (Richards 2003; Lincoln and Guba 1985), there is a
difficulty in doing a qualitative study and maintaining a balance between uniqueness of
particular findings and the relevance of the study for a wider setting. Further, this study
had a rather limited number of participants, which might be one of the limitations. As it
has been mentioned, Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose transferability as a more suitable
concept than generalisation, that is, the research should provide enough information to
other researchers so that they ‘share in the researcher’s understandings’ (Richards 2003:
26). This study aims to do so through content analysis and thick description, triangulated
with quantitative data, researcher’s notes and English language courses syllabi.
Another limitation is the fact that the students volunteered for the interviews,
therefore making the sample a purposive random sample. The reason for this was the fact
that the researcher had a limited amount of time to spend in the classroom due to the time
constraints of English language teachers and demands of students’ courses. Therefore,
sifting the quantitative data for purposeful sample was impractical. Moreover, the
students were not given any compensation for their participation, and were not too willing
to take part. Therefore, even organizing these two phases sequentially might not have
given the researcher the participants for the second, qualitative, stage due to the
unwillingness of students to participate. However, this qualitative sample gave a needed
randomness to the study as it cut across all the departments included in the quantitative
stage.
Such a sample may seem as too narrow for a purposeful generalisation, however,
the very setting of a higher education makes the research narrow in nature. Generalisation
to other groups of learners without formal education would not be viable. On the other
hand, this group of students may well share the characteristics with some other,
international students, therefore making generalisations in that sense possible.
232

Another limitation is that the research was not diachronic but rather synchronic.
Therefore, the results gathered show the state of IC learning and teaching at that
particular moment and not as they might be developing over time. While such research
would be invaluable to the field of ICC in Serbia, it would require the researcher’s
constant monitoring of students which would have been impossible due to the schedules
and locations of departments. However, as this was the first such study, the data gathered
at one particular period might show the ‘as-is’ situation and give basis for further steps of
the ICC and ICCC teaching.
Our monolingual and monocultural context renders it difficult to provide students
with actual intercultural encounters where their ICC would be concretely seen and
appreciated. Had it been organized in the realistic setting, the study would have had to
include many other personal and situational factors into consideration, making the
analysis much more complex and unwieldy.
Research instruments, including the researcher, might affect the data. The very
fact that a questionnaire cannot reflect the nuanced opinions that participants might hold,
can influence the data too. The researcher, with her role of a teacher, if not at present,
than in the near future, for some of the interviewees might have influenced some of their
responses. Also, the researcher’s knowledge of the learning context might have inclined
her to subjectivity, therefore, it was necessary to compare all the results and not to lose
sight of all potential perspectives. In order to keep all the instruments in check,
triangulation of data was employed to ensure the objective and whole analysis. A semistructured
form of the interview was used to put all the participants into a similar position
and at the same time to minimize the researcher’s influence.
The use of Serbian, while a benefit on one hand, might have been a drawback on
the other. While answering interview questions might have been more difficult in English,
seeing the intercultural incidents in English might have helped interviewees understand
them better. Still, the use of the interviewees’ native language ensured a certain freedom
of expression, a focus on the issues discussed and their opinions rather than on the
accuracy of phrasing their answers in English.
While a great care was taken to clearly delineate codes and keep them consistent
across the interviews, the researcher was the one who defined the codes and classified the
content, therefore, some other researcher might offer different coding, as no two
individuals would code the same text in the exact same manner. However, keeping
233

memos in Atlas.ti and a reflecting journal helped the researcher keep consistency in
coding.
In order to minimize the potential weaknesses that these limitations might cause
for the research, all the stages of the research were developed through critical reflexivity
(Hammersley and Attkinson 1995), and different techniques to ensure trustworthiness
were employed.
6.4. Suggestions for further research
The present study only touches upon the important issues in ICC and leaves ample
space for different elements to be further explored.
Firstly, the component of language proficiency in terms of the choice of words,
functional language to be used in particular situations could be a venue for further
research. Some authors (Hou, Simkin, Nicholas 2012) mention the influence of the L2 on
IC encounters which has been disregarded, therefore, research that would dwell on
linguistic factors and communication styles and their influence on IC communication
could also result from the present study. This type of research might include different
teaching tools and interaction in role plays with both native and non-native speakers.
Also, there should be a more thorough analysis of the attributions that learners
bring to IC encounters, as well as what aspects of learners’ previous knowledge and
experience influence those attributions. Such research would inform the teaching practice
and would prepare teachers as to what to expect and how to help learners in their IC
development.
Since the present study was not a longitudinal one, there might be research that
would be based on interviews and thick descriptions, conducted over a period of time so
that it investigates how students could undergo a ‘filter shift’ (Deardorff 2006), that is,
how the basis of openness, respect and curiosity leads to adaptability, flexibility and
eventually, empathy. In such a way research would provide new data to inform the
practice and also to contribute to the existing theory and research.
In order to work on ICC in a more comprehensive manner, there should be further
work in terms of including different teaching tools and monitoring their usage and results
in the classroom. While the present study used one particular tool at one particular point
in students’ education and personal growth, there different tools could be applied and the
development of students ICC monitored.
234

The research tool used for the present study could be tested in a different context
and over a prolonged period of time in order to check and measure its usefulness,
appropriateness and applicability.
The present study has shown that when exploring ICC both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies should be employed. For further work on ICC in our local
context a better quantitative instrument should be developed that would more discretely
show differences between individuals.
Although assessing ICC was not a direct goal of the present study, the challenges
of assessment have been a troublesome issue stemming from the problems in teaching/
learning IC elements, as well as a topic of research for quite some time. As Paige et al.
state (2003), the challenges are manifold: not the least of which is the lack of
interdisciplinary research and collaboration Therefore, the context of FL classroom and
combined tools of language and intercultural teaching could be further developed to serve
as assessment tools as well 39 .
39 It should be mentioned that testing ICC, as well as developing it, is a rather subjective process, and the
teacher needs to show flexibility when accepting students’ answers, and also be aware that the nature of
competence cannot be tested in a positivistic tradition, and will therefore go against the objective testing
(Paige et al. 2003).
235

236

REFERENCES
Aguilar, M. J. C. (2008). Dealing with Intercultural Communicative Competence in the
Foreign Language Classroom. In Soler, E. A., M.P. S. Jordà (Eds.). Intercultural
Language Use and Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer. pp: 59-78.
Aguilar, M. J. C. (2009). Intercultural communicative competence in the context of the
European higher education area. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9
(4), 242-255.
Albert, R. D. (1995). The Intercultural Sensitizer/ Culture Assimilator as a Cross-Cultural
Training Method. In Fowler, S.M., M.G. Mumford (Eds.), Intercultural
Sourcebook: Cross-Cultural Training Methods, Vol. 1. Yarmouth, Maine:
Intercultural press. pp: 157-167.
Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT
Journal, 56 (1), 57-64.
Altshuler, L., N. Sussman, E. Kachur (2003). Assessing changes in intercultural
sensitivity among physician trainees using the intercultural development
inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27 (4), 387-401.
Antal, A. B., V. J. Friedman (2008) Learning to negotiate reality: A strategy for teaching
Intercultural competencies. Journal of Management Education, 32 (3), 363-386.
Arasaratnam, L. A., M. L. Doerfel (2005). Intercultural communication competence:
Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 137-163.
Asante, M. K. (1995). Afrocentrism. American Studies Newsletter, 36, 6–8.
Baker, W. (2009). Intercultural awareness and intercultural communication through
English: an investigation of Thai English language users in higher education.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton.
Baker, W. (2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: culture in ELT.
ELT Journal, 66 (1), 62-70.
Baldwin, J.R., S.L Faulkner, M.L. Hecht, S.L. Lindsley. (2006). Redefining Culture:
Perspectives Across the Disciplines. Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates
Publishing.
Banks, J.A., C. A., McGee Bangs (1989). Multicultural education. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bantock, G.H. (1968). Culture, industrialization and education. New York: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
237

Barna, L. M. (1998) ‘Stumbling Blocks in Intercultural Communication’, in M. J. Bennett
(ed.) Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication. Selected Readings,
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. pp: 173–89.
Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In Barth, F. (Ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The
Social Organization and Cultural Difference. Boston: Little, Brown and company.
pp: 9-38.
Bassnett, S. (2003). The translation turn in cultural studies. In Petrilli, S. (Ed.),
Translation, translation. Volume 21 of Approaches to Translation. Amsterdam-
NYC: Rodopi.
Bateman, B.E. (2002). Promoting openness towards culture learning: Ethnographic
interviews for students of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 318-331.
Baxter, J. (1983). ESL for intercultural competence: An approach to intercultural
communication training. In D. Landis, R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of
intercultural training, volume II: Issues in training methodology. New York:
Pergamon Press. pp: 290-324.
Beamer, L (1992). Learning Intercultural Communication Competence. The Journal of
Business Communication, 29 (3), 285-303.
Beamer, L., I. Varner (2001). Intercultural communication in the global workplace (2 nd
ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Bender, C., D. Wright, D. Lopatto (2009). Students’ Self-Reported Changes in
Intercultural Knowledge and Competence Associated with Three Undergraduate
Science Experiences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,
18, 307-321.
Benet-Martinez, V., J. Leu, F. Lee, M.W. Morris (2002). Negotiating Biculturalism:
Cultural Frame Switching in Biculturals With Oppositional Versus Compatible
Cultural Identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33 (5), 492-516.
Bennett, M. J. (1988). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179–195.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural
sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. pp: 21–71.
Bennett, M. J. (1997). How Not to Be a fluent Fool: Understanding the Cultural
Dimension of Language. In Fantini, A.E. (Ed.), New Ways in Teaching Culture.
Alexandria: TESOL Inc. pp: 16-21.
Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J.
Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication. Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press. pp: 1-34.
238

Bennett, M.J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J.S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward
multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2 nd ed.). Newton, MA:
Intercultural Resource Corporation. pp: 62-77.
Bennett, J.M., M.J. Bennett, W. Allen. (2003). Developing Intercultural Competence in
the Language Classroom. In D.L. Lange, R.M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core:
Perspectives on culture in second language learning. Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing. pp: 237-270.
Berg, M.V., R.M. Paige (2009). Applying Theory and Research The Evolution of
Intercultural Competence in U.S. Study Abroad. In Deardorff, D. (Ed.), The Sage
Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks: Sage. pp: 419-437.
Berger, C.R., J. Jordan (1992). Planning Sources, Planning Difficulty, and Verbal
Fluency. Communication Monographs, 59, 130-149.
Berthoin Antal, A., V.J. Friedman (2003). Negotiating Reality As an Approach to
Intercultural Competence. Discussion Paper SP III. Retrieved from
http://skylla.wzb.eu/pdf/2003/iii03-101.pdf
Bhawuk, D.P.S., R.W. Brislin (2000). Cross-cultural training: A review. Applied
Psychology: An Intercultural Review, 49 (1), 162–191.
Bhawuk, D.P.S. (2001). Evolution of culture assimilators: toward theory-based
assimilators. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 141-163.
Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Blasco, M. (2004). Stranger to us than birds in our garden? Reflections on hermeneutics,
intercultural understanding and the management of difference. In Blasco, M., J.
Gustafsson (Eds.), Intercultural alternatives: Critical perspectives on
intercultural encounters in theory and practice. Copenhagen, Denmark:
Copenhagen Business School Press. pp: 19–48.
Brannen, J. (1992). Mixed Methods: Quantitative and qualitative research. Aldershot:
Avebury.
Braskamp, L.A., Braskamp, D.C., Merrill, K.C., M. Engberg (2010). Global Perspective
Inventory. Retrieved from https://gpi.central.edu/
Braskamp, L.A., D. C. Braskamp, K.C. Merrill, M. Engberg (2012). Global Perspective
Inventory (GPI): Its Purpose, Construction, Potential Uses, and Psychometric
Characteristics. Retrieved from:
https://gpi.central.edu/supportDocs/manual.pdf
Bredella, L. (2003). Afterword. What Does it Mean to be Intercultural? In Alred, G., M.
Byram, M. Fleming (Eds.), Intercultural Experience and Education. Clevedon:
ultilingual Matters. pp: 225-239.
Brislin, R.W. (Ed.) (1990). Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology. London: Sage.
239

Brislin, R.W. (1998). Culture-General Assimilator: Preparation for Various Types of
Sojourn. In Keys, Bernard, R.M. Fulmer (Eds.), Executive development and
organizational learning for global business. London: Routledge. pp: 129-149.
Brislin, R.W. (2000). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior (2 nd ed.). FortWorth,
TX: Harcourt.
Brislin, RW. (2006). Culture and Behavior: An Approach Taken in Psychology and
International Business. In Baldwin, J.R. (Ed.), Redefining culture: perspectives
across disciplines. New Jersey, London: LEA Inc. pp: 83-90.
Brislin, R.W., D.Landis, M.E. Brandt (1983). Conceptualizations of intercultural behavior
and training. In R. Brislin, D. Landis (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training
(Vol. 1, pp. 2-26). Toronto: Pergamon.
Broaddus, D. (1986). Use of the culture-general assimilator in intercultural training.
Doctoral dissertation. Indiana State University. Terre Haute, IN.
Brown, H.D. (1987). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (2 nd
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
ed.).
Buttjes, D. (1990). Culture in German foreign language teaching: making use of an
ambiguous past. In D. Buttjes and M. Byram (Eds.), Mediating languages and
cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp: 3-16.
Bryman, A. (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?
Qualitative Research. 6 (1), 97-113.
Byram, M. (1989). Culture Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevendon:
Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2003). Cultural Studies and Foreign Language Teaching. In Bassnett, S.
(Ed.), Studying British Cultures. London: Routledge. pp: 56-67.
Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural
citizenship. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2009). The Intercultural Speaker and the Pedagogy of Foreign Language
Education. In Deardorff, D. (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural
Competence. Thousand Oaks: Sage. pp: 321-332.
Byram, M., V. Esarte-Sarries, S. Taylor (1991). Cultural studies and language learning:
A research report. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., C. Morgan and colleagues (1994). Teaching-and-Learning Language-and-
Culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
240

Byram, M., M. Fleming (Eds.) (1998). Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective:
Approaches Through Drama and Ethnography. Cambridge: CUP.
Byram, M., G. Zarate (1997). Definitions, objectives and assessment of sociocultural
competence. In Byram, M., G. Zarate, G. Neuner (Eds.), Sociocultural
Competence in Language Learning and Teaching: Studies Towards a Common
European Framework of Reference for Language Learning and Teaching.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. pp: 7-43
Byram, M., G. Zarate, (Eds.). (1997a). The sociocultural and intercultural dimension of
language learning and teaching. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Byram, M. and Zarate, G. (1997b) Defining and assessing intercultural competence:
Some principles and proposals for the European context. Language Teaching 29:
239–243.
Canale, M., M. Swain (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Cardon, P. W. (2008). A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, 22 (4), 399-428.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the Role of Communicative Competence in
Language Teaching. In Soler, E.A., M.P.S. Jorda (Eds.), Intercultural Language
Use and Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer. pp: 41-57.
Celce-Murcia, M., Z. Domyei, S. Thurrell (1995). Communicative competence: A
pedagogically motivated model with content specification. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 6 (2), 5-35.
Chamberlain, J. R. (2000). An Introduction to Intercultural Communication. In Utley, D.
The Culture Pack. York: York Associates. pp: 7–9.
Chen, G. M. (1990). ICC: Some Perspectives of Research. Paper presented in the Annual
Meeting of the Eastern Communication Association.
Chen, G.M., W.J. Starosta (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis.
Communication Yearbook, 19, 353-384.
Chen, G.M., W.J. Starosta (1999). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness.
Human Communication, 2, 27-54.
Chen, G.M., W.J. Starosta (2006) Intercultural Awareness. In Samovar, L.A., R.E. Porter,
E.R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural Communication – A Reader. Belmont:
Thomson-Wadsworth. pp: 357-366.
Chen, G.M., W.J. Starosta (2008). Intercultural Communication Competence. In Asante,
M.K., Y. Miike, J. Yin (Eds.), Intercultural Communication Reader. New York,
London: Routledge. pp: 215-237.
241

Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on Language. London: Temple Smith.
Cohen, L., M. Lawrence, K. Morrison (2008, 6 th
Education. Oxford: Routledge.
edition). Research Methods in
Coleman, J. (1998). Evolving intercultural perceptions among university language
learners in Europe. In M. Byram and M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in
intercultural perspective. Cambridge: CUP. pp: 45-75.
Corbett, J. (2003). An intercultural Approach to English Language Teaching. Clevendon:
Multilingual Matters.
Cortazzi, M., L. Jin (1999). Cultural mirrors: materials and methods in the EFL
classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Cultures in second language teaching and
learning. New York: CUP. pp: 196-220.
Crawford-Lange, L.M., D.L. Lange (1984). Doing the unthinkable in the second language
classroom. A process for integration of language and culture. In T. V. Higgs
(Ed.), Proficiency: The organizing principle. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook
Co. pp: 139-177.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five
Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Crichton, J., M. Paige, I. Papademetre, A. Scarino, (n.d). Integrated resources for
intercultural teaching and learning in the context of internalization in higher
education. Report, Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education,
University of South Australia; Retrieved from:
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnections/staff/practice/
internationalisation/ documents/FINAL_REPORT.pdf
Cushner, K. (1989). Assessing the impact of a culture-general assimilator. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 125-126.
Cushner, K., R, Brislin. (1996). Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide. (2 nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cushner, K., D. Landis (1996). The Intercultural sensitizer. In Landis, D., R.S Bhagat
(Eds), Handbook of Intercultural Training, (2 nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage. pp:
185-202.
Cushner, K., Mahon J. (2002). Overseas student teaching: Affecting personal,
professional, and global competencies in an age of globalization. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 6, 44-58.
Cvetičanin, P., T.Paunović (2007). How Would You Say It In Serbian, Professor Higgins?
Proceedings of 8th Annual Conference of the European Sociological Association:
Conflict, Citizenship and Civil Society. Glasgow.
242

Dahl, S. (2004). Intercultural Research: The Current State of Knowledge. Middlesex
University Discussion Paper No. 26. Retrieved from SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=658202
Damen, L. (1987). Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension in the Language Classroom.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Davcheva, L., M. Katsarska (2006). Country update: recent practices of intercultural
education in Bulgaria. Intercultural Education, 17 (5), 517–521.
Davis, K. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. TESOL
Quaterly, 29 (3), 427-453.
Davis, N,. Chao, M.O., and Hagenson, L. (2005). Intercultural competence and the role of
technology in teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 4 (4). Retrieved from:
http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss4/editorial/article1.cfm
Deardorff, D. K. (2004). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as
a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the
United States. (Ph.D., North Carolina State University).
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as
astudent outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in Intercultural
Education, 10, 241–266.
DeCapua, A., A. C. Wintergerst (2004). Crossing cultures in the language classroom.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. New York: Praeger.
Dervin, F. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence in Language Learning and
Teaching: a critical review of current efforts. In: Dervin, F. & E. Suomela-Salmi
(Eds.), New Approaches to Assessing Language and (Inter-)Cultural Competences
in Higher Education. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. pp: 157-173.
Detweiler (1975). On inferring the intentions of a person from another culture. Journal of
Personality, 43, 591-611.
DeVoss et al. (2002). Teaching Intracultural and Intercultural Communication A Critique
and Suggested Method. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16
(1), 69-94.
Dodd, C.H. (1995) Dynamics of intercultural communication (4th edition). Madison:
Brown & Benchmark.
Dunkley, M. (2009). What students are actually learning on study abroad and how to
improve the learning experience. Proceedings of The 20th ISANA International
243

Education Conference, Canberra 1 - 4 December 2009. Retrieved from:
http://proceedings.com.au/isana2009/PDF/paper_Dunkley.pdf
Durocher Jr., D.O. (2007). Teaching Sensitivity to Cultural Difference in the First-Year
Foreign Language Classroom. Foreign Language Annals. 40 (1), 143-161.
Ehrenreich, S. (2006) The Assistant Experience in Retrospect and its Educational and
Professional Significance in Teacher's Biographies. In M.W. Byram, A. Feng
(Eds.), Living and Studying Abroad, Research and Practice. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. pp: 186-209.
Ellis, R. (1992). The classroom context: An acquisition-rich or an acquisition-poor
environment? In C. Kramsch, S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. pp: 171-186.
Endicott, L., Bock, T., D. Narvaez (2003). Moral reasoning, intercultural development,
and multicultural experiences: Relations and cognitive underpinnings.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 403-419.
Evans, L. (2002). Reflective practice in educational research. New York: Continuum.
Fantini, A. E. (1995; Revised 2001). Exploring Intercultural Competence: A Construct
Proposal. Presented at NCOLCTL Fourth Annual Conference. Brattleboro, VT,
USA.
Fantini, A.E. (1995a). Introduction – language, culture and world view: exploring the
nexus. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19 (2), 143-153.
Fantini, A.E. (Ed.) (1997). New Ways in Teaching Culture. Alexandria: TESOL Inc.
Fantini, A.E (Ed.) (2000). About Our Institution: Inaugural Issue On the Occasion of
SIT’s 35th Anniversary. Brattleboro: School for International Training
Fantini, A.E., F. Arias-Galicia, D. Guay, (2001). Globalization and 21st century
competencies: Challenges for North American higher education. Consortium for
North American Higher Education Collaboration Working Paper Series on Higher
Education in Mexico, Canada and the United States (Working Paper No. 11).
Boulder: Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education.
Faulkner, S.L., J.R. Baldwin, S.L. Lindsley, M.L. Hecht (2006). Layers of Meaning: An
Analysis of Definitions of Culture. In Baldwin, J.R., S.L Faulkner, M.L. Hecht,
S.L. Lindsley (Eds.), Redefining Culture: Perspectives Across the Disciplines.
Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Publishing. pp: 27-52.
Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science: A multicultural approach.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Featherstone, M. (1990). Global culture: An introduction. In M. Featherstone (Ed.),
Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity. London: Sage. pp: 1–
14.
244

Fennes, H., K. Hapgood (1997). Intercultural learning in the classroom: Crossing
borders. London: Cassell.
Fielder, F., T. Mitchell, H. Triandis (1971). The culture assimilator: An approach to
cross-cultural training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 92-102.
Finkbeiner, C. (2009). Using 'Human Global Positioning System' as a Navigation Tool to
the Hidden Dimension of Culture. In Feng, A., M. Byram, M. Fleming (Eds.),
Becoming Interculturally Competent Through Training and Education. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. pp: 151-173.
Fischer, R. (2009). Where Is Culture in Cross Cultural Research? An Outline of a
Multilevel Research Process for Measuring Culture as a Shared Meaning System.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9 (1), 25-49.
Fish, S. (1997). Boutique multiculturalism, or why liberals are incapable of thinking
about hate speech. Critical Inquiry, 23, 378–95.
Fitzgerald, M. (2001) Gaining knowledge of culture during professional education, in: J.
Higgs, A. Titchen (Eds.), Practice knowledge and expertise in the health
professions. Melbourne: Butterworth Heinemann. pp: 149-156.
Fleming, M. (2009). Introduction: Education and Training: Becoming Interculturally
Competent. In Feng, A., M. Byram, M. Fleming (Eds.), Becoming Interculturally
Competent through Education and Training. Clavedon: Multilingual Matters. pp:
1-12.
Fowler. S.M. (1986). Intercultural simulation games: Removing cultural blinders. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 1986 (30), 71–81.
Fowler, S.M. (1994). Two Decades of Using Simulation Games for Cross-Cultural
Training. Simulation & Gaming, 25 (4), 464-476.
Fowler, S. (1995) Intercultural Sourcebook. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural press.
Friedman, V.J., A. Berthoin Antal (2005). Negotiating Reality: A Theory of Action
Approach to Intercultural Competence. Management Learning, 36, 69-86.
Geis, M. L., L. L. Harlow (1996). Politeness strategies in French and English. In Gass,
S.M., Neu, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures Challenges to Communication
in a Second Language. Berlin New/ York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp: 129-153.
Geoghegan, J. (2010). How Self-Managed Learning can integrate cultural awareness into
the communicative approach to an Institution Wide Language Programme. In
Dervin, F., E. Soumela-Salmi (Eds.), New Approaches to Assessing Language and
(Inter-)Cultural Competences in Higher Education. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang. pp: 141-154.
Gesche, A.H., P. Makeham (2008). Creating Conditions for Intercultural and International
Learning and Teaching. In Hellstén, M., A. Reid (Eds.), Researching
245

International Pedagogies. Sustainable Practice for Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education. Springer. pp: 241-258.
Giles, H., A. Franklyn-Stokes (1989). Communicator characteristics. In M. K. Asante,
W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural
communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. pp: 117–144.
Glaser, E., M. Guilherme, M del Carmen Méndez García, T. Mughan (2007).
ICOPROMO – Intercultural competence for professional mobility. Graz:
European Centre for Modern Languages / Council of Europe.
Goddard, C., A. Wierzbicka (2007). Semantic primes and cultural scripts. In Sharifian, F.,
G.B. Palmer (Eds.), Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for second
language learning and intercultural competence. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Goodenough, W.H. (1964 (1957)) Cultural anthropology and linguistics. In D. Hymes
(Ed.), Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
pp: 36–39.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1983). Intercultural Communication Theory: Current Perspectives.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Gudykunst, W.B. (Ed) (1986). Intergroup communication. Baltimore: E. Arnold.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1993). Toward a theory of effective interpersonal and intergroup
communication: An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) perspective. In R. L.
Wiseman, and J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication theory. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage. pp: 33-71.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1998). Applying the anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory to
intercultural adjustment training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
22 (2), 227- 250.
Gudykunst, W.B. (2005). Theories of Intercultural Communication. China Media
Research, 1(1), 61-75.
Gudykunst, W. (2006). Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory. In Griffin, E. (Ed.). A
First Look at Communication Theory. McGraw-Hill. pp: 426.438.
Gudykunst, W.B., Y.Y. Kim (1984). Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to
Intercultural Communication. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
company.
Gudykunst, W.B., Y.Y. Kim (Eds.) (1992). Readings on Communicating with Strangers:
An Approach to Intercultural Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gudykunst, W.B., S. Ting-Toomey (1996). Communication in personal relationships
across cultures: An introduction. In W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, T.
246

Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cultures.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp: 3–16.
Guest, M. (2002). A critical ‘checkbook’ for culture teaching and learning. ELT Journal,
56 (2), 154-161.
Guilherme, M. (2000). Intercultural competence. In Byram, M. (Ed.), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. pp: 297-
300.
Guilherme, M. (2002). Critical citizens for an intercultural world: foreign language
education as cultural politics. Clavedon: Multilingual Matters.
Guilherme, M., E. Glaser, M. del Carmen Mendez Garcia (2009). The Pragmatics of
Intercultural Competence in Education and Training: A Cross-national
Experiment on ‘Diversity Management’. In Feng, A., M. Byram, P. Fleming
(Eds.), Becoming Interculturally Competent Through Education and Training.
Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. pp: 193-210.
Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative competence. In: H. P. Dreitzel
(Ed.), Recent Sociology. No. 2. New York: Macmillan. pp: 115–148.
Hall, E.T. (1956). Orientation and Training in Government for Work Overseas. Human
Organization, 15, 4-10.
Hall, E.T. (1966, 1990). The Silent Language. New York City: Anchor Books Edition.
Hall, E.T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9, 83-108.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., R. Wiseman (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity:
The intercultural development theory. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 27 (4), 421–443.
Hammersley, M. P. Atkinson (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London:
Routledge.
Hampden-Turner, C, F. Trompenaars (1997). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding
Diversity in Global Business. McGraw-Hill.
Hannerz, U. (2001). Reflections on Varieties of Culturespeak. European journal of
Cultural Studies, 2 (3), 393-407.
Hanvey, RG (1976). Cross-cultural awareness. In Smith E.C., L.F. Luce (Eds.), Toward
internationalism: Readings in cross-cultural communication. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House Publishers. pp: 44-56.
Harden, T., A. Witte (Eds.). The notion of intercultural understanding in the context of
German as a foreign language. Bern: Peter Lang.
247

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: Wiley.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values (Abridged ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions
and Organizations Across Nations (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. J. (2009). The Moral Circle in Intercultural Competence: Trust Across
Cultures. In Deardorff, D. (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural
competence. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp: 85-99.
Hofstede, G. (2010). Interview, Itim Interantional, Retrieved from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVbkjobD8ao&lr=1&feature=mhsn
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2. Retrieved from:
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8
Holland, D., N. Quinn (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge:
CUP.
Hong, Y.Y., V. Bennet-Martinez, C.Y. Chiu, M.W. Morris (2003). Bounderies of cultural
influence: Construct Activation as a Mechanism for Cultural Differences in Social
Perception. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34 (4), 453-464.
Hornby, A.S. (2003). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: OUP.
Hou, M, K. Simkin, H. Nicholas (2012). Has The Cat Got Your Tongue? Second
Language Factors in Intercultural Difficulty Management. Journal of Intercultural
Communication, ISSN 1404-1634, issue 28. Retrieved from:
http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr28/hou.htm.
House, J. (2007). What Is an ‘Intercultural Speaker’? In Soler, E.A., M.P.S. Jordà (Eds.),
Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning. Dordreht: Springer. pp: 7-
22.
Howe, K.R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas
die hard. Educational Researcher, 17, 10-16.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life. In Gumperz,
J.J., D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of
Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: an ethnographic approach.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
248

Ignjačević, A. (1998). Stavovi o engleskom jeziku u srednjem i visokom obrazovanju u
Beogradu: master thesis.
Inkeles, A., D.J. Levinson (1969 [1954]). National character: The study of modal
personality and sociocultural systems. In G. Lindzey, E. Aronson (Eds.), The
Handbook of Social Psychology IV. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp: 418-506.
Intercultural Competence Assessment Project (INCA). (n.d.). Intercultural competence
assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.incaproject.org/index.htm.
Jackson, J. (2010). Intercultural Journeys from Study to Residence Abroad. Houndmills:
Macmillan.
Jensen, I. (2006) The Practice of Intercultural Communication: Reflections for
Professionals in Cultural Meetings. In Samovar, L.A., R.E. Porter, E.R. McDaniel
(Eds.), Intercultural Communication – A Reader. Belmont: Thomson-Wadsworth.
pp: 39-48.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in
action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4), 602-611.
Johnson, R.B., L. Turner (2003). Data collection strategies in mixes methods research. In
Tahakkori, A., C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing. pp: 297-320.
Johnson, R.B., A.J. Onwuegbuzie (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.
Johnson, B, L. Christensen (2007). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative and
Mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Jones, S.R., V. Torres, J. Arminio (2006). Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative
Research In Higher Education. New York: Routledge.
Jurasek, R. (1995). Using ethnography to bridge the gap between study abroad and the
on-campus language and culture curriculum. In Kramsch, C. (Ed.), Redefining the
boundaries of language study. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. pp: 221-251.
Kealey, D. J. & Protheroe, D. R. (1996). The Effectiveness of Cross-Cultural Training for
Expatriates: An Assessment of the Literature of the Issue. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 20 (2), 141-165.
Keesing, R. (1974). Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, 73-97.
Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Keller, G. (1991). Stereotypes in intercultural communication: effects of German-British
pupil exchanges. In D. Buttjes and M. Byram (Eds.), Mediating languages
andcultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp: 103-119.
249

Kerlinger, F.N. (1970). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Kim, M.-S. (1998). Constraints as a Tool for Understanding Communication Styles. In
Singelis, T.M. (Ed.), Teaching About Culture, Ethnicity and Diversity: Exercises
and Planned Activities. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp: 101-106.
Kim, R.K. (2004). Intercultural communication competence: Initial application to
instructors’ communication as a basis to assess multicultural teacher education
programs. Master thesis. Retrieved from:
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/11963
/uhm_ma_3168_r.pdf?sequen..
Kim, Y. Y. (1991). Intercultural communicative competence. In Ting-Toomey, S., F.
Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication. California: Sage
Publications. pp: 259-275.
Kim, Y.Y. (1992). Intercultural Communication Competence: A Systems-Theoretic
View. In Gudykunst, W.B., Y. Y. Kim (Eds.), Readings on Communicating with
Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication. New York: McGraw-
Hill, pp: 371-378.
Kluckhohn, C. (1962 [1952]). Universal categories of culture. In Tax, S. (Ed.),
Anthropology Today: Selections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp: 304-
20.
Kluckhohn, F.R., F L. Strodtbeck (1961). Variations in Value Orientations. Westport CT:
Greenwood Press.
Knapp, K., Knapp-Potthoff, A. (1987). Instead of an introduction: Conceptual issues in
analyzing intercultural communication. In Knapp K., W. Enninger, A. Knapp-
Potthoff (Eds.), Analyzing Intercultural Communication. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter. pp: 1-14.
Knop, C.K. (1976). On Using Culture Capsules and Culture Assimilators. The French
Review, 50 (1), 54-64.
Knowles, M. (1989). The making of an adult educator: An autobiographical journey. San
Francisco; Jossey-Bass.
Korhonen, K. (2004). Developing Intercultural Competence as Part of Professional
Qualifications. A Training Experiment. Journal of Intercultural Communication.
Issue 7. Retrieved from: http://www.immi.se/jicc/index.php/jicc/issue/view/17
Korzilius, H., A. van Hooft, B. Planken (2007). A Longitudinal study on intercultural
awareness and Foreign Language acquisition in the Netherlands. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 15. Retrieved from:
http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr15/planken.htm.
250

Kovalainen, N. (2005). Students’ thoughts of themselves as competent intercultural
communicators. In Suomela-Salmi, E., F. Dervin (Eds.), Proceedings from the
conference Visibility and Collaboration of Researchers in Intercultural
Communication in Finland. Turku: Université de Turku.
Kramer, J. (2000). Area Studies. In Byram, M. (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language
teaching and learning. London/New York: Routledge. pp: 41-48.
Kramsch, C. (1991). Culture in language learning: a view from the United States. In De
Bot, K, R.B Ginsberg, C. Kramsch (eds.) Foreign Language Research in Cross-
Cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp: 217-240.
Kramsch, C. (1993, 2 nd ed. 2003). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford, UK:
OUP.
Kramsch, C. (1995). The privilege of the non-native speaker. Plenary address at the
Annual TESOL Convention, Long Beach, California. Retrieved from:
http://livelongday.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/nonnativeclaire1.pdf
Kramsch, C. (2002). In search of the intercultural. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6 (2), 275–
285.
Kramsch, C. (2011). The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural. Language Teaching.
44 (3), 354–367.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press
Krasnick, H. (1984). From communicative competence to cultural competence. In
Handscombe, J., R.A. Orem, B.P. Taylor (Eds.), On-Tesol 83: the question of
control: selected papers from the Seventeenth Annual Convention of Teachers of
English to Speakers of other Languages, Toronto, Canada, March 15-20,
1983. Washington, D.C: TESOL. pp: 209-221.
Kroeber, A.L., Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and
definitions. Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Archeology and
Ethnology Papers 47.
Krück, B. (1992). Intercultural understanding in ELT using literary texts. In H. Pürschel
(Ed.), Intercultural communication: Proceedings of the 17th International
L.A.U.D. Symposium Duisburg 23-27 March 1992. Frankfurt am Mein, Germany:
Peter Lang. pp: 299-308.
Ladegaard, H.J. (2007). Global Culture—Myth or Reality? Perceptions of ‘National
Cultures’ in a Global Corporation. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research, 36 (2), 139–163.
251

Lambert, R. (1999). Language and intercultural competence. In Bianco, J.L., A.J.
Liddicoat, C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the third place: Intercultural competence
through language education. Melbourne: Language Australia. pp: 65-72.
Lambert, J., S. Myers (1994). 50 Activities for Diversity Training. Amherst: Human
Resource Development Press.
Lázár, I. (2007). Developing and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Babylonia, 3 (7), 9-13.
Lazarević, N. (2007). Odnos kulture ciljnog stranog jezika i sociolingvističke
kompetencije učenika srednje škole, (Relation of target language culture and
sociolinguistic competence of grammar school students). Faculty of Philosophy:
Novi Sad.
Lazarević, N., Savić, M. (2009). Do we Teach Teachers to Teach Culture. In Lakić, I., N.
Kostić (Eds.), Jezici i kulture u kontaktu – Zbornik radova. Podgorica: Institut za
strane jezike. pp: 404-411.
Lazarton, A. (1995). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A progress report.
TESOL Quarterly, 29 (3), 455-472.
Lazarton, A. (2003). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in applied linguistics:
Whose criteria and whose research? The Modern Language Journal, 87, 1-12.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1990). Notes in the history of intercultural communication: the
Foreign Service Institute and the mandate for intercultural training. Quarterly
Journal Of Speech, 76, 262-281.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1985). The View From Afar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Liddicoat, A. (2002). Static and dynamic views of culture and intercultural language
acquisition. Babel, 36 (3), 4–11.
Liddicoat, A.J. (2005). Teaching languages for intercultural communication. In D.
Cunningham, A. Hatoss (Eds.), An international perspective on language policies,
practices and proficiencies, pp: 201-214. Belgrave: FIPLV. Retrieved from:
http://uccllt.ucdavis.edu/events/flyers/Liddicoat.doc
Liddicoat, A.J., A. Scarino, L. Papademetre, M. Kohler (2003). Report on intercultural
language learning. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Education.
Liddicoat, A.J., C. Crozet (2001). Acquiring French interactional norms through
instruction. In Rose, K.R., G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatic development in
instructional contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lillis, T.M. (2006). Communicative Competence. In Berns, M. (Ed.), Concise
Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier. pp: 666–673.
252

Lincoln, Y.S., E. Guba (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Lochtman, K., J. Kappel (2009). The World a Global Village: Intercultural Competence
in English Foreign Language Teaching. Brussels: Vubpress.
Lund, R. (2008). Intercultural Competence – An Aim for the Teaching of English in
Norway? Acta Didactica Norge, 2, (1). Retrieved from:
http://adno.no/index.php/adno/article/view/58/94
Lundgren, U. (2006). Intercultural Teacher – a case study of a course. In Feng, A., M.
Byram, M. Fleming (Eds.), Becoming Interculturally Competent through
Education and Training. Clavedon: Multilingual Matters. pp: 132-150.
Lustig, M.W., J. Koester (1996). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication
across culture (2 nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Lustig, M.W., J. Koester (2006). Intercultural competence: interpersonal communication
across cultures. Boston: Pearsons Education, Inc., Allyn and Bacon.
Manjarrés, N.B. (2009). Intercultural Competence: Another Challenge. PROFILE 11,
143-158.
Mantle-Bromley, C. (1992). Preparing students for meaningful culture learning. Foreign
Language Annals, 25(2), 117-127.
Maykut, P.S., R. E. Morehouse (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic
and Practical Guide. London: Routledge.
McAllister, L., G. Whiteford, B. Hill, N. Thomas, M. Fitzgerald (2006). Reflection in
intercultural learning: examining the international experience through a critical
incident approach. Reflective Practice. 7 (3), 367–381.
McCaffery, J.A. (1995) A Powerful but Difficult Training Tool: The Role Play. In Fowler
(ed). Intercultural competence Source book, Vol.1. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.
pp: 17-26.
McCarthy, T. (1989). A Thought-Experiment. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung
43: 318-330.
Merriam, S.B. (1995). What Can You Tell From An N of 1? Issues of Validity and
Reliability in Qualitative Research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51-
60.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, M. (1991) Developing transcultural competence: case studies of advanced foreign
language learners, in: Buttjes D., M. Byram (Eds.), Mediating languages and
culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp: 136-158.
253

Miller, G., M. Steinberg (1975). Between people. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Miller, J.D. (1972). 100 French Culture Capsules. Provo: Brigham Young University.
Miller, J., Glassner (1997). The “Inside” and the “Outside”: Finding Realities in
Interviews. In Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publishing. pp: 133-148.
Moon, D.G. (1996). Concepts of "culture": Implications for intercultural communication
research. Communication Quarterly, 44 (1). Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.kobson.nb.rs:2048/pqcentral/docview/
216487207/13C10CD01373897B0AB/6?accountid=49533
Morain, G. (1983). Commitment to the Teaching of Foreign Cultures. The Modern
Language Journal, 67 (4), 403-412.
Morillas, J.M. (2001). Developments in culture teaching theory. In García Sánchez, M.E.
Present and Future Trends in TEFL, Almería, Servicio de Publicaciones de la
Univesidad de Almería.
Müller-Jacquier, B. (2004). Intercultural training. In Byram, M. (Ed.), The Routledge
Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London/ New York:
Routledge. pp: 299-301.
Nelson, G.L, W. El Bakary, M. Al Batal (2006). Egyptian and American compliments:
Focus on second language learners. In Gass, S. M., J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts
Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Walter de
Gruyter. pp: 109-128.
Neuliep, J. W. (2003) Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach. Boston:
Hughon Mifflin Company.
Neuliep, J.W. (2005). Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.
Neuliep, J.W., J.C. McCroskey (1997). The Development of Intercultural and Interethnic
Communication Apprehension Scales. Communication Research Reports, 14 (2),
145-156.
Niezen, R. (2004). A World Beyond Difference: Cultural Identity in the Age of
Globalization. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Novinger, T. (2001). Intercultural communication – A practical guide. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
O’Dowd, R. (2004). Network-based Language Teaching and the Development of
Intercultural Communicative Competence (PhD thesis) Universität Duisburg-
Essen, Standort Essen.
Oksaar, E. (1990) Language Contact and Culture Contact: Towards an Integrative
Approach in Second Language Acquisition Research. In Dechert, H.W. (Ed.),
254

Current Trends in European Second Language Acquisition Research. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. pp: 230-243.
Oller, J., K. Perkins (1978). Intelligence and language proficiency as sources of variance
in self-reported affective variables. Language Learning, 28, 85-97.
Osland, J.S., A. Bird (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in
context. Academy of Management Executive, 14 (1), 65–87.
Otten, M. (2003) Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education. Journal of
Studies in International Education. 7 (1), 12-26.
Owen, J.A.T. (2008). Naturalistic Inquiry. In Given L. M. (Ed.). The Sage encyclopedia
of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing. pp: 547-550.
Paige, R.M. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experience and intercultural education.
In R.M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press: pp: 1-19.
Paige, R.M. (2006). Dimensions of intercultural learning. In R.M. Paige,A.D. Cohen, B.
Kappler, J. C. Chi, & J. P. Lassegard (Eds.), Maximizing study abroad: A
students’ guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use (2nd ed.),
Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University
of Minnesota. pp: 40-41.
Paige, R. M., Jorstad, H. L., Siaya, L., Klein, E, & Colby, J. (2003). Culture learning in
language education: A review of the literature. In Lange, D.L., R.M. Paige (Eds.),
Culture as the core: Perspectives on culture in second language learning (pp.
173-236). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Retrieved from:
http://www.carla.umn.edu/culture/resources/litreview.pdf
Paige, R.M., M.L. Goode (2009). Intercultural Competence in International Education
Administration Cultural Mentoring International Education Professionals and the
Development of Intercultural Competence. In Deardorff, D. (Ed.), The SAGE
Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing. pp:
333-349.
Parsons, T., E.A. Shils (1951). Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2 nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publishing.
Patton (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3 rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publishing.
Paunović, T. (2011). Intercultural communicative competence – beyond queen, queuing,
and crumpets. In V. Vasic (ur./ed.), Jezik u upotrebi / Language in use.
Primenjena lingvistika u čast Ranku Bugarskom / Applied linguistics in honour of
Ranko Bugarski, 231-252. Novi sad: Društvo za primenjenu lingvistiku Srbije,
255

Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu i Filološki fakultet Univerziteta u
Begoradu.
Penbek S., D. Yurdakul, A.G. Cerit (2009). Intercultural communication competence: a
study about the intercultural sensitivity of university students based on their
education and international experiences. European and Mediterranean
Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009). Izmir, Turkey.
Pesola, C.A. (1991) Culture in the Elementary School Foreign Language Classroom.
Foreign Language Annals, 24 (4), 331-346.
Petravić, A. (2011). Interkulturna kompetencija u nastavi stranih jezika – problemi i
perspektive razvoja kurikula. U Domović, V., S. Gehrmann, M. Kruger-Potratz,
A. Pervić (Ur.), Europsko obrazovanje. Koncepti i perspektive pet zemalja.
Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
Pica, Y. (1983). The role of language context in second language acquisition. Interlanguage
Studies Bulletin, 7, 101-123.
Planken, B., A. van Hooft, H. Korzilius (2004). Promoting Intercultural Communicative
Competence through Foreign Language Courses. Business Communication
Quarterly, 67 (3), 308-315.
Platt, J. (1989). Some types of communicative strategies across cultures. In Garcia, O., R.
Otheguy (Eds.), English across cultures: cultures across English: a reader in
cross-cultural communication. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyer. pp. 13-30.
Porter, R. E., L.A. Samovar (1997). An introduction to intercultural communication. In
Samovar, L.A., R.E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (8 th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. pp: 5–26.
Prechtl, E., A. Davidson-Lund (2007). Intercultural competence and assessment:
perspectives from the INCA project. In Kotthoff, H., H. Spencer-Oatey (Eds.),
Handbook of Intercultural Communication, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp: 467-
490.
Pusch, M. (1994). The chameleon capacity. In R.D. Lambert (Ed.), Educational exchange
and global competence. New York: Council on International Educational
Exchange. pp: 205-210.
Ramsey, S. (1996). Creating A Context: Methodologies In Intercultural Teaching And
Training. In Seelye, N. (Ed), Experiential Activities for Intercultural Learning.
Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, Inc. pp: 7-24.
Rathje, S. (2007). Intercultural Competence: The Status and Future of a Controversial
Concept. Language and Intercultural Communication, 7 (4), 254-266.
Renteln, A.D. (2005). The Cultural Defense. Oxford: OUP.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
256

Rickheit, Gert, H. Strohner, C. Vorwerg. (2008). The concept of communicative
competence. In Rickheit, G., H. Strohner (Eds.), Handbook of communication
competence. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. pp: 15-62.
Risager, K. (1994). Kulturforståelse i sprogundervisningen – hvorhen?/ Cultural
understanding in language teaching - where now? In Sprogforum, 1, 7–13.
Retrieved from: http://inet.dpb.dpu.dk/infodok/sprogforum/Espr1/Risager1.html
Risager, K. (1998). Language teaching and the process of European integration. In
Byram, M., M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp: 242-254.
Risager, K. (2000). Cultural awareness. In Byram, M. (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of
Language Teaching and Learning. London/New York: Taylor & Francis
Routledge. pp: 159-162.
Risager, K. (2005). Foreword. In Sercu, L. et al. (Eds.), Foreign Language Teachers and
Intercultural Competence: An International Investigation. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters. pp: vii-ix.
Risager, K. (2007). Language And Culture Pedagogy: From a National to a
Transnational Paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Roberts, C., S. Sarangi (1993). “Culture” Revisited in Intercultural Communication. In
Boswood, T., R. Hoffman, P. Tung (Eds.), Perspectives on English for
International Communication.Hong Kong: Hong Kong City Polytechnic. pp: 97-
102.
Robinson-Stuart, G., H. Nocon (1996). Second culture acquisition: Ethnography in the
foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 431-449.
Rogers, E.M, W.B. Hart (2002). The Histories of Intercultural, International, and
Development Communication. In Gudykunst, W.B., B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of
International and Intercultural Communication, (2 nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publishing. pp: 1-18.
Ronnau, J. (1994). Teaching cultural competence: Practical ideas for social work
educators. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 3 (1), 29-42.
Ruben, B.D. (1976). Assessing Communication Competency for Intercultural Adaptation.
Group & Organization Management, 1, 334-354.
Ruben, B.D. (1989). The study of crosscultural competences: traditions and contemporary
issues. International journal of intercultural relations, 13, 229- 240.
Ruben, B.D., D. Kealey (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency
and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-48.
257

Samovar, L.A., R.E. Porter (Eds.) (1985). Intercultural communication: a reader.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Samovar, L.A., R.E. Porter (1991). Communication between cultures. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Samovar, L. A., R.E. Porter (2001). Communication Between Cultures, Fourth Edition.
New York: Thomas Learning Publications.
Samovar, L.A., R.E. Porter, E.R. McDaniel (2011). Intercultural Communication: A
Reader.
Samovar, L.A., R.E. Porter, E.R. McDaniel, C.S. Roy (2012). Communication Between
Cultures (8 th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Scarino, A. (2009). Assessing intercultural capability in learning languages: Some issues
and considerations. Language Teaching, 42 (1), 67–80.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schulz, R.A. (2007). The Challenge of Assessing Cultural Understanding in the Context
of Foreign Language Instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 40 (1), 9-26.
Schwandt, T. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry:
Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In Denzin, N.K., Y.S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publishing. pp: 189-214.
Scollon, R, S.W. Scollon (2001). Intercultural Communication (2 nd
Blackwell.
ed.). Oxford:
Seelye, H.N. (1974). Teaching culture. Strategies for foreign language educators. Skokie:
NTC.
Seelye, H.N. (1993). Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication, 3 rd ed.
Skokie, IL: National Textbook Co.
Sen Gupta, A. (2003) Changing the Focus: A Discussion of the Dynamics of the
Intercultural Experience. In Alred, G., M. Byram, M. Fleming (Eds.),
Intercultural Experience and Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp: 155-
178.
Sercu, L. (2002). Autonomous leaerning and the acquisition of intercultural
communicative competence: Some implications for course development.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15 (1), 61-74.
Shaules, J. (2007). Deep Culture: The Hidden Challenge of Global Living. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
258

Sheḳedi, A. (2005). Multiple Case Narrative: A Qualitative Approach to Studying
Multiple Populations. John Benjamin’s Publishing.
Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research
projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.
Silverman, D. (2006, 3 rd ed.). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for Analyzing Talk,
Text and Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Singer, M.R. (1998). The Role of Culture and Perception in Communication. In Weaver,
G.R. (Ed.), Culture, Communication and Conflict Readings in Intercultural
Relations. Revised Second Edition. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. pp: 28-53.
Sinicrope, C., J. Norris, Y. Watanabe (2007). Understanding and Assessing Intercultural
Competence: A Summary of Theory, Research, and Practice. Second Language
Studies, 26 (1), 1-58.
Smith, A.D. (1990). Towards a global culture? In Featherstone, M. (Ed.), Global culture:
Nationalism, globalization and modernity London: Sage Publishing. pp: 171–191.
Smith, S.L., M. Paige, I. Steglitz (2003). Theoretical foundations of intercultural training
and applications of the culture teaching. In Lange, D.L., M. Paige (Eds.), Culture
as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. pp: 89-126.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culturally speaking: managing rapport through talk across
cultures. London: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, H., H. Kotthoff (2007). Introduction. In Kotthoff, H., H. Spencer-Oatey
(Eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Spencer-Oatey, H., P. Franklin. (2009). Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary
Approach to Intercultural Communication. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., T. McGovern (2002). Attitudes toward the culturally different: the
role of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual
stereotypes, and perceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
26, 609-631.
Spitzberg, B.H., G. Changnon (2009). Conceptualizing Intercultural Competence. In
Deardorff, D.K. (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing. pp: 2-52.
Spitzberg, B.H., W.R. Cupach (1984). Interpersonal Communication Competence.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.
Stafford, J.R., R. Bowman, T. Ewing, J. Hanna, A. Lopez-De Fede (1997). Building
cultural bridges. Bloomington: National Education Service.
Steckley, John, Letts, G. K. (2007). Elements of Sociology: A Critical Canadian
Introduction. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
259

Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Stewart, E.C., M.J. Bennett (1991). American Cultural Patterns. Yarmouth: Intercultural
Press.
Stier, J. (2002). Going international – Becoming Intercultural. Växjö: Växjö University,
School of Education.
Straffon, D. A. (2003). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of high school students
attending an international school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
27 (4), 487-501.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Strauss, C., N. Quinn (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: CUP.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies, American Sociological
Review, 51 (2), 273–86.
Tanaka, Y. (1978). Proliferating technology and the structure of information-space. In
Casmir, F.L. (Ed.), Intercultural and international communication. Washington,
DC: University Press of America. pp: 185–212.
Tarone, E., G. Yule (1989). Focus on the Language Learner. Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Tarp, G. (2006). Student Perspectives in Short-Term Study Programmes Abroad: A
Grounded Theory Study. In Byram, M., A. Feng (Eds.), Living and Studying
Abroad, Research and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp: 157-185.
Tashakkori, A., C. Teddlie (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining the qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., C. Teddlie (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From
data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. pp: 671–701.
Taylor, D., J.Sorenson (1961). Culture Capsules, Modern Language Journal, 45, 350-54.
Taylor, E. W. (1994). Intercultural Competency: A Transformative Learning Process.
Adult Education Quarterly, 44 (3), 154-174.
Teddlie, C., A. Tashakkori (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research. LA: Sage
Publishing.
260

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Retrieved from:
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/Framework_EN.pdf
Thomas, D.C., K. Inkson (2003). Cultural Intelligence: People Skills for Global Business.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Ting-Toomey, S (1993). Communicative resourcefulness: An identity negotiation
perspective. In Wiseman, R.L., J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication
theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing. pp: 72-111.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The Guildford
Press.
Ting-Toomey, S., A. Kurogi (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An
updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal for Intercultural Relations,
22, 187-225.
Tomlinson, B., H. Musuhara (2004). Developing cultural awareness. MET, 13 (1), 1–7.
Triandis, H.C. (1975). Culture training, cognitive complexity, and interpersonal attitudes.
In Brislin, R.W., S. Bochner, W. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on
learning. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. pp: 39-77.
Triandis, H.C. (1989). The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts.
Psychological Review, 96 (3), 506-520.
Triandis, H. (1995). Culture-Specific Assimilators. In Fowler, S.M., M.G. Mumford
(Eds.), Intercultural Sourcebook: Cross-Cultural Training Methods, vol. 1.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. pp: 179-186.
Triandis, H.C. (2006). Culture and Conflict. In Samovar, Poter, McDaniel, (Eds.),
Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, pp: 22-
31.
Triandis, H.C., C. McCusker, & C.H. Hui (1990). Multi-method probes of individualism
and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.
Triandis, H.C., L.L.Kurowski, A.Tecktiel, D. K. Chan (1993). Extracting the emics of
diversity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 217-234.
Trompenaars, F., C. Hampden-Turner (1997). Riding the Waves of Culture:
Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing.
Thomas, D.C., K. Inkson (2003). Cultural Intelligence: People Skills for Global Business.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Valdes, J.M. (Ed.) (1986). Culture bound. Bridging the cultural gap in language
teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
261

Van de Vijver, Fons J. R., K. Leung (2009). Methodological Issues in Researching
Intercultural Competence. In Deardorff, D.K. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of
Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp: 404-418.
van Ek, J.A. (1986). Objectives for Foreign Language Learning, Vol. 1: Scope.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Vande Berg, M. (2006). Intervening in the Learning of U.S. Students Abroad. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 11 (3/4), 392-399.
Vogt, K. (2006). Can you measure attitudinal factors in intercultural communication?
Tracing the development of attitudes in e-mail projects. ReCALL, 18 (2), 153-173.
Wang, M.M. (2000). Turning Bricks into Jade: Critical Incidents for Mutual
Understanding among Chinese and Americans. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press,
Inc.
Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: OUP.
Wiemann, J.M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence.
Human Communication Research, 3, 195-213.
Wight, A.R. (1995). The Critical Incident as a Training Tool. In Fowler, S. Intercultural
Sourcebook. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural press. pp: 127-140.
Wikan, U. (2002). Generous betrayal. Politics of culture in the new Europe. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: OUP.
Williams, J.H. (1982). Stalking the Perfect Culture Assimilator. The French Review, 55
(5), 601-608.
Wilson, A.H. (1994). The attributes and tasks of global competence. In Lambert, R.D.
(Ed.), Educational exchange and global competence. New York: Council on
International Educational Exchange. pp: 37-50.
Winch, C. (1995). Education needs training. Oxford Review of Education, 21 (3), 315-
325.
Wiseman, R.L. (2002). Intercultural communication competence. In Gudykunst, W.B.,
B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication
(2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp: 207-224.
Wu, M. (2006). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions 30 Years Later: A Study of Taiwan and
the United States. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15 (1), 33-42.
262

Yarbro, C.L.M. (1988). An assessment of the ability of the culture-general assimilator to
create sensitivity to multiculturalism in an educational setting. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, College of Education. In Cushner,
K., R.W. Brislin (1996).
Young, T.J. (2011). How Applicable Is Intercultural Communication theory to the
Language Learning? Teachers have Their Say. Presentation at 4 th International
Adriatic-Ionian Conference Across Languages and Cultures.
Zarate, G. (2003) The Recognition of Intercultural Competences: From Individual
Experience to Certification. In Alred, G., M. Byram, M. Fleming (Eds.),
Intercultural Experience and Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp: 213-
224.
Zarate, G. (2003a). Identities and Plurilingualism: Preconditions For The Recognition of
Intercultural Competences. In Byram, M, Neuner, G., L. Parmenter, H. Starkey,
G. Zarate (Eds.), Intercultural competence. Council of Europe. 85-118.
Zhang, Y., B.M. Wildemuth (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In Wildemuth, B.
(Ed.), Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and
Library Science. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, pp: 308-319. Retrieved from:
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~yanz/Content_analysis.pdf
263

264

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Informed consent form for English language native speakers
Informed Consent Form
Title
Intercultural competence as part of communicative competence in tertiary level English
language learners
You are invited to consider participating in the research study. This form will describe the
purpose and nature of the study. Please read the information carefully and ask for any
clarification. The participation is entirely voluntary – if you decide to participate, please sign
and date the last line of the form
Explanation of the study
The purpose of the study is to investigate intercultural competence (ICC) of the English
language learners in university students. The research will look into the strategies of
teaching ICC as well as learning ICC and applying cultural knowledge in intercultural
encounters. The research will have several parts with different participants. As native
speakers of English acquainted with Serbian culture, you will be asked to provide episodes
that include misunderstandings, or even conflicts, due to cultural differences and lack of
intercultural knowledge. The responses will be noted down and audio recorded and used to
provide the basis for the design of culture assimilators (one of the techniques for
(inter)cultural teaching). The interview will take approximately 30 minutes.
Confidentiality
Your identity as a participant will remain confidential and your name will never be publicly
associated with data you provide. Notes (portions of the interview) will be used for research,
in linguistics classes and conference presentations exclusively. You may withdraw from the
study at any time and you may refuse to answer any questions you are asked.
If you have any questions about your participation or about my study, please feel free to
contact me at nina.lazarevic@gmail.com.
Researcher’s Statement
I have fully explained the study to a prospective participant. I have answered and clarified all
the question.
............................................. ........................................... ......................................
Researcher Signature Date
Participant’s Consent
• I have read and understood the terms and conditions in this Informed
Consent Form and have had the opportunity to ask questions
• I understand that my participation is voluntary
• I understand that my responses will be anonymised for the study
• I agree to participate in the study
............................................ .......................................... ....................................
Participant Signature Date
265

Appendix 2 – Informed consent form for students
Filozofski fakultet u Novom Sadu
SAGLASNOST ZA UČESTVOVANJE U ISTRAŽIVANJU
Kandidat: Nina Lazarević
Filozofski fakultet, Niš
Mentor: prof dr. Gordana Petričić
Filozofski fakultet, Novi Sad
Pozvani ste da učestvujete u istraživanju koje je deo doktorske disertacije. Podaci i svrha
istraživanja će biti objašnjeni u ovom formularu. Pročitajte ga i tražite dodatna objašnjenja
ako su vam potrebna. Ako se složite da učetvujete, potpišite i stavite datum na kraj
formulara.
OPŠTE INFORMACIJE
Svrha istraživanja su elementi nastave engleskog jezika na nivou univerziteta, kao i stavovi
studentata koji uče engleski jezik na ovom nivou. Istraživanje je u formi intervjua koji će biti
oko 30 do 40 minuta i koji će se audio snimati.
DOSTUPNOST PODATAKA
Dobijene informacije će biti držane u potpunoj tajnosti. Svi podaci će biti korišćeni
isključivo u svrhe istraživanja. Ako se podaci prezentuju (na konferencijama ili u naučnim
radovima), potpuna anonimnost je zagarantovana.
KONTAKT
Ukoliko budete imali bilo kakvih pitanja u vezi istraživanja ili odlučite da povučete svoje
odgovore, možete mi se obratiti na: nina.lazarevic@filfak.ni.ac.rs .
UČESTVOVANJE
Vaše učešće u ovom istraživanju je potpuno neobavezujuće – ukoliko želite da se povučete u
bilo kom trenutku, možete to uraditi. Ukoliko se povučete iz istraživanja pre nego se svi
podaci prikupe, vaši podaci neće biti uvršćeni u konačnu obradu.
SAGLASNOST
“Pročitao-la sam i razumeo-la sam navedene informacije. Dobio-la sam kopiju ovog formulara.
Pristajem da učestvujem u ovom istraživanju, i znam da mogu da se povučem u bilo kom
trenutku.”
Datum, __________________
Ime __________________ Nina Lazarević
Potpis __________________
_____________
266

Appendix 3 - Permission to use the GPI
267

268

Appendix 4 – The Global Perspective Inventory
Ovaj upitnik je deo istraživanja u okviru doktorske disertacije. Svi odgovori koje date biće
iskorišćeni isključivo u svrhe istraživanja. Ukoliko se podaci prezentuju na konferencijama ili
naučnim radovima, potpuna anonimnost je zagarantovana. Ukoliko imate pitanja u vezi sa
istraživanjem ili ne želite da se vaši odgovori uključe, kontaktirajte me na
nina.lazarevic@filfak.ni.ac.rs
Hvala puno na saradnji!
Popuni ili štikliraj () odgovarajući odgovor.
1. Godina rođenja ……
2. Pol □M □ Ž
3. Fakultet /departman ……………………………..
4. Godina studija: I godina □ II godina □ III godina □
5. Koliko godina učiš engleski jezik? □ 2 godine □ 4 godine □ 6 godina
□ 7-10 godina □ više od 10 godina
6. Boravio/la sam u ovim zemljama … ………………………………………………..
6.1. Razlog: □ posao □ turizam □ studiranje □ ...................................
6.2. Period: □ manje od jednog meseca □ 1 mesec □ 2 meseca
□ 3 meseca □ 6 meseci □ godinu dana .......................
7. Da li govoriš još neki strani jezik sem engleskog? Koji?
….………………………………….
8. Da li imaš prijatelje u inostranstvu (van prostora bivše Jugoslavije)? □ da □ ne
INSTRUKCIJE: Iako vremena za popunjavanje nije ograničeno, pokušajte da na svako
pitanje odgovorite što je brže moguće. Takođe, ovde nema tačnih i pogrešnih odgovora.
Pokušajte da odgovorite na sva pitanja – samo zaokružite odgovarajući broj.
Potpuno se Slažem se Neutralan/na Ne slažem se Uopšte se ne
slažem
sam
slažem
5 4 3 2 1
1. Kada primetim razlike među različitim kulturama, mislim da moja kultura ima
bolji pristup.
5 4 3 2 1
2. Imam određen i jasan cilj u životu. 5 4 3 2 1
3. Mogu da objasnim svoje lične vrednosti ljudima koji su drugačiji od mene. 5 4 3 2 1
4. Većina mojih prijatelja je istog etničkog porekla kao ja. 5 4 3 2 1
5. Za mene je važno da doprinosim svojoj društvenoj zajednici. 5 4 3 2 1
6. Neki ljudi pripadaju određenoj kulturi a neki ne. 5 4 3 2 1
7. Lako je odrediti šta je ispravno a šta ne u različitim situacijama. 5 4 3 2 1
8. Informisan/a sam o tekućim dešavanjima koja utiču na međunarodne odnose. 5 4 3 2 1
9. Znam ko sam kao osoba. 5 4 3 2 1
10. Osećam se ugroženo kada sam sa ljudima čije je poreklo sasvim različito od
mog.
5 4 3 2 1
11. Često se trudim i više nego što je to uobičajeno kako bih bolje shvatilo/la sebe. 5 4 3 2 1
12. Sudim o vrednostima drugih ljudi na osnovu svog vrednosnog sistema. 5 4 3 2 1
269

13. Razumem razloge i uzroke konflikta među narodima koji pripadaju različitim
kulturama.
5 4 3 2 1
14. Siguran/na sam da mogu da se snađem u potpuno novim situacijama. 5 4 3 2 1
15. Ljudi iz drugih kultura mi kažu da sam uspešan/na u razumevanju njihove
kulture.
5 4 3 2 1
16. Zalažem se da se poštuju prava drugih ljudi. 5 4 3 2 1
17. Vidim sebe kao građanina/ku sveta. 5 4 3 2 1
18. Mislim da kulturne razlike nisu važne za moj svakodnevni život. 5 4 3 2 1
19. Razumem kako različite kulture društveno utiču jedna na drugu. 5 4 3 2 1
20. Vređaja me kada drugi ljudi ne razumeju moja stanovišta. 5 4 3 2 1
21. Mogu da se odgovarajuće ponašam u zavisnosti od društvenog i nacionalnog
okruženja.
5 4 3 2 1
22. Svoja ubeđenja sprovodim u delo tako što se zalažem za svoje principe. 5 4 3 2 1
23. Umem da sagledam određeni problem sa različitih stanovišta. 5 4 3 2 1
24. Uloga studenta je da prima znanje od ljudi koji predstavljaju autoritet. 5 4 3 2 1
25. Znam kako da analiziram osnovne karakteristike neke kulture. 5 4 3 2 1
26. Saosećam sa onima koji su diskriminisani. 5 4 3 2 1
27. Ne osećam se emotivno ugroženo kada se suočim sa različitim stanovištima. 5 4 3 2 1
28. Više volim da sarađujem sa ljudima koji imaju drugačije kulturne vrednosti od
mene.
5 4 3 2 1
29. Prihvatam ljude koji imaju drugačiju versku i duhovnu tradiciju. 5 4 3 2 1
30. Kulturne razlike me navode da preispitam šta je zaista istinito. 5 4 3 2 1
31. Potrebe drugih ljudi stavljam iznad sopstvenih želja. 5 4 3 2 1
32. Mogu da diskutujem o kulturnim razlikama jer sam o njima dobro obavešten/a. 5 4 3 2 1
33. Razvijam smislenu filozofiju života. 5 4 3 2 1
34. Namerno uključujem ljude iz različitih kultura u svoj život. 5 4 3 2 1
35. Više volim komplikovane nego jednostavne interpretacije spornih pitanja. 5 4 3 2 1
36. Stalno mi je potrebno da čujem pozitivno mišljenje drugih o meni. 5 4 3 2 1
37. Uživam kada me moji prijatelji iz drugih kultura uče o kulturnim razlikama. 5 4 3 2 1
38. Svesno se trudim da sve ono što radim ima i širi značaj. 5 4 3 2 1
39. Otvoren/a sam prema ljudima koji imaju vrlo različit stil života od moga. 5 4 3 2 1
40. Volontiranje mi nije jedan od prioriteta u životu. 5 4 3 2 1
41. Osećam snažnu pripadnost svom fakultetu/ univerzitetu. 5 4 3 2 1
42. Razgovaram sa drugim studentima o ličnim osećanjima i problemima. 5 4 3 2 1
43. U nekim trenucima na fakultetu/ univerzitetu sam se osećao/la uvređeno ili
ugroženo zbog svog kulturnog/etničkog porekla.
5 4 3 2 1
44. Osećam da moj fakultet/univerzitet poštuje različitost i ideju internacionalizma. 5 4 3 2 1
45. Razumem misiju svog fakulteta/univerziteta. 5 4 3 2 1
46. Osećam da mi je fakultet/univerzitet u isto vreme i izazov i podrška. 5 4 3 2 1
47. Moj fakultet/univerzitet me ohrabruje da razvijem svoje talente i kvalitete. 5 4 3 2 1
48. Osećam da pripadam zajednici koja mi je bliska i koja me podržava. 5 4 3 2 1
Hvala još jednom na vremenu!
270

Appendix 5- GPI subdomain items
Knowing
1. When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have the better approach.
6. Some people have a culture and others do not
7. In different settings what is right and wrong is simple to determine.
12. I tend to judge the values of others based on my own value system.
18. I do not see cultural differences as important for my daily life
23. I can evaluate issues from several different perspectives.
30. Cultural differences make me question what is really true.
35. I prefer complex rather than straightforward interpretations of debatable issues.
Knowledge
8. I am informed of current issues that impact international relations.
13. I understand the reasons and causes of conflict among nations of different cultures.
19. I understand how various cultures of this world interact socially.
25. I know how to analyze the basic characteristics of a culture.
32. I can discuss cultural differences from an informed perspective.
Identity
2. I have a definite purpose in my life.
3. I can explain my personal values to people who are different from me.
9. I know who I am as a person.
14. I am confident that I can take care of myself in a completely new situation.
33. I am developing a meaningful philosophy of life
Affect
10. I feel threatened around people from backgrounds very different from my own
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to better understand myself.
17. I see myself as a global citizen.
20. I get offended often by people who do not understand my point-of-view.
26. I am sensitive to those who are discriminated against.
27. I do not feel threatened emotionally when presented with multiple perspectives.
28. I prefer to work with people who have different cultural values from me.
29. I am accepting of people with different religious and spiritual traditions.
36. I constantly need affirmative confirmation about myself from others.
Social Responsibility
5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to society.
16. I work for the rights of others.
22. I put my beliefs into action by standing up for my principles.
31. I put the needs of others above my own personal wants.
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a difference.
40. Volunteering is not an important priority in my life.
Social Interaction
4. Most of my friends are from my own ethnic background.
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am successful at navigating their cultures.
21. I am able to take on various roles as appropriate in different cultural and ethnic
settings.
271

34. I intentionally involve people from many cultural backgrounds in my life.
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures teach me about our cultural differences.
39. I am open to people who strive to live lives very different from my own life style.
Well-Being
2. I have a definite purpose in my life.
16. I work for the rights of others.
17. I see myself as a global citizen.
22. I put my beliefs into action by standing up for my principles.
36. I constantly need affirmative confirmation about myself from others.
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a difference.
40. Volunteering is not an important priority in my life.
Global Citizen
17. I see myself as a global citizen
5. I think of my life in terms of giving back to society.
11. I often get out of my comfort zone to better understand myself.
15. People from other cultures tell me that I am successful at navigating their cultures.
16. I work for the rights of others.
21. I am able to take on various roles as appropriate in different cultural and ethnic
settings.
32. I can discuss cultural differences from an informed perspective.
34. I intentionally involve people from many cultural backgrounds in my life.
37. I enjoy when my friends from other cultures teach me about our cultural differences.
38. I consciously behave in terms of making a difference.
272

Appendix 6 – Transcription conventions 40
( ) Stretches of talk that the transcriber is uncertain about because the words
were hard to hear or understand
(words)
The transcriber is not certain that those were the words spoken, but is
making an informed guess
(( )) Indicate the transcriber's descriptions of talk or behavior, or things not
easily transcribable, e.g. ((a colleague enters the office, minor
interruption))
[ ] Overlapping talk – two participants are speaking at the same time
(.) Short pause
(…)
Long pause
= Latching together of two phrases or sentences which are not overlapping
– Word or sound is cut off
::: Indicates that the preceding sound is lengthened; the more colons, the
longer the sound is extended
. Sentence-final type of falling intonation at end of phrase
? Rising intonation at end of phrase
! Intonation of surprise or forcefulness at end of phrase
INDEED Capital letters indicate increased volume
It’s mine Emphasis
hhh
A sigh, or laughter
Indicates a line of interest
40 Adapted from a system developed by Gail Jefferson in Atkinson, J.M. and J. Heritage (Eds.) (1984)
273

Appendix 7 – Transcript sample
Inteviewee 1
Turn
1 R Koliko dugo učiš engleski?
2 I1 Od petog osnovne, 7 godina,
3 R I, kakvi su bili časovi? Da li se sećaš nečeg zanimljivog, ili manje zanimljivog?
4 I1 Bilo mi je zanimljivo što nam je nastavnica dopuštala da pričamo na osnovu nekog sadržaja
5 R Jeste radili nesto sto se tice zemalja u kojima se priča engleski?
6 I1 Uglavnom smo spominjali Britaniju, pomalo Ameriku, ali u glavnom smo se fokusirali na
Englesku
7 R I šta ste tu otprilike radili, što ti je bilo zanimljivo tada? Bilo u osnovnoj, bilo u srednjoj, sad na
fakultetu?
8 I1 Tada sam prvi put video sliku Viljema Šekspira i to mi je bilo pomalo zanimljivo. Takođe je
bila i malo veća mapa Engleske sa mestima to je uglavnom to, Britanija i Engleska.
9 R Dobro, a u Srbiji, da li si imao prilike nekad da se sretneš na strancima iz Engleske, Amerike?
10 I1 Mislim da sam se sreo sa jednim iz Irske, to su oni koji putuju kroz Evropu, backpacker, pa
njemu carinik nije vereovao da može da plati , da ima račun u banci, pa sam mu se ja našao, bio
sam kao prevodilac
11 R Super, a jel to bilo skoro ili..?
12 I1 To je bilo odavno, mislim da sam bio u srednjoj školi.
13 R A ti si odavde?
14 I1 Ne, ja sam iz Dimitrovgrada.
15 R Pa da, tamo je blizu granica.
16 I1 Da-
17 R Da li si možda preko interneta, da li si tako u vezi sa nekim?
18 I1 Bio sam u vezi sa nekim ljudima iz Nemačke, ali smo svi pričali engleski.
19 R Aha, a sada?
20 I1 Pa sada nemam kompjuter, nemam pristup računaru, samo odem u igraonicu na 20ak minuta
21 R Mmm, dobro. A, šta za tebe znači biti Srbin?
22 I1 U glavnom znači vezati svoju sudbinu za sudbinu Srbije, želeti da živiš u Srbiji, da tako kažem,
vezati svoju sudbinu za sudbinu Srbije.
23 R Da li je tebi bitno da se to zna, da je to jedna karakteristika koja te opisuje?
24 I1 Ne, ne baš
25 R Ne baš. Dobro, a da li je tvojim roditeljima bitno? Da li isto tako doživljavaju?
26 I1 Ne, njima nacionalnost nije bitna.
27 R Aha, a kako ti to objašnjavaš?
28 I1 Nisu preterano zainteresovani, za državu, van grada (su), pažnju im zaokuplja preživljavanje.
29 R A da li to kako si ti opisao biti Srbin, da li takvu sliku dele i tvoji vršnjaci?
30 I1 Ne znam, većina koje vidim, na ulici, grafiti, povezuju to sa biti previše ponosan, dokazati i
neprijateljskim aktovima protiv ljudi drugih nacionalnosti.
31 R Misliš da su malo više neprijateljski nastrojeni?
32 I1 Da.
33 R A kako bi opisao srpsku kulturu?
34 I1 Kao veoma specifičnu jer se našla između dve vatre.
35 R Kako to?
36 I1 Pa tako što smo prvo prihvatili pravoslavlje a naši sunarodnici katolicizam. Kad su došle
Osmanlije mi smo ostali pravoslavni i bili smo okruženi sa svih strana, a ne bih rekao da smo
ostali netaknuti, stvorila se poprilična mešavina - ni dobra ni loša, ali tu je.
37 R Da li se i drugim ljudima tako čini? Da li dele taj opis kulutre?
38 I1 Ne, ovi radikalniji ne, oni misle da je srpska kultura bila monolit i da se nikada nije menjao,
koji je oduvek bio takav i da se zbog toga i ne treba menjati.
39 R Ti deliš to mišljenje ili.?
40 I1 Ne.
41 R A, kada bi se poredila sa nekim drugim kulturama, kakva bi bila naša?
42 I1 Pa ne znam, to je teško, da se nađe primer.
274

43 R Da li misliš da smo mi toliko drugačiti pa zato ili...?
44 I1 Ne, ali su uslovi se nisu baš ponovili koji su uticali na nas. Ali mogao bih da kažem da je naša
kutlura poprilično slična sa kulturom takozvane ex-Yu.
45 R Aha, region deli-
46 I1 Da.
47 R A kako nas vide stranci?
48 I1 Pošto nisam imao priliku da razgovoram sa strancima, oni koji znaju gde se nalazi srbija, imaju
neutralno mišljenje, pamte nas po ratnim zločincima, možda u poslednje vreme i po
(inaudible)....
49 R Kako ti to vidiš, kako komentarišeš?
50 I1 Pa ne sviđa mi se, ali to donekle i očekivano jer se ljudi ne trude da istraže nego svoje mišljenje
zasnivaju na prvim i nepotpunim informacijama koje masovni mediji šalju.
51 R A da li postoji neki način da se to promeni ili poboljša?
52 I1 Na nivou pojednica može, sa malo razumevanja sa naše strane i njihove i malo vremena.
53 R Da li to onda znači da možemo da donesemo i neke stavove?
54 I1 Što više saznamo o ljudima veća je šansa da nećemo doneti neki ishitreni stav.
55 R Kako bi bilo da ovde imamo više različitih kultura? kako bi to funkcionisalo na ovom prostoru
56 I1 Mislim dobro, kad bi ljudi našli neko interesovanje koje ih spaja nevezano za kulturnu
pripadnost, sport, na primer.
57 R A da li misliš da su kulturne razlike bitne?
58 I1 Za neke ljude jesu, mislim da su za starije ljude i one vezane za tradiciju kulture veoma bitna jer
misle da je to deo njihovog identiteta i ne žele da se utope u masu, dok nama mlađima bitnije da
se upoznamo i razmenimo saznanja i, na neki način izmenimo svet.
59 R A da li kod tebe na grupi ima drugih kultura? Da li imate strance? Evo sad ide novi program,
Romi koji dobijaju stipendiju?
60 I1 Na našem departmanu nema.
61 R Da li to može dobro da funkcioniše?
62 I1 Pa što da ne, ako se stipendija dodeli dobrom učeniku, nekom ko želi da radi, nema veze da li je
Rom ili ne, bitno je da je uložen novac u nekog ko će pokazati da je ta mala investicija države i
skok vere opravdan.
63 R Da, skok vere, to je lepo. Pošto ste vi na grupi iz različitih delova Srbije, da li tu ima nekih
razlika?
64 I1 Pa uglavnom u govoru. I malo banalno, u izboru piva (hhh) kad se skupimo, neko više voli
jedno, neko drugo, najviše u govoru, kad se opustimo.
65 R Da li misliš da u nekom stranom jeziku treba da postoje elementi kulture? Da li je bitno za
nastavu jezika?
66 I1 Treba u određenoj meri, da se shvati pozadina tog jezika što bi pomoglo u usvajanju tog jezika.
67 R Sad, imam da ti dam neke opise situacija, gde su ljudi u kontaktu, daću ti jednu po jednu, ti
treba da vidiš o čemu se tu radi, šta se zapravo dešava?
68 I1 ((I1 gets Critical incident 1)) U ovom slučaju mislim da tog momka Metjua malo uplašio
Milanovo direktan pristup.
69 R Šta bi ti uradio u toj situaciji?
70 I1 Ja bih malo oslabio, probao da se još neformalnije, indirektnije, da u toku razgovora uočim
temu.
71 R Za koga misliš da je ovde problem?
72 I1 Mislim da nema nijedan problem, to je sudar dve kulture. Metju je introvertniji, a Milan
ekstrovertniji, ne pada mu teško da se upozna, pogotovu što je u Srbiji.
73 R ((I1 gets Critical incident 2)) ovde bi mogla biti nekoliko razloga. Sad ne znam toliko o
američkoj kulturi, to zurenje u oči ne znači prijateljstvo. Možda Marija zaista ima nešto na čelu.
74 R Kome je tu neprijatnije?
75 I1 Mariji, pošto je u stranoj sredini, to zurenje ne ohrabruje baš.
76 I1 ((I1 gets Critical incident 14)) Milim da je ovde donekle problem u našoj radnoj etici, gde se
rodbinske veze stavljaju iznad efikasnosti u poslovanju, to je iznenadilo Amerikanca.
77 R Da li je nešto moglo da se uradi da se to predupredi?
78 I1 U ovoj situaciji (.) informisati Amerikanca, da li on zna da je to bratanac - mislim da ne zna kad
bi on znao da je to bratanac, da bi mu dao posao.
79 R Ok, evo samo još dve.
80 I1 ((I1 gets Critical incident 6)) Mislim da je ovde problem ponovo u našim radnicima, i
nepoverenju prema strancima, i ne samo prema strancima, ako dođe neki novi radnik u firmi na
275

visokom položaju, ako je dobro obrazovan, postoji neko urođeno nepoverenje ili zavist ili
prezir, pogotovu kod onih koji su duže radili i nisu dobili unapređenje.
81 Misliš da to može da se prenese i na strance?
82 I1 Da.
Interviewee 11
276
Turn
1 R Koliko dugo učiš engleski?
2 I11 Oko 7 godina
3 R Čega se najviše sećaš, šta ti je bilo zanimljivo?
4 I11 Najviše se sećam gramtike koju smo radili, bilo je i previše toga. A ovako, praktičan
rad, neke komunikacije je bilo malo.
5 R Da li ste radili o zemljama u kojima se govori engleski?
6 I11 Ne koliko se ja sećam
7 R A ovde na fakultetu?
8 I11 Da, u drugom semestru smo počeli da govorimo o EU, Engleskoj, Americi
9 R Da li si imala prilike da se srećeš sa ljudima kojima je engleski maternji jezik?
10 I11 Da, u Grčkoj, i ovde, ali samo jednog.
11 R Da li imaš nekog sa kim si u kontaktu?
12 I11 Da, poznanika iz Grčke, ostvarili smo ranije kontakt, baš sa ljudima iz Engleske, i tako.
13 R Na Engleskom se dopisujete?
14 I11 Da, da, malo.
15 R Kad upoznaješ nove ljude, treba da im objasniš ko si, šta si, šta za tebe znači biti
Srpkinja?
16 I11 Pa, nema to specijanu definiciju. Ne mogu da kažem da sam nacionalista, nisam
ksenfob, ne mrzim svoju naciju. Ako se sretnem sa nekim, pa treba da popričam, mogu i
da pohvalim svoju naciju (hhh) svoje poreklo, da kažem nešto pozitivno, mada imamo i
puno mana.
17 R A da li je to bitno? Da to bude jedna tvoja karakteristika? Da se to zna?
18 I11 Pa ne. Mislim da nije najbitnije, nije presudno.
19 R Da li tvoji vršnjaci dele to mišljenje?
20 I11 Slabo, mislim da su veliki nacionalisti, patriote, dobro, to nije isto.
21 R Kako se razlikuje?
22 I11 Pa nacionalizam je potenciranje srpstva, a patriotizam je voleti svoju zemlju.
23 R A po čemu vidiš da je to tako, da su oni nacionalisti?
24 I11 Pa po držanju, mi radimo tako, i pošto mi radimo to tako, mi smo, ne znam, mi to
radimo tako, i drugačije ne može! Ne vidi se to direktno, primeti se. Ko je evropski a ko
ne. Mislim, evropski – ko ima šira shvatanja a ko ne.
25 R Misliš da neke starije generacije, na primer, tvoji roditelji, drugačije doživljavaju to „biti
Srbin“? Da li bi rekli „Srbin je to i to“ ili ne?
26 I11 Pa ne.
27 R Misliš da to drugačije doživljavaju?
28 I11 Moji su živeli u Titovo vreme, tada je učenje bilo da se to ne potencira. Mislim, eto ja i
moj brat, mi smo iz iste porodice, i nas nisu učili, nisu potencirali nacionalizam. I ja
nisam takva, a moj brat i jeste, ne znam zašto. Možda je društvo malo uticalo na to,
možda mediji.
29 R Aha. Dobro, a kako bi opisala srpsku kulturu?
30 I11 Rekla bih da imamo puno srednjovekovnih spomenika. Nevezano za religiju, rekla bih
da treba da posete neku crkvu ili manastir. Ne da se mole, nego da vidi, eto to je nešto.
Možda je to nešto naše iz prošlosti, što bi mogli da predstavimo (.) ne bih im preporučila
da dođu da studiraju ovde.
31 R Zašto ne?
32 I11 Pa, možda imam predrasudu neku, ali ...
33 R Misliš zbog ljudi, zbog uslova, prilika..?
34 I11 Zbog, eto na našem fakultetu, taj kadar nije ujednačen, da se mnogo razlikuju profesori i
njihovo zalaganje, i pošto smo mi muzičari, nama je praktičan rad najbitniji, a mi

uopšte, ima samo par profesora koji su spremni da rade sa nama, da razvijaju naše
kritičko mišljenje, koje je neophodno, da nas podstaknu na samostalnan rad, jer mi ćemo
jednog dana biti pedagozi koji će nešto da nauče decu, nešto da objasne, oni treba da nas
podstaknu, ali nas ne navode na to. Tako da zbog toga više, zbog rada praktičnog koga
nema.
35 R Možda će se to promeniti, kad vi zauzmete ta mesta. A kako drugi ljudi vide srpsku
kulturu?
36 I11 Pa, preko sportista, nije to ni tako loše, naprotiv, kroz ove trubače. Ne znam, pogrešno
nekako.
37 R A prema drugim kulturama, kakva je naša? Da li može da se napravi takvo poređenje?
Na osnovu čega praviš poređenje?
38 I11 Ja, na primer, pravim poređenje na osnovu neke kulturne prošlosti. A gde bi tu bila naša
sredina, negde u sredini. Nemamo mi ništa tako posebno. Možda neke tako naučnike
koji su zaboravljeni, onda neki pesnici. Ja bih preporučila neke pesnike. Nemamo sad
mi nešto. Od muzičara nemamo neke baš muzičare.
39 R Jovan Hristić?
40 Kornelije Stanković, Mokranjac. Oni su više stvarali pod uticajem zapada.
41 R A kako nas vide stranci?
42 I11 Pa razmišljala sam puno o tome, i (.) ne znam. Mislim da se to razlikuje mnogo, mislim
da je to individualno.... Mislim da su neutralni. (inaudible) Većina ljudi nas pamti po
nekim ratovima. Još uvek misle da je to još uvek Jugoslavija. Mada, ima ljudi i koji
dolaze ovde.
43 R Aha, a ta grupa ljudi koju si ti upoznala, jesu imali neki stav pre nego su došli?
44 I11 Ma oni su putovali pa su svratili. Išli smo u Makedoniju i tamo upoznali neke
Amerikance, iz Luizijane mislim, i oni su bili neutralni. Onda smo malo pričali sa njima
pa su se oni oduševili.
45 R Bili ste kao mali ambasadori.
46 I11 Pa jesmo.
47 R Šta nam pomaže da donesemo zaključak o tome kakva je neka kultura? Na osnovu čega,
nešto si već pomenula, da li postoji još nešto?
48 I11 (....) ja najviše sudim po nekoj umetnosti, književnosti, ne uzimam, politiku, kakvo je
stanje tamo. Pokušavam da to vidim u globalu, mislim, ima raznih ljudi.
49 R Kakvo bi bilo da na ovom prostoru bilo više kultura?
50 I11 U:: pa ja bih to baš volela.
51 R Zašto?
52 I11 Ja u životu nisam puno putovala, ali planiram da ili u toku studija ili posle putujem. I da,
svrha tih putovanja bila i upoznavanje drugih kultura, nacija. Mislim da je to baš lepo i
da treba da se upoznaje. Mislim da treba. Jer imam jednog druga, on je Musliman, i bilo
je mnogo onako komentara, ne baš zajedljivih, ali onako, kad on prođe, kažu „on je
Musliman“ pa šta, nebitno. I mi smo hrišćani, neki, ali i među njima ima onih
fundamentalista, ima i među muslimanima, ali ima potpuno nrmalnih vernika i onih koji
razvijaju svoju filozofiju života. I treba da ima različitih religija i kultura ovde. Mislim
da se ljudi imaju strah ili prezir prema drugim religijama i nacijama, nepoznavanje,
mislim da je to najveći razlog mržnji i nepoštovanju. Ali ljudi mogu sve da nađu na
internetu, ne znam da li se ne trude.
53 R Da, moguće-
54 I11 Možda bi bilo više tolerancije ovde da ima malo više religija, malo više, ima ali...
55 R Misliš da je potrebno da se malo više upoznaju?
56 I11 Da, jednostavno da se upoznaju da se ne bi eto, plašili. I taj strah, ako su oni katolici,
oni hoće nas da preobrate. Ako si it siguran u nešto, u sebe, u svoju filozofiju života, ko
si, nema razloga da se plašiš drugih.
57 R Da li su bitne kulturne razlike za svakodnevi život?
58 I11 Recimo, ja sam iz Prokuplja i imala sam puno cimerki koje su iz drugih gradova. I kada
dođu iz drugog grada, tamo, ne znam, tamo severnije, vidi se nekako, ne da kažem
razlika, ali nekako i u govoru i u svemu. E sad, ko zna kolika bi razlika bila sa nekim iz
druge kulture, ko ima drugačije navike, mislim da meni to ne-
59 R To i na tom mikro nivou ima razlika?
60 I11 Da, čak i tu!
61 R E sad, kad su kulture u kontaktu, šta je potrebno da ti susreti budu uspešni?
277

62 I11 Tolerancija (.) tolerancija za sve što je drugačije od tebe. Mislim da ljudi ovde nemaju
toleranciju za druge ljude. Nekako ako ja radim tako, svi moraju tako, mislim, nije, svi
smo drugačiji. Tolerancija je zdrava, ne da su drugi iznad ili ispod tebe, nego da su svi
jednaki.
63 R Tolerancija i jednakost, OK. Sada, imam neke situacije u kojima su u kontaktu ljudi koji
su iz Srbije, Amerike, Britnije, na njihovom ili našem terentu. Ti to treba da pročitaš i
kažeš mi u čemu je problem.
64 I11 ((I11 gets Critical incident 1)) Možda mu se čini da je Milan napadan, možda mu nije
prijatno u njegovom društvu, možda hoće da muva neku devojku, pa mu ne odgovara
muško društvo. Ne verujem da je problem, neki ozbiljan.
65 R Šta bi ti uradila da si na Milanovom mestu?
66 I11 Pa ništa, udaljila bih se. Pošto je to grupa, otišla bih kod nekog drugog. Mislim da nije
ništa ozbiljno. Da sam ja u toj situaciji, ne bih mislila da je nešto ozbiljno. Možda ne
želi da se druži, možda je samo cool pa se malo odmakao.
67 R Šta bi tu mogao da bude problem? Da li misliš da uošte postoji problem?
68 I11 ((I11 gets Critical incident 2)) možda je Marija debela (hhh) možda ima preveliki
dekolte pa joj je glupo da gleda. Možda se zaljubila.
69 R Kako bi se ti osećala na Marijinom mestu?
70 I11 Mislim da nema problema, ne vidim neki ozbiljan problem (Critical incident 3) Moja
drugarica je bila u Americi i mislim da se nešto tako slično njoj dešava. Tamo recimo
stvarno ima različitih ljudi. Ne znam.
71 R Šta bi ti preporučila Vuku da uradi?
72 I11 Pa, možda da se malo više potrudi. Nekako, jeste da oni stalno pričaju o tome, ali,
možda da odmah odu na kafu. Recimo, ako su oni neko društvo, da pokuša da se
sprijatelji.
73 R Šta bi ti uradila?
74 I11 Pa ja pošto sam introvertna, ja bih sedela u sobi (hhh)
75 R Pa dobro, to možda prvih mesec dana, ali posle postane malo dosadno.
76 I11 Ne znam, da se malo više sam angažuje da ga društvo prihvati. ((I11 gets Critical
incident 4)) (...) iskreno, kao mala slušala sam takve priče, da je kod njih ovako. Oni su
dosta opušteniji, i da kao, nema kad su predavanja da svi ćute samo profesor priča nego
da komuniciraju. Tako da, možda je kod njih to normalno, i verovatno jeste. Kod nas je
to malo drugačije. Malo je zategnutije.
77 R Zašto misliš da je to kod njih u redu, a kod nas bi nešto drugo bilo normalno? Kako to
razumeš?
78 I11 Kod nas eto ne može, eto, sad, ako neko sedi i ćuti, nije to toliko bezobrazno, koliko kod
nas gde niko ne ćuti, i niko nikog ne sluša, niko ne čeka da ovaj drugi završi, nego
svako svakog prekida. Ovde ((pointing to the critical incident)) je kulturnije nego kod
nas. A zašto kod nas to ne može, pa možda zbog tih nekih razlika. Navika, možda,
dugogodišnjeg stanja, zato što kod njih ne dolazi do tih nekih promena.
79 R Misliš oni to sve već imaju?
80 I11 Mislim da se oni razvijaju, ne da mi stagniramo, nego da jednostavno...
81 R To sporije ide?
82 I11 Moguće. Ako on prati predavanje, učestvuje, eto on je pitao pitanje, znači da prati,
učestvuje, ovde nekako studenti misle da su profesori .. grozni, da nešto ne vole
studente, gradi se tako, ne neka mržnja, nego neki hladni odnos. Profesor dođe na sat,
sat i po, da ispriča nešto, dođu studenti, jer sad ne smemo da izostajemo, nego
skupljamo neke poene, i mi dođemo da skupimo poene, ne da bi nešto čuli ili naučili,
popričali sa kolegom ili koleginicom, ako se ne viđamo van fakulteta, i onda nekako...
Nešto treba da se uradi po tom pitanju. I o tome sam razmišljala, ali nekako ne znam šta
bi moglo.
278

Appendix 8 – Critical incidents used in interviews
(1) Na jednoj neformalnoj zabavi nalazi se grupa Amerikanaca koji su u Srbiji na
programu razmene. Milan pokušava da se upozna bolje sa jednim od njih, Metjuom.
Milan je dosta opušten i druželjubiv momak, i nema problema da započne razgovor sa
nekim koga ne zna. Oni razmene par pitanja, o gradovima gde su rođeni, o godištu,
devojkama, ali Milan nikako ne može da ostane blizu Metjua. Svaki put kad se približi,
Matju se malo udalji. U čemu je problem?
(2) Mariju su, kao internacionalnog studenta na jednom od američkih koledža, pozvali da
pomogne studentima koji rade na projektu koji se bavi raznim kulturama. Marija je
upoznala Džuli posle časova, i da bi se malo bolje upoznale i da bi Marija podelila svoja
iskustva sa njom, treba da se dogovore kada će raditi. Međutim, Džuli ne prestaje da
uporno gleda Mariju pravo u oči, zbog čega se Marija oseća pomalo neprijatno. Počinje
da se pita da li možda ima nešto na čelu, i nada se da će Džuli uskoro prestati, ali tokom
celog razgovora, Džuli ne pomera pogled.
(3) Vuk sluša predmet Menadžment na jednom američkom univerzitetu sa ostalim
američkim studentima. Već je imao nekoliko časova, i zna imena većini kolega. Ali, hteo
bi i da izađe u grad, pa je to i predložio:
Vuk – Možda bi mogli da se vidimo?
Džon – Da, trebalo bi.
Vuk – Šta misliš, Nikol? Može kafa?
Nikol – Svakako! Vidimo se uskoro!
Ali, i posle nekoliko časova, uvek bude priče o izlasku, ali nikad zapravo i ne izađu. Zašto
je to tako?
(4) Marko je stigao na američki univerzitet i počeo da ide na časove. Međutim, dosta ga je
razočaralo kako se studenti ponašaju na časovima. Izuli bi cipele, stavili noge na stolicu
ispred, izgladali bi poprilično opušteno. Ono što je Marka još više iznenadilo je to što
profesorima to uopšte nije smetalo. Jednom prilikom, jedan student je, zavaljen u stolici,
sa podignutim nogama, podigao ruku i zatražio objašnjenje za nešto iz predavanja, a
profesor je sasvim mirno objasnio. Kako bi objasnili ovu situaciju Marku?
(5) Tomislav i Tanja su u Americi jer je Tomislav dobio poziv da tamo drži predavanja
kao gostujući profesor. Tamo su ga vrlo lepo prihvatili. Posebno mu se dopao Džon koji
se bavi istim poljem istraživanja, ali su obojca zauzeti i teško nalaze vreme da se nađu.
Na fakultetu se viđaju skoro svakog dana, ali samo u prolazu i Džon bi doviknuo „Treba
da se vidimo!“ i požurio na čas ili u laboratoriju.
Posle mesec dana Tomislav je kupio kola i jednog petka uveče, vozio se sa
Tanjom iz mega marketa kući, i shvatio da je u kraju gde Džon živi, pa su odlučili da ga
posete. Kada je otvorio vrata, Džon je izgledao vrlo iznenađeno, i ako i je putio u stan,
ostavio ih je da u hodniku čekaju dok on posredi sobu. Kada su napokon seli, Džon im
nije ponudio piće, samo je rekao da ternutno nemaju ništa u frižideru. A kada s eni posle
10 minuta njegova žena nije pojavila, Tomislav i Tanja su otišli, povređeni Džonovim
pnoašanjem. Šta je u pozadini ove neprijatne situacije?
(6) Džek je došao u Srbiju kao direktor procesa proizvodnje za jednu staru i poštovanu
srpsku firmu. Predstavili su ga upravnom odboru i pokazali mu fabriku. U Engleskoj je
radio sličan posao, i već su mu u 28-oj godini predviđali svetlu budućnost gde god da
279

adi. Međutim, u Srbiji stvari nisu išle onako glatko kako se nadao. Njegovi saradnici i
zapošljeni nisu uvek pratili njegova upustva, a ponekad bi otišli kod njegovog zamenika
da provere da li su Džekove odluke u redu. Tako nešto mu se nije nikada dešavalo u
Engleskoj, i bio je dosta razočaran atmosferom koja se svorila i uskoro je počeo da traži
novi posao. U čemu je ovde problem?
(7) Merien, koja je upravo napunila 32 godine, počela je da radi za međunarodnu
humantiranu organizaciju na jugu Srbije pre dva meseca kao menadžer projekta i
koordinator. Sve je u redu na poslu, upoznala je lokalni tim, i dobro sarađuje sa njima.
Priroda posla traži da ima i zamenika jer puno putuje po obližnjim selima i gradovima, a
projekat koji vodi je veliki i ozbiljan. Lokalni vozač koji radi za organizaciju je ta dva
meseca stalno bio na raspolaganju i dobro su se upoznali jer su po ceo dan bili na putu.
Ponekad bi pričali i o poslu i obavezama u kancelariji. Merien mu je upravo rekla da je
napokon odlučila ko će joj biti zamenik. „Ivana će biti najbolja za tu poziciju, već je dugo
u ovom poslu, zna ljude, dobra je za pisanje projekata“. Vozaču nije bilo najjasnije o
čemu Merien priča, prvo je mislio da će Ivana biti sekretarica, ali kad je shvatio da će
zapravo biti zamenik, iako je pokušao da sakrije neslaganje, ipak je ponovio nekoliko
puta da Merien traba da razmisli o toj odluci i ponovo uzme u obzir i muške kandidate.
Zašto je vozač tako reagovao?
(8) Dragan i Kejt su već devet godina u braku, imaju dvoje dece, dečaka od osam i
devojčicu od pet godina. Jednom, za vreme večere, deca se igraju hranom, glupiraju se, i
ne ponašaju se kako bi trebalo. Kejt kaže „Da li biste mogli da završite večeru?“
obraćajući se svom sinu, i „Da li bi mogla da prestaneš da se vrpoljiš i završiš večeru,
molim te?“ vrlo smirenim glasom. U isto vreme, Dragan se sve više i više ljuti i kaže Kejt
„Hoćeš da prestaneš da ih moliš da završe kad znaju kako treba da se ponašaju! Samo im
naredi, i toliko!“ Zašto se ovo dešava?
(9) Veljko je student na razmeni, na Elektronskom fakultetu u Čikagu, gde će provesti
jednu školsku godinu. Pošto će za nedelju dana imati test iz mikroelektronike, hoće da
proveri neke probleme sa profesorom. Na početku semestra profesor im je rekao da će biti
na konsultacijama svakog utorka od 1 do 3 ako im zatreba za nešto. I tako se Veljko
pojavio ispred kancelarije nekoliko minuta pre 1 i pokucao na zatvorena vrata, i ušao.
Profesor je bio iznenađen što ga vidi, nije prekinuo telefonski razgovor i izgledalo je da
ne želi da razgovara sa Veljkom. U čemu je problem?
(14) Jedan Amerikanac je dobio menadžersko mesto u internacionalnoj banci koja ima
predstavništvo i u Srbiji. Pozvali su ga da bude i u komisiji koja prima nove radnike.
Direktor filijale je Srbin, a jedan od prijavljenih kandidata je njegov bratanac.
Amerikanac tome ne pridaje neki značaj, i dosta je impresioniran obrazovanjem i
pretodhodnim poslovnim iskustvom drugog kandidata. Ipak, svi ostali u komsiji misle da
je direktorov bratanac bolji, iako mu dosadašnja karijera nije tako uspešna. Amerikanac je
iznenađen takvim stavom, da li možete da pretpostavite zašto?
(17) Naomi, Amerikanka, je u Srbiji dva meseca, ima tridesetak godina i radi za lokalni
NVO. Upoznala je dosta ljudi različitog godišta, obrazovanja i društvenog položaja. Jedna
stvar joj je čudna – kada je ljudi pitaju kako su joj roditelji, da li im nedostaje, šta oni
rade... O čemu se radi?
280

(18) Ešli je u Srbiji već jedan mesec, ovde radi časove konverzacije sa studentima prava.
Upoznala je puno ljudi, skoro sve kolege sa departmana, i stalno je zovu na kafu, piće,
ručak. Svaki put kada izađe i pokuša da plati, neko od njenih kolega kaže „U redu je, ja
ću“ ili „Neka, nema veze, ti ćeš drugi put“. Čak i kad se Ešli pobuni, i kaže da je isto
tako bilo i prošlog puta, kao odgovor dobije odmahivanje ruke ili se njeni prijatelji samo
nasmeju. Pošto se ovakva situacija već puno puta ponovila, Ešli je sve više i više
nezadovoljna i pomalo ljuta. Šta bi mogao da bude razlog?
281

Appendix 9 – The Culture assimilator - critical incidents and rationales
1. At an informal party there is a group of Americans who are in Serbia on a study
program. Milan is trying to get to know one of them, Matthew, a bit better. Milan is an
easy-going sociable guy, and has no problems starting a conversation. They exchange a
few questions, about their home towns, age, girlfriends, but Milan has problems staying
close to Matthew. Every time he gets closer, Matthew takes a few steps back. Why might
this be?
a) Milan and Serbs in general are too inquisitive, he asks a lot of questions, and
Matthew doesn’t feel comfortable.
b) Milan stands too close to Matthew and that makes Matthew uneasy.
c) Matthew is still new to Serbia, he doesn’t know if he should trust Milan.
d) Americans are reserved and do not make friends easily, so Mathew sees Milan as
rude and pushy.
Rationale
a) While this may be the case, not all Serbs are talkative or inquisitive. Try another
option.
b) The concept of personal space varies considerably among nations, and in this case
Milan violates Mathew’s ‘comfort zone’. This is the right answer.
c) There is nothing in the incident itself that might suggest this. Also, he is in Serbia
willingly, on a study program, so this might show that he is willing to make contacts. Try
another option.
d) Not all Americans are reserved or unfriendly, and here we do not see any similar
characteristic in Mathew. Try another option.
2. Marija is asked as an international student at one US college to meet with an American
student in order to help the student work on the project about world cultures. Marija
meets Julie after class, and they try to get to know each other better and to schedule a next
meeting. However, Julie does not stop staring at Marija directly in the eyes, and it makes
Marija feel uncomfortable. She starts wondering if she has something on her forehead.
She expects this to stop after a while, but during the whole conversation it’s the same.
Why might this be?
a) This is the way Americans show respect to foreigners.
b) Julie wants to intimidate Marija because she is foreign.
c) A direct eye-contact is expected from you in the States.
d) Marija thinks Julie is making passes at her, and therefore feels uncomfortable.
Rationale
a) Maintaining eye-contact is expected of you during a conversation, however not as a
sign of respect. Try another option.
b) Marija is meeting Julie in order to help her in her project work. It does not seem likely
that Julie would want to intimidate somebody who is practically giving her a favour. Try
another option.
c) ‘Standing one’s ground’ and expecting the same thing from the others engaged in a
conversation is done through eye-contact. Avoiding it, or looking to the side, wandering
off, is seen as the sign of disrespect. This is the best explanation answer.
282

d) Showing one’s love interest might be done with a prolonged gaze, but would be
probably pursued in a different way than maintaining eye-contact only. Try another
option.
3. Vuk is attending a course with other American students. He’s already had few classes,
and now knows most of the name of his classmates. But, he wants to get to know them
even better, so he suggests going out
Vuk: OK, maybe we can meet sometime soon.
John:. Yeah, we should.
Vuk: What do you think, Nicole? For coffee?
Nicole: Sure, definitely! See ya soon.
But, even after they have had a few more classes, they always talk about going out and
never actually go out, why might this be?
a) John and Nicole are just being nice, they don’t want to go with him.
b) They never set the exact time and day, so they don’t see it as a real invitation.
c) Americans don’t have that much time for going out, they work and John and
Nicole think Vuk has too much free time.
d) John and Nicole have their own friends, and Americans don’t make friendships
that easily.
Rationale
a) There is nothing in the incident which might suggest this. Try another option.
b) The way meetings are usually scheduled is to suggest a time and place, therefore
making it a concrete plan. Otherwise, the Americans will see it as a wish, or a suggestion
that will take place, but in some indefinite future. This is one possible explanation, but
there is another aspect to the whole incident. Try and find it.
c) Students everywhere are rather busy, so being in the same course, this must be true for
all three of them, not only the Americans. Try another option.
d) The Americans usually do have a number of closer friends who ‘hang out’ together
without ‘new acquaintances’ – while this does not make them unfriendly, those ‘new’
people might feel left out. This is the second possible explanation. For the full
explanation, try and find the other part of it.
4. Marko arrived at an American university and started going to classes. However, he was
very disappointed to see the way students behaved in class. They would take off their
shoes, put up their feet on the seat in front of them, would be laid back. What surprised
Marko even more is the fact that teachers didn’t mind this at all. There was one instance
that a young man, sitting back, with his feet up, raised his hand and asked for a
clarification, and the teacher calmly provided one. Marko couldn’t understand this at all.
What might be the reason for this situation?
a) Teachers in the US do not pay too much attention to their students’ sitting as long
as students are listening and contributing. They are there to teach a subject matter,
not to teach good manners to their students.
b) Students in the US are much more easy-going in their undergraduate classes, and
it is not expected from them to be too formal in the class.
c) American students simply don’t know good manners
d) Teachers in the US cannot be the authority in their class and cannot keep the
students under control.
283

Rationale
a) Professors world-over prefer their students active and participating. The US teachers
are no exception, but they do not insist on strict and buttoned-up atmosphere where only
the teacher sets the rules. As long as the students contribute to the class, their being a bit
laid back in their chair will not be the problem. This is the right answer.
b) The rules in the classroom certainly exist, and some professors will be more insistent
on them than some other professors. However, in comparison to the Serbian classroom,
the rules may seem lenient, and the distance between the professor and students is not
emphasized. Try another option.
c) This is simply a generalization. The incident does not say that all the students behaved
in this way. We don’t know how students behave in other situations, therefore, try another
option.
d) While this may be the case in inner-city high school, where a lot of under-privileged
children go, even there the teacher is the authority, and should try to maintain order.
However, the teacher in question is a university teacher and does not seem to mind this
and does not address it as a problem. Try another option.
5. A Serbian couple went to the States as Tomislav had got an invitation to teach a
semester there. He met his colleagues, was very nicely received. He particularly liked the
colleague from the same field of research, John, but they didn’t seem to have time to get
together. Tomislav had seen John every other day – but only in passing, and John would
shout ‘Let’s get together some time!’ and then he would run off to class.
After a month Tomislav and his wife, Tanja, bought a car. One Friday evening, they were
driving back home from the supermarket and realized that they were in John’s
neighbourhood so they decided to pay him a visit. A very surprised John opened the door,
and though he invited them in, he kept them in the hall until he tidied up the room. When
they finally sat down, John didn’t offer anything to drink, just said they had nothing in the
fridge right now. When John’s wife didn’t show up after another 10 minutes of an
awkward and strained conversation, Tomislav and Tanja left, feeling hurt by John’s
rudeness. What is behind this uncomfortable situation?
a) Tom was perhaps working on his lectures, or a new project, and he should have
explained it to Tomislav and his wife.
b) The surprise visit probably embarrassed John because his place was a mess and he
had to tidy it up.
c) All those invitations that John had made were not for real
d) Tomislav misunderstood the nature of the invitations.
Rationale
a) This might be the case, though we don’t have any proof for that. Even if that was so,
the very fact that they did not have an agreement to meet might suggest that Tom knew he
would be caught up in work. Try another option
b) We don’t know anything about John’s habits, we don’t know whether his place really
was a mess, or he had an odd thing lying around. Try another option.
c) The story does not say that John was insincere. He was the one who suggested going
out. Try another option.
d) The invitations were sincere, however, dropping by on people without the previous
arrangement is not common in the States, so John was caught by surprise.
284

6. Jack came to Serbia to be a managing director of a production process in a rather old
and respected firm. He was introduced to the board and shown around the factory. He was
doing a similar job in England, and at 28 everybody there predicted a bright future for
him where ever he might go. However, the things were not going so smoothly in Serbia as
he had hoped. His co-workers did not always follow his orders and they would sometimes
go to the director to check with him if the decisions Jack had made were OK. That sort of
thing had never happened in his previous firm in the UK. On the other hand, Jack was
very disappointed with the atmosphere that was being created and very soon started jobhunting
again.
What seems to be the problem here?
a) The co-workers were not certain that somebody his age could run the whole
department on his own.
b) Jake always bragged about his previous position and looked down on new
colleagues.
c) The firm being old had its own way of doing business and everything had to be
overseen by the director.
d) Jack language skills were not good enough for him to get his ideas and decisions
across.
Rationale
a) Serbia is the country in which seniority is seen as very important, and the superiors
who are young are distrusted. This is the correct answer.
b) There is nothing about Jack’s behaviour in the incident. It is said that he had been
predicted a bright future in the UK. Try another option.
c) It is said that the firm was old and respected. However, there is nothing about the
previous manner of doing business. Try another option.
d) While a language barrier is definitely a hindrance to efficiency, there is nothing about
Jack’s skills in the incident. He might have had a translator or had a high proficiency in
Serbian. Try another option.
7. Marianne, who just turned 32, has been working for an international NGO in Serbia for
two weeks as a project manager and coordinator. Everything has been going OK, she’s
met the local staff, seemed to be able to function well with them. The nature of the job
requires of her to have a deputy because she has to travel a lot to the nearby villages and
towns, and because the project is a big and serious one. The organization driver has been
at her disposal for these two weeks and they got to know each other quite well during
numerous rides they had in those two weeks. Sometimes he would ask about the job and
she would inform him on different goings-on. Today she was telling him that she has
finally reached a decision on who her deputy is going to be. “Marija will be great for that
position, she has been in this line of work for some time, she knows the people, and she’s
good with writing reports”. The driver has a bit hard time understanding that, he first
things Marija will be a secretary, then when he finally realizes she’s going to be
Marianne’s deputy, he tries not to show his disapproval, but repeats several times that
Marianne should reconsider some male candidates.
Why would driver react that way?
a) The driver knows Marija from before and thinks she will not perform well in this
job.
b) The driver was hoping he might get that position, since he has been with the
organization for some time now.
285

c) Marianne is too demanding and bossy, and the driver thinks she will be hard on
Marija.
d) Having two women leading a project is not common, and the driver thinks they
won’t be capable to deal with it efficiently.
Rationale
a) The driver has not shown his familiarity with Marija in any way. Try another option.
b) The driver already has a job with the firm. He might hope to get a promotion, but there
is nothing about his credentials mentioned. Try another option.
c) It is said that Marianne has met the staff, and that she is getting along well with them.
Also, she praises the work Marija does, so this cannot be the reason. Try another option.
d) The women in leading positions are rare, and Serbia is not an exception. Therefore it is
not surprising that the driver is suspicious. Regardless of many improvements in the
position of women in society, all-woman board, or team will be seen as lacking a strong
man’s hand. This is the right answer.
8. Dragan and Kate have been married for 8 years, they have two kids, a boy who is 4 and
a girl who is 8. Over dinner, the kids are poking at their dinner, making silly jokes, and
are not really behaving as they should be. Kate says “Could you please finish your
dinner?” addressing her son, and “could you please not fidget, and finish your dinner too,
please?” in a very calm and peaceful voice. At the same time, Dragan is getting more and
more irritated by the kids behaviour and says to Kate “Why are you asking them so
politely to finish something they know they have to do? Just order them, and that’s it”.
Why is there a misunderstanding between the parents?
a) Kids shouldn’t be asked to do anything – they should simply obey.
b) In Britain parents formulate their orders differently, so they might sound to the
Serbian people as too polite and not as ‘true orders’.
c) Kate is too soft with kids, and Dragan is afraid that they’ll be spoiled.
d) The Serbian people have less patience with their kids, and this can be seen in
Dragan’s behaviour.
Rationale
a) This is a traditional approach to child rearing. The hierarchy should be obeyed, and
children should know their place. This is perhaps the way Dragan sees things, however, it
is not the whole picture. Try another option for the full explanation.
b) Due to phrasing their requests differently, the British might sound to the Serbian
speakers as being too polite, to apologetic. Kate, being British, transfers this to her
conversations with her children as well. Therefore, this is definitely not a plea to the kids,
it is as serious a ‘threat’ as Dragan’s order would be, but Kate simply uses different forms
to phrase her request. This is the best explanation.
c) We don’t know how Kate behaves in other situations, so we cannot say that this is the
case. Try another option.
d) Even though the Serbian people have been characterized (and stereotyped) as
passionate, loud and not too subtle, not all Serbian people are like that. So, even if Dragan
seems impatient this might be just his personal trait, and should not be generalized,
therefore try another option.
286

9. Veljko is an exchange student of electronics, who is spending a year in Chicago. He’s
doing quite well, but since his test is coming in two weeks’ time, he wants to check few
problems with his micro engineering teacher. At the beginning of the semester the teacher
told the class that he would be in his office every Tuesday from 1 till 3 p.m. should they
need him. So, Veljko is in front of the office a few minutes before 1 and he knocks on the
closed door and enters. The professor is surprised, and not very willing to talk to Veljko –
why might this be?
a) Veljko is too early, he should’ve waited for 1 o’clock.
b) The professor believes that he explained everything and wouldn’t be bothered
with it again.
c) Veljko was not supposed to enter the office when the door is closed, that is
considered rude.
d) The professor was concerned that he would spend too much time with Veljko
because he is not a native speaker of English.
Rationale
a) Even though the professor’s office hours were scheduled for 1 o’clock, being there
only few minutes earlier should not be the problem. Try another option.
b) Professors are obliged to meet students outside the classroom, even if they believe that
their lectures were completely clear. Try another option.
c) In every culture there are some rules that are not obvious, but are tacit. While in Serbia
professors are in offices with doors closed, knocking and entering is an appropriate way
of interaction. On the other hand, in the States, if professors do not have secretaries in
front of their office, the sign that students are free to enter is the open door. If the door is
closed, it is a sign that students would probably interrupt. This is the right answer.
d) There is nothing in the incident that might point to this. It is said that Veljko is doing
well, and while his language proficiency does not have to be excellent, he is obviously
capable to get by. Try another option.
10. Ivana is a newly arrived exchange student at the University Delaware, USA. She has
been introduced to her academic advisor, had couple of classes and she is supposed to
take a round around the campus. As she is walking down the corridors, there are other
students who nod, or smile, some even say hello as they approach her, as if they knew
her. She is rather puzzled, and does not know whether to say hi, or not. What could be the
reason for the students’ behaviour?
a) She is walking along with her advisor, so the students are actually greeting him
b) It a usual thing when people approach in the hall to show some kind of greeting
c) Ivana looks different and the students want to show that she is welcomed,
nevertheless
d) Ivana has met all those people (students and faculty) but since it’s all been quite
recent she cannot remember everyone.
Rationale
a) This might be the case, however, the incident says that other students nod or smile at
her, and not only the advisor. This cannot be the only explanation, so try another option.
b) As a way of maintaining social harmony, especially in a closed ‘community’ such as
students and professors, nodding or smiling is a actually acknowledging others, without
necessarily meaning other people actually know you. This is the right answer.
287

c) Even though she is a foreigner, Ivana does not necessarily look different – at least,
there is nothing about that in the incident. Try another option.
d) We don’t know if this has actually happened. Ivana might as well have met some of the
students, but she would surely remember at least some of them. The situation does not tell
us anything about that, so try another option.
11. Ivana is a 17-year-old exchange student from Serbia who came to the US three weeks
ago. She is now at her first party with her new American friends. Everybody’s drinking
and having fun, opening the hosts’ fridge and helping themselves to food and drinks. She
was invited by her class mate, she was introduced to the whole group, everybody was
glad to see her but still, Ivana is sitting quietly, thirsty and uncomfortable. Why?
a) Other students are preoccupied with their own friends and do not want to make
friends with someone new
b) Ivana is just too shy, she is waiting for someone to start the conversation and offer
her some drinks or food
c) The guests usually help themselves freely when they are at a party in the States,
the host does not have to make any kind of special offer
d) Other guests think that Ivana is not making any effort to meet them, she just sits
there, so they leave her alone, waiting for her to start mingling.
Rationale
a) Students probably have their own friends and Ivana is just another addition to the
whole group. But they did not show any negative feelings when she showed up at the
party, so this cannot be the right answer. Try another option.
b) Ivana is new to both the country and her classmates, so she might be more comfortable
if she had somebody by her side. However, since she’s in the States, she must have made
an effort not to be shy and go abroad. Try another option.
c) Unlike in Serbia where we like to be served, and the food is placed around the room or
on one table for everyone, in the States is not uncommon to be helping yourself, going
into the kitchen. It does not mean the Americans are not hospitable, they simply show it
in a different way and there are different expectations from guests as well. This is the a
more complete answer.
d) While this might be the impression the Americans leave ‘now that you’re here, you’re
one of us, so we won’t bother you, you’ll do what and when you want it –you can’t
possibly want us to press you into socilizing’, this could account only for some of their
behaviour. For the whole answer, try another option.
12. Dusan has just started his studies at WestEast College in Krakow. He is pretty
satisfied with how everything is going, however, one disadvantage of these first few
weeks is that the weekends are rather lonely. He normally spends time with friends and
family and he misses this social side of his life. During his third week of studies he
becomes friendly with an English colleague who used to speak his language, but has not
spoken in it in years. This colleague says that he will telephone to invite Dusan over the
weekend. The telephone does not ring and Dusan thinks that the colleague is avoiding
him. What could be an explanation for this?
a) The colleague must have been caught up in some personal obligations or family
matters and simply didn’t have time to call.
288

) Dusan took the colleague too seriously and too literally, the offer was there but it
was not specified.
c) The colleague was worried about his knowledge of Serbian, and was concerned
about his performance in it, he feared being forced to speak it.
d) Dusan is a new-comer to the country and should understand that the life of
residents or people living there for the long time does not revolve around his
wishes for socializing.
Rationale
a) The colleague did offer to call and invite Dusan over, however, we don’t know what
actually happened and therefore shouldn’t jump at conclusions. Dusan will see the
colleague at work and will have time and an opportunity to look into this. Try another
option.
b) This happens often enough, however, the colleague did say he would call and said it
would be over the weekend, so this offer was a true offer. Try another option.
c) After not being used for some time, a foreign language does need to be brushed up a
bit. However, we don’t see that attitude anywhere in the incident, and while Dusan might
have wanted to speak Serbian, we don’t know how the colleague feels about it. Try
another option.
d) Dusan is only settling down, he’s been in Krakow for only a few weeks, so he should
give some time and should not see each action in the negative light, seeing it as a
rejection. This is the right solution.
13. Danijela is an exchange high-school student who arrived at a North Carolina high
school with two other girls on the same program: Danica from Montenegro and a girl
from Azerbaijan. She got along with Danica, since they shared most of their classes.
Once, there was a test and the two of them tried to cheat – to try and compare the
answers, but one American student saw them, so they gave it up. However, later that day
they were confronted with other students from their class, who accused them of being
cheaters and were a bit hostile to them. Why this might be so?
a) American students were angry because Danijela and Danica teamed up and
wanted to be the best.
b) American students were angry because Danijela and Danica did not want to help
the rest of the class.
c) In the States individual work is highly-valued and even students do not look
kindly on cheating.
d) American students were just teasing them because they too cheat, but since they
are seen as the regular students, it is not frowned upon.
Rationale
a) The American students were angry because Danica and Danijela teamed up, but not
simply because they wanted to be the best. Try another option.
b) Cheating as a pair might have been seen as more serious that ‘individual’ cheating, but
the reason for anger could not have been this, as the American students did not expect any
help. Try another option.
c) Individual achievement is important, therefore cheating is not something that is looked
on kindly. It makes other students’ efforts unimportant, and this is the reason why the
American students were angry at Danica and Danijela. This is the right solution.
289

d) Danica and Danijela were probably teased, but not just light-heartedly, and not because
the American students cheated too. Any kind of plagiarism and cheating is a serious
academic offence. Try another option.
14. An American has achieved a managerial position at an international bank’s office in
Serbia. He is asked to be on the selection committee for a new employee. The bank
president is a Serbian citizen, and one of the job applicants is his nephew. The American
does not place much weight on this fact and, instead, he is impressed by the education and
previous job experience of another candidate. However, everyone else on the selection
committee prefers the boss’s nephew, despite his rather mediocre career accomplishments
to date. Why would the American be surprised?
a) Because the nephew gets the position despite his not so brilliant record.
b) Because no one from the managerial board seems to confront it.
c) He is hurt because his opinion of the candidate made little difference in the final
decision.
d) He is surprised that he was outnumbered and ‘out-voted’ when he believed he had
the best expertise to decide on the suitability of a candidate.
Rationale
a) This is probably the most accurate guess. The individual hard work, academic merit
and achievement is the most important think when applying for a position. The American
probably saw this as an unfair practice which would eventually have detrimental
consequences for the firm. This is the right solution but also only half of the explanation.
Choose another option for the full answer.
b) While this is an international bank, the local offices are usually run by the locals, with
one foreign consultant. The situation in which the board members are mostly Serbian
might not be that uncommon, and the American might not understand that the in-group
members would not want to go against the person in charge, either building a friendly
relationship in that way or trying to win a favour for themselves.
c) When one is invited to take part in any decision, that person must believe that their
vote or decision has some weight. While the American employee’s opinion has been
circumvented, the feelings at a work place should not be placed before some other things.
Try another option.
d) It is not stated in the critical incident that the American thought his opinion or expertise
should be valued more than anybody else’s. Try another option.
15. Jane, a Scottish intern, comes to Serbia for her internship that will last for 4 months.
She works in an architecture studio, and seems to be getting well with her colleagues. The
firm has meetings every Monday to decide what is to be done, to reach decision on
projects, etc. However, it often happens that decisions are changed, and that deadlines are
not respected. Jane was doing a big project as part of a team and was really nervous when
decision on many things would be changed on day to day basis. These changes would
often mean she would have to change a three-day work over night, and she was getting
dissatisfied with the quality of her work as well as that of the team. She was certain the
director would be really angry, but there weren’t any problems! How would you explain
this situation to Jane?
290

a) There aren’t many strict rules in Serbian firms in terms of meeting the deadline,
things tend to change often and workers are more concerned with simply going
one day at the time.
b) The overall situation in the country is such that not many long term plans can be
made.
c) Jane is too concerned with regulations and does not understand the work ethics in
Serbia.
d) Jane should not be imposing her standards here, since she’s here only temporarily.
She should try and adapt to the existing customs.
Rationale
a) Planning ahead is of greater importance in the UK and deadlines are taken more
seriously. In Serbia, on the other hand, people do not have a long-term orientation and do
not feel too obliged by the rules. This is the source of her frustration and this is the right
solution.
b) While the economic situation has a lot to do with completion of projects and things
going on schedule, this cannot be the only reason. It is used as an explanation (and even
excuse) but the changes in design cannot be accounted for by economic misfortune only.
Try another option
c) Rules and regulations differ from country to country, this is true. However, Jane’s job
has nothing to do with regulations but design. There must be something else that she is
having problems with. Try another option
d) Getting used to a different working atmosphere, and a whole new country cannot be
easy. Being part of a domestic team also means ‘playing by their rules’ but should also
mean understanding those rules. Jane is trying to be on top of things and to follow
whatever the boss is assigning, so she is not really imposing her standards. Try another
option
16. Scott is an exchange student from the States, spending 3 months in Serbia. He got to
know a lot of people, he likes that almost everyone speaks English. After class, he usually
goes with his acquaintances to a nearby café, there’s a general feeling of friendship, with
many jokes. Somehow, students start telling racial jokes and he doesn’t know how to
react, so he is awkwardly silent and it seems he feels uncomfortable. Why is this so?
a) Scott does not know what his friends’ stand on certain races is, so he doesn’t want
to offend them with his reactions.
b) Serbian people are rather easy-going, like jokes in general, so they are not aware
that they might be putting him in a difficult position, since political correctness is
much more important in the States than in Serbia
c) Scott is trying to be better than his friends, and show them how he’s above those
jokes.
d) Coming from a multiracial country, Scott is somehow ‘wired’ for these jokes in
particular because he is aware they might cause harm to people they mock
Rationale
a) Actually, not laughing at his friends’ jokes is more likely to offend his friends. Also,
some peer pressure exists even among university students, and especially if one is new to
a country and a group of friends. However, this cannot be the only reason. Try another
option
291

) A lot of politically incorrect jokes are told, and while people usually perceive they
might be harmful, not much concern is given to them, as they are seen simply as jokes.
This definitely plays a part in Scott’s discomfort but is not the whole explanation. Try
another option.
c) We don’t know much about Scott, and, while this might be his personal trait, not to get
involved in base humour, this is not the only reason. Try another option.
d) A multicultural society asks from its citizens a lot of tolerance and people are (or
should be) more sensitive to possible harm that even apparently innocent jokes provoke.
It is very likely that Scott sees this in his friends and therefore does not feel comfortable.
This is the right solution.
17. Maryanne, an American, has been in Serbia for two months, she’s in her 30s and has
been working with a local NGO. She met a lot of people of different ages, occupation and
social status. One thing that she finds strange is when people ask her about her parents
and family– how they’re doing, whether they’re missing her. How would you explain
this?
a) Maryanne is a grown-up and she has other concerns on her mind – her job,
managing the new language, rather than thinking about her family.
b) Maryanne finds this strange, because in the States people are usually not that
inquisitive and they do not ask questions about one’s family.
c) In Serbia family is a central part of one’s life, the family bonds are strong,
therefore the questions.
d) People are not connected to their families in the States, they do not care too much
about family matters and are independent sooner.
Rationale
a) Working for a NGO can be hectic and busy, it is quite possible that Maryanne is too
busy with her work, but that does not mean she’s not in contact (or thinking) with her
family. Actually, she’s surprised at the questions. Try another option.
b) When making friends people everywhere inquire about one’s background, so questions
about the family are not unusual. There must be something else in case. Try another
option.
c) This is most often so, families are still closely knit together and asking after the health
(or work) of one’s family members is not strange. This is the right solution.
d) It is a misconception that American families are not close, and that once you’re
independent as a young adult all connections are cut. Quite the contrary, family values are
very important, however, asking after one’s family members is not common, and hence
the surprise on Maryanne’s part. Try another option.
18. Ashley has been in Serbia for a month – she is here to do conversation classes with
the Law students. She’s met a lot of people, her future colleagues from the Department,
and she constantly gets invitations for dinners and coffees after work. Every time she
goes out with her colleague she tries to pay, but usually the colleagues do not let her.
There is always a conversation that goes like this:
Ashley: Ok, so, let me pay.
Colleague A: Oh, c’mon, no way! This is on me!
Ashley: But it was on you last time as well.
Colleague A: No, no really, and besides, it doesn’t matter – you’ll pay next time!
292

Ashley: Can’t we at least split it?
Colleague A: No, no, that’s OK! Let’s go!
This happens every time and Ashley is finding this situation quite irritating. Why might it
be so?
a) People in Serbia like to show their hospitability – one way of showing this is
picking up the tab.
b) Ashley thinks that her hosts want to show their superiority, and to show that she is
not in the position to pay.
c) America people are stingy and they never pay for others, so Ashley thinks she
would be obliged to return the favours and that makes her angry.
d) Ashley thinks that because she is a woman, she is shown disrespect by being
‘provided for’, even if that is in the form of a coffee bill.
Rationale
a) Hospitality is usually the quality most often mentioned when Serbs talk about
themselves. Paying bills for newcomers or guests is not at all uncommon, and while it
might seems pushy or uncalled for, it is the gesture that most foreigners will encounter.
However, this makes Ashley angry and irritated, therefore this is only a basis of the
problem, try another option for a full explanation.
b) For someone new, in our culture, especially people coming from individualistic
cultures, it might be difficult to get used to being treated to different things. Therefore this
gesture of hospitality might be interpreted wrongly, as pushiness, or showiness, since
hospitality might be shown differently in different cultures. Try another option.
c) It is not customary for the Westerners to pay for others, usually people go Dutch,
meaning they split the bill and everyone pays their part. However, this has nothing to do
with stinginess, when they invite you for dinner, they will probably pay for food. Try
another option.
d) Coming from a society where gender equality is a burning issue and where a lot has
been done for equal representation and rights, this behaviour may seem as a chauvinistic
overprotective gesture and might make her uncomfortable and even angry. This is,
however, the second part of a full explanation, therefore try another option for the ‘whole
picture’.
19. You, the only native Serbian speaker, are spending three weeks in a summer camp in
Austria. Currently, you are on a lunch break talking to newly met students, when a small
group walks in, speaking a language you do not understand, and seems like having fun.
You look around and sure enough, within earshot, there is another group already seated
and speaking yet a different language.
How do you feel?
………….………………………………………………………………………
What would your action be if you overheard your name in the middle of one of the
conversations?
a) I would hope they want to get to know me.
b) I would be embarrassed, because I would think they are gossiping about me.
c) I wouldn’t pay much attention – maybe it wasn’t really my name.
d) I would go to them, tried to start a conversation, since they know my name, I’d try
to find out how.
293

Rationale
No attributions for this situation, as it should be open to discussion
20. Milan Dinic came to the US almost a decade ago. Being hardworking and dedicated,
he settled down and managed to get his family in the States as well 5 years ago. The
Dinics had help of new friends while adjusting, were invited over for birthday parties and
got along nicely with the friends and neighbours. However, the family still felt
uncomfortable in a new country, as they felt the pace of life was to quick, people were
always busy. Back in Serbia, their friend would come over and stay into the wee hours,
and they missed that in America. When Milan mentioned that to his neighbour friend, the
neighbour invited him for dinner ‘next week’. Milan exclaimed – ‘That’s exactly what I
mean!’ But, his neighbour was surprised by such reaction and at a loss as to what to do.
How would you explain this?
a) Milan and his family felt their new friends did not dedicate enough time to them.
b) The Dinics are used to more socially oriented society, without formal plans for
socializing.
c) Milan was disappointed by the distant and rather vague reference to ‘next week’
by his neighbour.
d) The Americans are not used to ‘hanging out’ and that is why the neighbour is
confused.
Rationale
a) It seems that the family is getting along nice with friends and neighbours. It might be
the case they would like to hang out more, but this cannot be the only reason for Milan’s
disappointment. Try another option.
b) This seems to be the case. The family is well adjusted but there is one aspect of life
abroad that they cannot get used to, and that is the manner in which people spend their
free time. Americans like leisure time but they plan that time as well, unlike Serbs who
can drop in on their friends without prior arrangements.
c) Milan is not concerned with the exact date or time, he would actually prefer things
happening more spontaneously. Try another option.
d) Even though the pace of life, especially in big cities, can become hectic, that does not
mean that the Americans never slow down. They make an extra effort to create some free
time for celebrations and festivities. Try another option.
21. Professor Mitic is a full professor at one of Serbian universities. He has been invited
to a conference in the USA, and he is looking forward to meeting other scholars and
researchers. On arrival, he goes through a customs control. There, he is firstly asked to
remove all metal objects from his pockets, to take off his belt and shoes. Already a bit
irritated at this, at the immigration control he is asked a series of questions, about the
period of his stay, the funds he has, whether he will travel while in the USA. Professor
Mitic becomes rather irritated and snaps at the officer, which only prolongs the whole
process, as now another immigration officer appeared. After some more time professor
Mitic is finished with the procedure, but he swears he would never again go there. How
would you explain this?
a) He feels that he, as the intellectual should be treated differently, with respect.
b) He is tired from a long trip, and that is why he is more irritable than usual.
c) He does not think that his plans of visits should be of any concern to anyone else.
294

d) He thinks that he is intentionally picked on because he comes from a still
developing country in Eastern Europe
Rationale
a) Being a full professor, professor Mitic believes that he should be let into the country as
an important and distinguished guest, and should not be asked all sorts of questions. He
believes that his status, and the invitation letter for the conference are enough for him to
go through a very strict procedure more easily. When this does not happen he feels
insulted and disrespected. This is the best solution.
b) The tiredness is most probably present, and perhaps visible in his snappish answers,
but this is not the sole cause of his behaviour. Try another option.
c) Professor Mitic feels indignation at all questions asked, and not only those about the
private part of his visit. Try another option.
d) This might well be so, in situation where one has to account for personal things,
everyone feels singled out. However, there is a better response to account for his
behaviour. Try another option.
295

Appendix 10 - Coding protocol, categories and codes
The codes are applied to content
A coded section ends when a topic (content) changes.
If the same topic is taken up more than once, it is coded as new example(s).
Coding categories can overlap if more than one feature appears in one section.
The researcher’s contribution is not coded.
Coding categories
Experience with Foreign language learning
- learn FL
- learn English
- language and comparing cultures
- culture in language classes / culture learning
Intercultural competence
- stays in foreign countries/contact
- stays in English-speaking countries
- becoming IC competent
- self-awareness
- own culture awareness
- mediation
- multiculturality
- bridging
- adaptation
Attitudes to IC contact
- comparing cultures (us vs. them, how they see us)
-discomfort
-individual
- normal
- different expectations
- strong stereotype
- directness
- distance (physical/ emotional)
Values
- family values
- work ethics
- gender and culture
- social distance
- customs
296

Appendix 11 – Tables and figures
Table A.1 ANOVA test
Knowing
Knowledge
Identity
Affect
Responsibility
Interaction
Well Being
Global
Citizenship
Between
Groups
Sum of
Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
1,599 9 ,178 1,198 ,295
Within Groups 48,343 326 ,148
Total 49,942 335
Between 6,583 9 ,731 2,227 ,020
Groups
Within Groups 107,062 326 ,328
Total 113,645 335
Between 5,562 9 ,618 2,209 ,021
Groups
Within Groups 91,189 326 ,280
Total 96,750 335
Between 29,931 9 3,326 ,804 ,613
Groups
Within Groups 1348,277 326 4,136
Total 1378,208 335
Between 5,469 9 ,608 2,616 ,006
Groups
Within Groups 75,733 326 ,232
Total 81,202 335
Between 2,812 9 ,312 1,479 ,154
Groups
Within Groups 68,856 326 ,211
Total 71,668 335
Between 3,095 9 ,344 1,978 ,041
Groups
Within Groups 56,683 326 ,174
Total 59,778 335
Between 4,402 9 ,489 2,113 ,028
Groups
Within Groups 75,465 326 ,231
297

Table A.2 Mann-Whitney U test for male and female participants
Sex N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Sig. (2-tailed)
Knowing M 92 157,88 14524,50 ,237
F 243 171,83 41755,50
Total 335
Knowledge M 92 192,57 17716,00 ,004
F 243 158,70 38564,00
Total 335
Identity M 92 182,88 16825,00 ,082
F 243 162,37 39455,00
Total 335
Affect M 92 160,07 14726,00 ,354
F 243 171,00 41554,00
Total 335
Responsibility M 92 161,30 14840,00 ,434
F 243 170,53 41440,00
Total 335
Interaction M 92 155,45 14301,00 ,142
F 243 172,75 41979,00
Total 335
Well Being M 92 163,28 15021,50 ,581
F 243 169,79 41258,50
Total 335
Global
Citizenship
M 92 166,61 15328,00 ,871
F 243 168,53 40952,00
Total 335
298

Table A.3 Stays abroad and subdomain means
Stays
abroad N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Knowing No 84 2,9031 ,39972 ,04361
Yes 251 2,8780 ,38257 ,02415
Knowledge No 84 3,2476 ,56157 ,06127
Yes 251 3,4048 ,58486 ,03692
Identity No 84 3,9976 ,51060 ,05571
Yes 251 3,9928 ,54797 ,03459
Affect No 84 3,5929 ,42626 ,04651
Yes 251 3,8229 2,33211 ,14720
Responsibility No 84 3,6202 ,45722 ,04989
Yes 251 3,6282 ,50535 ,03190
Interaction No 84 3,6980 ,49868 ,05441
Yes 251 3,7470 ,44953 ,02837
Well Being No 84 3,8399 ,42679 ,04657
Yes 251 3,8475 ,42222 ,02665
Global
Citizenship
No 84 3,6639 ,46945 ,05122
Yes 251 3,7144 ,49238 ,03108
Table A.4 Means for English language students on all subdomains
English
students N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Knowing No 265 2,8764 ,38891 ,02389
Yes 71 2,9171 ,37643 ,04467
Knowledge No 265 3,3736 ,57307 ,03520
Yes 71 3,3437 ,61985 ,07356
Identity No 265 4,0377 ,54336 ,03338
Yes 71 3,8338 ,48519 ,05758
Affect No 265 3,7921 2,27364 ,13967
Yes 71 3,6698 ,42496 ,05043
Responsibility No 265 3,6836 ,47074 ,02892
Yes 71 3,4122 ,51511 ,06113
Interaction No 265 3,7546 ,47277 ,02904
Yes 71 3,6690 ,41832 ,04965
Well Being No 265 3,8797 ,39608 ,02433
Yes 71 3,7223 ,49244 ,05844
Global
Citizenship
No 265 3,7388 ,48498 ,02979
Yes 71 3,5761 ,48239 ,05725
299

Figure A.1. Department comparison on subdomain Knowledge
Figure A.2 Department comparison on subdomain Identity
300

Figure A.3 Department comparison on subdomain Responsibility
Figure A.4 Department comparison on subdomain Global citizenship
301