2020KulichWengTongDuBois Chapter3 in Landis Bhawuk Cambridge Handbook HistoryofICStudiesRootsResearch Praxis

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/342960679
3 Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Communication Studies From

Roots to Research and Praxis
Preprint · July 2020
CITATIONS READS
0 738
4 authors:
Steve Kulich Liping Weng

Shanghai International Studies University Shanghai International Studies University
67 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Rongtian Tong Greg Dubois

University of Washington Seattle Shanghai International Studies University
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Exploring Intercultural Communication in Textual and Literary Studies View project
Psychological Impact of the COVID-19: Global perspectives in a time of crisis View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Steve Kulich on 15 July 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comp. by: Manjula Stage: Revises1 Chapter No.: 3 Title Name: Landis
Date:15/6/20 Time:07:44:56 Page Number: 60
3 Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural

Communication Studies
From Roots to Research and Praxis
Steve J. Kulich, Liping Weng, Rongtian Tong, and Greg DuBois
Introduction and Overview: Nakayama, 2010; Pusch, 2004; Rogers &

A Rationale for Re-examination Steinfatt, 1999; Sorrells, 2012).
(2) Intercultural education largely arose out of
What is the use of a disciplinary and
the need to educate students from different
organizational history? . . . history . . .
can illuminate the past as well as the
cultural backgrounds in the same class-
present . . . it often becomes possible to room in the USA (e.g., Hoopes, 1971,
understand assumptions and patterns 1980; Renwick, 1994), whereas intercul-
invisible to those who made the history. tural training mostly arose out of the need
(Gehrke & Keith, 2014, p. 1) to train government officers who needed to
be effective in other countries for short-
Intercultural Communication (IC) refers to a
term sojourns (e.g., Edward T. Hall and
broad range of complex, inter-related, academic
the Foreign Service Institute [FSI]).
and application-oriented streams (e.g., “murky
(3) Much of the content and methods for cul-
waters,” Baldwin, 2016; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2010).
tivating intercultural awareness grew from
While these streams or branches (González,
and relied on the contributions of cultural
2010) have diverged, many intercultural
anthropologists (e.g., Benedict, 1934; C.
scholars, educators, and practitioners, diversity
Kluckhohn, 1954, 1962; F. Kluckhohn &
consultants and facilitators, and cross-cultural
Strodtbeck, 1961) and related approaches
researchers, trainers, mediators, and counselors
to cultural comparison (Parsons & Shils,
still acknowledge origins based on these
1951) later adding educational, cross-
narratives:
cultural psychology, communication
(1) The intercultural focus and field is attrib- studies, and international relations per-
uted to be an outgrowth of post–WWII spectives (Harman & Briggs, 1991; Hart,
contexts in the USA, e.g., academic con- 1999; Landis & Wasilewski, 1999; Pusch,
sultants employed by the military to both 2004, 2004).
understand the contexts of war and then (4) Early conceptualizing, theorizing, and
“win the peace” after it ended, the large efforts toward systematic intercultural
influx of international students to Ameri- training was integrated through pioneering
can universities, international volunteer initiatives by Hall and FSI colleagues in
work through agencies like the Peace the 1950s (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990; Rogers &
Corps, the expansion of multinational cor- Steinfatt, 1999) and focused on communi-
porations around the globe, and domestic cation between individuals from different
progress toward inclusion and diversity in national cultures (Croucher, Sommier, &
ethnic and race relations (cf. Martin & Rhamani, 2015).
Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 61
Additionally, the field’s scope and content evaluating concrete encounters with other
(Bhawuk, 2000, 2009a; Bhawuk & Brislin, cultures (e.g., the D-I-E tool, Bennett
2000; Pusch, 2004) include and primarily et al., 1977; or its D-A-E version, Nam
focus on: & Condon, 2010; Nam, 2012) to expose
attributions and learn from disconfirmed
(5) Comparing or contrasting cultures at
expectations (Bhawuk, 2009a).
macro levels associated with geopolitical
nation-states and their socio-political- Though Hall no doubt formulated and popu-
economic culture-level traits vs. larized “IC” as a term, analytical approach,
individual-level data, where differences and process (Hall, 1959, pp. ix, 10), recent
such as collectivism and individualism research suggests that multiple sets of influences
(e.g., Bhawuk, 2009a; Hofstede, 1980; have shaped and perhaps still carry the inter-
Triandis, 1991) or high- and low-context cultural field(s) forward (e.g., Martin,
cultures (Hall, 1959, 1966) are considered Nakayama, & Carbaugh, 2012; Prosser &
to have high explanatory value. Kulich, 2012, IJIR Special Issue). From today’s
(6) Highlighting the homogenous “national vantage point, some of the previous assump-
character” or observable mainstream tions inherent in the above “single-story”
traits and trends of national cultures (Adiche, 2009) have come under critique.
(contrasting statistical means or general- Examples include Martin and Nakayama
ized features of Culture A vs. Culture B), (1999) identifying leading paradigms and
noting the cross-cultural differences of advocating a dialectic approach; Sorrells
how peoples communicate, (M. S. Kim, (2012) raising issues on how intercultural
2010). training can better enhance global engage-
(7) Developing and integrating universal ment; Nam, Choi, and Lee (2013) noting simi-
cross-cultural theories for use by educa- lar issues for human resources and further
tional, business, government, or non- advocating a “West meets East” perspective
government organizations toward (Nam, Choi, & Lee, 2014); M. S. Kim (2010)
developing higher levels of competence suggesting, however, that over-generalized cul-
or expertise (e.g., Bhawuk, 2009a; ture-level analyses tend to paint all “Asians”
Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990; Pusch, 2004) for with the same collectivistic and high-context
receiving or sending sojourners (Ady, brush, perpetuate power relations between
1995). West and non-West, and oversimplify the
(8) Providing insightful cognitive, affective, complexity of the “rest of the world.” Beyond
and behavioral information, via teaching these, Ogay and Edelmann (2016) addressed
or experience, on both culture-general unclear and insufficiently complex conceptual-
universals (etics) and culture-specific pat- izations of “culture” (cf. Moon, 1996) or con-
terns (emics). text (Lefringhausen, Spencer-Oatey, &
(9) Considering and refining culture learning Debray, 2019). Ting-Toomey and Dorjee
models, processes, and methods that can (2019) recently provided critiques of weak-
be systematically applied to various edu- nesses in the above approaches, and also noted
cation or training needs (Bhawuk, 2009a; strengths to build on.
Clarke, 2008; Clark & Takeshiro, 2014). Critical IC scholarship challenges the
(10) Taking learners through process-oriented “single story” (e.g, Piller, 2017), pointing
sequences of describing, interpreting, and out that the field’s tendencies toward
62 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois
essentialization, reification, and over- This chapter offers a response to these cri-
generalization are telling examples of power tiques by encouraging interculturalists to
and privilege of the “mainstream” (cf. Moon, understand the diverse lines of our history in
1996, 2010) or just our “good intentions” an intercultural way. Unreported or under-
(Gorski, 2008) to the point that some consider emphasized histories deserve to be considered,
much of intercultural training to simply be a and the related interdisciplinary, interjective,
process of supplementing old stereotypes with and interactive sources of our work need to
new ones based on oversimplified binary con- be noted, whether these are overlapping or
structs and dimensions (e.g., Houghton, 2009; conflicting. Therefore, the guiding, framing,
Lebedko, 2010; Lehtonen, 1994; Scollon, Scol- and criterion question for this chapter is, “Out-
lon, & Jones, 2012, p. 271). For example, side of the mainstream narrative, what are the
authors in Asante, Miike, and Yin’s (2008) historical contexts, events, people, places, the-
reader apply critical and non-Western ories, concepts, processes, and impacts that we
approaches to global intercultural contexts. cannot afford to forget as a field?” This
Authors in Nakayama and Halualani’s (2010) acknowledges that the “fields of inquiry,
handbook advance varied critical and unequal authors, and histories” drawn on have major
power perspectives. Noteworthy is González’s implications on how one both approaches and
(2010) call for “enlarging conceptual boundar- applies the study of culture and communica-
ies” beyond privileged Anglo-masculine analy- tion (Baldwin, 2016, p. 20).
sis to feminist and gendered approaches, Continuing a Bordieuan “sociology of
moving from communication “about” others knowledge” approach (outlined in Bourdieu,
to “with” them, and proposing new critical 1998; Kulich & Zhang, 2012) and genealogical
interdisciplinary work to address varying investigation (Foucault, 1972; cf. Moon, 1996,
aspects of economic, class, ethnicity, gender, 2010; Piller, 2017), the following sections will
religion, or other aspects of diversity “intercul- introduce several of these “other” develop-
turality” (cf. Dervin, 2016). Other scholars like mental trajectories and their contributions
Holliday (2011) argue for including power and within three general periods:
ideology in the analysis of all intercultural
interactions; Jebsen (1999) considers how such 1. Early historical thinking (pre-1900s, pri-
practices affect professional practitioners in marily European) on culture and social
multiethnic societies, and Sorrells (2013) relations, which provided inspirations for
extends these to intercultural issues related to comparative, universal/relativist, structural-
globalization, social justice, and agency (cf. functional and nuanced contextual consider-
Moon, 2010); and Croucher et al. (2015) ations of cultural groups in interaction.
review, assess, and reposition the field to 2. Early American initiatives (pre-Hall and
address increasingly diverse conceptualiza- pre-1970s), through which updated concep-
tions and personal/cultural expressions of tualizations, operationalizations, and cri-
identity, varied needs for, contexts of, and tiques of social and cultural theory laid the
approaches to intercultural competence, and foundations for the emerging field(s).
increasingly challenging adaptation contexts, 3. Formalization of the IC and cross-cultural
also urging increased IC applications to medi- communication (CC) fields in the 1970s,
cine/health care, social media, lesser studied wherein multiple disciplinary and paradig-
cultures, and more communibiological, crit- matic approaches, associations, theories,
ical, and contextual approaches. and journals were developed that continue
to cross-fertilize and evolve to meet the intellectual evolution would overlook rich his-
realities and needs of cultural contexts torical strands of comparative thought. There
faced today. An additional, but unrealized, was a time where prevailing western assump-
goal was to comparatively profile the devel- tions concluded that societies advanced from
opment of IC fields in different nations and primitive to modern through imperialistic,
divergent development histories. Though modernizing assistance (Boas, 1911; Tylor,
sizeable sections have already been written 1871). However, ideas fostering intercultural
for Japan, Germany, and China (juxtapos- thinking or practice existed much earlier than
ing the parallel and contrasting trajectories noted in most published accounts. Exploring
in locations where intercultural studies are these will allow us to see that Hall’s work is
both developed and diverse), there proved to best understood as an important catalyst for
be inadequate space to map these important what became a set of formalized fields in the
histories in this chapter. Until those notes 1970s.
can be published elsewhere, the best multi- To begin, the term intercultural predates
national and multi-perspective overview Hall. Among its early conceptualizations was
appears in Martin, Nakayama, and Car- Edmund Husserl’s first German usage of inter-
baugh’s history (2012, 2020). kulturell as an adjective (1931/1974, p. 234) in
his work on intersubjectivity and phenomen-
Reflecting constructively on our past will
ology. Husserl’s student William Ernest
not only help to explain our diversified roots,
Hocking later investigated what he called
but also offer new ways to understand how our
“intercultural contacts” between different
degrees of commonality or diversity can move
faiths in a special issue of The Journal of Reli-
us toward future development. This chapter
gion (1934) and a chapter on “World-Religions
does what interculturalists generally seek to
and Intercultural Contacts” (in Haydon,
do in research, teaching, training, or consult-
1934). When Y. P. Mei wrote comparatively
ing: to check, compare, and contrast our un-
on Zoroastrianism (cited in Elberfeld, 2008b,
reflected assumptions about the tradition(s)
p. 11), Archibald Baker (1927) called it
and complex contexts of scholarship or appli-
“another contribution toward intercultural
cations from which we came, on which we
appreciation,” and in a later article asked:
build, and for which we move forward. It is
“How successfully do the ideals and the ethics
important that we examine the history of inter-
of each [religion] measure up to the require-
cultural studies and training in an intercultural
ments of that newer idealism and world con-
manner.
science which is actually in a process of
formation as an inevitable result of the inter-
cultural relationships of the modern world?”
Early European Applications and (Baker, 1929, both cited in Elberfeld, 2008b).
Conceptualizations (pre-1900s) of However, even long before the twentieth
Interculture, Culture, and Cultural century, intercultural thinking was exhibited
Comparison by thinkers concerned about localized thinking
or limited perspectives. Socrates noted that
Intercultural Awareness Is Not
“Humans must rise above the Earth . . . to the
as New as We Think
top of the atmosphere and beyond. For only
To argue that mankind’s ability to engage thus will we understand the world in which we
in “intercultural thinking” is a product of live” (Plato, 1925/1966, Phaedo). Though this
quote has been used to demonstrate the Throughout the seventeenth century, efforts
importance of gaining and viewing the world to understand languages in context were made
from new vantage points, Socrates himself or by the “father of modern education,” Czech
his approach to learning is rarely discussed in Moravian John Comenius (Jan Amos-
relation to intercultural concepts. The same Komenský). Comenius lived what we could call
can be said about historical quotes emphasiz- an intercultural life – after studying didactics
ing the value of languages, such as Frankish and theology in Germany, he was persecuted in
Emperor Charlemagne’s (c. 800) “To have his Bohemian homeland and crisscrossed
another language is to possess a second soul,” Europe like other itinerant teacher-thinkers of
and German poet and playwright Goethe’s (in that period. Pointing to a need for age-
Maxims and Reflections, c. 1833) “Those who appropriate logical thinking and wisdom-based
know nothing of foreign languages know noth- teaching, he developed pictorial language and
ing of their own.” culture learning texts (1631/1636). He later for-
Many other itinerant medieval missionaries, malized The Great Didactic (Comenius, 1633–
poets, and thinkers across Europe also helped 1638), which provided a pattern for life-long
shape an awareness of how little country and learning (inspiring Piaget and other educators).
culture borders matter, of whom we can only His Schola Pansophica (1651) proposed educa-
introduce a few. Ibn Khaldûn (1377/1968), the tional opportunities for all classes, genders, and
Arab historian whose works would influence cultures (cf. Comenius, Via lucis, 1641/1668),
the modern social sciences, challenged prevail- which encouraged both universal education
ing narratives of other peoples and noted varied with regional variations and scientific know-
reasons for cultural differences, including their ledge aligned with theology.
mentality, education, social and political behav- These examples illustrate that across the
ior, and architecture (Hofstede, 2001). ages some thinkers became aware of the value
Whether based on academic assessments or of relativizing one’s own culture by seriously
traveler’s observations (e.g., Marco Polo), considering others. Further evidence can be
philosopher Michel Eyquem de Montaigne found in diverse literary traditions. Already
addressed a need for understanding other cul- in the middle ages, Le livre de Jean de Mande-
tures during the French Renaissance in the ville (c. 1370) urged people not to look down
mid-sixteenth century (1533–1592). In his on non-European cultures, but instead study
work Essays (1580), Montaigne argued that them carefully; St. Thomas More (1516) ficti-
humans are naturally inclined toward the tiously described a non-Christian country
belief that one’s own culture is superior superior to Europe; and in the early eighteenth
(labeled much later by Sumner, 1906, as ethno- century, Jonathan Swift's (1726) satire Gulli-
centrism). While skeptical of the benefits of ver's Travels inverted all received perspectives
simply knowing about other cultures, Mon- on Europe and suggested that the world of
taigne did record customs foreign to Europe horses far surpassed “enlightened” England.
to allow people to compare and judge the Beyond these comparative or counter-
“shortcomings” of their own culture. The perspectival ideas in the humanities, the sci-
danger of provincialism was also addressed in ence of Copernicus, Galileo, and those who
Pascal’s (c. 1650) Pensées (Thoughts): “There followed challenged assumptions of their time
are truths on this side of the Pyrenees that are about the world itself.
falsehoods on the other” (Hofstede transla- Though most works highlighted in the next
tion, 2001, flyleaf). section illustrate Western thinking regarding
person or group in society or culture, there are The Enlightenment and the Path
ample examples of desired exposure to other to Conceptualizing Culture
cultures. Voltaire’s interest in Chinese culture
To understand inter-cultural, we must first
is noted below, which was reflective of the mid-
understand culture and the manifold defin-
seventeenth-century European interest in Chi-
itions and perspectives it perpetuates (e.g.,
nese decorative arts and ideas, like Catholic
Baldwin et al., 2006; Kroeber & Kluckhohn,
friar Domingo Fernández Navarrete’s Tratados
1952). We begin with several early representa-
(1676) providing representations of and adap-
tives of the Enlightenment, for it was largely
tation to cultural others like the Chinese (Ellis,
their contributions that formed the ideological
2006), and also Leibniz’s Letters from China
underpinnings necessary for successive phil-
(Novissima Sinica, 1697). Such records of
osophers, sociologists, and anthropologists
observations on, experiences in, and dialogues
to identify and examine cultures (see
between other civilizations should be further
Figure 3.1).
explored to expand a global intercultural his-
The Enlightenment was a period marked by
tory. “Tradition is not simply a permanent pre-
intellectual pursuit and advancement. Though
condition; rather we produce it ourselves
difficult to pinpoint an exact point of origin or
inasmuch as we understand, participate in the
complete cast of characters, it might be pru-
evolution of tradition and hence further deter-
dent to start with John Locke. In An Essay
mine it ourselves” (Gadamer, 1960, p. 293).
Concerning Human Understanding (1690),
Though the thinkers selected here are limited
Locke maintained that the human mind, when
by space, we encourage intercultural scholars
born, is a blank slate (tabula rasa). As an
and practitioners to reconsider differing ver-
empiricist, Locke (1690) argued that ideas are
sions of the past, with an eye for how these
not innate, but instead are derived from
can contribute to understanding and working
experiences (either sensory or reflective), and
in today’s complex contexts.
Figure 3.1 Intellectual history since the Enlightenment on culture, comparisons, and plurality of cultures
(Arrows indicate lines of influence).
that all humans have the ability to freely Meanwhile, philosopher Jean-Jacques Rous-
receive and reflect on those experiences. seau expressed a more dystopic view in his book
This significant divergence from nativism, Discourse on Inequality (1755). Similar to the
which traces back to Plato and through Des- Earl of Shaftesbury’s earlier conceptualization
cartes, sought to repudiate the belief that some of “noble savage” (1699), Rousseau suggests
ideas are pre-ordained and therefore people humans are born in a natural state (free, per-
are born “unequal.” Furthermore, Locke’s fectible, savage), but become chained and
(1690) rejection of innate ideas led to his dis- restricted through contact with and competition
missal of universal agreement, whereby he in civil society. Furthermore, Rousseau
argued people have different moral rules believed that citizens should be able to choose
guided by a motivation of hedonism. This out- the types of laws they abide by (1762) and that
look had certain parallels with Jewish-Dutch laws should be dictated by the “general will”
philosopher Baruch Spinoza’s (1677) earlier (volonté générale) of the people (cf. Sieyès,
claim on the subjectivity of good and evil, as Lafayette, & Jefferson, 1789).
well as Scottish philosopher David Hume’s The philosopher Voltaire used the phrase
(1751) later claim that morality is based on esprit des nations to refer to the characteristic
sentiment rather than reason. Moral and cul- quality of nations (though loosely defined) in
tural relativism grew out of such streams. his Essay on the Manners and Spirit of Nations
In France, many Enlightenment (Siècle des (1756). In the same work, he praised aspects of
Lumières) thinkers focused their attention on Chinese and Indian cultures, specifically Con-
criticisms of government, religion, and soci- fucianism and Hinduism (though denouncing
ety due to Roman Catholic dogmatism and Buddhism) and condemned Judaism as bar-
monarchical despotism. In his seminal work baric (and later Christianity for its intolerant
The Spirit of the Laws (1748), judge Charles- stance towards heresy).
Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède de In the German Enlightenment (Aufklär-
Montesquieu examined societal unity ung), Immanuel Kant (1781) would revolu-
through the lens of political systems (e.g., tionize philosophy in his attempt to reconcile
noting the requisite “principles” and motiv- rationalism (knowledge through reason) with
ations of citizens within different political empiricism (knowledge through senses)
systems), and in addition, proposed that geo- through transcendental idealism. While tran-
graphic and climatic conditions impact scendental idealism was “criticized” by many,
people’s behavior (in line with contemporary including his student Johann Gottfried von
acculturation studies). Herder, it was nevertheless the impetus for
Similarly, naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc German idealism, which shaped epistemology,
(Comte de Buffon) rejected the Linnaean taxo- metaphysics, and research in the social sci-
nomic system in Volume I of his expansive ences. Certain aspects of Kant’s philosophy
encyclopedic work Histoire naturelle (1749– run counter to the rising notion of moral rela-
1804). He asserted that while “species” can be tivism (see section on the Columbia University
differentiated by anatomical structures, the scholars in “From Stereotypes and Prejudice
division of species into categories based on to Intergroup Contact Theory”) as Kantian
those structures was artificial. Instead, individ- ethics assumed that some maxims apply
ual beings are characterized by their inter- universally.
actions with nature (the roots of a Furthermore, Kant racially categorized the
constructivist approach). human species through hereditary differences
resulting from migration or “crossbreeding,” Herder’s concept of Volk (a people group)

and provided four orientations (White, Negro, and Völker (different peoples, related, yet dif-
Hunnish, and Hinduish), demarcated by phys- ferentiated by the thought communities of
ical features (Mikkelsen, 2013). Though Kant their languages) further opened the door for
(1785/1793) treated such categorizations as the concept of “cultural relativity.” His cri-
speculative, he rejected a polygenic theory of tique of social evolutionist perspectives
race. In his later years he also denounced the implied that all cultures deserve equal respect,
“injustice” of European nations toward native providing a basis for understanding the cul-
Americans and the so-called “Negro” races, tural other, cultural hermeneutics, and valuing
even suggesting that a union of peoples was diversity, each of which are themes later
intended by nature, though he remained emphasized in IC. Herder declared that we
opposed to crossbreeding. This reflects how should not expect or require people of one
some scholars in this formative period culture adapt to the demands of a culture alien
developed, reconceptualized or applied their to them. While the National Socialists (Nazis)
ideas differentially, such as Kant’s later shift unfortunately later abused his ideas for their
from races to nations. own ends, his original thoughts on culture(s)
In line with several earlier Enlightenment positively influenced several generations of
thinkers (e.g., Montesquieu), Kant also scholars, including those who continued his
asserted that physical geography not only legacy at the University of Berlin, like Adolf
shaped physical differences, but customs and Bastian and Bastian’s student Franz Boas,
ways of thinking as well (Kant, 1775/1968). who brought them to the USA.
This theory was first presented in his anthro-
pology lectures at Königsberg (1770s) and
Post-Enlightenment European Academic
later adapted into Anthropology from a Prag-
Contributions to Comparative Culture
matic Point of View (1798). While not an
Explorations
anthropologist by modern standards, it should
be noted Kant was one of the first to lecture on While Herder conceptualized the phrase Geist
the subject (with an emphasis on biological des Volkes, it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
anthropology, unlike Herder’s cultural Hegel (1807) who later coined Volksgeist to
anthropology). define the “spirit of the people.” This concept
Near the end of the Enlightenment, it was (cf. Smith, 2019) led to a new focus on com-
Herder (e.g., 1784–1791) who first applied the parisons between cultures, such as the pioneer-
biological term culture (Kultur) to human soci- ing work of Wilhelm Wundt, father of
eties. He noted that culture embodied a par- experimental psychology, in developing Völk-
ticular way of life, extending to and influenced erpsychologie (1911–1920) (psychology of
by geographical characteristics (cf. Inglis, peoples), which aimed to examine psycho-
2004). Herder posited that each culture (not logical characteristics prevalent among
“nation,” as the modern concept of geopolit- members of a culture. This laid empirical foun-
ical nation-states had not yet been established) dations for the comparative psychological
possessed a Geist des Volkes (1784–1791) analysis of attitudes or behaviors in different
[ethnic/cultural spirit/mind]. This moved beyond cultural contexts (cf. Hofstede, 2001,
Montesquieu’s esprit générale to emphasize the pp. 13–15).
cultural aspects of a people rather than their Hegel further noted the integral influence of
collective political representation. the Volksgeist on the nation-state, and his
philosophy of history revolves around the dia- Klemm (1843–1852) “traced human develop-
lectical relationship between the two – where ment from savagery through domestication to
contradictions lead to the unfolding of the freedom” in his General Cultural History of
Absolute and eventually, through transitions Mankind (cf. Williams, 1983, p. 90). This trad-
and transformations, to a unified Weltgeist ition continued with French philosopher
(1837). Yet this Weltgeist is mobile – it will Auguste Comte (1853), who asserted that
allow a particular people to fulfill its own human societies evolved linearly through three
potential perfectly only once, since any Volks- cultural stages: theological (supernatural),
geist is always limited, whereupon the people metaphysical (abstract), and positive (scien-
must make way for the Weltgeist to empower a tific), a precursor to various development,
different people to fulfill its own concept. modernization, and secularization theories.
However, like most European intellectuals However, unlike Hegel, Comte believed
before and of his time, Hegel was Eurocentric objective knowledge is obtainable from obser-
in his purview of history (though Habib, 2017, vation, and formally founded positivism. He
argues his philosophy actually undermined his also believed human behavior followed
Eurocentric approaches). Hegel (1837) charac- axioms, just like the natural world. The
terized oriental civilizations, especially Africa, modern social sciences, in particular sociolo-
as largely primitive and ahistorical, while sim- gie, originate from this new trajectory.
ultaneously acknowledging, for instance, that Following Comte, early French sociologist
Alexandria in Egypt became a point of union Émile Durkheim sought to identify both
between East and West. “social facts” (social ways of acting, thinking
Borrowing from and critiquing Hegel’s dia- or feeling that influence individuals) and “col-
lectics, Karl Marx (1843, 1859) developed the lective representations” (ideas, beliefs, and
idea of historical materialism, that history is values held collectively as a kind of völkerge-
contingent both on production and control danken noted above). He examined social
over the means of production, exemplified by mechanisms for maintaining cohesiveness
recurring struggles between the ruling and sub- and posited a comparative frame between
dued classes. Culture and religion were criti- mechanical (traditional) and organic
cized as vehicles of control utilized by the (modern) solidarity (Durkheim, 1893). Dur-
bourgeoisie in capitalist society (Marx, 1843). kheim coined the term collective consciousness
The idea of false consciousness, (in later work to define a set of public beliefs and sentiments
with Engels, 1893) refers to ideology that is shared by members of a society, typically
consciously enacted without knowledge of the manifested through religion, and noted its
driving forces behind it (foreshadowing later importance within mechanical solidarity.
conceptualizations of “subjective culture”). However, through simple division of labor,
While widely regarded for his philosophic, his- interdependence would allow for the rise of
torical, and economic views, Marx also individualism and recession of the collective
“founded” the conflict paradigm of sociology consciousness, resulting in organic solidarity
and critical cultural approaches (see section (cf. Durkheim, 1894).
“From Stereotypes and Prejudice to Inter- Shortly after Durkheim, William Sumner
group Contact Theory”). (1906/1940), used the term “Folkways” to refer
During this period, culture was commonly to the unconscious habits and routines of indi-
assumed to develop through stages (e.g., viduals within a social group. He noted that
Hegel). Cultural historian Gustav Friedrich “mores” are folkways that developed or
evolved into group level ethical standards (and society, such as economics. In his seminal
coined the term “ethnocentrism”). Disobedi- work The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capit-
ence towards mores may lead to harsh penal- alism, Weber (1904/1976) argued that Calvin-
ties, whereas infractions against folkways have ism, specifically the proof of election, drove
little to no repercussions. capitalist society. Furthermore, with available
In Germany, the three founders of the descriptive summaries of contrasting cultures
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sociologie (DGS), like Alfred Smith’s Chinese Characteristics
Ferdinand Tönnies, Georg Simmel, and Max (1890) or Ku Hung-Ming’s Spirit of the
Weber, contributed extensively to the history Chinese People (1915 first written German),
of comparative cultural studies. Tönnies (1887/ Weber engaged in comparisons of Western
1957), sought to link philosophy with applied Protestantism and Eastern Confucianism,
field studies, leading him to propose the noting Confucianism impeded China’s ability
Gemeinschaft vs. Gesellschaft (“community” to become capitalistic. Through these observa-
vs. “association”) frame for comparing social tions, Weber concluded individuals act
structures (Tönnies, 1887). Though Tönnies’ depending on their interpretation of society.
work moved more toward societies than cul- Weber’s theories, alongside those of Simmel,
tures, this dichotomy is later applied in eventually led to the formulation of the sym-
Edmund Glenn’s early comparative language bolic interactionism paradigm of sociology.
and “intercultural” studies (1957, 1966) and in Roots for conceptualizing plurality might
Patricia Greenfield’s theory of culture originate with Friedrich Nietzsche (about
change (2009). 1871). After attending Jacob Burckhardt’s lec-
Meanwhile, Simmel conceptualized the idea tures in 1868, he proposed Kultur der Begeg-
of the “Stranger” (1908) through his examin- nung der Kulturen (the culture of meeting/
ations of migration and ethnic mixing in grow- contact with “culture+s,” in the plural).
ing major metropolitan centers such as Berlin. Nietzsche promoted the potential for compari-
Simmel also highlighted differences in object- sons, interactions, and dialogic plurality (see
ive and subjective culture. Simmel’s writings Elberfeld, 2008a; cf. Kulich, 2017, pp. 38–39).
influenced the research approach of the In 1876–1877, Nietzsche suggested that a com-
“Chicago school” of sociology, particularly petent person gains maturity by experiencing a
Robert Park (1916) and his colleagues (who variety of cultures (“verschiedene Culturen dur-
translated Simmel’s work, Park & Burgess, chlebt”), each of which must be comprehended
1921). Adopting ethnographic participant- (Nachlass). His philosophy of “perspectivism”
observer methods, they focused their research advocated comparisons as a way to move
attention on studying ethnic communities and toward a more objective plurality, “so that
marginalized subcultures in urban contexts one knows how to make precisely the differ-
(Park, 1916, 1926), coining the phrase “mar- ence in perspectives and affective interpret-
ginal man” which in turn influenced intercul- ations in the service of knowledge . . . [T]he
tural scholars (see section on “Comparative more affects we allow to speak about a matter,
Sociologists: Socio-Cultural and Intercultural the more eyes, different eyes . . . that much
Explorations [The 1920s on]”). more complete will be our ‘concept’ of this
Lastly, Weber expanded on Marx’s ideas thing, our ‘objectivity’ be” (Nietzsche, 1887).
with his three-component theory of stratifica- Returning to the Herder stream above,
tion (Klassen, Stände, Partie, 1922) and further Bastian followed the Herder-Humboldt trad-
noted the influence of culture on other facets of ition (Kulich, 2011, pp. 15–20) in addition to
Rudolf Virchow’s “ethnology.” Traveling as a collaborators at Columbia University, provid-

ship doctor in the 1850s, Bastian took exten- ing a base for comparative and intercultural
sive notes on his journeys, produced an aca- studies (see Inglis, 2004; Leeds-Hurwitz,
demic work (Man in History, 1860), published 2010a). A chronological overview of these
travel notes in 1866–1871 (six volumes on The formative intellectual developments from
Peoples of East Asia), and his field-founding 1784–1919 is provided in Table 3.1 in
ethnoanthropological textbook in 1884. Appendix A.
While Kenneth Pike (1966) is often credited
with applying linguistic suffixes (from phonet-
ics and phonemes) to coin terms for culture- Early American Initiatives (Pre-Hall
general (etic) and cultural-specific (emic) through the 1960s)
approaches, Bastian had already postulated
Cultural Anthropology and Comparative
that a “psychic unity of mankind” links people
Studies (The 1920s–1940s)
across cultures (Ethnische Elementargedanken,
1895) yet each cultural group also has “ethnic Only a few narratives have traced the origins
ideas” in situated settings (Der Völkergedanke, of the intercultural field to the first half of the
folk idea, Bastian, 1881, cf. Kulich, 2011, twentieth century, when a variety of scholars
pp. 20–23). His naturalistic empiricism and were grappling with how to compare and con-
proposed “psychic unity” with regional vari- trast cultures meaningfully (Hart, 1999; Leeds-
ations influenced Carl Jung’s formulation of Hurwitz, 2010a). Table 3.2 (Appendix A)
“collective unconsciousness” and his theory provides a chronological listing of the many
of archetypes, in addition to strains of struc- initiatives focusing on cross- or intercultural
turalism and comparatism (later seen in the thinking or praxis, suggesting that pre-World
work of Franz Boas and Joseph Campbell). War II foundations may have been more
Although Bastian’s pioneering anthropo- important than is widely recognized for pro-
logical work and his influence on Boas are viding readiness to meet the conditions that
seldom noted, cross-cultural psychologist allowed intercultural work to flourish after
Rohmer (1984) has previously pointed out the war.
how Bastian clarified conceptions of culture. There is now ample evidence that the net-
The significant works of Bastian (1866, work of cultural anthropologists trained or
1881, 1884) and Tönnies (1887/1957) shaped influenced by Boaz and colleagues at Colum-
anthropological and sociological field work. bia University continued to collaborate and
Similar conceptualizations appear in the work influence a generation of culture-oriented
of Edward Tylor (1871) and other British scholars through various visionary initiatives.
scholars, from Matthew Arnold’s (1976) Boas’ works on culture (1928, 1940), Margaret
aristocratic views of primitive cultures to Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), Ruth
Bronislaw Malinowski’s (1922) pioneering Benedict’s Patterns of Culture (1934) and The
ethnological fieldwork, scientific theory of cul- Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946), Mead
ture (Malinowski, 1944) and his influential and Rhoda Metraux’s The Study of Culture
students, including Chinese social observers from a Distance (1953), and the works of
Xiaotong Fei (1939, 1945) and Francis L. K. others from this Columbia/New York network
Hsu (e.g., 1953, Americans and Chinese). provided indelible inspirations for making
Eventually, the academic field of cultural sense of the cultural puzzle both before and
anthropology was formalized by Boas and during the war (e.g., Leeds-Hurwitz, 2010a).
Additionally, Neo-Freudian psychoanalysts Birdwhistell (1954) focused on differences in

including Erich Fromm (at Columbia at that non-verbal communication patterns between
time) and Harry Stack Sullivan (also in New cultures, an area which remains strong in IC
York City, cf. Rogers, Hart, & Miike, 2002) research, teaching, and training. Birdwhistell
provided contributions that strongly influ- published extensively with the Columbia circle
enced Hall, especially regarding conscious of anthropologists, coauthoring with Gregory
and unconscious culture learning processes Bateson, Margaret Mead, and later Irving
(harkening back to Marx’s, Durkheim’s, Goffman and Dell Hymes, and adopted a rela-
Jung’s, and Sumner’s works above). tivistic culture-specific approach. This was
Other comparative-culture studies focused on later formalized as the “ethnographic
mapping value orientations and socio-cultural approach” (Hymes, 1974), or the study of lan-
patterns, often in collaboration with scholars guage in social interaction (LSI), on which
from other disciplines. The husband and wife Gerry Philipsen (1992) and his colleagues
Kluckhohn team designed and carried out the expanded (see end of section on “Initiating
Harvard Values Project and also regularly Cross-Cultural Language and Rhetoric
collaborated with others on documentation Studies”).
or research projects (e.g., Kroeber &
C. Kluckhohn, 1952; F. Kluckhohn & Strodt-
From Stereotypes and Prejudice to
beck, 1961). The cohort of scholars who served
Intergroup Contact Theory: Awareness
together in the Foreign Morale Analysis Div-
of Embedded Racial and Ethnic Biases
ision (FMAD) of the Office of War Informa-
tion (OWI) during WWII (see Kulich, 2011, There are noted differences between European
p. 91) also provided support for cultural and US American approaches to issues of eth-
engagement during war times. nicity, race, and social inequities. Both on the
After the war, several “national character” European continent and in Britain, philosoph-
studies (Benedict, 1946; Gorer, 1948; Mead, ical approaches were applied to the study of
1942, 1951) were published, which are still power, social structure, media, and repressed
referred to today for their emic, culture- groups (e.g., Foucault, 1972, 1980), resulting
specific insights. These lines of research in sharp critiques on culture and intercultural
focused on the process of making distinctions relations, such as cultural hegemony (Bour-
between “self” and “other” – i.e., ways of dieu, 1993; Gramsci, 1992/2011), industrial-
categorizing differences – which are still utilized and mass culture, and media studies by
ized in training programs today. Collectively, members of the Frankfurt school (Adorno &
their work provided conceptualizations, con- Horkheimer, 1944/2007; Benjamin, 1936;
structs, and approaches (see Hart, 1999) which Habermas, 1981; Marcuse, 1964).
became fertile ground for the later emergence Simultaneously, the Centre for Contempor-
of an “IC” field and its formalized foundations ary Cultural Studies at the University of
in 1970 (see Kulich, 2012; Prosser, 2012, on Birmingham, founded in 1964 by Richard
Sitaram’s “founding the field”). Hoggart, applied critical cultural identity and
Scholars from language-related disciplines, representation studies to social, media, and
including linguistics and later speech commu- language issues. Rooted in neo-Marxist
nication, rhetoric, and discourse studies, also theories and Foucauldian critical cultural
began conducting comparative studies on approaches, their analyses of literary and
the influence of culture. At the FSI, Ray media treatment and language and policy
practices toward disenfranchised groups con- Americans’ toned to “code-switch” between

tinue to provide stimulus for critical intercul- their identities in white and black American
tural scholars today. Notable works include contexts (reflected later in intercultural work
The Uses of Literacy (Hoggart, 1957), Culture by Blubaugh & Pennington, 1976; Kochman,
and Society (Williams, 1958), “The Analysis of 1983; Rich, 1974; Smith [Asante], 1973). These
Culture” (Williams, 1961), “Encoding and descriptive concepts are strikingly similar to
Decoding in Televising Discourse” (S. Hall, recent attempts in acculturation research to
1973), Subculture (Hebdige, 1979), Race, Cul- explain the experience of sojourners’ identity
ture, and Communications (Hall, 1992), and as “other” in their host countries.
their collected works in The Empire Strikes Walter Lippman (1922), a journalist, was the
Back (Centre for Contemporary Cultural first to use the term “stereotype” to refer to
Studies, 1992). descriptions of the “other” as psychological dis-
In the USA, Gordon Allport is highly cited positions, rather than mere rational or cognitive
for his pioneering work, The Nature of Preju- categorizations, especially in international, geo-
dice (1954). However, this was pre-dated by his political issues. Others like Daniel Katz and
research on the relationship of persons and Kenneth Braly (1935) examined how stereotyp-
groups in the 1920s. Allport opened the first ing leads to inter-ethnic and racial prejudice
course on personality at Harvard in 1924 and when people link emotion, ascription, and
studied identity as a process of becoming and evaluation to assumed characteristics (a work
how distinct individual motivations are occasionally cited by interculturalists).
developed. Though Allport had met Freud, Bruno Lasker’s (1929) studies on racial
he rejected the reductionist approach of psy- attitudes in children exposed how parents and
choanalysis in favor of empirical research. To communities fostered prejudice through con-
understand personality, he explored traits, scious/direct teaching or unconscious/attend-
conscious preferences and values (genotypes = ant learning processes (applying Freud and
internal cognition), and personal influences Watson). Lasker’s work especially inspired
on social behavior in context (phenotypes = school teachers who were concerned about
external forces). intensifying inter-ethnic prejudice in urban
Allport’s interest in how identity is acted out American classrooms to develop ways to lead
among groups led to his decades-long focus on cultural groups into contact and dialogue with
prejudice. His work synthesized many other each other (e.g., Davis-DuBois, 1928, 1943).
scholars of his time. One of the first of these Parents’ Magazine (founded in 1926) sought to
is W. E. B. DuBois, who began writing about be a key vehicle for parent education and
the African-American experience as early as maintained a strong anti-prejudice message
1903. In The Souls of Black Folk (1903), (Selig, 2008, p. 53), publishing reviews of Las-
DuBois puts forward the powerfully prescient ker and a “Tolerance Test” to help “teach your
concepts of a veil and double-consciousness. child tolerance” (Davis-Dubois, 1934, p. 15).
The symbolic veil refers to the struggle of black From 1942 to 1954, the Bureau for Intercul-
Americans to see, or understand, themselves tural Education (BIE, see the section on
outside of the discriminatory framework pre- “Early Intercultural Education Initiatives
scribed by white Americans. It is the awareness [The 1920s–1940s]”) continued this line of
both of otherness and of the inferiority caused research, publishing a ten-volume series
by otherness. The veil then creates the need for entitled Problems of Race and Culture in
double-consciousness, which refers to African- America (edited by W. Vickery and S. Cole).
The first volume introduced intercultural edu- volume on Social Psychology was among those
cation for schools (Vickery & Cole, 1943), the that advanced research on cross-cultural com-
second probed prejudice (Powdermaker, parisons. Out of this growing focus came sev-
1944), and the third engaged students (They eral international conferences, several journals
See for Themselves) through a documentary (e.g. IJP, JCCP, CCP) and associations
approach (S. Brown, 1945), followed by other (IACCP, SCCR, etc.) (see the section
volumes related to minority issues (Bramfeld, “Expanding on the Contributions of E. T. Hall
1946) and race relations (I. Brown, 1949). The and his FSI colleagues”).
series continued to discuss methods for inte- As ethnic awareness emerged, research on
grating prejudice reformation with citizenship inter-group comparisons followed. World War
education in the context of a democracy. II migrant Kurt Lewin focused on systematiz-
This inter-ethnic focus was pursued and ing research on social-psychological differ-
published alongside parallel research projects ences between groups (Lewin, 1936) and the
which focused exclusively on African- processes and practices of group dynamics
American culture and identity. After Dollard (Lewin, 1947a, 1947b). He was particularly
(1939) studied ethnic frustration and aggres- concerned with the “lifespace” that affects
sion, the American Council of Education pub- behavior, the field of motivation and know-
lished a Personality Series especially dealing ledge needed to understand why people do
with “negro youth” in the “black belt” (e.g., what they do (Schram, 1997, p. 69). He studied
Davis & Dollard, 1940, and three other titles). individuals with a variety of focuses, including
General research on culture and racial iden- children’s development, changing food habits,
tity was also pursued by anthropologists at and how/why people communicate, group pro-
Columbia (e.g., Benedict, Race, Science, and cesses or social networks, and the influence of
Politics, 1945; Boas, Race, Language, and Cul- group “gatekeepers.”
ture, 1940). Another Columbia-based scholar, Lewin also examined authoritarian, demo-
social psychologist Otto Klineberg, began his cratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles with
career comparing psychological differences an eye towards resolving social conflicts
between Native and African-Americans (Kli- (Lewin, 1948), and developed a predictive field
neberg, 1944). While deeply controversial, his theory (1951), both of which influenced later
findings established him as one of several pion- intercultural theorists such as William Gudy-
eers, alongside Ashley Montagu (Man’s Most kunst and Young Yun Kim. As his diverse
Dangerous Myth, 1945; The Concept of Race, research contributions grew and spread
1964; UNESCO’s Statement on Race, 1972), through time spent at the Universities of
arguing that there was no scientific basis for Berlin, Iowa, and Michigan, as well as Massa-
racial superiority. chusetts Institute of Technology, practitioners
Working with Boas, anthropologist Melville sought to integrate Lewin’s ideas and findings
Herskovits pioneered acculturation studies into educational designs (e.g. Davis-DuBois,
and helped found the first program in African see the section “Early Intercultural Education
American studies in the 1940s. He also pub- Initiatives [the 1920s–1940s]”), some of which
lished The Myth of the Negro Past (1941), still exist today in intercultural education and
which treated African-Americans as a distinct, training praxis.
historically and geographically rooted culture. Lewin’s investigative Quasselstrippe (theor-
Among many scholars giving new attention to etical drawing) sessions at each of the univer-
cultures in this period, Klineberg’s (1940) sities he taught influenced many, like Wilbur
Schramm, then at the University of Iowa, who (e.g., Landis & Wasilewski, 1999), and others
helped found international communication as have built on Allport’s contact hypothesis to
a field of study and established important further explain how variables like nationality,
research centers at Iowa, Stanford, and the ethnicity, personality, and gender factor affect
University of Hawaii (the East–West Center), communication outcomes, intergroup stereo-
each of which promoted interdisciplinary typing (Stephan & Rosenfield, 1982), and soci-
national-level research on culture and etal mental structures (Foa & Foa, 1974).
communication. Ongoing work has outlined at least eight con-
It was in this climate that Allport expanded ditions needed to improve attitudes and facili-
his early work on personality, drives, and atti- tate or enhance intergroup interactions (see
tudes to consider how values pattered motiv- Martin & Nakayama, 2010, pp. 149–152; Ste-
ation and social contact. His Study of Values phan & Stephan, 1992), ways of dealing with
(SOV) scale (Allport & Vernon, 1931) and anxiety based on perceptions of threat, and
updated test (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, ways of improving intergroup relations (Ste-
1960) provided one of the best early measures phan & Stephan, 1985, 1996).
of basic interests and motivation patterns
(1961), organized around six preference areas:
Early Intercultural Education Initiatives
theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, polit-
(the 1920s–1940s)
ical, and religious. These informed the later
values lists developed by both Rokeach Unlike Columbia’s well-recognized anthropo-
(1973) and Schwartz (1992). logical research hub, a similar seeding ground
Allport also examined how “normal” cogni- at New York University (NYU), focused on
tive categorization and generalization can lead intercultural education, has gone almost
to stereotypes, influence perception, and ultim- entirely unrecognized. In a 1939 article, Fran-
ately become intergroup prejudice (1954). His cis J. Brown (1939), then editor of the Ameri-
“contact hypothesis” (e.g., Allport, 1955) pro- can Sociological Review and Dean of NYU’s
posed that under certain conditions, contact School of Education described programs
among groups could decrease stereotypes, started in his department. He notes a series of
prejudice, and discrimination. This provided national radio broadcasts (Americans All,
motivation for a wide range or interventions Immigrants All) on the cultures and contribu-
used in intercultural, diversity, and integration tions of specific ethnic groups in America, a set
training. Allport’s students played important of courses (starting in 1935) on ethnic contri-
roles in cross-cultural psychology (e.g., Jerome butions and intercultural relations, an exten-
Brunner, the first President of IACCP; sive compilation of teacher resource books
M. Brewster Smith on values). His student (Brown & Roucek, 1937), and a campus club
Thomas Pettigrew further identified “personal- (started in 1932) with an annual student-led
ity and sociocultural factors in intergroup atti- “Cultural Mosaics” program for cultural
tudes” (1958), issues in ethnicity (1978), exposure. Unfortunately, his reports did not
attribution errors (1979), “cognitive styles acknowledge the person primarily behind
and social behavior” (1982) and then recon- these programs, a doctoral graduate of Colum-
sidered the positive and negative conditions of bia’s Teacher’s College and instructor at
the “intergroup contact hypothesis” (1986). NYU, Rachel Davis-DuBois.
In more recent years, psychologists includ- Davis-DuBois began her career at a Wood-
ing Richard Brislin (1993/2000), Dan Landis bury, NJ high school in 1924, where she
developed a series of assignments directing stu- Interior, Office of Education, Works Progress
dents to conduct interviews with members of Administration, and the Progressive Educa-
ethnic groups besides their own and then write, tion Association to produce the afore-
design, and perform dramatized presentations mentioned “Americans All, Immigrants All”
on the other group’s roots, identities, and radio broadcast program (Davis-DuBois,
unique contributions to American life (pub- 1938–1939, the program Brown noted). The
lished as A Program for Education in World SBIE’s guide, or manifesto, was finally pub-
Mindedness, Davis-Dubois, 1928). This pro- lished in 1939 under the title, Out of the Many,
gram created a context for open, curious, and One: A Plan for Intercultural Education.
celebratory interactions between previously During her tenure as director of the SBIE
estranged groups. It was so successful at atti- (pre-1941), Davis-DuBois also began work on
tude re-formation that Davis-DuBois was later what later became known as the “Group Con-
recruited to adapt her curriculum in several versation Method” (Davis-DuBois, 1946,
New York City schools. This method remained 1963). This shifted her focus from schools to
popular through World War II (Brown, 1945). neighborhoods, working with whole families
These efforts led to an invitation to develop living in ethnically diverse communities.
courses in intercultural education for teachers Allport attended one of her group conversa-
in 1932 (applying the “Woodbury Plan,” tions, later praising its method and effective-
pp. 64–65), a course in the Department of ness, crediting her for inspirations on his work
Citizenship Education at Boston University on prejudice and the contact hypothesis
in 1933, another at NYU from 1935–1941, (1954), and writing the introduction to her
and an Intercultural Education course at UC manual The Art of Group Conversation
Berkeley the summer of 1935 (after which (Davis-DuBois & Li, 1963).
schools in San Francisco adopted the Wood- As the US entered the war, a group of pri-
bury plan). She first formally used the term marily male board members and donors
“intercultural education” in 1935 in a presen- departed from Davis-DuBois’s affirmation of
tation in Mexico City entitled “Problems on unique “cultural gifts” in a “cultural democ-
Intercultural Education in the United States” racy” and asked her to resign from the SBIE
(published as Davis-Dubois, 1936; cf. Davis- (noting that a woman might not be best for
Dubois & Okoradudu, 1984, p. 74). leading the Bureau, though her Quaker paci-
In 1934, Davis-DuBois founded the “Service fism, progressive orientation, and inter-racial
Bureau for Education in Human Relations,” marriage may have played a role). Despite
which was renamed the “Service Bureau for being pushed out of the movement she started,
Intercultural Education” (SBIE) by 1938. she went on to:
Important inter- and cross-cultural pioneers
served on her board, including Ruth Benedict, • establish a second organization, the Intercul-
or as consultants (Boas, M. Mead, and tural Education Workshop (1941), later
Lewin). The SBIE functioned primarily as a named the Workshop for Cultural Democ-
resource center for high schools in the Tri- racy in 1946 (Davis-DuBois, 1950),
Borough area, specializing in teacher training • travel to Germany after the war, under the
and curriculum development for increasing employ of the US State Department, to use
intercultural understanding among youth. To the Group Conversation Method to help
benefit a larger national audience, the SBIE rehabilitate thousands of re-patriated
was commissioned by the Department of the Germans,
• work alongside W. E. B. DuBois (no rela- representative on the West Coast into the
tion) and Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1950s) and helped establish the Pacific Coast
Civil Rights movement through 1958, Council on Intercultural Education (PCCIE)
• and finally, use the Group Conversation in 1945 (cf. Johnson & Pak, 2019). He also
Method with aboriginals in New Zealand worked closely with the Stanford University
and Australia who had undergone systemic, School of Education to research attitude forma-
aggressive displacement. tion in youth, lead teacher training workshops,
and apply UNESCO peace-building ideals
Meanwhile, the SBIE was renamed the to create high school curricula focused on
“Bureau for Intercultural Education” (BIE) developing intercultural sensitivity and compe-
and led by Stewart Cole (1940–1944) and tence (Cole, 1946). The PCCIE’s pioneering
Harry Giles (1944–1948), who shifted the programs were considered some of the best in
vision and practice of the BIE to: the country (e.g., Pak, 2002, on San Diego’s
program 1946–1949: “Is there a better intercul-
• Αlign with Dewey’s philosophy of education
and society and refocus intercultural educa- tural plan in any school system?”) and became
tion on socializing immigrant youth as templates for other post–WWII urban intercul-
American citizens (Cole, 1943). tural programs (like those in Los Angeles and
San Francisco) that increasingly focused on
• Emphasize publications that both formu-
lated approaches to intergroup relations “intergroup” relations and integrative democ-
and prejudice and then applied and system- racy/citizenship education. San Diego City
atically tested them to identify best practices Schools (SDCS) superintendent Will Crawford
(particularly in the primary and secondary outlined a three-year (1946–1949), districtwide
school environment). reform plan and funded teacher-training plan
(Crawford, 1956) aimed at:
Interestingly, both Klineberg (Board of Dir-
1. [gaining] a more adequate understanding of
ectors) and Lewin (Committee of Educational
the diverse backgrounds of the pupils with
Consultants, as under Davis-DuBois) con-
whom we deal,
tinued in Cole’s BIE, but M. Mead, Benedict,
2. [assimilating] this understanding as a part
and many women advisors also left. The BIE
of our personal emotional make-up,
brought in Deweyist proponents, including
3. [expressing] it in the kind of classroom and
William Kirkpatrick, Hilda Taba, and Wil-
school atmosphere which we provide,
liam Van Til, who went on to host workshops
4. [ensuring] that all educational possibilities
at key universities, develop and assess intercul-
for promoting better intergroup relations
tural teacher training programs, and facilitate
are utilized. (SDCS, 1947, p. vi, cited in
the expansion of high school curricula across
Pak, 2002)
America (Taba, 1953). Taba and Van Til also
conducted a nation-wide survey in 1945 on all Though differently implemented by Davis-
intercultural education high school curricula Dubois and later BIE leaders, these goals antici-
for National Council of Social Studies report pate the aims of many intercultural education
(Taba & Van Til, 1945). and training programs today which seek to cul-
After ethnic rioting in Los Angeles in 1943, tivate intercultural awareness and competence
LA schools requested the BIE for assistance, (e.g., Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2008, 2009).
and Cole was asked to spend a year trying to Even though Davis-DuBois’s name nearly
setup a program there. Cole stayed on (as a BIE disappeared after Cole took over, recent
historical assessments of multicultural educa- inclusion – were conceptualized, initiated,

tion have rediscovered her. Banks (2006, 2012) and part of Davis-DuBois’s praxis thirty years
assesses multicultural origins and treats Davis- before Hall’s groundbreaking FSI work
DuBois’s and Cole’s groups as similar in emerged.
fostering cultural awareness between various
ethnic groups in the American public. How-
ever, others (Lal, 2004; Montalto, 1982; Selig, Comparative Sociologists: Socio-Cultural
2008) claim that Davis-DuBois held a unique and Intercultural Explorations
but overlooked position in the “Intergroup (the 1920s on)
Education Movement” (Banks, 2006) or
“Intercultural Education Movement” (Mon- From the 1920s on, there is evidence of
talto, 1982). Both Montalto (1982) and Olneck increasing interculturally related sociological
(1990) note that there was conflict between research from the Chicago school and others.
“cultural integrationists” (e.g., Davis-DuBois), The Polish Peasant in Europe and America
who affirmed every aspect of cultural diversity, (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918–1920) was a
and “assimilationists” (those after Cole), who seminal study integrating the values, cultural
acknowledged diversity, but in practice muted identity, and interactions of a specific cultural
its affirmation and consequences (Montalto, group dealing with plural contexts. Sociolo-
1982, p. 148; DuBois, Potts, & Kulich, 2017). gists in the 1930s were also studying aspects
Elberfeld (2008b) further notes how education of intercultural relations, like the series of stud-
science extensively used the term “intercul- ies on “intercultural contacts” among world
tural” in the 1930s (not multicultural) to deal religions noted above starting from 1927
with the “problem” of living together in demo- (cf. Elberfeld, 2008a). Educational sociologists
cratic societies (debating “melting pot” vs. cul- like Brown (1939) were already referring to the
tural pluralism perspectives). study of “intercultural relations” and noted
While these differences should not be dimin- themes normally attributed to work after Hall:
ished, each group did consider and integrate
The study of cultural differences has been one of
new concepts of culture (at non-national the major areas of sociological research. In fact,
levels), intergroup relations, and prejudice to social or cultural anthropology was one of the
create curricula for the development of inter- first fields of descriptive analysis [and discusses
cultural awareness, sensitivity, and communi- how] the major social processes emphasized in
cative competence – first in educative discussions of culture patterns were “isolation,”
environments, and later (in Davis-DuBois’s “conflict” and “assimilation” . . . folkways,
case) in multi-ethnic communities and race mores, and institutions as divisive factors which
relations before the war in the 1930s and 40s. developed a sense of cultural ethnocentrism . . .
It is also instructive to realize that many noted [and] the study of causes and forms of conflict
between these plurality patterns of behavior
critiques of our field – e.g., focusing on
(p. 328) [and] intercultural differences [seen in]
national-level cultural comparisons, reverting
the recent emphasis upon “stereotypes.”
to simplistic generalizations of differences,
(p. 329) . . . [which] termed this newer emphasis
describing mainstream trends instead of “cultural pluralism.” This implies both the
nuanced variations, overlooking “critical” perpetuation of the folk culture of the many
power relations between or among groups, racial and national groups in American life and
under-appreciating deeper issues in diversity the growing appreciation by every group of the
or the sensitivities needed for meaningful contributions which each has made to the
kaleidoscopic culture of America (p. 330), . . . a structures, internalized preferences, and

“Cultural Mosaic . . .” and practical objectified vision that gives meaning and
demonstration of the feasibility of “cultural guides practices) in his theories related to
pluralism” (p. 331). social reality and social action.
George Herbert Mead, at the Chicago Similar issues in the sociology of knowledge
school, also developed a line of research and communication were addressed by two
focused on symbolic interactionism (1934), Austrian-Americans, Peter Berger and
which has since been used to investigate con- Thomas Luckman with their theory on the
nections between language, identity, and social construction of reality (1966/1971). Mil-
meaning in cultural encounters (Barnett ton Bennett (2013, p. 7) notes how intercultur-
Pearce, 2005; Erving Goffman, 1959; Gerry alists commonly apply this theory, distinguish
Philipsen, 1992; Herbert Blumer, 1969). These between objective culture (what he calls Big-C
and other extensions from Simmel later had culture) and subjective culture (little-c) (the
great influence on the development of IC as a deeper internalized social reality as in the ice-
field, particularly on William Gudykunst and berg model), the later often being the world-
Young Yun Kim’s seminal text Communicat- view of individuals in a specific group,
ing with Strangers (1984 and all subsequent embedded in a context. Berger and Luckman’s
editions), on visible/overt and hidden/covert work suggests that as cocreators of culture, we
aspects of cultures in communication, and in can also engage in seeking to compare and
the subjective communicative construction of understand others.
meaning (e.g., Rogers, 1999).
In non-US contexts, the constructive study
Strategic Studies of Culture: Advancing
of meaning was being investigated by Lev
Comparative Foundations (the 1940s
Vygotsky (1934), who studied the language
and 1950s)
and culture learning patterns and the socio-
cultural development of children. He theorized Though the above highlights other important
how individuals from childhood seek to make origins, intercultural scholars and practitioners
sense of their world and internalize the sym- have more typically noted the field’s roots in
bolic operations of culture, noting both intercultural anthropology (Hart, 1999; Kulich,
and intra-psychological categories. Serge Mos- 2012, pp. 48–52; Kulich, 2012, p. 750) and
covici (1961) also discussed these dynamics collaborations linked to Columbia University
whereby “social representations” (Bauer & (Rogers, Hart, & Miike, 2002). In particular,
Gaskell, 1999, 2008) serve two functions: to the intercultural education and training contri-
establish an orienting order by which individ- butions of M. Mead have been documented in
uals seek to understand and master their social IC field histories (e.g., Leeds-Hurwitz, 2010a).
world, and also provide socially constructed However, there is more to this story: In 1940,
naming and classifying codes that enable com- M. Mead, Metraux, Benedict, and others sug-
munication, social exchange, and an under- gested the formation of a Council of Intercul-
standing of one’s group in historical and tural Relations and then established the
current context. Pierre Bourdieu (1977) in Institute for Intercultural Studies (IIS) in
France developed conceptualizations of Field 1941 (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2010a).
(imposing forces imposed on agents engaged in The prominence of this circle brought
a field of struggles or confrontations) and many members into government service, espe-
Habitus (an acquired system of cognitive cially after the USA entered the war (1941).
Hall and Trager noted that, “The pressure for The growing interest in cultural variability
an increased knowledge of cultures was a con- also fueled the interdisciplinary program that
comitant of the global character of World War George P. Murdock developed, starting with
II, and it was at the time that anthropologists his 1937 Cross-cultural Survey. This classified
and linguists were employed to an unpreced- “the subject matter of culture” through com-
ented scale to equip us to better deal with piling ethnographic materials from ninety cul-
cultures alien to our own . . . Lives depended tures and was first published as an Outline of
on the degree to which they were able to inter- Cultural Materials (Murdock, 1938; Murdock
pret correctly the relationships between cul- & Whiting, 1945) by the Institute of Human
tures (1953, p. 1). Alexander Leighton, Relations at Yale. The wartime cross-
director of the Office of War, Foreign Morale disciplinary efforts morphed into the non-
Analysis Division (FMAD), commissioned profit Human Relations Area Files (HRAF)
scholars including Clyde Kluckhohn, Doro- in 1949 (with a regularly updated Outline,
thea Leighton, Morris Opler, Edward Spicer, Murdock, 1954, 1975). Founding member
and Elizabeth Colson (cf. Weaver 2001; institutes included Yale, Harvard, and the
Leighton, 2000) to devise ways to apply Universities of Oklahoma and Washington,
cultural understanding to the training of gov- who were later joined by the Universities of
ernment staff and military officers on how North Carolina, Chicago, and Southern
to win the war and preserve the peace (further California.
evidence of intercultural scholarship and The HRAF’s ever-expanding catalogue of
engagement before the end of the war). cross-indexed ethnographic data continues to
These researchers influenced both war- and be a rich resource for cross-cultural studies and
peace-time strategies, and post-war training, training. This has been a rich source for many
counselling, and policy. Hall was also employed publications in the Sage journal of Cross-
for a time to study attitudes toward an African- Cultural Research, which was established in
American corp. The monumental study “The 1996, first as Behavior Science Research. It is
American Soldier” (Stouffer et al., 1949) was now sponsored by the Society for Cross-
one of the first to show that units could be Cultural Research (SCCR), an association
racially mixed without any decrease in unit formed in 1971–1972 of cross-cultural anthro-
effectiveness. These studies played an important pologists inspired by Murdock.
role in undergirding President Truman’s Execu- Other US government-level initiatives
tive Order (1948) that mandated racial integra- (Pusch, 2004, pp. 14–15) included the Institute
tion in the Unites States Armed Forces. of International Education, established in
Scholars like Leighton (1984) continued 1932, which later managed the Fulbright pro-
careers based on these experiences: He gram (established 1946). J. William Fulbright
addressed the problem of intercultural vari- (1974) declared that, “the essence of intercul-
ability in individual forms and responses. tural education is the acquisition of empathy –
Based on a common core of human striving, the ability to see the world as others see it, and
he uniquely noted the specific cultural influ- to allow for the possibility that others may see
ences that affected intracultural or individual something we have failed to see, or may see it
variability (p. 191). The US Government more accurately.”
funded further projects for cross-cultural The Experiment for International Living –
research on race relations and intercultural now “World Learning” – also launched several
training (documented in Pusch, 2004). international study-abroad programs in 1936.
In 1964, they founded the School for Inter- Communication Division (ICD) in 1965 at an
national Graduate Training Institute, now the Association for Education in Journalism
SIT Graduate Institute, as the training center (AEJ, since 1982, AEJMC) meeting in Syra-
for Peace Corps volunteers (see Batchelder & cuse University and its newsletter/journal,
Warner, 1977; Gochenour, 1995; Storti & International Communication Bulletin, ICB
Bennhold-Samaan, 1998, 1999; Wight & (1966). James Markham, John Merrill, and
Hammons, 1970a, 1970b). The Peace Corps Ralph Lowenstein hosted the “Wingspread
and the SIT Graduate Institute both continue Conference” (1966) for this new field and Ger-
to model intercultural training and provide hard Maletzke organized the first scientific
materials for benefitting from intercultural symposium on "International and Intercultural
experiences. Communication between Developed and
Developing Countries" (at the German Devel-
opment Institute, Berlin, 1966). James Mark-
Initiating Cross-Cultural Language
ham, John Merrill, and Ralph Lowenstein
and Rhetoric Studies
hosted the “Wingspread Conference” (1968)
As noted above, one stream of the early com- for this new field, and the volume of those
parative work that led to intercultural explor- proceedings was entitled International Commu-
ations came through language scholars. This is nication as a Field of Study (Markham, 1969)
still seen in contemporary international associ- and contained three chapters related to IC by
ations like the International Association for Godwin Chu, Gerhard Maletzke, and Hamid
Language and Intercultural Communication Mowlana (Kulich, 2017). Working with
(IALIC, founded in 2000, but came from con- Merrill, Heinz-Dietrich Fischer of the Univer-
ferences held at Leeds Metropolitan University sity of Bochum, Germany (Fischer & Merrill,
in 1996–1999), the International Association 1976) published the second edition, adding
for Intercultural Communication Studies IC to the volume name, International & Inter-
(IAICS, founded 1991, continuing from a series cultural Communication, and including a dedi-
of Asian-American conferences initiated by cated IC section adding new contributions by
John Koo in Arizona, Alaska, and later Seoul, Michael Prosser, John Martin, and a second
Korea, 1985), and the World Communication chapter by Mowlana. From an international
Association (WCA, history below). and mass communication perspective, Everett
Language has long been understood both as Rogers (1962) and his associates applied his
a vehicle and highway for culture. For innovation theory and examined effects in
example, Henry Lee Smith, Jr.’s (e.g., Smith, many cross-cultural contexts, analyzed the
1946) language studies and applications for history and paradigms of the field, and sup-
language training was later adapted by Hall ported a wide range of IC-related initiatives
while they were colleagues at the FSI to (see Hart, 2005).
develop language and culture training/learning Cross-Atlantic collaborations were also seen
approaches. Arthur Campa (1951) addressed among speech communication scholars. At a
“Language Barriers and Intercultural Rela- 1967 Speech Association of America (SAA,
tions” in the first volume of the Journal of later SCA then NCA) Committee for Cooper-
Communication (JOC). ation with Foreign Universities meeting in
Mass communication scholars grappled Memphis, Fred Casmir and Prosser discussed
with “culture and communication” as Wilbur the idea of a German-American symposium to
Schramm and others formed the International be held at the Pepperdine Haus in Heidelberg
Germany. This was coorganized in 1968 with cultural influences on paralinguistics (Trager,
Helmut Geissner on “Issues of Speech and 1958; cf. Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990).
Culture” and led to an biennial conference An increasing number of comparative
series alternating between the USA and other scholars were also seeking to make sense of
overseas locations, beginning with 1976 in the language, thought, and patterns of civiliza-
Tampa, Florida, which again specifically tions. After Hajime Nakamura (1964) wrote
focused on “IC” and eventually became the his classic Ways of Thinking of Eastern People,
ongoing “The International Colloquium on Francis L. K. Hsu (1963) developed psycho-
Communication” (cf. Kulich, 2012; Kulich & logical anthropology to compare the patterns
Zhang, 2012; Peterson, 2009) with regular IC of China, India, and the USA in his Clan,
topics or themes. Caste and Club. This was followed by The
Linguist Edmund Glenn, Chief of the Inter- Study of Literate Civilizations (Hsu, 1969).
pretation Branch of the US Department of Robert Oliver (1971) focused his comparisons
State in the 1950s, was already doing work on on Communication and Culture in Ancient
topics such as “semantic difficulties in inter- India and China (1971). Oliver’s approach to
national communication” (1954) and “lan- rhetoric studies, including his in-depth per-
guages and patterns of thought” (1956; cf. sonal and political experience with communi-
Pribham, 1949) over a decade before semantic cation between the US and Korea inspired a
research was quantified by scholars such as generation of speech communication scholars
Osgood would quantify semantic research. He focused on comparing cultural patterns of dis-
also organized the first journal special-issue course (cf. Berquist, 1990; Fritz, 2010; Shuter,
(Glenn, 1957–1958) around the topic “interpret- 2011). Michael Prosser, Fred Casmir, and
ation and intercultural communication,” using Wenshan Jia are among the many that were
the compound IC term earlier than Hall (1959). inspired by and have built on Oliver’s lan-
As a high-level interpreter fluent in French and guage and culture work.
German, Glenn also addressed cross-cultural Behavioral psychologist Osgood established
issues related to meaning and behavior (Glenn, the scientific study of meaning related to lan-
1966) and proposed a model of how universal- guage and identified three universal domains
ism, case-particulars, and relationals affect that influence its perception and communica-
communication in contexts. He worked regu- tion (e.g., Osgood, May, & Miron, 1975). This
larly with Edward Stewart in assisting various seminal work also developed one of the first
Pittsburgh circle initiatives; they taught together widespread cross-cultural analysis methods
at the University of Delaware in the late 1960s still in use – the “semantic differential tech-
and later at Rhode Island (they had met while nique” (Osgood, 1964). Tzeng, Landis, and
working at the FSI, cf. Weaver, 2014). Tzeng (2012, pp. 822–823) document Osgood’s
Structural linguist George Trager (who contributions in six significant areas: (1) theor-
predated Hall at the FSI, 1948–1953) applied etical foundations in human behavioral and
his functional training toward the develop- communication processes, (2) semantic tech-
ment of a universal “grammar” and structure niques and applications, (3) cross-cultural
of culture. Together with Hall they developed measurements of affective meanings, (4) psy-
a complex 10x10-domain culture-general cholinguistic research in human verbal behav-
framework as an analysis grid for comparing iors, (5) inter-ethnic and inter-national conflict
cultures (see Hall & Trager, 1953 below). Tra- resolution and peace, and (6) contributions to
ger also expanded his work to consider intercultural training.
Intercultural scholars from language educa- “IC” (credit Glenn, 1957–1958), Hall did note
tion, speech communication, or those working “intercultural tensions” and “intercultural
with specific linguistic communities have con- problems” (Hall, 1950; see Leeds-Hurwitz
tinued to explore intersections of language and 1990, p. 275 footnote 1) before his oft-noted
culture (e.g. Asuncion-Lande, 1983). The lan- usage of “IC” (1959, though only twice, on
guage and social interaction (LSI) approach pp. iv, 10).
focuses on how people communicate in specific While Hall’s skillset and motivation for
cultural contexts (cf. Leeds-Hurwitz, 2010b). linking culture and communication afforded
Building on Dell Hymes’s ethnographic him unique positions, opportunities, and visi-
approach to linguistics, Gerald Philipsen’s stu- bility as one “founder of the field” (Bluedorn,
dents and scholars at the University of Wash- 1998; Rogers, Hart, & Miike, 2002; Sorrells,
ington apply these approaches interculturally 1998), we are equally indebted to the collab-
(including Charles Braithwaite, Donal Car- orative work of the stellar team assembled by
baugh, Tamar Katriel, Bradford “J” Hall, FSI (Foreign Service Institute) director Frank
Michaela Winchatz, Mary Fong, Saskia Wit- Hopkins during those fruitful years (1951–1955)
teborn, and others). They have examined (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990). These included
aspects of Speaking Culturally (Philipsen, scholars like Smith (1946, noted above for
1992), Cultures in Conversation (Carbaugh, language studies and training), Edward Ken-
2005) and functions related to identity, con- nard (1948), whose area studies helped
flict, and facework (e.g., Ting-Toomey, 1988, enhance the culture-specific approach to inter-
2005a, 2005b), silence (Braithwaite, 1990), and cultural training (ICT), Birdwhistell (1952a,
other components related to language use in 1952b, 1954), who created Kenesics, the sys-
“contexts” (e.g., Katriel, 1995; see a broader tematic study of body language, paralanguage,
history in Martin, Nakayama, & Carbaugh, and non-verbal patterns, and Trager (1958),
2012; and IC linguistic/pragmatic approaches whose structural linguistic work helped Hall
in Spencer-Oatey, 2000). to develop a universal grammar of culture.
These cultural patterns are noted in “The
Anthropology of Manners,” (Hall, 1955) but
Toward the Formalization of best articulated in The Analysis of Culture
Multiple Intercultural and Cross- (Hall & Trager, 1953) where “the basic units
Cultural Fields or building blocks of culture” are identified
and put into a frame of reference (pp. 1–2).
Expanding on Contributions of E. T. Hall
Unknown to many, it was this draft that was
and His FSI Colleagues
expanded with anecdotes and explanations as
Hall and his contemporaries framed the com- the influential Silent Language (Hall, 1959).
parative study of culture in systematic, scien- Hall’s framework for linking “culture and
tific, and theoretically applied ways, providing communication” in intercultural contexts was
foundations for the emergence of a more aca- articulated in Hall and Whyte (1960). Though
demic and professional field. Though we now few have applied the complex biological com-
know he did not coin the term “intercultural” munication systems framework (Hall, 1959),
(credit Crider, 1922 on “intercultural prac- his later taxonomies for high and low context,
tices” in biology, Baker, 1927 on “intercultural chronemics (polychronic and monochronic
contacts/relations” among religions, Husserl time), proxemics (space relations) (Hall,
in German, 1931/1974) or the combined 1976) provided both comparative tools by
which “behavior across culture boundaries equating nations as culture (though the FSI
could be equated” (Hall & Trager, 1953, p. 2) may have to train diplomats). Hall consistently
and training techniques to introduce learners viewed culture as based on smaller cultural
to explanatory domains of cultural difference. units, whether in his ethnic/racial cultural
Who influenced whom is hard to establish, group studies of Navajo/Pueblo/Anglo rela-
but others in related fields were also exploring tions in the 1930s, Black/White racial issues
inter- or cross-cultural issues at about the same in Denver in the 1940s, or military relations
time. In his “general theory of interaction,” on the island of Truk (Hall, 1950).
Parsons (with Shils, 1951) suggested that there Though this post–WWII period is often
were five “pattern variables” across societies, mentioned as a time of ferment for intercul-
each associated with different kinds of prefer- tural conceptualizing, Table 3.3 (Appendix A)
ences and interactions (which provided a presents a chronological overview of some of
frame for Hofstede’s inquiry). Using mid- the burgeoning events and ideas. By the 1960s,
1950s data with ninety-four variables from new conceptions of culture in social psych-
eighty-two nations, Rummel (1966) identified ology and opportunities in international edu-
dimensions affecting the foreign behavior of cation and initiatives in training allowed a host
nations (in the macro-economic, political, of “theory-into-practice” researchers to engage
and power position realms). in and help form what became the intercultural
As noted above, Osgood (1964) isolated and cross-cultural fields in the late 1960s and
three domains for multi-national comparison 1970s discussed in the next section.
of affective meaning (evaluation, potency,
activity). About the same time that Clifford
Into the 1970s: The Parallel Founding
Geertz (1973) was developing his anthropo-
of Intercultural Associations
logical approach to the Interpretation of Cul-
tures, Triandis was focusing on ways of Continuing the analysis begun in the IJIR
identifying and analyzing psychological elem- coedited “Special Issue” on intercultural
ents of culture in the 1960s (cf. Adamopolis & pioneers, this section highlights how import-
Kashima, 2000; Bhawuk, 2000; Triandis, ant the 1970s were for founding and
1995, 2008), culminating in his groundbreak- expanding the field (Kulich, 2012). Previous
ing Analysis of Subjective Culture (Triandis, histories have only marginally noted some of
1972). Hofstede (1980) later analyzed exten- the lines of intercultural work that not only
sive multinational corporate data to identify coexisted but coalesced into several parallel
his first four statistically confirmed cross- and often inter-connected fields. These are
cultural dimensions affecting Culture’s Conse- represented by streams focused on: (1) “inter-
quences. From these important foundations, cultural education, research, and training”
salient cross-cultural constructs or dimensions (the ICW, SIETAR, IJIR, Summer Institute
continue to be identified, tested in cross- SIIC, ICI, and IAIR), (2) cross-cultural
cultural research, and applied to IC education psychology (journals like IJP and JCCP and
or training. IACCP), (3) culture learning and training
Though Hall never set out to “found” or (primarily partners with the East-West Center
“initiate” a field (Sorrells, personal corres- CLI), (4) speech/mass communication associ-
pondence, May 3, 2015), his work inspired ations/divisions that founded the IC field
many to pursue these concepts or applications. (See Table 3.4), and (5) other associations and
Hall should, however, not be accused of journals (See Table 3.5).
Establishing IC Education: The University of scholars. It later moved to Portland, Oregon, as

Pittsburgh RCIE, ICW, SIETAR, IJIR, SIIC, and ICI part of the newly founded IC Institute (ICI),
under the leadership of Janet Bennett and Mil-
Not long after the closing of the BIE in the
ton Bennett, where the SIIC (now the Summer
1950s, other “intercultural education” pro-
Institute) and other programs continue.
grams began to be formed. However, these pro-
To link this growing group of intercultural
grams were initially intended to meet the needs
scholar-practitioners, the first issue of Commu-
of international students, rather than solve
nique was launched in 1971, the first volumes
intergroup conflict among American citizens.
of Readings in ICs (1970–1976) were published
One of the first initiatives was begun in 1959
from 1970 to 1976, and the ICs Network
at the University of Pittsburgh when Shepherd
(1972) was launched, eventually leading to
Witman set up the International Regional
the founding of Intercultural Press, with
Council for International Education (RCIE).
“Peggy” Pusch and Tobi Frank as long-term
David Hoopes established RCIE’s Center for
associates.
International Students (an outcome of funding
As the RCIE coordinator for the Intercultural
from the Ford Foundation for both the 1960
Network, Hoopes later gathered thirteen aca-
Morrill “Committee on the University and
demics and thirteen practitioners in Pittsburgh,
World Affairs” and 1962 Education and
PA (date unconfirmed, 1971–1973), with the
World Affairs projects) (Hoopes et al., 1971).
goal of transforming Al Wight’s SITAR into
He became RCIE Vice President in 1964 and
the Society for Intercultural Education,
invited the leaders of foreign student programs
Training, and Research (SIETAR), adding the
at over thirty-five colleges in several eastern
“E” for Education to its mission. (Wight, 2008).
states to collaborate.
At the first 1974 SIETAR Congress in Gaithers-
These efforts were complemented and fur-
burg, Maryland, Molefi Asante became the first
thered by developing and implementing the IC
president. SIETAR inspired and involved many
Workshop (ICW) training program, which
influential interculturalists over the years until
started in 1966 at the University of Pittsburg,
the international organization closed doors
Cornell University, and the University of Cin-
in 1999 and international networks of regional
cinnati, and later continued in the Midwest at
SIETARs carried on the mission (meeting
the University of Minnesota (Clifford Clarke
together occasionally like at the 2008 SIETAR
with Paul Pederson, Robert Moran) and on
Global Conference in Grenada, Spain). In and
the West Coast by LeRay Barna at the Port-
beyond SIETAR are a long list of scholar-
land University. The original goal of the ICW
trainer practitioners like L. Robert Kohls (see
was to provide international students with
Zhang & Kulich, 2012), Clarke (2008), and
adequate intercultural orientation for life in
many affiliated with the IC Workshop (ICW)
the USA. The ICW modules were compiled
and its more recent manifestations in other ICT
in 1970 and then published as a collection
applications (cf. Clarke & Takashiro, 2014).
(Hoopes, 1971) by the Intercultural Network
Academically, Dan Landis began negotiat-
(Vol. 1) and republished for SIETAR in 1975.
ing with Hoopes in 1976 to launch journal and
When funding for the ICW ended in 1976,
in 1977 published the first issue of International
Clarke (with Hoopes’ involvement) went on
Journal of Intercultural Relations. Access to
to establish the Stanford Institute for IC
IJIR was tied to SIETAR membership until
(SIIC), which continued for ten years with
1997, when Landis met with scholars in Port-
King Ming Young involving many leading IC
land to launch a scholarly academy. IJIR then
was linked to the newly formed International became the first President. These origins, and
Academy of Intercultural Research (IAIR, developments in cross-cultural psychology are
1998) with its inaugural meeting in Fullerton, well documented periodically in JCCP (review
California. The IAIR has met biannually on articles by Lonner) and in the updated versions
odd-numbered years since. of “Online Readings in Psychology and
Culture” on the IACCP website (see https://
scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/).
Cross-cultural Psychology: launching
the journals IJP and JCCP and founding
IACCP
Psychology of Culture Learning/Training:
In the 1960s, social psychologists were increas-
East–West Center Culture Learning
ingly concerned that western psychological
Institute, Hawaii
studies were likely not addressing psychology
across the range of cultures around the world. Previous histories (e.g., Pusch, 2004) have
Some sought to address this by launching the barely touched on an important line of
International Journal of Psychology (IJP, research on culture learning at the East-West
1966), while others adjusted their research Center (EWC) and its important contributions
design to focus on cultural-psychological com- to non-western perspectives. In cooperation
parison. In 1967, John Berry surveyed 150 indi- with the University of Hawaii, the EWC and
viduals involved in this endeavor and published its Culture Learning Center were both estab-
the first “Directory of Cross-Cultural Psycho- lished in 1960. In 1971, the culture mission was
logical Research” in IJP (Berry, 1968, 1969). upgraded with the founding of the Culture
Concurrently, following a 1967 conference Learning Institute (CLI) (guided over the years
highlighting the study of culture in social by Verner Bickley, Greg Trifonovitch, and
psychology in Ibadan, Nigeria, Triandis Mary Bitterman). The Institute identified four
(1968) published the first Newsletter, which areas of interest: (1) Cultures in Contact, (2)
today is known as the Cross-Cultural Psych- Language in Culture, (3) Cultural Identity,
ology Bulletin. and (4) Thought and Expression in Culture
Additionally, Walter Lonner helped estab- Learning, each recruiting both scholars and
lish the Western Washington University students.
Center for Cross-Cultural Research, and in Richard Brislin was hired to help apply
1970 launched the Journal of Cross-Cultural psychology to culture learning and training
Psychology (JCCP). The previous lists of and published at least five annual issues of a
researchers and their research areas were new journal Topics in Culture Learning. This
updated and published (Berry & Lonner, publication served as a source for many books,
1970; Berry, Lonner, & Leroux, 1973). training guides, and handbooks, as well as
Another global conference in Istanbul, Turkey designing a series of intercultural training pro-
in 1971 provided an opportunity for many of grams led by Brislin and colleagues (e.g., with
these scholars interested in cross-cultural work Landis in 1983; Cushner, 1983–1985; Petersen
to meet. Eventually this growing network and Bhawuk, 1987, Gary Fontaine, Muneo
formed the International Association for Yoshikawa, Tomoko W. Yoshida and others),
Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP) in producing important guides for intercultural
1972 at a conference organized by John Daw- training (e.g., Brislin & Yoshida, 1994a), and
son in Hong Kong, where Jerry Bruner applications to a wide variety of Intercultural
Interactions (Brislin & Cushner, 1997; Brislin & etc.) to increase their skills in cross-cultural
Yoshida, 1994b). interaction. From 1976 to 1978, he received a
Through the EWC-based programs of the grant to advance “Cross-cultural Research for
CLI, Brislin developed projects and pulled Behavioral and Social Scientists” and run
together leading cross-cultural psychologists three years of programs (also four months
focused on culture learning, training, and each) for about fifteen scholars to increase
research. To move the field and its applications their orientation and skills in cross-cultural
forward, Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndike’s research. Brislin and his network also collabor-
(1973) book Cross-cultural Research Methods ated on several other solid foundational
was an important milestone, as well as his academic milestones, namely his contribution
edited volume on how to approach Translation to Vol. 5 of the Handbook of Cross-cultural
(1976) in careful cross-cultural research. Psychology (Triandis & Brislin, 1980), and
Another EWC–CLI conference organized by the edited volume on Research in Culture
Brislin in 1973 produced Cross-cultural Per- Learning (Hamnett & Brislin, 1980).
spectives on Learning (Brislin, Bochner, & A hallmark that the field had come of age
Lonner, 1975, an early volume in Bochner was the seminal publication of the three-
and Lonner’s Sage “Cross-cultural Research volume Handbook of Intercultural Training
and Methodology Series”) and a later update (Landis & Brislin, 1983). The specific volumes
on Culture Learning (Brislin, 1977). focused on “Issues in theory and design”
These theoretical and scholarly volumes (Vol. 1), “Issues in training methodology”
were constantly in a process of development (Vol. 2), and “Area studies and international
and application through innovative training education” (Vol. 3). This volume marks the
programs. Fiedler, Mitchell, and Triandis fourth edition of this benchmark resource.
(1971) explained culture assimilators as a Many of those who have contributed to these
training tool and inspired further development handbooks have also been active in the many
in Intercultural Interactions (Brislin, Cushner, programs of the Intercultural Communication
Cherrie, & Yong, 1986; Cushner & Brislin, Institute (ICI) in Portland and with its annual
1996). Cross-Cultural Orientation Programs programs of culture learning through the
(Brislin & Pedersen, 1976) and a compilation Summer Institute in Intercultural Communi-
of training modules (Weeks, Pedersen, & Bri- cation (SIIC), which now marks forty years
slin, 1977) provided helpful applications, as since it began at Stanford.
did Brislin’s ongoing “Workshop for Develop- In later years, both Brislin and Bhawuk
ing Coursework at Colleges and Universities,” moved to The Shidler College of Business,
which ran from 1987 to 1995 at the EWC, was University of Hawaii and adapted their cross-
directed by Bhawuk from 1997 to 2000, and cultural training (CCT) approaches for MBA,
moved to the University of Hawaii in 2000. EMBA and business students (e.g., Working
Brislin’s programs at the EWC also secured with Cultural Differences: Dealing Effectively
funded support from the US Information with Diversity in the Workplace, Brislin, 2008).
Agency in Washington, DC. From 1972 Bhawuk has particularly addressed individual-
to 1975, he was funded to develop three ism and collectivism in the field related to
4-month-long programs for educators from diversity (2012), how self-concept affects
Asia, the Pacific, and the United States leading across cultural groups (Bhawuk &
(administrators of bilingual education pro- Munusamy, 2010), and using cultural stand-
grams, principals of international schools, ards in the preparation of managers in
countries at different development levels (Bha- divisions: Organizational Communication in

wuk, 2009b). His research also focuses on 1983 and International and Intercultural Com-
globalization vs. indigenous cultures (Bhawuk, munication in 1984” (Gehrke & Keith, 2014,
2008) as well as addressing cultural roots and p. 17). Many trainers were operative in both,
practice of spirituality and the implication of applying their intercultural learning to both
local values on intercultural interactions. business and educational contexts. Also, there
was strong collaboration in scholarship, con-
ferences, and training between US and Japan-
Founding IC: Academic Associations
ese pioneers as they respectively compared
and Their Journals
their cultures and worked together to launch
Intercultural and Development Communication
the field, which should be more fully
Division, International Communication
researched and reported beyond the confines
Association (ICA)
of this chapter (cf. Clarke, 2008; Kawakami,
Three organizations were formed in the 1970s
2009; Kulich, 2012).
related to inter- or cross-cultural aspects of
The field was also maturing in its growing
communication. The first of these, the ICA,
publication history. For the SCA/NCA,
began with a proposal submitted by Sitaram
Casmir (1974–1976) edited the first three Inter-
submitted a proposal to establish a 5th
national and IC Annuals, followed by Jain
Division (Intercultural and Development
(1977–1982) and then Gudykunst (1983–1985),
Communication) within the International
who shifted the focus to key topic volumes,
Communication Association (ICA), which
starting with IC Theory. Other editors con-
was approved on May 6, 1970, in Minneap-
tinued the International and IC Annual for over
olis. He became its first Chair (Prosser, 2012,
thirty years before becoming the NCA Journal
p. 860). Many in the new Division focused on
of International and IC (JIIC) in 2008.
university teaching, textbook development,
and cross-cultural mass communication
applications.
Communication Association of the Pacific
(CAP) and World Communication
International and Intercultural Division, Association (WCA)
National Communication Association Donald Klopf and some of his Speech Com-
(NCA) munication colleagues (like Stanley Harms,
The second organization, NCA, began in Jeffrey Auer) at the University of Hawaii,
1971 when Prosser organized a consultation Honolulu developed links with Asian col-
with US (Howell, SCA) and Canadian Speech leagues including Takahide Kawashima,
Communication Association (Lyman, CSCA) Satoshi Ishii, and Tsukasa Nishida to establish
counterparts in Indiana to discuss proposals the Communication Association of the Pacific
for developing a formal field of IC studies. (CAP) in 1971, declaring it as the first truly
He then applied to become one of the early international organization in communication.
Commissions of the Speech Communication CAP scholars carried out and published
Association. However, by the late 1970s and research on a broad range of comparative
early 1980s, the (inter)related field(s) of ICs and intercultural interests. From 1972 on, they
were thriving, such that in SCA/NCA, “rising hosted various gatherings in Japan (which
areas and changing interests in communication were forerunners to the 1983 World Commu-
studies led to the development of two new nication Association) and launched their
official journal Communication, which was Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology and

edited first by Wayne Oxford (1972) then Sport Facilitation sought to publish empirical
Auer, and which was later renamed World studies, theoretical propositions, and case
Communication (1985–2001, edited by Ron studies for community-based and inter/intra-
Applebaum). In 1985–1994, another focused cultural effects on human behavior and rela-
journal named Communication Research tionships in the family, workplace, schools,
Reports was also published. Since 2002, the organizations (www.ajol.info/index.php/ajcpsf)
official journal of WCA has been called the but was discontinued. The Journal of Multicul-
Journal of IC Research (JICR). tural and Cross-Cultural Research in Art Educa-
tion advanced the work of the United States
Society for Education Through Art from 1981
Publishing the Expanding IC Field to 1990 (https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED365566).
The focus on publication addressing IC issues And yet, new areas emerge: the Journal of
continues to receive attention across the dis- Cross-Cultural Family Studies was just
ciplines. Almost annually, a new journal is launched in 2017 (https://digitalcommons
launched that focuses on a cross- or intercul- .acu.edu/jccfs/about.html). Extending inter-
tural topic. Table 3.5 (Appendix A) highlights cultural and cross-cultural research to new
over thirty such journals, illustrating the range domains continues.
of topic areas now affected by this endeavor. It
should be noted, however, that journals with
“multicultural” in their title, of which there are
Intercultural Theorizing
now over fifteen, are not included partly due to
(from the 1970s to 2005)
space but also due to noting the scope of such
journals. Though they could be considered IC- One early emphasis of field founders in the
related for foci on the comparing and mixing early 1970s was “invading” other disciplines
of cultures, they extend to an even wider range with the intercultural ideal as well as
of topics dealing with policy, citizen education, borrowing concepts from the broader academy
social studies, or broader societal issues and to promote action (Smith, 1977). But as the
applications. academic field grew, the need for original
As noted in the organizational histories theory and field development grew more
above, some of these long-established journals urgent (see Table 3.6, in Appendix A).
have now become highly respected flagships As early as 1971, Prosser organized a con-
for their association and key peer-reviewed sultation at Indiana University/Brown County
publication outlets for the field. It is also State Park. Identifying relevant theories was a
apparent how this list keeps growing, either key item on the agenda. Theory was also
through the formation of new associations or among the topics at Prosser’s University of
to specific institutions with IC-related special- Virginia/Massenetta Springs “Syllabus Con-
ties. This reflects how well-established and struction Conference on IC and Communica-
broadly applied the cross- and intercultural tion and Social Change” in 1973. Casmir
approach to research has now become. (1973) constructed the first annotated bibliog-
However, not all journals listed have raphy for this emerging branch of communi-
attained broad circulation or standing, nor cation studies. Edward C. Stewart’s (1973/
have all that maintained their viability. For 1978) “Outline of IC” provided concept and
example, from 2004 to 2008, the African theory categorizations, which became the
central foci of the 1974 combined SCA/ICA/ Differences), and explained in the extensively
SIETAR 1974 Chicago Conference (Jain, documented multi-edition text Communicating
Prosser, & Miller, 1974). Molefi Asante and with Strangers (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984/1991/
Eileen Newmark (1976) followed suit produ- 1996/2002). His tour-de-force IC theory compil-
cing their first small monograph IC: Theory ation (Gudykunst, 2005) was completed just
into Practice. From this, they recruited authors before his death.
to produce the first Handbook of IC (Asante, Across these articles and volumes, at least
Newmark, & Blake, 1979). eight key theoretical themes have consistently
The first IC theory summaries began under been addressed by IC scholars: attributions
Brent Rubin’s founding editorship of the ICA (what we associate with or expect of cultural
Communication Yearbook (1977–1979) which others), identity, perceptual bias or issues of
provided “state of the art” on specific sub- prejudice, language interrelationships (linguis-
fields. From Tulsi Saral’s (1977) opening over- tic rules, speech codes, meaning management),
view, to Michael Prosser’s (1978a) discussion values or beliefs systems, culture learning
of major constucts, to Saral’s (1979) “Chal- toward personal adjustment and system- or
lenges and Opportunities,” this framing of the schema-based adaptation, effectiveness or
field continued under the new editor, Dan competence, and conflict (see Table 3.7, in
Nimmo (Asante, 1980). Appendix A). These also continue to be some
The first compilations began with a theory of the topics typically covered or applied in
volume (Hoopes, Pedersen, & Renwick, 1979) intercultural education and training design
as Vol. 1 in SIETAR’s Overview of Intercultural (e.g., Bhawuk, 2009a; Milhouse, 1996).
Education, Training and Research series. Wil- But theorizing is dynamic in any field, and
liam G. Davey, with Shiela van Derck, who historical software needs to keep being
was also present at Prosser’s Indiana meeting, updated to meet new contexts or realities.
produced SIETAR’s IC Theory and Practice Many of the cited theories represent the social
volume (1979, Vol. 2). William Howell (also science paradigm of IC and inadequately cover
present at the Indiana meeting) wrote a chapter the range of interpretative or critical
updating the state of IC theory (1979) in Asante approaches that are proving increasingly rele-
et al.’s Handbook, while developing the illustri- vant for dealing with the nuanced array of
ous IC doctoral program at the University of complex problems faced in our times. Kim
Minnesota, where many leading IC scholars (2017, pp. xlii), as chief-editor of a six-volume
were trained (cf. Hasslet, 2017). IC encyclopedia, recruited twenty-two leading
At the 1980 SCA Convention in New York IC scholars, who then complied 256 key word
City, Larry Sarbaugh and Nobleza Asuncion- entries, reflecting the main topics currently
Lande held an “Action Caucus and Seminar focused on by IC scholars and practitioners.
on Theory in IC,”which became “Bill” Gudy- Table 3.8 (Appendix A) provides the details.
kunst’s (1983) first theme volume as editor of According to Kim’s analysis, these six focus
SCA’s International and IC Annual (IICA) IC areas are robust, their theories mature, and
Theory, Vol. 7. This tradition continued with areas of analysis broad and expanding.
regular updates (Kim & Gudykunst, IICA,
Vol. 12, 1988; Wiseman, IICA, Vol. 19, 1995).
Concluding Remarks
Gudykunst was particularly active in and
also committed to the practical application Overall, this chapter has offered a response to
of theories (Gudykunst’s 1998 Bridging critiques of our field that call for clearer and
yet more nuanced thinking about the complex 1. a clear concept of culture or theories
issues and dialectics of culture (e.g., Croucher on interactions between cultures did NOT
et al., 2015; Martin & Nakayama, 1999; exist for, as far as we know, most
Moon, 2010; Ogay & Edelmann, 2016). Even pre-Enlightenment and Enlightenment
with seeking to be selective, provide highlights, thinkers;
and attempt to draw links to later expressions 2. yet, some thinkers were clearly striving to
for some of these streams of thinking and understand many of the same concepts and
praxis, the content covered is admittedly vast, issues that we still struggle with today; and
yet some topics have been inadequately therefore,
addressed. This chapter is a limited first 3. some of their thinking is important and
attempt at broadening our understanding of allows us to rethink how we can understand
the rich roots, diverse dimensions, and broad and relate with cultural groups different
applications of branches of study and practices from our own.
that have helped formulate a robust family of
cross- and intercultural fields and approaches While “IC” as an academic field may have
to interculturality in interactions. As in begun in the latter half of the twentieth cen-
C. Wright Mills’ (1959) Sociological Imagin- tury, thinking about human culture is ancient
ation, we have sought to review the historical and rich in content and implications. To
legacies of particular thinkers at particular recover what might have been forgotten, this
times to reflect on how they affected the rela- chapter has revisited reflections on the rela-
tions of people in their social-cultural contexts, tionship between culture, power, perceived
as well as to “think ourselves away” from the reality/truth, morality that might help address
familiar history of our field to reexamine it critiques that call for more nuanced thinking
with critical eyes and fresh perspectives. This about the complex issues, contexts, and diver-
chapter expands, updates, and supplements sities within and across culture(s) (e.g., Asante
received narratives, seeking to locate historical et al., 2008; Holliday, 2011; Moon, 2010;
precedents or inspirations for new challenges Nakayama & Halualani, 2010; Ogay & Edel-
facing the field today. mann, 2016; Starosta, 2011).
Second, this coverage notes the limitation of
identifying a few field founders, books, or
“Mainstream” Narrative and
grand theories, and the richness of acknow-
“Unnoticed” Streams: Summative
ledging the plurality and diversity of scholars
Comparison
and practitioners over many years who have
Based on the authors and narratives presented proffered perspectives on culture and human
in this chapter, three comparative conclusions relations in anthropology, sociology, social/
can be drawn. First and foremost, “IC,” group psychology, linguistics, education, and
though often considered a relatively young other fields. Each contributed to the collective
field (formalized in the 1970s), is rooted in rich understanding we now have of how different
intellectual traditions of thinking about and groups are formed, how distinct characteristics
comparing ourselves to others. can be best understood relative to one another,
Influential thinkers have been engaging in and how interactive processes between
social or cultural criticisms and grappling with members of different groups work.
ways to describe human society in terms of Spheres of inspiration, collaboration, and
“culture” for centuries. Yet we note that crossover between the fields can be observed
between the scholars pioneering at the Univer- linear progression in the development of “the
sity of Berlin, the Frankfurt school, the Bir- field” would not conform to the broad range of
mingham institute, the many programs at “intercultural” initiatives that this chapter
Columbia University, New York University, shows have coexisted and at times challenged
University of Chicago, and those not yet each other over the last ninety years. As Blom-
adequately covered in this space like the Uni- maert (1998) notes, the broad field of IC
versity of Minnesota, University of Pittsburgh, remains multi-paradigmatic and contested in
Northwestern University, Indiana University, many ways. An intercultural approach to
Pepperdine University, Howard University, research, education, and social application
and other institutions (cf. Kulich & Zhang, has now spread beyond the confines of “a
2012). Equally noted is the interdisciplinary field” or even “parent” disciplines to increas-
collaboration on important themes like ways ingly reflect the cognitive complexity that each
to identify attitudes, attributions, and preju- generation of uniquely positioned intercultur-
dice, methods or designs to foster intercultural alists seek to embody or develop in others in
training, learning, and counselling, approaches their context.
to cultivate intercultural awareness, sensitivity,
and competence and the inseparable links
Implications for the Field(s) of
between theory and practice. A case in point
Intercultural Studies, Education,
is the intertwined efforts between Benedict,
and Training Today
M. Mead, Lasker, Katz, W.E.B. DuBois,
Kleinberg, Lewin, Allport, and Davis-DuBois Overall, the value of this chapter is in its
within the early Intercultural Education move- attempt to allow intercultural scholars and
ment. Such individual and shared efforts both practitioners to (re)consider their own assump-
crystallize some earlier philosophical ideals, as tions about what IC is; when, where, and how
well as inspire later developments in this it started; where it is going (or rather, what its
ongoing process of intercultural inquiry, appli- inherent purposes/trajectories are); and what it
cation, and agency. The field(s) of IC is/are faces or needs to more clearly address
shown to be international, interested in inter- (acknowledging Croucher et al.’s 2015 ques-
ethnic/interracial/intergroup issues, and also tions). It may be the nature of modernized,
dealing with differential responses to the chal- progressive societies to reify our histories into
lenges of mixing and hybridity occurring in mono-linear, phase-by-phase, progressive nar-
new ways in global contexts (starting to address ratives which cast recent developments in the
critiques posed by Sorrells, 2012; Szkudlarek, most favorable light as the latest and greatest
2009; Ting-Toomey & Dorjee, 2019). step towards what Fukuyama (1992) once geo-
Third, the ferment that culminated in the politically called the “end of history.” Some
1970s shows that while the formalization of tend to imply that by telling our history
the field followed similar steps (conferences/ “right” we can direct our societies, our field,
collaborations, organizations, publications, or our students/clients toward a better and
and theorizing), it occurred concurrently, brighter future. Others question such grand
within and across several parallel tracks. The assumptions.
prevailing three-paradigm model (González, The people and contributions presented in
2010; Kurylo, 2012; Martin & Nakayama, this chapter issue a sharp challenge to intellec-
1999) might still describe epistemologies and tual malaise or myopic and simplistic views of
approaches to research, but trying to show intercultural concepts and practice. These
concur with two recent assessments made by scholars since the 1970s has focused on empir-
several scholars who are similarly attempting ical or binary-dimension cultural compari-
to define, describe, and clarify what exactly sons at the national level, leaving others
intercultural study is. working on different cultural levels or with
other complex domains sensing either mis-fit
First, context matters. The metaphorical or irrelevance of established theories to their
“murky waters” that flow through the history context or their scholarship. Additionally,
of IC studies (Baldwin, 2016) have made it both Kathyrn Sorrells (2012) and Barbara
increasingly context- and area-focused. For Szkudlarek (2009) lament the lack of training
example, Rabi Bhagat and Kristin Prien methods particularly designed for use in crit-
(1996) focused on functional organizational ical contexts, such as addressing majority/
contexts and methods in CCT. Daniel Kealey minority relations and social justice issues. It
and David Protheroe (1996) specifically can be both inspiring and sobering to realize
reviewed training designs for “expatriates” that some of the work being done in the early
who are “going across.” Jan Selmer (2005) twentieth century in intercultural education
examined CCT as related to expatriate adjust- and social psychology was already seeking to
ments in China, and Robert Bean (2006, 2007) address related issues.
evaluated the need and acceptance of CCT in Given that the field of IC embodies multiple
Australian contexts. Early training pioneer and at times contested paradigms, histories,
Clarke (2008) provided a scholar-practitioner goals, focuses, theories, etc., it thus has the
review with helpful reference to the Japanese potential to be more flexibly and fairly under-
context. Dorian Brown and Trey Martindale stood, defined, and applied. Context, domain,
(2012) conducted a review of ICT as applied to or specific group can and should play a signifi-
the workplace, focusing especially on Cultural cant role in determining the selection and
Intelligence (CQ) applications in business. application of the most relevant contructs/
These preferences for a context-driven theory, or foster the developing of a new one.
approach in reviewing the foci, key concepts, Reviewing the multiple perspectives, varied
theories, best practices, and goals take us approaches, and range of cultural levels
beyond clear-cut categories or field boundar- involved when groups interact, models may
ies. Since intercultural studies rose out of a be needed that incorporate these levels and
multiplicity of fields, borrowing key concepts provide conceptual maps of what types of
from each, it behooves us to readopt a “con- training might address the types of inter-, cul-
text-based” approach to the field (e.g., Wang ture, and communication, and intersubjective
& Kulich, 2015), whether based on place (Aus- representations at hand (Wan, 2015; or pro-
tralia, China, Japan, etc.,), purpose (training, posals of different levels, modes, or praxis, cf.
education, or research), or past influences Wang & Kulich 2015). Dynamic, dialectic, or
(anthropological, psychological, linguistic, dialogic approaches (Doron, 2009; Ganesh &
etc.). Holmes, 2011; Holmes, 2014; Martin &
Nakayama, 1999) not only broaden our under-
Second, the mainline “intercultural” conception standing of IC history and past intercultural
has been limited or contained – both for training applications, but help the develop-
research and training applications. A large ment of context-specific models, methods,
body of research generated mainly by cross- and techniques for facing new circumstances
cultural psychologists or communication and gaps noted in emerging categories.
Looking Back to Look Forward: Future outside the mainstream; and (3) there is an
Directions over-emphasis on US and English-speaking
histories. In dealing with historic centrisms,
. . . the horizon of the present is continually in the
Szkudlarek (2009; Szkudlarek & Romani,
process of being formed because we are
2017) similarly notes that the intercultural story
continually having to test all our prejudices. An
important part of this testing occurs in has been typically told “through Western eyes”
encountering the past and in understanding the or from ideologically mainstream positions
tradition from which we come. Hence the and assumptions (e.g., Dervin, 2016; Gorski,
horizon of the present cannot be formed without 2008). Consequently, important developments
the past . . . Understanding is always the fusion of in or perspectives from other countries,
these horizons supposedly existing by themselves. regions, or social milieus may only be known
(italics his, Gadamer, 1960, p. 305) to insiders. Without them what can the global
intercultural community learn about how they
This chapter provides only the beginnings of came into being or what issues they are
an attempt to holistically explore our multi- addressing? Like the ongoing enterprise of
perspectival IC history. Inclusion of other indigenous psychology, where each emic has
influential pioneers beyond those biographed value in checking the assumptions of prevail-
in the IJIR Special Issue (Prosser & Kulich, ing etics, efforts must be made to compare and
2012) was only partially and briefly accom- integrate localized expressions of our field in
plished. Space did not permit inclusion of an spite of language and/or cultural barriers. Both
important part of this project on documenting multilingual and multidisciplinary approaches
intercultural developments in specific national (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009) are needed
contexts like Germany, Japan, China, and to begin to make sense of the multilayered
other countries. Deeper analysis of the inter- complexity of all that we call “intercultural.”
cultural topic range (as historically published As this chapter has illustrated, despite some
in handbooks or key journals), theory analysis, simplified narratives from this rich intercul-
broader application areas, or best practices in tural heritage, today’s intercultural field(s) is/
education and training are not yet included. are more diverse and nuanced than “we”
Two directions for future efforts are recom- might think:
mended. First, further detailed analysis of
early documents and lines of publication is The central fact of our history is the ambiguity of
needed to clarify the strength, emergent foci, “we” . . . it can also refer to a multiplicity of
and breadth of each IC studies or education voices, sometimes in harmony, but not
category and its related training approaches necessarily unified . . . Our field and association
have never had a stable identity . . . the unique
(examples like Ho, Holmes, & Cooper, 2004;
strengths and weaknesses of the field flow from a
Martin, Nakayama, & Carbaugh, 2012).
dynamic scholarly identity, always in flux, never
Second, historical consciousness must truly at rest. (Gehrke & Keith, 2014, p. 1)
become intercultural by “leaving home” and
“going abroad.” Baldwin’s (2016, p. 19) chap- It may behoove us to view our history as a
ter notes three basic truths about current repre- pendulum, emerging painting, or unfolding
sentations of intercultural history with which tapestry, rather than an energizer bunny of
the authors agree: (1) there are histories in progress. Considering diverse contexts and
communication and culture that precede Hall contending dialectics have fostered fermenta-
(many outlined here); (2) there are domains tion in the field and can continue to push us
toward greater depth, (re)definition, and initiative for a special issue helped launch this
innovative praxis of the field’s intellectual project in 2010, appeared as biographical
legacy to address the challenging realities we essays in 2012, IJIR 36(6), and led to six sym-
each face. The points of emphasis may sway posium sessions at the IAIR 2013 Conference
back and forth with the times, but we can in Reno, Nevada. Thanks also goes to the
remix the colors on our pallet or strands in research fellows and assistants of the SISU
our loom so that neither historical amnesia Intercultural Institute and doctoral course par-
nor irrelevance are inevitable. ticipants Gefei Suo, Yi’an Wang, Jiaojiao
It is hoped that when we as scholar/practi- Meng, Aili Guo, Xuan Wang, Ying Ren, and
tioners (re)discover some of the forgotten or to MA students Yan’ni Meng, Xueke Sun,
bypassed lines of thinking and praxis presented Anthony Yuchi Chen, and others for extensive
here, our (re)defined and revived understand- sourcing and thesis documentation, to Janet
ing of IC can help us to pursue, foster, and Bennett’s IC Institute (ICI) in Portland,
forge a wider range of applications and agency Oregon and librarian Sandra Garrison for
in complex contexts around the globe. It takes scans and copies of early works, and to inter-
a renewed vision of the past to more meaning- cultural pioneers for reviewing sections of this
fully, realistically, and successfully face the manuscript: John “Jack” Condon, Clifford
complex intercultural challenges of our shared Clarke, Fred Casmir, and contributions from
future. Jacqueline Wasilewski, Juergen Henze, Wendy
Leeds-Hurwitz, Michael Steppat, Kathryn Sor-
rells, Valery Chirkov, and John Baldwin. The
Acknowledgments lead author takes responsibility for any omis-
This chapter is part of a funded “Cultural and sions or errors and is committed to correcting
Educational High-end Foreign Expert Pro- them in future updates on this complex history.
ject” position awarded to the first author by
the Chinese National Foreign Expert Bureau
(2014–2016 Project No.: GDW20143100106). Appendix A
The chapter is dedicated to our colleague
(2005–2009), Michael H. Prosser, whose Tables
Table 3.1 1784–1919: Milestones in the early formative history of intercultural communications
Academic Concepts/Theories Institutions/Organiza-

Year published Person(s) tions founded Applied initiatives launched Location
1784 Outlines of a Philosophy of the Johann Gottfried von U of Berlin

History of Man (“Kultur” Herder (1784)
coined as “way of life”)
1839–1850 Initial ideas of preparing to Early “shipboard education” England
enter a new culture for migrants to colonial New
Zealand
1874–1891 “Geist des Volkes” (“Volk” as a Johann Gottfried von U of Berlin
ethnic people group, Herder
“Völker” as different peoples)
1853 Observation, positivism, field of Auguste Comte Scientific approach to social Paris, France
sociology theory
1866–1871 The Peoples of East Asia Adolf Bastian (1866) U of Berlin
1869 Journal Zeitschrift für Launching Editors: Berlin Society for Berlin
Ethnologie (ZIE) Robert Hartmann, Anthropology,
Adolph Bastian Ethnology, and
Prehistory
1870–1871 Conceptualizing Kultur der Jacob Burckhardt, (Culture+s as plural: U Basel
Beggnung der Kultures (the Fredrich Nietsche Perspectivism: maturity by
culture of meeting other experiencing several cultures,
Cultures) comprehending others via
“objectivity”)
1872 Origin of Species 6th ed. (the Charles Darwin (1872) England,
importance of “facial HMS
expressions” first noted, Beagle
precursor to non-verbals)
1877 Learning through Traveling abroad James O. Woodruff Vision articulated for Indianapolis,
shipboard education, IN
students to sail and learn
around the world
Table 3.1 (cont.)

1881 Der Völkergedanken in Aufbau einer Adolf Bastian (1881) U of Berlin
Wissenschaft (building a science

based on ethnic peoples thinking,
precursor of “emics”)
1884 Die allgemeinen Grundzüge der Adolf Bastian (1884) U of Berlin
Ethnologie (Foundations of
Ethnologie)
1887 Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft Ferdinand Tönnies Kiel U,
(Community and Association) (1887) Germany
1893 “Social facts” as comparative frame Emile Durkheim U of
of mechanical (traditional) and (1893) Bordeaux,
organic (modern) solidarity France
1894 Collective conscientiousness vs. Emile Durkheim U of
Individualism (towards organic (1894) Bordeaux,
solidarity) France
1881 Applied sociology (as social + Georg Simmel Simmel continued teaching at U of Berlin
personal exchanges) (awarded PhD in the U of Berlin for 29 years
Sociology) (Albion Small worked as a
fellow)
1892 Adopting European models, US Albion Small 1st US Department of U of Chicago
field of sociology begins Sociology
1895 Der ethnische Elementargedanken in Adolf Bastian (1895) Postulating local cultural U of Berlin
der Lehre vom Menschen (the group thinking, precursor of
“psychic unity” of mankind across “etics”
ethnic groups)
1900 Philosophy of Money Georg Simmel (1900) R. E. Park took Simmel’s U of Berlin
(interaction & social formation, Sociology course and earned
dual relations) his PhD in Berlin
1903 Concepts of “homophily” and Gabriel Tarde (also Critique of Durkheim, Collège de
“heterophily” used by Simmel) stablished the "French school" France
of criminology, emphasizing
group mind and psychology
(a critique of Durkheim)
1904 The Protestant Ethic and the Max Weber (1904) Contrasting American, U Heidelberg
Spirit of Capitalism Western, and Asian values
and economic orientations
1906 Folkways (ingroup, outgroup, William Graham Yale U
ethnocentrism) Sumner (1906)
1908 Concept of the “Stranger” Georg Simmel (1908) U of Berlin
1909 NAACP magazine, The Crisis Founding Editors: W. National Association New York
E. B. DuBois, Mary for the Advancement City
White Ovington, and of Colored People
others (NAACP)
1911 Völkerpsychologie (The Wilhelm Wundt U of Leipzig
Psychology of Peoples) (1911–1920, 1916)
1915 Gender awareness and global Jane Addams and Women’s Philadelphia,
peace initatives others International League PA
for Peace and
Freedom (WILPF)
1915 “Women and Internationalism,” Jane Addams, Emily The 1st International (thereafter triannual world The Hague,
Women at the Hague Greene Balch, Alice Congress of Women congresses, with regional Netherlands
Hamilton (1915) conferences in between)
1915–1925 Concept of the marginal man Robert E. Park, R. E. Park worked for Booker Tuskegee
proposed Booker T. Washington T. Washington in the Congo Institute.,
Reform Association Alabama
Table 3.1 (cont.)

1915–1935 Research model of scientific George Herbert Mead, Dominance of Chicago U of Chicago
objectivity (distance of outsider/ Robert E. Park Sociology (Park began
stranger) teaching there)
1916 Study of ethnic communities in Robert E. Park (1916) Approach of “the Chicago U of Chicago
urban contexts School”
1918 Advances in women's roles in Jane Addams and 2nd WILPF Zurich,
society others International Switzerland
Congress
1919 First efforts at uniting nations to National leaders like Post–WWI Treaty of Versailles,
prevent war, though with colonial Woodrow Wilson, Versailles France
compromises Georges Clemenceau,
and David Lloyd
George
1919 Initiatives toward cross-racial Will W. Alexander Commission on (to curtail racial violence, Atlanta
understanding Interracial investigate race relations,
Cooperation (CIC) housing, sanitation)
(for the US South)
Table 3.2 1920–1945: Milestones in the formative history of intercultural communications
Academic Concepts/ Institutions/Organizations Applied initiatives

Year Theories published Person(s) founded launched Location
1918–1920 The Polish Peasant In William Thomas and (study of the values, U of Chicago
Europe and America Florian Znaniecki cultural identity, and
(1921) interactions of a cultural
group in plural contexts)
1920s–1940s Concept of Linguistic Edward Sapir (1921, Columbia U
Relativity (Sapir-Whorf 1949) and Benjamin

hypothesis) Whorf
1920s Cultural relativism Franz Boas and Columbia U
proposed students
1921 Jane Addams and 3rd WILPF International (Rachel DuBois attended Vienna,
others Congress a 1922 Hague "conference" Austria
after Versailles)
1922 Conflict and the Web of Georg Simmel (1922) U of Berlin
Group-Affiliations
(modern society: examine
reciprocal interactions
=person and others)
1922 Klassen, Stände, Partie (3- Max Weber (1922) U Heidelberg
Component theory of
social stratification)
1922 Concept of “stereotype” Walter Lippman
1922–1923 Cross-national speech A. Craig Baird First US–UK debate team Bates College/
collaboration exchanges (both ways) Oxford
1924 Jane Addams and 4th WILPF International Washington,
others Congress DC
1924 Concept of “social Robert E. Park U of Chicago
distance”
Table 3.2 (cont.)

1924 Negative attitudes and The US Immigration Act Washington,

policies toward (the Johnson–Reed Act, DC
immigrants including the Asian
Exclusion Act and
National Origins [quotas]

Act)
1924–1926 “Social distance scale” Emory S. Bogardus PhD graduate of the U of Sociological study of U of Chicago/
(1926) Chicago School of psychological attitudes USC
sociology 1911, he and early scale
established an early
independent Sociology
Dept at the U of Southern
Cal. in 1915
1924–1928 A Program for Education Rachel Davis-DuBois The "Woodbury Plan" for Woodbury,
in World Mindedness (1928) engaging students in inter- NJ
ethnic/inter-religious
School Assemblies
1926 Children, The Magazine George C. Hecht Vehicle for parent US
for Parents (name changed education including
to Parent’s Magazine in reviews of Lasker's work
1929) on prejudice, a “Tolerance
Test” etc.
1926 Initiating shipboard James E. Lough, University World Cruise One-time voyage seeking New York
education Holland America Line (outgrowth of study to provide study-abroad U Extramural
abroad trips 1923–1926) education at sea (Holland Division
American Lines)
1927 Formalizing shipboard International University Multiple shipboard
eduation Cruise (IUC) and education programs
University Travel instituted, programs in
Association (UTA) 1928, first sail of IUC
1928, UTA 1929

1928 Anthropology and Modern Franz Boas (1928) Columbia U
Life
1929 Race Attitudes in Children Bruno Lasker (1929) Survey Magazine Noting effects of New York
(Associate Editor) communal/parental City

conscious and unconscious
fostering of prejudice
1929 NATC (later became US–UK
SCA/NCA) formed Int'l exchange
Debating committee
1929–1933 Clark L. Hull, with Yale Institute of Human Interdisciplinary work- Yale U
John Dollard, John Relations group among social
Whiting, etc. scientists
1929/1937 Concept of “marginal Robert E. Park in U of Chicago
man” formalized collaboration with
(“sojourner,” Sui, 1952) Everett V. Stonequist
(1929)
1930 Editors: Franz Boas, Journal of Social
Lucien Levi-Bruhl, Psychology: Political,
Bertrand Russell, Racial, and Differential
Edward Sapir Psychology
1930s Critical media studies (The Benjamin, Marcuse, Neo-Marxist, anti- Frankfurt
Frankfurt School) Adorno, Horkheimer, authoritarian analysis U Center
From, Löwenthal, etc.
1931 Phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (1931) Likely first use of Göttingen U,
Intersubjectivity "interkulturall" as Freiburg U
adjective in German
Table 3.2 (cont.)

1931 Study of Values (SOV) Gordon Allport and Harvard U
Philip Vernon (1931)

1932 Institutionalizing a Institute of Int'l Education Institutionalizing a Washington,
national focus on (IIE) national focus on DC
international education international education
1932 Fostering peace through Donald Watt Experiment in Created and administered Brattelboro,
understanding, International Living (EIL) “semester abroad” (first VT

communication, and group with French +
cooperation by living Germans) then 1933
together “homestay”
1932 Developing awareness of "Cultural Mosaics" New York U
cultural differences on a campus club program
university campus
1932–1935 Rachel Davis-DuBois Courses designed with Boston U, UC
intercultural education Berkley
contents
1934 Thinking and Speech Lev Vygotsky (1934) Moscow,
(Vygotsy’s socio-cultural Russia
studies of children's
development)
1934 Study on prejudice/ Richard LaPiere (1934) As Stanford Professor, he (replication by Kutner, Stanford U
discrimination drove through the US with Wilkins, & Yarrow 1952)
a Chinese couple,
documenting responses
then measured attitudes
1934 Patterns of Culture Ruth Benedict (1934) Columbia U
1934 Launching the first Rachel Davis DuBois The Service Bureau for (renamed Service Bureau New York
clearing house for human Education in Human for Intercultural City
and later intercultural Relations Education, 1938–1941)
relations eduation via

school social studies or
extracurricular programs
1934 “Intercultural contacts” William Ernest Articles on inter-faith Harvard U
focus of Journal of Hocking and Archibald intercultural religious
Religion Baker contact

1934 Modern Trends in World A. Eustace Haydon U of Chicago
Religions (comparative (1934)
study of “intercultural
contacts”)
1934 Mind, Self, and Society: George Herbert Mead U of Chicago
From the Standpoint of a (1934)
Social Behaviorist (social
interactionism)
1935 Inter-ethnic stereotypes Daniel Katz and U of Michigan
and prejudice Kenneth Braly (1935)
1935 Idea of “intercultural Rachel Davis-DuBois Through a lecture series in New York
education” coined/ Mexico, DuBois' City
developed educational practices were
given a name and focus
1935 First commisson focused 1st National Director: Progressive Education New York
on intercultural education Rachel Davis-DuBois Association’s (PEA) City
Commission on
Intercultural Education
1936 Study of social- Kurt Lewin U of Berlin,
psychological differences: Cornell, Iowa
US & Germany
Table 3.2 (cont.)

1936 Development of International study- Launched by the Brattelsburo,
international exchange abroad programs Experiment for VT
and exposure programs International Living

1936 Funding for international DeWitt and Edna Lisle Fellowship Experiential off-campus New York,
worldminded learning Baldwin summer program for Happy Valley
international Center
understanding and
“world-mindedness”
1937 Beginning of Area Studies American Studies Started from a course on Harvard U
as a research focus programs History of American
Civilization
1937 Classifying the subject George P. Murdock Project of the Yale Yale U
matter of culture with the Institute of Human
Cross-cultural Survey Relations
1938 Outline of Cultural George P. Murdock Materials from 90 cultures Yale U
Materials (Murdock, (rev with Whiting, 1945) first published
1938)
1938–1939 National Radio Broadcast Lead Consultant: Service Bureau for sponsored by the Dept. of SBIE, NYU
(CBS) “Americans All - Rachel Davis-DuBois Intercultural Education the Interior, Office of
Immigrants All” Education, WPA, PEA
1939 Out of the Many, One: Rachel Davis-DuBois SBIE
A Plan for Intercultural (1939)
Education
1939 Intercultural Education Launched by Rachel SBIE newsletter for school SBIE/NYU
News (Vol. 1) Davis-Dubois and team teachers and affiliates
1940 Concepts of Gemeinshaft Translation/use of Kiel U,
(community) and Tönnies' concepts in Germany
Gesellshaft (society) articles (later books:
(appear in English) Merton, 1949; Tönnies,
1957)
1940 Margaret Mead, Rhoda Council of Intercultural This later became the New York
Metraux, Ruth Relations Institute for intercultural City
Benedict Studies, 1941
1940 Social Psychology Otto Kleinberg (1940)
1940 Race, Language, and Franz Boas (1940) Columbia U

Culture
1940 First intercultural doctoral Rachel Davis-DuBois PhD disseration title: Early attempts to use IC New York U
degree “Adventures in processes of inter-group
Intercultural Education” contact and dialogue to

overcome prejudice and
racism
1940s Prejudice studies (Lewin) Kurt Lewin Kurt Lewin (as a Jew
fleeing Nazi Germany)
migrated to US
1940s/1941 Myth of the Negro Past Melville Herskovits Program on African Columbia U
(1941) American Studies
1940s National Character Boas’ students: Columbia U
studies started Benedict, Gorer, Mead
1941 “Intercultural Education: Stewart G. Cole (1941a, The new leader of the SBIE, New
Outlines” + “Cultural 1941b) SBIE clarified his vision York City
Diversity” for applying IC to schools,
departing from Davis-
DuBois' focus
1941 Intercultural/intergroup Rachel Davis-DuBois Workshop for Cultural Teacher training by From New
teacher training Democracy intercultural educators for York City to
IC awareness through other locations
intergroup contact for US
secondary schools
1941 First institute focusing on Margaret Mead, Rhoda Institute for Intercultural New York
intercultural studies Metraux, Ruth Studies (IIS) (connecting City
Benedict, other leading anthropologists)
anthropologists
Table 3.2 (cont.)

1941 Employing culture- Alexander Leighton, US Office of War, Foreign Commissioned Washington,
focused scholars to Director Morale Analysis Division anthropologists to apply DC
address international (FMAD) research to cultural

relations/diplomatic issues understanding
1942 Edward T. Hall (earned (doctoral program taught Columbia U
PhD in Anthropology) by Benedict, Mead, and
Linton)
1942–1954 Shifting school social Stewart C. Cole, Bureau for Intercultural (later H.H. Giles, Hilda BIE, New
studies focus toward William Vickery Education (redirected Taba, William Van Til) York City
intergroup and what was the SBIE shfting
multicultural education the focuse first to
intergroup then later
multicultural education)
1944 A Scientific Theory of Bronislaw Malinkowski (OED's first noted English
Culture (1944) use: “the comparative
method . . . gathering
extensive cross-cultural
documentations”
1945 End of World War II
Table 3.3 1945–1972: Post–WWII milestones leading up to founding the field of intercultural communications*

1945 Hilda Taba and William National Council of Social (nation-wide survey on Washington,
van Till Studies Report intercultural education in DC
high school curricula)
1945–1954 Stewart C. Cole The Pacific Coast Council Noteworthy programs in West Coast
on Intercultural Sand Diego City Schools USA,

Communication (PCCIC) (1946–1949, Will especially in
Crawford) CA
1946 Chrysanthemum and the Ruth Benedict (1946) Columbia U
Sword
1946 Formalizing the face-to- Rachel Davis-DuBois New York City
face Group Conversation (1946)
Method
1946 Intergroup education Intergroup Education American Council on Washington,
Workshop Education DC
1946 Training for foreign service Linguists (US Army Foreign Service Act (US Foreign Service Institute Washington,
begun language training Congress passed) (FSI) DC
program) and later
anthropologists
1946 Scholarly exchange William Fulbright Fulbright Program Washington,
initiatives (managed by the IIE) DC
1946 Council for Int'l Education Washington,
Exchange (CIEE) DC
1946 American Institute of US
Foreign Trade
1946 Thunderbird College (American Graduate Thunderbird,
(Graduate School) School of International AZ
Management)
Table 3.3 (cont.)

1947 Founding of the United United Nations New York City
Nations and UNESCO

1947 From Sea to Shining Sea: American Ass'n of School Commission on Intergroup American Association of Washington,
Administrators Handbook Administrators (1947) Education School Administrators DC
for Intergroup Education.
1947 American Field Service US

(AFS) Exchange Program
1978 Human rights Universal Declaration of United Nations New York City
Human Rights
1947 NAFSA (Nat'l Assn of Washington,
Foreign Student Advisors) DC
1948 4-H International (youth US
exchange)
1948 Harry Truman Presidential Executive Washington,
Order mandating racial DC
integration in the US
Armed Forces
1949 Human Relations Area US
Files (HRAF) (Dept of
Army)
1949 Formalizing the concept of Robert K. Merton (1949) Columbia U
“cosmopoliteness” (from
Simmel)
1949 Effective racial integration Stouffer, et al. (1949) US Army
shown in “The American
Soldier” study
1949 Conflicting Patterns of Karl Pribram (1949) Washington,
Thought (promoting DC
“nominalism”)
1949–1955 Clyde Kluckhohn, Harvard Comparative Harvard U

Florence Kluckhohn, Values Project
Fred Strodtbeck and
others
1950s Start of Civil Rights US
Movement
1950 National Society for the (initially a subsidiary of Austin, TX
Study of Communication SSA/SCA/NCA founded
(NSSC) in Austin Texas, but
separated 1967 to become
ICA in 1969)
1950 Cultural awareness L. Robert Kohls (served Washington International (funded through AID, Washington,
training as VP from 1983 on) Center (WIC) (first USIA exchange programs DC
training) located in Meridian
House)
1950 Authoritarian Personality, Theodor Adorno (et al., UC Berkeley
prefudice, fascist F scale, 1950)
ethnocentrism scale
1951 Journal of Communication Thomas R. Lewis Flagship journal for basic (first volume had article US
(ICA) (founding Editor) communication studies, by Arthur Campa on
initially of NCCS which “Language Barriers and
became ICA by 1969 Intercultural Relations)
1951 Language and culture E. T. Hall with Raymond Foreign Service Institute E. T. Hall, Director of FSI,
training Birdwhistell, and George (FSI) Point IV Training Washington,
L. Trager Program DC
1951 Youth for Understanding US
(YFU)
Table 3.3 (cont.)

1953 The Study of Culture at a Margaret Mead and Columbia U
Distance Rhoda Metraux (1953)

1953 The Analysis of Culture Edward T. Hall & George (proposal for a structural FSI,
(structural categories) Traeger (1953) analysis of elements of Washington,
culture, academic framing DC
of what became The Silent

Language, but not yet
proposing “Intercultural
+communication”)
1954 Analysis of non-verbal Ray Birdwhistell FSI,
patterns and coining of Washington,
kinesics DC
1954 Nature of Prejudice Gordon Allport (1954) US
(contact hypothesis)
1954 Area Studies Program American U
(American Univ)
1954 Outline of World Cultures George Murdock (1954) Human Relations Area Formalizing the catalogue Yale U/
Files (HRAF) (Dept of of cross-indexed American U
Army) ethnographic data at Yale
(then at American U)
1954 Standard Vacuum Oil for Indonesian
Company established the personnel
first documented in-house
training program
1954 Critical cultural studies Richard Hoggart, Centre for Contemporary Birmingham
(Birmingham School) Raymond Williams, Cultural Studies University
Stuart Hall
1955 George Murdock's Establishing other HRAF US
network centers at Cornell, Texas,
UCLA, Wisc, and
Michigan
1955 “U Curve” of cultural Sverre Lysgaard (1955) Institute of Social Norway

adjustment Research, Oslo
1955 “Anthropology of E. T. Hall (1955) Specified culture FSI,
Manners,” Scientific orientation and training Washington,
American DC
1957–1958 Etc. Special Issue: Edmund Glenn (1957– Analysis of the First use of “intercultural US Dept of
Interpretation and 1958) 1956 Washington communication” State,
Intercultural Conference (Interpreting Washington,
Communication Branch) DC
1957–1964 Martin Bryan (1st Chair, Committee on Assistance U of Cincinnati
with Robert Oliver on for Foreign Universities
committee) (SAA, later SCA/NCA)
1958 The Ugly American William Lederer and US
Eugent Burdick (1958)
1958 The Business Council for US
Int'l Understanding
1959 The Presentation of Self in Erving Goffman (1959)
Everyday Life
1959 The Silent Language E. T. Hall (1959) Acclaimed combination FSI,
of “intercultural Washington,
+communication” though DC
Glenn’s preceded this
1959 Shepherd Whitman, Regional Council for U of Pittsburgh
David Hoopes, others International Education
(RCIE)
1960 East-West Center, Hawaii U of Hawaii
1960 “Dogmatism scale” Milton Rokeach (1960) Michigan State
U
Table 3.3 (cont.)

1960 The Overseas Americans Harlan Cleveland, Gerald Maxwell School of Syracuse U
Mangone, and John Citizenship and Public

Clarke Adams (1960) Affairs
1960 Concept of Culture Shock Kalvero Oberg (1960) Building on Cora Dubois' Anthropological studies US
formalized IIE speech in 1951 who on adjustment
credited Ruth Benedict's
work
1961 Berlin Wall was Built Cold War Europe
1961 Variations of Value Florence Kluckhohn and Harvard U
Orientations Fred Strodtbeck (1961)
1961 Pres. John F. Kennedy Peace Corps Peace Corps Area Studies US
approach to training
1961 Psychoanalysis: Its Image Serge Moscovici (1961) Paris, France
and Its Public (theory of
socially constructed social
representations)
1962 The Structure of Scientific Thomas Kuhn (1962) Inspiration for the
Revolutions (paradigms) “culture turn” in many
fields
1962 Culture and Robert T. Oliver (1962) Linking the study of Penn State U
Communication: The culture in speech to area
Problem of Penetrating studies
National and Cultural
Boundaries
1962–1966 “Contrast American” Alfred J. Kramer and Human Resources HumRRO sponsored Washington,
training approach Edward Stewart Research Organization training initiatives DC
(HumRRO) research
project
1963 Univ. of the Seven Seas Accredited/managed by US
(re-conceptualized by Chapman Univ, 1965,
Whittier 1961, launched in later “World Campus
1963) Afloat”+Institute for
Shipboard Education
(with C. Y. Tung), 1970,
then “Semester at Sea”
since 1977)
1963 E. T. Hall
Concept of “proxemics”
formalized
1963 “W-curve” of cultural (re) John T. and Jeanne "Human Factors in American Psychological St. Louis, MO
adjustment E. Gullahorn (Gullahorn International Association meeting
& Gullahorn, 1963) Development Programs - symposium
Problems of Overseas
Adjustment
1963 Men in the Middle of the John Useem, John Michigan State
Third Culture Donaghue, and Ruth Hill U
Useem (1963)
1963 Earliest doctoral PhD advisors John and In cooperation with AID (Dept. of Michigan State
dissertations on cultural Ruth Useem, Eugene (Agency for International Communication, MSU U
training Jacobson, David Berlo Development) from 1963 on)
1964 US Civil Rights Act signed US Congress Washington,
into law DC
1964 Nelson Mandela Apartheid continues South Africa
sentenced to life
imprisonment
1964 Further experiential Donald Batchelder, EIL started School for Brattelsburo,
training approaches Elisabeth Warner, Alvino International Training Vermont
Fantini, others (SIT)
1964 Institutionalizing HRAF George Murdock HRAF Special Operations Yale U
data collection and Research Office (SORO)
management
Table 3.3 (cont.)

1964 Formalizing George Murdock's Center for Research in Yale U
interdisciplinary research network Social Systems (CRESS)

on cultures
1964 Semantic differential Charles Osgood (1964) U of Illinois
technique
1964 Concept of “heterophily” Paul Lazarsfeld and
(formalizing Simmel’s Robert Merton (1954)

concept)
1964 Starting cross-national George Gurganus, Robert Committee on Became the Commission Harding
links for studying Oliver, others Cooperation with Foreign on Int’l and IC Speech College,
communication Universities (SAA) Communication in 1971 Memphis
(under SSA/1971 SCA/ (Dept of
later NCA) Religion)
1965 Forming “international Wilbur Schramm and International Association for Education
communication” as a field others Communication Division in Journalism (now
(ICD of AEJ) AEJMC since 1982)
1965 Intercultural Systems Malcome Knowles
Approach (ISD) to
training
1965 Experiential Training Al Wight, Michael Peace Corps volunteer Utah State/W
approaches Tucker, others training Texas State
1965–1970 LaRay Barna Intercultural exploration Portland State
in university ESL classes Univ
1966 International Initiated by Wilbur Association for Education by U of Iowa
Communication Bulletin Schramm, others. in Journalism (AEJ) and U of
(ICB) International Maryland,
Communication Division College of
(ICD) Journalism
1966 First global conference Gerhard Maletzke Conference on Int'l and German
with IC named Intercultural Development
Communication between Institute, Berlin
Developed and
Developing Countries
1966 The Social Construction of Peter Berger and Thomas
Reality (differentiating Luckman (1966)
objective and subjective
culture)
1966 Developing academic CC 1st university level course U of
coursework (s) for cross-cultural Pittsburgh,
communication Michigan State
Univ, and
others
1966 Developing IC as a David Hoopes, Stephen 1st Intercultural Received NAFSA U of Pittsburgh
focused workshop Rhinesmith (then Clifford Communication +Bureau or Ed and
(the ICW) Clarke, others) Workshop (ICW) Cultural Affairs US Dept
State funding for 10 year
project
1966 The Hidden Dimension E. T. Hall (1966) US
(formalized time and space
studies: poly-, mono-
chronic orientations and
proxemics)
1966 Culture and Alfred G. Smith (1966)
Communication (textbook)
1966 US Navy under Admiral US Navy
Zumwalt starts the
Personal Response
Project for Navy
personnel in Vietnam
Table 3.3 (cont.)

1967 Instrumented training Robert R. Blake and Jane “Training” becomes an U Texas,
approach adopted S. Mouton (1962) (method alternative to the National
used by Al Wight, others) university lecture model Training

of learning Laboratories
1967 Start of in-country/culture- Peace Corps begins in-
specific training country training (country
of service)
1967 Specific country cultural Alison R. Lanier Overseas Briefing

awareness Updates began Associates
1967 Initiated by Fred Casmir, Meeting of SCA/CCFU CCFU meeting organized Harding
Michael Prosser, Helmut planning biennial German/ by Gurganus (Dept. of College,
Geissner (President of the European meetings/ Religion, Harding) Memphis
German Speech cooperation (the
Association) Heidelberg Conference)
1968 Bi-national Helmut Geissner, Fred Bi-annual US-German U of
communication Casmir Speech Association Heidelberg,
conferences Conferences began Pepperdine
Haus
1968 Collaboration of cross- Albert Wight, Stephen Center for Research and First major conference of Denver,
and intercultural Rhinesmith Education (CRE) plans intercultural and training Colorado
specialists to address forming the Society of experts at Estes Park, CO
training Intercultural Training and (with Harry Triandis,
Research (SITAR) David Kolb, Ed Stewart,
Richard Hopkins, others)
1968 James Markham, John Establishing the Racine,
Merrill, and Ralph International Wisconsin
Lowenstein Communication field at
the Wingspread
Conference
1969 Int'l Communication as a James Markham (1969) U of Iowa
Field of Study
1969 Edward Stewart, Edmund 2nd University Course in U of Delaware
Glenn Intercultural
Communication
1969 Guidelines for Peace Corps Albert Wight, Mary Anne Center for Research and First intercultural training Estes Park/
Cross-cultural Training Hammons, and W. I. Education (CRE) manual Denver, CO
Wight (1969)
mid-1960s Development of cultural Fred Fielder, Terrance Funded by Office of U of Illinois
assimilator training Mitchell, and Harry Naval Research

approach Triandis (1971)
1969 Adult self-directed Malcome Knowles (1969, Boston U
learning theory 1970)
(androgogy) approach to
training, and an
Intercultural Systems
Approach (ISD) to
training
1969–1972 Jeffrey Auer (with Indiana intercultural Indiana U
Michael Prosser) indicatives (and first
PhDs: Starosta, Monfils,
Gonzales)
1970 Kinesics Ray Birdwhistell (1970)
1970 International Studies of Fred Casmir and Stan Pacific Speech Association First book on Speech Pepperdine
National Speech Education Harms (1970) Communication for other U and U of
Systems countries Hawaii
1972 Cultural relativism (as Melville Herskovits (1972) Columbia U
anthropological theory)
formalized
1973 The Interpretation of Clifford Geertz (1973)
Culture (structural
linguistic/cultural
approach)
Table 3.3 (cont.)

1973 The Bafá, Bafá training Gary Shirts US Navy

technique
1974 Foundations of Dell Hymes (1974)
Sociolinguistics: An
Ethnographic Approach
1974 Joining IC-related John Condon, Dean 1st bicultural IC Nihonmatsu,

associations and scholars Barnlund, William conference (64 leading Tokyo, Japan
Howell, Fred Casmir, interculturalists,
Clifford Clarke, Michael 8-bicultural groups) at
Prosser, others International Christian
University (ICU)
1975 Founding global CC Jean Phillips-Martinsson Cross-Cultural Relations "Communicating with UK–
centers Center Confidence" seminars Stockholm,
Sweden
1975 Concept of "uncertainty Charles Berger and
reduction" formalized William Calabrese (1975)
1976 Beyond Culture E. T. Hall (1976)
(formalized analysis of
High-, Low-context HC/
LC cultures)
1976–1980 Introduction to UNESCO - Introduction UNESCO Paris, France
Intercultural Studies: to Intercultural Studies
Outline of a Project for
Elucidating and Promoting
Communication between
Cultures
1977 Outline of a Theory of Pierre Bourdieu (1972/77) Paris, France
Practice (conceptualized
Field, Habitus, social
theory and social action)
late 70s Corporate IC training Neesa Lowenthal 1st International

initiatives Relocation Program
started for the Bechtel
Corporation
1979 Managing Cultural Philip Harris and Robert Text for cross-cultural Thunderbird,
Differences T. Moran (1979) management AZ

1979 Survival Kit for Overseas L. Robert Coles (1979) An early and perennially Chicago, IL/
Living best-selling guide for Yarmouth, ME
overseas adaptation
(republished in 1984,
1986, 2001 with
Intercultural Press)
1980 Geert Hofstede Institute for Research on Dutch NGO established The
Intercultural Cooperation Netherlands
(IRIC) (existed until 2004) (1998–2004 at
Tilburg U)
1980 Official conceptual USIA conceptually splits USIA,
separating of cultural and field into Intercultural Washington,
power issues (paradigm Communication (social DC
divide) and cultural concerns)
and International
Communication (political
and technological
concerns)
*Credits: chronological listing inspired by, referenced to, and expanded from George Renwick’s timelines presented in Wasilewski (1999)
Table 3.4 Parallel chronological history of the founding of IC associations
IC Communication IC Education
Year (Speech and Mass Comm) (International Students) CC Learning and Training CC Psychology
(primarily SCA/NCA, ICA, (primarily Pittsburgh, RCIE, (primarily FSI and Peace (primarily social psychologists,
CAP/WCA, PACA) ICWs, NAFSA, SIETAR) Corps, Washington, DC, EIL IACCP, SCCP, SPA)
Vermont, EWC Hawaii, BYU,
Salt Lake City)
1956 Transcultural Psychiatric
Research Review began

publication by the World
Psychiatric Association
1957–1958 First use of “intercultural UNESCO hosted the 1958
communication” by Glenn in “Expert Meeting on Cross-
Etc. Special Issue on Int'l and Cultural Research in Child
IC Psychology” in Bangkok,
Thailand, headed by E. E.
Boesch. At Yale, the HRAF
Collection on Ethnography
was first distributed on
microfiche
1959 Founding of Regional Council Popularization of the concept
for International Education of “intercultural
(RCIE, at University of communication” (with Hall's
Pittsburgh, Whitman) for inter- Silent Language, 1959) and
institutional cooperation, inspiration of the FSI training
Hoopes’s initiatives to organize model
leaders of foreign student
programs
1960 East–West Centre founded
(University of Hawaii)
1961 Francis L. K. Hsu (1961/1972)
published his first edition of
Psychological Anthropology:
Approaches to Culture and
Personality (re-emphasizing in
1972 that this should be the
field name for studies that link
these two areas)
1963 Hoopes work with the First PhD dissertations on
Regional Council for cross-cultural training (1963,

International Education 65, 66), based on projects and
(RCIE) involved Rhinesmith, seminars with AID (Agency for
Althen, others. International Development)
(directed by Useem, Jacobson
Berlo, Michigan State U)
1964 Formation of Committee on Regional Council Centre for Experiment in International Opening of HRAF Special
Cooperation with Foreign International Students office Learning (EIL) started School Operations Research Office
Universities (CCFU of SAA opened (support from Ford for International Training (SORO), Center for Research
later SCA/NCA. Oliver Foundation, NAFSA, at (SIT) (EIL now called World in Social Systems (CRESS)
member, led by Gurganus, University of Pittsburgh) Learning), Brattelsburo, (George Murdock with
Harding College, Memphis) Vermont (Batchelder, Warner, Anthropologists, Social
Gochenor, Fantini, others) Psychologists, at Yale
University)
1964 Department of Speech Peace Corps volunteer Triandis (1964) postulated
Communication under William effectiveness research project, "cultural influences upon
Howell at Univ of Minnesota Al Wight and Michael Tucker, cognitive processes
recruited a strong IC faculty, University of Utah (under
visiting scholars and doctoral Calvin Taylor)
cohort (first PhD graduates
1967, 1971, peak years in the
1970s graduating a Who's Who
for IC)
Table 3.4 (cont.)
1965 Founding of International 1st intercultural exploration Peace Corps expands training
Communication Division (ICD components in university ESL locations to Hawaii, Puerto
of Association for Education in courses (Barna at Portland Rico, Escondido, CA, and the
Journalism, AEJ, at Syracuse State U, though Davis-DuBois Virgin Islands
U) (Schramm and others) had IC courses from 1932 on at
NYU, Boston U, UC Berkeley)
1965 Experiential training Cultural assimilator training
approaches (for Peace Corps) approach, funded by Office of

developed by Wight, others at Naval Research, Fielder,
Utah State, W. Texas State U Mitchell, Triandis, U of Illinois
1966 Conference on "Int'l and Intercultural Communication Murdock’s HRAF started
Intercultural Communication Workshop (ICW) at Pittsburgh Behavioral Science Notes (in
between Developed and U, Cornell, U Cincinnati, 1993 became Cross-cultural
Developing Countries" Portland State U. (Hoopes, Research); Dobb, as Editor of
(Maletzke, German Rhinesmith, Clarke with Journal of Social Psychology,
Development Institute, Berlin) NAFSA+Bureau or Ed and established a special section on
Cultural Affairs US Dept State "Cross-cultural Notes"
funding)
1966 Publication of International 1st university level course(s) for International Journal of
Communication Bulletin (ICB) cross-cultural communication Psychology founded by the
launched (at Pittsburgh U, Michigan International Union of
State U, and components at Psychological Science
other universities) (supported by UNESCO)
published early cross-cultural
articles giving visibility to the
emerging field; Frida and
Johada (1967) outline prospects
of CC research.
1967 Memphis meeting of SCA's Vidya launched (academic "Training" becomes an Culture and Psychology
CCFU (by Gurganus, with journal of RCIE) alternative to the university Conference (initiated by
members Casmir, Prosser lecture model of learning, Kellman and Tajfel, attended
suggesting biennial German/ Peace Corps begins in-country by Triandis, Drenth, others)
European cooperation with training (country of service) (Ibadan, Nigeria), and Berry's
Geissner, President of the survey (N=150) of research on
German Speech Association) scholars doing cross-cultural
applications, which led to his
“Directory”
1968 Bi-annual US–German Speech The Intercultural Network Center for Research and Berry published the first
Association Conferences began (published by Margaret Pusch Education (CRE) hosts first “Directory of Cross-cultural
(Pepperdine Haus, Heidelberg and David Hoopes from major conference on Psychological Research”
U, organized by Geissner, Chicago) published A Manual intercultural training of (Berry, 1968 in IJP) and
Casmir) of Structured Experiences for experts, Estes Park, CO and Triandis published Cross-
Cross-cultural Learning call for Peace Corps Cross- cultural Social Psychology
(Weeks, 1968) Cultural Training Guidelines Newsletter (today CCP
and an Assessment Manual Bulletin, 1968)
1968 US Office of Naval Research Vassilou and Triandis
had Berrien organize a EWC's organized "analysis of
Institute of Advanced Projects subjective culture" conference,
conference on “Psychological Lagonissi, Greece. Early
Problems in Changing comparative universals were
Societies” (linking disciplines) proposed, like tight and loose
cultures by Finnish
anthropologist Pelto (1968)
1969 U of Indiana early IC-related 2nd university courses in First intercultural training 2nd Directory of CCP
doctoral candidates e.g., Intercultural Communication manual, Draft Handbook for Research published (Berry,
Starosta, Monfils, Gonzales (Stewart and Glenn, U of Cross-Cultural and Community 1969 in IJP); Lonner
(directed by Jeffry Auer, with Delaware, followed by U of Involvement Training (Wight, established first CCP unit:
credits to Michael Prosser) Minnesota) Hammons, Bing, 1969) Centre for Cross-Cultural
+B20 Research (Western Washington
University)
Table 3.4 (cont.)
1970 Sitaram founded Division Fred Casmir and Stan Harms Guidelines for Peace Corps Lonner launched Journal of
V (Intercultural and developed the first textbook on Cross-Cultural Training Cross-cultural Psychology
Development Communication) Speech Communication for (Wight, Hammons, & Wight, (JCCP) and published
of the International other countries (Casmir & 1970) expanded (600+) Directory of
Communication Association Harms, 1970) Cross-cultural Psychologists
(ICA) (Berry & Lonner, 1970)
1971 Consultation of US and First Issue of Communique Cronbach and Drenth (1972)
Canadian Speech (Univ of Pittsburgh, for the organized Conference on the
Communication leaders, Intercultural Network, after cross-cultural use of mental
scholars, and students to 1974–1999 for SIETAR) tests in Istanbul, Turkey
develop a formal field of IC (funded by NATO Advisory
study (Prosser invited Assn Panel on Human Factors)
Presidents Howell, Layman,
other IC key influencers,
Brown County, Indiana)
1971 Prosser founded Commission
on International and
Intercultural Communication
(later the IIC Division in 1984)
of Speech Communication
Association (SCA) now
“National” (NCA)
1971 Klopf, Kawashima, Ishii,
Nicshida, Harms founded the
Communication Association of
the Pacific (CAP) which
became the World
Communication Association in
1983
1972 Oxford served as first editor of Intercultural Communications International Association for
Communication (Journal of Network formed Cross-cultural Psychology
CAP) which became World (IACCP) launched by Dawson,
Communication (Applebaum, Jehoda, Segall, etc. at Hong
1985–2001), adding Kong University Conference.

Communication Research Bruner elected President.
Reports (1985–1994), and since
2002 Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research
(JICR)
1972 Team-taught course on Peace Corps begins developing Publication of The Analysis of
Communication and Culture "behavioral objectives" for Subjective Culture (Triandis
(1st IC course taught there in cross-cultural training et al., 1972)
1974) (Casmir and others,
Pepperdine U)
1973 After the Indiana consultation, SiTAR leaders met to consider Founding of EWC's Culture Updated directory for the new
early compilations come out: adding the "E" (Hoopes, Learning Institute (CLI) IACCP published (Berry,
Intercultural Communication: Wight, Stewart, etc.) (University of Hawaii) (led by Lonner, & Leroux, 1973 in
A Reader (Samovar & Porter, Bickley, then Trifonovitch, and IJP) containing the names,
1973) and Intercommunication later Bitterman). Brislin edited addresses, and fields of interest
between Nations and Peoples annual issues of Topics in of 1,125 cross-cultural
(Prosser, 1973a) Intercultural Learning (Brislin, psychologists
1973–1977) and Cross-cultural
Research Methods (Brislin,
Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973)
1973 1st national intercultural Peace Corps teams in Naples Pedersen, Lonner and Draguns
communication conference and Athens begin training (1976) developed the first text
(sponsored by Univ of incoming personnel; teams in for counseling across cultures,
Virginia) (Prosser) San Diego Norfolk and Pearl which became multicultural
Harbor begin preparing ship counseling
crews for overseas deployment
Table 3.4 (cont.)
1974 Casmir edited the first three SIETAR founded (Univ of The EWC's CLI continued to The first edited Proceedings of
International and Intercultural Pittsburgh) and holds first produce Topics in Intercultural an IACCP conference (1972 in
Communication Annuals conference in Gaithersburg, Learning (Brislin, 1974) Hong Kong) Readings in
(1974–1976) (sponsored by the MD (Asante named first Cross-Cultural Psychology

SCA Commission on president) were published (Dawson &
International and Intercultural Lonner, 1974)
Communication (became a
Division in 1974)
1974 SCA’s Int' and Intercultural 1st large scale bicultural IC
Communication Division conference bridging these
(IICD) holds 2nd national tracks at International
intercultural communication Christian University (ICU)
focused conference (with ICA hosted by John Condon, Dean
and SIETAR in Chicago, Barnlund (organized by
Prosser as Division Chair Howell, Casmir, Clarke,
1974–1976) and Syllabi in Prosser others, with
Intercultural Communication 64 individuals from Japan and
and Social Change (SIETAR the US in Nihonmatsu, 8 bi-
published models from cultural groups, 6 hours per
Prosser’s U of Virginia day, with many leading
symposium) interculturalists)
1975 Bridge Magazine (by CRE An EWC CLI project produced Psychological anthropologists
located in Denver, then Cross-cultural Perspectives on at Harvard’s Department of
SYSTRAN, published from Learning (Brislin, Bochne, & Social Relations, Beatrix and
1975–1983) Lonner, 1975) John Whiting (1975), produced
the holistic and wide-ranging
“Six Cultures” study of
variations in child and human
development (concept of
“culture learning
environment”)
1976 International and Intercultural Stanford Institute for EWC development and
Communication (Fisher & Intercultural Communication assessment of training,
Merrill, 1976) revised edition of (SIIC) summer sessions began published Cross-Cultural
the late Markham (Clarke, K. M. Young Orientation Programs (Brislin
organized these for 10 years & Pedersen, 1976) and a
before they were moved to volume on cross-cultural issues

Portland's Intercultural of Translation (Brislin, 1976)
Communication Institute in
1986)
1977* USIA (Washington, DC) offers Initiated in 1976, Landis BYU Language and Society for Psychological
first intercultural course founded the Int'l Journal of Intercultural Communication Anthropology (SPA) of the
(Prosser, 1977) Intercultural Relations (IJIR) Resource Centre (changed to American Anthropological
and a year later linked it to Language and Humanities Association was founded and
SIETAR (1978–1998, then to Research Centre in 1981) adopted Ethos as its flagship
the founding of IAIR, 1998) (Taylor Director with Tyler) publication
1977 Intercultural Press (formed out BYU published Intercultural
of the IC Network and Communication Resources
SIETAR publications) (Seelye & Tyler, 1977) and EIL/
(Hoopes, Pusch, Renwick, SIT Beyond Experience
Frank and others) (Batchelder & Warner, 1977)
1978 The Cultural Dialogue: An
introduction to Intercultural
Communication (Prosser,
1978b) highlighting key field
topics and a report on the
1972 ICU Japan Nihonmatsu
consultation
1979 Key theme volume, Intercultural Publication of Intercultural
and International Press's perennial best-seller
Communication (Casmir, 1978) Survival Kit for Overseas Living
(Pepperdine U); the first (Kohls, 1979)
Handbook of Intercultural
Communication was published
(Asante, Blake, Newmark, 1979)
Table 3.4 (cont.)
1979 Action Caucus formed (1979 Intercultural Press' The first volumes of the
SCA San Antonio, Texas, (Bob Multicultural Education: Handbook of Cross-Cultural
Shuter past chair) Larry A Cross-Cultural Training Psychology (Triandis, &
Sarbaugh, incoming chair of Approach (Pusch, 1979) Lambert, 1979; Triandis &
the Commission on Int'l and IC Berry, 1979; Triandis &

Comm coordinated Lonner, 1980) appeared
(eventually six volumes),
establishing cross-cultural
psychology as a distinct branch
of psychology
1980 SCA (NYC) Action Caucus Cross-cultural Training for Brislin and his network The Handbook of Cross-
and Seminar on Theory in Peace Corps Volunteers (first contributed to Vol. 5 of the Cultural Psychology – final six
Intercultural Communication work identifying skills Handbook of Cross-cultural volumes continued to be
(Asunciun Lande, Sarbaugh), necessary for cross-cultural Psychology (Triandis & Brislin, published (Vol 6. completed in
spawned work on the training and attempt to train 1980), and Research in Culture 1981)
Intercultural and Int'l those specific skills) (Edwards Learning (Hamnett & Brislin
Communication Annual's first & McCaffery, 1980) 1980)
Theory volume
1981 Kolb and Fry (1981) published Hofstede established the
the Learning Styles Inventory/ Netherlands' NGO Institute for
Experiential Learning, Research on Intercultural
providing a further framework Communication (IRIC) and
for training approaches published Culture's
Consequences (Hofstede, 1980)
1983 The 1980 Action Caucus Collaboration with scholars in
Seminar contributions were Hawaii and the linking of EWC
published as SCA’s Intercultural and CCP networks led to the
and Int'l Communication groundbreaking 3 volumes of
Annual's first thematic volume Handbook of Intercultural
on Intercultural Theory Training (Landis & Brislin,
(Gudykunst,1983) 1983)
*Credits: chronological listing inspired by, referenced to, and expanded from George Renwick’s timelines presented in Wasilewski (1999)
Table 3.5 Chronological history for establishing cross- and intercultural journals
Start
year Journal name Website URL Current publisher Affiliation(s)
Related field(s) and topics

1968 Cross-Cultural Psychology https://journals Sage Publications International Association psychology, sociology,
Bulletin (CCPB) .sagepub.com/home/jcc for Cross-Cultural cultural studies
Psychology (IACCP)
1970 Journal of Cross-Cultural https://journals SAGE Publications International Association psychology, sociology, and
Psychology (JCCP) .sagepub.com/home/ for Cross-Cultural interdisciplinary studies

JCC Psychology (IACCP)
1972 Cross-Cultural Research https://uk.sagepub Sage Publications Human Relations Area anthropology, sociology,
(The Journal for .com/en-gb/asi/journal/ Files, Inc. (HRAF), Society psychology, political
Comparative Social cross-cultural-research for Cross-Cultural Research science, economics, human
Science) (CCR) (SCCR) ecology, and evolutionary
biology
1972 Journal of Intercultural www.tandfonline.com/ Taylor & Francis World Communication interrelationships between
Communication Research toc/rjic20/current Association (WCA) culture and communication
(JICR)
1974 Journal of Intercultural www.tandfonline.com/ Taylor & Francis Intercultural Research cultural studies, sociology,
Studies (JIS) toc/cjis20/current Institute, Kansai University migration studies, literary
of Foreign Studies, now studies, gender studies,
sponsored by the Alfred anthropology, cultural
Deakin Institute for geography, urban studies,
Citizenship and race and ethnic studies
Globalization
1974 International & Speech Communication intercultural
Intercultural Association (SCA), now communication topics, then
Communication Annuals National Communication annual volume themes on
(in 2008 became IJIC Association (NCA) key IC field areas
below)
Table 3.5 (cont.)
Start
year Journal name Website URL Current publisher Affiliation(s) Related field(s) and topics
1977 International Journal of www.journals.elsevier Elsevier founded by Dan Landis, social psychology and
Intercultural Relations .com/international- linked first with SIETAR, sociology

(IJIR) journal-of- then International Academy
intercultural-relations/ of Intercultural Research
1982 Journal of Cross-Cultural www.degruyter.com/ De Gruyter partners with Language on bi- and multilingualism;
and Interlanguage view/j/mult?tab=call_ the Move (ISSN 2203-5001) language education,

Communication for_papers learning, and policy; Inter-
(Multilingua) and cross-cultural
communication; translation
and interpreting in social
contexts; critical
sociolinguistic studies of
language and
communication in
globalization,
transnationalism,
migration, and mobility
across time and space
1982 FLEKS – Scandinavian https://journals.hioa Oslo Metropolitan Oslo Metropolitan intercultural pedagogy,
Journal of Intercultural .no/index.php/fleks University Library University psychology and philosophy;
Theory and Practice professions in diverse
societies; language,
interpreting and translation;
development studies;
migration health; diversity
management
1985 World Cultures Journal of www.worldcultures https://escholarship Institute for Mathematics data, and comparative
Comparative and Cross- .org/ .org/uc/wc_ and Behavorial Sciences, research on human behavior,
cultural Research (now worldcultures Social Dynamics and comparative database,
World Cultures eJournal) Complexity, UC Irvine regional or worldwide,
programs and teaching

materials, communications
on research, coding, sources,
comparative materials
1986 Journal of Cross-Cultural https://link.springer Springer US history, anthropology,
Gerontology (JCCG) .com/journal/10823 sociology, political science,

psychology, population
studies
1990 Journal of Intercultural www.tandfonline.com/ Taylor & Francis International Association terminological issues,
Education (JIE) toc/ceji20/current for Intercultural Education education and multicultural
(IAIE); renamed in 2000; society today, intercultural
formerly European Journal communication, human
of Intercultural Studies, rights and anti-racist
1990–1999 education, pluralism and
diversity in a democratic
frame work, pluralism in
post-communist and in
post-colonial countries,
migration and indigenous
minority issues, refugee
issues, language policy
issues, curriculum and
classroom organization, and
school development
1991 Intercultural https://web.uri.edu/ International Assn of cross- and intercultural
Communication Studies iaics/iaics-journal/ Intercultural communication, culture and
(ICS) Communication Studies language, teaching,
translation
1994 Emerald Publishing
Table 3.5 (cont.)
Start
Cross Cultural & Strategic www.emeraldinsight formerly Cross Cultural business, management &
Management (CCSM) .com/loi/ccsm?fullSc=1 Management: An strategy, anthropology,

International Journal economics, political science,
(CCM) (till 2015) psychology, and sociology
1999 Journal of Intercultural www.immi.se/ Immigrant Institute, Nordic Network for research, education, and
Communication (JIC) intercultural/ Sweden Intercultural training in the area of

Communication intercultural
communication
1999 Cross-Cultural http://cmj Editorial Dept SEA Open Research multi-, cross-, and inter-
Management Journal .seaopenresearch.eu/ FRIA Academic Platform cultural issues and
(CCM) index applications for business,
organizations, and
management
2001 International Journal of http://ccm.sagepub SAGE Publications organizational behavior,
Cross Cultural .com/ HRM, organizational
Management (JCCM) psychology, international
and comparative
management, and
international industrial
relations
2001 Journal of Language and www.tandfonline.com/ Taylor & Francis International Association intercultural
Intercultural toc/rmli20/current for Languages and communication, language,
Communication (JLIC) Intercultural the learning of foreign
Communication (IALIC) languages, education,
especially higher education,
and for language learning
and teaching
2003 Journal of Intercultural https://journals.ub.uni- Antonella D’Ascoli, interdisciplinary
and Interdisciplinary heidelberg.de/index University of Heidelberg, archaeology, antiquity
Archaeology (JIIA) .php/jiia/ Germany sciences and sciences
applied to archaeology,
problems of interculturality
in the ancient world

2004 Intercultural Pragmatics www.degruyter.com/ De Gruyter Mouton pragmatics, intercultural
view/j/iprg communication, language
acquisition and use,
multilingualism, semantics
2005 Cross-Cultural www.cscanada.net/ Canadian Academy of social science

Communication index.php/ccc/ Oriental and Occidental
Culture (CAOOC)
2006 Intercultural https://revistacil Intercultural culture, identity,
Communication and .wordpress.com/2016/ Communication and multiculturalism, literature
Literature 02/21/despre-noi-2/ Literature Research Center
2008 Journal of International www.tandfonline.com/ Taylor & Francis co-sponsored by Yonsei culture, communication,
and Intercultural toc/rjii20/current University mass media
Communication
2008 Cultus: the Journal of www.cultusjournal Iconesoft Edizioni culture in constructing,
intercultural Mediation .com/ perceiving and translating
and Communication reality; language, languages,
cultural models, conflict,
mediation and
interculturality
2008 Journal of Linguistic and http://jolie.uab.ro/ Centre for Research University of Alba Iulia, current debates in language
Intercultural Education and Innovation in Romania, education policies,
(JoLIE) Linguistic instruments and end
Education (CIEL). products, bi- and
plurilingualism, language
learning/teaching and
teacher education,
intercultural and cross-
cultural awareness
Table 3.5 (cont.)
Start
2009 European Journal of www.inderscience.com/ Inderscience, International Association of cultural differences and
Cross-Cultural jhome.php?jcode= SIETAR Europa Cross-Cultural diversity on the

Competence and ejccm +Austria Management and management of
Management (EJCCM) Competence (IACCM). organizations; how culture
affects both managers and
decision-makers in
situations involving the

cross-cultural transfer of
knowledge, values and
experiences
2010 Alterstice – Revue www.alterstice.org Association internationale psychology,
Internationale de la pour la Recherche communication,
Recherche Interculturelle InterCulturelle (ARIC); intercultural, culture
Centre de recherche
Cultures-Arts-Sociétés
(CELAT)
2011 International Journal of  www.brownwalker Brown Walker Current Editor at Asian anthropology, sociology,
Cross-Cultural Studies .com/journal-info/ Press, Irvine, School of Management and psychology, economics, and
(IJCCS) 09743480 California Technology political science multi-
society data to examine and
test hypotheses about
human behavior and culture
2012 The International Journal https:// Editura Editura Universitară and cultural otherness and
of Cross-Cultural Studies crossculturenvironment Universitară & ADI Asociația pentru Dezvoltare cultural identity, history of
and Environmental .wordpress.com/ Publications Interculturală ideas, humanities and
Communication science, arts and culture,
(IJCCSEC) media anthropology,
transnational anthropology,
gender studies, linguistics
(socio/psycho-linguistics,
ethno-linguistics, cognitive
linguistics), communication
sciences, discourse theory
and political analysis,
environmental
communication, media
studies
2014 FLEKS – Scandinavian https://journals.hioa Oslo Met University Oslo Metropolitan intercultural
Journal of Intercultural .no/index.php/fleks Library University communication, cross-
Theory and Practice cultural studies,
multicultural studies,
intercultural pedagogy,
psychology and philosophy,
professions in diverse
societies, language,
interpreting and translation,
development studies,
migration health, diversity
management
2014 Asia Pacific Translation www.tandfonline.com/ Taylor & Francis literature, linguistics,
and Intercultural Studies loi/rtis20 history, art, media and
(APTIS) communications, cultural
studies, political science,
international relations,
sociology and anthropology
that focuses on translation
and culture
Table 3.5 (cont.)
Start
2017 Journal of Philology and  http://llcs.journal.mta Military Technical Department of Foreign literature, comparative
Intercultural .ro/en_US/home/ Academy Pub. Languages and Intercultural literature, literature and
Communication (JPIC) House Communication, Military civilization, intercultural

Revue de Philologie et de Technical Academy, communication, cultural
Communication Bucharest, Romania studies, linguistics, applied
interculturelle) (French & English) linguistics, second language
acquisition, foreign
language teaching
methodologies, translation
studies
2018 InterCultural Philosophy http:// University of Ruprecht-Karls-Universität comparative philosophy
interculturalphilosophy Heideberg Heidelberg
.com/
Table 3.6 Chronological development of published IC theory summaries
In whose volume
Year Author(s) (or series, institution) Publication title
1976 Asante and Newmark (1976) (Eds.) Speech Communication Association (SCA) IC: Theory into Practice
1977 Saral (1977) (chapter) In ICA Communication Yearbook 1 (Rubin, Ed.) “IC Theory and Research: An Overview”
1978 Prosser (1978a) (chapter) In ICA Communication Yearbook 3 (Rubin, Ed.) “IC Theory and Research: An Overview of
Major Constructs”
1979 Saral (1979) (chapter) In ICA Communication Yearbook 3 (Rubin, Ed.) “IC Theory and Research: An Overview of
Challenges and Opportunities”
1979 Hoopes, Pedersen, and Renwick Intercultural Network/SIETAR: Overview of IC Vol. 1: Theory
(1979) (Eds.) Education, Training, and Research
1979 Davey and van Derck (1979) (Eds.) Intercultural Network/SIETAR (Nimmo, Ed.) Vol. 2: IC Theory and Practice
1979 Howell (1979) (chapter) In Asante, Newmark, Blake (1979) (Eds.) Handbook “Theoretical Foundations for IC”
of IC
1980 Asante (1980) (chapter) In ICA Communication Yearbook 4 (Nimmo, Ed.) “IC: An Inquiry into Research Directions”
1983 Gudykunst (1983) (Ed.) ICCA, Vol. 7, Sage/SCA IC Theory
1988 Kim and Gudykunst (1988) (Eds.) ICCA, Vol. 12, Sage/SCA Theories in IC
1989 Gudykunst and Nishida (1989) In Asante and Gudykunst (1989) (Eds.), Handbook “Theoretical Perspectives for Studying IC”
(Chapter) of Int’l and IC
1995 Wiseman (1995) (Ed.) ICCA, Vol. 19, Sage/SCA IC Theory
2002 Gudykunst and Lee (2002) In Gudykunst & Mody (2002) (Eds.), Handbook of “Cross-Cultural Communication Theories”
(Chapter) Int’l and IC (2nd ed.)
2002 Gudykunst (2002) (Chapter) Also in Handbook of Int’l and IC (2nd ed.) “IC Theories”
2005 Klyukanov (2005) Pearson textbook Principles of IC
2005 Gudykunst (2005) (Ed.) Sage Theorizing about IC
2007 Kotthoff and Spencer-Oatey (2007). de Gruyter Handbook of IC
Source: updated adaptation of Kulich and Zhang (2012, p. 892, Table 1)

Table 3.7 Historical sequence and themes noted in specified intercultural theory volumes
Intercultural Perception CC
theory Attributions/ (prejudice, Language/Speech Systems theory Effectiveness/
domains Expectations Identity intolerance) Codes/Meaning Values/Beliefs and adaptation IC Competence Conflict
Volume,
year
(Hoopes, Perception in (Singer)* The Function of Values and Adaptation to New CC Effectiveness Conflict in
Pedersen, & International Language in CC Beliefs Cultural (Ruben) CC
Renwick, Affairs and Note on Interactions (DePietro) (Strodbeck) Environments Interaction
1977) Identity (Singer)* (Klein) (Milburn)
(Gudykunst, Culture and 2. Codes and Contexts 1. Language Theory Cultural 1. Adaptive IC 3. System The Roots
1983) the Attribution (Cooley) and Linguistic Assumptions of (Ellingsworth) Theoretic View of Conflict
Process 3. Rules Theories Principles (Asuncion- East and West 2. Convergence (Ruben) (Tafoya)
(Ehrenhaus) (Pearce & Wiseman) Lande) (Okabe) Theory (Barnett & <—————
——————> Kincaid)**
(Kim & Cultural Identity: Coordinated 4. Network 1. Intercultural Communication Face-
Gudykunst, An Interpretive Management of Theory (Yum) Transformation Accommodation Negotiation
1988) Perspective (Collier Meaning (Cronen, 5. Adaptation (Kim, Y.Y. & Theory (Gallois Theory
& Thomas) Chen, & Pearce)** in Intercultural Ruben) et al.)** (Ting-
Dyads 2. (Barnett & Toomey)**
(Ellingsworth) Kincaid)**
——————> 3. Anxiety &
Uncertainty
(Gudykunst)***
(Wiseman, Expectancy Layered Perspective 1. From “Context” to 1. Integrative 1. (Gallois et al.)**

1995) Violations of Cultural (In) “Contexts” (Katriel) Communication 2. Effective
Theory Tolerance(s) (Baldwin 2. Conversational Theory (Kim, Intercultural
(Burgoon)** & Hecht) Constraints Theory Y. Y.)** Decision-Making
(Kim, M.)** 2. Differential Theory (Oetzel)**
Demand Model of
Sojourner
Adjustment (Ady)
3. (Gudykunst)***
(Gudykunst, (Hubbard & 1. Cultural 3. Identity 1. (Pearce & Cronen)** 1. (Kim, Y. Y.)** 1. (Gallois et al.)** (Ting-
2005) Burgoon)** Identifications Management Theory 2. (Kim, M.)** 2. Cultural Schema 2. (Oetzel)** Toomey)**
(Collier) (Imahori & Cupach) 3. Speech Codes Theory Theory (Nishida) 3. (Gudykunst)***
2. Identity 4. Communication (Philipsen, Coutu, & 3. Co-Cultural
Negotiation (Ting- Theory of Identity Covarrubias) Theory (Orbe &
Toomey) (Hecht et al.) Spellers)
<——————— 4. (Gudykunst)***
Key: CC = Cross- * = Theory shares ** = Theory is updated *** = Theory is applicable to multiple
Cultural multiple domains in later text(s) (Only domains and updated in later text(s)
IC = Intercultural (Only one includes original includes name (Only original includes name of
Communication name of theory) of theory) theory)
Table 3.8 Main topics currently focused on by IC scholars and practitioners (Kim, 2017)
Area of focus (percentage of IC areas of study

entries) IC theories and theorized dimensions/domains or application
Intercultural Communication Acculturation Strategies; Anxiety/Uncertainty Cultural Diversity in Organizations; Cultural Humility;
Core (36%) Management (AUM)Theory; Communication Theory of Cultural Intelligence; Culture Shock and Reentry Shock;
(Kim, 2017, pp. xxxix) Identity; Identity Negotiation; Contextual Theory of Identity, Intercultural; IC Apprehension; IC in the
Interethnic Communication; Cosmopolitanism; Cultural Classroom; IC Competence; IC in Healthcare; IC in
Identifications Theory; Identity Management Theory International Negotiation; Intercultural Conflict and
Conflict Management; Intercultural Empathy;
Intercultural Ethics; Intercultural Friendship;
Intercultural Intimate Relationships; Intercultural
Peacebuilding; Synchrony in IC; Third-Culture
Individuals; Tourism and IC; and Worldview in IC
Cross-cultural High- and Low-Context Cultures; Individualism and Methodological issues such as Cross-Cultural
Communication (16%) Collectivism; Monochronic and Polychronic Time, Experimental Research; Emic and Etic Research;
(Kim, 2017, pp. xl) Research findings on communication-related variables Interviews, Qualitative; Interviews, Standardized; Survey
across cultures such as Cognitive Styles; Conflict Research and Sampling Equivalence; and Translation:
Management Styles; Conversational Norms; Emotions Communication Styles in English and German; and
and Expressions; Nonverbal Communication; Personal Pedagogy across Cultures
Space; Shame and Guilt; Virtues and Vices
Cultural Communication Speech Codes Theory (ethnographic field studies), and Methodology-related approaches such as Culture in
(15%) theory-guided research approaches like Phenomenology Conversation; Discourse of Difference; Ethnography of
(Kim, 2017, pp. xl) of Cultural Communication; Semiotics of Cultural Cultural Communication; and descriptions and
Communication interpretations of various cultural communication modes
around the world
Intergroup Communication Key social psychological theories of intergroup Salient concepts and issues such as Bi- and
(9%) communication such as Communication Multilingualism; Ethnophaulism; Hate Speech;
(Kim, 2017, pp. xli) Accommodation Theory; Intergroup Contact Theory; Intergroup Conflict and Reconciliation Language
Intergroup Threat Theory; Self-Categorization Theory; Attitudes; Power in Intergroup Communication;
Social Identity Theory; and Uncertainty–Identity Theory Prejudice and Discrimination; and Stereotypes
Intercultural Training & Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity; Core ICT issues and concepts such as Cultural Diversity
Education (6%) Intercultural Competence Development Training in Organizations; Culture Assimilator;

(Kim, 2017, pp. xli) Intercultural Competence Development; Intercultural
Experiential Learning; Intercultural Games and
Simulations; Intercultural and Multicultural Education;
Intercultural Training for Educators; Intercultural
Training in the Peace Corps; Training for Expatriates;
and Training for Study Abroad Programs
Critical Intercultural Co-Cultural Theory; Critical Theory; Cultural Contracts Key critical concepts such as Afrocentricity;
Communication (18%) Theory; Cultural Imperialism Theories; Intersectionality; Asiacentricity; Borderlands
(Kim, 2017, pp. xli–xlii) Muted Group Theory; Orientalism; and Standpoint Analytic methods such as Critical Discourse Analysis;
Theory Cultural Studies; Diaspora and Diasporic Identity;
English Hegemony
References Arnold, M. (1869/1876/1960). Culture and anarchy

(Reprint, J. D. Wilson, Ed.). Cambridge, UK:
Adamopolis, J., & Kashima, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Cambridge University.
Social psychology and cultural context. Asante, M. K. (1980). Intercultural communication:
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. An inquiry into research directions. In
Addams, J., Balch, E., & Hamilton, A. (Eds.). D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4
(1915). Women at the Hague: The international (pp. 401–411). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
congress of women and its results. New York, Asante, M. K., Blake, C. A., & Newmark, E. (Eds.).
NY: Macmillan. (1979). The handbook of intercultural
Adichie, C. N. (2009). The danger of a single story. communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
TED talk. www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ Publications.
adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story Asante, M. K., & Gudykunst, W. B. (Eds.). (1989).
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, Handbook of intercultural communication.
D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Asante, M. K., & Newmark, E. (Eds.). (1976).
Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (2007). Dialektik Intercultural communication: Theory into
der Aufklärung [Dialectic of enlightenment]. practice. Alexandria, VA: Speech
(E. Jephcott Trans., G. S. Noerr, Ed.). Stanford, Communication Association.
CA: Stanford University Press (Originally Asante, M. K., Miike, Y., & Yin. J. (Eds.). (2008).
published 1944). Global intercultural communication reader.
Ady, J. C. (1995). Toward a differential demand New York, NY: Routledge.
model of sojourner adjustment. In R. L. Asante, M. K., Newmark, E., & Blake, C. A. (Eds.).
Wiseman (Ed.). Intercultural communication (1979). Handbook of intercultural
theory (pp. 92–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage communication. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Publications. Asante, M. K., Newmark, E., & Blake, C. A.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. (1979). The field of intercultural communication.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (Garden City, In M. K. Asante, E. Newmark, & C. A. Blake
NY: Doubleday Anchor Books). (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural communication
Allport. G. W. (1955). Becoming: Basic (pp. 11–22). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
considerations for a psychology of personality Asuncion-Lande, N. (1983). Language theory and
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. linguistic principles. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.).
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in Intercultural communication theory: Current
personality. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & perspectives (pp. 253–258). Beverly Hills, CA:
Winston. Sage.
Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1931). Study of Baker, A. G. (1927). Book review of Y. M. Mei’s
values: A scale for measuring the dominant interests Zoroasterism. International Journal of Ethics,
in personality. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 37(3), 333.
Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. Baker, A. G. (1929), How shall we relate
(1960). Study of values: Test booklet and manual Christianity to other religions? The Journal of
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Religion, 9(3), 478–480.
American Association of School Administrators, Baldwin, J. R. (2016). Murky waters: The histories
Commission on Intercultural Education (1947). of intercultural communication research. In
From sea to shining Sea [administrators L. Chen (Ed.), Handbook of Intercultural
handbook for intergroup education]. Communication (Vol. 9, pp. 19–43). New York,
Washington, DC: American Association of NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
School Administrators of the National Baldwin, J. R., Faulkner, S. L., Hecht, M. L., &
Education Association. Lindsley, S. L. (Eds.) (2006). Redefining culture:
Perspectives across the disciplines. Mahwah, NJ: Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (1999). Toward a
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. paradigm for research on social representations.
Baldwin, J. R., & Hecht, M. L. (1995). The layered Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 29(2),
perspective of cultural (in)tolerance(s): The roots 163–186.
of a multidisciplinary approach. In R. L. Wiseman Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (2008). Social
(Ed.). Intercultural communication theory (pp. representations theory: A progressive research
59–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. programme for social psychology. Journal for
Banks, C. A. (2006). Improving multicultural education: the Theory of Social Behavior, 88(4), 335–353.
Lessons from the intergroup education movement. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2008.00374
New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press. Bean, R. (2006). Cross-cultural competence and
Banks, C. (2012). A historical perspective on training in Australia. Diversity Factor, 14(1), 14–22.
intercultural/multicultural education in the Bean, R. (2007). Australia measures the value of
United States. In P. Nektaria & D. Gunther cross-cultural training. Diversity Factor, 15(2),
(Eds.), Mapping the broad field of multicultural 39–45.
and intercultural education worldwide: Towards Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of culture. New York,
the development of a new citizen (pp. 78–92). NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Benedict, R. (1945). Race, science, and politics.
Barnett, G. A., & Kincaid, D. L. (1983). Cultural New York, NY: Viking Adult.
convergence: A mathematical theory. In W. B. Benedict, R. (1974). The chrysanthemum and the
Gudykunst (Ed.). Intercultural communication sword. Boston, MA: Charles Tuttle Company,
theory: Current perspectives (pp. 171–194). an Imprint of Houghton Mifflin Company.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. (original work published 1946).
Bastian, A. P. W. (1860). Der Mensch in der Benjamin, W. (1936). Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter
Geschichte [Man in history]. Berlin, Germany: seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit [The work
University of Berlin. of art in the age of mechanical reproduction]
Bastian, A. P. W. (1866–1871). Die Völker des (Hannah Arend, Trans, Ed.) New York, NY:
östlichen Asien. Studien und Reisen.6 Bände [The Schocken Books/Random House.
people’s of East Asia: Studies and Travels, 6 Vols.]. Bennett, M. J. (2013). Basic concepts of intercultural
Leipzig, Germany: Otto Wigand Verlag/Jena. communication: Paradigms, principles, &
Bastian, A. P. W. (1881). Der Völkergedanken in practices (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Intercultural
Aufbau einer Wissenschaft von Menschen Press/Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
[Peoples/ethnic thoughts in the building of a Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Stillings, K.
science of humanity]. Berlin, Germany: F. (1977). Description, interpretation, evaluation:
Dümmlers (Hoefer & Vohsen) Facilitators’ guidelines. Intercultural
Bastian, A. P. W. (1884). Die algemeinen Grundzüge Communication Institute. Retrieved from:
der Ethnologie [A general outline of ethnology]. www.intercultural.org/resources.php
Berlin, Germany: Deitrich Reimer Verlag. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some
Bastian, A. P. W. (1895). Der ethnische explorations in initial interaction and beyond:
Elementargedanken in der Lehre vom Menschen Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal
[The psychic unity of peoples in understanding communication. Human Communication
mankind]. Berlin, Germany: Deitrich Reimer Research, 1(2), 99–112. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-
Verlag (Hoefer & Vohsen; Weidmannsche 2958.1975.tb00258.x
Buchhandlung) Berger, P.L., and Luckman, T. (1971).
Batchelder, D., & Warner, E. G. (1977). Beyond The social construction of reality: A treatise
experience: The experiential approach to in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth,
cross-cultural education. Brattleboro, VT: UK: Penguin Books. (Original work published
Experiment Press. 1966)
Berquist, G. (1990). The rhetorical travels of Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (2000). Cross-
Robert T. Oliver. Rhetoric Review, 9(1), 173–183. cultural training: A review. Applied Psychology:
Berry, J. W. (1968). Directory of cross-cultural An International Review, 49(1), 162–191.
psychological research. International Journal of (concurrently published in Delhi Business
Psychology, 3(2), 137–148. Review, 1(1), 1–20, available online).
Berry, J. W. (1969). Directory of cross-cultural Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Munusamy, V. P. (2010).
psychological research. International Journal of Leading across cultural troups: Implications of
Psychology, 4(4), 333–336. self-concept. In K. Hannum, B. McFeeters, &
Berry, J. W., & Lonner, W. J. (1970). Directory of L. Booysen (Eds.), Leadership across differences:
cross-cultural research and researchers. Bellingham, Cases and perspectives (pp. 155–162). San
WA: Western Washington University Press. Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Berry, J. W., Lonner, W. J., & Leroux, J. Birdwhistell, R. L. (1952a). Field methods and
(1973). Directory of cross-cultural research and techniques: Body motion research and
researchers (2nd ed.). Bellingham, WA: Western interviewing. Human Organization, 11(1), 37–38
Washington University Press. Birdwhistell, R. L. (1952b). Introduction to kinesics:
Bhagat, R. S., & Prien, K. O. (1996). Cross-cultural An annotation system for analysis of body motion
training in organizational contexts. In and gesture. Washington, DC: Department of
D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of State, Foreign Service Institute.
intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 216–230). Birdwhistell, R. L. (1954). Kinesics and
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. communication. Explorations, 3, 31–41.
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2000, July). Evolution of cross- Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context:
cultural training as a field of research: Essays on body motion communication.
Contributions of Harry Triandis. Unpublished Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
paper presented in 2000 at the XVth Congress of Press.
International Association for Cross-Cultural Blake, R. T., & Mouton, J. S. (1962). The
Psychology, Pultusk, Poland, July 16–21, 2000, instrumental training lab. In I. R. Weschler &
in the symposium “Social Psychology and E. H. Schein (Eds.), Issues in human relations
Cultural Context.” training (pp. 61–76). Washington, DC. National
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2008). Globalization and Training Laboratories.
indigenous cultures: Homogenization or Blommaert, J. (1998, February). Different
differentiation? International Journal of approaches to intercultural communication:
Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 305–317. A critical survey. Plenary lecture, Lernen und
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2009a). Intercultural training for Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten
the global workplace: Review, synthesis, and und multikulturellen Gesellschaft,
theoretical explorations. In R. S. Bhagat & R. Expertentagung Universität Bremen, Institut für
Steers (Eds.), Handbook of Culture, Projektmanagement und Witschaftsinformatik
Organization, and Work (pp. 462–488). (IPMI). Retrieved May 6, 2015 from www.cie
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. .ugent.be/CIE/blommaert1.htm
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2009b). Intercultural Blubaugh, J. A., & Pennington, D. (1976). Crossing
communication in a dynamic environment: differences: Interracial communication.
Preparing managers of developing and developed Colombus, OH: Bobbs-Merrill.
countries using cultural standards. Psychology Bluedorn, A. C. (1998). An interview with
and Developing Societies, 21(2), 161–181. anthropologist Edward T. Hall. Journal of
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2012). Diversity and intercultural Management Inquiry, 7, 109–115. DOI: 10.1177/
communication: The influence of individualism 105649269872003
and collectivism. In E. Christopher (Ed.), Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism:
Communication across Cultures (pp. 42–53). UK: Perspective and method. Newark, NJ:
Palgrave Macmillan. Prentice-Hall.
Boas, F. (1911). The mind of primitive man. Brislin, R. W., Bochner, S., & Lonner, W. J. (Eds.).
New York, NY: Macmillan. (1975). Cross-cultural perspectives on learning.
Boas, F. (1928). Anthropology and modern life. New York, NY: Sage Publications.
New York, NY: Macmillan. Brislin, R. W., & Cushner, K. (Eds.). (1997).
Boas, F. (1940). Race, language, and culture. Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for
New York, NY: Macmillan. cross-cultural training programs, Vol. 2.
Bogardus, E. S. (1926). Social distance in the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Proceedings and Publications of the American Brislin, R. W., Cushner, K., Cherrie, C., & Yong,
Sociological Society, 20, 40–46. M. (1986). Intercultural interactions: A practical
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice guide. Cross-cultural research and methodology
(Cambridge Studies in social and cultural series, Volume 9. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
anthropology, Band 16) (R. Nice, trans.). Publications.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M.
(Original work published 1972). (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: York, NY: Wiley.
Essays on art and literature. New York, NY: Brislin, R. W., & Pedersen, P. (Eds.). (1976). Cross-
Columbia University Press. cultural orientation programs. New York, NY:
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Von Gebrauch der Garden Press and Wiley/Halsted Publishers.
Wissenschaft [On the use of science: Toward a Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1994a). Intercultural
clinical sociology of scientific fields]. Fuer eine communication training: An introduction.
klinische Soziologie des wissenschaftlichen Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Feldes. Konstanz, Germany: Universität Verlag Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. W. (Eds.) (1994b).
Konstanz. Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for
Braithwaite, C. A. (1990). Communicative silence: cross-cultural training programs. Newbury Park,
A cross-cultural study of Basso’s hypothesis. In CA: Sage Publications.
D. A. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural communication Brown, D., & Martindale, T. (2012). A review of
and intercultural contact (pp. 321–327). intercultural training in the workplace.
Hillsdale, N: L. Erlbaum Associates Proceedings of Selected Research and
Bramfeld, T. (1946). Minority problems in the public Development Papers at the Annual Convention of
schools: A study of administrative policies and the Association of Educational Communications
practices in seven school systems [BIE Vol. 4, and Technology.
Problems of race and culture in American Brown, F. J. (1939). Sociology and intercultural
schools]. New York, NY: Harper. understanding. Journal of Educational Sociology
Brislin, R. W. (Ed.). (1973–77). Topics in culture 12(6), 328–331.
learning, Vols. 1–5. Honolulu, HI: East–West Brown, F. J., & Roucek, J. S. (1937). Our racial and
Center. national minorities. New York, NY: Prentice
Brislin, R. W. (Ed.). (with Anderson, R., & Hall, Inc.
Bruce, W.) (1976). Translation: Applications and Brown, I. C. (1949). Race relations in a democracy
research. New York, NY: Garden Press. [BIE Vol. 5, Problems of race and culture in
Brislin, R. W. (Ed.). (1977). Culture learning: American schools]. New York, NY: Harper.
Concept, application, and research. Honolulu, Brown, S. (1945). They see for themselves:
HI: East-West Center. A documentary approach to intercultural
Brislin, R. W. (1993). Understanding culture’s education in high school [BIE Vol. 3, Problems of
influence on behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Race and Culture in American Schools, Vickery]
Brace Jovanovich (Original work published 1993). New York, NY: Harper.
Brislin, R. W. (2008). Working with cultural Burgoon, J. K. (1995). Cross-cultural and
differences: Dealing effectively with diversity in intercultural applications of expectancy violations
the workplace. Westport, CT: Praeger Publisher. theory. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.). Intercultural
Communication Theory (pp. 194–214). Thousand Cole, S. G. (1941b). Intercultural education:

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cultural diversity and education. Contemporary
Burgoon, J. K., & Ebesu Hubbard, A. S. (2014). Jewish Record, 4(3), 269–282.
Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of Cole, S. G. (1943). Intercultural education in American
expectancy violations theory and interaction schools. New York, NY: Harper & Bros.
adaptation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.). Cole, S., et al. (1946). Charting intercultural
Theorizing about intercultural communication education 1945–1955: A report of the summer
(pp. 149–172). Shanghai, China: Shanghai 1945 workshop on intercultural education
Foreign Language Education Press. (Original sponsored by the Stanford University School of
work published 2005) education and the west coast office of the Bureau
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing for Intercultural Education. Stanford, CA:
intercultural communicative competence. Stanford University Press.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Collier, M. J. (2014). Theorizing cultural
Campa, A. L. (1951). Language barriers in identifications: Critical updates and continuing
intercultural relations. Journal of evolution. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.). Theorizing
Communication, 1, 41–46. about intercultural communication (pp. 235–256).
Carbaugh, D. A. (2005). Cultures in conversation. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language
New York, NY: Routledge. Education Press. (Original work published 2005)
Casmir, F. L. (1973). International, intercultural Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural
communication: An annotated bibliography. Special identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y.
communication module. ERIC Clearinghouse on Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.). Theories in
Reading and Communication Skills. intercultural communication (pp. 99–120).
Casmir, F. L. (Ed.) (1974–1976). International and Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
intercultural communication annual (Vols. 1, 2, Comenius (Komensky), J. A. (1636). Janua
and 3). Falls Church, VA: Speech Linguarum Reserata [The gate of tongues
Communication Association. unlocked] (J. A. Anchoran, Trans., T. Horne,
Casmir, F. L. (Ed). (1978). Intercultural and Ed.). London, England: Licentiatein Divinity.
international communication. Washington, DC: (Original work published 1631)
University Press of America. Comenius (Komensky), J. A. (1968). Didactica Magna
Casmir, F. L., & Harms, L. S. (1970). International [The great didactic], In J. A. Comenius (Ed.),
studies of national speech education systems Opera didactica omnia (3 vols. compilation in
(Vol. 1). Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Pub. Co. Latin, reprinted in Prague, 1657) (M. W. Keatinge,
and Pacific Speech Association. trans., 1896). New York, NY: Publisher unknown.
Clarke, C. H. (2008). Practicing the integration of (Original work published 1633–1638)
discipline and compassion (Keynote speech at Comenius, J. A. (1641/1668). Via Lucis [The way of
the 2007 SIETAR Japan Conference). Journal of light]. (trans. E.T. Campagnac). Amsterdam, The
Intercultural Communication, 11, 1–21. Netherlands: Ch. Cunrad. (Written in England in
Clarke, C. H., & Takashiro, N. (2014). Evolving 1641 but fully published until 1668).
paradigms and research applications in Comenius (Komensky), J. A. (1651). Pansophiae
intercultural training: A personal historical [A pattern of universal knowledge]. London,
perspective of fifty-five years. Unpublished UK: Publisher unknown.
manuscript. Comte, A. (2003). The positive philosophy of
Cleveland, H., Mangone, G. J., & Adams, J. C. Auguste Comte (H. Martineau, Trans., 2003).
(1960). The overseas Americans. New York, NY: New York, NY: D. Appleton & Co. (Original
McGraw-Hill. work published 1853)
Cole, S. G. (1941a). Intercultural education: Condon, J. C., & Yousef, F. (1975). An introduction
Outlines of the problem. Contemporary Jewish to intercultural communication. Indianapolis, IN:
Record, 4(2), 99–109. Bobbs Merrill.
Cooley, R. E. (1983). Codes and contexts: Davis-DuBois, R. (1936). Practical problems of

An argument for their description. In W. B. international and interracial education. Junior-
Gudykunst (Ed.). Intercultural communication Senior High School Clearing House, 10(8),
theory: Current perspectives (pp. 241–252). pp. 486–490.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Davis-DuBois, R. (1938–39). Americans all,
Crawford, W. C. (1956, December). Intercultural immigrants all. Retrieved from www.wnyc.org/
Project Summary. Grant No. 146, 146-A, series/americans-all-immigrants-all
Rosenberg Foundation Files. Davis-DuBois, R. (1939). Out of the many –
Crider, F. J. (1922). The effect of intercultural one: A plan for intercultural education. New
practices on temperatures and humidity in citrus York, NY: Service Bureau for Intercultural
orchards. Science, New Series 58 (1429), Education.
542–550. Davis-DuBois, R. (1943). Get together Americans:
Cronbach L. J., & Drenth, P. J. D. (1972). Mental Friendly approaches to racial and cultural
tests and cultural adaptation. The Hague, conflicts through the neighborhood-home festival.
Netherlands: Monton. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Cronen, V. E., Chen, V., & Pearce, W. B. (1988). Davis-DuBois, R. (1946). The face-to-face group as
Coordinated management of meaning: A critical a unit for a program of intercultural education.
theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.). The Journal of Educational Sociology, 19(9),
Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 555–561.
66–98). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Davis-DuBois, R. (1950). Neighbors in action:
Croucher, S. J., Sommier, M., & Rahmani, D. a manual for local leaders in intergroup relations.
(2015). Intercultural communication: Where New York, NY: Harper.
we’ve been, where we’re going, issues we face. Davis-DuBois, R., & Li, M. (1963). The art of group
Communication Research and Practice, 1(1), conversation: A new breakthrough in social media
71–87. DOI: 10.1080/22041451.2015.1042422 communication. New York, NY: Association
Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (1996). Intercultural Press.
interactions: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Davis-DuBois, R., & Okoradudu, C. (1984). All this
New York, NY: Sage Publications. and something more: Pioneering in intercultural
Darwin, C. (1872). The origin of species (6th ed.). education, an autobiography. Bryn Mawr, PA:
New York, NY/London, UK: D. Appleton. Dorrance.
Davey, W. G. (Ed.). (1979). Intercultural theory and Dawson, J. L. M. B., & Lonner, W. J. (Eds.). (1974).
practice, Vol. 2. La Grange Park, IL: Readings in cross-cultural psychology. Hong
Intercultural Network. Kong, China: University of Hong Kong Press.
Davis, A., & Dollard, J. (1940). Children of Deardorff, D. K. (2008). What is intercultural
bondage: The personality development of Negro competence? In Schreiber & Berninghausen
youth in the urban south. [Personality Series]. (Eds.), Global competence for the future:
Washington, DC: American Council of Employability, mobility, quality. Germany:
Education. Kellner-Verlag.
Davis-DuBois, R. (1928). Education in Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Handbook of intercultural
worldmindedness: A series of assembly programs competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
given by students of Woodbury high school, Publications.
Woodbury High School, Woodbury, New Jersey, Dervin, F. (2016). Interculturality in education:
1927–1928. Newark, NJ: American Friends A theoretical and methodological toolbox.
Service Committee/Women’s International London, UK: Palgrave.
League for Peace and Freedom. Dollard, J. (1939). Frustration and aggression.
Davis-DuBois, R. (1934). Changing attitudes toward New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
other races and nations. New York, NY: Service Doron, A. (2009). Towards a definition of
Bureau for Education in Human Relations. intercultural dialogue. In A. Aharoni (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of life support systems (EOLSS), Ellingsworth, H. W. (1983). Adaptive intercultural

peace, literature, and art (Vol. 2). Retrieved from communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.).
www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C04/E1-39A-30 Intercultural communication theory: Current
.pdf perspectives (pp. 195–204). Beverly Hills, CA:
DuBois, G. J., Potts, L. B., & Kulich, S. J. (2017). Sage Publications.
IC scholars before their time: Rachel Davis- Ellingsworth, H. W. (1988). A theory of adaptation
DuBois and the IC education movement. In S. J. in intercultural dyads. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B.
Kulich & A. S. English (Eds.), China Gudykunst (Eds.). Theories in intercultural
intercultural communication annual, Vol. 2 communication (pp. 259–279). Newbury Park,
(pp. 54–79). Beijing, China: Chinese Academy of CA: Sage.
Social Science (CASS) Press. Ellis, R. R. (2006). The middle kingdom through
DuBois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of black folk Spanish eyes: Depictions of China in the writings
(3rd ed.). Chicago IL: A. C. McClure & Co. of Juan González de Mendoza and Domingo
Durkheim, É. (1964). De la division du travail social Fernández Navarrete. Retrieved August 5, 2009,
[The division of labor in society] (G. Simpson, from http://bulletinofhispanicstudies.
Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original lupjournals.org/uploads/bulletinofhispanic
work published in 1893, first translated version studies lupjournalsorg/gratis/2.pdf
1933). Engels, F. (1893). Letter to Franz Mehring, 14 July
Durkheim, É. (1938). Les règles de la méthode 1893, In Institute für Marxismus-Leninismus
sociologique [The rules of sociological method] beim ZK der SED (Ed.), Werke (Vol. 39,
(S. A. Solovay & J. H. Mueller, Trans.). pp. 96–101). Berlin, Germany: Dietz-Verlag.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fei, X. T. (1939). Peasant life in China: A field study
(Original work published 1894, Paris, France) of country life in the Yangtze valley. Preface by
Edwards, D., & McCaffery, J. (1980). Cross-cultural Bronislaw Malinowski. London, UK: G.
training for peace corps volunteers. Washington, Routledge/ New York, NY: Dutton.
DC: Peace Corps Office of Programming and Fei, X. T. (1945). Earthbound China. Chicago, IL:
Training Coordination. University of Chicago Press.
Ehrenhaus, P. (1983). Culture and the attribution Fiedler, F., Mitchell, T., & Triandis, H. (1971).
process: Barriers to effective communication. The culture assimilator: An approach to cross-
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.). Intercultural cultural training. Journal of Applied Psychology,
communication theory: Current perspectives 55(2), 95–102.
(pp. 259–270). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Fischer, H. D., & Merrill, J. C. (Eds.). (1976).
Publications. International and intercultural communication
Elberfeld, R. (2008a). Durchbruch zum Plural. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Hastings House.
Der Begriff der Kulturen bei Nietzsche. Foa, U., & Foa. E. (1974). Societal structures of the
[Breakthrough to the plural. The concept of mind. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
cultures in Nietzsche]. Nietzsche-Studien 37, Foucault, M. (1972). The archology of knowledge.
115–142. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Elberfeld, R. (2008b). Forschungsperspektive Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C.
“Interkulturalität”: Transformation der Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected
Wissensordnungen in Europa. [Research interviews & other writings, 1972–1977
perspective on "Interculturality": (pp. 109–133). New York, NY: Pantheon.
Transformation of the ordering of knowledge in Frijda, N., & Jahoda, G. (1966). On the scope and
Europe]. In R. Konersmann, J. M. Krois, & D. methods of cross-cultural research. International
Weserkamp (Eds.), Zeitschrift fuer Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 109–127.
Kulturphilosophie, Band 2, Heft 1 (pp. 7–26). Fritz, J. M. H. (Ed.). (2010). The Pennsylvania
Hamburg, Germany: Felix Meiner Verlag. Scholars Series: Vol. 5 Robert T. Oliver –
Standard bearer of the discipline. Pittsburgh, PA: Glenn, E. S. (1954). Semantic difficulties in
Pennsylvania Communication Association. international communication. A Review of
Fulbright, W. J. (1974). Founding address. The General Semantics https://www.google.com/
Fulbright Program. Washington, DC: The books/edition/Sovereign_equality_among_
United States Senate. states/7DQ5DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last Glenn,+E.+S.+(1954).+Semantic+difficulties
man. New York: The Free Press. +in+international+communication.&pg=
Gadamer, H.-G. (1960). Wahrheit und Methode PT339&printsec=frontcover, 11, 163–180.
[Truth and method]. (P. Siebeck, Trans.). Glenn, E. S. (1956). Languages and patterns of
Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr. thought. Washington, DC: Georgetown
J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans. University (Paper presented at the 5th
Gallois, C., Franklyn-Stokes, A., Giles, H., & International Conference of Anthropology and
Coupland, N. (1988). Communication Ethnology).
accommodation in intercultural encounters. In Glenn, E. S. (1957–1958). Introduction [to the
Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories Special Issue: Interpretation and intercultural
in intercultural communication (pp. 157–185). communication]. A Review of General Semantics
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. https://www.google.com/books/edition/
Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A. C., & Sovereign_equality_among_states/
Ota, H. (1995). Accommodating intercultural 7DQ5DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=
encounters: Elaborations and extensions. Glenn,+E.+S.+(1954).+Semantic+difficulties
In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural +in+international+communication.&pg=
communication theory (pp. 115–147). Thousand PT339&printsec=frontcover, 15, 87–97.
Oaks, CA: Sage. Glenn, E. S. (1966). Meaning and behavior:
Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2014). Communication and culture. Journal of
Communication accommodation theory. Communication, 16(4), 248–272.
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about Gochenour, T. (1995). Beyond experience: The
intercultural communication (pp. 121–148). experiential approach to cross-cultural
Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language education (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, ME:
Education Press. (Original work published 2005) Intercultural Press.
Ganesh, S., & Holmes, P. (2011). Positioning Goethe, J. W. (2010). Maxims and reflections (T. B.
intercultural dialogue: Theories, pragmatics, Saunders, Trans.,). New York, NY: The
and an agenda. Journal of International and Macmillan Company. (Original work published
Intercultural Communication 4(2), 81–86. 1833).
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in
New York, NY: Basic Books. everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Gehrke, P. J., & Keith, W. M. (2014). Introduction: González, A. (2010). A critique of research in
A brief history of the national communication intercultural communication. In T. K. Nakayama &
association. In P. J. Gehrke & W. M. Keith R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical
(Eds.), A century of communication studies: The intercultural communication studies (pp. 53–56)
unfinished conversation (pp. 1–25). New York, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Homeless/
NY: Routledge. 9rotDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Gonz%
Georges-Louis Leclerc, C. (1749–1804). Histoire C3%A1lez,+A.+(2010).+A+critique+of+research
naturelle, générale et particulière, avec la +in+intercultural+communication,+In+T.+K
description du cabinet du roi [Natural history, .+Nakayama+%26+R.+T.+Halualani+(Eds.),
general and particular, with a description of the +The+handbook+of+critical+intercultural
king’s cabinet]. Paris, France: Imprimerie +communication+studies&pg=PA182&printsec=
Royale. frontcover. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gorer, G. (1948). The American people: A study to intercultural communication (Original edition,
in national character. New York, NY: 1984; 2nd ed., 1991; 3rd ed., 1996; 4th ed., 2002).
W. W. Norton & Co. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gorski, P. C. (2008). Good intentions are not Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-
enough: A decolonizing intercultural education. cultural communication theories. In W. B.
Intercultural Education, 19(6), 515–525. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of
Gramsci, A. (2011). Quaderni del carcere [Prison international and intercultural communication
notebooks] (J. A. Buttigieg Trans. & Ed.). (2nd ed., pp. 25–50). Thousand Oaks, CA:
New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Sage.
(Original work published 1992–2007). Gudykunst, W. B., & Mody, B. (Eds.). (2002).
Greenfield, P. (2009). Linking social change and Handbook of international and intercultural
developmental change: Shifting pathways of communication, (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
human development. Developmental Psychology, Sage.
45(2), 401–418. Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, K. (1989).
Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (1983). Intercultural Theoretical perspectives for studying
communication theory: Current perspectives. intercultural communication. In M. K.
International and intercultural communication Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of
annual (Vol. 7). Beverly Hills, CA: SCA/Sage. international and intercultural communication
Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (1984). Methods for (pp. 17–46). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
intercultural communication research. Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An
International and intercultural communication extension of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of
annual (Vol. 8). Beverly Hills, CA: SCA/Sage. Social Issues, 19, 33–47.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). Intercultural Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen
communication: Current status and proposed Handelns [Theory of communicative action].
directions. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Frankfurt am Main,
Progress in communication sciences, Vol. 6 Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag.
(pp. 1–46). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Habib, M. A. R. (2017). Hegel and empire: From
Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Bridging differences, postcolonialism to globalism. Cham, Switzerland:
Effective intergroup communication (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Originally Hall, E. T. (1950). Military government on Truk.
published 1991, 2nd edition, 1994). Human Organization, 9, 25–30.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2002). Intercultural Hall, E. T. (1955). The anthropology of manners.
communication theories. In W. B. Gudykunst & Scientific American, 192, 85–89.
B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City,
intercultural communication (2nd ed., NY: Doubleday.
pp. 183–206). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York,
Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (2005). Theorizing about NY: Doubleday.
intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, Hall, E. T., & Trager, G. L. (1953). The analysis of
CA: Sage. culture. Washington, DC: American Council of
Gudykunst, W. B. (2014). An anxiety/uncertainty Learned Societies/Foreign Service Institute.
management (AUM) theory of effective Hall, E. T., & Whyte, W. F. Jr. (1960). Intercultural
communication: Making the mesh of the net finer. communication. A guide to men of action.
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.). Theorizing about Human Organization, 19(1), 5–12.
intercultural communication (pp. 281–322, 419–458). Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City,
Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language NY: Doubleday.
Education Press. (Original work published 2005) Hall, S. (1973). Encoding and decoding in the
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1984/1991/1996/ television discourse. Birmingham, UK:
2002). Communicating with strangers: An approach University of Birmingham Press.
Hall, S. (1992). Race, culture, and communications: Conference of Education and World Affairs,
Looking backward and forward at cultural East Lansing, MI.
studies. Rethinking Marxism, 5(1), 10–18. Herder, J. G. von. (1800-1803). Ideen zur
Hamnett, M. P., & Brislin, R. W. (Eds.). (1980). Philosophie des Geschicte der Menschheit
Research in culture learning: Language and [Outlines of a philosophy of the history of man
conceptual studies. Honolulu, HI: East-West (Vol. 1–2)]. (T. O. Churchill, Trans.). London,
Culture Learning Institute. UK: J. Johnson, St. Paul’s Church-Yard.
Harman, R. C., & Briggs, N. E. (1991). SIETAR (Original work published 1784–1791).
Survey: Perceived contributions of the social Herskovits, M. J. (1941). The myth of the negro past.
sciences to intercultural communication. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Herskovits, M. J. (1972). Cultural relativism:
15(1), 19–28. Perspectives in cultural pluralism. New York,
Harris, P., & Moran, R. T. (1979). Managing NY: Vintage Books/Random House.
cultural differences. Houston, TX: Gulf Ho, E., Holmes, P., & Cooper, J. (2004). Review and
Publishing Co. evaluation of international literature on managing
Hart, W. B. (1999). Historical contributions of cultural diversity in classrooms. Hamilton,
Boasian anthropology to the interdiscipline of New Zealand: University of Waikato.
intercultural relations. Unpublished doctoral Hocking, W. E. (1934). Christianity and
dissertation. The University of New Mexico, intercultural contacts. The Journal of Religion
Albuquerque, New Mexico. Retrieved from 14(2), 127–138.
UMI. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences:
Hart, W. B. (2005). Everett M. Rogers: His role in International differences in work-related Values.
intercultural communication study. International Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences:
491–495. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
Hasslet, B. B. (2017). Establishing a unique organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks,
intercultural communication learning CA: Sage (copublished in the PRC as Vol. 10
environment: The University of Minnesota in the Shanghai Foreign Language Education
heritage in the 1970s and 1980s. In S. J. Kulich & Press SFLEP Intercultural Communication
A. S. English (Eds.), China intercultural Reference Series, 2008).
communication annual, Vol. 2 (pp. 80–94). Beijing, Hoggart, R. (1957). The uses of literacy.
China: China Social Sciences Publishing House. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
Haydon, A. E. (Ed.) (1934). Modern trends in world Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural communication
religions. Chicago, IL: The University of and ideology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chicago Press. Holmes, P. (2014). Intercultural dialogue:
Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of challenges to theory, practice and research.
style. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge. Language and Intercultural Communication
Hegel, G. W. F. (1807). Phänomenologie des geistes 14(1), 1–6. DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2013.866120
[The Phenomenology of Spirit]. Bamberg und Hoopes, D. S. (Ed.). (1975). Readings in
Würzburg Germany: Joseph Anton Goebhardt. intercultural communication, Vol. 1. The
Hegel, G. W. F. (1902). Vorlesungen über die intercultural communication workshop.
philosophie der weltgeschichte [Lectures on the Pittsburgh, PA: The Intercultural
philosophy of world history]. (J. Sibree, Trans). Communications Network (original collection,
London, UK: George Bell and Sons. (Original 1970; June 1975 reprint, Washington, DC:
work published 1837) Society for Intercultural Education, Training
Henry, D. D. (1963, October). The American and Research, SIETAR).
university looks abroad: View from the Hoopes, D. S. (Ed.). (1971, 72, 73, 74, 75/76).
President’s office. Paper presented at Regional Readings in intercultural communications,
(Vols. 1–5). Pittsburgh, PA, later Washington, Netherlands: Iso Kern. (original series of
DC: The Intercultural Communications volumes published 1929–1935).
Network/Society for Intercultural Education, Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics:
Training and Research (SIETAR). An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA:
Hoopes, D. S. (1980). Intercultural education University of Pennsylvania Press.
(Phi Delta Kappa Fastback # 142). Inglis, F. (2004). Culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Press Ltd.
Foundation. Jain, N. C. (Ed.). (1977, 1979, 1982). International and
Hoopes, D. S., Bretz, F. H., Hoffman, N. M., & intercultural communication annual (Vols. 4–6).
Spencer, A. M. (1971). A study of the dynamics Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication
of inter-institutional cooperation for Association.
international education development. Final Jain, N. C., Prosser, M. H., & Miller, M. H. (Eds.).
report. Pittsburgh, PA: Regional Council for (1974). Intercultural communication: Proceedings
International Education (RCIE) (retrieved from of the speech communication association summer
ERIC EDO48716). conference X. Falls Church, VA: Speech
Hoopes, D. S., Pedersen, P. B., & Renwick, G. W. Communication Association.
(Eds.). (1977). Overview of intercultural Jebsen, I. (1999). The practice of intercultural
education, training and research. Vol. I: Theory. communication – Reflections for professions
Washington, DC: International Society for in cultural meetings. Online Journal of
Intercultural Education, Training and Research. Intercultural Communication. Retrieved from
Houghton, S. (2009). Managing stereotypes in immi.se
intercultural communication. The Humanities and Johnson, L. D., & Pak, Y. K. (2019). Teaching for
Social Studies in the Far East, 1(21), 139–141. diversity: Intercultural and intergroup education
Howell, W. S. (1979). Theoretical foundations for in the public schools, 1920s–1970s. Review of
intercultural communication. In M. K. Asante, Research in Education, 43(1), 1–31. doi:10.3102/
E. Newmark, & C. A. Blake (Eds.), Handbook of 0091732X18821127
intercultural communication (pp. 23–42). Beverly Kant, I. (1968). Von den verschiedenen racen der
Hills, CA: Sage Publications. menschen [On the different races of men]. In I.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1953). Americans and Chinese: Two Kant & Werke, (W. Weischedel, Ed.), Vol XI
ways of life. New York, NY: Abelard-Schuman. (pp. 9–30). Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany:
Hsu, F. L. K. (Ed.). (1972). Psychological Suhrkamp. (Original work published 1775).
anthropology: Approaches to culture and Kant, I. (1781). Kritik der reinen Vernunft [Critique
personality (rev. ed.). Homewood, IL: Dorsey of pure reason]. Riga, Latvia: Hartknoch.
Press. (Original work published 1972, Kant, I. (1793). Determination and the concept of a
Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Pub. Co). human race. Reprinted in I. Kant, Zerstreute
Hsu, F. L. K. (1963). Clan, caste, and club. Aufsatze, Frankfurt/Leipzig, Germany:
New York, NY: Van Nostrand. Neuweid. (Original work published 1785)
Hsu, F. L. K. (1969). The study of literate Kant, I. (2006). Anthropologie in pragmatischer
civilizations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Hinsicht [Anthropology from a pragmatic point
Winston. of view] (R. B. Louden & M. Kuehn, Trans.).
Hume, D. (1751). An enquiry concerning the New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
principles of morals (1st ed.). London, UK: (Original work published 1798).
A. Millar. Katriel, T. (1995). From “context” to “contexts” in
Husserl, E. (1974). Zur Phänomenologie der intercultural communication research. In R. L.
Intersubjektivität. Dritter Teil. [The Wiseman (Ed.). Intercultural communication
phenomenology of intersubjectivity. Third part]. theory (pp. 271–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Husserliana, Volume Band 15. Den Haag, The Publications.
Katz, D., & Braly, K. W. (1935). Racial prejudice Kluckhohn, C. K. M. (1954). Culture and behavior.
and racial stereotypes. The Journal of Abnormal In G. Lindzey (Ed.), The handbook of social
and Social Psychology, 30(2), 175–193. psychology, (Vol. 2, pp. 921–976). Reading/
Kawakami, H. S. (2009). A history and development Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
of the intercultural communication field in Japan Kluckhohn, C. K. M. (1962). Universal categories
(1950–present). Unpublished doctoral of culture. In S. Tax (Ed.), Anthropology today:
dissertation. The University of New Mexico. Selections (pp. 304–320). Chicago, IL:
Retrieved December, 2010, from gradworks. University of Chicago Press. (Original work
umi.com. published 1952)
Kealey, D. J., & Protheroe, D. R. (1996). The Kluckhohn, C. K. M. (1964). Education, values,
effectiveness of cross-cultural training for and anthropological relativity. In R. Kluckhohn
expatriates: An assessment of the literature on (Ed.), Culture and behavior: Collected essays of
the issue. International Journal of Intercultural Clyde Kluckhohn (pp. 286–300). (Original work
Relations, 20(2), 141–165. published 1952 as “Universal values and
Kennard, E. A. (1948). Cultural anthropology and anthropological relativism,” in Modern
the Foreign Service. American Foreign Service education and human values: The Pitcairn-
Journal, 25, 18–19, 42, 44. Crabbe Foundation lecture series, (Vol. 4,
Khaldûn, I. (1968). Al-Muqaddima (Discours sur pp. 87–112). Pittsburgh, PA: University of
l’histoire universelle). [Introduction: Discourse Pittsburgh Press).
on universal history]. Paris, France: Sindbad. Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961).
(Original work published 1377) Variations in value orientations. Westport, CT:
Kim, M. S. (2014). Culture-based conversational Greenwood Press (concurrently by
constraints theory: Individual- and culture- Bloomington, IN: Row & Peterson).
level analyses. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Klyukanov, I. E. (2005). Principles of intercultural
Theorizing about intercultural communication communication. Boston, MA: Pearson
(pp. 93–118). Shanghai, China: Shanghai Education/Allyn & Bacon.
Foreign Language Education Press. (Original Klyukanov, I. E. (2010). A communication universe:
work published 2005) Manifestations of meaning, sstagings of
Kim, M. S. (2010). Intercultural communication in significance. Lanham, MD: Lexington/
Asia: Current state and future prospects. Asian Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Journal of Communication, 20(5), 166–180. Knowles, M. S. (1969). An experiment with
Kim, Y. Y. (Ed.). (2017). The international group self-directed learning: The learning
encyclopedia of intercultural communication. teaching team. In P. Runkel, R. Harrison, &
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons/Blackwell M. Runkel (Eds.), The changing college
Kim, Y. Y., & Gudykunst, W. B. (Eds.). (1988). classroom. San Francisco, CA:
Theories in intercultural communication. Jossey-Bass.
International and intercultural communication Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult
annual (Vol. 12). Newbury Park, CA: SCA/Sage education: From pedagogy to andragogy. New
Publications. York, NY: Association Press.
Klemm, G. F. (1843–52). Allgemeine Cultur- Knowles, M. S. (1973). The adult learner:
Geschichte der Menschheit [General cultural A neglected species. Madison, WI: American
history of mankind]. Leipzig, Germany: Society for Training and Development.
Teubner. Knowles, M. S. (1985). Shifting to an HRD systems
Klineberg, O. (1940). Social psychology. New York, approach. Training & Development Journal,
NY: Henry Holt & Co. 39(5), 24–25.
Klineberg, O. (1944). Characteristics of the American Kochman, T. (1983) Black and white styles in conflict.
negro. Manhattan, NY: Harper & Brothers Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kohls, L. R. (1979). Survival kit for overseas living. Landis, D., & Brislin, R. W. (Eds.). (1983).
Chicago, IL: Intercultural Network, SYSTRAN Handbook of intercultural training (Vols. 1–3).
Publications. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1981). Experiential learning Landis, D., & Wasilewski, J. H. (1999). Reflections
theory and learning experiences in liberal arts on 22 years of the Intercultural Journal of
education: New Directions for Experiential International Relations and 23 years in other
Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. areas of intercultural practice. International
Kotthoff, H., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4),
Handbook of intercultural communication. 535–574.
New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. LaPiere, R.T. (2010). Attitudes vs. actions.
Ku, H. M. (1998). The spirit of the Chinese people. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39, 7–11.
Beijing, China: Foreign Language Teaching (Original work published 1934)
and Research Press. (Original work published Lasker, B. (1929). Race attitudes in children.
1915) New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.
Kulich, S. J. (2011). Applying cross-cultural values Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship
research to “the Chinese”: A critical integration as a social process: A substantive and
of etic and emic approaches (in 2 Volumes). methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Able &
Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt Universitaet zu C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern
Berlin, published online at http://edoc.hu-berlin society (pp. 18–66). New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
.de/docviews/abstract.php?lang=ger&id=39023 Lebedko, M. (2010). Tackling ethnic stereotypes in
Kulich, S. J. (2012). Reconstructing the histories an intercultural communication course.
and influences of 1970s intercultural leaders: Intercultural Communication Studies, 19(1),
Prelude to biographies. International Journal of 168–181.
Intercultural Relations, 36, 744–759. doi:10.1016/ Lederer, W. J., & Burdick, E. (1958). The ugly
j.ijintrel.2012.08.004 American. New York, NY: Norton.
Kulich, S. J. (2017). Reviewing intercultural study Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1990). Notes in the history of
roots: From reviving histories toward reassessing intercultural communication: The Foreign
the status of the field (Part 1 Intro). In S. J. Service Institute and the mandate for
Kulich & A. S. English (Eds.), China intercultural training. Quarterly Journal of
intercultural communication annual, Vol. 2 Speech, 76, 262–281.
(pp. 33–53). Beijing, China: Chinese Academy of Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2010a). Writing the intellectual
Social Science (CASS) Press. history of intercultural communication. In T. K.
Kulich, S. J., & Zhang, X. J. (2012). Profiling people Nakayama & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The
in multiple domains: Toward a sociology of handbook of critical intercultural communication
science for intercultural disciplines. International (pp. 21–33). Chichester, West Sussex/Oxford,
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 885–901. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.08.019 Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2010b). The social history of
Kurylo, A. (Ed.) (2012). Inter/cultural language and social interaction: People, places,
communication: Representation and construction ideas. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lefringhausen, K., Spencer-Oatey, H., & Debray,
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. K. M. (1952). C. (2019). Culture, norms, and the assessment of
Culture: A critical review of concepts and communication contexts: Multidisciplinary
definitions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University perspectives. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Press. Psychology, 50(10), 1098–1111.
Lal, S. (2004). 1930s multiculturalism: Rachel Lehtonen, J. (1994). Cultural stereotypes and
Davis-Dubois and the bureau for intercultural intercultural communication. In G. Bartelt
education. Radical Teacher, 69, 18–22. (Ed.), The dynamics of language process
(pp. 173–182). Tübingen, Germany: Günter Malinowski, B. (1944). A scientific theory of culture,
Narr Verlag. and other essays. Chapel Hill, NC: University of
Leighton, A. H. (1984). Then and now: Some notes on North Carolina Press.
the interaction of person and social environment. Mandeville, J. (1684). The voyages and travels of Sir
Human Organization, 43(3), 189–197. John Mandeville. London, United Kingdom:
Leighton, A. H. (2000). Science and values: Printed for R. Scot, T. Basset, J. Wright, and
A historical perspective. In K. W. Russo (Ed.), R. Chiswel. (Original work published
Finding the middle ground: Insights and 1370)
applications of the value orientation method Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: Studies
(pp. 21–30). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. in the ideology of advanced industrial society.
Lewin, K. (1936). Some social-psychological Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
differences between the United States and Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Carbaugh, D.
Germany. Character and Personality, 4, (2012). The history and development of the study
265–293. of intercultural communication and applied
Lewin, K. (1947a). Frontiers in group dynamics: linguistics. In J. Jackson, J. (Ed.), The Routledge
I, Concept, method, and reality in social science, handbook of language and intercultural
social equilibria, and social change. Human communication (pp. 17–36). New York, NY:
Relations 1(1), 5–42. Routledge.
Lewin, K. (1947b). Frontiers in group dynamics, Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Carbaugh, D.
II, channels of group life, social planning and (2020). A global look at the history and
action research. Human Relations 1(2), development of language and intercultural
179–193. communication. In J. Jackson (Ed.), Routledge
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflict: Selected handbook of language and intercultural
papers on group dynamics. New York, NY: communication, 2nd ed. (online Chap 3).
Harper and Brothers. Abingdon, UK: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Markham, J. W. (1969). International
Selected theoretical papers. New York: NY: communication as a field of study: Reports and
Harper and Brothers. papers from the Wingspread Symposium on
Liebniz, G. W. (1957). Novissima Sinica [Letters education and research in international and
from China]. (D. Lach, Trans.). Honolulu, HI: comparative communication. Iowa, IA: City:
University of Hawaii Press. (Original work Publication Department of the University of
published 1697) Iowa.
Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1999). Thinking
NY: W. W. Norton & Company. dialectically about culture and communication.
Locke, J. (1996) An essay concerning human Communication Theory, 9, 1–25.
understanding (K. P. Winker, Ed.). Indianapolis, Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2010).
IN: Hackett Publishing Company. (Original Intercultural communication in contexts (5th ed.).
work published 1690). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign Marx, K. (1843). Zur Kritik der Hegelschen
society: Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting Rechtsphilosophie [Critique of Hegel’s
the United States. International Social Science philosophy of right]. Reprinted in K. M. Guth
Bulletin, 7, 45–51. (Ed.), Berlin, Germany: Hofenberg. (Original
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western “Einleitung” written in 1843–44).
pacific: An account of native enterprise and Marx, K. (1859). Zur Kritik der politischen
adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian Ökonomie [A contribution to the critique of
New Guinea. London, UK: Routledge and political economy]. Berlin, Germany: Franz
Kegan Paul. Duncker.
McLuhan, M. & Powers, B.R. (1989). The global Montalto, N. (1982). A history of the intercultural
village: Transformations in world life and media educational movement, 1924–1941. New York,
in the 21st century. New York, NY: Oxford NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.
University Press. Montesquieu, C. S. (1748). De l’esprit des lois
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From [The spirit of the laws]. Geneva, Switzerland:
the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, Chez Barrillot & Fills.
IL: University of Chicago Press. Moon, D. G. (1996). Concept of ‘culture’:
Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa: Implications for intercultural communication
A psychological study of primitive youth for research. Communication Quarterly, 44(1), 70–84.
Western civilization. New York, NY: Moon, D. G. (2010). Critical reflections on culture
Morrow. and critical intercultural communication. In
Mead, M. (1942). And keep your powder dry: An T. K. Nakayama & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The
anthropologist looks at America. New York, NY: handbook of critical intercultural communication
Morrow. (pp. 34–52). Chichester, West Sussex/Oxford,
Mead, M. (1951). The study of national character. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy More, T. (1909–1914). Libellus vere aureus, nec
sciences: Recent developments in scope and minus salutaris quam festivus, de optimo rei
method (pp. 70–85). Stanford, CA: Stanford publicae statu deque nova insula Utopia [Utopia]
University Press. (R. Robinson, Trans.). New York, NY: P.F.
Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (Eds.). (1953). The study Collier & Son. (Original work published 1516)
of culture at a distance. Chicago, IL: University Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image et
of Chicago Press. son public [Psychoanalysis: Its image and its
Merton, R. K. (1949). Social theory and social public]. Paris, France / Cambridge, MA: Presses
structure: Toward a codification of theory and Universitaires de France / Polity Press.
research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Murdock, G. P. (1938). Outline of cultural materials.
Mikkelson, J. M. (2013). Kant and the concept of race. New Haven, CT: Yale University Institute of
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Human Relations. (reprint 2004, Human
Milhouse, V. H. (1996). Intercultural Relations Area Files).
communication education and training: Goals, Murdock, G. P. (1975). The outline of world
content, and methods. International Journal of cultures. New Haven, CT: Human Relations
Intercultural Relations, 20, 69–95. Area Files. (Original work published 1954)
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Murdock, G. P., & Whiting, J. W. M. (1945).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Outline of cultural materials. New Haven, CT:
Montagu, A. (1945). Man's most dangerous myth: Yale University Institute of Human Relations.
The fallacy of race (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Nakamura, H. (1964). Ways of thinking of Eastern
Columbia University Press. people: India, China, Tibet, Japan. Honolulu,
Montagu, A. (Ed.). (1964). The concept of race. HI: East-West Center Press.
New York, NY: MacMillan. Nakayama, T. K., & Halualani, R. T. (Eds.).
Montagu, A. (1972). Statement on race: An (2010). The handbook of critical intercultural
annotated elaboration and exposition of the four communication. West Sussex/Oxford, UK:
statements on race issued by the United Nations. Wiley/Blackwell.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nam, K.-A. (2012). DAE Exercise. In K. Berardo &
Montaigne, M. (1969) Essais [Essays]. (J. Folio, D. Deardorff (Eds.), Building cultural
Trans.). Retrieved March 30, 2019 from https:// competence: Innovative activities and models
scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/ (pp. 53–57). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
handle/1794/766/montaigne.pdf?sequence=1 Nam, K.-A., Choi, Y., & Lee, M. (2013). Cross-
(Original work published 1580) cultural training and its implications for HRD.
In R. F. Poell, T. S. Rocco, & G. L. Roth (Eds.), Pak, Y. K. (2002). “If there is a better intercultural
The Routledge Companion to Human Resource plan in any school system in America, I do not
Development (pp. 582–591). New York, NY: know where it is” The San Diego City Schools’
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Intercultural Education Program, 1946–1949.
Nam, K.-A., Choi, Y., & Lee, M. (2014). When Urban Education, 37(5), 588–609. DOI: 10.1177/
“West meets East”: Identifying the gap in 0042085902238675
current cross-cultural training research. Park R. (1916). Suggestions for the investigations of
Human Resource Development Review, 13(1) human behavior in the urban environment.
36–57. American Journal of Sociology, 20(5), 577–612.
Nam, K.-A., & Condon, J. C. (2010). The DIE is Park, R. E. (1926). The urban community as a
cast: The continuing evolution of intercultural spatial pattern and a moral order. The Urban
communication’s favorite classroom exercise. Community, 2, 3–18.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1921). Introduction to
34(1), 81–87. science and sociology. Chicago, IL: University of
Navarrette, D. F. d. (1960). Tratados históricos, Chicago Press.
políticos, éticos y religiosos de la monarquia de Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (Eds.) (1951).
China [The travels and controversies of Friar Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge,
Domingo Navarrete] (Vols. 1–2) (J. S. Cummins, MA / New York, NY: Harvard University
Ed. & Trans.) Second series, No. 118. London, Press / Harper & Row.
UK: Hakluyt Society (Original published in Pascal, B. (1966). Pensées [The meditations]. (A. J.
Madrid in Spanish 1676). Krailshemer, Trans.). London, UK: Penguin.
Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the genealogy of morality Pearce, W. B. (2014). The coordinated management
(M. Clark & A. J. Swensen, Trans.). of meaning (CMM). In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
Indianapolis, IN/Cambridge, UK: Hackett. Theorizing about intercultural communication
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock. Practical (pp. 35–54). Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign
Anthropology, 7, 177–182. Language Education Press. (Original work
Ogay, T., & Edelmann, D. (2016). Taking culture published 2005)
seriously: Implications for intercultural Pearce, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1983). Rules
education and training. European Journal of theories: Varieties, limitations, and potentials.
Teacher Education, 39(3), 388–400. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural
Oliver, R. T. (1962). Culture and communication: communication theory: Current perspectives
The problem of penetrating national and cultural (pp. 79–88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
boundaries. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Pedersen, P., Lonner, W., & Draguns, J. (1976).
Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in Counseling across cultures. Honolulu, HI:
ancient India and China. New York, NY: University Press of Hawaii.
Syracuse University Press. Pelto, P. (1968). The difference between “tight” and
Olneck, M. (1990). The recurring dream: Symbolism “loose” societies. Transaction, 5, 37–40.
and ideology in intercultural and multicultural Peterson, E. E. (2009). An introduction to
education. American Journal of Education, 98(2). communication and public policy. In E. E.
147–174. www.jstor.org/stable/1085376. Petersen (Ed.), Communication and public policy:
Osgood, C. E. (1964). Semantic differential Proceedings of the 2008 International Colloquium
technique in the comparative study of cultures. on Communication (pp. 1–3). Retrieved from:
American Anthropologist, 66, 171–200. DOI: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ICC/2008/
10.1525/aa.1964.66.3.02a00880 ICC2008Peterson.pdf
Osgood, C. E., May, W. H., & Miron, M. S. (1975). Pettigrew, T. (1958). Personality and sociocultural
Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. factors in intergroup attitudes. Journal of
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Conflict Resolution, 2, 29–42.
Pettigrew, T. (1978). Three issues in ethnicity. In +of+behavior.+In+A.+Smith+(Ed.),

J. Yinger & S. Cutler (Eds.), Major social issues. +Communication+and+culture.+New+York,
(pp. 25–49). https://www.google.com/books/ +NY:+Holt,+Reinhart,+and+Winston.&pg=
edition/Social_Comparison_Judgment_and_ PT322&printsec=frontcover New York, NY:
Behavior/3FO_DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1& Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
dq=Pettigrew,+T.+(1978).+Three+issues+in Piller, I. (2017). Intercultural communication:
+ethnicity.+In+J.+Yinger+%26+S.+Cutler+ A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Edinburgh, UK:
(Eds.)+Major+social+issues.+New+York, Edinburgh University Press.
+NY:+Free+Press.&pg=PA524&printsec= Plato (1966). Phaedo [Phaedo]. Cambridge, MA:
frontcoverNew York, NY: Free Press. Harvard University Press & William Heinemann
Pettigrew, T. (1979). The ultimate attribution error. Ltd. (Original work published 1925)
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, Porter, R. E., & Samovar, L. A. (1973). Intercultural
461–476. communication: A reader. Belmont, CA:
Pettigrew, T. (1982). Cognitive styles and social Wadsworth.
behavior. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality Powdermaker, H. F. (1944). Probing our prejudices:
and social psychology (Vol 3, pp. 199–233). Beverly A unit for high school students [BIE Vol. 2,
Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Problems of race and culture in American
Pettigrew, T. (1986). The intergroup hypothesis schools]. New York, NY: Harper.
reconsidered. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown Pribham, K. (1949). Conflicting patterns of thought.
(Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.
encounters (pp. 169–195). https://www.google Prosser, M. H. (1973a). Intercommunication among
.com/books/edition/Blackwell_Handbook_of_ nations and peoples. New York, NY: Harper &
Social_Psychology/LNZHf3K4xzMC?hl=en& Row.
gbpv=1&dq=Pettigrew,+T.+(1986).+The Prosser, M. H. (Ed.). (1973b, 1974). Prosser, M. H.
+intergroup+hypothesis+reconsidered.+In+M (Ed.). (1973b, 1974). Intercultural
+Hewstone+%26+R.+Brown+(Eds.),+Contact communication and social change [Syllabus].
+and+conflict+in+intergroup+encounters Charlottesville, VA: Department of Speech
.+Oxford,+UK:+Blackwell.&pg=PA63& Communication, University of Virginia.
printsec=frontcover Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Prosser, M. H. (Ed.). (1977). USIA Intercultural
Philipsen, G. (1992). Speaking culturally: Communications course proceedings. Washington,
Explorations in social communication. Albany, DC: International Communication Agency/
NY: State University Press of New York. SIETAR. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED163545
Philipsen, G., Coutu, L. M., & Covarrubias, P. Prosser, M. H. (1978a). Intercultural
(2014). Speech codes theory: Restatement, communication theory and research: An
revisions, and response to criticisms. In W. B. overview of major constructs. In B. D. Ruben
Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural (Ed.), Communication yearbook 2 (pp. 335–343).
communication (pp. 55–68). Shanghai, China: New Brunswick, NJ: ICA-Transaction Books.
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Prosser, M. (1978b). The cultural dialogue:
(Original work published 2005) An introduction to intercultural communication.
Pike, K. L. (1966). Etic and emic standpoints for the Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
description of behavior. In A. Smith (Ed.), Prosser, M. H. (2012). K. S. Sitaram, an early
Communication and culture. (pp. 152–63). interculturalist: Founding the field May 6, 1970.
missing page numbers: (pp. 152–63). https:// International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
www.google.com/books/edition/Practical_ 36(6), 857–868.
Research_with_Children/271TDAAAQBAJ? Prosser, M. H., & Kulich, S. J. (Eds.). Early
hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pike,+K.+L.+(1966).+Etic American pioneers of intercultural
+and+emic+standpoints+for+the+description communication [Special issue]. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(6), communication theory: Current perspectives

743–902. (pp. 131–145). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Pusch, M. D. (Ed.). (1979). Multicultural education: Publications.
A cross cultural training approach. Chicago, IL: Rummel, R. J. (1966). Some dimensions in the
Intercultural Network, Inc. foreign behavior of nations. Journal of Peace
Pusch, M. D. (2004). Intercultural training in Research, 3, 201–223.
historical perspective. In D. Landis, J. Bennett Samovar, L. A., & Porter R. E. (Eds.).
& M. Bennett (Eds.), The handbook of (1973). Intercultural communication: A reader.
intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 13–36). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the
Renwick, G. W. (1994). A longitudinal analysis and study of speech. New York, NY: Harcourt,
assessment of intercultural education, training, Brace, and Co.
and research, 1932–1984. [Unpublished doctoral Sapir, E. (1949). Culture, language, personality:
dissertation]. The Graduate School of Public and Selected essays. Berkeley, CA: University of
International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh. California Press.
Rich, A. (1974). Interracial communication. Saral, T. B. (1977). Intercultural communication
New York, NY: Harper & Row. theory and research: An overview. In B. D.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1
New York, NY: Free Press. (7th ed., pp. 389–396). New Brunswick, NJ:
Rogers, E. M. (1999). Georg Simmel’s concept of Transaction.
the stranger and intercultural communication Saral, T. B. (1979). Intercultural communication
research. Communication Theory, 9(1), 58–74. theory and research: An overview of challenges
Rogers, E. M., Hart, W. B., & Miike, Y. (2002). and opportunities. In D. Nimmo (Ed.),
Edward T. Hall and the history of intercultural Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 395–406).
communication: The United States and Japan. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Keio Communication Review, 24, 3–26. Schramm, W. L. (1997). The beginnings of
Rogers, E. M., & Steinfatt (1999). Georg Simmel’s communication study in America: A memoir.
concept of the stranger and intercultural Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
communication research. Communication Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content
Theory, 9(1), 58–74. and structure of values: Theoretical advances
Rohmer, R. P. (1984). Toward a conception of and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P.
culture for cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(2), 111–138. psychology, (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Deigo, CA/
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: New York, NY: Academic Press.
Investigations into the nature of belief systems and Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H. (2012).
personality systems. New York, NY: Basic Books. Intercultural communication: A discourse
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. approach (3rd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex,
New York, NY: Free Press. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rousseau, J. J. (1755). Discours sur l’origine et les Seelye, H. N., & Tyler, L. (1977). Intercultural
fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes communicator resources. Provo, UT:
[Discourse on the origin and basis of inequality Brigham Young University Language and
among men]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Intercultural Research Center/Bilingual
Marc-Michel Rey. Education. Department, Illinois Office of
Rousseau, J. J. (1762). Du contrat social [The social Education.
contract]. Paris, France: Marc-Michel Rey. Selig, D. (2008). Americans all: The cultural gifts
Ruben, B. D. (1983). A system-theoretic view. movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural Press.
Selmer, J. (2005). Western business managers Smith, H. L. Jr. (1946). Language training for the
in China: Adjusting to the most foreign of all Foreign Service and the Department of State.
foreign places. In H. Scullion & M. Linehan American Foreign Service Journal 23, 11–13,
(Eds.), International human resource 43–44, 47.
management: A critical text (pp. 68–84). Smith, W. D. (2019). Volkgeist: Bibliography.
London, UK: Palgrave/Macmillan. Science Encyclopedia – Jrank Articles. Retrieved
Shuter, R. (2011). Robert T. Oliver: Trailblazer in April 11, 2019 from https://science.jrank.org/
intercultural communication. China Media pages/8147/Volksgeist.html
Research, 7(2), 121–126. Sorrells, K. (1998): Gifts of wisdom: An interview
Sieyès, A., Lafayette., M, & Jefferson, T. (1789). with Dr. Edward T. Hall (On the past and future
Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du of intercultural relations study). The Edge: The
citoyen [Declaration of the rights of man and E-Journal of Intercultural Relations 1(3), 1–12.
of the citizen]. In Conseil Constitutionnel. http://interculturalrelations.com/
Retrieved from www.conseil-constitutionnel. v1i3Summer1998/sum98sorellshall.htm#santafe
fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/anglais/ Sorrells, K. (2012). Intercultural training in the global
cst2.pdf. context. In J. Jackson (Ed.), Routledge handbook
Simmel, G. (1900). Philosophie des Geldes of language and intercultural communication
[Philosophy of money]. Leipzig, Germany: (pp. 372–389). New York, NY: Routledge.
Duncker & Humblot. Sorrells, K. (2013). Intercultural communication:
Simmel, G. (1908). Soziologie: Untersuchungen über Globalization and social justice. Thousand Oaks,
die formen der vergesellschaftung [Sociology: CA: Sage Publications.
Studies in the forms of societalization]. Leipzig, Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Introduction.
Germany: Duncker and Humblot. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking:
Simmel, G. (1921) The social significance of the Managing rapport through talk across cultures
“stranger.” In R. E. Park & E. W. Burgess (pp. 1–8). London, England: Continuum.
(Eds.), Introduction to the science of sociology Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009).
(pp. 322–327). Chicago, IL: University of Intercultural interaction: A multidisciplinary
Chicago Press. approach to intercultural communication.
Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict and the web of group Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
affiliations. (K. Wolff, Trans. and Ed.). Glencoe, Spinoza, B. (1677). Ethica [Ethics]. Quinque Partes
IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1922) Diflincta: Quibus Agitur.
Simmel, G. (1950). The stranger. In K. Wolff Starosta, W. J. (2011). Sojourning through
(Trans. & Ed.), The sociology of Georg Simmel. intercultural communication: A retrospective.
New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work China Media Research, 7(2), 1–5.
published 1908). Stephan, W., & Rosenfield, D. (1982). Racial and
Smith, A. G. (1966). Culture and Communication. ethnic stereotyping. In A. Millar (Ed.), In the eye
New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. of the beholder. New York, NY: Prager.
Smith, A. G. (1977). Research and theory in Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1985). Intergroup
intercultural communication. In D. S. Hoopes, anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41,157–166.
P. B. Pedersen, & G. W. Renwick (Eds.). Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1992). Reducing
Overview of intercultural education, training, and intergroup anxiety though intercultural contact.
research, Vol I: Theory (pp. 3–9). International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
Smith, A. H. (1890). Chinese characteristics. 20, 409–426.
Shanghai, China: Fleming H. Revell Company. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Intergroup
Smith, A. L. [a.k.a. Asante, M. K.] (1973). relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Transracial communication. Englewood Cliffs, Stewart, E. C. (1978). Outline of intercultural
NJ: Prentice-Hall. communication. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.),
Intercultural and international communication The university and world affairs. New York, NY:
(pp. 265–344). Washington DC: University Press The Ford Foundation.
of America. (Original work published 1973, Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918–1920). The
circulated at the 1974 Chicago SCA/ICA/ Polish peasant in Europe and America:
SIETAR International Conference, and Monograph of an Immigrant Group (5 volumes).
published in Casmir, 1974, and again in 1978) Boston, MA: Richard G. Baxter/Gorham Press.
Stonequist, E. V. (1929). The marginal man. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles:
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B.
Storti, C., & Bennhold-Samaan, L. (1998). Culture Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural
matters: The peace corps cross-cultural communication (pp. 213–235). Newbury Park,
workbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Government CA: Sage Publications.
Printing Office). Ting-Toomey, S. (2014a). Identity negotiation
Storti, C., & Bennhold-Samaan, L. (1999). Culture theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In W. B.
matters: Trainer’s guide. Washington, DC: Peace Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural
Corps. communication (pp. 211–234). Shanghai, China:
Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Star, S. A., & Williams Jr., R. M. (1949). The (Original work published 2005)
American soldier: Adjustment during army life. Ting-Toomey, S. (2014b). The matrix of face: An
(Studies in social psychology in World War II, updated face-negotiation theory. In W. B.
Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gudykunst (Ed.). Theorizing about intercultural
Sui, P. C. P. (1952). The sojourner. American communication (pp. 71–92). Shanghai, China:
Journal of Sociology, 58(1), 34–44. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Sumner, W. G. (1940). Folkways: A study of the (Original work published 2005)
sociological importance of usages, manners, Ting-Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2019).
customs, mores, and morals. New York, NY: Communicating across cultures (2nd ed.).
Ginn. (Original work published 1906) New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Swift, J. (1726). Gulliver’s travels. London, UK: Tönnies, F. (1957). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft
Benjamin Motte. [Community and society] (C. P. Loomis, Trans.
Szkudlarek, B. (2009). Through Western eyes: & Ed.). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
Insights into the intercultural training field. University Press. (Original work published 1887,
Organization Studies, 30(9), 975–986. Leipzig, Germany)
Szkudlarek, B., & Romani, L. (2017, July). From an Trager, G. L. (1958). Paralinguistics: A first
imperialist to a responsible agenda: Going approximation. Studies in Linguistics, 13, 1–12.
beyond the limitations of cross-cultural training Triandis, H. C. (1964). Cultural influences upon
models. Paper presented at the 59th Annual cognitive processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Meeting of the Academy of International Advances in experimental social psychology
Business AIB, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (pp. 1–48). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Taba, H. (1953). Research oriented programs in Triandis, H. C. (Ed). (1968). Cross-cultural social
intergroup education in schools and colleges. psychology newsletter. Champaign-Urbana, IL:
Review of Educational Research, 23(4), 362–371. University of Illinois.
Taba, H., & Van Til, W. (Eds.). (1945). Democratic Triandis, H. C., et al. (1972). Analysis of subjective
human relations: Promising practices in culture. New York, NY: Wiley.
intergroup and intercultural education in the Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and
social studies (16th yearbook). Washington, DC: collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
National Council for the Social Studies. Triandis, H. C. (2008). An autobiography: Why did
The Committee on the University and World culture shape my career? In R. Levine, A.
Affairs, & Morrill, J. L. (Chairman). (1960). Rodrigues, & L. Zelezny (Eds.) Journeys in
social psychology: Looking back to inspire the strikes back: Race and racism in 70s Britain.
future (pp. 145–164). New York, NY: London, UK: Routledge.
Psychology Press. Useem, J., Useem, R. H., & Donoghue, J.
Triandis, H. C., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). (1979). D. (1963). Men in the middle of the third-
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: culture: The role of American and non-Western
Methodology (Vol. 2). Boston, MA: Allyn & people in cross-cultural administration. Human
Bacon. Organization, 22(3), 169–179.
Triandis, H. C., Berry, J. W., Brislin, R. W., Vickery, W. E., & Cole, S. G. (1943). Intercultural
Draguns, J. D., Heron, A., & Lonner, W. J. education in American schools: Proposed
(Eds.). (1979–1981). Handbook of cross-cultural objectives and methods [BIE Vol. 1, Problems of
psychology (Vols. 1–6). Rockleigh, NJ: Allyn & race and culture in American schools.] New
Bacon. York, NY: Harper.
Triandis, H. C., & Brislin, R. W. (1980). Handbook Vickery, W. E., & Cole, S. G. (Eds.). (1943–1954).
of cross-cultural psychology: Social psychology Problems of race and culture in American
(Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. schools (Bureau of Intercultural Education
Triandis, H. C., & Draguns, J. G. (Eds.). (1981). Series, Vols. 1–10). New York, NY:
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Harper.
Psychopathy (Vol. 6). Boston, MA: Allyn & Voltaire. (1756). Essai sur les mœurs et l’esprit
Bacon. des nations [Essay on the manners and
Triandis, H. C., & Heron, A. (Eds.). (1980). spirit of nations]. Paris, France: Treuttel
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: et Würtz.
Developmental psychology (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Myshlenie i rech’. [Thinking
Allyn & Bacon. and speech]. Moscow, Russia: Gosudarstvennoe
Triandis, H. C., & Lambert, W. W. (Eds.). (1979). Sotsial’no-Ekonomicheskoe Izdatel’stvo.
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Walford, D. (Ed.). (1977). Antony Ashley Cooper,
Perspectives (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Allyn & third earl of Shaftesbury: An inquiry concerning
Bacon. virtue, or merit. Manchester, UK: Manchester
Triandis, H. C., & Lonner, W. W. (Eds.). (1980). University Press. (Original work published by
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Basic Cooper, A. A., in 1699).
processes (Vol. 3). Boston, MA: Allyn & Wan, C. (2015). Understanding cultural
Bacon. identification through intersubjective cultural
Triandis, H. C., Vassiliou, V., Vassiliou, G., representation. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Tanaka, Y., & Sanmugam, A. V. (1972). The Psychology, 46, 1267–1272.
analysis of subjective culture. New York, NY: Wang, Y. A., & Kulich, S. J. (2015). Does
Wiley. context count? Developing and accessing
Truman, H. S. (1948). Executive order 9981. intercultural competence through an interview-
Kansas: Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and model-based domestic course design in
and Museum. China. (Deardorff & Asaratnam, Eds., Special
Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture (Vols. 1–2). issue on intercultural communication
London, England: John Murray. competence). International Journal of
Tzeng, C. S., Landis, D., & Tzeng, D. Y. (2012). Intercultural Relations, 48(5), 38–57.
Charles E. Osgood’s continuing contributions to doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.013
intercultural communication and far beyond!. Wasilewski, J. [with Renwick, G. W.] (1999,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, October). Then and now: Catching up with
36(6), 832–842. ourselves/The picture without boundaries.
University of Birmingham: Centre for SIETAR (25th Anniversary ed.). SIETAR
Contemporary Studies. (1992). The empire International Communiqué, XXX (2), 4–8.
Weaver, G. R., (Ed.) (2001). Culture, Wight, A. R., & Hammons, M. A. (1970b).
communication, and conflict: Readings in Guidelines for peace corps cross-cultural training:
intercultural relations, (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Specific methods and techniques (Part II).
Pearson Custom Publishing. Washington, DC: Office of Training Support,
Weaver, G. R. (2014). The evolution of Peace Corps, and Estes Park, CO: The Center
international communication as a field of study: for Research and Education.
A personal reflection. In M. K. Asante, Y. Wight, A. R., Hammons, M. A., & Bing, J. (1969).
Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural A draft handbook for cross-cultural and
communication reader, (2nd ed., pp. 35–47). community involvement training. Estes Park, CO:
New York, NY: Routledge. Peace Corps Center for Research and Education.
Weber, M. (1976). The Protestant ethic and spirit of Wight, A. R., Hammons, M. A., & Wight, W.
capitalism. London, UK: George Allen & (1970). Guidelines for Peace Corps cross-cultural
Unwin. (Original work published 1904–1905, training. Estes Park, CO: Center for Research
first English ed. in 1949). and Education.
Weber, M. (1978). Wirtschaft und gesellschaft: Williams, R. (1958). Culture and society. London,
Classes, stände, partie [Economics and society, UK: Chatto and Windus.
“Class, status, party”]. (G. Ruth & C. Wittich, Williams, R. (1961). The long revolution. London,
Trans.). Oakland, CA: University of California UK: Penguin.
Press. (Original work published 1922). Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of
Weeks, W. H. (1968). A manual of structured culture and society (Rev. ed.). Oxford, UK:
experiences for cross-cultural learning. Chicago, Oxford University Press.
IL: Intercultural Network. Wiseman, R. L. (Ed.). (1995). Intercultural
Weeks, W. H., Pedersen, P. B., & Brislin, R. W. communication theory. International and
(Eds.). (1977). A manual of structured intercultural communication annual, Vol. XIX.
experiences for cross-cultural learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SCA/Sage.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Wundt, W. (1911–1920). Völkerpsychologie: eine
Wells, H. B. (1970). International education: The Untersuchung der entwicklunsgesetze von sprachen,
present decade. VIDYA, Journal of the Regional mythus und sitte. [People-groups psychology: An
Council for International Education, 15. examination of the development of languages,
Whiting, J. W. M., & Whiting, B. B. (1975). Children myths, and customs]. Leipzig, Germany:
of six cultures: A psychocultural analysis. Kröner.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wundt, W. (1916). Elements of folk psychology.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality. London, UK: Allen & Unwin. (English
Cambridge, MA: Technology Press of translation of the earliest volumes 1911–1920)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Yum, J. O. (1988). Network theory in intercultural
Wight, A. (2008, October). Where SIETAR began. communication. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B.
In 2008 Global SIETAR conference, Grenada, Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural
Spain. Retrieved from: www.sietar-italia.org/ communication (pp. 239–258). Newbury Park,
cosa-e-sietar. CA: Sage.
Wight, A. R., & Hammons, M. A. (1970a). Zhang, H. L., & Kulich, S. J. (2012). The
Guidelines for peace corps cross-cultural training: quintessential intercultural learner, teacher, and
Philosophy and methodology (Part I). trainer: A preliminary profile of L. Robert Kohls
Washington, DC: Office of Training Support, [8th of 12 invited contributions]. International
Peace Corps; and Estes Park, CO: The Center Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(6),
for Research and Education. 823–831. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.08.010
View publication stats

2020KulichWengTongDuBois Chapter3 in Landis Bhawuk Cambridge Handbook HistoryofICStudiesRootsResearch Praxis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020KulichWengTongDuBois Chapter3 in Landis Bhawuk Cambridge Handbook HistoryofICStudiesRootsResearch Praxis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

3 Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Communication Studies From

Preprint · July 2020

Steve Kulich Liping Weng

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rongtian Tong Greg Dubois

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Exploring Intercultural Communication in Textual and Literary Studies View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

3 Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural

Introduction and Overview: Nakayama, 2010; Pusch, 2004; Rogers &

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 61

62 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 63

64 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 65

66 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 67

resulting from migration or “crossbreeding,” Herder’s concept of Volk (a people group)

68 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 69

70 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Rudolf Virchow’s “ethnology.” Traveling as a collaborators at Columbia University, provid-

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 71

Additionally, Neo-Freudian psychoanalysts Birdwhistell (1954) focused on differences in

72 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

practices toward disenfranchised groups con- Americans’ toned to “code-switch” between

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 73

74 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 75

76 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 77

historical assessments of multicultural educa- inclusion – were conceptualized, initiated,

78 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

kaleidoscopic culture of America (p. 330), . . . a structures, internalized preferences, and

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 79

80 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 81

82 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 83

84 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Establishing IC Education: The University of scholars. It later moved to Portland, Oregon, as

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 85

86 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 87

countries at different development levels (Bha- divisions: Organizational Communication in

88 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

ofﬁcial journal Communication, which was Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology and

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 89

90 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 91

92 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Interdisciplinary History of Intercultural Studiess 93

94 steve j. kulich, liping weng, rongtian tong, and greg dubois

Academic Concepts/Theories Institutions/Organiza-

1784 Outlines of a Philosophy of the Johann Gottfried von U of Berlin

Academic Concepts/Theories Institutions/Organiza-

Wissenschaft (building a science

Academic Concepts/Theories Institutions/Organiza-

Academic Concepts/ Institutions/Organizations Applied initiatives

Relativity (Sapir-Whorf 1949) and Benjamin

Academic Concepts/ Institutions/Organizations Applied initiatives

1924 Negative attitudes and The US Immigration Act Washington,