Bringing International Perspectives to the Communication Curriculum in the Age of Globalization

Higher education institutions around the world are experiencing globalization in various ways: students are increasingly mobile as they move from campus to campus, employers are calling for students who are prepared to enter a competitive global job market, and we all need citizens who understand the complexities of our world and can live harmoniously with others. Globalization is the reality of the world in which are living, internationalization is higher education’s response to that reality (Hill, 2013; Maringe, 2010). According to the International Association of Universities (2012), an increasing interdependence among nations as well as intensified mobility of goods, ideas and people has had the effect of making internationalization more of an educational institutional imperative.

Despite its central role in human society, and thus its importance to higher education, the Communication discipline and its contributions to internationalization have traditionally been neglected when compared to fields of study whose titles include the term international (e.g., international studies, international politics) or who offer technical skills perceived as having appeal to an international market (e.g., information technology, finance or engineering). Yet, higher education is tasked with teaching students not only content knowledge and technical skills, but also to analyze the meanings held by different groups or cultures and communicate that knowledge. As our students, faculty, universities and world are becoming more globalized, our teaching needs to adjust accordingly to remain relevant for the 21st century.

The co-editors of this special issue believe that we are doing a disservice to the field, and to our students, by teaching them communication theories based on limited monocultural Eurocentric findings. Currently many of these theories are no longer valid for our diverse population and furthermore for this reason, the theories are being increasingly questioned by scholars and students alike. Teaching communication theories built on survey responses of a monocultural body of subjects is no longer a viable modus operandi for instructional communication.

To take a brief example, in teaching the importance of self-disclosure to interpersonal relationship development, which is widely accepted knowledge in the traditional communication curriculum, scholars with global experience and insight are faced with the dilemma of teaching students based on monocultural communication curriculum, drawing largely on results of studies on Eurocentric perspectives. However, their experiences and research may indicate that these theories are not necessarily valid across the globe: Some concepts may be culture-specific rather than culture-general, and may not apply to all contexts. In some cultures, self-disclosure does not necessarily help relationships to develop, and can even have the detrimental effect of making relationships deteriorate because disclosing in the manner indicated in the theory (for example the timing of disclosure and to whom one may or may not disclose) is not widely accepted. Other collectivistic cultures value face protection, and thus do not widely value self-disclosure to out-group members. More attention and research has since accumulated in the field of Communication to be able to note these differences. So the question becomes: Should Communication scholars and teachers continue to approach Communication from traditional mono-cultural perspectives, or should they rather incorporate more global perspectives in their teaching and research? And if the latter is the case, then how should we go about teaching those global perspectives? What resources do we currently have? What resources are we missing? What resources can we bring to other disciplines?

Fortunately, there has been some progress in rectifying the monocultural bias. We are currently at the start of a stage where both the former Eurocentric, and newer Afrocentric and Asiacentric and other cultural theories are being adapted and changed to meet the reality of a diverse world. Key works by scholars like Molefi Asante, Guo Ming Chen and Yoshitake Miike are shaping that change in mentality. Inquiries by scholars of diverse backgrounds, on topics of diverse abilities and orientations as well as cultures, should also be integrated into existing communication theory to further enrich and extend it. Replication in different contexts and on diverse populations, and cross-cultural comparisons should be conducted to help the current perspective evolve into a more complex one wherein the theories are more authentic and reflective of a diversifying world and world order. Methods such as ethnographies should build a bottom-up theory that is culturally valid, rather than applying a top-down approach with a Eurocentric bias.

By reflecting on where we came from as a field of study, and where we are headed with internationalism, we can gain a clearer image, not only of where we currently are and what lies ahead, but also of concrete examples of initiatives that will propel us as a field to become more reflective of our human communication diversity. It is encouraging to note that we, as a field in this globalized reality, are moving away from the dominant monolithic paradigm of communication that is increasingly problematic, given globalization trends. Dialogues, followed by action, need to occur to diversify our research and to continue to make it relevant and useful in our lives. Along with a balance of theories and concepts focused on instructional content, we can continue to conduct research and teach material that is relevant and valid for scholars and students in our field in this globalized reality. This special issue of the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research shows ways that scholars are testing, questioning, and validating existing communication theories, and creating innovative pedagogies to teach students about the impact of globalization on communication theory and communication theory’s ability to support globalization.

The focus of this contribution to the forum on globalization in communication research and pedagogy is to address the following question: How can we enrich communication education and instructional communication through diverse perspectives? One possible solution calls for a two-step process: First, we should infuse diversity into our theories of communication that we teach, and keep enriching our understanding nourished by scholarly reflection from diverse perspectives. Second, on a practical level, we need to learn new ways to teach these theories to a diversifying student body, and to empower scholars and students to keep contributing to the evolution of our knowledge base about communication.

To gain a new perspective into the current status of communication theory, we suggest applying the “stages of ethnorelativism” model (Bennett & Bennett, 2004). Although originally conceived by Bennett and Bennett to apply to individuals, we believe that this approach can also be useful in understanding a group of individuals’ openness to diverse cultures and views. By reflecting on where we came from as a field of study, we can gain a clearer image, not only of where we currently are and what lies ahead, but also of concrete examples of initiatives that will propel us as a field to become more reflective of diversity.

To explain briefly, the stages of ethnorelativism are: 1) acceptance, where new ways of thinking and doing become accepted, 2) adaptation, where there occurs a perceptual shift from one culture to another (or in this case from one culture to others), and 3) integration, where diverse world views are incorporated (Bennett & Bennett, 2004). The first stage, where the Eurocentric view was dominant, was a stage where our field was ethnocentric, without a self-awareness of this ethnocentrism. Over time, the study of communication has exhibited signs of leaving the ethnocentric stage and becoming more ethnorelativistic. Most scholars in our field are now cognizant and accepting of the fact that diverse realities should be included in our communication theories. Studies incorporating diverse cultural perspectives are leading to more updated and inclusive theories that reflect the realities of a diverse world. Ethnographies within cultures, exploring what signs, symbols and utterances mean in a given culture are valuable means for gathering knowledge of communication that takes place within and between various global communities.

The stage in ethnorelativism after acceptance is the adaptation stage. To address the issue of the Eurocentric focus of communication theories, scholars have ideated the Afrocentric approach and the Asiacentric approach to communication (See, for example, Asante, 1991; Miike, 2007). Taking such cultural-specific approaches is the first step in addressing the issue of escaping monocultural Eurocentrism in communication theory.

Yet, the adaptation stage, while more evolved and developed than the former acceptance stage, is not optimal; it gives insight into other cultures, but does not create the bridges or comparison points to integrate theories of communication. We believe that we are currently at the start of the integration stage of ethnorelativism, where both the former Eurocentric, Afrocentric and Asiacentric and other cultural theories are adapted and changed to meet the reality of a diverse world. Inquiries by scholars of diverse backgrounds, on topics of diverse abilities and orientations as well as cultures, should also be integrated into mainstream communication theory to further enrich and extend it. Replication in different contexts and on diverse populations, and cross-cultural comparisons should be conducted to help the current perspective to evolve into a more complex one wherein the theories are more authentic and reflective of a diversifying world and world order.

However, efforts to diversify our understanding of communication theory as a body are not sufficient to improve instructional communication. To address the second step in the two-step process, we need a paradigm shift to move away from “How can we teach communication to these diverse students?” to “How can we empower scholars and students to enrich our understanding of instructional communication as a process that is validated and transformed by globalization?” Listening to the students and their testimonies of how these theories ring true or not for them in their various cultures will inspire interactive, grounded research, with testing of theories and the cultural variations thereof. The approach includes learning more about the diverse ways in which students learn, and how cultures and different abilities and orientations can affect their learning.

That is why efforts such as ones developed to encourage international collaborations by the National Communication Association, are encouraging. As NCA First Vice President Stephen Harnett notes regarding his Internationalization Task Force initiative: “…the need to generate meaningful responses to and engagements with the challenges and opportunities of globalization has never been greater” (Harnett, 2015). It is for us as scholars of communication to take up this challenge and forge opportunities to empower our scholars and students to join us in this effort. Globalization has brought about a wave of changes to our world and should be reflected in our theories, curriculum and pedagogy.

The articles in this special issue of The Journal of Intercultural Communication Research (JICR) advance internationalization of the communication curriculum and/or global education experiences through the application and integration of communication theory and research. The goal is to disseminate instructional approaches, ideas, and activities that bring a global perspective to the communication curriculum, and to generate an on-going discussion about the pedagogy of internationalization for intercultural competence in an era of globalization. Each article provides detailed information about internationalizing an area of the discipline or course and, at the same time, presents a challenge to all of us to consider how our scholarship and teaching either embrace or neglect a global perspective.

In their article “Teaching and Learning about Positive Deviance: Boosting Metacognitions to Grasp Global Communication Theory and Practice “ Kwitonda and Singhal provide a solid basis for understanding and applying the theory of Positive Deviance to the learning process. In doing so they offer a model for engaged, global pedagogy that respects local knowledge. Many in the communication discipline have been advocates of community partnerships that work with as opposed to working on members of the community. The application of a Positive Deviance approach compels students to engage in metacognitive thinking as they consider the theories and methods available and select which of those are appropriate for their and the community’s goals. This process also asks students to engage in multiple intercultural communication skills such as self-discovery, dialogic inquiry, and horizontal communication. Students become aware of their blind spots and that one form of expertise is “giving up” expertise as they look to others for answers to their questions. This process invites students to reject the dominant perspective that our task in the Academy is to search for and solve a deficit in others. They are given a framework for looking towards the richness other individuals and cultures can bring to their lives. A Positive Deviance framework can help students and instructors in communication and, other disciplines to avoid an ethnocentric perspective as they engage with international or intercultural experiences.

While semester or long-term study abroad experiences are often held up as the gold standard, increasingly students and faculty are looking towards one or two-week study abroad experiences that allows them to balance family, work and teaching obligations while still providing an immersive educational experience. The opportunity to travel and study abroad brings with it the opportunity to experience and reflect upon cultural differences through the lens of course material. Dwyer and Peters (2004) report on IES Abroad’s survey of study abroad alumni and note that when questioned about intercultural development, 98 percent of respondents said that study abroad helped them to better understand their own cultural values and biases, and 82 percent replied that study abroad contributed to their developing a more sophisticated way of looking at the world. In “Intercultural Theorizing for a Global Communication Curriculum: A Short-term Study Abroad Pedagogical Template” Orbe and Orbe discuss how asking students to draw upon intercultural communication and ethnographic methods contributed to a rich, meaningful global experience during a 9-day trip to the Dominican Republic. Students were required to use field notes, develop an ethnographic research proposal, and assume an emic perspective when presenting their proposals. Drawing upon existing work in intercultural communication the authors asked students to consider how power relations support cultural dialectical tensions while also embracing these as necessary for personal growth (Martin & Nakayama, 1999). This article points to how communication theory can be supportive of addressing the questions raised in international education such as “How do we help students engage and reflect upon their experiences?” and “How do we ensure that the experience supports personal growth and educational goals?

Globalization means that we will be increasingly connecting with diverse individuals even if we stay at home. Our students and theories will need to accommodate that diversity. In “Internationalizing Communication Curriculum: An Assignment Examining Relational Communication Across Cultures” Suwinyattichaiporn and Johnson argue that with the increasing non-White population in the United States and influx of international students, curricula and theories focused upon relational communication have become too Eurocentric. Their assignment “Examining Relational Communication Across Cultures” compels students to critically evaluate relational communication theory and concepts by interacting with individuals from different cultural backgrounds. The result is three-fold, 1) students have meaningful interactions with diverse individuals, 2) they learn to critically evaluate theory against their own experiences and the experiences of others, and 3) relational communication theorists and instructors benefit from hearing how theories reflect everyday lived experiences. While the article focuses upon assignments used in a relational communication course, the pedagogical principles derived from communication theory make it appropriate for courses across universities and countries who are looking to internationalize the student experience. This technique is particularly relevant as universities look for ways to provide a “local” global experience for students who are unable to travel internationally due to family or work obligations or as a first step for those who are hesitant to jump into international travel.

While globalization brings with it increasing cultural and language diversity, Australia is a country who is experiencing that diversity across both local and international populations. With population growth driven by immigration rather than birth rates and a robust inbound study-abroad program, multiple languages are becoming part of their classroom environment mirroring the world in which many of our students will live and work. In “Accommodating Student Diversity and Different Learning Backgrounds” Rogerson and Rossetto pair Communication Accommodation Theory and heutagogical education approaches to frame cross-cultural communication scenarios and instill a form of self-determined learning. The authors use this pairing to create cross-cultural groups that engaged in purposeful educational assignments while reflecting upon their own communication accommodation behaviors. While some of the examples are specific to the Australian content, the framework can be used as a concrete template for institutions and classrooms around the world as instructors work to internationalize and not just globalize the educational environment.

It is common knowledge that globalization leads to increased interaction with individuals around the world both face-to-face and virtually. In “Enhancing Global Virtual Small Group Communication Skills through VBP” Aritz, Cradon and Walker describe a case study and present the results of a project titled Virtual Business Professional (VBP) that was designed to introduce students to cross-cultural communication while working in virtual multicultural teams. The VBP project demonstrates how a systematic, technology-based approach can be used to create global learning experiences. Case study participants’ responses indicate that a systematically designed and implemented virtual learning project can work to lower perceptions of cultural distance. The authors note that unlike, management approaches that tend to see communication as an adjunct to effective organizational processes and outcomes, this study supports the assertion made by others that communication is the process that constitutes the group or organization (See Aritz, Cardon & Walker, 2018). Approaching global learning from a communication constitutive approach subtly shifts the experience away from observation towards participation. Students come to understand that how they communicate and engage with people from around the world constitutes the world in which we live and that they have the obligation to consider what they want the world to be.

Globalization brings with it change. The co-editors and contributors to this special issue believe that it also brings with it the need to intentionally incorporate global perspectives into the communication discipline and classrooms. The article by Stephen Hartnett underscores the rationale for internationalizing the curriculum, followed by specific examples of curricular innovation. Syllabi are included to further encourage application to the readers’ curriculum. The articles here demonstrate that our discipline can provide the theoretical and methodological background to do so not only for ourselves, but also across the gamut of higher education. We invite you to take the insights you gleam from these articles, infuse them into your pedagogy and research, share them with colleagues across your campus and around the world, and change the face of our discipline and world.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.