A Systematic Review of Studies on Interculturalism and Intercultural Dialogue

ABSTRACT

This paper reports the findings of the first systematic literature review (SLR) of studies on the intercultural approach as captured by two inter-connected articulations: interculturalism (IC) and intercultural dialogue (ICD). Initially, 16,582 available peer-reviewed articles and book chapters published over the period 2000–2017, were identified. After removing duplicates, 11,712 unique studies provided the basis for this SLR. The contents of the publications that met specified inclusion criteria and explicitly discussed the conceptual underpinnings of IC and its related ICD concept (N = 351) were analysed. Despite a more salient position in recent diversity governance discussions, IC and ICD have remained largely constrained by a lack of conceptual clarity and theoretical precision. This SLR, therefore, examines how IC and ICD have been accounted for, defined, and conceptualised across a broad-ranging literature spaning multiple disciplines. The findings indicate that the key conceptual and philosophical foundations of the intercultural idea are framed around interaction, dialogue, exchange and transformation. The SLR articulates four dimensions as the key constituents of the overall intercultural framework and no significant divergence between them was found between various definitions of IC and ICD. IC provides the conceptual foundations that enable an ICD articulation around intercultural exchange and dialogue across differences.

KEYWORDS:

• Interculturalism
• intercultural dialogue
• migration
• multiculturalism
• super-diversity

Introduction

The question of understanding and responding to new forms of super-diversity is emerging as a key socio-political challenge polarising contemporary multicultural societies everywhere (Mansouri 2017; Modood 2014; Vertovec 2007; Zapata-Barrero 2017). This renewed polarisation follows a period during the second half of the last century that saw post-colonial rights-based approaches gaining ground over traditionally assimilationist approaches (Bouchard 2011; Cantle 2012). Renewed debates over the extent of recognition of minority claims presents significant challenges to migration and diversity studies and related academic fields. Two prominent approaches in this field have particularly been the subject of intense academic and philosophical debate for more than four decades. The first of these is multiculturalism (MC), a pro-diversity approach, that recognises and accomodates cultural rights, equality, and justice for migrant groups (Levrau 2018; Modood 2014). The second – and more recent approach – is interculturalism (IC), a contact-based approach to diversity management that emphasises intergroup interaction, exchange and dialogue (Zapata-Barrero 2019). This paper focuses on IC and the related concept of intercultural dialogue (ICD), and presents a systematic review of research around its philosophical underpinnings and conceptual articulations across disciplines. Yet, before we do this we need to contextualise IC within political, historical and conceptual debates.

The Political and Historical Context

The intercultural approach is not altogether new. In fact, it predates the current diversity management debate with the ‘intercultural’ notion itself arising well before the concept was formulated a decade or so ago into the European version largely addressed in Western scholarship (Zapata-Barrero 2017). And while the European version of IC emphasises the notion of contact and exchange, at the micro level, between citizens and groups with civil society (Levrau 2018), Canadian IC, especially as articulated in Quebec, is primarily ‘based on the understanding of the predominance of francophone culture’, and aims ‘to build and integrate other cultural communities into a common public culture based on the French language, while respecting diversity’ (Ghosh 2011: 7). This diversification of IC interpretations and approaches is further highlighted in the context of the post-colonial Latin American context, where a different version of IC, interculturalidad, has long existed in education (Solano-Campos 2013). However, the earliest mention of contemporary IC, and one that this paper is concerned with, dates back to the early 1980s (Council of Europe 2008; Modood 2014) when it emerged as a possible diversity policy instrument in Canada, with the particular purpose of maintaining Québécois national identity (Bouchard and Taylor 2008; Zapata-Barrero 2017). A few decades later, IC began to gain more international prominence in immigrant integration studies and diversity governance circles. This re-emergence was accelerated with the release of the 2008 Council of Europe White Paper (Council of Europe 2008; Delany-Barmann 2010; Zapata-Barrero 2017).

The political and socio-cultural context within which the White Paper emerged in Europe was characterised by rising levels of anti-migrant feelings, perceived lack of integration of minorities and more salient security threats brought about through the so-called global war on terror. Since then, a large body of multi-disciplinary research has appeared, much of which focuses on whether the IC approach is theoretically distinct from, if not superior to, its MC counterpart (Cantle 2012; Kymlicka 2012; Meer and Modood 2012; Taylor 2012). In terms of disciplinary framing, much of the current debate is concentrated in the fields of international relations, migration studies, education, and other related disciplines.

While IC research has expanded over the last two decades, it remains a little understood concept with its theoretical distinctiveness still somewhat unclear (Ganesh and Holmes 2011; Meer and Modood 2012; Phipps 2014). In addition, there has been no agreement on its conceptual boundaries, in relation to other concepts and theories, most notably, MC (Levrau and Loobuyck 2013; Modood 2017). Nevertheless, the intercultural approach has gained ground in the literature, particularly following the articulation of ICD in Europe, with its focus primarily on the applied and practical policy implementations compared to the more general and abstract articulations within IC (Council of Europe 2008; Holmes 2014; Phipps 2014; United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO 2013; Wiater 2010). The Council of Europe White Paper and various UNESCO documents on ICD are often cited as the basis for policy discussions, whereas much of the scholarly discussion deals with IC’s theoretical foundations. Yet, there remains a great deal of overlap between ICD and IC, with the former being approached as a policy and practice manifestation of the latter (Mansouri and Zapata-Barrero 2017; Rattansi 2011; Wiater 2010).

All of the overlaps, lack of theoretical distinctness and conceptual boundaries surrounding IC suggest the urgent need for a systematic and robust review of the diverse intercultural literature in order to provide a more precise and nuanced understanding of the intercultural approach, its theoretical underpinnings as well as its potential application. Therefore, this systematic literature review (SLR) aims to clarify the current knowledge base around the IC/ICD framework, focussing on associated misconceptions and lack of conceptual clarity. In doing so, this SLR maps and synthesises current research in this area with a focus on academic research outputs published between 2000 and 2017.

Theoretical Context

In general terms, the intercultural idea aims to address a number of critical questions about how people relate to one another, and how these interactions are framed, shaped and enacted in everyday situations. More substantively, other key relevant questions relate to how individuals and groups of people from different cultures interact with one another; how they live well together despite differences pertaining to language, culture, religion, ethnicity and other socio-cultural orientations; how they resolve conflicts arising from cross-cultural misunderstandings; and how their daily encounter with diversity shapes their attitudes, behaviours and experiences. To-date, researchers have grappled with these and other related questions across many disciplines – including education, sociology, language, geography and demography, communication, psychology, business and economics, political science and others. An array of fields of research has evolved over the last few decades attempting to account for and analyse intercultural issues. Among these are intercultural education, intercultural communication, intercultural relations, intercultural competence, intercultural understanding, intercultural conflict, cultural studies and cosmopolitanism. IC and ICD are the most recent and prominent conceptualisations, falling within this multidisciplinary domain, and particularly focusing on providing a distinct approach to the governance of super-diversity – a phenomenon reflecting complex socio-cultural expressions of identity and attachments (Vertovec 2007; Zapata-Barrero 2017).

Figure 1 presents a conceptual diagram of the broad intercultural approach in the literature. The size of each circle indicates the relative number of intercultural research outputs produced within respective disciplines as reported in the systematic search in this SLR.

Figure 1. The intercultural approach in the multi-disciplinary literature.

Each of the disciplines in Figure 1 approaches interculturalism from its unique perspective. For example, intercultural research in education mainly focuses on intercultural skills and competencies from pedagogic perspectives, while sociological and political studies focus on the governance of super-diversity. Similarly, communication research focuses on dialogue and inter-personal interaction while social psychology studies tend to emphasise the salience of intergroup contact and attitudes in intercultural relations. Other disciplines, including cultural studies, human geography, business management, linguistics and others have also their own areas of focus, including interculturality in the context of cultural heritage, urban design, workplace, and language use. A comprehensive classification of intercultural studies is beyond the scope of this SLR, however, the disciplinary breadth screened within this SLR clearly shows the wide-ranging multi-disciplinarity that characterises various intercultural ideas (See Figure 1).

Intercultural Theory

The emergence of intercultural theory has to be understood within various key conceptual debates. First, research on migrant integration and the dynamics of diversity management has traditionally placed a dichotomous wedge in discourses on identity versus diversity, assimilation versus multiculturalism, and exclusion versus inclusion (Joppke 2005; Portes and Vickstrom 2011). However, the recent talk of a backlash on MC and the renewed migration debate necessitate new theorising that transcends fixed analytical categories and traditional conceptual dichotomies. Our analysis of the IC literature explores whether its emphasis on bridging cultural differences and building intercultural relationships, can provide the basis for a robust and innovative approaches to ‘super-diversity’.

Second, social cohesion and intercultural contact have recently emerged as the two interlinked thematic benchmarks of the intercultural approach. A perceived deficit in social cohesion served as the motivation for the search for a new approach to diversity governance while contact offered the potential to bridge gaps across contours of cultural differences. This connection between IC and broader social cohesion agendas is increasingly reflected in the diverse multidisciplinary approaches to all matters IC as can be seen in Figure 2, extracted from this SLR.

Figure 2. A multidisciplinary mapping of the intercultural approach in the social sciences.

Third, interest in intercultural approaches to diversity management grew from global security concerns, particularly in a post-9/11 climate of the perceived weakening of social cohesion, and a consequent resurgence of xenophobic nationalism, racism, and violent extremism (Cantle 2012; Council of Europe 2008; Zapata-Barrero 2017). These manifestations of inter-group tensions have stimulated academic and policy debates focused on articulating alternative policy approaches that emphasise common ground and shared values within culturally diverse societies. This alternative perspective argues for approaching cultural and ethnic difference as a neutral demographic attribute and thus avoiding extreme positions of previous approaches, such as assimilation and (superficial accounts of) MC, where difference is either simplistically problematised or merely celebrated. Traditionally, much of the policy debates and related theorising around the management of diversity has indicated the increasing difficulty of achieving social cohesion in culturally diverse societies (Portes and Vickstrom 2011; Putnam 2007). In this context, an intercultural framework emphasising shared values and social contact was predicted to engender enhanced inter-personal interaction and engagement, potentially dispelling misunderstandings, stereotypes, and intergroup prejudice (Levrau and Loobuyck 2013). By engaging members of diverse groups in a respectful dialogue process, the goal of bridging differences and realising a shared vision becomes more attainable (Ngada and Zúñiga 2003; Putnam 2007).

In addition, a theoretical distinction of the intercultural approach has been its relational notion of social contact – a well-established theory in social psychology – underlining the significance of interpersonal and intergroup relationship in shaping society (Donati 2009; Levrau and Loobuyck 2013; Ngada and Zúñiga 2003). Particularly, the contact hypothesis holds that positive interaction between members of different groups has the potential to reduce intergroup prejudice, foster positive attitudes and promote tolerance (Allport 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp 2005). Such interaction, emphasising reciprocity, exchange and dialogue between members of different cultures, lies at the heart of an intercultural approach to managing diversity (Bouchard and Taylor 2008; Zapata-Barrero 2016). Taking a step further, this SLR identifies four distinct dimensions that have been articulated in relation to IC and ICD in the studies analysed.

Interculturalism and Intercultural Dialogue

Apart from the issues rasied above, this SLR needs to be contextualised within an intercultural theory that has often been described in social science as an approach that prioritises interaction among individuals from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds. Normatively, it seeks to achieve the goals of fostering social cohesion through ‘exchange and interpersonal relations, using … the “technique of positive interaction” to ensure a favourable public environment for intercultural contact’ (Zapata-Barrero 2016: 155).

In the literature, IC and ICD are seen as closely interrelated conceptualisations within the broader field of intercultural theory. Indeed, some scholars have used both interchangeably, with dialogue being premised on conducive societal conditions (Besley and Peters 2011; Zapata-Barrero 2017). Yet, at a deeper conceptual level, much of the intercultural literature also discusses the two concepts separately (for example, IC: Abdallah-Pretceille 2006; Bouchard 2011; Taylor 2012; ICD: Ganesh and Holmes 2011; Wiater 2010). IC, in this context, signifies a theoretical perspective that emphasises the need for cross-cultural interaction and communication, and is seen as containing the epistemological tools necessary for addressing super-diversity (Zapata-Barrero 2016). ICD, on the other hand, features more prominently in policy debates and has been referred to as a particular application, or to use Cantle’s words as ‘an instrumental part of interculturalism’ (Cantle 2015: 84).

The important feature that connects IC and ICD remains the emphasis on and adherence to dialogue as an interactive process for bridging differences. In both conceptualisations, dialogue is seen as the vehicle through which the desired interaction is achieved within conditions that include local settings, macro policies and leadership (Besley and Peters 2011; Ganesh and Holmes 2011; Zapata-Barrero 2017).

Multiculturalism and Interculturalism

This SLR also speaks to a growing concern within IC literature for more clarity around its conceptualisation and definition. Blair (2015) has pointed to the lack of a universally accepted definition of IC and many other scholars have added that this lack of conceptual precision means that it is difficult to connect it to other related concepts such as MC, cosmopolitanism or transnationalism (Downing 2015; Levey 2012; Meer and Modood 2012; Uberoi and Modood 2013). These and other scholars argue that many of these concepts are discursively fluid and carry meanings that are multifarious, incorporating multiple themes and policy rhetoric at the same time. Specifically, some scholars have depicted IC as an ‘updated version’ of MC (Lentin 2005: 394) while others hold that it is conceptually and practically altogether distinct from MC (Bouchard 2011; Cantle 2012; Hadjisoteriou, Faas, and Angelides 2015; Taylor 2012; Zapata-Barero 2016). According to this argument, IC emphasises the need for a new politics of intercultural engagement, active citizenship and social engagement, moving away from the politics of recognition that is central to the philosophical underpinings of MC (Benhabib, 2002). Indeed, many scholars describe IC as a midway proposition between assimilation and MC, which are at the two ends of the diversity management continuum (Corrie 2014; DesRoches 2014).

The literature that we review is embedded within the broad diversity management debates, in which IC has been intertwined with the increasingly politicised MC discourse. IC was formally introduced in the 2008 Council of Europe White Paper, which highlighted the failure of social integration policies, the saliency of hyper-securitised agendas, and particularly a perceived ‘backlash’ against MC at the political and ideological levels (Banting and Kymlicka 2012; Council of Europe 2008; Meer and Modood 2012). However, its invocation as a potential conceptual and policy alternative has received mixed reviews in academe, policy and practice (Mansouri and Aber 2017). Proponents of IC have pointed to a growing dissatisfaction with MC as the key justification and rationale for seeking alternative approaches aimed at addressing new challenges pertaining to super-diversity (Cantle 2012). The circulating public anti-MC rhetoric alleges that MC policies have contributed, directly or indirectly, to segregated ethno-cultural divisions, rising racism, xenophobic sentiments, growing socio-economic inequalities, and surging international terrorism (Meer and Modood 2012). Modood (2017) argues that such critiques, as well as others levelled against MC, are methodologically and conceptually difficult to sustain when examined against empirical realities. Moreover, the two competing concepts (MC and IC) seem to operate at different levels in terms of engagement and governance. Many scholars contend that the conceptual distinction between MC and IC remains vague and that the supposed differences around their implementation are imprecise and confused (Guilherme and Dietz 2015; Mansouri and Aber 2017; Meer and Modood 2012). Still, others see a clear distinction between the two concepts, with IC perceived as promoting mutual cultural exchange with an emphasis on social cohesion and shared values, and recognising the problematic recognition of the existence of majority/minority dynamics (Bouchard 2011; Cantle 2012; Zapata-Barrero 2017). Whether these characteristics are indicative of mutually exclusive policy paradigms or complementary approaches towards the diversity agenda remains an ongoing policy and theoretical debate in diversity governance (Mansouri and Aber 2017; Mansouri and Zapata Barrero 2017). However, there appears to be substantial level of overlap between both approaches, as we show later in this SLR.

Recently, discussions have started to emerge attempting to elucidate more clearly the distinct theoretical foundations of each approach and focusing on their potential complementarities (Levrau and Loobuyck 2013). For example, although MC and IC have elements of dialogue and relationality, the precise level of such interaction varies between these approaches (Meer and Modood 2012; Parekh 2006; Taylor 1994). While dialogue and relationality within the broad MC framework are predicated to take place at the macro-level, within IC they have greater impetus at the micro-level where the emphasis is more on individual cross-cultural interaction and engagement (Modood 2014). To generate even more clarity about the distinctive elements of IC in its own right and in comparison to other concepts such as MC, this SLR systematically consults the IC literature from across a wide range of academic disciplines within the social sciences and humanities as depicted in Figures 1 and 2. This SLR aims to provide a more precise conceptual understanding of the philosophical assumptions behind IC as well as its key drivers and conditions.

Research Questions

The aim of this SLR is captured in three research questions: (1) What is the current state of research on intercultural issues? (2) How has the intercultural approach to diversity, particularly IC and ICD, been framed and conceptualised in the broad literature? (3) What are the key dimensions defining the intercultural approach as articulated and employed in multi-disciplinary intercultural debates?

Methods

Research Design

The present SLR uses descriptive and qualitative methods to review systematically relevant research on intercultural issues. SLR, as opposed to a traditional literature review, allows for the consideration of all relevant existing evidence related to a specific research question (Glasziou et al. 2001; Petticrew and Roberts 2008). SLR applies rigorous searches, analyses and interpretation of all available evidence pertaining to a specific research question based on unbiased and reproducible study protocols (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015; Petticrew and Roberts 2008). SLR findings can provide strong conceptual foundations for future research directions on the topic reviewed.

Current research on all things ‘intercultural’ indicates persisting conceptual imprecision regarding the exact meanings and definitions of the intercultural notion as embodied in the concepts of IC and ICD (Modood, 2017). Despite substantial research emerging over the last two decades, these intercultural concepts remain in need of further conceptual elaboration and articulation (Gropas and Triandafyllidou 2011; Levey 2012). The findings of this SLR, therefore, aim to provide conceptual clarity for future theorising and potential policy application. Drawing on the contact theory and inter-group contact literatures, our research applies an inductive approach to framing the data analysis. The size of our sample also allowed us to match thematic categories with outputs extracted from a wide-ranging literature.

Data Collection

Search strategy: data sources and search key

Table 1 outlines the review protocol for this SLR, incorporating all the relevant features used in standard systematic reviews. Seven electronic databases (Scopus, Web of Sciences, PsychInfo, ERIC, Political Science Complete, EconLit, and Urban Studies Abstracts) were searched using a specific search key composed of terms relating to intercultural issues. These databases were considered the most appropriate for this study, as intercultural issues are anchored mainly in social sciences and humanities. Therefore, the searches were restricted to relevant subject areas, including the broad disciplines associated with social sciences, arts and humanities, business, accounting and management, psychology, health and economics. Keywords were selected to identify references of the word ‘intercultural’ and its variant ‘inter-cultural’ either as a single word or hyphenated in a combination phrase such as intercultural dialogue or intercultural competence (Hoskins and Sallah 2011). Three other words, ‘cosmopolitanism’, ‘diversity’, and ‘cultural diversity’, were also used to identify potentially relevant articles, due to their theoretical proximity to intercultural issues (Donald 2007; Noble 2009). The search was qualified further by adding the context in which the word or phrase was used (definition, conceptualisation, theory, framework, policy or practice).

Table 1. Systematic literature review protocol.

Description	Outcome in this study
Research questions	(1) What is the current state of research on intercultural issues? (2) How has the ‘intercultural’ approach to diversity, particularly IC and ICD, been framed and conceptualised in the literature? (3) What are the key dimensions defining the intercultural approach as articulated and employed in multi-disciplinary intercultural debates?
Searched databases	Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ERIC, Political Science Complete, EconLit, Urban Studies Abstracts
Searched terms	Intercultur*, inter-cultur*, cosmopolitan*, intercultural dialog*, intercultural comptenc*, intercultural communicat*, diversity, cultural diversity, in combination with defin*, concept*, theor*, framework, policy* or practice
Search strategy	Peer-reviewed journals, books, and book chapters; Published after 1999, in English; Search terms contained in article/chapter title, abstract and keywords
Inclusion criteria	Intercultural topics including intercultural dialogue, interculturalism, interculturality, intercultural understanding, intercultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity, cosmopolitanism, intercultural competency, intercultural communication, and cultural diversity are discussed explicitly; Study focus: theoretical, empirical or both; Disciplines: social sciences, arts and humanities, business, accounting and management, psychology, health, economics, and decision sciences
Exclusion criteria	Publications using ‘intercultur*’ outside the topics specified in the present study Publications using ‘diversity’ in contexts other than ethnic/racial or cultural diversity Publications using ‘cosmopolitanism’ not in the context of intercultural issues Publications from disciplines outside social sciences and health sciences
Quality	Only peer-reviewed publications (journal articles or book chapters) indexed in major academic databases selected Only studies with adequate academic or policy rigour

Note: A summary of the review protocol for a systematic review of research on interculturalism and intercultural dialogue.

While there exists significant grey literature on intercultural approach to diversity, the purpose of this SLR was to examine current knowledge around the concepts of IC and ICD, therefore restricting the search to academic publications. An initial extensive search showed that a general intercultural approach has been used at various levels and in various domains, both in research and policymaking. Therefore, our main goal was to examine what is currently known about IC and ICD, as applied in these domains. Thus, we ask ‘how has the “intercultural” been conceptualised in the literature’? and ‘how has it been articulated and employed in multidisciplinary intercultural debates’?

We performed a search by title and abstract in the seven databases, using the search key: (intercultur* OR inter-cultur* OR cosmopolitan* OR ‘intercultural dialog*’ OR ‘intercultural comptenc*’ OR ‘intercultural communication’) AND (defin* OR concept* OR theor* OR framework OR policy* OR practice). The electronic searches were conducted on 6 March 2017, and resulted in 16,582 publications (see Figure 3). During the primary search, irrelevant studies from non-social science disciplines were removed.¹ The numbers of publications by database are: Scopus = 5,982; Web of Science = 2,856; PsycINFO = 2,627; ERIC = 2,305; Political Science Complete = 2,300; EconLit = 283; Urban Studies Abstracts = 229.

Figure 3. Flow diagram for systematic search and inclusion of studies.

Selection and Eligibility

All publications from the electronic search were imported into EndNote and merged into a single global database. In EndNote, all duplicates were automatically identified and removed. The remaining publications were then screened for missing duplicates that were manually removed before the studies passed to the next stage of screening. Overall, 11,712 unique publications were identified during the preliminary search. Publication period was restricted to the period 2000–2017. We acknowledge here that some works on intercultural issues (6.5 per cent of the overall output) were published much earlier, notably Floyd Allport’s seminal research on inter-group contact in the 1950s. However, we believe that much of this work is strongly reflected in the more contemporary literature captured by this SLR. Only articles published in academic journals and book chapters fully available in English were included. Studies with abstracts in English but full-text in non-English language were excluded. A two-stage screening was applied to these publications.

Title and abstract screening

In the first stage, the titles and abstracts of all studies were screened manually and automatically. Automatic searches were conducted within EndNote for the titles and abstracts, with the purpose of identifying studies that were not relevant to the research theme. Keywords such as ‘climate’, ‘environment’, ‘gender’, ‘sex’, ‘language immersion’, ‘Internet’, ‘digital’, ‘virtual culture’, ‘Music/film’, ‘Global politics’, ‘global security’, ‘international relations’, ‘international law’ were used to locate studies for relevance. The studies automatically identified were marked for exclusion if their titles and abstracts did not meet the inclusion criteria. To retain potentially relevant studies with these keywords, three researchers manually screened the titles and abstracts of all the marked studies (n = 10,459).

The screening was undertaken separately to ensure reliability and credibility of the inclusion/exclusion process. To ensure screening uniformity, a 10 per cent sample (n = 228) was randomly selected from the remaining studies (n = 2,281). All three researchers screened this sample and a lead reviewer compared each reviewer’s screening result for disagreements and inconsistencies (92 per cent agreement rate). Disagreements were resolved through discussions among the reviewers. Any study with an exclusion keyword that met the inclusion criteria was included for further screening. Altogether, 7,368 studies were identified based on the exclusion keywords and 2,510 studies manually screened did not meet the inclusion criteria. Furthermore, 913 studies were excluded because of language (non-English) or publication-type criteria. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 924 studies from the electronic search sample were retained for full-text screening (see Figure 3). Before moving to full-text screening and data extraction, the review criteria were further clarified among the research team. To determine the final list of studies retained for full-text screening, the lead reviewer checked the abstracts of all studies that the two reviewers included for further screening.

Full-text screening

In the second stage of screening, a double-blind, full-text screening of all eligible publications (n = 924) was conducted by two reviewers. This full-text screening was conducted based on the following criteria. (1) Studies that explicitly discussed the key intercultural issues and concepts outlined in the research questions were included.² A study was excluded if it mentioned the word ‘intercultural’ but did not engage with intercultural concepts or issues. (2) Studies were included if intercultural issues/concepts were the main theme of the study. In other words, a major part (at least one third) of the included study should address intercultural issues/concepts. (3) A study was excluded if the ‘intercultural’ concept it addressed did not align with a social science domain pertaining to the interaction of people from different cultural, religious, ethnic, or national backgrounds. (4) Finally, only studies whose full texts met the main inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in Table 1 were included.

Two reviewers screened the full texts of each publication with the goal of identifying and extracting information relevant to the research questions of this study regarding the conceptual and policy underpinning of ‘intercultural issues’ in the context of ‘super-diversity’. A third reviewer compared the results of the full-text screening. A good agreement rate of 73 per cent was obtained (see Hallgren 2012). Disagreements were resolved through discussion among the two double-blind reviewers and the third researcher. The final sample of publications included for the final content review was 351 (see Figure 3), including journal articles and book chapters.

Data Extraction and Analysis

The qualitative content analysis of the final outputs was conducted in two sequential stages. One reviewer conducted a comprehensive screening of the 351 publications, aimed at extracting information pertinent to the research questions. After data extraction, a second reviewer verified the data to ensure accuracy and consistency with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The relevant data extracted from each publication included:

1. Title, author(s), and year of publication;

2. Type of publication (journal article, book, or book chapter);

3. Type of the report (theoretical or empirical);

4. Country under study;

5. Study period;

6. Definitions of key terms (IC and ICD) if provided;

7. Publication’s research focus (conceptualisation, policy, practice, or a combination);

8. Research method employed (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method);

9. Main ‘intercultural issue’ topic addressed in the publication (such as, ICD, IC, intercultural understanding, interfaith/interreligious dialogue, interculturality, intercultural awareness, intercultural education, intercultural competency, intercultural communication, cosmopolitanism, and/or cultural diversity);

10. Evaluation of IC/ICD within the publication (outright rejection, negative critique, neutral, positive critique, or outright acceptance).

Coding

The extracted definitions for IC and ICD were coded drawing on Allport’s intergroup contact theory (Allport 1954; Pettigrew 1998). Seven themes were inductively used as pivots in analysing the codes; these were contact, diversity, culture, shared value, equality, prejudice, and transformation. Data for each definition were then separately entered in NVivo for coding. Based on the data, we identified a total of 39 relevant codes for ICD and 37 for IC. Our threshold criterion was to include a code if at least three publications mentioned the word in a definition. After comparing the coded data with the seven thematic categories, we concluded that one dimension – prejudice – did not meet the threshold criterion for the definition of ICD, and was therefore dropped. The other six dimensions fitted the data in describing the identified definitions’ structures (see Table 2). The definitions were summarised using five levels of coding each related to five questions: how IC/ICD is conceptualised; what it intends to achieve (purpose); how it is framed; what level of focus it has; and what and how many components each definition has.

Table 2. Coding the conceptualisations of interculturalism and intercultural dialogue.

Themes	Codes (Number of publications mentioning the word in the definition)
	Interculturalism
Contact	Interaction (27), dialogue (22), exchange (20), communication (9), engagement (7), contact (4),
Diversity	Diversity (41), different (36), plural (7), mutual (7)
Culture	Culture (42), values (14), identity (14), cultural groups (11)
Shared value	Common (14), integration (13), shared (10), cohesion (9), harmony (4)
Equality	Respect (17), equal (17), accept (9), rights (8), inclusion (4), justice (4), empowerment (3)
Prejudice	Discrimination (4), racism (3)
Transformation	Understanding (12), transformation (12), individual (10), knowledge (7), attitude (6), action (6), learn (5), adaptation (3)
	Intercultural dialogue
Contact	Exchange (22), communication (13), interaction (10), engagement (6)
Diversity	Different (39), mutual (34), diversity (17)
Culture	Culture (47), groups (25), values (10), identity (6)
Shared value	Common (12), integration (11), cohesion (8), shared (5)
Equality	Respect (29), equal (13), rights (8), accept (5)
Transformation	Understanding (36), individual (23), learn (7), attitude (6), transformation (5), knowledge (3), adaptation (3)

Note. The values are based on publications that provided definitions for IC (N = 75) and ICD (N = 67).

Analysis

Due to the widespread variation in the objectives, study focus, methods, including study design and analytical approaches, a narrative synthesis – an approach that utilises words and text in summarising and synthesising study findings – rather than a meta-analysis was considered the appropriate approach to summarise and review the studies included (Mays et al. 2005; Popay et al. 2017). All of the 351 studies were imported into NVivo for content analysis. The analysis involved a synthesis of the conceptualisations, relationships, methods of analysis, key findings and conclusions of the current research, based on the data extracted from the list of studies selected for inclusion in this SLR. Definitions of IC and ICD provided were particularly analysed in more detail, in order to clarify the intercultural notion.

Results

Description of the Studies

Country and publication year

Table 3 describes the studies analysed in this review, with most of the studies (90 per cent) being journal articles published after 2005, and geographically covering the six continents. Furthermore, more than a third (131/351) of the publications focused on a single country, with another third (115/351) having no geographic reference. The remaining publications focused on a specific region(s) as the unit of analysis.

Table 3. Systematic literature review: publications reviewed in this study.

Description	Number	Percent (%)
All studies	351
First authored by	306
Publication type
Journal article	326	92.9
Book chapter	25	7.1
Published in
Journals	189	90
Books	21	10
Year of publication
2000–2005	29	8.3
2006–2010	91	26
2011–2015	201	57.3
2016–2017	30	8.6
Country/region of study
Europe	30	8.5
Australia	24	6.8
Canada	22	6.3
UK/Ireland	20	5.7
US	12	3.4
Finland	12	3.4
Italy	9	2.6
Israel/Palestine	9	2.6
Mexico	8	2.3
Cyprus	8	2.3
Greece	7	2
Other Europe	34	9.7
Other Latin America	22	6.3
Other Asia	15	4.3
Other Africa	4	1.1
Not specified	115	32.8
Study focus
Conceptualisation	87	24.8
Conceptualisation andpractice	171	48.7
Policy and conceptualisation	87	24.8
Policy and practice	6	1.7
Definition provided
Interculturalism	74	21.1
Intercultural dialogue	67	19.1
Both	12	3.4
No definition for both	198	56.4
Method
Theoretical and policy review	195	55.6
Empirical
Quantitative	11	3.1
Qualitative	142	40.5
Unsure	3	0.9
Main theme of the study
Intercultural dialogue (ICD)	82	23.4
Interculturalism	83	23.6
Intercultural education	79	22.5
Interculturality	33	9.4
Interfaith/interreligious dialogue	26	7.4
Cultural diversity	13	3.7
Intercultural competency	11	3.1
Intercultural communication	10	2.8
Other	14	4

Note: Values indicate proportions for those articles included in the final analysis of this SLR.

Method and scope of the study

Of the 351 publications reviewed, 195 were theoretical in nature or dealt with policy reviews, while 153 articles reported empirical findings. Most of the latter (142 of 153 studies) applied qualitative methods, with only 11 studies based on quantitative surveys. The studies varied in terms of their practical relevance in current debates on diversity governance. While 87 articles discussed the conceptual underpinnings of IC/ICD, the rest examined the way these are understood and implemented in policy and practice.

Thematic focus

Overall, the studies included in this SLR exhibited eight main thematic focus areas. Almost 70 per cent focused on three themes: interculturalism (83 articles), ICD (82 articles), and intercultural education (79 articles). Interculturality and interreligious dialogue were two other themes examined in 33 and 26 studies respectively. Additional 34 studies dealt with cultural diversity, intercultural competency, and intercultural communication as the main themes. All of these studies discussed IC, ICD or both, as the main theme or as a sub-theme of the overall narrative.

While the extent of coverage given to IC and ICD varied across studies, two distinct views on the intercultural framework were identified. Roughly, 10 per cent rejected or criticised IC/ICD as an alternative to MC, whereas 66 per cent argued that the intercultural approach offers a new/better paradigm for thinking about and/or managing diversity. An additional 17 per cent of the studies saw the latter as potentially useful but needing conceptual precision, while 7 per cent were neutral in their assessment.

Articulations of IC and ICD

An increasing number of studies have examined IC and ICD over the last decade on the basis of conceptualisations and framings that emerged after the Council of Europe’s 2008 White Paper. They discussed the intercultural framework in relation to ‘super-diversity’ and the potential of IC/ICD in its governance. In 153 studies, definitions were provided for either IC (74 articles) or ICD (67 articles) with only 12 publications providing definitions for both concepts.

A qualitative analysis using NVivo generated a word cloud of the 50 most frequent words in the sample. The full-text of all 351 studies were browsed to find the frequency of mentions of intercultural issues using the keywords ‘intercultural’, ‘interculturalism’ and ‘intercultural dialogue’. All three alternative searches returned the same result, with terms such as intercultural, culture/al, education, social, and dialogue featuring most frequently (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Word cloud for intercultural issues based on 50 word frequency (n = 351).

Thematic Analysis

Using Allport’s intergroup contact theory (Allport 1954; Pettigrew 1998) a particular thematic pattern can be constructed from the definitions of IC and ICD contained in the reviewed studies. Figure 5 reports this thematic pattern, anchored in the notion of contact and six other interrelated themes – diversity, culture, shared value, equality, prejudice, and transformation. Lahdesmaki and Wagener (2015) have used a related semantic analysis on the conceptualisation of ICD using the White Paper document. Yalaz and Zapata-Barrero (2018) have also used similar thematic analysis in mapping and examining migration research. This SLR uses the occurrences of words related to the six themes across the included publications. The emerging pattern indicates that contact is the underlying conceptual basis of IC and ICD. Similarly, the management of cultural diversity in the absence of prejudice is seen as the target of the intercultural approach, with respect, equality and shared values afforded greater emphasis, and individual transformation considered the ultimate goal.

Figure 5. Thematic analysis of concepts associated with the definitions of interculturalism and intercultural dialogue (N = 351).

Defining Interculturalism

The SLR identified and examined 114 definitions of IC either explicitly and distinctly provided or paraphrased creatively across 74 different scholarly outputs. Of these, 27 articles provided a set of unique definitions, and 27 articles used either direct quotes or paraphrased definitions already provided by other authors. Twenty articles provided both their own definitions and quotes or paraphrases. Some of the sources for these quotes and paraphrased definitions were publications that did not meet the inclusion criteria for this SLR (for example, publications other than journal articles and book chapters). While the majority (67 per cent) of the cited definitions were from various authors, the rest (33 per cent) cited definitions provided by eight different authors. The most frequently cited definitions were those of the Council of Europe (2008) and Bouchard and Taylor (2008), quoted eight and five times respectively. Other definitions that were cited at least twice included those provided in Cantle (2012), Powell and Sze (2004) and Rattansi (2011).

Below, we summarise the definitions using five levels of coding: conceptualisation, purpose, framing, focus, and component of IC. Tables 4 and 5 report the coding results, with values indicating the number of definitions in which a given code representing concepts, words, ideas or phrases appears.

Table 4. Framing, focus and components in the definitions of interculturalism.

Framing	No.	Focus	No
Approach/way	25	Cultures	31
Concept/theoretical framework	19	Groups	14
Policy	13	Cultural groups	13
Idea	7	Individuals	10
Ideology	4	Communities	5
perspectives/attitudes/skill	4	People	5
Instrument/tool	4	Citizens	3
Model	3	Societies	3
Paradigm	3	Cities	2
Attempt	2	Students	1
Process	2	Young people	1
Other	12
NA	32

Note: Other terms less frequently invoked components of IC included right, connections, bi-directionality, peace, intermixing, adaptation, flexibility, confrontation, expression, awareness, consent, globalisation, coherence and independence appearing 25 times. Bold word or phrase indicate relatively more frequent mentions.

Table 5. Conceptualisation and purpose of interculturalism.

Purpose	No.	Conceptualisation	No.
Promoting common/shared values/culture/identity	14	Dialogue/exchange/proactive engagement/bi-directional interaction/relationship between cultures	53
Fostering social cohesion	12	Approach/policy for addressing/managing/integrating diversity	14
Facilitate social integration in pluralistic societies	8	Mode/process for communicating/learning/sharing across difference	13
Recognition/respect/acceptance of difference	7	Promoting respect/acceptance of differences between cultures	11
Fostering peaceful coexistence	7	Acknowledgement of equality between cultures	9
Creating space for democratic pluralistic society	6	Concept of pluralist transformation of society	8
Increasing knowledge/skills/critical thinking/innovation	6	Theorisation for negotiation between coherence/universality and diversity	8
Individual/cultural transformation	6	Vision/policy for creating social cohesion/harmony	8
Fostering equality/equal opportunities	5	Policies/frameworks for social integration of people from diverse backgrounds	8
Promoting social inclusion	4	Framework for thinking about diversity	7
Addressing/managing diversity	4	Paradigm for constructing common political culture based on shared/universal norms	7
Creating fair and just society	3	Framework for promoting communication, cultural skills, knowledge, innovation in diverse societies	6
Addressing/strengthening minority cultural identity	3	Recognition of cultural pluralism and tolerance	5
Creating/promoting mutual understanding	3	Framework for coexistence of people/groups from different cultural backgrounds	5
Defining/reifying culture	2	Initiative/tool for promoting social inclusion	3
Challenging prejudice/exclusionary attitudes	2	An inclusive version of multiculturalism	3
Elimination of racism/discrimination	2	Framework for reducing prejudice, discrimination and exclusion	2
Reconciling universalism and cultural diversity	2	Framework for remedying the defects of multiculturalism	1
Avoiding ethnic conflicts	1	Critical thinking for participating in diverse society	1
Increase participation/engagement in society	1
Overcoming institutional and relational barriers	1

Note: Totals do not add up due to overlapping codes; a single definition may consist of multiple codes.

Framing, focus and components

The way IC is framed in academic literature in relation to conceptualisation and policy articulation varies considerably. In this SLR, a majority of the definitions framed IC as a practical approach (25 definitions), a concept or theoretical framework (19 definitions) or a public policy (13 definitions; see Table 4). Another 29 definitions framed it as an abstract idea, political ideology, personal perspective, attitude or skill, as an instrument or tool, as a model, paradigm, attempt, or as a process. Twelve definitions use a variety of framings while no specific framing was provided in 32 definitions.

While almost all of the 75 articles defined IC as something related to diverse cultures, the level of focus varied across the definitions (see Table 4). Of those that specified the focus of the given definition, the majority (58/87 definitions) indicate cultures, cultural groups or groups as the focus of the intercultural framework. In 22 definitions, IC was described in reference to individuals, communities, people, citizens and societies. Four other definitions indicated cities, students or young people as the levels of focus.

Another defining factor in the conceptualisation of IC relates to its key components or constituent elements with at least 39 such components identified in this SLR. As indicated in Figure 6, three words – interaction, dialogue and exchange – appeared more frequently than any other word, as the key components of IC, appearing in 33, 27 and 21 definitions respectively. Overall, the list can be classified into four broad components:

1. Relational, including words such as interaction, dialogue, exchange, relationship, communication; total appearances: 125;

2. Normative, including words such as equality, recognition, acceptance, inclusion, respect; total appearances: 62;

3. Transformative, including words such as transformation, understanding, learning, knowledge, attitude; total appearances: 62; and

4. Integrative, including words such as sharing, social cohesion, integration, coexistence, mutuality, reciprocity; total appearance: 83.

Figure 6. Components in the definitions of IC.

Note: This figure provides the frequency of the most common words associated with the definition of IC.

Purpose and conceptualisation

A recurring aspect in this SLR is the representation of IC as a normative basis of social policy with specific objectives. Ninety-nine references were identified across the articles as having definitions explicitly articulating what IC seeks to achieve in society. Table 5 summarises a list of 21 objectives, classified into four broad goals, corresponding to the four components listed above.

Corresponding to the integrative component are four objectives focused on the promotion of social cohesion, common or shared values, cultural identity, facilitation of social integration and fostering peaceful coexistence (mentioned in 41 definitions). Closely related to the normative component are eight social justice objectives usually associated with MC. These include the promotion of social inclusion and equality; acceptance and respect of difference; elimination of racism/discrimination and creation of a fair and just society that empowers cultural minorities (mentioned in 28 definitions). Fifteen definitions focused on transformative objectives, including the expansion of knowledge and skills, and the promotion of mutual understanding that lead to individual and cultural transformation. Finally, another 15 definitions focused on structural issues corresponding to the relational components. These include the management of diversity, creation of space for democratic pluralistic society, reconciliation of universal values and cultural diversity, and encouragement of participation/engagement in society by overcoming institutional and relational barriers.

Across the 75 articles with definitions, 136 different discursive conceptualisations of IC were identified. Based on their similarities and emphases, Table 5 classifies these into 19 distinct conceptualisations. The most frequently articulated of these is the conceptualisation of IC as a ‘dialogue or exchange between cultures’ (53 definitions). This in turn was described in various ways, including ‘proactive engagement’, ‘bi-directional interaction’ and ‘relationship’ among other categorisations.

IC has been invoked several times in discussions around the new global reality of diversity/super-diversity (Cantle 2012; Zapata-Barrero 2015). In this SLR, 30 definitions conceptualising IC as a framework for thinking about diversity were identified. These framings identify IC as an approach/policy for addressing/managing diversity; a framework for remedying the defects of multiculturalism; or as a theorisation for negotiating coherence/universality and diversity.

Furthermore, a set of 34 definitions uniquely conceptualised IC in relation to social cohesion, commonality and co-existence. In these definitions, IC is perceived as a process for communicating and sharing across difference; as a vision for creating social cohesion or common political culture; or as a framework for the coexistence of people from different cultural backgrounds.

Finally, two sets of definitions conceptualised IC in terms of the multicultural notion of inclusivity. Twenty-eight definitions described IC as recognition, acceptance and respect of cultural pluralism and difference; as an initiative towards social inclusion; or as a framework for reducing prejudice and discrimination. Another 15 definitions associated IC with the pluralist transformation of society or described it as a framework for promoting cultural competency (knowledge, skills, and critical thinking).

Defining Intercultural Dialogue

This SLR examined 95 different definitions of ICD contained across 67 articles. Sixteen articles provided unique self-initiated definitions and 41 articles used either direct quotes or paraphrases of definitions provided in other sources. In 10 articles, the authors provided their own operational definitions on the basis of paraphrased/quoted sources. The most referenced definition of ICD was once again the one provided in the 2008 Council of Europe White Paper. It was cited 32, 17 times in direct quotes and 15 times in paraphrases.

Below is a summary of the key ICD definitions using a coding strategy similar to the one employed in the conceptual analysis of IC. Tables 6 and 7 report a summary of the coding results.

Table 6. Framing, focus and components in the definitions of ICD.

Framing	No.	Focus	No
Dialogue/conversation	23	Groups	27
Process	20	Individual	22
Approach/way/path	8	Cultures	18
Form of communication	6	Peoples/persons/human beings	13
Tool/instrument	4	Participants/interlocutors	5
Concept/idea/framework	4	Citizens	5
Method/manner/model	4	Communities	4
Platform/place	3	Religions	2
Means	3	Members of society	2
Policy/set of principles	2	States	2
Strategy/response	2	Students	2
Bridge	2	Neighbours	1
Catalyst/vehicle	2	Sectors of society	1
Encounter	1	Towns, cities	1
Events	1	Organisations	1
Attitude	1	Local government, civic society	1
NA	20	Children	1
		NA	24

Note: Less frequently referred to components of ICD included accountability, trust, awareness, behaviours, friendship, public spaces, arrangements, civilisation, and so on, appearing 17 times. NA = not available.

Table 7. Conceptualisation and purpose of ICD.

Purpose	No.	Conceptualisation	No.
Fostering deeper understanding of diverse perspectives and practices	19	Dialogue based on mutual understanding, respect and acceptance of cultural differences	30
Recognition/respect/acceptance of difference	12	Open dialogue/exchange/interaction between members of different cultures	27
Searching for consensus/common/shared values	9	Framework for talking/thinking about diversity/differences	12
Fostering social cohesion	8	Dialogue between different cultures/groups	9
Fostering peaceful coexistence and resolving conflict	7	Framework for fair expression, interaction and communication	8
Enhancing knowledge/skills/critical thinking/innovation	7	Encounter between different cultures/groups that allows retaining unique identities	7
Personal/cultural transformation	7	Acknowledgement of equality between cultures	6
Creatively bridge differences	6	Dialogue that looks at diversity of alternative perspectives	6
Facilitate social integration in pluralistic societies	6	Acceptable approach to addressing/managing diversity	6
Promoting tolerance	6	Framework for peaceful coexistence of people/groups from different cultural backgrounds	6
Encourage inclusivity and cross-cultural learning	5	Dialogue that leads to change of attitudes and transformation	6
Increase participation/engagement in society	5	Approach for negotiation between coherence/universality and diversity	5
Awareness regarding cultural differences and the other	4	Dialogue that fosters mutual understanding	5
Promoting democratic culture, human rights/ rule of law	4	Recognition of cultural difference, identities and tolerance	5
Mutual adaptation	4	Dialogue extending beyond celebration of difference to exploration of other cultures	4
Promoting new cultural perspectives	3	Mode/process for communicating/learning/sharing across difference	4
Developing a sense of community/belonging	3	Dialogue that addresses issues of democracy and human rights	4
Create conditions for reciprocity, mutuality and sharing	3	Policies/frameworks for social integration of people from diverse backgrounds	3
Fostering equality/equal opportunities	3	Tool for relationship between cultures	3
Increasing and experimenting with positive interaction	2	Approach for critical self-reflection and examination of existing cultures	3
Addressing/managing diversity	2	Critical thinking for participating in diverse society	3
Elimination of prejudice/racism/discrimination	2	Dialogue that promotes creativity and knowledge	3
Balancing cultural diversity and social cohesion	1	Inclusive alternative to multiculturalism	2
		Dialogue that challenges prejudice, discrimination and exclusion	2
		Communication that leads to consensus and shared/universal norms	2
		Dialogue that promotes reciprocal learning and adaptation	2
		Thinking together towards bridging differences across cultures	2

Note: Totals do not add up due to overlapping codes; a single definition may consist of multiple codes.

Framing, focus and components

Our analysis indicates that the literature on ICD draws heavily on the 2008 Council of Europe White Paper in terms of framing and focus (see Table 6). A majority of the definitions frame ICD as a dialogue, conversation or form of communication (n = 29), or as a process (n = 20). Another 23 definitions framed it as an approach, method, means, tool/instrument, or as a policy/strategy, with four definitions depicting it as an abstract concept. Seven definitions used a variety of framings, while no specific framing is present in 20 definitions.

Individuals, groups or cultures were prominent as the levels of focus of ICD (80 definitions), although a few definitions indicated other specific subjects as the targets (see Table 6). Thirty-five definitions depicted ICD as focusing on individuals/persons, while groups and cultures were the domains of focus in 27 and 18 definitions respectively. Twenty-three definitions describe ICD specifically in relation to communities, religions, citizens, students, and society at large. Five other definitions used the vague individualised reference ‘participants/interlocutors’.

This SLR reveals the use of more concepts in the definitions of ICD than in IC. At least 52 components were identified in 96 definitions, even though the word ‘dialogue’ itself was not included in order to avoid redundancy. Figure 7 indicates six concepts – diversity/difference, mutuality/reciprocity, understanding, openness, respect, and exchange – that featured prominently, appearing more than 20 times each. Categorising this list into the four broad components mentioned above yields the following:

1. Relational, including key terms such as exchange, communication, interaction, engagement; total appearances: 94;

2. Normative, including terms and notions such as diversity/difference, respect, equality, recognition, tolerance; total appearances: 151;

3. Transformative, including words such as understanding, openness, criticality, skills, learning, transformation; total appearances: 137; and

4. Integrative, including key terms such as mutuality/reciprocity, human rights, commonality, sharing, integration, coexistence; total appearances: 151.

Figure 7. Components in the definitions of ICD.

Note: This figure provides the frequency of mention of the most common words associated with the definition of ICD.

Purpose and conceptualisation

In more than half of the definitions (n = 57, 60 per cent), ICD was articulated in terms of normative social purposes or objectives. These are summarised into 23 specific objectives, classified into four broad goals corresponding to the four components listed above (see Table 7).

Closely related to the normative component, ICD is linked in the reviewed studies to a range of multicultural goals characterised by respectful recognition of difference, tolerance, and social inclusion, among others (mentioned in 51 definitions). Four objectives relate to the integrative component, and focus on the search for consensus or commonality that ensure cohesion and peaceful coexistence (mentioned in 30 definitions). Twenty definitions linked ICD to its transformative component in the form of knowledge and skills enhancement, mutual adaptation and development of new cultural perspectives. Finally, at a more structural level, in 17 definitions, ICD was associated with the goal of creating conditions for reciprocity and interactive engagement, promoting democratic culture, and balancing diversity with social cohesion.

Across the 67 articles, we identified 85 definitions that provide 27 unique conceptualisations of ICD (see Table 3). Two conceptualisations that frequently stood out related to a ‘dialogue based on mutual understanding, respect and acceptance’ (n = 30) and an ‘open dialogue, exchange, or interaction between members of different cultures’ (n = 36).

In the rest of the conceptualisations, ICD was described in terms of inclusivity, relationality, structural utility and integrative and transformative capacity. Forty-three definitions described it as fair expression, interaction or communication; as an encounter allowing for the retention of cultural identity; as a dialogue acknowledging equality between cultures; and as a dialogue fostering mutual understanding, among others. Another five definitions articulated ICD as a ‘tool for relationship between cultures’ or as a ‘framework for bridging differences across cultures’.

In 28 definitions, ICD was conceptualised as a diversity management tool that operates within a human rights framework. Specifically, it was conceived as a framework for thinking about difference; an approach for managing diversity; an approach for negotiating cohesion; and a dialogue for addressing democracy and human rights. Unlike in the case of IC, only 13 definitions emphasised the integrative aspect of ICD. In these definitions, it was conceptualised as a framework for peaceful coexistence; a process for sharing across differences; a framework for social integration; an inclusive alternative to multiculturalism; and as a communication that leads to consensus or universal norms. Finally, 16 definitions highlighted the transformative nature of ICD. The conceptualisations varied from its description as dialogue leading to attitudinal change to dialogue promoting creativity and knowledge, and from being an approach for critical self-reflection to a basis for an examination of existing cultures including one’s own culture.

Discussion

In light of the growing academic and policy debates around the utility and conceptual clarity of IC/ICD as a framework for diversity governance, this SLR mapped and analysed scientific evidence around these concepts on the basis of studies published between 2000 and 2017. Starting with a total list of 16,582 outputs, we identified 351 publications that met our inclusion criteria, with articles and book chapters published in more than 15 countries, and covering a diversity of themes related to IC and ICD.

Our analysis examined the broader intercultural framework by first looking at how it has been understood and framed within academic and philosophical debates, noting that intercultural ideas more broadly are not new in social sciences and humanities. In sociological research for example, scholars have studied intercultural understanding, particularly within education settings and in relation to cultural differences since the early twentieth century (Brown 1939). However, IC, and more specifically ICD, in its current form, emerged more prominently only after it was initially adopted in public policy discussions (Council of Europe 2008). Particularly since the turn of the century, both concepts have been framed in relation to the management of community relations in the context of ‘super-diversity’, with contact and interaction being suggested as inherent to the intercultural approach (Cantle 2012; Zapata-Barrero 2016). Most of the studies analysed in this SLR trace the root of the IC debate to the Council of Europe 2008 White Paper. However, much of the discussions that ensued since have been framed in terms of acceptance or rejection of the IC/ICD framework as an alternative to either assimilation or MC (Agustín 2012; Joppke 2018). Among the studies we analysed, although 83 per cent at least partially accepted IC/ICD, 10 per cent rejected it as an adequate diversity governance framework.

While noting the salience of the intercultural/multicultural debate, our goal in this SLR was to elucidate the wide-ranging and overarching level of overlap in the literature on the intercultural framework itself. Thus, our analysis closely examined the way studies framed, conceptualised and located the conceptual focus and policy purpose of IC/ICD. While the definitions of IC and ICD showed some overlap, the main findings of this SLR can be summarised as follows:

• IC is conceived as an approach or framework for contact, dialogue and interaction between individuals and cultures that involve proactive exchange and bi-directional engagement involving both minority and majority groups.

• IC is also viewed as a potential basis for managing super-diversity by encouraging cross-cultural contact, mutual learning and exchange across differences. Its main purpose is promoting shared values, fostering social cohesion and nurturing an ethos that prioritises recognition of difference and peaceful coexistence.

• ICD in particular is understood as a process-driven framework that encourages open dialogue and meaningful interaction based on mutual understanding, respect and acceptance of cultural differences. Its main purpose is the recognition, respect and acceptance of difference, as well as fostering deeper understanding of diverse perspectives and practices in the context of possible public contestation of claims around cultural and religious rights. In this sense, it is a more grounded concept that aims to build integrative affinities within diverse societies.

• Following from the above, ICD can then be viewed as a basis for engendering transformative (positive) change among individuals and by extension their communities. At the individual level, ICD emphasises behavioural transformation and cultural attitudinal change that can, in theory, challenge existing hierarchical relations between groups (Cantle 2015; Bouchard and Taylor 2008; Barrett 2013).

Generally, the analysis of the various definitions of IC and ICD yielded four key conceptual dimensions – relational, integrative, normative and structural/transformative – that can be considered as key philosophical assumptions framing and constituting the intercultural framework (Barrett 2013). These partially correspond to Zapata-Barrero’s three ‘normative policy drivers’ and Berry’s framework of the ‘core elements and linkages’ (Berry 2016; Zapata-Barrero 2016). In proposing his ‘contractual’, ‘cohesive’, and ‘constructivist’ strands as distinct perspectives of IC, Zapata-Barrero (2016: 167) conceives the intercultural paradigm as an ‘interplay between tradition, cohesion and innovation’. In Berry’s framework, the main goal of the Canadian multicultural policy is to foster ‘mutual acceptance’ through three programmes – cultural support, social intercultural contact, and intercultural communication. The framework accommodates many of the components of IC we identified, including mutuality, understanding, contact, interaction, communication, acceptance, learning, participation and integration (Berry 2016).

Yet, Berry (2016: 413) also distinguishes between three aspects of managing diversity: ‘the multiculturalism principle; the integration principle; and the contact principle’. These distinctions are consistent with what emerged in the literature. Along with a transformative element, the relational (contact), integrative, and normative (in Berry’s classification, the multicultural) aspects prominently featured as the key constituents of an intercultural approach to diversity (for example, Abdallah-Pretceille 2006; Bouchard and Taylor 2008; Taylor 2012; Zapata-Barrero 2016).

Relational Dimension

The relational dimension highlights the communicative aspect of the intercultural framework, where relationships through contact are considered the fundamental ethos (Council of Europe 2008; Joppke 2018). The findings of this SLR corroborate the conception that dialogic exchanges and interactions are the most important features of an intercultural approach, often depicted in ICD terms. We have identified contact and dialogue as well as concepts related to these, such as interaction, relationship, communication and exchange, as consistently recurring themes in both IC and ICD. These individual-level, inter-group, and cross-cultural relationships and communications are considered vital for achieving desired social goals of equality, social inclusion, and social cohesion in a culturally diverse society (Broome and Collier 2012). The Council of Europe (2011, para. 1) has further emphasised the need for contact and interaction:

rather than ignoring diversity (as with guest-worker approaches), denying diversity (as with assimilationist approaches) or overemphasising diversity and thereby reinforcing walls between culturally distinct groups (as with multiculturalism), interculturalism is about explicitly recognising the value of diversity while doing everything possible to increase interaction, mixing and hybridisation between cultural communities.

While this SLR found consistent identification of dialogue and interaction to be distinct features of IC/ICD, it should be noted that there is a strong scholarly argument depicting dialogic interaction and exchange as also essential ingredients of MC (Modood 2017; Taylor 1994; Parekh 2006). However, there is also a counter-argument that MC exists in different forms across countries, taking diverse symbolic, structural, and dialogic manifestations (Barrett 2013). The dialogic element in particular resembles in some ways what other scholars have conceptualised as ‘everyday multiculturalism’, which has a lot in common with the components of ICD (Wise and Velayutham 2009) reviewed and discussed in this SLR.

Integrative Dimension

An intercultural approach places emphasis on social cohesion and integration as the ultimate goals of diversity policies (Barret 2013). As identified in this SLR, the conceptualisation of the intercultural approach as a two-way integration and adaptation process distinguishes it from how integration is espoused in assimilation and to some degree in MC policies. In this regard, IC and ICD are conceived as having bi-directionality in the process of engagement and mutual adaptation between minority and majority groups, thus allowing cultural maintenance as well as adaptation (Berry 2016). Some scholars, however, argue that rather than simply ensuring cultural maintenance and adaptation, an intercultural framework, in its integrative dimension, can lead to the creation of new synergetic ‘third cultures’ (Evanoff 2006). According to this notion, the rules that are absent but necessary for governing cross-cultural interactions can be constructed through dialogue, whereby cultures are negotiated, contested and reconstructed, leading to the creation of a ‘third culture’ (Evanoff 2004; Kramsch 1998).

In addition to social cohesion and integration, the concepts of co-existence, sharing and mutuality emerged as integral components of the IC and ICD frameworks. The emphasis in all of these concepts lies in the reciprocal requirements that the intercultural approach engenders, as individuals negotiate and adapt to the requirements of living with difference.

Transformative Dimension

A key feature of the intercultural approach depicted in the literature is an emphasis on its transformative capacity. The goal of the dialogue and interactive exchange that take place in intercultural relationships is transformative change enabled through knowledge, learning, and understanding. Yet, such change should not be associated solely with minority groups adopting the majority culture. Instead, IC offers platforms for bi-directional transformation, where both minority and majority group members are willing to participate in mutual exchange and cross-cultural adaptation. Thus, the dialogic interaction and mutual adaptation processes in IC and ICD would be effective only if majorities are willing to engage meaningfully with members of minority groups (Baumeister 2003). The ‘questioning of one’s identity in relation to others is an integral part of the intercultural approach’, thus implying the potential for both sides of the dialogue or exchange to emerge transformed (Abdallah-Pretceille 2006). However, in the current context of asymmetrical power relations between majorities and minorities in many societies, achieving the conditions for genuine bi-directional transformation remains a challenge (Baumeister 2003).

Normative Dimension

Our findings indicate that the IC framework in its normative aspect, shares a great deal with the multicultural perspective that has also been defined as emphasising ‘an appreciation of the value of cultural diversity for a society, and a need for mutual acceptance and accommodation that promotes equitable participation’ (Berry 2016: 416–417). In most studies, the normative notions of respect, mutual understanding and acceptance of diversity and difference are understood as the core foundations of IC that are vital for its integrative and transformative objectives (Bouchard and Taylor 2008; Cantle 2012; Ponciano and Shabazian 2012).

In consistently portraying IC and ICD in terms of intergroup relationships, the literature represented the intercultural approach as a framework for contact and peaceful coexistence. Writing before the millennium, Michael James [not reviewed here] noted that critical ICD requires that participants should ‘adopt an attitude of openness towards each other’s cultural perspectives; … come to understand each other’s perspectives; and … communicate under conditions which they mutually can accept as fair’ (James 1999: 590). Since then, research on intercultural approaches has expanded, with scholars calling for a more theoretical depth and conceptual clarity around what distinguishes IC/ICD from alternative normative approaches to diversity (Guilherme and Dietz 2015). This SLR has partly responded to these calls, laying potential groundwork for further empirical examination of IC/ICD.

Conclusion

In this SLR, the focus was mainly on peer-reviewed publications examining the different ways in which IC and ICD have been conceptualised across disciplines. Thus, a large body of the grey literature has not been included, making this the main limitation of the SLR. Further studies exclusively focused on these works should make a significant contribution to our study. Furthermore, the choice of ‘intercultural’ as the main search term reflects recent and current research pertaining to diversity management policies, excluding earlier related work on the inter-group theory, particularly the pioneering work on the inter-group contact hypothesis (Allport and others). However, this and other related works were cited extensively in the literature we reviewed, and it should be noted that systematic reviews of the contact hypothesis have been previously conducted (Miles and Crisp 2014; Pettigrew and Tropp 2008). Moreover, the exclusion of international literature not published in English represents another significant constraining factor in this SLR particularly as it excludes the influential body of work built on the work of Alfonso Ortiz that has emerged across Latin America. Similarly, much of the literature from other parts of the world including Asia and Africa will have been missed if it was not published in English, either originally or through translation. Again, this represents a significant handicap in terms of conducting a genuinely comprehensive SLR that reflects the world’s major intellectual traditions in intercultural matters.

Nevertheless, this SLR was undertaken on the basis of an extensive systematic search of the accessible literature defined within specific temporal and thematic confines. The findings of this SLR are clear in pointing to an intercultural approach to diversity, conceptualised as IC and ICD, that is predicated on interactive contact and mutually transformative dialogue between individuals and groups across difference. The surveyed literature reflects the conceptual challenge to precisely locate and define IC as a distinct approach particularly as it engages related concepts and theories, most notably MC. While further research is needed to deepen the theoretical grounding of the IC framework, this SLR has attempted to synthesise current research in the area, clarifying that the intercultural approach represents at least four dimensions – relational, normative, integrative, and transformative – where much of the reported IC research appears to have converged. Our research indicates that despite the explosion of IC research, there has been limited attempts to integrate IC with previous inter-group and relational theories. Future research should address this limitation and further investigate this theoretical link. Furthermore, our findings indicate that the majority of IC and ICD research has been theoretical, with limited applied and qualitative analysis. Thus, more empirical research based on quantitative data is urgently needed to examine the utility and practical applicability of the intercultural approach within everyday encounters.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the helpful comments by Ricard Zapata-Barrero, Vince Marotta, and anonymous reviewer on an earlier manuscript of this article. We are also grateful to Tuba Boz, Natalia Pereira and Scheherazade Bloul for excellent research assistance, and Jenny Lucy for helpful editorial assistance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Amanuel Elias

Dr Amanuel Elias is a Research Fellow at the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, at Deakin University, Australia. He received Masters in Economics from Monash University and PhD in Economics from Deakin University. Dr Elias’ interdisciplinary research focuses on race relations, ethnic inequalities and cultural diversity.

Fethi Mansouri

Professor Fethi Mansouri is the Director of the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation at Deakin University, Australia. He holds the UNESCO Chair in comparative research on Cultural Diversity and Social Justice and an Alfred Deakin Research Chair in migration and intercultural studies. His research interests focus on migration, comparative refugee research, global Islamic politics, multiculturalism and intercultural relations.

Notes

1 The following disciplines were included: social sciences, arts and humanities, business, management and accounting, psychology, economics, econometrics and finance, nursing, decision sciences, health professions, and multidisciplinary.

2 Some of the relevant concepts were intercultural dialogue, interculturality, interculturalism, intercultural education, intercultural communication, intercultural relations, intercultural competence, and interfaith/interreligious dialogue.

Appendix 1

List of publications that were included in this SLR

Table

Abbey, 2009	Bogdan, 2009	Downing, 2015	Hajisoteriou, 2012
Abdallah-Pretceille, 2006	Bolovan, 2009	Drandic, 2016	Hajisoteriou, 2013
Abu-Nimer, 2001	Bouchet, 2012	Dulabaum, 2011	Hajisoteriou et al., 2011
Ageyev, 2007	Bradley, 2015	Elbaz-Luwisch et al., 2004	Hajisoteriou et al., 2012
Aggestam and Hill, 2008	Broome and Collier, 2012	Elhajji, 2008	Halafoff, 2010
Agustín, 2012	Bruno, 2008	Ellis and Maoz, 2002	Halualani and Nakayama, 2011
Agyeman and Erickson2012	Bryan, 2010	Erickson, 2011	Haraszti, 2007
Aikman, 2012	Bryan, 2008	Evanoff, 2006	Healy, 2013
Allen, 2016	Candela, 2013	Evanoff, 2004	Healy, 2006
Al-Maamari, 2016	Cantle, 2015	Faas et al., 2014	Hellgren and Hobson, 2008
Alrassi, 2013	Cantle, 2012	Feng, 2009	Helskog, 2015
Aman, 2012	Caponio and Ricucci, 2015	Flower, 2003	Helskog, 2014
Aman, 2015a	Carignan et al.,	Flunger et al.,	Henry, 015
Aman, 2015b	Caruana, 2014	Frawley and Fasoli, 2012	Hocevar et al., 2009
Aman, 2015c	Catarci, 2014	Fu, 2015	Hochheimer, 2007
Amin, 2002	Cisneros, 2011	Fuentes, 2016	Hodgson, 2011
Andraos, 2012	Cloonan et al., 2017	Fuentes, 2015	Hoff, 2014
Anthias, 2013	Clouet, 2013	Gagnon, 2011	Holliday, 2010
Ari and Laron, 2014	Coffey, 2013	Galanakis, 2013	Holmes, 2006
Arizpe et al., 2014	Collins and Friesen, 2011	Ganesh and Holmes, 2011	Hoover, 2011
Armillei, 2015	Coperías-Aguilar, 2015	Garcia Gonzalez, 2016	Hornberger, 2014
Arthur, 2011	Corrie, 2014	Georgiadis, 2009	Hoskins and Sallah, 2011
Aubakirova et al., 2016	Corriero and O’Doherty, 2013	Ghorayshi, 2010	Howard, 2013
Bakry and Al-Ghamdi, 2013	Corte-Real, 2011	Gil, 2016	Howarth and Andreouli, 2015
Bali, 2014	Cortes, 2009	Gilbert et al., 2013	Hrubec, 2010
Baraldi, 2015	Coulby, 2006	Girishkumar, 2015	Hua, 2010
Baraldi and Rossi 2011	Crosbie, 2014	Gobbo, 2011	Hua, 2015
Baraldi, 2006	Dallmayr, 2009	Gobbo, 2011	Igbino, 2011
Barbieri, 2011	Davies and Bentahila, 2012	Gomarasca, 2013	Ipgrave, 2009
Basílio et al., 2016	Del Sarto, 2005	Gonzalez Apodaca, 2009	Jaatinen, 2015
Baumeister, 2003	Del Valle, 2009	Gorski, 2008	Jackson, 2015
Becker, et al., 2014	Delany-Barmann, 2010	Goulah, 2012	Jackson, 2014
Berry, 2013	Depalma and López, 2014	Granados-Beltrán, 2016	Jackson, 2004
Berry, 2016	Dervin, 2014	Gropas and Triandafyllidou, 2011	Jackson, 2014
Berry, 2011	Dervin, 2015	Gropas and Triandafyllidou, 2012	James, 2012
Berry, J.	Dervin and Hahl, 2015	Guilherme et al., 2012	Jaurena, 2010
Bešter and Medvešek, 2016	Dervin and Layne, 2013	Guilherme et al., 2015	Javornik, 2009
Bjorklund and Bjorkgren, 2016	Dervin and Tournebise, 2013	Gumucio et al., 2008	Jiang, 2011
Blad and Couton, 2009	DesRoches, 2014	Gyepi-Garbrah et al., 2014	Jiang, 2005
Blad, 2011	Dietz et al., 2011	Hadjisoteriou and Angelides, 2016	Jiang, 2006
Blair, 2015	Dietz et al., 2012	Hadjisoteriou et al., 2015	Jokikokko, 2009
Blasco, 2012	Dimitrovova, 2010	Hager et al., 2011	Karaca, 2009
Bleszynska, 2008	Donati, 2009	Hahl and Lofstrom, 2016	Katcherian, 2010
Blum, 2014	Donati, 2013	Hajisoteriou,	Katz and Chumpi Nantip, 2014
Keely, 2006	Meer and Modood, 2012	Pollmann, 2009	Thaman, 2008
Keller, 2011	Michaelides, 2009	Pollmann, 2016	Tubino and Sinnigen, 2013
Kirova, 2008	Mihalcioiu, 2015	Ponciano and Shabazian, 2012	Tupas, 2014
Kiwan, 2007	Mikulec, 2015	Poole, 2005	Uitermark et al., 2005
Knox, 2011	Miller, 2014	Portera, 2008	Ungerleider, 2012
Ko et al., 2015	Miller and Petriwskyj, 2013	Pratas, 2010	Valdiviezo, 2006
Kowalczyk, 2014	Min, 2001	Quaye et al., 2007	Valdiviezo, 2010
Kymlicka, 2012	Mincu, 2011	Radice, 2016	Van Den Toren, 2015
Lahdesmaki et al., 2015	Mincu et al., 2011	Radstake and Leeman, 2010	Van Oord, 2008
Lahdesmaki and Wagener, 2015	Mincu, 2013	Read et al., 2015	Vazquez-Aguado et al., 2010
Lalander, 2010	Minnema, 2014	Reid and Sriprakash, 2012	Vega Camacho, 2012
Lando at al., 2015	Miravet and García, 2013	Restrepo, 2011	Vidmar-Horvat, 2012
Landres et al., 2007	Modood, 2014	Reyskens and Resteigne, 2015	Wagner, 2015
Lasonen, 2005	Modood and Meer, 2012	Riitaoja and Dervin, 2014	Walton et al., 2016
Lassalle, 2011	Molina, 2007	Rizvi, 2005	Walton et al., 2015
Lau, 2015	Mollov and Lavie, 2001	Robbins, 2007	Walton et al., 2013
Lawler and Mir, 2015	Monceri, 2003	Rodrigues and Abramowicz, 2013	Webb and Radcliffe, 2016
Layne and Dervin, 2016	Montecinos and Williamson, 2011	Rodríguez-García, 2010	Welle, 2013
Leeman and Reid, 2006	Moore, 2016	Ron et al., 2010	Welsch, 2001
Levey, 2012	Murphy, 2011	Rosemont, 2004	Werbner, 2012
Levrau and Loobuyck, 2013	Nair-Venugopal, 2009	Rothacher, 2008	Wessendorf, 2016
Liddicoat, 2009	Noble, 2011	Salt, 2008	Wieviorka, 2012
Liddicoat, 2005	Noh, 2004	Sandu, 2015	Wilson, 2014
Liddicoat, 2007	Nugent, 2006	Santos et al., 2012	Wiredu, 2005
Ludwinek, 2015	Nyiri, 2010	Santos et al., 2014	Wise and Velayutham, 2014
Luka, I.;	Omengele, 2010	Saunders, 2001	Witteborn, 2011
Maclennan, 2011	O'Regan and MacDonald, 2007	Schweisfurth, 2005	Wolf, 2012
Magos, 2007	Osuna, 2013	Sharma, 2014	Woodin et al., 2011
Malmvig, 2005	Ottosson, 2010	Shim, 2012	Wroblewski, 2014
Maniatis, 2010	Owusu-Ansah, 2012	Siegrist, 2006	Xu, 2013
Maniatis, 2012	Padilla et al., 2015	Siek-Piskozub, 2013	Yalden, 2011
Mansouri and Pietsch, 2011	Palaiologou and Faas, 2012	Simonič, 2010	Yevtukh, 2012
Markou, 2011	Pallavicini, 2016	Siu and Stanisevski, 2013	Yilmaz, 2008
Martins, 2008	Pandit and Alderman, 2004	Spariosu, 2015	Yusupova et al., 2015
Massoudi, 2006	Papamichael, 2008	Stanisevski and Miller, 2009	Zapata, 2009
Mata-Benito, 2013	Pattnaik, 2003	Staub, 2007	Zapata-Barrero, 2014
Maudarbux, 2016	Pavan et al., 2015	Steel et al., 2012	Zapata-Barrero, 2015
Maxwell et al., 2012	Peiser and Jones, 2013	Steinbach, 2010	Zapata-Barrero, 2016
Mayer et al., 2016	Peleg, 2015	Stephan and Stephan, 2013	Zay, 2011
McDermott et al., 2016	Perez-Aguilera et al., 2011	Striley and Lawson, 2014	Zayani, 2011
McDonald, 2011	Phan, 2012	Su, 2016	Zembylas, 2010
McGarry, 2016	Phipps, 2014	Svirsky and Mor-Sommerfeld, 2012	Zembylas and Bozalek, 2011
McGrane, 2011	Pieterse and Collins, 2007	Taylor, 2012	Zotzmann, 2014
Means, 2002	Pilarska and Urbanek, 2014	Teras, 2012

Note: Studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this SLR.