Intercultural communication: Where we’ve been, where we’re going, issues we face

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to critically analyze the state of intercultural communication literature. This review has three purposes. First, this review summarizes where the discipline has been, paying close attention to the discipline’s history and some key areas of research. Second, this review discusses where the discipline is going, with an emphasis on how the discipline is expanding into new contextual areas of research. Finally, the review presents challenges, issues, and areas for future discussion for intercultural communication.

Keywords:

• intercultural communication
• identity
• competence
• adaptation
• health care
• social media

Introduction

When considering the term ‘intercultural’ itself, it is impossible to deny its complexity. Intercultural communication has typically been defined as communication between individuals from different national cultures. However, the field of intercultural communication has grown considerably since its early beginnings. In the first systematic review of intercultural communication theories the International and Intercultural Communication Annual (Gudykunst, 1983), a group of researchers theorized about the interpersonal communication between people from different cultures. These initial theories were followed up in 1988 in a follow-up publication (Kim & Gudykunst) by empirical support and research on communication between people from different cultures. This early intercultural communication theory building, supported by previous work by the likes of Hall, Trager, and many others, laid the groundwork for the discipline today. However, the discipline has drastically changed since then.

Today intercultural communication as a discipline includes more theories than ever before, an increasing focus on studying the intercultural in different contexts, and an increasing debate as to what is the ‘intercultural’. To this end, this essay presents an overview of the state of the intercultural communication discipline. The purpose of this essay is three fold: first, it reviews where we have been as a discipline; second it discusses where we are going as a discipline, with a focus on how researchers are increasingly borrowing constructs and theories from other disciplines; and third it identifies key issues, challenges, and opportunities in intercultural communication.

Where we’ve been: development of the discipline

Global communication, diplomacy, and business after World War II created a need for practical frameworks of communication not solely based on linguistics (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990). The first steps in came from Whorf (1940) and Freudian psycho-analytical theory. Then the work of Edward T. Hall revolutionized the field with the publication of The Silent Language (1959). After this book, it took 10 years for the field to find its way into communication departments. The first official university class and workshop was offered at Pittsburgh University in the late 1960s (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1978). In 1970, the International Communication Association (ICA) founded an intercultural communication division, and the Speech Communication Association, National Communication Association (NCA) did the same in 1975. These were key steps in developing the field, as these helped produce textbooks, journals, and other academic items that developed the discipline (Rogers, Hart, & Miike, 2002). After the 1980s intercultural communication became more developed, as researchers defined and developed theories and measurement scales to investigate cross-cultural characteristics of different nations and cultures.

Intercultural communication evolved in different ways in different countries. This evolution has been dependent on social and political mainstreams of different countries and societies where intercultural programs have been institutionalized. Due to the multicultural nature of the US society, integration, and intercultural understanding was a great motivation for universities to develop intercultural communication programs. However in Japan, the need for communicative skills in English language and business provided a necessity to offer intercultural communication in these departments (Rogers et al., 2002). Recently, more programs have been established in China, Taiwan, and Singapore. This new tradition of intercultural communication tries to differentiate cultural characteristics of Asian countries and redefine western-based paradigms of intercultural communication, mainly influenced by US scholars (Kim, 2010).

Intercultural communication as a relatively new field of study is an answer to the communication complexities of a modern world with a wide range of cultural characteristics. To that end, the field has approached research from various perspectives. While it is impossible to review all areas of intercultural communication in this essay, we outline and briefly review three key areas of research that have been the focus of intercultural researchers: identity, intercultural communication competence, and adaptation. Within each of these areas of research we identify and describe key theories that have shaped intercultural communication.

Intercultural communication and identity

There are two ways to approach identity in intercultural communication: the traditional and the modern (Banks & Banks, 1995). The traditional paradigm posits communication is an internal source of conflict and identity stress during which the communicator tries to reduce fear and anxiety (Hall, 1992). Identity is a multidimensional notion consisting of psychological and social factors (Merino & Tileagă, 2011), and negotiated until communicators reach mutual understanding and agreement on identity (Ting-Toomey, 1993). However, the modern paradigm supposes identity is an animated and dynamic notion, whose (multi)form is dependent on social context and time (Hoffman, 1989). Under the influence of these two approaches to identity, scholars have proposed different types of identity, such as ethnic (Khakimova, Zhang, & Hall, 2012; Phinney & Ong, 2007; Ting-Toomey et al., 2000), sexual (Koller, 2012; Motschenbacher, 2013), gender (Back, 2014; Hall & LaFrance, 2012), personal (Fost, 2013; Herat, 2014), religious (Koschmann, 2013), and political identity (Nisbet & Myers, 2010), to mention a few. Nevertheless, for space purposes, what follows is a review of the most cited identity theories.

Social Identity Theory (SIT) is made up of both personal and social identities. Personal identity deals with identity characteristics, which are personal and not related to cultural and social groups. However, individuals keep and accentuate the identity that link them to special desired groups, and strengthen their positive self-image (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). While communicating at the intergroup level, people accentuate distinctiveness in favour of their in-groups and when the distinctiveness (i.e. identity) of a special group becomes salient, the group members’ attitudes and behaviours are affected by this identity (McKinley, Mastro, & Warber, 2014). SIT’s primary process is categorization, which implies individuals categorize others according to the groups they belong to and further ‘SIT argues that in-group/out-group designations affects self-esteem, intergroup relationships, and under certain conditions intergroup conflict’ (Roozen & Shulman, 2014, p. 166). Empirical studies have supported SIT findings (Fein & Spencer, 1997; Hertel & Kerr, 2001).

Cultural identity is the discursive stress individuals put on their emotional connectedness to or affiliation with a culture (Moriizumi, 2011). Culture is a set of shared meanings, symbols, and norms. The level to which one is the core member of a culture is the level to which one understands the symbols of the culture and follows the norms. Cultural identity has two interrelated dimensions: value and salience (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Value refers to the expectations necessary for one’s evaluation of cultural identity and salience is the level to which the members of the culture feel strong affiliation with that culture. Cultural identity is influenced by the extent of acculturation experienced and generation, cultural needs and values, the divergent situations, and the environments of various cultural communities (Collier, 1988). Studies on cultural identity have been conducted in relation to a broad array of contexts, such as brand choosing (Chattaraman, Lennon, & Rudd, 2010), cultural stereotype and persuasion (Collier, 1988), and political representation of national identity and minority groups (Chen & Collier, 2012), to name a few.

Face is ‘a claimed sense of favorable social self-worth that a person wants others to have of her or him’ (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998, p. 187). Social interactions embed conflict situations when the individuals need to save lost face because of the factors such as attacking or teasing. Face Negotiation Theory (FNT) explains how various elements contribute to manage these conflicts (Kirschbaum, 2012). According to Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998), face and facework (the communicative behavior individuals do to save their face) are universal, yet vary according to different cultures. Research has shown differences between cultures high in collectivism and those high in individualism, in that the former ones use other-oriented face-saving and other-face approval-enhancement strategies as their conflict management style while individualist ones use more cases of self-oriented face-saving and self-face approval-seeking. Studies of face negotiation theory have covered different fields such as health communication (Kirschbaum, 2012), interpersonal and intercultural conflict (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Zhang, Ting-Toomey, & Oetzel, 2014), online media studies (Lim, Vadrevu, Chan, & Basnyat, 2012), and organizational conflict management (Oetzel, Meares, Myers, & Lara, 2003).

Ethnolinguistic Identity theory (ELIT) is a social psychological approach dealing with the ‘variables and mechanisms involved in maintenance of an ethnic language in different social setting’ (Giles & Johnson, 1987, p. 69). The original form of the theory concerned explaining the interethnic setting in which a specific groups of individuals choose a specific language strategy and at the same time it tried to study the reason a group of people choose a different strategy than the other group, i.e. they diverge to the out-group language instead of accentuating their own language. This theory predicts ‘if an individual perceives high in-group identification, cognitive alternatives to in-group status, strong group vitality, and hard, close boundaries, intergroup differentiation will occur’ (Abrams, O’Connor, & Giles, 2002, p. 230). Studies in this field have investigated various subjects such as media studies (Vincze & Freynet, 2014; Vincze & Holley, 2013), nation-building and minority integration (Bekus, 2014; Olsen & Olsen, 2010), multilingualism and language policy (Brownie, 2012), and education (Taylor-Leech & Liddicoat, 2014), to mention just a few.

Intercultural communication competence

Researchers have defined intercultural communication competence in various ways. A widely-accepted definition is that competent communication is ‘interaction that is perceived as affective in fulfilling certain rewarding objectives in a way that is also appropriate to the context in which the interaction occurs’ (Spitzberg, 1988, p. 68). The key elements in competence are ‘effectiveness’ and ‘appropriateness’ (Kealey, 1990; Stahl, 2001). Effectiveness is the ability to reach the intended goals through interaction with other participants or the environment, and appropriateness is the ability to communicate in a way that leads to the desired goals (Lakey & Canary, 2002). According to Spitzberg and Cupach (1984), intercultural competence has four major components: knowledge, affective, psychomotor, and situational. Based on these four components, Shuang (2014) introduced three processes for intercultural competence, which include affective (dealing with the emotions during a communication), behavioral (dealing with proper intercultural behavior), and cognitive processes (dealing with contextual requirements and intercultural awareness).

Intercultural competence can be affected by various factors. Cultural sensitivity, defined as the motivation to accept and respect intercultural differences can positively affect competence (Lakey & Canary, 2002), communication skills, knowledge, behavior (Wiseman, 2002), and gender (Lee, Fredenburg, Belcher, & Cleveland, 1999) are among those factors. Competence is a key element in any communication interaction (Lakey & Canary, 2002) and it has been studied widely in relation to different fields of communication such as business (de Oñate & Amador, 2013; Matveev, 2004), workplace communication (Keyton et al., 2013), and education (Crook, 2014). Competence is linked to different communication theories. Although it is beyond the scope of this essay to review all the theories related to intercultural competence, the most frequently cited ones are anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) (Gudykunst, 1993), Face negotiation theory (FNT) (Ting-Toomey, 1988), Cultural identity theory (Collier, 1988), and Identity management theory (Cupach & Imahori, 1993). FNT and cultural identity theory have already been discussed, so what follows is a brief review of identity management theory and AUM.

Based on Berger and Calabrese’s (1975) uncertainty reduction theory (URT), Gudykunst (1993) proposed his AUM theory. According to this theory, to have effective intercultural communication, it is essential to overcome and manage uncertainty and anxiety. One of the most important notions in this theory is ‘stranger’ who is an individual conceptually unfamiliar. Therefore, during an intercultural communication, the individual experiences anxiety along with uncertainty (Neuliep, 2012). Anxiety is the result of negative expectations the stranger has about the host culture. On the other hand, uncertainty is the result of the stranger’s reluctance about the hosts’ behavior and feedback (Gudykunst, 1998). Higher levels of uncertainty will result in a lack of accuracy in interpretation of the host and higher levels of anxiety will end up in limited prediction of host behavior and fundamental attribution error (Gudykunst, 1993). Mindfulness and self-awareness can reduce the level of anxiety and bring about effective communication (Gudykunst, 1998), but intercultural communication apprehension and ethnocentrism have negative effects (Neuliep, 2012). AUM can be a proper ground for adjustment programs whose aim is to help expatriates (strangers) adapt to conditions in a new (host) culture (Gudykunst, 1998).

Identity management theory (IMT) describes the process in which individuals enact, negotiate, and manage their different identities in intercultural communication. SIT proposes members of low status groups try to improve their socially negative identity to gain a positive social identity and IMT as a form of facework (Brown & Levinson, 1978) is an answer to these negative identities (Blanz, Mummendey, Mielke, & Klink, 1998). IMT postulates this enactment is practiced through different strategies the individuals chooses (Ellemers, 1993). For example, individuals can use mobility to integrate into the out-group, creativity to avoid confrontation with the out-group or competition to confront the out-group through strengthening in-group identity (Vincze & Holley, 2013). Blanz et al. (1998) proposed four different identity management strategies out of the two dichotomies of the individual/collective distinction and the behavioral/cognitive distinction. The research on IMT has linked it to other fields such as organizational studies (Lagrande & Milburn, 2003), intercultural friendship (Lee, 2008), and online studies (Roy, 2012).

Adaptation

The process of cultural adaptation is of paramount concern for researchers, policy makers, communities, nations, and for individuals. Scholars have produced a rich body of work on how this process takes place, identified positive and negative effects of the process, and offered various critiques and alternatives to current adaptation models. In intercultural communication, two models have received the most attention (support, critique, and been cited the most): Berry’s (2003) acculturation strategies, and Kim’s (1988, 2001) cross-cultural adaptation model. Both of these models emphasize different acculturation paths newcomers can follow in a new cultural environment. Acculturation has been defined as a multidimensional process where distinct cultures come into contact. During this process cultural learning occurs through which a process cultural change occurs.

Berry’s model presents four strategies a newcomer can choose when encountering a new culture. The choice of strategy depends on the desire to maintain the native or heritage culture, and the desire to adopt the dominant culture (Berry, 2003, 2006). The four strategies are assimilation, separation, marginalization, and integration. Assimilation is when a newcomer decreases the significance of their original culture and attempts to identify with the new culture. Separation is when the newcomer keeps the original culture and avoids interaction with the new culture. Marginalization is when the newcomer shows little interest in either culture. Integration is when the newcomer shows interest in keeping their original culture but also learning the new culture.

Researchers have shown this model to be applicable in a variety of immigrant settings: Korean Americans (Lee, Sobal, & Frongillo, 2003), Vietnamese Americans (Pham & Harris, 2001), and others (see Sam & Berry, 2006). However, various researchers have criticized Berry’s model for its dichotomous approach (desire to maintain the heritage or adopt the dominant culture) (Phinney, Horencyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001; Ward, 2008). Researchers have criticized how researchers have tested immigrant samples as a priori, such as using a sample mean, or a midpoint on a range of possible scores as cut-off points to determine a particular strategy (Giang & Wittig, 2006). The use of these methods suggest equal numbers of participants will be placed in each of Berry’s categories due to methodological decisions, which means not all the categories may exist as expressed (Rudmin, 2003; Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008). Another critique regards the marginalization strategy. Del Pilar and Udasco (2004) questioned if it was practical to believe individuals would want to ‘lose’ their culture and not adopt a new culture and be without a culture.

The other model often studied in communication is Kim’s (1988, 2001) cross-cultural adaptation model. Kim (2001) defined cultural adaptation as “the dynamic process by which individuals, upon relocating to new, unfamiliar, or changed environments, establish (or reestablish) and maintain relatively stable, reciprocal, and functional relationships with those environments (p. 31). This process is a multi-step process, involving the enculturation, deculturation, and acculturation of newcomers to a culture, where the ultimate goal is assimilation into the new culture. Some recent research has supported Kim’s model (McKay-Semmler & Kim, 2014; McKay-Semmler, Semmler, & Kim, 2014). However, other studies have shown how immigrants to a new culture are often not able to, or are unwilling to culturally adapt for a multitude of reasons, thus questioning aspects of Kim’s theory (Croucher, 2013a, 2009, 2008; Croucher & Cronn-Mills, 2011; Kramer, 2000; Sandel & Liang, 2010). In fact, Kramer (2000) described adaptation as thus, “adaptation goes to the core of a psychological restructuration. This amounts to nothing less than the total hegemonic control of identity” (p. 196). Instead of cultural adaptation, Kramer (2000, 2003) proposed cultural fusion, where newcomers blend together elements from their native and new culture, as a more integrative and less hegemonic approach to represent the balance between host and immigrant groups.

Intercultural communication as a discipline has focused on various fields of study and contexts. Questions of adaptation, competence, identity, and a plethora of other key issues will remain integral to the discipline as it continues to develop. However, the discipline is also reaching out into other areas of study, which require our attention. The following section outlines some lines of inquiry that have recently emerged within intercultural communication.

Where we’re going: intercultural communication and health care

Intercultural and health communication are faced with similar communication challenges (i.e. verbal and non-verbal communication, politeness and face-saving, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance) and therefore strongly benefit from one another’s expertise. This is why many intercultural and health communication researchers are and will increasingly work with one another’s theories and models.

Healthcare and intercultural communication commonly conjure up feelings of anxiety, stress, and uncertainty. Both situations combined can be especially difficult to deal with for patients as well as healthcare providers (Ulrey & Amason, 2001). In addition to the inherent stress of intercultural healthcare situations, studies have identified many specific intercultural issues that affect healthcare quality. Mendoza (Alexander et al., 2014, p. 52) for instance pointed out that, ‘one can easily track health disparities by race, class, gender’. In other words, differences between cultural backgrounds can affect the quality of health services one receives. Such disparities can exist for different reasons. Discrimination and prejudice are significant aspects that affect not only immigrants but also native populations. Studies have for instance revealed healthcare disparities in the United States between African-American and Hispanic populations, and white middle-class patients (Johnson, Saha, Arbelaez, Beach, & Cooper, 2004). Quality of healthcare services can also be affected by differences in the way medicine, illness, and care are understood and approached by patients and health practitioners. Differences in communication styles and language abilities constitute another main obstacle to receiving and seeking proper treatment (Viswanath & Ackerson, 2011).

Ways in which medicine is understood by patients and healthcare staff can affect expectations regarding the diagnosis and treatment they receive or provide. Intercultural communication can be of great help to identify such differences as they can be unnoticed or minimized by practitioners who see the Western biomedical approach as the normal medical approach (Hanssen & Alpers, 2010). Studies have suggested medical ethnocentrism can result in incorrect diagnoses if, for instance, symptoms are not described in ways expected by healthcare providers. Hanssen and Alpers (2010, para. 64) for instance highlighted the risk of diagnosing ‘ethnic minority patients’ culture rather than their mental illness because their “normal” way of behaving and expressing themselves at times can be very different’.

Differences in approaching medicine and treatment are intertwined with differences in communicative repertoires. Studies have examined how pain is expressed in different cultures as some value internalizing pain while others value openly expressing it. In intercultural healthcare settings, such variety can create difficulties in assessing the level of pain patients are in. Dealing with such challenges creates stress for staff, leading to frustration, prejudices, and wrong diagnoses or treatment (Hanssen & Pedersen, 2013).

Communication is central to building rapport between patients and healthcare providers. Miscommunication or poor communication can impede the development of relationships and hinder the healing process. Specifically, lack of trust has been shown to affect patients’ willingness to thoroughly follow treatment (Santos & Amaro, 2011). In cases when there is no common language, translators can be used to convey information though raising numerous problems. Looking at the situation in Norway, Hanssen and Alpers (2010) have found word for word translations do not solve much as patients often need broader cultural knowledge about the health system and procedures to come. This highlights the need for more cultural brokerage in healthcare, which goes hand in hand with a patient-centered approach where patients’ narratives, needs and expectations orient the healthcare process (Lo, 2010). Overall, developing healthcare practitioners’ intercultural sensitivity toward different expectations and needs is a pressing issue to enhance healthcare in intercultural settings (Gunaratnam, 2007). Research indicates isolated efforts to deal with challenges of intercultural health communication are not enough to provide long-term solutions and ease healthcare providers’ stress and difficulties (Spence, 2001). For this reason, more research is needed to explore ways to train staff, and identify and address patients’ difficulties.

Intercultural communication and social media

Similarly, social media and intercultural communication share relevant research interests, especially regarding identity, acculturation and integration, and relations between culture and power. One main question is put forth when looking at social media from an intercultural communication viewpoint: to what extent do issues encountered in face-to-face situations translate into online communication (Johnson & Callahan, 2013)? Exploring ways in which people craft their identities online provides relevant answers to this question.

Processes of self-presentation in face-to-face and online contexts share the idea that individuals are active in expressing varying identities according to different contextual cues (Bouvier, 2012). Intercultural studies have investigated the extent to which individuals use traditional identity categories such as nationality or ethnicity in social media. A common assumption is virtual spaces can allow individuals to open and renew the scope of available identity categorizations (McEwan & Sobre-Denton, 2011). Results however depict a mixed picture. On the one hand, current processes of globalization seem to create ‘cultural spaces independent of traditional geographical or ethnic identifications’ (Johnson & Callahan, 2013, p. 319) whereby the relevance of national identification is downplayed and the importance of one’s lifestyle is enhanced (Bouvier, 2012). On the other hand, studies have shown traditional models of self-categorization are still used for various reasons.

Immigrants’ and minorities’ use of social media illustrate this latter aspect. Studies indicate they can use social/new media to, for instance, retain their cultural heritage (Hopkins, 2008), magnify their cultural identity (Grasmuck, Martin, & Zhao, 2009), or develop one’s sense of belonging to a community (Croucher & Cronn-Mills, 2011). The ways in which minorities use social media to express and negotiate identities are related to the acculturation process. Discrepancies exist among studies that have examined the relation between one’s integration and use of ethnic social media. However, results indicate that in the long term being a regular user of ethnic social media and online platforms impede one’s acculturation process and complicate one’s integration into the host society (Croucher & Cronn-Mills, 2011). In the first stages, however, using virtual ethnic communities can help immigrants go through the acculturation process by providing emotional support, which tends to decrease stress associated with living in a new environment (Ye, 2006). As the use of social media increases, online and offline worlds are more and more intertwined and online behaviors hold consequences in individuals’ offline lives (Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008). Therefore, more research should examine the effects of social media use on various aspects of the acculturation processes, including but not limited to, one’s willingness to adapt and one’s relation with the host society (Croucher, 2011).

Discussions about online identification processes highlight how culture is constructed and negotiated by individuals and institutions. Social media are relevant to examine the interplay between use of culture and power relations. Chen and Dai (2012) argued Western cultural references are overly present in the online world (i.e. linguistically through the use of English, materially through the use of programs, or through references to popular culture). The absence of face-to-face interaction does not imply absence of cultural signifiers: these are embedded in social media and brought up by individuals who use cultural representations in different ways. As Bouvier (2012) pointed out, social media can be used to escape from power relations existing in the offline world, but are also likely to reproduce them. For this reason, examining ‘who makes culture relevant to whom in which context for which purpose’ (Piller, 2011, p. 174) in social media can inform us about the cultural references powerful and dominant in society at that same time.

Most aspects related to social media and intercultural communication have been scarcely researched. Shuter (2012), argued new media studies are the next frontier in intercultural communication, and urged for more research to keep theories and analyses in touch with current evolutions.

Issues we face

In Alexander et al.’s (2014) conversation about the key issues and urgencies facing intercultural communication, the authors pointed out numerous trajectories for the field of intercultural communication. Similarly, we see four key issues as crucial to the future of intercultural communication: a debate over terminology, the debate over social learning versus communibiology, the spread of intercultural communication to less studied cultures, and the place of critical views in intercultural communication.

Debates over terminology

In Alexander et al.’s (2014) conversation about the key issues and urgencies facing intercultural communication, an issue brought forth was the very definition of intercultural communication. The conceptual domain of the field is broad and includes many sub-disciplines. As the field continues to diversify, a key issue is to consider the very nature of what is “intercultural communication”. A glance at any intercultural communication textbooks and articles will reveal multiple definitions of intercultural communication that often share similar characteristics, with many differences. Alexander et al. (2014) pointed out that these definitional differences show the depth and breadth of intercultural communication. However, the authors assert that the discipline may need to decide whether a standard definition is preferable or not to numerous definitions, as the discipline continues to make sense of culture, sociology, psychology, and other aspects of human communication.

Communibiological approach

A significant body of research in intercultural communication is conducted from a social learning/situation approach. From this approach, researchers have argued context, culture, and situation have significant affects on our approaches to communication. Thus, our environment significantly influences who we are and how we communicate (Hall, 1959; Pederson, Tkachuk, & Allen, 2008). However, researchers in communication are increasingly turning to biology to understand differences in communication. The communibiological approach asserts biological predispositions have higher predictive power than situational/social learning (Beatty & McCroskey, 1998; Beatty, McCroskey, & Heisel, 1998; McCroskey, Heisel, & Richmond, 2001). While this approach to research is controversial, with many seeing the push toward biological indicators as unwarranted, we believe intercultural communication researchers will increasingly explore the validity of the communibiological approach to better understand cultural difference, particularly in cross-cultural communication studies (Croucher, 2013a; Jung & McCroskey, 2004). As researchers increasingly criticize (and call for abandoning) the work of Hofstede (1980, 2001) as being generic, hegemonic, not applying to culture, for having flawed assumptions, for being inconsistent, lacking empirical evidence and transparency (Baskerville, 2003; Fougère & Moulettes, 2007; McSweeney, 2002; Signorini, Wiesemes, & Murphy, 2009), we believe intercultural researchers will (and should) look for new ways to understand similarities and differences between groups. The communibiological approach may be one such approach.

Spread of research to less studied cultures

One of the main issues intercultural communication studies need to address is the spread and localization of less-studied cultures. Currently, intercultural communication is highly United States and East-Asian centric (Kim, 2010). Not only are most of the studies in the field conducted in an American (US-based) or East-Asian context, but also most of the scales have been designed by American researchers and primarily for the American (US) culture (Gudykunst, 2002). This has limited generalizations and theories derived from this line of research. To build a more comprehensive theory of communication it is necessary to study different cultures in different parts of the world and consequently it is important to modify the current scales and measurement devices to adapt to these less-studied cultures (Croucher, 2013a). There are, for example, few studies done in the Middle Eastern, African, or Central Asian contexts, which show intercultural communication’s limited knowledge of communication outside of a US-Asian context. Future work will more than likely strive to fill these research voids.

Critical views in intercultural communication

Since the early 2000s, culture has become increasingly pervasive across disciplines as well as everyday discourses. This culturalist orientation, whereby ‘[c]ulture – or rather cultural differences – is now held to be the main explanations for the way the human world functions’ (Breidenbach & Nyíri, 2009, p. 9) highlights the need to question and identify ways in which culture is used. Using critical perspectives in intercultural communication is therefore likely to keep on developing in the near future as a response to the seemingly unproblematic use of culture in a world filled with growing inequalities.

Critical intercultural communication examines the same core concepts mentioned in this article (i.e. identity, competence, adaptation) but associating them to particular contexts, historical backgrounds, and power relations. Similarly, culture is regarded as permeated by power structures that have evolved throughout history and affect the intersection between race, gender, social class, and nationality (Halualani, Mendoza, & Drzewiecka, 2009). These evolutions in conceptualizing core concepts used in intercultural communication open up new perspectives for future research in the field.

A strong tenet of critical views is its emphasis on investigating specific contexts. This is a clear break from the nation-based approach to culture, which has been predominant in the field since the 1980s (Moon, 1996). The contextual focus of critical intercultural research corresponds to the interdisciplinary evolution of the field discussed in this article. More and more, researchers are looking to combine critical views in intercultural communication with other fields such as media studies (Sommier, 2014), identity negotiation in online environments (Wagener, 2014), or intercultural competence in education (Dervin, Paatela-Nieminen, Kuoppala, & Riitaoja, 2012) to name a few. Critical intercultural communication is likely to keep on expanding because it offers relevant analytical tools and research orientations to develop the field and position it as a significant actor to respond to challenges faced by societies and individuals across the world.

The possible trajectories that the field of intercultural communication may take in the future highlight its multifaceted nature. Such diversity has marked the history of the discipline, which has grown immensely over the last decades, renewing its scope and developing new theories. Challenges in defining its identity and core concepts have made intercultural communication a very dynamic field bursting with new ideas and approaches. As such, ways in which the field could grow in the near future are manifold; it is certain however that intercultural communication will indeed keep on developing.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stephen M. Croucher

Stephen Croucher, PhD, is a Professor of Intercultural Communication at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. His present research interests include immigrant cultural adaptation, organizational dissent, integrated threat theory, and religion and communication. He has published widely on issues related to cultural adaptation and organizational communication. He is the co-author (with Daniel Cronn-Mills) of Understanding Communication Research Methods: A theoretical and practical approach (Routledge, 2015), co-editor (with Tina Harris) of Religion and Communication: An anthology of extensions in theory, research, and method (Peter Lang, 2012), co-author (with Daniel Cronn-Mills) of Religious Misperceptions: The case of Muslims and Christians in France and Britain (Hampton Press, 2011), and author of Looking beyond the hijab (Hampton Press, 2008). Currently he is working on two books: Understanding communication theory: A practical approach (Routledge, 2016), and Global Perspectives on Intercultural Communication (Routledge, 2017).

Mélodine Sommier

Mélodine Sommier, M.A., is a doctoral student in Intercultural Communication at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her present research interests include discourses of culture, critical approaches to intercultural communication, and immigration and integration issues. Her doctoral thesis focuses on the cultural resonance of discourses of secularism in news media.

Diyako Rahmani

Diyako Rahmani, MA, is a PhD student of intercultural communication at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. His main area of research is concentrated on the communication traits among the minority groups especially Kurdistan.