background preloader

Intercultural competence

Intercultural competence
A theoretical construct for cross-cultural competence, language proficiency, and regional expertise. Intercultural competence is the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately with people of other cultures:[1] Appropriately. In interactions with people from foreign cultures, a person who is interculturally competent understands the culture-specific concepts of perception, thinking, feeling, and acting. Intercultural competence is also called "cross-cultural competence" (3C). Basics[edit] Cultures can be different not only between continents or nations but also within the same company and even within the same family. The basic requirements for intercultural competence are empathy, an understanding of other people's behaviors and ways of thinking, and the ability to express one's own way of thinking. Cross-cultural competence[edit] Organizations in academia, business, health care, government security, and developmental aid agencies have all sought to use 3C in one way or another. Related:  Cultural relativismIntercultural CompetenceINTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Historical particularism Historical particularism (coined by Marvin Harris in 1968)[1] is widely considered the last American anthropological school of thought. Founded by Franz Boas, historical particularism accepted the cultural evolutionary model that had dominated anthropology up until Boas. It argued that each society is a collective representation of its unique historical past. Boas suggested that diffusion, trade, corresponding environment, and historical accident may create similar cultural traits.[2] Three traits, as suggested by Boas, are used to explain cultural customs: environmental conditions, psychological factors, and historical connections, history being the most important (hence the school's name).[2] Critics of historical particularism argue that it is anti theoretical because it doesn't seek to make universal theories, applicable to all the world's cultures. References[edit] Further reading[edit]

Cultural intelligence Cultural Intelligence, cultural quotient or CQ, is a term used in business, education, government and academic research. Cultural intelligence can be understood as the capability to relate and work effectively across cultures. Originally, the term cultural intelligence and the abbreviation "CQ" was developed by the research done by Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne as a researched-based way of measuring and predicting intercultural performance. The term is relatively recent: early definitions and studies of the concepts were given by P. Cultural intelligence or CQ is measured on a scale, similar to that used to measure an individual's intelligence quotient. Four CQ capabilities[edit] Ang, Van Dyne, & Livermore describe four CQ capabilities: motivation (CQ Drive), cognition (CQ Knowledge), meta-cognition (CQ Strategy) and behavior (CQ Action). CQ-Drive CQ-Drive is a person's interest and confidence in functioning effectively in culturally diverse settings. Cultural intelligence in business[edit]

Hall's cultural factors Explanations > Culture > Hall's cultural factors Time | Context | Space | So what? Edward T. Hall was an anthropologist who made early discoveries of key cultural factors. In particular he is known for his high and low context cultural factors. Context High context In a high-context culture, there are many contextual elements that help people to understand the rules. This can be very confusing for person who does not understand the 'unwritten rules' of the culture. Low context In a low-context culture, very little is taken for granted. Contrasting the two French contracts tend to be short (in physical length, not time duration) as much of the information is available within the high-context French culture. Highly mobile environments where people come and go need lower-context culture. Note the similarity with Trompenaars' Universalism (low context) and Particularism (high context). Time Monochronic time M-Time, as he called it, means doing one thing at a time. Polychronic time Space Contrasting

Cultural Differences Chapter 5 Imagine this scene - you are inspecting a house with the possibility of purchasing it and you open a bathroom door to see a woman sitting naked in a bathtub. How would you expect the surprised woman to react? A British or American woman would cover her breasts with one hand and her genitals with the other, while a Swedish woman would cover only her genitals. A Muslim woman would cover her face, a Sumatran woman would cover her knees and a Samoan only her navel. We Were Having Pizza at the Time All cultures walk on the same side of the pavement as they drive on the road. You'd also be stunned when you go to shake hands to say goodbye to an Italian but, instead, you get a kiss on both cheeks. As I departed, the Italian man kissed me on both cheeks. As you talk with local Italians, they seem to stand in your space, continually grabbing you, talking over the top of you, yelling in fact, and sounding angry about everything. Take the Cultural Test What did you score? Greeting Differences

Global justice This article discusses the philosophical debate about global justice. For political activism, see Global justice movement. Global justice is an issue in political philosophy arising from the concern that the world at large is unjust. Context[edit] The broader philosophical context of the global justice debate, in both its contemporary and historical forms, is the issue of impartiality. The broader political context of the debate is the longstanding conflict between more and less local institutions: tribes against states, villages against cities, local communities against empires, nation-states against the UN. Central questions[edit] Three related questions, concerning the scope of justice, justice in the distribution of wealth and other goods, and the institutions responsible for justice, are central to the problem of global justice. Scope[edit] Distributive equality[edit] Institutions[edit] Minimum criteria of global justice[edit] Main positions[edit] Realism[edit] Particularism[edit]

Intercultural communication Intercultural communication is a form of communication that aims to share information across different cultures and social groups. It is used to describe the wide range of communication processes and problems that naturally appear within an organization made up of individuals from different religious, social, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. Intercultural communication is sometimes used synonymously with cross-cultural communication. In this sense it seeks to understand how people from different countries and cultures act, communicate and perceive the world around them. Cross Cultural Business Communication[edit] Cross Cultural Business Communication is very helpful in building cultural intelligence through coaching and training in cross-cultural communication, cross-cultural negotiation, multicultural conflict resolution, customer service, business and organizational communication. Problems in intercultural communication[edit] Management of intercultural communication[edit]

Intercultural Communication Articles For fresh articles and content visit our blog! Below you will find access to a range of articles relating to cross cultural and intercultural communication. The articles touch upon a number of topics that will be of interest to a wide range of reader involved in intercultural communication such as international business personnel, HR staff, people working in public services and in many other areas where intercultural communication is an issue. Intercultural Training Articles > An Introduction to Intercultural Communication - a basic summary of the purpose of intercultural communication. > Cross Cultural Communication Consultants - A look at the role, skills and qualifications of cross cultural communication consultants. > Definition of Intercultural Communication - what does intercultural communication mean? > Cross Cultural Understanding - an examination of common cross cultural terms and their meanings. > Stereotypes: An Intercultural No-No - why stereotyping is dangerous.

Ethnocentrism Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture.[1][page needed] Ethnocentric individuals judge other groups relative to their own ethnic group or culture, especially with concern for language, behavior, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and subdivisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.[2] Ethnocentrism may be overt or subtle, and while it is considered a natural proclivity of human psychology, it has developed a generally negative connotation.[3] Origins of the concept and its study[edit] William G. Anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski argued that any human science had to transcend the ethnocentrism of the scientist. Anthropology[edit] Examples of ethnocentrism include religiocentric constructs claiming a divine association like "divine nation", "One Nation under God", "God's Own Country", "God's Chosen People", and "God's Promised Land".[8] See also[edit] References[edit]

David Livermore | Global Thinker and Author How Intercultural Competence Drives Success in Global Virtual Teams Leveraging global virtual teams through intercultural curiosity, sensitivity, and respect. By David Callen, MSOD 2008 Volume 11 Issue 4 *Winner of the 2008 Graziadio School Student Paper CompetitionOrganizations are increasingly turning to global virtual teams to gain a strategic advantage. We have a stronger team because people have intercultural competence. Image by David Luscombe What is Intercultural Competence? Intercultural competence is the body of knowledge and skills to successfully interact with people from other ethnic, religious, cultural, national, and geographic groups. Global Virtual Teams and Intercultural Competence Intercultural competence is a relatively unexamined aspect of global virtual teams. While intuitively there is a link between a team member’s ability to successfully interact with others and the degree of team effectiveness, based on the findings of the study, organizations are currently not paying attention to intercultural competence as an important factor.

Moral relativism Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it. Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other.[1] Variations[edit] Descriptive[edit] [edit] Normative[edit] History[edit] [edit] Scientific views[edit] R.

Related: