 The E-Journal of Intercultural Relations, Summer 1998, Vol. 1(3) Originally Posted: 6/30/98; Last Revised: 11/8/98 Academic Essay |
What is Intercultural Relations?
William B. Hart, Editor |
This article is a version of a chapter of the author's dissertation (Intercultural Relations: A History of an Interdiscipline).
Intercultural relations is an interdiscipline. Littlejohn (1982) defined an interdiscipline as "a field of scholars who identify with various disciplines but share a common interest in a theme that crosses traditional boundaries"(p.246). A field "consists of the community of scholars who associate with a particular theme" (p.245). A theme , in turn, is "the subject, topic, or focus of the scholar" (p.245). In this framework, intercultural relations is the community of scholars who identify with various social science disciplines, but share a common interest in studying the interaction of people from different cultures. The term "intercultural relations" is used here to provide a broad, neutral term -- a term that would encompass more specific areas of study like intercultural communication and cross-cultural psychology, for example.
Figure 1 further clarifies the theme of intercultural relations. Cultural studies are done at three levels: Monocultural studies, cross-cultural studies, and intercultural studies. Monocultural or single culture studies are common in anthropology and sociology. Cross-cultural studies are studies that compare the characteristics of two or more cultures. Intercultural studies are studies that focus on the interaction two or more cultures and answer the main question of what happens when of two or more cultures interact (at the interpersonal level, group-level or international level). The focus of intercultural relations, as defined here, is with the intercultural studies. Monocultural and cross-cultural studies can not be ignored, however, because they serve as necessary precursors to intercultural studies.
Various disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology) can look at the same human act and focus on different aspects of the act. No discipline, however, can lay claim to the act as entirely their own. All have the right and the tools to study the act. Intercultural interaction is an example of such a human act that can be, and should be, viewed from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. No single discipline has the right to put up a sign saying "private property" or "no trespassing" on the area of study dealing with intercultural interaction.
No single conceptualization of the act is necessarily best. Littlejohn (1982) suggested that any scholar should attempt "a fuller understanding" of the act by "conceptual shifting" among disciplinary perspectives. A scholar should attempt to see their topic of study from different disciplinary (or conceptual) perspectives. Littlejohn (1982) warned, however, that such an undertaking is "an immense task fraught with conceptual puzzles" (p.246). It has the danger of either being too broad and unmanageable or too narrow and incomplete. In any interdisciplinary analysis one has to strive for the Goldilocks middle ground, and not be too broad, nor too narrow, but be just right for its readers.
Any scholar wanting to practice conceptual shifting in an interdisciplinary study faces the division of the social science set up and perpetuated by universities, journals, associations of scholars, and publishers. Interdisciplinary approaches highlight the realistic fuzziness of traditional academic fields, especially in the social sciences. Campbell (1969) stated that "the present organization of content into [university] departments is highly arbitrary, a product in large part of historical accident" (p.331). Paisley (1984) lessened the arbitrariness, but still contended that the "Distinctions that now exist among the social sciences are partly natural, partly arbitrary" (p.4). Whether it is "highly arbitrary" or "partly arbitrary," the fact that there is a degree of arbitrariness in the distinctions between the social sciences can not be ignored. The presence of arbitrary distinction suggests the need for more interdisciplinary work. Interdisciplinary work, however, is not an easy task.
The key to interdisciplinary work is not in who Campbell called "Leonardos who are competent in all sciences" (p.330) or what Sherif and Sherif call "breeding a generation of supermen [sic]" (p.15), who know all the social sciences. With the mass of literature that grows exponentially in each discipline, it is impossible for any single scholar to have the time and aptitude to gain mastery in multiple disciples. Unidisciplinary competence alone, according to Campbell (1969), is a myth. Sherif and Sherif (1969) suggest a more realistic interdisciplinary approach. "The solution to the substantive problem of interdisciplinary relations ... is seen in defining the bearings of one's discipline relative to others, of knowing when and who is needed, and in interchange directed toward borrowing from others what is needed for one's own discipline" (p. 15). Interdisciplinary researchers need not be a specialist in all other relevant disciplines, but must at least be aware of the developments (research results and research methods) in other disciplines that relate to their own research interests. Keeping up with relevant developments in other disciplines is difficult, but it can be facilitated by interdisciplinary seminars on university campuses or by interdisciplinary conferences or organizations, in addition to the efforts of individual scholars.
Sherif and Sherif (1969) proposed two main reasons why interdisciplinary collaboration is a necessity. First, most real-world problems are not often neatly divided along disciplinary lines. Many disciplines study the same social problems. According to Campbell (1969), there is much redundant overlap (Figure 2). Campbell suggests that the ideal disciplinary arrangement would resemble fish scales. In Campbell's ideal "fish-scale model of omniscience" more intellectual territory would be covered by the social sciences with minimal conceptual overlap (Figure 3).
 |  |
A second and important reason for interdisciplinary collaboration is validity checking. Interdisciplinary collaboration provides one means of checking research findings. Such interdisciplinary collaboration used for validity checking is a special type of triangulation. Triangulation uses multiple perspectives to test the validity of results across disciplines or research methods. Campbell was a strong proponent of using triangulation and multiple perspectives (Brewer and Collins, 1981).
Figure 4 shows the study of intercultural relations at the center - the focus of the present study - with each discipline taking a section or plot of the intercultural relations circle. This article proposes that four of the main social science disciplines (anthropology, sociology, psychology and communication study) are the largest contributors to our understanding of intercultural relations.(1) Other disciplines (other social sciences or humanities disciplines) such as education, political science and literature could be included in this discussion. Notice that in Figure 4 there are slots open to other disciplines.(2)
Comprehensive Thinking
Most people who have been indoctrinated by our schools have comprehensive thinking pretty much knocked out of them, to be replaced by highly compartmentalized thinking. (It gets worse in graduate school.) Yet what the world needs today is many more comprehensive thinkers (Edward T. Hall, 1992, An Anthropology of Everyday Life, p.248).
Hall's call for more comprehensive thinkers is similar to the call made earlier for more interdisciplinary work. His comment brings to our attention that comprehensive, big-picture thinking is a lost art. In graduate schools, especially, scholars of intercultural relations are compartmentalized. Scholars, especially today's young intercultural relations scholars, do not have much contact with scholars who are in other disciplines, but share a similar interest in intercultural relations. A young scholar today in communication study, for example, may find it difficult just to master the literature on intercultural relations written in his/her own discipline. Fifteen to twenty years ago, a young scholar interested in intercultural relations could (in most cases, had to) go to the literature of other disciplines in order to gain a mastery of intercultural relations. The concern now is: Will there be more compartmentalization between the intercultural relations disciplines and thus less communication between the disciplines on the topic of intercultural relations? How can we bring together compartmentalized, departmentalized intercultural relations scholars? As literature grows within a discipline, we run the danger of losing touch with relevant work done in other disciplines.
1. Harman and Briggs (1991), in their survey study, identified anthropology, sociology, linguistics, and psychology as the top four contributors to the field of study they called "intercultural communication." Hart (1998), in his citation analysis of the International Journal of Intercultural Relations, found anthropology, sociology, psychology and communication as the top four contributors to intercultural relations study.
2. Authors of literature also explore, in their fiction and poetry, the process and outcomes of intercultural interactions. Examples include Rudyard Kipling's poem "East and West" and Stephen Crane's short story "The Blue Hotel" (see Lewis and Jungman, 1986). Examples can also be found in other media, such as film. Many films have plots that center around intercultural conflict (e.g., "Gung Ho" and "Mr. Baseball") (see Summerfield, 1993).
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (Eds.), Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences (pp. 328-348). Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Hall, E.T. (1992). An anthropology of everyday life: An autobiography. New York: Doubleday
Harman, R., & Briggs, N. (1991). SIETAR survey: Perceived contributions of the social sciences to intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 19-28.
Hart, W. B. (1998, March). Interdisciplinary influences in intercultural relations study: A citation analysis of the International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Paper presented at the Conference on Interdisciplinary Theory and Research on Intercultural Relations sponsored by California State University-Fullerton's School of Communication; and the International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Fullerton, CA. (Accepted for publication in the International Journal of Intercultural Relations)
Littlejohn, S. W. (1982). An overview of contributions to human communication theory from other disciplines. In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory: Comparative essays. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewis, T. J. and Jungman, R. E. (Eds.) (1986). On being foreign: Culture shock in short fiction. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Sheriff, M. and Sheriff, C. W. (1969) Interdisciplinary coordination as a validity check: Retrospect and prospect. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif, Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Summerfield, E. (1993). Crossing cultures through film. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
- July 27, 1998 - Added feedback from Scott Guldseth and response
- November, 8, 1998 -- Added feedback and added "education" as an additional discipline that studies intercultural relations.
William B. Hart is the editor of The Edge and is currently completing his dissertation on the history of intercultural relations. He is a doctoral student in the University of New Mexico's Department of Communication and Journalism. He teaches intercultural communication and other courses at Old Dominion University. See the link below for other related work.
Hart, W. B. (1996). A brief history of intercultural communication: A paradigmatic approach. A paper presented at the Speech Communication Conference in San Diego, November 24.
Published on Intercultural U (http://cms.interculturalu.com)