Abstract
This study employs the Delphi method to ascertain intercultural scholars’ current consensus on a definition, specific components, and key evaluation criteria of intercultural competence. Sixty-eight leading intercultural scholars from Euro-American and East-Asian countries participated in this study. The results are largely congruent with the previous study, nonetheless some new elements emerge from this study. Based on the findings, intercultural competence is redefined and a multicultural model is proposed.
Introduction
It is widely accepted that, as Gierke et al. (2018) say, “Internationalization of higher education has become a global phenomenon” (p. 1). For universities seeking internationalization, one of the key goals is to cultivate students’ intercultural competence (López-Rocha, 2021). Both teachers and students need to understand what it means to be interculturally competent. Scholars have conceptualized the complex construct from diverse perspectives for decades, which has resulted in abundant literature. Despite the remarkable progress being made, there has been very limited consensus on the definition of intercultural competence (Dai, 2019; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). It is understandable that scholars examine the construct from diverse perspectives and give different definitions for different purposes. However, some basic agreement on the core meaning of intercultural competence needs to be reached, as a basic consensus on the definition of intercultural competence would make the dialogue across perspectives more efficient, allow for more cumulative research efforts and contribute to improving our understanding of the construct (Hunter et al., 2006).
Deardorff (2006) first documented a scholarly consensus on intercultural competence through the Delphi method. Nonetheless the participants involved were primarily Euro-Americans, and the findings of her study might have cultural limitations. Moreover, her study focused on what constitutes intercultural competence, leaving other issues regarding the definition inadequately addressed, for example the evaluation criteria of the construct. This study attempts to expand Deardorff (2006) by inviting both Euro-American and East-Asian scholars to participate, and by comprehensively examining intercultural competence. We first explore the current scholarly consensus on a definition of the construct, its specific components and key evaluation criteria, and then redefine intercultural competence and propose a model that reflects a more culturally inclusive perspective on intercultural competence.
Literature Review
Defining intercultural competence involves three fundamental issues: defining the meaning of the construct, identifying its components and evaluation criteria (Dai, 2019; Wiseman, 2003).
Definitions of Intercultural Competence
Since the 1960s, scholars have given a variety of definitions. For example, Chen and Starosta (1996) defined intercultural competence as the ability to negotiate meanings, recognize cultural identities and interact appropriately and effectively in a specific context. Byram (1997) referred to it as the ability to “understand and relate to people from different countries” (p. 5). Wiseman (2003) thought that it “involves the knowledge, motivation, and skills to interact effectively and appropriately with members of different cultures” (p. 192).
Deardorff (2006) first reported a scholarly consensus on the definition of intercultural competence. According to her study, the most agreed on definition was the “ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one's knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (p. 249). Scholars also strongly agreed that intercultural competence is a developmental process in which individuals achieve self-transformation. Despite the above consensuses, recent years’ literature shows that scholars continue to give highly diverse definitions. For example, Xu and Sun (2013) defined intercultural competence as the process to develop a multicultural personality. Jackson (2014) regarded the construct as the ability to negotiate and understand linguistic differences, diverse cultural values and social practices in intercultural communication. OECD (2018) referred to it as the ability to examine and understand issues, as well as to interact, and take responsible actions in intercultural contexts.
Among the factors shaping the definition of intercultural competence, culture is at the core. Culture is man's medium that permeates into every aspect of human life (Hall, 1976). In intercultural communication, it is mostly defined as the patterned thinking and doing of a group of people. Culture encompasses multiple dimensions, such as the relationship between individual and collectivity, gender role, and power distance (Hofstede, 2001). All of the dimensions shape how people define intercultural competence, among which the relationship between individual and collectivity received much scholarly attention. Markus and Kitayama (1991) demonstrated that Euro-Americans who embrace individualism view self as an independent, coherent, rational and free entity; accordingly in defining intercultural competence they tend to emphasize an individual's ability to be effective in communication (Bruneau, 2002), which has been displayed in some models (e.g., Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2006; Wiseman, 2003). By contrast, East-Asians who follow collectivism view self as an interdependent, flexible, emotional and committed being who is bound to others; accordingly they tend to emphasize an individual's ability to develop mutual relationships (Miyahara, 1995). This tendency has also been displayed in some models (e.g., Dai & Chen, 2015; Takai & Ota, 1994; Yum, 2012).
Components of Intercultural Competence
Scholars also have highly diverse views on the components of intercultural competence. For example, Chen (1989) claimed that intercultural competence includes personal attributes, communication skills, psychological adaptation and cultural awareness. Byram (1997) proposed that the construct is composed of attitudes, knowledge, skills to interpret and relate, skills to discover and interact, and critical cultural awareness. Lustig and Koester (2002) considered that competent communication requires knowledge, motivations, and actions.
According to Deardorff (2006), scholars generally agreed that intercultural competence is a multi-faceted construct which consists of affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, and that all of the components work together to obtain the desired outcomes. Despite this general consensus, scholars’ views diverge on what specific elements are included. For example, Fantini (2009) thought that intercultural competence includes awareness, attitudes, skill and knowledge. Arasaratnam et al. (2010) identified five: (1) motivation; (2) empathy; (3) global attitude; (4) interaction involvement; and (5) cross-cultural experience. Xu and Sun (2013) identified seven: (1) linguistic knowledge; (2) cultural knowledge; (3) self-awareness; (4) awareness of cultural relativity; (5) communicative motivation; (6) verbal and non-verbal interaction skills; and (7) communication strategies. Council of Europe (2018) argued that besides the commonly recognized attitudes, knowledge and skills, values should be included as an essential component of intercultural competence.
Among the factors shaping how people identify the components of intercultural competence, culture plays a significant role. Some studies indicated that Euro-American scholars tend to focus more on knowledge and behavior than on feelings and attitudes (e.g., Byram, 1997; Fantini, 2009; Lustig & Koester, 2002), whereas East-Asian scholars tend to focus more on feelings and attitudes than on knowledge and behavior (e.g., Takai & Ota, 1994; Xiao & Chen, 2009; Yum, 2012).
Criteria for Evaluating Intercultural Competence
Similar to the above two issues, scholars have diverse views on the evaluation criteria of intercultural competence as well. Koester et al. (1993) demonstrated that scholars generally regarded appropriateness and effectiveness as the two key criteria of competent communication, which was supported by Deardorff (2006). Despite this general consensus, scholars still have some differing opinions. For example, Kupka et al. (2007) thought that the key evaluation criteria include the development of an interculture and shared symbols, and mutual understanding. Gao (2014) regarded the optimal integration of knowing and doing as the essential criterion of competent communication. Dai and Chen (2015) argued that compared with the appropriateness and effectiveness of communication behavior, the achievement of harmonious relationships is a more crucial criterion.
As with the definition and components, culture also plays a significant role in shaping how people evaluate intercultural competence. Some studies indicated that Euro-American scholars tend to place emphasis on the realization of communication goals (e.g., Deardorff, 2006; Fantini, 2009; Wiseman, 2003), whereas East-Asian scholars tend to place emphasis on the achievement of harmonious relationships (e.g., Dai & Chen, 2015; Takai & Ota, 1994; Yum, 2012).
Scholars thus approach intercultural competence from different perspectives, informing us with their respective views and insights. Currently, debates on the definition of this construct center around three issues: whether intercultural competence locates in the individual or interaction; whether the key components are equally important or some components are more essential than the others; and whether the evaluation should focus on the individual's behavioral outcomes or the development of mutual relationships (Dai & Martin, 2022; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). It is understandable that scholars articulate diverse views on this complex construct, nonetheless in advancing research they need to reach the basic consensus so that dialogue across perspectives can be facilitated and more accumulative effort can be achieved.
As mentioned before, Deardorff (2006) first documented a scholarly consensus on intercultural competence. However, her study focused on identifying the specific components and the participants were primarily Euro-Americans. Having examined the recent literature, we find few studies investigating the current consensus, almost two decades later. Given the continuous evolution of scholars’ work, this study attempts to fill the gap by exploring the current consensus on a definition, specific components and key evaluation criteria of intercultural competence among Euro-American and East-Asian scholars.
Method
This study included a degree of replicating Deardorff's study by using the Delphi method. This is an iterative process of anonymous responses to achieve consensus among expert panelists (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). Typically, Delphi research has shown that 20 to 25 panelists are needed to gain consensus, but in some cases 50 to 60 or even more participants are involved (Deardorff, 2006; Green, 2014).
Participants of Delphi Study
In a Delphi study, the selection of expert panelists is crucial to the validity of the research. To that end, names of leading intercultural scholars were generated in three ways for this study. One was through intercultural communication teachers’ recommendations. We first asked the board members of the China Association for Intercultural Communication (CAFIC) to recommend intercultural communication teachers at college/university across China. 84 teachers from 46 universities or colleges responded to a questionnaire and recommended leading intercultural scholars. Names of leading intercultural scholars were also generated through intercultural scholars’ recommendations and through an extensive literature review.
Ninety-two intercultural scholars received multiple nominations and were invited to join the expert panel, 70 of whom agreed to participate in this Delphi study (acceptance rate: 76%). The 70 scholars are from a variety of disciplines, including education, linguistics, communication studies, anthropology, psychology, and business management. According to scholars’ self-identified nationalities, 31 are from China, 18 from the United States, 9 from Japan, 5 from the United Kingdom, 4 from Germany, 1 from Australia, 1 from Canada, and 1 from Spain. Before the Delphi study started, two Americans withdrew and finally 68 scholars participated in the study. Among the 34 highly cited intercultural competence scholars listed in Peng et al. (2020), about one third were involved in this study (see Table 1). All of the scholars voluntarily participated in this Delphi study.
Intercultural Scholars Participating in This Delphi Study.
Delphi Rounds
This study adopted the three-round design (Green, 2014), which took place over four and a half months. The first round involved three open-ended questions that were used to elicit intercultural scholars’ opinions on three key issues of intercultural competence definition: (1) What is intercultural competence? (2) What are the specific components of intercultural competence? (3) What are the key criteria for evaluating intercultural competence? Sixty-six panelists responded to the first round.
Data generated from the first round were coded based on emerging patterns. Three research assistants served as monitors to review the raw data and the subsequent categorization to ensure that the process had been done correctly by the researchers as well as to help augment reliability (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). Drawing on the three open-ended questions, 300 items derived from the raw data were placed in three categories (64 definitions, 195 specific components, and 41 key criteria), and the second round questionnaire was produced and piloted by five research assistants to see what needed improving. Problems of the instrument were addressed accordingly and the questionnaire was distributed.
The second round thus presented the opinions and statements on intercultural competence generated from the first round, which the panelists were asked to rate on a 4-point Likert-type scale (4 = highly relevant/important and 1 = not relevant/important). 66 scholars responded to the second round questionnaire. Items that received 3.10 or higher in the first part (definition), 3.05 or higher in the second part (specific components) and 3.00 or higher in the third part (key criteria), were retained for use in the third round questionnaire. There are three reasons for which we adopted different scores. First, the three parts of the questionnaire are on different issues of intercultural competence definition. Second, when adopting 3.00 for all of the three parts, the obtained data do not conform to normal distribution. Third, after conducting a paired samples t test, we found that the mean score of definition is marginally significantly higher than that of key criteria with the mean score of specific components lying between the two (M d = 3.15, M kc = 3.03, M sc = 3.08; sig = 0.056).
The third-round instrument involved the panelists accepting or rejecting the remaining 170 items (37 definitions, 111 specific components, 22 key criteria). As in the first and the second surveys, 66 scholars responded to the third round. Data from the third round were analyzed using frequency distribution and Pearson's chi-square test. The two methods were used to determine the prescribed range for group consensus. To determine the frequency distribution, we calculated the frequencies of each item. It was determined that 80% agreement mark (of the ratings over 3.00 on the Likert-type scale) was the appropriate range for the panelists. Pearson's chi-square test was also used to analyze the data of the third round instrument. The purpose was to compare the expected frequencies to actual obtained frequencies. While those items with a probability value of 0.05 or less were kept from the third round, those items with probability value of higher than 0.05 were dropped out as items that did not reach consensus.
Results
In terms of the definition, panelists put forward a wide variety of definitions, which roughly fell into four categories: (1) communication behavior oriented definitions (e.g., ability to communicate effectively in intercultural contexts); (2) individual traits oriented definitions (e.g., personal attributes and skills needed to function successfully in intercultural contexts); (3) communication process oriented definitions (e.g., a lifelong learning process with multidimensional interactions of attitudes, knowledge and skills to share experiences and expectations, to bridge differences and create synergy with individuals from other cultures in an appropriate way, in order to meet personal objectives, achieve communication goals and harmonious coexistence); (4) integrated definitions (e.g., personal qualities, and certain sets of knowledge and skill that facilitate the navigation of unfamiliar cultures, and the negotiation of meanings and achievement of shared goals with members of those cultures).
Based on the obtained data, six definitions received 80% or higher agreement. The top rated definition was “ability to behave and communicate appropriately and effectively in intercultural contexts”. While five of the six definitions focused on communication behavior, one focused on relationships management. One of the six definitions emphasized the effectiveness of communication behavior, one emphasized appropriateness, and others stated that competent communication is both appropriate and effective (see Table 2).
Definitions of Intercultural Competence with 80% or Higher Agreement among Panelists.
Note: ACC = accept; REJ = reject
In terms of the specific components, panelists proposed 195 items. Some addressed attitudes (e.g., cultural humility, easy-going), some addressed knowledge and awareness (e.g., self-knowledge, contextual awareness), and still others, behavioral skills (e.g., ability to observe, social information gathering).
According to the obtained data, 40 items received 80% or higher agreement, among which 20 were attitudes (50%), 12 were knowledge and awareness (30%), and 8 were behavioral skills (20%). The top rated attitude was cultural sensitivity. Other relatively highly rated attitudes included respect, openness, and appreciating differences.
With regard to knowledge and awareness, the top rated item was understanding cultural differences and other worldviews. Other relatively highly rated items included ability to critically reflect on one's own attitudes and actions, ability to identify cultural similarities as well as differences, and awareness of one's ethnocentric bias. With regard to behavioral skills, the top rated item was behavioral adaptability/flexibility. Other relatively highly rated items included active listening, communication skills, and ability to observe (see Table 3).
Specific Components of Intercultural Competence with 80% or Higher Agreement among Panelists.
Note: ACC = accept; REJ = reject
In terms of the evaluation criteria, panelists proposed 41 items. While some criteria were very abstract (e.g., mutual social acceptability, a sense of fulfillment), others were quite concrete (e.g., relationships enhanced, healthy and expanded identity). Based on the data obtained, 5 received 80% or higher agreement. The top rated criterion was appropriateness. Other relatively highly rated criteria included mutual understanding which includes “agreement to differ”, learning from reflection, and effectiveness (see Table 4).
Key Criteria of Intercultural Competence with 80% or Higher Agreement among Panelists.
Note: ACC = accept; REJ = reject
Discussion
Current Consensuses
In this Delphi study, panelists reached important consensuses. In terms of the definition, panelists tend to define intercultural competence with a focus on communication behavior, regarding appropriateness and effectiveness as its two key dimensions, and taking contexts into account. The results are largely congruent with Deardorff’s (2006) study.
One finding that merits attention is in the sixth definition which suggests that intercultural competence is not only the ability to communicate but also the ability to handle relationships. In Deardorff (2006), no definitions that received 80% or higher agreement addressed the ability to handle relationships. A possible explanation is that in this study there were 40 East-Asian scholars whose cultural perspectives of communication are likely centered on interpersonal relationships. As mentioned before, Euro-American scholars tend to emphasize the ability to be effective in communication, whereas East-Asian scholars tend to emphasize the ability to develop mutual relationships. In East-Asian contexts, competence is primarily understood by what one does to maintain harmonious relationships rather than by what one does to reach communication goals; communication is competent when interpersonal relationships become harmonious (Takai & Ota, 1994; Yum, 2012). By contrast, in Euro-American contexts the ability to manage relationships is only regarded as one of the elements that facilitate effective communication (Stevens et al., 2014).
However, when further examining the respective consensuses among Euro-American and East-Asian scholars, we found that the sixth definition received 80% or higher agreement from both groups; differences between Euro-Americans and East-Asians were minor (e.g., East-Asians’ emphasis on competence as a lifelong learning process). These findings indicate that currently both Euro-American and East-Asian scholars emphasize the ability to manage relationships in competent communication (e.g., Chi & Suthers, 2015; Dai & Chen, 2015; Spencer-Oatey, 2020).
In terms of the specific components, panelists generally agree that intercultural competence is a multi-faceted construct that consists of attitudes, knowledge and awareness, and skills, among which attitudes are most emphasized, followed by knowledge and awareness, and skills. These results are similar to the findings of Deardorff (2006) albeit with some meaningful differences. Specific components identified by her study also roughly fell into three categories: attitudes, knowledge and awareness, and skills. However, knowledge and awareness were more emphasized than attitudes and skills. Among the 22 items that received 80% or higher agreement, 10 were knowledge and awareness (45.5%), 6 were attitudes (27.3%), and 6 were skills (27.3%). Both the most agreed upon and the second most agreed upon items were knowledge and awareness (understanding other's worldviews and cultural self-awareness). In our study the largest number of the elements that received 80% or higher agreement were attitudes, so were the most agreed upon and the second most agreed upon items (cultural sensitivity and respect). A possible explanation is the participation of 40 East-Asian scholars in this study. As discussed before, Euro-American scholars tend to place emphasis on knowledge and behavior in intercultural competence which play a key role in controlling the interaction process and fulfilling communication goals (Bruneau, 2002), whereas East-Asian scholars tend to place emphasis on feelings and attitudes which play a critical role in developing relationships and maintaining interpersonal harmony (Xiao & Chen, 2009; Yum, 2012).
However, when further examining the respective consensuses of the two groups, we found that among the 23 components that received 80% or higher agreement from Euro-American scholars, 10 were attitudes (43%), 8 were knowledge and awareness (35%), and 5 were behavior (22%); among the 57 components that received 80% or higher agreement from East-Asian scholars, 23 were attitudes (40%), 21 were knowledge and awareness (37%), and 13 were behavior (23%). Respective distributions of components were similar to each other, and differences between the two groups lied in the componential elements. These findings seem to indicate that currently attitudes as well as knowledge and awareness are more emphasized than behavior in intercultural competence.
Attitudes which emerged from this study indicate that cultural sensitivity, respect, openness, appreciating differences, cultural empathy, tolerance of ambiguity, suspending judgment, and willingness to communicate are important elements. These results are congruent with Deardorff (2006), showing that the attitudinal elements identified by her study might apply to a more culturally diverse context.
Elements of knowledge and awareness which emerged from this study indicate that understanding other worldviews, critical self-reflection, awareness of one's ethnocentric bias, the ability to shift cultural frames, sociocultural knowledge, cultural self-awareness, understanding the complexity of culture, awareness of self and other, and awareness of relearning one's own culture are important cognitive components. These findings are largely congruent with Deardorff (2006) albeit with some meaningful differences. While most of the cognitive elements identified by her study, such as understanding others’ worldviews and cultural self-awareness, were confirmed, others were not (e.g., deep knowledge and understanding of culture, and sociolinguistic awareness). Moreover, some new elements emerged from this study, including understanding the complexity of culture, awareness of self and other, reflective thinking, and critical self-reflection, all of which are important to intercultural competence development.
Understanding the complexity of culture allows us to comprehend the complex compositions of one's own and other's cultures and facilitate comprehensive views (Abrams, 2020). The awareness of self and other enhances individuals’ intercultural sensitivity, enabling them to adjust and adapt to each other while maintaining their positive identities (Gallois et al., 2005). Moreover, reflective thinking is crucial for transforming knowledge/experience into awareness, conducive to cultural learning (Toyoda, 2018); and critical cultural awareness plays a key role in mediating different cultural systems (Byram, 1997).
Skills which emerged from this study indicate that skill to adapt and adjust, active listening, skill to observe, skill to communicate, and skill to relate and mediate are important behavioral components. These results are congruent with Deardorff (2006), showing that as with attitudes the behavioral elements identified by her study might apply to a more culturally diverse context.
In terms of the evaluation criteria, panelists generally regard appropriateness and effectiveness as two key criteria of competent communication, which echoes the results of Deardorff (2006) and indicates that as with attitudes and behavior her findings might apply to a more culturally diverse context. One new criterion which emerged from this study is mutual understanding which includes the agreement to differ (i.e., “inclusive mutual understanding”). Mutual understanding has long been recognized as a desired outcome and a key criterion of competent communication (Kupka et al., 2007). Given that differences often remain when individuals achieve their expected goals in an appropriate way, inclusive mutual understanding seems to be a more practical criterion for evaluating intercultural competence.
When further examining the respective consensuses among Euro-American and East-Asian scholars, we had some interesting findings. Only one criterion (the 22nd) received 85% agreement among Euro-Americans, which suggests that intercultural competence is sensitive to power status, communicative, relational, and identity goals, and the situation. Other criteria that received a relative high agreement (78%) included appropriateness, inclusive mutual understanding, and learning from reflection, effectiveness surprisingly received a much lower agreement (67%). Eight criteria that received 80% or higher agreement among East-Asians included appropriateness (92%), effectiveness (92%), inclusive/mutual understanding (90%/82%), and learning from reflection (90%), and the 22nd criterion only received 72% agreement. These findings seem to indicate that currently while Euro-American scholars place more emphasis on the impact of contextual factors than on the behavioral outcomes, East-Asians place more emphasis on the latter than on the former.
A Multicultural Model of Intercultural Competence
Based on the above discussion, we first redefine intercultural competence as the
Multicultural model of intercultural competence (MMIC).
MMIC Components
MMIC is composed of five dimensions: attitudes, knowledge, awareness, skills, and desired outcomes. Attitude refers to an individual's emotional tendency, including respect, openness, cultural sensitivity, and tolerance of differences and ambiguity.
Respect means treating people from other cultures as equal and respectable partners. Openness refers to being open to new things and ideas (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984), and willing to communicate with people from other cultures. Cultural sensitivity refers to being sensitive to cultural differences and to other people's needs. Tolerance of differences and ambiguity refers to being ready to accept different behaviors and views, and taking a positive attitude toward uncertain situations and ambiguous expressions.
Knowledge refers to the possession of communication information, and the ability to process it (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984), including cultural knowledge, knowing complexity of culture, and knowing cultural similarities and differences. Cultural knowledge refers to knowledge of one's own and other's cultural values, norms and social conventions. Knowing complexity of culture means knowing the diverse elements and multiple layers of culture (Abrams, 2020). Knowing cultural similarities and differences refers to recognizing both similarities and differences between one's own and other's culture, particularly the subtle differences.
Awareness refers to conscious understanding of communication forms, behavior and views (Baker, 2011; Toyoda, 2018). Awareness differs from knowledge in that it is closely related to self-consciousness, helping to “clarify what is deepest and most relevant to one's identity” (Fantini, 2012, p. 272). This dimension includes cultural self-awareness, awareness of self and other, awareness of taking another's perspective, and critical self-reflection. Cultural self-awareness refers to being aware of one's cultural identity and how it shapes one's way of thinking and communicating. Awareness of self and other refers to being aware of the other in addition to self and consciously realizing the importance of self-other relationships. Awareness of taking another's perspective means being aware of seeing things through the other's cultural lens. Critical self-reflection refers to the ability to make critical evaluation of one's own attitudes, behavior and views so as to remove the ethnocentric bias.
Skills refer to individuals’ ability to get tasks done in communication (Chen & Starosta, 1996), including skills to listen and observe, skills to adapt and adjust, skills to communicate, and skills to mediate. Skills to listen and observe refer to skills to get what others are saying, and to read others’ behavior. Skills to adapt and adjust refer to skills to adapt to communication contexts and make necessary adjustments. Skills to communicate include verbal and non-verbal skills to express oneself and respond to others. Skills to mediate refer to skills to bridge or reconcile differences and resolve conflicts.
Desired outcomes refer to the expected goals of communication, which provide the key criteria for evaluating intercultural competence (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). As with attitudes, awareness and skills, desired outcomes also include four elements: inclusive mutual understanding, appropriate and effective communication, intercultural learning, and relationship satisfaction. Inclusive mutual understanding refers to achieving mutual understanding while at the same time accommodating differences. Appropriate and effective communication refers to communication that meets the contextual requirements and fulfills the important goals. Intercultural learning means that individuals have gained knowledge and experiences, and broadened their horizons. Relationship satisfaction refers to the outcome in which interpersonal relationships are well managed, and both self and other feel satisfied. The above five dimensions are ongoing developmental processes. Attitudes, knowledge, awareness, and skills work together to obtain the desired outcomes, and the fulfillment of desired outcomes, in turn, enhances the development of attitudes, knowledge, awareness, and skills.
Theoretical Implications
MMIC summarizes intercultural scholars’ current consensus on intercultural competence. While Deardorff (2006)'s model represents a Euro-American perspective on intercultural competence, MMIC represents an effort to integrate diverse perspectives by identifying the common-ground among scholars from both Euro-American and East-Asian countries. MMIC's strength lies in that Euro-American views have been examined by East-Asian scholars, and East-Asian scholars’ views have been examined by Euro-American colleagues. Thus its cross-cultural validity is enhanced.
MMIC differs from Deardorff's (2006) model in two important aspects. First, MMIC incorporates the ability to manage relationships into the definition of intercultural competence, which adds to Deardorff's conception. Second, MMIC includes some new elements (e.g., cultural sensitivity, awareness of self and other, critical self-reflection and inclusive mutual understanding). These elements are critical to intercultural competence but rarely included in the extant models (see Dai, 2019; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009 for review), expanding Deardorff's framework in a meaningful way.
Limitations
As with any study, there are some limitations. First, the intercultural experts recruited in this study were not representative of experts from around the world. For future research, some scholars from other Eastern cultures, as well as scholars from African and South American cultures should be recruited. Second, this study did not identify the relationships among the components of intercultural competence. How attitudes, knowledge, awareness, skills, and desired outcomes relate to each other needs to be further investigated. Third, using English as the working language may cause difficulties for panelists who are not native speakers. Although all of them are competent English speakers, they may still have barriers in using English in contrast to using their native languages.
Future Directions
Based on this study, future research could focus on three issues. First, whether MMIC applies to diverse cultures, and how it works and varies in different cultural contexts need to be empirically tested. Second, although scholars generally agree that intercultural competence components combine to achieve the desired outcomes, they have not reached any consensus on the relationships among the components. Some scholars have indicated that knowledge and behavior are mutually supportive (Gao, 2014; Rasmussen & Sieck, 2015); and some have indicated that the development of cognitive ability facilitates positive attitudes and appropriate behavior (Huang, 2021; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). However, the relationships among MMIC components need to be further identified. Finally, while some scholars have demonstrated that language ability plays a critical role (e.g., Abrams, 2020; Huang, 2021), others have shown that it plays a minor role, which does not guarantee the development of intercultural competence (e.g., Dicks, 2018; Rasmussen & Sieck, 2015). There seems to be lack of consensus as evidenced by this study and Deardorff (2006). The role of language ability in intercultural competence needs to be further investigated.
Conclusion
This study employed the Delphi method to ascertain intercultural scholars’ current consensus on a definition, specific components, and key evaluation criteria of intercultural competence. A wide range of scholars from multi-nations participated in the study, and the construct was comprehensively explored. The results are largely congruent with Deardorff (2006), nonetheless some new elements emerge from this study. We hope that MMIC, which summarizes the current consensus among leading scholars from diverse cultures and disciplines, can facilitate the dialogue across perspectives on intercultural competence and serve as a foundation for the further development of a global framework.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by National Social Science Fund of China (Grant number: 19BYY006). We wish to thank the intercultural scholars participating in this study. We also wish to thank Darla K. Deardorff for consulting with us throughout this study, and Michael Byram, for his insightful comments and suggestions on the early draft of the paper.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences, (grant number 19BYY006).
