Book Review: Interculturality as an Object of Research and Education: Observing,Reflecting and Critiquing

Fred Dervin and Ning Chen’s Interculturality as an Object of Research and Education presents a compelling critique of traditional intercultural frameworks, emphasizing the dynamic nature of intercultural interactions. Central to their argument is the concept of “observality”, which redefines observation as an active and reflective process essential for understanding cultural nuances. However, while the authors’ challenge to static cultural categorizations is significant, their treatment of “observality” could benefit from a more robust exploration of its practical applications in varied contexts.

One of the book’s standout contributions is the introduction of “observality”, a neologism that advocates for a nuanced understanding of intercultural exchanges. Dervin and Chen argue that observation should not be viewed as a passive act; instead, it is an active, reflective process that empowers individuals to confront their cultural assumptions and biases. This practice is especially crucial for managers and educators, as it helps them discern subtle differences in communication styles and non-verbal cues within multicultural environments. This also aligns with Matthews and Thakkar’s (2012) assertion that globalization complicates cross-cultural communication, necessitating a more nuanced understanding of both explicit and implicit cultural dynamics. Yet, the authors could strengthen their argument by providing concrete examples of how managers and educators can implement this reflective practice in real-world scenarios, rather than remaining largely theoretical.

Dervin and Chen’s critique of static and essentialist views of culture is indeed relevant, as it mirrors the challenges faced by leaders in diverse environments. By conceptualizing interculturality as a “fluid object” that evolves over time, they challenge rigid cultural categorizations that often limit the depth of cross-cultural understanding. This fluidity resonates with the real-world challenges faced by leaders as they navigate diverse and ever-changing environments. Managers should adapt their strategies, recognizing that cultural perspectives are influenced by context, political climates, and individual experiences. This adaptability echoes with the notion of “fluid interculturality”, which encourages professionals to be responsive to the demands of intercultural engagement rather than adhering to fixed definitions.

Wu et al. (2022) emphasize that the ability to navigate these fluid cultural contexts is vital for expatriate success, enabling managers to adjust to shifting dynamics and maintain effective communication in diverse settings. However, while Dervin and Chen promote this adaptability, they may underestimate the practical challenges practitioners face in implementing such fluid approaches. The book could benefit from a more nuanced exploration of these challenges, particularly in high-stakes environments where cultural missteps can have significant consequences.

The authors’ metaphor of “mirroring” further enriches their argument for a reflexive approach to interculturality. Interculturality involves a dual reflection, observing others while simultaneously contemplating one’s cultural identity. This transformative process is crucial in education and management, where recognizing biases and assumptions fosters inclusive and effective environments. Dervin and Chen’s exploration of mirrors in various cultural contexts, particularly through Chinese idioms that juxtapose illusion and reality, provides a compelling metaphor for the complexities of intercultural understanding. This approach encourages readers to move beyond superficial cultural differences and engage in deeper reflection on how interculturality shapes, and is shaped by individual and collective experiences.

However, the concept of mirroring could be further critiqued for its potential limitations. While the authors aim to deepen understanding through reflection, they may inadvertently suggest that simply observing others is sufficient for intercultural competence. As Deardorff (2006) argues, achieving intercultural competence requires more than observation; it demands active engagement and the application of knowledge in culturally diverse contexts. Therefore, while Dervin and Chen’s metaphor is insightful, it must be integrated with practical strategies for active engagement to ensure its efficacy in real-world applications.

Additionally, the book critiques dominant intercultural ideologies, describing them as “hidden kings” that shape prevailing views of intercultural communication, often influenced by power dynamics tied to globalization and Western-centric approaches. This perspective is vital for managers and educators as they navigate complex intercultural dynamics without imposing rigid frameworks. By acknowledging the diverse and evolving nature of interculturality, Dervin and Chen advocate for more equitable approaches to cross-cultural understanding that reflect the shifting meanings of culture across societies. This acknowledgment of power dynamics resonates with existing literature, such as the work of Szkudlarek et al. (2020), which emphasizes the importance of understanding how power relations influence cross-cultural interactions.

Despite these critiques, Interculturality as an Object of Research and Education opens promising avenues for future research in intercultural communication and cross-cultural management (ICCM). By emphasizing the fluid nature of interculturality, Dervin and Chen lay the groundwork for scholars to explore how observality can be operationalized in various contexts, such as corporate environments or educational institutions. Future research could investigate the impact of observality on team dynamics, organizational culture, and classroom interactions, addressing the practical implications of the authors’ theoretical insights.

Furthermore, the authors’ examination of power dynamics raises critical questions about how these structures shape intercultural communication. Future research could investigate how individuals from marginalized cultural groups navigate intercultural spaces and how power imbalances affect their participation in intercultural dialogues. This exploration is particularly important in today’s globalized world, where issues of representation and equity are increasingly foregrounded in discussions of intercultural engagement.

The role of digital tools and remote communication in shaping interculturality also presents a fertile area for exploration. Given the increasing prevalence of virtual work environments, scholars could examine how digital communication platforms impact the practice of observality and whether they facilitate or hinder intercultural reflection and understanding. This is especially relevant in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has accelerated the shift towards remote work and online collaboration. As highlighted by researchers like Szkudlarek et al. (2020), understanding how digital communication affects power dynamics in intercultural contexts is critical, particularly in terms of access to resources, representation, and the ability to participate in meaningful dialogues.

Moreover, as Dervin and Chen discuss the evolving nature of interculturality, there is a need to investigate how cultural adaptation strategies can be effectively implemented in various educational and organizational contexts. Researchers could explore how institutions can design and implement programs that promote reflective practices, intercultural competence, and inclusivity—key themes of Dervin and Chen’s framework. Such investigations could lead to valuable insights into the long-term effects of these programs on intercultural collaboration and conflict resolution in multinational corporations and global classrooms.

In conclusion, Dervin and Chen’s Interculturality as an Object of Research and Education makes a significant contribution to the field of intercultural communication research. Their introduction of concepts such as observality and fluid interculturality challenges static views of culture, offering valuable strategies for enhancing intercultural competence in management and education. While the book presents exciting avenues for future research, ranging from the exploration of power dynamics to the impact of digital tools, it could benefit from more concrete examples and case studies to guide practitioners in applying these concepts effectively.

Overall, ICCM researchers are well-positioned to build upon the authors’ insights, pushing the boundaries of how we understand and engage with cultural diversity in an increasingly globalized world. The call for a more active, reflective practice in intercultural engagements not only enriches the theoretical discourse but also equips practitioners with the tools necessary for navigating the complexities of modern intercultural interactions. As the field continues to evolve, the integration of Dervin and Chen’s frameworks with practical strategies and empirical research will be essential for advancing intercultural competence and fostering meaningful intercultural connections in diverse settings.