sociological approaches to intercultural communication: … · 2019. 5. 25. · communication...

10Sociological approaches to intercultural communication: exploring the ‘silent zones’

Uttaran Dutta & Judith N. Martin

10.1 Introduction

Intercultural communication scholarship is an interdisciplinary

endeavour, and sociology - the study of society, social

relationships, social interaction and culture (Calhoun, 2002) - has

contributed a great deal to intercultural communication

scholarship, both historically and contemporaneously.i To attempt

to identify all sociological approaches is beyond the scope of this

chapter. We therefore identify and describe four areas of research

with roots in sociological concepts and theories, and then highlight

the ‘silent zones’ in intercultural communication scholarship,

discussing challenges for future researchers.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n

296 UTTARAN DUTTA AND JUDITH N. MARTIN

10.2 Sociological approaches

There are several identifiable ‘moments’ in sociological theorising

that have impacted intercultural communication research,

including: theoretical conceptualization, intergroup contact,

conflict and attitudes, sojourner adaptation and immigrant

assimilation, as well as recent critical studies.

10.2.1 Conceptualization

One of the most influential sociological concepts in intercultural

communication theorising is Simmel’s (1908; 1921) and later

Schütz’s (1944) concept of ’the stranger’ (Cooks 2001; Rogers,

1999). Simmel’s stranger was originally conceptualized as

someone who has not always been in the society, is both an insider

and outsider, reflecting Simmel’s conceptualization of society:

groups of individuals at varying degrees of social distance from

one another. This focus formed the foundation of the traditional

(early) definition of intercultural communication: ‘a

communication relationship between two or more people who are

dissimilar’ (Rogers, 1999, p. 60). Gudykunst, with graduate

training in sociology, introduced the concept into U.S. intercultural

communication scholarship (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984) as ‘the key

intellectual device to broaden the meaning of intercultural

communication’ (Rogers, 1999, p. 69) to include many types of

cultural groups--ethnicity, race and even organizational culture or

the culture of the deaf. This conceptualization was accepted by

many intercultural communication scholars and spawned years of

related research.ii

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n

Sociological approaches to intercultural communication 297

We should note that some scholars now question the utility of

Simmel’s notion. For example, Marotta (2012) argues that

Simmel’s category of ‘stranger’ reflected a position of power and

privilege, excluding disenfranchised migrants, refugees etc., and

Harman (1988) suggests that in postmodern globalized society

strangeness ‘is no longer a temporary condition to be overcome,

but a way of life’ (p. 44), defined by mobility and multiple

identities. These critiques led Cooks (2001) and others to adopt

more critical theorizing of intercultural encounters (described later

in the chapter).

10.2.2 Intergroup contact, conflict and attitudes

Early conceptualizations emphasized the group membership of

individuals in intercultural encounters and emphasized that this

group membership (e.g. nation, ethnicity, race, etc) was a primary

factor in the interaction processes and outcomes (Gudykunst,

1986). However, this focus (and terminology) gradually shifted

from ‘intergroup’ to ‘intercultural’ communication (Gudykunst &

Shapiro, 1996, pp. 20-21) and to individual attitudes (e.g.

stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism) – over objections of some

scholars. For example, Landis and Wasilewski (1999) noted the

shift and admonished that ‘sociological and political theorists are

clamouring to be heard’ (p. 560).

An example of the social psychological focus is the extensive

research on the contact hypothesis and various conditions affecting

attitude change, particularly in interethnic and interracial

encounters (e.g. Pettigrew et al., 2011) and for recent

investigations, Nshom’s (2016) study of the effect of intergroup

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


contact on Finns’ prejudice toward Russian immigrants. Another

example of social-psychological perspective is the research based

on social identity and its relationship to linguistic practices in

Communication Accommodation theory (e.g. Ng & Stolte, 2017).

However, there are a few communication approaches that

incorporate the macro level societal/context of intergroup

encounters. For example, Y. Y. Kim’s (2005) model of interethnic

communication emphasizes that communicators are always

embedded in hierarchical levels of context (e.g. national, regional,

neighbourhood, institutional and so on), and one can understand

interethnic communication only by considering the impact and

input of these various levels, e.g. Lee’s (2012) study of

communication between Hakka and other ethnic groups in Taiwan,

and de Vries (2002) study of ethnic tensions in Fiji and

implications for ethnic cohabitations.

10.2.3 Sojourner adaptation and immigrant integration

By some accounts cultural adaptation of sojourners (strangers) and

immigrants is the most theorised concept in intercultural

communication research (e.g. Dutta & Martin, 2017) and a few

contemporary investigations of intercultural contact are based

explicitly on Schütz’s concept of the stranger. There are at least

three important sociological influences in this area of research, all

building on the notion of the stranger.

First, a less emphasised element of Simmel and Schütz’s work

is the notion that interaction between strangers involves

uncertainty and anxiety, due to cultural differences and lack of

familiarity with cultural rules. As Gauthier (2009) points out,

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


Gudykunst’s Anxiety and Uncertainty Management theory (AUM)

builds on this concept and attempts to explain (and predict) how

individuals manage to balance anxiety and uncertainty at optimum

levels in order to communicate effectively in intercultural

encounters (e.g. Gudykunst, 2005). Using AUM theory,

Samochowiec & Florack (2010) investigated the impact of

predictability and anxiety on the willingness to interact with a

member from an unknown cultural group.

Second, intercultural communication scholars were also

influenced by Simmel’s student, Robert Park’s (1928) concept of

the ‘Marginal Man’ (sic), an individual who lives in two different

cultural realities. Park’s concept was later extended to ’the

sojourner’, who visits another culture for a period of time but

retains their own original culture, leading to studies on U-curve of

adjustment, culture shock, re-entry shock, etc (Fuhse, 2012; Hart,

1999).

Unfortunately, Park’s concept of the ‘marginal man’ remains

unrelated to his later theory of the assimilation process and to the

wider theoretical approach of the Chicago School (Fuhse 2012, p.

641), e.g. Blumer’s theory of symbolic interactionismiii, and later

Milton Gordon’s (1964) theory of assimilation, a third area of

influence in intercultural communication studies. Park and Gordon

theorised that successful acculturation of immigrants depends on

their incorporation into host community networks, i.e., the

development of their relationships with host nationals leads them

to adopt the host definitions of situations, leading then to a

lessening of ethnic divisions, and eventually the attainment of

status equality. Similarly, a more recent approach, explicitly based

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


on Simmel’s stranger and the work of Gordon and Park, Fuhse

(2012) emphasizes the centrality of personal relationships and

networks in the successful adaptation and integration of migrants

into host communities. He argues that any ‘theory of interethnic

relations has to link two levels: the relational level of relationships

and networks, and the symbolic level of cultural differences, ethnic

categories and symbols of demarcation’ (p. 640), noting that

previous work has rarely embraced these dual levels. In a similar

vein, Horgan (2012) revisits the stranger concept and introduces

the notion of ‘strangership’ — emphasizing the element of

relationships among strangers as a better theoretical description of

contemporary fluid and mobile intercultural encounters, that opens

up ‘conceptual space to examine conditions where strangership is

present, where it emerges, where it intensifies and where it

diminishes’ (p. 613). Y. Y. Kim’s integrative theory of adaptation

(2005, 2008), like Fuhse’s work, integrates the macro sociocultural

elements along with the micro interpersonal elements in a systems

approach to adaptation., e.g. Cheah et al.’s (2011) comprehensive

study of adaptation of Bosnian refugees.

10.2.4 Critical theorists

More recent developments of sociological theorising come from

European and U. S. critical theorists in the late 20th century. As

has been fully described elsewhere (e.g., Halualani et al., 2009;

Halualani & Nakayama, 2010), many intercultural communication

scholars rejected the earlier micro (interpersonal) and acontextual

focus of intercultural communication scholars. They called for

closer attention to historical specificity and contextual grounding

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


(González & Peterson, 1993; Lee et al., 1995) and attention to the

impacts of ‘larger structures of power (governmental, institutional,

legal, economic, and mediated forces)’ (Halualani & Nakayama,

2010, p. 2). They promoted a re-theorising of culture as ‘sites of

struggle’ based on power relations and ideologies (Collier et al.,

2001; Cooks, 2001) and once again turned to sociologists,

specifically the European critical theorists. For example, Moon

(2010) cites Foucault’s (1972) notions of power and knowledge in

her study of the genealogy of the field, rooted in colonialism and

U. S. imperialism (p. 34). Similarly, Hasian (2012) extends the

biopolitical work of Foucault (1977, 2003) in analysing the legal

and cultural arguments used to abuse Filipinos during the

Philippine-American War. Critical scholars also problematise the

notion of adaptation as a ‘power neutral, linear process’ (Moon,

2010, p. 41) and pursue critical studies of immigrant adaptation

and diaspora (e.g. Le Pichon, in this volume).

Critical scholars also focus on language and power in studying

intercultural encounters (e.g. Ife, in this volume). Based on

Habermas (1996), Striley & Lawson (2014) theorise

communication orientations of privilege in showing how White

discourses (de)construct Australian Aboriginals.

More recent Critical sociologists, e.g. Patricia Hill Collins and

Bonilla Silva, are also integrated into intercultural communication

research. For example, Willink et al. (2014) chart new

methodologies for Critical Intercultural Communication research,

based on Collins’ Critical Race Theory and Moon (2016) and other

scholars’ studies of white identity have often relied on Bonilla-

Silva’s (2010) work.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


10.3 The way forward: silent zones in intercultural

communication research

Consonant with a critical approach to intercultural communication

and shifting from a static nation-orientation (e.g., Hofstede’s

[1991] framework) to an ever-emerging contextual-orientation,

current intercultural communication research is committed to

interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and bringing about

‘“multiculturalism without hierarchy’ (Asante, 2003). Rather than

being confined to ‘student-convenience sampling’ (primarily from

Europe and America) (Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014), we echo

those who call for progress towards achieving multi-accentualities

and restoring polyphony (Alexander et al., 2014). In this spirit, we

now identify seven ‘Silent zones’: never-researched or under-

researched sub-domains/aspects (both physical/material and

abstract/conceptual)--of intercultural communication research and

suggest avenues for future scholarship.

10.3.1 Representation of culture

We, the human race, practice different cultures, and speak in a

wide variety of languages. However, the different geographical

locations, languages, and cultures/cultural practices are not

represented equally in the discursive spaces. Recent studies show

that North America, Europe, and East Asia received more attention

in published literature than the rest of the world. Countries from

Latin America, Africa and Asia (except for east-Asia) represent

more than 60% of the global population but receive significantly

less attention (Worldometers, 2018). For example, approximately

2% of the recent articles published in 5 primary culture and

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


communication journals focus on African, and Southern and

Central American countries/cultures (Dutta & Martin, 2017) and

more than 100 countries have never appeared in those journals. In

terms of linguistic diversity, more than 90% of the languages

spoken are in Asian, African, Latin American and Pacific regions

and 500 out of 6,500 living languages are on the brink of extinction

(Simons & Fennig, 2018). According to UNICEF, around half of

existing languages will be lost by the end of this century--a serious

concern (Austin & Sallabank, 2011). Similarly, local/indigenous

cultural communication behaviours, preferences (various forms of

songs, dances, theatrical performances, art and craft artefacts) and

practices (e.g., cultural paradigm, awareness, mythology, oral

narrative, and religious practices) are also experiencing severe

challenges in this neoliberal world (Alexander et al., 2014). Not

only is the geographical representation of culture unequal, but

scholars of underrepresented regions are also constantly facing

challenges to publish their scholarship. For example, Miller, Kizito

and Ngual (2010) noted the struggle of non-western (particularly

African) scholars in the world of academic publication. Such

limited attention and research–engagement potentially lead to lack

of theoretical inquiry, awareness, and knowledge about under-

represented regions; this then further delegitimises less-known

cultures and practices. The complexity and nuances of the cultural

dynamics, linguistic diversity, religious and spiritual practices

warrant academic attention, specifically to less represented regions

and their cultures.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


10.3.2 Socio-economic and structural disparity and global

missions

Increasing social, economic and political disparity is producing

cultural marginalisation in this contemporary world. This vicious

cycle of inequality is true for underserved regions of both

developing and developed countries. When most of the global

population is living with or under US$5 per capita per day

(Kochhar, 2015), it is crucial for intercultural researchers to study

these populations at the margins, whose voices and issues are

historically delegitimised/erased in the spaces of decision-making.

These economically poor populations are also suffering from lack

of access to education, health, technological resources; which

consequently reproduce and reinforce the conditions of

marginalization. Such poverty and other socio-economic

disparities, along with growing global populations (e.g., estimated

8.5 bil lion by 2030 [United Nations, 2017]), anthropocentric

activities and environmental deteriorations have led to several

global missions including the United Nations’ sustainable

development goals. In these long-term missions, global

organizations are seeking to make the world a better place by 2030;

scholars, researchers and practitioners from various academic

disciplines (including STEM and social sciences) are contributing

towards achieving these ambitious goals.iv

However, in many such development and social change

projects, culture and communication scholarship still remains as a

peripheral component, and the volume of culture and

communication research on these emergent and macro issues is

negligible, which makes our discipline less-visible, and less

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


engaged in academic and professional discursive spaces. In one of

the few studies, Thornton and Cimadevilla (2010) showed the

impact and relevance of participatory communication in the

context of Latin American development, and scholars like Broome

(2013) and Dutta (2018) argued that as researchers we need to be

more applied and focus on key social issues, fostering academic-

community partnership to foreground cultural realities through the

voices of cultural participants (Chen, Lawless & Gonzalez, 2015;

Ting-Toomey, 2007). Examples of such academic-community

partnership in the context of participatory communication can be

seen in several research initiatives such as (a) Niyamgiri movement

(where indigenous populations organized for a bottom-up, local-

centric development by foregrounding alternate epistemologies

and resisting neoliberal agendas (Padel & Das, 2010); and (b)

Sonagachi project (where sex-workers, by building alliances with

academics and practitioners, made organized efforts towards

fighting HIV/AIDS and ensuring and improving health and well-

being at the margins (Jana et al., 2004). It is therefore urgent, and

timely for culture and communication scholars to contribute to the

aforementioned global missions towards making the world more

habitable, tolerant, and just.

10.3.3 Hidden, dark and forbidden cultural practices

There are several aspects of life, particularly dark and forbidden

ones that we usually prefer not to talk about or disclose in public

to maintain social decorum. However, oftentimes these aspects

constitute the foundation and development of our thought

processes, through communication processes. For instance,

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


watching politically charged or superstitious conspiracy theory

videos can influence those predisposed to particular political and

social attitudes (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). Moreover, secret

association with propagandist discourses (which are socially

disapproved of) or participating in taboo rituals can result in fatal

and/or socially-unhealthy consequences; e.g., following

superstitious predictions, so-called religious practitioners and cults

have committed dangerous and damaging actions (e.g., mass-

suicide) (Mancinelli et al., 2002). In short, secret and forbidden

aspects of culture and communication play important roles in

shaping collective (un)consciousness. For another example,

microaggressive behaviours and attitudes of men (sometime

without consciously realising) towards women, or growing rape-

culture in various parts of the globe can be traced to lack of

sex/family education and/or over-reliance on mediated

pornographic and misogynic contents (Makin & Morczek, 2016).

Even as the outcome of all of these behaviour creates public

sensations or shame, their roots can be traced back to our everyday

actions, and thought foundations. Instead of condemning these

outrageous or uncivil behaviours and their societal impacts,

intercultural communication scholars need to engage with them in-

depth to learn the unconscious (or subconscious) foundation of our

different rationalities and actions.

10.3.4 Plurality and cultural ecology

Many underrepresented peoples across the globe, e.g., indigenous

people, are constantly exploring and experimenting with situated

(and limited) material and cultural resources to ensure their

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


survival. Such negotiations have given birth to alternate

knowledge, science and technology; unfortunately, these

knowledge resources receive little or no recognition in Western

academia. For example, several age-old alternate medicinal

approaches are often labelled as folk or pseudoscientific practices

(Beyerstein, 2001). Moreover, strategic ignorance from the

hegemon, and unequal fight of under-resourced people to preserve

them, result in rapid disappearance of these alternate knowledge

resources; many of them on the brink of extinction, lost forever, an

irreversible/irreparable losses to humanity. Therefore, responsible

intercultural research needs to pay attention to both documenting

and preserving such alternate knowledge and knowledge-

productions, potentially leading to better understanding and

cultural interactions towards resolving conflicts, achieving equity,

and improving intercultural exchanges and relationships. Dutta and

Das (2015) demonstrated that intercultural factors are instrumental

in co-creating culture-preservations solutions with underserved

populations of the global south. Together with community

members, they co-developed digital/information solutions by

paying attention to (a) long-term participatory research

engagements in overcoming linguistic/literacy barriers, (b) in-situ

design development of visually–guided digital interface, and (c)

embracing dialogic and critical reflexive praxis when designing for

local audiences. The digital application addresses

contextual/communicative barriers (e.g., literacy, linguistics and

technological proficiency), so that people at the margins can

communicate (i.e., retrieve, share and create cultural information)

with other community members and the outside world.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


Scholars further suggest that our inability to accept differences

in communication styles and alternate repertories or knowledge

systems, lead to barriers to health and development activities, and

contribute to growing inequalities (Croucher et al., 2015;

Viswanath & Ackerson, 2011). Therefore, intercultural research

needs to actively reflect on overcoming ethnocentrism, naïve

scientism, and apparent neutrality in describing ‘others’.

Intercultural communication as a discipline deeply believes in

plurality and rights of existence and functioning of every culture

and cultural components such as languages, identities, values, and

worldviews. However, dominant forces historically have

delegitimized opposing and resistive voices and perspectives by

promoting monocultural logics of modernism to maintain the

status quo (Mendoza & Kinefuchi, 2016). It would be

interculturally unfortunate if we are content with a mono-religious,

mono-lingual, mono-ideological world; such approaches are

antithetical to the essence of interculturality. Embracing social

justice and equality perspectives of interculturality (Alexander et

al., 2014), communicators need to foreground different/alternate

cultural values and practices alive today, before their extinction;

such an approach towards ensuring cultural ecology and diversity

will prevent creation of ahistorical and uncritical world, and

possible (re)establishment of a supremacist and colonial order.

10.3.5 Future approaches and methodologies

Intercultural communication as an academic discipline is uniquely

situated, as it is dedicated to learn known, less known, and

unknown cultural and communication practices. Conventionally,

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


we use academic methodological tools to understand, analyse and

represent various cultures, which are mostly suited for US and

other western contexts (Ting-Toomey, 2017). These theoretical

and methodological frameworks and approaches yield a certain

kind of academic output (which is standardized and conventionally

appreciated in academic and professional domains). However, it

can be argued that various cultural practices and behaviours can be

better understood if we create or modify contextually appropriate

methodological tools, specifically designed for studying less-

studied cultures and societies, across the world; it would also

enable us to better theorise and present our findings. For instance,

Pink (2009) and Dutta (forthcoming) promote sensory (including

visual) methodological approaches, useful for researching

underserved cultures which face communicative barriers such as

illiteracy, habitual shyness and muteness, and a lack of linguistic

proficiency in mainstream languages. Specifically, Dutta

(forthcoming) co-generated (with participants) culturally-

appropriate hand-drawn images as prompts in order to more easily

conduct qualitative interviews in indigenous communities in the

global south. In this way, extant non-Western academic

approaches (e.g., decolonising, delink, indigenous methodologies,

performance and action-based work) should be consulted and

studied, co-creating with local community members, to devise new

theoretical and methodological frameworks. Moreover, a focus on

decentring dominant knowledge production practices by

foregrounding local/alternate worldview, paradigm, cultural

conditioning can be instrumental in exploring and bringing forth

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


contextual narratives, imaginaries, identities, and cultural spaces

(Schneider, 2010).

10.3.6 Emerging realities and cultural complexities

As a dynamic entity, culture is getting produced, reproduced, and

transformed every moment, which gives birth to new cultural

formations and dynamics. Instances from Arab spring and similar

movements, remind us of human creativity and innovation in

performing resistance and collective actions. Recent scholarship,

e.g., on the dislocated people’s resistance in China (Yu-Shi, 2011),

collective mediated voices of dissent (Coopman, 2011), and

Dreamer’s articulations (Hartelius, 2016) represent new

possibilities and explorations of collective movements. Another

example could be the contemporary post-truth scenario, where

authenticities of cultural expressions are experiencing severe threat

as people are constantly creating untruth, seemingly truthful,

strategically ambiguous and confusing messages for their vested

interests; this scenario makes knowledge production process more

complex than ever before (Harsin, 2015). Emerging cultural

realities as these not only mark the beginning/possibilities of newer

formations and dynamics (e.g., emergence of new global middle

class through social media [Polson, 2011]), but also open up new

possibilities of engaged research to understand such phenomena.

For instance, intercultural research on the intersections of culture

and posthuman (including Anthropocene and non-human aspects)

(Stephens, 2014) and trans-human (including cyborg and

technological interactions) paradigms potentially yield new

understandings and theorizing of emerging human behaviours.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


10.3.7 New dynamics of digital media

Shuter’s (2012) article on intercultural new media studies marked

the beginning of systematic intercultural research on new-media

and mediated behaviours (e.g. also Nakayama’s chapter, in this

volume). So far, cultural communication research is primarily

invested to study social mediated cultural behaviours, particularly

those found in surface Web platforms (such as Google, Facebook

and Twitter). Apart from conventional new media research,

researchers could explore several new cultural dynamics such as

culture of shaming, new moral panics (Ingraham & Reeves, 2016),

and nontraditional media ownerships and disruptive platforms

(Cunningham & Craig, 2016). However, more than 90% of the

Web activities are either deep-web or dark-web in nature (Chertoff,

2017). Research on dark-web activities are particularly missing in

cultural and communication research; this is important because

dark-web interactions are specifically responsible for drug dealing,

weapon selling, gambling, hacking, and child pornography among

others (Bartlett, 2015). These platforms are also facilitators of

alternate financial exchange and market possibilities such as

introducing and promoting bitcoins (Kethineni, Cao, & Dodge,

2018).

In addition, when we use social media and online search

engines, service providers generate contents based on predesigned

algorithms, which selectively provide us partial access to

information (as well as block certain contents) eventually leading

to a limited variety of opinions and information; such anomalies

and short-sightedness are often unintentional. Moreover,

explorations in mediated communications and cultural behaviours,

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


particularly in virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial

intelligence led (multi-sensory) environments, would potentially

give birth to new understanding and possibilities to design culture-

and communication-driven meaningful information-technology

solutions for everyday human communication.

10.4 Conclusion

As described here, sociological theorising has contributed a great

deal to intercultural communication scholarship, historically and

contemporaneously. Our hope is that critical communication

scholarship will continue to embrace goals of a more just,

polyphonous, ‘multiculturalism without hierarchy’ (Asante, 2001)

and a ‘new paradigm, beginning with the re-awakening of the

human imagination to new/old long-forgotten possibilities’

(Mendoza, in Alexander et al., 2014, p.22).

References

Alexander, B. K., Arasaratnam, L. A., Durham, A., Flores, L.,

Leeds-Hurwitz, Mendoza, S. L., Oetzel, J. G., Osland, J.,

Tsuda, Y., Yin J. & Halualani R. (2014). Identifying key

intercultural urgencies, issues, and challenges in today's world:

Connecting our scholarship to dynamic contexts and historical

moments, Journal of International and Intercultural

Communication, 7(1), 38-67.

Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news

in the 2016 election, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2),

211-36.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


Asante, M.K. (2003). The Afrocentric idea in education. In J .L.

Conyers, ed., Afrocentricity and the Academy: Essays on

Theory and Practice, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company,

pp. 37–49.

Austin, P. K., & Sallabank, J. (eds.) (2011). The Cambridge

Handbook of Endangered Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bartlett, J. (2015). The Dark Net: Inside the Digital Underworld,

New York: Melville House.

Beyerstein, B. L. (2001). Alternative medicine and common errors

of reasoning, Academic Medicine, 76(3), 230-237.

Blommaert, J. (1998). Different a pproaches to intercultural

communication: a critical survey, Plenary Lecture, Lernen und

Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten und multikulturellen

Gesellschaft, Expertentagung Universitat Bremen, Institut fur

Projektmanagement und Witschaftsinformatik (IPMI),

February 27-28.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism, Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without Racists: Color-blind

Racism & Racial Inequality in Contemporary America, 3rd

edition, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Broome, B.J. (2013). Building cultures of peace: the role of

intergroup dialogue. In J. G. Oezel & S. Ting-Toomey, eds., The

SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating

Theory, Research, and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.

737-762.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


Calhoun, C. (ed.) (2002). Sociology. In C. Calhoun, ed.,

Dictionary of the Social Sciences, New York, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Cheah, W. H., Karamehic-Muratovic, A., Matsuo, H. & Poljarevic,

A. (2011). The role of language competence, interpersonal

relationships, and media use in Bosnian refugees’ resettlement

process, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,

40(3), 219-236.

Chen, Y. W., Lawless, B. & González, A. (2015). Relating across

difference for social change: calling attention to inter/cultural

partnerships in nonprofit contexts, Journal of International and

Intercultural Communication, 8(3), 187-192.

Collier, M.J., Hegde, R.S., Lee, W.S., Nakayama, T.K., & Yep, G.

A. (2001). Dialogue on the edges: ferment in communication

and culture. In M. J. Collier, ed., Transforming Communication

about Culture: Critical New Directions, International and

Intercultural Communication Annual, volume 24, Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 219-280.

Collins, P. H. (2005). Black Sexual Politics: African Americans,

Gender, and the New Racism, New York: Routledge.

Cooks, L. (2001). From distance and uncertainty to research and

pedagogy in the borderlands: implications for the future of

intercultural communication, Communication Theory, 11(3),

339-351.

Coopman, T. M. (2011). Networks of dissent: emergent forms in

media based collective action, Critical Studies in Media


pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


Corbett, J. (2009). Editorial, Language and Intercultural


Croucher, S. M., Sommier, M. & Rahmani, D. (2015). Intercultural

communication: where we’ve been, where we’re going, issues

we face, Communication Research and Practice, 1(1), 71-87.

Cunningham, S. & Craig, D. (2016). Online entertainment: a new

wave of media globalization?, International Journal of

Communication, 10, 5409-5425.

De Vries, R. E. (2002). Ethnic tension in paradise: explaining

ethnic supremacy aspirations in Fiji, International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 26(3), 311-327.

Dutta, U. (2018). Negotiating structural absences: voices of

indigenous subalterns of eastern India, Journal of Intercultural

Communication Research, 47(1), 52-71.

Dutta, U. (forthcoming). Conducting ethnographic research in low

literate, economically weak underserved spaces: an introduction

to visual aided interaction, Qualitative Research.

Dutta, U. & Das, S. (2015). Digital divide at the margins: co-

designing information solutions to address needs of indigenous

populations of rural India, Communication Design Quarterly,

4(1), 36-48.

Dutta, U. & Martin, J. N. (2017). Theoretical perspectives in

intercultural communication. In L. Chen, ed., Handbook of

Intercultural Communication, Berlin, Germany: Mouton de

Gruyter, pp. 45-66.

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge, New York:

Pantheon Books.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/science/article/pii/S0147176702000068

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/science/article/pii/S0147176702000068

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/science/journal/01471767



Foucault, M. (ed.) (1977). Language, Countermemory, Practice:

Selected Essays and Interviews, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

Foucault, M. (2003). Society Must Be Defended, New York:

Picador.

Fuhse, A. A. (2012). Embedding the stranger: ethnic categories and

cultural differences in social networks, Journal of Intercultural

Studies, 33(6), 639-655.

Gauthier, B. (2009). Creating anxiety: setting the stage for

intercultural communication, Canadian Journal of


González, A., & Peterson, T. R. (1993). Enlarging conceptual

boundaries: A critique of research in intercultural

communication. In S. P. Bowen, ed., Transforming visions:

Feminist critiques in Communication Studies, New York:

Hampton Press, pp. 249-278.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life: The Role of

Race, Religion, and National Origins, New York: Oxford

University Press.

Chertoff, M. (2017). A public policy perspective of the dark web,

Journal of Cyber Policy, 2(1), 26-38, DOI: 10.1080/23738871.

2017.1298643

Gudykunst, W. B. (1986). Towards a Theory of Intergroup

Communication, Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.

Gudykunst, W. B (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management

(AUM) theory of effective communication: making the mesh of

the net finer. In W. B. Gudykunst, ed., Theorizing about

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


Intercultural Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.

281-332.

Gudykunst, W. B. & Kim, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with

Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication,

Addison-Wesley.

Gudykunst, W. B. & Shapiro, R. B. (1996). Communication in

everyday interpersonal and intergroup encounters,

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(1), 19-45.

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests, Boston:

Beacon Press.

Halualani, R. T. & Nakayama, T. K. (2010). Critical intercultural

communication studies at a crossroads. In R. T. Halualani & T.

K. Nakayama, eds., The Handbook of Critical Intercultural

Communication, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 1-16.

Halualani, R.T., Mendoza, S. L., & Drzewiecka, J.A. (2009).

Critical junctures in intercultural communication studies: a

review, The Review of Communication Journal, 9(1), 17-35.

Harman, L.D. (1988). The Modern Stranger: On Language and

Membership, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Harsin, J. (2015). Regimes of posttruth, postpolitics, and attention

economies, Communication, Culture & Critique, 8(2), 327-333.

Hart, W. B. (1999). Interdisciplinary influences in the study of

intercultural relations: a citation analysis of the ‘International

Journal of Intercultural Relations’, International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 575-590.

Hartelius, E. J. (2016). ‘Undocumented and unafraid’?

Challenging the bureaucratic paradigm, Communication and

Critical/Cultural Studies, 13(2), 130-149.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/science/article/pii/0147176796000375

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/science/article/pii/0147176796000375



Hasian Jr., M. (2012). The Philippine–American war and the

American debates about the necessity and legality of the ‘water

cure’ 1901–1903, Journal of International and Intercultural


Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of

the Mind, London: McGraw-Hill.

Horgan, M. (2012). Strangers & strangership, Journal of

Intercultural Studies, 33(6), 607-622.

Ingraham, C. & Reeves, J. (2016). New media, new panics,

Critical Studies in Media Communication, 33(5), 455-467.

Jackson, J. (2017). Sociolinguistic approach to intercultural

communication. In Y. Y. Kim, ed., The International

Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, Hoboken: John

Wiley & Sons. Online. Available: https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0068

(accessed 1 February 2019).

Jana, S., Basu, I., Rotheram-Borus, M. J. & Newman, P. A. (2004).

The Sonagachi Project: a sustainable community intervention

program. AIDS education and prevention, 16(5), 405-414.

Kethineni, S., Cao, Y. & Dodge, C. (2018). Use of bitcoin in

darknet markets: examining facilitative factors on bitcoin-

related crimes, American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(2),

141-157.

Kim, Y. Y. (2005) Adapting to a new culture: an integrative

communication theory. In W. Gudykunst, ed., Theorizing about

Intercultural Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.

375-400.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


Kim, Y. Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: globalization and a

way of being, International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

32(4), 359-368.

Kochhar, R. (2015). A Global Middle Class Is More Promise than

Reality: From 2001 to 2011, Nearly 700 Million Step Out of

Poverty, but Most Only Barely. Washington, D.C.: Pew

Research Center. Online. Available: http://www.pewglobal.

org/2015/07/08/a-global-middle-class-is-more-promise-than-

reality (accessed 1 February 2019).

Kramsch, C. J. (2001). Intercultural communication. In R. Carter

and D. Nunan, eds., The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English

to Speakers of Other Languages, New York: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 201-206.

Landis, D. & Wasilewski, J. H. (1999). Reflections on 22 years of

the ‘International Journal of Intercultural Relations’ and 23

years in other areas of intercultural practice, International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 535-574.

Lee, M. (2012). On studying interethnic communication between

the Hakka and other ethnic groups in Taiwan, Intercultural

Communication Studies, 21(3), 29-40.

Lee, W.S., Chung, J., Wang, J., and Hertel, E. (1995). A

sociohistorical approach to intercultural communication,

Howard Journal of Communications, 6(4), 262-291.

Makin, D. A. & Morczek, A. L. (2016). X views and counting:

interest in rape-oriented pornography as gendered

microaggression, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(12),

2131-2155.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n



Mancinelli, I., Comparelli, A., Girardi, P. & Tatarelli, R. (2002).

Mass suicide: Historical and psychodynamic considerations,

Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 32(1), 91-100.

Marotta, V. (2012). Georg Simmel, the stranger and the sociology

of knowledge, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(6), 675-689.

Mendoza, S. L., & Kinefuchi, E. (2016). Two stories, one vision:

A plea for an ecological turn in intercultural communication,

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication,

9(4), 275-294.

Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in

cross-cultural communication research: A systematic and meta-

analytic review, International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 38, 1-23.

Miller, A. N., Kizito, M. N. & Ngula, K. W. (2010). Research and

publication by communication faculty in East Africa: a

challenge to the global community of communication scholars,


3(4), 286-303.

Moon, D. G. (2010). Critical reflections on culture and critical

intercultural communication. In T. K. Nakayama & R. T.

Halualani, eds., Handbook of Critical Intercultural

Communication, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 34-52.

Moon, D. G. (2016). ‘Be/coming’ white and the myth of white

ignorance: identity projects in white communities, Western

Journal of Communication, 80(3), 282-303.

Ng, S. H. & Stolte, J. F. (2017). Power in intergroup

communication. In Y. Y. Kim, ed., The International

Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, Hoboken: John

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


Wiley & Sons. Online Library, Online. Available: https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0170

(accessed 1 February 2019).

Nshom, E. (2016). Predictors of Finnish adolescents’ prejudice

towards Russian immigrants and the effect of intergroup

contact, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,

45(1), 31-44.

Padel, F., & Das, S. (2010). Out of this Earth: East India Adivasis

and the Aluminium Cartel, New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.

Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man,

American Journal of Sociology, 33(6), 881-893.

Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R. Wagner, U. & Christ, O. (2011).

Recent advances in intergroup contact theory, International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271-280.

Pink, S. (2009). Doing Sensory Ethnography, Thousands Oak, CA:

Sage.

Polson, E. (2011). Belonging to the network society: social media

and the production of a new global middle class,

Communication, Culture & Critique, 4(2), 144-163.

Rogers, E. M. (1999). Georg Simmel’s concept of the stranger and

intercultural communication research, Communication Theory,

9(1), 58-74.

Samochowiec, J. & Florack, A. (2010). Intercultural contact under

uncertainty: the impact of predictability and anxiety on the

willingness to interact with a member from an unknown cultural

group, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(4),

507-515.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie429%2bL8uPfgeyk63nn5Kx95uXxjL6qrUm2pbBIr66eUbims1Kwrp5oy5zyit%2fk8Xnh6ueH7N%2fiVa%2bnsU22qbdOs66khN%2fk5VXj5KR84LPzfuac8nnls79mpNfsVa%2bnsFG3r7JQsJzkh%2fDj34y73POE6urjkPIA&vid=14&sid=1a8b590c-2e8e-4814-a714-279be5540e25@sessionmgr4010




Schneider, J. (2010). Making space for the ‘nuances of truth’:

communication and uncertainty at an environmental journalists’

workshop, Science Communication, 32(2), 171-201.

Shuter, Robert (2012). Intercultural new media studies: the next

frontier in intercultural communication, Journal of Intercultural

Communication Research, 41(3), 219-237.

Schütz, A. (1944). The stranger: an essay in social psychology, The

American Journal of Sociology, 49(6), 499-507.

Shi, Y. (2011). Creating new subjectivities: The resistant tactics of

the dislocated people in China’s real estate development,

Communication, Culture & Critique, 4(3), 275-295.

Simmel, G. (1908). The sociological significance of the ‘stranger’.

In R. E. Park & E. W. Burgess, eds., 1921, Introduction to the

Science of Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.

322–327.

Simons, Gary F. & Fennig, C. D. (eds.) (2018). Ethnologue:

Languages of the World, 21st edition, Dallas, TX: SIL

International.

Stephens, N. P. (2014). Toward a more substantive media ecology:

Postman’s metaphor versus posthuman futures, International

Journal of Communication, 8, 19.

Striley, K. M. & Lawson, S. (2014). Theorizing communication

orientations of privilege: How White discourses (de)construct

Australian Aboriginals, Journal of International and

Intercultural Communication, 7(2), 170-191.

Thornton, R. D. & Cimadevilla, G. (2010). Usos y abusos del

participare, Buenos Aires: Ediciones INTA.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


Ting-Toomey, S. (2007). Intercultural conflict training: theory-

practice approaches and research challenges, Journal of

Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 255-271.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2017). Conflict face-negotiation theory:

Tracking its evolutionary journey. In X. Dai & G.-M. Chen,

eds., Conflict Management and Intercultural Communication,

London: Routledge, pp. 123-143.

Viswanath, K. & Ackerson, L. K. (2011). Race, ethnicity,

language, social class, and health communication inequalities:

a nationally-representative cross-sectional study, PLoS One,

6(1), 145-150.

United Nations. (2017). World Population Prospects: The 2017

Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working Paper

No. ESA/P/WP/248. Online. Available: https://esa.un.org

/unpd/wpp/ publications/ (accessed 17 July 2018).

Willink, K. G., Gutierrez-Perez, R., Shukri, S. & Stein, L. (2014).

Navigating with the stars: Critical qualitative methodological

constellations for critical intercultural communication research,


7(4), 289-316.

Worldometers (2018). World Population. Online. Available

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#region

(accessed 7 August 2018).

i Note: putting in three search words (intercultural, communication, and

sociology) in one research data base yielded 311 citations. ii We should note that European studies of intercultural communication

followed a slightly different trajectory, more oriented toward language

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n


issues—the role of language in intercultural encounters and the role of

intercultural communication in language education (Corbett, 2009;

Jackson, 2017; Kramsch, 2001), influenced by research in applied

linguistics, linguistics, language education, disciplines like psychology

and applied fields like business and management (e. g. Hofstede, 1991). iiiThe premises of Blumer’s (1969) symbolic interaction is the center of

human interaction is the negotiation of meaning (symbols) in densely

connected primary groups; which determines individuals (and groups)

larger schemes used to assess particular situations and then as a basis of

action. It follows that races, nationalities and communities all develop

their schemes of interpretations and particular ways of defining

situations. iv For example, goals 1 and 2 of SDGs seek to end hunger and poverty in

all its forms everywhere by achieving food security and promoting

sustainable agriculture. Likewise, goals 4 and 5, focus on inclusive

education/lifelong learning opportunity and gender equality to bring

about empowerment for all. Goal 16 focuses on promoting peace towards

building an inclusive society for sustainable development, and providing

justice to all.

pre-pr

int

not fo

r pub

licatio

n

sociological approaches to intercultural communication: … · 2019. 5. 25. · communication...

Documents