Rethinking Race, Ethnicity, and the Assessment of Intercultural Competence in Higher Education

Abstract

This qualitative study aims to explore the limitations of using a cultural assessment tool in higher education with the goal of preparing students to thrive in a highly demanding, diverse, and global community. Colleges and universities are potentially important sites of cross-cultural and cross-racial engagement and socialization, and cultural competence is arguably one of the critical skills that many higher education institutions are embracing to prepare students for our diverse, but increasingly polarized, global society. In particular, this study discusses the use of the intercultural development inventory (IDI), a cultural assessment tool that has not been validated in the U.S. for racial, ethnic, or social class differences, and which leaves out the role of structural inequalities in intercultural relationships. Findings reveal that interview data from black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) did not align with their IDI results and that the tool dismisses the complex experiences of BIPOC students. These findings jeopardize the tool’s purpose and validity. Finally, this study reveals the importance of educating students about structural competence to improve empathy and understanding of a diverse student body.

A Response to Punti and Dingel’s Critique of the Validity of the Intercultural Development Inventory for BIPOC Students. Comment on Punti, G.; Dingel, M. Rethinking Race, Ethnicity, and the Assessment of Intercultural Competence in Higher Education. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 110

“…Punti and Dingel claim, "the IDI has not been validated specifically for BIPOC in a way that considers statistical principles or triangulation of results with interviews. This weakness alone throws into question the IDI results, and what we can conclude from those results, for BIPOC" [1]. I present evidence that the validation of the IDI was undertaken consistent with psychometric standards of instrument development and that both individ-ual interviews and focus group interviews were used throughout the validation process in ways that were inclusive of BIPOC perspectives and experience.…”

“…Punti and Dingel further state that, "in sum, that the IDI has not been validated for BIPOC in the U.S. means that the experiences of BIPOC with racial inequality are not factored into the assessment, which potentially results in a white-or Eurocentric bias that downplays the role of racism in the daily lives of these individuals" [1]. I will clearly demonstrate the numerous psychometric protocols employed in validating the IDI that directly counter white or Eurocentric bias.…”

“…The authors also assert that, "a careful reading of the literature reveals that the IDI has been validated considering age, gender, education, and social desirability, but not race, social class, or ethnicity" [1]. I will review empirical findings showing that the validation of the IDI demonstrates its generalizability across social class/socioeconomic status differences, as well as racial/ethnic differences, vis-à-vis an individual's self-reported status as an ethnic minority.…”

“…The authors incorrectly claim that, "the IDI has not been validated specifically for BIPOC in a way that considers statistical principles or triangulation of results with interviews" [1]. This statement is problematic for a number of reasons.…”

The construction of the racialized Other in the educational sphere: The stories of students with immigrant backgrounds in Montréal

“…This structure can shape the teaching and intervention practices of school resource officers with decision-making power. These relational practices explain the inferiorization of the cultural differences of students from dominated groups compared with the dominant culture (Punti & Dingel, 2021;Magnan et al, 2021;Johnson and Hinton, 2018;). From a critical race theory perspective, the hidden curriculum comes into play through social relations that inferiorize the cultural characteristics and physical traits of students from historically enslaved or colonized groups (Morales & Bardo, 2020;Smith, 2020;Jay, 2003).…”