The challenges of globalization in French Engineering and Management Schools: A multiperspectivist model for intercultural learning

Which “culture”? A critical analysis of intercultural communication in engineering education

“…For example, the studies reviewed that focus on intercultural competence do not seem to consider the preparation of engineers for work with architects, designers, local authorities, bureaucrats, laborers, or other key stakeholders within a domestic context that represent various professional norms and practices despite possessing the same nationality and first language, nor were there any articles that explicitly discussed intranational diversity. There are five studies, however, that take an implicit or partial “culture‐as‐construct” stance by discussing the culture of engineering education itself (Godfrey & Parker, ; Jamison, Kolmos, & Holgaard, ) and exploring the intercultural (Gourvès‐Hayward & Morace, ) or interdisciplinary (Byrge & Hansen, ) learning process, or the ability to “reconstruct life and culture” (Neumeyer, Chen, & McKenna, , p. 1). The remaining 11 articles were not put in either category, although there was a tendency for them to implicitly or partially follow a culture‐as‐given approach.…”

“…A paper by Gourvès‐Hayward and Morace () is the example in our corpus that appears to come closest to a “culture‐as‐construct” approach. With just 14 citations in Google Scholar, the paper is also indicative of the limited influence that this approach has had compared to more essentialist voices.…”

“…Regardless of the number of perspectives that are distinguished, a culture‐as‐construct approach is characterized foremost by its recognition of the liquidity of culture. In this regard, Gourvès‐Hayward and Morace () borrow from theories of liminality (Bhabha, ; Kramsch, ), which consider how cultural identities are not only preestablished but also negotiated in the interaction itself in the awareness that intercultural dialogue does not so much “involve a search for bridges but for an understanding of the boundaries” (p. 304).…”

“…During and after the process, students are asked to reflect on their own behavior as an intercultural team, and together with the teacher, they analyze the complexity of their intercultural experiences from the different perspectives listed. Nevertheless, this paper still bears traces of a culture‐as‐given approach as, for instance, when the authors explain the initial refusal by a teacher with a UK background to comply with one of her student's requests as “partly due to [her] culturally biased wish to conform to a more rule‐based model (UK) in order to avoid chaos and promote fairness” (Gourvès‐Hayward & Morace, , p. 309).…”

Establishing a Baseline Measurement of Intercultural Competence of Ukrainian Faculty: Setting the Stage for Domestic and Global Intercultural Understanding

“…These findings point to the complexity of the concept of intercultural competence discussed in Deardorff (2006Deardorff ( , 2011 The faculty members' academic discipline was a positive predictor of their intercultural competence scores on Cognitive-Knowledge (Scale 2 of the first modified version of the GPI) and Multiple Perspectives (Scale 1b of the second modified version of the GPI), when the differences on intercultural experiences and length of tenure were controlled for; whereas, the relationship between academic discipline and other GPI scales in both versions of the instrument was nonsignificant under the same conditions. With a large number of studies emphasizing a need of intercultural competence for all academic disciplines (e.g., Luka, 2012;Yu, 2012;Gourvès-Hayward & Morace, 2010;Bücker & Poutsma, 2010), this study provided evidence to confirm a positive moderate effect of four groupings of academic discipline on two out of six scales of the second modified version of the GPI and one scale of the first modified version of the instrument. A discussion of the differences between four groupings of academic discipline in predicting intercultural competence follows further.…”