strategies for effective intercultural comm

Upload: chelli-adasa

Post on 10-Jul-2015

77 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Beyond Competence: Processes and Strategies for Effective Intercultural CommunicationJohn W. Miller Maxwell AFB, AL, USA [email protected] us not only outward in space, but inwards as well. Lawrence Durrell (1957, p. 15) Throughout history, culture has always mattered greatly to military commanders. Yet cultural knowledge has implications that resonate beyond the battlefield. The skilled application of this knowledge through competent intercultural communication can win hearts and minds, influence policy decisions, and save lives. The US Air Force through the Squadron Officer College of Air University has developed a unique on-line, masters-level Expeditionary Leadership course to educate its Company Grade Officers (CGO) in the cultural knowledge and communication skills necessary for successful deployment. This challenging course, using a Blackboard platform, provides CGOs serving overseas with a blend of intercultural knowledge, cultural awareness, communication skills, and the opportunity to develop an open attitude. Students apply what they learn in experiential tasks after each set of readings and are assessed through a module incorporating state-of-the-art CGI-generated simulations. The presenter will provide an overview of the course, demonstrate apply and assessment modules, and answer questions. INTRODUCTION The late Raymond Williams (1976), a cultural historian and critical theorist, described culture as one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language" (p. 76), yet he defined it simply as "a structure of feeling" (2001, p. 33). Our socially constructed world is built upon complex and fragile lattice-works of habit and the heart. As human beings, we communicate interculturally by talking across, around, and through these invisible structures. According to Kim (1984), intercultural communication occurs when participants, different in cultural backgrounds, come into direct or indirect contact with one another (p. 16). The ability to successfully participate in such encounters is not only valuable from a practical standpoint, but can also lead to greater understanding of ones own culture as well as the cultures of others. Intercultural communication, however, does not come naturally to most people. In fact, when viewed through the lens of history, intercultural contact has often been accompanied by bloodshed, oppression, and genocide (Bennett, p. 21, 1993). Yet, those individuals who take the time to examine their own cultural identity, deepen their awareness of cultural differences, and develop their communication skills, are better able to competently engage in intercultural dialogue. By actively participating in such an educational program, US Airmen will be amply prepared when crossing cultural divides within organizations and establishing cooperative frameworks between communities and groups from different cultures (MacFarland, 2005, p. 63). More specifically, Airmen who deploy overseas in leadership positions should be able to: Use mindful processes and strategies for effective intercultural communication in a variety of cultural and communication contexts Describe and analyze a problem that emerged during an intercultural encounter or meeting and devise a course of action to solve it Communicate effectively with host country nationals in the workplace

A RATIONALE FOR INTERCULTURAL LEARNING How important are cultural knowledge, intercultural communication skills, and cultural awareness when viewed from a military perspective? According to General David Petraeus (2006), culture is the decisive terrain, andwe must study that terrain in the same way that we have always studied the geographical terrain, (p. 51) and his is not the only voice drawing attention to this vital area. Wunderle (2006), for example, cited awareness of cultural factors as a key component for understanding all aspects of the Iraqi terrain. He goes on to describe how a lack of cultural skills has adversely affected military operations there (p. 3) and laments that [p]rograms for training cultural awareness are not found in any US military training manual or doctrinal publication (p. 5). Clearly then, an understanding of the cultural terrain is especially critical for American Airmen deployed overseas. Expeditionary personnel, particularly those in leadership positions, must be equipped with the knowledge, skills, attitude, and awareness that allow them to read and analyze a cultural context, listen reflectively, discern options, and make appropriate choices while at the same time proactively moving the dialogue toward a desired outcome. In addition, it is imperative that they have the ability to determine when missteps have been made and learn from their mistakesskills that can transform them into competent intercultural communicators and negotiators with the capacity to build relationships and positively influence the outcomes of intercultural encounters. The field of intercultural communication is said to have begun with the publication of Edward T. Halls (1959/1981) The Silent Language (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1998). Since then, the number of journal articles and scholarly tomes devoted to the study of intercultural communication can be numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Much of the theorizing about this phenomenon, however, has focused on the general study of cultural behavior patterns that exist across all cultures (e.g., Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Hall, 1976; 1983; Hofstede, 1991, Triandis, 1995). The results of this type of research provide learners with an essential platform for the study of intercultural communication. But what is missing from much of the literature is a model for the practical application of appropriate knowledge within the context of intercultural dialogue. This article introduces a mindful approach to intercultural learning that is comprised of four key components. Those consitutentscultural knowledge, cultural skills, cultural attitude, and cultural awareness or KSAAprovide a conceptual framework for intercultural learning that deployed Airmen can employ in intercultural encounters. Part II focuses on the application of the KSAA approach through a sampling of three intercultural learning tasks. The first task utilizes metaphors to explore the many dimensions of culture. The second and third are experiential in nature, but can be conducted independently either in the US or abroad. A willingness to put into practice the principles of this intercultural learning approach will provide the serious student with a framework for the effective application of cultural knowledge and skills in intercultural encounters. When coupled with an open attitude, awareness of cultural differences, and a modicum of foreign language ability, American servicemen and women serving in responsible positions overseas will, through experience over time, have the capacity to move beyond competence to an even higher level of communicative ability in a variety of intercultural contexts. CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ATTITUDE, AND AWARENESS (KSAA) The process for developing competence in intercultural communication requires the acquisition of four interconnecting constituents which represents a decision-making process based onknowledge, skills, attitude, and awareness (KSAA) (Freeman, 1989, p. 31). Within the context of intercultural communication, cultural knowledge refers to an understanding of the patterns and dimensions of ones own culture as well as the target culture. The knowledge constituent also includes a working knowledge of appropriateness, doing or saying the right thing at the right time in the right way (Moran, p. 70) as well as a firm grasp of the strategies or meta-cognitive processes for effective intercultural communication. Knowledge for intercultural competence should include an understanding of the crosscultural categories or structures used to describe and compare cultures (e.g., individualist/collectivist cultures or high context/low context cultures). Competent intercultural communicators must be able to

understand the meaning of these categories and apply them to the target culture as well as their own. At the same time, they must also have a firm grasp of the processes for putting this information into appropriate practice in a variety of situations and contexts. Cultural skills, the second constituent, represent the practice of cultural knowledge in real situations and contexts. Skills are the appropriate use of cognitive, affective, and communicative processes an Airman must be able to perform in order to successfully navigate an intercultural encounter. The types of skills one uses are dependent on an individuals knowledge of cultural contexts, the purpose of the anticipated dialogue, and the preferred outcome. Knowledge and skills, taken together, form the knowledge base of intercultural competence (p. 31). Traditional education programs across many fields and disciplines typically concentrate only on a knowledge/skill foundation, implying that these areas alone will necessarily enable or equip people for competent practice (Freeman, 1989, p. 29). This narrow view is often applied in the development of cultural awareness training within the armed services and has led to a misunderstanding of what it takes to develop intercultural competence. This misunderstanding is based on the generally held belief that knowledge of a cultures structure and meaning will lead to effective intercultural communication. Would this were so. Effective communication across cultures cannot be effected without the ability to understand and control ones emotions. This requires the interplay of two other constituents, attitude and awareness. While knowledge and skills form a knowledge base, attitude and awareness form an affect base for intercultural competence. The third constituent in this quartet is cultural attitude. A cultural attitude is the stance an individual takes toward ones own culture, other cultures, and the process of communicating interculturally (Freeman, p. 32). Stereotypes, biases, communication habits, and cultural assumptions exert a tremendous influence on cultural attitudes. As the first component of the affect base, a persons cultural attitude has a direct impact on behavior and can account for the differential successes, strengths, and weaknesses of an individuals ability to communicate across cultures (Freeman, p. 32). The fourth constituent, cultural awareness, requires an examination of other definitions of the term. The term itself appears ubiquitously throughout the scholarly literature of the US armed forces and is employed primarily to describe the cultural knowledge base needed by US service members for successful deployment overseas (e.g., MacFarland, 2005; Stewart, 2006; Wunderle, 2006). Wunderle, for example, defines it as the ability to recognize and understand the effects of culture on peoples values and behaviors (p. 9). In Wunderles primer, cultural awareness encompasses cultural influences, variations, and manifestations (p. 11). The KSAA approach takes a much narrower view of cultural awareness, defining it as the capacity to recognize cultural difference and withhold judgment while continuing to engage in effective intercultural communication. In the next section, the four KSAA constituentscultural knowledge, skills, attitude, and awarenessare discussed in more depth. CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE As anyone who delves into the field of intercultural communication quickly learns, there is a plethora of knowledge to acquire. Research in the field has produced a number of useful crosscultural dimensions, conceptual models, and technical vocabulary that help to explain the complexities of cultural differences. Unfortunately, all of this very useful information often goes out the window when even the most serious of students is confronted with an ambiguous intercultural situation. Competent intercultural communication clearly requires more than an understanding of culture on an abstract level. Competent communicators must also be able to apply those concepts experientially. In addition, a skilled intercultural communicator should be capable of analyzing those intercultural encounters after the fact in order to understand why mistakes were madeor successes achievedand determine what steps must be taken to either repair the damage or replicate the desired outcome the next time around. The KSAA approach to intercultural learning introduces a new way of gathering and applying cultural knowledge. This alternative methodology known as mindful learning was developed by Ellen Langer

(1997). Mindful learning provides an ideal platform for operating competently in an intercultural environment. In re-conceptualizing learning and problem-solving, Langer was critical of the conventional scientific practice that attempts to identify stable phenomena that can be generalized across time (p. 130). She described how uncertainty tests our intelligence more than stability and proposed that the learner examine the instability of experience as it differs from moment to moment (p. 130). Such inquiry requires mental flexibility, openness to new phenomena, and new ways of looking at the world. Langer called such flexibility mindfulness (p.4). According to her, mindfulness has three characteristics: (a) The continuous creation of new categories; (b) Openness to new information; (c) Implicit awareness of more than one perspective (p. 4). In order to maintain a mindful state, one must also have orientation in the present (p. 23). In addition, those who adopt a mindful learning approach will acquire an attitude that changes the way they perceive their own and other cultures. In a mindful state, a person is alive to what is happening in the here and now and constantly open to new realizations about others and oneself. Mindful learning is an experiential process and is best understood within the context of a cultural event or case study. The story that follows is my recollection of a personal intercultural encounter that illustrates how creation of new categories, openness to new information, and awareness of more than one perspective helped me to navigate and later analyze the experience. INTERCULTURAL ENCOUNTER #1 After getting a masters degree in language teaching in the mid-1980s, I was hired to teach English as a Foreign Language at a Korean university. My first boss was an American, but at the beginning of my third year of teaching I was supervised by an older Korean gentleman. Shortly after taking over the department, this new Korean director took me to dinner. After finishing the meal, we discussed the goals of the language program. Our conversation was a combination of Korean and English, with English predominating since his English was quite fluent. Suddenly, and rather abruptly to my way of thinking, my new boss asked me in Korean, How old are you? Thirty-eight, I answered. He thought for a moment and then asked, How many children do you have? None, sir, I replied. He seemed surprised. Why not? he asked. I hesitated and, before I could answer, he pressed on, How old is your wife? I responded with some reluctance, Twenty-eight You had better have a baby soon, he warned. My initial response was a visceral one. I was offended. My closest friends and family members might offer such advice, but only with the greatest care. Yet here was a man I barely knew probing into a very personal area of my life during a business dinner. I was irritated and came very close to telling him to mind his own business. Instead, I stayed calm and asked him jokingly if children were a job requirement. No, no! he replied, I am interested in your welfare. By this time it had become clear to me that his reasons were not due to rudeness, but were directly influenced by the cultural and organizational context. Korea is a collectivist, high-context culture. Although direct questioning is generally considered rude behavior in high-context cultures, asking questions about family is not. For Korean supervisors, understanding the family situation of subordinates is important, while the offering of advice in this area is considered essential to the maintenance of harmony in the workplace. My new boss was simply doing his job. Luckily, I had managed to suspend judgment and question him in an appropriate manner, and thus just barely managed to avoid a confrontation. This particular story could easily serve as an example of cultural skill application or emergent cultural awareness, an indication of how unified the constituents of KSAA actually are. As an example of cultural

knowledge, it highlights how knowing does not become true learning until it is appliedwhether skillfully or notwithin the context of an awareness-raising event. Although I already knew a great deal about the importance of crosscultural differences in values and was equally knowledgeable about Korean culture, the narrative reveals that my skill in applying that knowledge had very nearly failed me. When analyzing the experience according to Langers (1997) criteria, it becomes apparent how real learning is tied to meaningful action in the real world. See Table 1 below for details. Table 1. Mindful Learning/Knowledge Outcomes Mindful Learning Criteria Knowledge Outcomes High-Context Korean Values in Workplace Personal information about employees is important for supervisors. Bosses take an active interest in employees personal lives. Suspend judgment There may be a hidden reason for rude questions Assess attitude toward Koreans: Negative stereotyping? Ask question to determine Korean perspective

Continuous creation of new categories

Openness to new information Awareness of multiple perspectives

CULTURAL SKILLS According to Freire (1982), dialogue emanates from a dialectic of action and reflection, making conversation a sort of balancing act. Too much reflection and talk turns into idle chatter, into verbalism, an alienated and alienating blah (p. 76). Too much action and it becomes activismaction for actions sake and without the willingness to listen, dialogue becomes impossible (p. 76). While cultural awareness is the key to cultural learning, cultural skills are the meeting point of human communication. In the act of improvising communication patterns, dialogic partners jointly attend to the many factors that influence the course of their conversation. These factors include their knowledge of the cultural terrain, their skill in applying mindful processes, and their previous experiences with others in similar roles or contexts.

The Interculturing Model (Miller, 2006, p. 283) that appears below is an attempt to schematically represent the complex process of competent intercultural dialogue. The term interculturing is a neologism created by joining the words intercultural and communicating.

Experiencing

Applying

Guessing

Checking/Confirming

Figure 1. The Interculturing Model The Interculturing Model (Miller, 2006, p. 283) is an adaptation of other models used to facilitate experiential learning (Dewey, 1910; Kolb, 1984; Rodgers, 2000), and represents a conceptual process that is based on Langers (1997) principles of mindful learning. The model provides a visual reference point for Airmen to keep in their minds eye as they engage in intercultural communication. The first quadrant of the model is Experiencing. Conversation partners in an intercultural dialogue must be present. This means they must be alive to both the words and the contextto all that is being said and not said, so that they are able to respond with the best possible nextmove (Rodgers, 2002, p. 235). The more the partners are present, the more they are able to understand, and the greater the potential for an intelligent response (p. 235). Presence is a totality of mental and physical activity that, according to Rodgers, encompasses the whole process of reflection (p. 235). This entails awareness of the context, awareness of your own attitude and affect as well as your partners, differentiating between awarenesses, paying attention to particular aspects, giving them meaning, and responding intelligently in the moment and from moment to moment (p. 235). The second quadrant of the model, Guessing, is a high-context communication skill that requires reflection in-the-moment about the possible meaning of an unexpected reaction or statement and what might be its root cause. The necessity of making non-judgmental guesses without giving way to emotion is common to most high context cultures. Both Korean and Japanese have specific words for this skill (nunchi in Korean and sasshi-no bunka in Japanese). In the US we call people with this communication skill sensitive or good listeners. High context cultures draw much of their information from the situational milieu not from the language. English-speaking culture, on the other hand, tends to be low context, so that much of our meaning is contained in our words. For linguistic as well as cultural reasons, a good deal of the meaning will be missing from the words you hear in an intercultural situation. Therefore, US Americans must adapt a high context approach for more effective communication. The third quadrant, Checking/Confirming, asks you and your conversation partner to test the correctness of your guesses while still suspending judgment and keeping your emotions in check. Suspension of

judgment is critical, but it does not imply suspension of analysis. Suspending judgment simply means that one should not evaluate what is being said as good or bad on the basis of ones own cultural valuations. In the context of an intercultural encounter, it is important to remember that one may mistakenly perceive a remark to be an insult, and what may seem to be a compliment, is in actuality an insult. To understand the meaning conveyed, it is necessary to ensure that you have guessed accurately. This requires checking and confirming through observation, asking questions, and listening carefully until your guesses have been confirmed or proven wrong. This may mean re-stating your conversation partners words, repeating what you have said, or circumlocuting until you understand or are understood. If your guesses are wrong, then you must ask more questions. Both of you must continue to ask questions until you either understand or choose to move on. The final quadrant, Applying, asks that you apply what you learned from your guesses and checks in a manner that will keep the conversation going. In some cases, if checking and confirming has failed to result in understanding, one or both of you might choose to change the topic. If some understanding is reached, however, the partners must decide what to do next. The goal of the model is keep the conversation going. Over time, skilled intercultural communicators are able to improvise mindful strategies on the spot and in the moment that the experience is occurring. The four quadrants of the Interculturing Model flow together as an active process that engages all of your senses from utterance to utterance and moment to moment. INTERCULTURAL VALUES: PATIENCE, RESPECT, INTEREST, AND OPENNESS (PRIO) Human communication is a complex dialectical process that is circumscribed by those habits of the heart and head mentioned at the beginning of this article. It is, therefore, important to remember that no mindful process of intercultural communication can ever be successful unless it is framed by four intercultural values: Patience, Respect, Interest, and Openness (PRIO) (Figure 1). Patience means taking the time to incorporate the intercultural communication strategies that will help both dialogic partners understand what the other is saying. Those strategies and techniques may include questioning, re-phrasing, circumlocuting, simplifying language, writing notes, making drawings, backtracking, and starting over. Patience is also linked to respect. The amount of time we take to spend with a person is indicative of our respect. Respect signifies respect for the other persons culture. There may be times when one has little or no respect for the person on the other side of the table. But this should not diminish or cloud ones respect for the target culture. Although each of us is a representative product of our home culture, we are not the culture itself. It is possible to have a great deal of respect for a culture, but little respect for the person we are dealing with. It is also important to keep in mind that a culture is a totality that cannot be described in either/or terms (e.g., good OR bad; organized OR disorganized; religious Or secular). In fact, cultures are so complex that they are best viewed from a both/and (e.g., good AND bad; organized AND disorganized; religious AND secular) perspective. By respecting the culture as a whole, we are better able to interact with others in a way that is appropriate without being condescending. Lack of respect for the culture is quickly discerned and will more than likely torpedo current and future dialogue. Interest is also linked to patience, respect, and openness. A lack of interest is often exhibited through impatience, disrespectful behavior, and a close-minded attitude. Showing interest in the target culture means entering into an intercultural encounter well prepared with general knowledge of the culture. When appropriate, it also means having specific knowledge about your dialogic partner. The ability to use at least some of the target language and customs is indicative of interest and respect and can help to keep the conversation going and may draw the dialogic partner to your point of view. Openness, as an integral component of mindful learning, is essential to a successful intercultural dialogue. Without openness to new categories, the possibility for miscommunication is greatly increased. Openness allows you to become aware of the incoming sensory perceptions and attend to those elements that are new or strange. A person with an open attitude expects uncertainty and ambiguity. Such an expectation

helps to reduce the anxiety and stress typically associated with intercultural communication. The key, perhaps, to an open attitude is the ability to suspend judgment and keep talking. This does not mean going native nor does it signify a betrayal of your own cultural values or nation. Rather it is the ability, as T. E. Lawrence (1935) wrote, to be neither a discord nor a critic but an unnoticed influence (p. 30). Depending on the topic of a given encounter, disagreements or conflict can and do occur. Having an open attitude will allow you to listen actively, focus on real points of contention, and not be sidetracked by cultural differences. An attitude that opens the door to intercultural dialogue must incorporate the PRIO intercultural values. Failure to embrace all four values into the interculturing process will lead quickly to a breakdown in communication. Each intercultural encounter must be entered into with the understanding that these same values may not be equally applied or understood by ones dialogic partner. Nevertheless, the goal of competent intercultural communicators is to extend the dialogue until the desired outcome is achieved.

Experience The (Next) Encounter or Incident

Plan Action DiscussChoose the best solution Plan for implementation

Description Record observations in detailwithhold judgment

Analysis Consider cultural patterns: Yours & theirs Relate the situation to other experiences youve had List possible explanations List possible solutions Withhold judgment

Figure 2. The Interculturing Model for Problem-Solving INTERCULTURAL PROBLEM-SOLVING: ANOTHER USE OF THE MODEL The Interculturing Model can also be used to analyze a situation or problem after the fact. This adaptation of the model will help you describe what happened, analyze the problem, and devise an action plan for the next encounter. The Interculturing Model can be used either as a way to debrief after a meeting with members of a team or as a problem-solving process. Either way, the model applies mindful learning practices to the analysis of an intercultural problem or issue. As in the case with the other

version of the Interculturing Model, one should refrain from evaluative statements or judgments throughout the process and focus on what was seen or felt. In this application, however, each step of the process has a purpose that differs somewhat from the other version. The model can be used by an individual or a group to reflect on an intercultural encounter. The following description utilizes a group format for purposes of illustration only. In the problem-solving model, the steps are Experience, Description, Analysis, and Plan Action. Experience represents the encounter or event under analysis. It also represents the next anticipated encounter when the plan is implemented. In the Description phase, participants share their recollections of the experience and together write a factual explanation that is both detailed and accurate. Contextual factors and a recollection of what was said (and not said) are the key components. All those in attendance who are available should contribute to the description. The discussion should be conducted without allowing cultural biases or judgments to color the written description. In the Analysis phase, the aim is to tease out the reasons for what happened. Participants read through the description and take into consideration their own as well as the target cultures values, assumptions, and communication styles. Issues of context should also be discussed. This might mean focusing on gestures, facial expressions, seating arrangements, temporal issues (punctuality, tardiness, and length of the encounter), and other contextual factors. Next, the participants, still operating non-judgmentally, begin listing possible explanations for the problem. More discussion may follow. It is possible at this point to add or delete information from the description. Once the participants are satisfied that all possible information has been brought to the fore, they are ready to begin suggesting possible solutions. The group should record all ideas and discard none. Once everyone is satisfied all possibilities have been exhausted, they are ready to move to Plan Action. In the Plan Action phase, the participants are ready to select a solution and implement it. At this stage, the participants critically examine each proposed solution to the problem. A good deal of discussion should go into making the selection. Once a solution has been chosen, an implementation plan must be developed. This might include setting up appointments, arranging for a location, and assigning roles and responsibilities. Throughout the decision-making process it is important not to lose sight of what actually happened and why. In the final step, we return to Experience. Here the action plan is implemented in the next intercultural dialogue, meeting, or encounter. The following questions for reflection can assist individuals or teams to engage in the problem-solving process (Table 2): Table 2. Problem-Solving: Questions for ReflectionDescription Phase: (Withhold Judgment) Describe the context What happened? What did I say and do? What did others say and do? What did I see? How did I feel? How do I think others felt? Describe the group dynamics What other factors or information could help me describe what happened? Other questions? Analysis Phase (Withhold Judgment) Why did this happen? What do I know about my culture and the target culture that might help interpret this moment? Can I think of any other explanations? What other factors might have been involved? What part did language play? What did I learn from this experience? Other questions? Planning Action Phase (Withhold Judgment) What should I do differently next time? What additional information or skills do I need to be able to address this issue? Who else can help me address this issue? What questions would I like to explore? Other questions?

MORE CULTURAL SKILLS: SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES The Interculturing Model can lead Airmen to competent intercultural communication. Conceptual models are helpful, but they are only a bare framework. Specific communication strategies can provide a schema for how the model might be implemented. The term scaffolding is often used in the field of language teaching as a metaphor for support materials to enhance communication in a foreign language (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 274). In order to enter into competent dialogues, discussions, and negotiations when communicating interculturally, one should also be armed with a set of scaffolding strategies to use when meaning is lost or miscommunication occurs. It is a fact of life that service members deployed to a foreign country will rarely have more than a rudimentary level of proficiency in the target language if that. The expectation then is that Airmen overseas will either be speaking in English to someone without native fluency or speaking through a local interpreter to their dialogic partner. In both cases, the host country national speaking English may well have a limited grasp of the language. Airmen need to be ready for such an eventuality. The following four strategies are conceptual scaffolding tools that were used successfully by American and Japanese roommates at a Midwestern university (Miller, 2006). Although the participants in the study were not US military personnel, the scaffolding strategies they used to get their ideas across are readily transferable to an Airmens intercultural toolkit. The scaffolding strategies are clustered in the following groups: (a) Circumlocuting & Simplifying Speech, (b) Guessing & Asking, (c) Reading Nonverbal Cues & Writing Notes. This set of strategies is not exhaustive; there are many others. It is meant to provide a short list of the most salient. (a) Circumlocuting and Simplifying Speech When engaged in intercultural dialogue, it is important to remember that meaning will often need to be negotiated. Circumlocution is an invaluable skill that can help facilitate this negotiation process by talking around lexical roadblocks. Impediments to mutual understanding can arise unexpectedly in the form of culturally-bound concepts, difficult vocabulary, or even simple terms that for whatever reason do not trip lightly off the tongue. In the following example, an American student describes how he used circumlocution to help him understand Yasushi, his Japanese roommate. Both native and non-native speakers can employ it to great advantage in either language when engaged in intercultural conversation. The student, Andrew, described it this way: I substitute words that I felt Yasushi would probably understand for the ones I would [normally] use (Miller, 2006, p. 224). The ability to simplify ones speech is closely related to circumlocution. Robert, another student in the study, used a technique similar to Andrews. He modified his speech to scaffold the communication and keep the conversation going. Robert paid attention to his roommate Hitoshis interlanguage (dropping articles and adjectives) and emulated it in his conversations with him. Robert also slowed his speech: I modified the way that I converse with Hitoshi, having to slow it down, use words that werent as difficult, so forth. Basically what happened was I made up my mind that it was much more important that the ideas be expressed rather than the words. So if I left out an article in a sentence or an adjectiveif the grammar wasnt correctno problem, just as long as we were able to communicate. (Miller, 2006, p. 226) Caution should be used with this strategy. If the dialogic partner is proficient enough to recognize a simplified speech pattern, it may convey a lack of respect to him or her, or to anyone listening in. (b) Guessing and Asking The Interculturing Model asks dialogic partners to routinely make guesses and ask questions. Americans confronted with an ambiguous situation will normally ask questions as a communication strategy. On the other hand, making guesses under the same circumstances might be a less familiar tactic. A conversation partner from a high-context culture will experience those feelings in reverse. In the following description,

Azumi, a student from Japan, a high-context culture, explained to her roommate how she forced herself to ask questions: Azumi: I did not understand what you were saying at all because you spoke too fast. I asked you to repeat. You explained the sentences in more detail, but it was too fast for me to understand. I could understand when you spoke slowly. I tried to ask you until you understood. I tried my best in asking and you tried your best to explain. (Miller, 2006, p. 228) Azumis story illustrates use of the Interculturing Model in a real situation in which both conversation partners worked together to negotiate meaning. Azumi went on to describe how guessing is an important part of Japanese culture, while asking questions is not: Asians are required to know others feelings even if the others remain silent. We are supposed to guess if the other person is thirsty and offer tea. So, I think that the Japanese are bad at asking for help. We cannot ask for help from a person whom weve just met. But if we remain silent, the Americans tend to think that we are all right. (Miller, 2006, p. 178) This explanation is an illuminating one. From Azumis experience we can see that both high context skills (guessing) and low context skills (asking questions) are essential for effective intercultural communication. (c) Reading Nonverbal Cues and Writing Notes Reading nonverbal cues are strategies used by Amy, another American college student, while her Japanese roommate, Tomoe, talked about how she wrote down what she wanted to say when communication was stymied: Amy: Its usually me talking and you nodding your head, but then youll stop me and tell me to say it over again and stuff. The first thing I do is I say it normally. Then you kind of look at me funny, so I try to simplify it for you. If you still look at me funny, then I try to go slower and enunciate more. In this description, Amy explained how she watched Tomoes face for nonverbal cues and slowed her speech when she looked confused. This mindful, high-context strategy indicates that Amy was tuned in to Tomoes participation when they talked. Tomoe: Sometimes when I wanted to tell you something and I couldnt tell you in spoken language, I wrote it down or I asked you to write it down. You talked to me, but when I didnt understand you, you wrote it on paper. (Miller, 2006, pp 235-236) Here Tomoe described how she and Amy often had to resort to writing down the words to get at the meaning. If there is no common language to work from, drawing pictures or diagrams is a non-linguistic way to check and confirm what is said. DYSFUNCTIONAL STRATEGIES The following excerpts from separate interviews between an American college student and his Japanese roommate illustrate what can happen when guesses are made without follow-up questions to confirm ones assumptions. Keith, an American, and Takashi, his roommate, talked in separate interviews about the same conversation shortly after they began living together. Each took away distinctly different understandings of what had occurred: Takashi: [As part of a homework assignment] I had to ask Keith about restaurants and other thingsbut he looked bothered and kept using his computer. (Miller, 2006, 1st interview, Appendix A ) Keith: I would say a turning point for the better in our relationship was Takashi just asking me where was a good place to eat, a good coffee shop. (Miller, 2006, 2nd Interview, Appendix A) It is interesting to note that Keith and Hitoshi, the two roommates described above, had no arguments or disagreements for the eleven weeks they lived together. On the other hand, they rarely said anything to

each other beyond hello, goodbye, and other ritualized pleasantries. As a result, they did not get to know each other at all. Had they applied mindful strategies to their conversations, a plethora of awarenesses would have opened to them. Such an open state, while richly rewarding and educational, also has a tendency to result in ambiguous consequences that are often less than comfortable. Yet making an effort to talk in spite of the additional time and anxiety it takes is generally worth the effort. Mindful communication through the improvisation of scaffolding strategies keeps the conversation going until desired outcomes have been achieved. The resulting increase in dialogue, while leading to intercultural understanding and mindful learning, also leads somewhat paradoxically to conflict and misunderstanding. Continued engagement in a reciprocal process of reflection and action, however, can ameliorate difficulties, broaden knowledge, and increase the likelihood of desired outcomes. Ultimately, mindful dialogue will produce new cultural awarenesses in the moment while the application of reflective techniques to solve problems after the fact can facilitate creation of action plans that lead to workable solutions. CULTURAL ATTITUDE According to Gudykunst and Kim (2003), our attitudes predispose us to behave in a positive or negative manner toward various objects or people (p. 136). Cultural attitudes develop unconsciously and are hidden from us until something occurs to bring them to the foreground. The following practical questions can help an individual determine his or her attitude toward the process of intercultural communicating: What is my view of US culture in relation to the rest of the worlds cultures and to the target culture in particular? How do I feel about people from cultures different from my own? How do I feel about the people in the target culture? Do I entertain any stereotypes or hold any prejudices toward the target culture? What are they? Am I nervous or impatient when conversing with a non-native speaker of English? Why? Many other questions, of course, must be asked in order to honestly understand ones attitude. Such questions should be posed not only during a formal education program, but before, during, and after an intercultural encounter. Cultural attitudes do not evolve naturally. Once we come to grips with our cultural stereotypes, biases, and assumptions, however, we have laid the groundwork for intercultural learning to take place. Any process that incorporates both learning and participatory action has the power to change attitudes and thus change the way we behave toward others. Change, however, does not always result in an attitude adjustment. Change can be an affirmation of current practice if ones attitude is producing effective results (Freeman, 1989, p. 38). Attitudinal change is not an immediate result of an awareness raising event nor is it always complete or fully realized, but when it does happen, a change in attitude directly affects the way we view the world. From my own experience as a teacher and trainer in Liberia, Korea, Japan, Ukraine, and the US, I can recall many intercultural encounters that resulted in attitudinal change. The following story stands out in particular. It happened more than twenty-six years ago during my service as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Liberia: Intercultural Encounter #3 Once, as a Peace Corp Volunteer living in an up-country Liberian town, I attempted to buy a cup of peanuts from an old woman at the marketplace. As I handed her the coins, she knocked them from my hand and shouted at me in the local language. I had no idea what she had said and was embarrassed to boot, as everyone in the busy market seemed to be staring at me. My interpretation of the incident was that the woman did not like Americans or more specifically, white Americans. I avoided the place until I asked one of my friends for help. When I told him the story, he laughed. He knew the old woman well. That ol mas a Mandingo! You knowShes Muslim. So? She doesnt like Christians? I asked.

No, no. You probably gave her the money with your left hand. You insulted her. And so I had. I kept my wallet in my right pocket and my loose change in the left. After that, it dawned on me that I often gave change with my left hand. That afternoon I found the old woman in the market and bought some peanuts, careful to use my right hand to give her the coins. As I handed her the money, I apologized for my earlier faux pas. She smiled and thanked me. The shift in cultural attitude depicted here is subtle, but telling. In the US, interaction between white and black Americans can sometimes have a negative dynamic. One side or the other may interpretor misinterpreta statement or action as prejudicial or even racist. By confronting my own cultural bias that an inter-racial conflict is by definition based on discrimination, I was able to change my attitude and widen my cultural awareness. Whether they are stationed at a forward base in Iraq or an airbase in the UK, deployed Airmen, have the opportunity to change their cultural attitudes when engaged in intercultural communication as part of their jobs. Shifts in cultural attitude are indicators of mindful engagement with the dynamics of intercultural dialogue and pave the way for new awareness to emerge. CULTURAL AWARENESS Cultural awareness is the key component among the four constituents of KSAA according to Freeman, because it integrates and unifies the previous threeknowledge, skills, and attitude (p. 34). In general, awareness within human beings arises when an individual recognizes the need to learn something on ones own (Freeman, p. 35). The word awareness should not be confused with perception. Perceptions are those connections to the world that come to us through our sensory organs. It is possible to perceive much, but be aware of little (Gattegno, 1985, p. 16). When in a state of awareness, human beings are alive to their perceptions and endowed withthe capacity for selfeducation (Stevick, 1980, p. 43). Awareness that emerges in real contexts or experiential simulations tend to be more powerful than those that develop in the classroom through traditional learning methods. However, this capacity for learning cannot be fully realized unless the individual chooses to attend to a particular awareness. Attention is the focused application of awareness. We may be aware of many things at once whereas paying attention requires engagement in some [particular] aspect of what is happening (p. 33). Openness to new awareness and the willingness to attend to one or more of them is the key to mindful learning. Cultural awareness within the KSAA framework is particularly helpful in describing intercultural communication competence. Creating new awareness depends upon mindful reflection as intercultural dialogue is unfolding in the moment. A competent intercultural communicator will be more open to new categories, information, and perspectives by preparing for an encounter before it happens and by taking the time to analyze it afterward. The following story is also taken from my service as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Liberia. Intercultural Encounter #3 As a new Peace Corps Volunteer assigned to teach high school English, I was confronted with more than 100 students in each of my classes. On the very first day of class, I decided to seat the students in alphabetical order so that I could quickly learn their names and faces. Working from the first row on the left side of the classroom, I began with the As. Calling out the students names one by one, I asked them to move into their new seats. Within minutes, a quiet classroom had turned into a near riot as a fistfight broke out when a student at the front refused to relinquish his seat. The situation was all the more upsetting because I had been led to believe that Liberian students were respectful of their teachers and that fights were virtually unheard of. I finally gave up my plan to have a seating chart and allowed the students to remain in their original seats. It was not until later, after talking to my Liberian colleagues and the principal, that I understood the reason for the uproar. Because the classrooms at the high school were overcrowded, many students had started off for school long before sunrise so they could claim a seat at the front of the room. For many of them, this meant walking eight miles or more in total darkness.

Getting a good seat in the front of the classroom was a necessity for those who had difficulty seeing or hearing, not uncommon afflictions for Liberian children. I could have been told in trainingand perhaps even was told: In dealing with large classes, do not seat the students in alphabetical order; it will displace students who need to be in front or those who have traveled far to get a good seat. However, according to Freeman (1989), this would have been putting the cart before the horse; knowledge would have preceded awareness (p. 35). This type of awareness is weak because people are often told things[but] these things do not take root in their awareness (p. 35). The stronger link to practice comes when one recognizes the need to learn something on ones own, (p. 35) as I did. The incident I described happened nearly twenty-six years ago, yet I have never forgotten it. Freeman described such awareness as a gestalt that operates over long spans of timeand seems to have the effect of isolating and collapsing relevant events so that learning is clear and potent as if the incident had just taken place (p. 35). One might question the value of what I learned. Does it apply beyond the isolated context of overcrowded rural schoolhouses in the Liberia of the early 1980s? I believe it does. Of course, I learned that matters of culture and health exert a powerful influence on what happens in the classroom. However, this incident also made me aware of larger issues that I had not considered before. I eventually came to the realization that it is rarely good practice to make judgments about an incident when I am outside my home culture if the evaluation is based solely on my own assumptions. In time, I understood that I needed to make guesses, ask questions, modify my opinions, and adjust my assumptions as I gained a wider and more accurate view of what had happened. This incident not only added to my cultural knowledge and my teaching skills, but also had a profound impact on my attitude when engaged in intercultural encounters. I was not fully aware of all the implications of the problem until much later when I used it as a focal point during a group discussion in graduate school. More importantly, I often still return to this incident often as a reference point, to wake me from mindless or complacent assumptions when I see others do or say something unexpected. Engagement in a process of active reflection whether in the midst of an intercultural encounter or when later analyzing the event, has the capacity to generate change through increasing or shifting awareness (Freeman, 1989, p. 40). Awareness is critical to learning. Yet in my own example, openness to new awareness when communicating interculturally is not an easy process. It may be helpful to understand what it is like to lose awarenesswhat Gladwell (2005) calls mind-blindness (p. 214). Losing the ability to be mindful and open to new awareness is what happens to those suffering from the condition of autism. People with autism, according to Gladwell, find it difficult, if not impossible to[interpret] nonverbal cues, such as gestures and facial expressions or putting themselves inside someone elses head or drawing understanding from anything other than the literal meaning of words (p. 214). This is exactly what happens when human beings cross into new cultural terrain. This temporary form of autism causes us to miss the cues and clues that in our own culturein an instanttell us what is happening. In order to overcome this cultural mind-blindness, it is essential that we build the cultural skills that widen our emotional radar and other sensory receptors and pick up those clues and awarenesses we would otherwise miss. APPLICATIONS The structure of feeling we know as culture, according to Samovar and Porter (2001), is learned behavior that is communicated both formally and informally between and among generations in order to promote individual and social survival. A complex concept such as culture can never be fully grasped or understood. Engagement in experiential activities and exercises, however, can help to raise cultural awareness and ready the Airman for the experience before the deployment. Nothing, of course, can replace the rich experience of a pre-departure training event. However, here are three activities that can

be done individually and can increase cultural knowledge, skills, and awareness and lead to changes in cultural attitude. Activity #1: A Journey to the Coral Isles The iceberg is a metaphor that portrays culture as a huge natural entity whose deeper layers, such as traditions, beliefs, values, and assumptions, are submerged (MacFarland, 2005). As Ting-Toomey (1999) described it, we only see and hear the uppermost layers of cultural artifacts (e.g., fashion trends, pop music) and of verbal and nonverbal symbols (p. 10). Like the iceberg, nearly all of culture remains below the waterline and out of sight, hidden from both the sojourner and the native. To the sojourner, the foreign cultures opacity emanates from its seeming illogic, unfriendliness or amorality when measured against native cultural values and beliefs. These same cultural values and beliefs that are so impenetrable to the foreigner become universal truths for the native and are rendered invisible because of their familiarityhidden in plain view. In order to truly understand our own and other cultures, however, we must comprehend the underlying cultural beliefs, traditions, norms, and symbolic meanings. The iceberg is a convenient metaphor, however, it is less than elegant. There is little about an iceberg that is hidden except the vast bulk that lies beneath the water. It is simply a frozen chunk of seawater. A coral island presents a more satisfying metaphor for studying culture. It extends far below the waterline to the very bottom of the sea. Let us take the comparison even further. A coral island is built on the calcified skeletons of both living and dead coral, just as a culture rests upon the behaviors, values, beliefs, and traditions of those who are living as well as those who have come before. Above the water, the coral isle is warm and fecund with its lush vegetation and exotic terrain harboring an infinite variety of flora and fauna, just as a culture enfolds a vast variety of visible rituals, works of art, and linguistic diversity within its borders. Aspects of Culture in Everyday Life Art/Architecture Language Food

Dress

Religious rituals

Non-verbal communication Cultural norms Traditions Cultural assumptions Cultural beliefs

Cultural values

Figure 3. The Coral Island Notice the various aspects of culture as you look over the coral island in Figure 3. Notice the various aspects of culture. Those above the waterline are easily observable while those below are not readily seen and are often overlooked when crossing cultures. Remember that the things we observe almost always have a deeper meaning. It is also important to take into account that the elements above and below the line are almost always interrelated. In addition, one must consider that even observable elements may have radically different meanings in different cultures.

Aspects of Culture in Everyday Life Clothing Belief in a Supreme Being Music Written Language Concept of Time Views on Rudeness Spoken Language View of Nature Beliefs about Physical Beauty Non-Verbal Communication Art and Architecture Food/Cooking Religious Practices Eye Contact Attitude toward Sexuality Beliefs about Masculinity Beliefs about Femininity Views on Politeness Views on Science & Technology Concept of living space Read through the above lists of cultural aspects and place them on the island above or below the waterline. Visible elements go above. Aspects that are unseen should go below. Consider also the connections between the two groups.

Figure 4. Coral Island Exercise Now, look at the island again in Figure 4 and this time place the aspects of culture in the box above the drawing and arrange them on the island according to whether they are surface or deep aspects of culture. Feel free to compare your answers with the generic aspects listed in Figure 3. The deep and surface elements of culture, as well as the links between them, are a critical piece of crosscultural knowledge. Answer the following questions in Table 2 about the thinking processes you used to sort through the lists: Table 2. Coral Island QuestionsQuestions for Reflection Did you place any of the items both above and below the waterline? Why? Did you have any difficulty deciding where to place some of the items? Why? Can you think of any other cultural aspects that could be placed in either area? Consider the meanings of certain nonverbal behavior such as laughter or the raising of the eyebrows. How do the meanings of these nonverbal cues differ across cultures? How might such awareness help you when you deploy?

Activity #2 Ethnic Store Ethnography This task involves a field trip to a local non-Western grocery store and therefore requires some preparation. The primary aim of the activity is to place yourself within a culturally ambiguous space, observe it from an anthropologists perspective, and extract cultural learning from the experience. Spend at least 30 minutes at the store. It is a good idea to let the owner know when you arrive that you are there to conduct an observation for a graduate course on culture. Take a pen and a notebook or notepad for writing down your observations (Batchelder, 1993, pp. 143-147). Ethnographic observation is a way of looking at the familiar in a way that is new and different., so even if you have been to the store many times, it will not affect the outcome of this task. Procedure: To warm up for the observation before you leave for the store, brainstorm a list of ways you think various aspects of culture will emerge. When you arrive, move about the store and take notes. Frame your observations around seven general areas (Food, Storage, Smells, People, Customs I, Customs II, Other). These observations should be nonjudgmental. Evaluative terms such as good, bad, pretty, nice, easy, difficult, cheap, and expensive should be avoided. Ask yourself the questions listed below in Table 3. Consider how this experience might help you after you are deployed. Table 3. Ethnic Store Ethnography Questions Questions for Observation and Reflection Food What kinds of fresh foods do you see? What kinds of canned and packaged foods do you see? What do they reveal about the culture? Storage How are the fresh foods displayed? What does this reveal about the culture? Smells What kinds of smells do you notice? How does it differ from an American-style supermarket? People Describe the typical shopper? How does he/she differ from typical shoppers in an American-style supermarket? Customs I What norms of politeness and ritual behavior (greetings, transactions, other) in communication do you notice? How do these differ from what you have experienced in an American-style supermarket? Customs II What cultural values related to money and business do you notice? How do these differ from what you have experienced in US American businesses? Other What other areas of the culture are revealed in the store, such as: Religion Education Family Life Time How do these differ from US American culture?

Activity #3 Toe to Toe In order to experience how cultural differences can affect communication, find someone you know well and engage them in conversation. This exercise works best if you have a specific topic to discuss. As you talk, stand four to five inches closer than is comfortable for you and observe your partners reaction. Also, take note of the way you are feeling at this distance. If your partner moves away continue to maintain the same distance. Keep trying to talk in this manner for several minutes. It is unlikely to last

longer. Afterwards tell your partner what you were doing and ask how they felt. What did your partner surmise you were up to? Write down reactions. As soon as possible, take time to write down how you felt and what you were able to communicate during the exercise. Take about ten minutes to write in detail about the impact of proxemics (physical distance during communication) on communication. Speculate on how a similar situation when interacting with someone from another culture might affect your ability to communicate effectively. CONCLUSION In preparing Airmen for overseas deployment, training curricula must go beyond the all-too-typical PowerPoint briefing that presents a laundry list of cultural dos and donts. In fact, such lists overload the normal persons cognitive capacity to retain and retrieve, resulting in the individual becoming overly fearful or so uncomfortable at the prospect of entering the culture that they choose to avoid it altogether. Instruction in cultural differences is an effective way to bring to the Airmans attention that cultures and languages do not directly translate from one to the other. However, without the skill and confidence to operate within an intercultural context, such knowledge is often rendered useless as the knowledge of crosscultural complexities becomes impossible to retrieve in the stressful intensity of an intercultural encounter. At the beginning of this article, I noted that cultures are socially-constructed entities that are varied and complex. Competent navigation between them is not an easy process, but it is possible to achieve. Through the processes and strategies outlined in this article, the mindful practitioner is exposed to new awarenesses and those new awarenesses open the door to increased cultural knowledge, better communication skills, and a change in attitude. When combined with the ability to speak a foreign language, these mindful processes can lead to a level of communicative ability that reaches beyond mere intercultural competence. Airmen who possess such knowledge, awareness, skills, and attitude will be better prepared to achieve desired outcomes and effectively influence decision-making in intercultural encounters on the cultural frontiers of our increasingly complex global community.REFERENCES Batchelder, D. (1993). Martian anthropologist exercise. In T. Gochenour (Ed.), Beyond experience (2nd ed.), (pp. 143-148). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, Inc. Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-72). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, Inc. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: Heath and Co., Publishers. Durrell, L. (1957). Bitter lemons. New York: E.P. Dutton. Freire, P. (1982). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Corporation. Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (1), 27-45. Gattegno, C. (1985). The common sense of teaching reading and writing. New York: Ecuational Solutions Inc. Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little, Brown, and Co. Gudykunst, W. & Kim, Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Hall, E. T. (1959/1981). The silent language. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Kim, Y. Y. (1984). Searching for creative integration. In W.B. Gudykunst & Y.Y Kim (Eds.), Methods for intercultural communication research (pp. 13-30). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Kluckhohn, F. & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in value orientations. New York: Harper & Row. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kudo, K. & Simkin, K.A. (2003). Intercultural friendship formation: The case of Japanese students at an Australian university. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24 (2), 91-114. Langer, E. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1998). Notes in the history of intercultural communication: The Foreign Service Institute and the mandate for intercultural training. In J.N. Martin, T.K. Nakayama & L.A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. 15-28). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. MacFarland, M. (2005, March-April). Military cultural education. Military Review, 62-69. Miller, J.W. (2006). In the country of bridges: A dialectical study of Japanese and US American intercultural communication praxes in the university dorm room. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, Athens. Petraeus, P. (2006). Learning Counterinsurgency: Observations From Soldiering in Iraq. Special Edition Counterinsurgency Reader (p. 51). Washington, DC: Military Review. Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72 (2), 230-253. Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. (2001). Communication between cultures. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching languages: A way and ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Stewart, A.W. (2006). Friction in U.S. foreign policy: Cultural difficulties with the world. retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.StrategicStudies Institute.army.mil/ Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press. Williams, R. (1976). Keywords. New York: Oxford University Press. Williams, R. (2001). Film and the dramatic tradition. In J. Higgins (Ed.), The Raymond Williams reader (pp. 2541). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd. Wunderle, W. (2006). Through the lens of cultural awareness. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute.