U.S. INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION face many chal-

lenges at the beginning of the twenty-first century including

the tasks of remaining intellectually and culturally viable in a

rapidly changing world, preparing students to vie competitively in

the global marketplace, and staying abreast of the electronic deluge of

information and globalized knowledge. The internationalization of

higher education has become one possible response to such challenges.

Yet the specification of anticipated outcomes of internationalization

are often general and vague, with goals stated broadly that the institu-

tion will “become internationalized” or that a goal is to graduate

“cross-culturally competent students” or “global citizens” without giv-

ing further meaning to these phrases.

Few U.S. universities address the devel-opment of interculturally competent stu-dents as an anticipated outcome ofinternationalization in which the conceptof “intercultural competence” is specificallydefined. This lack of specificity in furtherdefining intercultural competence is duepresumably to the difficulty of identifyingthe specific components of this concept.Even fewer institutions have designatedmethods for documenting or measuring in-tercultural competence. So, while the pur-pose of having an internationalized campus

is obvious enough that funds are being di-rected accordingly, it is unclear how theseinstitutions know, or even if they can know,that they are graduating interculturallycompetent students and what it means tobe interculturally competent.

A new doctoral research study has beenundertaken to address these key questionsthrough the collection and analysis of dataon the identification and assessment of in-tercultural competence as a student out-come of internationalization in highereducation. This research study seeks to

I n t e r n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n :

BY D A R L A K . D E A R D O R F F

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4 13

In Search of Intercultural

Competence

Fotosearch

14 I N T E R N A T I O N A L E D U C A T O R

provide administrators witha more definitive meaning ofintercultural competence, aswell as with suggestions re-garding the effective assess-ment of students’ inter-cultural competence. (See“New Research” below formore information.) At a min-imum, this study will helpgenerate discussion aroundthe complex phenomenon ofintercultural competence, aswell as discussions on how toassess meaningful outcomesof internationalization.

A Barometer Institutions of higher educa-tion rely heavily on numbersto demonstrate success in in-ternationalization—num-bers such as how many oftheir students study abroad,how many international stu-dents study on their campus,how many foreign faculty teach courses,how many courses are included in the in-ternationalized curriculum, and so on.While such numbers are certainly an im-portant element to evaluation, what dothey indicate about the meaningful out-comes of internationalization, such as de-veloping intercultural ly competentgraduates who can compete successfully inthe global workforce? In answer to thisquestion, a report by the American Councilon Education (ACE) stated, “Such mea-sures are silent on student learning and at-titudes. While this ‘supply-side’ approachto internationalization provides a startingpoint, institutions that are serious about itseffect on students should take a closer lookat learning goals, course content, pedagogy,campus life, enrollment pattern, and insti-tutional policies and practices to get a morecomplete picture of their success” (Engbergand Green 2002). There is a need to movebeyond numbers (outputs) to meaningfuloutcomes of internationalization. Given in-creasing pressure on institutions to evalu-a t e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e i rinternationalization efforts, questions oftenarise as to what specifically to evaluate inregard to internationalization and moreimportantly, how to evaluate. And quite

often, intercultural competence is beinglooked at as an indicator of international-ization.

There is little agreement, however, as tospecifically what constitutes interculturalcompetence. For example, if interculturalcompetence comprises knowledge, skills,attitudes, and awareness to enable a personto interact effectively with those fromother cultures, what actually comprises in-tercultural knowledge? Intercultural skills?Intercultural attitudes? Interculturalawareness? While there has been some ef-fort to research and write about this in thefield, there has been no real agreement onthe specifics. Furthermore, how can inter-cultural competence be assessed? How canthis demonstrate effective implementationof internationalization strategies? AsTerenzini and Upcraft (1996) observed,“…while assessing the purported out-comes of our efforts with students is prob-ably the most important assessment we do,it is seldom done, rarely done well, andwhen it is done, the results are seldom usedeffectively.” Yet, there is a correct way todo it, if a definition is clear and accepted:“…Competence can be measured. But itsmeasurement depends first on its defini-tion…” (Klemp 1979).

Defining the TermWhat exactly is interculturalcompetence? This questionhas been debated by expertsfor decades and a myriad ofterminology has been usedincluding global compe-tence, global citizenship,cross-cultural competence,international competence,intercultural effectiveness,intercultural sensitivity, toname a few. (Global compe-tence, as explained on p.6–12by William Hunter, indicatesthat intercultural competenceis a significant part of globalcompetence.) Yet, how do in-stitutions of higher educa-tion define interculturalcompetence?

Previous Research Definitions have cited someof the same general compo-nents of intercultural com-

petence such as empathy, flexibility,cross-cultural awareness, and managingstress, while some definitions of intercul-tural competence specifically note otherelements such as technical skills, foreignlanguage proficiency, and situational fac-tors. Other scholars have written that in-tercultural competence does not compriseindividual traits but is rather the charac-teristic of the association between individ-uals and that no prescriptive set ofcharacteristics guarantees competence inall intercultural situations (Lustig andKoester 2003). Chen and Starosta (1996),in their definition of intercultural compe-tence, stress that cross-culturally compe-tent persons are those who can interacteffectively and appropriately with peoplewho have multilevel cultural identities.When presented with various definitionsof intercultural competence, administra-tors who participated in this study selectedthe following summarized definition asthe one that is most applicable to their in-stitution’s internationalization strategies:Knowledge of others; knowledge of self;skills to interpret and relate; skills to dis-cover and/or to interact; valuing others’values, beliefs, and behaviors; and rela-tivizing one’s self. Linguistic competence

Given increasingpressure on institutions toevaluate the effectiveness oftheir internation-alization efforts,

questions often ariseas to what specifically toevaluate in regard to internationalization and more importantly, how to evaluate.

S P R I N G 2 0 0 4 15

also plays a key role. (Byram 1997). Nearlyall definitions of intercultural competenceinclude more than knowledge of othercultures, since knowledge alone is notenough to constitute intercultural compe-tence. Intercultural competence also in-volves the development of one’s skills andattitudes in successfully interacting withpersons of diverse backgrounds.

The following are some additional ques-tions and issues that scholars have wrestledduring the search for a definition. Shouldintercultural competence be defined moregenerally or more specifically? Should in-tercultural competence be measured holis-tically or in separate components? Whatrole does language play in interculturalcompetence? Should intercultural compe-tence be measured in degrees and if so,what are the implications for those deemedinterculturally incompetent? Is intercul-tural competence context-specific or is itpossible to identify comprehensive ele-ments that are applicable to many differentcontexts? How does intercultural compe-tence fit with global competence?

New ResearchFor purposes of the new doctoral studycurrently underway, the study focuses onassessment and how administrators can be-come better evaluators of this one specificstudent outcome of internationalization.This study relies on a combination of re-search methodologies in analyzing the con-cept of intercultural competence as astudent outcome of internationalization ef-forts. Specifically, there were two phases ofdata collection included in the research de-sign: The first phase involved taking a“snap shot” of how institutions of highereducation that are committed to interna-tionalization view the identification and as-sessment of intercultural competence. Thesecond phase of the research design in-volved content experts in addressing thequestion of what constitutes interculturalcompetence and how this can be assessed.

In the first phase of the study, a question-naire was sent to key administrators at 24institutions of higher education that havebeen identified by NAFSA and ACE as in-stitutions that are strongly committed tointernationalization. This research phaseserved as a needs assessment to determineadministrators’ thoughts on intercultural

competence and ways to measure suchcompetence. The second phase of this re-search used a research technique known asa Delphi study, in which 23 top experts inthe intercultural field engaged in an inter-active process over a three-month periodwith the goal of achieving consensus onwhat constitutes intercultural competenceand the best methods to measure this com-petence. The last step in the data collectioninvolved ascertaining whether administra-tors and intercultural experts agreed on theaspects of intercultural competence thatemerged from the national Delphi study.As with any study, there were certain limi-tations including the initial underlying as-sumptions that intercultural competencecan be defined and assessed. This study is inprogress at the time of this writing and thefindings will be reported at a later date. Pre-liminary results indicate that while thereare certainly areas of agreement betweenadministrators and experts, there are alsosome areas where the two groups may notagree with each other. This will be furtherexplored once the study is completed. Oneresult of this study will be a model of inter-cultural competence that can hopefully beused by higher education administrators intheir internationalization efforts.

What’s at Stake?In 2000, ACE published a preliminary re-port on the state of international educationin the United States entitled “International-ization of U.S. Higher Education.” After ex-amining both published and unpublishedstudies on internationalization, ACE foundthat there were many gaps in the knowndata on internationalization. Furthermore,the ACE report concluded that there hasbeen little improvement in the internation-alization arena of higher education in theUnited States since ACE’s assessment in thissame area in 1986–87, thus resulting in seri-ous concern for the state of internationaleducation in the United States (Hayward2000). The ACE report stated that “in spiteof an apparent growing national interest ininternational education, relatively few un-dergraduates gain international or intercul-tural competence in college.” Moreover, thereport cautioned that “if we fail to becomeeffective global citizens” with the ability to“move seamlessly between different nations,cultures, and languages,” the United States

may find itself falling behind the othermajor players in the world (Hayward 2000).Likewise, the 2000 Policy Statement of theInternational Association of Universities,presented at a UNESCO World Conferencein Higher Education, recommended that“all internationalization programs…pro-mote intercultural competence and a cul-ture of peace among global citizens.”

In sum, this study explores further whatit means to be interculturally competent,the best ways to measure this, and the is-sues involved in such assessment—withinthe context of internationalization efforts.It is hoped that this study will serve as aspringboard for further research not onlyon intercultural competence but also in as-sessing the specific impact of international-ization strategies on the development ofstudents’ intercultural competence inpreparing them for the global workforce.

— Darla K. Deardorff is coordinator of theDuke-UNC Rotary Center for InternationalStudies in Peace and Conflict Resolution, oneof only seven such centers world-wide, and ischair-elect of COMSEC. She is completing herdoctorate in higher education administrationthis spring through North Carolina StateUniversity, and is one of the session presentersof “Guiding the G-Generation: NAFSA’s Rolein Global Workforce Development” at theNAFSA Annual Conference in Baltimore onMay 28.

References

Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing InterculturalCommunicative Competence. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters Ltd.

Chen, G. M. and W. J. Starosta. 1996. “InterculturalCommunication Competence: A Synthesis.”Communication Yearbook 19.

Engberg, D. and M. Green. 2002. PromisingPractices: Spotlighting Excellence in ComprehensiveInternationalization. Washington, D.C.: AmericanCouncil on Education.

Hayward, F. M. 2000. Preliminary Status Report2000: Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education.Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Klemp, G. O., Jr. 1979. “Identifying, Measuring andIntegrating Competence.” In P. S. Pottinger and J.Goldsmith. (Eds.) Defining and MeasuringCompetence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lustig, M. W. and J. Koester. 2003. InterculturalCompetence: Interpersonal Communication AcrossCultures, fourth edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Terenzini, P. T. and M. L. Upcraft. 1996. “AssessingPrograms and Service Outcomes.” In M. L. Upcraftand J. H. Schuh (Eds). Assessment in Student Affairs:A Guide for Practitioners. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.