Intercultural Sensitivity in Student Affairs – Academic Affairs Partnerships: A Workbook Adapting M. J. Bennett’s Intercultural Sensitivity Model (1993)

By Karen D. Boyd, Kirk S. Robinson, and Tony W. Cawthon Presented at “Tackling Big Challenges for Big Results with Student Affairs & Academic Affairs Partnerships”

A NASPA 2017 Pre-Conference San Antonio, Texas

Ind

icators o

f Intercu

ltural Se

nsitivity in

Cam

pu

s Co

llabo

ration

s

(Ad

apte

d fro

m B

enn

ett’s Inte

rcultu

ral Scale) Y

ou

P

artner

1.

Wh

at differen

ce? __

____ __

____

2.

There are deficiencies th

at you

(or w

e in reversal) n

eed to

overco

me to

be w

orth

y of p

artnersh

ip.

______

______

3.

The key to

getting alo

ng w

ith an

yon

e on

camp

us is to

just b

e you

rself—au

then

tic and

ho

nest.

______

______

4.

The m

ore d

ifferences th

e bette

r the co

llabo

ration

! __

____ __

____

5.

We are at an

imp

asse on

this p

roject. I n

eed to

thin

k like a(n

) “XX

XX

” to get u

s mo

ving again

. __

____ __

____

6.

I feel like o

ne o

f the “X

XX

XX

” wh

en I w

ork w

ith th

em, if I’ve taken

the tim

e to u

nd

erstand

wh

at is un

iqu

e to th

is “XX

XX

” cu

lture.

______

______

7.

Wh

at is to b

e gained

from

partn

ership

? There is n

oth

ing u

niq

ue ab

ou

t the o

ther.

______

______

8.

Wh

at is to b

e gained

from

partn

ership

? They d

on

’t belo

ng at th

e table, th

ere is no

thin

g valuab

le they b

ring to

the tab

le. __

____ __

____

9.

The p

atterns, activities, an

d re

ward

systems are d

ifferent, b

ut w

hen

you

really get to kn

ow

them

, they’re p

retty mu

ch like u

s. __

____ __

____

10

. The d

ifferences b

etwee

n u

s are the secre

t to o

ur su

ccess—n

o o

ther system

of h

igher ed

ucatio

n h

as this d

iverse structu

re. __

____ __

____

11

. We b

oth

need

to am

end

ou

r way o

f bein

g to ach

ieve this go

al. __

____ __

____

12

. I am a b

ou

nd

ary-crosser an

d am

mo

st com

fortab

le wh

en I’m

do

ing w

ork to

brin

g togeth

er the “X

XX

X” an

d m

y sub

cultu

re. I en

joy w

orkin

g in eith

er, so it is even

better w

hen

wo

rking w

ith b

oth

. __

____ __

____

13

. All w

e n

eed

is clear goals fo

r this co

llabo

ration

to b

e succe

ssful.

______

______

14

. We are th

e prim

ary/mo

st valuab

le con

tribu

tors to

this p

artnersh

ip.

______

______

15

. The stu

den

t learnin

g focu

s is breakin

g do

wn

differen

ces in th

e camp

us cu

lture.

______

______

16

. I wo

rk to u

nd

erstand

the u

niq

ue cu

lture o

f “XX

XX

X” in

that d

epartm

ent b

efore I ap

pro

ach th

em fo

r a collab

oratio

n.

______

______

17

. I act differen

tly wh

en I am

wo

rking w

ith “X

XX

X” th

an w

hen

I am w

orkin

g with

partn

ers from

my d

epartm

ent.

______

______

18

. I find

that I can

see/h

ear/un

derstan

d th

ings fro

m facu

lty, academ

ic adm

inistrato

r and

stud

ent affairs’ p

erspectives.

______

______

19

. My m

ain co

ncern

is kno

win

g wh

at kind

s of co

llabo

ration

s I sho

uld

pu

rsue.

______

______

Y

ou

P

artner

20

. We are fo

rtun

ate to b

e at the tab

le becau

se they are th

e prim

ary con

tribu

tors.

______

______

21

. No

matter w

hat th

eir cultu

re, we are p

retty mu

ch m

otivated

by th

e same th

ings?

______

______

22

. The m

ore “X

XX

X” I kn

ow

, the b

etter I un

derstan

d “X

XX

X” in

general.

______

______

23

. In an

y collab

oratio

n p

artners m

ake so

me ad

justm

ents in

resp

on

se to th

e oth

er. __

____ __

____

24

. Un

derstan

din

g the m

any fram

es of th

ou

ght acro

ss the u

nive

rsity makes m

e a valuab

le mem

ber o

f the team

. __

____ __

____

25

. I do

n’t kn

ow

anyo

ne/w

ho

to ask to

partn

er. __

____ __

____

26

. There are to

o m

any d

ifferences to

overco

me to

make

this co

llabo

ration

successfu

l. __

____ __

____

27

. If we

are really ho

nest, th

ey’ll recogn

ize that so

me valu

es are un

iversal. __

____ __

____

28

. Wh

en w

orkin

g in SA

-AA

collab

oratio

ns, ever p

artner n

eed

s to b

e con

sciou

s of th

e differen

t value system

, prio

rities, and

sch

edu

les. __

____ __

____

29

. The m

ore I u

nd

erstand

“XX

XX

” cultu

re, the e

asier ou

r collab

oratio

ns b

ecom

e. __

____ __

____

30

. Seamless le

arnin

g is op

timal learn

ing, so

everyon

e need

s to d

evelop

these skills.

______

______

31

. I do

n’t w

ant to

inclu

de “X

XX

”. I can’t u

nd

erstand

wh

y they in

sist on

“pro

cess/decisio

n/actio

n”. It is so

offen

sive or su

ch a

waste o

f time.

______

______

32

. I do

n’t kn

ow

ho

w (o

r wh

y) to talk to

a faculty m

emb

er/adm

inistrato

r to co

llabo

rate.

______

______

33

. __

____ __

____

34

. There are tim

es that I feel like a(n

) “XX

XX

”. Wo

rking w

ith “X

XX

XX

” just co

mes n

atural to

me n

ow

. __

____ __

____

35

. There are tim

es that I feel like a(n

) “XX

XX

”. Wo

rking w

ith “X

XX

XX

” just co

mes n

atural to

me n

ow

. __

____ __

____

36

. I loo

k for p

laces wh

ere can I learn

mo

re abo

ut “X

XX

XX

” life and

cultu

re to p

artner m

ore effectively.

______

______

Intercultural Sensitivity in Campus Collaborations

Denial of Defense

Minim

ization Acceptance

Adaptation

Integration Difference Against Difference

of Difference of Difference

to Difference of Difference

Partners perception and understanding of sub-cultural (i.e., faculty and academ

ic affairs and student affairs) differences…

….are absent or just

emerging.

…negatively assess, not

compare.

...seek and reaffirm the

similarity.

… acknow

ledge benefits of difference

without judgm

ent.

… consider and apply

“others’” perspective. …

diminish original sub-

culture and adopt a new

professional identity that bridges perspectives.

Example Statem

ents or Thoughts - W

hat difference? - W

hat is to be gained from

partnership? There is nothing unique about the other. - M

y main concern is

knowing w

hat kinds of collaborations I should pursue. - I don’t know

anyone/who

to ask to partner. - I don’t w

ant to include “XXX”. I can’t understand w

hy they insist on that process. It is so offensive or such a w

aste of time.

- What is to be gained

from partnership?

- They don’t belong at the table, there is nothing they bring. - W

e are the most valuable

contributors to this partnership - W

e are fortunate to be at the table because they are the prim

ary contributors. - There are too m

any differences to overcom

e to m

ake this collaboration successful.

- The patterns, activities, and rew

ard system

s are different, but w

hen you really get to know

them, they’re

pretty much like us.

- The student learning focus is bridging cam

pus sub-cultures - If w

e are really honest, w

e’ll recognize that som

e values are universal.

- The differences betw

een us are the secret to our success—

no other system

of higher education has this diverse structure. - To partner effectively, I look to learn m

ore about “XXXXX’s” culture before approaching a collaboration. - The m

ore “XXXX” I know

, the better I understand “XXXX” in general.

- I need to think like a(n) “XXXX” to get this project m

oving again. - I act differently w

hen I am w

orking w

ith “XXXX” than w

ith partners from

my departm

ent. - There are tim

es that I feel like a(n) XXXX”.

- I am a boundary-crosser,

most com

fortable when

bringing together the “XXXX” and m

y sub-culture. - U

nderstanding and translating the m

any fram

es of thought across the university m

akes me

a valuable teamm

ate. - I enjoy w

orking in either student or academ

ic affairs, so it is even better w

orking with both.

- Working w

ith “XXXXX” just com

es natural now.

Developmental Tasks

Recognize the existence of cultural differences from

ones’ ow

n

Emphasize fundam

ental com

monalities, reduce

polarization

Pursue cultural self-aw

areness Refine cultural

distinctions Develop perspective-

taking skills Integrate and accept a m

ulticultural campus

identity Boyd and Robinson (2013) based on Bennett, M

. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally com

petent. In Wurzel, J. (Ed.), Tow

ard m

ulticulturalism: A reader in m

ulticultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). N

ewton, M

A: Intercultural Resource Corporation.

See also: http://ww

w.library.w

isc.edu/EDVRC/docs/public/pdfs/SEEDReadings/intCulSens.pdf

Campus Collaboration Intercultural Sensitivity Adapted from Bennett’s A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Scale

(http://www.idrinstitute.org/allegati/IDRI_t_Pubblicazioni/47/FILE_Documento_Bennett_DMIS_12pp_quotes_rev_2011.pdf)

Denial of Difference Individuals in this stage are isolated within their own sub-cultures (i.e., faculty/student affairs professionals/academic administrators) and therefore do not notice or interpret cultural difference. They are not able to comprehend the presence or implications of another culture. In their minds there is no difference and any suggestion otherwise could be met with vehement resistance. Denial/Isolation

Events and actions of others are only seen through their cultural perspective. There is an awareness of the differences in others on campus, but differences are recognized as individual, not cultural. Ex. There is one culture at this institution, the one I inhabit. We all have my schedule, values, pressures, and ways of being. Interpretations of others and situations that I take, positions I stake, decisions I make, and behaviors in which I partake reflect an awareness and understanding of that single world view.

Denial/Separation

A vague awareness of the difference in cultures begins to emerge, followed by intentional separation to avoid a change in the established frame of reference (i.e., world view). Ex. Of course there are differences between faculty, student affairs, and academic affairs, which may even be cultural, but I am not really certain what they are because I don’t interact with “xxxx” much. All in all, despite those differences, I am comfortable that my cultural context and perspective holds true for their “world” also.

Indicators of “Denial of Difference” In Collaboration:

Thoughts or statements about the difference in cultures are virtually non-existent or extremely vague.

x What difference? x What is to be gained from partnership? There is nothing unique about the other. x All we need is clear goals for this collaboration to be successful. x My main concern is knowing what kinds of collaborations I should pursue. x I don’t know anyone/who to ask to partner. x I don’t want to include “XXX”. I can’t understand why they insist on “process/decision/action”. It

is so offensive or such a waste of time. Developmental Task: Recognize existence of cultural differences in campus sub-cultures

Campus Collaboration Intercultural Sensitivity Adapted from Bennett’s A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Scale

(http://www.idrinstitute.org/allegati/IDRI_t_Pubblicazioni/47/FILE_Documento_Bennett_DMIS_12pp_quotes_rev_2011.pdf)

Denial of Difference Individuals in this stage are isolated within their own sub-cultures (i.e., faculty/student affairs professionals/academic administrators) and therefore do not notice or interpret cultural difference. They are not able to comprehend the presence or implications of another culture. In their minds there is no difference and any suggestion otherwise could be met with vehement resistance. Denial/Isolation

Events and actions of others are only seen through their cultural perspective. There is an awareness of the differences in others on campus, but differences are recognized as individual, not cultural. Ex. There is one culture at this institution, the one I inhabit. We all have my schedule, values, pressures, and ways of being. Interpretations of others and situations that I take, positions I stake, decisions I make, and behaviors in which I partake reflect an awareness and understanding of that single world view.

Denial/Separation

A vague awareness of the difference in cultures begins to emerge, followed by intentional separation to avoid a change in the established frame of reference (i.e., world view). Ex. Of course there are differences between faculty, student affairs, and academic affairs, which may even be cultural, but I am not really certain what they are because I don’t interact with “xxxx” much. All in all, despite those differences, I am comfortable that my cultural context and perspective holds true for their “world” also.

Indicators of “Denial of Difference” In Collaboration:

Thoughts or statements about the difference in cultures are virtually non-existent or extremely vague.

x What difference? x What is to be gained from partnership? There is nothing unique about the other. x All we need is clear goals for this collaboration to be successful. x My main concern is knowing what kinds of collaborations I should pursue. x I don’t know anyone/who to ask to partner. x I don’t want to include “XXX”. I can’t understand why they insist on “process/decision/action”. It

is so offensive or such a waste of time. Developmental Task: Recognize existence of cultural differences in campus sub-cultures

Defense Against Difference Individuals in this stage recognize and categorize cultural differences, but are dualistic (i.e., us/them thinking), often engaging in stereotyping accompanied by increasingly negative evaluation of differences, the greater those differences are. There is a difference but hierarchically understood and framed within the primacy of their original frame. Challenges to this paradigm are threatening. Defense/Denigration

Isolation continues although awareness and ability to make distinctions is increased. This separation is accompanied by a diminishment of the other, so as to retain the primacy of the original world view/culture. Ex. I could never be a ____, that is the dark side. They don’t make connections that matter with students. They only care about their research and not students. They don’t impact students 3 hours a week. OR They only babysit students so we don’t have to, throw parties, and provide a distraction from our true purpose.

Defense/Superiority

Full awareness of and ability to categorize other paradigms is present, but the primacy and value of their culture/personal world view is unquestionable. “The wagons are circled.” Ex., The connections we make with students matter more. We are THE sources of student learning, our institutional reputation, or student recruitment and retention. The other is contributing, but we are better (the primary) at what really matters. I am too busy with my important activities to take time for what they are asking to do.

Defense/Reversal

Recognition and understanding of the differences is fully developed, yet focuses on the positives of the alternative culture instead of clinging to the “rightness” or “goodness” of one’s own. Ex. The connections they make with students matter more. They are THE sources of student learning, our institutional reputation, or student recruitment and retention. We contribute, but they are doing, or are the primary contributor to, what really matters. The only think I bring to this partnership is the ability to support what they are doing.

Indicators of “Defense Against Difference” in Collaboration: The focus of thoughts or statements shift to difference, but evaluate, not compare, cultures resulting in a negative assessment of the one of the cultures.

x There are deficiencies that you (or we in reversal) need to overcome to be worthy of partnership x What is to be gained from partnership?

o They don’t belong at the table, there is nothing valuable they bring to the table o We are the primary/most valuable contributors to this partnership o We are fortunate to be at the table because they are the primary contributors

x There are too many differences to overcome to make this collaboration successful. x I don’t know how (or why) to talk to a faculty member/administrator to collaborate. x There are too many differences between us to overcome for successful collaboration.

Developmental Task: Mitigate polarization by emphasizing fundamental commonalities (e.g., higher education culture, common humanity)

Minimization of Difference Individuals in this stage recognize and accept difference without the accompanying negative connotation. The focus is on the similarities and shared values that bind the subcultures into one, not the differences within sub-cultures. Similarity continues to be ethnocentric or understood as “they are like us”, not we are similar. Maintenance of world view is achieved by absorbing difference into overarching and comfortably common frameworks of understanding which allow for peaceful co-existence and continuation of current power dynamics in sub-culture interactions.

Minimization/Physical Universalism Fully aware of difference across sub-cultures, but attention centers on the basic human needs shared by all in partnership. The emphasis is the human commonality. Ex. We are all people possessed of the same essence of humanity. They have the same core needs, fears, and motivations. We all have a set of capabilities and limitations that we bring to our experiences, but we all experience them from the same human place. We all need assistance overcoming our limitations or weaknesses. “We are only human. Everybody needs…….” Minimization/Transcendent Universalism Awareness of difference continues, but the similarity extends past shared humanity and physiological sameness. The understanding of similarity encompasses shared belief in and commitment to higher education, the pursuit of truth, knowledge and learning in specific. Ex. We are all educators, contributing an academic community. Our commonality is no longer Purely physiological, but includes the universally binding nature of higher education (i.e. values, mores, rhythms, traditions) in each of us.

Indicators of “Minimization of Difference” in Collaboration:

x The key to getting along with anyone on campus is to just be yourself—authentic and honest. x The patterns, activities, and reward systems are different, but when you really get to know

them, they’re pretty much like us. x The student learning focus is bringing cultural uniformity to the campus culture. x No matter what their culture, we are pretty much motivated by the same things? x If we are really honest, they’ll recognize that some values are universal.

Developmental Task: Develop cultural self-awareness

Acceptance of Difference Individuals in this stage acknowledge and are welcoming to cultural differences in both action and values. The initial inkling of difference becomes more clear and cogent without judgment, preference, or filtering through one’s own cultural reference. The development of this relativistic perspective exposes the legitimacy of and need for all to understand context.

Acceptance/Behavioral Relativism Behavior is understood to be a function of one’s context. The partner can recognize and articulate complex behavioral inconsistencies across the interacting cultures without engaging in negative stereotyping. Ex. I am curious about what “XXXXX” would do to address this problem. Working together might be challenging, but valuable. We approach problems and organize our work differently. It will be great to learn from each other. If we do it well, our typical independent “go to” behaviors will mesh into a stronger action plan. Acceptance/Values Relativism Values are context-driven and therefore relative. Perceived “bad” or “good” is a function of that one’s cultural reference points. Ex. The eclectic blend of collaborators on this project strengthens our product. But I am curious about why “XXXX” made that decision (or took that position). I used to think “XXXX’s” proclivity to do “YYYY” was bad, but now I understand it is a product of this aspect of the “XXXX” culture. “XXXXX” probably interpreted my natural response as wrong. We do things differently based on priorities that are equally valid. Understanding where we are both coming from on this topic helps us to achieve our potential.

Indicators of “Acceptance of Difference” in Collaboration:

x The more differences the better the collaboration! x The differences between us are the secret to our success—no other system of higher education

has this diverse structure. x I work to understand the unique culture of “XXXXX” in that department before I approach them

for a collaboration. x The more “XXXX” I know, the better I understand “XXXX” in general. x It can be challenging to work with a(n) “XXXX” given their different value system, priorities, and

schedules, while being true to my needs and values. x When working in SA-AA collaborations, ever partner needs to be conscious of their cultural

differences. x I am collaborating with two great “XXXX”. We have different work backgrounds and contexts,

but we are learning to work well together. x Where can I learn more about “XXXXX” life and culture to partner more effectively?

Developmental Task: Refine cultural distinctions.

Adaptation to Difference Individuals in this stage can take others’ perspectives (empathize) to improve two-way communication when boundary crossing institutional sub-cultures.

Adaptation/Empathy One can consciously embrace the world view of the partner and act acceptably within those cultural parameters. Ex. On this project I am working primarily with “XXXXs” right now, therefore I need to shift my perspective to a(n) “XXXX-like” frame of reference. That means “____”, “___”, and “____” are important, while “____”, and “____” are not as much as they are in my original frame of reference. Remembering these things makes me a more effective partner. Adaptation/Pluralism The partner adopts multiple world views that subconsciously emerge as needed during interaction. Ex. Working with “XXXXs” comes naturally to me now. I don’t even think about the differences. My behavior, and even my attitude, simply adjusts to their cultural perspective. Communication and therefore collaboration is smooth.

Indicators of “Adaptation to Difference” in Collaborations: x We are at an impasse on this project. I need to think like a(n) “XXXX” to get us moving again. x We both need to amend our way of being to achieve this goal. x I act differently when I am working with “XXXX” than when I am working with partners from

my department. x In any collaboration partners make some adjustments in response to the other. x The more I understand “XXXX” culture, the easier our collaborations become. x There are times that I feel like a(n) “XXXX”. x It just comes natural to me now.

Developmental Task: Develop perspective taking skills

Integration of Difference

Adopt and mesh multiple world views with an identity that flexes with (and is secondary to) the cultural context.

Integration/Contextual Evaluation

Understanding of an experience is filtered through multiple cultural lens (i.e., Perry’s contextual relativism). Integration/Constructive Marginality

Multiple sub-cultures contribute to ones’ professional identity allowing for the participant to facilitate cross cultural understanding for themselves and others. Professional affiliation shifts from the initial sub-culture reference group to that of boundary crosser.

Indicators of Integration of Difference

x I feel like one of the “XXXXX” on any project, if I’ve taken the time to understand what is unique to this “XXXX” culture.

x I am a boundary-crosser and am most comfortable when I’m doing work to bring together the “XXXX” and my subcultures. I enjoy working in either, so it is even better when working with both.

x I find that I can see/hear/understand things from everyone’s (i.e., each sub-cultures’) perspective. x Understanding the many frames of thought across the university makes me a valuable member of

the team. x Seamless learning is optimal learning, so everyone needs to develop these skills.

Developmental Task: Complete integration and acceptance of a multicultural identity.

Defense Against Difference Individuals in this stage recognize and categorize cultural differences, but are dualistic (i.e., us/them thinking), often engaging in stereotyping accompanied by increasingly negative evaluation of differences, the greater those differences are. There is a difference but hierarchically understood and framed within the primacy of their original frame. Challenges to this paradigm are threatening. Defense/Denigration

Isolation continues although awareness and ability to make distinctions is increased. This separation is accompanied by a diminishment of the other, so as to retain the primacy of the original world view/culture. Ex. I could never be a ____, that is the dark side. They don’t make connections that matter with students. They only care about their research and not students. They don’t impact students 3 hours a week. OR They only babysit students so we don’t have to, throw parties, and provide a distraction from our true purpose.

Defense/Superiority

Full awareness of and ability to categorize other paradigms is present, but the primacy and value of their culture/personal world view is unquestionable. “The wagons are circled.” Ex., The connections we make with students matter more. We are THE sources of student learning, our institutional reputation, or student recruitment and retention. The other is contributing, but we are better (the primary) at what really matters. I am too busy with my important activities to take time for what they are asking to do.

Defense/Reversal

Recognition and understanding of the differences is fully developed, yet focuses on the positives of the alternative culture instead of clinging to the “rightness” or “goodness” of one’s own. Ex. The connections they make with students matter more. They are THE sources of student learning, our institutional reputation, or student recruitment and retention. We contribute, but they are doing, or are the primary contributor to, what really matters. The only think I bring to this partnership is the ability to support what they are doing.

Indicators of “Defense Against Difference” in Collaboration: The focus of thoughts or statements shift to difference, but evaluate, not compare, cultures resulting in a negative assessment of the one of the cultures.

x There are deficiencies that you (or we in reversal) need to overcome to be worthy of partnership x What is to be gained from partnership?

o They don’t belong at the table, there is nothing valuable they bring to the table o We are the primary/most valuable contributors to this partnership o We are fortunate to be at the table because they are the primary contributors

x There are too many differences to overcome to make this collaboration successful. x I don’t know how (or why) to talk to a faculty member/administrator to collaborate. x There are too many differences between us to overcome for successful collaboration.

Developmental Task: Mitigate polarization by emphasizing fundamental commonalities (e.g., higher education culture, common humanity)

Minimization of Difference Individuals in this stage recognize and accept difference without the accompanying negative connotation. The focus is on the similarities and shared values that bind the subcultures into one, not the differences within sub-cultures. Similarity continues to be ethnocentric or understood as “they are like us”, not we are similar. Maintenance of world view is achieved by absorbing difference into overarching and comfortably common frameworks of understanding which allow for peaceful co-existence and continuation of current power dynamics in sub-culture interactions.

Minimization/Physical Universalism Fully aware of difference across sub-cultures, but attention centers on the basic human needs shared by all in partnership. The emphasis is the human commonality. Ex. We are all people possessed of the same essence of humanity. They have the same core needs, fears, and motivations. We all have a set of capabilities and limitations that we bring to our experiences, but we all experience them from the same human place. We all need assistance overcoming our limitations or weaknesses. “We are only human. Everybody needs…….” Minimization/Transcendent Universalism Awareness of difference continues, but the similarity extends past shared humanity and physiological sameness. The understanding of similarity encompasses shared belief in and commitment to higher education, the pursuit of truth, knowledge and learning in specific. Ex. We are all educators, contributing an academic community. Our commonality is no longer Purely physiological, but includes the universally binding nature of higher education (i.e. values, mores, rhythms, traditions) in each of us.

Indicators of “Minimization of Difference” in Collaboration:

x The key to getting along with anyone on campus is to just be yourself—authentic and honest. x The patterns, activities, and reward systems are different, but when you really get to know

them, they’re pretty much like us. x The student learning focus is bringing cultural uniformity to the campus culture. x No matter what their culture, we are pretty much motivated by the same things? x If we are really honest, they’ll recognize that some values are universal.

Developmental Task: Develop cultural self-awareness

Acceptance of Difference Individuals in this stage acknowledge and are welcoming to cultural differences in both action and values. The initial inkling of difference becomes more clear and cogent without judgment, preference, or filtering through one’s own cultural reference. The development of this relativistic perspective exposes the legitimacy of and need for all to understand context.

Acceptance/Behavioral Relativism Behavior is understood to be a function of one’s context. The partner can recognize and articulate complex behavioral inconsistencies across the interacting cultures without engaging in negative stereotyping. Ex. I am curious about what “XXXXX” would do to address this problem. Working together might be challenging, but valuable. We approach problems and organize our work differently. It will be great to learn from each other. If we do it well, our typical independent “go to” behaviors will mesh into a stronger action plan. Acceptance/Values Relativism Values are context-driven and therefore relative. Perceived “bad” or “good” is a function of that one’s cultural reference points. Ex. The eclectic blend of collaborators on this project strengthens our product. But I am curious about why “XXXX” made that decision (or took that position). I used to think “XXXX’s” proclivity to do “YYYY” was bad, but now I understand it is a product of this aspect of the “XXXX” culture. “XXXXX” probably interpreted my natural response as wrong. We do things differently based on priorities that are equally valid. Understanding where we are both coming from on this topic helps us to achieve our potential.

Indicators of “Acceptance of Difference” in Collaboration:

x The more differences the better the collaboration! x The differences between us are the secret to our success—no other system of higher education

has this diverse structure. x I work to understand the unique culture of “XXXXX” in that department before I approach them

for a collaboration. x The more “XXXX” I know, the better I understand “XXXX” in general. x It can be challenging to work with a(n) “XXXX” given their different value system, priorities, and

schedules, while being true to my needs and values. x When working in SA-AA collaborations, ever partner needs to be conscious of their cultural

differences. x I am collaborating with two great “XXXX”. We have different work backgrounds and contexts,

but we are learning to work well together. x Where can I learn more about “XXXXX” life and culture to partner more effectively?

Developmental Task: Refine cultural distinctions.

Adaptation to Difference Individuals in this stage can take others’ perspectives (empathize) to improve two-way communication when boundary crossing institutional sub-cultures.

Adaptation/Empathy One can consciously embrace the world view of the partner and act acceptably within those cultural parameters. Ex. On this project I am working primarily with “XXXXs” right now, therefore I need to shift my perspective to a(n) “XXXX-like” frame of reference. That means “____”, “___”, and “____” are important, while “____”, and “____” are not as much as they are in my original frame of reference. Remembering these things makes me a more effective partner. Adaptation/Pluralism The partner adopts multiple world views that subconsciously emerge as needed during interaction. Ex. Working with “XXXXs” comes naturally to me now. I don’t even think about the differences. My behavior, and even my attitude, simply adjusts to their cultural perspective. Communication and therefore collaboration is smooth.

Indicators of “Adaptation to Difference” in Collaborations: x We are at an impasse on this project. I need to think like a(n) “XXXX” to get us moving again. x We both need to amend our way of being to achieve this goal. x I act differently when I am working with “XXXX” than when I am working with partners from

my department. x In any collaboration partners make some adjustments in response to the other. x The more I understand “XXXX” culture, the easier our collaborations become. x There are times that I feel like a(n) “XXXX”. x It just comes natural to me now.

Developmental Task: Develop perspective taking skills

Integration of Difference

Adopt and mesh multiple world views with an identity that flexes with (and is secondary to) the cultural context.

Integration/Contextual Evaluation

Understanding of an experience is filtered through multiple cultural lens (i.e., Perry’s contextual relativism). Integration/Constructive Marginality

Multiple sub-cultures contribute to ones’ professional identity allowing for the participant to facilitate cross cultural understanding for themselves and others. Professional affiliation shifts from the initial sub-culture reference group to that of boundary crosser.

Indicators of Integration of Difference

x I feel like one of the “XXXXX” on any project, if I’ve taken the time to understand what is unique to this “XXXX” culture.

x I am a boundary-crosser and am most comfortable when I’m doing work to bring together the “XXXX” and my subcultures. I enjoy working in either, so it is even better when working with both.

x I find that I can see/hear/understand things from everyone’s (i.e., each sub-cultures’) perspective. x Understanding the many frames of thought across the university makes me a valuable member of

the team. x Seamless learning is optimal learning, so everyone needs to develop these skills.

Developmental Task: Complete integration and acceptance of a multicultural identity.