3

The Centrality of Culture in the 20th and 21st Centuries

Robert Shuter

In this chapter, Robert Shuter argues for a return to Edward T. Hall’s approach to culture and communication and the restoration of culture to preeminence in theorizing and researching inter-cultural communication. In his opinion, there is the dearth of investigations on many areas and regions of the world. It is evident from his meta-analysis of published studies that theory validation research based on a nomothetic model dominated the field in the 1980s and the 1990s. Consequently, cross-cultural and intercultural scholarship yielded very few new insights into communication practices of specific ethnic groups, cultures, and world regions. Since 2006, however, the field has witnessed a paradigm shift. With the rise of the critical approach, theory validation research is no longer dominant. Nevertheless, this paradigmatic change did not result in sufficient analyses of world regions such as Europe, West Asia, Africa, and South America. Shuter calls for an intracultural communication imperative, which focuses on forms and functions of communication behaviors of specific co-cultures, countries, and world regions.

Intercultural communication has been examined for many years by communication scholars with the terms first appearing in Edward Hall’s The Silent Language published in 1959. Edward Hall was an anthropologist with a keen interest in human interaction. His early writings on culture and communication influenced many disciplines including speech communication where they spawned a new field of inquiry: intercultural communication.

Edward Hall’s (1959, 1966, 1976) research reflects the regimen and passion of an anthropologist: a deep regard for culture explored principally by descriptive, qualitative methods. A theoretician as well, Hall (1976) developed communication theories such as high-context/low-context cultures which he used to categorize societies and explain communication in which particular cultural groups engage. His theories are intracultural in nature; that is, they are generated from an understanding of shared values and interaction patterns within similar societies. However, he applies these theories interculturally to explain communication issues between dissimilar national cultures.

Unlike Hall, researchers who conducted intercultural communication studies prior to 1990 did not generally exhibit in their published studies a passion for culture, an interest in descriptive research, or a desire to generate intracultural theories of communication. Instead, much of the published research in intercultural communication, particularly in the national and regional communication journals, was conducted to refine existing communication theories: culture served principally as a research laboratory for testing the validity of communication paradigms.¹

While this research agenda produced significant insights on selected communication theories, it virtually ignored the heart and soul of intercultural research: culture. As a result, intercultural researchers prior to 1990, as documented in the following section, produced few published investigations of global regions, scattered examinations of communication in particular societies, and scant intracultural communication theories that can be applied interculturally. The challenge for intercultural communication in the 20th and 21st centuries, as argued in this essay, is to develop a research direction and teaching agenda that returns culture to preeminence and reflects the roots of the field as represented in Edward Hall’s early research.

Research on Intercultural Communication: 1980–1990

Between 1980 and 1990, there were only fifty-one intercultural communication studies published in the national and regional speech-communication journals, and the overwhelming majority of those articles were theory validation studies, not cultural research. Theory validation research conducted interculturally is aimed at testing the validity and generalizability of extant communication theories such as uncertainty reduction (Gudykunst, 1988; Gudykunst, Chua, & Gray, 1987; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1984; Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1985), initial interaction (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1987; Nakanishi, 1986; Shuter, 1982), intercultural communication competence (Hammer, 1984; Hwang, Chase, & Kelly, 1980; Nishida, 1985), communication apprehension (McCroskey, Fayer, & Richmond, 1985; Watson, Monroe, & Atterstrom, 1989), intercultural adaptation (Kim, 1987; 1988), and relationship development (Cronen & Shuter, 1983; Gudykunst, 1983, 1985)—the theories most frequently examined in intercultural research. While theory validation is often classified as etic research, it is not, at least according to John Pike’s (1966) original discussion of etic and emic “as standpoints for the description of behavior” (p. 37).

For Pike, a linguist and anthropologist, etic researchers use predetermined analytical categories for investigating language behavior within particular societies with the principal aim of describing cultural patterns. While these cultural descriptions may help generate unified theories of human behavior, the etic researcher is first and foremost interested in cultural description, much like the emic investigator who also describes cultural patterns without beings guided by external predetermined analytical categories and schemes.

Etic and emic similarities and differences are best stated, writes Pike (1966), “in the words of Sapir who anticipated this position years ago”:

During this period, intercultural studies in national and regional communication journals were neither of an etic or emic nature: they were products of a nomothetic model developed in psychology that drives communication research and aims at identifying laws of human interaction rather than describing cultural patterns (Shuter, 1985). Since the nomotheic model relegates culture to a laboratory for refining theory and generating laws, it is not surprising that a ten-year review of national and regional journals did not uncover a series of studies dedicated to a global region or a line of research on a particular culture except Japan.

For example, between 1980 and 1990 not a single study had been published in the national or regional communication journals on Africa, South and Central American, or Southeast Asia. European investigations included just four studies scattered among Sweden (Watson, Monroe, & Atterstrom, 1989), the U.S.S.R. (Corcoran, 1983), Britain (Bass, 1989), and France (Ting-Toomey, 1988). In East Asia, one study examined the region (Yum, 1988), and the remaining investigations focus on Japan and Korea (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1984; Gudykunst, Sodetani, & Sonoda, 1987; Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1985; Stewart, Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Nishida, 1986; Gudykunst, Sodetani, & Sonoda, 1987; Yum, 1982). Taiwan and People’s Republic of China were not examined in separate studies. There were a few studies on the Middle East principally investigating Israel (Frank, 1981; Katriel, 1987) and Iran (Heisey & Trebing, 1983) and one additional investigation on South Asia (Carlson, 1986).

It is possible that the nomothetic bias of the discipline served as an obstacle for accepting etic or emic intercultural investigations in national or regional journals. This may be the case; however, after examining the published studies over the same period of time in the International and Intercultural Communication Annual—the only speech-communication journal dedicated to intercultural studies—one finds publishing patterns similar to those found in the national and regional speech-communication journals. First, there was not a line of research on any global region, and only East Asia (Cushman & King, 1985; Kume, 1985, Okabe, 1983; Yum, 1986, 1988), Europe (Hopper & Doany, 1989; Magiste, 1986; Punetha, Giles, & Young, 1986), and the Middle East (Griefat & Katriel, 1989; Hopper & Doany, 1989) were examined in more than one investigation. Africa, South and Central America, and Southeast Asia were not explored in the studies published in the Annual since 1980.

Moreover, the emphasis of communication studies in the Annual was on communication theory validation and the development of intercultural communication theory. While the Annual has made significant contribution to the discipline, its dedication to theory development at the exclusion of intracultural research has resulted in a paucity of investigations on world regions and single cultures.

Not surprisingly, intercultural communication research between 1980 and 1990 also resulted in few studies of an intracultural nature in national and regional communication journals except for scattered investigations on selected U.S. and European co-cultures (i.e., ethnic groups and races within a particular society) (Booth-Butterfield & Jordan, 1989; Campbell, 1986; Hammerback & Jensen, 1980; Jensen & Hammerback, 1980; Kim & Gudykunst, 1986; Lake, 1983; Stanback & Pearce, 1981). Since intracultural investigations tend to focus on a particular society, they are not perceived as being easily translated into intercultural communication theory. For this reason, researchers may have tended to avoid conducting intracultural studies and, instead, executed comparative intercultural investigations.

In summary, intercultural communication research between 1980 and 1990 provided important validation studies of communication paradigms and significant breakthroughs in the development of intercultural communication theory. However, the decade’s published research has neglected people, context, and national culture. As a result, interculturalists during that period provided precious few data-based insights into how specific societies, world regions, and ethnic groups communicate. It was time for a change in direction.

Research on Intercultural Communication: 2006–2011

The research landscape has changed substantially since 1990. Publication outlets for intercultural communication research have grown exponentially with the addition of two new quarterly journals dedicated to intercultural studies, both sponsored by major communication associations. Along with new publication outlets, there has been a significant increase in faculty committed to researching and teaching intercultural communication as evidenced by the 2012 membership of the National Communication Association (NCA) Division on International and Intercultural Communication, which consists of more than 1,100 intercultural scholars—the third largest division in the NCA. While it is readily apparent that these changes have resulted in increasingly more published studies on intercultural communication, it is unclear whether culture plays a more central role in these studies than it did twenty-two years ago.

To assess recent trends in intercultural communication research, all articles were examined between 2006 and 2011 in thirteen major regional, national, and international communication journals, including all but one journal explored in 1990 and four additional newer publications. First, the results are reported for regional and national communication journals for this six-year period followed by an assessment of two major new journals dedicated to intercultural communication research.

Seventy-four journal articles on intercultural communication were published over six years in regional and national communication journals, which is a significant increase from 1990 when only fifty-one articles appeared in a ten-year period. Despite the increase in published journal articles on intercultural communication since 1990, seventy-four articles are still relatively few since thirteen journals were assessed over six years, which computes to just 5.6 intercultural communication articles published per journal—slightly less than one article per year in each journal. In contrast with the 1990 analysis, 51% (38) of the intercultural communication articles in regional and national communication journals focused on intracultural communication while 49% (36) explored intercultural communication. This suggests that single-culture studies are published just as frequently as multi-culture investigations, which is a very positive development in the field. And since these single-culture investigations span all world regions, the discipline is beginning to develop lines of communication research on specific world regions and countries, particularly East Asia where more than half of this research is conducted (Chang & Holt, 2010; Maeda & Hecht, 2012; Moriizumi, 2009). It is feasible that the discipline now has intercultural communication specialists for China, Japan, and possibly India given the extensive research conducted in these countries—a radical departure from 1990 when Asia was virtually unexplored.

This analysis of intercultural research since 2006 strongly suggests that the emphasis on theory validation in intercultural communication studies conducted prior to 1990 is no longer the predominant paradigm. Although some of the intercultural communication research articles published in national and regional journals are still utilizing culture as a laboratory for investigating the validity of random communication theories, the trend is clearly towards the development of both intracultural and intercultural communication theory, which is also reflected in the two new intercultural communication journals to be examined shortly. The current emphasis on the development of intercultural and intracultural communication theory is a welcome departure from the research published before 1990 where the predominant theme was validation of random and generic communication theories.

The Journal of International and Intercultural Communication (JIIC), an NCA publication, and the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research (JICR), a World Communication Association journal, are both distributed by Taylor & Francis and dedicated to publishing intercultural communication research. Some 223 intercultural communication articles were published in both journals between 2006 and 2011, a seismic addition to the intercultural communication research landscape. Both journals publish a mix of intracultural and intercultural communication research spanning all world regions, with particular emphasis Asia, especially East and Southeast Asia (Feng & Wilson, 2012; Moriizumi, 2009). Reflecting the same trends as intercultural communication articles in regional and national communication journals, JIIC and JICR have published single culture and multi-culture investigations that contribute to the discipline’s understanding of indigenous cultural patterns and to the continued development of intercultural communication theory.

Both journals have published studies that utilize a critical perspective when examining past intercultural communication research or conducting new intercultural investigations (Antony, 2012; Kawai, 2009). A recent scholarly trend in the field, the critical approach offers an important new perspective on intercultural communication (Halualani & Nakayama, 2010). The critical perspective has become more popular, in part, because qualitative intercultural studies have been published with far more regularity than in 1990, a measure of the acceptance of qualitative methodology in the communication discipline.

As critical and qualitative approaches have blossomed, all the communication journals— including JIIC, JICR, and the regional and national outlets—have also published numerous articles on intercultural communication theory, which have focused on cultural identity, intercultural communication competence, acculturation, ethnocentrism, cultural hybridity, stereotyping, intercultural sensitivity, intercultural dialogue, self-construal/cultural values, intercultural conflict, intercultural relationship development, Asiacentricity, and intercultural new media theory (Croucher, 2008, MacLennan, 2011; Miike, 2007; Shuter, 2011, Shuter & Chattopadhyay, 2010). This research has advanced the field’s understanding of the process of intercultural communication, an important area that has been mined by intercultural communication scholars for over 50 years.

In the last twenty-one years, culture has become more central to research on intercultural communication. Unlike 1990, recent intercultural research has multiple and diverse threads, reflecting intracultural, intercultural, critical, and new media perspectives, and conducted both qualitatively and quantitatively with greater academic acceptance. In addition, although all world regions are represented in studies conducted after 2006—a welcome departure from 1990—the research has concentrated more on Asia, with more limited analysis of Europe, Middle East, Africa, and Central and South America. Particularly troubling is the near absence of published co-cultural research on ethnic groups, races and/or religious groups within the USA and countries worldwide. This trend was noted in 1990 and, surprisingly, continues unabated despite the critical need for mutual understanding and cooperation between co-cultural groups.

On balance, while there have been important advances in published intercultural research since 1990, the field is still challenged by the same hurdle of a previous era that continues into the 21st century: How to develop country, world region and co-cultural specialists who are deeply committed to culture and are also firmly grounded in the process of intercultural communication.

Intercultural Communication in the 20th and 21st Centuries: A Cultural Imperative

Culture was the single most important global communication issue in the 1990s and is still the preeminent challenge in the 21st century. New cultural coalitions and alliances are redefining global relationships. Europe, for example, still struggles with the development of the European Union, which strives to unify European trading regulations without dismantling national cultural traditions that provide the historical and contemporary identity of each member county (Bruce, 1988; Huysmans, 2006; Montet, 1989). While Europe struggles to evolve into a unified marketplace, North America wonders about the development of “fortress” Europe—a monolithic cultural bloc that may prevent North American products and media from successfully penetrating the European community (Dür, 2011; Reimer, 1989; Rosenbaum, 1989).

As Europe attempts to harmonize cultural differences to achieve trade and political unification, Eastern European countries continue proclaiming their cultural independence by changing their political systems and celebrating age-old cultural values, traditions, and communication patterns (Berend, 1988; Bohle & Greskovits, 2007). With the diminution of Soviet control of Eastern Europe, there is a resurgence of national cultures in countries that traditionally surrendered a significant degree of cultural and political independence to the Soviet Union.

In the 1990s, culture also dominated the Pacific Basin, with Japan reordering its relationships with East and Southeast Asian countries to develop what some have described as the Pacific equivalent to the European Community (Yahuda, 1988; Yang, 1989). With the emergence of China in the 21st century as a world power, culture continues to dominate this region’s agenda. As China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore develop sustained and cooperative trading relationships, these countries, at the same time, retain distinct cultural identities that are carefully preserved but sometimes cause cultural rifts between them (Kawai, 2005; Pearce, 1988; Tank, 1987).

Culture is still the central theme in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and Central and South America. These diverse cultural regions struggle with maintaining traditional cultural systems while developing technological and communications infrastructures that may threaten cultural and religious values and national identities (Kelley, 1988; Kwarteng, 1987; Shamsuddin, 1988; Shuter, 2012).

Culture is also the dominant issue within global societies just as it was in 1990 (Olzak, 2006; Rosen & Weissbrodt, 1988). In the U.S., for example, cultural tensions are the result of longstanding conflicts between co-cultures as well as more recent communication issues posed by immigration into North America (Banks & McGee, 2010; Roberts, 1988). Countries in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and South Asian struggle with co-cultural tensions and confrontations fueled by racial divisions, religious and cultural differences, and tribal identifications (Olzak, 2006; Kelley, 1988; Rupesinghe, 1988; Weissbrodt, 1988). Societies within Eastern and Western Europe continue to be challenged by serious intracultural communication issues that have evolved from age-old ethnic divisions and more recent changes in immigration patterns (Kelley, 2010; Armstrong, 1988).

Compelling global conditions require intercultural researchers to alter their research agenda and continue returning culture to preeminence in their studies. This can be accomplished by sustained examination of intracultural patterns of interaction within societies and world regions.

An Intracultural Communication Research Agenda for the Future

Intracultural research identifies and examines communication patterns endemic to a particular country or co-culture within a society. This type of research generates cultural data that not only increases understanding of a society, but also serves as a springboard for developing intracultural communication theory.

Unlike intercultural theory, an intracultural perspective marries culture and communication theory and, hence, produces communication paradigms about a co-culture, country, or world region. This approach to theory development is exemplified in Kincaid’s (1987) classic book, Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives, which identifies differences and similarities between Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian communication theories. While Kincaid’s book stops short of identifying different Western communication theories—French versus British communication theory for example—it is a significant contribution in intracultural communication theory development.

Intracultural communication theory is critically important for several reasons. First, it provides a conceptual framework for analyzing interaction within a society and world region. Second, intracultural theories demonstrate the inextricable linkage between communication patterns and sociocultural forces. And lastly, it provides a conceptual basis for making intercultural communication comparisons between dissimilar societies.

With an intracultural perspective, researchers can concentrate on developing a line of research on a society or world region. This approach should produce comprehensive communication data on countries and world regions as well as establishing a foundation for developing culture specialists—researchers and teachers who are experts on a particular country and world region. Culture specialists in communication are vital if global and co-cultural conflicts are to be understood and ameliorated.

An intracultural perspective also has implications for teaching intercultural communication. With comprehensive intracultural data, university teachers should be able to design multiple courses in intercultural communication that focus on interaction within a society and world region—a marked improvement over many intercultural curricula that currently consist of a single course offering called Intercultural Communication. For example, with sufficient intracultural data, a series of communication classes could be offered on Africa, East Asia, or South Asia with seminars also available on specific countries within these regions. Currently, this type of curriculum is more easily developed because intercultural researchers have devoted increasingly more attention to intracultural communication. With an expanded intercultural curriculum, it will be feasible to develop students and teachers who are culture specialists in communication.

Conclusion: Back to the Future

The goal of this essay is to set a new intracultural agenda for scholars and teachers of intercultural communication. An intracultural perspective examines patterns of intracultural communication—“those common, unstated experiences which members of a given culture share, communicate without knowing, and which form the backdrop against which all other events are judged” (Hall, 1966, p. 4). They are, according to Ruth Benedict (1934), the cultural forms and processes that are an integral part of every society. When cultural patterns are linked to communication, the terms refer to shared, recurring, and culturally derived ways of interacting that are manifested in the ebb and flow of human transactions within a society.

Pattern research tends to be descriptive in nature: it details the form and function of communicative behavior within a society. Methodologically, it can be conducted either quantitatively or qualitatively in a research laboratory, field study, or rhetorical analysis of primary or secondary sources. Because pattern research is not bound to a particular methodology, it can enhance our understanding of intracultural nuances, producing fresh understanding of cultural mindsets and dispositions. In fact, pattern research has the promise of unearthing hidden dimensions of culture and communication that Edward Hall so eloquently described decades ago—the treasures of human interaction that remain buried unless mined by the intraculturalist. In fact, our modern age cries out for intraculturalists—communication teachers, researchers and professionals with a deep understanding of specific co-cultures, countries, and world regions. Hopefully, this essay is a small step towards achieving this goal.

Notes

1.For this essay, the communication journals reviewed for intercultural communication research included: International and Intercultural Communication Annual (1980–1990), Communication Studies, Communication Monographs, Communication Quarterly, Communication Reports (2006–2011), Communication Th eory (2006–2011), Human Communication Research, Journal of Communication, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication (2006–2011), Journal of Intercultural Communication Research (2006– 2011), Quarterly Journal of Speech, Southern Communication Journal, and Western Journal of Communication.

References

Antony, M. G. (2012). “Slum-pups no more”: Rescuing India’s slum children. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41(1), 17–36.

Armstrong, J. A. (1988). Toward a framework for considering nationalism in East Europe. Eastern Europe Politics and Societies, 2(2), 280–305.

Banks, J. A., & McGee, C. A. (Eds.). (2010). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Bass, J. D. (1989). An efficient humanitarianism: The British slave trade debates, 1791–1792. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75(2), 152–165.

Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of culture. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Berend, I. T. (1988). Crisis and reform in East-Central Europe. Studia Diplomatica, 41(3), 257–267.

Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. (2007). Neoliberalism, embedded neoliberalism, and neocorporatism: Towards transitional capitalism in Central-Eastern Europe. West European Politics, 30(3), 443–466.

Booth-Butterfield, M., & Jordan, F. (1989). Communication adaptation among racially homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Southern Communication Journal, 54(3), 253–272.

Bruce, L. (1988). Where adversaries converge. International Management, 43, 70–73.

Campbell, K. K. (1986). Style and content in the rhetoric of early Afro-American feminists. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72(4), 434–445.

Carlson, A. C. (1986). Gandhi and the comic frame: “Ad belum purificandum.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72(4), 446–455.

Chang, H.-C., & Holt, G. R. (2010). Expectations and personal cultural knowledge: Redefining Asian scholars’ research efforts. Southern Communication Journal, 75(2), 137–149.

Corcoran, F. (1983). The bear in the backyard: Myth, ideology, and victimage ritual in Soviet funerals. Communication Monographs, 50(4), 305–320.

Cronen, V. E., & Shuter, R. (1983). Forming intercultural bonds. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives [International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 7] (pp. 89–118). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Croucher, S. M. (2008). French-Muslims and the hijab: An analysis of identity and the Islamic veil in France. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37(3), 199–213.

Cushman, D. P., & King, S. K. (1985). National and organizational cultures in conflict resolution: Japan, the United States, and Yugoslavia. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes [International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 9] (pp. 114–133). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dür, A. (2011). Fortress Europe or Open Door Europe? The external impact of the EU’s single market in financial services. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(5), 619–635.

Feng, H., & Wilson, S. R. (2012). Cultural variations in the reasons people provide avoidance support. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(1), 64–87.

Frank, D. A. (1981). “Shalom Achshav”: Rituals of the Israeli peace movement. Communication Monographs, 48(3), 165–182.

Griefat, Y., & Katriel, T. (1989). Life demands Musayara: Communication and culture among Arabs in Israel. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Language, communication, and culture: Current directions [International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 13] (pp. 121–138). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1983). Similarities and differences in perceptions of initial intracultural and intercultural encounters: An exploratory investigation. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 49(1), 49–65.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). An exploratory comparison of close intracultural and intercultural friendships. Communication Quarterly, 33(4), 270–283.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication [International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 12] (pp. 123–156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B., Chua, E., & Gray, A. J. (1987). Cultural dissimilarities and uncertainty reduction processes. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 10, pp. 456–469). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1987). The influence of ethnicity, gender, and dyadic composition on uncertainty reduction in initial interactions. Journal of Black Studies, 18(2), 191–214.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1984). Individual and cultural influences on uncertainty reduction. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 23–36.

Gudykunst, W. B., Sodetani, L. L., & Sonoda, K. T. (1987). Uncertainty reduction in Japanese-American/Caucasian relationships in Hawai‘i. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51(3), 256–278.

Gudykunst, W. B., Yang, S.-M., & Nishida, T. (1985). A cross-cultural test of uncertainty reduction theory: Comparisons of acquaintances, friends, and dating relationships in Japan, Korea, and the United States. Human Communication Research, 11(3), 407–454.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Halualani, R. T., & Nakayama, T. K. (Eds.). (2010). The handbook of critical intercultural communication. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hammer, M. R. (1984). The effects of an intercultural communication workshop on participants’ intercultural communication competence: An exploratory study. Communication Quarterly, 32(4), 352–362.

Hammerback, J. C., & Jensen, R. J. (1980). The rhetorical worlds of César Chávez and Reies Tijerina. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44(3), 166–176.

Heisey, D. R., & Trebing, J. D. (1983). A comparison of the rhetorical visions and strategies of the Shah’s White Revolution and the Ayatollah’s Islamic Revolution. Communication Monographs, 50(2), 158–174.

Hopper, R., & Doany, N. K. (1989). Telephone openings and conversational universals: A study in three languages. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Language, communication, and culture: Current directions [International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 13] (pp. 157–179). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Huysmans, J. (2006). The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration, and asylum in the EU. London, UK: Routledge.

Hwang, J., Chase, L. J., & Kelly, C. W. (1980). An intercultural examination of communication competence. Communication: Journal of the Communication Association of the Pacific, 9(2), 70–79.

Jensen, R. J., & Hammerback, J. C. (1980). Radical nationalism among Chicanos: The rhetoric of José Angel Gutiérrez. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44(3), 191–202.

Katriel, T. (1987). Rhetoric in flames: Fire inscriptions in Israeli youth movement ceremonials. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73(4), 444–459.

Kawai, M. (2005). East Asian economic regionalism: Progress and challenges. Journal of Asian Economics, 16(1), 29–55.

Kawai, Y. (2009). Neoliberalism, nationalism, and intercultural communication: A critical analysis of Japan’s neoliberal nationalism discourse under globalization. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2(1), 16–43.

Kelley, J. (1988). Class conflict of ethnic oppression? The cost of being Indian in rural Bolivia. Rural Sociology, 53(4), 399–420.

Kelley, J. G. (2010). Ethnic politics in Europe: The power of norms and incentives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kim, Y. Y. (1987). Facilitating immigration adaptation: The role of communication. In T. L. Albrecht & M. B. Adelman (Eds.), Communicating social support (pp. 192–211). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Kim, Y. Y., & Gudykunst, W. B. (Eds.). (1986). Interethnic communication: Current approaches [International and Inter-cultural Communication Annual, Vol. 10]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kincaid, D. L. (Ed.). (1987). Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kume, T. (1985). Managerial attitudes toward decision-making: North America and Japan. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes [International and Inter-cultural Communication Annual, Vol. 9] (pp. 231–251). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kwarteng, C. (1987). Difficulties in regional economic integration: The case of ECOWAS. Transafrica Forum, 5(1), 17–25.

Lake, R. A. (1983). Enacting red power: The consummatory function in Native American protest rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69(2), 127–142.

MacLennan, J. (2011). “To build a beautiful dialogue”: Capoeira as contradiction. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(2), 146–162.

Maeda, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2012). Identity search: Interpersonal relationships and relational identities of always-single Japanese women over time. Western Journal of Communication. 76(1), 44–64.

Magiste, E. (1986). Changes in the Lateralization pattern of two immigrant groups in Sweden. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Interethnic communication: Current research [International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 10] (pp. 233–251). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCroskey, J. C., Fayer, J. M., & Richmond, V. P. (1985). Don’t speak to me in English: Communication apprehension in Puerto Rico. Communication Quarterly, 33(3), 185–192.

Miike, Y. (2007). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in communication theory. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 272–278.

Montet, M.-P. (1989). Europe’s spiritual origins. International Management, 44, 38–39.

Moriizumi, S. (2009). Face concerns and requests in Japan: Exploring the effects of relational closeness and social status. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38(3), 149–174.

Nakanishi, M. (1986). Perceptions of self-disclosure in initial interaction: A Japanese sample. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 167–190.

Nishida, H. (1985). Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9(3), 247–269.

Olzak, S. (2006). The global dynamics of racial and ethnic mobilization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Okabe, R. (1983). Cultural assumptions of East and West: Japan and the United States. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Inter-cultural communication theory: Current perspectives [International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 7] (pp. 21–44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pearce, J. (1988). Free port, no trade restrictions, mark Singapore development. Business Japan, 33, 31–32.

Pike, J. (1966). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.

Punetha, D., Giles, H., & Young, L. (1986). Interethnic perceptions and relative deprivation: British data. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Interethnic communication: Current research [International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 10] (pp. 252–266). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Reimer, B. (1989, March 27). Europe may slap a quota on General Hospital. Business Week, pp. 46–47.

Roberts, A. E. (1988). Racism sent and received: Americans and Vietnamese view one another. Research in Race and Ethnic Relations, 5, 75–97.

Rosen, S., & Weissbrodt, D. (1988). The 39th session of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Human Rights Quarterly, 10(4), 487–508.

Rosenbaum, A. (1989, February 6). Fortress or façade? A unified EC is far from finished. Industry Week, pp. 54–55.

Rupesinghe, K. (1988). Ethnic conflicts in South Asia: The case of Sri Lanka and the Indian Peace-Keeping Force (IPKF). Journal of Peace Research, 25(4), 337–350.

Shamsuddin, M. (1988). UNESCO and the flow of information: A case study. Pakistan Horizon, 40(2), 31–49.

Shuter, R. (1982). Initial interaction of American Blacks and Whites in interracial and intraracial dyads. Journal of Social Psychology, 117(1), 45–52.

Shuter, R. (1985). The Hmong of Laos: Orality, communication, and acculturation. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (4th ed., pp. 102–108). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Shuter, R. (2011). Introduction: New media across cultures—Prospect and promise. Journal of International and Inter-cultural Communication, 4(4), 241–245.

Shuter, R. (2012). When Indian women text message: Culture, identity, and emerging interpersonal norms of new media. In P. H. Cheong, J. N. Martin, & L. P. Macfadyen (Eds.), New media and intercultural communication: Identity, community and politics (pp. 209–221). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Shuter, R., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2010). Emerging interpersonal norms of text messaging in India and the United States. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 39(2), 123–147.

Stanback, M. H., & Pearce, W. B. (1981). Talking to “the man”: Some communication strategies used by members of “subordinate” social groups. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67(1), 21–30.

Stewart, L. P., Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Nishida, T. (1986). The effect of decision-making style on openness and satisfaction within Japanese organizations. Communication Monographs, 53(3), 236–251.

Tank, A. (1987, April). Korea’s Japanese jinx. Management Today, pp. 88–90.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Rhetorical sensitivity style in three cultures: France, Japan, and the United States. Central States Speech Journal, 39(1), 28–36.

Watson, A. K., Monroe, E. E., & Atterstrom, H. (1989). Comparison of communication apprehension across cultures: American and Swedish children. Communication Quarterly, 37(1), 67–76.

Weissbrodt, D. (1988). Country related and thematic developments at the 1988 Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 10(4), 544–558.

Yahuda, M. B. (1988). The “Pacific Community”: Not yet. Pacific Review, 1(2), 119–127.

Yang, D. J. (1989, April 10). Japan builds a new power base: Its emerging clout in East Asia could come at America’s expense. Business Week, pp. 42–45.

Yum, J. O. (1982). Communication diversity and information acquisition among Korean immigrants in Hawai‘i. Human Communication Research, 8(2), 154–169.

Yum, J. O. (1986). Locus of control and communication patterns of immigrants. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Interethnic communication: Current research [International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 10] (pp. 191–211). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 374–388.