Problem Statement

Knowledge about ICC within current literature is immense. Researchers have provided list of skills needed for individuals in order to engage in competent interaction with those who come from different cultures than their own. Despite the huge amount of knowledge available within extensive literature, three areas of concern arise.

First, a large amount of ICC research has been done in the United States (Deardorff, 2009; Martin, 1993; Stiftung & Cariplo, 2006). Consequently, much of our understanding about ICC has been developed based on the Western/Euro- American/Anglo-Saxon thoughts (Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005; Chen, 1993; Chen & Starosta, 2008; Deardorff, 2009; Martin, 1993; Stiftung & Cariplo, 2006).

A pseudotic concept or method in which an epic idea that is developed in the Euro-American culture is simply assumed to be ethic and universally generalisable across cultures (Lustig & Spitzberg, 1993). The concern about the Eurocentric conception of competence has been noted by researchers in the United States. Early research in the 1980s has investigated notions of competence that moves away from the Euro-American community and shed light into understanding communication competence pertaining to other cultural groups (Collier, 1988, 1996; Collier, Ribeau, & Hecht, 1986; Hecht, Larkey & Johnson, 1992; Hecht & Ribeau, 1984; Hecht, Ribeau & Alberts, 1989). Current research have also provided knowledge about communication competence in other cultural groups context (Dillon & McKenzie, 1998; Hegde, 1991; Tomoko,

2010; Torres & Rollock, 2007) but they are still limited and most often are

carried out in the United States. 85

67 8 -9

Second, since the earliest days of ICC research, scholars tend to conceptualise

ICC using the trait approach that focuses on individual’s personality or qualities N

(Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Personality refers to one’s traits that constitute

his or her personality and they are the products of the person’s unique S G

IN D

experiences within a culture and are always a function of the person’s heredity

(Chen, 1990). McCroskey (1985) pointed that the trait approach assumes that CE

people, not behaviours are competent and competent persons will behave

competently across situations. This approach permits for personality based

theory of competence and reject that there are specific sets of behaviours. On

similar vein, Asaratnam and Doerfel (2005) maintained that there must be

CO 1 2

something a person possesses that makes him or her better intercultural

I2 N

communicator than others. Arguments have been made by scholars that the trait

E CC

perspective presents problem to adequately specify behaviours needed to

engage in competent intercultural interaction, to provide generalisability of

personality factors that relied predominantly on anecdotal description and to personality factors that relied predominantly on anecdotal description and to

Nonetheless, Ruben (1976) posited that the ability to succeed in other culture is related to an individual’s communication ability and one’s behavioural competence is critical to elicit desired response in interaction. Spitzberg’s (1991) examination of trait measures on interpersonal competence indicate that the dynamics of intercultural interaction are better modelled at the behavioural rather than the trait level. The trait or trait-like approach is a necessary condition for competence, but behavioural competence that refers to the ability to use knowledge is a sufficient condition for functioning effectively in a new culture (Rose et al., 2010). Moreover, cultural differences are displayed more so on people’s behaviours rather than their personality in intercultural interactions (Brew & Cairns, 2004). Interpretation of behaviours is culturally bounded as individuals learn about rules of competent behaviours from their cultures (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007; Holmes, 2005; LaRocco, 2011). Cultural

differences in perceiving what behaviours are considered competent present

challenges for intercultural communicators to interact. Behaviours that are 85

viewed as important for competent interaction in one’s ethnic culture (such as

67 8 -9

using direct eye contact) may be considered a sign of disrespect in another.

Hence, key questions arise of how do people make sense of communication N

competence when interacting with cultural others? What behaviours are

important for their impression of competent communication? What behaviours S G

IN D

are considered incompetent? How do people from different cultures make

meanings of ICC? CE

Third, past investigations on competence in intercultural context have been

largely been based on national affiliations (Wiseman, 2003). Researchers most

often investigate ICC amongst foreigners or sojourners entering a new country

CO 1 2

(Flaherty & Stojakovic, 2008; Lin, 2007; Martin, 1993; Munz, 2007; Redmond &

I2 N

Bunyi, 1993). Because the demographic landscape in many countries is radically

E CC

changing, national affiliation approach to the study of ICC seems to be

inadequate in this globalised world. For example, census data projected that due

to the rapid increment of racial minority groups in the United States especially

Hispanic and Asian Americans, there will no longer be a racial majority (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Similar trend of population change can also be observed in Malaysian higher learning institutions. Internationalisation efforts coupled with the demographic change has resulted in an immense number of ethnic students from both local and international pursuing education in universities. This phenomenon creates the university as a place for rich cross cultural exchanges and an important place for investigating how individuals relate to members of other cultures. Despite the existence of diverse ethnic cultures,

there is a handful of research that specifically investigates competence in the

context of ethnicity. The need to address competence pertaining to interethnic interactions is paramount since research indicates that students have limited interactions with ethnically dissimilar others in the university (Halualani et al., 2004; Tan & Goh, 2006). This finding suggests the possibilities that ethnic groups may subsume to live within their ethnic boundary rather than talking to ethnic others (Argyle, 1982).

Communication between people of different ethnic groups is not an easy process that leads people to avoid interacting with one another. For example, communication difficulties between African Americans and European Americans have been the subject of numerous news and analysis in the United States (Eadie, 1994). In higher learning institutions, there is considerable evidence that interethnic communication difficulties amongst students derive from dissimilar communication patterns, symbols and values (Holmes, 2005). This is in fact

-6

paradoxical to the idea that the presence of diverse cultural or ethnic groups in

-25

higher learning institutions provides opportunity for increasing interethnic 85

-59

contact. Hence, the study of ICC is important to understand how students relate

67 -9

7 with “the other” or those who share a different worldview from them. Do they 8

have friends from ethnic-other? What can they learn from people of different N

ethnic cultures? How students deal with cultural difficulties? More importantly,

what competent intercultural communication means from their perspective as a S G

Problem Statement