Intercultural Dialogue as the Elephant in the Room: Moving from … · 2 days ago · IN DIALOGUE: CID OCCASIONAL PAPERS #1 AUGUST 2020 Author Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz is Director of the

WWW.CENTERFORINTERCULTURALDIALOGUE.ORG

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

In Dialogue

CID Occasional Papers #1

Intercultural Dialogue as the Elephant in the Room: Moving from Assumptions to Research Investigations

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz

August 2020

IN DIALOGUE: CID OCCASIONAL PAPERS #1 AUGUST 2020

Author Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz is Director of the Center for Intercul-tural Dialogue, sponsored by the Council for Communication Asso-ciations in Washington, DC. She is also Professor Emerita at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, and Associate Fac-ulty at Royal Roads University (Canada). She has been the Harron Family Endowed Chair at Vil-lanova University; Chercheur invité at the Ecole normale supérieure de Lyon, France; Senior Fellow at the Collegium de Lyon Intitute d’études avancées, France; and Fulbright Senior Specialist at the Insti-tuto Politécnico de Coimbra, Portugal. She has served UNESCO as an expert on intercultural communication, presented at the World Forum on Intercultural Dia-logue in Azerbaijan, and organized confer-ences on intercultural dialogue held in Istan-bul, Turkey and Macao, China. Leeds-Hurwitz is interested in how people construct meanings for themselves and others through interaction; how cultural identity is constructed and maintained; and how con-flicting identities or meanings can be conveyed simultaneously. She studies disciplinary history to learn why scholars examine particular topics in specific ways, often stops to consider particular research methods or theories, and always takes an interdisciplinary approach to problems. Among her books are: From Generation to Generation: Maintaining Cultural Identity over Time; Wedding as Text: Com-municating Cultural Identities through Ritual; Semiotics and Com-munication: Signs, Codes, Cultures; The Social History of Language and Social Interaction Research: People, Places, Ideas; and Socially Constructing Communication. Leeds-Hurwitz earned her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Pennsylvania.


1

Intercultural Dialogue as the Elephant in the Room: Moving from Assumptions to Research Investigations1

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz ABSTRACT: The result of a broad review of publications and projects using the term ‘intercultural dialogue,’ this paper summarizes the current state of affairs: who has been using the term and in what ways, as well as who has been studying intercultural dialogue or related topics, and what they have learned. Briefly, politicians and diplomats especially in the European Union have frequently used the term, but since they don’t study the subject, of necessity they have made a lot of assump-tions. Academics in the EU or elsewhere occasionally study intercultural dialogue, but most often under a variety of related concepts. The paper concludes with suggestions for what needs to happen for intercultural dialogue to be taken seriously as a research topic.

What Is Intercultural Dialogue? Intercultural dialogue (ICD) gets used as a technical term but different authors assume it has very different meanings (Isar, 2006, 2011; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2014a). Isar (2006) points out six different meanings, Isar (2011) focuses on three, and UNESCO Associated Schools (2013) presents six (different) approaches. Of all these suggestions, just two meanings are the most important to distinguish here. At the general level, ICD refers to an interaction involving participants with different cultural backgrounds (e.g., Busch, 2010). What is studied as intercultural communication in the US, would mostly fit under this definition. At a more specific level, ICD refers to one form of intercultural communication, that which takes as the stated goal explicit dialogue about cultural differences, on the assumption that

cultural differences can serve as a resource ra-ther than being a problem (Salo-Lee, 2015). This narrower use seems more appropriate, and thus serves as a more helpful beginning point. Unlike other intercultural interactions, which may be multimodal (that is, including nonverbal and unconscious elements as well as words), in this narrow usage ICD typically requires both language and intent. It seems reasonable to choose this second definition as the appropriate beginning point here. This implies accepting as the immediate goal of intercultural dialogue a deliberate verbal exchange of views designed to achieve un-derstanding of cultural others, with the more advanced steps of achieving agree-ment and cooperation understood to be po-tential later goals.2 Peter Praxmarer once said that “intercultural dialogue is the art and science of


2

understanding the Other,”3 the best short ex-planation I know. With his permission, that definition was turned into a poster made available on the Center for Intercultural Dia-logue website (Center for Intercultural Dia-logue, 2017a).4

Given the existing cultural diversity, both within political alliances (e.g., the European Union) but even within most countries, ICD typically has been assumed to have consider-able value as a practical tool used to prevent or reduce conflict between cultural groups, by using talk to foster respect and tolerance (Wilson, 2014). Thus, ICD frequently has been announced as the way to build or main-tain peace, especially by organizations such as the United Nations (Bello, 2013a; Bloom, 2013a, 2014) or the United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO, 2006, 2009, 2013, 2018; see also Bello, 2013b; Saillant, 2017). As Isar explains, “’Intercultural dialogue’… is a notion that tends to be deployed in rather rarefied spheres, in circles somewhat distant from the on the ground realities it is supposed to ad-dress” (Isar, 2011, p. 43). The first question to be answered is how ICD is being defined and discussed, the sec-ond is how politicians are using the term, and the third is whether and how academics are yet studying the phenomenon. ICD stands at the meeting place of social in-teraction, and intercultural communication. Unlike other forms of social interaction, ICD assumes participants come from different cultural contexts (understood broadly, to in-clude nationality, race and ethnicity, lan-guage, and/or religion, among other catego-ries). This implies an expectation of divergent assumptions about, and rules for, interaction among participants, the opposite of what is typically assumed in most studies of interac-tion. Cultural diversity permits, and intercul-tural dialogue requires, understanding of one’s own culture but also recognizing that each culture provides only a single alterna-tive drawn from a range of possibilities. Cultural diversity requires, and intercul-tural dialogue permits, the ability to com-municate to others about one’s own culture, accepting in return information from oth-ers about theirs. 2008 was a critical year: the European Parlia-ment designated that the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, and many events, and


3

activities were held then, with many publica-tions appearing around that year as well (see Grillo, 2018, for discussion). The Council of Europe proposed this widely cited definition:

Intercultural dialogue is a process that comprises an open and respectful ex-change or interaction between individu-als, groups and organizations with differ-ent cultural backgrounds or world views. Among its aims are: to develop a deeper understanding of diverse perspectives and practices; to increase participation and the freedom and ability to make choices; to foster equality; and to enhance creative processes. (Council of Europe, 2008, p. 10)

It is not chance that this definition comes from a political body rather than an individ-ual scholar. While the term ICD has been used since the 1980s, and the general idea of interaction between members of different cultural groups a focus far earlier, especially by anthropologists, such as Margaret Mead, and sociologists, such as Pierre Bourdieu, the notion of ICD specifically has been less often the focus of academic study than its potential value would support. As is the case for any example of dialogue, intercultural dialogue must be understood as being actively co-constructed by partici-pants. One person cannot make a dialogue; by definition at least two people are re-quired. As Silvestri (2010) explains, "inter-cultural dialogue is about learning to tell a shared story" (p. 48). It seems likely that the act of co-construction is critical to the success of the story, if for no other reason than that co-telling results in all speakers investing

something of themselves in the act. Ganesh and Holmes (2011) echo this when they sug-gest that studying ICD "requires approaches that examine the cultural co-production of knowledge" (p. 85). Social construction the-ory is thus, at least implicitly, an obvious way to approach and study ICD (Galanes & Leeds-Hurwitz, 2009). All dialogue assumes difference. Wierzbicka (2006) quite reasonably points out that “there can be no ‘dialogue’ between people with the same, or very similar, views” (p. 690). People who already share assumptions have little need for dialogue (especially in formally or-ganized events). Dialogue thus implies the involvement of members of different groups having conflicting opinions and as-sumptions, who speak to one another de-spite acknowledging those differences. In fact, they do so in an explicit attempt to bridge the gap they have recognized. ICD specifically assumes that participants will have cultural differences rather than other sorts. This means that ICD assumes multiple categories of people, each of whom classifies one or more participants in the ex-change as a cultural “Other” (Dervin, 2015; Powell & Menendian, 2016; Praxmarer, 2014). ICD is never an accident — it requires intent, whereas interaction merely requires co-presence (being in the same place at the same time), and with the rise of social media, sometimes not even that. In exchange for the opportunity to present their own views and have them heard, during ICD participants agree to listen to the views of the Other(s). ICD thus requires a very simple quid pro quo: I will listen to you if you listen to me. It in-volves a reversal of what is termed ‘Othering’


4

so that it becomes positive; the original nega-tive sense implies stopping the interaction at the point when someone has been recognized as an Other. For those engaging in ICD, rec-ognizing someone as an Other is, instead, the logical beginning point. The most difficult, yet the most essential, dialogues occur between those holding the most divergent viewpoints. For while it is easiest to talk to those whose ideas largely overlap our own assumptions, easy is not the same as important. Clearly, we gain the most when we listen to, and learn from, those with whom we most often disagree, those sharing the fewest background assumptions with us, and this includes cultural assumptions. Listening is not the same as agreement, and so an important point is that dialogue (inter-cultural or otherwise) does not always (in fact, may not often) result in agreement, even when most or even all participants hope to achieve agreement in at least some areas. In-stead, understanding serves as a reasonable initial step. It is certainly preferable to con-flict for most participants. Thus, dialogue “implies that each party makes a step in the direction of the other” as Wierzbicka (p. 692) gracefully suggests, and this is true also of ICD. Or, as Abriszski (2007) puts it, “Dia-logue is a gentle way of filling up the intercul-tural gap. Conflict is a harder one” (p. 335). Dialogue and conflict, then, stand as the ex-tremes of intercultural interaction. Intercultural dialogue might be called the elephant in the room, a metaphor referring to something obvious which is nonetheless ignored. Most often, practitioners and dip-lomats use the term intercultural dialogue,

but they rarely define it, and conduct little to no research in order to discover how it works, but only hold it up as a desired end. Academics, who certainly conduct research, rarely use this term, thus have rarely stud-ied it, although some research by other names sheds light on how it works (Center for Intercultural Dialogue, 2020a). I'll return to these various contributions after describ-ing who has been using the concept in what ways to date, concluding with a call for fur-ther research into ICD.

Assertions About ICD Since the establishment of the European Un-ion (EU) in 1993, the term ICD has increas-ingly been used by politicians and diplomats as shorthand for cooperation, both between nations and among cultural groups within national borders. Olsen (2007) points out that the EU as a political body “struggles to find a balance the whole and the parts, be-tween unity and diversity, coordination and autonomy” (p. 44). As a result of this need to find balance, Swiebel (2008) suggests that “intercultural dialogue between the repre-sentatives of the Member States - politicians, diplomats and civil servants, but also experts,


5

business people, professionals, NGO’s and lobby groups – has been essential” and with-out it, the EU “would hardly have been think-able” (p. 103). More recently, various political bodies, espe-cially in Europe, not only use the term, but devote considerable funding to projects in-tended to encourage ICD (similar funding has not been made available to research stud-ying how ICD works).5 The term is heard most often in international gatherings, whether sponsored by the UN, UNESCO, EU, or individual countries (e.g., Azerbaijan’s World Forum on Intercultural Dialogue, first held in 2011, most recently in 2019). Fuentes (2016) points out that the term ICD has been used by the Council of Europe since 2003. There have been frequent formal statements about the importance of ICD (e.g., Council of Europe, 2005, 2012, 2013, 2016; European Cultural Parliament, 2007; European Com-mission, 2008), there was a conference Eu-rope for Intercultural Dialogue in 2006 in Granada, Spain, and, as mentioned earlier, the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue in 2008 (announced in European Union, 2006; evaluated in Ecotec Research & Con-sulting, 2009), which produced both a “rain-bow paper” (Platform for Intercultural Eu-rope, 2008), and a “white paper” (Council of Europe, 2008; see Besley & Peters, 2012; Hardy & Hussain, 2019; Lähdesmäki & Wagener, 2015; among others). The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations 5th Global Forum issued the Vienna Declaration (UNAOC, 2013), highlighting the im-portance of ICD for international diplomacy. A systematic review of the ways in which these various practitioners use the term

(Leeds-Hurwitz, 2015a) suggests ICD is as-sumed to have these positive characteristics: • Increases respect for cultural diversity, hu-

man rights and freedom • Develops sense of community in multicul-

tural populations • Promotes tolerance, pluralism, openness,

mutual respect • Improves ways of living together • Strengthens social cohesion • Strengthens democratic governance • Increases peace and harmony in a multi-

cultural world • Prevents and/or resolves intergroup con-

flicts ICD employs communication as a tool to ad-dress social change and social justice on an international stage. Clearly these are worthy goals. Who doesn’t want world peace and the resolution of intractable conflicts? However, it is not at all clear ICD can accomplish all, even most, of these worthy goals. In fact, a skeptic would suggest such resolution is highly unlikely. The problem is that ICD has so rarely served as the focus of academic at-tention that no one really knows what it can accomplish, or how to best make it work. As a result, it is a concept not only available, but crying out, for further research. Studies are needed to confirm whether ICD can in fact bring about all (or even any) of the positive results politicians so casually assign. If so, knowing which elements are critical, and how these can be taught and learned, cer-tainly would be appropriate. Communica-tion as a discipline should, logically, play a central role in the study of ICD, and in an-swering these questions, for it is through


6

communication that participants engage in dialogue, intercultural or otherwise. Funded ICD Projects in Europe Largely as a result of the creation of the EU, multiple efforts have been made to bring members of different cultures into contact, even when, in fact especially when, there has traditionally been either little contact, or ac-tive conflict. Activities occur at three levels: across national boundaries, across cultural groups within a nation, and between individ-uals within a local community. These can be considered a continuum of macro to micro approaches. The following section outlines the broad parameters of these efforts as con-text to discussion of who has studied these and other exemplars. One European effort involved funding for lifelong learning, across multiple cohorts. (Comenius funded students and teachers at the elementary and secondary levels; Erasmus funded students and teachers in higher edu-cation; Leonardo da Vinci funded vocational training; Grundtvig funded adult education; and Jean Monnet funded other sorts of coop-erative efforts, including sharing what has been learned from these other programs.) Be-tween 2007 and 2013, the EU devoted €7 bil-lion to the various parts of the Lifelong Learning Project (LLP), involving over 500,000 individuals, so these were not small programs with little impact (Bracht et al, 2006, analyze the impact of one such pro-gram; Chirodea & Ţoca, 2012, summarize the ways in which LLP promoted ICD). LLP was replaced by the Erasmus+ Program

(http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/about_en) operating between 2014 and 2020, with another €14.7 billion allotted, tak-ing as the goal moving 4 million people around not just Europe but now the entire world for education-related purposes through an expanded range of programs for ever more categories of people. A second European project provided funding for various transnational research collabora-tions. The Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Develop-ment, known as FP7, (http://ec.europa.eu/re-search/fp7/understanding/fp7inbrief/what-is_en.html) funded scholars from multiple countries working together for several years. FP7 spent €50 billion between 2007 and 2013. Another €80 billion was allocated between 2014 and 2020 to the revised and expanded program, called Horizon 2020 (http://ec.eu-ropa.eu/research/horizon2020), again focus-ing on collaborative international research. A third European effort has been to fund spe-cific smaller projects intended to deliberately bring about instances of ICD. It is difficult to obtain details of total funding since these have a wider variety of funding sources and often are based within individual countries, but it is easy to find descriptions of specific activities. • The Council of Europe keeps a public

Compendium of Cultural Practices and Trends in Europe. One section documents 58 "Cases of Good Practice." As described on their website, "Most of them are pro-jects undertaken within individual coun-tries to facilitate dialogue among the dif-ferent cultural groups living there. They are initiated on the national, regional or


7

local level and range from 'hybrid' artistic productions to training programmes, awards, festivals, public events, media productions etc." (http://www.cultural-policies.net/web/intercultural-dialogue-database.php).

• The Anna Lindh Foundation, established

in 2004 to promote ICD between Europe and Mediterranean countries (including much of the Middle East and North Af-rica), describes a number of case studies in their annual reports (the last one pub-lished is The Anna Lindh Report 2018). The Anna Lindh Foundation is governed by the Union for the Mediterranean, par-tially funded by the EU, and headquar-tered in Egypt. It spent over €20 million between 2005 and 2011 (current figures have not been made available, but the few numbers posted suggest totals will be at least comparable). One of their successes has been the establishment of a network of over 4000 civil society organizations pro-moting ICD (http://www.annalindhfoun-dation.org/networks).

• In 2014, UNESCO expanded the Year of

Intercultural Dialogue (2008) to the Inter-national Decade for the Rapprochement of Cultures (2013-2022). “The objective of the Decade is to promote mutual under-standing and respect for diversity, rights and equal dignity between peoples, through intercultural dialogue and con-crete initiatives. . .Peace is more than the absence of conflict. It is about solidarity and mutual understanding. It is about building bridges of respect and dignity” (UNESCO, 2017, p. 6). The goal is to en-courage multiple projects around the

world. The activities following 2008 were summarized in a report prepared by the Committee on Culture and Education for the European Parliament (2015).

• In 2015, the European Agency for Culture was established by EU members to coordi-nate ICD activities, “focusing on the inte-gration of migrants and refugees in socie-ties through the arts and culture” (https://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/stra-tegic-framework/intercultural-dia-logue_en). Their report (European Agency for Culture, 2017) includes 46 case studies. Similarly, the European Commis-sion’s European Website on Integration includes over 400 examples of good prac-tices relating to ICD, cultural activities and diversity (https://ec.europa.eu/mi-grant-integration). Wilk-Woś (2010) out-lines the EC logic, concluding that “the Commission considers intercultural dia-logue as one of the main instruments of peace and conflict prevention” and that “making people aware of the cultural di-versity as well as the need for intercultural dialogue are the most important issues” (p. 86).

• The Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

in Milan, Italy, funded the project Migra-tions | Mediations: Arts and Communica-tion as Resources for Intercultural Dia-logue, which “tackles the different uses of media, theatre and performance, art and culture in the management of migratory phenomena and the promotion of inter-cultural dialogue” (https://www.migra-tions-mediations.com/info/il-progetto). Their results include the production of videotapes, a bibliography for work on


8

migrants, media and the arts, as well as a database of ethnic restaurants.

As is obvious by these last examples, interna-tional migration has led to a lot of publica-tions about ICD from different perspectives, including minority rights (e.g., Berry, 2018; Ennaji, 2019; Peris & Elhefnawy, 2014; Pin-heiro, 2008; Prina et al, 2013; Saunders et al., 2015). As Ratzmann explains, “Intercultural dialogue is framed as an alternative policy re-sponse to globalisation-induced challenges of cultural diversity” (2019, p. 5). Suggestions about the important role of me-dia and the arts in fostering ICD have not yet been picked up often enough, given that the arts can serve as a site from which to study ICD (for exceptions, see Gonçalves & Majha-novich, or Sen, 2015). Banda (2015) specifi-cally argues for the need to accept minority media as “a key plank of intercultural dia-logue” (p. 35). The Media and Information Literacy and Intercultural Dialogue (MILID) Yearbooks, funded by UNESCO and various partners, each include chapters describing various ways in which social media have been used to construct dialogues across cultural boundaries (Carlsson & Culver, 2013; Culver & Kerr, 2014; Singh et al., 2015, 2016). In most of the studies documented, the goal is to bring people (often students) together de-spite geographic distance and substantially distinct life experiences. The conclusion is of-ten that meeting in real space is best, because participants immerse themselves in a new culture, but that meeting in virtual space is far better than not meeting at all. There has been increasing consideration of intangible elements of culture as a tool to

bring about ICD. As the Council of Europe, among others, suggests, it is through “becom-ing involved in cooperative activities with people who have different cultural affilia-tions” that ICD occurs (2013, p. 30). The spe-cific focus recommended has varied, includ-ing: food (He, 2017; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2017; Lum & de Ferriere la Vayer, 2016); ar-chitecture (Ang et al., 2018); drama (Cin-quina, 2016; Sirius Training et al, 2020); art (Goncalves, 2015a; Goncalves & Majha-novich, 2016); or community media (Car-pentier & Doudaki, 2014). As Higgins-Desbi-olles suggests, food permits the creation of “a decolonized space” which allows for “inter-cultural dialogue and understanding” (p. 156). All the same, much more remains to be done. Ang et al. (2018) describe an immer-sion program for architecture students from Australia to learn about sustainable design and construction across multiple countries in Asia, combining real world experience with ICD. Often attention in Europe addresses the link between education and ICD (Platform for In-tercultural Europe, 2008; Council of Europe, 2010); frequently the focus is specifically on higher education contexts (Gonçalves, 2011; Horga, 2014; Lähdesmäki et al., 2020; Lundgren et al., 2019; Skrefsrud, 2016; Solbue et al., 2017; Vieira et al., 2017), although it may begin as early as nursery school (Stier & Sandstrom, 2020; Zay, 2011). As Bergan (2009) points out, “There is hardly a more in-ternational institution than the university” (p. 9), and this is true whether the focus is on the international population or disciplinary study of international interactions. Where people from different cultures gather, the as-sumption should be that at least some of


9

them will wish to engage in dialogue. One of the reasons for this is that “communication is the active aspect of culture, not only permit-ting the act of constructing culture, but also of transferring cultural knowledge from one generation to the next” (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1989, p. 62; Center for Intercultural Dialogue, 2017b).

Thus, universities are often taken as obvi-ous places from which to begin explicit dis-cussions of, and training in, ICD. Wächter (2010) outlines two roles for higher educa-tion: one direct (to foster ICD on their own campuses) and one indirect (to promote ICD outside the university, typically within the immediate surrounding community). In the first case, everyone on campus is treated “as actors in the social world whose actions have an impact on the world” (Woodin et al., 2011,

p. 121). In the second case, universities move beyond encouraging ICD within their walls, including preparing students to take on the role of active organizers and facilitators of ICD after graduation.

Other specific projects with substantial budg-ets and impact include: the Intercultural Cit-ies Programme, which “supports cities in re-viewing their policies through an intercul-tural lens and developing comprehensive in-tercultural strategies to help them manage di-versity positively and realise the diversity ad-vantage” (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/culture-heritage/culture/Cities/Default_en.asp), and which provides a collection of examples of good practice (https://www.coe.int/en/ web/ interculturalcities/good-pratice), and Euro-pean Capitals of Culture, a program dedi-cated to two seemingly contradictory goals: to “highlight the richness and diversity of cul-tures in Europe,” while simultaneously seek-ing to “celebrate the cultural features Europe-ans share” (http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/euro-pean-capitals-of-culture_en.htm). Canada has joined the former effort, with Montreal, as the most obvious example of an intercul-tural city, hosting a conference on “Building Intercultural Cities: From Practice to Policy and Back Again” in 2014, including partici-pation by many of the EU cities involved in the project (Guidikova, 2018). Among the most innovative designs among the multiple projects funded in the EU are those making use of existing public facilities as safe spaces (Opffer, 2015a) for promoting ICD. These include museums, libraries, com-munity centers and theatres.


10

• The Museum of World Culture (Göteborg, Sweden) decided “The museum is a place for dialogue, where multiple voices can be heard, an arena for people to feel at home across borders" (http://www.opera-amster-dam.nl/ projects.php?pro_id=14). They brought immigrants from Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia together with museum staff to design a new exhibit matching personal stories, photos, and videos to existing mu-seum collections.

• The Human Library (Copenhagen, Den-mark) was designed as a concrete, transfer-able, affordable way to promote tolerance and understanding, in response to violence. Visitors speak informally with "people on loan" (http://humanlibrary.org) - this latter group being extremely varied in age, gen-der, and cultural background, but repre-senting local community groups.

• Caisa International Cultural Centre (Hel-sinki, Finland) provides a safe space for members of different cultural groups to meet, either within their own group or across groups, or even, with city represent-atives on issues relating to their welfare.

• Project Llull (Carregal do Sal, Portugal) uses performance to initiate dialogues across cultural and religious boundaries. An international company (including members from Catalonia, Spain, Portugal, and England), Project Llull adapted a 13th century play about interfaith dialogue in order to spark similar conversations today (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2012).

• PLACE (France, Germany, Greece, UK) is designed “to turn the ‘migrant crisis’ into

an opportunity for growth by favoring mi-grant-led innovation” (http://place.net-work). The process involves: bringing to-gether migrants and locals to discuss their current challenges; setting them up in small groups to create products and ser-vices that resolve those challenges; and then actually put the results into practice.

• The Fabric of My Life (FABRIC) is a col-

laborative project co-funded by the EU from 2018-2022 involving major cultural institutions across Denmark, Greece, and Germany (Nosch, 2019). The aim is “to in-novate and test new methods in the cul-tural sectors concerning migration his-tory, to empower refugee women and to train cultural workers and design stu-dents.” To accomplish this aim, “FABRIC focuses on the role of textiles and clothing in the life and memory of older and new refugees, with the intention to highlight and communicate their life stories” (https://artextiles.org/en/content/fabric-my-life).

• An earlier, related project based only at the

University of Copenhagen, THREAD (an acronym for Textile Hub for Refugee Em-powerment, Employment and Entrepre-neurship Advancement in Denmark), be-gan from the assumption “that refugee and immigrant women are a valuable re-source rather than a problem group” and “set out to explore whether textile culture and craft could be catalysts for improved refugee integration” (Malcolm-Davies & Nosch, 2018, p. 118). In the process, much ICD ensued between students, curators, and refugees with knowledge of specific traditions to share.


11

Another innovative approach is to take ad-vantage of safe spaces that may be digital ra-ther than physical locations. Galani et al. (2020), focus on the nexus of cultural herit-age, dialogue, and digital practices. Some concrete examples (not only from the EU) follow. • diverCities: A Global Collaboration Space

for Intercultural Dialogue (sponsored by UNESCO) was a digital humanities proto-type for using a website to promote ICD within and across major world cities (Ang & Pothen, 2009, discuss why it never moved beyond the experimental stage). At least partially succeeded by DIVERCI-TIES: Governing Urban Diversity, in-tended as a tool for “Creating social cohe-sion, social mobility and economic perfor-mance in today’s hyper-diversified cities” (https://www.urbandivercities.eu/about-divercities), and funded by FP7.

• Write 2 Unite (the Netherlands, Slovenia,

and Spain), a UNICEF initiative started in 2017, brings together young refugees, mi-grants and locals, providing blogging and storytelling training, posting the resulting stories for a broader audience to access (https://blogs.unicef.org/blog/write-2-unite).

• NaTakallam pairs displaced Syrians with

Arabic learners around the world for lan-guage practice over Skype (https://na-takallam.com/about/natakallam.com). This complex project ensures that new speakers learn about the language and cul-ture from native speakers while offering an income to displaced Syrians. In the pro-cess of language teaching and learning,

ICD occurs. Using ICD as a by-product rather than the explicit goal of a project in this way may be the most successful design of all.

• Tuna Forum, in Romania, has organized a wide series of events (panels and discus-sion series, luncheons, dinner and talk meetings, movie and talk meetings, and essay and book summary contests, courses on intercultural relations and language lessons) as ways to bring together people from different cultural backgrounds (most often Romanians and Turks). Ecirli (2013) studied the results, concluding that the Forum did in fact encourage ICD.

In 2018 UNESCO developed an e-platform of digital resources documenting the various ways ICD is being encouraged around the world, especially outside of the EU, as part of the International Decade for the Rapproche-ment of Cultures mentioned earlier (https://en.unesco.org/interculturaldia-logue). The platform has the advantage of serving as a broad clearinghouse where any-one conducting relevant projects can post their own information so others can easily learn about them. In 2020, the Anna Lindh Foundation established the Intercultural Di-alogue Resource Centre (https://www.an-nalindhfoundation.org/intercultural-dia-logue-hub) with similar goals and facilities, but different resources and a greater empha-sis on the Mediterranean region. ICD as a Research Topic Despite its significance to diplomats and NGOs, including many concrete projects such as those just described, funded by


12

various national and supra-national groups mostly based in Europe, ‘intercultural dia-logue’ rarely has been used as the technical term of choice by academics, let alone served as the primary object of research. I certainly do not wish to imply that there has not been research into a wide variety of related phe-nomena — or even ICD by another name. But, as Elsdon-Baker puts it, ICD is an area with "a lacuna of scholarly research relating to policy or practice based approaches" (2013, p. 32; see also Castiglioni, 2013). It is note-worthy that searching for publications using this exact phrase reveals a surprisingly small number. The exceptions most often take an indirect approach to the topic. Indirect Approaches What, then, are the cognate approaches used to date that contribute to our understanding of intercultural dialogue? 1. Dialogue generally has long been an ac-cepted research topic, one already granted at-tention within communication, with Martin Buber and Mikhail Bakhtin frequently refer-enced as forebears (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003; Barge, 2017; Ganesh & Zoller, 2012; Hoover, 2011; Shotter, 2000; Stewart, 2014). Put for-ward as "a preferred form for human action" (as summarized by Carbaugh, 2013, p. 9), at times, the goal of communication has been assumed to be “authentic dialogue,” that is, not only conversation but rather “the mutual communion of souls” (Katriel, 2004, p. 1). “Dialogue is the term used for a specific type of communication: occasions when partici-pants, despite having their own perspectives, recognize the existence of other, different

perspectives, and remain open to learning about them” (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2016, p. 17; Center for Intercultural Dialogue, 2017c).

Dialogue has also been studied taking linguis-tics as the entry point. For example, Koike and Blythe (2015) and Ponomarenko et al. (2017) approach dialogue from the point of view of language learning, and the ways in which new learners must adapt to a new com-munity. In these examples, learning a new language is both a necessary requirement for holding dialogues with others, and a vehicle for demonstrating to students the value of ICD. Very occasionally dialogue has been the focus within intercultural communication, as with Weiming (2014). There has been a move to create ‘dialogue studies’ which would over-lap with how dialogue has been approached from within communication but also bring in


13

additional disciplinary perspectives, as evi-denced by the establishment of the Journal of Dialogue Studies in 2013. 2. Public dialogue has been a notable focus of research to date, especially by those taking a Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) approach (e.g., Herzig & Chasin, 2006; Pearce, 2008; Pearce et al., 2009; Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997; Pearce & Pearce, 2001; Penman, 2014). But within public dialogue studies, even investigations of contexts where culture clearly plays a central role (e.g., Spano, 2001), do not often explicitly use the term ICD, and the focus is rarely on intercul-tural contexts. The most recent research combines public dialogue with deliberation, most often with a political context (e.g., Esco-bar, 2011). 3. There has been discussion of dialogue in cross-cultural perspective (such as Carbaugh, 2005; Carbaugh et al., 2006, 2011; Chen & Starosta, 2004; Wierzbicka, 2006), comparing what different cultures do or say as related to the concept and practice of dialogue, point-ing out that assumptions about what dialogue entails do not necessarily translate across cul-tural boundaries. The most relevant exem-plars in this tradition study cultural groups in conflict, analyzing interaction to discover the difficulties, even if they are studied separately (as when Katriel described dugri speech in her 1986 book, and then compared dugri speech among Israelis with musayara among Arabs in Griefat & Katriel, 1989). This re-search strand descends from Hymes’ original (1962) call for ethnographic documentation of cultural differences in interaction. As eth-nography typically begins by documenting what a single cultural group takes for granted,

cross-cultural studies have a long and distin-guished history, but they are a better starting point than final result when the goal is to have participants from different cultures in-teract (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2014b). Even though some scholars use intercultural and cross-cultural to mean the same thing, they and related set of terms should be clearly sorted out. Intercultural communication re-quires interaction between members of dif-ferent cultural groups. Intracultural commu-nication occurs between members of the same culture. Cross-cultural communication involves a comparison between what mem-bers of different cultural groups do, or what they take for granted. International commu-nication crosses national borders, whether through interaction or media (Center for In-tercultural Dialogue, 2017d).


14

4. There has been considerable use of the phrase intergroup dialogue, sometimes as a synonym for all of intercultural communica-tion, other times more narrowly as a syno-nym for ICD (e.g., Atkinson, 2013; Beker-man, 2009; Bowen, 2014; Broome, 2013, 2016; Broome & Jakobsson Hatay, 2006; Broome et al, 2019; DeTurk, 2006, 2010; Schoem & Hurtado, 2001; Scott, 2016). Much of this research strand has its origin in the study of language and social psychology (Giles, 2012), as a result often examining cog-nition rather than behavior (thoughts rather than actions or words). The cognate term in-tergroup relations most often has been a focus within psychology (although there are excep-tions, such as at Villanova University, where an IGR sequence is taught within communi-cation under the sponsorship of the Multicul-tural Student Affairs office (http://www1.vil-lanova.edu/villanova/studentlife/multicul-turalaffairs/igr.html). 5. There has been substantial research exam-ining conflict, negotiation, mediation, etc., overlapping the study of ICD, again most of-ten without using the phrase, even when the focus has been on intercultural contexts (e.g., Brownlie, 2017; Busch, 2019; Kellett & Matyók, 2016; Roy & Shaw, 2015; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). Much work has ex-amined intractable conflicts (Smith, 2014, 2016), specifically in the Middle East (includ-ing Abramovich, 2005; Ellis, 2015; Ellis & Maoz, 2002, 2007; Maoz & Ellis, 2006; Zup-nik, 2000), Northern Ireland (Hoover, 2011; Wilson & Stapleton, 2007), or Cyprus (Broome, 2005, 2015, 2017; Higgins, 2011). Some of it has focused specifically on tech-niques demonstrated to resolve conflicts, whether the term used is conflict management

(Dai & Chen, 2017; Greco, 2018; Wang, 2015), conflict transformation (Balandina, 2010; Kellett & Matyók, 2016; Shailor, 2015), peacebuilding (Adwan & Bar-On, 2004; Heleta & Deardorff, 2017; Mutua, 2015; Opffer, 2015b; Penaskovic & Sahin, 2017), peacemaking (Hyslop & Jarrett, 2019; Melnik, 2019; Ron & Maoz, 2013), or peace education (Bekerman & Zembylas, 2011; Salomon & Cairns, 2009; Warshel, 2018). Wilson (2014) presents a case study of a leadership-training organization teaching the facilitation of dia-logue across difference which places the focus on holding dialogues with the parties respect-ing one another rather than on achieving consensus, concluding that tolerance “is a tool rather than an outcome” (p. 861). 6. Another indirect approach has been to ex-amine intercultural competence or intercul-tural communication competence, emphasiz-ing what participants need to know and/or do in order for ICD to be successful (Bennett, 2016; Byram, 1997; Council of Europe, 2012; Kramsch, 2013; Orsini-Jones & Lee, 2018; UNESCO, 2013). The first term is shorter, and more often used as a result, but the latter highlights the central role played by commu-nication. Participants need to be able to talk and act in ways understood as meaningful by others participating in the same context. Learning a language requires knowing not only how to put grammatically correct sen-tences together, but also when to say what to whom. Context crucially influences how par-ticipants interpret language and behavior, but such subtleties are the hardest elements to learn. Since the same behaviors may con-vey different meanings to diverse cultural groups, intending one’s words or actions to be interpreted in one way cannot prevent


15

misunderstandings when they are under-stood in another. Relevant work has been produced within intercultural communica-tion (e.g., Arasaratnam, 2014; Arasaratnam, & Doerfel, 2005, Chen & Starosta, 1996; Dai & Chen, 2014; Deardorff, 2009; Deardorff & Arasaratnam-Smith, 2017; DeJaeghere & Cao, 2009; Holmes, 2015; Holmes & O’Neill, 2012; Holmes et al., 2017; Witteborn, 2015), but there is much room for research into de-tails of interaction still to come. Intercultural competence as a term sees frequent use within the same international organizations as ICD, and there are many relevant materials (e.g., UNESCO, 2013; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2016). This strand developed from Hymes’ work on communicative competence (Hymes, 1972, 1984; Lambert & Leeds-Hurwitz, 2012), and remains a common emphasis of language teachers, applied linguists, and English pro-grams, especially those teaching English as a foreign language where intercultural contexts are assumed to be relevant (e.g., Byram, 2008; Byram et al., 2001; Corbett, 2014; Crosbie, 2014; Lochtman & Kappel, 2009). Barrett (2017), and Council of Europe (2013), link ICD to cultural competence specifically within an education setting. Houghton (2012) points out the need to place ICD “at the centre of foreign language education” (p. xi). International House (established in Phil-adelphia, New York, Chicago, and Berkeley), designed to bring international graduate stu-dents into daily contact with their US coun-terparts, provides a good example of a living situation designed to encourage intercultural competence in an educational context (Ink, 2018; Winkin, 1982, 1983). Intercultural competence is an important first step, but re-ally should not be the final goal: “Intercul-tural competence is passive, a matter of what

someone knows. Intercultural dialogue is ac-tive, a matter of what someone does” (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2016, pp. 7-8; Center for Intercul-tural Dialogue, 2017e).

7. Related terms are interculturalism (Bello, 2017; Busch & Möller-Kiero, 2016; Elias & Mansouri, 2020; Sarmento, 2014), cosmopoli-tanism (Delanty, 2009; Gonçalves, 2015a; Hepple, 2015; Kögler, 2018; McEwan & So-bre-Denton, 2011; Sobre-Denton, 2014; So-bre-Denton & Bardhan, 2013), multicultural-ism (Bloom, 2013b; Gonçalves, 2015b; Golovatina-Mora & Mora, 2014), intercultur-ality (Burnard et al., 2018; Dervin, 2014), and third-culture building (Casmir, 1993, 1999; Matoba, 2011). Each of these terms has, at different times, been used to argue for mov-ing beyond co-existence of different cultures towards dialogue between cultures (Stokke &


16

Lybæk, 2016). Third-culture kids (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009) and the later, broader term, cross-cultural kids (Van Reken, 2019) have the advantage of looking to the next genera-tion for leadership:

TCKs are particularly adept at intercul-tural dialogues since they have experi-enced so many firsthand. They are fre-quently proposed as model future world citizens, being multilingual, multicultur-ally competent, taking a global worldview for granted, and typically flexible, adapt-able, and resilient. (Lijadi, 2014, p. 1)

Essentially, the underlying assumption for each of these concepts is that in a multicul-tural, cosmopolitan, intercultural world, what we need to survive is intercultural di-alogue. 8. John Gumperz studied examples of ICD (at least as early as Gumperz, 1978), calling his approach interactional sociolinguistics. His work on contextualization cues supports ICD research, and his students use ethnographic and linguistic methods to document intercul-tural interactions (Gordon, 2014; Gumperz, 1982, 1992). Much of the work pioneered by Gumperz emphasizes miscommunication – the difficulties caused by cultural differences in assumptions about communication, which might be viewed as the inverse of ICD, since it shows what happens when things go wrong, when participants do not listen to one another (Bailey, 1997; Chick, 1985; Gumperz & Roberts, 1991; Hinnenkamp, 1999; Jacque-met, 2011; Linell, 1996; Zheng, 2016). This leads to research on intercultural pragmatics (see Kecskes, 2014 for a basic introduction, or any article in the journal of that name), cross-

cultural pragmatics (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Kecskes, 2017; Wierzbicka, 2003), cultural discourse analysis (Carbaugh, 2007; Scollo & Milburn, 2019), and, more broadly linguistic research emphasizing discourse within an in-tercultural context (as in Scollon & Scollon, 2001). 9. Pöllmann (2013, 2014, 2016, 2017) ex-pands Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of cultural capital to propose consideration of intercul-tural capital. Essentially this expands beyond intercultural proficiencies (the typical list of skills, competencies, sensitivities required for intercultural competence) to include more subtle elements, such as “their relative ex-change value and the circumstances under which they are more or less likely to be real-ized” (Pöllmann, 2013, p. 2). Like other forms of cultural capital, intercultural capital is symbolic and so invisible (like knowledge) rather than concrete (like a house). Pöllmann operationalizes intercultural capital as “a combination of the number of spoken foreign languages…intercultural friendships…and experience of living abroad” (p. 4), though he suggests the exact factors may vary by con-text. This means that those who are bilingual are especially valuable in multilingual groups; those with experience working internation-ally can quickly find their footing when sent to still another country for business. Thus, such individuals should find their skills and experiences valued, and should be much in demand, whether as employees, colleagues, or friends. The implications of intercultural capital are enormous, as they suggest that those in the third world who are bi- or multi-lingual have something of great value that many in the first world do not have, and


17

traditionally have not valued enough to spend time developing. 10. Intercultural communication has a long tradition of studying what happens when participants make different cultural assump-tions, but often the methodologies chosen (surveys, questionnaires, interviews) do not examine what actually occurs in interaction (focusing instead on what people say occurs), and/or participants interact without the re-quirements of dialogue (that is, without priv-ileging attention to learning about the Other, focusing just on how to convey their own message to a cultural Other). Frame (2014) suggests use of the term "culture-interac-tional approach" (p. 6) in order to emphasize the micro level (interaction) over the macro level (culture). Chick (1985) provides a good example of attending to intercultural interac-tion, but the example studied is not dialogue. Drzewiecka (2003) uses the term ICD, but ex-amines the role played by collective memo-ries in responses to a documentary film, ra-ther than direct interaction. For other studies of film and ICD, Björk et al. (2017) provide a concrete example of how ICD can be encour-aged through teaching with film in South Af-rica; Evans (2018) analyzes ICD within the films of Fatih Akin for a German-Turkish perspective. DeTurk (2011) attends to dia-logue, but also does not examine interactions, relying upon participant interviews instead. However, her helpful suggestion that ICD “represents a distilled version of intercultural communication” (p. 54, my emphasis), pro-vides excellent justification for intercultural communication scholars to attend more di-rectly to ICD.

The connections between intercultural com-munication, intercultural competence, and in-tercultural dialogue, may seem obvious, but they are worth sorting out. Intercultural com-munication simply requires interaction be-tween members of different cultures; that in-teraction may be negative rather than posi-tive, or it mail fail entirely. Intercultural com-petence requires that participants know something about how to interact with mem-bers of different cultures, which makes them more likely to achieve some level of success. And intercultural dialogue requires a con-certed attempt to understand members of a different culture, that is, what makes sense to someone who has very different assumptions (Arasaratnam, 2014; Center for Intercultural Dialogue, 2017f; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2014a, 2014c; 2016).


18

11. There have been a few efforts intended to move dialogue to the center of teaching inter-cultural communication. Heisey (2011) pro-poses increased dialogue between members of different cultural groups as part of teaching intercultural communication (arguing as well for increased intercultural experiences among those teaching intercultural commu-nication, a long overdue suggestion). Kanata and Martin (2007) suggest using online dia-logues as a pedagogical tool in teaching inter-cultural communication. However, arguing on behalf of ICD as a valued good is still not the same as studying the practice of ICD. 12. Jackson (2012) concludes her introduction to a handbook on language and intercultural communication by saying that the authors all “share an interest in intercultural communica-tion dialogue” (p. 13) – but note that dialogue has not yet made it into the title of this or the many other introductory texts on language and intercultural communication. The only chapters in Jackson's handbook to directly ad-dress ICD even briefly are Byram (2012), best known for developing the autobiography of intercultural encounters circulated by the Council of Europe as a tool to promote ICD (https://www.coe.int/en/web/autobiography-intercultural-encounters), and Holmes (2012), who lists ICD as a “future direction” for research (p. 479). Oddly, ‘language and in-tercultural communication’ shares little his-tory in common with ‘intercultural communi-cation’ since the former term is used in lin-guistics, and the latter in communication. This has led to very different research emphases, as Hua (2020) points out: “Instead of taking cul-ture as ‘being’ and as the starting point, the discourse perspective enables the researcher to explore how people ‘do’ culture discursively

through interactions and negotiations” (p. 4). A related strand of research, often by sociolin-guistics, has considered translation, focusing on the role of translator as mediator and coor-dinator of intercultural interactions (Büchler, 2018; Davidson, 2000; Wadensjö, 1995, 1998). Interpretation is similar to translation, but even more urgent and immediate as it requires translation in real time (Mark, 2017; Mona-ghan, 2017; Parks, 2017). 13. There also has been research investigating intercultural relationships of various sorts (Karis & Killian, 2009; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2002; Sandel, 2011). Migliorini and Rania (2017) suggest specific techniques for use with com-munities facing intercultural challenges to make intercultural relationships visible to group members. Wiruchnipawan and Chua (2018) examine the impact of such relation-ships on creativity, finding, as others have previously shown, that cultural diversity leads to greater creativity. 14. Other applied topics include the impact of differing cultural assumptions in health care (Ho, 2006; Ho et al., 2015; Orbe, 2004; Pergert & Tiselius, 2020), or the impact of di-verse cultures in organizations (Cheng, 2008; Covarrubias, 2002; Kristjánsdóttir & Christi-ansen, 2017; Kristjánsdóttir & Martin, 2010). While all of these approaches are intercul-tural, and presumably require, or at least might benefit from, dialogue between partic-ipants, ICD again typically has not been the explicit focus of study, so much work re-mains. The different approaches to inter-cultural dialogue might be described as a set of blind men studying individual aspects of the elephant, never realizing there is an


19

entire beast. Those who have stepped back to see the entire animal deserve special at-tention (Center for Intercultural Dialogue, 2020b).

Direct Approaches Witteborn has it right: “To maintain the idea of intercultural dialogue as conceptually and analytically viable, one can ask what is inter and what is cultural about dialogue” (2011, p. 122, emphasis in original). Thus, the question becomes: what research has emphasized all three elements simultaneously, and explic-itly? 1. The single largest subject investigated to date has been interfaith dialogue (e.g., Abu-Nimer et al., 2007; Keaten & Soukoup, 2009; Orton, 2016; Peleg, 2019; Smock, 2002; Tim-merman & Segaert, 2007; Tsuji, 2015; Wil-liams et al., 2019), also called interreligious di-alogue (as with the UNITWIN Network for Inter-Religious Dialogue and Intercultural Understanding, an organization made up of UNESCO Chairs; see Cetinkaya, 2020, for a brief explanation of the distinction between the terms). Unfortunately, actual interfaith dialogues are less often examined than might

be useful: there seem to be more arguments for this being a good thing than there are practical examples matched to analyses of what works and what does not. 2. The same is true for analyses of the impact of study abroad experiences (U. S. Depart-ment of Education, 2010; Gürüz, 2011; Hep-ple et al., 2017; Howard, 2019; Institute of In-ternational Education, 2010, 2012; Kim & Goldstein, 2005; Koester, 1985; Kuh, 2008) or international service-learning projects (De-Turk, 2017; Mutua, 2017; Souza, 2019), which also often use ICD as a tool to ensure success. Given the substantial push within the EU for mobility over the past few years, the fact that so much of the research on this topic comes out of Europe should be no surprise (Byram & Feng, 2006; Dervin, 2009; Dervin & Dirba, 2008). Tarp (2015) provides an ex-ample of what can be learned by studying stu-dents in an International Baccalaureate pro-gram, specifically with a focus on Denmark in this case, and how they experience ICD. 3. There has been far more work examining ICD as a general, philosophical approach or theoretically (as with Aalto & Reuter, 2006; Demenchonok, 2014; Seibt & Garsdal, 2014; Flynn, 2014; Haslett, 2017; Healy, 2013; Holmes et al., 2017; Keir, 2017; Keller, 2012; Lee, 2016; Vidmar-Horvat, 2012) and fewer concrete studies of ICD as a form of interac-tion. Many of the case studies in Haydari & Holmes, 2015, were explicitly intended to fill this gap. 4. One of the more interesting approaches is historical, looking back to past successes, as when convivencia is proposed as a model for modern-day intercultural interactions.


20

Convivencia is the term used to describe the shared co-existence of three cultures in medi-eval Spain, where Christian, Muslim, and Jewish communities lived side by side (de Wit, 2017; Habti, 2011; Wolf, 2009, 2017). Chuse (2018) examines a modern-day exam-ple of musical collaborations between Span-ish and North African musicians, some of which are explicitly called “dialogues be-tween cultures” (p. 86). Nieto and Bickmore (2016) teach convivencia as a tool for peace-building in Mexico. 5. One recent move argues for taking a critical approach and using action research to resolve the difficulties of establishing ICD, as with Indigenous peoples in Latin America (Pavan et al., 2015). In this case, the analysis provided is a fairly informal one, based on utterances by Brazilian Indian students in a classroom context. Staying within the educational con-text, Riitaoja and Dervin pose the following questions as essential when studying ICD:

Who is going to learn about whom, and whose knowledge is to be learnt? Does the Other have an opportunity to be seen and heard as a subject or relegated to a subaltern position? Are knowledge and understanding about her constructed with her and in her own terms? Will a religious ‘subaltern’ ever be equal to the majority in schools? (Riitaoja & Dervin, 2014, p. 87)

6. Among the few studies to match explicit use of the term ICD to a focus on actual be-havior, Baraldi (2010a) analyzes Children’s International Summer Villages (CISV), an organization designed to increase ICD

among adolescents. Using videotapes, inter-views and questionnaires, Baraldi’s team ex-amined “the main features of speakers’ ac-tions which either promote or prevent inter-locutors’ active participation, understanding and expression, and the main features of de-cision-making and conflict management in interaction” (Baraldi, 2010b, p. 1). Briefly, they emphasized “dialogic empowering rela-tionships based on specific dialogue actions . . . such as promotional questions, continu-ers, echoes, systematic appreciations, trans-formative formulations, and suggestive nar-ratives” (Baraldi, 2010c, p. 241). This research sets a good model for further investigation by others. 7. Similarly, Gobbo (2011, 2012) used ethno-graphic research to investigate classroom in-teraction after teachers attended a training session on working with Roma pupils and their parents in Turin. The results were shared with the teachers, who themselves then became ethnographers of their own schools. Gobbo concludes:

. . . ethnographic research reminds all who engage with diversity that they, in fact, apprehend it by engaging with di-verse people, in diverse circumstances and contexts, eventually realizing that such an intellectual and affective practice has profoundly touched them and en-hanced their potential for thinking criti-cally and creatively, and envisaging alter-native ways of building a sense of mem-bership and social cohesion. (Gobbo, 2011, p. 40)

Her point speaks directly to all those who study language and social interaction,


21

especially scholars choosing ethnography as one of their research methods. 8. In her study of ethnic newspapers, Co-perías-Aguilar (2015, 2017) proposes a par-ticularly useful theoretical concept: double in-tercultural dialogue. She intended this to refer to the way in which the Spanish language press first brings together different Hispanic groups into a single panethnic community, regardless of country of origin, and then to bring them into discussion with non-His-panic communities (for example, through the use of bilingual publications accessible to non-Spanish speakers). Earlier use of this term by Ruth (2003) refers to transdiscipli-nary and intercultural as the two types of ICD (a suggestion also made by Mangano, 2015, 2017, 2018). Both uses should be more often discussed and applied. 9. Equally important is to expand beyond considering even two types of dialogue sim-ultaneously: the different chapters in Bodo et al. (2009) describe yet more types of ICD that museums in their test projects designed: be-tween museum employees in different coun-tries; museum staff and their communities; members of different groups in those com-munities (especially between old-timers and newcomers, but also between those interested in popular culture vs. high culture); a visitor and an object in the collection; visitors and curators or docents; museum directors and city officials; museum operators, teachers, and parents; locally-born vs. foreign-born students; and even, when exhibitions resulted in digital presentations for larger audiences, between the museum and the rest of the world. Introducing this sort of levels of com-plexity seems a counter-intuitive move,

because ICD between only two people can be difficult to manage well, so adding so many others seems impossible, but there may be fewer disadvantages than expected in open-ing up to more (as, for example, when paral-lels in what works can be found more readily across these different pairings). At the very least, it is worth consideration. 10. Another helpful theoretical concept might be an expansion of Gao’s 1995 “para-dox of intercultural communication” (pub-lished in Chinese, but discussed in English in Gao, 2017). She noticed that the generaliza-tions produced by those who discuss inter-cultural differences can easily turn into stere-otypes, which then interfere with mutual un-derstanding. This might be updated by sug-gesting that spending too much time explain-ing why ICD is important and necessary could actually interfere with successfully managing actual dialogues, and so is an argu-ment for moving from discussion to practice. 11. Crosbie (2018) studied a specific ICD ef-fort (BlueFire in inner city Dublin) aimed at using the arts and street entertainment to in-tegrate new immigrants into a local commu-nity, on the assumption that using the arts “of-fers a vehicle and mode for transcending dif-ference, is creative, and helps effect social change through new ways of looking at the world” (p. 203). Part of what makes this work is the effort spent by young people cooperat-ing in advance of the event, in preparing for the festival. She concludes that ICD, when suc-cessful, introduces “equity of voice and agency of all participants” (p. 212), an insight that would be useful if applied to future studies by others.


22

12. Even though most of the activity has been in Europe, there has been some movement within communication in the USA directly ad-dressing ICD. In July 2009, the National Com-munication Association Summer Conference on Intercultural Dialogue was held at Maltepe University, in Istanbul, Turkey (the uncom-mon design of that event is described in Leeds-Hurwitz, 2015b). One explicit goal was to cre-ate a cohesive group of researchers who could spark additional studies and further meetings. The first result was the establishment of the Center for Intercultural Dialogue in 2010 as a project of the Council of Communication As-sociations (http://centerforinterculturaldia-logue.org). The Center approaches ICD from two levels: encouraging research on the topic, but also bringing international scholars and practitioners together in shared dialogue about their work. The Center’s website now serves as a clearinghouse for information on ICD, including researcher profiles, publica-tion opportunities, and international confer-ences (or webinars, in the days of pandemic). A special issue of the Journal of International and Intercultural Communication (Ganesh & Holmes, 2011) and a volume of case studies, (Haydari & Holmes, 2015), many of which be-gan as presentations at the conference, are also available. Discussing this new emphasis (and specifically mentioning both this special issue and the Center as examples), Broome and Col-lier (2012) argue for the critical role of ICD in peacemaking. ICD was also used as a confer-ence theme for the International Association of Languages and Intercultural Communica-tion (IALIC) in 2012 (Holmes, 2014), and by the Roundtable on Intercultural Dialogue in Asia in 2014, co-sponsored by the Center for Intercultural Dialogue and the University of Macau (as described, and shown through a

short video, at https://centerforintercultural-dialogue.org/2014/04/09/roundtable-on-in-tercultural-dialogue-in-asia-macau). When conducting research on intercultural dialogue, multiple disciplines should be in-tegrated into a cohesive whole (interdisci-plinarity) at best and, at the least, serve as an interconnected web (multidiscipli-narity). At the very least, linguistics, anthro-pology, sociology, psychology, history, inter-national relations, and communication all have relevance. The Barcelona Centre for In-ternational Affairs (2014), in their summary of discussions at a specific training workshop, has suggested that interdisciplinarity is just as relevant to the study of ICD as transcultural-ity, and their argument makes a lot of sense, even though this is not a position commonly taken. Others have occasionally supported the idea, using the terms multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary (Man-gano, 2018; Tawil & Baeumer, 2018; Wagner et al., 2018). As has been the case with so many other topics, multi-, inter-, and/or transdisciplinary investigations should be es-pecially productive, and for much the same reason that cultural diversity is especially productive – divergent approaches expand our understanding of what is possible. Conclusion and Next Steps While many people have recognized the sig-nificance of ICD, and even more have begun to use the term, there have been relatively few attempts to study specific examples of actual practice: essential elements of ICD, how it works, how to teach people to do it, etc. Xu tells us: “Intercultural dialogue and relation, rather than the ontological difference


23

between cultures, should be the focus of in-tercultural communication research” (2013, p. 385). I agree completely: it is long past the time that intercultural dialogue should be accepted as a central topic, if not the central topic, within intercultural communication. Clearly, however, this has not yet happened. As Tuna suggests “the proclamation of more ICD per se does not make any difference” (2016, p. 2). It is also long past time to stop proclaiming and start conducting research. The question becomes: What needs to hap-pen next, to get us from the current state of affairs, where intercultural dialogue is more often mentioned than studied, to a fu-ture where intercultural dialogue becomes the focus of investigation? One answer is that communication scholars need to play a more central role in ICD stud-ies, and ICD needs to become more often a central topic in communication, especially intercultural communication. After all, if communication is central to ICD, why wouldn't communication researchers want to study it? At the point when bioethicists have already started a book series on Intercultural Dialogue in Bioethics (https://www.worldsci-entific.com/series/idb), it is obvious that those of us who study communication in the US have been pretty slow to notice and adopt the term. We have begun to take many rele-vant steps: communication researchers al-ready know, for example, that culture is no longer co-terminus with the boundaries of nation-states (if it ever was), despite the fact that much of the work on ICD still assumes international interactions as the obvious fo-cus. Specifically, what would we study? Given its

frequent mention as essential to world peace, new contexts encouraging dialogue across cultural boundaries are steadily being con-structed to open the topic beyond formal dip-lomatic events. As described in prior pages, many libraries and museums have begun to reshape their role as providing “an intercul-tural meeting point” (Morral, 2007, p. 207) because “Exhibitions are places of social rep-resentation and cultural dialogue” (Network of European Museum Organisations, 2016, p. 9; see also Bodo, 2012; Goodnow & Akman, 2008; Lagerkvist, 2006; Sīmansone, 2013). New here is the assumption that outreach to diverse members of the community is useful and appropriate since:

Their contribution of cultural expertise – e.g. special knowledge about objects and their context, linguistic aspects, and knowledge about certain techniques or rituals – enriches the museum experience for everyone . . . Rather than focusing on communicating specific content, the em-phasis is on facilitating a dialogue be-tween visitors with their individual ex-pectations and what is being presented in the museum. (Network of European Mu-seum Organisations, 2016, p. 13).

And there has been at least a little work on other public contexts, as when McDermott, Craith, and Strani (2015) examined public performances (mostly of traditional music) during a year-long festival in Derry/London-derry as an explicit site of ICD. It is particularly important to look at muse-ums and similar contexts outside the EU, given that these have been less often studied. Henry (2018) examines “Talking Difference”


24

at the Immigration Museum in Melbourne, an exhibit which facilitated dialogue be-tween participants through digital media. Tourism is now being used as a tool to pro-mote ICD, as in LaFever (2011) or Vidal-Ca-sellas et al. (2019). Carbone (2017) docu-ments how this works, largely as a result of providing “the opportunity to meet different communities and cultures” (p. 62). However, he also cautions that it requires “an explicit, multilevel engagement in the practice of cul-tural diplomacy” (2017, p. 69), so tourism in and of itself does not have the same effect. A related research strand is cultural mapping, which involves identifying the cultural as-pects of communities (Crawhall, 2009; Duxbury, 2015). Others have phrased ICD as a question of es-tablishing “safe” or “open” spaces in which to explore intercultural differences (UNESCO, 2013), or have emphasized formal education as a good location for lessons on intercultural competence and dialogue (Poglia et al., 2009), especially as related to media literacy (Carlsson et al., 2008). Popular activities such as music (Balandina, 2010; Burnard et al., 2018) and sport (Gasparini & Cometti, 2010) have been put forward as obvious vehicles to use in bringing about ICD, especially be-tween otherwise competing groups. Such contexts will likely provide excellent new re-search topics for scholars in the future, espe-cially those with an interest in applied re-search, and especially those outside the al-ready much studied EU. Ganesh and Holmes (2011) position ICD “as a predominantly eth-ical issue” (p. 84), and the topic should have great appeal to those with interests in both social harmony and a wide variety of social

justice issues (Center for Intercultural Dia-logue, 2017g; Sorrells, 2015).

Partnering with civil society organizations using ICD to address real world problems, possibly through uncommon techniques, such as participatory action research, as Al-meida (1999) did in Mexico, or as Sergi (2014) did in the UK, would be one direction to go. ICD also fits nicely with "practical the-ory" as transformative practice (Barge, 2001; Craig & Barge, 2009; Craig & Tracy, 2020; Cronen, 1995; Penman, 2000). One especially interesting trend investigates the use of technology and social media to en-courage ICD, especially for populations oth-erwise unable to easily connect physically, whether due to geographic distance (Garcia & Ouis, 2016; Schneider & von der Emde,


25

2006; Shuter, 2012) or past conflicts (Hasler & Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; Mor et al., 2016). Frequently virtual exchanges are es-tablished between students based in different countries (Bali, 2014; Develotte & Leeds-Hurwitz, 2015; Helm & Acconcia, 2019; O’Dowd, 2011). Sometimes labeled Exchange 2.0, digitally facilitated international conver-sations within an educational context have been proposed as a quick and cheap substi-tute for international study experiences in-volving actual travel when that proves diffi-cult (O’Dowd & Lewis, 2016). Digital connec-tion is better than no international experi-ence at all, but nowhere near as good as the sort of face-to-face contact that physical travel permits. Virtual exchanges may be sup-ported by international organizations (such as Soliya, which partners with the United Na-tions Alliance of Civilizations) or by an indi-vidual university (as with East Carolina Uni-versity’s Global Virtual Exchange). A partic-ularly ambitious example placed large screens in public spaces in Australia and South Korea, allowing direct interaction be-tween populations not typically in dialogue, and analyzing the results (Yue & Jung, 2011). Bozdağ (2015) expands this to study the ways diasporas use online discussion forums for ICD. At a theoretical level, Pfister and Soliz (2011) point out that what has been going on could be explained as a first shift from one-to-many communication (as with television), to few-to-few (as with Soliya and other pro-grams bringing individuals into contact with distant Others), and then a second shift to many-to-many (as when social media permit anyone to publish information which then becomes accessible to anyone else having In-ternet access).

A second answer is that we need common vo-cabulary for analysis of ICD. Accepting the need for holding intercultural dialogues im-plies developing common terms for describ-ing and managing interactions across cul-tural groups. This is a question of meta-discourse or metacommunication, focusing on the vocabulary itself prior to engaging in dialogue (Buttny, 2014 on the former; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2014d, 2014e on the latter). This will require a grand synthesis of research by scholars taking different approaches that cur-rently address ICD indirectly, and an active program of research into concrete cases. An obvious first step to preparing a grand syn-thesis would bring together those who study aspects of ICD using other technical vocabu-lary to name their subject. Whether their term of choice is intercultural communica-tion or public dialogue, intergroup relations or intercultural competence, a wide range of scholars in conversation could determine what they have already covered, and what they might jointly contribute in the future to our understanding of ICD. Only after we have sorted out how the pieces of what we have already learned fit together into a coherent whole can we know what work remains. Once cooperation across competing academic disciplines (and subdisciplines) has been assured, researchers could then begin investigating some of the multiple efforts to bring about ICD that have already been funded, as described earlier. Af-ter scholars have paid serious attention to an-alyzing their projects, we can then reasonably argue that the practitioners should listen to the theoretical infrastructure we can provide, which is currently missing from their efforts to bring about ICD.


26

Since ICD occurs most often through face-to-face interaction and during intercultural encounters, far more studies of actual inter-actions between real people are needed. And since ICD can also occur through me-diated intercultural encounters, larger numbers of studies of those will be required as well. Anderson and Corbett (2013) pro-vide a start at describing how virtual spaces can permit or encourage intercultural com-petence, but far more research will improve our understanding of what works, and in what ways, and what does not. Herrlitz and Maier (2005) provide a collection of exam-ples of how dialogue (and metacommunica-tion about dialogue) occurs in multicultural schools across Europe. A third answer is that ICD must be studied outside Europe more often. Dimitrovova (2010) begins this task through an analysis of the European Neighborhood Policy, looking at constructions of the border between the EU and its geographic neighbors. Granted the EU is where the term has found its strong-est supporters to date, but if ICD is useful there, it should be useful elsewhere as well. As Asante (2014a, 2014b) and Miike (2010, 2014) have shown, intercultural communica-tion as studied in the US typically has a Euro-centric bias; they ask: what would change given an Afrocentric or Asiacentric bias? The Roundtable on Intercultural Dialogue in Asia, held at the University of Macau in 2014, contributed to that conversation. Globalization, including especially the vari-ety of new media, has brought a wider range of cultures into closer contact with one an-other more often than in any prior generation (Ganesh & Stohl, 2014). Cultural diversity

and intercultural contact have become facts of modern life; as a result, competence in holding intercultural dialogues has become an essential skill for us all. Clearly, we must learn to share this planet together in peace, and if ICD can be used as a tool in that effort, the topic certainly merits attention. It is through ICD that members of different groups learn about one another: the exchange of basic information often serving as an es-sential first step. Learning about cultural Others turns out to be an unending task: there are always more new people to meet, and more to learn. Increasingly different groups co-exist in close proximity and must learn to understand and negotiate their as-sumptions, words, and actions. One final caveat: studies of ICD need bal-ance.6 Balance in terms of the event: partici-pants' each learn something about the Other, considering what is given and what is re-ceived. Balance in terms of the analysis: in the theoretical approaches used as resources. Bal-ance in terms of the results: contributing to practice, as well as theory. Talking about ICD in geographic locations or disciplines where this is not yet the topic of discussion are fur-ther ways to bring balance to the subject. As Tsuji writes, ICD is “a miracle begging for analysis” (2015, p. 53).7 Specific examples of this miracle deserve a lot more study than has yet been given to the general topic of ICD. We need to know far more “about the forms of life which foster rapprochement, dialogue and cohesion” (Saillant, 2017, p. 18), and to assume that “Difference is not merely a prob-lem to be solved, but rather a forum for prac-tices, interpretations, negotiations, frictions, enrichment and creative bridging” (p. 24).


27

Staying at the theoretical level, focusing on knowledge alone, is insufficient. Instead, we must first acknowledge, as several of the chapters in Mansouri (2017) argue, that ICD is not only about theory, but also about skills, behaviors, actions, and interactions with oth-ers (or, better, Others).

Finally, we must choose to study specific moments of actual intercultural dialogue between actual people, and sort out what works, and what does not, and then share that information widely.

To cite this article, use this format:

Leeds-Hurwitz, Wendy. (2020, August 3). Intercultural dialogue as the elephant in the room: Moving from assumptions to research investigations. In Dialogue: Center for Inter-cultural Dialogue Occasional Papers, 1. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldia-logue.org/2020/08/03/in-dialogue-cid-occasional-papers-1-icd-as-the-elephant-in-the-room/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References Aalto, N., & Reuter, E. (Eds.). (2006). Aspects of intercultural dialogue. Koln, Germany: SAXA Ver-lag. Abramovich, D. (2005). Overcoming the cultural barriers of conflict: Dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 26(4), 293-313. Abriszski, K. (2007). Inner/intercultural dialog and long-range ethics. In C. Kanzian & E. Rung-galdier (Eds.), Cultures: Conflict – analysis – dialogue, Proceedings of the 29 International Ludwig Wittgenstein Symposium (pp. 335-342). Frankfurt, Germany: Ontos Verlag. Abu-Nimer, M., Khoury, A. I., & Welty, E. (2007). Unity in diversity: Interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. Adwan, S., & Bar-On, D. (2004). Shared history project: A PRIME example of peace-building un-der fire. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 17(3), 513-521.


28

Almeida, F. E. (1999). Work and organization through intercultural dialogue. Concepts and Trans-formation, 4(2), 205-223. Aman, R. (2012). The EU and the recycling of colonialism: Formation of Europeans through inter-cultural dialogue. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(9), 1010-1023. Anderson, R., Baxter, L., & Cissna, K. N. (Eds.). (2003). Dialogue: Theorizing difference in commu-nication studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Anderson, W., & Corbett, J. (2013) Shaping intercultural competence? Creating a virtual space for the development of intercultural communicative competence. In F. Sharifian & M. Jamarani (Eds.), Language and intercultural communication in the new era (pp. 99-115). New York: Routledge. Ang, I., & Pothen, N. (2009). Between promise and practice: Web 2.0, intercultural dialogue and digital scholarship. Fibreculture Journal, 14. Available from: http://fourteen.fibreculturejour-nal.org/fcj-094-between-promise-and-practice-web-2-0-intercultural-dialogue-and-digital-schol-arship Ang, S., Karunasena, G., & Palliyaguru, R. (2018). Intercultural dialogue through design (iDiDe) as a platform for built environment education for sustainability in rural developing contexts: Building Ampara, Sri Lanka. In W. L. Filho, J. Rogers, & U. Iyer-Raniga (Eds.), Sustainable development re-search in the Asia-Pacific region: Education, cities, infrastructure and buildings (pp. 203-220). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Arasaratnam, L. A. (2014). Intercultural competence. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 3. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/key-concept-intercultural-competence.pdf Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 137-163. Asante, M. K. (2014a). Afrocentricity. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 23. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2014/07/14/key-concept-23-afrocentricity-by-molefi-kete-asante Asante, M. K. (2014b). Afrocentricity: Toward a new understanding of African thought in the world. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (2nd ed., pp. 101-110). New York: Routledge. Atkinson, M. (2013). Intergroup dialogue: A theoretical positioning. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 1(1), 63-79.


29

Bailey, B. (1997). Communication of respect in interethnic service encounters. Language in Society, 26(3), 327-356. Balandina, A. (2010). Music and conflict transformation in the post-Yugoslav era: Empowering youth to develop harmonic inter-ethnic relationships in Kumanova, Macedonia. International Jour-nal of Community Music, 3(2), 229-244. Bali, M. (2014). Why doesn't this feel empowering? The challenges of web-based intercultural dia-logue. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(2), 208-215. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2014.867620 Banda, F. (2015). Minority media as intercultural dialogue: Towards a communicative praxis. Jour-nal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 4(1), 25-37. Baraldi, C. (Ed.) (2010a). Dialogue in intercultural communities: From an educational point of view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baraldi, C. (2010b). Introduction. In C. Baraldi, (Ed.), Dialogue in intercultural communities: From an educational point of view (pp. 1-2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baraldi, C. (2010c). Conclusions. In C. Baraldi, (Ed.), Dialogue in intercultural communities: From an educational point of view (pp. 241-264). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barcelona Centre for International Affairs. (2014). Transculturality and interdisciplinarity: Chal-lenges for research on media, migration and intercultural dialogue. Barcelona, Spain: CIDOB Edi-tions. Barge, J. K. (2001). Practical theory as mapping, engaged reflection, and transformative practice. Communication Theory, 11(1), 5–13. Barge, J. K. (2017). Dialogic perspectives. The international encyclopedia of organizational commu-nication. Wiley Online Library. DOI: 10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc057 Barrett, M. (2017). Competences for democratic culture and intercultural dialogue. In A. Portera, & C. A. Grant (Eds.), Intercultural education and competences: Challenges and answers for the global world (pp. 47-63). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bekerman, Z. (2009). Identity work in Palestinian-Jewish intergroup encounters: A cultural rhetor-ical analysis. Journal of Multicultural Discourse, 4(2), 205-219. Bekerman, Z., & Zembylas, M. (2011). Teaching contested narratives: Identity, memory and recon-ciliation in peace education and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bello, V. (2013a). Intercultural dialogue or intercultural soliloquies? Policy Report No. 01/08.


30

Barcelona: United Nations University Institute on Globalization, Culture and Mobility (UNU-GCM). Available from: https://i.unu.edu/media/gcm.unu.edu/publication/631/unu-gcm-report-01-08.pdf Bello, V. (2013b). “Intercultural dialogue” as it developed in the Security Council of the United Na-tions (2000-2012). Policy Report No. 01/03. Barcelona: United Nations University Institute on Globalization, Culture and Mobility (UNU-GCM). Available from: https://i.unu.edu/me-dia/gcm.unu.edu/publication/595/unu-gcm-report-01-03.pdf Bello, V. (2017). Interculturalism as a new framework to reduce prejudice in times of crisis in Eu-ropean countries. International Migration, 55(2), 23-38. Bennett, J. M. (Ed.). (2016). The Sage encyclopedia of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bergan, S. (2009). Introduction. In S. Bergan & J.-P. Restoueix (Eds.), Intercultural dialogue on campus (pp. 9-16). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Berry, S. E. (2018). Mainstreaming a minority rights-based approach to refugee and migrant com-munities in Europe. London, UK: Minority Rights Group International. Available from: http://mi-norityrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/MRG_Rep_MStream_CMC_FINAL.pdf Besley, T. & Peters, M. A. (Eds.). (2012). Interculturalism, education and dialogue. New York: Peter Lang. Björk, E. L., Eschenbach, J., & Webb, L. (2017). Reel Life methodology: Developing intercultural competence through film fragments and dialogue in South Africa. Journal of Intercultural Com-munication, 44. Available from: https://hiof.brage.unit.no/hiof-xmlui/bitstream/han-dle/11250/2567420/BjorkEschenbachReel2017.pdf Bloom, T. (2013a). A historical overview of the relationship between 'intercultural dialogue' and as-sociated terminology in UN-level documents in the mid to late Twentieth Century. UNU-GCM Pol-icy Report 01/01. Barcelona: United Nations University Institute on Globalization, Culture and Mobility (UNU-GCM). Available from: https://i.unu.edu/media/gcm.unu.edu/publica-tion/548/unu-gcm-report-01-01.pdf Bloom, T. (2013b). Understanding global intercultural dialogue initiatives within the logic of state-based multiculturalism. Policy Report No. 01/09. Barcelona: United Nations University Institute on Globalization, Culture and Mobility (UNU-GCM). Available from: https://i.unu.edu/me-dia/gcm.unu.edu/publication/639/unu-gcm-report-01-09.pdf Bloom, T. (2014). A historical overview of the relationship between ‘intercultural dialogue’ and as-sociated terminology in UN-level documents in the Twenty-First Century. Policy Report No. 01/02. Barcelona: United Nations University Institute on Globalization, Culture and Mobility (UNU-


31

GCM). Available from: https://i.unu.edu/media/gcm.unu.edu/publication/590/unu-gcm-report-01-02.pdf Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bodo, S. (2012). Museums as intercultural spaces. In R. Sandell & E. Nightingale (Eds.), Museums, equality and social justice. London, UK: Routledge. Bodo, S., Gibbs, K., & Sani, M. (2009). Museums as places for intercultural dialogue: Selected prac-tices from Europe. Dublin, Ireland: MAP for ID Group. Available from: http://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/service/Handbook_MAPforID_EN.pdf Bozdağ, Ç. (2015). Potential of diasporic discussion forums for inter- and transcultural dialogue: Case studies of Moroccan and Turkish diaspora in Germany. In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in intercultural dialogue (pp. 249-261). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and re-search for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood. Bowen, S. P. (2014). Intergroup relations (IGR) dialogue. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 7. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/key-concept-igr.pdf Bracht, O., Engel, C., Janson, K., Over, A., Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2006). The professional value of Erasmus mobility. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Available from: http://ec.eu-ropa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/publ/evalcareer.pdf Broome, B. J. (2005). The role of bi-communal activities in building peace in Cyprus. In M. Michael & A. Tamis (Eds.), Cyprus in the modern world (pp. 266-304). Thessaloniki, Greece: Vanias. Broome, B. J. (2013). Building cultures of peace: The role of intergroup dialogue. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (eds.), Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 737-762). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Broome, B. J. (2015). Dialogue across the divide: Bridging the separation in Cyprus. In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in intercultural dialogue (pp. 39-54). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Broome, B. J. (2016). Intergroup dialogue. In J. M. Bennett (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of intercul-tural competence (pp. 539-542). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Broome, B. J. (2017). Moving from conflict to harmony: The role of dialogue in bridging differences. In X. Dai & G.-M. Chen (Eds.), Conflict management and intercultural communication: The art of intercultural harmony (pp. 13-28). London, UK: Routledge.


32

Broome, B. J., & Collier, M. J. (2012). Culture, communication, and peacebuilding: A reflexive multi-dimensional contextual framework. Journal of International and Intercultural Communica-tion, 5(4), 245-269. Broome, B. J., Derk, I., Razzante, R. J., Steiner, E., Taylor, J., & Zamora, A. (2019). Building an in-clusive climate for intercultural dialogue: A participant‐generated framework. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 12(3), 234-255. Broome, B. J., & Jakobsson Hatay, A. (2006). Building peace in divided societies: The role of inter-group dialogue. In J. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Handbook of conflict communication (pp. 627-662). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brownlie, S. (2017). Mediation through an intercultural communication lens. Mediation Theory and Practice, 2(1), 34-53. Büchler, A. (2018). Narratives old and new: The role of translation in intercultural dialogue to-day. Intercultural trends and social change in the Euro-Mediterranean region: The Anna Lindh Re-port 2018 (pp. 88-91). Alexandria, Egypt: Anna Lindh Foundation. Available from: https://www.an-nalindhfoundation.org/sites/annalindh.org/files/documents/page/alf_report_2018-en-web.pdf Burbules, N. C. (2006). Rethinking dialogue in networked spaces. Cultural Studies

↔Critical Meth-

odologies, 6(1), 107–122. DOI:10.1177/1532708605282817. Burnard, P., Ross, V., Hassler, L., & Murphy, L. (2018). Translating intercultural creativities in com-munity music: Introducing the role of interculturality in community music practice. In B.-L. Bartleet & L. Higgins (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of community music (pp. 229-242). New York: Oxford University Press. Busch, D. (2010). Shopping in hospitality: Situational constructions of customer-vendor relation-ships among shopping tourists at a bazaar on the German-Polish border. Language and Intercul-tural Communication, 10(1), 72-89. Busch, D. (2019). Intercultural conflict mediation. In P. Moy (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies in com-munication. New York: Oxford University Press. Busch, D., & Möller-Kiero, M. (2016). Rethinking interculturality will require moral confessions: Analysing the debate among convivialists, interculturalists, cosmopolitanists and intercultural communication scholars. Interculture Journal: Online-Zeitschrift fur interkulturelle Studien, 15(26), 43-58.


33

Buttny, R. (2014). Metadiscourse. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 20. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/key-concept-meta-discourse.pdf Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2012). Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and intercultural citizenship. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communica-tion (pp. 85-97). London, UK: Routledge. Byram, M., & Feng, A. (Eds.). Living and studying abroad: Research and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. (Eds.). (2001). Developing intercultural competence in practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Carbaugh, D. (2005). Cultures in conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Carbaugh, D. (2007). Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural en-counters. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36, 167-182. Carbaugh, D. (2013). On dialogue studies. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 1(1), 9-28. Carbaugh, D., Boromisza-Habashi, D., & Ge, X. (2006). Dialogue in cross-cultural perspective. In N. Aalto & E. Reuter (Eds.), Aspects of intercultural dialogue (pp. 27-46). Koln, Germany: SAXA Verlag. Carbaugh, D., Nuciforo, E. V., Saito, M., & Shin, D. (2011). “Dialogue” in cross-cultural perspective: Japanese, Korean, and Russian discourses. Journal of International and Intercultural Communica-tion, 4(2), 87-108. Carbone, F. (2017). International tourism and cultural diplomacy: A new conceptual approach to-wards global mutual understanding and peace through tourism. Tourism Review, 65(1), 61-74. Carlsson, U., & Culver, S. H. (Eds.). (2013). Media and information literacy and intercultural dia-logue. Göteborg, Sweden: NORDICOM. Carlsson, U., Taye, S., Jacquinot-Delaunay, G., & Tornero, J. M. P. (Eds). (2008). Empowerment through media education: An intercultural dialogue. Göteborg, Sweden: NORDICOM.


34

Carpentier, N., & Doudaki, V. (2014). Community media for reconciliation: A Cypriot case study. Communication, Culture & Critique, 7, 414-434. Casmir, F. L. (1993). Third culture building: A paradigm shift for international and intercultural communication. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (vol. 16, pp. 407-436). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Casmir, F. L. (1999). Foundations for the study of intercultural communication based on a third-culture building model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(1), 91-116. Castiglioni, I. (2013). Constructing intercultural competence in Italian social service and healthcare organizations: Pedagogical design, effectiveness research, and alternative visions for promoting ethnorelativism. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities, 213, 1-121. Center for Intercultural Dialogue. (2017a). Intercultural dialogue. CID Posters, 3. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2017/07/14/cid-poster-3-intercultural-dialogue Center for Intercultural Dialogue. (2017b). Communication as culture definition. CID Posters, 5. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2017/07/28/communication-as-cul-ture-definition Center for Intercultural Dialogue. (2017c). Dialogue defined. CID Posters, 6. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2017/08/04/cid-poster-6-dialogue-defined Center for Intercultural Dialogue. (2017d). Types of cultural communication. CID Posters, 4. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2017/07/21/cid-poster-4-types-of-cul-tural-communication Center for Intercultural Dialogue. (2017e). Intercultural competence/intercultural dialogue. CID Posters, 8. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2017/08/18/cid-poster-8-in-tercultural-competenceintercultural-dialogue Center for Intercultural Dialogue. (2017f). Intercultural communication/intercultural compe-tence/intercultural dialogue. CID Posters, 1. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldia-logue.org/2017/06/30/cid-poster-1-intercultural-communicationcompetencedialogue Center for Intercultural Dialogue. (2017g). Social justice/social harmony. CID Posters, 7. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2017/08/11/cid-poster-7-social-justicesocial-har-mony Center for Intercultural Dialogue. (2020a). The elephant in the room. CID Posters, 12. Available from: http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2020/06/22/cid-poster-12-an-elephant-in-the-room


35

Center for Intercultural Dialogue. (2020b). The blind men and the elephant. CID Posters, 13. Available from: http://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2020/06/29/cid-poster-13-the-blind-men-and-the-elephant/ Cetinkaya, K. (2020). Interreligious dialogue. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 96. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/kc96-interreligious-di-alogue.pdf Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. (1996). Intercultural competence: A synthesis. Communication Year-book, 19, 353-383. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (Eds.). (2004). Dialogue among diversities. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. Cheng, H.-I. (2008). Culturing interface: Identity, communication, and Chinese transnationalism. New York: Peter Lang. Chick, J. K. (1985). The interactional accomplishment of discrimination in South Africa. Language in Society, 14(3), 299-326. Chirodea, F., & Ţoca, C.-V. (2012). Promoting intercultural dialogue through Lifelong Learning policies. MPRA Paper No. 62064. Available from: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/62064 Chuse, L. (2018). “The notes that bathe the Mediterranean”: Spanish flamencos and Moroccan musicians in creative convivencia. Diagonal: An Ibero-American Music Review, 3(1). Available from: https://escholarship.org/content/qt6t48v7wk/qt6t48v7wk.pdf Cinquina, P. (2016). Performing intercultural dialogue on the stage: Art and intercultural educa-tion. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 41. Available from: http://immi.se/intercul-tural/nr41/cinquina.html Committee on Culture and Education, European Parliament. (2015). Report on the role of intercul-tural dialogue, cultural diversity and education in promoting EU fundamental values. Strasbourg, France: European Parliament. Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/get-Doc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2015-0373+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN Coperias-Aguilar, M. J. (2015). Double intercultural dialogue in the Hispanic press in the United States: The case of New York newspapers. Language & Intercultural Communication, 15(3), 376-390. DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2015.1015346 Coperias-Aguilar, M. J. (2017). Double intercultural dialogue. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dia-logue, 84. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/ kc84-double-icd.pdf


36

Corbett, J. (2014). Communicative competence. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 9. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/key-concept-communi-cative-competence.pdf Council of Europe. (2005). Faro Declaration on the Council of Europe's strategy for developing inter-cultural dialogue: The way ahead. Available from: https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/CulturalConven-tion/Source/FARO_DECLARATION_Definitive_Version_EN.pdf Council of Europe. (2008). White paper on intercultural dialogue: ‘‘Living together as equals in dignity.’’ Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Available from: https://www.coe.int/t/ dg4/intercultural/Source/Pub_White_Paper/White Paper_final_revised_EN.pdf Council of Europe. (2010). Speaking across borders: The role of higher education in furthering in-tercultural dialogue. Council of Europe Higher Education Series, 16. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Council of Europe. (2012). Intercultural competence for all: Preparation for living in a heterogene-ous world. Pestalozzi Series No. 2. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Council of Europe. (2013). Developing intercultural competence through education. Pestalozzi Se-ries No. 3. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Council of Europe. (2016). Competences for democratic culture: Living together as equals in cultur-ally diverse democratic societies. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Covarrubias, P. (2002) Culture, communication, and cooperation: Interpersonal relations and pro-nominal address in a Mexican organization. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Craig, R. T., & Barge, J.K. (2009). Practical theory in applied communication scholarship. In L. R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied communication scholarship (pp. 55–78). London, UK: Routledge. Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (2020). Grounded practical theory: Investigating communication problems. San Diego, CA: Cognella. Crawhall, N. (2009). The role of participatory cultural mapping in promoting intercultural dialogue – ‘We are not hyenas’: A reflection paper. Paris, France: UNESCO. Available from: http://www.iapad.org/publications/ppgis/nigel.crawhall.190753e.pdf Cronen, V. (1995). Practical theory and the tasks ahead for social approaches to communication. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed), Social approaches to communication (pp. 217-242). New York: Guilford. Crosbie, V. (2014). Capabilities for intercultural dialogue. Language and Intercultural Communica-tion, 14(1), 91-107.


37

Crosbie, V. (2018). Intercultural dialogue in practice: BlueFire’s community integration activities viewed through a Participatory Action Research Capability lens. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 19(2), 198-215. Culver, S. H., & Kerr, P. (Eds.). (2014). Global citizenship in a digital world. Göteborg, Sweden: NORDICOM. Dai, X., & Chen, G.-M. (Eds.). (2014). Intercultural communication competence: Conceptualization and its development in cultural contexts and interactions. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars. Dai, X., & Chen, G.-M. (Eds.). (2017). Conflict management and intercultural communication: The art of intercultural harmony. London, UK: Routledge. Davidson, B. (2000). The interpreter as institutional gatekeeper: The social-linguistic role of inter-preters in Spanish-English medical discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(3), 379-405. Deardorff, D.K. (Ed.). (2009). The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deardorff, D. K., & Arasaratnam-Smith, L. A. (Eds.). (2017). Intercultural competence in higher education: International approaches, assessment and application. New York: Routledge. DeJaeghere, J. G., & Cao, Y. (2009). Developing US teachers’ intercultural competence: Does pro-fessional development matter? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 437-447. Delanty, G. (2009). The cosmopolitan imagination: The renewal of critical social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dervin, F. (2009). Transcending the culturalist impasse in stays abroad: Helping mobile students to appreciate diverse diversities. Frontiers, 18. Available from: http://www.frontiersjournal.com/doc-uments/FrontiersXVIII-Fall09FDervin.pdf Dervin, F. (2014). Exploring “new” interculturality online. Language and Intercultural Communi-cation, 14(2), 191-206. Dervin, F. (2015). Discourses of Othering. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie & T. Sandel (Eds.), International encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Boston, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Dervin, F. & Dirba, M. (2008). Figures of strangeness: Blending perspectives from mobile academ-ics. In Byram, M. & Dervin F. (Eds.), Students, staff and academic mobility in higher education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars.


38

DeTurk, S. (2006). The power of dialogue: Consequences of intergroup dialogue and their implica-tions for agency and alliance building. Communication Quarterly, 4(1), 33-51. DeTurk, S. (2010). “Quit whining and tell me about your experiences!” (In)tolerance, pragmatism, and muting in intergroup dialogue. In T. K. Nakayama & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 565-584). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

DeTurk, S. (2011). “I need to know”: Conditions that encourage and constrain intercultural dia-logue. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 35(1), 37-60.

DeTurk, S. (2017). Intergroup dialogue and service learning: Students as facilitators. Constructing Intercultural Dialogues, 3. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.word-press.com/2017/03/constructing-icd-3-deturk.pdf

Demenchonok, E. (Ed.). (2014). Intercultural dialogue: In search of harmony in diversity. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Develotte, C., & Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2015). Le français en (premiere) ligne: Creating contexts for intercultural dialogue in the classroom. In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in intercul-tural dialogue (pp. 225-244). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

De Wit, L. J. (30 August 2017). Guest post: Andalusia’s ambivalence: Between convivencia and Is-lamophobia. Center for Intercultural Dialogue. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldia-logue.org/2017/08/30/andalusias-ambivalence-between- convivencia-and-islamophobia

Dimitrovova, B. (2010). Cultural bordering and re-bordering in the EU's neighborhood: Members, strangers, or neighbors? Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 18(4), 463-481.

Drzewiecka, J. A. (2003). Collective memory, media representations, and barriers to intercultural dialogue. In M. J. Collier (Ed.), Intercultural alliances: Critical transformation (pp. 189-220). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duxbury, N. (2015). Cultural mapping. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 69. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/kc69-cultural-mapping.pdf

Ecirli, A. (2013). Globalization, cultural conflict or intercultural dialogue: Huntington or Fukuyana. European Journal of Social Sciences, 39(3), 337-345. Ecotec Research and Consulting. (2009). Evaluation of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/evaluation_en.htm Elias, A., & Mansouri, F. (2020). A systematic review of studies on interculturalism and intercultural dialogue. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 41(4), 1-34.


39

Elsdon-Baker, F. (2013). Future directions and discipline formation for ‘dialogue studies’: Reflections on critically analyzing ‘dialogue’ in theory and practice. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 1(1), 29-49. Ellis, D. G. (2015). Fierce entanglements: Communication and ethnopolitical conflict. New York: Pe-ter Lang. Ellis, D. G., & Maoz, I. (2002). Cross cultural argument interactions between Israeli Jews and Pal-estinians. Journal of Applied Communications Research, 30(3), 181-194. Ellis, D. G., & Maoz, I. (2007). Online argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 291-309. Ennaji, M. (2019). The Maghreb-Europe paradigm: Migration, gender and cultural dialogue. New-castle-Upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Escobar, O. (2011) Public dialogue and deliberation. A communication perspective for public engage-ment practitioners, Edinburgh: Edinburgh Beltane - UK Beacons for Public Engagement. Available from: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11082373/Public Dialogue and Deliberation. Oliver Escobar 2011.pdf European Agency for Culture. (2017). How culture and the arts can promote intercultural dialogue in the context of the migratory and refugee crisis. Luxembourg: European Union. Available from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4943e7fc-316e-11e7-9412-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-134992683 European Commission. (2008). Intercultural dialogue: Support through EU programmes. Luxem-bourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available from: http://ec.eu-ropa.eu/culture/documents/publications/support_eyid_en.pdf European Cultural Parliament. (2007). Sibiu declaration on intercultural dialogue and communi-cating the European idea. Available from: http://www.kulturparlament.com/pdf/sibiudeclara-tion.pdf European Union. (18 December 2006). Decision No. 1983/2006/EC Concerning the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. Official Journal of the European Union, 49(L412). Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=OJ:L:2006:412:TOC Evans, O. (2018). Building bridges: Fatih Akin and the cinema of intercultural dialogue. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Nationalism in 21st century western European cinema. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Flynn, J. (2014). Reframing the intercultural dialogue on human rights: A philosophical approach. New York: Routledge.


40

Frame, A. (2014). On cultures and interactions: Theorizing the complexity of intercultural encoun-ters. In S. Poutiainen (Ed.), Theoretical turbulence in intercultural communication studies (pp. 29-44). Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Fuentes, J. L. (2016). Cultural diversity on the Council of Europe documents: The role of education and the intercultural dialogue. Policy Futures in Education, 14(3), 377–391. DOI: 10.1177/1478210316630467 Galanes, G., & Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (Eds.). (2009). Socially constructing communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Galani, A., Mason, R., & Rex, B. (2020). European heritage, dialogue and digital practices. New York: Routledge. Ganesh, S., & Holmes, P. (2011). Positioning intercultural dialogue: Theories, pragmatics, and an agenda. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(2), 81-86. Ganesh, S., & Stohl, C. (2014). Globalization. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 27. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/key-concept-globaliza-tion.pdf Ganesh, S., & Zoller, M. (2012). Dialogue, activism, and democratic change. Communication The-ory, 22, 66-91. Gao, Y. H. (2017). Introduction: Dialogical perspectives on intercultural communication as social practice. Language and Intercultural Communication, 17(1), 1-6. DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2017.1261642 Garcia, C. L., & Ouis, N. (2016). Art, education and intercultural dialogue mediated by the infor-mation and communication technologies. In S. Gonçalves & S. Majhanovich (Eds.), Art and inter-cultural dialogue (pp. 49-51). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers. Gasparini, W., & Cometti, A. (Eds.). (2010). Sport facing the test of cultural diversity: Integration and intercultural dialogue in Europe: Analysis and practical examples. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Available from: https://www.coe.int/t/DG4/EPAS/resources/6718 Sport fac-ing cultural diversity assemble.pdf Giles, H. (Ed.). (2012). The handbook of intergroup communication. New York: Routledge. Gobbo, F. (2011). Ethnographic research in multicultural educational contexts as a contribution to intercultural dialogue. Policy Futures in Education, 9(1), 35-42.


41

Gobbo, F. (2012). Intercultural dialogue and ethnography: On learning about diversity in Italian multicultural classrooms. In T. Besley & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Interculturalism, education and dia-logue (pp. 224-236). New York: Peter Lang. Goodnow, K., & Akman, H. (Eds.). (2008). Scandinavian museums and cultural diversity. London, UK: Museum of London/Berghahn Books. Golovatina-Mora, P., & Mora, R. A. (2014). Multiculturalism. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dia-logue, 19. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/key-concept-multiculturalism.pdf Gonçalves, S. (2011). Intangible culture, cooperation and intercultural dialogue among university students. Intercultural Education, 22(1), 83-95. Goncalves, S. (2015a). The pursuit of cosmopolitanism: Using art in intercultural education. In S. Majhanovich & R. Malet (Eds.), Building democracy in education on diversity (pp. 197-213). Rot-terdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Gonçalves, S. (2015b). Multiculturalism, contact zones, and the political core of intercultural edu-cation. In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in intercultural dialogue (pp. 57-71). Dubu-que, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Gonçalves, S., & Majhanovich, S. (Eds.). (2016). Art and intercultural dialogue. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Gordon, C. (2014). Contextualization cues. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 57. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/key-concept-contextu-alization-cues.pdf Greco, S. (2018). Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interac-tion. Tranel – Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique, 68, 7-15. Available from: https://doc.rero.ch/record/322610/files/Greco_Sara_-_Designing_dialogue_argumenta-tion_as_conflict_20180629.pdf Griefat, Y. & T. Katriel (1989) Life demands musayara: Communication and culture among Arabs in Israel. International & Intercultural Communication Annual, 13, 121-138. Grillo, R. D. (2018). Interculturalism and the politics of dialogue. Lewes, UK: B and RG Books of Lewes. Guidikova, I. (2018). Intercultural integration: From an ideology of the oppressed to the main-stream. In B. W. White (Ed.), Intercultural cities: Policy and practice for a new era (pp. 55-63). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.


42

Gumperz, J. J. (1978). The conversational analysis of interethnic communication. In E.L. Ross (Ed.), Interethnic communication (pp. 13-31). Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. Gumperz, J. J. (Ed.). (1982). Language and social identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization revisited. InP. Auer & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextual-ization of language (pp. 39-53). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Gumperz, J. J., & Roberts, C. (1991). Understanding in intercultural encounters. In J. Blommaert & J. Verschueren (Eds.), The pragmatics of intercultural and international communication. Selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 17-22, 1987, Vol. 3, and the Ghent Symposium on Intercultural Communication (pp 51-90). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Gürüz, K. (2011). Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge econ-omy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Habti, D. (2011). Reason and revelation for an Averroist pursuit of convivencia and intercultural dialogue. Policy Futures in Education, 19(1), 81-87. Hardy, M., & Hussain, S. (2019). Dialogue in a rapidly changing world: Practitioner assessments of the potency of intercultural dialogue for improving social cohesion. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 7, 9-26. Available from: http://www.dialoguestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Dialogue-in-a-Rapidly-Changing-World-Practitioner-Assessments-of-the-Potency-of-Intercultural-Dialogue-for-Improving-Social-Cohesion.pdf Harries, J. (2008). Intercultural dialogue: An overrated means of acquiring understanding examined in the context of Christian mission to Africa. Exchange, 37, 174-189. Hasler, B. S., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2013). Online intergroup contact. In Y. Amichai-Ham-burger (Ed.), The social net: Understanding our online behavior (pp. 220-252). New York: Oxford University Press. Haslett, B. B. (2017). East and West communication: A framework for dialogue. China Media Re-search, 13(3), 17-29. Haydari, N., & Holmes, P. (Eds.). (2015). Case studies in intercultural dialogue. Dubuque, IA: Ken-dall-Hunt. He, S. (2017). Chinese migrant food business in Italy and design researches for intercultural dia-logue. In P. L. Rau (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Design: 9th International conference, CCD 2017 (pp. 334-344). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.


43

Healy, P. 2013. Overcoming incommensurability through intercultural dialogue. Cosmos and His-tory, 9(1), 265-281. Heisey, D. R. (2011). A dialogue proposal for intercultural communication. Intercultural Commu-nication Studies, 20(2), 5-13. Heleta, S., & Deardorff, D. K. (2017). The role of higher education institutions in developing inter-cultural competence in peace-building in the aftermath of violent conflict. In D. K. Deardorff, L. A. Arasaratnam-Smith (Eds.), Intercultural competence in higher education: International approaches, assessment, and application (pp. 53-63). New York: Routledge. Helm, F., & Acconcia, G. (2019). Interculturality and language in Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange. Eu-ropean Journal of Language Policy, 11(2), 211-233. Henry, D. O. (2018). Creating space to listen: Museums, participation and intercultural dialogue. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Available from: https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/219985 Hepple, E. (2015). Developing cosmopolitan professional identities: Engaging Australian and Hong Kong trainee teachers in intercultural conversations. In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in intercultural dialogue (pp. 87-102). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Hepple, E., et al. (2017). Developing intercultural learning in Australian pre-service teachers through participating in a short term mobility program in Malaysia. Teaching and Teacher Educa-tion, 66, 273-281.

Herrlitz, W., & Maier, R. (Eds.). (2005). Dialogues in and around multicultural schools. Tubingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Herzig, M., & Chasin, L. (2006). Fostering dialogue across divides: A nuts and bolts guide from the Public Conversations Project. Watertown, MA: Public Conversations Project. Higgins, J. W. (2011). Peacebuilding through listening, digital storytelling, and community media in Cyprus. GMC Mediterranean Edition, 6(1), 1-13. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2017). Food tourism as a pathway to decolonisation and alternative futures. In I. Nengah Laba, A. P. Budi, D. P. Koeswiryono (Eds). 15th APacCHRIE Proceeding Book (Asia – Pacific Council on Hotel Restaurant, and Institutional Education) The future of hospitality and tour-ism: Opportunity and challenges (pp. 155-167). Nusa Dua, Bali: International Bali Institute of Tour-ism. Available from: http://search.ror.unisa.edu.au/record/UNISA_ALMA11147125700001831 Hinnenkamp, V. (1999). The notion of misunderstanding in intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 1. Available from: http://www.immi.se/intercultural


44

Ho, E. Y. (2006). Behold the power of Qi: The importance of Qi in the discourse of acupuncture. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 411-440. Ho, E. Y., Tran, H., & Chesla, C. A. (2015). Assessing the cultural in culturally sensitive printed patient education materials for Chinese Americans with Type 2 diabetes. Health Communica-tion, 30, 39-49. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2013.835216. Holmes, P. (2012). Business and management education. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge hand-book of language and intercultural communication (pp. 464-480). London, UK: Routledge. Holmes, P. (2014). Intercultural dialogue: Challenges to theory, practice and research. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(1), 1-6. Holmes, P. (2015). “Why did it all go so horribly wrong?” Intercultural conflict in an NGO in New Zealand. In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in intercultural dialogue (pp. 195-209). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Holmes, P., Dooly, M., & O'Regan, J. (Eds.). (2017). Intercultural dialogue: Questions of research, theory, and practice. London, UK: Routledge. Holmes, P., & O’Neill, G. (2012). Developing and evaluating intercultural competence: Ethnogra-phies of intercultural encounters. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 707-718. Hoover, J. D. (2011). Dialogue: Our past, our present, our future. Journal of Intercultural Commu-nication Research, 40(3), 203–218. Horga, I. (2014). Ethnicity, religion and intercultural education in the curricula of European Stud-ies. In M. Brie, I. Horga & S. Şipoş (Eds.), Ethnicity and intercultural dialogue at the European Union eastern border (pp. 11-23). Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Houghton, S. (2012). Intercultural dialogue in practice: Managing value judgment through foreign language education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Howard, M. (Ed.). (2019). Study abroad, second language acquisition and interculturality. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hua, Z. (2020). Making a stance: Social action for language and intercultural communication re-search, Language and Intercultural Communication, 20(2), 206-212. DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2020.1730393 Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W.C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13_53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.


45

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolin-guistics (pp. 269-293). London, UK: Penguin. Hymes, D. H. (1984). Vers la compétence de communication. (Trans. F. Mugler). Paris, France: Hatier. Hyslop, P. E., & Jarrett, B. N. (2019). Circle peace-making in Alaska: A return to Indigenous practice through intercultural dialogue. In S. Peleg (Ed.), Intercultural and interfaith dialogues for global peacebuilding and stability (pp. 146-164). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Igbino, J. (2012). Intercultural dialogue: Cultural dialogues of equals or cultural dialogues of une-quals? In T. Besley & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Interculturalism, education and dialogue (pp. 164-177). New York: Peter Lang. Ink, M. (2018). Les quatre temps d’un séjour en résidence universitaire: Ethnographie de dy-namiques relationnelles entre groupes et réseaux personnels [The four phases of a stay in a student residence: Ethnographic research on small groups and personal networks]. Temporalités: Revue de Sciences Sociales et Humaines, 27. Available from: https://journals.openedition.org/temporal-ites/4262 Institute of International Education. (2010). Open doors report 2010. Available from: http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors Institute of International Education. (2012). Open doors report 2012. Available from: http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors Isar, Y. R. (2006). Tropes of the “intercultural”: Multiple perspectives. In N. Aalto & E. Reuter (Eds.), Aspects of intercultural dialogue: Theory, research, applications (pp. 13-25). Koln, Germany: Saxa. Isar, Y. R. (2011). Cultural organisations and intercultural dialogue. Pace Diritti Umani, 2, 41-50. Jackson, J. (2012). Introduction and overview. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of lan-guage and intercultural communication (pp. 1-13). London, UK: Routledge. Jacquemet, M. (2011). Crosstalk 2.0: Asylum and communicative breakdowns. Text & Talk, 31(4), 475-497. James, M. R. (1999). Critical intercultural dialogue. Polity, 31(4), 587-607. Jones, A. (1999). The limits of cross-cultural dialogue: Pedagogy, desire, and absolution in the class-room. Educational Theory, 49(3), 299–316. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999 00299.x


46

Kanata, T., & Martin, J. N. (2007). Facilitating dialogues on race and ethnicity with technology: Challenging “otherness” and promoting a dialogic way of knowing. Journal of Literacy and Tech-nology, 8(2), 2-41. Karis, T. & Killian, K. (Eds.). (2009). Intercultural couples: Exploring diversity in intimate relation-ships. New York: Routledge. Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: ‘Dugri’ speech in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press. Katriel, T. (2004). Dialogic moments: From soul talks to talk radio in Israeli culture. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Keaten, J., & Soukoup, C. (2009). Dialogue and religious otherness: Toward a model of pluralistic interfaith dialogue. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2(2), 168-187. Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kecskes, I. (2017). Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 400-415). New York: Oxford University Press. Keir, J. (2017). Metaethical consensus as a condition for intercultural dialogue. Dialogue and Uni-versalism, 27(1), 23-32. Keller, J. G. (2012). Intercultural dialogue and the dialogism of life: Education for transformation. In T. Besley & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Interculturalism, education and dialogue (pp. 113-121). New York: Peter Lang. Kellett, P. M., & Matyók, T. G. (Eds.). (2016). Communication and conflict transformation through local, regional, and global engagement. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Kim, R. I., & Goldstein, S. B. (2005). Intercultural Attitudes Predict Favorable Study Abroad Expec-tations of U.S. College Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(3), 265-278. Koester, J. (1985). A profile of the U.S. student abroad. New York: Council on International Educa-tional Exchange. Kögler, H. H. (2018). The hermeneutic foundations of a cosmopolitan public sphere. In A. K. Giri (Ed.), Beyond cosmopolitanism (pp. 357-375). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Koike, D. A., & Blyth, C. S. (Eds.). (2015). Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal communities. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.


47

Kramsch, C. (2013). History and memory in the development of intercultural competence. In F. Sharifian & M. Jamarani (Eds.), Language and intercultural communication in the new era (pp. 23-38). New York: Routledge. Kristjánsdóttir, E. S., & Christiansen, T. (2017). ". . .You have to face the fact that you're a foreigner": Immigrants' lived experience of communication and negotiation position toward their employer in Iceland. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 44. Available from: http://immi.se/intercul-tural/nr44/kristjansdottir.html Kristjánsdóttir, E. S., & Martin, J. N. (2010). A case study in intercultural management communi-cation: Icelandic managers and French, Spanish and Indian employees. In M. Hinner (Ed.), The interface of business and culture (pp. 85-119). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang. Kuh, G.D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. LaFever, M. (2011). Empowering Native Americans: Communication, planning, and dialogue for eco-tourism in Gallup, New Mexico. Journal of International and Intercultural Communica-tion, 4(2), 127-145. Lagerkvist, C. (2006). Empowerment and anger: Learning how to share ownership of the museum. Museum and Society, 4(2), 52-68. Lähdesmäki, T., Koistinen, A.-K., & Ylönen, S. C. (Eds.). (2020). Intercultural dialogue in the Eu-ropean education policies: A conceptual approach. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Available from: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-41517-4 Lähdesmäki, T., & Wagener, A. (2015). Discourses on governing diversity in Europe: Critical anal-ysis of the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 44, 13-28. Lambert, P., & Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2012, June 10-14). A prophet abroad? The impact of Hymes’ notion of communicative competence in France and French-speaking Switzerland. The Ethnography of Communication: Ways Forward, Omaha, NB. Lee, E. L. (2016). Intercultural dialogue in theory and practice: A review. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(2), 236-242. DOI: 10.1080/17447143.2016.1156686 Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1989). Communication in everyday life: A social interpretation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2002). Wedding as text: Communicating cultural identities through ritual. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


48

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2012). Who needs intercultural dialogues? Conferência Ouvindo o Outro: so-bre o diálogo entre culturas [Conference on listening to the Other: About dialogue between cul-tures], held prior to the premiere of the play Sots l’ombra d’un bell arbre [Under the shadow of a leafy tree]: The future is unwritten. Centro Cultural Carregal do Sal, Portugal, October 27, 2012. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2014a). Intercultural dialogue. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 1. Avail-able from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/key-concept-inter-cultural-dialogue1.pdf Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2014b). Cross-cultural dialogue. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 10. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/key-concept-cross-cultural-dialogue.pdf Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2014c). Intercultural communication. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 5. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/key-con-cept-intercultural-comm.pdf Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2014d). Metacommunication. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 25. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/key-concept-metacomm.pdf Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2014e). Dialogue about dialogue: Taking a (meta)communication perspective on intercultural dialogue. In L. Uladykouskaja (Ed.), Intercultural dialogue: Modern paradigm and experience of the neighborhood (pp. 6-13). Minsk, Belarus: Belarusian State University. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2015a). Intercultural dialogue. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie & T. Sandel (Eds.), Interna-tional encyclopedia of language and social interaction (vol. 2, pp. 860-868). Boston, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2015b). Facilitating intercultural dialogue through innovative conference de-sign. In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in intercultural dialogue (pp. 3-22). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2016). De la possession des compétences interculturelles au dialogue intercul-turel: Un cadre conceptuel [Moving from having intercultural competencies to constructing inter-cultural dialogues: A conceptual framework]. Special issue “Les competences interculturelles: En-jeux, pratiques, perspectives.” Les Politiques Sociales, 3/4, 7-22. Lijadi, A. A. (2014). Third culture kids (TCKs). Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 12. Avail-able from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/key-concept-third-culture-kids.pdf


49

Linell, P. (1996): Troubles with mutualities: Toward a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In I. Marková, C. F. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue (pp. 176-216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lochtman, K., & Kappel, J. (2009). The world a global village: Intercultural competence in English foreign language teaching. Brussels, Belgium: Academic & Scientific Publishers. Lum, C. M. K., & de Ferriere le Vayer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Urban foodways and communication: Ethnographic studies in intangible culture food heritages around the world. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Lundgren, U., Castro, P., & Woodin, J. (Eds.). (2019). Educational approaches to internationalisa-tion through intercultural dialogue: Reflections on theory and practice. New York: Routledge. McEwan, B., & Sobre-Denton, M. (2011). Virtual cosmopolitanism: Constructing third cultures and transmitting social and cultural capital through social media. Journal of International and In-tercultural Communication, 4(4), 252-258. Malcolm-Davies, J. & Nosch, M.-L. (2018). THREAD: A meeting place for scholars and refugees in textile and dress research. Archaeological Textiles Review, 60, 118-124. Mangano, M. F. (2015). Dialogue, a space between, across, and beyond cultures and disciplines: A case study of lectures in transcultural and transdisciplinary communication. In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in intercultural dialogue (pp. 73-86). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Mangano, M. F. (2017). Dialogue as a space of relationship. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 81. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/kc81-dia-logue-as-space-of-relationship.pdf Mangano, M. F. (2018). Relationship as a space “in between”: A transcultural and transdisciplinary approach mediated by dialogue in academic teaching. Bergamo, Italy: University of Bergamo Press. Available from: https://aisberg.unibg.it/retrieve/handle/10446/130115/282469/CollanaSAFD_ Volume1_ 2018.pdf Mansouri, F. (2017). Interculturalism at the crossroads: Comparative perspectives on concepts, pol-icies and practices. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002480/248066E.pdf Maoz, I., & Ellis, D. G. (2006). Facilitating groups in severe conflict: The case of transformational dialogue between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians. In L. Frey (Ed.), Facilitating group communication in context: Innovations and applications with natural groups (pp. 183-203). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.


50

Mark, L. (2017). When the East meets the Middle East. Constructing Intercultural Dialogues, 7. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/constructing-icd-7.pdf Matoba, K. (2011). Transformative dialogue for third culture building: Integrated constructionist approach for managing diversity. Opladen, Germany: Verlag Budrich. Melnik, S. V. (2019). Peacemaking interreligious dialogue: Principles, objectives, forms of imple-mentation. Minbar Islamic Studies, 12(1), 215-234. Migliorini, L., & Rania, N. (2017). A qualitative method to “make visible” the world of intercultural relationships: the photovoice in social psychology. Qualitative research in Psychology, 14(2), 131-145. Miike, Y. (2010). Culture as text and culture as theory: Asiacentricity and its raison d’être in inter-cultural communication research. In T. K. Nakayama & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 190-215). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Miiki, Y. (2014). Asiacentricity. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 24. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/key-concept-asiacen-tricity2.pdf Monaghan, L. (2017). Intercultural dialogue and deaf HIV/AIDS. Constructing Intercultural Dia-logues, 5. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/con-structing-icd-5.pdf Mor, Y., Ron, Y., & Maoz, I. (2016). “Likes” for peace: Can Facebook promote dialogue in the Is-raeli–Palestinian conflict? Media and Communication, 4(1), 15-26. DOI: 10.17645/mac.v4i1.298 Morral, M. G. (2007). Intercultural dialogue in the public library: The experience of the District 2 library in Terrassa, Barcelona. In J. L. Mullins (Ed.), Library management and marketing in a mul-ticultural world (pp. 209–217). The Hague, The Netherlands: International Federation of Library Associations. Mutua, E. M. (2015). Community driven peacebuilding approaches: The case of post-genocide Rwanda. In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in intercultural dialogue (pp. 25-38). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Mutua, E. M. (2017). Students talk, listen and act to transform conflict: A case study of service- learning project in Central Minnesota, United States, and Kajiado, Kenya. In T. G. Matyok & P. Kellett (Eds.), Communication and conflict transformation through local, regional and global en-gagements (pp. 269–287). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.


51

Näss, H. E. (2010). The ambiguities of intercultural dialogue: Critical perspectives on the European Union’s new agenda for culture. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 23. Available from: http://immi.se/intercultural Network of European Museum Organisations. (2016). Museums, migration and cultural diversity: Recommendations for museum work. Berlin, Germany: Network of European Museum Organisa-tions. Available from: http://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/NEMo_docu-ments/Nemo_Museums_Migration.pdf Nieto, D., & Bickmore, K. (2016). Citizenship and ‘convivencia’ education in contexts of violence: Transnational challenges to peacebuilding education in Mexican schools. Revista Española de Edu-cación Comparada, 28, 109-134. Nosch, M.-L. (2019). A new international project: The fabric of my life. Archaeological Textiles Re-view, 61, 24-25. O’Dowd, R. (2011). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. In J. Jack-son (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 342-358). New York: Routledge. O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (Eds.). (2016). Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. New York: Routledge. Olsen, J. P. (2007). Europe in search of political order: An institutional perspective on unity/diversity, citizens/their helpers, democratic design/historical drift and the co-existence of orders. New York: Ox-ford University Press. Opffer, E. (2015a). Safe space. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 71. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/kc71-safe-space.pdf Opffer, E. (2015b). Peacebuilding. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 64. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/key-concept-peacebuild-ing.pdf Orbe, M. P. (2004). Co-culture theory and the spirit of dialogue: A case study of the 2000- 2002 community-based Civil Rights Health Project. In G.M. Chen & W.J. Starosta (Eds.), Dialogue among diversities (pp. 191-213). Washington, DC: National Communication Association. Orsini-Jones, M., & Lee, F. (2018). Intercultural communicative competence for global citizenship: Identifying cyberpragmatic rules of engagement in telecollaboration. London, UK: Palgrave Macmil-lan.


52

Orton, A. (2016). Interfaith dialogue: Seven key questions for theory, policy and practice. Religion, State & Society, 44(4), 349-365. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09637494.2016.1242886 Parks, E. (2017). The privilege of listening first. Constructing Intercultural Dialogues, 6. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/constructing-icd-6.pdf Pavan, R., Paniago, M. C. L., & Backes, J. L. (2015). Action research and intercultural dialogue: An experience with Brazilian Indians. International Journal of Action Research, 11(3), 339-363. Pearce, W. B. (2008). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Pearce, W. B., & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pearce, K. A., & Pearce, W. B. (2001). The Public Dialogue Consortium’s school-wide dialogue pro-cess: A communication approach to develop citizenship skills and enhance school climate. Com-munication Theory, 11(1), 105-123. Pearce, K. A., Spano, S. & Pearce, W. B. (2009). The multiple faces of the Public Dialogue Consor-tium: Scholars, practitioners, and dreamers of better social worlds. In L. R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied communication research (pp. 611-632). New York: Taylor & Francis. Peleg, S. (Ed.). (2019). Intercultural and interfaith dialogues for global peacebuilding and stability. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Penman, R. (2000). Reconstructing communicating: Looking to a future. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum. Penman, R. (2014). Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM). Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 4. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/ key-concept-cmm.pdf Penaskovic, R., & Sahin, M. (2017). (Eds.). Peacebuilding in a fractious world: On hoping against all hope. Eugene OR: Pickwick. Pergert, P., & Tiselius, E. (2020). Intercultural competence and communication over language bar-riers. In Ethical issues in pediatric hematology/oncology (pp. 203-222). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Peris, I. V., & Elhefnawy, H. (2014). Discussing media, migration and intercultural dialogue. Barce-lona, Spain: CIDOB. Available from:


53

https://www.cidob.org/en/articulos/monografias/transculturality_and_interdisciplinarity/discuss-ing_media_migration_and_intercultural_dialogue/(language)/eng-US Pfister, D. S., & Soliz, J. (2011). (Re)conceptualizing intercultural communication in a networked society. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(4), 246-251. DOI: 10.1080/17513057.2011.598043 Phipps, A. (2014) ‘They are bombing now’: ‘Intercultural dialogue’ in times of conflict, Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(1), 108-124. Pinheiro, T. (2008). Emigration, immigration and interculturality: The meaning of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue in Portugal. Eurolimes, 6, 63-73. Platform for Intercultural Europe. (2008). The rainbow paper: Intercultural dialogue: From practice to policy and back. Available from: http://rexpro.b92.net/ikd/files/Rainbow_Paper.pdf Poglia, E., Mauri-Brusa, M., & Fumasoli, T. (2009). Intercultural dialogue in higher education in Europe. In S. Bergan & J.-P. Restoueix (Eds.), Intercultural dialogue on campus (pp. 17-70). Stras-bourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Pollock, D. C., & Van Reken, R. E. (2009). Third culture kids: The experience of growing up among worlds. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey. Pöllmann, A. (2013). Intercultural capital: Toward the conceptualization, operationalization, and empirical investigation of a rising marker of sociocultural distinction. Sage Open, April-June, 1-7. DOI: 10.1177/2158244013486117 Pöllmann, A. (2014). Intercultural capital. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 6. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/key-concept-intercultural-capital1.pdf Pöllmann, A. (2016). Habitus, reflexivity, and the realization of intercultural capital: The (unful-filled) potential of intercultural education. Cogent Social Sciences, 2, 1149915. DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 Pöllmann, A. (2017). Intercultural education and the realization of intercultural capital in Mex-ico. iMex Revista: México Interdisciplinario, 6(12), 80-93. Available from: https://www.imex-revista.com/xii-intercultural-education-capital/ Ponomarenko, L. N., Zlobina, I. S., Galitskih, E. O., & Rublyova, O. S. (2017). Formation of the foreign language discursive competence of pedagogical faculties students in the process of intercul-tural dialogue. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(1), 89-99.


54

Powell, J. A., & Menendian, S. (2016). The problem of Othering: Towards inclusiveness and belong-ing. Othering & belonging: Expanding the circle of human concern, 1, 14-35. Available from: http://www.otheringandbelonging.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/OtheringAndBelonging_Is-sue1.pdf Praxmarer, P. (2014). Otherness and the Other(s). Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 39. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/kc39-other-ness_v2.pdf Prina, F., Zavakou, A., Ghiradi, F., & Colombo, S. (2013). Minorities, media and intercultural dia-logue. European Centre for Minority Issues Working Paper. Available from: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/172902/WP_71_Final.pdf Ratzmann, N. (2019). Intercultural dialogue: A review of conceptual and empirical issues relating to social transformation. Management of social transformations programme (MOST) Discussion pa-pers, 1. Paris, France: UNESCO. Available from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366825 Riitaoja, A.-L., & Dervin, F. (2014) Interreligious dialogue in schools: Beyond asymmetry and categorisation? Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(1), 76-90. DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2013.866125 Ron, Y., & Maoz, I. (2013). Peacemaking through dialogue? Effects of intergroup dialogue on per-ceptions regarding the resolution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Dynamics of Asymmetric Con-flict, 6(1-3), 75-89. Roy, S., & Shaw, I. S. (Eds.). (2015). Communicating differences: Culture, media, peace and conflict negotiation. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Ruth, K. (2003). Guest editorial—industrial cultures and advanced innovation modes. AI & Soci-ety: The Journal of Human-Centred Systems, 17(3-4), 203-206. DOI:10.1007/s00146-003-0260-3 Saillant, F. (2017). Diversity, dialogue and sharing: Online resources for a more resourceful world. Paris, France: UNESCO. Salo-Lee, L. (2015). Intercultural communication as intercultural dialogue: Challenges and new paths. China Intercultural Communication Annual, 1, 174-215. Salomon, G., & Cairns, E. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook on peace education. New York: Psychology Press. Sandel, T. (2011). Is it just cultural? Exploring (mis)perceptions of individual and cultural differ-ences of immigrants through marriage in contemporary Taiwan. China Media Research, 7(3), 43-55.


55

Sarmento, C. (2014). Interculturalism, multiculturalism, and intercultural studies: Questioning definitions and repositioning strategies. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(4), 603-618. DOI:10.1515/ip-2014-0026. Saunders, V., Roche, S.M., Mcarthur, M., Arney, F.M., & Ziaian, T. (2015). Refugee communities intercultural dialogue: Building relationships, building communities. Canberra, Australia: Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University. Available from: https://pdfs.seman-ticscholar.org/5088/9b2f289e979f3dc6b587abf9b4d62eb01ae6.pdf Schneider, J., & von der Emde, S. (2006). Conflicts in cyberspace: From communication breakdown to intercultural dialogue in online collaborations. In J.A. Belz & S.L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet medi-ated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 178-206). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Schoem, D., & Hurtado, S. (Eds.). (2001). Intergroup dialogue. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Mich-igan Press. Scollo, M., & Milburn, T. (Eds.). (2019). Engaging and transforming global communication through Cultural Discourse Analysis: A tribute to Donal Carbaugh. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Scott, K. D. (2016). The invitation of intergroup dialogue: Showing up for social justice education. In S. K. Camara & D. K. Drummond (Eds.), Communicating prejudice: An appreciative inquiry ap-proach. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Seibt, J., & Garsdal, J. (Eds.). (2014). How is global dialogue possible? Foundational research on value conflicts and perspectives for global policy. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Sen, R. J. (2015). Bollywood in the city: Can the consumption of Bollywood cinema serve as a site for intercultural discovery and dialogue? In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in inter-cultural dialogue (pp. 117-130). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Sergi, D. (2014). Critical objects: Museums, refugees and intercultural dialogue. In P. Innocenti (Ed.), Migrating heritage: Experiences of cultural networks and cultural dialogue in Europe (pp. 209-219). London, UK: Routledge. Shailor, J. (2015). Conflict transformation. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 65. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/key-concept-conflict-transformation.pdf Shotter, J. (2000). Inside dialogical realities: From an abstract-systematic to a participatory-wholis-tic understanding of communication. Southern Communication Journal, 65(2/3), 119–132.


56

Shuter, R. (2012). Intercultural new media studies: The next frontier in intercultural communica-tion. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41(3), 219-237. Silvestri, S. (2010). Behaviours, interactions, and the praxis of dialogue. In Anna Lindh EuroMedi-terranean Foundation for Dialogue Between Cultures, EuroMed intercultural trends 2010: The Anna Lindh Report. Alexandria, Egypt: Anna Lindh Foundation. Available from: http://www.annalindhfoundation.org/report/anna-lindh-report-2014 Sīmansone, I. Z. (Ed.). (2013). Museums and intercultural dialogue: The Learning Museum Network Project Report No. 4. Riga, Latvia: Mantoprint. Singh, J., Grizzle, A., Yee, S. J., & Culver, S. H. (Eds.). (2015). Media and information literacy for the sustainable development goals. Göteborg, Sweden: NORDICOM. Singh, J., Kerr, P., & Hamburger, E. (Eds.). (2016). Media and information literacy: Reinforcing hu-man rights, countering radicalization and extremism. Paris, France: UNESCO. Sirius Training, EURO-NET, MITRA France, Eesti People to People, & Youth Information Centre Municipality of Kordelio-Evosmos. (2020). In-Di handbook: Exchange of best practices; Intercul-tural dialogue: A holistic approach to drama, storytelling and video-making techniques. Available from: https://epale.ec.europa.eu/en/resource-centre/content/di-e-handbook-exchange-best-prac-tices-intercultural-dialogue-holistic

Skrefsrud, T.-A. (2016). Intercultural dialogue: Preparing teachers for diversity. Munster, Germany: Waxmann.

Smith, A. R. (2014). Intractable conflict. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 18. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/key-concept-intractable-con-flict.pdf Smith, A. R. (Ed.). (2016). Radical conflict: Essays on violence, intractability, and communication. London, UK: Lexington Books. Smock, D. R. (Ed.). (2002). Interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. Sobre-Denton, M. (2014). Cosmopolitanism. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 2. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/key-concept-cosmopoli-tanism.pdf Sobre-Denton, M., & Bardhan, N. (2013). Cultivating cosmopolitanism for intercultural communi-cation: Communicating as global citizens. New York: Routledge.


57

Solbue, V., Helleve, I., & Smith, K. (2017). “In this class we are so different that I can be myself!” Intercultural dialogue in a first grade upper secondary school in Norway. Education Inquiry, 8(2), 137-150. Sorrells, K. (2015). Social justice. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 68. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/kc68-social-justice.pdf Souza, T. (2019). Creating connection through intercultural dialogue partners. Constructing Inter-cultural Dialogues, 11. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.word-press.com/2019/06/constructing-icd11.pdf Spano, S. (2001). Public dialogue and participatory democracy. Mahwah, NJ: Hampton. Stewart, J. (2014). Dialogue. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 14. Available from: https://cen-terforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/key-concept-dialogue.pdf Stier, J., & Sandström, M. (2020). Managing the symbolic power of halal meat in Swedish pre-schools: Food for thought in discussions on diversity. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 20(1), 92-106. Available from: http://immi.se/intercultural/20-1-52/index.html Stokke, C., & Lybæk, L. (2016). Combining intercultural dialogue and critical multiculturalism. Eth-nicities, 18(1), 75-80. DOI:10.1177/1468796816674504 Strathern, M. (2012). Gifts money cannot buy. Social Anthropology, 20(4), 397-410. Swiebel, J. (2008). Intercultural dialogue and diversity within the EU. Eurolimes, 6, 101-112. Tarp, G. (2015). Challenges in International Baccalaureate students’ intercultural dialogue. In N. Haydari & P. Holmes (Eds.), Case studies in intercultural dialogue (pp. 103-114). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Tawil, M., & Baeumer, K. (2018). New perspectives for planning education in the Middle East: Added value through intercultural dialogue. International Development Planning Review, 40(2), 121-141. Timmerman, C., & Segaert, B. (Eds.). (2007). How to conquer the barriers to intercultural dialogue: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Brussels, Belgium: Peter Lang. Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trouillot, M. R. (2002). Culture on the edges: Creolization in the plantation context. In B. K. Axel (Ed.), From the margins: Historical anthropology and its futures (pp. 189-210). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.


58

Tsuji, T. (2015). Toward the materiality of intercultural dialogue, still a “miracle begging for analy-sis.” In M. Rozbicki (Ed.), Perspectives on interculturality (pp. 53-66). New York: Palgrave Macmil-lan. Tuna, A. (2016). Intercultural dialogue: Only a means, not an end in itself. New Med Research Net-work. Available from: http://www.osce.org/networks/newmedtrackII/292946 United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. (2013). Fifth Global Forum: Vienna Declaration. Available from: http://www.vienna5unaoc.org/documentation/vienna-declaration UNESCO. (2006). UNESCO World Report: Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. Paris, France: UNESCO. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001847/184755e.pdf UNESCO. (2009). UNESCO World Report 2: Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dia-logue. Paris, France: UNESCO. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001852/185202E.pdf UNESCO. (2013). Intercultural competences: A conceptual and operational framework. Paris, France: UNESCO. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002197/219768e.pdf UNESCO. (2017). Action plan: 2013-2022 International Decade for the Rapprochement of Cultures. Paris, France: UNESCO. Available from: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIME-DIA/HQ/SHS/pdf/decade_actionplan.pdf UNESCO. (2018). UNESCO Survey of Intercultural Dialogue 2017: Analysis of findings. Paris, France: UNESCO. Available from: http://uis.unesco.org/en/files/unesco-survey-intercultural-dia-logue-2017-analysis-findings-2018-en-pdf UNESCO Associated Schools. (2013). Third collection of good practices: Intercultural dialogue in support of quality education. Paris, France: UNESCO. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002228/222890e.pdf U. S. Department of Education. (2010). The condition of education 2010. Alexandria, VA: ED Pubs. Available from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028.pdf Van Reken, R. E. (2019). Cross-cultural kids. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 94. Available https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/kc94-ccks.pdf Vidal-Casellas, D., Aulet, S., & Crous-Costa, N. (Eds.). (2019). Tourism, pilgrimage and intercultural dialogue: Interpreting sacred stories. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI. Vidmar-Horvat, K. (2012). The predicament of intercultural dialogue: Reconsidering the politics of culture and identity in the EU. Cultural Sociology, 6(1), 27-44.


59

Vieira, A., Marques, J. C., Gomes, M. P., & Vieira, R. (2017). The inclusion of the other in ourselves: reception and comprehension of refugees in Portugal. Intercultural Education, 28(2), 196-205. Wächter, B. (2010). Intercultural dialogue on the university campus. In S. Bergan & H. van’t Land (Eds.), Speaking across borders: The role of higher education in furthering intercultural dialogue (pp. 43-50). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Wadensjö, C. (1995). Dialogue interpreting and the distribution of responsibility. Hermes: Journal of Linguistics, 14, 111-129. Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London, UK: Longman. Wagner, M., Cardetti, F., & Byram, M. (2018). The humble linguist: Interdisciplinary perspectives on teaching intercultural citizenship. In E. M. Luef & M. M. Marin (Eds.), The talking species: Per-spectives on the evolutionary, neuronal and cultural foundations of language (pp. 423-447). Graz, Austria: Uni-Press Graz Verlag. Wang, Q. (2015). Conflict management. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 53. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/key-concept-conflict-management.pdf Warshel, Y. (2018). Peace communication. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 91. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/kc91-peace-communi-cation.pdf Weiming, T. (2014). The context of dialogue: Globalization and diversity. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (2nd ed., pp. 496-514). New York: Routledge. Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Wierzbicka, A. (2006). The concept of ‘dialogue’ in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective. Discourse Studies, 8(5), 675-703. Wilk-Woś, Z. (2010). The role of intercultural dialogue in the EU policy. Journal of Intercultural Management, 2(1), 78-88. Williams, R. R., Sachs, W. L., Holtmann, C., Eekhoff, K., Bos, M., & Amonette, A. (2019). Through one another’s lenses: Photovoice and interfaith dialogue. In G. Giordan & A. P. Lynch (Eds.), In-terreligious dialogue: From religion to geopolitics (pp. 253-274). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Wilson, H. F. (2014). The possibilities of tolerance: intercultural dialogue in a multicultural Eu-rope. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32, 852-868.


60

Wilson, J., & Stapleton, K. (2007). The discourse of resistance: Social change and policing in North-ern Ireland. Language in Society, 36(3), 393-425. Winkin Y. (1982). La communication interculturelle: De l’interaction à l’institution; approche eth-nographique d’une maison internationale étudiante aux États Unis [Intercultural communication: From interaction to institution; an ethnographic approach to an American International House]. Doc-toral dissertation, University of Liège, Belgium. Winkin, Y. (1983). Eating topics and talking food: Conversational rules in a multicultural residential organization. Le Langage et l'Homme, 51, 17-23. Wiruchnipawan, F., & Chua, R. Y. (2018). Intercultural relationships and creativity: Current re-search and future directions. In A. K.-Y. Leung, L. Kwan, & S. Liou (Eds.), Handbook of culture and creativity: Basic processes and applied innovations (pp. 207-238). New York: Oxford University Press. Witteborn, S. (2011). Discursive grouping in a virtual forum: Dialogue, difference, and the “intercultural.” Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(2), 109-126. Witteborn, S. (2015). Intercultural competence. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie & T. Sandel (Eds.), International encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Boston, MA: John Wiley & Sons. DOI:10.1002/978111861146.3/ wbielsi008 Wolf, K. B. (2009). Convivencia in Medieval Spain: A brief history of an idea. Religion Com-pass, 3(1), 72-85. Wolf, K. B. (2017). Convivencia. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 82. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/kc82-convivencia.pdf Woodin, J., Lundgren, U., & Castro, P. (2011). Tracking the traces of intercultural dialogue in in-ternationalization policies of three EU universities: Towards a framework. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(2-3), 119-134. DOI: 10.1080/21568235.2011.629038 Xu, K. (2013). Theorizing difference in intercultural communication: A critical dialogic perspective. Communication Monographs, 80(3), 379-397. DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2013.788250 Yue, A., & Jung, S. (2011). Urban screens and transcultural consumption between South Korea and Australia. In D. Y. Jin (Ed.), Global media convergence and cultural transformation: Emerging social patterns and characteristics (pp. 15-36). Philadelphia, PA: IGI Global. Zay, D. (2011). A cooperative school model to promote intercultural dialogue between citizens-to-be. Policy Futures in Education, 9(1), 96-103.


61

Zheng, B. (2016). Listening to contextualization cues: Co-constructed power, identity, and learn-ing between a NNEST and adult immigrant learners. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 31(2). Available from: https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol31/iss2/4/ Zupnik, Y.-J. (2000). Conversational interruptions in Israeli-Palestinian ‘dialogue’ events. Dis-course Studies, 2(1), 85-110.

Notes 1 An early version of this paper was presented at the Roundtable on Intercultural Dialogue in Asia, University of Macau, Macau, China, March 28-30, 2014. A related but much shorter version was published as Leeds-Hurwitz (2015a). Photograph of author on page 1 by Jeff Cohn. Layout, design, and all posters by Linda J. de Wit. 2 This fits nicely with what Elias and Mansouri (2020) found in their review of literature. 3 This was during a Skype conversation with me, April 25, 2017. 4 All posters included as illustrations here are available in larger, printable format on the Center for Intercultural Dialogue’s website – see References for complete citations and links to all those included in this document. 5 There have been critiques of ICD as a goal (Aman, 2012; Näss, 2010; Phipps, 2014), descriptions of the ways in which ICD is virtually impossible (Harries, 2008; James, 1999), arguments that the rhetoric of ICD is working better than the reality (Swiebel, 2008), and even suggestions that dia-logue might not always be as appropriate a technique as it is thought to be (Burbules, 2006; Igbino, 2012; Jones, 1999), though these caveats are rarer than one might anticipate. 6 Strathern's (2012) wonderful discussion of balance and imbalance when considering an altogether different topic has helped me recognize the significance of balance here. 7 Adapting a quote from Trouillot (2002, p. 189), which originally argued that creolization was the miracle begging for analysis.

Documents

Intercultural Dialogue as the Elephant in the Room: Moving from … · 2 days ago · IN DIALOGUE: CID OCCASIONAL PAPERS #1 AUGUST 2020 Author Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz is Director of the