Negotiation and Conflict Management Research

Building an Inclusive Climate for Intercultural

Dialogue: A Participant-Generated Framework
Benjamin J. Broome , Ian Derk, Robert J. Razzante, Elena Steiner, Jameien Taylor
and Aaron Zamora
Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, U.S.A.

Keywords Abstract
dialogue, empathy, inclusion,
reflexivity, intercultural This study investigates the question of how to build an inclusive environ-
communication, intercultural ment for intercultural dialogue. Using the university campus as a context
competence. for our research, we conducted a facilitated idea generation workshop in
which participants identified a set of dialogic competencies, followed by
Correspondence
individual interviews in which we explored participants’ perceptions of
Benjamin J. Broome, Hugh
the relationships among these competencies. Interviews were conducted
Downs School of Human
Communication, Arizona State utilizing a software-assisted, idea-structuring methodology referred to as
University, PO Box 871205, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). Based on our results, we con-
Tempe 85287-1205, AZ, U.S.A.; structed a framework that depicts the overall flow of influence among the
e-mail: set of dialogic competencies identified by the participants. While findings
[email protected]. confirm the importance placed in current literature on factors such as lis-
tening and empathy, they provide a more sophisticated and nuanced per-
doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12158
spective on how to accomplish one of the oft-stated goals of intercultural
dialogue, which is to help participants examine their unconscious biases,
prejudices, and privileges.

The study of intercultural dialogue is increasingly important as communities, organizations, and nations
become more culturally diverse. A multiplicity of disciplines have given attention to dialogue, including
anthropology, education, psychology and psychotherapy, sociology, management, political theory, phi-
losophy, linguistics, and religion (see Cissna & Anderson, 1998). In conflict resolution, researchers have
studied dialogue in negotiation and intergroup relations (Cheldelin, Druckman, & Fast, 2003; Crocker,
Hampson, & Aall, 1999; Deutsch & Coleman, 2000; Fisher, 2005; Kriesberg, 2001; Sandole & van der
Merwe, 1993; Zartman & Rasmussen, 1997), peacebuilding, reconciliation processes, and coexistence
programs (Abu-Nimer, 2001; Broome & Collier, 2012; Byrne, 2001; Fisher, 1993; Glenn & Kuttner, 2013;
Hadjipavlou, 2007; K€ ose & Beriker, 2012; Kuttner, 2017; Richmond, 2010; Schirch, 2005), and inter-
religious conflicts (Abu-Nimer, 2001; Coward & Smith, 2004; Gopin, 2005; Groff, 2002; Herzog, 2006;
Lederach, 2015; Omer, Appleby, & Little, 2015).
Dialogue is a dynamic, transactional, and relational process in which participants create “third cul-
ture” knowledge and understandings which are unique to the relationships that develop between the
participants (Broome, 2009; Casmir, 1999; Collier, 2006; Matoba, 2011). Dialogue allows

We would like to express our appreciation to the anonymous reviewers and especially the editor, Dr. Wendi Adair, for their thought-
ful and thorough review of the initial submission and subsequent revisions. Their comments significantly clarified and strengthened
the paper. We would also like to recognize the contribution of Dr. Judith Martin, Professor Emerita at Arizona State University, who
read an earlier version of our manuscript and helped us better articulate our theoretical framework.

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx

© 2019 International Association for Conflict Management and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1
Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

communicators to explore the different ways that they and others interpret and give meaning to experi-
ences and events. From a communication perspective, dialogue represents a form of discourse that
emphasizes listening and inquiry, with the aims of fostering mutual respect and understanding. In dia-
logue, there is a focus on the quality of the relationship between participants, making possible learning
and change in both self and others. Through dialogue, participants can explore complexities of their
own and others’ perspectives, navigating their differences in interpersonal, organizational, community,
and public realms.
In spite of its potential benefits, attempts to promote dialogue face formidable obstacles, including
what Makau (2018) calls individual adversarialism, in which people tend to place their own interests
above those of the other. Particularly in Western societies, protecting one’s own point of view and win-
ning the argument often become paramount and is viewed as rational, instrumental, and morally justi-
fied. When taking such an approach, communicators sacrifice understanding, creativity, and possibilities
for collaboration. Indeed, a challenge that confronts all types of dialogue is how participants can produc-
tively engage with diverse opinions, experiences, and arguments without becoming overly defensive
(Guttman, 2007). This is particularly the case in a contentious political climate that is highly charged,
divisive, and uncompromising.
In recent years, more attention has been given to cultural considerations in dialogue and to the
dynamics of intercultural dialogue, in which issues of culture, ethnicity, race, and other differences tend
to create divisions between people (see Adair, 2008; Adair, Taylor, & Tinsley, 2009; Adler & Aycan, 2018;
Broome, 2013; Dasli & Diaz, 2017; DeTurk, 2010; Ganesh & Holmes, 2011; Groff, 2002; Holmes, 2014;
Jackson, 2012; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2015; Ramasubramanian, Sousa, & Gonlin, 2017). Although there are
challenges inherent in any dialogic setting, intercultural dialogue is often characterized by tension, anxi-
ety, defensiveness, and misunderstanding. Participants can feel awkward, unsure of what to say, and fear-
ful of being attacked. As Sue, Torino, Capodilupo, Rivera, and Lin (2009) notes, difficulties such as these
arise because dialogue can bring awareness to conflicting worldviews, evoke emotional responses, expose
biases, and present the threat of being challenged during the exchange. Several scholars have described
the complexity of intercultural dialogue and the difficulty in managing the tension that invariably arises
when differences are confronted (Black & Wiederhold, 2014; Gayles, Kelly, Grays, Zhang, & Porter, 2015;
Nagda & Gurin, 2007; Sue et al., 2011; Tully, 2014).
The tension associated with intercultural dialogue may also be related to the limited experience and
interaction that many people have with diverse populations (Gayles et al., 2015), and with the lack of
awareness, knowledge, and abilities in dealing with racial, ethnic, and cultural differences (Kelly &
Gayles, 2010; King & Howard-Hamilton, 2003). Issues such as these have been a focus of research in
intercultural communication generally (Croucher, Sommier, & Rahmani, 2015), and they have received
particular attention in the study of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006, 2011, 2015), intercultural
sensitivity (Bennett & Bennett, 2004; Chen, 1997; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003), and cultural
intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003; Thomas et al., 2008). While all of these lines of research can inform the
study of intercultural dialogue, the research on intercultural competence is particularly relevant.
Intercultural competence scholars have focused on identifying individual characteristics that are
important in intercultural interactions—including empathy, interaction involvement, respect, motiva-
tion, global attitude—and mapping these along cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (see
Arasaratnam, 2016; Bennett, 2015; Deardorff, 2009). For example, a study by Arasaratnam and Doerfel
(2005) identified 5 dominant themes—positive attitudes toward people from other cultures, experience
in and motivation to interact with people from other cultures, empathy, and ability to listen—which they
later confirmed in a follow-up study (Arasaratnam, Banerjee, & Dembek, 2010). In a similar study, Dear-
dorff (2006) identified 25 specific components of intercultural competence, including understanding
others’ world views, cultural self-knowledge, adaptability to new cultural environments, skills to listen
and observe, general openness toward intercultural learning and to people from other cultures flexibility,
tolerance for ambiguity, and deep knowledge of culture.

2 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx

Broome et al. Intercultural Dialogue

Although it is essential to understand individual attitudes, behaviors, and actions, we need to give
greater attention to the process of intercultural dialogue. This is particularly important in order to build
an inclusive climate for intercultural dialogue. In this study, we use a grounded theory approach (Char-
maz, 2005; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to construct a participant-generated frame-
work that depicts the flow of influence among the individual characteristics/competencies of dialogic
communication. Employing a systems methodology, we explore the mental models of dialogue held by
individuals, in particular how they view the ways in which various dialogic competences are related to
one another.
Rather than start with an established list of competencies, we used a dialogic approach to ask partici-
pants what they see to be key factors in building an inclusive climate for dialogue, and we explored with
participants their perceptions of the interrelationships among these factors. We employed a unique
approach to data collection by adopting a methodology from group problem solving and system design.
Using results from this methodology, we developed a meta-structure to depict the flow of influence
across ideas identified by the participants, resulting in a framework for intercultural dialogue that repre-
sents participants’ overall view of the system of dialogic competencies for fostering an inclusive environ-
ment for dialogue in intercultural settings.
Our findings have practical implications for teachers, researchers, and practitioners, particularly for
those who work with peacebuilding programs in conflict zones. Although special care must be taken
when applying results from studies conducted in a particular cultural context, the influence of various
dialogue competencies can inform and help guide facilitators of dialogue groups that are seeking to build
understanding and trust in conflict situations. In addition, the methodology utilized in this study could
be useful to those studying inclusion and dialogue in conflict situations that occur in a multitude of con-
texts. As a compliment to or in place of traditional surveys, standardized interviews, and focus groups,
the methodology employed in this research can help researchers uncover the complexity of participants’
perceptions about connections among underlying variables.
In the following sections, we will describe our overall research design, including our primary method-
ology, present the results of our data collection and analysis, and discuss the significance and implica-
tions of our results.

Research Design

Context of Study
The context for our study was a university setting, where intercultural dialogue can play an important
role, particularly in the politically charged climate that exists in the United States (and elsewhere).
Universities are some of the most culturally diverse organizations, often bringing together students and
faculty from dozens of countries and across multiple ethnic groups. For many students, college is the first
opportunity for significant intercultural contact, and large public universities provide many opportuni-
ties for interaction with those who hold attitudes, beliefs, and values different from their own. As higher
education has experienced a continued shift in demographics, universities are actively seeking effective
strategies to approach diversity and create more inclusive campuses.
Recent conflicts and incidents on U.S. college campuses readily point to the need for intercultural dia-
logue: fraternity parties where members are invited to dress up and “go back to da hood”; offensive stat-
ues (and building names) honoring 19th-century white supremacists and pro-slavery graduates/
benefactors (Dickey, 2016, May 31; Spinella, 2015, November 19); bananas hung on rope fashioned into
nooses—a symbol of racial terror and intimidation against black Americans—on the campus of Ameri-
can University in Washington, DC, along with confederate-flag posters with cotton stalks pinned to bul-
letin boards. All these coincide with a recent and unprecedented increase in white supremacist activity.
In addition to racially based tensions and conflicts, there have been open confrontations over free speech

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx 3

Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

issues on campuses. That is, those who want to restrict hate speech and provide “trigger warnings” for
controversial course content in order to ensure a safer environment for marginalized minority groups,
have been in open conflict with those who view such restrictions as encroaching on academic freedom
and denying students the opportunity to face uncomfortable ideas and grow from pondering them
(Howard, 2017). The increase in these recent tensions and conflicts, and the growing cultural diversity
on college campuses, points to the need for effective intercultural dialogue and sets the stage for this
investigation.

Participants
Our study was conducted in two parts, both at a large university in the southwest of the United States.
We used purposeful sampling (Tracy, 2013) to recruit participants from undergraduate and graduate
communication classes, as well as from personal networks of members of the research team. In part 1, we
brought together a group of students for a half-day idea generation workshop focused on intercultural
dialogue. In part 2, we interviewed students with an expressed interest in intercultural dialogue, some of
whom had participated in the part 1 workshop. The students’ interest in the topic of intercultural dia-
logue came from personal experiences and/or because they were taking a class in communication and
were sensitized to the difficulties of intercultural dialogue. We did not ask participants to provide written
demographic information, but we are able to report basic characteristics of the participants based on
self-introductions during the workshop, as well as visible cues such as photographs taken (with permis-
sion) during the workshop. Participants in both parts of our study varied in race, gender, and national
origin, with approximately half of the participants of European Caucasian ancestry and approximately
half of the participants students of color.
In part 1 of our study, a total of 23 participants attended the idea generation workshop (16 female and
7 male). Using visual cues and photographs taken of group activities during the workshop, we estimate
the average age of participants to be in the low to mid-20s. This age range is in line with aggregate demo-
graphic statistics for the typical university communication class. In part 2 of our study, we recruited par-
ticipants from two sources. First, we sent a follow-up email to those who participated in part 1 of our
study, offering them an opportunity to be part of a follow-up interview. Six of these individuals agreed
to participate in the interviews, and we recruited additional participants from classes taught by the
research team. A total of 29 participants (18 female and 11 male) took part in either an individual or
group interview. For their participation in the interview, they received a $10 Amazon gift certificate.

Research Methodology
To achieve the primary goal of our research, which was to construct a participant-generated framework
of dialogic competencies, we sought a collaborative and interpretive approach to data gathering. The
methodology we adopted, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), was developed by Warfield (1976,
1994) for application in group design and problem solving. The roots of this process lie in systems think-
ing, and it was originally developed to help groups resolve complex issues. ISM has been applied in a
variety of situations over the past 40 years, including developing instructional units (Sato, 1979), design-
ing a national agenda for pediatric nursing (Feeg, 1988), developing computer-based information sys-
tems for organizations (Keever, 1989), improving the U.S. Department of Defense acquisition process
(Alberts, 1992), understanding large-scale system issues (Christakis, 1987; Christakis & Brahms, 2003),
designing well-being measures (Hogan et al., 2015), and understanding the role of the marine ecosystem
in society (Domegan et al., 2016). ISM was a key methodology in Broome’s (1995) work with Native
American Tribes, which investigated ways to promote greater community involvement in tribal gover-
nance, and in his conflict management work with Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot peacebuilding
groups in Cyprus (Broome, 2004).

4 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx

Broome et al. Intercultural Dialogue

For this study, we adapted the ISM methodology for use in an individual interview format, using it to
guide a set of structured interviews in which participants constructed their individual “mental models”
representing their perceptions of relationships among the factors that had been identified by the initial
workshop participants. ISM is a qualitative and interpretive approach that is particularly valuable in
helping researchers understand how participants view the influence among a set of variables/factors/
ideas. As a software-assisted methodology, ISM guides participants in identifying relationships among
ideas, based on their perceptions and experiences. The software supports the structuring process and dis-
playing the graphical output of participants’ work.
The ISM methodology asks participants to make judgments about the relationship between paired
items. The ISM software uses mathematical algorithms developed by Warfield (1976) that minimize the
number of queries necessary for exploring relationships among a set of ideas. These algorithms are based
on matrix algebra and transitive logic (e.g., if A influences B and B influences C, then it can be inferred
that A likely influences C). The length of time and number of necessary queries required to finish discus-
sion of all necessary pairs of ideas depends on the total number of ideas in the set, but generally, with sets
of 10 or more items, the ISM software infers between 60 and 80 percent of the judgments involved in
relating the complete set of ideas. This reduction in the number of queries saves considerable time in the
interview process, making it unnecessary to pair all ideas with one another. This significantly reduces the
fatigue that would otherwise be unavoidable in exploring the relations among a large set of elements,
making ISM an invaluable asset in the process of exploring the interrelationships among a set of ideas.
The ISM process typically entails four steps: (1) identifying and clarifying a set of ideas to use in the
structuring session; (2) identifying a relational question that will be used for exploring relationships
among the set of identified ideas (i.e., “Does idea A relate in X manner to idea B?”); (3) engaging partici-
pants in exploring connections/relationships between pairs of ideas, using the relational question; and
(4) displaying and reviewing the resulting graphical/visual structure, providing participants with the
opportunity to amend the structure, if desired.
Step 1 of the ISM process, to identify a set of ideas, was accomplished through the half-day workshop
described earlier, in which participants were asked to propose keys to building an inclusive and support-
ive climate (for dialogue) on a university campus. Five groups of 4–5 participants in each group worked
independently, guided by one or two facilitators per group. Following a welcome and overview of agenda
presented to the full group, participants provided self-introductions in their small groups. The facilita-
tors in each group posed the following guiding question: “What are keys to building an inclusive and
supportive climate (for dialogue) on a university campus?” Individuals worked silently and indepen-
dently to write their ideas in response to the guiding question on four-inch by five-inch post-it notes.
Facilitators asked each person to select one of the ideas in their set of responses to post on the marker
board or wall next to the group, and each person was given a chance to explain the statement they wrote
on the post-it note. Other group members were able to ask questions for clarification, but they were
asked to withhold judgment and evaluation of a person’s statement. The second and third rounds were
conducted in similar fashion, and then, participants were given the opportunity to post any additional
ideas in their set that had not already been covered. This process resulted in 15–20 ideas per group (vary-
ing by the size of the group and how many additional ideas were proposed after the third round of clari-
fications).
Across the five groups, participants generated 106 total ideas, 89 of which were unique or nonduplica-
tive ideas. Each group presented their ideas in plenary to the other groups. Following the plenary presen-
tations, each person was provided a set of five sticky notes to place on their individual top five ideas
from across all the groups. Twenty-two ideas emerged from this multi-voting process as the set of top
ideas. Following the workshop, our research team consolidated ideas that were close in wording and/or
meaning, resulting in a set of 15 factors that can be considered enablers of intercultural dialogue. These
15 factors were further tested by discussing these ideas with a group of students enrolled in an intercul-
tural communication class. Students were asked to review each of the ideas and indicate the extent to

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx 5

Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

Table 1
Factors that Enable Intercultural Dialogue

Item Factor Description

1 Taking time to listen Ensuring there is enough time in dialogue for hearing the person and
understanding what they are saying. Dialogue should not feel rushed
or hurried
2 Bringing into the dialogue all the voices that It is easier to leave voices out by accident than to include them. We
represent the campus environment must include a diverse collection of voices that represent the campus
environment who can speak to a variety of experiences
3 Emotional awareness Your capacity to identify and to be attentive to not only your own
emotional states (and feelings therein), but the emotional states of
others. Your ability to be mindfully perceptive
4 Willingness to engage perspectives different Rather than living in a comfortable bubble of likeminded individuals,
from your own we have to be motivated to interact with those who hold different
beliefs from ourselves
5 Becoming aware of ways I exclude Awareness of how I construct the social groups that I am a part of, and
how easy it is to maintain distance from others because they are not
part of my group
6 Open conversation Create an environment where people of divergent views can discuss
differences in a productive manner
7 Being patient Recognize that dialogue takes time to develop and can be messy; be
persistent, allow mistakes to happen, and do not give up easily
8 Recognizing that others may not share my The understanding that we all have our own values, beliefs, and
assumptions worldview and how they shape our worldview
9 Offering emotional and psychological Recognize when someone needs to feel validated and comforted by
support to others when needed listening to their feelings, concerns, frustrations, etc.; demonstrate
that you care for them and their well-being
10 Acknowledging the experience of others Being aware others have experiences that cannot be denied
11 Recognizing the other as a person, not an Being vulnerable to the humanity of others
object
12 Avoid trying to change people to be or think Understand that others will not hold the same values or worldview as
more like you you, and that you cannot force them to adopt your values or
worldview
13 Embracing your uniqueness and the Know who you are and what makes you unique, such as your
uniqueness of others experiences and beliefs, and recognize that others have unique
experiences and beliefs as well
14 Encouraging others to share their story Rather than make assumptions about who a person is, ask questions to
learn their background, worldview, and motivations. Only by asking
questions can you have an opportunity to learn about who a person
really is and understanding them
15 Recognizing your own privilege Your capacity to identify and be watchful of your unearned
opportunities

which it could help them engage in more productive dialogue about campus issues. Students confirmed
that all 15 ideas would be useful in helping them discuss differences in an intercultural setting. This pro-
cess resulted in some small wording changes suggested by the students. These 15 factors became the set
of ideas used in our ISM-guided interviews. The list of factors and their descriptions are shown in
Table 1.
In step 2 of the ISM process, we used the following relational question to guide the structuring pro-
cess: “In the context of building an inclusive climate for intercultural dialogue, does Factor X (one of the
15 ideas) significantly support Factor Y (another of the 15 ideas)?” Factor X and Y were ideas from
Table 1. We defined support as enhance, promote, enable, or make it easier/more likely.

6 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx

Broome et al. Intercultural Dialogue

In step 3 of ISM, we conducted structured interviews with our participants (see earlier description of
our sample). We followed the usual protocol of interviewing, in which we continued interviewing stu-
dents until we found that more interviews did not add additional information or change the results sig-
nificantly (Tracy, 2013). Seventeen of the interviews were conducted with individuals, while three of the
structuring sessions were with small groups (3–4 per group) from the intercultural dialogue class
described earlier. For all of the interviewees, we first introduced them to the set of 15 factors by carefully
reviewing each factor and allowing the opportunity for them to ask clarification questions. In the inter-
view, we stepped participants through the set of paired comparisons. Participants sat side by side with
the interviewer/researcher and viewed the screen of a laptop or PC monitor on which the pairs of ideas
were presented with the relational question (see step 2 above). For each question, participants were asked
to consider the pairs of ideas shown on the screen and make a judgment about the strength of the sup-
port relationship between the two factors. They were instructed to indicate Yes if they believed the rela-
tionship was significantly strong in the positive direction, that is, Factor X significantly supports Factor
Y. Each time they indicated Yes, they were asked to provide a rationale for their answer, providing a per-
sonal story or other evidence of their thinking about the relationship. This helped ensure that partici-
pants were providing a thoughtful response whenever they made a connection between pairs of ideas.
Using the ISM software, the interviewer led the participants through the paired comparison process
(see earlier description of this process) of structuring all 15 of the factors, moving sequentially from
items 1 to 15. To help ensure consistency of understanding across participants, a description of each fac-
tor was provided and brought to the attention of participants each time a new item was introduced into
the structuring process. Although each interview used the same sequence of ideas (factors 1–15), the
specific number of pairs of ideas presented by the ISM software is governed by the algorithms described
earlier. This means that over the course of each interview, the number of questions answered could vary
based on participants’ previous responses. There are 210 cells in a 15 9 15 matrix (n 9 n 1), but with
the software able to fill in 60–80% of cells through the embedded algorithms, between 40 and 60 ques-
tions were posed in each interview. The interviews ranged from 60 to 150 minutes. They were audio-
recorded for backup purposes (a often-used safety measure implemented in case of software malfunction
or hardware problems).
In step 4 of the ISM interview process, we displayed for the participant the visual graphic that repre-
sented the result of their structuring session. The visual structures provide both qualitative and quantita-
tive data of how participants make sense of a complex issue or experience. They can be considered
“mental maps” of participants’ views. The resulting flowchart was explained to each participant, and they
were given a chance to suggest revisions. In addition to serving as a method for structuring a set of ideas,
ISM is a learning tool, giving participants a chance to consider the relational meaning of individual ideas.
This means that in the process of structuring 15 elements, their understanding of a particular factor may
have changed over the course of the interview, and they might view it differently once they see it in the
context of the whole. In our study, participants not only generated data that could be used in our
research, but they also came away with a greater understanding of intercultural dialogue and their own
communication processes. Thus, ISM served as both a research tool and a discovery process.
An example structure is provided in Figure 1. This structure resulted from one of the interviews with
participants in our study.
An ISM structure portrays the relative influence of each factor, as judged by the participant(s) in the
interview session. Various paths in the structure can be followed by starting on the left side of the struc-
ture and following the arrows that represent the line of influence. The factors that participants perceived
as having the most influence appear on the left side of the structure. Moving toward the right of the
structure, factors that appear here are supported by the preceding factors. Factors that have equal or
reciprocal influence were displayed together as part of a cycle in the structure (appearing as a bulleted list
in the same box). By starting with a factor that appears on the left side of the structure and then follow-
ing its path of influence, one can understand the relative potential of that factor, as perceived by the

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx 7

Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

Figure 1. Example ISM structure using the 15 factors in Table 1.

participants, to positively influence the factors along the path. If one started with a factor that appears on
the right side of the structure and walked back to the left, one could understand, from the participants’
perspective, which supporting factors need to be in place in order to make it possible for this particular
factor to be realized.
In the example shown in Figure 1, the factors that have the most influence on the system (according
to this participant) are “Taking time to listen” (1) and “Willingness to engage perspectives different from
your own” (4). Each of these factors influences most of the other items in the structure. A large cycle (5,
6, 8, 11, 13) appears on the far right, along with the individual factor “Recognizing your own privilege”
(15). These factors are perceived as needing a lot of support from those factors to their left; on their own,
they might be difficult to realize, or at least they are made easier by the positive influence of those factors
to their left. The two items in the middle of the structure, “Emotional Awareness” (3), and “Bringing into
the dialogue all the voices that represent the campus environment” (14), serve as conduits through which
influence flows from the right and then out to the left.
Each individual structure can be analyzed by assigning scores to each factor in the structure. The
scores represent various aspects of the potential influence of each item/category. We calculated six influ-
ence scores for each factor in each of the structures: position score, succedent score, antecedent score,
activity score, net score, and overall influence score.
First, each factor was assigned a position score (POS). Factors in the leftmost stage (i.e., furthest to the
left on the visual structure) were assigned the highest score, and those in the rightmost stage were
assigned the lowest score, which is a score of one. The position score of factors on the left varied depend-
ing on how many stages there were in each participant’s structure.
For each factor, the antecedent score (ANT) is the number of factors lying to the left of that factor in
the visual structure that, according to the structure, support or contribute to the realization of that fac-
tor. Likewise, the succedent score (SUC) is the number of the factors lying to the right of a given factor
that it supports, or to which it contributes.
The activity score (ACT) for a factor or category is the sum of the antecedent score and the succeeding
score. It is usually the case that items with the highest activity score are located in the middle of the struc-
ture. Such items can be viewed as the conduit through which influence passes.
The net succedent/antecedent/(NET S/A) score is found by subtracting the antecedent score (ANT) from
the succedent score (SUC) for a given factor. If the Net S/A score is positive, it means that the factor

8 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx

Broome et al. Intercultural Dialogue

provides more support (positive influence) from other factors than it receives from them. If the net score
is negative, it means that the factor receives more support (positive influence) from other factors than it
provides for them. This score is a rough measure of the amount of actual influence adjusted for
difference in the total number of items included in the structures.
Finally, the overall influence score (INF) for each factor in each visual structure is found by adding
the position score (POS) to the NET S/A score. This influence score reflects both actual (NET S/A)
and potential (POS) influence. The potential influence is informative, because other items could be
added to the structure at a later time without changing significantly the position score of a particular
item relative to the other items on the structure. An item with a high position score tells us that the
factor is in a strong position of influence within the system, even as the system changes in small ways
over time.
Interpreting scores can serve different purposes of the analysis. Position score is an important indicator
if one is looking for potential support, but succedent score is more important if one is interested in actual
support, and influence scores provide an overall picture. Generally, interpretation of an influence struc-
ture is informed by the analysis of multiple scores. A low influence score can mean that an item needs
more support than it provides, whereas a high activity score can mean that the factor is quite active in
receiving and dispensing support. In general, the most important score is the overall influence score
(INF), since it takes into account all the other scores and gives an indication of the strength of an indi-
vidual factor on the overall system of factors. It is important to note that influence scores have meaning
primarily in relation to one another. Taken alone, no single influence can be judged as high or low,
except in relation to scores from other items in the structure or meta-structure (see below).

Results
As a first step in our analysis, we grouped the 15 individual factors into five themes that seek to capture
the essence of the individual items. By organizing the individual factors into themes, we created a more
manageable set of concepts that would lend themselves to focused analysis and allow us to tie our results
to the literature on these topics. The themes reflect a robust relationship with the intercultural communi-
cation competence literature, although they also differ in some ways, as discussed below.
In Theme 1, Listening, we grouped four factors related to taking time to focus and engage with others
in a way that acknowledges their experience and perspectives. This theme includes factors 1 (“Taking
time to listen”), 4 (“Willingness to engage perspectives different from your own”), and 7 (“Being
patient”). Listening has been identified as one of the most important behavioral elements of effective
intercultural communication and is generally conceptualized in ways similar to the factors that are
included in this first theme. For example, “skills to listen and observe” was identified in Deardorff’s
(2006, p. 249) study of intercultural competence and in Wang and Kulich’s (2015) qualitative study of
intercultural competence among Chinese students. In Arasaratnam et al. (2010), Integrated Model of
Intercultural Competence, interaction involvement, a central component, is partly defined as “engaging
in active listening by paying close attention to the other person’s communication” (p. 109). As these
examples illustrate, listening is a theme that is viewed widely by scholars and everyday communicators as
a key component of intercultural communication and dialogue.
In Theme 2, Openness, we grouped three factors related to creating an open and encouraging space
where people could come together for dialogue. This theme includes factors 14 (“Bringing into dialogue
all the voices”), 2 (“Encouraging others to share their story”), and 6 (“Open conversation”). These fac-
tors are reflected in intercultural competence research that emphasizes the importance of conceptualizing
competence as a process of negotiation in an ongoing relationship (Bryam, 2003; Cupach & Imahori,
1993; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989). In the Triangular Model of Intercultural Competence, Chen (2014)
notes that intercultural sensitivity, representing the affective component of competence, includes open-
mindedness and nonjudgmental attitudes, both closely related to “open conversation.” Deardorff’s

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx 9

Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

(2006) investigation also identified “general openness to people from other cultures” and “understanding
others’ worldview” (p. 249).
In Theme 3, Validation, we grouped three factors related to recognizing and accepting others as indi-
viduals. This theme includes factors 12 (“Avoid trying to change people to be more like you”), 11
(“Recognizing the other as a person, not an object”), and 13 (“Embracing your uniqueness and the
uniqueness of others”). This theme appears predominately in identity-based competence models that
emphasize the importance of affirming the other interactant’s cultural identity (Croucher et al., 2015).
For example, in Collier’s (1996) study of intercultural competence in friendships, an important compo-
nent is affirming the other’s cultural identity and understanding one’s own cultural place in the world.
Kim (2015) in discussing the theoretical relationship between identity and intercultural communication
competence maintains that identity inclusivity—rejecting a rigid in-group–out-group differentiation of
others based group membership (e.g., nationality, ethnicity)—is one of the dimensions of synchrony—a
foundational aspect of intercultural communication competence. In other words, seeing the other as a
unique person, not simply a member of another group, and more likely to accommodate culturally dis-
similar interactants.
In Theme 4, Empathy, we grouped factors related to emotional awareness of others and psychological
and emotional support of others. This theme includes factors 3 (“Emotional awareness”) and 11
(“Offering emotional and psychological support to others when needed”). Empathy is identified as an
important affective dimension in every model of intercultural communication competence we reviewed
(Deardorff, 2006; Wang & Kulich, 2015) and is central component in Arasaratnam et al.’s (2010; 2005)
Integrated Model of Intercultural Communication Competence. Euwema and Van Emmerik (2007)
investigated interpersonal conflicts in intercultural contexts and found a significant positive relation
between cultural empathy and the cooperative conflict resolution style. The relation between cultural
empathy and a more cooperative CCB (conglomerated conflict behaviors) style underscores that concern
for others is an important characteristic and motivator for cooperative behaviors. Additionally, empathy
is a central concept in effective intercultural communication and intercultural dialogue (Broome, 2009,
2015).
In Theme 5, Reflexivity, we grouped three factors related to self-awareness. This theme includes factors
15 (“Awareness of ways I exclude”), 5 (“Recognizing my own privilege”), and 8 (“Recognizing that
others may not share my assumptions”). This theme acknowledges the importance of power relations
and individual positionality in intercultural interaction, concepts that have been given greater emphasis
in recent intercultural competence research (Collier, 2015; Martin, 2015; Yep, 2000). That is, history,
politics, economic systems, and ideologies “all affect how cultural group members are positioned and the
extent to which individuals will be viewed as competent” (Collier, 2015, p. 10). Wang and Kulich (2015)
address the notion of power in their empirical study and identify cultural humility as an important
dimension of intercultural communication competence, helping us overcoming cultural superiority,
power, privilege, and pride.
In order to assess the relationships among these themes, we analyzed the structures by first computing
influence scores for each of the 15 factors in all structures. We then averaged the influence scores for each
factor across all of the 20 structures. Table 2 shows the average influence scores for each factor.
As a final step in our data analysis, we averaged the scores for the factors in each theme, resulting in 5
theme scores. Using these theme scores, we constructed a meta-structure depicting the overall flow of
influence from one theme to another. The resulting meta-structure is shown in Figure 2.
In this meta-structure, the theme of Listening is positioned to provide the strongest overall influence
on intercultural dialogue. With an average influence score of 8.40, the factors associated with listening
serve as a positive force in making dialogue possible, setting the stage for meaningful and successful
interaction. The realization of factors in Theme 1 will make it significantly easier to realize the factors to
their right, further along the meta-structure. Themes 2, 3, and 4, Openness, Validation, and Empathy,
provide moderate to low degrees of influence, made easier/more likely by the presence of those factors

10 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx

Broome et al. Intercultural Dialogue

Table 2
Average Influence Scores for Individual Factors Across All Structures

Factor Position Antecedent Succedent Activity Net Influence

1 4.60 3.75 9.70 13.45 5.95 10.55

2 3.10 7.80 6.70 14.50 1.10 2.00
3 2.90 8.05 5.15 13.20 2.90 0.00
4 4.10 4.85 9.15 14.00 4.30 8.40
5 3.05 7.70 4.70 12.40 3.00 0.05
6 2.95 8.00 6.00 14.00 2.00 0.95
7 4.15 3.30 7.70 11.00 4.40 8.55
8 2.75 9.30 4.74 13.80 4.80 2.05
9 3.05 5.85 4.20 10.05 1.65 1.40
10 3.80 5.40 7.70 13.10 2.30 6.10
11 3.05 7.65 6.55 14.20 1.10 1.95
12 3.00 5.20 4.65 9.85 0.55 2.45
13 3.15 7.50 5.95 13.45 1.55 1.60
14 3.40 5.25 6.90 12.15 1.65 5.05
15 3.25 6.45 3.65 10.10 2.80 0.45

Figure 2. Theme-based meta-structure of factors that enhance intercultural dialogue.

associated with the theme of Listening. Theme 5, Reflexivity, has an overall negative influence score, indi-
cating that it receives more influence than it provides. This negative influence in Theme 5 suggests that
the realization of factors in this theme may be dependent on the presence of factors associated with
themes 1–4. In other words, it is less likely that they can be accomplished without help from the factors
that lie to their left. For example, attempts to help individuals become aware of ways they exclude others
may be very difficult unless they feel listened to, encouraged to share their views, recognized as a unique
person, and offered psychological/emotional support, with no attempt made to change their views. The
following section will discuss these results in more detail.

Discussion of Results
Our study focused on the components and process of intercultural dialogue. Emerging from our results is
a participant-generated structure that portrays the flow of influence across a set of thematic groupings of

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx 11

Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

dialogic competencies that support intercultural dialogue. These results build on and extend the existing
literature of both intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence.
First, our findings suggest, not surprisingly, that building an inclusive climate for intercultural dia-
logue requires many of the elements—listening, openness, validation, empathy—that have been identi-
fied by research on intercultural competence. At the same time, our results point to an important
difference between general intercultural competence and intercultural dialogue. For example, partici-
pants in this study placed little emphasis on the cognitive elements of intercultural competence, which is
consistently emphasized in competence models. These models stress the importance of factors such as
knowledge of basic factual cultural information, acquisition of cultural values, and sociolinguistic aware-
ness (Chen, 2014; Deardorff, 2009). In our study, the strongest influencer of intercultural dialogue
involves listening behaviors—taking time to listen, bringing all voices into the dialogue, encouraging
others. This emphasis on behaviors indicates that strengthening human relationships may be a more
important component of intercultural dialogue than is the case in general intercultural encounters. Intu-
itively, it makes sense that cultural knowledge and factual information are helpful when conversing and
working with culturally different others or adapting to a culturally different environment. But intercul-
tural dialogue is more intense than typical intercultural encounters, and it usually extends over time.
Dialogue provides a setting where knowledge about the other can be gained during the exchange, rather
than brought to it by the parties. As a relational process (Broome, 2009), dialogue requires listening
behaviors that allow the co-construction of knowledge and understanding, rather than relying on pre-
existing information about the other.
Second, our research goes beyond existing intercultural competence research, which tends to focus
on individual characteristics or specific knowledge, skills, or attitudes that lead to more successful
interactions. While such individual characteristics provide useful insights that inform intercultural dia-
logue, a number of scholars (Arasaratnam, 2016; Holmes & O’Neill, 2012; Kim, 2015; Liu, 2012; Mar-
tin, 2015; Ting-Toomey, 2012; Wang & Kulich, 2015; Yep, 2014) have identified limitations to a focus
on individual competence and have called for moving beyond the list approach to intercultural compe-
tency. Chen and Starosta (1996), in describing the future challenges for intercultural communication
competence research, suggested that we need to develop alternative approaches that focus less on indi-
vidual competences and that rather highlight the “we” of intercultural competence and relational har-
mony. More recently, Chen (2014) challenges scholars to “go one step further to examine the
relationships between or among dimensions or components in the compositional model that the hier-
archical or determinative order of the dimensions or components toward ICC competence can be spec-
ified” (p. 24). Others, like Collier (2015), note the lack of attention to the process through which
intercultural competence is constructed; and also relationships among individual and group members
“as they occur in spaces of institutional influences such as. . .. . .universities” (p. 10). Our study
responds to this call for bringing a process and contextualized focus to intercultural competence by
investigating the relative influence of a specific set of competencies, focusing on the interrelationships
among these competencies, and examining the flow of the dialogue process. In this way, it extends the
intercultural competence literature and takes it beyond general intercultural interaction, giving it more
relevance to intercultural dialogue.
Third, our study provides a more nuanced and sophisticated view of one of the primary goals of inter-
cultural dialogue, reflexivity. Although intercultural dialogue can serve many purposes and take many
forms, one of the goals that underlies most approaches and settings is to help participants recognize the
position they occupy vis-a-vis the other. Through dialogue, individuals can become cognizant of ways
they treat others, and engaging in dialogue is one of the best ways to become aware of one’s own assump-
tions and the fact that others may not share them. Unfortunately, few people welcome challenges to their
long-held assumptions about how the world works and their place in it. In spite of its potential, dialogue
can exacerbate the emotions that thwart understanding and negatively affect relationships. Rather than
fostering engagement and learning, dialogue can lead to anger and withdrawal. Instead of promoting

12 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx

Broome et al. Intercultural Dialogue

mutual exploration and appreciation of diverse perspectives (Black & Wiederhold, 2014), dialogue can
serve to create tension, anxiety, and awkwardness (Gayles et al., 2015).
Reflexivity does not happen automatically or easily, particularly for members of the dominant group,
who are often fearful and defensive discussing any privileged identity, from sexual orientation to religion
(Henry et al., 2007). Silence and inaction frequently result when difficult topics are brought up in con-
versations and discussions (Sue, 2015). Defense mechanisms such as denial, deflection, and rationaliza-
tion often occur when discussions focus on privilege, unearned advantages, and conferred power that
occurs because of a dominant identity (Gayles et al., 2015). Discomfort, defensiveness, fear, and a feeling
of being under attack are common reactions when identity is challenged (Reason, 2007).
Our study, while not definitive, helps shed light on how defensiveness and threat can be lessened. Par-
ticipants in our study recognized that reflexivity does not occur as a stand-alone activity. It is not easy
for any of us to examine our assumptions, unearned privilege, and ways we exclude others. Perhaps we
are more receptive to information that challenges our identity if the realization of bias comes from
within, rather than being pushed from outside. Of course, the process of self-realization rarely happens
immediately, as the result of a one-time or forced confrontation. Although there is no guarantee it can
happen even with persistent encouragement and support, it is important to recognize that self-awareness
is the result of an ongoing process, rather than an outcome brought about by direct challenges to identity.
Fourth, our results suggest that listening is the starting point of this process that leads to reflexivity.
Factors associated with listening (including patience and engagement) provide the strongest overall
influence on the intercultural dialogue process. It is not surprising that listening emerged as the strongest
influencer in the meta-structure, as it is regularly included as a critical component of intercultural dia-
logue methods. Makau (2018) believes that the search for mutual understanding through dialogue relies
heavily on the will and ability of interactants to listen openly and attentively. He writes that participants
in dialogue “make efforts to be fully present and to listen empathically, endeavoring to understand what
the speaker is seeking to convey rather than listening for faults, errors, or other grounds for challenging
what is being said” (Makau, 2018, Dialogic Communication section, para 2). Likewise, Nagda and
Zuniga (2003) view listening as critical to the early stages of dialogue, helping participants become more
comfortable in communicating across differences, as well as more motivated to bridge these differences.
Listening sets up participants to learn from their fellow discussants, and it is necessary for sustained dia-
logue.
Fifth, our results suggest the facilitative effects of listening for those factors in the meta-structure that
have moderate influence: openness, validation, and empathy. None of these factors happen easily, and
they can be quickly derailed even with the best of intentions and with the best efforts of those attempting
to engage in dialogue. But listening can have a powerful effect on the dialogue process, and it encourages
others to tell their story, helps recognize the other as a person rather than an object, and can be an
important way of providing emotional and psychological support to others. Gayles et al. (2015) believe
that participants in intergroup dialogue may be more likely to think deeply about diversity issues as they
gain greater exposure to stories of privilege and power. Once individuals become aware of the ways in
which privilege and oppression work in individual lives and in society more generally, they may start to
recognize their own privileged identity. In the logic of our participant-generated meta-structure, listening
to others and being listened to by others significantly increase the likelihood that this awareness can
develop. As Friedrichs (2016) notes, all people crave for recognition and self-worth, and when the other
party listens carefully, it is a sign of respect, signaling to the speaker that they care about him or her. In
this way, listening sets the stage for openness, validation, and empathy, and taken together, these factors
can build an environment in which individuals are able to examine their own assumptions and preju-
dices without defensiveness, silence, or withdrawal.
Overall, the results of our study raise questions about the commonly held assumption that promoting
self-awareness is always the best starting point for intercultural dialogue, while at the same time pointing
to the powerful effects of listening and the behaviors it makes possible. Our analysis suggests that

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx 13

Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

reflecting meaningfully on one’s own assumptions and ways of relating to culturally different others is
best accomplished with support of variables related to listening, openness, validation, and empathy.
Although self-reflection about one’s position and identity can certainly enhance intercultural dialogue,
our findings suggest that self-reflection needs to be supported by interaction that creates a challenging
yet nonthreatening environment in which awareness results more naturally from the flow of communica-
tion.
These findings do not dismiss or invalidate the importance of understanding the self, nor do they chal-
lenge the value of positioning one’s identity as part of intercultural dialogue. Rather, our findings suggest
that self-awareness and self-understanding can be supported by a variety of practices that precede a push
for reflection on one’s own prejudice and bias. It is important to note that this sequence may not be the
best in all settings or with all populations. For example, with some individuals or groups it may work
better to start with a more direct and confrontational approach, in order to push them out of their com-
fort zone. Expectancy Violation Theory (Burgoon & Hale, 1988) provides theoretical support for this
possibility, and recent empirical research (Gocłowska, Crisp, & Labuschagne, 2012; Prati, Crisp, &
Rubini, 2015) suggests that confronting stereotypes can promote more flexible thinking and reduce
intergroup bias. However, even in cases where expectancy violation could “shock” individuals into exam-
ining their assumptions, listening could help mitigate the tendency for immediate defensiveness or coun-
terattack to having one’s beliefs challenged. There may be other moderating variables that could also
affect the sequence, but this study, conducted with participants with experience and interest in dialogue,
suggests that listening is a strong starting point, and if it leads to openness, validation, and empathy, then
a person is more likely to be willing to examine their own privilege and power and ways they exclude
others.

Practical Implications for Conflict Management

Dialogue plays a critical role in conflict management. It can serve as a forum for more productive dis-
course about differences (Agne & Tracy, 2009), reaching across religious divides (Abu-Nimer, Welty, &
Khoury, 2007), transforming conflictual relationships (Saunders, 2008), promoting reconciliation in
divided societies (Lederach, 1997), and building cultures of peace (Bar-Tal, 2009; Broome, 2013). Those
who are involved with conflict management instruction and training often use dialogue to help partici-
pants become more aware of their assumptions, privilege, and effects of actions and behaviors on others.
Indeed, many of our activities as conflict scholars are designed to promote reflexivity, helping partici-
pants think deeply about bias, power relations, and cultural diversity. But such reflection often results in
either outright resistance or a polite reliance on intellectual argument, surface level admiration of differ-
ences, or simply silence. Results from our study suggest that listening and engaging in open, validating,
and empathic dialogue might be the best starting point for reflection and self-awareness. However, this
takes time, patience, and knowledgeable facilitation, all of which may be in short supply, especially
immediately after a crisis.
Often the response to a conflict crisis is a call for dialogue. Although this can help reduce tension and
can provide an opportunity for involvement, our findings suggest that dialogue needs to be set up as an
ongoing process rather than as a crisis communication response. We believe that if people in a commu-
nity or across an organization are accustomed to intercultural dialogue practices, there will be a more
natural development of self-awareness. Building inclusive climates is not something that can happen
quickly, nor is it something that can be dictated from above (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016). If enough people
in a community or an organization are participating regularly in dialogue groups, they will be ready to
help defuse crises when they happen, and they will also help educate the larger population of the organi-
zation about diversity and inclusion issues. As Ramasubramanian et al. (2017) points out, intercultural
dialogues “provide multiple voices, at different levels, the opportunity to enter the conversation” (p.
540). She recommends that instead of a prescriptive response created by officials, dialogues should be a

14 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx

Broome et al. Intercultural Dialogue

collective process in which multiple parties are involved in addressing issues and finding ways to deal
with them.
As both Lederach (1997) and Saunders (2011) point out, dialogue is an extended process and
needs to be sustained over time in order to bring about transformation. Especially in conflict situa-
tions, it is important to create environments for dialogue before issues become toxic, widespread,
or damaging. This is well illustrated by Broome, Anastasiou, Hadjipavlou, and Kanol’s (2012)
description of the way in which dialogue groups in Cyprus responded to a crisis situation that
occurred along the United Nations-patrolled Green Line. Clashes had brought the island to the
brink of a regional military confrontation, and the toxic atmosphere afterward was filled with
nationalistic and uncompromising rhetoric. Years of peacebuilding work was in danger of quickly
unraveling. But a group of individuals from both communities, who had been involved in several
years of dialogue groups, took steps to promote reconciliation, leading to a calming of the tension
and even an increase in interest among the general population in participating in cross-community
dialogue. The actions taken by these individuals were made possible by their experience in dialogue
groups, which allowed them to listen to the concerns of each community, demonstrate openness to
new ways of seeing the situation, offer validation and empathy to one another, and engage in
reflection about mistakes that were made by all sides. Without their work, it is likely that the two
communities would have remained caught in a cycle of blame, recrimination, and hostile rhetoric.
For dialogue to be an ongoing process, we recommend that persons across communities and organiza-
tions are trained in intercultural dialogue practices to create a culture of dialogue. Although the current
study was not designed to test any particular training methodology, it might be possible to use our
results as framework for training. Thus, workshops on dialogue might include components built around
listening, openness, inclusion, empathy, and reflection, perhaps incorporating the 15 factors that we used
in this study. But regardless of the type of training utilized, it is important to provide the training at mul-
tiple levels within communities and organizations, including those in leadership positions (Reitz, 2015).
Effective dialogue is more likely to occur when there are numerous potential sites of dialogue, and dia-
logic attitudes and practices are more likely to become part of the culture when dialogic encounters hap-
pen regularly, not just after a crisis.
In sum, dialogue is a critical component of conflict management across interpersonal, intergroup,
organizational, community, and international contexts. Participants in our study indicated that dialogue
sets the stage for people to sit with others, to practice patience, and it seems to put people in a position
to listen and to be heard. Participants in dialogue are able to co-create knowledge, and when imple-
mented appropriately, they gain a sense of ownership over the process, making them more invested in
both the procedures and the outcomes. In this way, dialogue comes full circle back on itself, creating the
conditions for further dialogue and increasing the possibility for building inclusive environments, in
which conflicts can be managed and potentially resolved in a more effective manner.

Limitations and Future Research

Our findings should be interpreted in light of the characteristics of the sample, the method employed,
and the cultural context in which the study was conducted. First, our study was conducted using a
grounded approach and through qualitative research methodologies, meaning the sample size was lim-
ited. Furthermore, our interviewees all brought with them an interest in intercultural dialogue, either
because of personal experiences and/or because they were taking a class in communication and were sen-
sitized to the difficulties of intercultural dialogue. Although we believe their interest in intercultural dia-
logue strengthened our study, allowing us to draw upon a population with experience in intercultural
dialogue and likely to give careful thought to the research task, we also recognize that we might achieve
different results with a population that has less interest or experience with, or less concern about, inter-
cultural dialogue. It could be instructive to conduct a similar study with individuals without a recognized

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx 15

Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

interest in dialogue, although the implications that could be drawn from such a sample would probably
be different.
Second, although the methodology we used in this study, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), has
been used for over 30 years in a wide variety of contexts with problem-solving groups (see earlier
description and references), it has only recently been used for individual interviews. We found that ISM
functions well as an interview guide, and it results in a product that provides a structural representation
of participants’ views about a topic. In fact, it is one of the few methodologies available that is capable of
guiding interviewees through a careful, systematic process of examining influence relationships among a
set of variables. We believe it has significant potential as a qualitative research methodology. At the same
time, it may not be familiar to researchers and may raise questions that are difficult to address within the
limited space of a journal article. Hopefully, the uniqueness of the method will serve as a motivator for
further exploration of its use as a research tool.
Third, it is important to keep in mind that our findings must be interpreted in light of cultural differ-
ences that exist in ways that our themes may be interpreted and implemented. The specific suggestions
of the students about dialogue were made in the context of a university setting in the United States, and
even though the participants represented a variety of ethnic backgrounds and included several interna-
tional students, they were asked to consider dialogue in the university setting. And even though we did
not specify they should focus on a U.S. American university setting, it is likely they were drawing from
their experiences at the university where they were studying. Both the statements they generated in the
initial workshop, as well as the supportive relationships they perceived among these statements, might be
different in another cultural context. This is a question for future research, but in the meantime, it is
advisable to interpret our results accordingly.
Finally, it is important to point out that this is a single study that raises questions rather than offer-
ing definitive answers. On the one hand, it confirms much of what we know about factors that enhance
dialogue, while at the same time it raises questions about the starting point often used in intercultural
dialogue. Importantly, this study is one of the few that examines the flow of influence among factors
that make intercultural dialogue possible. We need to give greater attention generally to the influence
among dialogic competencies, and we need more studies, conducted in a variety of contexts, that
explore how participants connect competencies to one another. By shifting our focus from compiling
lists of characteristics to exploring perceived relationships among competencies, we can develop a sys-
tems view of intercultural dialogue that is more attuned to the complexities of the process. In today’s
increasingly divided world, where behaviors such as listening, openness, validation, empathy, and
reflexivity are critical, we need more than ever to approach the study and practice of dialogue from a
holistic perspective.

References
Abu-Nimer, M. (2001). Conflict resolution, culture, and religion: Toward a training model of interreligious
peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, 38, 685–704.
Abu-Nimer, M., Welty, E., & Khoury, A. I. (2007). Unity in diversity: Interfaith dialogue in the middle east. Wash-
ington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Adair, W. L. (2008). Go-go global: Teaching what we know of culture and the negotiation dance. Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research, 1, 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2008.00021.x
Adair, W. L., Taylor, M. S., & Tinsley, C. H. (2009). Starting out on the right foot: Negotiation schemas when cul-
tures collide. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2(2), 138–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-
4716.2009.00034.x
Adler, N. J., & Aycan, Z. (2018). Cross-cultural interaction: What we know and what we need to know. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
orgpsych-032117-104528

16 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx

Broome et al. Intercultural Dialogue

Agne, R., & Tracy, K. (2009). Conversation, dialogue, and discourse. In W. Eadie (Ed.), 21st century communica-
tion: A reference handbook (pp. 177–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Alberts, H. (1992). Acquisition: Past, present and future. Paper presented at the Institute of Management Sciences
and Operations Research Society, Orlando, FL.
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2016). Intercultural competence. In J. F. Nussbaum (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of
communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://communication.oxfordre.com/vie
w/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-68
Arasaratnam, L. A., Banerjee, S., & Dembek, K. (2010). The integrated model of intercultural communication
competence (imicc). Australian Journal of Communication, 35(3), 103–111.
Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key compo-
nents from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 137–163. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.04.001
Bar-Tal, D. (2009). Reconciliation as a foundation of culture of peace. In J. Rivera (Ed.), Handbook on building
cultures of peace (pp. 363–377). New York, NY: Springer.
Bennett, J. M. (2015). The SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publica-
tions.
Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and
domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd
ed., pp. 147–166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Black, L. W., & Wiederhold, A. (2014). Discursive strategies of civil disagreement in public dialogue groups. Jour-
nal of Applied Communication Research, 42(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2014.911938
Broome, B. J. (1995). The role of facilitated group process in community-based planning and design: Promoting
greater participation in Comanche tribal governance. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Innovations in group facilitation: Appli-
cations in natural settings (pp. 27–52). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Broome, B. J. (2004). Reaching across the dividing line: Building a collective vision for peace in Cyprus. Interna-
tional Journal of Peace Research, 41(2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343304041060
Broome, B. J. (2009). Building relational empathy through an interactive design process. In D. J. D. Sandole, S.
Byrne, I. Staroste-Sandole, & J. Senihi (Eds.), Handbook of conflict analysis and resolution (pp. 184–200). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Broome, B. J. (2013). Building cultures of peace: The role of intergroup dialogue. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Too-
mey (Eds.), Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp.
737–762). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Broome, B. J. (2015). Empathy. In J. M. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of intercultural competence (pp.
287–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Broome, B. J., Anastasiou, H., Hadjipavlou, M., & Kanol, B. (2012). Opening communication pathways in pro-
tracted conflict: From tragedy to dialogue in Cyprus. In L. R. Frey & K. M. Carragee (Eds.), Communication
activism: Struggling for social justice amidst difference (Vol. 3, pp. 69–104). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Broome, B. J., & Collier, M. J. (2012). Culture, communication, and peacebuilding: A reflexive multi-dimensional
contextual framework. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(4), 245–269. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17513057.2012.716858
Bryam, M. (Ed.) (2003). Intercultural competence. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europ.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to
immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376158
Byrne, S. (2001). Consociational and civic society approaches to peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. Journal of
Peace Research, 38, 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343301038003004
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(98)
00027-3
Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: A qualitative method for advancing social justice
research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx 17

Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

Cheldelin, S., Druckman, D., & Fast, L. (Eds.). (2003). Conflict: From analysis to intervention. New York, NY: Con-
tinuum.
Chen, G. M. (1997). A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity. Paper presented at the Pacific and
Asian Communication Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408
634.
Chen, G. M. (2014). Intercultural communication competence: Summary of 30-year research and directions for
future study. In X. Dai & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence: Conceptualization and its
development in cultural contexts and interactions (pp. 14–40). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. In B. Burleson
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 353–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Christakis, A. N. (1987). Systems profile: The Club of Rome revisited. Systems Research, 4, 53–58.
Christakis, A. N., & Brahms, S. (2003). Boundary-spanning dialogue for the 21st-century agoras. Systems Research
and Behavioral Science, 20, 371–382.https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.508
Cissna, K. H., & Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing about dialogic moment: The Buber-Rogers position and post-
modern themes. Communication Theory, 8, 63–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00211.x
Collier, M. J. (1996). Communication competence problematics in ethnic friendships. Communication Mono-
graphs, 63, 314–336. https://doi.org/doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1080/03637759609376397
Collier, M. J. (2006). Cultural positioning, dialogic reflexivity, and transformative/third spaces. Western Journal of
Communication, 70(4), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310600992046
Collier, M. J. (2015). Intercultural communication competence: Continuing challenges and critical directions.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48, 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.003
Coward, H., & Smith, G. S. (Eds.) (2004). Suny series in religious studies: Religion and peacebuilding. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Crocker, C. A., Hampson, F. O., & Aall, P. (Eds.) (1999). Herding cats: Multiparty mediation in a complex world.
Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Croucher, S. M., Sommier, M., & Rahmani, D. (2015). Intercultural communication: Where we’ve been, where
we’re going, issues we face. Communication Research and Practice, 1(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/
22041451.2015.1042422
Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1993). Identity management theory: Communication competence in intercul-
tural episodes and relationships. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence
(pp. 112–131). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dasli, M., & Diaz, A. R. (2017). The critical turn in language and intercultural communication pedagogy theory,
research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of inter-
nationalization. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315
306287002
Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Deardorff, D. K. (2011). Assessing intercultural competence. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(149),
65–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.381
Deardorff, D. K. (2015). Intercultural competence: Mapping the future research agenda. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 48, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.002
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 com-
munication (pp. 565–584). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Deutsch, M., & Coleman, P. T. (Eds.) (2000). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dickey, J. (2016, May 31). The revolution on America’s campuses. Time, Retrieved from http://time.com/
4347099/college-campus-protests/
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail: And what works better. Harvard Business Review, 94
(7–8), 52.

18 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx

Broome et al. Intercultural Dialogue

Domegan, C., McHugh, P., Devaney, M., Duane, S., Hogan, M., Broome, B. J., et al. (2016). Systems-thinking
social marketing: Conceptual extensions and empirical investigations. Journal of Marketing Management, 32,
1123–1144. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1183697
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Business Books.
Euwema, M. C., & Van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2007). Intercultural competencies and conglomerated conflict behavior
in intercultural conflicts. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijintrel.2006.11.001
Feeg, R. (1988). Forum of the future of pediatric nursing: Looking toward the 21st century. Pediatric Nursing, 14,
393–396.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). The potential for peacebuilding. Forging a bridge from peacekeeping to peacemaking. Peace
& Change, 18(3), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0130.1993.tb00177.x
Fisher, R. J. (Ed.) (2005). Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Friedrichs, J. (2016). An intercultural theory of international relations: How self-worth underlies politics among
nations. International Theory, 8(1), 63–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971915000202
Ganesh, S., & Holmes, P. (2011). Positioning intercultural dialogue-theories, pragmatics, and an agenda. Journal
of International & Intercultural Communication, 4(2), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2011.557482
Gayles, J. G., Kelly, B. T., Grays, S., Zhang, J. J., & Porter, K. P. (2015). Faculty teaching diversity through difficult
dialogues: Stories of challenges and success. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52(3), 300–312.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2015.1067223
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Glenn, P., & Kuttner, R. (2013). Dialogue, dispute resolution, and talk-in-interaction: On empirical studies of
ephemeral phenomena. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/nc
mr.12001
Gocłowska, M. A., Crisp, R. J., & Labuschagne, K. (2012). Can counter-stereotypes boost flexible thinking? Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212445076
Gopin, M. (2005). World religions, violence, and myths of peace in international relations. In G. t. Haar & J. J.
Busuttil (Eds.), Bridge or barrier: Religion, violence and visions for peace (pp. 35–56). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill.
Groff, L. (2002). Intercultural communication, interreligious dialogue, and peace. Futures, 34, 701–716. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00015-0
Guttman, N. (2007). Bringing the mountain to the public: Dilemmas and contradictions in the procedures of
public deliberation initiatives that aim to get “ordinary citizens” to deliberate policy issues. Communication
Theory, 17, 411–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00305.x
Hadjipavlou, M. (2007). The Cyprus conflict: Root causes and implications for peacebuilding. Journal of Peace
Research, 44, 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343307076640
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural
development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0147-1767(03)00032-4
Henry, W., Cobb-Roberts, D., Dorn, S., Exum, H., Keller, H., & Shircliffe, B. (2007). When the dialogue becomes
too difficult: A case study of resistance and backlash. The College Student Affairs Journal, 26(2), 160–168. ISSN:
0888210X
Herzog, H. (2006). Religion and peacebuilding. Sociology of Religion, 67, 331–332. ISSN: 10694404
Hogan, M. J., Johnston, H., Broome, B. J., McMoreland, C., Walsh, J., Smale, B., et al. (2015). Consulting with
citizens in the design of wellbeing measures and policies: Lessons from a systems science application. Social
Indicators Research, 123, 857–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0764-x
Holmes, P. (2014). Intercultural dialogue: Challenges to theory, practice and research. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 14(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2013.866120
Holmes, P., & O’Neill, G. (2012). Developing and evaluating intercultural competence: Ethnographies of intercul-
tural encounters. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.
2012.04.010

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx 19

Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

Howard, B. (2017, September 21). Colleges tackle free speech, trigger warnings, safe spaces. U.S. News and World
Report. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2017-09-21/colleges-tackle-
free-speech-trigger-warnings-safe-spaces
Imahori, T. T., & Lanigan, M. L. (1989). Relational models of intercultural communication competence. Interna-
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 269–286.
Jackson, J. (Ed.) (2012). The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Keever, D. B. (1989). Cultural complexities in the participative design of a computer-based organization information
system. Paper presented at the International Conference on Support, Society and Culture: Mutual Uses of
Cybernetics and Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kelly, B. T., & Gayles, J. G. (2010). Resistance to racial/ethnic dialog in graduate preparation programs: Implica-
tions for developing multicultural competence. The College Student Affairs Journal, 29(1), 75–85. ISSN:
0888210X
Kim, Y. Y. (2015). Achieving synchrony: A foundational dimension of intercultural communication competence.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48, 27–37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.016
King, P. M., & Howard-Hamilton, M. (2003). An assessment of multicultural competence. NASPA Journal, 40(2),
119–133. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1226
K€ose, T., & Beriker, N. (2012). Islamic mediation in Turkey: The role of ulema. Negotiation and Conflict Manage-
ment Research, 5(2), 136–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00094.x
Kriesberg, L. (2001). The growth of the conflict resolution field. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall
(Eds.), Turbulent peace: The challenges of managing international conflict (pp. 407–426). Washington, DC: Uni-
ted States Institute of Peace Press.
Kuttner, R. (2017). From co-existence to shared society: A paradigm shift in intercommunity peacebuilding
among jews and arabs in israel. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 10(3), 179–198. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ncmr.12098
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, D. C.: United
States Institute of Peace.
Lederach, J. P. (2015). Spirituality and religious peacebuilding. In A. Omer, R. S. Appleby, & D. Little (Eds.), The
oxford handbook of religion, conflict, and peacebuilding (pp. 541–567). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2015). Intercultural dialogue. In C. I. K. Tracy & T. Sande (Eds.), International encyclopedia
of language and social interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 860–868). Boston, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
Liu, S. (2012). Rethinking intercultural competence: Global and local nexus. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7
(3), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2012.693085
Makau, J. M. (2018). Dialogue, listening, and ethics. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication.
Retrieved from http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-
9780190228613-e-629
Martin, J. N. (2015). Revisiting intercultural communication competence: Where to go from here. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48, 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.008
Matoba, K. (2011). Transformative dialogue for third culture building: Integrated constructionist approach for
managing diversity. Opladen, Germany: Budrich UniPress Ltd.
Nagda, B. A., & Gurin, P. (2007). Intergroup dialogue: A critical-dialogic approach to learning about difference,
inequality, and social justice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2007(111), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.
1002/tl.284
Nagda, B. A., & Zuniga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group
Processes Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001015
Omer, A., Appleby, R. S., & Little, D. (Eds.) (2015). The oxford handbook of religion, conflict, and peacebuilding.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Prati, F., Crisp, R. J., & Rubini, M. (2015). Counter-stereotypes reduce emotional intergroup bias by eliciting sur-
prise in the face of unexpected category combinations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 31–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.004

20 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx

Broome et al. Intercultural Dialogue

Ramasubramanian, S., Sousa, A. N., & Gonlin, V. (2017). Facilitated difficult dialogues on racism: A goal-based
approach. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45, 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2017.
1382706
Reason, R. D. (2007). Rearticulating whiteness: A precursor to difficult dialogues on race. (undetermined). The
College Student Affairs Journal, 26(2), 127–135. ISSN: 0888-210X
Reitz, M. (2015). Dialogue in organizations: Developing relational leadership. London, United Kingdom: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Richmond, O. P. (Ed.) (2010). Palgrave advances in peacebuilding: Critical developments and approaches. Bas-
ingstoke, UK; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sandole, D. J. D., & van der Merwe, H. (1993). Conflict resolution theory and practice: Integration and application.
Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Sato, T. (1979). Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ism method. Educational
Technology Research, 3, 67–75.
Saunders, H. H. (2008). Dialogue as a process for transforming relationships. The SAGE handbook of conflict resolu-
tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Saunders, H. H. (2011). Sustained dialogue in conflicts: Transformation and change. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Schirch, L. (2005). Ritual and symbol in peacebuilding. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Spinella, S. (2015, November 19). Protests against racism on campuses spread nationally. Retrieved from http://da
ilycampus.com/stories/2015/11/18/protests-against-racism-on-college-campuses-extend-nationally
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sue, D. W. (2015). Race talk and the conspiracy of silence. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sue, D. W., Rivera, D. P., Watkins, N. L., Kim, R. H., Kim, S., & Williams, C. D. (2011). Racial dialogues: Chal-
lenges faculty of color face in the classroom. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 331–340.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024190
Sue, D. W., Torino, G. C., Capodilupo, C. M., Rivera, D. P., & Lin, A. I. (2009). How white faculty perceive and
react to difficult dialogues on race: Implications for education and training. The Counseling Psychologist, 37,
1090–1115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000009340443
Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J.-L., et al. (2008). Cultural intelligence:
Domain and assessment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1470595808091787
Ting-Toomey, S. (2012). Understanding intercultural conflict competence: Multiple theoretical insights. In J.
Jackson (Ed.), The routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 279–295). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Tully, M. (2014). Conflict resolution and reconciliation through recognition: Assessing an integrated peace media
strategy in Kenya. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.
2013.861604
Wang, Y. a., & Kulich, S. J. (2015). Does context count? Developing and assessing intercultural competence
through an interview- and model-based domestic course design in China. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 48, 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.013
Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy, and complexity. New York, NY: Wiley.
Warfield, J. N. (1994). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design (2nd ed.). Salinas,
CA: Intersystems.
Yep, G. A. (2000). Encounters with the other: Personal notes for a reconceptualization of intercultural communi-
cation competence. The CATESOL Journal, 12(1), 117–144.
Yep, G. A. (2014). Encounters with the “other”: Personal notes for a reconceptualization of intercultural commu-
nication competence. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader
(2nd ed., pp. 339–358). New York, NY: Routledge.

Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxxx 21

Intercultural Dialogue Broome et al.

Zartman, I. W., & Rasmussen, J. L. (Eds.) (1997). Peacemaking in international conflicts: Methods and techniques.
Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Benjamin J. Broome is Professor in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona
State University (USA). His research focuses on methods and practices for facilitating intercultural dialo-
gue using a set of theoretically-grounded and experience-tested interactive methodologies and design
processes. He has collaborated with educational institutions, policy centers, government agencies, cor-
porations, professional organizations, community groups, and Native American Tribes and organizations
in the United States, Australasia, Europe, and the eastern Mediterranean.
Ian Derk is a doctoral student at the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State
University (USA) and an instructor in the College of Integrative Sciences and Arts. His research interests
center on rhetorical studies and digital media. He served in Morocco as Peace Corps Volunteer from
2007-2009.
Robert J. Razzante is a doctoral candidate at the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Ari-
zona State University (USA). His engaged scholarship seeks to transform conflict involving the intersec-
tions of culture, privilege, and marginalization. For his dissertation, Robert is collaborating with a
healthcare organization that wants to create a more inclusive workplace for their most marginalized
employees.
Elena Steiner is a doctoral candidate at the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona
State University (USA). Her research and practical application interests are focused on cultural and
worldview analysis of narratives in organizations and how worldview understanding informs intercul-
tural competence. She is also a research assistant at ASU’s Center for Strategic Communication, studying
media, networks, narrative framing, and cultural analysis. She is currently based in Germany, interning
with a multinational dual-education organization.
Jameien Taylor is a doctoral candidate at the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Ari-
zona State University (USA). He studies communication within interpersonal relationships. He is parti-
cularly interested in exploring the implications of kindness, particularly the ways people communicate
kindness in various social roles including parent, child, teacher, student, friend, stranger and spouse.
Aaron Zamora is a doctoral student at the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona
State University (USA). Through a combination of rhetorical and critical/cultural approaches, Aaron
explores racial and cultural representation in popular culture, specifically television, film, and sport. His
dissertation explores how retired Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Fernando Valenzuela was exploited to for-
give and forget the traumatic public memory of Chavez Ravine to mediate Latinx/Chicanx identities with
Dodgers fandom.

22 Volume 0, Number 0, Pages xxxx–xxx