A Developmental Model of Intercultural Maturity

Journal of College Student Development, Nov/Dec 2005 by King, Patricia M, Magolda, Marcia B Baxter

This article focuses on the development of intercultural maturity, which is frequently cited as a desired collegiate outcome. We position our work on intercultural maturity in the context of a holistic approach to human development using Kegan's (1994) model as a foundation and relating this outcome to other collegiate learning outcomes. We introduce a multidimensional framework that describes the development of intercultural maturity. We first explicate the three dimensions of the framework, link these to existing theory and research on student development and intercultural competence, and then illustrate the developmental levels of the framework using examples from interviews with college students.

In times of increased global interdependence, producing interculturally competent citizens who can engage in informed, ethical decisionmaking when confronted with problems that involve a diversity of perspectives is becoming an urgent educational priority (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). For example, when a group of Fortune 500 companies filed a brief in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies (Fortune 500 corporations, 2000), they noted that students with an appreciation for diversity:

are better prepared to understand, learn from and collaborate with others from a variety of racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds; demonstrate creative problem solving by integrating differing perspectives; exhibit the skills required for good teamwork; and demonstrate more effective responsiveness to the needs of all types of consumers. (� 6)

Colleges and universities are in many ways well suited to foster the development of these skills; however, "they are what corporations find in shortest supply among entry-level candidates" (Bikson & Law, 1994, p. 26). Levine and Cureton (1998) provided evidence that appreciation for diversity is also in short supply on college campuses: In their discussion of the growing tension on U.S. campuses around multicultural issues, they noted that "multiculturalism remains the most unresolved issue on campus [in the US] today" (p. 91). Further, persistent reports of racially-motivated hate crimes on college campuses suggest that this remains an unresolved issue and that there is a strong need to find better ways to help students achieve this desired collegiate outcome.

How do people come to understand cultural differences in ways that enable them to interact effectively with others from different racial, ethnic, or social identity groups? How can institutions of higher learning better address the seemingly intractable problems associated with educating for intercultural understanding? Finding ways to answer these questions lies at the heart of national and institutional efforts to achieve diversity outcomes and at the center of research designed to better understand how students achieve this important collegiate outcome.

Several scholars have proposed conceptual models to describe intercultural (or multicultural) competencies (e.g., Howard-Hamilton, Richardson, & Shuford, 1998; Ottavi, PopeDavis, & Dings, 1994; Pope & Reynolds, 1997; Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004; PopeDavis, Reynolds, Dings, & Ottavi, 1994). These models provide useful starting points for identifying the attributes that are associated with this ability. For example, Pope and Reynolds include among their listing of multicultural skills "the ability to identify and openly discuss cultural differences and issues," to "differentiate between individual differences, cultural differences, and universal similarities," and "to use cultural knowledge and sensitivity to make more culturally sensitive and appropriate interventions" (p. 271). Unfortunately, theory development on multicultural competence has been limited by heavy reliance on the assessment of attitudes as a proxy for competence.

Landreman (2003) conducted a comprehensive review of the intercultural competence literature, drawing from the fields of intercultural communication, multicultural competence, and developmental psychology, and literature on critical-, stratum-, and ethnicconsciousness. In her critique of this literature, she offered the following observations:

Definitions of "competence" are theoretically and empirically inconsistent, and do not address the application of one's understanding and skills to intergroup relationships or social justice issues; the heterogeneity of cultural groups, the multiplicity, complexity, and intersectionality of identity, and individuals' relationship to institutional and societal power and their social location have been minimally considered ... as well as the influence these factors have on the individual's experiences, perspectives and presenting problems; absent from the competence literature are considerations concerning students' underlying assumptions about intergroup differences. . . . (p. 39)

She suggested that intercultural consciousness is a more appropriate educational goal than multicultural competence; the prefix "inter" encompasses both domestic and international contexts and implies cultures interacting. She also noted that "achieving consciousness implies an understanding of self and identity (intrapersonal), while interacting with others in a historical and socio-cultural-political context (interpersonal), leading to reflection (cognitive) that motivates action" (pp. 41-42). These observations illustrate that intercultural competence is a complex, multifaceted construct, and that educating for this outcome requires a broader, more comprehensive approach than that suggested by training for knowledge or skills alone.