Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper explores intercultural training needs of university staff through the analysis of intercultural critical incidents that were shared by participants in a survey conducted in four universities in Switzerland. In the survey, participants were prompted to describe intercultural critical incidents, to self-assess their intercultural sensitivity and competence, and to indicate their interest in further development. Using qualitative content analysis, categories of incidents were developed based on the Critical Incident Technique. The findings suggest that participants whose scores indicate a higher level of readiness to engage in intercultural training are better able to perceive nuanced details of intercultural critical incidents and to analyse them from an ethno-relative perspective. The findings further suggest that workshops on relationship-building and empathy in intercultural contexts may offer relevant entry points for training of participants with lower scores.

Keywords

Intercultural development intercultural critical incidents intercultural competence relationship building empathy higher education Switzerland

Introduction

Universities pride themselves on their international and intercultural study profiles, offering courses and programmes to prepare students for life in a globalised world. While calls are being made for universities to internationalise their curricula comprehensively (Hudzik, 2011; Leask, 2015), the intercultural competences of university staff, however, take a backseat in universities’ endeavours to create an interculturally sensitive learning environment for students. Universities may offer intercultural training for staff, but it often is optional and attracts those few who are intrinsically motivated or have already engaged in intercultural development. Universities should therefore consider offering tailored intercultural training that addresses the specific needs of individuals who are hesitant to engage or may not recognise the potential benefits of intercultural development for their work.

In this context, a survey was conducted with teaching and administrative staff from four universities in Switzerland to identify their intercultural needs and competences. A particular focus in the survey was placed on identifying staff profiles related to their readiness to engage in intercultural training. The survey was designed to provide information about the teaching and administrative staff that would allow us to understand

who indicated a general interest in participating in intercultural training, and

how those willing to undertake training differed in profile from those who indicated they were not interested in such a training.

The present paper reports on the detailed findings from this survey. It particularly focuses on one open survey item in which participants were prompted to describe an intercultural incident they had encountered at work. In the survey, participants were free to decide what they considered to be an intercultural incident and what details they felt important to mention in their descriptions. As these incident reports contained rich information on intercultural perceptions, they were taken as a basis for the development of staff training profiles. Using the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954), incident reports were categorised and embedded in overall staff profiles. Initial analysis revealed considerable variation in focus, nuance and topics, prompting a detailed analysis to explore the consistency of descriptions across self-ascribed competence levels and the participants’ readiness for further training.

The insights from this study are intended to be used as a source for developing intercultural training tailored to university staff's specific needs and readiness for intercultural development, particularly for those who may not be intrinsically motivated to engage in training.

Conceptual Considerations

Flanagan (1954, p. 338) defines critical incidents as situations in which “extreme behaviour” occurs that greatly affects the results of the purpose of an activity. In intercultural contexts, extreme behaviour may result from challenges or dilemmas that relate to cultural diversity (Güven et al., 2023, p. 3) and that occur while engaging with an individual of a different cultural background (Debesay et al., 2022, p. 3). Weiss et al., (2019, p. 5) define intercultural critical incidents as everyday interactions between individuals from different cultures that result in conflict, confusion, or ambiguity for at least one individual. These interactions often occur due to behaviours that can be easily misunderstood without adequate knowledge of the other culture. Brice & Katzenstein (2016, p. 30) describe intercultural critical incidents as unforeseen problems or critical issues which can be perceived by one party to be embarrassing or threatening. These incidents “cannot simply be explained away by bad behaviour” (Brice & Katzenstein, 2016, p. 30) of one party, as they occur when individuals behave in a way that is normal or typical of their cultural backgrounds.

Intercultural critical incidents are widely used in higher education contexts for intercultural training as their analysis may reveal underlying cultural patterns (e.g., Engelking, 2018, pp. 53–54 and Apedaile & Schill, 2008). Research on critical incidents typically follows the Critical Incident Technique (CIT; Debesay et al., 2022; Flanagan, 1954; Güven et al., 2023; Weiss et al., 2019). Flanagan (1954, p. 335) considers CIT a “flexible set of principles”, allowing for modifications based on the goals of a study. Flanagan (1954, pp. 336–339) emphasises the following elements of critical incidents:

The situation observed: Information about the place, persons, conditions, and activities regarding the critical incident.

General aim: The function of the activity that leads to the intercultural situation, including participants’ reasons for meeting and the possible steps toward the expected outcome. The general aim may be stated explicitly by the participants in the situation or need to be reconstructed by researchers.

Relevance to the general aim: Information to decide if a specific observed behaviour is relevant to the general aim (e.g., if it prevents or resolves intercultural issues).

Extent of the effect on the general aim: Information to establish a scale of positive and negative effects on the general aim.

Flanagan (1954, pp. 343–345) further outlines a three-step process for classifying critical incidents: (1) establish a classification frame based on the data's purpose, accuracy, existing systems, and research goals; (2) develop categories inductively from a sample of incidents, refining them as needed and reviewing for validity; and (3) determine the required specificity, ensuring categories are logically organised, clearly titled, and applicable to future findings.

While CIT helps identify potentially meaningful content categories, it does not offer a framework for analysing the interdependencies between descriptions of intercultural critical incidents and university staff's intercultural competence and, as a result, their potential development needs. Bhawuk (1998) proposed a model of cross-cultural expertise development, outlining different stages of intercultural competence. In this model, a lay person has no knowledge of other cultures and is “unconsciously incompetent,” unaware of their misinterpretations in intercultural interactions. A novice has either “extended” intercultural experience or has completed training focused on cultural differences, yet maintains an ethno-centric worldview, considering their own culture as the standard. Novices experience “conscious incompetence” as they recognise cultural differences but lack the theoretical knowledge to interpret them accurately. They may follow a list of dos and don’ts without understanding the underlying reasons. At this stage, motivated learners or those pressured to adapt may seek theory-based intercultural training (Bhawuk, 1998, pp. 636–639; Landis & Bhawuk, 2020, pp. 15–20).

As individuals continue to develop, they may reach the level of experts who possess knowledge of cultural theories and can consciously apply this knowledge to interpret cultural differences meaningfully. Their “conscious competence” involves developing abstract conceptualisations that help them organise experiences coherently, moving them from an ethno-centric worldview to cultural relativism. Experts actively seek intercultural interactions or training to test hypotheses and create learning opportunities. Ultimately, some individuals may achieve the status of advanced experts who have automated the process of interpreting cultural differences and processing intercultural interactions, achieving “unconscious competence” (Bhawuk, 1998, pp. 636–639; Landis & Bhawuk, 2020, pp. 16–22).

When comparing the model of Bhawuk (1998) to Bennett's DMIS (1986; as cited in Hammer et al., 2003), the novice is at the “defence” or “minimisation” stage of intercultural sensitivity. These individuals realise their intercultural incompetence and may thus look for intercultural training if they are internally or externally motivated to do so. The expert has moved to the stage of “acceptance” or “adaptation” and will seek out opportunities independently to further develop their competence and test their hypotheses. A lay person, however, is still at the stage of “denial”, and does not recognise significant cultural differences and is not motivated to seek intercultural training because they do not yet perceive a need for it. Both Bhawuk (1998) and Bennett (1986) agree that motivation to develop intercultural competence is often lowest at its early stages, where resistance is more common. As individuals gain expertise, they tend to show increased openness, self-awareness, and a stronger commitment to continuous learning. While there may be exceptions with individuals underestimating further training due to overconfidence or unconscious competence (Kruger & Dunning, 1999), the importance that survey participants attribute to their intercultural development provides a crucial indicator of their current level of intercultural competence.

For this study, therefore, the value attached to further intercultural development will be taken as a key variable along which critical incident reports will be analysed. We will assume that participants who attributed a high importance to personal intercultural training reached a critical level of consciousness and competence, while those who indicated low importance can be located below (unconscious incompetence) or above that level (unconscious competence). We will further assume that those participants who actively engaged in intercultural reflection by sharing an intercultural incident were potentially receptive to further training even if they indicated that they were currently not interested. Unlike two thirds of the participants who skipped this item or indicated that they found it irrelevant or could not recall any intercultural mishaps, this subgroup of respondents showed a level of self-awareness and reflective readiness that suggests latent openness to development.

Method

The survey instrument was created by the authors and informed by Leask (2015), Byram (2021) and the Intercultural Competence Assessment Tool (INCA, 2004; Prechtl & Davidson Lund, 2007), which was designed for the European context with a focus on vocational and professional training. It contained 34 items across the following sections:

Biographical and professional background information about participants;

Participants’ identification of developmental needs, readiness to engage in intercultural competence development, self-assessment of competences and critical incidents;

Participants’ availability and willingness to be contacted for further training;

A profile of each participant based on questions related to their intercultural sensitivity.

Competence and development priority items in the survey used 4-point ordinal Likert scales for agreement ratings. All items were skippable, including the following open item in section (b) that required describing an intercultural incident:

“Can you remember an intercultural incident at work? For example, a communication issue due to different backgrounds or something you may have learned about another culture. If yes, please describe the incident below”.

While the participants were not directly asked to share a “critical” incident, the wording was such that it suggested an intercultural encounter that disrupted their expectations. The analysis of the intercultural incidents then followed a qualitative content analysis methodology based on CIT (Flanagan, 1954). Additionally, a content structuring procedure (Mayring, 2023, pp. 316– 317) was applied. Deductive category formation was used, while subcategories were formed inductively. The following category groups were formed deductively in consideration of Flanagan's CIT (1954):

- General aims of the situation

- Persons involved

- Cause of the incident

- Effect of the incident

- Countries, nationalities or regions mentioned

- No Intercultural Critical Incident

The data was coded in MAXQDA, considering the perspectives of all involved. Causes and effects were determined through explicit references in the incidents or derived through interpretation where they were not mentioned. For example, when participants misread one's intentions, lack of perspective-taking and empathy was determined as the cause.

Note that the descriptions of these incidents were narrative texts, dependent on the construction of reality of participants (Bruner, 1991). Such self-disclosures are subject to bias from the participants, influencing the results of analysis (Burns et al., 2000, pp. 179–181). Furthermore, only descriptions that qualified as intercultural critical incidents could be analysed, and sub-categories were created inductively only when the details of the incident accounts allowed for clear identification.

Following the initial coding of 10% of the entries, the categories were revised, adjusted, and specified accordingly. After coding 50% of the entries, the category system underwent a second revision, which was followed by the coding of the remaining data. To test the validity of the content analysis, intra-rater reliability was assessed by recoding the data and calculating it as a percentage. A cut-off point of 70% agreement was deemed sufficient following De Wever et al. (2006, p. 10). The intra-rater agreement on all entries, including the entries that were categorised as not describing an intercultural critical incident, was at 76.53%. Intra-rater agreement on entries qualifying as intercultural critical incidents was initially at 67.52% and, following further revision of subcategories, eventually reached 74.36%. Additionally, a partial inter-coder agreement assessment was carried out (Mayring, 2014, p. 114) by discussing the category system and some entries that were difficult to analyse with the research team. The second coding, following assessment of both intra- and inter-coder agreement, was then used for data interpretation.

Finally, the categories assigned to the intercultural critical incidents were quantified as percentages and averages, allowing for an analysis of the most frequently assigned categories. These data were specifically analysed for relationships to two other variables, such as the participants’ intercultural competence and their attribution of importance to improving their intercultural competence for professional development. For a more detailed analysis, two data sets were created representing two groups: one that attributed lower importance to improving their intercultural competence for professional purposes (henceforth: Group 1), indicating less presumed intercultural competence, and another that attributed higher importance to it (henceforth: Group 2), with a presumed higher level of intercultural competence.

Results

The survey was conducted in Switzerland between June and September 2022 through a 34-item survey provided in four languages (German, English, Italian, and French). In total, 491 university staff members participated in the survey. Their positions ranged from administrative staff (36%), lecturers with a teaching focus (21%), research associates (17%), professors and lecturers with a research focus (13%), and other positions (14%), including research assistants, and technical support.

33% (n = 162) of participants shared a critical incident in the survey. Among them, less than 20% had no international work experience (i.e., professional experience “outside of their cultural or linguistic background”). 80% had spent at least some time abroad, of which almost half had gained more than five years of international work experience. More than half the participants indicated that they encountered intercultural and multilingual situations at work on at least a weekly basis. Participants were also prompted to self-assess their abilities and to prioritise specific training needs, in particular linguistic skills, communicative skills, awareness of the similarities and differences of other perspectives/worldviews, emotional resilience, cross-cultural relationship building, empathy, and flexibility.

Those participants who shared critical incidents ranked their abilities in the following order (from highest to lowest, cf. table 1): linguistic skills, communication skills, empathy, awareness of similarities and differences, flexibility, emotional resilience, and relationship-building. Table 1 suggests a trend that a strong proficiency in a particular skill correlates with a high interest in further developing that skill. There are two notable exceptions to this trend with a seemingly inverse relationship: While empathy is ranked highly on the ability scale, there is little interest in further developing it (only 23%). Conversely, relationship building, rated lowest among abilities, was identified as one of the key areas for intercultural development following linguistic and communicative skills.

Table 1.

Number of Self-Rated Intercultural Skills and Interest in Further Training.

	Linguisticskills	Communic. skills	Empathy	Flexibility	Awareness of similarities / differences	Emotional resilience	Relationship building
How would you rate your own ability in any of the skills? (n = 162)
1: No ability	0	0	1	0	0	0	3
2: Low ability	7	5	9	14	13	11	32
3: Reasonable ability	66	84	67	72	77	91	77
4: High ability	88	72	85	75	72	58	50
No answer	1	1	0	1	0	2	0
Mean	3.5	3.4	3.4	3.3	3.3	3.2	3.0
Would you be interested in further training in any of the skills? (in %)
Yes	60	48	23	38	44	46	46
No	40	52	77	62	56	54	54

However, when comparing these results with the general question about the participants’ sense of the importance of intercultural competence for their professional development, the expected link between high ability and high interest in further intercultural development is not confirmed across all the skills. Ability-specific chi-squared tests yield p-values greater than 0.05, with only two outliers, relationship-building and empathy, warranting further attention (cf. tables 2 and 3). Relationship-building approaches statistical significance with a p-value of 0.057, suggesting a potential trend, while empathy shows a significant association (p = 0.01). This means that participants who indicate a high ability in relationship-building are likely to value further intercultural development, while participants who rate their empathy high are not likely to do so.

Table 2.

Contingency Table – Importance of Intercultural Competence Development and Self-Rated Ability in Relationship Building.

	Relationship building
How important is the improvement of intercultural competence?	High ability	Reasonable ability	Low ability	No ability	No answer	Total
Essential	18	21	5	0	1	45
Fairly important	21	40	10	1	0	72
Of little importance	11	13	14	1	0	39
Not important at all	0	3	3	0	0	6
Total	50	77	32	2	1	162
Chi-Squared Test
	Value	df	p
Χ²	20.551	12	0.057

Table 3.

Contingency Table – Importance of Intercultural Competence Development and Self-Rated Ability in Empathy.

	Empathy
How important is the improvement of intercultural competence?	High ability	Reasonable ability	Low ability	No ability	No answer	Total
Essential	30	13	2	0	0	45
Fairly important	40	29	3	0	0	72
Of little importance	13	23	2	1	0	39
Not important at all	2	2	2	0	0	6
Total	85	67	9	1	0	162
Chi-Squared Test
	Value	df	p
Χ²	21.582	9	0.010

Dividing the participants who shared a critical incident into two further groups, namely into (i) those 116 participants who deem intercultural development as fairly important or essential (Group 2) and (ii) those 46 who see it as less important or not important at all (Group 1), we find a pattern in self-assessed intercultural competences. Around 90% of Group 2 and approximately 95% of Group 1 consider their intercultural skills high. The only exception concerns relationship-building, where that self-assessed high ability drops to 86% in Group 2 and to 60% in Group 1 (cf. table 4).

Table 4.

Self-Rated Abilities by High Importance and Groups.

	Linguistic		Communicative		Awareness		Relationship building		Emotional resilience		Empathy		Flexibility
How important is the improvement of intercultural competence?	High ability	Low ability	High ability	Low ability	High ability	Low ability	High ability	Low ability	High ability	Low ability	High ability	Low ability	High ability	Low ability
High importance	111	5	114	2	107	10	100	16	107	9	112	5	108	8
Low importance	43	2	42	3	42	3	27	18	42	2	40	5	39	6

Qualitative Content Analysis

All incident reports were first categorised deductively, distinguishing between participants who assigned high and low importance to intercultural development. Table 5 presents an overview of the content categories and their distribution across these groups.

Table 5.

Percentages of Assignments per Category out of the Total Number of Assignments and Analysed Entries by Group.

	Group 1		Group 2
Category	% of Total Assignments (N = 158)	% AnalysedEntries (N = 46)	% of Total Assignments (N = 496)	% Analysed Entries (N = 116)
Cause of the Incident	39.9%	84.8%	38.5%	88.8%
Effect	17.7%	54.3%	22.2%	65.5%
Nationalities/Regions	25.3%	50.0%	17.9%	37.1%
Persons Involved	15.8%	52.2%	14.7%	47.4%
General Aims	1.3%	4.3%	6.7%	25.9%

As shown in table 5, both groups focused on describing the causes of intercultural critical incidents. In Group 1, causes accounted for 39.9% of all assignments and were noted in 84.8% of analysed reports, while in Group 2, they comprised 38.5% and were noted in 88.8% of the reports. Group 1 showed a greater focus on describing Nationalities or Regions in the incidents (25.3% of assignments in this category in 50.0% of analysed reports), compared to 17.9% and 37.1% in Group 2. Furthermore, Group 1 showed fewer instances that described the Effect of intercultural critical incidents, with only 54.3% of reports containing one or more effects, compared to 65.6% of reports in Group 2. An even greater gap is evident in the assignments related to the category General Aims, which refers to the purpose of the activity or situation. While Group 1 only had two reports that each described one general aim of the situation, Group 2 had a total of 30 entries, with 33 assignments in total.

Overall, Group 2 averaged 4.28 category assignments per report containing information on the perception of intercultural critical incidents (N = 116), compared to 3.43 assignments per entry in Group 1 (N = 46). This means that entries from Group 2 yielded greater informational depth in the analysis. In particular, descriptions within Group 2 extensively addressed the causes and effects of intercultural critical incidents within the situations described. Conversely, Group 1 primarily emphasised the causes of such incidents and the nationalities or regions involved.

Causes

The two groups showed similarities in their descriptions of the causes of intercultural critical incidents across several categories, but notable differences emerged in some. Both groups frequently cited language or communication issues, accounting for over a third of the causes (38.1% and 38.2%) (Table 6). These incidents are often attributed to different languages or dialects as well as challenges in nuancing statements, writing, or understanding connotations in different languages. Communication issues included differences in non-verbal expressions, levels of directness involved, and variations in communication styles or registers.

Table 6.

Causes Described in the Descriptions of Intercultural Critical Incidents by Group.

Category	Group 1		Group 2
Category	Assignments	% of Causes	Assignments	% of Causes
Interactions with Minorities	4	6.3%	13	6.8%
Racism	0	0.0%	2	1.0%
Gender Issues	2	3.2%	5	2.6%
Microaggression	2	3.2%	6	3.1%
Intercultural Sensitivity	12	19.0%	35	18.3%
Relationship-Building	1	1.6%	9	4.7%
Perspective taking/Empathy	11	17.5%	26	13.6%
Language and Communication	24	38.1%	73	38.2%
Directness	5	7.9%	19	9.9%
Communication	8	12.7%	23	12.0%
Language	11	17.5%	31	16.2%
Cultural Practices	10	15.9%	50	26.2%
Religion	1	1.6%	2	1.0%
Punctuality/Time related	1	1.6%	15	7.9%
Hierarchy/Understanding of Roles	2	3.2%	18	9.4%
Cultural Practices in General	6	9.5%	15	7.9%
Regional Differences	10	15.9%	17	8.9%
Different (historical) experiences/knowledge	2	3.2%	3	1.6%
Systemic Difference	3	4.8%	9	4.7%
Work culture	5	7.9%	5	2.6%
Mention of causes unrelated to culture	3	4.8%	3	1.6%
Total	63	100.0%	191	100.0%

A lack of intercultural sensitivity also made up a similar percentage of causes in both groups (19.0% and 18.3%). Some of these incidents arose from differing cultural values or norms, with at least one person unable to empathise with the other's perspective. Other incidents stemmed from differing views on relationship-building or one's role in relation to others and society. Similarly, interaction with minorities made up only a small percentage of all causes in both groups (6.3% and 6.8%), where one of the persons involved was a member of a minority group in the described situation. Possible causes in this category included gender issues, racism, or microaggressions. Notably, almost all descriptions mentioning intercultural competence in relationship-building and all descriptions of incidents of racism were provided by Group 2.

In contrast, notable differences emerged in other categories. Cultural practices were a major cause in Group 2, accounting for 26.2% of incidents, compared to 15.9% in Group 1. Cultural practices refer to practices and behaviours shared among a group and transmitted across generations (cf. Chiu et al., 2010). Examples included time management (e.g., punctuality) and differing understandings of hierarchy or social roles, often leading to failed expectations on the part of one of the individuals involved in the incident. Lastly, the subcategory religion included intercultural critical incidents caused by religious differences, specifically when one person practices a religion to which another person does not belong. While the role of religion in culture and vice-versa remains debated (Beyers, 2017, p. 1), it is argued that religion can act as a cultural identity marker, with membership of a specific religion either facilitating or hindering access to a cultural group (Beyers, 2017, pp. 5–6). However, only few incidents described were attributed to religion.

Conversely, regional differences were more frequently cited as causes in Group 1 (15.9%) than in Group 2 (8.9%). These differences typically included different (historical) experiences or knowledge of the individuals involved, which could influence their behaviour, as well as systemic differences such as variations in education or public transportation that led to misunderstandings or confusion, and differing work cultures. Additionally, Group 1 more often attributed incidents to individual (“bad”) behaviour rather than cultural factors.

Effects

When comparing the effects of intercultural critical incidents on activity outcomes and general aims as described by Flanagan (1954), discrepancies between the groups emerge. Both groups primarily identified misunderstandings or linguistic difficulties as effects, accounting for 42.9% in Group 1 and 39.1% in Group 2. These incidents usually involved two speakers with different native languages, leading to misunderstandings or difficulties in nuancing statements. Similarly, a change in participation, such as withdrawing from discussions, made up 7.1% of effects in Group 1 and 8.2% in Group 2 (Table 7).

Table 7.

Effects of Intercultural Critical Incidents on the Situation as Described or Implied by Participants by Group.

	Group 1		Group 2
Category	Assignments	% of Effects	Assignments	% of Effects
Management Difficulties at Work	3	10.7%	7	6.4%
Participation	2	7.1%	9	8.2%
Learning	2	7.1%	12	10.9%
(Re)Navigation/Accommodation	2	7.1%	20	18.2%
Irritation/Disapproval/Conflict	7	25.0%	19	17.3%
Misunderstanding/Linguistic Difficulties	12	42.9%	43	39.1%
Total	28	100.0%	110	100.0%

However, Group 1 reported more instances (25%) of individuals becoming irritated or disapproving of others’ behaviour, sometimes resulting in conflict. Participants also described management difficulties when interacting with subordinates, peers or superiors as an effect of intercultural critical incidents more often (10.7%). In comparison, the effect of irritation, disapproval or conflict made up only 17.3% of effects in Group 2, whereas Group 2 described more instances of someone (re-)navigating the situation or accommodating the expectations of other persons involved (18.2% of effects). Group 2 also described situations in which one of the persons involved learnt from an intercultural critical incident (10.9% of all effects) more frequently.

Discussion

A large majority (80%) of participants who shared an intercultural critical incident had international work experience, suggesting they can identify and navigate culturally and linguistically diverse environments. Their frequent cross-cultural interactions highlight the relevance of the incidents and suggest that intercultural competence in the workplace is both significant and potentially in need of further development.

While participants distinguished between self-ascribed abilities and their training needs, there was no significant association between abilities and needs, except for the items relationship-building and empathy. Empathy was rated highly in terms of ability, but there was little interest in further developing it, indicating potential complacency and overconfidence. In contrast, relationship-building was rated rather low on the ability scale but recognised as a more important area for development. Both relationship-building and empathy, therefore, may play a key role in how individuals perceive the value of developing intercultural competence. Relationship training may offer an accessible gateway to intercultural development, as participants recognise it as important and are receptive to engage in it. Empathy, rated highly in ability but unpopular with participants, may provide a second anchor point for staff development. It could serve as a valuable training focus especially for those who consider themselves highly competent, as it can be used to disrupt and disconfirm intercultural expectations (cf. Landis & Bhawuk, 2020, p. 20). Combining relationship-building and empathy training may further possess a strong transformative potential as learners can engage in high-challenge content through a low-challenge process (Bennett, 2009).

In the qualitative content analysis, both groups described the causes of intercultural critical incidents in almost every report analysed. For both groups, the most frequently reported causes of intercultural critical incidents were problems with language or communication. These results align with other studies identifying language or communication as a cause of incidents in intercultural environments, particularly in educational institutions (Güven et al., 2023; Weiss et al., 2019; Fantini, 2012).

There were, however, notable differences between the two groups. Participants from Group 2 who attributed a higher importance to improving their intercultural competence for professional development provided more detailed descriptions of their observations than participants who attributed a lower importance to this aspect. In addition to causes, Group 2 also focused on the general aims of the intercultural situations and the effects the incidents had on those aims. This suggests a higher situational awareness and understanding of potential consequences of actions. A reason for this result may be that participants who attribute a higher importance to intercultural development tend to possess higher levels of intercultural competence. If someone is aware, for example, that assigning tasks without consulting a collectivist team might hinder group harmony, delay project goals, and reflect deeper cultural assumptions about leadership and autonomy, they possess important insight into the situational complexity that helps them avoid culturally uninformed decisions. According to Hammer et al. (2003, p. 423), as individuals progress from ethno-centric to ethno-relative worldviews, they become more adept at identifying and understanding cultural differences. Consequently, their descriptions of intercultural incidents become more complex and nuanced, as each shift in worldview enables them to recognise and engage with more culture-related issues. This finding may also reflect the participants’ level of personal involvement and interest in intercultural development. Holland and Christian (2009) found that participants’ interest in the subject matter of an open-ended survey question significantly affects their responses. Burns et al. (2000, pp. 180–181, 183) found that situations of high involvement, i.e., situations where individuals are deeply engaged due to personal interest, experience and knowledge, lead to richer reflections than situations of low involvement.

Group 1, in contrast, described fewer incidents being caused by differences in cultural practices, and more by regional differences. They also more often attributed the causes of such incidents to solely the (bad) behaviour of the individuals involved and unrelated to their cultural backgrounds. This finding leads to the assumption that Group 1's stage of intercultural sensitivity implies an ethno-centric worldview, denying cultural differences, or minimising them. They might not recognise other cultures and attribute the causes of incidents to regional rather than cultural factors, focusing on similarities of culture, the overall human experience, and the individual (Hammer et al., 2003, pp. 424–425). Additionally, in ethno-centric worldviews, one's own culture might still be viewed as more valid than or superior to other cultures (Hammer et al., 2003, pp. 424–425). Group 2, on the other hand, may have described more incidents as being caused by cultural practices or cultural differences because they were able to perceive cultural differences and interpret them without judgement, resulting in a more nuanced mental construction of the incidents (Hammer et al., 2003, pp. 423–425). In these incidents, cultures are not rated as “better” or “worse”, making cultural differences a normal part of intercultural interaction. For example, in a conflict scenario between two team members from different cultural backgrounds, someone from Group 2 might recognise that one of the involved person's direct confrontation style stems from a culture valuing honesty, while the other person's behaviour stems from a culture emphasising harmony. This recognition enables the individual to facilitate a solution that considers and respects both perspectives.

The difference between the two groups within the category of Intercultural Sensitivity also points to the connection between intercultural sensitivity and the ability to perceive more complexity in intercultural critical incidents. Almost all reports that mentioned relationship-building and all reports that referred to racism were shared by Group 2. Group 1 may not have been able to recognise issues in these categories, as their own intercultural competence did not allow them to. In the following example, one respondent from Group 2 shows high awareness of the importance of relationship-building and empathy in their description of the incident:

[…] Differences in understanding the focus and form of collaboration. I have learned about myself that, with my cultural background, I have high standards and expectations of goal orientation and efficiency, am less narrative and rather impatient. For this team, it is important to make time for social interaction and to take the pressure off, but also to make the differences an issue and talk about how we want to work together. Again and again. (Translated by authors from German)

In the effects category, Group 1 exhibited a higher incidence of intercultural critical incidents leading to irritation, disapproval, or conflict compared to Group 2. This aligns with Bennett's (1986) and Bhawuk's (1998) models, suggesting that participants with lower intercultural competence may struggle to adapt their behaviour in intercultural environments, potentially making incorrect attributions and misinterpreting behaviours of those from different cultural backgrounds. External pressures to adapt to an intercultural environment can also contribute to frustration and resentment toward individuals with differing cultural backgrounds (Landis & Bhawuk, 2020, p. 22). While these effects might also have been caused by or observed in other persons involved in the intercultural critical incidents, the higher percentage in this category for Group 1 suggests a lower intercultural sensitivity or competence.

Group 2 reported more instances in which a person involved chose to (re-)navigate the situation or accommodate the expectations of another person involved. A reason for this could be that participants with more intercultural competence were able to take perspective and shift their frame of reference during intercultural critical incidents, adapting their behaviour to different cultures. They were likely better equipped to interpret the behaviours of others, considering cultural theory and their own experiences in handling such incidents (Hammer et al., 2003, p. 425; Landis & Bhawuk, 2020, p. 16). Group 1 may not have possessed sufficient knowledge and skills to recognise how an incident could be successfully navigated or how another's cultural expectations could be accommodated.

Conclusion

This paper analysed a survey of university staff based in Switzerland, focusing on the relationship between their self-rated intercultural abilities, their readiness for training, and their documented intercultural critical incidents to determine training needs. It revealed an intercultural competence profile of university staff who work in international environments, possess considerable intercultural experience and have high confidence in their intercultural abilities. The analysis of intercultural critical incidents following CIT (Flanagan 1954) provided insights into how university staff construct and perceive critical intercultural incidents, highlighting differences between those who attribute high versus low importance to their own intercultural development. The findings suggest that individuals who recognise the significance of improving their intercultural competence are more engaged in reflecting on their experiences and more adept at articulating the complexities surrounding intercultural interactions. Their accounts reflect a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of these incidents, including the critical role that language and communication play in shaping perceptions and outcomes.

The frequent identification of language and communication issues as primary causes of intercultural incidents aligns with existing literature and highlights the necessity for training programmes that integrate language and communication learning. Additionally, the differences in how the two groups attribute the causes and effects of incidents suggest a need for educational initiatives that challenge ethno-centric worldviews. University staff attributing low importance to further development tend to view incidents through the lens of regional differences, individual (bad) behaviour and conflict. University staff who value intercultural development, on the other hand, focus on cultural practices, relationships, cultural bias, and solutions. The findings suggest that university staff might benefit from a structured exchange on intercultural critical incidents at work, using the content categories from this study as a possible template.

The paper further suggests that raising awareness of the importance of relationship-building and empathy in intercultural situations may offer a valuable entry point to engage lay persons or novices in intercultural development. However, it notes that they may not be sufficiently motivated to consider intercultural development at all, even if their position requires such skills. This creates a paradox: those with lower intercultural sensitivity may be less aware of their need for improvement and, consequently, less likely to pursue training opportunities. To motivate this group, universities need to think about creating incentives that provide an opportunity to university staff to become aware of their limitations in intercultural competence. This could be achieved through workshops that focus on how relationships can be built across cultures and how intercultural relationships effectively contribute to navigating issues. These workshops could further address the multifaceted manifestations of intercultural empathy in the context of relationship-building. Such training might help individuals progress to a stage of conscious incompetence, where they can recognise gaps in their skills and become motivated to seek further knowledge in cultural theories.

While the findings in this paper offer guidance for intercultural training of university staff in Switzerland, it provides limited insight into the complexity of the interconnections between intercultural competence, readiness to engage in training and survey behaviour. Further qualitative studies should validate the content categories, and additional quantitative research is needed to explore the discrepancies between attribution of value to intercultural development, readiness to engage in training and self-assessment of ability. A mixed-methods approach should be employed to minimise social desirability bias in sensitive analyses.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Movetia (grant number 2020-1-CH01-OF-0030).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Patrick Studer

Nadja Sudalei Spillmann

Sandra McGury

Jacqueline Bürki

Author Biographies

Patrick Studer is a professor of applied linguistics with a particular interest in the sociology of language, linguistic anthropology, intercultural studies and the relationship between language and social psychology.

Nadja Spillmann is a student in the MA Applied Linguistics, Linguistic Diversity Management, at ZHAW.

Sandra McGury is a senior research associate at ZHAW, School of Applied Linguistics. A trained theoretical linguist, she is interested in the link between language acquisition (syntax) and assessment in the international context, within higher education, and as part of the processes in internationalization of the curriculum.

Jacqueline Bürki is a professor and teacher trainer at BFH Business School in Switzerland. She specialises in course design, organizational training programs and international partner management.

References

Apedaile

Schill

(2008). Critical incidents for intercultural communication: An interactive tool for developing awareness, knowledge, and skills: Facilitator and activity guide. NorQuest College.

Bennett

J. M.

(2009). Transformative training. Designing programs for culture learning. In Moodian

M. A.

(Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations (pp. 95–110). Sage.

Bennett

M. J.

(1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2

Beyers

(2017). Religion and culture: Revisiting a close relative. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 73(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i1.3864

Bhawuk

D. P. S.

(1998). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural training: A multimethod study of culture-specific, culture-general, and culture theory-based assimilators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(5), 630–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198295003

Brice

W. D.

Katzenstein

(2016). An active learning pedagogy for international management: Cases in Germany, Mexico, and Ethiopia. European Review Of Applied Sociology, 9(13), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/eras-2016-0008

Bruner

(1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1086/448619

Burns

A. C.

Williams

L. A.

“Trey” Maxham

(2000). Narrative text biases attending the critical incidents technique. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(4), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750010349279

Byram

(2021). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence: Revisited (2nd ed.). Multilingual Matters & Channel View Publications.

10.

Chiu

C.-Y.

Gelfand

M. J.

Yamagishi

Shteynberg

Wan

(2010). Intersubjective culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375562

11.

Debesay

Kartzow

A. H.

Fougner

(2022). Healthcare professionals’ encounters with ethnic minority patients: The critical incident approach. Nursing Inquiry, 29(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12421

12.

De Wever

Schellens

Valcke

Van Keer

(2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005

13.

Engelking

T. L.

(2018). Joe’s laundry: Using critical incidents to develop intercultural and foreign language competence in study abroad and beyond. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 30(2), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v30i2.411

14.

Fantini

A. E.

(2012). Language: An essential component of intercultural communicative competence. In Jackson

(Ed.), The routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 263–278). Routledge.

15.

Flanagan

J. C.

(1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470

16.

Güven

Babayiğit

Sever

Çam Aktaş

Kip Kayabaş

Şenel

E. A.

(2023). What happens in 650 multicultural primary classrooms?: A critical incident technique. Teaching and Teacher Education, 130, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104154

17.

Hammer

M. R.

Bennett

M. J.

Wiseman

(2003). The intercultural development inventory: A measure of intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4

18.

Holland

J. L.

Christian

L. M.

(2009). The influence of topic interest and interactive probing on responses to open-ended questions in web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 27(2), 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439308327481

19.

Hudzik

J. K.

(2011). Comprehensive Internationalization. From Concept to Action. NAFSA.

20.

INCA. (2004). INCA Assessee Manual. Leonardo da Vinci VII Project. https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2009-08/docl_9372_146280285.pdf (retrieved: 15 November 2024).

21.

Kruger

Dunning

(1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

22.

Landis

Bhawuk

D. P. S.

(2020). Introduction and theoretical framework. In Landis

Bhawuk

D. P. S.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intercultural training (pp. 136). Cambridge University Press.

23.

Leask

(2015). Internationalising the Curriculum. Routledge.

24.

Mayring

(2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Beltz.

25.

Mayring

(2023). Qualitative content analysis. In Tierney

R. J.

Rizvi

Ercikan

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (fourth edition) (pp. 314–322). Elsevier.

26.

Prechtl

Davidson Lund

(2007). 22. Intercultural competence and assessment: Perspectives from the INCA project. In Kotthoff

Spencer-Oatey

(Eds.), Handbook of intercultural communication (pp. 467–490). De Gruyter Mouton.

27.

Weiss

Syring

Kiel

(2019). Challenges for the school in a migration society – a critical incidents analysis. Intercultural Education, 30(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2019.1538089

Intercultural Competence and Training Needs of University Staff: Insights from Critical Incident Analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Conceptual Considerations

Method

Results

Qualitative Content Analysis

Causes

Effects

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References