Shanghai Normal U Int’l Conf Intercultural Comm

Intercultural Competence and Interaction
Call for Papers: 2012 SHNU International Conference of Intercultural Communication

With the success of the first International Conference of Intercultural Communication in 2008 and the second in 2010, Shanghai Normal University will sponsor the third on December 15-16, 2012. The 2012 ICIC focuses on Intercultural Competence and Interaction”. It is, as the previous two, characterized by high-level scholarship, explicitly focused themes, multiple perspectives and in-depth discussions. We welcome both domestic and international scholars to interpret the conference theme from different perspectives, and would like to share their knowledge and expertise.

Working Language: English/Chinese
Time: December 15-16, 2012
Venue: 100 Guilin Road, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China

Invited Speakers:
Colleen Ward, Donal Carbaugh, Guo-Ming Chen, Michael Byram, Molefi K. Asante, Nobuyuki Honna, Patrice Buzzanell, SUN Youzhong, SHI Xu and XU Lisheng.

Abstract and paper submission:
Please submit a 300-500 word abstract (APA style, Times New Roman 12 point font and double spaced) to iccshanghai@163.com as an email attachment no later than September 15th. Authors of accepted abstracts will be notified by October 15th, 2012, and will then be invited to submit a full paper ranging from 5000 to 12000 words by December 1st. All submissions will be carefully reviewed. High quality articles will be selected for publication. For more information, please visit: www.shicci.org.cn

Conference Registration Fee:
Teachers or researchers: 800 RMB($120)
Students or Spouse: 400 RMB($60)

Payment of the registration fee covers the cost to attend the main conference and the concurrent sessions, coffee breaks and conference meals. Notice that this registration fee does NOT cover the cost of the local transportation and accommodation.

Sponsor: Foreign Languages College of Shanghai Normal University
Chief of Organization Committee: Prof. Lu Jianfei, Secretary of Shanghai Normal University/chair of SHNU council.
Deputy Chief: Prof. Cai Longquan, Dean of Foreign Languages College of Shanghai Normal University.
Executive: Dr. Dai Xiaodong, Shanghai Normal University, Fulbright research scholar.
Tel: 86-21-64323699
Fax: 86-21-64321755
E-mail: iccshanghai@163.com
Website: www.shicci.org.cn

Ethnography of Comm conference 2012

The “Ethnography of Communication: Ways Forward” conference was held June 10-14, 2012, at Creighton University, in Omaha, Nebraska. Dr. Jay Leighter was the conference organizer, together with Dr. Donal Carbaugh; the National Communication Association sponsored the event as one of its summer conferences (along with funding from several parts of Creighton University).

I presented a paper co-authored with Dr. Patricia Lambert, of the Institut Français de l’Éducation in Lyon, entitled “A Prophet Abroad? The Impact of Hymes’ Notion of Communicative Competence in France and French-speaking Switzerland.” In addition, I was invited to participate in two roundtable discussions, one on “Ethnography of Communication Theory and Methodology: Taking Stock and Ways Forward” and the other “Ways Forward: Institutes, Centers, and Affiliations.” In the latter, I was invited to present a description of this Center, which resulted in many new “likes” to the Center’s facebook page.

Many of those participating in the conference are included in the following photo (though certainly several critical people are missing, including Dr. Gerry Philipsen and Dr. Donal Carbaugh).

One of the pleasures of the conference for me was the presence of so many of those involved in the NCA Summer Conference on Intercultural Dialogue, held in Istanbul in 2009, which led to the creation of this Center. This included several from the organizing committee (Drs. Tamar Katriel, Donal Carbaugh, Kristine Fitch Muñoz, and Saskia Witteborn), one of the guest speakers (Lisa Rudnick) and several of the participants (Drs. Todd Sandel, Chuck Braithwaite, Evelyn Ho, Eric Morgan, and Tabitha Hart). Another was catching up with Dr. Susan Poulsen, who organized “Ways of Speaking, Ways of Knowing: Ethnography of Communication” in Portland in 1992, the predecessor conference to this one in terms of topic. Other joys of the week included having time to connect with people I had not seen in a long time, previously only had met through correspondence, or students of my colleagues who I did not know at all.

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue

ICA 2012

The International Communication Association convention was held from May 23-28, 2012, in Phoenix, AZ. I presented a paper co-authored with Yves Winkin, of the École Normale Supérieure de Lyon entitled “Walk Like a Local: Pedestrian Behavior in the US, France, and China” to the Urban Communication Foundation Preconference.

(Thanks to Casey Lum for both organizing the event, and for the photo of me at the Seminar.) I also served as respondent to a panel entitled “Narrative and Community in Intractable Conflicts.” In addition, the Language and Social Interaction Division honored me with a panel entitled ” Constructing Communities of Scholars: Celebrating the Work of Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz” (thanks to Theresa Castor for organizing the event, and to Liliana Castañeda Rossmann, Teri Harrison, Beth Haslett and Saskia Witteborn for participating).

We continued the tradition of holding a mini-meeting of those members of the Advisory Board of the Center for Intercultural Dialogue who were present at a conference (this time it was Donal Carbaugh and Michael Haley) along with the past and current Presidents of our parent organization, the Council of Communication Associations (Patrice Buzzanell and Linda Steiner).

While at ICA I connected with many international scholars, including some of those I had met or visited during the last year or two of travels: Simon Harrison (met in France, now based in Germany), Ifat Maoz (Israel), Saskia Witteborn (Hong Kong), Vivian Chen (Singapore), and Carla Ganito (Portugal).

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue

Fulbright Program

FulbrightsThe Fulbright International Exchange Program, under the auspices of the US State Department, offers grants to study, teach and conduct research for U.S. citizens to go abroad and non-U.S. citizens to come to the United States. Different programs are available for faculty members, graduate students, and undergraduates (see links to all the different programs). Although most of the programs are for full years, the Fulbright Specialist Program offers stays of 2-6 weeks. Fulbrights are one of the easiest ways for US academics to connect internationally.

By 2014 Fulbright circulated the following information: “As of last year, lifetime limits on Fulbright Scholar Program grants have been lifted, as have waiting periods between grants. This means more flexibility and opportunity to partake in Fulbright experiences throughout your career; you can participate on a semester-long award and not jeopardize your ability to get back on the Roster or your other future participation.” So for those who have already had one Fulbright, consider requesting another!

A few examples of Communication scholars who have been awarded Fulbrights are listed below. If you have completed any of the varieties of Fulbright awards, and wish to have your description added, send an email with details, or post a comment below.

Mara Adelman – Ethiopia
David L. Altheide – Germany and Portugal
Richard Buttny – Malaysia and India
Kevin Barnhurst – Peru and Italy
Donal Carbaugh – Finland
Kristen Cvancara – Finland
Steven Darian – Uzbekistan
Don Ellis – Israel
Glenn Geiser-Getz (Russia & Ghana)
Phillip Glenn – Moldava
Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz – Portugal
Sheila McNamee – Colombia
Tema Milstein – New Zealand

Jon Nussbaum – Wales
Susan Opt – Czech Republic
Todd Sandel – Taiwan
James Schnell – Cambodia
Stacey K. Sowards – Indonesia
John Parrish-Sprowl – Macedonia and Belarus

Ayseli Usluata – USA (from Turkey)
Paul Voakes – Uganda
Joseph Zompetti – Sri Lanka and Brazil

Donal Carbaugh-Fulbright

Donal Carbaugh
University of Massachusetts Amherst

Distinguished Fulbright Professor to Finland

The Fulbright Program is an outstanding resource for collaborating with others on studies of communication, dialogue, and intercultural relations. I have been extremely fortunate over the years to have the support of this program. This began in 1992-1993 when my family and I lived in Finland where I worked with colleagues at the Universities of Tampere and Jyvaskyla, and at the Turku School of Economics. Later, during the 2007-2008 academic year, I held the position of Distinguished Fulbright Professor and Bicentennial Chair of North American Studies at the University of Helsinki. These opportunities have led to longstanding collaborations with colleagues in Finland, to a deepening of studies in intercultural communication and dialogue, and to forging personal relationships that will last a lifetime.

On a related note, on May 11, I will present the closing address at the University of Helsinki’s 14th Biennial Maple Leaf and Eagle conference: “An American West and a Western World: From American Indians to Aristotle and back again.”

Dialogue in Cross-cultural Perspective

“Dialogue” is what Anna Wierzbicka (2006) has called a key cultural term. It is pervasive in its use, rich in its meanings, and dense in the morality for conduct its use brings with it. We can hear calls for dialogue in multiple academic and public discourses. Over the past few years, conferences have asked us to reflect upon dialogue, or to engage in it, especially with the phrase, “Intercultural Dialogue.” The European Union has declared our time as a time for “Intercultural Dialogue.” As a result, “dialogue” has become prevalent, prominent, and potent in its meanings, and in its declaration of a preferred form for the conduct of communicative action. Who, indeed, would be against “dialogue”?

In the United States, we have been asked to engage in a Dialogue on Race, on Education, and indeed about what it is to be “an American.” In spheres of activity where peoples are brought together, we are asked to reflect upon “dialogue” and the ways, including new ways of thinking about it, of engaging in it, especially with those different from or in conflict with us. We believe such pleas and calls for dialogue are important to heed. Yet also, we have discovered that each can bring with it very specific ideas about what this form of communication is. This project has been led by Donal Carbaugh (Massachusetts, USA) and has involved participants from several different languages and countries including Xinmei Ge (China), David Boromisza-Habashi (Hungarian), Elena Khatskevich Nuciforo (Russian), Saila Poutiainen (Finland), Makato Saito (Japan), Dong-shin Shin (Korea), among others. We  found that “dialogue” is of course valued as a type of social action, yet the type of action being valued varies by the goals being targeted, by implicit rules for conduct, by what was deemed proper as its tone, mode, and interactional structure. Different moral qualities are brought into play when pleas are made to “Come and Engage in a Dialogue.” Because of this, especially when people speak from different cultural circumstances, and different languages, one plea for “dialogue” may not match another, with strained relations, confusion, misapprehension, misattribution of intent and so on resulting. Equally difficult are circumstances when people are speaking the same language, increasingly English, but use that language differently all the while believing they are saying a similar thing.

This has led us to ask: what exactly is being targeted as people call for Dialogue? What form of social interaction is being requested? What motives for, and meanings of such action are at play? Our work has taken a look at several linguistic clusters related to “dialgoue” in order to ask: Is there something like “dialogue” in each, as a cultural concept and as a form of practice? The research explores each as an expressive system-in-use by examining both the relevant terms relating to dialogue in these languages and the practices referenced with those terms. Some preliminary findings are that these cultural discourses, considered together, reveal a wide variety of possibilities that are active when “dialogue” is being advocated, mentioned, and translated. Our latest publication is in the special issue of the Journal of International and Intercultural Communication on Dialogue co-edited by colleagues Prue Holmes (Durham, UK) and Shiv Ganesh (Waikato, NZ).

(Submitted by Donal Carbaugh)

Intercultural Dialogue issue of JIIC

The special issue on Intercultural Dialogue in the Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(2), co-authored by Shiv Ganesh and Prue Holmes, consolidates emerging interest in intercultural dialogue. The special issue emerged from the “Intercultural Dialogue” NCA Summer Conference in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2009. The four selected articles build upon, expand, and critique current understandings of intercultural dialogue, in particular, the important definition established by the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue (2008). This definition locates intercultural dialogue beyond mere tolerance of the other and situates deep shared understandings, as well as new forms of creative and expressive communication, as dialogic outcomes.

The four articles elaborate the terrain on intercultural dialogue in five important ways: 1) by drawing on key theorists of dialogue and intercultural communication; 2) by understanding dialogic encounters as intercultural, embedded in national, political, economic, religious, and historical interests, in order to view social problems in new and creative ways; 3) by engaging reflexively in the dialogic processes occurring in intercultural settings and encounters; 4) by situating the study of intercultural dialogue as an applied and pragmatic endeavour, using theories as resources for good practice; and 6) by explicating ethics as central to dialogic processes, for example, in contexts of social justice and colonization.

Witteborn’s paper “Discursive Grouping in a Virtual Forum: Dialogue, Difference, and the Intercultural” investigates how participants, in this case, Uyghur diaspora, construct difference in a virtual forum where difference is an opportunity for dialogic transformation. Witteborn’s analysis reveals that interlocutors mostly confirmed group locations through identity terms, truth talk, and distrust, which prevented dialogue. In reflecting on the meaning of intercultural, she thus cautions not to overemphasize the cultural at the expense of other meanings of group location important to interlocutors.

LaFever’s article “Empowering Native Americans: Communication, Planning, and Dialogue for Eco-Tourism in Gallup, New Mexico” emphasizes the importance of finding ways to meet the participartory needs of a marginalised (Navajo) community to engage and support them in public dialogue. Her study highlights the need for continued development of dialogic practices, and for closer ties among communication and planning scholars.

Carbaugh, Nuciforo, Saito and Shin, in “’Dialogue’ in Cross-Cultural perspective: Japanese, Korean, and Russian Discourses,” explore terms and practices relating to dialogue in the three discourses identified in the title. Their analysis of the term “dialogue” reveals distinctive goals for communication, implicit moral rules for conduct, and the proper tone, mode, and interactional structure within each discourse. They conclude that cross-cultural knowledge of this kind can clarify and address vexing problems such as the cultural balancing of information and truth with relational concerns.

MacLennan’s essay “’To Build a Beautiful Dialogue’: Capoeira as Contradiction” examines the dynamic dance-fight-game of African-Brazilian origins as a metaphor for dialogue. Through text, literature and personal experience, MacLennan reveals how dialogue is constituted through contradiction and paradox. Drawing on co-cultural theory, she reveals the importance of five key contradictions occurring in capoeira that have relevance to intercultural dialogue among cocultural groups.

Together, the articles in this collection expand current understandings of dialogue as they seek to explore the potentially dialogic role of conflict as well as consensus and collaboration. As such they inaugurate a productive exchange between scholarship on dialogue and intercultural communication studies, thereby setting an agenda for studies of intercultural dialogue.

Prue Holmes