kapittel 1

Perspectives on Globalization
and Culture in Intercultural
Communication Textbooks
Øyvind Økland
Volda University College

Abstract: Intercultural Communication as an academic discipline originated in

the United States in the years following the Second World War to help Americans
who were going abroad in different capacities: private, official or for business pur-
poses. Since then, the globalization process has accelerated. Technology has made
it possible to communicate through the internet, and social media has made com-
munication cheap and simple worldwide. The academic discipline of Intercultural
Communication has developed accordingly. This chapter investigates the discipline
by asking: What are the consequences of general global developments for intercultural
communication in general and the academic field of Intercultural Communication in
particular? This chapter analyzes three textbooks in Intercultural Communication
to see how they view these global developments. The results point to some differ-
ences in their various approaches. Neuliep’s book follows the traditional, positivis-
tic academic tradition in Intercultural Communication with historic roots in the
United States. Jandt’s book is close to the same tradition but has a critical and more
complex understanding of intercultural communication. Holliday’s book builds
on general social sciences and cultural studies, and consequently it has a view of
culture and the communication process as a negotiation between individual actors
and social structures, belonging to a social constructivist and critical cosmopolitan
understanding of intercultural communication.

Keywords: intercultural communication, textbooks, global, globalization,

glocalization, hybridization, multiculturalism, social media

Citation: Økland, Ø. (2022). Perspectives on Globalization and Culture in Intercultural Communication

Textbooks. In H. V. Kleive, J. G. Lillebø & K.-W. Sæther (Red.), Møter og mangfold: Religion og kultur i his-
torie, samtid og skole (Kap. 1, pp. 9–36). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.156.ch1
Lisens: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

9
kapittel 1

Introduction
Human communication across borders has always existed and people
have always shown interest in “the other”. The modern academic disci-
pline of Intercultural Communication1 has developed since the Second
World War. How different researchers have understood the cultural con-
cept and what constitutes identity has of course varied. The world has
changed rapidly since the inception of Intercultural Communication.
Since the late 1980s, we have had the discourse of globalization and before
that, we were introduced to the concept of the “global village” (Fiore &
McLuhan, 1968).
The globalization process has many ramifications, including how to
relate to the concepts of culture and identity. The need for a reconsideration
of the “culture” concept is not new. Several researchers have advocated
for the need to reconsider the concept (Hannerz, 1992; Mathews, 2000),
as cultures are no longer regarded as fixed entities but have fuzzy borders
and are blended in a complex and hybrid manner (Kraidy, 2002, 2017;
Pieterse, 1994, 2001). We are no longer just locals; we are cosmopolitans
as well (Hannerz, 1990; Held, 2010). This reconsideration is taking place
within various academic fields: in social anthropology (Appadurai, 1996;
Hylland Eriksen, 1993; Lewellen, 2002), as well as within Intercultural
Communication, as this chapter will discuss further.
The aim of this study is to investigate how recent textbooks in
Intercultural Communication deal with the concept of “culture”, and in
what way the tension between the local and the global is understood. This
chapter will therefore look at how this might have affected the academic
field as well as textbooks in Intercultural Communication.
The research problem will therefore be to find out how recent textbooks
in Intercultural Communication understand and define culture and the
relationship between local and global cultures in intercultural communica-
tion. The underlying research questions are:

1 When referring to the academic discipline of Intercultural Communication, capital letters will
be used throughout this chapter, while lower-case letters will be used when speaking of intercul-
tural communication in general.

10
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

1) How are the concepts of culture and identity treated in the

textbooks?
2) How do the textbooks relate to a new, global reality and mixture of
cultures?
3) How do the textbooks relate to new, digital media as a part of inter-
cultural communication?
4) In what way do the textbooks relate to the academic foundations of
intercultural communication?

Obviously, these questions have gained increased attention within the

field of Intercultural Communication. As Giuliana Ferri states, “as events
unfold in contemporary global politics, it is … time to take stock and
reflect on the nature of intercultural communication as an academic dis-
cipline” (Ferri, 2018). But first, in order to understand the background of
the situation, we need to give a brief glimpse of the historical foundations.

A historical perspective
The anthropologist Edward T. Hall is often seen as the father of
Intercultural Communication. However, it was never his intention to
establish a new discipline. He worked as an anthropologist and taught
about foreign cultures in a way that was useful to Americans who were
going into service in other countries. The publication of the book Silent
Language (Hall, 1959), which became a bestseller, made Intercultural
Communication interesting to many people (Økland, 2019).
Hall focused on the micro level of culture and how our values ​​affect all
communication with others. Therefore, it was important to teach the cul-
tural values ​​of others and the meaning behind the communication. It was
also important to understand communication in its context. Hall divided
cultures into low-context and high-context cultures, and this has played a
very central role in the academic discipline since then (Kalscheuer, 2013).
After a few decades with a very practical focus, a lot of theoreti-
cal development was carried out during the 1980s. Central names here
are William Gudykunst and Young Yun Kim, who published the work
Communication with Strangers in 1984. Such theoretical development was

11
kapittel 1

especially important for gaining acceptance within the academic envi-

ronment. In this book, they emphasized trying out and discussing the
validity and usefulness of various intercultural theories, such as uncer-
tainty reduction, intercultural communication skills, communication
apprehension and relationship development. During this period, there
were no studies from Africa, South and Central America, or Southeast
Asia (Shuter, 2013). The global aspect was virtually absent. At that time,
it was mostly Japan that was of interest as a non-Western culture. There
were very few studies of specific cultures, world regions or ethnic groups
(Shuter, 2013).
The studies of Geert Hofstede (1980) were gradually used extensively,
especially from the 1990s. He identified five cultural dimensions: individ-
ualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, power distance, and uncer-
tainty avoidance. By using these dimensions, he evaluates features of
various nations. Hofstede has been frequently criticized for using nations
as his research unit, a critique he partly agrees to, but he claims that this
is the only possible research unit (Jandt, 2020, p. 166).
From the beginning of the 1980s, Intercultural Communication stud-
ies started to distance themselves from the frameworks of national cul-
ture as equivalent to culture and look more into macro structures and
the question of power and status differences (Romani & Claes, 2013). In
addition to Hofstede’s studies, many other studies were also published
that emphasized how to apply theories and knowledge about cultures in a
practical context (Brislin, 1990).
When the theoretical basis of the subject was largely laid, one could
again concentrate on the relationship between theory and practice, which
occurred throughout the 1990s (Martin, 1994, p. 12). Theory was no longer
the dominant theme, and the number of published studies in intercul-
tural communication increased sharply (Shuter, 2013).
In the 1990s, the spotlight in the United States was on multicultural-
ism and the relationship between different ethnic groups. In Europe, a
sharp increase in immigration had been seen from the 1960s onwards,
and here too multiculturalism was the center of attention. Edward Said’s
book Orientalism (1979) criticized both academia and art’s image of “the
other” as inferior to the West and characterized by a colonialist way of

12
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

thinking. This criticism was gradually heard in academia in general, also

in Intercultural Communication. Today we are living in a postcolonial
time, and the subject must develop further to become fully and com-
pletely intercultural, Kalscheuer claims (2013).
Currently, there are many different categorizations of schools and
researchers in Intercultural Communication, as well as advocates that
“radically” configure how we conceptualize, theorize, teach, and prac-
tice intercultural communication (Ganesh et al., 2017, p. 355), and we will
come back to this when the three textbooks are discussed according to
these different traditions. After the internet was introduced in the 1990s,
the possibilities of actual intercultural communication across cultural
borders have been revolutionized. Each individual with internet access
is now able to communicate with the rest of the world, through what
Castells calls mass self-communication (Castells, 2009; Fuchs, 2014;
Haugseth, 2013).
Even though many researchers see the need for re-configuring how
we understand intercultural communication, there is no doubt that espe-
cially within the business world, the theories of Geert Hofstede are still
very dominant (Duguleană, 2014; Meyer, 2014). Undoubtedly, there have
been many voices that are critical to Hofstede. He has been criticized for
his numeric approach to his cultural dimensions, instead of using more
qualitative techniques (MacSweeney, 2002). Some argue that globaliza-
tion is causing increasing cultural convergence, which is not taken suf-
ficiently into consideration (Shenkar, 2001) and Hofstede’s data from the
1960s might be too US and IBM-centric (Javidan et al., 2006). Others,
although acknowledging and agreeing with much of the criticism, still
argue that Hofstede’s dimensions provide some very important tools for
analyzing cultures (Soares et al., 2007).
When it comes to the Norwegian context, Intercultural Communication
appeared as a subject in the 1980s, parallel to the new wave of immigration.
Educators saw the need for new tools and migration pedagogy was intro-
duced into teacher training and schools (Bjørnæs, 1993). Møte Mellom
Kulturer (Meeting Between Cultures) (Dahl & Habert, 1986) became a very
popular book within academia, as well as outside. It was linked to the tra-
dition of Hall and Hofstede. This book was later substantially revised and

13
kapittel 1

renamed Møter Mellom Mennesker (Meetings Between People) by Dahl

(2013), and it is still very much used in the educational system. The new
title downplayed the importance of culture as opposed to the individual
factor in communication. The first chapter of the book deals with global
issues and refers to Roland Robertson’s term “glocalization” (1995), as
well as creolization and hybridization of cultures (Dahl, 2013, pp. 17–23).
Later, an English version appeared (Dahl, 2016). Other books in basic
intercultural communication have also been published in Norwegian
(Dypedahl & Bøhn, 2017; Fife, 1991, 2002; Hylland Eriksen, 1997), as well
as a number of books that focus on intercultural aspects related to var-
ious professional studies, many of them focusing on “diversity” instead
of “interculturality” (Aadnesen & Hærem, 2007; Aambø, 2021; Berg &
Ask, 2011; Fandrem, 2011 Javo, 2010; Jensen & Ulleberg, 2011; Magelssen,
2008; Melberg & Kjekshus, 2012; Nergård & Vitebsky, 2019; Nilsen, 2017;
Roddvik, 2010; Salole, 2013; Ylvisaker & Rugkåsa, 2020, Røthing, 2017;
Økland, 2013).
Some of these textbooks belong to a traditional understanding of inter-
cultural communication as a skill that can be learnt (Rygg, 2014), while
others lean towards a more hermeneutical approach (Jensen, 1998; Jensen
et al., 2006), but this is not the place to evaluate them further. However,
the following research into new English textbooks will give insight into
the basic positions of the new books and evaluate them according to how
they balance the academic tradition from intercultural communication
with the new global situation in the third millennium.

Method
The market for textbooks in Intercultural Communication has been
rapidly increasing since the first ones appeared around 1970, with
Samovar and Porter’s book as a very popular example (Samovar & Porter,
1972). We can now find textbooks about Intercultural Communication in
connection with many different academic disciplines: marketing, profes-
sional studies, social work, education and so on.
For this study, a very strict selection was made. Only textbooks from
2018 or later were considered. These textbooks had to be monographs by

14
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

one author and not anthologies by several authors. The title had to include
“intercultural communication” and they had to be in English, published
by major publishers. They were found through searches in Google Scholar,
scholastic books and the university library’s search engine. Another cri-
terion was that they had to be general textbooks for undergraduate stu-
dents within the field of Intercultural Communication. If they were more
specialized textbooks within certain specific fields, such as marketing,
they were excluded. Likewise, if they focused on more specific cultures
or regions, they were excluded as well. The books did not need to be first
editions.
Given these limitations, the search ended up with three textbooks
that were studied in more detail to find out how they were able to answer
the problem statement and the research questions. The textbooks that
matched the criteria were: Understanding Intercultural Communication.
Negotiating a Grammar of Culture (Holliday, 2018), An Introduction to
Intercultural Communication. Identities in a Global Community (Jandt,
2020) and Intercultural Communication. A Contextual Approach
(Neuliep, 2020). These books were accessed in electronic versions. Adrian
Holliday’s book was the second edition, James W. Neuliep’s book was the
eighth edition and Fred E. Jandt’s book was the tenth edition. Special
attention was therefore given to the changes from earlier editions that
they themselves highlighted in their prefaces.
To find ways of comparing the textbooks, a mixture of qualitative
and quantitative content analysis was used (Bratberg, 2014). Regarding
how and to what degree the books emphasized the topics included in the
research problem, quantitative analysis was used. An important focus in
the analysis was to investigate to what extent the books related to the
history of the academic field of Intercultural Communication and, con-
sequently, if and how they referred to central figures such as Edward T.
Hall, Geert Hofstede, and William Gudykunst. The books were searched
for mentions of these names.
A tool that was used to find out how the textbooks understood and
defined the relationship between local and global culture was to find out
the frequency and the use of some central concepts that were chosen to
represent several basic issues in the general discussion of cultural issues

15
kapittel 1

related to globalization. Some terms were excluded, such as “intersection-

ality”, “transnationalism”, and “transculturalism”, either because they
were in one way or another defined as covered, or they were regarded as
not relevant enough.
Since the textbooks were available and searchable online, it was
relatively easy to locate the selected terms. Five main categories were
chosen: culture, global aspects, communication, identity, and tradi-
tion. In the “culture” category, the following terms were selected as
subcategories: culture, essentialism, nation, ethnic and ethnicity. In the
“global aspects” category, multicultural/ism, globalization, western and
non-western were included. In the “communication” category, internet,
Facebook, and social media were searched for. An important part of the
research was to find out how the textbooks understood the communi-
cation part of intercultural communication, not only in theory, but in
the practical sense too. The aim was to find out to what extent mod-
ern technology was recognized and included in their understanding of
these terms.
Under the “identity” umbrella, the terms glocalization, glocal and
hybrid/ity/ization were placed. Finally, to find out how they linked up
to earlier, quite influential theorists in the field, E. T. Hall, Hofstede and
Gudykunst were chosen. This served as an indicator of the degree to
which they defined themselves as a part of their heritage.

The three textbooks’ understandings

of globality
In our research problem, we asked how recent textbooks in Intercultural
Communication understand and define culture and the relationship bet-
ween local and global cultures in intercultural communication. The three
different textbooks had clear differences in their emphases. Before we
continue with the qualitative presentation of the findings, it may be use-
ful to look at the quantitative data and present a numerical table showing
some of these differences. The various terms were searched for in both
American English and British English, as well as different variations of
the words.

16
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

1. Culture 2. Global aspects

Culture Essenalism Naon Ethnic Ethnicity Mulcultural Globalizaon Global Western Non-
/ism western
Holliday 436 23 19 9 3 39 45 85 98 20
Jandt 721 0 100 77 47 15 6 132 165 10
Neuliep 936 0 12 88 39 40 3 37 69 3

3. Communica on 4. Iden ty 5. Tradi on

Internet Facebook Social Media Non- Identy Glocalizaon Glocal Hybrid E.T. Hall Hofstede Gudykunst
verbal
Holliday 2 23 1 0 55 0 0 20 0 0 0
Jandt 95 36 89 115 314 10 0 1 20 83 8
Neuliep 39 51 42 335 80 0 0 0 80 27 91

Presentation of the numerical differences in the three textbooks’ emphases.

Only some of the figures will be directly commented upon in the fol-
lowing presentation of the findings, but the table illustrates some of the
different perspectives related to the research questions. Categories 1 and
4 relate to the first research question, category 2 to the second research
question, category 3 to the third research question and category 5 to the
fourth research question.

Categories 1 and 4: Understanding of “culture”

and “identity”
The first research question was: How are the concepts of culture and iden-
tity treated in the textbooks? The findings here will focus on some of the
terms that were searched for and used in the different books.

Culture
Naturally, understanding of the culture concept provides the foun-
dation for the textbooks’ treatment of intercultural communication.
Quantitatively speaking, Neuliep is the author who uses the concept of
culture the most. He uses it 936 times, while Holliday mentions culture
less than half as many times, with 436 mentions, and Jandt is somewhere
in-between. Jandt mentions it almost as often as Neuliep, at 721 times. It
is not possible to interpret much from this, other than it is an interesting
fact that the two American authors use the term about twice as often as
the British author. That aside, let us then look at how they use the term
and in what contexts.

17
kapittel 1

For Neuliep, culture is defined as the shared values, beliefs, and behav-
ior of a group. Such groups are mostly referred to as American, Japanese,
Indian, and so on. Culture is defined as consisting of different layers.
Next to the larger cultural context is the microcultural context, which
consists of ethnic groups, minority groups, and subcultures. The next
level is the environmental context, consisting of geographical and phys-
ical locations. In this context, the interaction between one person from
culture A and another person from culture B takes place in a particu-
lar sociocultural context, using verbal and non-verbal codes. Neuliep is,
however, clear about the fact that cultures are not fixed entities. They are
fluid and constantly changing (Neuliep, 2020, p. xxiii).
Jandt has a slightly different approach. He defines six forms of reg-
ulators to define what constitutes culture: religion, nation, class, gen-
der, race, and civilization. He describes the recent development within
Intercultural Communication to revive the perception of making
national identity almost equivalent to cultural identity (Jandt, 2020, p. 4).
His definition of culture is a bit like Neuliep’s when it is defined as “the
totality of a large group’s thoughts, behaviors, and values that are socially
transmitted” (Jandt, 2020, p. 34). A difference here is that the members
themselves consciously identify with the group. The terms “subculture”,
“subgroups”, “counterculture”, and “co-culture” are discussed, but Jandt
suggests replacing them with “community” because of the negative con-
notations they may have (Jandt, 2020, p. 3).
By using his “grammar of culture’” model, Holliday presents a complex
view of how to understand culture and the communication process. It is
inspired by the structure of languages, which “enable us to understand
sentences, the grammar of culture provides a structure which enables us
to understand intercultural events” (Holliday, 2018, p. 1). What makes up
culture is a constant dialogue between social and political structures on
the one side and cultural products on the other side. In between those two
we find personal trajectories such as family, ancestry, peers, and profession,
together with what Holliday calls “underlying cultural processes”. They are
small cultural formations like reading and making culture, constructing
rules and meanings, and imagining Self and Other. This model, according
to Holliday, is just a simple map to explain what is involved in the processes

18
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

of intercultural communication. It is an individual’s negotiation with the

social structure, and it is the social structure responding to an individual’s
actions. The actual terrain is much more complex, but the model can guide
us in understanding the process, according to Holliday (2018, p. 1).
Holliday shows the complexity involved in intercultural communica-
tion, and that it is not a matter of communication from one fixed culture
to another, but rather a complex negotiation based on one’s background
and the preconditions of each person. This view of the communication
process, or rather the negotiation, relates to Holliday’s emphasis on the
need for having a non-essentialist view of culture. Jandt and Neuliep do
not make any references to essentialism or an essentialist view of culture.

Nation
As Neuliep’s book is aimed at American students, the author, when
explaining the nature of culture, asks the question: “As you stand in
the lunch line, do you say to yourself, ‘I am acting like an American’?”
(Neuliep, 2020, p. 12). Neuliep’s definition of culture is “an accumulated
pattern of values, beliefs, and behaviors, shared by an identifiable group
of people with a common history and a verbal and nonverbal symbol sys-
tem” (Neuliep, 2020, p. 13). He goes on to say, a bit later in the text, that
“In the United States, for example, individuality is highly valued”, and
“Americans believe that people are unique”.
Moreover, Americans value personal independence. Conversely, in
Japan, with its collectivistic and homogenous culture, a sense of group-
ness and group harmony are valued. Most Japanese see themselves as
members of a group first, and as individuals second. In a table, Neuliep
lists some characteristic values connected to Saudi Arabia, India, Yemen
and Maoris (New Zealand). Neuliep seems to equate culture with nation.
When it is not the nation, the culture, for example, Maori culture, is sep-
arated from the country itself (Neuliep, 2020, p. 14).
As mentioned in the Preface (Jandt, 2020, p. xviii), Jandt has rewritten a
chapter dealing with nation-state cultures, because of the critique against
Hofstede’s nation-state units in his research. Nevertheless, Jandt states
that the nation-state identity is the primary identity for most people in the
world today, especially in modern developed nations. It is often equated

19
kapittel 1

with cultural identity. People are concerned that they will lose their tra-
ditional culture and national identity, especially because of immigration
and foreign influence (Jandt, 2020, p. 200–201). When presenting domi-
nant American values, Jandt states that even though the United States is
extremely culturally diverse, the sharing of some basic underlying values
are strong. These values have developed during the country’s history and
are today commonly shared among most of its inhabitants. These values
are different from values in other countries (Jandt, 2020, p. 206).
Jandt nuances this picture when he looks at recent developments in the
United States. He describes a tendency towards an increasing fragmenta-
tion of the national culture, towards regionalization:

The old industrial heartland is being replaced with new regional economic cen-
ters inthe South and West, while at the same time the United States is becoming
part of an integrated global economy. Integration and equal rights have resulted
in recognition and acceptance of social and cultural differences. Immigration
has eroded the homogeneity of the U.S. population and created ties between
U.S. society and other societies around the world. As national media have
grown into global media, new forms of local, special interest, and multilan-
guage media have appeared. International air transportation makes it easier and
less expensive to travel abroad than to rural U.S. locations. The end of the Cold
War lessened for a time the need for a large national security establishment.
(Jandt, 2020, p. 224)

Holliday critiques some of the established literature, which to him can

be seductive because it claims objectivity and neutrality. He traces this
kind of essentialist view of culture back to Emile Durkheim and his
structural-functional model of society. According to the structural-
functional model, national culture contains all other aspects of soci-
ety, which again contain behavior and values. According to this under-
standing, “behaviour and values are (a) explainable and predictable by
the characteristics of the national culture and (b) essentially different
to behaviour and values in another national culture”. Holliday calls this
“methodological nationalism” (Holliday, 2018, p. 134).
Holliday’s own model is based on the social action model of Max Weber
(1964, 1968), which states that human behavior can never be determined.

20
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

Political and other circumstances may reduce the possibilities for indi-
vidual social action, but that does not mean that it can be prevented alto-
gether (Holliday, 2018, p. 6).

Ethnicity
Neuliep defines ethnicity as a microculture within the greater culture,
as explained above. He names those who represent such microcultures
within the greater American culture: Arab American, African American,
or Black American, American Indian, Native American, Asian American,
Hispanic/Latino and White or Caucasian if they are of European ances-
try. He refers to colleagues when he explains how he has come up with this
categorization, and states that “there is no consensus among them. The
‘correct’ terminology depends on who you ask” (Neuliep, 2020, p. xxiii).
Ethnicity is grouped as one of the six forms of regulators, parallel
to race and skin color in Jandt’s book. Race is associated with physical
appearance, while ethnicity generally refers to “heritage, family names,
geography, customs, and language passed on through generations”
(Jandt, 2020, p. 9). Due to increased mobility and immigration, as well
as interracial marriage, people can have multiple or mixed identities.
Jandt refers to the debate on “hyphenated” identities, such as “Italian-
American”. He seems to agree with those who suggest omitting the
hyphen. In the case of the term “African American”, however, he wants
to keep it (Jandt, 2020, p. 13).
In Holliday’s textbook, ethnicity is barely mentioned. In connection
with the explanation of his “grammar of culture” model, he explains that
national, ethnic, or large culture relates to both the particular social and
political structures, as well as the cultural products (Holliday, 2018, p. 1).
Otherwise, ethnicity is only mentioned when he refers to Stuart Hall and
his experience of exoticization of his cultural background (Holliday, 2018,
p. 140).

Category 2: Global aspects

In the second research question, we asked: How do the textbooks relate to
a new, global reality and mixture of cultures? Again, some chosen terms

21
kapittel 1

are used to look at the various perspectives in the books. Our investiga-
tion of the textbooks involved looking at the discussions around terms
such as “global”, “globalization”, “glocalization”, “multiculturalism”,
“cosmopolitanism”, and “hybridity”.

Multiculturalism
Neuliep does not discuss multiculturalism, but it is mentioned once as an
example of integration as opposed to assimilation: “Coleman contends
that the development of the bicultural identity is what leads to a suc-
cessful life in a bicultural context. In other models of acculturation, this
mode is called pluralism or multiculturalism. This mode of acculturation
guides many of the social and legislative efforts in U.S. educational and
affirmative action statutes” (Neuliep, 2020, p. 410).
Jandt names meetings between different civilizations as possible causes
of conflict. He refers to how the concept is treated historically and most
recently in Samuel P. Huntington’s book The Clash of Civilization and
the Remaking of World Order (1996). Huntington claims that the world’s
civilizations after the Cold War consist of the Western, Latin American,
sub-Saharan African, Eastern Orthodox (including the former Soviet
Union), Islamic, Confucian, Hindu, and Japanese civilizations, and that
especially the Western and the Islamic relationship is problematic (Jandt,
2020, p. 10).
According to Jandt, what might challenge cultural identities first and
foremost is cultural imperialism represented by global corporations,
environmental issues, immigration, and economic disparity. Today’s
cultural imperialism basically comes in the form of multinational cor-
porations, which have gained great impact in most parts of the world
and export their products, exemplified by Disney (Jandt, 2020, p. 407).
The same corporations have, however, learnt to adapt to local cultures.
McDonalds, for instance, is now producing meals that are adapted to
local tastes. Jandt states that the counterargument to cultural imperial-
ism is the fact that cultural flows do not only go in one but in multiple
directions. Ethiopian and Thai cuisines are becoming popular worldwide
and Salsa music, which originated in the Caribbean, is now known glob-
ally (Jandt, 2020, p. 414).

22
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

To Holliday, multiculturalism can be either essentialist or non-

essentialist. The essentialist version is called “boutique” multiculturalism.
By this, he means an oversimplification of the culture and “selling it as a
commodity by exoticizing it”. A non-essentialist multiculturalism, how-
ever, appreciates diversity and does not easily fall into stereotyping cul-
tures. In addition, it sees hybridity as present in all identities and cultural
realities, as opposed to a non-essentialist multiculturalism that posits that
cultural values cannot be shared because of barriers between cultures. The
reference to not having to “cross one’s national borders” means that one
does not have to be an Indian living in the United States to be hybrid or in
a third space, but that this applies to all of us all the time – that all our com-
munities are “multicultural mosaics” (Holliday, 2018, p. 137).
Holliday claims that countries’ education policies have contributed
to this exaggeration and exoticization of people from “other cultures”,
and in this way contributed to the “othering” of people. When highly
renowned world leaders, such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s
David Cameron and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, have stated that multicul-
turalism has failed, it is this kind of multiculturalism they have had in
mind (Holliday, 2018, pp. 138–139).

Hybridity
Hybridity is not discussed much in the textbooks. Neuliep does not make
any reference to it, while Jandt refers to it once in a non-relevant context.
Holliday refers to it three times in connection with essentialism. For him,
it is not about having to cross national borders to become a mixture of
one’s original culture and one’s new host culture, but a relatively constant
issue, “that all our communities are ‘multicultural mosaics’” (Holliday,
2018, p. 138):
Regarding hybridity, the essentialist version implies being mixed or impure. It
is important to try to find a way to move from this easier notion to the more
difficult, complex non-essentialist version that relates to all of us. It is import-
ant, therefore, for us to be able to look at our own cultural identity and imagine
how we can characterize it as being hybrid in a positive way, and to think how
this then takes us away from the essentialist notion of a ‘pure’ or even ‘virgin’
culture. (Holliday, 2018, p. 141)

23
kapittel 1

Glocalization
The related concept of glocalization is only used by Jandt. He mentions
it a few times, in the sense of the adaptation of global markets to local
customs and consumer preferences (Jandt, 2020, p. 388).
Holliday uses some examples to explain how grand narratives can play
in to produce misunderstandings and miscommunication. He refers to
Said’s book Orientalism (1979) and shows how great narratives about the
Western and Arab cultures interfere in a personal communication situa-
tion because the individuals bring global issues into their personal com-
munication (Holliday, 2018, p. 114).
His thesis is that through literature, art and the popular media, the
West has depicted an imagined, Othering, exotic picture of the East which
is based more on Western preoccupations than with what is going on in
the East. This falls precisely within the global positioning and politics
domain of the grammar, in which an idealized Western Self is defined
against a demonized non-Western Other (Holliday, 2018, p. 113).

Category 3: Global perspectives in communication

In the third research question, we asked: How do the textbooks relate to
new, digital media as a part of intercultural communication? From what
is presented above, we saw that the three authors have different views on
the essence of how intercultural communication takes place. Neuliep sees
communication as a process, as well as being dynamic and symbolic. The
model he uses in his definition is based on a traditional sender to receiver
model:

Communication, then, is the ubiquitous, dynamic, interactive process of encod-

ing and decoding verbal and nonverbal messages within a defined cultural,
physiological, relational, and perceptual context. Although many of our mes-
sages are sent intentionally, some others – perhaps our nonverbal messages –
can unintentionally influence other people. (Neuliep, 2020, p. 10)

Neuliep sees intercultural communication between person A and per-

son B as coming into the communication situation with different atti-
tudes and skills, such as socio-communicative style and empathy. The

24
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

communication’s success, or failure, will also depend on the person’s

degree of intercultural communication apprehension, their success or
failure in reducing uncertainty. When there is a meeting point between
them, communication can take place and a third culture may appear:
“whenever two people come together and interact, they create a third cul-
ture of shared meaning and relational empathy” (Neuliep, 2020, p. 304).
The examples of this kind of intercultural communication are basically
taken from microcultural contexts, from person to person. Given the
cultures in question, Neuliep describes challenges and possible outcomes
of the communication: “People also bring with them a personal world-
view largely based on cultural orientation. Hence, a Chinese person
brings a collectivistic, high-context worldview, and a U.S. citizen brings
an individualistic, low-context worldview. In a relationship, these two
different worldviews merge into an independent worldview” (Neuliep,
2020, p. 305). There is little or no reference to kinds of communication
that are not face-to-face or on a microsocial level in the chapter entitled
“Developing Intercultural Relationships”.
Like Neuliep, Jandt uses a classical communication model, with a sender
who communicates to a receiver as his starting point when explaining
communication. He emphasizes the contextual aspect of communication
before he continues with a historical perspective on communicational
technological developments (Jandt, 2020, p. 26). We can see a clear linear
understanding of communication.
In Neuliep, ‘global’ or ‘globalization’ is mentioned in connection with
technological advances such as the internet and smartphones, global
business, global politics, or global conflicts (Neuliep, 2020, pp. 1–3).
When explaining the dimensions involved in intercultural conflicts,
Neuliep refers to Kim’s model, which has three levels: macro, intermedi-
ary and micro. Neuliep refers to Gudykunst and Chua, and states that the
way you solve intercultural conflicts between people who come from low-
context cultures, such as the United States, and individuals who come
from high-context cultures, such as China, differs in the way that an
American is more likely to separate the issue from the person, as opposed
to a Chinese. In other words, your cultural background can, to some
degree, predict the outcome of the communication (Neuliep, 2020, p. 355).

25
kapittel 1

Holliday has a rather substantial focus on globalization. He distin-

guishes between centered and de-centered globalization. Centered glo-
balization holds the West as the Center and ‘the rest’ is the Periphery. If
the Periphery buys into the stereotyped images of itself, it leads to what
Holliday calls self-othering.

(Social) media
Facebook is, likewise, mentioned as an example of the spreading of tech-
nology (Neuliep,2020, pp. 1, 320), and later, nations are compared in
regard to their degree of fear of loss of privacy (Neuliep, 2020, p. 138) and
how it is used for self-presentation (Neuliep, p. 321).
Neuliep refers to a study that shows the use of Facebook by African
Americans, Latinos, and students of Indian ancestry. It shows that these
groups invest more in self-marketing than Vietnamese and white stu-
dents (Neuliep, 2020, p. 322). Neuliep does not make any remarks on the
large groupings of these students or the grouping by skin color. In addi-
tion, another study that shows that Chinese and Koreans use social media
to a greater degree as a means to achieve social gratification is mentioned
as well (Neuliep, 2020, p. 139).
In Jandt, media is treated as a subcategory when discussing media as a
part of intercultural communication. Social media is mentioned together
with the telephone and the internet. The presentation is given as a state-
ment of the actual status of use across the world. It is not discussed in
the broader context of what it does to general intercultural communi-
cation, but rather focuses on the situation in different countries. Social
media is mentioned several times in the book, mostly to show the situa-
tion and statistics in different places. Under the heading “The promise of
new media”, the author lists different customs related to the use of mobile
phones. The figure shows differences between countries, such as Japan,
Spain and Italy, and India and parts of Africa. The main point of the
paragraph is that “social media are now enabling individuals to connect
across cultures in ways that were not possible only a couple of decades
ago” (Jandt, 2020, p. 439).
Social media alone is only mentioned once, but Facebook is men-
tioned twenty-three times in Holliday’s book. It is used both as an

26
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

example of a centered globalization and a de-centered globalization. As

a tool of centered globalization, it originates and is based in the United
States, flowing culturally from the Center, while it can be utilized from
the Periphery to promote almost any cause or idea (Holliday, 2018,
p. 20).

Category 4: Relation to Intercultural

Communication’s academic tradition
The fourth research question was as follows: In what way do the text-
books relate to the academic foundations of Intercultural Communication?
Between the two American textbooks, Neuliep appears to be the closest
to the traditional foundations of Intercultural Communication. It is the
eighth edition of the book, and it is aimed at American college students
when it says that:

it alerts students to the importance and necessity of intercultural communica-

tion in the 21st century. An argument presented here is that modern technology
has decentralized information. This means that billions of people across the
planet now have access to information not available to them only a few years
ago. Such information empowers them. The most current data from the U.S.
Census Bureau are reviewed, which point to the growing diversity of the U.S.
population. (Neuliep, 2020, p. xi)

The book is organized in a way common to many of the early textbooks

(e.g., Dodd, 1991; Samovar & Porter, 1972), with chapters on verbal and
non-verbal communication, following traditional theories from Hall and
Hofstede on, for example, individualism vs. collectivism and high and
low-context cultures. Its focus is on intercultural communication as a
contextual enterprise, and the anxiety/uncertainty reduction theory has
a relatively dominant place in his presentation.
Likewise, Jandt has quite a few references to both Hall and Hofstede.
Here, Hall is credited for being the founding father of the academic field
of Intercultural Communication, and his naming of high-context and
low-context cultures is mentioned (Jandt, 2020, pp. 69, 83, 86). Jandt ren-
ders Hofstede and his dimensions of culture a significant space. After

27
kapittel 1

having presented Hofstede’s dimensions, he pays substantial attention to

critiques and critics of Hofstede (Jandt, 2020).
This resonates with his remarks in the Preface, where Jandt states that
he has removed the terms “subculture” and “subgroup” and replaced
them with “community”, added the coverage of nonbinary gender iden-
tities, and rewritten the chapter on nation-state cultures to highlight the
objections and alternatives to Hofstede (Jandt, 2020, p. xviii).
Jandt mentions that an important rationale for the latest revision of
his book is the dramatic increase in immigration and refugees, “attitudes
toward gender identifications, awareness of social class identity, and
awareness of religious identity”. He adds that he has updated the book
to “include the current international developments and communica-
tions challenges, such as the relationship between DNA testing and cul-
tural identity, negotiations between North and South Korea, the refugee
experience in Europe, and the introduction of the idea of ‘glocalization’”
(Jandt, 2020, p. xviii).
The author of Understanding Intercultural Communication (2018),
Adrian Holliday, is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Intercultural
Education at Canterbury Christ Church University. He sees the connec-
tion between language and culture in the way that in meeting people
from other cultures, you build on your own cultural norms, your “gram-
mar of culture”, when you start learning and communicating with the
other culture. This book has a different structure and does not refer to the
same tradition as the two others, but rather to literature from anthropol-
ogy, linguistics, and cultural studies.

Local, ethnic, global, hybrid or what?

In all Intercultural Communication literature, the question of how to
define cultural identity plays a central role. What constitutes identity and
what role does it play in the actual communication between people? Is it
nationality, race, ethnicity, local community, gender, class, age or what?
As the world has become increasingly globalized, these questions have
been increasingly discussed. The three researched textbooks constitute
no difference.

28
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

Based on the presented findings, we can see some differences in

approaches to and understanding of these questions. As shown earlier in
this chapter, the early history of Intercultural Communication to a large
extent regarded nation as the natural research unit when, for instance,
comparing values at a macro level. Even at a micro level, however, most
of the literature took for granted that a person’s national background
was determinative for the outcome of the communication (Neuliep,
2020, p. 355). In this way, Neuliep clearly adheres to the early tradition of
Intercultural Communication. Jensen calls this tradition a “functionalist
tradition” (Jensen, 1998, p. 34). It represents a positivistic approach. The
research is basically quantitative. Questionnaires quantify, for example,
cultural values, as seen in Hofstede’s research, and Piller refers to it as
“Intercultural Communication 1.0.” (Piller, 2009).
Early textbooks in Intercultural Communication (e.g., Dodd, 1982;
Samovar & Porter, 1972; Samovar et al., 1981) followed an understand-
ing of culture as, for example, a group’s “beliefs, norms, activities, insti-
tutions, and communication patterns” (Dodd, 1982, p. 41) and chapters
on such topics as national values, verbal and non-verbal communication
were common, as we find in Neuliep’s book as well. It is possible to com-
municate across these units, but then one has to overcome certain obsta-
cles and reduce uncertainty when confronted by strangers. By acquiring
knowledge of, for example, language, nonverbal communication, and
the worldview, one might be able to minimize the difficulties and per-
haps also predict some of the outcomes of communication (Dodd, 1991;
Martin & Nakayama, 1993).
Therefore, the textbook that is closest to this early tradition is Neuliep’s
book. Here, we have seen that examples of cultural values are directly
linked to nationality, as in the case of Maoris, who are the only ethnic
group alongside other nationalities, even such a diverse nation as India,
that are linked to a nation-state, namely New Zealand (Neuliep, 2020,
p. 14).
The latest technological developments are added in Neuliep’s latest edi-
tion, where we find statistics of the spread of Facebook and social media.
This new technology is not linked to any general challenges to global cul-
ture. The view of communication is that of the traditional communication

29
kapittel 1

model, with a sender and a receiver, a static cultural approach (Dahl, 2016,
p. 68). If the message is received in the way the sender intended, then it
is an effective communication: “the simultaneous encoding, decoding,
and interpretation of verbal and nonverbal messages between people”
(Neuliep, 2020, p. 10).
Jandt’s textbook differs from Neuliep in its understanding and defi-
nition of culture. When the first edition appeared in 1995, it introduced
a change from previous textbooks. It defined culture in a critical her-
meneutic way. It represented a breach with the mainstream of books
when the first edition appeared in 1995 (Jensen, 1998, p. 36) since Jandt’s
definition of culture emphasizes the way that the individual identifies
him/herself as belonging to a culture, and not what he/she is assigned
by others.
It has strong similarities to Neuliep’s book in its emphasis on the
importance of nation as a cultural unit, although it is more nuanced here
than Neuliep, because Jandt questions the usefulness of nation as a defi-
nite cultural marker while admitting that it is very important and has
become increasingly so.
Holliday is, to a much larger extent than Neuliep and Jandt, occu-
pied with globalization and presents two different kinds, centered and
de-centered globalization. In centered globalization, the West is the dom-
inant part, while in de-centered globalization, the cultural flows may go
in many different directions. In his “grammar of culture”, he mentions
“global positioning” as playing a role, even in inter-personal communi-
cation in cases where communication issues at the micro level might be
connected to macro level topics. In this way, he adheres to an interpretive
constructivist tradition. At the same time, Holliday sees globalization
and cosmopolitanism not as a process of ideas and values going from
the West to the rest, but rather as a condition where societies, in their
meeting, change into an awareness where they see that social realities
and social transformations happen constantly. This is a critical cosmo-
politanism, because it is not a normative cosmopolitanism that sees the
world going to a universal culture and a world polity (Delanty, 2006).
Holliday’s textbook represents a more dynamic view of culture. Culture
is not a fixed entity, but it is a constant interaction between individual

30
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

actors and the social structure. It should be categorized as belonging to a

post-structuralist perspective.
Recently, we have seen a shift in direction towards a hermeneutic
tradition, especially in the British and Scandinavian traditions. In this
tradition, Clifford Geertz’s definition of culture is used as an analytical
concept, where culture is seen as a web that we spin around ourselves
(1973). Thus, it is human relations that are central.
Within the Scandinavian tradition, we have seen a clear development
from a functionalist and process-analytical understanding to a more
semiotic and hermeneutic understanding, as in Nynäs, for example, who
defines intercultural communication as a process in which one seeks to
achieve a common understanding across cultural boundaries (Nynäs,
2006).
From this research, we can see that the traditional roots from the aca-
demic origins are still strong. They are stronger, though, in the American
tradition than in the European one, as we can see from Holliday’s text-
book compared to the two American books. As shown in the presenta-
tion of the historical perspectives of the subject, this resonates with the
general development. These three textbooks are from major publishers
and in wide use.

Conclusion
We have seen that a new, global reality is included in the investigated
academic textbooks. However, the balance between this new under-
standing and adherence to a more traditional way of perceiving cultures
and intercultural communication varies. The far-reaching possibilities
in communication provided by the new media alter the way we under-
stand intercultural communication, and this fact is included in various
degrees.
The research attempted to uncover the philosophical and ideological
foundations of textbooks in Intercultural Communication. A part of this
was to study how they position themselves in relation to this tradition
and how they relate to new trends, developments, and other academic
traditions. Especially instructors in intercultural communication need to

31
kapittel 1

be aware of these underlying foundations to be effective teachers with a

deeper knowledge of the issues involved.
It is a bit far-fetched to say anything decisive on the development of the
field of Intercultural Communication based on the analysis of these three
textbooks. Only a few perspectives have been highlighted, and it can only
give some general insights into the academic discussion and positions
within current Intercultural Communication. Other textbooks, and text-
books from other countries, may differ greatly from these three. More
studies are therefore needed to investigate those and identify the trends
and the academic traditions to which they belong.

Literature
Aadnesen, B. N. & Hærem, E. (2007). Interkulturelt barnevernsarbeid.
Universitetsforlaget.
Aambø, A. (2021). Innvandreres helse og helsetjenestens ansvar. Cappelen Damm.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization
(Vol. 1). University of Minnesota Press.
Berg, B. & Ask, T. A. (2011). Minoritetsperspektiver i sosialt arbeid.
Universitetsforlaget.
Bratberg, Ø. (2014). Tekstanalyse for samfunnsvitere. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Bjørnæs, E. (1993). Leker like barn best?: Grunnbok i migrasjonspedagogisk teori og
praksis. Tano.
Brislin, R. W. (1990). Applied cross-cultural psychology. SAGE Publications.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
Dahl, Ø. & Habert, K. (1986). Møte mellom kulturer: Tverrkulturell kommunikasjon.
Universitetsforlaget.
Dahl, Ø. (2013). Møter mellom mennesker: Innføring i interkulturell kommunikasjon.
Gyldendal Akademisk.
Dahl, Ø. (2016). Human encounters: Introduction to intercultural communication.
Peter Lang.
Delanty, G. (2006). The cosmopolitan imagination: Critical cosmopolitanism and
social theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 25–47.
Dodd, C. H. (1982). Dynamics of intercultural communication. William C. Brown
Publishers.
Dodd, C. H. (1991). Dynamics of intercultural communication. W.C. Brown.
Duguleană, L. (2014). National cultural dimensions and well-being in some countries
of the world, in 2013. Cross-Cultural Management Journal, 16(02), 305–314.

32
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

Dypedahl, M. & Bøhn, H. (2017). Veien til interkulturell kompetanse. Fagbokforlaget.

Fandrem, H. (2011). Mangfold og mestring i barnehage og skole: Migrasjon som
risikofaktor og ressurs. Høyskoleforlaget.
Ferri, G. (2018). Intercultural communication: Critical approaches and future
challenges. Springer.
Fife, A. (1991). ABC om flerkulturell kommunikasjon. Global.
Fife, A. (2002). Tverrkulturell kommunikasjon. Yrkeslitteratur.
Fiore, Q. & McLuhan, M. (1967). The medium is the massage. Random House.
Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media: A critical introduction. Sage.
Ganesh, S., Li, M. & Vaccarino, F. (2017). The bases for intercultural communication
in a digital era. In S. M. Croucher (Ed.), Global perspectives on intercultural
communication (pp. 355–365). Taylor & Francis.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
Gudykunst, W. B. & Kim, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An approach to
intercultural communication. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Doubleday.
Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, culture &
society, 7(2–3), 237–251.
Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning.
Columbia University Press.
Haugseth, J. F. (2013). Sosiale medier i samfunnet. Universitetsforlaget.
Held, D. (2010). Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and realities. Polity.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: National differences in thinking and
organizing. Sage.
Holliday, A. (2018). Understanding intercultural communication. VitalSource
Bookshelf. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781351139502/
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of the modern
world. Simon and Schuster.
Hylland Eriksen, T. (1993). In which sense do cultural islands exist? Social
Anthropology, 1(1b), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.1993.tb00246.x
Hylland Eriksen, T. (1997). Flerkulturell forståelse. Universitetsforlaget.
Jandt, F. E. (2020). An introduction to intercultural communication. VitalSource
Bookshelf. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781544383880/
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J. & De Luque, M. S. (2006).
Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative
review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37(6), 897–914.
Jávo, C. (2010). Kulturens betydning for oppdragelse og atferdsproblemer.
Transkulturell forståelse, veiledning og behandling. Universitetsforlaget.

33
kapittel 1

Jensen, I. (1998). Interkulturell kommunikation i komplekse samfund. Roskilde

Universitet.
Jensen, I., Dahl, Ø. & Nynäs, P. (2006). Bridges of understanding: Perspectives on
intercultural communication. Fagbokforlaget.
Jensen, P. & Ulleberg. I. (2011). Mellom ordene. Gyldendal.
Kalscheuer, B. (2013). Encounters in third space: Links between intercultural
communication theories and postcolonial approaches. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike
& J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader. Routledge.
Kraidy, M. M. (2002). Hybridity in cultural globalization. Communication Theory,
12(3), 316–339.
Kraidy, M. (2017). Hybridity, or the cultural logic of globalization. Temple University
Press.
Lewellen, T. C. (2002). The anthropology of globalization: Cultural anthropology
enters the 21st century. ABC-CLIO.
MacSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: A triumph of faith; a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1),
89–118.
Magelssen, R. (2008). Kultursensitivitet: Om å finne likhetene i forskjellene. Akribe.
Martin, J. N. (1994). Intercultural communication: A unifying concept for
International Educational exchange. In G. Althen (Ed.), Learning across cultures:
Intercultural communication and international educational exchange (pp. 9–29).
Association of International Educators.
Martin, J. N. & Nakayama, T. K. (1999). Thinking dialectically about culture and
communication. Communication Theory, (9), 1–25.
Mathews, G. (2000). Global culture/individual identity: Searching for home in the
cultural supermarket. Psychology Press.
Melberg, H. O. & Kjekshus, L.-E. (Eds.) (2012). Fremtidens Helse-Norge.
Fagbokforlaget.
Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global
business. Public Affairs.
Nergård, J. I. & Vitebsky, P. (Eds.). (2019). Kulturen som pasient. Uvanlige møter for
vanlige folk. Universitetsforlaget.
Neuliep, J. W. (2020). Intercultural communication. VitalSource Bookshelf. https://
bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781544348735/
Nilsen, S. (2017). Inkludering og mangfold: Sett i spesialpedagogisk perspektiv.
Universitetsforlaget.
Nynäs, P. (2006). Interpretative models of estrangement and identification. In
Ø. Dahl, I. Jensen & P. Nynäs (Eds.), Bridges of understanding. Perspectives on
intercultural communication (pp. 23–39). Unipub.

34
 p e r s p e c t i v e s o n g lo b a l i z at i o n

Pieterse, J. N. (1994). Globalisation as hybridisation. International Sociology, 9(2),

161–184.
Pieterse, J. N. (2001). Hybridity, so what? Theory, Culture & Society, 18(2–3), 219–245.
Piller, I. (2009). Intercultural communication. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The
handbook of business discourse (pp. 317–329). Edinburg University Press.
Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and heterogeneity-homogeneity. In
M. Featherstone, S. Lash & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25–44).
Sage.
Roddvik, V. (2010). Flerkulturelle arbeidsplasser: En veiviser. Fagbokforlaget.
Romani, L. & Claes M.-T. (2014). Why critical intercultural communication studies
are to be taken seriously in cross-cultural management research? International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(1), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1470595813507156
Røthing, Å. (2017). Mangfoldskompetanse. Perspektiver på undervisning i yrkesfag.
Cappelen Damm.
Rygg, K. (2014). Intercultural training: Learn to avoid treading on other people’s toes
or experience walking in the other person’s shoes. FLEKS-Scandinavian Journal of
Intercultural Theory and Practice, 1(1).
Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. Vintage Books.
Salole, L. (2013). Krysskulturelle barn og unge: Om tilhørighet, anerkjennelse,
dilemmaer og ressurser. Gyldendal Akademisk.
Samovar, L. A. & Porter, R. E. (1972). Intercultural communication: A reader.
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E. & Jain, N. C. (1981). Understanding intercultural
communication. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous
conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of
International Business Studies, 23(3), 519–535.
Shuter, R. (2013). The centrality of culture in the 20th and 21st centuries. In M. K.
Asante, Y. Miike & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader
(pp. 48–58). Routledge.
Soares, A. M., Farhangmehr, M. & Shoham, A. (2007). Hofstede’s dimensions of
culture in international marketing studies. Journal of Business Research, 60(3),
277–284.
Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organisation (A. M. Henderson &
T. Parsons, Trans. and T. Parsons, Ed.). The Free Press. (Originally published 1922)
Weber, M. (1968). Ideal types and theory construction. In M. Brodbeck (Ed.),
Readings in the philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 496–507). Macmillan.
(Originally published 1949 in The methodology of the social sciences. The Free
Press)

35
kapittel 1

Ylvisaker, S. & Rugkåsa, M. (2020). Krysspress. Dilemmaer i sosialt arbeid i

velferdsstaten. Gyldendal.
Økland, Ø. (Ed.). (2013). Innvandrerungdom og mediebruk. Norsk-somalisk ungdom i
en global medieverden. Portal.
Økland, Ø. (2019). Hvordan undervise i interkulturell kommunikasjon? In U. S.
Goth (Ed.), Verdier og visjoner. Profesjonalitet i endring (pp. 105–123). Cappelen
Damm Akademisk.

36