overcoming challenges to cultural competence in research requires that

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• About Social Work
• About the National Association of Social Workers
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Conceptual framework: meleis's culturally competent scholarship, methodological considerations, culturally competent social work research: methodological considerations for research with language minorities.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Banghwa Lee Casado, Nalini Junko Negi, Michin Hong, Culturally Competent Social Work Research: Methodological Considerations for Research with Language Minorities, Social Work , Volume 57, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swr002

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Despite the growing number of language minorities, foreign-born individuals with limited English proficiency, this population has been largely left out of social work research, often due to methodological challenges involved in conducting research with this population. Whereas the professional standard calls for cultural competence, a discussion of how to implement strategies for culturally competent research with language minorities is regrettably limited in the social work literature. This article is, to the authors’ knowledge, one of the first within the field of social work to tie together unique methodological issues that may arise throughout the research conceptualization, development, and implementation process with this population. Strategies for how to overcome such issues are provided by adapting and expanding on a conceptual framework by Meleis. The incorporation of such research practices with language minorities has the potential to enhance trust and, thus, improve the recruitment and retention of this hard-to-reach population. More important, studies that aim to include such culturally responsive criteria may produce results that have improved validity and, thus, contribute to the advancement of knowledge regarding this population.

Due to the growing number of immigrants, foreign-born people in the United States are increasing, and a vast majority (84 percent) of these foreign-born people speak a language other than English ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 ). The Census Bureau's 2008 data indicated that 55.8 million people (or 20 percent of the total U.S. population) spoke a language other than English, which marked a 25 percent increase since 2000, and more than one-third of these people did not speak English well. In the United States, individuals who are not fluent in English are referred to as “language minority” individuals ( Li, McCardle, Clark, Kinsella, & Berch, 2001 ).

Understanding the needs of this population is important, because the ability to speak English greatly affects how well people communicate with and navigate through social institutions. Well-documented evidence suggests that limited English proficiency often becomes a barrier to access and adherence to necessary treatments and services ( Derose & Baker, 2000 ; Fiscella, Franks, Doescher, & Saver, 2002 ; Sentell, Shumway, & Snowden, 2007 ). Programming that does not incorporate the needs of language minorities can inadvertently contribute to poorer quality of care and, hence, lead to health disparities ( Ponce, Hays, & Cunningham, 2006 ). Research that aims to understand the social and health service needs of this vulnerable population is then vital to the attempt to reduce the gap in access to and quality of services.

Unfortunately, research on language minorities is scant, perhaps due to the challenges involved in conducting research in other languages ( Frayne, Burns, Hardt, Rosen, & Moskowitz, 1996 ), and the heterogeneity of this population requires researchers to design studies that are not only linguistically, but also culturally appropriate for each specific language group ( Li et al., 2001 ). It is also possible that little publicity and lack of public outcry about this issue may lead to the unintended yet continued exclusion of this population from research studies ( Frayne et al., 1996 ). To address growing concern about the exclusion of language minorities from national studies, a group of representatives from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development conveyed a work group and issued a report, Diverse Voices ( Li et al., 2001 ). This report urged researchers to overcome barriers that prevent the inclusion of language minorities in national studies. The group argued that lack of data on language minorities is problematic because both policymakers and service providers may not have the necessary information to meet the needs of this population.

Social work may be uniquely well positioned to meet this challenge as professional standard calls for cultural competence; however, the literature that specifically discusses language-related issues and culturally competent research methods with language minorities is regrettably limited in social work. In fact, an extensive search of the databases Academic Search Premier, Psychology and Behavioral Science Collection, Social Work Abstracts, and SocIndex with Full Text using the key words “language minority,” “non-English speaking population,” “limited English proficiency,” and “cross-cultural” yielded no literature that explicitly discussed culturally responsive social work research methods specific to language minorities. A handful of social work articles have addressed cultural and methodological issues in research with minorities and vulnerable populations ( Amador, Travis, McAuley, Bernard, & McCutcheon, 2006 ; Potocky & Rodgers-Farmer, 1998 ; Poupart, Baker, & Horse, 2009 ; Shams & Robinson, 2005 ), but none of these articles suggested or discussed strategies on how to include language minorities in research investigations.

Given the unique challenges of including language minorities in research, this article extends the literature by bringing together disparate research on language minorities to provide a conceptual framework for research with this population. Specifically, we adapt Meleis's (1996) conceptual framework for culturally competent scholarship to offer practical strategies to systematically include language minorities throughout the research process from problem formulation to dissemination. The tying together of extant research on language minorities to inform research methods can assist in bridging the gap between the call for knowledge regarding language minorities’ service needs and the paucity of research.

Meleis (1996) presented eight criteria of culturally competent scholarship:

contextuality , an understanding of the sociocultural, political, and historical context of where the study participants live;

relevance , research questions that address issues faced by the study population and serve interests in improving their lives;

communication style , an understanding of the preferred communication styles of the research participants and their communities and the subtleties and variations inherent in the language used;

awareness of identity and power differences , a cognizance of researcher–participant power differences, the establishment of credibility, and the development of more horizontal relationships;

disclosure , the avoidance of secrecy and the building of trust with the study population;

reciprocation , research that meets mutual goals and objectives of the researcher and the study population;

empowerment , a research process that contributes to empowering the study population; and

time , a flexible approach to time in the research process in terms of quantity and quality of time spent.

These criteria do not suggest independent qualities or a hierarchal order of competence; rather, they are interrelated, and all qualities are necessary for culturally competent research (see Figure  1 ).

Culturally Competent Research Criteria

To our knowledge, Meleis's framework (1996) is one of the few that has integrated the concept of cultural competence into research methods. The framework has been used to evaluate culturally competent knowledge development ( Mendias & Guevara, 2001 ), culturally specific measurements ( Im, Meleis, & Lee, 1999 ), and the evaluation of the rigor and credibility of research with diverse populations ( Jacobson, Chu, Pascucci, & Gaskins, 2005 ; Mill & Ogilvie, 2003 ; Saltus, 2006 ). Although Meleis developed these criteria for nursing scholars, we believe them to be valid for culturally competent social work research because they focus on values relevant to social work practice, such as awareness of power differences and empowerment perspectives.

Although Meleis's (1996) original framework provided criteria for culturally competent scholarship, it offered no specific strategies to apply such criteria in research methods. We synthesized the literature on language minorities to expand and adapt Meleis's criteria to address specific methodological issues that are unique to this population. Furthermore, specific strategies for overcoming the challenges of including language minorities in research are provided. To this end, this article is organized by the following four methodological areas: ( 1 ) research problem formulation, ( 2 ) recruitment and retention, ( 3 ) measurement, and ( 4 ) dissemination (see Figure  2 ).

Culturally Competent Research Criteria for Methodological Areas

Research Problem Formulation

Research with language minorities calls for a consideration of the unique challenges faced by this population. Culturally responsive research problem formulation with this population, therefore, necessitates consideration of contexuality, relevance, reciprocation, and empowerment. An understanding of context includes knowledge regarding where the target population lives and a consideration of the environmental factors associated with the problems faced by the study population. Such understanding would provide the researcher with the requisite knowledge to effectively conduct research with this population. It may also equip the researcher to understand what problems are considered to be most salient, or relevant, by the study population. Investigating a research problem that is identified as an issue or a concern by the population of interest may, in turn, encourage reciprocation, whereby research results are considered to be mutually beneficial to both the researcher and the study population in addressing the problem, and this process will empower the study population.

Culturally competent research criteria compel researchers to develop strategies to identify and understand the unique issues faced by a target language population. To this end, due to the paucity of research with this population, a literature review alone may not be sufficient to develop contextually relevant research questions. One possible strategy includes conducting focus groups with community leaders and providers and enlisting a culturally and linguistically specific committee composed of community leaders to consult during the research development process ( Han, Kang, Kim, Ryu, & Kim, 2007 ; Ogilvie, Burgess-Pinto, & Caufield, 2008 ). Work with these community leaders can assist researchers in understanding the sociopolitical context of the community where the target language minority individuals live. Furthermore, it can help identify research problems that are a concern of and are relevant to the community.

Recruitment and Retention

Recruitment and retention of minority research participants has been a major challenge for scientific research. It is even more difficult to recruit and retain language minority individuals, because, as U.S. Census Bureau (2008) data indicate, many of these individuals do not speak English well and live in linguistically isolated households. Consequently, it requires considerable effort to reach out to language minority individuals and attain their interest, trust, and agreement to participate in research.

Culturally Competent Research Team

Foremost, developing a culturally competent research team that can communicate effectively with the community is crucial for the recruitment and retention of language minorities. Such a research team usually requires bilingual/bicultural staff who can potentially take on the roles of interpreter and translator. It should be noted that although the literature routinely refers to bilingual staff as culturally and linguistically competent, being able to speak a language does not necessarily translate to cultural competence. Some research indicates that accessing language minorities is more difficult when researchers are considered to be “cultural outsiders” (that is, the researchers are from a different cultural background) ( Phenice, Griffore, Hakoyama, & Silvey, 2009 ). It is often assumed that “insider” researchers are more capable and effective in research with ethnic minorities. In many cases, however, bilingual staff may differ greatly from the study population because of their varied socioeconomic backgrounds and immigration histories ( Tsai et al., 2004 ). Therefore, some argue that cultural matching of researchers/staff and study participants does not necessarily ensure culturally competent research; rather, the most important characteristic in this relationship is the cultural responsiveness of the researchers ( Sawyer et al., 1995 ).

Accordingly, in addition to linguistic competence, each research staff person also needs to possess competence in culturally sensitive communication characterized by Meleis's criteria: Communicating in a manner that is sincere and respectful (communication style), working as an equal partner (awareness of identify and power differences), and avoiding secrecy (disclosure) are all important qualities necessary for a culturally responsive research team. Researchers have reported that culturally appropriate and personal communications are particularly effective in recruiting and retaining immigrant study participants ( Aroian, Katz, & Kulwicki, 2006 ; Maxwell, Bastani, Vida, & Warda, 2005 ; Taylor-Piliae, 2007 ). Adequate cultural sensitivity training for all bilingual staff is then essential, because bilingual research staff often play a pivotal role in communicating with the target community and potential study participants.

Community Relationship Building

Building supportive relationships with the target language minority community is crucial for the successful recruitment and retention of study participants. To this end, it is essential to understand that language minority communities often build and operate their own social support networks to support members who have limited ability to communicate with mainstream U.S. society. These social support networks may include religious organizations, community social service organizations, voluntary organizations, and interest groups. Researchers must then have buy-in from community leaders as they may be especially vital in the recruitment of minority individuals. In fact, this buy-in from community leaders will facilitate the recruitment of study participants. Consistent communication with and exposure to the community has been found to be an effective strategy for building trusting relationships with community leaders and securing their support ( Han et al., 2007 ; Yancey, Ortega, & Kumanyike, 2005 ). Such relationship building requires additional time and effort both before and during research; therefore, researchers may need to build extra time and flexibility into their time table.

Culturally Sensitive Research Settings

Culturally competent recruitment of study participants requires that researchers be cognizant of researcher–participant power differences and disclose their positions. Consideration of these competency criteria can allow researchers to create a research environment that is culturally sensitive and appropriate for the target population. Because of their potentially fragile immigration status, for example, many language minorities may fear involvement in formal activities, such as research. Language minorities may then be reluctant to sign formal documents, even when these are translated into their language ( Han et al., 2007 ), out of a fear of compromising their immigration status. For some immigrants, signing a technical form may also remind them of traumatic or difficult experiences in their home country ( Yick & Berthold, 2005 ). This may create a challenge in obtaining signed informed consent. Although the informed consent process should not be compromised, some flexibility in requiring written informed consent may be needed with language minorities. Researchers may then need to act as “cultural brokers” between the ethnic minority community and the research establishment and may have to educate the institutional review board members regarding culturally responsive protocol that also meets the ethical standards of research ( Norris & DeMarco, 2005 ).

Measurement

Measurement issues have always been a central concern when conducting research with ethnic minorities. Consideration of measurement issues is especially important in research with language minorities because of cultural and linguistic differences in perceptions and expressions among each language minority group. Careful examination and understanding of such differences within the target population ensures use of valid measurements in research with the population.

Measurement Translation

Research with language minorities necessitates the use of measures in the language used by the target language population. Although it is most preferred to use translated versions of standardized instruments that have been tested and validated through rigorous research, it is often difficult to find such instruments in every language. For that reason, translation and subsequent analysis of the psychometric properties of a measure are often necessary in research with language minorities. Therefore, it is essential that researchers be knowledgeable about the issues involved in the translation of instruments ( Carlson, 2000 ). The translation of measures require more than simple verbatim translation of words in one language to another language. It is an intricate process that requires an understanding of the context of the concept being studied. Specifically, an understanding of the cultural meaning of the concept of interest is vital to being able to convey the subtle meaning of the concept in the most accurate manner possible and, therefore, developing linguistic equivalency ( van de Vijver & Leung, 1997 ).

With an increasing demand for linguistically and culturally valid instruments, a number of techniques and guidelines have been recommended for instrument translation (for example, Chávez & Canino, 2005 ; U.S. Census Bureau Methodology and Standards Council, 2004 ; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997 ; World Health Organization, 2009 ). The most widely used technique in these guidelines is the model proposed by Brislin (1970 , 1980 ), which consists of a series of translations and back-translations of the original instrument by bilingual individuals. This technique involves four steps: (1) forward-translation of the English instrument into the target language by a bilingual individual, (2) back-translation of the translated instrument into English by another bilingual individual, (3) comparative review of the original English and back-translated English versions of the instrument for any inconsistencies, and (4) revision of the translated instrument through collaborative work by the bilingual translators (and possibly additional bilingual individuals). A recent review of instrument translation methods identified six types of translation approaches: (1) forward-only, (2) forward-only with testing, (3) back-translation only, (4) back-translation with monolingual testing, (5) back-translation with bilingual testing, and (6) back-translation with both monolingual and bilingual testing ( Maneesriwongul & Dixon, 2004 ). Another commonly used translational method is a committee approach in which a team of bilingual committee members translates the instrument as a group ( van de Vijver & Leung, 1997 ). Researchers usually use these procedures in combination, followed by pretesting of the instrument and revisions as needed. It is likely that the selection of appropriate translation methods depends on the resources that the researcher has because some methods require more resources than do others. Nonetheless, it is essential that translation be conducted by at least two bilingual individuals who understand culturally specific language use and expressions in both English and the target language.

The foremost concern of instrument translation is ensuring measurement equivalence—that is, the translated version of the measure should work equivalently in the target population as the original measure does and measure the same construct it is designed to measure ( Carlson, 2000 ). Although numerous types of equivalence have been suggested in ensuring the cross-cultural validity of measurement, equivalence essentially refers to ensuring the validity of a measure across culture ( Chang, Chau, & Holroyd, 1999 ; Willgerodt, Kataoka-Yahiro, Kim, & Ceria, 2005 ). Measurement equivalence of the translated instruments should be examined through psychometric analysis before research hypotheses are tested, because the translation process inherently leads to changes in the psychometric properties of an instrument ( Carlson, 2000 ; Hilton & Skrutkowski, 2002 ). Van de Vijver (2003) warned that absence of measurement equivalence indicates cross-cultural difference in the conceptualization of the measure or poor translation and, thus, should not be used to infer cross-cultural differences. For that reason, evaluation of the translated version of the instrument is a vital step in the development of a cross-culturally valid measure with each specific language population.

Qualitative Data

Culturally responsive data collection and interpretation of qualitative data require that researchers understand the preferred communication style of study participants and have knowledge and skills in contextualizing the meaning of the words and behaviors, and their subtleties and variations, exhibited by study participants. The translation and the interpretation of qualitative data collected from language minorities involve unique methodological issues that require special considerations. Researchers need to determine how data will be collected and in which language the data will be analyzed—in the language of the study population or in English.

It is essential that researchers collecting qualitative data carefully consider who collects the data. Bilingual researchers may be able to collect data on their own, but when researchers do not speak the language of the study population, they have to rely on bilingual interviewers for data collection. In such cases, one of the most important decisions that nonbilingual researchers need to make is whether they want to actively participate in data collection in real time when the bilingual interviewer collects data. One approach is to provide extensive training for bilingual interviewers, and then the trained bilingual interviewers can conduct data collection entirely without the participation of the nonbilingual researcher (for example, Quine, 1999 ; Wong, Yoo, & Stewart, 2005 ). Whereas this approach may be more time efficient, it limits the researcher's ability to control data collection beyond what was planned and what the bilingual interviewer was trained to do. An alternative approach that allows the nonbilingual researcher's real-time participation is the rapid bilingual appraisal model ( Whelan, 2004 ), in which an interpreter interprets the proceedings to the researcher as the bilingual interviewer collects data. Adapting this model, Garrett, Dickson, Lis-Young, Whelan, and Roberto-Forero (2004) conducted focus groups with several language groups and reported that this approach allowed the nonbilingual researcher to fully engage in data collection while ensuring the natural flow of the focus group interview.

Unlike in the case of instrument translation, no methodologically rigorous standards for analyzing data collected in a language other than English (to be used for English language dissemination) exist ( Lopez, Figueroa, Connor, & Maliski, 2008 ). In their review of the literature, Lopez et al. found that researchers commonly used a method wherein data is collected in the language of the study participants; this is then translated into English and transcribed for analysis. They warned that this method can create “the opportunity for interpreter bias” and proposed that a more accurate analysis can be obtained through adaptation of Brislin's (1970, 1980) process: verbatim transcription of the source language first, translation of the transcript, review of the two transcripts by multiple translators, and corrections if necessary.

Another important consideration is who translates and analyzes the data. Although insider researchers have the ability to potentially translate and analyze data on their own, which is advantageous, some warn of the threat of bias in this process and recommend the use of additional linguistically and culturally competent individuals to minimize bias ( Squires, 2008 ). A recent study further suggested that having only insider researchers analyzing data may result in shortcomings. Specifically, Tsai et al. (2004) found that “outsider” coders tended to raise questions about the meanings of words, whereas insider coders did not. They suggested that insider coders may have been so well acquainted with the behaviors and concepts shared by participants that it prevented them from identifying relevant and unique cultural concepts. Subsequently, Tsai et al. recommended the use of both insider and outsider coders in qualitative data analysis with linguistic minorities.

Finally, as described earlier, the translation process for instruments and qualitative data consists of a series of repeated translation and review steps that is likely to require additional time. Because time is an important factor in implementation of the research project, researchers need to build adequate time for translation into a study's process design.

Dissemination

Dissemination of study findings is the goal of any scientific inquiry. Meleis (1996) stressed reciprocation and empowerment as essential criteria for culturally competent scholarship. These criteria call for the dissemination of findings for the purpose of advancing mutual goals and empowering the community for further improvement of the lives of its people. Dissemination of study findings is particularly important for research with ethnic minorities ( Yick & Berthold, 2005 ). Lack of data on language minorities has resulted in such minorities’ relative invisibility in both research and policy, which leads to the exclusion of this population's needs and problems in the development of policy, programs, and treatments ( Li et al., 2001 ). Culturally responsive research demands that researchers bear the responsibility of disseminating study findings to address this gap in the knowledge base. In addition to scientific publication, it is important that study findings be disseminated to stakeholders at all levels. Researchers could use various dissemination strategies, such as press releases, summary reports, research brief brochures, policy briefs, study newsletters, community agency publications and Web sites, and local events and meetings ( Community Alliance for Research and Engagement, 2009 ).

Dissemination of research findings to the community is crucial to the process of facilitating the use of evidence to ameliorate the consequences of social problems faced by the community ( Papadopoulos & Lees, 2002 ). Researchers have long been criticized for their lack of long-term investment in the communities where they conduct their research ( Gil & Bob, 1999 ; Pinto, McKay, & Escobar, 2008 ). Lack of follow-through in sharing of study results and long-term commitment from researchers can often result in distrust among community members, especially those who are socially isolated from mainstream establishments, such as language minorities. Consequently, language minorities may become cautious about participating in future studies or collaborating with researchers. Hence, it is imperative that researchers return to the community on completion of the study and disseminate key findings. The realization of such reciprocal opportunities allows for future research and collaborative opportunities to work toward the improvement of the community.

Underutilization of social and health care services among ethnic and racial minority populations compels the development of culturally responsive programming ( Caldwell et al., 2008 ). Although limited English proficiency is known to be a barrier to the effective delivery of services ( Furman et al., 2009 ), scant literature has focused on advancing the social work knowledge and skills needed for work with language minorities. Moreover, perhaps due to a presumption of social worker competence in dealing with language minorities, little discussion has appeared on the unique methodological challenges of and research strategies for working with language minorities, further hindering research in this area. The gap in the knowledge base regarding the distinct and diverse needs of language minorities has significant repercussions for our ability to conduct research with them. Perhaps this gap is partially attributable to the myriad challenges involved in including language minority participants in research studies. Regardless, research with these groups is essential for the development of culturally responsive health and social programming.

Social work researchers may be at an advantage to conduct research with language minorities because of the profession's traditional relationship with the community and prominent role in the human services sector. Furthermore, the profession's explicit focus on social justice charges social work researchers with the responsibility to contribute to the knowledge base on vulnerable populations. To this end, this is one of the first studies to offer a culturally responsive conceptual framework for research with language minorities. By expanding and adapting Meleis's (1996) criteria for culturally competent scholarship to include language minorities, this article offers practical strategies to effectively work with language minority communities throughout the research process. Specifically, this article's adaptation of Meleis's conceptual framework allows researchers to logically and systematically examine methodological issues in research with language minorities. The incorporation of such culturally responsive research practices with language minorities has the potential to enhance trust and, thus, improve the recruitment and retention of language minorities. In addition, the inclusion of culturally responsive criteria throughout the research process may generate results with improved validity ( Jacobson et al., 2005 ) and, thus, further the knowledge base regarding language minorities. More important, the advancement of research with language minorities is an important step toward the improvement of health and social services access and quality of care among this group.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1545-6846
• Print ISSN 0037-8046
• Copyright © 2024 National Association of Social Workers
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Cross-cultural research: challenge and competence

Affiliation.

• 1 Hahn School of Nursing and Health Science, University of San Diego, San Diego, California 92110, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 22776530
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2012.02026.x

Increasing globalization, population diversity and health disparities among non-dominant cultures necessitate cross-cultural research. Research with other cultures is fraught with challenges that must be addressed by the competent cross-cultural researcher. Areas for consideration include choice of research foci, ethical concerns, cultural adaptation of research measurements and interventions, participant recruitment and retention, strategies for data collection and analysis, dissemination of findings and perspectives of time. Approaches to dealing with these challenges are addressed, with an emphasis on community-based participatory research.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

• Community-Based Participatory Research
• Cross-Cultural Comparison*
• Cultural Competency*
• Cultural Diversity

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 23 March 2022

Communication competencies, culture and SDGs: effective processes to cross-cultural communication

• Stella Aririguzoh 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  9 , Article number:  96 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

27k Accesses

21 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management
• Cultural and media studies

Globalization has made it necessary for people from different cultures and nations to interact and work together. Effective cross-cultural communication seeks to change how messages are packaged and sent to people from diverse cultural backgrounds. Cross-cultural communication competencies make it crucial to appreciate and respect noticeable cultural differences between senders and receivers of information, especially in line with the United Nations’ (UN) recognition of culture as an agent of sustainable development. Miscommunication and misunderstanding can result from poorly encrypted messages that the receiver may not correctly interpret. A culture-literate communicator can reduce miscommunication arising from a low appreciation of cultural differences so that a clement communication environment is created and sustained. This paper looks at the United Nations’ recognition of culture and how cultural differences shape interpersonal communication. It then proposes strategies to enhance cross-cultural communication at every communication step. It advocates that for the senders and receivers of messages to improve communication efficiency, they must be culture and media literates.

Similar content being viewed by others

Worldwide divergence of values

Interviews in the social sciences

The language network as a natural kind within the broader landscape of the human brain

Public interest.

The United Nations has recognized culture as a causal agent of sustainability and integrated it into the SDG goals. Culture reinforces the economic, social, and communal fabrics that regulate social cohesion. Communication helps to maintain social order. The message’s sender and the receiver’s culture significantly influence how they communicate and relate with other people outside their tribal communities. Globalization has compelled people from widely divergent cultural backgrounds to work together.

People unconsciously carry their cultural peculiarities and biases into their communication processes. Naturally, there have been miscommunications and misunderstandings because people judge others based on their cultural values. Our cultures influence our behaviour and expectations from other people.

Irrespective of our ethnicities, people want to communicate, understand, appreciate, and be respected by others. Culture literate communicators can help clear some of these challenges, create more tolerant communicators, and contribute to achieving global sustainable goals.

Introduction

The United Nations established 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 to transform the world by 2030 through simultaneously promoting prosperity and protecting the earth. The global body recognizes that culture directly influences development. Thus, SDG Goal 4.7 promotes “… a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.” Culture really matters (Seymour, 2007 ). Significantly, cultural cognition influences how people process information from different sources and suggests policies they may support or oppose (Rachlinski, 2021 ). Culture can drive sustainable development (United Nations, 2015 ; De Beukelaer and Freita, 2015 ; Kangas et al., 2017 ; Heckler, 2014 ; Dessein et al., 2015 ; and Hosagrahar, 2017 ).

UNESCO ( 2013 , p.iii ; 2017 , p.16; 2013a , p. 30) unequivocally states that “culture is a driver of development,” an “enabler of sustainable development and essential for achieving the 2030 Agenda” and as “an essential pillar for sustainable development.” These bold declarations have led to the growth of the cultural sector. The culture industry encourages economic growth through cultural tourism, handicraft production, creative industries, agriculture, food, medicine, and fisheries. Culture is learned social values, beliefs, and customs that some people accept and share collectively. It includes all the broad knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, customs, and other experiences and habits acquired by man as a member of a particular society. This seems to support Guiso, Paola and Luigi ( 2006 , p. 23) view of culture as “those customary beliefs and values that ethnic, religious, and social groups transmit fairly unchanged from generation to generation.” They assert that there is a causality between culture and economic outcomes. Bokova ( 2010 ) claims that “the links between culture and development are so strong that development cannot dispense with culture” and “that these links cannot be separated.” Culture includes customs and social behaviour. Causadias ( 2020 ) claims that culture is a structure that connects people, places, and practices. Ruane and Todd ( 2004 ) write that these connections are everyday matters like language, rituals, kingship, economic way of life, general lifestyle, and labour division. Field ( 2008 ) notes that even though all cultural identities are historically constructed, they still undergo changes, transformation, and mutation with time. Although Barth ( 1969 ) affirms that ethnicity is not culture, he points out that it helps define a group and its cultural stuff . The shared cultural stuff provides the basis for ethnic enclosure or exclusion.

The cultural identities of all men will never be the same because they come from distinctive social groups. Cultural identification sorts interactions into two compartments: individual or self-identification and identification with other people. Thus, Jenkins ( 2014 ) sees social identity as the interface between similarities and differences, the classification of others, and self-identification. He argues that people would not relate to each other in meaningful ways without it. People relate both as individuals and as members of society. Ethnicity is the “world of personal identity collectively ratified and publicly expressed” and “socially ratified personal identity‟ (Geertz, 1973 , p. 268, 309). However, the future of ethnicity has been questioned because culture is now seen as a commodity. Many tribal communities are packaging some aspects of their cultural inheritances to sell to other people who are not from their communities (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2009 ).

There is a relationship between culture and communication. People show others their identities through communication. Communication uses symbols, for example, words, to send messages to recipients. According to Kurylo ( 2013 ), symbols allow culture to be represented or constructed through verbal and nonverbal communication. Message receivers may come from different cultural backgrounds. They try to create meaning by interpreting the symbols used in communication. Miscommunication and misunderstanding may arise because symbols may not have the same meaning for both the sender and receiver of messages. If these are not efficiently handled, they may lead to stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. Monaghan ( 2020 ), Zhu ( 2016 ), Holmes ( 2017 ), Merkin ( 2017 ), and Samovar et al. ( 2012 ) observe that inter-cultural communication occurs between people from different cultural groups. It shows how people from different cultural backgrounds can effectively communicate by comparing, contrasting, and examining the consequences of the differences in their communication patterns. However, communicating with others from different cultural backgrounds can be full of challenges, surprises, and re-learning because languages, values, and protocols differ. Barriers, like language and noise, impede communication by distorting, blocking, or altering the meaning.

Communication patterns change from one nation to the next. It is not uncommon, for example, for an American, a Nigerian, a Japanese national, or citizens of other countries to work together on a single project in today’s multi-cultural workplace. These men and women represent different cultural heritages. Martinovski ( 2018 ) remarks that both humans and virtual agents interact in cross-cultural environments and need to correctly behave as demanded by their environment. Possibly too, they may learn how to avoid conflicts and live together. Indeed, García-Carbonell and Rising ( 2006 , p. 2) remark that “as the world becomes more integrated, bridging the gap in cultural conflicts through real communication is increasingly important to people in all realms of society.” Communication is used to co-ordinate the activities in an organization for it to achieve its goals. It is also used to signal and order those involved in the work process.

This paper argues that barriers to cross-cultural communication can be overcome or significantly reduced if the actors in the communication processes become culture literates and competent communicators.

Statement of the problem

The importance of creating and maintaining good communication in human society cannot be overemphasized. Effective communication binds and sustains the community. Cross-cultural communication problems usually arise from confusion caused by misconstruction, misperception, misunderstanding, and misvaluation of messages from different standpoints arising from differences in the cultures of the senders and receivers of messages. Divergences in cultural backgrounds result in miscommunication that negatively limits effective encrypting, transmission, reception, and information decoding. It also hinders effective feedback.

With the rapid spread of communication technologies, no community is completely isolated from the rest of the world. Present-day realities, such as new job opportunities and globalization, compel some people to move far away from their local communities and even their countries of origin to other places where the cultures are different. Globalization minimizes the importance of national borders. The world is no longer seen as a globe of many countries but as a borderless entity (Ohmae, 1999 ) and many markets (Levitt, 1983 ) in different countries with different cultures. As a matter of necessity, people from other countries must communicate.

The United Nations ( 2015 ) recognizes culture’s contribution to sustainable development and promotes local cultures in development programmes to increase local population involvement. Despite the United Nations’ lofty ideals of integrating culture into development, culture has hindered development at different levels. Interventions meant to enhance development are sometimes met with opposition from some people who feel that such programmes are against their own culture.

Gumperz ( 2001 , p. 216) argues that “all communication is intentional and grounded in inferences that depend upon the assumption of mutual good faith. Culturally specific presuppositions play a key role in inferring what is intended.” Cross-border communications reflect the kaleidoscope of the diverse colours of many cultures, meeting, clashing, and fusing. Like Adler ( 1991 , p. 64) observes, “foreigners see, interpret, and evaluate things differently, and consequently act upon them differently.” Diversities in culture shape interpersonal communication. Yet the basic communication process is the same everywhere. It is in these processes that challenges arise. Therefore, this study seeks to examine how each of these steps can be adapted to enhance cross-cultural communication, especially in today’s digitized era of collapsing cultural boundaries. Barriers to cross-cultural communication can be significantly reduced if the actors in the communication processes become culture literates and competent communicators.

Study objectives

The objectives of this study are

To examine United Nations efforts to integrate culture into sustainable development.

To suggest modifications to each communication process step to improve effective cross-cultural communication.

Literature review

Some authors have tried to link culture, communication, and sustainable goals.

The need to know about people’s culture

There are compelling reasons to learn about other people’s cultures.

Cultural literacies: Difficulties in cross-cultural communication can be reduced when senders of messages understand that the world is broader than their ethnocentric circles. It demands that senders of messages know that what they believe may not always be correct when communicating with receivers of these messages who are from different cultures. Logical reasoning will expect increased exposure to different cultures to increase understanding. When people of different groups communicate frequently, it is anticipated that they should understand each other better. This is what Hirsch ( 1987 ) labels as cultural literacy . In the ordinary course of things, common knowledge destroys mutual suspicion and misinterpretation that often generate conflicts.

To protect the earth: It is essential to point out that at “the most global level, the fate of all people, indeed the fate of the earth, depends upon negotiations among representatives of governments with different cultural assumptions and ways of communicating” (Tannen, 1985 , p. 203). If the world is to be protected, it is necessary to understand other peoples’ cultures who live and interact with us at different fronts and in this same world. The world is still our haven. Nevertheless, Vassiliou et al. ( 1972 ) find that increased exposure can increase people’s mutual negative stereotyping. Tannen ( 1985 , p. 211) remarks that stereotypes of ethnic groups partly develop from the poor impressions that people from other cultures have about the natives because they hold different meanings for both parties. Stereotyping is detrimental to cross-cultural communication, and its dismissal is necessary for any successful cross-cultural exchange.

Spin-offs from globalization: Bokova ( 2013 ) observes that globalization transforms all societies and brings culture to the front. She remarks that communities are increasingly growing diverse and yet interconnected. The spin-offs from globalization open great doors for exchanges, mutual enrichment of persons from different cultures, and pictures of new worlds.

The dynamics of cross-cultural communication

Different cultures emphasize different values. The emphasis on one value by one culture may lead to difficulties in cross-cultural communication with another person who does not see that particular value in the same light, for example, timeliness. It is crucial to note Sapir’s ( 1956 , p. 104) insistence that “every cultural pattern and every single act of social behaviour involves communication in either an explicit or implicit sense.” Even though Hofstede ( 2005 , p. 1) comments that “cultural differences are nuisance at best and often a disaster,” UNESCO ( 1998 , 1999 ) recognizes cultural diversity as an “essential factor of development” and an issue that matters. This makes cultural diversity a blessing rather than a disaster. The various shades of cultural values influence how we behave and communicate with others outside our cultural environment. Our ideals and biases also influence communication.

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner ( 1997 ) developed a culture model with seven dimensions. They are universalism versus particularism (rules versus relationships); individualism versus communitarianism (the individual versus the group); specific versus diffuse (how far people get involved); neutral versus emotional (how people express emotions) ; achievement versus ascription (how people view status); sequential time versus synchronous time (how people manage time); and internal direction versus outer direction (how people relate to their environment). These cultural models signify how people from these areas communicate. People from different backgrounds may have difficulties communicating as their values may be significantly different. A good communicator must take note of this distinctiveness in values because they impact the communication processes. For example, a person who is particular about upholding written rules may not be interested in knowing who the culprit is before administering sanctions. But the other person interested in maintaining a good relationship with others may re-consider this approach.

Hofstede ( 1980 ) identifies five significant values that may influence cross-cultural communication:

Power distance: This is the gap between the most and the least influential members of society. People from different cultures perceive equality in various ways. The social hierarchy or status determines where individuals are placed. Status is conferred by inheritance or by personal achievement. Some cling to societal classification and its hierarchy of power. Others value and cherish the equality of all people. Yet, other cultures see other people as dependents and somehow inferior beings. A king in an African community is seen as far more powerful and important than his servants, who are expected to pay obeisance to him. Most countries in Europe are egalitarian. Arabic and Asian countries are high on the power index.

Individualism versus collectivism: This explains the extent to which members of a particular culture value being seen first, as individuals or as members of a community. As individuals, they are entirely held accountable for their errors. They are also rewarded as individuals for their exploits. However, in some cultures, the wider community is involved. Suppose a person makes an inglorious error. The whole community where that individual comes from shares in it. The same goes if he wins laurels and awards. The individual does not exist primarily for himself. African, Japanese, Indian, and most Asiatic nations follow the collective approach. A Chinese man has his Guanxi or Guanshi. This is his network of influential and significant contacts that smoothen his business and other activities (Yeung and Tung, 1996 ). He succeeds or fails based on his personal relationships. In other words, the basis of business is friendship. This is clear evidence of collectivism. Most people from America and Europe are individualistic. It must be pointed out that personal values mediate both community and individualistic spirit. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s communitarianism vs. individualism appears very similar to this Hofstede’s individualism/collectivism orientation. The information receiver who values his individuality will be offended if he is seen as just a group member or if his negative performance on the job is discussed openly. The message sender who appreciates his subordinates would send personalized messages and expect their feedback.

Uncertainty avoidance: This shows the degree to which a particular culture is uncomfortable with uncertainties and ambiguities. Some cultures avoid or create worries about how much they disclose to other people. A culture with high uncertainty avoidance scores wants to avoid doubts by telling and knowing the absolute truth in everything. For them, everything should be plainly stated. When situations are not like this, they are offended, worried, and intolerant of other people or groups they feel are hiding facts by not being plain enough. Hofstede and Bond ( 1988 ) write that this trait is very peculiar to western Europeans. This means that people from countries like Greece, Turkey, and Spain are very high on uncertainty avoidance. Communication between people with high or low uncertainties may be hindered. Some people may appear rude and uncouth because of their straightforward ways of talking. Some Africans may see some Americans and people from Europe as too wide-mouthed because they feel they do not use discretion in talking. They say things they may prefer to keep silent about and hide from the public’s ears. On the other hand, some Americans may see some Africans as unnecessarily secretive. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s ( 1997 ) universalism/particularism explains why some cultures insist on applying the rule of law no matter who the offender is.

Masculinity/feminity roles : Hofstede ( 2001 ) defines masculinity as society’s preference for success, heroism, assertiveness, and material rewards for success. Conversely, femininity is seen as the preference for co-operation, diffidence, caring for the weak and quality of life. The male-female contradiction affects communication. Females are expected to be meek homemakers that tend and nurture their family members. Like Sweden and Norway, cultures that favour females do not discriminate between the sexes. Japan and Nigeria have cultures that are predominantly masculine in orientation. Competitive and aggressive females are frowned at and seen as social deviants. In the other cultures where females are more favoured, a man may land in court and face public condemnation for domestic violence. Hofstede ( 1998 ) believes that how different cultures see the male/female roles influence how they treat gender, sexuality, and religion.

Long-time orientations: A particular society accepts some degree of long or short associations. Japanese culture scores high in long-term orientation values, commitments, and loyalty. They respect tradition, and therefore, changes in their society take a longer time to happen. Cultures with low long-term orientation do not value tradition much, nor do they go out of their way to nurture long-standing relationships. Literally, changes occur in rapid succession. There appears to be more attachment to the pursuit of immediate self-satisfaction and simple-minded well-being. Baumeister and Wilson ( 1996 , pp. 322–325) say that meaning comes from a sense of purpose, efficacy, value, and a sense of positive self-worth. Thus, if you communicate with somebody with a short-term orientation, you may think that he is too hasty and intemperate, while he may feel that you are too sluggish and not ready to take immediate action.

Hall ( 1983 ) introduces two other factors:

Time usage: Some cultures are monochronic, while others are polychronic. Monochronic cultures are known for doing one thing at a time. Western Europe is monochronic in time orientation, as illustrated by the familiar adage that says, “There is a time and place for everything!” Persons from this cultural background are very punctual and strictly adhere to plans. They are task-oriented. Polychronic cultures schedule multiple tasks simultaneously, even though there may be distractions and interruptions while completing them. Plans may often change at short notice. Such different time management and usage may constrict effective communication. A London business entrepreneur will find it difficult to understand why his business partner from Nigeria may be thirty minutes late for a scheduled meeting. The answer is in their perception of time. Some Nigerians observe what is referred to as African time , where punctuality is tacitly ignored.

Low and high context: This refers to how much a culture depends on direct or indirect verbal communication. According to Hall ( 1976 ), low context cultures explicitly refer to the topic of discussion. The speaker and his audience know that the words mean exactly what they say. In high context cultures, the meanings of words are drawn from the context of the communication process. The words may never mean what they say. For example, the sentence: I have heard . In the low context culture, it merely means that the listener has used his ears to listen to what the speaker is saying. In the high context culture, the listener knows more than what the speaker is saying and may be planning something unpleasant. Europeans and North Americans have low contexts. African and Asian nations have high contexts.

Vaknin ( 2005 ) brings in another value:

Exogenic and endogenic: This shows how people relate to their environment. Deeply exogenic cultures look outside themselves to make sense of life. Hence, they believe in God and His power to intervene in the affairs of men. Endogenic cultures draw on themselves when searching for the meaning of life. They think they can generate solutions to tackle the problems facing them. While the endogenic person may exert himself to find a solution to a challenge, his exogenic partner may believe that supernatural help will come from somewhere and refuses to do what is needed. Of course, this provides a problematic platform for effective communication.

The United Nations’ sustainable development goals and culture

The United Nations recognizes that culture is implicitly crucial to the achievement of the SDGs. No meaningful development can occur outside any cultural context because every person is born into a culture. To a large extent, our cultural foundations determine what we do and how we see things. Therefore, culture must be integrated into sustainable development strategies. Some specific goals’ targets acknowledge that culture drives development. Sustainable development revolves around economic, social, and environmental objectives for people. These goals are implicitly or explicitly dependent on culture because culture impacts people.

There are 17 Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are four specific ones that refer to culture are:

SDG 4 focuses on quality education

By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development

In other words, quality education is most effective if it responds to a place and the community’s cultural context and exactitudes. This target hinges on education promoting peace, non-violence, and cultural diversity as precursors to sustainable development. Encouraging respect for cultural diversity within acceptable standards facilitates cultural understanding and peace.

SDG 8 focuses on decent work and economic growth

By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products

Strengthening trade in cultural goods and services will provide growth impetus for local, national, and international markets. These will create employment opportunities for people whose work revolves around cultural goods. Cultural tourism generates revenues that improve the economy. In this sense, culture facilitates the community’s well-being and sustainability.

SDG 11 focuses on sustainable cities and communities

Target 11.4

Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage

When our cultural heritage is carefully managed, it attracts sustainable investments in tourism. The local people living where this heritage is domiciled ensure that it is not destroyed and that they themselves will not damage the heritage areas.

SDG 12 focuses on responsible consumption and production

Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products

Several indigenous livelihoods and crafts are built on local knowledge and management of the ecosystem, natural resources, and local materials. If natural resources are depleted, production will be endangered. Local livelihoods that utilize low technology and energy generate less waste and keep their environment free from pollution. In other words, proper management of the ecosystem prevents biodiversity loss, reduces land degradation, and moderates adverse climate change effects. Where there are natural disasters, traditional knowledge already embedded in the people’s culture helps them become resilient.

Theoretical framework

The social construction of reality is hinged on the belief that people make sense of their social world by assembling their knowledge. Scheler ( 1960 ) labels this assemblage the Sociology of Knowledge . Berger and Luckmann ( 1966 , p.15) contend that this “knowledge is concerned with the analysis of the social construction of reality.” Social construction theory builds on peoples’ comprehension of their own life experiences. From there, people make assumptions about what they think life is or should be. Young and Collin ( 2004 ) present that social constructionism pays more attention to society than individuals. Communities determine what they feel is acceptable. What is widely accepted by a particular community may be unacceptable to other people who are not members of this group. Therefore, people see an issue as good or bad based on their group’s description. Thus, what is a reality in Society A may be seen as illegal in Society B . Berger and Luckmann ( 1966 ) claim that people create their own social and cultural worlds and vice versa. According to them, common sense or basic knowledge is sustained through social interactions. These, in turn, reinforce already existing perceptions of reality, leading to routinization and habitualization. Berger and Luckmann ( 1991 ) say that dialogue is the most important means of maintaining, modifying, and reconstructing subjective reality.

Burr ( 2006 ) writes that the four fundamental tenets of social constructionism are: a critical instance towards taken-for-granted knowledge, historical and cultural specificity; knowledge sustained by social processes; and that knowledge and social action go together. This taken-for-granted knowledge is a basic common-sense approach to daily interactions. Historical and cultural specificities look at the peculiar but past monuments that have shaped the particular society. Knowledge is created and sustained by socialization. Good knowledge improves the common good. However, whoever applies the knowledge he has acquired wrongly incurs sanctions. This is why convicted criminals are placed behind bars.

Social constructions exist because people tacitly agree to act as if they do (Pinker, 2002 ). Whatever people see as realities are actually what they have learnt, over long periods, through their interactions with their society’s socialization agents such as the family, schools and churches. Cultural realities are conveyed through a language: the vehicle for communication. Language communicates culture by telling about what is seen, spoken of, or written about. However, groups construct realities based on their cultures. The media construct realities through the production, reproduction, and distribution of messages from which their consumers give meaning to their worlds and model their behaviours.

The method of study

The discourse analysis method of study is adopted for this work. Foucault ( 1971 ) developed the ‘discursive field’ to understand the relationships between language, social institutions, subjectivity, and power. Foucault writes that discourses relate to verbalization at the most basic level. The discursive method explores the construction of meanings in human communication by offering a meaningful interpretation of messages to enhance purposeful communication. Discourse analysis examines how written, or spoken language is used in real-life situations or in the society. Language use affects the creation of meaning; and, therefore, defines the context of communication. Kamalu and Isisanwo ( 2015 ) posit that discourse analysis considers how language is used in social and cultural contexts by examining the relationship between written and spoken words. Discourse analysis aims to understand how and why people use language to achieve the desired effect. The discursive method explores the construction of meanings in human communication by offering a meaningful interpretation of messages to enhance purposeful communication. Gale ( 2010 ) says that meaning is constructed moment by moment. Garfinkel ( 1967 ) explains this construction as the common-sense actions of ordinary people based on their practical considerations and judgments of what they feel are intelligible and accountable to others. According to Keller ( 2011 ), a peoples’ sense of reality combines their routinized interactions and the meanings they attach to objects, actions, and events. It is in this understanding of the natural use of language that some barriers to effective cross-cultural communication can be reduced.

Messages may assume different meanings in different situations for other people. These meanings affect social interactions. They either encourage or discourage further human communication. As Katz ( 1959 ) has written, interpersonal relationships influence communication. To make meaning out of messages and improve human relationships, it is necessary to understand that content and context may not represent the same thing to people in different situations. Waever ( 2004 , p. 198) states that “things do not have meaning in and of themselves, they only become meaningful in discourse.” Since people’s perspectives are different, it becomes extremely difficult to form a rigid basis on specific ideas. Ideas are discussed on their merits. Discursive analysis inspects the ways individuals construct events by evaluating language usage in writing, speech, conversation, or symbolic communication (Edwards, 1997 ; Harre and Gillet, 1994 ). Language is the carrier of culture. According to Van Dijk ( 1995 , p. 12), this approach is used to study descriptive, explanatory, and practical issues in “the attempt to uncover, reveal or disclose what is implicit, hidden or otherwise not immediately obvious in relations of discursively enacted dominance or their underlying ideologies.” The media play fundamental roles in the processes of constructing or reconstructing reality. They can do these because of Aririguzoh’s ( 2004 ) observation that the press impacts the political and socio-cultural sub-systems.

Culture at the international galleries

The affairs of culture came into international prominence at the UNESCO’s World Conference on Cultural Policies held in Mexico in 1982. This conference gave a broad definition of culture to include “the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society or social group. It includes not only the arts and letters but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs” (UNESCO, 1982 , p. 1).

The United Nations World Commission on Culture and Development, led by J. Perez de Cuellar, published our Creative Diversity’s Landmark Report (UNESCO, 1995 ). This report points out the great importance of incorporating culture into development. Although the Commission recognizes cultural diversities, it sees them as the actual vehicles driving creativity and innovation. During the World Decade on Culture and Development (1988–1998), UNESCO stepped up again to campaign for greater recognition of culture’s contribution to national and international development policies. In 1998, Stockholm hosted an Inter-governmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development. Its Action Plan on Cultural Policies for Development reaffirmed the correlation between culture and development (UNESCO, 1998 ). In 1999, UNESCO and the World Bank held the Inter-governmental Conference, Culture Counts , in Florence. Here, ‘cultural capital’ was emphasized as the tool for sustainable development and economic growth (UNESCO, 1999 ).

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document . Here, cultural diversity was explicitly admitted as a contributor to the enrichment of humankind. The United Nations General Assembly Resolutions on Culture and Development adopted in 2010 and 2011 (65/166 and 66/208) recognize culture as an “essential component of human development” and “an important factor in the fight against poverty, providing for economic growth and ownership of the development processes.” These resolutions called for the mainstreaming of culture into development policies at all levels. The UN System Task Team on the Post 2015 Development Agenda issued a report, Realizing the Future We Want for All ( 2012 , p. ii), with a direct charge that culture has a clear role to play in the “transformative change needed for a rights-based, equitable and sustainable process of global development.” Paragraph 71 of the report declares:

It is critical to promote equitable change that ensures people’s ability to choose their value systems in peace, thereby allowing for full participation and empowerment. Communities and individuals must be able to create and practice their own culture and enjoy that of others free from fear. This will require, inter alia, respect for cultural diversity, safeguarding cultural and natural heritage, fostering cultural institutions, strengthening cultural and creative industries, and promoting cultural tourism (p. 33).

In 2005, the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions member states agreed that cultural diversity “increases the range of choices and nurtures human capacities and values. Therefore, it is a mainspring for sustainable development for communities, peoples and nations” (UNESCO, 2005 , p. 1). The Convention reiterated the importance of the link between culture and development. UNESCO also steers an International Fund for Cultural Diversity to promote sustainable development and poverty reduction among the developing and least developed countries that are parties to the Convention.

UN Resolution 2347 of 2017 focuses exclusively on protecting cultural heritage and its necessity for peace and security. This Resolution brings a thorough awareness of culture’s role as a source of stability, inclusion, driver of reconciliation, and resilience. This Resolution reinforces Resolution 2199, adopted in February 2015, partly to fight against international terrorism financing and prohibit the illicit trafficking of cultural goods from Iraq and Syria.

Communication processes for overcoming difficulties in cross-cultural communication

The primary risk in cross-cultural communication is distortion, which creates misunderstanding or even misrepresentation of the conveyed information. Baumgratz ( 1990 , pp. 161–168) shares the opinion that relevant cultural dimensions of what he calls a social communication situation should be mapped out for individuals or groups who are from different nations or cultural origins but who have realized the need to contribute to the achievement of social, institutional, organizational, group, and personal aims. The tactics to overcome difficulties in cross-cultural communication lie in the communication processes. Any of the steps can become a barrier since culture influences the behaviour of both senders and receivers of messages. Barriers impede communication by distorting, blocking, or creating misunderstandings. Hence, it is necessary to create an enabling environment that will make communicating easier. Each of the communication steps can be strategized to enhance communication.

He is the source or initiator of the message. He can be a person or an organization. If the sender is a person, Malec ( 2018 ) refers to him as the carrier of intangible culture and the creator of the tangible ones. Messages are conveyed through spoken or written words. Nevertheless, messages can also be non-verbal. The encoding includes selecting words, symbols, or gestures in composing a message. The sender should encrypt, transfer meaning, or package his messages in ways that the receivers can access them. He should use symbols that the receiver would comprehend. The first thing he should do is use a language that his receiver understands. For example, it is useless to send a message written in English to another person who only understands French. Not only is the effort wasted, but it might also generate hostility. In Nigeria, Mexican soaps are freely watched. However, their producers avoided the obvious language challenge by dubbing in English voice-overs.

Words mean different things in different languages. For example, a British boss would answer yes to a question. However, his American subordinate would answer, yeah . The boss would think that he is disrespectful and impolite. Meanwhile, the American employee would be bewildered by the boss’s apparent coldness. British people use words that have different meanings from their American counterparts. For example, the word, pant , means underwear to a Briton but a pair of trousers to an American. The Englishman may still run into trouble with other nationals because his words have different meanings to these listeners. For example, the English phrase fart means a different thing among the Danish. For them, the word means speed ! The English word gift means poison in German. If an Englishman calls somebody a brat , his Russian friend will conclude that he is calling him his brother , which is what the word means in his language. Igbo children of south-eastern Nigeria call the hawk leke . But for the Yorubas in the southwest, this is the name given to a male child.

The sender, too, must know that even body language may mean different things. He should not assume that non-verbal messages mean the same in every part of the world. In Japan, nodding the head up and down means disagreement. In Nigeria, it means the opposite. Even though his own culture invariably influences the message’s sender, he should understand that his message is intended for a cross-cultural audience. He must also realize that the contents are no longer meant for ethnic communities defined by geographical locations but for an audience connected by frequent interactions that are not necessarily in the same physical place. A message sender that values esprit de corps will incorporate this into his messages by telling them that the laurel does not go to any person in particular but to the winning team. He thus encourages everybody to join in to win, not as individuals but as members of a group. If he is high on doubt avoidance, he makes his messages very direct and unambiguous and leaves no room for misinterpretation. However, a male sender who wants to assert his masculinity may wish to sound harsh. The sender who regularly attends church services may unconsciously put some words of Scripture in his messages because of his exogenic roots. The sender with monochronic orientation will send one message and expect the task to be completed as scheduled. His linear cultural background will be offended if the result is the contrary. Similarly, the sender who places a high value on rules and regulations would send messages of punishment to those who break them but reward those who keep them without minding his relationships with them. An effective sender of messages to a cross-cultural society should state his ideas clearly, offer explanations when needed, or even repeat the whole communication process if he does not get the appropriate feedback.

This is the information content the sender wants to share with his receivers. These include stories, pictures, or advertisements. He should carefully avoid lurid and offensive content. A French man may see nothing wrong in his wife wearing a very skimpy bikini and other men ogling at her at a public beach. His counterpart from Saudi Arabia will be upset if other men leer at his wife. In addition, the wife would be sanctioned for dressing improperly and appearing in public. If a person has a message to share with others from a different cultural background, he should be careful. His listeners may not isolate his statement as being distinct from his personality.

Societies with high context culture usually consider the messages they send or receive before interpreting them. Messages are hardly delivered straightforwardly. The message is in the associated meanings attached to the pictures and symbols. Thus, those outside that community find it very difficult to understand the meaning of the messages. In low-context communication, the message is the information in words. The words mean what they say. However, a corporate sender of messages, for example, the head of the Human Resources Department of a multi-cultural company interested in building team spirit, may organize informal chit-chats and get-togethers to break the proverbial ice as well as create a convivial atmosphere where people can relate. The message he is passing across is simple: let colleagues relax, relate, and work together as team members irrespective of where they come from. All of these are communicative actions.

The channel’s work is to provide a passage for the sender to guide his message to the receiver. While face-to-face communication is ideal for intimate and close group conversations, it is impossible to talk to everybody simultaneously. Different channels of passing across the same message may be used. For example, the same message may be passed through radio, adapted for television, put online, or printed in newsletters, newspapers, and magazines. The hope is that people who missed the message on one channel may see it on another somewhere else. A pronounced media culture will hasten cross-cultural communication. Many people consume media content. However, these consumers are expected to be media literates. Aririguzoh ( 2007 , p. 144) writes that:

media literacy is the systematic study of the media and their operations in our socio-political systems as well as their contributions to the development and maintenance of culture. It is the information and communication skill that is needed to make citizens more competent. It is the ability to read what the print media offer, see what the visual media present, and hear what the aural media announce. It is a response to the changing nature of information in our modern society.

Official messages should be passed through defined routes and are best written. This would close avenues of possible denials by others if the same message were passed across verbally. It could be difficult to misinterpret the contents of a written document. Written documents have archival values. As much as possible, rumours should be stamped out. A good manager should single out regular gossips in a multi-cultural organization for special attention. Equally, an effective manager heading widely dispersed employees can co-ordinate their activities using communication technologies with teleconferencing features. Aririguzoh ( 2007 , p. 45) notes, “information and communication technologies have transformed the range and speed of dispersing information and of communicating. Today, the whole world lies a click away!”

The media of communication are shaped by the culture of the people who produce them. What they carry as contents and the form they assume are defined by the culture of the sender. In low-context societies, it is common for messages to be written. In high context societies, it is common for statements to be verbal. Importantly, Aririguzoh ( 2013 , pp. 119–120) points out that “… the mass media can effectively be deployed to provide pieces of information that enhance communication, build understanding and strengthen relationships in our rapidly changing environment dictated by the current pace of globalization. The mass media assiduously homogenize tastes, styles, and points of view among many consumers of its products across the globe. They have effectively helped in fading away national distinctions and growing mass uniformity as they create, distribute and transmit the same entertainment, news, and information to millions of people in different nations.”

The receiver is the person the sender directs his message to. In a workplace, the receiver needs the message or information to do his job. The receiver decodes or tries to understand the meaning of the sender’s message by breaking it down into symbols to give the proper feedback. If the message is verbal, the receiver has to listen actively. The message receiver must understand a message based on his existing orientations shaped by his own culture. Even the messages that he picks are selected to conform to his existing preconceptions.

Oyserman et al. ( 2002 ) make an interesting discovery: that receivers from different cultures interpret the message senders’ mannerisms. For an American, a speaker talking very quickly is seen as telling the uncensored truth. In other words, the speaker who talks too slowly implicates himself as a liar! However, for the Koreans, slow speech denotes careful consideration of others. In some cultures, particularly in Asia, the receiver is responsible for effective communication. Kobayashi and Noguchi ( 2001 ) claim that he must become an expert at “understanding without words.” Miyahara ( 2004 , p. 286) emphasizes that even children literarily learn to read other people’s minds by evaluating the subtle cues in their messages and then improvising to display the expected and appropriate social behaviour and communication. Gestures involve the movements of the hands and head of the sender. The receiver clearly understands these body movements. As painted by Sapir ( 1927 , p. 556), “we respond to gestures with an extreme alertness and, one might almost say, in accordance with an elaborate and secret code that is written nowhere, known by none, and understood by all.”

Receivers who value individualism appreciate personal freedom, believe that they can make their own decisions, and respect their performance. Those who prefer communitarianism would prefer group applause and loyalty. A monochromatic receiver would start and finish a task before starting another one. He would be offended when colleagues do not meet deadlines, are late to appointments, and do not keep rigid schedules. His co-worker, who synchronizes his time, develops a flexible working schedule to work at two or more tasks.

This is the final process. Ordinarily, the sender wants a response to determine if the message he sent out has been received and understood. Acknowledging a message does not indicate a clear understanding of its contents. Feedback can be positive or negative. Positive feedback arises when the receiver interprets the message correctly and does what the sender wants. Negative feedback comes when messages are incorrectly interpreted, and the receiver does not do what the sender of the information has intended him to do. Cross-cultural communication recognizes that people come from different backgrounds. Therefore, feedback on diverse messages would be different. A sensitive communicator would be careful how he designs his messages for a heterogeneous audience so that he can elicit the desired feedback.

It must be emphasized that no culture is superior to another as each culture meets the needs of those who subscribe to it. To a large extent, our culture influences our behaviours and expectations from other people. Although there are noticeable similarities and differences, what separates one culture from another is its emphasis on specific values. As the United Nations has affirmed, there is diversity in cultures. These diversities add colour and meaning to human existence. This suggests that particular policies should be carved out to attend to specific locations and supports Satterthwaite’s ( 2014 ) proposition that local actors should be empowered to help achieve the SDGs. What the local populace in one community may appreciate may be frowned upon and even be fought against by residents in another place. As Hossain and Ali ( 2014 ) point out, individuals constitute the societies where they live and work. While Bevir ( 1996 ) describes this relationship as that of mutual dependence, he recognizes that people are influenced by their particular social structures and therefore do not go against them. Bevir believes that social systems exist for individuals.

Societies are built on shared values, norms and beliefs. These, in turn, have profound effects on individuals. Society’s culture affects individuals while the individuals create and shape the society, including initiating sustainable development. Development rests on the shoulders of men. Thus, culture influences the ways individuals behave and communicate. The effective communicator must actively recognize these elements and work them into communication practices. As Renn et al. ( 1997 , p. 218) point out, “sustainable practices can be initiated or encouraged by governmental regulation and economic incentives. A major element to promote sustainability will be, however, the exploration and organization of discursive processes between and among different actors.”

To achieve the United Nations sustainable goals, the competent communicator has to recognize that the culture of the actors in a communication process is the basic foundation for effective communication. For example, while one individual may discuss issues face-to-face and is not afraid to express his feelings candidly, another person may not be so direct. He may even involve third parties to mediate in solving a problem. Either way, their approaches are defined by their cultural backgrounds. It may be counterproductive to assume that either of these approaches is the best. This assertion is supported by the study of Stanton ( 2020 ), who explored intercultural communication between African American managers and Hispanic workers who speak English as a second language. He finds managers that follow culturally sensitive communication strategies getting more work done. Cartwright ( 2020 ) also observes that intercultural competence and recognition of cultural differences in East and Central Europe are foundation pillars for business success. This lends credence to Ruben and Gigliotti ( 2016 ) observation that communication with people from different cultures reduces the barriers associated with intercultural communication and enhances the communication process.

Irrespective of our ethnicities, people want to communicate, understand, appreciate, and be respected by others. Effective communication is the foundation of good human relationships among team members, whether their cultural backgrounds differ or not. Good feedback is achieved when both the sender and receiver of messages create common meanings. This is what discourse is all about. Messages must be meaningful, meaningfully constructed and meaningfully interpreted. Georgiou ( 2011 ) labels this the communicative competence : acknowledgement of the intercultural dimension of foreign language education and successful intercultural interactions that assume non-prejudiced attitudes, tolerance and understanding of other cultures, and cultural self-awareness of the person communicating. An efficient communicator must understand that culture shapes people, and the people then shape society. In other words, communication shapes the world. Therefore, appropriately chosen communication strategies help blend the different cultures.

According to Bokova ( 2013 ), there is “renewed aspirations for equality and respect, for tolerance and mutual understanding, especially between peoples of different cultures.” This means that if all parties respect other team members’ cultures, a clement work environment is inevitable. Cultural literacy creates more tolerant and peaceful work environments. Achieving this starts with a re-examination of the whole communication process. The crux of cross-cultural communication is developing effective ways to appreciate the culture of others involved in the acts of communication. Understanding these differences provides the context for an enhanced understanding of the values and behaviours of others. Reconciling these differences confers competitive advantages to those who communicate effectively. The media must provide the links between senders and receivers of messages in the context of their socio-cultural environments.

The United Nations appreciates the distinctiveness in cultures and has incorporated it as a significant factor in achieving sustainable development goals. This global body has produced different documents championing this. Every development takes place in an environment of culture. The heart of sustainable development is the man. The SDGs will be more meaningful and easily achievable by recognizing that actions should be both locally and culturally relevant. Cultural differences can be effectively managed if senders and receivers of messages understand that culture shapes how people communicate and, by extension, the relationship with other people who may not necessarily be from their tribal communities. Breaking down the barriers to cross-cultural communication lies in understanding these distinct differences and consciously incorporating them into the communication processes to enhance communication competencies.

Data availability

All data analysed are contained in the paper.

Adler N (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior, 2nd edn. Pws-Kent Publishing Company

Aririguzoh S (2004) How the press impinges on the political and socio-cultural sub-systems. Nsukka J Humanit 14:137–147. http://www.unnfacultyofarts.com/download.php?download_file=UFAJH192.pdf

Aririguzoh S (2007) Media literacy and the role of English language in Nigeria. Int J Commun 6:144–160

Google Scholar  

Aririguzoh S (2013) Human integration in globalization: the communication imperative. Niger J Soc Sci 9(2):118–141

Barth F (1969) Introduction. In: Barth F (ed.) Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture difference. Little, Brown & Company, pp. 9–30

Baumeister R, Wilson B (1996) Life stories and the four needs for meaning. Psychol Inq 7(4):322–325

Article   Google Scholar  

Baumgratz G (1990) Personlichkeitsentwicklung und Fremdsprachenerwerb. Transnationale Kommunikationsfthigkeit im Franzosischunterricht (Personality development and foreign language acquisition: transnational communication skills in French lessons). Schoningh

Berger P, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Books Ltd

Berger P, Luckmann T (1991) The social construction of reality. Penguin Books.

Bevir M (1996) The individual and society. Political Stud 44(1):102–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00759.x

Bokova I (2013) The power of culture for development. http://en.unesco.org/post2015/sites/post2015/files/The%20Power%20of%20e%20fCulturor%20Development.pdf

Bokova I (2010) 2010 International year for the rapprochement of culture: message from Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO https://www.un.org/en/events/iyrc2010/message.shtml

Burr V (2006) An introduction to social constructionism. Routledge, Taylor & Francis e-Library

Cartwright CT (2020) Understanding global leadership in eastern and central Europe: the impacts of culture and intercultural competence. In: Warter I, Warter L (eds.) Understanding national culture and ethics in organisations. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 63–74

Causadias JM (2020) What is culture? Systems of people, places, and practices. Appl Dev Sci24(4):310–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1789360

Comaroff J, Comaroff J (2009) Ethnicity , inc. University of Chicago Press

De Beukelaer C, Freita R (2015) Culture and sustainable development: beyond the diversity of cultural expressions. In: De Beukelaer C, Pyykkönen MI, Singh JP (eds.) Globalization, culture, and development: the UNESCO convention on cultural diversity. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 203–221

Dessein J, Soini K, Fairclough G, Horlings L (2015) Culture in, for and as sustainable development. Conclusions of COST ACTION IS1007 investigating cultural sustainability. European Cooperation in Science and Technology, University of Jyvaskyla https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3380.7844

Edwards D (1997) Discourse and cognition. Sage

Field L (2008) Abalone tales: Collaborative explorations of sovereignty and identity in native California. Duke University Press Books

Foucault M (1971). The order of discourse. In: Young R (ed.) Untying the text: a post-structuralist reader. Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited

Gale J (2010) Discursive analysis: a research approach for studying the moment-to-moment construction of meaning in systemic practice. Hum Syst21(2):7–37

García-Carbonell A, Rising B (2006) Culture and communication. College of Management Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, pp. 23–40

Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall

Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books

Georgiou M (2011) Intercultural competence in foreign language teaching and learning: action inquiry in a Cypriot tertiary institution. Doctoral Thesis, University of Nottingham

Guiso L, Paola S, Luigi Z (2006) Does culture affect economic outcomes?. J Econ Perspect20(2):23–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20.2.23

Gumperz JJ (2001) Interactional sociolinguistics: a personal perspective. In: Schiffrin D, Tannen D, Hamilton HE (eds.) The handbook of discourse analysis. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., pp. 215–228

Hall E (1976) Beyond culture. Doubleday

Hall E (1983) The dance of life: the other dimension of time. Doubleday

Harre R, Gillet G (1994) The discursive mind. Sage

Heckler S (2014) On the importance of culture in sustainable development. In Sillitoe P (ed.) Sustainable development: an appraisal from the Gulf region. Berghahn Books, pp. 436–459

Hirsch ED (1987) Cultural literacy: what every American needs to know. Houghton Mifflin

Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Sage

Hofstede G (1998) Masculinity and femininity: the taboo dimension of national cultures. Sage

Hofstede G (2005) Cross-cultural communication. http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Cross-cultural_communication

Hofstede G, Bond MH (1988) The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic growth. Organ Dyn 16(4):4–21. http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-culturaldimensions/masculinity/

Holmes P (2017) Intercultural communication in the global workplace, critical approaches. Critical intercultural communication theories, issues, and concepts. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0051

Hosagrahar J (2017) Culture: at the heart of SDGs. The UNESCO Courier, 1 (April–June). https://en.unesco.org/courier/april-june-2017/culture-heart-sdgs

Hossain FMA, Ali MK (2014) Relation between individual and society. Open J Soc Sci 2:130–137. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2014.28019

Jenkins R (2014). Social identity. Routledge

Kamalu I, Osisanwo A (2015) Discourse analysis. In: Kamalu I, Tamunobelema I (eds.) Issues in the study of language and literature: theory and practice. Kraft Books, pp. 169–195

Kangas A, Duxbury N, De Beukelaer C (2017) Introduction: cultural policies for sustainable development. Int J Cult Policy 23(2):129–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2017.1280790

Katz E (1959) Mass communications research and popular culture. Stud Public Commun 2:10–19

Keller R (2011) The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD). Hum Stud 34(1):43–65

Kobayashi Y, Noguchi Y (2001) Consumer insight, brand insight, and implicit communication: successful communication planning cases in Japan. In Roberts M, King R (eds.) The Proceedings of the 2001 special Asia-Pacific conference of the American Academy of Advertising. pp. 29–40

Kurylo A (2013) Inter/Cultural communication: representation and construction of culture. Sage Publications, Inc.

Levitt T (1983, May) The globalization of markets. Harv Bus Rev 92–102

Malec TE (2018) Introduction to theory of culture-related spatial development. Cogent Arts Humanit 1557583. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2018.1557583

Martinovski B (2018) A model of culture-based communication. In: Faucher C (ed.) Advances in culturally-aware intelligent systems and in cross-cultural psychological studies. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol 134. Springer, Cham, pp. 335–350

Merkin RS (2017) Cross-cultural communication theory and research overview. In: The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–10

Miyahara A (2004) Toward theorizing Japanese interpersonal communication competence from a non-western perspective. In: Jandt FE (Ed.) Cross-cultural communication. Sage, pp. 279–292

Monaghan L (2020) Intercultural communication: teaching nonverbal communication. In: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Monaghan L (ed.) The international encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 1–6

Ohmae K (1999) The borderless world. Harper Business.

Oyserman D, Coon H, Kemmelmeier M (2002) Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychol Bull 128:3–72

Pinker S (2002) The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature. Penguin Books

Rachlinski JJ (2021) What is cultural cognition, and why does it matter? Annu Rev Law Soc Sci17(1):277–291. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-011921-060754

Renn O, Blattel-Mink B, Kastenholz H (1997) Discursive methods in environmental decision making. Bus Strategy Environ 6:218–231

Ruane J, Todd J (2004) The roots of intense ethnic conflict may not in fact be ethnic: categories, communities and path dependence. Eur J Sociol 45(2):209–232

Ruben BD, Gigliotti RA (2016) Leadership as social influence: an expanded view of leadership communication theory and practice. J Leadersh Organ Stud 23:467–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816641876

Samovar LA, Porter RE, McDaniel ER (2012) Intercultural communication: a reader. Wadsworth Cengage Learning

Sapir E (1927) The unconscious patterning of behavior in society. In: Mandelbaum D (ed.) Selected writings of Edward Sapir. University of California Press, pp. 544–559

Sapir E (1956) Selected writings in language, culture and personality. University of California Press

Satterthwaite D (2014) Guiding the goals: empowering local actors. SAIS Rev 34(2):51–61. https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2014.0025

Scheler M (1960) Die Wissensformen und die Gesellschaft. The forms of knowledge and society. A. Francke AG

Seymour J (2007) Culture does matter. Relig Educ 102(2):105–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344080701285147

Stanton RA (2020) Intercultural communication between African American managers and Hispanic workers with ESL. Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University

Tannen D (1985) Cross-cultural communication. In: Adrianus van Dijk T (ed.) Handbook of discourse analysis , vol 4. Academic Press, pp. 203–215

Trompenaars F, Hampden-Turner C (1997) Riding the waves of culture. Nicolas Brealey

UNESCO (2017) UNESCO moving forward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development https://en.unesco.org/creativity/sites/creativity/files/247785en.pdf

UNESCO (2013) Communication & development, No. 9. Regional Office for Culture in Latin America and the Caribbean, Havana, Cuba

UNESCO (2013a). Activity report 2012 – 2013 . Regional Office for culture in Latin America and the Caribbean, Havana

UNESCO (1999) Proceedings of the seminar measuring culture and development: prospects and limits of constructing cultural indicators. In: Culture counts conference organized by the World Bank and the government of Italy in co-operation with UNESCO, Florence, Italy, 4–7 October. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001191/119138eo.pdf

UNESCO (1998) Action plan on cultural policies for development adopted in by the Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development, Stockholm, Sweden, 2 April. http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/cultural.pdf

UNESCO (1995) Our creative diversity: report of the world commission for culture and development. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001429/142919e.pdf

UNESCO (1982) Mexico city declaration on cultural policies. World conference on cultural policies. UNESCO, Mexico City, Paris, 26 July–6 August

UNESCO (2005) The convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions https://en.unesco.org/creativity/convention

United Nations (2012) Realizing the future we want for all: report to the secretary-general. www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Post_2015_UNTTreport.pdf

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development http://www.unesco.org/new/en/brasilia/culture/culture-and-development/culture-in-sustainable-development/

Vaknin S (2005) The classification of cultures. http://samvak.tripod.com/class.html .

Van Dijk TA (1995) Aims of critical discourse analysis. Jpn Discourse 1:17–27

Vassiliou V, Triandis H, Vassiliou G, McGuire H (1972) Interpersonal contact and stereotyping. In Triandis H (ed.) The analysis of subjective culture. Wiley, pp. 89–115

Waever O (2004) Discursive approaches. In: Wiener A, Diez T (eds.) European integration theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 197–215

Yeung I, Tung R (1996) Achieving business success in Confucian societies: the importance of guanxi (Connections). Organ Dyn 25(2):54–65

Young R, Collin A (2004) Introduction: constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. J Vocat Behav 64(3):373–388

Zhu H (2016) Research methods in intercultural communication: a practical guide. Routledge

Download references

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge: Dr. Emmanuel Mogaji of Greenwich University for reading and pointing out helpful corrections; Professors Innocent Chiluwa, Abiodun Gesinde, David Imhonopi and Dr Evaristus Adesina of Covenant University, who went through the manuscript, suggested corrections and encouraged me not to give upe and my daughter, Victoria-Grace Onyekachi Miracle Aririguzoh, who proofread this manuscript and brought in sunshine when the clouds were grey.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Mass Communication, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria

Stella Aririguzoh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stella Aririguzoh .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Ethical approval

There was no ethical approval or informed consent approval sought as neither applies to this paper.

Informed consent

This article does not have human participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Aririguzoh, S. Communication competencies, culture and SDGs: effective processes to cross-cultural communication. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9 , 96 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01109-4

Download citation

Received : 28 May 2021

Accepted : 14 February 2022

Published : 23 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01109-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Cultural competence in the nursing, dentistry, and medicine professional curricula: a qualitative review.

• Maura Klenner
• Rodrigo Mariño
• Carlos Zaror

BMC Medical Education (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies