• Introduction
• The nature of cross-cultural collisions
• Guiding principles for negotiating collisions
• General strategies for negotiating cross-cultural collisions

Introduction

The Counseling Psychology Program at Michigan State University is composed of faculty and students who are diverse with respect to age, gender, culture, race, ethnicity, and lifestyle orientations. The faculty is committed to cultivating and maintaining a collegial learning community that values its diversity and that promotes healthy and constructive exchanges between and among its members. Indeed, we believe that these dialogues and interactions can promote enhanced self- and other-awarenesses as well as greater cross-cultural sensitivity and competence. Such outcomes are also fundamentally congruent with the larger goal of training counseling psychologists to adopt the highest standards of ethical conduct in their work and professional relationships.

We are aware, however, that direct and frank discussions about "differences" are often accompanied by concerns about political correctness and fears regarding self-disclosure, stereotyping, and recrimination. We are also aware that such discussions within our community can elicit strong emotions and may evoke responses that impede, rather than facilitate enhanced self- and other-awareness and cooperative problem-solving. Under these circumstances, serious interpersonal problems may ensue and contribute to unprofessional, and even unethical conduct. In addition, we recognize that, as our program struggles with the challenges of building and maintaining a cooperative yet diverse learning community, we are all vulnerable to experiencing insensitivity from others and to being experienced as insensitive by others. In short, we are all likely to make missteps and mistakes ...

In our view, however, the benefits of building a cohesive yet diverse learning community outweigh these risks to personal and interpersonal comfort. We should aspire to build, not a "perfect" community, but one that is "good enough" to support the expression and consideration of multiple perspectives and value systems. To do this, we should encourage forms of dialogue and problem-solving regarding diverse perspectives that promote critical thinking, learning, and development, and we should discourage those forms that may obstruct these goals and outcomes. Toward this end, the remainder of document will (a) discuss the nature of "cross-cultural collisions", (b) identify several guiding principles for appropriately engaging in these conversations, and (c) recommend some general strategies for preventing and remediating unhealthy/unproductive exchanges and encounters around issues of diversity.

Top

"Cross-cultural collision" is a phrase used by Steward et al. (1995) to describe the unavoidable outcome of increasing diversity within groups. The term "culture" is here used in its broadest sense, and it refers to any and all deeply-held attitudes and convictions that participants bring to their encounter. The term "collision" depicts the coming together and moving apart of individuals due to group members' behavioral and/or verbal responses which (1) result in a negative affective reaction or response in at least one other group member, (2) are interpreted by one or the other participant (or another group observer) as being disrespectful or insensitive, and (3) negatively influence group dynamics beyond the members directly involved in the collision. Unresolved, the probability that in- and out-group factions will develop following a collision increases. Alliances among faculty and trainees may also form that impede consideration of varying perspectives. The degree to which new information is considered meaningful becomes based solely on perceived alliance. Cognitive and affective insulation, in addition to behavioral alienation and isolation, may be used to reduce the resulting interpersonal tension. As a consequence, the extent to which training experiences influence professional development becomes limited.

However, a commitment to identify, attend to, and move toward resolution of a cross-cultural collision will increase opportunities for introspection, learning about and understanding self in relation to others, educating others about oneself as an individual and about one's cultural group, and learning about others and their cultural groups. Via this commitment, the development and maintenance of effective working alliances among faculty and students, based on accurate appraisal and incorporation of individual and group differences, is more likely to ensue. Competence in future professional activities with colleagues, trainees, and service delivery recipients having varying perspectives should also be enhanced, and the extent to which training experiences advance trainees' professional development becomes limitless.

Top

We believe several interrelated priniciples should guide the negotiation of conflicts and tensions that emanate from discussion of our diverse perspectives and value systems. These principles are: personal responsibility, openness and authenticity, multiple perspectivism, respect and tolerance, and cooperative inquiry and problem-solving.

1. Personal responsibility. Participants in a "collision" must accept personal responsibility for their individual contributions, reactions (internal and external), and avoidances. We must fundamentally come to understand how we, as people, react (at least initially) to ideas, positions, arguments, and proposals that challenge our preferred values and perspectives.

Accepting personal responsibility also entails accepting the reality that we are not always perceived by others as we want to be or expect we should be. When situations arise where we believe we are not being understood or accurately perceived, we have a personal stake in attending to these interactions and in moving toward a dialogue that creates and maintains effective working relationships. In short, evidence that we may be inaccurately perceived should not be routinely dismissed as the "other's" problem nor assumed to be a general flaw of one's self.

2. Openness and authenticity. Successful dialogue about diversity-related conflicts and tensions hinges heavily on the capacities of participants to be open and authentic with one another. To be valuable in these conversations, self-disclosure must be genuine and accurately characterize our perceptions, reactions, and tentative understandings. Yet to be "open" involves more than simply communicating our own views -- it also embraces a receptivity to hearing and comprehending the views and reactions of others. In communicating our own views, we must also invite and entertain the views of the other. Authenticity is better viewed as a relationship achievement than as an individual attribute.

3. Multiple perspectivism. Learning and professional development within a diverse community of learners is facilitated, not by the hegemony of a single perspective, but by reflective dialogue on multiple perspectives concerning a common issue, problem, or professional concern. The careful consideration and integration of diverse viewpoints frequently enriches the understandings of all participants. Therefore, each of the participants in the midst of a "collision" should consider whether he or she is privately avoiding or discounting the consideration of an alternative perspective.

4. Respect and tolerance. Effective adherence to the principle of multiple perspectivism simultaneously requires participants as well as the larger community in which they are embedded to co-create a climate or "tone" for diversity-related discussions that demonstrates respect and tolerance for the expression of divergent views and values. People are more than the attitudes and values they embrace, and the dignity of individual persons should be respected when their ideas and arguments are being presented and debated.

5. Collaborative inquiry and problem-solving. Although participants in a "collision" are expected to accept personal responsibility for their contributions and reactions (see principle 1), they should also be committed to pursuit of a collaborative process of inquiry and problem identification. This shared responsibility also extends to other persons who have been affected by the collision -- other members of the cohort, work/support group, or seminar class. How well (or poorly) the larger social network operates to assist, advise, and support the persons most directly involved in a cross-cultural collision will significantly affect the course of problem-solving and conflict negotiation. Others not directly involved in the collision must also accept responsibility for their conduct vis-a-vis the "colliding" participants and should refrain from taking actions that delay, impede, or otherwise obstruct effective problem identification, communication, and negotiation.

In this concluding section, we will briefly propose several general strategies for resolving cross-cultural collisions that are congruent with the principles discussed above. While we expect community members (e.g., faculty-faculty, faculty-student, or student-student) experiencing a collision to seek resolution through respectful discourse between the two parties involved, the following provides a strategy for introspection and informal resolution of cross-cultural collisions.

The first step toward effectively negotiating a collision is to clearly identify and introspect about the affective response(s) that has been associated with the collision. Might there be other unrelated reasons, past and/or present, for this response? These questions assist in distinguishing between a moment of heightened sensitivity due to other issues and a "true" cross-cultural collision.

The second step toward effectively negotiating a collision is to clearly identify and think about the other parties' behaviors that served as a trigger for this affective response. To what degree is your response related specifically to what was said or done, what was not said or done, the manner in delivery of what was said or done, and/or your inability to respond in a manner that relayed your reaction? Being able to clearly describe the behavior experienced as a personal violation is very important in that it moves toward increased understanding of past experiences and points of intervention. These descriptions also assist in developing requests for accommodation once a negotiation process has started.

The third step toward effectively negotiating a collision is the identification of and review of prior contacts with the other party or parties involved in contributing to your affective response. What has been your reaction to this person or persons prior to the collision? Would your reaction have been the same regardless of the person? We must recognize that our preconceptions alone can evoke affective reactions and responses that quickly expand beyond the individual to attributions concerning that person's group membership. Taking time to privately reflect on our preconceptions is a valuable form of introspection that should occur before taking further action.

Only after engaging in the above steps should an attempt be made to approach the other party to discuss the collision. The purpose of this meeting is to share perspectives of what happened, the outcome, and negotiate alternatives to those behaviors that contributed to the collision.

Outcomes of these attempts at negotiation are not always satisfactory or positive, and there are many ways other than those indicated above that can result in a successful outcome. However, undesirable outcomes are more easily defined. In our view, an effectively negotiated collision is one that results in: increased understanding of self in relation to others; enhanced interpersonal relationships and group cohesiveness; the acceptance of the reality of multiple perspectives; and a personal commitment to engage in both self-respecting and other-respecting behaviors. The following is a list of "cues" that

collision-related interactions are on an undesirable course and may require faculty involvement and mediation.

a. Involved party or parties immediately seeking validation of their perspective or experience from ongoing social support network members.

b. Involved party or parties attending to and accepting others' unsolicited interpretations before directly discussing collision with other member or members involved in the cross-cultural collision.

c. Party or parties involved observe that group dynamics, in and/or outside of formal and informal settings have been negatively influenced.

d. Long-standing negative attributions are maintained about the involved parties that extend beyond the parameters of the collision.

e. Party or parties actively engage in behaviors that are punitive or detrimental to the other's professional development based on the experience within the cross-cultural collision.

If one or more of the above outcomes occur, program-level faculty consultation and mediation may be necessary to minimize the risk of further undesirable outcomes. Any activity or activities that follow the collision and that result in the above should be considered ineffective and inappropriate.

These cues are provided to increase awareness of personal responsibility in maintaining negative outcomes of collisions and to know when program faculty involvement is needed.

It is important that faculty and students understand that they are supported in activities that move toward reconciliation and other positive outcomes. The following provides a formal process for engaging program faculty review of a collision whose adverse effects have not been successfully negotiated.

1. Party or parties involved request in writing permission to be on the agenda of a faculty meeting. Requests will provide a brief description of the collision, what has been attempted, and the outcome of these attempts. This request will be attached to the agenda for perusal of faculty prior to the next meeting.

2. Faculty will meet to address the request and a meeting with the parties involved will be scheduled for clarification and mediation.

3. Follow-up of outcome of faculty involvement will occur. Additional assistance and intervention will be provided if needed.

Working together toward the development and maintenance of effective working alliances can be considered normal. This process of attending to cross-cultural collisions recognizes the leadership role of faculty in providing a guide to facilitating a natural consequence of diversity: increased self- and other-awareness. This process also provides the opportunity for faculty and students to continually re-think and re-define the definitions of acceptable and unacceptable professional behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes. Our program recognizes the importance of these opportunities for the profession, training, service delivery, and continued professional development.

top | back to updates