The cultural group in intercultural understanding: implications for teaching from a social identity theory perspective

Abstract

Learning about one’s own cultures as well as other cultures is a central aspect of the cognitive dimension of intercultural understanding, focusing the individual on cultural group affiliations, belonging and questions of ‘who one is’. Using a social identity lens, with a particular focus on self-categorisation theory to explore how individuals view themselves in relation to the groups to which they belong, this article presents the implications of applying self-categorisation theory to aspects of the field of intercultural understanding. From within the self-categorisation framework, the article also reports on findings from a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews which investigated the beliefs of experienced secondary teachers working in international schools regarding the relationship between the development of intercultural understanding and identity. Teachers indicated increased awareness of primarily national group affiliation, limited engagement with the concept of multiple cultural identities, a process of distancing and creating new group affiliations, as well as some psychological discomfort and conflict avoidance.

Keywords

Intercultural understanding intercultural learning global citizenship teaching group identity self-categorisation teacher beliefs

Introduction

The cultural group lies at the base of any conceptual framework for learning that leads to intercultural understanding. Whether intercultural understanding is taken as a stand-alone concept (Hill, 2006), or as an embedded aspect of concepts such as international-mindedness (IBO, 2017) or global citizenship (Oxfam, 2015; UNESCO, 2015), knowledge of one’s own culture(s) is presented as a fundamental cognitive step on the way to open-mindedness and respect for difference. This article explores potential implications of activating a group identity – the cultural group – in the context of learning for intercultural understanding in international schools by applying the lens of social identity theory to the conceptual field of intercultural understanding. Findings from interviews with experienced international school teachers which were informed by this theoretical exploration are then presented, with a discussion of those findings.

Culture as Content/ Culture as Process

Intercultural understanding must rely on some conceptualisation of culture. Berger and Luckmann (1967) provide a useful distinction in their treatise on the sociology of knowledge, positing a difference between objective and subjective culture. The former refers to institutional, political and historical practices that are maintained by a group of people interacting together, while the latter comprises an individual’s view of the world, employed, for example, while interacting with others in a specific context. In this view, subjective culture provides a context for an individual’s own understanding, interpretations and actions, comparable to the ‘pattern’ that Geertz (1973) identifies as the means by which one can make sense of the behaviour of other members of a group. The objective/subjective interplay is evident in UNESCO’s (2015: 10) definition of culture as, first, objective: ‘a set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of a society or social group’. The definition continues: ‘one culture comes into clearest focus when compared to another culture’. The focus then shifts from cultures to individuals and their cultural groups – the subjective – ‘for cultures have no existence apart from the people who construct and animate them. Thus members of cultural groups more adequately serve as the focus of attention’ (emphasis mine, UNESCO, 2015: 10).

This focus on the groups of people who are ‘constructing’ and ‘animating’ culture is echoed by DiMaggio and Markus (2010: 347), who argue that views of culture in psychology and sociology have converged, moving away from a concept of culture as an ‘entity’ towards an understanding that culture ‘entails dynamic interactions between mind and environment’, the mind determining which aspects of the environment are important, and the environment reinforcing certain mental representations. According to the conceptions of culture reflected in the UNESCO document and by DiMaggio and Markus, knowledge of one’s ‘culture’ involves less content analysis and more exploration of the way in which cognitive and social processes contribute to how ‘cultural elements are acquired, rendered salient, linked to broader patterns of meaning, and displaced’ (DiMaggio and Markus, 2010: 348).

Intercultural Understanding and the Cultural Group

Shifting our focus from the ‘culture’ in intercultural understanding to the ‘cultural group and its members’ means we are focusing on a type of social category: the group. From a social identity perspective, a social category is understood as a set of attributes, including feelings, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours that distinguish one social category from another. A category describes who one is by describing how one should act, as well as indicating what one should expect from others in that same category (Reid and Hogg, 2005: 805).

Teacher resource documents emerging from the areas of intercultural understanding and global citizenship education define cultural groups in terms of social categories. This view focuses on the processes and ways in which cultural elements are employed by individuals. For example, the definition of a culture that is used in the Australian Curriculum in relation to intercultural understanding is ‘shared beliefs, attitudes, and practices that are learnt and passed on among a population of people’ (ACARA, 2010). This conception of culture posits the existence of a group possessing a set of attitudes and behaviours that distinguish that group from another. Knowledge of a student’s own and others’ cultures aids students in their ability to move between ‘their own worlds and the worlds of others, recognising the attitudes and structures that shape their personal identities and narratives’ (ACARA, 2010).

The International Baccalaureate (IB) presents intercultural understanding as one of three conceptual elements of international mindedness, along with global engagement and multilingualism. In their analysis, in an IB-commissioned paper, of the IB's evolving definition of international mindedness across three IB programmes (Primary Years Programme, Middle Years Programme and Diploma Programme, IBO, 2020), Singh and Qi (2013: 20) state that ‘intercultural understanding centres on developing students’ critical appreciation and reflection on similarities and differences across human communities, their diversity and interconnections’. In another IB-commissioned paper, Castro et al. (2015) find that IB documents present culture as connected to individual identity and community identity, arguably reflecting the subjective and objective distinction made above. The IB provides one definition of international mindedness as ‘a multi-faceted and complex concept that captures a way of thinking, being and acting that is characterised by an openness to the world and a recognition of our deep interconnectedness to others [. . .] students reflect on their own perspective, culture and identities, and then on those of others’ (IBO, 2017: 2).

The UNESCO Global Citizenship Education documentation (2015) uses the term social group to denote a number of different types of groups within the learning objective of ‘illustrat[ing] differences and connections between different social groups’ and includes as a key theme ‘similarities and differences within and between cultures and societies’. Oxfam’s Curriculum for Global Citizenship (2015) presents the cultural group as a social category, where the group is recognised, for example, by a set of attitudes and behaviours related to beliefs and values, as well as a set of common attributes (e.g. language use). The curriculum includes ‘identity and diversity’ as a theme in the ‘knowledge and understanding’ portion of the guide for schools. Within this theme, one area of focus is ‘the importance of language, beliefs and values in cultural identities’ (Oxfam, 2015: 16). In the theme ‘value diversity’, the objectives of ‘appreciat[ing] that people can learn much from others’ diverse backgrounds and perspectives’ and ‘deepen[ing] understanding and interaction with different cultures both locally and globally’ (Oxfam, 2015: 20) are presented together as areas of focus for 14–18 year olds. These brief examples makes apparent the existing tension between the notion of culture as ‘content’ and the view that culture is a frame for interpretation of thought and behaviour in situated contexts based on the group(s) with which one is interacting.

Social Identity Theory and the Group

Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) stems from work originally carried out in the 1970s in the field of psychology to explain relations between groups (Reid and Hogg, 2005) to account for the bases for differentiation and discrimination of disadvantaged groups, as well as the nature and use of strategies open to these groups (Spears, 2011). Tajfel (1982) and Tajfel and Turner (1986) argue for a distinction between personal identity which emerges in interpersonal situations, is based primarily on personal variables and can be considered unique – and social identity, which pertains to group situations and is rooted in category-based processes. This view posits an interpersonal/intergroup continuum to identify the contextual salience of social identity. Tajfel defines social identity as an ‘individual’s knowledge that he [sic] belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this group membership’ (1972: 292).

Despite the fact that social identities have been defined in many ways, ‘the common element in these definitions is inclusion of group membership as part of one’s self concept’ (Meyer et al., 2006: 666), where group memberships provide an individual with a definition of who they are in terms of the defining characteristics of the group (Hogg et al., 1995). Identification of attributes within a category of people results in the recognition of an in-group, a group to which one belongs, as distinguished from an out-group. The basis of social identity relies on a level of uniformity of perceptions or actions amongst group members (Stets and Burke, 2000) and is made up of cognitive, evaluative and emotional aspects (Van Dick, 2001).

Social identity theory attempts to describe the processes by which social categorisation into groups takes place, and how individuals who identify as members of a given group carry out social comparison, a process called social identification (Spears, 2011). Intergroup differentiation emerges as a significant aspect of social identity theory. Tajfel and Turner (1986) identify three variables that may influence intergroup differentiation:

– the way and extent to which individuals are subjectively identified as belonging to a group;

– the extent to which a situation permits intergroup evaluative comparisons;

– the extent to which the out-group is comparable with the in-group so that distinctiveness increases through comparison.

Intergroup differentiation is considered important because it is seen to lead to favourable in-group bias, which may in turn lead to heightened self-esteem for members of the group.

Social Identity Theory and Intercultural Understanding

The activation of the concept of the cultural group within learning for intercultural understanding suggests that social identity theory is a useful framework to explore the cultural group category as a source of meaning-making. Traditionally, social identity theory was rooted in the assumption that intergroup relationships are problematic, as they are at the root of discrimination, negative collective behaviour and competition. However, the broader explanatory potential of this approach has been demonstrated in different areas within social psychology and education (see, inter alia, Johnson, 1970; Harris and Rosenthal, 1985; Badad, 2009; Wilken and Roseth, 2015). It is presented here as a potentially useful means to shed light on the ways in which individuals may create meaning in the process of learning about their own and others’ cultural groups in the context of developing intercultural understanding.

Self-categorisation

One premise of social identity theory is that a given social category, a group, offers a set of defining characteristics that help an individual to determine who they are, what Pearce (2013) describes as a type of self-examination by means of self-comparison with external entities. Self-categorisation theory (Turner et al., 1987) emerges from within the social identity approach as a way to describe an individual’s process of identification of self, others and the groups to which he/she belongs. Spears (2011: 208) argues that self-categorisation theory ‘can be seen as a more general theory of the self, of intragroup as well as intergroup processes’.

Categorisation is a cognitive process that involves comparison between oneself and others which Tajfel (1982) argues is not merely an example of information processing, but is specifically based in a social context of interpreting intergroup relations and prompting behaviours towards out-group members. It relies on an individual’s recognition of attributes in themselves and in others within a given category. Self-categorisation allows for a number of group selves, each related to a different comparative context (Turner et al., 1987).

A given social categorisation becomes psychologically salient when it aids an individual in making sense of other people’s behaviour (Stets and Burke, 2000; Hogg and Terry, 2001; Hogg, 2016), which makes it highly sensitive to social context, and easily changeable as contexts change. According to Westerman et al. (2007), individuals will use contextual cues to determine which social category provides the best guidance for behaviours and understanding. This is the concept of identity salience, which refers to how a particular identity is relevant in a given situation. Oakes (1987) refers to salience as combining both accessibility, which is the extent to which a specific social identity is ready to be activated in an individual, and fit, which is the match between the categories of the identity and the individual’s perception of a given situation.

In relation to the development of intercultural understanding, one area for consideration is the extent to which increased awareness of cultural groups, one’s own and others, may be related to, or lead to, self-categorisation – and with what potential outcomes regarding the goals of intercultural understanding development.

Increasing knowledge about one’s own culture(s) focuses on activating a particular cultural identity by increasing the significance of cultural group membership. From a social identity perspective, increasing knowledge about one’s own culture may lead to stronger self-categorisation and identification with the in-group of those of my culture(s). According to Hogg, as comparisons take place, the individual is ‘concerned to ensure that their own group is positively distinctive – clearly differentiated from and more favourably evaluated than relevant out-groups’ (Hogg, 2016: 7). From this standpoint, other cultures would be viewed as out-groups, and the process of defining cultures through difference would promote stronger feelings of in-group distinction and preference. Significantly, Brewer (1996) and, later, Hogg (2016: 6) report ‘the robust finding’ of 45 years of experiments in the field that reveals that ‘the mere fact of being categorised as a group member produces ethnocentrism and competitive intergroup behaviour’.

As Hahn Tapper (2013: 418) illustrates in his analysis of one US-based programme aimed at reducing intergroup conflict, ‘people normally relate to one another through the entry points of the social groups to which they belong, sometimes regardless of whether other individuals actually identify with these groups’. The latter suggests that an environment that increases the significance of the cultural group as a social category increases the activation of culture as the means by which individuals relate to one another, and the importance of cultural group membership in the individual’s self-appraisal of the various groups with which they identify.

This poses some challenges to the premise that exploration of other cultures will increase respect for and tolerance of those diverse cultures. As Tarc (2013) has written, intercultural understanding development is premised on the assumption that the ability to understand intercultural encounters positively increases with further engagement and educational intervention. However, research in the field of social identity and group behaviour shows that recognising differences between groups can enhance one’s in-group favouritism and potentially increase negative assessment of the out-group (Greenwald and Pettigrew, 2014). Efferson, Lalive and Fehr (2008), for example, identify people’s tendency towards in-group favouritism based on an examination of symbolic markers that delineate cultural groups.

On the other hand, guided by Allport’s contact hypothesis (1954: 281), which maintains that contact between groups should reduce intergroup bias in optimal conditions (i.e. participants of (1) equal status in an (2) authorising social environment, engaging in (3) cooperative activities that work toward a common goal and (4) recognising a common humanity), the results of a meta-analysis show that increased intergroup contact, including in school environments, is associated with lower levels of prejudice, in the field and during experimental research (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006). The contact hypothesis posits that reduction of bias can occur in certain conditions, elucidating which conditions are necessary, or optimal, to ensure a positive outcome in the activation of culture as a group identity.

In relation to understanding other cultures through knowledge about them, Pearce (2011) argues that the majority of cultures support similar general values, including justice, human rights and truth. He suggests, however, that misunderstandings (or worse) take place when the prioritisation of these values appears to differ between cultures. This suggests that knowledge about other cultures needs to include a deep appreciation of the potential value dissonance between cultures. This challenge is recognised, for example, in the IB’s developmental approach to intercultural understanding. Older students move towards a ‘more nuanced understanding and appreciation of the tensions entailed’ in understanding difference (IB, 2005). The guide to developing the Cambridge Learner Attributes, meanwhile, states that ‘students learn to appreciate alternative perspectives on global issues where ideas and interests compete and there are no easy answers’ (Cambridge Assessment International Education, 2018). Under ‘knowledge and critical understanding’, the model for ‘Competences for Democratic Culture’ proposed by the Council of Europe (2016: 52) includes ‘knowledge and understanding of the specific beliefs, values, norms, practices, discourses and products that may be used by people who have particular cultural affiliations, especially those used by people with whom one interacts and communicates and who are perceived to have different cultural affiliations from oneself’.

A question that therefore emerges from the potentially problematic activation of culture as a group-based categorisation of oneself is how to move beyond initial bias to positive opportunities for increased intercultural understanding. The learning objectives of developing an understanding of the interdependence between groups, or supporting students’ ability to move between their own worlds and the worlds of others, posits that knowledge of, and therefore positive identification with, one’s own culture(s) is not an end in itself, but a means by which other understandings can be developed. For example, learning objectives related to knowledge about one’s own culture and other individuals’ cultures to promote understanding of the interdependence between cultures are reflected in Hill’s (2007) inclusion of world issues and social issues in his description of the types of knowledge that are included in intercultural understanding development. This type of knowledge also comes to the fore in Oxfam’s (2015) learning objectives about globalisation and interdependence, and human rights, as well as in UNESCO’s (2015) focus on learning about links between local, national and global levels. In these examples, knowledge about, and a positive appraisal of the potential benefits of, interactions between groups is presented as necessary to achieving understanding and promoting certain behaviours. This clearly requires moving beyond the binary in-group/out-group categorisation.

Multiple Categorisation

From a social identity perspective, the possibility of creating positive relationships between different groups has been theorised in a number of ways. Some research results show that categorisation that includes more than the dichotomous in/out-group dimension can reduce negative judgement. Supporting or developing a subjective belief structure that allows for multiple categorisation, where people are viewed from multiple dimensions at the same time, has been found to decrease discrimination (Vanbeselaere, 1987; Crisp et al., 2001; Albarello and Rubini, 2012). The possibility of ‘multiple categorisation’ is posited as one potentially positive approach to intergroup relations, whereby ‘people acquire a more textured and less identity-threatening representation of in-group/out-group relations’ (Hogg, 2016: 8).

Recognition of multiple dimensions in the evaluation of an individual works against categorisation based on one dimension only, e.g. cultural group, ethnic group, demographic group. For example, one may be identified as sharing the attributes of a posited cultural group called ‘Spanish’, and also the groups ‘teenager’ and ‘musician’, because consideration of other attributes allows for multiple categories of affiliation. It is less clear whether multiple categorisation can account for an individual being categorised into multiple groups of the same kind. Hall and Crisp (2005) find evidence to suggest that while increasing categorical complexity does reduce bias, unrelated categorisation is needed. This would mean that categorising an individual into two different national categories, for example Japanese and Dutch, might not achieve the positive results posited by multi-dimensional categorisation.

The above consideration relates to the categorisation of others. When considering multiple categorisation for oneself, social identity theory posits that assessment of the immediate context will cue an individual into selecting the group attributes that will be situationally appropriate at any given moment (Ellemers et al., 2002). An individual who self-categorises into a number of cultural groups would recognise which settings activate a given cultural identity. Belonging to a number of culturally distinct groups may also positively affect the individual’s view of out-groups, as the individual is capable of experiencing positive in-group bias with a number of different groups, lessening the in-group/out-group dichotomy. Therefore, the concept of multiple categorisation sheds some light on potentially positive results in relation to the objectives of learning for intercultural understanding.

Re-categorisation

Another approach to increasing positive intergroup interactions is re-categorisation, which entails a shift in an individual’s subjective belief structure to include a superordinate group with which he/she can identify. This thereby allows for extension of positive appraisals to former out-group members (Gaertner et al., 1996; Dovidio, Gaertner and Kafati, 2000). Guerra et al. (2010) find that re-categorisation into a superordinate common in-group amongst younger children from different ethnic backgrounds decreases prejudice. When testing the effects of contact with out-group members and perceptions of conflict between in- and out-groups amongst Jewish and Arab Israelis, Gaunt (2009) finds reduction of prejudice when contact was higher, as well as lower perceptions of conflict, when the superordinate group of ‘a common nation’ was activated.

One superordinate group employed to reduce prejudice is the ‘human’ or ‘common humanity' categorisation, emphasising commonalities and rights that exist for all humans. The degree of success in activating the superordinate group is seen to depend in part on whether human nature is perceived as negative, and whether collective action is a desired outcome for social change for a specific group (Greenaway, Quinn and Louis, 2011; Morton and Postmes, 2011). Crisp, Turner and Hewstone (2010) found positive outcomes when adding a common in-group, but only when participants in the research project belonged to a group with lower social status in relation to other groups. Hogg (2016) criticises arguments that cooperation between groups can be achieved by integrating groups into one superordinate group, as this positive intra-group behaviour is considered difficult to maintain and because strong attachments to social category memberships intensify resistance to it.

Guidance for teachers relies on the notion of common humanity or universal values. For example, UNESCO’s Framework refers to ‘the international community’, ‘the wider world’, the existence of a ‘collective identity, shared values and implications for creating a global civic culture’ (UNESCO, 2015: 35-37). The International Baccalaureate’s mission aims ‘to create a better and more peaceful world’ for all (IB, 2005). Explicit appeal to the superordinate group therefore exists as one strategy for improving intergroup relations in the context of intercultural understanding development.

Multicultural framing

In contrast to re-categorisation, multicultural framing in self-categorisation provides a different approach to the question of how to positively shape intergroup relations. While re-categorisation relies on a re-definition of self in relation to a superordinate group, multicultural framing emphasises difference. What makes a group distinctive is viewed as a positive attribute, valued in a society that promotes diversity. Emphasising difference as positive is considered an effective strategy in improving group relations.

Guidance for teachers also refers to the value of diversity, with references, for example, to ‘complex and diverse perspectives’, the ‘challenges of living in diverse societies and cultures’ and ‘learning to appreciate and respect diversity’ (UNESCO, 2015: 35-37). The Cambridge Standards for School Evaluation ask for evidence of promoting intercultural understanding and celebrating diversity (UCLES, 2018: 49), while the International Baccalaureate hopes to develop ‘lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right’ (IBO, 2005).

The multiculturalism hypothesis states that positive affirmation of one’s own cultural identity leads to both a positive view of one’s identity and higher levels of acceptance of cultural out-groups. However, evidence exists that shows that multicultural framing is viewed differently depending on the status of one’s group in relation to other groups. The dominant position of majority groups is challenged by the multicultural frame, and identification may lessen because the validity of in-group bias is questioned by members of the majority group. On the other hand, evidence suggests that minority groups may feel stronger in-group identification as a result of valuing diversity (Verkuyten, 2005; Vorauer and Quesnel, 2017). One can posit, in agreement with Allan (2002), that the learning objective of enhancing understanding and appreciation of diversity may therefore have different consequences for different groups in the same classroom or school.

Multiple Identities

Dovidio et al. (2005: 232) state that one of the most significant developments in social psychology over the past three decades has been the ‘recognition that individuals have many different self-concepts and identities, which are rooted in personal experiences and aspirations and in the social groups to which they belong’. Social identity theory posits that an individual will belong to multiple groups, and therefore may have a ‘combination of representations of the self’ within groups that could potentially possess conflicting values or behaviours (Meyer et al., 2006). Group memberships can serve a variety of identity functions, including self-insight, collective self-esteem or social interaction opportunities (Deaux et al., 1999). Identities are also considered to be organised in a ‘hierarchy of inclusiveness’ (Stets and Burke, 2000: 231); for example, ‘my neighbourhood in Lisbon’, ‘my school’, ‘Portuguese’, ‘European’, ‘human’.

This view is reflected in Heyward (2002: 17), who argues that individuals with advanced levels of intercultural literacy can ‘consciously shift between multiple cultural identities’. The PISA Framework (OECD, 2018: 46) refers to identity as complex, warning against ‘perpetuat[ing] the “single story” identity’ in favour of multiple identities, while UNESCO (2015) refers to different levels of identity associated with cultural, linguistic, religious, gendered and age groups.

Motivation and Affective Consequences

Group membership helps an individual to determine how to think, feel and behave by providing an array of characteristics and internalised values that guide one’s definition of who one is (Turner et al., 1979). Reid and Hogg (2005) investigate the role of two factors in explaining people’s motives for identifying with groups: uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement. Uncertainty reduction involves the need to understand one’s self and the social world, while self-enhancement is considered a motive to maintain or increase a positive sense of who one is, or to decrease a negative sense of who one is. Both of these motives are related to pursuing a sense of well-being. Reid and Hogg (2005: 806) cite evidence that the more uncertain a person is, the more likely he or she is to identify with a more homogenous group and view it as more self-relevant.

Greenaway et al. (2015) consider how, according to research based on social identity theory and self-categorisation theory, belonging to a social group has an impact on well-being. They argue that the benefit of belonging to social groups stems in part from the group’s capacity to make individuals feel positively about themselves because they feel in control of their lives. This perceived control relates to motivation and self-regulation.

When applied to the process of developing intercultural understanding, uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement in motivating cultural group memberships suggests that individuals would gain on an affective level from identification with a given cultural group. In addition, the individual with the least certain sense of cultural identity would be the most likely to seek identification with a clearly defined cultural group.

This leads to a potential internal paradox, as the cultural group distinctiveness that has been presented as a fundamental aspect of defining learning through cultural groups from a social identity perspective would appear to lead individuals to identify more strongly with a cultural group to attain psychological well-being, and by doing so, value his or her group over other groups. However, intercultural understanding has also been framed as developing an awareness of multiple cultural identities, attitudes of open-mindedness and focusing on intergroup cooperation and consensus building. It appears important to understand how cultural groups are mobilised in intercultural situations and international school settings, and what, if any, impact this might have on psychological well-being, in order to ensure that focusing on culture does not lead to a decrease in appreciation for out-groups, on the one hand, or a destabilising state, on the other.

It can be argued that learning for intercultural understanding may lead to cognitive dissonance, what Festinger (1957) theorised as feeling psychologically uncomfortable because various pieces of knowledge that an individual possesses are not consistent with each other. Individuals will attempt to reduce feelings of dissonance by avoiding situations or information that could contribute to increasing the feeling. Intercultural understanding brings cultural groups to the fore and catalyses a process of self-categorisation based on identifying attributes in one’s self and in one’s cultural group(s). It is possible that in the context of the study of one’s own cultural group(s) and those of others, contradictions in values may emerge or attributes deemed problematic by one group may be called into question in relation to another group. If this process results in self-questioning, and a lessening of group identification ensues, an individual may feel increased uncertainty, or may find that knowledge statements or beliefs are inconsistent with each other.

Research Questions

Based on the above theoretical considerations, the following areas emerged for investigation and informed the research questions for a study:

(1) the degree to which development of intercultural understanding may result in increased significance of the cultural group(s) in an individual’s construal of their identity/ies.

(2) the extent to which intercultural understanding would lead to multiple self-categorisations, corresponding to multiple cultural identities, or to other positive outcomes, (e.g. re-categorisation into a superordinate group, positive multicultural framing).

(3) the degree to which changes in self-categorisation in the course of intercultural understanding development would include feelings of dissonance.

The research question (RQ1), ‘What do international school teachers believe about their personal development of intercultural understanding and its relation to their own identities?’, informed by the theoretical lens of self-categorisation theory from within a social identity approach, led to three subsidiary research questions:

(RQ1a) To what extent is the concept of multiple cultural identities a useful construct for thinking about intercultural development?

(RQ1b) To what extent does identity formation in the context of intercultural development include changes in group affiliation?

(RQ1c) To what extent does identity formation in the context of intercultural development include feelings of unease?

Methodology

Semi-structured interviews of international school teachers were chosen as a fit for purpose method to explore beliefs about intercultural understanding development and its relation to identity. Seven teachers who had worked in international schools across Europe, Asia and the Middle East were interviewed by the author, either in online or face-to-face settings. Audio recordings were transcribed, and reviewed by the participants, with confidentiality confirmed throughout all stages of the research process. The choice of teachers in international schools relies on the assumption that the teacher’s role in ensuring that students meet learning objectives is central. As Kelly (1977: 15) has explored in relation to curricular activities, teachers have a ‘make or break’ role when it comes to implementation, and must understand, and accept, the principles that underlie the goals related to what they are expected to teach. It follows that what teachers believe about a given topic impacts what teachers teach and how they teach it (Fang, 1996). This is important when exploring the relationship between learning for intercultural understanding and its relationship to, and potential impact on, identity, because the constructs that teachers employ to understand their students ‘will reflect the implicit model of identity which underlies the kind of pedagogy being used’ (Pearce, 2013: 61) by the teacher.

The qualitative interview offers depth of information and allows the researcher to explore meanings and perceptions (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006), specifically providing an opportunity for teachers to express their beliefs, to draw on memory and life experiences that may have shaped those beliefs, and to reflect on how beliefs may have changed over time and how beliefs shape interpretation of experiences and direct intentions (Nespor, 1987). Stenbacka (2001: 552) argues that understanding of a given phenomenon can be considered valid if the informants involved in the research are (1) part of the problem area and (2) provided with the opportunity to ‘speak freely according to their own knowledge structures’. For this research project, this meant strategically choosing teachers who have been involved in international school education and have developed intercultural understanding, according to the teachers themselves.

Findings

Thematic analysis of interview responses revealed that cognitive changes due to the development of intercultural understanding in the teacher participants were expressed in terms of heightened awareness of one’s own cultural affiliations, concurring with Holliday’s (2011: 126) findings that awareness of culture grows out of experiences of diversity, particularly ‘in juxtaposition with a majority Other’. Teachers’ cultural group awareness was related to increased awareness of the subjectivity of beliefs and value systems, as well as an evolving identification with the cultural groups to which they had previously, though not always consciously, been affiliated.

In terms of the perceived relationship between intercultural understanding development and the affective and behavioural dimensions of learning, teachers cited increased open-mindedness and reflexivity as significant factors. Critical reflection was seen at times to support meaning-making in the course of talking about intercultural understanding development and identity, and can be assumed to lie behind conscious changes to professional practice referred to by teachers, such as the need to diversify resources, to adapt behaviours to different students and to accept culturally generated expectations about the role of the teacher, in keeping with Pearce’s (2014: 396) observation that ‘the student needs to be helped to attain a situation in which he/she recognises the teacher positively’.

Teachers showed sensitivity to the implications of cultural diversity in their practice, citing concerns about cultural hegemony, as well as the potential for emotionally stressing incidents of cultural conflict being played out in the classroom. As cited by one teacher, ‘when you've got an internationally diverse student population, those cultural norms can sometimes cause conflict’. However, finding ‘on the job’ (Deveney, 2007: 325) solutions to conflict can be potentially ‘psychologically uncomfortable’ for the teacher, as exemplified by one participant who ‘avoided certain conversations with certain groups of students’. Festinger (1957: 3) argues that psychological discomfort will prompt individuals to avoid such situations if they cause internal dissonance.

This challenges the practicality of Allan’s (2002: 64) observation that ‘intercultural learning happens at the borders between cultures, the friction or frontier skirmishes of cultural dissonance being the medium through which the learning takes place’. From this perspective, the activation of group identities, present in recognition of cultural similarities and differences, is a fruitful experience for intercultural understanding when dissonance emerges. This tension between moving towards conflict versus moving away from conflict needs to be addressed from the teacher perspective so that we can ensure that students move through conflict towards desired, positive, learning outcomes.

Group Affiliation

Findings from the interviews indicate that national, cultural and regional groups became salient in situations where differences between cultural groups were more accentuated, such as moving to a new location, interacting with individuals from a number of different national or cultural backgrounds, on a personal or professional level. It is noteworthy that the teachers interviewed frequently referred to national identity (e.g. British, Canadian, Slovak, German, Algerian, Japanese) when responding to questions about cultural identity, concurring with the view of Jokikokko (2009) that internationally experienced teachers frequently classify identities by nationality, which Pearce (2014: 390) acknowledges is a useful typology in international schools, as it often coincides with common language groups or an identifiable cultural discourse, despite the ‘Foucauldian criticism that this amounts to coercive assignments of individuals to groups for [. . .] administrative convenience’. Additionally, categories such as European, Western, New Yorker, displaced Irishman, were referred to.

Classification by nation may be located in the problematic assumption that intercultural equals international, relying on the nation-state as a frame of reference (Gunesch, 2004), thereby limiting definitions about what ‘cultural’ may be. However, re-classification demonstrates the potential for individuals to define themselves within a variety of cultural constructs and an awareness of identity complexity, dynamism and the willingness and ability to reassess and redefine oneself on the part of these teachers.

While the interviews show that teachers believe intercultural understanding leads to changes in teaching approaches and respect for diversity, increased saliency of group identity also led to frustration in the face of stereotyping and unresolved discomfort in relation to dominant group membership. Teachers’ responses reflected an emerging awareness that others viewed them as belonging to a dominant group (e.g. participants were ‘American’, ‘white British’, ‘Western’). This developing awareness may constitute the site for movement beyond what Hoskins and Sallah (2011: 114) consider a ‘simplistic’ view of culture, which ‘hides unequal power relations [. . .] structural inequalities and the possibilities of multiple identities’ and towards the type of awareness encouraged by Burke (2017: 217) when she writes that ‘although the teacher is not expected to compensate for the colonial history that serves as the root of globalisation, an understanding and awareness of how various endeavours have shaped and continue to shape the contemporary education context is fundamentally important’. Pearce (2011: 170) also acknowledges a level of simplicity in the approach that assumes that children should be treated as ‘culturally uniform but differing merely in personality’. The risk is that the teacher’s own values will be presented as the universal norm, while ‘children with remote value-systems, or even with dissonance in a few basic or process values, will need to make uncomfortable adjustments in order to align themselves with the teacher’s aims’ (Pearce, 2011: 170).

Teachers’ responses reflected an awareness that, as objects of another’s gaze, they either represented for that other a flattened, stereotypical prototype of a group, or held a position of (unearned) power, or both. This aspect of ‘belonging’ is potentially problematic. The teachers interviewed view themselves as actively participating in an educational project of modelling and building intercultural respect. Some are also simultaneously aware that the international school setting is viewed as providing access to a privilege, constructed around the educational and professional opportunities afforded by English language fluency.

Identity: Multiple Identities or a Multi-faceted Whole?

The notion of multiple cultural identities for investigating the development of intercultural understanding is a concept with limited applicability. Not all teacher participants voiced the belief that they possessed multiple identities, with some more emphatically stating that they had one identity, with multiple facets or aspects. It is worth contrasting this evidence with the view presented by the Council of Europe (2016: 19) that every individual has multiple cultural affiliations, and that ‘all people belong simultaneously to and identify with many different groups and their associated cultures’. This view rests on a definition of cultural affiliation as fluid and dynamic, ‘fluctuating as individuals move from one situation to another, with different affiliations – or different clusters of intersecting affiliation – being highlighted depending on the particular social context encountered’ (Council of Europe, 2016: 20). While this view of affiliation aligns with a social identity perspective, and arguably leads to the most fruitful opportunities for intercultural understanding, as it defines both cultural groups broadly and individual identity as a ‘unique constellation’ of affiliations, evidence from the interviews suggests that this definition of culture and identity is not one currently activated by all the teachers interviewed.

The evidence of individual re-categorisation into different groups, or additional groups, as a result of intercultural understanding can be considered an example of social identity being ‘switched on’. However, while re-categorisation was presented in the literature as a means to extend positive intergroup appraisal by positing the existence of a superordinate group, teacher responses did not refer to a superordinate group. Rather, situations that led to distancing from the original cultural group, whether because of decreased identification of the individual with the group or because of the group’s distancing of the individual, resulted in re-categorisation into broader (European, Western), or more narrowly defined (New Yorker, displaced Irishman) groups. This corroborates Stets and Burke’s (2000) ’hierarchy of inclusiveness’ and Meyer et al.’s (2006) findings that an individual can belong to groups that have conflicting values. In these instances, evidence was not found to support Hogg’s (2016) findings that categorisation results in ethnocentrism and competitive group behaviour. This may be attributed to loose affiliation to begin with, which results in ease of re-categorising (Dovidio et al., 2005), or a changing self-definition whereby some group characteristics previously ascribed by the group to the individual, or by the individuals to themselves, no longer apply (Ellemers, 1993). Re-categorisation into multiple groups supports Linville’s (1985) proposal that a ‘complex identity’ provides greater stability to the individual, as it offers a variety of frames for the acceptance of dissonant experiences.

The findings show that despite the fact that teacher resource documentation refers to the superordinate group ‘common humanity’ with some consistency, teachers focused on their personal experience of changing group affiliation in terms of distancing and no longer belonging, which led to new group affiliations of the order ‘those like me now’, rather than ‘common humanity’. A tentative explanation for this could be located in the research into the emotional impact of belonging to groups and its relationship to well-being (Reid and Hogg, 2005), whereby questions of positive self-image and uncertainty reduction motivate group affiliation, in part because people ‘feel in control of their lives’ (Greenaway et al., 2015: 54). Belonging to the group ‘common humanity’ may not provide enough of a sense of well-being compared to a newly defined, tangible group such as the ones identified by teachers as ‘people like me’, or ‘internationally minded people’ or, as Bunnell (2010: 358) has posited, the troubling prospect of an IB-oriented group, a ‘class-for-itself’.

Distancing and Creating

Teacher responses show that intercultural understanding as it relates to identity is at times difficult and comes with ‘a cost’, accompanied by negative feelings of not belonging, exclusion or loneliness. These feelings exist when one is not at ‘home’, but are equally evident on returning to a ‘home country’, where a sense of being less affiliated, or psychological separation from relatives, exists. Evidence emerging from the interviews suggests that development of intercultural understanding includes moments of active redefinition, and at times assessment of which groups the individual continues to identify with. In relation to the question of whether developing intercultural understanding results in feelings of unease, teachers’ responses reflected some levels, which can be attributed in part to realisations related to changes in group belonging. Teachers’ awareness of the emotional impact of increased intercultural understanding is important, as Cushner (2007) highlights when reporting that teachers who had undergone a personal intercultural experience of growth felt better prepared to support students who might find themselves living through challenges similar to those the teachers had faced.

At the same time, teacher beliefs about their ability to control the way in which new cultural information can be integrated into their thinking and behaviour, as well as the place of choice in their life trajectories in terms of professional location and relationships, reflect a belief in individual agency, where individuals can ‘fashion’ their own identities (Holliday, 2004) in a conscious process. The distancing from original groups when teachers returned to familiar groups after having experienced change due to intercultural development can also be seen as an example of ‘the little ways in which we resist the pull’ of the wider social unit (Goffman, 1990: 228). Van Oord and Corn (2013: 30) use Sen’s (2006: 114) concept of ‘cultural liberty’ to describe the ability of individuals to live and ‘be what they choose’, arguing that cultural diversity is only valuable if it results from individual cultural choices.

Conclusion

Because in-group identification can increase negative appraisal of out-group members, if it occurs in the course of developing intercultural understanding, it is important to investigate how to move beyond a negative state into one of acceptance and respect. The concluding recommendations presented here are offered in an effort to more specifically identify further elements that could support the development of intercultural understanding:

(1) Engaging with issues related to intercultural understanding may lead to discomfort on a number of levels, such as stereotyping, feelings of not belonging and realising that teaching strategies are inadequate for a given context. Teachers need to feel confident in their classroom management abilities to deal with the tensions involved in moving towards conflict and through it. Otherwise, they may choose to move away from conflict, thereby avoiding precisely those situations that can potentially lead to positive student (and teacher) development.

Specific professional development, professional modelling and continued development of resources ought to contribute positively in this area (e.g. Oxfam’s Teaching Controversial Issues: a guide for teachers, 2018; the Council of International Schools 2018 launch of an online course ‘Leading Schools Interculturally’, https://www.cois.org). However, a gap between what is offered and what is actually happening ‘on the ground’ still exists. It is recommended that, in addition to school induction programmes, continued professional development for experienced teachers specifically in the area of planning, guiding and managing classroom activities be a focus. Combining the professional resources of teachers, school counsellors and school psychologists, as well as including students in the planning and review of activities, is also recommended as a means to increase teachers’ confidence and skill-base in this area.

(2) Similarly, the ‘cost’ of developing intercultural understanding, including feelings of loss, frustration or loneliness, needs to be more robustly integrated into definitions of the concept and its development in specific contexts, including acknowledging the range of possible interpretations of experiences, as lived by students and teachers representing the home culture, dominant culture or minority culture, in a given school setting. It is recommended that future review of the curricular documentation include engagement with the concepts of ‘loss’ or ‘cost’ in this area.

(3) Beginning with the question of what identity is allows for a more nuanced approach to the question of how different cultural affiliations may contribute to one’s identity at any given time. Proposing a more flexible and situated concept of cultural group belonging, presented as potentially multiple and one amongst many types of belonging, may avoid the tendency to rely on national frames of reference as a starting point in discussions about ‘who one is’. Additionally, considering what one ‘does’ with culture, rather than what cultures ‘are’, may allow for consideration of both the creative and inclusive nature of cultural affiliation, as well as discussion regarding how culture can be misused when it is seen as a source of domination.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Debra Williams-Gualandi has worked in the field of education for the past two decades, with roles ranging from teacher, to curriculum coordinator, to teacher-trainer to school director. Having recently completed a doctorate in international education, her research interests include identity development, social norms and the impact of culturally sensitive teaching practices. She is currently a lecturer in international education at NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands.

References

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) (2010-present) General Capabilities: Intercultural understanding learning continuum [Online]. Sydney: ACARA. Available from: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/intercultural-understanding/ [Accessed 28 November, 2019].

Allan

(2002) Frontier crossings: cultural dissonance, intercultural learning and the multicultural personality. Journal of Research in International Education 2(1): 83-110.

Albarello

Rubini

(2012) Reducing dehumanisation outcomes towards Blacks: the role of multiple categorisation and of human identity. European Journal of Social Psychology 42(7): 875-882.

Allport

(1954) The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Badad

(2009) The social psychology of the classroom. New York: Routledge.

Berger

Luckmann

(1967) The social construction of reality. London: Penguin Books.

Brewer

(1996) When contact is not enough. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20(3-4): 291-303.

Bunnell

(2010) The momentum behind the International Primary Curriculum in schools in England. Journal of Curriculum Studies 42(4): 471-486.

Burke

(2017) Casting a critical eye on the positioning of the Western expatriate teacher. Journal of Research in International Education 16(3): 213-224.

10.

Cambridge Assessment International Education (2018) Programmes and Qualifications. Available from: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/programmes-and-qualifications/ [Accessed 25 November, 2019]

11.

Castro

Lundgren

Woodin

(2015) International Mindedness through the looking glass: reflection on a concept. Journal of Research in International Education 14(3): 187-197.

12.

Council of Europe (2016) Competencies for democratic culture: living together as equals in culturally democratic societies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

13.

Crisp

Hewstone

Rubin

(2001) Does multiple categorization reduce intergroup bias? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27: 76–89.

14.

Crisp

Turner

Hewstone

(2010) Common ingroups and complex identities: Routes to reducing bias in multiple category contexts. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 14(1): 32-46.

15.

Cushner

(2007) The role of experience in the making of internationally-minded teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly 34(1): 27-39.

16.

Deaux

Reid

Mizrahi

Cotting

(1999) Connecting the person to the social: the functions of social identification. In: Tyler

Kramer

John

(eds) The psychology of the social self. New York: Erlbaum.

17.

Deveney

(2007) How well prepared do international teachers believe themselves to be for teaching in culturally diverse classrooms? Journal of Research in International Education 6(3): 309-332.

18.

DiCicco-Bloom

Crabtree

(2006) The qualitative research interview. Medical Education 40(4): 314-321.

19.

DiMaggio

Markus

(2010) Culture and social psychology: converging perspectives. Social Psychology Quarterly 73(4): 347-352.

20.

Dovidio

Gaertner

Kafati

(2000) Group identity and intergroup relations: the common ingroup identity model. In: Thye

S R

Lawler

Macy

Walker

(eds) Advances in group processes volume 17. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp 1-35.

21.

Dovidio

Gaertner

Pearson

Riek

(2005) Social identities and social context: social attitudes and personal well-being. In: Thye

S R

Lawler

(eds) Advances in group processes volume 22. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp 231-260.

22.

Efferson

Lalive

Fehr

(2008) The coevolution of cultural groups and in-group favouritism. Science 321 (5897): 1844-1849.

23.

Ellemers

(1993) The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. European Review of Social Psychology 4(1): 27-57.

24.

Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(2002) Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology 53(1): 161-186.

25.

Fang

(1996) A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research 38(1): 47-65.

26.

Festinger

(1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

27.

Gaertner

Dovidio

Bachman

(1996) Revisiting the contact hypothesis: the induction of a common in-group identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20 (3/4): 271-290.

28.

Gaunt

(2009) Superordinate categorization as a moderator of mutual infrahumanization. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 12(6): 731-746.

29.

Geertz

(1973) The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

30.

Goffman

(1990) The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.

31.

Greenaway

Quinn

Louis

(2011) Appealing to common humanity increases forgiveness but reduces collective action among victims of historical atrocities. European Journal of Social Psychology 41(5): 569-573.

32.

Greenaway

Haslam

Cruwys

Branscombe

Ysseldyk

Heldreth

(2015) From ‘we’ to ‘me’: group identification enhances perceived personal control with consequences for health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109(1): 53-74.

33.

Greenwald

Pettigrew

(2014) With malice toward none and charity for some: ingroup favouritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist 69(7): 669-684.

34.

Guerra

Rebelo

Monteiro

Riek

Mania

Gaertner

(2010) How should intergroup contact be structured to reduce bias among majority and minority children? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 13(4): 445-460.

35.

Gunesch

(2004) Education for cosmopolitanism. Journal of Research in International Education 3(3): 251-275.

36.

Hahn Tapper

(2013) A pedagogy of social justice education: social identity theory, intersectionality and empowerment. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 30(4): 411-446.

37.

Hall

Crisp

(2005) Considering multiple criteria for social categorization can reduce intergroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(10): 1435-1444.

38.

Harris

Rosenthal

(1985) Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 97: 363-386.

39.

Heyward

(2002) From international to intercultural. Journal of Research in International Education 1(1): 9-32.

40.

Hill

(2006) Student types, school types and their combined inﬂuence on the development of intercultural understanding. Journal of Research in International Education 5(1): 5-33.

41.

Hill

(2007) International education as developed by the International Baccalaureate Organisation. In: Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of research in international education. London: Sage, pp 25-37.

42.

Hogg

(2016) Social identity theory. In: McKeown S, Reeshma H and Ferguson N Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory. London: Springer, pp 3-18.

43.

Hogg

Terry

White

(1995) A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 58(4): 255-269.

44.

Hogg

Terry

(2001) Social identity theory and organizational processes. In: Hogg

Terry

(eds) Social identity processes in organizational contexts. Ann Arbor: Psychology Press, pp 1-12.

45.

Holliday

(2004) The value of reconstruction in revealing hidden or counter culture. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(3): 275-294.

46.

Holliday

(2011) Intercultural communication and ideology. London: Sage.

47.

Hoskins

Sallah

(2011) Developing intercultural competence in Europe: the challenges. Language and Intercultural Communication 11(2): 113-125.

48.

International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) (2017) What is an IB education? Cardiff: IBO.

49.

International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) (2020) www.ibo.org

50.

Johnson

(1970) The social psychology of education. Oxford: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

51.

Jokikokko

(2009) The role of significant others in the intercultural learning of teachers. Journal of Research in International Education 8(2): 142-163.

52.

Kelly

(1977) The curriculum: theory and practice. London: Sage.

53.

Linville

(1985) Self-complexity and affective extremity: don’t put all of your eggs in one cognitive basket. Social Cognition 3(1): 94-120.

54.

Meyer

Becker

Van Dick

(2006) Social identities and commitments at work: toward an integrative model. Journal of Organisational Behavior 27(5): 665-683.

55.

Morton

Postmes

(2011) What does it mean to be human? How salience of the human category affects responses to intergroup harm. European Journal of Social Psychology 41(7): 866-873.

56.

Nespor

(1987) The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies 19: 317-328.

57.

Oakes

(1987) The salience of social categories. In: Turner

(ed) Rediscovering the social group. New York: Basil Blackwell, pp 117-41.

58.

OECD (2018) Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: the OECD PISA global competence framework. Paris: OECD.

59.

Oxfam (2015) Education for global citizenship. Oxford: Oxfam GB.

60.

Oxfam (2018) Teaching controversial issues: a guide for teachers. Oxford: Oxfam GB.

61.

Pearce

(2011) When borders overlap: composite identities in children in international schools. Journal of Research in International Education 10(2): 154-174.

62.

Pearce

(2013) Student diversity: the core challenge to international schools. In: Pearce

(ed) International education and schools: moving beyond the first forty years. London: Bloomsbury, pp 61-84.

63.

Pearce

(2014) The search for better ways of speaking about culture, identity and values. Research in Comparative and International Education 9(4): 387-401.

64.

Pettigrew

Tropp

(2006) A Meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology 90(5): 751-783.

65.

Reid

Hogg

(2005) Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement and ingroup identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(6): 804-817.

66.

Singh

(2013) 21^st century international mindedness: an exploratory study of its conceptualisation and assessment. The Hague: International Baccalaureate Organization.

67.

Spears

(2011) Group identities: the social identity perspective. In: Schwartz

Luycks

Vignoles

(eds) Handbook of identity theory and research. London: Springer, pp 201-224.

68.

Stenbacka

(2001) Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision 39(7): 551-555.

69.

Stets

Burke

(2000) Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63(3): 224-237.

70.

Tajfel

(1972) Social categorization. English manuscript of “La categorisation sociale”. In: Moscovici

(ed) Introduction à la psychologie sociale (1). Paris: Larousse, pp 272-302.

71.

Tajfel

(ed) (1982). Introduction. Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 1-11.

72.

Tajfel

Turner

(1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin

Worschel

(eds) The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole.

73.

Tajfel

Turner

(1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

74.

Tarc

(2013) International education in global times: engaging the pedagogic. Peter Lang: New York.

75.

Turner

Brown

Tajfel

(1979) Social comparison and group interest in in-group favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology 9(2): 187-204.

76.

Turner

Hogg

Oakes

Reicher

Wetherell

(1987) Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.

77.

UNESCO (2015) Global citizenship education: topics and learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO.

78.

Vanbeselaere

(1987) The effects of dichotomous and crossed social categorisations upon intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology 17(2): 143-156.

79.

Van Dick

(2001) Identification in organizational contexts: linking theory and research from social and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews 3(4): 265-283.

80.

Van Oord

Corn

(2013) Learning how to ‘swallow the world’: engaging with human difference in culturally diverse classrooms. Journal of Research in International Education 12(1): 22-32.

81.

Verkuyten

(2005) Ethnic and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1): 121-138.

82.

Vorauer

Quesnel

(2017) Ideology and voice: salient multiculturalism enhances ethnic minority group members’ persuasiveness in intergroup interaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(8): 867-874.

83.

Westerman

Beekun

Stedham

Yamamura

(2007) Peers versus national culture: an analysis of antecedents to ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics 75(3): 239-252.