Advanced Intercultural Communication (C & J 614) Spring 2005

Professor: John Oetzel

Office: 227 and 235 C & J Build.

Office Phone: 277-1941

Office Hours: W 2-4 or by appointment (most likely in room 227)

E-mail: joetzel@unm.edu

Course Objectives:

This course is an examination of intercultural communication theory. We cover theories that are representative of the normative, interpretive, and critical metatheoretical lenses. We will discuss theories in a variety of communication contexts such as health, rhetorical, interpersonal, organizational, and mass media. The theories will focus on national, ethnic, and racial cultures, but also include other cultural groupings including class/SES, sexual orientation, gender, persons with disabilities, and intergenerational groups. The course will be taught in a seminar style and discussions/assignments will emphasize theory construction, theory critique, and practical applications of intercultural theory. The content of the course assumes that you have some prior exposure to intercultural communication topics and/or communication theory (or a willingness to do some background reading on these topics).

The specific objectives of the course are:

(1) To identify the key theoretical trends in intercultural communication within each of the metatheoretical areas

(2) To discuss potential intersections between and among theories across metatheoretical perspectives

(3) To identify intercultural theories within each of the five context areas

(4) To improve the ability to critique and construct intercultural communication theory

(5) To apply intercultural communication theory to practical problems (e.g., social and interactional)

I recognize that each of you bring diverse interests, perspectives, and cultures to the class. I encourage you to discuss these perspectives with the class.

Required Texts:

Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (2005). Theorizing about intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Reading Packet available at the College of Education Copy Center

Course Polices:

1) Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. You need to do original work and properly cite sources. Be aware of plagiarism--directly copying more than 3 or 4 words from another author without quoting (not just citing) the author is plagiarism.

2) I will accept late papers for one week after deadlines with a letter grade deduction in grade.

3) I expect you to take an active role in your learning. Please come and see me if you are having problems. Also, please feel free to ask questions during class.

4) Qualified students with disabilities needing appropriate academic adjustments should contact me as soon as possible to ensure your needs are met in a timely manner. Handouts are available in alternative accessible formats upon request.

Course Assignments:

A description of each assignment is listed below. I am not planning to give more information about the assignments in writing than what is listed below. I am trying to provide some structure to each assignment, while balancing the need for independent thought and creating structure from ambiguity. Of course, you may ask questions about the assignments and we’ll spend some time during class talking about each assignment to provide some details. I am very big on teamwork and collaborative learning, so that you are welcome to collaborate on the assignments. If you choose to work in teams (to a max of three people). I strongly recommend that you do not just divide the labor, but rather do all of the reading/work individually and integrate/synthesize ideas from that point. Collaborators will receive the same grade on the assignment.

Participation/Attendance. Since this is a seminar class, participation is crucial. Attendance is required and absences will hurt your score (a fraction lower in your total grade for every absence over one). To assist in sharing the discussion, I will ask each of you to prepare a discussion for at least one class period. For this discussion, there are two requirements: a) develop discussion questions for the class based on the readings; and b) provide an exemplar research article of a theory. The discussion questions should move us beyond a direct summary of the reading (i.e., it is not your responsibility to summarize an article—assume that we have read it). You can ask questions applying the reading to a specific situation, critiquing the article, extending research on the topic, etc. You can focus on one particular article/chapter or the readings as a collection. The exemplar research article should be a study that applies the theoretical principles discussed during that class. It can come from any journal so long as it applies to the theory. Usually, we’ll have 3-4 theories/class period so your job will be to find an exemplar of one of the theories (not all three). You’ll need to provide a brief (5-10 minute) summary of the article and a copy to others in the class. The discussion questions and research article will be assigned together to help you develop discussion questions. I will expect you to lead the discussion for approximately half the class period on the day you are assigned (number of total days assigned will be based on number of students in the class).

Additionally, I expect you to complete readings prior to class and to participate in class discussions. I realize that some of you prefer to listen and some prefer to talk to learn. I will ask that you balance these perspectives—I want to make sure that we each have the opportunity to learn from each other.

Assignment #1: Foundational work. The first assignment is to carry out some background research that will help you get a handle on the field and/or help you develop/apply intercultural theory (the 2^nd assignment). There are a couple of possible options for this assignment. I like to give choices so that you can determine what will best fit your needs. If you do not think the options listed are beneficial for you, let me know and we can discuss alternatives (of course, you’ll need to provide some alternatives and they need to focus on theory in some capacity). The final paper should be approximately 15-20 pages and is due March 2.

Option 1: Schema Paper or Survey of the Field. The purpose of this assignment is to identify the key themes in recent intercultural communication research and thus become acquainted with the field. To complete the project, you will need to review (in a cursory manner—that is, skim each article [especially the abstract] do not read it thoroughly), articles published in the last 3-5 years in three journals/handbooks that publish intercultural communication research (the total number of years depends on your degree of comfort in identifying and providing evidence for your themes). Here are some of these journals/edited volumes:

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

Journal of Communication

Intercultural Communication Studies

Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies

Howard Journal of Communications

Human Communication

World Communication

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (2^nd ed.) This is a book not a journal, but has 29 chapters in four areas: cross-cultural, intercultural, international, and developmental. This whole book will count as one of the three journals.

International and Intercultural Communication Annual This is an edited book published annually by NCA’s international and intercultural communication division.

Each journal has a different take and focus and thus reviewing one will give you a different perspective than another. Make sure to focus on communication aspects—some do not focus exclusively on communication.

Your task is to create a “schema” or category system for organizing the research review. You can consider methods, theoretical approaches, topics, etc. The key is to make sense of the field in your review. I do not want you to provide a detailed review of every article, but rather identify the key themes. You also do not need to cite every article you review, but rather include articles as exemplars. The paper should have an introduction (which should include the methods you used to create the schema), an overview of your category scheme, a brief explanation of how the articles fit into the category scheme (with an exemplar or two or three to illustrate the theme), and some concluding thoughts (e.g., what are the most common topics?, where should the field go? Critical comments, etc. ). If you’d like to see examples of schema papers, I can provide some published or some student schema papers on org. comm.

Option 2: History of a theory. For this assignment, your task is to review and synthesize the history associated with a particular intercultural theory. This option will provide you the opportunity to gain background in a particular theory of intercultural communication. For this assignment, you will need to complete a thorough review of the literature in relevant journals, books, and edited books on the theory (not textbooks—completing a literature via a textbook is superficial). Then, you will need to provide a summary of each of the studies in the line of research. You will need to organize the research in some meaningful pattern (given this is a history, a chronology might make sense). I would like you to make this a critical review by making an argument about what is there, the limitations of the research/theorizing, and suggestions for overcoming the limitations (i.e., offering a research agenda). The research agenda should offer some concrete suggestions for what research/theorizing is needed next. I can point you in the direction of specific critical reviews if you are interested. The report should have an introduction, historical foundations, review of research (divided in relevant sections), and a research agenda.

Option 3: Research proposal for testing/develop a theory. This option focuses on developing a study that you will use to test or develop a theory. You can then carry out the study for the 2^nd assignment. The first part is to complete a literature review similar to option 2. However, the literature review in a proposal is very focused. Rather than critiquing the literature, you use the literature to advance research questions/hypotheses that you wish to study (i.e., questions/hypotheses that haven’t been addressed yet). These questions/hypotheses should be used to test particular theoretical propositions or designed to help you construct theory. The second part is to offer a specific methodological proposal. That is, you’ll propose a specific study designed to answer your research questions and/or test your hypotheses. You will have to design an actual study. You will need to explain the specific methods that you would use to gather data to answer your research questions/hypotheses. Essentially you’ll need to describe the type of study (ethnography, survey, experiment, etc.), the participants of study, the way you would collect data and the type of data you plan to collect (e.g., instruments in a survey), and how you would analyze the data. The topic for this assignment is open so long as it focuses on testing or developing an intercultural communication theory. The report should include an introduction, literature review, and methods proposed. Select this option if you want to pursue a specific research topic and plan on carrying out the study

Assignment #2: Final Project. This project is the capstone of the course. It is your chance to construct, test, or apply an intercultural communication theory. The final project should be approximately 20 pages (but no more than 25 text in conjunction with publication guidelines; references and tables do not count in the total). It is due May 9^th by 9am with presentations on May 11^th. Please notice that there is an “other” category for this assignment as well. Regardless of which option you choose, the final project should result in a product that will lead to a conference paper and hopefully a publication (my expectation is that the project should aim for a publication).

(1) Research project to develop or test a theory. This option is a logical next step for the option 3 in the first assignment. The final project should be carrying out the study you proposed (with revisions based on feedback). I’ll expect you to collect data (or do a secondary data analysis if you have data collected). As a reminder, this project must test theoretical propositions or be designed to develop an intercultural communication theory (e.g., grounded theory or critical theory). For this project, you’ll need to include an introduction, literature review, methods, results, and discussion (and based on the standards of writing given the type of study you conduct). There will be exemplars in the reading packet and likely through those provided by colleagues. I can provide other examples of articles that fit this option if you request.

(2) Theory construction. As you review the theories we cover, you may be thinking to yourself that the theories don’t quite cover everything you think they should. Or you may be thinking that there is a key aspect about intercultural comm. that hasn’t been adequately covered. Thus, you may want to develop your own theory about a particular aspect of intercultural communication (perhaps a theory for a particular context, population, or topic). You can choose a variety of ways to develop the theory—grounded theory approach, verification model (the traditional scientific method of identifying assumptions and propositions to be tested), personal standpoints, or critical theory. We will have exemplars of each of these theories in class and we will discuss them during class.

(3) Applying intercultural theory in practice. This option is to utilize intercultural communication theory to address an important social problem (e.g., racism/discrimination in schools, health disparities, problematic interactions in the workplace). There are a variety of ways that you could do this assignment and I can try to help place you in the field if you do not already have connections (my experience is that people love free labor and are happy to include you). The choice of field site may determine what topic you will focus on and what your assignment will be. First, you may be asked to do a community assessment of intercultural issues. This assignment essentially is a needs assessment. If you select the assessment, you’ll need to diagnose the problems and offer suggestions of how to address the problems (if there are some). The assessment should be based on theory(ies) that fit your framework and the needs of the organization. Based on the theory and what the organization wants to know, you design methods (e.g., survey and interviews) that will help you asses the communication. The literature review and methods are truncated in comparison to the proposal or an article-length study. Then, you’ll need to analyze the data to draw conclusions. Finally, you should offer recommendations for addressing problems (including specific training ideas). The report includes a literature review, methods, results, and discussion. I can let you see some sample assessments/training manuals if you wish. Second, you might develop an intercultural training module that you implement at the site. Perhaps the organization already has done a needs assessments and wants help implementing ideas. You can help to design the training and implement/evaluate it. The product for this option will consist of a training manual and also a report about the evaluation (it’ll include background literature, methods [manual included as part], results, and discussion). Third, you might complete this assignment in such a way as to conduct innovative research. In this manner, this suboption is like option #1 as a research study; the difference is that it focuses in the field and based on the field site/organization’s needs. Any one of these options is tricky in that it is a negotiation between your research interests and what is needed in the site. We can talk about these “negotiations” and I’ll share my experiences doing this (and products as well).

(4) Other. If you can think of a project not listed here that would be beneficial to you, let me know. We’ll talk about it and determine if it is a reasonable substitute. It will need to focus on theory at some level.

Grading:

Assignment Weights:

Schema Paper, History, Proposal 40%

Final Project 50%

Participation 10%

Grading Scale:

3.83-4.0+ A 3.17-3.50 B+ 1.83-2.50 C

3.51-3.82 A- 2.83-3.16 B 0.83-1.82 D

2.51-2.82 B- below 0.83 F

Note: I will provide letter grades that you can convert to the 4.0 scale.

Grading Criteria for Projects:

1) Originality—This point focuses on the degree to which you are moving beyond basic classroom discussion and prior research. For example, a research project should make an original contribution to the literature.

2) Organization—The essay should flow well. I can see the progression of ideas and understanding why they are laid out as they are (it is always best to be explicit about how you are organizing the essay). There is an introduction, body, and conclusion—for example, an intro, lit review, methods, results, and discussion for an article-length project. We can discuss standard scholarly conventions for organizations during class (and when it is OK to deviate).

3) Grammar, spelling

4) Accuracy/appropriateness of data analysis—quality analysis and conclusions.

5) Depth of critical thinking—quality of arguments (i.e., using evidence to support opinions). You should have at least 30 sources (in most cases) for a well-researched paper. The sources should mostly be original (i.e., limit use of basic textbooks).

6) Following directions--a necessary but not sufficient criterion for a good paper. I will provide instructions for the assignment. However, they are not a laundry list of what you need to do get an A. Doing excellent work is not simply about following directions; it’s about challenging yourself, thinking in original ways, and writing well.

7) Risk taking. I reward people who take chances. However, it is not chance just for chance sake. I expect the output to be of high quality. I recognize that the easiest road isn’t always the most rewarding or important. You can do research on a straightforward topic copying others’ approaches. This is fine, but sometimes you need to “push the boundaries” to get high quality research.

I will not read rough drafts of papers before they are due (I think this defeats the purpose of turning in papers for grades). I will, however, be happy to look over outlines or read small portions (e.g., a couple of paragraphs) to make sure you are on the right track. I am also available to talk through your ideas with you and be a “sounding board” or provide guidance.

Tentative Course Outline

The first part of the course will be an overview of metatheoretical approaches: normative, interpretive, and critical. We then focus on contexts of intercultural communication: interpersonal, organizational, health, rhetorical, and media. Any changes to the schedule will be announced in class and e-mail. Readings are listed by Ch # (book) or by author (packet).

Date Topic/Readings/Assignments

Jan. 19 INTRODUCTION TO COURSE. We’ll go over the requirements of the course.

METATHEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Jan. 26 INTRODUCTION TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION. We spend some time introducing the field of intercultural communication. Specifically, we’ll examine some of the history of the field and explore different definitions of culture from each of the three metatheoretical perspectives considered in the class.

Readings: Leeds-Hurwitz; Moon; Hall, Rogers

Traditional/Normative Approaches

Feb. 2 CROSS-CULTURAL THEORIES. We’ll discuss the traditional approach to examining intercultural communication. Specifically, we’ll examine cross-cultural approaches both at the cultural-level (dimensions of cultural variability) and individual-level (self-construals).

Readings: Hofstede; Gudykunst; Levine et al.

Optional: Gudykunst & Lee; Kim & Raja (responses to Levine et al.)

Feb. 9 CROSS-CULTURAL AND INTERCULTURAL THEORIES. We’ll continue the discussion of cross-cultural theories by reviewing three exemplar theories (conversational constraints, face negotiation, and expectancy violations). We’ll then introduce theories of intercultural communication from the traditional perspective.

Readings: Chs. 4, 5, 7, 1

Feb. 16 INTERCULTURAL THEORIES: IDENTITY, ADAPTATION, AND ACCULTURATION. We’ll focus on normative theories of cultural identity and acculturation. These are standard topics of intercultural comm. theory and we’ll see these topics in the other metatheoretical perspectives.

Readings: Chs. 9, 10, 16, 17

Optional Reading: Ch. 18 (for an anxiety/uncertainty approach to adaptation)

Interpretive Approaches

Feb. 23 SPEECH CODES. We’ll discuss an approach that focuses on cultural communication and making culture central to theorizing. Speech code theory and ethnography of speaking are critical to consider in this section. We’ll also examine how speech codes are used for persuasion.

Readings: Ch. 3; Carbaugh; Shuter, Fitch

March 2 IDENTITY. We’ll examine identity from the interpretive perspective to get a better understanding of this metatheoretical perspective. We’ll focus on ethnic identity and multiracial identity.

Readings: Ch. 11, 12, Root, Miller

Assignment: PAPER # 1 DUE

Critical Approaches

March 9 CRITICAL THEORIES. We’ll discuss some of the theoretical possibilities using the critical metatheoretical perspective. This discussion includes sociohistorical perspectives, coordinated management of meaning, postcolonial theory, and theories of power/space.

Readings: Ch. 2, Lee et al.; Shome; Shome & Hegde

March 16 SPRING BREAK!!!

March 23 ACCULTURATION AND IDENTITY. We come back to these popular topics, but this time from a critical orientation.

Readings: Morris; Flores; Ch. 8

March 30 INTEGRATING METATHEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES. These readings focus on the possibility of integrating various metatheoretical perspectives. Some focus on all three, while others integrate only two perspectives.

Readings: Martin & Nakayama; Halualani; Casmir, Hasian

CONTEXTS FOR INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION THEORY

April 6 INTERPERSONAL THEORIES. We’ll review various theories of intercultural communication in the interpersonal context. This area of research has been dominated by normative theoretical approaches. We’ll consider communication accommodation theory, anxiety/uncertainty management, intergenerational theory, and interability theory.

Readings: Ch. 6, 13; Fox et al.; Hajek & Giles

April 13 ORGANIZATIONAL THEORIES. We’ll discuss intercultural theories/approaches in the organizational context. Here are three specific approaches (effective intercultural work group theory, brown-nosing, and racializing org. comm.). An optional reading illustrates how co-cultural theory can be applied to organizations. These theories represent the range of metatheoretical perspectives.

Readings: Ch. 15; Hall & Valde; Ashcraft & Allen

Optional: Orbe

April 20 HEALTH THEORIES. We’ll examine various theories of health communication from intercultural perspectives includes extended parallel processing model, postcolonial theory/historical trauma, socieconomic perspectives, and cultural competence/sensitivity. While these are representative of the three metatheoretical approaches, theories in this context tend to be normative.

Readings: Witte; Robert & House; Duran et al.; Resnicow et al.

Optional: Kar & Alcalay (Ed.) (2001) Health communication: A multicultural perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Not in the packet

April 27 MEDIA THEORIES. We examine the media/culture relationship. These theories tend to be critical in nature and focus on globalization and international communication on the one hand and critiques of media representations on the other.

Readings: McDowell; Kraidy; Flores & McPhail; Parameswaran

Assignment: FINAL PROJECT DUE MONDAY MAY 9^TH 9 am

May 4 RHETORICAL THEORIES. We’ll review rhetorical approaches to intercultural communication (Afrocentricity, Africology, Latina/o identity, critical rhetoric). These theories tend to focus on the critical perspective.

Readings: Asante; Jackson; Delgado; Shuter; Gonzales; McKerrow

May 11 PROJECT PRESENTATIONS. I’ll ask each of you to prepare and present a 10 minute (approximately) summary of your final project.

January 26, 2005

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1990). Notes in the history of intercultural

communication: The Foreign Service Institute and the mandate for intercultural training. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 262-281.

Moon, D. G. (1996). Concepts of ‘culture’: Implications for intercultural

communication research. Communication Quarterly, 44, 70-84.

Hall, B. J. (1992). Theories of culture and communication.

Communication Theory, 2, 50-70.

Rogers, E. M. (1999). Georg Simmel’s concept of the stranger and

intercultural communication research. Communication Theory, 9, 58-74.

February 2, 2005

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.

Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill. (Ch. 1)

Gudykunst, W. B. (2003). Cross-cultural communication theories. In W.

B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Cross-cultural and intercultural communication (pp. 7-31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K.,

Wittenbaum, G. M., Shearman, S. M., Lee, S. Y., Chung, D., & Ohashi, R. (2003). Self-construal scales lack validity. Human Communication Research, 29, 210-252.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2003). Assessing the validity of self-construal scales: A response to Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29, 253-274.

Kim, M. S., & Raja, N. (2003). When validity testing lacks validity: Comment on Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29, 275-290.

Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Lee, T. S., & Lee, D. W. (2003a). The (in)validity of self-construal scales revisited. Human Communication Research, 29, 291-308.

February 23, 2005

Carbaugh, D. (1989). Fifty terms for talk: A cross-cultural study. In S.

Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Language, communication, and culture: Current directions (pp. 93-120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Shuter, R. (1990). The centrality of culture. The Southern

Communication Journal, 55, 237-249.

Fitch, K. L. (2003). Cultural persuadables. Communication Theory, 13,

100-123.

March 2, 2005

Root, M. P. P. (1996). The multiracial experience: Racial borders as a

significant frontier in race relations. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier (pp. xiii-xxvii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, R. L. (1992). The human ecology of multiracial identity. In M. P.

P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 24-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

March 9, 2005

Lee, W. S., Wang, J., Chung, J., & Hertel, E. (1995). A sociohistorical

approach to intercultural communication. The Howard Journal of Communications, 6, 262-291.

Shome, R. (2003). Space matters: The power and practice of space. Communication Theory, 13, 39-56.

Shome, R., & Hegde, R. S. (2002). Postcolonial approaches to communication: Charting the terrain, engaging the intersections. Communication Theory, 12, 249-270.

March 23, 2005

Morris, R. (1997). Educating savages. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83, 152-171.

Flores, L. A. (2001). Challenging the myth of assimilation: A Chicana feminist response. In M. J. Collier (Ed.), Constituting cultural difference through discourse (pp. 26-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

March 30, 2005

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1999). Thinking dialectically about culture and communication. Communication Theory, 9, 1-25.

Halualani, R. T. (2000). Rethinking ‘ethnicity’ as structural-cultural project(s): Notes on the interface between cultural studies and intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 579-602.

Casmir, F. L. (1993). Third-culture building: A paradigm shift for international and intercultural communication. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16 (pp. 407-428). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hasian, M. (2001). When rhetorical theory and practice encounter postcolonialism: Rethinking the meaning of Farrakhan and the million man march address. In M. J. Collier (Ed.), Constituting cultural difference through discourse (pp. 77-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

April 6, 2005

Fox, S. A., Giles, H., Orbe, M. P., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2000). Interability communication: Theoretical perspectives. In D. Braithwaite & T. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application (pp. 193-222). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hajek, C., & Giles, H. (2002). The old man out: An intergroup analysis of intergenerational communication among gay men. Journal of Communication, 52, 698-714.

April 13, 2005

Hall, B. J., & Valde, K. (1995). Brown-nosing as a cultural category in American organizational life. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 391-419.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Allen, B. J. (2003). The racial foundation of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 13, 5-38.

Orbe, M. P. (1998). An outsider within perspective to organizational communication: Explicating the communicative practices of co-cultural group members. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 230-279.

April 20, 2005

Witte, K. (1995). Intercultural and cross-cultural health communication: Understanding people and motivating healthy behaviors. In R. Wiseman (Ed.) Intercultural communication theory (pp. 216-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Robert, S. A., & House, J. S. (2000). Socioeconomic inequalities in health: Integrating individual-, community-, and societal-level theory and research. In. G. L. Albrecht, R. Fitzpatrick, & S. C. Scrimshaw (Eds.), The handbook of social studies in health and medicine (pp. 115-135). London: Sage.

Duran, B., Duran, E., & Brave Heart, M. Y. (1998). American Indian and/or Alaska Natives and the trauma of history. In R. Thornton (Ed.) Studying Native America: Problems and prospects (pp. 60-76). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Resnicow, K., Braithwaite, R. L., Dilorio, C., & Glanz, K. (2002). Applying theory to culturally diverse and unique populations. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & F. M. Lewis (Eds.). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (3^rd ed., pp. 485-509). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

April 27, 2005

McDowell, S. D. (2001). Theory and research in international communication: A historical and institutional account. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2^nd ed.; pp. 295-308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kraidy, M. M. (2002). Hybridity in cultural globalization. Communication Theory, 12, 316-339.

Flores, L. A., & McPhail, M. L. (1997). From Black and White to Living Color: A dialogical exposition into the social (re)construction of race, gender, and crime. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14, 106-122.

Parameswaran, R. (2002). Local culture in global media: Excavating colonial and material discourses in National Geographic. Communication Theory, 12, 387-315.

May 4, 2005

Asante, M. K. (1998). The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. (Ch. 1)

Jackson, R. L. (2000). Africalogical theory building: Positioning the discourse. In A. Gonzalez & D. V. Tanno (Eds.), Rhetoric in intercultural contexts (pp. 31-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Delgado, F. P. (1998). When the silenced speak: The textualization and complications of Latina/o identity. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 420-438.

Shuter, R. (2000). The cultures of rhetoric. In A. Gonzalez & D. V. Tanno (Eds.), Rhetoric in intercultural contexts (pp. 11-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gonzalez, A. (1990). Mexican ‘otherness’ in the rhetoric of Mexican Americans. The Southern Communication Journal, 55, 276-291.