Critical Considerations for Intercultural Sensitivity Development: Transnational Perspectives

• In Event: Diversity-Sensitive Practice and Intercultural Sensitivity Development in Daycare and All-Day Primary Schools: Critical Insights from Transnational Research

Proposal

Objectives: Intercultural sensitivity is widely recognized as a critical skill in today’s diverse and pluralistic society. Among the various tools developed to measure this construct, the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is one of the most widely used across educational institutions, corporations, government agencies, and non-profit organizations in over 60 countries (Hammer, 2011). While the IDI has made substantial contributions to the field of intercultural studies, scholars have questioned its universal applicability across diverse cultural contexts and populations given its Western-centered, individualistic notions of culture and English-language paradigms (Acheson & Schneider-Bean, 2019; Greenholtz, 2005; Punti & Dingel, 2021). In particular, its relevance to transnational individuals and communities, which we define as those whose lives, relationships, and engagements span multiple nations, remains underexplored. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine the potential limitations of the IDI in its application to transnational individuals by analyzing the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), which underpins the inventory, through the lenses of transnationalism, intersectionality, and relational ontology. This inquiry is especially significant given the IDI’s frequent use as a diagnostic tool in intercultural education, training, and professional development (Acheson & Schneider-Bean, 2019; Dejaeghere & Cao, 2009). It is therefore essential that the instrument meaningfully reflects the experiences of diverse populations, including those with transnational backgrounds, and that more pluralistic conceptualizations of culture be promoted to better support their well-being and sense of belonging. This paper is guided by the following research question: In what ways might the DMIS not resonate with the experiences and identities of transnational individuals?

Theoretical Framework: In reconsidering the DMIS’s underlying assumptions about culture, we drawn on the conceptual frameworks of transnationalism, relational ontology, and intersectionality. Each offers valuable insights into the complex interconnections between culture, identity, and transnational lives. Transnationalism illuminates the dynamic and multifaceted cultural repertoires and identities that emerge from sustained connections to multiple cultural contexts (Schiller et al., 1992). It emphasizes how transnational individuals navigate and synthesize cultural influences in ways that transcend rigid, monocultural boundaries. Relational ontology deepens our understanding of how cultural perspectives and identities are co-constructed through relationships and interactions within and across cultural contexts (You, 2023). Intersectionality provides a critical lens for examining how intersecting dimensions of identity, such as race, gender, and nationality, shape the lived experiences of transnational individuals (Crenshaw, 1991). Together, these frameworks advance a more dynamic, relational, and inclusive approach to conceptualizing intercultural sensitivity.

Methods and Data Analysis: This conceptual paper employs a qualitative, theoretical approach to examine the applicability of the IDI for transnational individuals and communities. Drawing on existing literature from the three theoretical frameworks, we critically assessed the assumptions underpinning the DMIS that informs the IDI. Specifically, we applied the conceptual frameworks to revisit each stage within two broad categories of DMIS: the Ethnocentric/Monocultural stages (Defense, Denial) and the Ethnorelative/Multicultural stages (Acceptance, Adaptation). We used thematic analysis, a method for identifying and interpreting patterns within qualitative data (Clarke & Braun, 2016), to analyze the selected literature and identify key themes related to each framework’s application to the IDI. Specifically, we focused on transnationalism’s challenge to the DMIS’s static assumptions of culture, intersectionality’s exploration of power and privilege in intercultural experiences, and relational ontology’s critique of the DMIS’s individualistic nature. As a conceptual paper, this study does not include empirical data but instead integrates theoretical perspectives from existing literature, acknowledging the need for further empirical research to test these ideas.

Preliminary Results: Applying the aforementioned conceptual frameworks to the stages of the DMIS highlights its limitations in being universally applicable to transnational individuals. For illustration, we focus on the Denial stage, the first stage in the DMIS. At this stage, individuals are assumed to be indifferent to cultural differences, fail to recognize them in interactions, or react with hostility, viewing their own culture as the only valid one. Sample IDI Denial items include: (1) “Society would be better off if culturally different groups kept to themselves,” and (2) “I do not like to socialize very much with people from different cultures” (Paige et al., 2003). From our critical perspective, tThe Denial stage reflects a binary and static view of cultural identity, assuming individuals belong to distinct and bounded cultural groups. This perspective overlooks the fluid, hybrid identities of transnational individuals, who often navigate and integrate multiple cultural affiliations simultaneously. From a transnationalism perspective, culture is dynamic and fluid, constructed through the interconnectedness of individuals, communities, and institutions across borders rather than confined to a single geographic or national boundary. From a relational ontology perspective, the IDI items presume interactions occur from a position of separation or opposition, disregarding the co-constructed nature of relationships and assuming avoidance or isolation, which conflicts with relationally embedded realities. Finally, from an intersectionality perspective, these items ignore overlapping social identities (e.g., race, gender, nationality) and systemic inequalities that shape transnational individuals’ intercultural experiences. Consequently, the Denial stage treats cultural differences as the primary or sole axis of differentiation, overlooking how intersecting identities influence socialization, interaction, and belonging.

Discussion and Connection to the 2026 CIES Theme: This study examines how the IDI can be more effectively tailored to reflect the complex lived experiences of transnational individuals and communities. Our contribution lies in critically analyzing the IDI’s underlying framework and assumptions about culture and identity through three distinct yet interconnected perspectives. Integrating these perspectives reveals that the IDI’s conceptualization of culture as a singular, bounded system often fails to capture the plural, dynamic, and fluid ways in which transnational individuals engage with culture. This work aligns closely with the 2025 CIES theme, Re-examining Education and Peace in a Divided World, which seeks to address urgent global and local challenges that cut across regions marked by division and conflict. Cultivating intercultural sensitivity that acknowledges power dynamics and transnational realities is essential for advancing peace and equity in today’s deeply interconnected world (968 words).

Authors

• Sarang Kim, University of Oklahoma

• Asuka Ichikawa, Boston College