Academic Globalization And Ice: Cross-Cultural Research And Transnational Education

Marta Szabo White

As the Lion said to the Man, "There are many statues of men slaying lions, but if only the lions were sculptors there might be quite a different set of statues." - Aesop Commensurate with Aesop’s message of the sculptor matters, so does the communicator, the language and surprisingly, business context. The evolution from the experientially-based Cultureactive to the theoretically-based ICE, from first-generation to second-generation, this paper underscores the marriage of cross-cultural research and transnational education. Both Cultureactive and ICE serve at the pleasure of Globalization, and more importantly, Academic Globalization and Transnational Education. The impetus for this paper derives from two pivotal questions: Does one’s professional lens create similarities more dominant than culture; and does English evoke responses significantly different from those of one’s native language. ICE emerged from Cultureactive when validity and reliability research issues became noteworthy. Known as the ABC research team, Adair, Buchan and Chen [1] & [2] capitalized upon both Hall’s low context/high context communication tool and Triandis’ model of subjective culture to result in the theoretical underpinnings for ICE. This conceptual reconfiguration is also grounded in the works of Trompenaars, Holtgraves, Hampden-Turner, Thomas and Kilman, Yamagishi, and Bearden, Money and Nevins [3], [11], [20], [22] & [24]. ICE implementation strategies include the employment of Myers Briggs typologies. The contribution of this paper is the celebration of the first year of ICE [InterCultural Edge], and its far-reaching ramifications. Previous research streams have underscored global similarities and differences among cultures, and a previous paper [23] established that cross-professional rather than cross-cultural differences are more paramount in assessing communication differences. This study employs Cultureactive and the LMR model, noting that business versus non-business context results in a more dominant impact on LMR profile than does nationality. Regardless of culture, persons involved in business are characterized primarily by linear-active modes of communication, and persons involved in non-business activities typically employ more multi-active/hybrid and less linear modes of communication. The pivotal question for academic globalization remains: Given ICE, are we in a better position to assess and predict leadership, negotiating styles, and communication behaviors, all of which are central to transnational education and cultivating global business leaders.

Full Text