Premium
Which “culture”? A critical analysis of intercultural communication in engineering education
Author(s) -
Handford Michael,
Van Maele Jan,
Matous Petr,
Maemura Yu
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of engineering education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.896
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 2168-9830
pISSN - 1069-4730
DOI - 10.1002/jee.20254
Subject(s) - operationalization , intercultural communication , essentialism , engineering education , multidisciplinary approach , sociology , epistemology , engineering ethics , competence (human resources) , intercultural competence , communicative competence , pedagogy , psychology , engineering , social science , social psychology , mechanical engineering , philosophy , anthropology
Background It is increasingly acknowledged that technical expertise is not sufficient for engineers today, given the complex intercultural global contexts in which they are required to work. This article, therefore, examines how the concept of culture is typically operationalized in engineering education and discusses possible reasons for this approach. Purpose/Hypothesis The specific research question explored here is “How is culture conceptualized in engineering education?” Design/Method To examine this previously unasked question, a mixed‐methods methodology was developed, one that uses both quantitative and qualitative tools. More specifically, a corpus‐assisted discourse analysis of relevant engineering education articles published in leading academic journals between 2000 and 2015 was combined with a close reading of each and a critical discussion of two representative articles. Results Our findings reveal that, first, intercultural communication has not received the attention it deserves, given the multidisciplinary, diverse, global nature of the engineering profession. Furthermore, when intercultural concerns are discussed, the predominant approach is essentialist, meaning that culture is regarded as given (rather than constructed), framed in terms of differences between nations and potentially offering a causal explanation for individual behavior. This approach has been criticized for reinforcing stereotypical thinking and offering simplistic answers to complex problems. Conclusions We conclude by exploring reasons for the relatively wide‐spread acceptance of the “culture‐as‐given” approach in engineering education, then by urging educators to adopt a “small culture” approach for constructing culture in engineering, and finally by suggesting alternative ways for developing intercultural communicative competence.