Introduction
The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is a short survey designed to measure an individual's awareness of and sensitivity to cultural differences (intercultural sensitivity). While we find the IDI inadequate for assessment of the overall goals of a liberal arts education, it can be a useful tool for evaluation of related programs, such as study abroad, that emphasize the development of intercultural sensitivity.
The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), Version 2
This assessment tool is a 50-question, paper-and-pencil inventory of statements expressing varied attitudes toward cultural difference. Drs. Milton Bennett and Mitchell Hammer developed and revised it as an empirical measure of the theoretical concepts identified in Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). The DMIS is a constructivist approach to explaining personal variations in worldview and the experience of cultural difference. [3, 4]
The IDI is a proprietary instrument; it may be administered only by individuals certified by the Intercultural Communication Institute (ICI). [a] Certification is awarded upon completion of a three-day seminar that focuses on the theory and practice of measuring personal constructions of cultural worldview. IDI assessment instruments may be ordered directly from the ICI at a cost of $5.00 each if they are to be processed by ICI, with additional fees charged according to the type and number of profiles requested. Certified administrators who prefer to process the IDI assessment instruments themselves may purchase a CD-ROM ($200.00), which permits generation and printing in various-profile formats. IDI assessment instruments including CD-Rom licensing are available from ICI for $10.00 each.
The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)
The DMIS is a theoretical model designed to explain developmental progression of worldview and experience of cultural difference along a continuum of perspectives ranging from ethnocentric to ethnorelative. [b] Psychometric analysis of the IDI [8], as well as external research by Dr. R. Michael Paige (Professor of International and Intercultural Education, University of Minnesota) suggests that the IDI is a "reliable measure that has little or no social desirability bias and reasonably, although not exactly, approximates the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity." [9, p. 467] Accepting Paige’s judgment that the tool measures what it purports to, the Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts considered the question of its usefulness in assessing the outcomes of a liberal arts education. Our view was that its usefulness could be determined by (1) the extent to which the theory of intercultural sensitivity development (DMIS) is sound and complete in itself, and (2) the degree to which the theoretical development of intercultural sensitivity is consistent with the goals of a liberal arts education.
Comparing DMIS Theory with the Center of Inquiry’s Theory of Liberal Arts Education
Our initial point of comparison rests on our working definition of liberal arts education. We hypothesize that a liberal arts education depends upon three necessary factors [5, statement of first factor modified]:
Of these three conditions, the first lends itself most directly to a comparison between liberal arts education outcomes and the outcome of increased intercultural sensitivity. Among the intellectual arts posited by the Center of Inquiry are [5, emphasis added]:
At first glance, the DMIS (and hence the IDI) seems to be a good tool for this purpose. The DMIS presents a theoretical framework for a complex developmental sequence which involves a progressive cycling of perspective and experience in the construction of one’s worldview. In brief, the DMIS posits a continuum of worldviews ranging from ethnocentrism, characterized by denial of or defense against cultural difference, to ethnorelativism, an ability to accept the existence of, and adapt to, cultural differences. Transitional phases include reversal, in which an individual polarizes cultural differences while idealizing the culture of the other, and minimization, which is a tendency to consider one’s own cultural worldview as universal. [c]
The DMIS theory parallels other accepted developmental paradigms such as Perry’s Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development [10], Basseches’s Model of Dialectical Reasoning [1, 2], King’s Seven Stages of Reflective Judgment [7], and Brown’s Model of Wisdom Development [6], in that experience coupled with cognitive development leads to more sophisticated approaches to construing and interpreting experience. Individual development, according to several of these theories, can be assessed by a variety of quantitative and qualitative assessment measures. [d]
Interestingly, even though the IDI is the tool that Bennett and Hammer developed to assess development according to the DMIS theory, their own position is that a full assessment entails both the administration of the survey and an open-ended interview. Once processed, the IDI assessment instrument provides a diagnostic score for the participant’s perceived and overall intercultural sensitivity, while information obtained through the interview illustrates specific worldview perspectives and orientations.
Reservations about DMIS/IDI and the Aims of Liberal Arts Education
Our reservations about the DMIS theory and the IDI instrument center on the transitional phase of "minimization," in which one’s own cultural view is treated as universal. The DMIS does not recognize different kinds of universalization, and the IDI is hence unable to distinguish between them. We consider one kind of universalization not recognized by the IDI to be essential for achieving the goals of a liberal arts education.
Our view is that two distinct kinds of universalization can be recognized in the development of intercultural sensitivity: "minimizing" and "synthetic" universalization. "Minimizing" universalism, as characterized by the DMIS, collapses the other into the self, leading to the experience of one’s own perspective as universal. "Synthetic" universalism, on the other hand, is integrative. It leaves one able to recognize the significance, richness, and uniqueness of other cultures (to see through others’ eyes without imposing one’s own view upon them), but also able to recognize trans-cultural commonalities with universal value.
This distinction between two kinds of universalization calls for a significant amendment to the DMIS model of development. Development proceeds from ethnocentrism through reversal and "minimizing" universalization toward ethnorelativism, as DMIS postulates, but it should not stop at that point. Rather, there is a valuable stage of "synthesizing" universalization beyond ethnorelativism. [e] This "synthesizing" universalization is, in our view, one of the goals of a liberal arts education. It emerges from critical perspectives on both the cultures of others and one’s own culture.
Since the DMIS does not distinguish between "minimizing" and "synthetic" universalization, the IDI cannot recognize this distinction either. From the logic of the DMIS, it follows that responses to IDI prompts that would reflect "synthesizing" universalization can only be interpreted as "minimization." This neglect of "synthesizing" universalization is a significant limitation of the IDI with respect to our understanding of the aims of a liberal arts education.
Applicability of the IDI for Assessing Outcomes Related to Liberal Arts Education
The DMIS and IDI can, however, be quite useful for documenting development from ethnocentrism toward ethnorelativism. The first consideration of institutions contemplating the use of the IDI in outcomes assessment will be the degree to which an ethnorelative perspective supports their institutional mission and goals. If the DMIS framework is consistent with their institutional ethos, and developing intercultural sensitivity ranks highly among their goals, they have probably long since developed structures that foster the development of intercultural sensitivity. First among these, in most cases, are opportunities for study abroad.
However, there is little evidence that mere exposure to cultural difference, without reflection and cognitive growth, leads to greater intercultural sensitivity. For this reason, it only makes sense to assess intercultural development among participants who have benefited from structures and opportunities for such growth and reflection. Where institutions have consciously incorporated intercultural development as a goal, beyond simply offering discipline-specific programs of study abroad, they have set the stage for making good use of the IDI as an assessment instrument.
Regardless of whether an institution decides to add the IDI to its assessment repertoire or not, its consideration should encourage college professors and administrators to reflect carefully on how they interpret the goals and outcomes of a liberal arts education and how their programs with intercultural content support their institutional mission. While the most obvious application of the IDI may be with students participating in study abroad programs, its usefulness could extend to assessing the development of intercultural sensitivity in students enrolled in domestic off-campus study programs, internships, student-teacher placements, and other programs that take students beyond their cultural comfort zones.
Notes
References