International Journal of Intercultural Relations

27 (2003) 383–385

Editorial

The purpose of this special Training Section issue of IJIR, the first of its kind onthis particular topic, is to present a set of research articles that exemplify the growingbody of empirical knowledge regarding intercultural development. The articlesincluded in this issue all incorporate Milton Bennett’s (1986, 1993) DevelopmentalModel of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) (Bennett, 1986, 1993) as the coretheoretical structure. They also utilize the Intercultural Development Inventory(IDI) (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, 2002), the instrument that has been developed toassess intercultural sensitivity. This issue has been divided into two sections: IDIdevelopment and validation studies (two articles) and IDI research studies thatexamine the relationship of intercultural sensitivity to other human characteristics,training programs, and educational experiences (four articles).

There has been considerable interest among intercultural trainers and researchersin the DMIS since it was originally published in 1986 and a wealth of anecdotalevidence has emerged over the years about the value of the model, particularly withrespect to training. Trainers have been using it to both ascertain their learners’orientations toward cultural difference and to design training programs andactivities that would be appropriate for those learners. However, no DMIS-basedinstrument existed that could help systematize these training implementations or, forthat matter, evaluate the results of a training program on intercultural sensitivity.Researchers were interested in examining the relationship between interculturaldevelopment and other human characteristics and experiences such as interculturaltraining and education. In the absence of a valid and reliable instrument, potentiallyfruitful lines of inquiry were on hold. By the mid-1990s, there was a strong call for aninstrument that could be used by trainers and researchers alike. As this issuedemonstrates, once the IDI was available it was rapidly employed by both groups.

The process for compiling this special issue was as follows. In the spring of 2001, acall for papers was issued through the International Academy for InterculturalResearch. The call described the purpose of the issue as being a presentation ofresearch regarding intercultural development. The articles to be included were tofocus on the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity and the InterculturalDevelopment Inventory. September 30, 2001 was set as the deadline for the articlesubmission.

The call was well received and more articles were eventually submitted than spacein a single issue of IJIR would permit. Consistent with the journal’s procedure, the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0147-1767/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00028-2

articles were then reviewed. As the guest editor, I was responsible for making thefinal selection of articles to be included; I did so on the basis of the reviews and alsoto provide the broadest range of research articles consistent with the purpose of theissue. It should be noted that two of the articles (Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, &DeJaeghere; Klak & Martin) had been submitted to IJIR and reviewed prior to thecall for papers. At my request, the authors agreed to hold their papers forpublication in the special issue.

The first two articles by Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman, and Paige et al. discussthe development of the IDI. Hammer et al. review the procedures that led to thecreation of the original 60-item version (Hammer & Bennett, 1998) and the revised,50-item version of the IDI (Hammer & Bennett, 2002). The Paige et al. article reportson the first independent assessment of the 60-item IDI, conducted in 1998–1999, thefindings of which helped establish the reliability and validity of the instrument andserved as the foundation for the revision process described by Hammer et al. Theresearch conducted by these two teams provide sound evidence regarding thereliability and validity of the instrument.

The next set of articles explore the relationship of intercultural sensitivity, asmeasured by the IDI, to intercultural education and training experiences as well as toother human characteristics. Altshuler, Sussman, and Kachur describe anintercultural training program for new physicians in a pediatric residency. On thebasis of both the IDI results and an independent clinical assessment of theirintercultural skills in a medical scenario, the authors conclude that interculturaltraining does promote intercultural sensitivity. Turning to the higher educationsetting, Klak and Martin present a study examining the impact over time of ayearlong international program on a college campus. Their findings suggest thatintercultural sensitivity in favorably influenced by such a program. As hypothesized,most of the ethnocentric subscale scores showed a statistically significant declinebetween time 1 and time 2, whereas the ethnorelative subscale scores showed astatistically significant increase. Straffon turns our attention to the very intriguingbut rarely studied setting of the international high school, which exist in many partsof the world and in general are very culturally diverse. Using the case of one suchschool located in Southeast Asia, the author explores the relationship between yearsof attendance in such schools and intercultural sensitivity. The findings provide clearsupport for the proposition that exposure to this kind of cultural diversity andschooling is related to the development of intercultural sensitivity. This is a valuablestudy for persons working with ‘‘third culture kids,’’ many of whom have studied ininternational schools. The final study in this issue by Endicott, Narvaez, and Bockexamines the relationship between two forms of human development, interculturalsensitivity and moral judgement as measured by the Defining Issues Test-2 (Rest &Narvaez, 1998; Rest, Narvaez, Thoma, & Bebeau, 1999). They also looked at therelationship of both to multicultural experiences as measured by a new instrumentand the Multicultural Experiences Questionnaire (MEXQ) developed by the authors.As hypothesized, there are statistically significant and negative correlations betweenthe DIT Postconventional subscale and the ethnocentric subscales of Denial,Defense, and Minimization, and a positive and statistically significant relationship

ARTICLE IN PRESSEditorial / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 383–385384

with the ethnorelative Acceptance subscale. Similar findings hold for multiculturalexperiences, which are strongly associated with intercultural sensitivity and moraldevelopment as predicted.

These studies are valuable contributions to the literature in their own right andalso suggest that the DMIS and the IDI have broad applicability in interculturaleducation, training, and research.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the authors whosubmitted manuscripts in response to the call for papers, IJIR for hosting this specialissue, IJIR editor Dan Landis for his support and encouragement of this project, andthe contributors to this volume for their excellent articles. I would also like torecognize Siqin Yang, my research assistant, for her ongoing support to the authorsand myself throughout the process of putting this manuscript together. She played akey role in bringing the project to fruition.

References

Bennett, M. J. (1986). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.

M. Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 27–70). New

York: University Press of America.

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M.

Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (1998). The intercultural development inventory (IDI) manual. Portland,

OR: Intercultural Communication Institute.

Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2002). The intercultural development inventory (IDI) manual. Portland,

OR: Intercultural Communication Institute.

Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (1998). Guide to Dit-2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S., & Bebeau, M. (1999c). DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument

of moral judgement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644–659.

R. Michael PaigeEducational Policy and Administration, University of Minnesota, 330 Walling Hall, 86

Pleasant Street, S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

E-mail address: r-paig@umn.edu

ARTICLE IN PRESSEditorial / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 383–385 385