Transliteracies in Intercultural Professional Communication

Abstract

Teaching problem: The comparative/contrastive approach to teaching intercultural communication is based on the premise that global rhetorical practices are not mere indicators of the cultural proclivities of a people, but are also a framework for developing a working knowledge about how members of a culture communicate. However, this approach predisposes learners to contrasting those cultures against their own and reinforces their preconceptions about national cultural characteristics. Augmenting that approach with transliteracies—emphasizing the benefits of knowledge sourcing not limited to scholarly/academic sources—offers a multidimensional perspective to intercultural communication. Research question: How can transliteracy inquiry be applied in teaching and learning global rhetorics? Situating the case: The approaches described here draw on the work of literacy researchers who delineate ways in which transliteracy broadens the scope of learning materials, including texts that are cultural and social (as opposed to linguistic) and that can be studied for what they convey about those cultures. How the case was studied: This paper describes the experience of using transliteracies to teach intercultural professional communication. The material was collected informally over the course of two years of teaching the course through observation, student completed research reports, and reflections. About the case: The shortcomings of contrastive and comparative rhetoric pedagogy in intercultural communication may be due in part to instructional materials selection and prioritization of what teachers deem to be scholarly. Reasoning that the basic architecture of a global rhetorics lies in its surrounding culture, artifacts, and communication systems, I designed an assignment that required students to describe how one culture's heritage, history, governmental systems, and value systems contribute to the development of persuasion and uses of rhetoric. Results: Transliteracies opened up spaces that allowed students to gain an in-depth understanding of others’ rhetorical practices without contrasting them against their own and by approaching them as ethnographic objects of study. Students engaged the object of their scholarship more expansively. Conclusions: Transliteracies in intercultural professional communication served to move students toward a more immersive and empathetic understanding of referent cultures, a stance that enriches professional communication. Students displayed a more altruistic value system in representing their objects of study and were careful to recognize that their work might be accessed by a wider audience. Transliteracies offer a practical toolkit for comprehending and fashioning understandable and compelling arguments about other cultures.