The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Evaluate, Analyze, Describe (EAD): Confronting Underlying Issues ofRacism and Other Prejudices for Effective Intercultural Communication
Daniel Velasco

82

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Abstract
Racism and other prejudices have hindered efforts to diversify and further many fields, including
education, psychology, politics, law, and healthcare (Race for Opportunity, 2010). Although there
are many ways to combat these prejudices, intercultural communication continues to be a vital
component in assisting individuals and groups with valuing the past, understanding the present,
and preparing for the future of communication in a global society (Sadri and Flammia, 2011, p.
19). This paper provides a brief overview of pertinent research and major theories related tocommunicating with people of different cultural backgrounds, as well as useful techniques andstrategies to use when teaching in international or multinational classrooms, and working or
consulting in international or multinational companies, organizations, and educational institutions.
It also includes data collected via surveys and interviews that helps to shed light on underlying
issues of racism and discontent in Japanese and Nigerian populations within Japan, and concludes
with a description of a new approach to one of the most common intercultural communication
exercises called the E.A.D. (Evaluate, Analyze, Describe). While this exercise has proved toincrease cultural awareness and open the lines of communication between individuals fromvarious cultural and lingual backgrounds, research also shows that other strategies may benecessary to achieve desired levels of communication.
Keywords: Intercultural communication; cross-cultural communication; racism; white racialmodels; Describe, Interpret, Evaluate (D.I.E) exercise.

83

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Introduction
As educators, counselors, and other relevant professionals working with and managing groups ofpeople from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds, there is an inherent, although often debated,
responsibility to assuage prejudices. Discussing any type of prejudice in a learning environment,such as a classroom, an office gathering, such as an in-house workshop or retreat, or in otherprofessional settings, such as international conferences or professional development seminars, isnever an easy task, and it can be an extremely uncomfortable and painful experience for all those
involved, particularly when the person leading the activity is exposing underlying prejudicial
tension among the group. In settings where people of various national and cultural identities areworking or learning together, underlying issues, such as racism or sexism, may reveal themselves.
However, prejudices, such as racism (which “has parallel application for terms like sexism,classism, and xenophobia”), can lose their power and influence with increased cultural awareness,sensitivity, and effective intercultural communication (Baldwin et al., 2014, p. 123; pp. 128-130).
It is the goal of this paper, therefore, to support ways to increase both cultural awareness andsensitivity while enhancing communication between cultures. In order to contribute to this goal,
this paper will reflect on:Pertinent literature that will assist in understanding prejudices, specifically racism,
Acceptance (belief that all people have equal opportunities to succeed),
Relevant literature that will also assist in understanding intercultural communication;
Several continuing research studies that help reveal racial tension among different
cultural groups; andThe new intercultural communication exercise called the Evaluate, Analyze Describe(EAD).

It is possible that there will be individuals or small groups who choose to believe that prejudices,such as racism or sexism, could not possibly exist at their child’s school, their workplace orwithin their very community. Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, as well as otherracially charged incidents across America, has affected not only this community, but the entire
world, and has brought the issue of racism to the surface. Although, at this point in time, it is notcertain if racism played a role in the shooting of Michael Brown, the comments left by readers ofvarious MSN articles are telling of the underlying issues that permeate the world. Words todescribe the police officer, who is white, ranged from “murderer” to “racist white devil”;
however, the words used to describe the victim, who was black, ranged from “thug” to “criminal,”
and the protesters were labeled the worst—“thugs,” “welfare thieves,” “uncivilized brutes,” and,probably the worst, “monkeys” (Salter, 2104; Zagier, 2014). These comments demonstrate thatracism remains a considerable challenge to society.
It should be noted that although the E.A.D. is able to elicit a variety of underlying prejudices,
including sexism, xenophobia, bigotry, stereotypes, and issues of power and privilege, by helping
individuals discover harmful attitudes and derogatory beliefs and assisting with open, reflective
communication, this paper will focus mainly on racism, as this issue has been most prevalent inrecent news. Before delving into how to confront underlying issues of prejudice, it is important tounderstand some white race models that provided the foundation for this study and thedevelopment of the E.A.D. While these models all have the term “white” embedded in them, I
choose not to include this term when consulting, counseling individuals, families, and groups,
and teaching in educational institutions, as the models are still relevant and applicable to other
non-Caucasian cultures. People of Color Racial Identity Models do exist, but the original
intention of these models—to explain how members of groups of color adapted in unfair
environments—other models are better applied when considering a variety of cultures andintercultural communication exercises, such as the E.A.D.
84

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Race Models
The following three models have been classified as “white” race models, with more detailprovided for Helms’ model for explanatory purposes. However, for the purposes of this paper andthe research surrounding the intercultural communication exercise, the E.A.D., as well as taking
into account other contingencies in a culture that may lead to racial identity; the “white” has been
omitted, thus making the models applicable to any culture.
Helms’ (1984, 1995) (White) Racial Identity Development Model
Helms’ (1984, 1990) theory details the racial identity formation of White people, and Helms andPiper (1994) describe white Americans as “those Americans who self-identify or are commonly
identified as belonging exclusively to the White racial group regardless of the continental source(e.g., Europe, Asia) of that racial ancestry” (p. 126). Within this model, racial identity “develops
as we move from a lack of awareness of our own racial background to an awareness andintegration of our race into our sense of who we are” (Daniels, p. 258), and this happens in six
phases: contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudo-independence, immersion/emersion, andautonomy (Helms, 1995).
Hardiman’s (1992) (White) Racial Identity Development Model contains stages, beginning with anaïve stage and ending with a stage that encompasses the internalizing of a nonracist identity.
 Stages: Naiveté (little or no awareness of race), Acceptance (belief that all people have equal opportunities to succeed), Resistance (denial system is destroyed, racist attitudes are acknowledged), Redefinition (biases and prejudices are confronted, and responsibility is accepted), and Internalization (nonracist identity is developed).

Rowe, et al.’s (1994) White Racial Consciousness Model consists of “types,” and moves fromavoidant types to integrative types.








Avoidant Type: Does not consider his or her racial identity; does not express concern
over racism
Dependent Type: Committed a superficial attitude toward race
Dissonant Type: Uncertainty around his/her racial consciousness and other minority
concerns; questions previously held beliefs
Dominative Type: Holds very ethnocentric beliefs
Conflict Type: Opposed to overt racism, but is opposed to programs that reduce or
eliminate racism
Reactive Type: Aware of racism and reacts to it
Integrative Type: Comfortable with their race; governed by “the reality of what will
make a difference” (Daniels, p. 261).

These models and their stages are listed here as a reference for when the E.A.D. is incorporated
into a consultation, counseling session or classroom lesson plan. Now that the race models havebeen outlined, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of intercultural communication, andhow it is applicable to a variety of business, academic, and psychological situations.
Intercultural Communication
Countless articles and books have indulged in the cliché observation regarding the world
becoming smaller. The world is, in fact, becoming easier to access, both physically and virtually,
thanks mostly to advancing technology, immigration, and globalization; however, it is deceiving

85

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

to believe that an accessible, multicultural world equals a diverse, accepting, and communicativeone.
In an ongoing study, titled “What’s Important to You?” spanning from 2010 to 2014, I surveyed
500 people from the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Nigeria,
Egypt, South Africa, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia,
Ukraine, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, China, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia, and New
Zealand. Participants were asked to list the three things that are most important to them, with nofurther details given. The results continue to reveal 98% of responses fall into these three
categories, as illustrated in Chart 1:
Chart 1. What’s Important to You?
What's Important to You?

Family/Friends
Career
Health/Quality of Life
Other (e.g., time, material
posessions)Because the results are generally the same no matter which country one was born in, it would beeasy to hypothesize that all human beings share something fundamentally in common regardlessof race, language, and cultural and religious beliefs, and while some choose to believe that every
human is part of one race—the human race—human beings are much more complicated than that,and cultural differences need to be respected and celebrated.
If humans are different, and these cultural differences must be acknowledged and respected, thenan understanding of culture is in order. In 1871, Edward B. Tyler provided the first working
definition of culture: “Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, law,
morals, custom, and any other habits acquired by humans who are members of a society.”
Another definition by Kovel (1984) defines culture as “an evolving system of meaningful
relations deriving from the sum total of the activities and institutions of a society” (p. 25). To
extend these definitions, Klopf and McCroskey (2007) present two means of viewing culture—abroad version and a narrow version: the broad version includes “artifacts” (society’s
manufactured items), “sociofacts” (society’s norms and laws), and “mentifacts” (cognition andemotion); the narrow version includes a more personal experience that influences how one thinks
and behaves within that society (p. 21). From these descriptions, an image of what culture is andwhy it is so important can be formed.

86

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Before delving any further, though, a definition of culture usually leads to other commonly heard
terms, and it is imperative that we separate them because they are oftentimes usedinterchangeably, which is one of the missteps that leads communicators further away from
communicating effectively interculturally. The terms in question are multicultural, cross-cultural,and intercultural.
Multicultural means two or more cultures living alongside one another and while thisinvolves some levels of tolerance and superficial social interactions, communication
usually does not reach deeper depths than that.
Cross-Cultural means two or more cultures living alongside one another and while there
are attempts at reaching across cultural borders, there is a level of intentionality andcommunity building that is necessary in order to build permanent bridges between
cultures.
Intercultural means social structures and interactions are defined by understanding,
acceptance, respect, freedom, equality, diversity, and celebration.

Given these definitions, intercultural communication—“a communicative exchange between
persons of different cultures”—and the training involved has never been more in demand (Klopf
and McCroskey, 2007, p. 58). Intercultural communities should reflect social structures and dailyinteractions that are defined by understanding, acceptance, respect, freedom, equality, diversity,and celebration, and yet there are challenges to intercultural communication: cultural assumptions,prejudices, stereotypes, miscommunications, misinterpretations, and racism, to name just a few.
Strategies to overcome these challenges are self-awareness, avoiding stereotypes, honesty,
respect, inquiry, and acceptance of differences and the difficulties that natural occur incommunication.
Here is a summary of some of the notable researchers and their contributions to interculturalcommunication:









Edward T. Hall (1990): Low Context Cultures (where explicit communication isimportant; e.g. The United States of America and Australia) and High Context Cultures(where norms are understood; e.g. France and Japan).
Geert Hofstede (1991): studied interactions between national cultures (values in theworkplace are influenced by culture) and organizational cultures (collective
programming of the mind that distinguishes members of one organization from others).
Fons Trompenaars (1997): Model of National Culture Differences, which includes
individualist vs. collectivist societies.
Milton Bennett (1977): Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity and theIntercultural Development Inventory (IDI). The IDI measures intercultural competence,with ranges from monocultural to intercultural mindset.
Banks (2004): Views on Multicultural Education that include multicultural content
integration and prejudice reduction.

This list is hardly exhaustive, but these researchers and their significant studies related tointercultural communication, race, and education, provide a backdrop for the following research
project and, ultimately, the creation of the E.A.D. This study, conducted in Japan using two
groups—Japanese and Nigerians—was conducted in order to obtain insight into possible
underlying issues of racism, and to see how an intercultural communication tool like the E.A.D.
can be applied.
Confronting Underlying Issues of Racism
Japan

87

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Neither a history of Japan’s racial tensions with other countries, such as China and Korea, nor thecurrent extreme right-wing views of Japan’s nationalist groups will be included because suchhistorical events, such as the Nanjing incident (Askew, 2002), or modern acts of xenophobia,
such as the attack on a Chinese tour bus (Jize, 2010), would not accurately depict Japan’s current
stance with regards to immigration and cultural diversity.
However, in order to obtain a glimpse into this current state of mind, 27 adult Japanese male and23 adult Japanese females currently living in Japan were randomly chosen to participate in a brief
survey. All participants were approached while in public, and were asked for two pieces of
information: 1) their age, and 2) their immediate and honest response to one statement: “Say the
first word that comes to mind when I say Nigerian” (the questions were asked in Japanese, buttranslated into English for this publication). Twenty-five (25) participants responded without
hesitation, “怖い” (“Kowai,”), which is Japanese for scary or I’m afraid). Eighteen (18) of thefemale participants made facial and hand gestures to indicate their fear, and while at first notofficially documented, seventeen (17) of the Japanese female participants, along with one (1)Japanese male participant, followed up their initial response with the word “やだ!”(“Yada!”),which has many translations, but most commonly is used to express the sentiment, “I don’t want[it/to do it]”); surprisingly, a large portion of the participants referred to Nigerians in Japan as “犯罪者” (“Hanzaisha”)—criminals. Table 1 shows the frequency of the words Japanese participants
used to describe their perception of Nigerians in Japan.
Table 1. Frequency of the words used by Japanese participantsFrequency of theWords
怖い (“Kowai”)
犯罪者”(“Hanzaisha”)
やだ (“Yada”) (*usedin addition to the twowords above)

Japanese
Male
Participants (n=27)
621Japanese
Female Total
Participant (n=23)
19
25
4
25

1

17

18

Kovel (1984) explores models of white racial identity development, and pointed to some startlingresearch: “The less aware subjects were of their White identity, the more likely they were to
exhibit increased levels of racism” (p. 265). While I am not suggesting the Japanese should becompared to white Anglo-Saxon Americans, I do think there is a connection between the racial
identity models and current racial beliefs with regards to a small number of immigrants inhabiting
a country like Japan where there is one dominant race. Again, the point of this survey was not to
implicate the Japanese in acts of racial profiling, but rather reveal the need to further culturalawareness, sensitivity, and acceptance on a global scale. One way this can be achieved is throughcultural education, and training people to communicate effectively with people from different
cultures.
Nigeria
After collecting the data from the Japanese participants, nineteen (19) adult Nigerian men andeleven (11) adult Nigerian woman currently living in Japan were asked for two similar pieces of
information: 1) their age, and 2) their immediate and honest response to one phrase: “Say the firstword that comes to mind when I say Japanese people” (Note: This study took place in October
2014, in Tokyo). Table 2 shows the frequency of the words Nigerian immigrants used to describe
their perception of Japanese people: ignorant, close-minded, rude, and racist.

88The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Table 2. Frequency of the words used by Nigerian participantsFrequency of the
Words
Ignorant
Close-minded
Rude
RacistNigerian
Male
Participants (n=29)
4
2
6
17

Nigerian
FemaleParticipant (n=21)
1
0
9
11

Total
5
2
15
28

There are many race models, and while the following are labeled “white race models,” I do notinclude “white” when I apply them to my research because I believe these models can be applied
to all races. The most notable race models include Hardiman’s (White) Racial Identity Model(1992); Helm’s (White) Racial Identity Development Model (1995); and Rowe et al.’s (1994)(White) Racial Consciousness Model (Daniels, 2011). Kovel (1984) explores models of white
racial identity development, and pointed to some startling research: “The less aware subjects wereof their White identity, the more likely they were to exhibit increased levels of racism” (p. 265).
Again, to be clear, while the Japanese should not be compared to white Anglo-Saxon Americans,
I do believe, as Kovel (1984) stresses, that there is a connection between the racial identity
models’ stages of awareness and current racial beliefs with regards to immigrants inhabiting acountry where there is one dominant race.
Again, the point of these surveys was neither to accuse the Japanese nor the Nigerian populationsof racial profiling, but reveal the need to further cultural awareness, cultural sensitivity, andcultural acceptance on a global scale, and this can be achieved, in part, through effective
intercultural communication.
Discussion of EAD in Terms of Race Models
Hardiman’s (White) Racial Identity Model (1992); Helm’s (White) Racial Identity Development
Model (1995); and Rowe et al.’s (1994) (White) Racial Consciousness Model collectively aim forindividual autonomy that brings forth a deep internalization of a nonracist identity, leading to alevel of comfort with one’s race and culture, and thereby being more accepting of others. In thenext section, there will be a closer examination of the Describe, Interpret, and Evaluate (DIE),
which is meant to “become aware of value judgments [and to] show the personal and cultural
relativity of interpretations and evaluation” (Bennett, Bennett, and Stillings, 1977). The approachtaken by the E.A.D. is in direct congruence with the goals listed in the above race models because
it attempts to facilitate open communication among individuals from diverse racial and cultural
backgrounds, uncover underlying racist or other prejudicial thoughts and beliefs, and accept
others by creating a bridge between the differences that exist—a bridge of acknowledgement,
acceptance, respect, and celebration. With this in mind, we will conclude with a detailed look at
the E.A.D. and how it can be applied in a variety of educational, psychological, and otherprofessional settings.
The E.A.D.
As stated earlier, the Describe, Interpret, and Evaluate (DIE) is one of the most common
exercises used in intercultural training. The D.I.E. exercise asks participants to “describe,interpret, and evaluate” an ambiguous object or photograph (Bennett, Bennett, & Stillings, 1977).
Finding the model and its acronym problematic, Nam & Condon (2010) suggested D.A.E.
(Describe, Analyze, Evaluate), with “analyze” providing clearer directions for participants,
compared to the previous term “interpret” (in other words, problem solving versus judging) (p.
84). However, when I applied these models to various situations—classrooms, teacher training

89

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

sessions, business and organization consultations, and psychological counseling sessions, I foundthat the participants/clients always struggled with not judging the pictures first. While the D.A.E.
is more effective in its clarity, I found that by allowing participants to first evaluate a picture,they often expressed their true opinions about certain individuals or situations that were being
displayed.
The E.A.D. is administered as follows: Before presenting the E.A.D. model to participants,
explain that they are going to see an object, photograph or short video, or hear a scenario (e.g., acase study), and that the goal is to first evaluate or judge it, then analyze it, and finally describe itin the simplest of terms. I then show them a picture (or play the movie or read the scenario). Oneof the most common photographs I use is the following:

Sources (July 10, 2015): https://www.flickr.com/photos/cybrarian77/6284697172/sizes/o/ andhttp://www.thesociologicalcinema.com/blog/teaching-the-presentation-of-self-in-the-classroom
Interestingly enough, when I use this photograph and conduct the D.I.E. or the D.A.E., about
98% of the time no one states the obvious—that all the students are white. When I conduct theexercise using the E.A.D., not only do participant immediately realize that all the students arewhite, but racially charged adjectives, such as “privileged,” become attached to the comments.
This type of comment has led to incredibly honest discussions on race, power and privilege, andtaking steps backward to then talk about analyses and descriptions opens the doors to further
discussions and exercises that help begin to build (or in some cases repair) trust, respect, andopen communication.
I began using more ambiguous or potentially controversial photographs, and decided to let themjudge the photos first. I conducted two more research studies using the E.A.D. in two different
settings within two different fields—education and psychology. The results were remarkable: Not
only were racially charged comments made without censorship, but sexist and bigoted comments
were openly made, as well. What followed was even more amazing: The individuals/groups
began to openly discuss the roots of these comments, and worked to dispel them.
In order to measure its efficacy, in 2014, 180 university students in Japan (Japanese, Chinese,
Korean, and Brazilian, ages 18 to 21 years old) were given the E.A.D. exercise as part of an
English-language course. After completing the E.A.D. exercise, the students were given a survey
to measure its effectiveness. Out of 180 students, 87% responded “Strongly Agree” when asked if

90

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

the E.A.D. helped them self-reflect and critically evaluate their personal beliefs and potential
biases.
The E.A.D. has also proven to be effective in the field of psychology. Between 2013 and 2014,20 Japanese, American, Canadian, and British clients who were between the ages of 29-52, andreceiving regular, weekly psychological counseling, were also given the E.A.D. exercise. Out of
20 clients, 17 responded “Strongly Agree” when asked if the E.A.D. helped them self-reflect andcritically evaluate their personal beliefs and potential biases.
Conclusion
Regardless of position or context, the E.A.D. intercultural communication exercise can help
foster better relationships among clients, students and employees of varying cultural identities. If
you are charged with improving work relations among your students or colleagues, or trying tohelp someone who is, and you suspect there is underlying racial tension or other prejudicial
beliefs, there are many approaches you can take to confront these issues, and strategies toimplement that will diffuse the situation. The goal is to confront prejudice head-on, and the
E.A.D. accomplishes this goal by not asking participants to objectively describe what they see
first, but instead, evaluate what they see; in other words, immediately answer the question, “Howdo I feel about what I see” (Nam & Condon, 2010, p. 85). By moving backwards through the
D.I.E./D.A.E. process, people are able to move forward, confronting underlying racism, sexism
or other issues that may be causing undue hardship and stress in the home, classroom orworkplace. The goals for each and every session you use the E.A.D. should be to help thoseparticipating improve their self-awareness, cultural sensitivity, and effective interculturalcommunication.
The truth is that racism and other prejudices are a part of every society, and unfortunately will befor quite some time. It should come as no surprise to anyone, for it is embedded in who we are as
racial and cultural beings, as Allport (1954) notes:
Everywhere on earth we find a condition of separateness among groups. People mate with
their own kind. They eat, play, reside in homogeneous clusters. They visit with their own
kind, and prefer to worship together. Much of this automatic cohesion is due to nothing
more than convenience. There is no need to turn to out-groups for companionship. With
plenty of people at hand to choose from, why create for ourselves the trouble of adjusting
to new languages, new food, new cultures, or to the people of a different educational level?
(p. 17)
Even though this observation was made over 60 years ago, this stark reality can still be applied tomany cultural groups and communities today, and because of this, new research on race willcontinue to grow. Therefore, this new body of research, as well as new race models that may
form, coupled with a focus on intercultural communication, would allow for further in-depth
studies using the E.A.D. A longitudinal study would also help to solidify the efficacy of the
E.A.D. in more fields, such as politics and law, but so far its use has proven to be an effective
tool to assist with opening the doors of communication, and uncovering the underlying issues ofracism and other prejudices that may be blocking them.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice: 25th Anniversary Edition (1979). Berkeley:
Perseus Books Publishing, L.L.C.

91

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Askew, D. (2002). The Nanjing Incident: Recent Research and Trends. Electronic Journal ofContemporary
Japanese
Studies.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Askew.html.
Baldwin, J. R., Means Coleman, R. R., Gonzalez, A., and Shenoy-Packer, S. (2014). Intercultural
Communication for Everyday Life. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice.
In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural
Education (2nd Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, J. M., Bennett M. J., and Stillings, K. (1977). Description, interpretation, evaluation:
Facilitators’ guidelines. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.intercultural.org/die.php.
Daniels, J. A. (2001). Conceptualizing a Case of Indirect Racism Using the White Racial Identity
Development Model. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 23(3), 256-268.
Hall, E. T. (1990). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor.
Helms, J. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on counseling: A
Black and White model. The Counseling Psychologist, 12(4), 153-165.
Helms, J. E. (1990). Generalizing racial identity interactions theory to groups. In J. E. Helms(Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 177-185).
Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Helms, J. E., & Piper, R. E. (1994). Implications of racial identity theory for vocational
psychology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 124-136.
Helms (1995) from Sue, et al. (1998). Multicultural Counseling Competencies: Individual andOrganizational Development. Sage Productions. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. London: McGraw Hill.
Jize, Q. (2010). Travel Warning Issued for Japan after bus attacked. Retrieved July 20, 2015,
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20101002from
240207.html.
Klopf, D. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (2007) Intercultural Communication Encounters. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Kovel, J. (1984). White Racism: A Psychohistory. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Nam, K., and Condon, J. (2010). The DIE is cast: The continuing evolution of interculturalcommunication’s favorite classroom exercise. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 34, 81–87.
Race for Opportunity (2010). Aspiration and Frustration: Ethnic minority hope and reality inside
Britain’s
premiercareers.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/other/aspiration-frustration-final-report.
Sadri, H. A., & Flammia, M. (2011). Intercultural Communication: A New Approach toInternational Relations and Global Challenges. New York: Continuum International
Publishing Group.
92

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Salter, J. (2014). Signs show Ferguson trying to move on from unrest. Retrieved July 20, 2015,
fromhttp://fox11online.com/news/nation-world/signs-show-ferguson-trying-to-move-onfrom-unrest.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the Waves of Culture. London. Nicholas
Brealey.
Tyler, E. B. (1871). Primitive Culture. New York: J. P. Putnam’s Sons.
Zagier, A. S. (2014). Officer who shot Michael Brown resigns in Ferguson. Retrieved July 20,
2015, from http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20141129/officer-who-shotmichael-brown-resigns-in-ferguson.

93