In his pioneering essay “Media and Intercultural Training”, Dr. Carlos E. Cortez explains how media affects the cognitive development of our observational skills, impacting the way we perceive, interpret, organize and disseminate information about how we see ourselves and each other. Cortez invites intercultural educators to a) recognize the influence of media on learning about diversity, and b) be constantly aware that media presents and organizes information, disseminates values, forms heightened expectations and provides behavioral models about specific groups and cultures, nations and global regions. Cortez suggests that it is the intercultural trainer’s ongoing job to cultivate a media literate mindset and media analysis skill set to avoid pitfalls – inadequate context setting, stereotype identification obsession, overuse of intercultural code words and media bashing –  when using media to meet intercultural training goals. He encourages intercultural communication facilitators to sharpen their analytical skills. He supports the idea that facilitating intergroup dialogue can and should be continuously trained. (1)

We present this information to encourage continuous training about debriefing strategy to create meaningful dialogue in intercultural training. The example of the viral video “Kony 2012” was chosen not to suggest that it is an ideal film for intercultural training, but because a) the diverse reactions to the film are readily available to intercultural trainers and b) the video is a current media event that intercultural trainers can use to develop media analysis skills.

Cortez encourages trainers and trainees to analyze film using careful evaluation by asking questions like “Who made the film?” “Why was it made?” “What was the filmmakers intent?” “What was the context – era, social setting – in which the film was produced?” In this regard, the back-story of “Kony 2012” gives us an excellent overview into the culture of social media creation. As of this writing, the filmmakers of “Kony 2012” have recently released a sequel, entitled “Kony 2012: Part 2 – Beyond Famous”, as a rebuttal to criticism about the original film, less than a month after it was released. This is an example of the immediacy of social media filmmaking. The speed at which a film can be produced, due to recent advances in filmmaking technology, is a driver of the cultural framework in which social media creates relevance.

It is with this framework in mind that we post some of the different responses to the film as a new form of public dialogue. If we were to imagine a group of participants in a virtual intercultural dialogue, we could examine varying responses to the original film, as seen in these videos:

(Caution: strong language in some clips may be considered offensive by some viewers.)

Let’s imagine that a group of 10 to 12 young people expressing very differing reactions to the film (similar to the video responses above) are sitting in a virtual space for the purpose of creating a dialogue that leads to specific objectives, such as:

Discovering more practical ways of communicating across cultures.

Creating a dialogue which allows for more authentic understanding.

Investigating the effect of interethnic expectations on intercultural communication.

Examining how different communication styles can lead to possible antagonism and misunderstanding.

Skilled intercultural communication educators and trainers can prepare for post-viewing dialogue by establishing and ensuring a secure, supportive environment where participants can freely express their observations, feelings and perspectives.

One way this could be achieved for the participant group described above, would be to establish a setting or context for dialogue based on gaming culture values. In gaming culture, basic game elements such as risk, emotional engagement, consequences, rules and outcomes allow gamers to negotiate complex cultural contexts in which games are played. The goal of most games include elements which require participants to locate, analyze and use information to solve problems, gain access to privileges or escape punishment based on role-play.An excellent example of using gaming cultural values to develop intercultural communication and cross-cultural dialogue can be discovered in “52 Activities for Improving Cross-Cultural Communication”, a book by Dr. Donna M. Stringer and Dr. Patricia A. Cassiday.

Stringer and Cassiday explore the complex cultural context in which play-based activity can be used in intercultural and cross-cultural dialogue development. They provide numerous examples of how using experiential activities as a learning preference can be used in a balanced approach to training design.

Importantly, they encourage intercultural trainers to understand what dialogue is and is not. In their description based on the work of William Issacs, Stringer and Cassiday explain the preparation of PALS (Prepare, Ask, Listen, Share) as a helpful method for trainers who seek to moderate effective dialogue during the debrief process. They suggest that:

Dialogue is a conversation with a center but no sides.

Dialogue requires a suspension of status and judgements.

Dialogue allows us to think beyond our own limitations.

They suggest that effective dialogue is supported by the ability of trainers to create a space whereby participants can demonstrate the courage to share their ideas and perspectives in an authentic manner and the ability to listen without interruption.

Further, Cassiday and Stringer suggest that dialogue is not a debate or a problem solving session but rather a method for gaining cross-cultural and intercultural communication experience previously unavailable to the participant for the purpose of gaining greater understanding. (2)

In our scenario, the “rules of the game” for dialogue should be established first, so that each participant has the opportunity to agree on the rules with fellow participants and trainers. Once this context is established for participants, it is possible for the intercultural trainer to moderate dialogue by using open debriefing questions such as:

What thoughts did you have while watching the film?

How did you feel when sharing your perception with the group?

What did you sense while listening to other participant perceptions different from your own?

What did you learn from the conversation?

Can you use what you learned in the future?

Cassiday and Stringer, as well as Cortez, encourage intercultural trainers to establish clear debriefing conclusions before the debrief process to encourage participants to identify and use them for future intercultural communication dialogue. Cassiday and Stringer suggest debriefing conclusions such as:

All communication approaches are based on cultural context.

We tend to see in negative terms those using styles that we don’t prefer.

Cultural stereotypes may have some element of truth and may also be wrong.

Personal communication preferences influence presentation design.

Every culture has a way of expressing phenomena that convey cultural values using proverbs, symbols, metaphors.

Intercultural communication competence means developing different interpretations of an event, action or experience.

Using this approach, we can formulate exemplary debriefing questions and conclusions when using “KONY 2012” as a tool for experiential learning. For example, we could ask debriefing questions such as:

How would this story have been told differently if it had not been produced by US Americans?

In what ways would this film have been different if the story setting was in Asia or Latin America?

Would you feel differently about the film had the story not been in Africa? If so, why? If not, why?

If you were making the same movie, how would you have told the story differently?

We could also decide on debriefing conclusions such as:

When we understand how stereotypes are used in media, we gain a deeper understanding of interethnic expectations.

As we expand our communication vocabularies, our perception about communication styles grow and evolve.

When we understand our individual communication preferences, we gain greater opportunity to understand the preferences of others.

As intercultural trainers, we have the opportunity and the responsibililty to originate open questions and set larger expectations for our training goals. If we are to help very different groups of people find innovative ways to develop more meaningful intercultural communication strategies, we can and should use all the resources that we have at our disposal. We realize that the debrief approach described here is not the only way to debrief film during intercultural training. We also recognize that film is only one resource.

Nonetheless, we encourage intercultural trainers and educators to remember that cultural and media production resources exist on some level, in every community. There are filmmakers, storytellers, playwrights, actors, directors, editors and artists, working on many different levels in each of our local communities. We encourage intercultural trainers and educators to dilligently seek out these competent practitioners to glean deeper understanding into the ways and means of media analysis and media literacy.

—
(1) Carlos E. Cortés, “Media and Intercultural Training,” in Handbook of Intercultural Training (Third Edition) ed. Dan Landis, Janet M. Bennett and Milton J. Bennett (Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc. 2004), 266-86
(2) Donna M. Stringer and Patricia A. Cassiday, “”PALS Dialogue”, in 52 Activities for Improving Cross-Cultural Communication (Boston, London: Intercultural Press, 2009), 161-66; see also “Debriefing Questions and Debriefing Conclusions” on pp. 168, 172, 188, 192, 206, 210, 216

For additional resources on experiential learning and gaming culture research, please visit “Tiltfactor” online at http://www.tiltfactor.org/research