1.1 Introduction

While there are many who believe that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts and Intercultural Citizenship Education (ICitE) can foster positive change within highly polarized societies, DEI and ICitE are not universally supported disciplines. Individuals (within and outside of Higher Education) hold skeptical views, are tired, or suffer from activist burnout (see, e.g., Chen & Gorski, Reference Chen and Gorski2015). Skepticism toward DEI and ICitE is unsurprising, considering our current time of uncertainty and instability where democracy has failed in many countries historically heralded as flagships of democratic practices and human rights. Beyond skepticism, the fields have also been subjected to challenges from those who reject the values the fields promote and/or are not satisfied with how these two are implemented in practice. These critiques will be expanded on in Section 2.

I begin this section by providing the Reader with a brief overview of the focus of this Element and its outline. Following that, I delve into the role of higher education (HE) and the rationale behind the importance of ICitE and DEI efforts in a globalizing world that paradoxically is experiencing increased nationalism. Additionally, I share with the Reader my positionality, which is important when discussing topics such as DEI and Intercultural Citizenship Education.

1.2 The Focus and the Outline of This Element

The objectives of this Element are threefold. First, to make a conceptual argument about how DEI and ICitE can complement each other by providing a critical overview of contemporary research and practice in the fields and investigating their intersections. Second, to demonstrate through an example of a training piloted at a US university how Intercultural Citizenship Education and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts can be synergized in the HE context. Third, to encourage Readers to become more reflective about their own institutional context and take an intentional approach to pedagogical interventions concerning DEI and ICitE.

In reference to my first objective, I maintain that a fundamental aspect of scholarly work is engagement in constructive criticism and critical (self-)reflection, where peer critique and review of scholarship allow for the exchange of diverse perspectives and offer opportunities for scholarship advancement. With regard to this, one challenge that I faced while working on this Element was trying to ensure that the critical overview – aimed at identifying opportunities for improving and synergizing the two fields – would not be misused as an argument to undermine either of them. As previously mentioned, the fields of DEI and ICitE are currently facing critiques that are not intended to enhance their academic progress but rather to reject or discredit them. This, in particular, concerns DEI, which is the subject of significant political and ideological struggles. Given that my expertise lies in intercultural education, I am approaching my overview of both fields specifically through this lens.

Before starting the discussion on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Intercultural Citizenship in Higher Education, it is important to note that neither DEI nor ICitE can yet be classified as established academic fields in the traditional sense. However, I contend that both fit the definition of “emerging academic fields,” which are typically interdisciplinary in nature and arise in response to societal, technological, or environmental changes and challenges (see, e.g., Critical Data and Algorithm Studies, Digital Humanities, Cybersecurity, Climate Policy, Cryptocurrency Studies). Despite being relatively young, DEI and ICitE have already developed a substantial body of literature that includes scholarly manuscripts, research articles, ethnographies, case studies, surveys, and textbooks. Both DEI and ICitE are present in educational curricula, offered as courses or as stand-alone academic degrees and certificate programs. Additionally, there are research centers and communities of practice conducting scholarly work and projects in DEI and ICitE, and there are professional associations that organize regular conferences, workshops, and symposia. Moreover, both DEI and ICitE have practical applications, such as in educational policymaking processes or cross-curricular collaboration. Given these accomplishments, I will refer to them as “fields” throughout this Element.

Traditionally, both within and beyond HE, these fields are treated as separate entities with ICitE being primarily associated with international diversity, and DEI with domestic. Although this binary perception is now inadequate due to the superdiversity characterizing today’s higher education (and the world), the origins of their separation and distinction can be explained through exploring the disciplinary roots, theoretical foundations, primary focus, and implementation approaches for the fields. Quite often, as expanded on in this Element, intercultural education is criticized for taking an overly simplistic approach and inadequately addressing topics like power, privilege, and social justice, while DEI can be critiqued for lacking a global perspective and trying to project domestic concerns to international contexts, that is, “exporting” and “forcing” one’s understanding of certain practices on another culture in ways that would not work in that culture. In the United States, for example, a common critique of how DEI concepts can be operationalized on a college campus is the introductory level of DEI “101-type” of training. These trainings tend to see everything as “black & white,” “racist vs. non-racist,” “inclusive vs. not inclusive.” This simplistic approach can put students on the defensive (Linder, Reference Linder, Cuyjet, Linder, Howard-Hamilton and Cooper2016) and fails to scaffold students’ development (Zheng, Reference Zheng2022). Despite the separation between the two fields, I argue that DEI and ICitE can complement each other in a variety of positive and productive ways. In this Element, I identify relevant intersections between DEI and ICitE and shed light on how the two distinct, yet interrelated fields can be synergized in HE practice.

The Element comprises five sections, each containing a short introduction and several subsections. In Section 1, I lay the foundation of the rest of the Element by interrogating the role of HE, discussing why humanistic goals should be integrated in higher education, providing an overview of the rest of the sections, and sharing with Readers my positionality. Section 2 describes the current context of ICitE and DEI work, including policies, practices, and pitfalls. Then, Section 3 examines the two fields in more detail through explaining the theoretical foundations and briefly overviewing the history and the main concepts to ground the discussion of the intersections between ICitE and DEI. In Section 4, I share insights from the most recent research projects I led as a principal investigator that include (1) a campus-wide survey on students’ experiences with diversity, equity, and inclusion as they relate to various aspects of their identity, their perceptions of the importance of intercultural and democratic citizenship competences; (2) a training initiative that can serve as an example of how DEI and ICitE can be synergized in higher education settings. In the fifth and final section, I summarize the Element, offer suggestions for future research, and share my final remarks.

I recognize that, due to the progressively increasing body of literature on DEI and ICitE, it is not possible to include an overview of all ongoing research and education projects in these two fields deserving of discussion. I trust, though, that this Element will offer sufficient insights into both, demonstrate how the efforts in the two fields can be synergized, and explain why university students and society at large would benefit from their purposeful integration into HE. The aim of this publication is thus not to persuade, nor – as the opponents of the two fields might suggest – to “indoctrinate” the audience. Instead, it aims to offer a nuanced understanding of theoretical foundations, practical applications, and potential intersections of DEI and ICitE, while acknowledging the complexities of the two fields. By sharing the insights from evidence-based analysis, this work seeks to underscore the transformative potential that emerges when these fields are intentionally integrated into HE curricula.

This Element is intended for a diverse audience, primarily composed of HE professionals, graduate students, researchers, educational consultants, trainers, international education stakeholders, and social justice advocates who are committed to fostering more inclusive, equitable, and globally minded educational environments, and who are ready to critically explore their own practices and engage in constructive critique to enhance efforts in DEI and ICitE. To support this reflective journey, I have included Thought Boxes throughout the sections, intended to foster informed dialogue and invite Readers to (self-)reflect and check their understanding and perceptions of concepts like intercultural citizenship, DEI, and social justice, among others. The goal of these Thought Boxes is not to provide definitive or “right” answers but to stimulate discussion and spur the co-construction of knowledge that respects the diversity of perspectives on the issues addressed in this Element.

1.3 The Role of Higher Education in a Globalizing World

The detailed history of universities and HE is well-documented and encompasses at least the last one thousand years. The world’s oldest university (according to the Western understanding of the word), the University of Bologna in Bologna, Italy, has operated continuously since it was founded in 1088. In the United States, the oldest university, Harvard University, was founded during the period of colonization in 1636, so it is older than the founding of the United States in 1776. As societies evolved, universities likewise evolved, albeit sometimes slowly, which proves the potential of HE to embrace change and meet new challenges of the ever-developing world. Depending on historical circumstances and local conditions, universities have incrementally adapted to or have been at the forefront of societal changes. Before we continue, please take a moment to reflect on the question in Thought Box 1.

A neoliberal view of HE argues that the sole purpose of universities is to prepare professionals for their careers, and that the education of future citizens falls outside their purview. Applying Hunt’s (Reference Hunt2016) definition of neoliberalism, such an instrumental approach to higher education can be described as “a project of potentiality, organizing economic and social process activity for the accumulation of capital,” with explicitly stated “market-based imperatives” (Reference Hunt2016, p. 381). The profit-driven framing of HE led to the privatization of campus facilities and services, commercialization of intellectual property, reduced staff and tenured faculty positions, and smaller salary raises, “while administrative salaries, athletic spending, and campus beautification projects have continued to escalate” (Schraedley et al., Reference Schraedley, Jenkins, Irelan and Umana2021, p. 3, referring to Cloud, Reference Cloud2018; Peck, Reference Peck2015). Schraedley and colleagues (Reference Schraedley, Jenkins, Irelan and Umana2021) refer to multiple studies (predominantly focused on US-students) that show how the neoliberal paradigm disproportionately affected the most vulnerable student populations, including ethno-racial minorities, low-income, and first-generation students, contributing to hardships, including food insecurity, health insurance issues, housing, and even homelessness (Crutchfield & Maguire, Reference Crutchfield and Maguire2018; Goldrick-Rab et al., Reference Goldrick-Rab, Baker-Smith, Coca, Looker and Williams2019; Jimenez, Reference Jimenez2019; Pennamon, Reference Pennamon2018, etc.).

Both philosophical and educational research literature widely critique a purely instrumental role in HE and advocate for a humanistic approach (see, e.g., Barnett, Reference Barnett1997, Reference Barnett2023; Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Porto, Lütge, Merse and Rauschert2022; Lantz-Deaton & Golubeva, Reference Lantz-Deaton and Golubeva2020; Nussbaum, Reference Nussbaum2002, Reference Nussbaum2006; Porto et al., Reference Porto, Golubeva and Byram2023), opposing the opinions of those who see universities as academic silosFootnote ¹ that should only equip students with knowledge and skills necessary to master the discipline of their studies.

When discussing “what is it to be a university?” Barnett (Reference Barnett2011) draws on Heidegger’s term “being-possible.” Although there are apparently several possibilities for the university, “with possibilities comes also responsibility” (Barnett, Reference Barnett2011, p. 400), and the responsibility of the twenty-first century’s university, according to him, is “to develop a societal mission, even a global mission” (p. 453, italics added). Barnett describes it as a university that intentionally and systematically works on “helping to bring about a sustainable world; and here, sustainability would be understood generously to include personal and social well-being as much as physical and material well-being” (Reference Barnett2011, p. 454, italics added). He terms it the “ecological university” and argues that its epistemic efforts should be grounded in transdisciplinarity that includes “concern[s] for the totality of the world, [and] has a sense of the interconnectedness of the world” (Barnett, Reference Barnett2023, p. 126, italics added). In other words, the ecological university extends beyond inquiries into knowledge that is “multidisciplinary, or even interdisciplinary” (Barnett, Reference Barnett2023, p. 126). When scrutinizing the future of universities, Barnett proposes, therefore, a twofold thesis, which is “at once conceptual, theoretical and recommendatory,” stating that:

Nussbaum (Reference Nussbaum2002, Reference Nussbaum2006) also emphasizes the importance of humanistic education, drawing a clear link between humanistic education and education for democratic citizenship: “Nothing could be more crucial to democracy than the education of its citizens” (Nussbaum, Reference Nussbaum2006, p. 387, italics added). She argues that

The concept of students as global/intercultural/world citizensFootnote ² has gained more recognition since the beginning of the twenty-first century (see Alred et al., Reference Alred, Byram and Fleming2006; Baker & Fang, Reference Baker and Fang2021; Barnett, Reference Barnett2011; Byram, Reference Byram and Jackson2012; Golubeva et al., Reference Golubeva, Wagner, Yakimowski, Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017; Lantz-Deaton & Golubeva, Reference Lantz-Deaton and Golubeva2020; Nussbaum, Reference Nussbaum2002, Reference Nussbaum2006, etc.). Therefore, students are expected “to see themselves as not simply citizens of some local region or group, but also, and above all, as human beings bound to all other human beings by ties of recognition and concern” (Nussbaum, Reference Nussbaum2006, p. 389), and “to develop a sense of responsibility or interest in the world and gain an understanding of their potential impact on the world and their relationship with it” (Barnett, Reference Barnett2011, p. 451). Furthermore, it is argued that such transformation of students into intercultural citizens is only possible through civic or social action (Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Porto, Lütge, Merse and Rauschert2022). Prior research suggests that engaging in civic/social action can contribute to educating plurilingual-and-interculturally competent democratically active citizens, as shown through a virtual exchange project between university students in Argentina and the United States (Porto et al., Reference Porto, Golubeva and Byram2023). Such activities do not necessarily need to happen at the international level: an intercultural citizen can take civic/social action at the local, regional, or national level (Byram & Golubeva, Reference Byram, Golubeva and Jackson2020; Golubeva, Reference Golubeva2023).

These deliberations are not meant to disregard the value of equipping students with discipline-related knowledge and skills. If one day I needed surgery, I would hope the surgeon had learned to virtuously master a scalpel in school. What I advocate for is a balanced and comprehensive approach to higher education where discipline-related skills can be mastered and that includes a humanistic purpose, helping students mature emotionally, and preparing them for life and work in culturally diverse communities. These goals or purposes for HE do not need to be in competition with each other.

I am aware that those who believe in the purely instrumental role of HE may not see why universities should deal with DEI work and intercultural education. However, by neglecting the humanistic, they demonstrate a narrow understanding of a modern professional role, where DEI and intercultural competencies are critical job skills. As Barnett argued in his seminal book Higher Education: A Critical Business,

In increasingly globalized societies, intercultural competence holds significant importance for employability and worker productivity (see Lantz-Deaton & Golubeva, Reference Lantz-Deaton and Golubeva2020). For example, surveys showed that in Jordan, 95% of employers believed that intercultural skills are “very important”; in Indonesia and the United Kingdom, 70%; in South Africa, 63%; in India, 60%; in the United States, 58%; in the United Arab Emirates, 57%; and in Brazil, 42%; with China closing the list at 25% (British Council, 2013, p. 9). This is not surprising considering the increasing diversity in workplaces. Nowadays, it is common for job advertisements to explicitly prefer employees to have intercultural communication competence and to be committed to the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion (either explicitly or implicitly) regardless of the industry. This requirement accurately demonstrates a broader trend in the labor market of recognizing and valuing cultural diversity. For instance, in the Department of Modern Languages, Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, where I am tenured, English is not the first language for 75% of faculty members (including myself). We not only speak different World Englishes,Footnote ³ with a variety of accents, we bring a wealth of diverse perspectives and practices into our classrooms that enrich our students’ understanding of the world. We navigate intercultural communication every day through varied idioms and phrasal verbs, communicative styles, and nonverbal cues. While this inevitably brings challenges in workplace communication, the advantages of our diverse workplace, including collective problem-solving and creativity, are significant.

Additionally, a large study that synthesized data from over one thousand companies across twelve countries (Hunt et al., Reference Hunt, Prince, Dixon-Fyle and Yee2018) suggests that diversity enhances productivity and improves financial performance. The findings demonstrate a statistically significant correlation, revealing that companies with diverse leadership in terms of gender and ethnic/cultural representation are 21% and 33% (respectively) more likely to produce higher profits. Hence, even those who desire to pursue a purely instrumental agenda for HE cannot disregard the importance of diversity and intercultural education in the workplace. Furthermore, sustainability is a top priority for most businesses and industries, which can be achieved through integrating economic, environmental, and social perspectives into education (Jiménez-Castillo et al., Reference Jiménez-Castillo, Partal-Ureña, Fernández-Carrasco, Muñoz-Rodríguez and Hontoria2021). Universities play an important role in Education for Sustainable DevelopmentFootnote ⁴ (UNESCO, 2012) and have a responsibility to prepare the next-generation workforce for a sustainable lifestyle and work through education for equality, intercultural citizenship, and human rights.

I would like to conclude Section 1.3 by quoting Barnett (Reference Barnett2023, p. 122), who, in a very sharp and concise manner, summarized the role of the universities:

1.4 Author’s Background and Positionality

To you, the Reader, I want to offer a brief insight into my background and positionality that provide the foundation for my work on this Element.

My career in academia has followed a nontraditional, yet progressive, trajectory. I began as an English and Spanish language teacher, working mainly in adult and vocational education. My early research steps were inspired by intercultural interactions with my students. By the time I entered my PhD studies, I had already accumulated substantial experience as a language and intercultural educator, and these hands-on insights deeply informed my research. For a decade afterward, I combined full-time administrative leadership roles in academic affairs, project management, international education, and study abroad programs with research, teaching, and nonprofit work. Given that during this period I was raising two small children, while my husband served as a military doctor on peacebuilding missions, it would be more accurate to use “juggled” instead of “combined” – I felt like I was burning the candle at both ends, but this intense phase in my career provided me with invaluable learning opportunities. For instance, varied facets of my professional identity helped me see issues like internationalization from multiple, often opposing, perspectives (see Golubeva, Reference Golubeva, Lundgren, Castro and Woodin2020). Despite my demanding and responsibility-laden roles, a grueling schedule, and short sleeping hours, there was one aspect of my professional life I refused to give up: teaching.

The classroom, I believe, is where my most profound learning as a person and an academic takes place. I get a lot of positive vibes and useful feedback from my students. This is, I would say, where most of my own intercultural learning happens. I recall, with a touch of self-irony, stepping into my first classroom in the United States, filled with enthusiasm, curiosity, and a fair share of second-hand stereotypes. My first group of thirty undergraduate students turned out to be the most diverse I had encountered up to that point – a truly enriching experience that helped me realize how widely misguided and ideological in nature the category of a “typical American” student is.

My professional and personal experiences have inspired, enriched, and continue to inform my research, teaching, and service to the profession and the broader community. These past experiences serve as a constant reminder that the pursuit of intercultural competence is a lifelong journey. Despite having visited almost fifty countries, fluently speaking four languages, fully understanding two more, studying and working in four different countries, raising bilingual children, and living in a multicultural and plurilingual family where intercultural communication – with its whole spectrum of challenges – is a daily practice, I do not yet consider myself fully interculturally competent, nor do I believe I ever will be. Intercultural competence is inherently context-dependent, meaning in certain contexts you may be more interculturally competent, but less so in others. Furthermore, the development of intercultural competence occurs along a continuum, as described by scholars such as Bennett (Reference Bennett and Paige1993), who outlines this process through a set of stages. It is a matter of becoming interculturally competent through experience, (self-)awareness, analysis and critical reflection. Most importantly, it is no matter how competent you become – there will always be room for further growth and improvement.

I acknowledge that this manuscript is influenced by my experiences, knowledge, and worldviews, both consciously and subconsciously. Furthermore, I anticipate that at some point, due to new experiences, knowledge, and ideological influences, some of my statements may evolve (perhaps even taking a different stance). As a scholar, I am open to this because I believe it is important to practice dialectical thought in order to recognize the value of contradiction and the limits of contemporary epistemological trends (Veraksa et al., Reference Veraksa, Basseches and Brandão2022).

I consider myself an interculturalist whose research, teaching, and service to the broader community are pursuing the same overarching purpose of enhancing intercultural understanding, diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus and beyond. I was born behind the Iron Curtain and raised in an undemocratic state, so I deeply appreciate the principles of democracy. As a granddaughter of those who fought against Nazism and nationalism, I cherish their memory and appreciate their sacrifice, and I advocate for peace and civilized dialogue. Therefore, throughout my academic career, I have followed the values that reside in cultural humility, inclusiveness, and collaboration, and I have made it my mission to develop students’ and my own intercultural citizenship competencies, promote peaceful solutions to conflicts, and encourage intercultural dialogue.

Being socialized in the atmosphere of constant censorship, I am particularly sensitive when I perceive freedom of speech being restricted, especially when this is done under the flag of “political correctness” and “democracy.” At the same time, I do recognize that there is a risk of unrestricted freedom of speech because of hate speech that may occur. The vulnerable should be protected against expressions of hatred and incitement to violence against them. Therefore, I am very upset by the double standards adopted by the mainstream media: while, on the one hand, they advocate against hate speech, on the other hand, they demonize their opponents (this critique refers to both wings: the Left and the Right). Instead of promoting intercultural dialogue, they contribute to further dividing already strongly polarized nations, thus threatening social peace. While the degree of polarization varies between the two wings (see, e.g., Desilver, Reference Desilver2022; Hmielowski et al., Reference Hmielowski, Hutchens and Beam2020), I am concerned about people’s willingness to believe whatever is said against their opponents and the lack of intercultural dialogue between opposing sides. I am also deeply troubled by the amount of fake news, misinformation, and populism (for some examples see McKenzie, Reference McKenzie2019) that continue to mislead people (sometimes the populations of whole countries). The ability to evaluate information objectively is clouded by strong emotions. Critical thinking is shut down. Populism is on the rise.

When I advocate for freedom of speech, I advocate for freedom of thought. As Benjamin Franklin wrote 300 years ago, “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty without Freedom of Speech” (Labaree, Reference Labaree1959, original spelling). Therefore, the purpose of this Element is not to impose my thinking about DEI and ICitE on the Reader, but rather to invite you to explore your own thoughts on the subject matter. I encourage you to consider multiple perspectives that could be more appropriate in your local context. Our viewpoints are shaped by our backgrounds, the privileges we have experienced, and the oppression and discrimination we have encountered. I value the opportunity to share my thoughts on DEI and ICitE in higher education, and I approach this opportunity with care, mindful that any criticism I present on the fields may be extracted from its context and used by opponents of DEI and ICitE to undermine them. I believe both fields offer value, and my critiques are in an effort to strengthen, not invalidate, them. I recognize that my understanding of these two fields is heavily influenced and limited by my (mostly) privileged personal and professional experiences. Therefore, I invite Readers to engage in an open dialogue, and I welcome constructive criticism, especially if it leads to actionable outcomes. Moreover, I am open to future collaborations.

2.1 Introduction

This section offers a brief overview of the current context of DEI and ICitE. After sharing insights on policies, practices, and pitfalls of the fields, I make a call for an intentional approach in synergizing ICitE and DEI efforts on university campuses, and I argue that the “intercultural” in Intercultural Citizenship Education needs to be dissociated from “international,” and that “diversity” in DEI needs to be dissociated from “domestic.”

2.2 Overview of Current Policies, Practices, and Pitfalls in DEI and ICitE

I initiate the discussion on current policies, practices, and pitfalls in ICitE and DEI work as an explicit supporter of both fields and, as mentioned in Section 1.2, I want to see them develop. I like to think that most of the Readers of this Element share the idea that there is room for improvement in both fields and believe that DEI efforts and ICitE can bring about a positive change in societies that are highly polarized, misinformed, and full of prejudices. Let us first have a closer look into the praxisFootnote ⁵ of Intercultural Citizenship Education and then follow with the discussion of DEI. Before reading on, please take some time to explore the mission statement, policies, and strategic plan documents at your organization or institution by reflecting on questions in Thought Box 2.

Important to note that how you as the Reader see both DEI and ICitE practiced is dependent on your individual (as well as institutional, and maybe political) context. For some Readers, DEI or ICitE may be associated with specific offices or positions that explicitly incorporate these fields as part of their role. While other Readers may view DEI and ICitE as a responsibility for everyone. In this Element, I have intentionally refrained from imposing what constitutes DEI and ICitE practices in higher education, as all institutions may have different needs and contexts. Instead, I encourage Readers from diverse perspectives on DEI and ICitE to engage in an open discussion and identify what is relevant and applicable to their own contexts.

2.3 A Call for an Intentional Approach in Synergizing ICitE and DEI Efforts

After having briefly discussed the challenges that the fields of ICitE and DEI currently experience, I move now to the central argument of the Element: that the efforts of the two fields need to be synergized, meaning their combined efforts will achieve better outcomes together than if pursued separately. I see the solution in shifting to more intentional pedagogical interventions for both DEI and ICitE and integrating them into higher education curricula.

From my personal and professional experience, the current practices in HE primarily indicate an almost complete lack of communication between the fields of ICitE and DEI. (I would appreciate it if the Readers could counter this by offering examples of good practices implemented at their institutions.) This issue does not stem from a lack of ability for the two fields to communicate, or from the fields having opposing values and ideals but rather it stems from organizational choices like being placed in separate departments/offices, having distinct agendas, and applying different methods. One reason for such separation is the reliance on a traditional view that primarily associates Intercultural Citizenship Education with international diversity and DEI with domestic. As discussed in the introductory section of this Element, this binary perception is inadequate due to the superdiversity of university campuses (and most of the societies in the world). Limiting the scope of ICitE and DEI, respectively, to international and domestic student communities creates oversimplification and inherently leads to overlooking major issues.

On the part of DEI, one significant limitation – related to this binary perception – is its frequent lack of a global perspective and the perception that it essentializes individuals based on certain aspects of their identity while (potentially) disregarding other important factors. For example, in addressing issues of racial diversity and equity, a DEI initiative may primarily focus on the Black–White racial dynamic prevalent in the US context, potentially overlooking the complex and varied experiences of individuals from other racial or ethnic backgrounds, as well as global perspectives on race and ethnicity. When discussing “where ‘diversity training’ goes wrong,” Griffin (Reference Griffin2021) shares the following critique,

This limited scope can hinder efforts to truly understand and address the intersectional nature of identity and discrimination on a wider scale. It is also important to note that some critiques directed at DEI are not about issues with how it is implemented but rather reject the field’s values, claiming that DEI attempts to “indoctrinate” students (cf. Hanley, Reference Hanley2023 and Rufo, Reference Rufo2023). As highlighted in Section 2.2.2, DEI discussions have become heavily politicized. It is unlikely that those who are opposed to the values of DEI would find synergizing DEI and ICitE a valid answer to their criticism. However, a more nuanced and globally informed approach to DEI is essential for fostering greater inclusivity and equity within diverse communities. In this regard, the non-essentialist approach advocated by Intercultural Citizenship Education can be very useful, as well as ICitE viewing the development of competence as a continuum (see Section 1.4).

This does not mean, though, that ICitE is flawless. Frequently, Intercultural Citizenship Education faces criticism for adopting an overly simplistic approach, failing to adequately address complex topics such as power dynamics, privilege, and social justice. Andreotti (Reference Andreotti2011) raises concerns regarding “soft” educational approaches that “fail to engage in examinations of power relations” (Reference Andreotti2011, p. 219). This is what ICitE could learn from DEI.

I strongly believe that closer collaboration between these two fields would be immensely beneficial for students for a variety of reasons. Primarily, it would:

• help them cope with value-level conflicts,

• teach them to collaborate effectively across differences,

• support them in becoming more open to diverse worldviews.

Intercultural Citizenship Education would develop empathy and perspective-taking, as well as understanding of and engaging with issues of global concern; while DEI work would ensure that this understanding and active engagement is grounded in principles of social justice and the recognition of power imbalances. This synergy would create a more equitable and inclusive community on campus and beyond. Ultimately, it would equip students with the competencies necessary to live peacefully in multicultural communities. To convince the Reader that this is feasible, in Section 3, I provide an overview of the two fields and their intersections, and in Section 4, I share an example of how ICitE and DEI can be synergized in practice, supporting this claim with both qualitative and quantitative assessment findings.

3.1 Introduction

In this section, I summarize how the concepts of ICitE and DEI evolved over time and provide a brief overview of the history of both fields.

Starting with ICitE, I first explain the context – that of foreign language education – in which the notion of ICitE arose and was coined (Alred et al., Reference Alred, Byram and Fleming2006; Byram, Reference Byram, Golubeva and Jackson2008, Reference Byram and Jackson2012, Reference Byram2014; Byram & Golubeva, Reference Golubeva, Lundgren, Castro and Woodin2020; Porto, Reference Porto2019; Porto et al., Reference Porto, Houghton and Byram2018, etc.), and informed a number of important theoretical and pedagogical developments in areas such as:

• study abroad and English language teaching (e.g., Baker et al., Reference Baker, Boonsuk, Ra, Sangiamchit and Snodin2022; Baker & Fang, Reference Baker and Fang2021, Reference Baker and Fang2022; Boonsuk & Fang, Reference Boonsuk and Fang2023; Fang & Baker, Reference Fang and Baker2018; Ra et al., Reference Ra, Boonsuk and Sangiamchit2022);

• transnational telecollaborative projects (e.g., Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017; Golubeva & Porto, Reference Golubeva and Porto2022; O’Dowd, Reference O’Dowd2020; Peraza & Furumura, Reference Peraza and Furumura2022; Porto & Yulita, Reference Porto, Yulita, Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017; Porto et al., Reference Porto, Golubeva and Byram2023; Trapè, Reference Trapè2019);

• service learning in language classroom (e.g., Rauscher & Byram, Reference Byram2018; Rauscher & Mustroph, Reference Rauschert, Mustroph, McConachy, Golubeva and Wagner2022);

• teacher training (e.g., Dooly, Reference Dooly2006; Palpacuer-Lee et al., Reference Palpacuer-Lee, Hutchison Curtis and Curran2018; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Cardetti and Byram2019);

• policy frameworks (e.g., Barrett, Reference Barrett2016; CoE, 2018).

Section 3.2 discusses DEI and, in particular, how the concept of “diversity” has significantly expanded over time. I provide a brief overview of the history of DEI, rooted in the civil rights movement. Its trajectory will be traced from the 1960s to the 1970s, when the main focus was on antidiscrimination legislation (for example, demanding access to HE for Black Americans), to a shift toward sensitivity and awareness training in the 1980s–90s, followed by adding a new (more instrumental) aspect that views diversity as an opportunity to attract “the best and the brightest” to universities and workplaces that emerged in the 2000s. In the past decade, the focus has been mainly on compliance (for example, Title IX training at US universities). Today, it is time to start thinking in terms of sustainability (UNESCO, 2012, 2014), for instance, how we can contribute to sustaining our planet by bringing together diverse perspectives and approaches to problem-solving and by learning to collaborate across differences. This is where DEI and ICitE can complement each other.

In the final section (3.4), I discuss the points of intersection, along which DEI and ICitE can be synergized, and why this would be mutually beneficial.

3.2 The Key Concepts of ICitE and the Brief History of the Field

I start Section 3.2 with clarification of its key concept – Intercultural Citizenship Education – that I define as “education that facilitates the development of values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding necessary for one to be able to interact with people from other (lingua)culturesFootnote ⁹ in a multicultural community, both locally and globally, in a democratic and interculturally competent way” (Golubeva, Reference Golubeva, Desjardins and Wiksten2022, pp. 191–192).

The Reader may wonder, “Why ‘intercultural citizenship’ and not ‘global’?” As explained in Golubeva (Reference Golubeva, Desjardins and Wiksten2022), in some contexts, these two terms are used interchangeably, like when taking into consideration the need to adjust to the vocabulary of research participants who may not be familiar with these terminologies (see, e.g., Golubeva et al., Reference Golubeva, Wagner, Yakimowski, Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017; Han et al., Reference Han, Song, Jing, Zhao, Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017), or when the documents are meant for the broader community (see, e.g., OECD, 2018; UNESCO, 2014). There are some other widely used terms to denote citizenship that transcends the nation-state. According to a Google search conducted on March 9, 2024 (6:30 pm EST), the most commonly used phrases include “global citizenship” (10,000,000), “world citizenship” (1,090,000), and “cosmopolitan citizenship” (347,000). The term “intercultural citizenship” (94,600) is less commonly used and can be found mainly in digital sources related to the field of Language and Intercultural Communication Education.

So why prioritize using “intercultural citizenship” over other aforementioned terms, including the most widely used one: “global citizenship”? Before moving on to the discussion of this question, please take a moment to reflect on your citizenship affiliation in Thought Box 3.

There are three main considerations for prioritizing “intercultural citizenship,” each offering a different rationale, as previously discussed in Golubeva (Reference Golubeva, Desjardins and Wiksten2022).

The first rationale is theoretical. The field of Intercultural Citizenship Education emerged from Byram’s theory of language pedagogy. Specifically, Byram’s conceptualization of “intercultural (communicative) competence” (Byram, Reference Byram1997, Reference Byram2021) and “education for intercultural citizenship” (Byram, Reference Byram2008, Reference Byram and Jackson2012). The idea of incorporating ICitE into the foreign language curriculum brought political and ideological dimensions into the realm of Foreign Language Teaching. Most of the research on intercultural citizenship is closely related to Language and Intercultural Communication Education (see, e.g., Alred et al., Reference Alred, Byram and Fleming2006; Baker et al., Reference Baker, Boonsuk, Ra, Sangiamchit and Snodin2022; Baker & Fang, Reference Baker and Fang2021, Reference Baker and Fang2022; Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017; Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Porto, Lütge, Merse and Rauschert2022; Golubeva, Reference Golubeva2023; Fang & Baker, Reference Fang and Baker2018; Humphreys, Reference Humphreys2023; McConachy et al., Reference McConachy, Golubeva and Wagner2022; Porto, Reference Porto2019; Porto et al., Reference Porto, Houghton and Byram2018; Porto & Yulita, Reference Porto, Yulita, Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017; and many others). Global citizenship education, as theorized in UNESCO (2014) and the OECD PISA Global Competence Framework (OECD, 2018), takes a different approach, by adding to intercultural and political dimensions economic, environmental, and ecologic ones (see for details Sustainable Development Goals, UNDP, 2018).

The second rationale is philosophical. It ponders the ethical dilemma discussed by Dower (Reference Dower, Abdi and Shultz2008) on whether we all are global citizens or if just some of us are global citizens. According to Dower, “in some respects we are all global citizens, for instance because of a certain moral or legal status, but in other respects only some people are global citizens by virtue of their self-descriptions and/or active engagement with the world” (Reference Dower, Abdi and Shultz2008, p. 39). In other words, “global citizenship” is not inherently connected to education. One can be a “global citizen” from merely living on Earth, or from self-identifying as someone who believes they have a responsibility for global issues and take social/civic action to help resolve those problems. On the contrary, for one to become an “intercultural citizen,” education (both inside and outside of the classroom) is essential. It is needed to raise one’s critical cultural (self-)awareness and to equip them with a set of values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding.

The third rationale is pragmatic. It concerns the prominent use of the term “global citizenship” in institutional mission statements and strategic plans in contexts specifically related to study abroad programs as a promise and the main outcome (see, e.g., Aktas et al., Reference Aktas, Pitts, Richards and Silova2017; De Wit, Reference De Wit and Lewin2010; Streitwieser, & Light, Reference Streitwieser, Light, Jones, Coelen, Beelen and Hans de Wit2016; Woodin et al., Reference Woodin, Lundgren and Castro2011). A close association of the term with initiatives like study abroad, where many students cannot participate, makes the term sound elitist. Additionally, in many parts of the world, “global” holds negative connotations from its association with “globalist” and “globalization.” Finally, it deviates the focus away from a systematic way of incorporating intercultural citizenship in university curricula, especially in addressing domestic diversity.

Ultimately, though in practice the terms have been often applied interchangeably, they represent distinct concepts. Based on the previously discussed arguments, I consider “intercultural citizenship” to be a more suitable term for discussing the subject matter of this Element.

The concept of “intercultural citizen” evolved from the concept of “intercultural speaker.” Byram (Reference Byram1997) initially developed a model of intercultural (communicative) competence, aiming to shift the focus of language learning from the traditional aspiration of a “native-speaker” ideal toward becoming an intercultural speaker who is able to mediate “between” linguacultures (Risager, Reference Risager2007). This change in paradigm meant that instead of speaking or behaving like a native speaker, the language learner would assume a metaphorical “third place.” Adapted and applied to language education by Kramsch (Reference Kramsch1993), the concept of “third place” suggested adopting a new intermediary perspective that allows deeper understanding between one’s own and the other speaker’s linguaculture.Footnote ¹⁰

Byram’s model played a crucial role in shifting the instrumental understanding of intercultural (communicative) competence from being a tool for effective and appropriate communication with people from other countries (for example, for business purposes) to a humanistic perspective, which views it as a requisite for living peacefully in a multicultural environment (see Byram, Reference Byram2018). In articulating the humanistic dimension, Byram (Reference Byram2018) underscores the importance of not only equipping individuals with skills, attitudes, and knowledge but also with internationalist values that promote mutual understanding, cooperation, peace, prosperity, and democracy (for a detailed discussion of internationalism, please refer to Elvin, Reference Elvin1960; Goldmann, Reference Goldmann1994; Halliday, Reference Halliday1988). It is important to mention that internationalism is “aspirational” (Halliday, Reference Halliday1988) and “may never be attained but provides education with much needed moral direction” (Byram & Golubeva, Reference Byram, Golubeva and Jackson2020, p. 82). With this humanistic perspective in mind, intercultural citizenship is a normative orientation that can be implemented following democratic principles. The progression of aligning intercultural competence with democratic principles is thoroughly outlined in Barrett and Golubeva (Reference Golubeva, Desjardins and Wiksten2022).

Byram’s (Reference Byram1997, p. 34) model of intercultural competence described five factors: (1) attitudes of relativizing oneself and valuing others; (2) knowledge of self and others and of individual and societal interaction; (3) skills of interpreting and relating; (4) skills of discovering and/or interacting; and (5) critical cultural awareness. Critical cultural awareness – placed at the center of this model and explicitly associated with political education – made this model particularly relevant for intercultural citizenship education because it involves critical reflection, analytical thinking, and (self-)awareness. Byram defines it as “[a]n ability to evaluate critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in our own and other cultures and countries” (Byram, Reference Byram1997, p. 53). It is important to note that this model was not intended to incorporate all possible factors that might be necessary in intercultural interactions. Rather, it was meant to simplify and schematize competence while providing suggestions on how to teach and assess it (Byram, Reference Byram2021). To achieve this aim, Byram (Reference Byram1997) “translated” the five factors into concrete objectives for teaching and assessing purposes (Reference Byram1997, pp. 50–53). For the specific purposes of interacting using a foreign language, Byram (Reference Byram1997) proposed a model of intercultural communicative competence, which in addition to five factors of intercultural competence, includes linguistic, sociolinguistic and discourse competences (Reference Byram1997, p. 73).

Since its publication, Byram’s model has served as both an inspiration and a foundational reference for developing new theoretical frameworks in numerous international initiatives focused on intercultural (citizenship) education. For example, the Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters (AIE) (Byram et al., Reference Byram, Barrett, Ipgrave, Jackson and Méndez García2009a) is a pedagogical tool developed to help students reflect critically on their encounters – either face-to-face or through the Internet – with people from diverse ethnic, racial, religious, linguistic, and other backgrounds. The AIE competence model (Byram et al., Reference Byram, Barrett, Ipgrave, Jackson and Méndez García2009b) encompassed all five original components of Byram’s model and additional components like (1) tolerance for ambiguity, (2) empathy, (3) action orientation, and (4) acknowledgment of the identities of others. These elements had been discussed in Byram (Reference Byram1997) but not embedded in his model (for details, please refer to Barrett & Golubeva, Reference Barrett, Golubeva, McConachy, Golubeva and Wagner2022, pp. 67–69). According to the AIE model, acknowledging the identities of others involves acceptance of their values and insights, and tolerance for ambiguity means “accepting that, because people who belong to different cultures have different beliefs and different values, there can be multiple perspectives on and interpretations of any given situation” (Byram et al., Reference Byram, Barrett, Ipgrave, Jackson and Méndez García2009b, p. 5).

This theoretical development was succeeded by the work on the project titled Developing Intercultural Competence through Education (DICE) (see Barrett et al., Reference Barrett, Byram, Lázár, Mompoint-Gaillard and Philippou2014). The novelty of the DICE approach lies in its explicit adoption of a non-essentialist view, which recognizes the intersectionality of multiple cultural affiliations and identities, acknowledges the dynamic nature of these cultures and identities, and emphasizes the subjective and context-dependent salience of certain cultural practices, values, norms, and beliefs (see for discussion Barrett & Golubeva, Reference Barrett, Golubeva, McConachy, Golubeva and Wagner2022, pp. 69–73). But explicitly, values were articulated in the Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (RFCDC) (CoE, 2018), which combines intercultural and democratic competences.

The Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture integrates the conceptualization of “culture” as outlined in DICE. Recognizing the complex and contested nature of the term “culture” – which has been the subject of ongoing debates in the fields of social sciences and intercultural communication education – the RFCDC summarizes the main aspects of cultures as follows (CoE, 2018, Vol. 1, p. 30):

1. – Cultures can be interpreted through three types of resources: (1) material, for example, tools, artifacts, and cuisine; (2) social, for example, language and behavioral norms of conduct; and (3) subjective, for example, beliefs systems and values.

2. – Cultures vary in size and distinctive features. For example, they can be large religious groups, certain types of sexual orientation groups, specific disability groups, or small neighborhood communities, and so on.

3. – Cultures are characterized by considerable internal diversity, with boundaries being typically quite “fuzzy” because we all hold multiple identities that intersect in a unique way.

4. – Cultures are dynamic given that (1) they can evolve as a result of socio-economic, political, or historical events; (2) our perceived identification with particular groups can shift based on the subjective salience of our identities, and (3) they are challenged internally by their members in terms of values, norms, and practices.

The previously discussed understanding of cultures suggests that whether we perceive a particular situation as intracultural or intercultural depends on if we or others perceive ourselves as members of the in-group or out-group.Footnote ¹¹ This perception then determines which competences will be needed in the particular situation.

The 20 RFCDC competences needed to be able to act as an active democratic and interculturally competent citizen (see Figure 1) were determined through an extensive examination of more than 100 established conceptual schemes and models of civic, democratic, and intercultural competences (for the complete list of used sources, see CoE, 2016, pp. 59–67).

Figure 1 The 20 components of the RFCDC competence model.

Source: CoE, 2018, Vol. 1, p. 38. © Council of Europe, reproduced with permission.

The twenty areas of competence within this framework – that may be termed intercultural and democratic competence – are organized into four categories: (1) values, (2) attitudes, (3) skills, (4) knowledge and critical understanding. The RFCDC understands “competence” as “the ability to mobilise and deploy relevant values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and/or understanding in order to respond appropriately and effectively to the demands, challenges and opportunities that are presented by a given type of context” (CoE, 2018, Vol. 1, p. 32). The difference between “intercultural” and “democratic” is explained, as follows:

In real-life situations, the 20 RFCDC areas of competence are usually mobilized and deployed not all at once, but in clusters. The clusters represent varying combinations of values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding, depending on the specific context. Examples of scenarios when different clusters of competences were applied can be found in the RFCDC publication (CoE, 2018, Vol. 1, pp. 32–35). To demonstrate, let us reflect on happenings during the global crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. It unveiled people’s dispositions in relation to their values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding as citizens. Do you remember politicians partying with their friends while forcing strict lockdowns on the rest of the population (Kennedy, Reference Kennedy2022), anti-lockdown protests around the world (Carothers, Reference Carothers2020), harsh scenes of desperate people in China, rioting for food (ABC News Australia, 2022; Guardian News, 2022)? If not, take a moment to check these sources and answer the questions in Thought Box 4.

Another key concept that Intercultural Citizenship Education builds upon is intercultural dialogue. It “enables us to move forward together, to deal with our different identities constructively and democratically on the basis of shared universal values” (CoE, 2008, p. 2). Intercultural dialogue presupposes that people have shared values that allow them to mediate between different cultures (and linguacultures) and diverse (sometimes conflicting) perspectives (Byram & Golubeva, Reference Byram, Golubeva and Jackson2020). It is recognized as a tool that “allow[s] us to prevent ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural divides” (CoE, 2008, p. 15) and “may significantly contribute to the improvement of democracy and the development of greater and deeper inclusivity and sense of belonging” (EP, 2015, web).

The three volumes of RFCDC (CoE, 2018) provide a comprehensive overview of the model. They explain the conceptual reference framework of the competences one needs to become and act as an active intercultural citizen, provide scaled descriptors for all of the twenty components of the RFCDC model, and suggest how the model and the descriptors can be incorporated and implemented in the curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, using of a “whole school” approach. This model is relevant to working on various topics, including diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice. For example, a pilot study involving pupils from Bulgaria, Italy, Norway, Romania, and Spain (Tenenbaum et al., Reference Tenenbaum, Ingoglia and Wiium2023) examined whether a novel curriculum based on RFCDC could increase children’s endorsement of children’s rights. Although the RFCDC derives from a European tradition, it has been successfully applied outside the European and Western context in diverse educational settings to foster intercultural dialogue and to teach individuals to act as responsible democratic citizens. For examples of successful application of the RFCDC in intercultural citizenship education in diverse contexts, please see projects completed in Argentina and the United States (Golubeva, Reference Golubeva2023; Golubeva & Porto, Reference Golubeva and Porto2022), and the Global Peace Path project that involved participants with refugee status from Afghanistan, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Pakistan, and Syria, cooperating with international students from Bulgaria, China, Chile, Hong Kong, Japan, Russia, Serbia and the United States (Rauschert & Mustroph, Reference Rauschert, Mustroph, McConachy, Golubeva and Wagner2022).

Among the myriad concepts integral to Intercultural Citizenship Education, I would like to clarify two additional ones: “empathy” and “perspective-taking,” which bear close relevance to the research findings discussed in Section 4, and are also critical to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Empathy and perspective-taking play an essential role in one’s ability to communicate successfully with people from diverse backgrounds (Guntersdorfer & Golubeva, Reference Guntersdorfer and Golubeva2018). They aid students in suspending judgment to understand someone else’s cultural perspective:

Listed in most models of intercultural competence (e.g., Deardorff, Reference Deardorff2006; Fantini, Reference Fantini and Deardorff2009; Gudykunst, Reference Gudykunst, Wiseman and Koester1993; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, Reference Ting-Toomey and Kurogi1998), as well as in AIE (Byram et al., Reference Byram, Barrett, Ipgrave, Jackson and Méndez García2009b), DICE (Barrett et al., Reference Barrett, Byram, Lázár, Mompoint-Gaillard and Philippou2014), and RFCDC (CoE, 2018), empathy can be viewed as both a prerequisite for understanding people from other backgrounds and an outcome of contact with outgroup members (see Stephan et al., Reference Stephan, Stephan and Gudykunst1999). In the context of intercultural communication, empathy can be defined as “‘the ability to regulate emotions, cope, and react appropriately in an intercultural encounter’ by understanding and interpreting the feelings of the communication partner, who has a different cultural background and mindset” (Golubeva & Guntersdorfer, Reference Golubeva and Guntersdorfer2020, p. 119, referring to Guntersdorfer & Golubeva, Reference Guntersdorfer and Golubeva2018, p. 57).

Perspective taking – a cognitive construct of empathy – is “the tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological view of others in everyday life” (Davis, Reference Davis1983, pp. 113–114). I consider this ability to take the perspective of others particularly important for building sustainable societies and fostering intercultural dialogue in times of increased polarization (Golubeva, Reference Golubeva2023). While it may be challenging and even uncomfortable to take the perspective of others, it is essential for conflict resolution and problem-solving. A recent study conducted among undergraduate students who engaged in intercultural citizenship telecollaboration in the United States (Golubeva, Reference Golubeva2023) demonstrated a significant increase in both empathy and perspective-taking. Another study (Golubeva, Reference Golubevain press) showed that increased empathy and improved perspective-taking skills contributed to enhancing students’ sense of belonging and their perception of campus inclusiveness (please refer to Section 4 for further discussion).

In this section (3.2), we have briefly overviewed the history of how the field of ICitE evolved from Foreign Language Education and clarified the key concepts of intercultural citizenship education, culture, critical cultural awareness, competence, intercultural and democratic competence, intercultural vs global citizenship, intercultural dialogue, tolerance for ambiguity, empathy, and perspective-taking ability. In concluding this section, I would like to reiterate a principle from my positionality statement: the journey toward becoming an intercultural citizen is a continual commitment and moral dedication. Following Barnett’s definition (Reference Barnett1997, see discussion earlier), a critical person will never deem themselves a fully competent intercultural citizen. The ever-changing world brings new challenges, requiring socially responsible behavior and prompting a continuous inner dialogue concerning ethical considerations.

3.3 The Key Concepts of DEI and the Brief History of the Field

Section 3.3 takes a closer look at the field of DEI. The concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion are widely discussed within HE and in society at large through the media, politics, organizations, and various industries (e.g., healthcare). In this section, I examine the key concepts of DEI and provide a brief overview of its history, predominantly focusing on examples from the US context, where I am geographically based. Therefore, before you continue reading, I invite you to take a moment to reflect on your local context in Thought Box 5.

It is noteworthy that the degree to which HE institutions and states as a whole pay attention to DEI varies across the globe and even within the same county or geographic region. In some countries, like the United States, DEI efforts can be supported (or rejected) through law, and HE institutions may have funding to hire staff focused on DEI work or be barred from hiring DEI-focused positions. In other countries, these concepts may be unfamiliar and associated with the Western world. Additionally, the concept of DEI can be expanded to DEIA, which stands for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility, or DEIB, which stands for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging, among numerous others. Again, this depends on the focus of a given institution/state, as well as the specific context and dimensions of local diversity (ethno-racial or gender equity, migrant and refugee crisis, etc.). While acknowledging the importance of the nuanced approach, in this publication, the most general acronym “DEI” is used throughout.

The acronym “DEI” has become ubiquitous but with varying meanings and values. The way it is used in different political discourses often reveals the ideological views and positionality of the speaker. Ideally, one would assume that the words “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” would not carry any negative connotations; however, there is currently a heated anti-DEI narrative in politics and ideologies in many countries across the globe. For example, in a recent scandal involving the resignation of the president of Harvard University (Glanzman, Reference Glanzman2024; Schuessler et al., Reference Schuessler, Hartocollis, Levenson and Blinder2024), DEI-based hiring was “blamed” for her hiring in the first place (Abcarian, Reference Abcarian2024).

Let us review what DEI actually means through a discussion of the key concepts related to the field. The first fundamental concept of DEI is “diversity,” which is typically defined as “the range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical value system, national origin, and political beliefs” (NIH, 2017). In the United States, institutions often have a published definition of “diversity” on their website. The definitions used by universities and organizations in their institutional policies are quite similar to the previously quoted one. They are not exhaustive and never claim to be so, which is understandable because the lists of human characteristics and identities can never be complete. However, two issues around these definitions are noteworthy.

First, most “diversity” definitions do not consider an individual’s language identity as being worthy of selection for this shortlist, and yet it is subjectively meaningful to many people. Language has an essential role in human existence. Not only does it allow us to share our thoughts and emotions, it is crucial for expressing and negotiating our identities. Moreover, language is an instrument of power. Second, these definitions reduce diversity within an institution to the presence or absence of representation of these differences. This can give the perception of disregarding the importance of one’s lived experiences or overlooking intersectionality. For example, students from an ethnic majority can be automatically “put in the box” of being part of a privileged group. It can remain unnoticed that based on a variety of other aspects of their identity, such as their immigration status, accent or hidden disability, they have been discriminated against. The nuance that someone can have privileged and unprivileged identities simultaneously can often be lost in surface level diversity. This brings us to the discussion of the second fundamental concept of DEI, “equity.”

“Equity” can be defined as “the state, quality, or ideal of being just, impartial, and fair” (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2014, p. 5). It is important to distinguish “equity” from “equality,” the term, which is widely used, for example, in the United Kingdom in the “EDI” acronym, standing for Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion. The difference between the two terms is that “equality” means providing people with “an equal opportunity to make the most of their lives and talents and that one person should not have an advantage over another ‘because of the way they were born, where they are from, what they believe, or whether they have a disability’ (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2018)” (Lantz-Deaton & Golubeva, Reference Lantz-Deaton and Golubeva2020, p. 178). Equality protects from discrimination as people are given “equal treatment.” For instance, in the UK, under the Equality Act (2010), there are nine protected characteristics: (1) age, (2) disability, (3) gender reassignment, (4) marriage and civil partnership, (5) pregnancy and maternity, (6) race, (7) religion or belief, (8) sex, and (9) sexual orientation. While equality ensures that everyone gets the same opportunity, equity takes care of understanding what kind of support people need based on their individual, interpersonal and systemic context. Both equity and equality promote social justice, but the former involves structural changes and systemic efforts. From this point of view, equity is an aspiration and – whatever degree of detail an institution will be able to pay attention to – the situation can be improved but will never be fully equitable. An analogy commonly used to show the differences between the terms is that equality would be everyone receiving the exact same pair of shoes, therefore, getting equal treatment, while equity would be everyone receiving a pair of shoes that fit their body and mobility needs, therefore, having equal outcomes.

The third key concept is “inclusion,” and it can be defined as “involvement and empowerment, where the inherent worth and dignity of all people is recognized” (NIH, 2017). While “diversity” can be described as numerical representation, “inclusion” involves active participation and a sense of belonging. The purpose of enhancing inclusivity is to make every member of the community (organization, university campus, etc.) feel they belong and have voice, regardless of their age, disability, ethno-racial identity, gender and sexual orientation, social status, religion or belief, language and immigration background, or any other dimensions of diversity. Of note: in this definition, inclusion calls for everyone to feel like they have a voice but does not suggest that all voices need to be in agreement for inclusion to exist.

Additionally, “social justice” is a concept that is fundamental for theoretical orientation of DEI and also serves as a practical ideal. Defined as “the fair treatment and equitable status of all individuals and social groups within a state or society,” social justice refers to “social, political, and economic institutions, laws, or policies that collectively afford such fairness and equity and is commonly applied to movements that seek fairness, equity, inclusion, self-determination, or other goals for currently or historically oppressed, exploited, or marginalized populations” (Duignan, Reference Duignan2024, para. 1). Similarly to “DEI,” due to its highly political and ideological nature, the notion of “social justice” has many other readings and interpretations and is often used in a narrower sense, depending on context and specific circumstances (see Duignan, Reference Duignan2024; Nussbaum, Reference Nussbaum1999, etc.). However, for this text I will use social justice in the previous meaning.

Another term central to this discussion is the “sense of belonging.” While the four previously discussed – diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice – can be observed, measured, or described through the state-of-practice at institutional level; the sense of belonging is subjective and can be defined as an individual’s perception of campus inclusiveness and the feeling of psychological safety. The sense of belonging is important because it allows us to be ourselves and perform our best while actively participating in diverse communities. It can be developed if students perceive that they have support from their professors and peers (Hoffman et al., Reference Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow and Salomone2003). Ingram (Reference Ingram2012) differentiated three categories of belonging: social, academic, and perceived institutional support. Greater peer relatability correlated with heightened reported social belonging among students. Furthermore, students who perceived the curriculum as personally relevant demonstrated higher scores across all three measures of belonging. In the InterEqual project reported in Section 4, enhancing social and academic belonging was a key focus.

The main challenge when trying to enhance students’ sense of belonging in a systematic way at a university is the individual and subject nature of the term and how each student conceptualizes their university. For each student, a sense of belonging can have multiple meanings. Some students may prioritize social belonging because they need to feel valued members of the campus community. Others may seek academic belonging (i.e., supportive faculty and staff, and reliable study groups) or institutional support (i.e., specific student services and safety) (Golubeva, Reference Golubevain press). Moreover, priorities may change over the course of students’ studies at university. This can be explained through the lens of their lived experiences and the fluidity and hybridity of identities (Bhabha, Reference Bhabha, Hall and Gay2006; Buckingham, Reference Buckingham2008; Hall & Du Gay, Reference Hall and Du Gay2006), which can swiftly shift as a result of interactions with campus members or a larger community. The fluid and dynamic nature of identity makes it difficult to categorize and classify individuals in a meaningful way, without stereotyping. This is why for the DEI field, to better understand how social identities overlap, it is important to more broadly incorporate intersectionality (Crenshaw, Reference Crenshaw1989, Reference Crenshaw1991).

While not long ago, most studies in the field of DEI focused on a single aspect of social identity (e.g., age, sex, race) in a domestic context, predominantly the workplace (Shore et al., Reference Shore, Chung-Herrera and Dean2009); today, DEI efforts strive to take into account the entire complexity of human experience and extend its understanding beyond purely demographic differences to include the intersectionality of identities, and overlapping systems of power and oppression. The term “intersectionality” was coined by Crenshaw (Reference Crenshaw1989) and originally used to discuss the multidimensionality of Black women’s experience and their treatment in antidiscrimination law, more specifically, how systems of oppression (racism and sexism) overlap. Today, this concept is often used in a broader meaning, acknowledging that various characteristics or social identities (e.g., ethnicity, race, language background, age, gender, sexual orientation, ideological views and religious beliefs, disabilities, and other dimensions of diversity) can intersect to further marginalize people, placing them at even greater disadvantages within systems of power. Conversely, the intersection of privileged characteristics can further enhance an individual’s advantages within these systems. However, as Hoffart (Reference Hoffart2023) cautions, the concept of “intersectionality” is often misunderstood and, therefore, misused. Often intersectionality is simplified to an idea that someone is not just one aspect of their identity at any specific time without commenting on the overlapping systems. It appears to be one of the most controversial concepts in the research concerning the DEI issues. Hoffart refers to these debates as “intersectionality wars,” noting that instead of providing answers and having “a unifying purpose,” they rather create division (Reference Hoffart2023, p. 40). His opinion echoes Nash’s, who points out that

With specific reference to feminist researchers (May, Reference May2015; Tomlinson, Reference Tomlinson2018, etc.) and academic literature on intersectionality (Cho et al., Reference Cho, Crenshaw and McCall2013; Crenshaw, Reference Crenshaw1989, etc.), Hoffart (Reference Hoffart2023) centers his analysis around “intersectional intersectionality” and “additive intersectionality.” “Additivity,” as he explains, “denotes a way of conceptualising the relationship between different social categories or systems of oppression where these categories (like gender, race, class, sexuality) or systems (like sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism) are seen as separate and independent, which then makes it possible to add them to each other” (Hoffart, Reference Hoffart2023, p. 48). In contrast to intersectional intersectionality, additive intersectionality views an individual as a simple combination of separate identities and not in intertwining ways. The difference between these opposing narratives and methodological approaches can be illustrated through the following two modes of thought (based on Hoffart, Reference Hoffart2023, p. 52):

• Intersectional ←→ Additive

• Non-essentialist ←→ Essentialist

• Nonbinary ←→ Binary

• Inclusive ←→ Exclusionary

• Fluid ←→ Solid

• Dynamic ←→ Static

• Becoming ←→ Finished

• Experience-near ←→ Experience-far

• Dialogic ←→ Monologic

• (Self-)reflective ←→ (Power-)blind

The intersectional intersectionality approach shows a clear relevance to the mindset of intercultural citizenship. Additive thinking is not compatible with intersectional thinking (Bowleg, Reference Bowleg2008, p. 314) as it is not compatible with the intercultural citizenship education approach.

Before we move to a brief overview of the history of the DEI field, it is important to acknowledge, first, that there exist numerous other concepts relevant to DEI work, such as identity development, accessibility, and accountability. However, due to length limitations, I will not be able to include them all. Second, and more importantly, the terminology of the field of DEI was coined in the Anglo-Saxon context, which can be problematic and cause tensions in other local contexts (and languages). For example, the previously discussed concept of “intersectionality” was theorized and thematized in the US context, which holds a potential risk of “reproducing the US-centric structure of the field” outside of its “home,” “universalized as a non-context, a non-location” (see Hoffart, Reference Hoffart2023, p. 33). Therefore, before we continue, please take a moment to reflect on Thought Box 6.

In the United States, the history of DEI traces back to the civil rights movement and major changes in the legal system aimed at eradicating the enduring impacts of slavery, racism and white supremacy. In the 1960s–70s, the main focus was on anti-discrimination legislation to rectify prior laws and policies that were explicitly racist. Historical landmarks such as Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 (Warren, Reference Warren1954) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII, 1964) were important in ensuring equal access to education and addressing disparities in healthcare, criminal justice, and other aspects of social life. Prior to the 1960s there was little racial, economic, or gender diversity in HE in the United States (outside of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other minority-serving institutions (MSIsFootnote ¹²) that were traditionally and intentionally underfunded). Civil rights movements, advocating for justice and equality for Black Americans, were bolstered by student and faculty activism and mass protests across the nation. Universities served as a hub for progressive thought, social change, and education of democratic values and human rights (see, e.g., Online Exhibits at the University of Michigan Library, n.d.). Since then, hundreds of academic departments and programs in Black and African American studies have been launched in the United States. In the 1970s, the corporate world started practicing affirmative action: at the beginning, when doing recruitment, and later shifting to retention and promotion of minorities and women.

The next significant step in DEI work was the introduction of sensitivity and awareness training in the 1980s–90s, aimed to identify personal biases. The focus of these training sessions would vary depending on the local context. For example, in Australia, the primary aim was to address the historical discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Vaughn, Reference Vaughn2007). In many places in Asia, the DEI work addressed the long-standing tensions between Muslim and Hindu communities. In South Africa, diversity education aimed at helping the dismantling of the Apartheid system. And, in many European countries, it was focused on fighting xenophobic attitudes due to increased migration. In the United States, the focus was mainly on racism initially, and later, gender diversity sensitization and tolerance toward religious and LGBTQ+ communities were added. These DEI efforts contributed to more positive attitude toward gays and lesbians, which was especially negative among historically dominant religious communities (Vaughn, Reference Vaughn2007 referring to Devine & Monteith, Reference Devine, Monteith, Mackie and Hamilton1993).

Increasing globalization and workplace diversity created an increased demand to broaden the scope of DEI training in response to rising multiculturalism, which refers to “the inclusion of the full range of identity groups in education” (Vaughn, Reference Vaughn2007). Vaughn (Reference Vaughn2007) reports that at the same time universities in the United States started offering diversity courses that students could use to fulfill general education requirements. However, at the beginning of 1980s, compulsory DEI education was met with similar resistance in HE as in other sectors (industry, corporate world, military, etc.) (Day, Reference Day, Landis and Brislin1983). During this decade the number of training programs was growing, which led to the professionalization of the field and the emergence of Chief Diversity Officer positions.

Over time, cultural context changed resulting in less resistance to DEI initiatives. In the 2000s, the attention of the field expanded to an even broader variety of identity aspects, which included disabilities and sexual orientation. The number of DEI-focused positions continued to grow, and a new (more instrumental) aspect was added that viewed diversity as an opportunity to attract “the best and the brightest” to universities and workplaces. In the context of US higher education, this resulted in a rapid expansion of student enrollment in colleges and universities and recruitment of faculty and staff from underrepresented minorities, but, unfortunately, less has been achieved in terms of building inclusive campuses. The proportion of white students in 1976 accountedFootnote ¹³ for 83% of all college students; by 2016 they accounted for 57% of all college students due to policies like affirmative action at elite institutions, increased financial aid, the expansion of community colleges, and other social factors. During that same time, the proportion of college students who are Black or Hispanic increased from 10% to 14% and from 4% to 18%, respectively (Menand, Reference Menand2020).

While the demographic statistics demonstrated significant progress in terms of diversity, the retention rates of underrepresented minorities members showed less prominent improvement. Vaughn (Reference Vaughn2007 referring to Fenn & Irvin, Reference Fenn and Irvin2005) described this attitude as “let’s just get as many students of color in as possible and worry about how to retain them later.”

The past decade has been characterized by (1) the raise of social movements (e.g., like #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #StopAAPIHate), and (2) a stronger focus on compliance with Federal regulations, which included obligatory training as, for example, the Title IX training at US universities (see also Section 2.2). The main goal of these training initiatives is to inform students, faculty, and staff about the policies for mandated reporting, but they do not necessarily prevent or stop discrimination and sexual harassment. Of note, the focus on compliance can be tied to the politics of how US universities (both private and public) are funded by state and federal governments.

Although over the years, thanks to DEI efforts, there has been progress, the goals of DEI efforts are not complete. It can be stated with certainty that neither job promotion opportunities nor salaries are equal, and work still must be done. For example, in the United States, while women earn 59% of master’s degrees (NCES, 2017) and form 52.8% of the college-educated workforce (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023), only 4.8% of CEOs in 500 largest companies are women (Zarya, Reference Zarya2018). Similarly low is women’s, and in particular women’s of color, representation in leadership positions in industries such as film and television production, medicine, high-tech industry, and politics (for detailed overview see Warner et al., Reference Warner, Ellmann and Boesch2018). In 2023, women comprised only 25% of the US Senate and 29% of the US House of Representatives (Center for American Women in Politics, 2023; Quorum, Reference Quorum2023). Although in the past decade the majority of doctorate (PhD) degrees in the United States have been earned by women, only 32% of full professors and 30% of college presidents are women (Warner et al., Reference Warner, Ellmann and Boesch2018). The wage gap between men and women, although narrower than it was in the 1970s, is still significant, with full-time women professors earning 82% of what their male colleagues earn (Carlton, Reference Carlton2023), while taking on their shoulders on average 1.4 more service workload per academic year as their male colleagues. For full professors this average is even higher at 2.4 times more work (Guarino & Borden, Reference Guarino and Borden2017).

A similar pay gap exists in the European context, with women earning on average 16.2% less than men (EC, 2018b). Among the European Union member states, the largest gap was observed in Estonia (25.3%) (EC, 2018b). In Europe, as in the United States, women are offered fewer opportunities for promotion and less generous bonuses, despite the fact that significantly more (10.8% more) women than men have completed higher education degrees (Eurostat, 2022). To combat this, several measures have been introduced in order to establish pay transparency. In Germany, the Act to Promote Transparency in Wage Structures (Entgelttransparenzgesetz) came into force in 2017. In Poland, a free Internet application was launched to measure the pay gap between women and men in both private and public sectors, and in the United Kingdom, companies with over 250 employees are required to report the gender pay gap data (see for further details EC, 2018b). Ironically, even among DEI professionals the issue of diversity and equity remains unresolved (see, e.g., Barger, Reference Barger2023; Nwanji, Reference Nwanji2023).

While diversity policies, training, and other initiatives are well intentioned, there are a number of concerns in their regard. Studies suggest that they may send wrong signals developing an illusionary belief in individuals that their organization/institution is fair, while they overlook cases of discrimination and sexual harassment (Dover et al., Reference Dover, Major and Kaiser2014; Kaiser et al., Reference Kaiser, Major and Jurcevic2013). According to Lipman’s (Reference Lipman2018) estimation, US companies spend around 8 billion dollars on DEI training programs. However, their effectiveness proves to be limited, and often “one-size-fits-all” training sessions do not bring the desired results (Onyeador et al., Reference Onyeador, Hudson and Lewis2021). The lack of effectiveness of these training initiatives should not be viewed as an indication that the values of DEI are not important but, instead, I believe, point to pedagogical challenges. To give a simple example, it would be unrealistic to expect limited training or education on a subject like addition to sufficiently prepare a student to do multiplication. Instead, a systematic and scaffolded approach is used to build mathematical competence. This is why I strongly believe that DEI should be incorporated in HE curricula across disciplines. This would aid in building a culture of mutual respect and enhance intercultural dialogue by bringing together diverse perspectives and approaches to problem-solving and by learning to collaborate across differences and allow for an approach that is mindful of where students are at developmentally. This is where DEI and ICitE can complement each other, which I will expand on in the next section.

3.4 The Intersections of DEI and ICitE

Section 3.4 summarizes significant points of intersection between DEI work and Intercultural Citizenship Education, along which the two can be synergized. I illustrate this by presenting a model (see Figure 2) that outlines some key common attributes of DEI and ICitE, and discuss ways for synergizing them in a mutually beneficial manner.

Figure 2 Synergies between DEI and ICitE.

As discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, the two fields have distinct histories and disciplinary roots. In terms of theoretical foundations, they typically refer to different corpora of research literature, and their primary focus differs as well. However, despite the observed difference in perspectives between Intercultural Citizenship Education and DEI work, I argue that the two fields can complement each other in various positive and productive ways, particularly in their effort to promote inclusion and foster empathy and understanding between people coming from diverse backgrounds. Instead of listing some common values, goals, and practices shared by these two fields, I propose some key attributes that illustrate the intersections between DEI and ICitE. I do this intentionally because every model is inherently a simplification and may, therefore, have a limiting effect on one’s understanding of the complexity of these phenomena, while my purpose is to offer a flexible, open-ended understanding of potential synergies between DEI and ICitE, adaptable to a variety of contexts. To this end, I describe the intersections using adjectives rather than nouns, which I view as a more dynamic and less rigid way to define the evolving fields such as DEI and ICitE.

This is a nonexhaustive attribute list: it highlights some key characteristics that should ideally be present in both DEI and ICitE theories and practices. These attributes are: (1) humanistic, (2) inter- and transdisciplinary, (3) non-essentialist, (4) inclusive, (5) developmental (along a continuum), (6) contextual, (7) experiential, (8) dialogic, (9) (self-)reflective, and (10) (self-)critical.

Humanistic: First and foremost, both DEI and ICitE serve the purpose of advancing the humanistic agenda of HE, that is, to prepare students for life and work in culturally diverse communities (see Section 1.3 for discussion). This shared goal emphasizes the development of values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding that are necessary in an increasingly interconnected world. At the core of the humanistic agenda is the recognition that HE has a responsibility to prepare students for navigating complex social and cultural landscapes. DEI initiatives focus on creating inclusive environments that appreciate diversity and promote social justice; while ICitE facilitates the development of competencies necessary for one to become an active, interculturally and democratically competent, and global-minded citizen. By synergizing the efforts, DEI and ICitE can help students to move beyond passive awareness of diversity. They encourage meaningful interaction across cultural differences based on mutual respect, enabling students to actively contribute to the well-being of diverse communities. However, this can work only if HE is viewed in a given country/state/institution as a “public good.” Otherwise, when the focus is shifted toward more individualistic, market-driven goals, such as economic competitiveness, the broader societal role of education in fostering inclusion, social justice, intercultural understanding, and active citizenship may be disregarded, or reduced to tokenism and compliance-based initiatives, rather than preparing students for life and work in diverse communities.

Inter- and Transdisciplinary: Both DEI and ICitE are inter- and transdisciplinary, meaning they should by definition be epistemologically open to new knowledge and diverse perspectives, inviting critique, and seeking new ways for implementing their goals across a variety of disciplines. Furthermore, both fields should strive to include underrepresented voices. Given that research on DEI and ICitE is rooted in Western academia and predominantly published in the English language, researchers from other epistemic traditions remain marginalized and unheard. A joint effort in decentering and decolonizing the research and practice could result in both scientific and social benefits.

Non-essentialist: The two fields seek to raise students’ awareness of the significance of human diversity. However, there is a risk of essentializing based on certain identities if DEI and ICitE are not implemented with care and critical reflection. Both fields have been criticized for reducing complex, multifaceted identities to oversimplified categories, which can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and neglect human experiences. In the context of DEI, essentializing might occur if diversity is approached as a checkbox of predetermined categories: “It entails the tendency to understand social categories as expressions of discrete, fixed, natural, uniform, and defining characteristics that are shared by all members, and are informative about them” (Soylu Yalcinkaya et al., Reference Soylu Yalcinkaya, Estrada-Villalta and Adams2017, p. 1). Similarly, in ICitE, there is a risk of reducing cultural identities to such traits as nationality or first language (see also Holliday, Reference Holliday2011). To fully capture the richness of individual identities, both fields should adopt a nuanced, non-essentialist approach that acknowledges the multifaceted, dynamic, fluid, and hybrid nature of identities and avoids predetermined categories, presuming that “all members of Group X think and behave the same way.”

Inclusive: The fourth attribute is closely related to the previous one (non-essentialist), as both recognize diversity and uniqueness of human identities. The two fields, DEI and ICitE, emphasize creating inclusive environments where diverse perspectives and identities are valued and integrated. However, there is a nuanced difference in how they approach these goals with the former being concerned with intergroup power dynamics and the latter seeking to improve interpersonal communication. Combining these two would be mutually beneficial. On one hand, this would help DEI to address the critiques that it promotes essentialist thinking and narrative of “us” vs “them,” when members of “other” groups are placed into preconceived “boxes,” and the complex intersectionality of their identities can be oversimplified. On the other hand, it would help the field of Intercultural Citizenship Education, which tends to focus on competences an individual needs to communicate and interact across cultural differences, to adopt DEI’s focus on “co-creating” culture by nurturing belonging, advancing equity, enhancing inclusion, and promoting social justice as well as its attention to systems and power.

Developmental: Another attribute concerns the developmental nature of DEI and ICitE, especially in terms of learning process and outcomes. DEI could adopt from ICitE’s methodological approach of viewing students as being on a continuum and scaffolding their developmental process (e.g., from “racist” to “not racist” – see Helms, Reference Helms, Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki and Alexander1995). This could address the perception that DEI training initiatives often fail to meet students where they are at developmentally and potentially reduce negative experiences that put students on the defensive. Numerous models in intercultural education could be used for this purpose. See, for example, Bennett’s Intercultural Development Model (Bennett, Reference Bennett and Paige1993), or three-level scaled descriptors of the Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (CoE, 2018). The latter is in particular suitable and can serve as a bridging framework for synergizing DEI and ICitE because it is based on the values shared by both fields, has a strong focus on democratic and intercultural competences, and is applicable to many countries and cultures (please refer to Section 3.2 and CoE, 2018 to learn more about the RFCDC, and to Section 4 for practical application of this framework).

Contextual: DEI and Intercultural Citizenship Education are inherently contextual. They cannot be acontextual as they need to be adapted to the specific sociopolitical, (lingua)cultural, and historical circumstances of the regions where they are implemented. Not only issues, but their understanding and perception may significantly vary and are context-dependent (see, e.g., Crenshaw, Reference Crenshaw1991; DiAngelo, Reference DiAngelo2022; Hall, Reference Hall1976; Lustig & Koester, Reference Lustig and Koester2010). Let us explore some practical examples of how the foci of DEI and ICitE may be tailored to specific needs. For example, in Germany, DEI priority might be addressing modern-day xenophobia and integrating large numbers of refugees from Syria and Ukraine. In Australia, DEI efforts might focus on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ sovereignty. ICitE, in the context of Latin America, might address historical injustices stemming from colonialism, to recognize the cultural rights of Indigenous groups; and in the context of suffering from apartheid South Africa – on reconciliation and fostering social cohesion through education. In a multicultural urban environment, subject to increasing migration, such as Paris, France, ICitE may promote building intercultural dialogue for living peacefully among a wide array of ethnic, religious, linguistic, and cultural communities. Or, as another example, during the times of global COVID-19 pandemic, ICitE may focus on sensitizing students to issues of human suffering and engaging them in constructive civic/social action (see, e.g., the intercultural citizenship telecollaboration organized by Porto et al., Reference Porto, Golubeva and Byram2023). This leads us to the next shared attribute.

Experiential: Both DEI and ICitE emphasize the importance of active engagement, which makes the pedagogical methods based on experiential learning (Passarelli & Kolb, Reference Passarelli, Kolb, Berg, Paige and Lou2012) effectively applicable in their approaches. DEI work is action-oriented, which is an orientation Intercultural Citizenship Education has been striving to achieve (see, e.g., Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017; Porto et al., Reference Porto, Golubeva and Byram2023, Rauschert & Byram, Reference Rauschert and Byram2018). There are multiple forms of engaging students in hands-on, real-world experiences, including, but not limited to, community-based projects, service learning, study abroad programs, and intercultural telecollaboration. For example, an opportunity to experience diversity and to understand the lived realities of people coming from distinct (lingua)cultural backgrounds is to participate in community-based learning with immigrants. Collaborating on global issues such as human rights, climate disasters, and Indigenous rights, with students from different countries/backgrounds can foster a sense of shared responsibility and global-mindedness. Engaging in real-world scenarios provides a powerful means to bridge the goals of DEI and ICitE. Experiential learning can serve as a catalyst for realizing these goals by offering authentic opportunities to observe how different dimensions of identity (gender, age, immigration status, (lingua)cultural background, socioeconomic class, etc.) intersect and what impact this has on people’s lived experiences.

Dialogic: The eighth attribute is at the core of both DEI and ICitE practices. DEI initiatives often rely on intergroup dialogue to challenge unconscious bias; to critically explore issues that polarize society, and to stimulate social action (see, e.g., Dessel et al., Reference Dessel, Rogge and Garlington2006; Grenny et al., Reference Grenny, Patterson, McMillan, Switzler and Gregory2022; Gurin et al., Reference Gurin, Nagda and Sorensen2011; Quaye & Harper, Reference Quaye and Harper2015). A multi-university study showed that intergroup dialogue can improve students’ understanding of race, gender, and income inequality; increase their intergroup empathy and cognitive openness, as well as their engagement in post college social and political action (Gurin et al., Reference Gurin, Nagda and Sorensen2011). Equally critical is dialogue in Intercultural Citizenship Education (see CoE, 2008; EP, 2015: Lundgren et al., Reference Lundgren, Castro and Woodin2020, etc.). Through intercultural dialogue people coming from different (lingua)cultural backgrounds share their diverse (sometimes conflicting) perspectives, negotiate meanings across divides, and resolve conflicts. Dialogue not only enhances a sense of belonging through relationship building but is a prerequisite for building democratic cultures. It is important to underscore that dialogue in both DEI and ICitE practices has transformative potential. This makes it a vital attribute in both fields.

(Self-)reflective and (Self-)critical: Two last but not least significant attributes emphasize the importance of such analytical thinking skills as self-reflection and self-criticality. The association of intercultural communication with critical cultural (self-)awareness and political education (see Byram, Reference Byram2008, Reference Byram2021) makes ICitE and the related models and frameworks particularly well suited for DEI. As Byram argues,

This strong emphasis on fostering (self-)reflection and (self-)criticality can be adopted by DEI as a pedagogical approach and serve as a guiding principle for identifying training needs. (Self-)reflection is essential for individuals to examine their own identities, and to recognize their unconscious biases and privileges; while (self-)criticality is crucial in assessing one’s own and others’ practices, and institutional policies; challenging ethnocentric and essentialist views; and examining power dynamics. Both are equally important for individual and societal transformation.

The intersections between DEI and ICitE can be synergized, for example, by the former securing institutional support (provided DEI itself is supported at a given institution), and the latter offering pedagogical solutions for more systematic (intentional) integration of DEI and Intercultural Citizenship Education in university curricula. A joint effort of DEI and ICitE in emphasizing the humanistic role of HE could help to introduce a more sustainable approach for institutions and both fields to reach their educational goals.

As stated at the beginning of this section, this model is not exhaustive. Its primary purpose is threefold: (1) to facilitate through simplification a deeper understanding of the emerging fields of DEI and ICitE; (2) to describe the intersections between DEI and ICitE that can potentially be synergized for mutual benefit of the two; (3) to establish a theoretical foundation upon which further inquiry and experimentation can occur. To conclude the discussion of the proposed model, I refer to a famous aphorism attributed to George E. P. Box (Box et al., Reference Box, Luceño and Paniagua-Quiñones2009, p. 61):

Section 4 offers an example of how DEI and ICitE can be synergized in the context of higher education.

4.1 Introduction

Research on the campus climate has been the focus of HE scholarship for decades (Hart & Fellabaum, Reference Hart and Fellabaum2008). Nevertheless, studies show that challenges around inequalities, discrimination, and sense of belonging still negatively affect students’ academic performance and the interpersonal/intergroup relations on campus (Hurtado et al., Reference Hurtado, Alvarez, Guillermo-Wann, Cuellar and Arellano2012; Hurtado & Ruiz Alvarado, Reference Hurtado and Ruiz Alvarado2012).

In this section, I offer an example of how a Minority Serving Institution developed a systematic training that integrated DEI and ICitE concepts and attributes. This is not to highlight this particular training as the “only” or “right” way to synergize DEI and ICitE concepts, but rather to demonstrate how such an effort can be approached. I discuss the results of a recent campus-wide survey conducted at an MSI (Golubeva et al., Reference Golubeva, Di Maria, Holden, Kohler and Wadeforthcoming), involving 1,535 undergraduate and graduate students. The study explored students’ experiences with diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus as these relate to various aspects of their identity, as well as students’ sense of belonging to a multicultural university community. The survey also scrutinized students’ perceptions of the importance of intercultural and democratic citizenship competences, as outlined in the Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (CoE, 2018).

The findings from the campus-wide survey study informed the development of five training modules, which were then piloted with more than 200 undergraduate students from diverse majors. The InterEqual training, rooted in the synergies between DEI and ICitE, serves as an exemplar of how this approach can be implemented in university practice. I conclude the section by presenting results from both qualitative and quantitative data and discussing the impact of participation in the InterEqual training on fostering a more inclusive university campus.

4.2 Insights from a Campus-Wide Survey

In the fall of 2021, my colleagues and I (Golubeva et al., Reference Golubeva, Di Maria, Holden, Kohler and Wadeforthcoming) conducted a campus-wide survey at an MSI in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The fall 2021 semester in the United States involved a massive return to on-campus learning after many universities had shifted to online learning in the spring of 2020, in response to the height of the COVID-19 lockdown. Among other challenges, the pandemic exacerbated political polarization, economic inequalities, and social isolation and led to observed increases in mental health challenges among students. In the United States, this time was also marked with nationwide reactions, protests and unrest because of police brutality and systemic racism following the murder and deaths of unarmed Black individuals like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Therefore, the main objectives of our survey were (1) to explore students’ perceptions of the campus climate and intergroup relations, (2) to identify which RFCDC competencies they would like to develop, and (3) to inform the design of training modules aimed at fostering campus inclusiveness.

Usually, campus climate surveys focus on specific aspects of a campus. Among the areas most scrutinized are topics like student services, institutional policies, classroom practices, accessibility of public spaces, and social life (Harper & Hurtado, Reference Harper, Hurtado, Harper and Patton2007; Hart & Fellabaum, Reference Hart and Fellabaum2008, etc.). These assessments are typically conducted by Student Affairs, Institutional Research, or DEI Offices, and are designed specifically to inform internal practices or initiatives at the university. The main reasons for surveying the campus community include: (1) identifying concerns related to safety, well-being, infrastructure, and so on; (2) assessing diversity and inclusivity of the campus community; (3) gathering feedback on experiences related to studying, working, and living on campus; (4) gaining insight into specific issues for informed, data-driven decision-making; and (5) fostering trust by soliciting the opinions of community members. While the discussion of survey results often leads to a revision of existing or the introduction of new institutional policies and practices, the effectiveness of these changes is not easily measured, and therefore, students continue to be impacted by the negative issues identified through those surveys and new issues emerge on campuses as the student body changes faster than new policy and practices are developed.

Our campus climate survey (Golubeva et al., Reference Golubeva, Di Maria, Holden, Kohler and Wadeforthcoming) not only sought to diagnose the campus climate of an MSI but also sought to gain insights into areas that could benefit from campus-wide pedagogical interventions. To ensure the depth and breadth of our initiative, our project team comprised university faculty, students, staff, and administrative leadership from several departments and offices, and various disciplinary backgrounds. The reliability of the campus-wide survey was tested through a pilot with over 150 students, and its validity was assessed by a three-round Delphi panel of an interdisciplinary group of world-renowned experts in the fields of Psychology; Language and Intercultural Communication Education, and Assessment; Internationalization of HE; and DEI.

The survey contained three primary parts. We explored (1) students’ experiences with diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus as these relate to various aspects of their identity, as well as (2) students’ sense of belonging to a multicultural university community. Specifically, we scrutinized students’ interpersonal/intergroup relations and on-campus friendships. Also, we surveyed students about (3) the values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding, as outlined in the Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (CoE, 2018), to gather their perceptions of the importance of each area of competence; if they had been provided with opportunities to develop these intercultural and democratic citizenship competences while studying at the university; and what competences they were interested in developing further.

Next I offer a brief overview of the key findings from our campus-wide survey (Golubeva et al., Reference Golubeva, Di Maria, Holden, Kohler and Wadeforthcoming).

4.2.1 Students’ Perceptions Regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Overall, students overwhelmingly reported that the MSI is both diverse and inclusive and that diversity enhances their campus experience (see Figure 3). To the question of whether the university provides spaces in which students feel safe to discuss topics related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, the majority of respondents also answered positively (see Figure 3). However, when looking at the strength of student feelings, we found that students did not feel as strongly about campus inclusivity as they did about the other three questions. A closer look at the data shows that the proportion of students perceiving the campus as “very inclusive” was somewhat lower compared to the number of students who said the campus was “very diverse” (see Figure 4). The number of negative answers for all four questions was very low and varied between 1.70% and 5.02% for “somewhat disagree” and 0.29% and 2.18% for “disagree” (see Figure 4).

Figure 3 Level of agreement with statements related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Figure 4 Students’ general perceptions on campus diversity and inclusiveness

(n = 1395).

When asked about specific aspects of identities, the percentage of students who “agreed” or “somewhat agreed” that the MSI campus is inclusive of their ethno-racial identity, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, and spiritual beliefs, as well as their ideological/political worldviews, ranged between 90% and 97% (see Figure 5). Though the majority of students responded positively to all five questions, a comparison of the survey items revealed that the largest proportion of students who disagreed with the statement about campus inclusivity were those reporting perceptions related to their “ideological/political worldviews.” (Of note, the survey did not ask students what their ideological/political worldviews were.) Responses related to perceiving campus as inclusive of their “religious views and spiritual beliefs” showed the next highest proportion of disagreement (see Figure 6). This, I believe, reflects the current state of social and political polarization, indicating an alarming level of intolerance toward diverse perspectives and opposing views.

Figure 5 Level of agreement with statements related to specific aspects of the students’ identity

(n = 937).

Figure 6 Level of agreement with statements related to specific aspects of the student’s identity

(n = 937) (100% stacker bar).

To the question “In which of the following spaces do you feel comfortable discussing topics related to diversity, equity, and inclusion?” the vast majority of respondents (82.77%) selected as their first choice – “with close friends,” followed by “in face-to-face classrooms” (64.56%), “within student organizations” (52.45%) (n = 917). “With faculty” and “staff” only 41.55% and 33.81% of students, respectively, felt comfortable discussing topics related to DEI, while 3.27% of students preferred not to discuss these topics on campus at all.

The answers to the question “In which of the following spaces do you feel comfortable discussing topics related to your worldviews and beliefs?” demonstrated the same pattern. “With close friends” was ranked first by the majority of students (79.82%), followed by “in face-to-face classrooms” (59.43%), and “within student organizations” (48.84%) (n = 907). A notably lower proportion of students felt comfortable discussing worldviews and beliefs “with faculty” (38.15%) and “staff” (29.88%), and a significantly higher number of students (4.74%) preferred not to discuss this topic with anyone on campus.

We wanted to learn more about who the close friends were, more specifically, which aspects of identity the students shared with their friends. Based on the responses provided by 820 students, 90.61% of best friends spoke the same first language(s); 74.60% shared the same ethno-racial background, and 72.18% shared the same religious or spiritual beliefs.

4.2.2 Students’ Perceptions of RFCDC Competences

As mentioned in the introduction to Section 4.2, the survey tool also included a series of questions based on the RFCDC model (CoE, 2018), consisting of a set of twenty values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding areas connected to intercultural and democratic competences (see Figure 1). In particular, we sought to get information about which of these twenty areas the students perceive as the most important, which of them they felt the university already provided them with the opportunity to develop, and which of them they would like to develop further before they graduate.

When asked to rate the perceived level of importance of the RFCDC values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding, the number of positive answers was very high, potentially indicating social desirability bias causing an overvaluation. However, despite this, the comparison of answers to all twenty items shows clear trends in students’ perceptions.

In terms of values, human dignity and human rights were rated as being the most important (94.85%), followed by democracy, justice, fairness, equality and the rule of law (87.59%), and cultural diversity (84.66%) (n = 854). Among attitudes, respect (95.41%), responsibility (89.75%), openness to cultural otherness and other beliefs, world views and practices (86.57%), and civic-mindedness (80.80%) scored the highest. In terms of skills, listening and observing (89.68%), analytical and critical thinking skills (84.03%), empathy (83.31%), and conflict-resolution skills (82.59%). In the fourth set, knowledge and critical understanding of the self was rated as the most important (82.74%), followed by knowledge & critical understanding of language and communication (70.23%).

When the respondents were asked which area of competence the MSI had provided them with opportunities to develop, the least selected areas were:

• conflict-resolution skills (39.14%),

• tolerance of ambiguity (38.30%),

• linguistic, communicative, and plurilingual skills (40.10%),

• knowledge and critical understanding of language and communication (45.86%),

• empathy (46.34%),

• civic-mindedness (46.22%),

• valuing democracy, justice, fairness, equality and the rule of law (48.02%), and

• knowledge and critical understanding of the self (48.14%).

To identify campus training needs, the respondents were also asked to indicate which of twenty areas they would like to develop before graduating from the university. Conflict-resolution skills were selected the most, followed by knowledge and critical understanding of the world (politics, law, human rights, culture, cultures, religions, history, media, economies, environment, sustainability); analytical and critical thinking skills; linguistic, communicative and plurilingual skills; self-efficacy; knowledge and critical understanding of the self; listening and observing skills; flexibility and adaptability; autonomous learning skills; cooperation skills; knowledge and critical understanding of language and communication (see Figure 7).

Figure 7 The RFCDC competences identified as major gaps/training needs (marked with checkmarks)

Source: CoE, 2018, Volume 1, p. 38. © Council of Europe, reproduced with permission; checkmarks added to indicate top areas students wanted to develop before graduation

These findings informed the design of the intercultural training modules developed to build a more inclusive campus and improve students’ sense of belonging to a culturally diverse campus at an MSI (see more on InterEqual in Section 4.3).

4.3 The InterEqual Training Modules

Section 4.3 presents an example of how Intercultural Citizenship Education and DEI can be synergized in HE settings, in the form of a training program. As stated earlier, this example is not intended to show the “only” or “right” way, but rather it is offered to demonstrate a possible approach to synergizing the two fields. The InterEqual training modules were designed to provide a unique and novel approach to teaching intercultural communication to university students at an MSI in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The emphasis on developing competences related to democratic culture and intercultural citizenship suggests a focus not only on communication skills but also on fostering values that promote openness to diverse perspectives, inclusivity and equity.

4.3.2 Training Framework and Activities

The idea of the InterEqual training is rooted in the synergies between Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts and Intercultural Citizenship Education. (For the theoretical underpinnings of the approach taken in the training, please refer to Section 3 in this Element.) The training activities were designed to help increase students’ perception of campus inclusiveness and to enhance their sense of belonging in terms of diverse attributes of their identities, such as ethnicities, races, language and immigration backgrounds, ages, genders, sexual orientations, ideological views and religious beliefs, disabilities, and other demographic factors. We sought to create a safe environment where students can communicate on sensitive topics related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice, by fostering meaningful discussions and collaboration with others, and through practicing critical self-reflection and empathy.

The pedagogical intervention’s commitment to promoting fairness and equality, human dignity, and cultural diversity is reflected in the training title – InterEqual. The first part of the acronym – INTER – reflects its linkage with “intercultural” and refers to the titles of the five training modules:

I –

Increasing Cultural Self-Awareness

N –

Navigating Personal Bias

T –

Transforming Communication and Building Collaboration across Cultural Differences

E –

Exploring Inclusive Solutions to Intercultural Conflicts

R –

Reinforcing Intercultural Dialogue

There are many topics that can be studied in the intercultural communication classroom. How and why did we decide on these five? We used the results from the campus-wide survey to tailor the InterEqual training to the specific needs of the diverse campus. To select the five modules content, we identified the major gaps in students’ competences. For example, the module on “Exploring Inclusive Solutions to Intercultural Conflicts” was developed to respond to conflict-resolution skills being the most selected competence students wanted to develop before graduation (see survey findings in Section 4.2.2). In the case of other institutions, the selected topics may differ. It is important to note that training for institutions (and even the same institution over time) should be context-specific. For instance, at some institutions, there may be a greater need for training on xenophobia or culture shock.

The second part of the acronym – EQUAL – reflects its interrelationship with DEI efforts and refers to the methods applied in the training where participants are asked to:

E –

Engage

Q –

Question

U –

Understand

A –

Analyze and Act

L –

Listen and Learn

The EQUAL acronym encapsulates our methodological approach, where students learn from real-world experiences by engaging in meaningful communication, questioning assumptions, understanding diverse perspectives, analyzing situations, taking intentional actions, and practicing active listening. Such an approach fosters critical cultural self-awareness, empathy, and critical thinking while taking into account all four learning styles, as outlined in Kolb’s model (Reference Kolb1984), that is, diverging, assimilating, converging, and accommodating through engaging students in concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.

To scaffold students’ learning, the order of the InterEqual module-level learning objectives was carefully planned, following the revised version (Anderson & Krathwohl, Reference Anderson and Krathwohl2001) of Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, Reference Bloom1956) that involves such thinking processes as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. The selection of the elements of the EQUAL acronym – engaging, questioning, understanding, analyzing and acting, and listening and learning – covers a wide range of cognitive processes along the continuum outlined in Bloom’s taxonomy, and is meant to satisfy students’ training needs in terms of skills (for reference, see 4.2.2).

The five content components (INTER) and the five methodological strategies (EQUAL) are interconnected, as illustrated in the InterEqual logo (see Figure 8). The logo also symbolizes that students learn through collaboration, from each other.

Figure 8 The InterEqual Framework

(the badge logo designed by Collin Sullivan and Petra Janka at UMBC in 2022; reproduced with permission).

When designing our activities, we wanted to be as inclusive as possible. We did so by including situations that relate to their everyday lives, names that they hear in their classrooms, and topics that matter to them. When students see themselves represented in the curriculum, they engage in discussions because they feel that they belong and have a voice. This can be as simple as reflecting the diversity of their names. We can reflect the (lingua)cultural diversity of the student body by not only using names like Bill, John, Mary or Ann. In the case of my institution, using names like Ali, Katha, Fatema, Aditya, David, Petra, Natalia, Praveen, Kevin, Eun, Versana, Daniel, Chang, Aron, Juan, Rachel, Adelheid, Oksana, and Adebayo more accurately reflects the diverse student body. Although this sounds like a very simple solution, many language and communication activities still lack diversity in names.

The InterEqual training consists of five self-paced asynchronous online modules designed for autonomous learning, with each of the modules requiring 5–6 hours of work. The activities, referred to as ‘Steps’ in InterEqual, varied from module to module to engage students in different ways. The methods, among others, included peer learning through action-oriented small group project work and guided online forum discussions; critical (self-)reflective writing; compiling of an individual e-portfolio; and experiential learning – in and outside the classroom – through interaction with a wider university, local, and digital community. In interactions, both inside and outside the group, students practiced active listening and intercultural dialogue skills by engaging in open, empathetic and respectful exchange with people from different backgrounds and of diverse perspectives. These activities helped students understand not only others but themselves as well, raise their cultural self-awareness, analyze their own behavior, and question their approaches to cultural differences.

Box 1 is an example training activity from module 1, followed by excerpts from students’ contributions (see Boxes 2 and 3) that demonstrate the diversity of responses. The participants in the online forum were invited to discuss various aspects of their identity that were salient to them in the described context.

Box 1 Online forum discussion on values at university

1. 1) After reflecting on your “Values at University” checklist responses, please consider and answer the following questions:

   • Where have you identified important cultural differences between your approach and that of people with whom you study together?

   • Are these differences important?

   • How might these differences become apparent in the studying environment?

   • How might others perceive your approach?

   • What challenges do these differences present?

   • In what ways might you adapt your behavior in order to manage and overcome these cultural differences?

2. 2) Please respond to at least 2 other participants in the online forum

   Recommended tips for your responses to your classmates:

   • Comment on what you found interesting or insightful about their reflections.

   • Comment on what their response taught you or made you think differently about.

   • Ask clarifying questions that help you to further understand the complexity of their experience.

Source: Module 1 “Increasing Cultural Self-Awareness”

Box 2 Student 1’s contribution to the online forum discussion on values at university

After reflecting on my “Values at University” checklist responses, I’ve realized a significant cultural difference in my approach compared to that of my peers in the culture I currently study. Primarily, I am less social in getting work done, which has both advantages and challenges in our collaborative environment.

This difference is indeed important. My preference for individual work and focus on tasks without much social interaction contrasts with people who usually prefer to be a bit more social when working together. In the studying or working environment, this difference becomes apparent in group settings. While the people I’m working with engage in discussions and brainstorming sessions, I tend to work independently, processing information internally before presenting it.

People might perceive my approach as aloof or uncooperative. This perception arises from a misunderstanding of my work style, which values deep concentration and minimal distractions. However, it’s essential to recognize that this doesn’t reflect a lack of interest in teamwork or collaboration. Instead, it’s a different method of achieving the same goal.

The primary challenge presented by this difference is the potential for miscommunication and misconceptions. My peers might interpret my quiet, focused demeanor as disinterest or unwillingness to participate, which could hinder collaborative efforts and team cohesion.

To manage and overcome these cultural differences, I’m actively working on adapting my behavior without compromising my core working values. This adaptation involves initiating more frequent communication with my peers, explaining my work process, and actively seeking moments for collaboration. I’m also making an effort to engage more in group discussions, offering my insights while respecting the dynamic nature of team interactions. Additionally, I’m learning to balance between my need for focused work and the team’s need for social interaction, finding a middle ground that benefits both my personal productivity and our collective goals.

Box 3 Student 2’s contribution to the online forum discussion on values at university

I have identified cultural differences with the people I study with on campus. Usually, we study together for an exam if we’re in the same class or we study together to stay focused and get help from each other on different assignments.

We are from different cultural backgrounds and religions and the differences between us are important.

These differences can be apparent when we decide on a time to meet and study together. For example, another Muslim person in our study group and I prefer to have our studying time when it does not overlap a prayer time. Sometimes, I cannot stay out for too long after dark either since the culture I come from and my parents think it may be dangerous for a woman to be out too late.

People from a similar background/religion as me might be more understanding of where I am coming from since we have similar experiences, unlike people from different backgrounds. A challenge these differences present is having a difficult time scheduling the right time for us to study together. Some of our study group members may have classes that end later in the day or some group members may only have time during prayer times.

But we overcome these challenges by communicating. We explain our schedules and responsibilities we have to attend to before scheduling a study session for that week. If a study session overlaps prayer times, we communicate that we need to take a break to pray and my studymates have been very open and accommodating with that. And if we cannot meet on campus due to us only being free at night, we can do our study sessions over video calls on Zoom or Discord.

In addition to completing the module “steps,” students were invited to compile an e-portfolio and engage in an action-oriented small group collaborative online project (for details see Golubeva, Reference Golubeva2023 and Golubeva, Reference Golubevain press).

Recognizing that training needs and interests could vary based on an individual’s prior experience, the InterEqual modules were designed in a way that they can be implemented as a stand-alone training session or cohesive training. Students are free to choose which modules to do and complete them in whatever order they want to. Upon completion of the training modules, students are awarded digital badges. And once they complete all five modules, they get a meta-badge (see Figure 9). As of the writing of this Element, 1,150 module-level badges have been conferred, and 221 students were awarded the InterEqual meta-badge for completing the whole program.

Figure 9 The structure of the InterEqual training

(the logos designed by Collin Sullivan and Petra Janka at UMBC in 2022; reproduced with permission)

4.4 Results of Training Pilot and Students’ Feedback

The InterEqual training modules were piloted with more than 200 undergraduate students across different majors representing STEM fields, Humanities, Business, Social Sciences, and Arts. To measure the effectiveness of InterEqual and to evaluate the impact of participation in the training, a mixed-method approach was applied. For quantitative measures, we used pre- and post-training surveys, and pre- and post- results of several self-report assessments (e.g., The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) (Spreng et al., Reference Spreng, McKinnon, Mar and Levine2009); Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, Reference Davis1980)). For qualitative analysis, data from students’ written self-reflections and feedback were collected throughout the training after each of the modules. The input received from students during the pilot was incorporated during the training revisions. Next, I share results collected from the groups where I was the piloting instructor.

5.1 Introduction

In the final section, I summarize the key aspects at the intersections between DEI and Intercultural Citizenship Education, providing recommendations for future research and practice. I also reflect on the challenges and lessons learned from the experience of incorporating DEI training and ICitE into university curricula. I conclude the Element by underscoring that the discussions on DEI and ICitE should continue, urging the Reader to actively engage in intentional efforts in this regard.

5.2 Limitations and Future Research Agenda

The significance of the approach discussed in this Element is that it showed an example of how Intercultural Citizenship Education can be synergized with DEI efforts, considering existing intersections between these two fields. As previously discussed, ICitE and DEI are inherently inter- and transdisciplinary in nature; pursue common goals aimed at raising students’ awareness of the importance of human diversity and enhancing the sense of belonging. Both advance the humanistic agenda of HE by emphasizing active civic and social engagement and share the same key attributes (see Figure 2). Given the current absence of a systematic approach to integrating DEI and ICitE in university curricula, a joint effort would be mutually advantageous. The field of Intercultural Citizenship Education – due to its rich theoretical and practical expertise (Alred et al., Reference Alred, Byram and Fleming2006; Byram, Reference Byram2008, Reference Byram and Jackson2012, Reference Byram2014, Reference Byram2021; Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017; Golubeva, Reference Golubeva, Desjardins and Wiksten2022; Porto & Yulita, Reference Porto, Yulita, Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017; Ra et al., Reference Ra, Boonsuk and Sangiamchit2022; Rauschert & Byram, Reference Rauschert and Byram2018, among many others) – could support DEI initiatives with their well-developed pedagogies; while DEI could provide institutional support for intentional integration of ICitE in higher education. I illustrated through the InterEqual training one example of successful integration of ICitE and DEI on a college campus.

Along with developing values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding in areas of RFCDC competence, the InterEqual participants demonstrated an increased sense of belonging to the MSI community and improved perceptions of campus diversity and inclusiveness. The most important outcomes of their intercultural learning and telecollaborative work on small group projects were enhanced empathy and the ability to take the perspectives of others, which play an essential role when communicating with people from diverse backgrounds. Ultimately, this facilitated intercultural dialogue and demonstrated an approach that incorporated a humanistic orientation in HE.

While these results are promising (and dare I say exciting), several limitations to this study should be noted. First, the data collected from students’ surveys and self-administered assessments may be subject to social desirability bias. Additionally, as previously discussed, the absence of a control group in the study prevents us from eliminating the possibility that factors external to the training modules may account for the observed changes. Another limitation originates from the sample; specifically, the data were collected solely from a single institution based in the United States and may not be so relevant to universities elsewhere. Nonetheless, it is important to note that our aim was not to develop a “one-size-fits-all” training; instead, we adopted a tailored approach to ensure that the InterEqual program addresses the specific needs of the diverse student community at the MSI.

That being said, while our methodological approach may not be generalizable, it proved to be effective in our context, as supported by the results of quantitative and qualitative analyses. When designing the training, our intention was not to impose it as the “only” or “right” way to synergize DEI and ICitE concepts but rather to demonstrate how such efforts can be undertaken in HE settings while building a training program that met the specific needs of our campus and students.

The main implication of the study findings is that DEI initiatives should adopt a more nuanced and globally informed stance, giving greater attention to linguistic diversity and language and intercultural communication education, as these hold strong potential in fostering competences requisite for an inclusive campus. Intercultural Citizenship Education should address complex themes of power dynamics, privilege, and social justice more comprehensively. It is imperative that research within both ICitE and DEI endeavor to amplify the voices of underrepresented and marginalized communities.

5.3 Final Remarks

Even an optimist will acknowledge that the upcoming decade will pose numerous challenges for humanity in various aspects, including wars and peacebuilding, shortages of drinking water and other resources, digitalization and the use of artificial intelligence, as well as exploration of ocean depths and outer space, and the emergence of new pandemics – just to highlight the most likely ones. These challenges will impact most of us, albeit to varying degrees. Resolving problems related to migration and displacement, access to quality healthcare, climate change, biodiversity loss, and social and economic inequalities will remain global concerns. Effectively addressing these issues necessitates collaborative efforts to build societies that are more sustainable, inclusive, and equitable. We must all mobilize our intercultural citizenship competences.

While current discussions in HE indicate an understanding of the importance of preparing students for intercultural citizenship in a superdiverse world (Baker & Fang, Reference Baker and Fang2022; Barrett & Golubeva, Reference Barrett, Golubeva, McConachy, Golubeva and Wagner2022; Byram & Golubeva, Reference Byram, Golubeva and Jackson2020; Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017, among others), the current state of the practice does not attest to significant progress (see Golubeva et al., Reference Golubeva, Gómez Parra and Espejo Mohedano2018). Similarly, the field of DEI has faced critiques for the ineffectiveness of “well intentioned” but “poorly delivered” policies (Moysiuk, Reference Moysiuk2019) and for inadequacies in training and pedagogical approaches (see Beeman, Reference Beeman2015). To move forward, both fields need to synergize their efforts, particularly within the context of culturally diverse campuses. This requires the development of curricula that not only recognize diversity but also equip students with the values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding necessary for life and work in multicultural, pluralistic societies.

I do not deny that achieving this goal is complicated by the contentious and divisive political rhetoric surrounding DEI. Thus, in linking ICitE with DEI, I emphasize their potential to jointly prepare students for active engagement in diverse social contexts. While doing this, practitioners of both fields cannot ignore or be naive to the political debates associated with DEI (and to a lesser extent ICitE) and must thoughtfully identify what a more synergized approach could look like in their given political and institutional context.

In the practical example presented in this Element, I have summarized the key points of intersection between DEI and ICitE, provided recommendations for research and practice moving forward, and reflected on the challenges and lessons learned from the experience of incorporating DEI training and Intercultural Citizenship Education into university curricula. It is important for Readers to recognize that there are no universal solutions and ready recipes in the field of education, particularly when we want our students to have agency and serve as the experts of their own experiences, needs, and understanding of the world. The InterEqual framework, developed by me and my colleagues, is just an example that in our context worked well and had a positive impact on students and their sense of belonging. However, in the case of Readers’ institutions, other content and methods may be required and should be considered. Nevertheless, I hope that the insights shared in this Element will prove useful.

I encourage Readers to actively make intentional efforts in this direction: create their own frameworks for integrating DEI and ICitE in their own work, apply them in practical settings, and share their insights and learning with the broader field. I firmly believe that synergizing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Intercultural Citizenship Education opens new opportunities for advancing the humanistic agenda in HE. However, due to the inherent complexities and challenges involved, further theoretical and pedagogical inquiries are essential. I look forward to learning from how other scholars and practitioners intentionally approach the integration of DEI and ICitE into their own work and communities.