Handbook of international and intercultural communication, second edition.

Melinda Knight, Editor University of Rochester

Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication. Second Edition. Edited by William B. Gudykunst and Bella Mody, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002 606 pages.

If you are looking for a book that will give your graduate students a clear overall idea of international and intercultural communication research and theory, get them to read this volume. Likewise, new researchers in the field will benefit greatly from it. Established scholars-the third audience category identified by the editors in their Foreword (p. ix)--will find the collection of articles a highly useful resource, particularly, in any teaching they do. In Short, it is extremely useful to have such extensive coverage at hand in one volume.

The book contains 29 articles in all. It is divided into 4 Parts: Cross-Cultural Communication. Intercultural Communication, International Communication, and Development Communication. Each part has the following structure: (1) an introduction written by one of the editors, (2) an analytical survey covering the main theories which have generated research in that particular area, (3) several articles focusing on specific aspects, or key research areas, of the field, and (4) the final article, focusing on current research issues as well as issues for future research. This strict pattern makes the book highly accessible to readers, enabling them to dip in and find what they want.

The articles are clearly structured and well written--as one would expect. Most of the theoretical surveys are real eye openers, revealing the vast quantity of communication research that has been done in the past few decades and presenting it in a highly approachable manner. The articles focusing on specific aspects of a particular research field are mostly state-of-the-art pieces, viewing their subject from a broad perspective. Among them, several deserve special mention. Of particular interest to me personally is Tae-Seop Lim's "Language and Verbal Communication Across Cultures"--an article focusing on the quest for universals in language usage; particularly insightful I thought is Stella Ting-Toomey and John G. Oetzel's "Cross-Cultural Face Concerns and Conflict Styles: Current Status and Future Directions," with an inspiring and lengthy discussion of areas neglected by researchers so far; and also inspiring is Cookie White Stephan and Walter G. Stephan's shrewd analysis of research on cognition and affect in cross-cultural relations.

Preceding Part I, there is an overall introductory article, "The Histories of Intercultural, International, and Development Communication," by Everett M. Rogers and William B. Hart. As its name indicates, this article explores the development of the three vaguely defined areas of interest into specific research fields, tracing each back to its roots. In doing that, the writers identify and define the main concepts, ideologies, trends, and research paradigms that have been used, neatly consolidating knowledge in the field. The kind of conceptual exploration and paradigmatic linkage covered in this article forms a good basis for understanding much of the research carried out today in the field.

In this process of distinguishing one research field from another, however, lies an inherent problem. The strict delineation of various research areas according to their research focus left me wondering. In particular, I found Roger and Hart's definition (p. 5) of international communication problematic: "the study of heterophilous mass-mediated communication between two or mare countries with differing backgrounds." In my part, of the world--northern Europe--and in my discipline--business communication--I must say international communication is usually taken to have a wider scope--virtually merging with intercultural communication. Interestingly, in their Foreword, the editors, in attempting to distinguish between intercultural and international communication, find links between them, then present me with another problem. I quote: "What binds the areas of research together is a substantive concern with differences, difference from the U.S. mainstream, and differences between the United States and other nations" (p. x; emphasis mine). The editors' emphasis on the U.S, as a definitive focus of attention for a research area would seem to explain why the volume lacks, for example, contributions by European researchers; even references to European writings are few and far between. Isn't it time we started to look at research from a global perspective rather than define its foci according to geographic areas?

Another significant omission in the volume is the scant attention given to business communication research--this in spite of the fact that same other, fairly specific research areas (like intercultural family relations) are represented. Producing a succinct, comprehensive survey of research on communication in intercultural/cross-cultural/international business environments would, of course, have been quite a challenge for even the most established researcher, yet it could, no doubt, have been done. The inclusion of a state-of-the-art article of this kind would have meant giving due acknowledgment to the profound influence that communication within and by global companies exerts in today's world. As it is, the job of representing business communication is left to K. Viswanath and Liren Benjamin Zeng's article on transnational advertising--interesting in its own right, but leaving a huge, gap in the rest of the wide area of business communication.

In this discussion I have used the word "article" to refer to the individual contributions in spite of the fact that the book itself refers to "chapters." I use the word "article" advisedly. To me, "chapter" suggests continuity and coherence; to gain a coherent picture, chapters in a book should be somehow sequential; they would tend to build on each other "Article," to me, suggests relative independence, linkage through topics that hang together more or less loosely, groupings according to umbrella terms. As I see it, a compilation of articles can therefore be dipped into in any order, according to the reader's choice. And that is precisely how this volume should be read. That is also what the editors, indeed, imply in their Foreword when they say their "goal is to provide a reference volume" (p. ix)--and it is called a "Handbook." If that is the way the book is read, the unavoidable overlap between various articles becomes a strength rather than a weakness. The fact that certain highly influential researchers (a.g., Hofstede) are discussed at great length in several articles is then net seen as repetition, but rather highlights the way research on various issues and in different research areas is interdependent, and hangs together by having recourse to the same theories.

All of this bas really to do with the old question of reader expectations, If there were a guide to the volume, giving a recommended reading order of the articles, if would probably read something like this: "Read Foreword to get a general idea of aims and the way terms and concepts are used in the book. Proceed to the first article, for a general introduction. After that, read the introduction and the first article in each part. This should give you a fairly clear idea of the overall field of international and intercultural communication research--definitions of terms, as well as main approaches. You can new savour the specific area(s) of your choice, and enjoy, in the hands of experts, the superb coverage of specific research questions and niches."

If you follow these instructions, you are guaranteed to have an enjoyable reading experience. You will have enhanced your grasp of areas in communication research which are net your own specific areas of expertise--a luxury which is mode highly accessible by this volume. This is precisely what I did. Se why is it then that, having read the book, I was left with a vague sense of unease--a feeling that I needed more than an enticing visit to the post, an immersion in research traditions?

I cannot bat feel that with this book an opportunity bas net been grasped--an opportunity to provide, with this second edition, a truly unique and up to date handbook which would bring us right up to the moment on net only post but also current research--and indeed, future challenges. I accept that painting out what has NOT been done or included in an impressive volume like this is the most facile of critiques. Nevertheless, with this volume one is tempted to do just that--having hopefully given ample credit for what HAS been done. Let me expand an that.

In her 2003 review of his volume in the European Journal of Communization, Gillian Youngs refers to exactly this feeling of dwelling in the past when she observes that the Internet is "so absent" from the book-with the exception of scattered references around the volume. The same goes for "technology" and "globalization." I agree with Youngs when she points out that "explicit focus on them in relation to the field would have enabled some helpful and insightful linkages to be made across the four parts, giving the volume a more integrated feel" (p. 524). Also, due to lengthy editorial processes, it is perhaps inevitable that current research seems largely to be represented by studios published in the late 1990s, with relatively few references to studies published in the new millennium. This, I must add, is more conspicuous in the sections dealing with cross-cultural and intercultural communication than with international and development communication.