How Do Intercultural Communication Textbooks Represent Culture? A Case Study of Chinese Culture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that you have an interesting and worthwhile study here. The MS is mostly well written (with some minor editorial suggestions) and makes sense overall. My main recommendations for revision are clearer statement at some places, more support for some of the arguments, and a bit more elaboration of some of the findings that lead to the positive and negative evaluations found in the discussion section.

Here I offer my line-by-line suggestions, beginning with editorial notes:

EDITORIAL SUGGESTIONS

·         19: curricularàcurriculum. Delete “help” for conciseness. I’m not sure what you mean by the phrase “by the nation states”

·         22: “beware implicit” probably à “beware of implicit…”

·         41: comma before “and”  (when two main clauses are joined by a “coordinated conjunction” (and, but, or, so)).

·         85: “…consistently show that target culture tends to dominate”: Possibly à “representations of target culture tend to dominate,” but with more definition of terms, the current wording might be clearer.

·         88-90: Clarify what you mean by “those in the inner circle” and “token mystic manner”

·         94: Delete period before the citation

·         97: “These evidence” à “This evidence” or “These studies”

·         121-122: ‘Does its way…” to end of paragraph: Clarify the wording a bit.

·         148: “textbook.” I’m guessing this should be “textbooks.”

·         219: “are adopted”—by whom—the author(s) of this study, or the authors of the textbook (this vagueness of the passive voice is one reason many English writing manuals suggest that writers mainly rely on active voice).

·         222: “…other cultures (if there are) co-appear”à “…other cultures (if there are) that co-appear

·         230: “assists”à”provides”?

·         231: “…products, practices, or perspectives”: perhaps add “of China”

·         250: “ally”: I’m not sure what you mean by the word choice here.

·         252-253: “co-occurrence suggests” à “suggests”

·         251-256: “Such a tendency” to end of paragraph could be clearer.

·         263: “more…more”: change one of the “more’s”—or simply delete one (or both)

·         266: “culture” –“cultures”?

·         271: change period before “While” to a comma

·         284: Clarify what you mean by a “rigid and powerful image”

·         287: “...from static and reductionist stance” à “from a static and reductionist stance” (add “a”)

·         292-293: “offer” à “offers”

·         Ref list: It looks like some of the references need work (e.g., missing initials; consistency in use of initials or family names. Should the textbooks studied appear in the ref list?

SUSTANTIVE COMMMENTS

Rev of Lit: The argument overall is largely sound for the RQ, though in some places, the “twist” that leads to the RQs (that is, the possible limited or essentialist representation in current textbooks regarding other cultures”) needs more elaboration and support (see below).

·         75: “the change in cultural representations” assumes that you’ve already described such a change. Above, be sure to know *what* the change in cultural representations is. Much of the argument relies on EFL textbooks. Is there any evidence from “foreign” language textbooks besides EFL?

·         83: Consider defining terms “source culture, target culture, and international target culture,” especially since some of these seem to overlap.

·         98: I agree wholeheartedly that the choices are likely “confided to a power-based order,” but clarify exactly what you mean. Be more explicit in the claims, e.g., by adding a rewording that shows the *way in which* the representations center a “power-based order”

·         83-110: I found the various frameworks for considering textbook coverage insightful and useful.

·         120: I agree that IC is “shifting from a cultural essentialist to an intercultural perspective” (see Baldwin, (Murky waters: Histories of intercultural communication research. In L. Chen (Ed.), Handbook of intercultural communication, 9 (pp. 19-43).  New York, NY: DeGruyter-Mouton), for example, who summarizes recent research that seeks to abandon the notion of culture as “nation” for a more complex (less essentializing) view. You may not need this citation, but then give more detail or explanation of this claim using the sources that you have.

Method: The criteria for selection and analysis of texts (e.g., table of themes) is all very clear and is well done.

·         I like the fact that you have chosen textbooks that include a consideration of social scientific, interpretive, and critical approaches. I might explain the first couple just a little differently, e.g., that the soc scientific approach tends to treat culture (often viewed in terms of nation) or “dimensions” of culture as something that either predicts or is predicted by some other variable. I like the “contextual” framing of interpretive research, though the work is also often qualitative and focused on understanding individual texts or groups of individuals, rather than making grand predictions about social reality. Still, what you have is generally correct. I was wondering how this particular decision related to the analysis.

·         Table 1: C: Note that the Baldwin textbook is authored: Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., González, A., & Shenoy-Packer, S.

·         The one thing I think would help this section is a clearer rationale for why you are studying representation of China, specifically. True, it is probably of the most interest for your journal, which I believe is a Chinese presentation, and it might be to you, as authors, as well. But provide a clearer logical rationale for why to be concerned with China, specifically, as an example of possible focus of representation in U.S. textbooks. (See my comments on discussion section).

·         The rest of the method seems clear and appropriate.

Results: The findings are largely a straightforward descriptive summary of the categories with frequency counts and examples. This holds true both for sections 4.1 and 4.2.

·         241:  What you say here (“informed by research in the field”) suggests something to consider in the discussion section. That is, the degree to which the textbook authors build their arguments and coverage on previous lit, the more it may be the previous lit that essentializes China or perpetuates the “East-West” binary thinking.

·         251-256: As noted above, I felt that the claims here could be clearer. Perhaps what would make the section clearer would be more support for the literature. For example, clarify what the “East-vs-West dichotomy” (or “binary”) discourse is, providing citation. Then illustrate from the findings what supports (or challenges) this binary. This is important, as it becomes one of the main critical points, with recommendations for future textbook representation, in the discussion section. Consider giving specific quotations from books, so that readers have a clear idea of this type of thinking (and explain why it is a problem).

·         254: The definition of hybridity could be clearer, and this claim could also have evidence from the findings.

Discussion: This section is concise and relatively clear. But is also the section that I feel needs the most support in term of some of the claims mentioned.

·         Much of the coverage has been a frequency count of this or that type of coverage (practices, perspectives, etc., use of theory, type of representation). Here, appropriately, the consideration is more evaluative. However, several of the claims need more support. For example, the fact that (national) cultures frequently occur in sets may not support the claim of a “tendency to compare and contrast cultures.”  For example, your example of “parallel” mention (Sec. 3.2) says, “The images we have acquired about Columbia, China, Israel, Sweden, [etc.]” implies no sort of parallel comparison of China to the other cultures or of East to West.

·         271: “…the majority of the cultural incidents are about the invisible part of culture”—this reminds me of Harry Triandis’ notion of “subjective” versus “objective” culture. Certainly, most IC comm research (my field) does focus on the subjective aspects of culture(s) as these aspects inform the sending and receiving of written, digital, and face-to-face messages.

·         278ff: Good point regarding basis on academic literature. It’s good to note the “limited number of studies,” but consider also (a point I made above) that the representation or treatment of culture *in those studies that the textbooks use* might be part of the reason some of the coverage is limited in complexity (though see below on this claim). So you could use this point to make recommendations for newer research with more nuanced views of (national) cultures OR a more careful and critical use of those primary sources by textbook authors.

·         Also, the claim that China is underrepresented in the texts needs a little more thought. For example, Robert Shuter, in his essays on the “centrality of culture” (e.g., Southern Communication Journal, 1990; “Revisiting the Centrality of Culture” (in the Martin et al. 1998 edited volume Intercultural Communication in Contexts), and in a 2013 chapter on the same topic argues that East Asia receives more attention than most cultures in American textbooks, noting that more than half of all IC research between 2006 and 2011 was on “East Asia,” though he notes Japan and Korea get more attention, and there is often a conflation in U.S. literature between Taiwan and The People’s Republic of China. On the other hand, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America receive sparse attention. So, consider two things: 1) Give a clearer rationale up front for why we should be interested specifically in representation of China in U.S. textbooks (certainly, an argument could be made based on the sometimes tenuous political relationship between the countries, the role of the two as leading economic and political powers, the high number of students who have traveled between the countries, or the established stereotypical representation of East Asian countries and China/Chinese specifically in U.S. media. Any ONE of these might make a stronger rationale for consider representation of China. Then, 2) for future directions, to better understand the amount of representation, studies should compare this representation to that of other countries.

·         Finally, the article makes a point that the “understanding of culture is changing gradually from [a] static and reductionist stance to a view that embraces interactivity, complexity, hybridity, and fluidity.” This is a wonderful claim and one that, as a textbook writer, I hope is true! But elaborate the evidence you for this claim, either from previous studies of earlier textbooks or from your own findings, here. How does this claim for a more complex coverage work with your claim above that your analysis “shows a tendency to compare and contrast culture” in a binary (and reductionist) fashion? Mostly, give more support for the important claims in the last two paragraphs before the conclusion.

·         Conclusion: Great ideas for future textbooks! Consider spending more time on specific, concrete recommendations resulting from your findings. Finally, some writing style guides recommend against making points with rhetorical questions (seeing it as a “weaker” form of expression in an argument). But what do they know?”

The English is mostly very good. Just proofread closely, though I have noted any suggestions I found in my notes.

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 Overall, this paper is good and provides valuable insight into intercultural communication textbooks in relation to the presentation of Chinese content. In the abstract, please discuss your methodology a little more. It is quite vague.  The abstract mentions that the study presents general patterns identified from the data, but it doesn't provide any specific findings or results. Including a brief summary of the identified patterns would enhance the abstract by giving the reader a glimpse of the study's outcomes. While the introduction outlines the importance of textbooks and cultural representation, it lacks a clear statement of the research objectives or questions that the study aims to address. Providing explicit research objectives would guide the reader and set the expectations for what the study intends to achieve. The transition between paragraphs is also a bit abrupt and does not clearly link the content from one paragraph to the next. A smoother transition would enhance the flow of the introduction and improve overall coherence. The study states that eight textbooks were selected based on specific criteria such as publication after 2010, disciplinary perspectives, and authorship. However, there is a lack of justification regarding why these criteria were chosen and how they contribute to the study's objectives. Providing a rationale for the selection criteria would enhance the transparency and validity of the methodology. It would be helpful to further elaborate. While the study briefly mentions the three approaches (socio-scientific, interpretative, and critical) to conceptualize culture in the textbooks, it lacks a detailed explanation of how these approaches will be applied during the content analysis. Providing a clear and thorough explanation of the analytical methods is crucial for the replication and understanding of the study. Given the content of the textbooks being analyzed, it is important to assess inter-rater reliability to ensure consistency and accuracy in coding. The absence of any mention of inter-rater reliability assessment raises concerns about the robustness of the content analysis process. The discussion section contains general statements about the representation of Chinese culture in intercultural communication textbooks (e.g., evolving understanding of culture, changing views of culture). However, these statements lack specific examples or evidence from the data analysis to substantiate the claims made. The discussion does not address potential biases in the data or analysis. Given the potential biases introduced in the selection of textbooks and the focus on Chinese culture acknowledging and addressing these biases is essential for a more balanced interpretation of the results. The discussion briefly touches on implications related to textbook compilation and teaching but lacks a thorough exploration of potential implications and suggestions for future research in the field of intercultural communication. Providing clear implications and future research directions would enhance the contribution of the study. The implications section could be a lot more insightful, especially in terms of how various cultures are portrayed in textbooks. I would also expand more on content analysis and how it has been used in similar studies to explore textbook content. This will help strengthen your methodology. The implications in particular can be strengthened to include specific examples as well as ways that this study can impact the representation of other cultures. In the literature review, I would also expand on other textbook analysis studies, especially if they have been conducted on intercultural communication or other relevant textbooks.

Overall, the English language proficiency is good. It appears that this article is written in APA 6th edition rather than the Chicago style though. I would recommend having an editor check this paper who is familiar with the style. Unfortunately, I have not used Chicago style in awhile or I would make specific recommendations. 

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe this manuscript is ready for publication, aside from some minor edits.

There are some minor edits and only one substantive question. They are as follows:

Writing comments

·         19: “curricular”—“curriculum”

·         30: “play significant roles” à “play a significant role”

·         43: “textbooks for language learning” perhaps à “textbooks useful for language learners”? since books in intercultural communication are not geared towards language learning

·         62: “(2) How is Chinese culture represented in the textbooks of IC?” This question seems more imprecise, and if possible subsumes (1). Unless you have specific findings for both questions below, you might consider just having one question or differentiating the two questions more.

·         66: “Then, we will look at…” Add “we will look at” to make the sentence complete (and parallel in structure to the sentences on either side of it).

·         78: “At the beginning, … culture is”—“…culture was”

·         102: “…and sometimes even exceeds that of the target culture” (insert “that of” so that you are comparing “inclusion of source culture” to “inclusion of target culture” (rather than comparing “inclusion” to the “target culture” itself).

·         108: “from monocentric to polycentric focus”: Insert indef articles: “from a monocentric to a polycentric focus”

·         147: probably “is” à “was” since you have framed other discussion of Chang et al.’s research in the past tense.

·         169: “Conceptualization”à”conceptualizations” (plural) to match verb

·         262: Delete “4.2” from the middle of the line (probably from heading 4.2 that got moved around during the revision process)

·         348: “&” à “and”

Substantive comments

·         161 If possible, provide a source for methodological choice of maximum variation sampling. 

Author Response

There are some minor edits and only one substantive question. They are as follows:

Thank you very much for your continuous careful review and comments. We have gone through the manuscript and made all the edits accordingly. We also rechecked and updated the reference list to match the text. Below are our responses:

Writing comments

For all the suggested edits, we have made the changes and highlighted our revisions in the resubmitted manuscript. Thank you!

• 19: “curricular”—“curriculum”
• 30: “play significant roles” à “play a significant role”
• 43: “textbooks for language learning” perhaps à “textbooks useful for language learners”? since books in intercultural communication are not geared towards language learning
• 62: “(2) How is Chinese culture represented in the textbooks of IC?” This question seems more imprecise, and if possible subsumes (1). Unless you have specific findings for both questions below, you might consider just having one question or differentiating the two questions more.
• 66: “Then, we will look at…” Add “we will look at” to make the sentence complete (and parallel in structure to the sentences on either side of it).
• 78: “At the beginning, … culture is”—“…culture was”
• 102: “…and sometimes even exceeds that of the target culture” (insert “that of” so that you are comparing “inclusion of source culture” to “inclusion of target culture” (rather than comparing “inclusion” to the “target culture” itself).
• 108: “from monocentric to polycentric focus”: Insert indef articles: “from a monocentric to a polycentric focus”
• 147: probably “is” à “was” since you have framed other discussion of Chang et al.’s research in the past tense.
• 169: “Conceptualization”à”conceptualizations” (plural) to match verb
• 262: Delete “4.2” from the middle of the line (probably from heading 4.2 that got moved around during the revision process)

Thank you very much. It seems that the version we downloaded from the journal’s portal has already mended this mistake, so we did not make any further changes.

• 348: “&” à “and”

Substantive comments

• 161 If possible, provide a source for methodological choice of maximum variation sampling. 

 Thank you for reminding us to include a reference for this methodological choice. We added (Douglas, 2022, p.418) to the article and include it in the reference part as well.

Douglas, H. (2022). Sampling techniques for qualitative research. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of social research methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_29