Critical Considerations for Intercultural Sensitivity Development: Transnational Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Critical Considerations for Intercultural Sensitivity Development: Transnational Perspectives

 

First of all, thank you very much for allowing me to collaborate in the revision of this article, in order to provide another view to researchers and to increase its quality. 

 

The following is a structured analysis of the manuscript:

 

Attending to the title, it is clear and specific, mentioning the main concepts such as intercultural development and transnational perspectives.

 

The abstract reflects the purpose and implications of the study, identifying the limitations of IDI and proposing critical approaches, however, it is recommended to include a summary of the methodological approach and a brief statement on the main findings and conclusions.

 

Regarding the introduction, although the section provides adequate context on the relevance of intercultural development in the globalised world and clearly explains the choice of IDI as the object of study, the historical background takes up too much space and recent studies on transnationalism and intercultural sensitivity are not sufficiently highlighted. It is also recommended to include recent citations (within the last 5 years).

 

El apartado de Materiales y Método conecta el objetivo del estudio con el marco teórico y las perspectivas críticas adoptadas y explicita las preguntas de investigación, pero no queda claro si se utilizó un enfoque empírico, conceptual o una combinación de ambos, por ello, se recomienda clarificar el diseño metodológico y justificar las herramientas de análisis utilizadas.

 

The Materials and Method section connects the aim of the study with the theoretical framework and the critical perspectives adopted and makes explicit the research questions, but it is not clear whether an empirical or conceptual approach or a combination of both was used, so it is recommended to clarify the methodological design and justify the analytical tools used.

 

The results are organised around conceptual frameworks (transnationalism, relational ontology and intersectionality), which adds theoretical depth, but lacks concrete examples or empirical findings to support the assertions, nor does it collect quantitative data or graphs to support the arguments, which is why it is recommended to incorporate case studies or specific analyses that exemplify the limitations and strengths of IDI.

The discussion connects the results with practical implications, especially in intercultural education, and proposes significant improvements for the adaptation of the IDI, but it is superficial and does not sufficiently specify the limitations of the study, and there is a lack of explicit links between the critical perspectives adopted and their practical implications. It is therefore recommended to extend the critical analysis of the methodological limitations and to explore how the proposed frameworks could be implemented.

 

In terms of the findings of the study, the section highlights the importance of a more inclusive approach to intercultural assessment and offers recommendations for improving the IDI, however, the conclusions are more conceptual than practical. Consequently, the authors are encouraged to propose concrete future lines of research and to point out how the IDI could benefit specific populations.

 

In view of these issues, it is proposed to the editor to accept the article for publication, once the authors make the proposed modifications.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a timely and thought-provoking critique of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), offering a novel theoretical synthesis by integrating transnationalism, relational ontology, and intersectionality to reassess how intercultural sensitivity is conceptualized and measured. The authors make a compelling case for rethinking intercultural competence assessment, particularly for transnational individuals whose experiences challenge traditional, linear models. The study’s strengths lie in its its relevance to global mobility, migration, and identity formation. However, one of the key aspects missing is a more thorough engagement with previous critiques of the IDI. While the article effectively identifies the IDI’s limitations, it does not sufficiently position its contribution in relation to existing scholarly debates that have also questioned the model’s Western-centric, individualistic, and linear assumptions (e.g., Bennett, 1993; Hammer, 2012; Dervin, 2016). What distinguishes this study from earlier critiques? Does it refine existing arguments, or does it propose a fundamentally new way of framing intercultural sensitivity? How? Addressing these questions with a more explicit review of prior critiques would clarify the unique contribution of this paper to the field. Additionally, further engagement with alternative assessment models beyond the IDI would enhance the practical applicability of the study’s findings. While the theoretical integration is innovative, a clearer methodological discussion would make the critique more actionable. Overall, this paper presents an important and necessary perspective, but to fully realize its impact, it needs a stronger engagement with previous literature, a clearer articulation of its original contribution, and a more developed discussion of alternative assessment methodologies. I recommend major revisions to address these points.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed the comments and suggestions made during the first round of review. Below is a section-by-section analysis:

The title is now clear, specific, and accurately reflects the conceptual focus of the article. It includes key terms—intercultural sensitivity, development, and transnational perspectives—which enhance the article’s visibility and thematic precision.

Furthermore, the authors have incorporated a more comprehensive abstract that now outlines the purpose of the study, the theoretical frameworks used (transnationalism, relational ontology, and intersectionality), and the main practical implications. The inclusion of the methodological approach, which was previously unclear, is also appreciated.

In the introduction, the authors have integrated recent and relevant studies, clearly presenting the research problem, justifying the analytical framework, and explicitly stating the research questions.

Regarding the methodology, the authors have clarified that the study follows a conceptual approach using thematic analysis of relevant literature. The justification of the method aligns well with the study’s objective. The three theoretical lenses through which the limitations of the DMIS/IDI are analyzed are clearly outlined, substantially improving the methodological transparency compared to the first version.

In this second version, the results are now structured according to conceptual frameworks and applied to different phases of the DMIS model. Although the article is not empirical, the authors include theoretical examples, specific references, and relevant literature that strengthen their argument. Unlike the initial version, this one demonstrates a clearer articulation between theory and analysis.

The authors have expanded the discussion of conceptual frameworks in relation to the uses of the IDI. They have also deepened the discussion on practical implications, particularly in educational and professional contexts. The study’s limitations are now addressed more clearly, as is the need for empirical validation of the proposed ideas. Additionally, relevant future lines of research are proposed, such as the development of new tools that incorporate transnational, relational, and intersectional dimensions.

The conclusions have also been improved and not only summarize the article’s main contributions, but also offer recommendations for future research, professional practice, and policy design. The authors also acknowledge the conceptual nature of the article, which reinforces its academic integrity.

In light of these revisions, I recommend that the article be accepted for publication.

I congratulate the authors on the quality of their final work.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I view the changes made by the authors positively