BYRAM VERSUS BENNETT: DISCREPANCIES IN THE ... - CERCLL

Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Bennett
Figure 1. A comparison of the percentage of postings assessed in ethnocentric or ethnorelative
stages in the DMIS for each phase of each discussion.
In addition to these findings which suggest the nonlinear nature of intercultural sensitivity
development at the group level, further analysis of the weekly changes in individual participants’
worldviews toward a specific cultural practice revealed the nonlinear nature of Bennett’s DMIS
paradigm at the individual level as well. Individuals in this study often fluctuated inconsistently
between ethnocentric and ethnorelative stages, particularly in peer response postings. For
example, at the end of Discussion 1, I evaluated the following posting to be reflective of
ethnorelative thinking.
Discussion 1, Phase 2 … some of these practices (e.g. smiling) have so many different
meanings and connotations by the manner, the way or in the environment in which they
are done that it is difficult to make generalizations as Brad has indicated. (Tim, Week 5)
I assessed Tim to be in the Adaptation Stage (Stage 5) of the DMIS due to his apparent ability
to shift his frame of reference to other culturally diverse worldviews through empathy and
pluralism, and categorized this posting as representative of ethnorelative thinking. However, in
the next discussion, Tim’s response posting in the second week of Discussion 2 reflected
ethnocentric thinking.
Discussion 2, Phase 1: Forcing students to pick a career path while they are still
teenagers is unjust and not psychologically sound. I wonder how often students change
their career paths later in life? (Tim, Week 2)
I evaluated Tim’s posting to be reflective of the Defense Stage of Bennett’s DMIS due to his
strong negative description of French educational practices and his implication that U.S.
educational practices are superior to French practices.
The inconsistency between ethnorelative and ethnocentric worldviews was particularly prevalent
in participants’ peer response postings (weeks two and four of discussions). Participants’
response posting often appeared to reflect the same type of thinking of the person to whom they
were responding, particularly when either agreeing or disagreeing with a peer who was
previously assessed at a lower developmental stage. For example, in Discussion 1, James
initially appeared to relate to a French informant’s description of French smiling practices.
22 CERCLL ICC Proceedings