The Intercultural Dialogue Index (ICDI): An Index for Assessing Intercultural Relations

Abstract

Intercultural dialogue (ICD) refers to a process of contact, interaction and exchange of views on the basis of equality, respect, and mutual understanding between individuals or groups from diverse backgrounds. A large body of research has discussed ICD and its potential value for fostering social cohesion and peaceful coexistence across difference. However, there is a lack of robust benchmark data that precludes researchers and practitioners from empirically testing assumptions and hypotheses pertaining to ICD. This article discusses the development of the Intercultural Dialogue Index (ICDI), a proposed composite index for measuring the extent to which ICD is being pursued and implemented as a diversity management tool within different countries. The index builds on the conceptual assumptions underpinning ICD, uses publicly accessible data, and applies methods that allow for replication, upgrading and comparability with relevant indices. This article assesses ICD prevalence for 51 countries based on three interrelated dimensions covering legislative and structural environments as well as opportunities for intercultural encounters. Altogether, 31 indicators across the three dimensions are identified and grouped under 10 broad components to capture both macro- and micro-level factors affecting ICD and intergroup relationships nationally and globally. The article briefly summarises some preliminary ICDI findings and discusses key methodological constraints and conceptual challenges. Theoretical and practical implications of ICDI are also provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Source: For Democracy Index 2018–The Economist Intelligence Unit; ICDI authors’ calculation; Country abbreviations are from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). See Table 5 for country abbreviations.

Fig. 4

Source: For Corruption Perception Index 2018–Transparency International; ICDI authors’ calculation. See Table 5 for country abbreviations.

Fig. 5

Source: For Political Stability Index 2017–World Bank; ICDI authors’ calculation. See Table 5 for country abbreviations.

Fig. 6

Source: For Global Peace Index 2019 – Institute for Economics and Peace; ICDI authors’ calculation. See Table 5 for country abbreviations

Fig. 7

Source: GDP Per Capita (PPP) 2014–2018 – World Bank; ICDI authors’ calculation. See Table 5 for country abbreviations.

Data Availability

All the data used in this research can be provided by the authors upon request

Code availability

The software codes used in this research can be provided by the authors upon request

Notes

  1. 1.

    Detailed country reports that contextualise the index with policy and demographic diversity for each of the 51 countries is available in the website: [Removed for this peer review].

  2. 2.

    In this study we report the association of ICDI and five variables where data is available across the included countries.

  3. 3.

    A clean version of the analytical data is available from the authors upon request.

References

  1. Abdallah-Pretceille, M. (2006). Interculturalism as a paradigm for thinking about diversity. Intercultural Education, 17(5), 475–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31(4), 826–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S., & Wacziarg, R. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8(2), 155–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alizadeh, S., & Chavan, M. (2016). Cultural competence dimensions and outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Health and Social Care in the Community, 24(6), e117–e130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anheier, H. K., List, R. L., Kononykhina, O., & Cohen, J. L. (2017). Cultural participation and inclusive societies. A thematic report based on the indicator framework on culture and democracy. Strasbourg Cedex: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Banting, K., & Kymlicka, W. (2013). Is there really a retreat from multiculturalism policies? New evidence from the multiculturalism policy index. Comparative European Politics, 11(5), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barrett, M. (2013). Interculturalism and multiculturalism: similarities and differences. Strasbourg Cedex: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bello, V. (2017). Interculturalism as a new framework to reduce prejudice in times of crisis in European countries. International Migration, 55(2), 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Benigni, R., & Giuliani, A. (1994). Quantitative modeling and biology: the multivariate approach. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 266(5), R1697–R1704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Besley, T., & Peters, M. A. (2011). Interculturalism, ethnocentrism and dialogue. Policy Futures in Education, 9(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bouchard, G. & Taylor, C., (2008). Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation. In: T. Das Gupta, C.E. James, C. Andersen, G. Galabuzi, and R.C.A. Maaka, eds. Race and Racialization, 2E: Essential Readings. Toronto: Canadian Scholars.

  12. Cantle, T. (2012). Interculturalism: The new era of cohesion and diversity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cantle, T. (2015). Implementing intercultural policies. In R. Zapata-Barrero (Ed.), Interculturalism in cities: Concept, policy and implementation (pp. 76–95). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chen, G. M. (2010). The impact of intercultural sensitivity on ethnocentrism and intercultural communication apprehension. Intercultural Communication Studies, 19(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cingranelli, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (2011). Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Data Project. http://www.humanrightsdata.com/p/data-documentation.html

  16. Council of Europe. (2008). White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue. Strasbourg Cedex: Council of Europe. Retrieved from August 9 2017 www.coe.int/dialogue.

  17. Council of Europe. (2016). Intercultural Cities – Annual Report: sharing our Cities, sharing our Future. Retrieved from August Accessed 9 2017 https://rm.coe.int/16806c9674.

  18. Das, J., DiRienzo, C., & Tiemann, T. (2008). A global tolerance index. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 18(3), 192–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dessel, A., & Rogge, M. E. (2008). Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical literature. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(2), 199–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Elias, A. (2017). Racism, anti-racism and intercultural dialogue. In F. Mansouri (ed) Interculturalism at the Crossroads: Comparative perspectives on concepts, policies and practices. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

  22. Elias, A., & Mansouri, F. (2020). A systematic review of studies on interculturalism and intercultural dialogue. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 41(4), 490–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97(01), 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Foa, R., & Tanner, J. C. (2012). Methodology of indices of social development. Working Paper, No. 2012–04. The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam.

  25. Fund for Peace. (2019). Fragile States Index. Retrieved from November 16, 2019. http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/data/.

  26. Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 536–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hammer, M. R. (2005). The intercultural conflict style inventory: A conceptual framework and measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 675–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huddleston T., Bilgili, O., Joki, A.L., &Vankova, Z. (2015). Migrant Integration Policy Index 2015. Brussels: Barcelona Center for International Affairs (CIDOB), Barcelona and Migration Policy Group (MPG).

  29. Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., et al., et al. (Eds.). (2014). World Values survey: Round Six - Country-Pooled datafile version: www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp. Madrid: JD Systems Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Institute for Economics and Peace. (2017). Global Peace Index: Measuring peace in a complex world. Sydney. Retrieved from November 7, 2019http://visionofhumanity.org/reports.

  31. James, M. R. (1999). Critical intercultural dialogue. Polity, 31(4), 587–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Johnson, J., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in international business: toward a definition and a model. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrics, 39, 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Levrau, F., & Loobuyck, P. (2013). Should interculturalism replace multiculturalism? Ethical Perspectives, 20(4), 605–630.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mansouri, F. (Ed.). (2017). Interculturalism at the Crossroads: Comparative perspectives on concepts, policies and practices. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mansouri, F., & Arber, R. (2017). Conceptualizing intercultural understanding within international contexts: Challenges and possibilities for education. In F. Mansouri (ed) Interculturalism at the Crossroads: Comparative perspectives on concepts, policies and practices. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

  37. Mansouri, F., & Modood, T. (2020). The complementarity of multiculturalism and interculturalism: theory backed by Australian evidence. Ethnic and Racial Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1713391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B. B., & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined in America? It depends on who is asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25(4), 563–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Meer, N., & Modood, T. (2009). The multicultural state we’re in: Muslims, ‘multiculture’ and the ‘civic re-balancing of British multiculturalism. Political studies, 57(3), 473–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Meer, N., & Modood, T. (2012). How does interculturalism contrast with multiculturalism? Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(2), 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Minorities at Risk Project. (2009). Minorities at Risk Dataset. College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management. Retrieved from November 7, 2019 http://www.mar.umd.edu/.

  42. Modood, T., & Meer, N. (2012). Interculturalism, multiculturalism or both? Political Insight, 3(1), 30–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Morrone, A. (2006). Guidelines for measuring cultural participation. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Odora-Hopper, A. (2007). Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. Paris: UNESCO World Report.

    Google Scholar 

  45. OECD (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD publishing.

  46. Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 574–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Panter, E., Primiani, T., Hasan, T. & Pontaza, E.D. (2017). Antidiscrimination law and shared prosperity. Policy Research Working Paper, WPS7992, World Bank.

  48. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Phipps, A. (2014). ‘They are bombing now’: ‘Intercultural dialogue’ in times of conflict. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(1), 108–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Porter, M. E., Stern, S., & Green, M. (2014). Social progress index 2014. Washington DC: Social Progress Imperative.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Reporters without Borders. (2019). World Freedom of Press Index. Data of press freedom ranking 2019.Retrieved from September 23 2019 https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table.

  52. Rodríguez-García, D. (2010). Beyond assimilation and multiculturalism: A critical review of the debate on managing diversity. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 11, 251–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sarmento, C. (2014). Interculturalism, multiculturalism, and intercultural studies: Questioning definitions and repositioning strategies. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(4), 603–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Stokke, C., & Lybaek, L. (2018). Combining intercultural dialogue and critical multiculturalism. Ethnicities, 18(1), 70–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Taylor, C. (2012). Interculturalism or multiculturalism? Philosophy and Social Criticism, 38(4–5), 413–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tolley, E. (2016). Multiculturalism policy index: Immigrant minority policies. Kingston, Canada: Queens University. Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  57. UNESCO. (2009). Measuring cultural participation. 2009 Framework for Cultural Statistics Handbook No. 2. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

  58. UNESCO. (2017). Intercultural Dialogue. Retrieved from June 14 2017http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/dialogue/intercultural-dialogue/.

  59. UNESCO. (2018). UNESCO survey on intercultural dialogue 2017. Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris: United Nations Educational.

    Google Scholar 

  60. United Nations. (2017). International Migration Policies: Data Booklet (ST/ESA/ SER.A/395). Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.

  61. United Nations Statistics Division. (2019). Population 15 years of age and over, by educational attainment, age and sex. Demographic Statistics Database. Retrieved from September 28 2019 http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3A30.

  62. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Vertovec, S., & Wessendorf, S. (Eds.). (2010). The Multiculturalism Backlash: European Discourse, Policies and Practices. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Vogt, M., Bormann, N., Ruegger, S., Cederman, L., Hunziker, P., & Girardin, L. (2015). Integrating data on ethnicity, geography, and conflict: The ethnic power relations data set family. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(7), 1327–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Walton, J., Priest, N., & Paradies, Y. (2013). Identifying and developing effective approaches to foster intercultural understanding in schools. Intercultural Education, 24(3), 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wiater, P. (2010). Intercultural dialogue in the framework of european human rights protection. Strasbourg-Cedex: Council of Europe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  67. World Bank. (2019). Doing Business 2019. The World Bank Group, Washington D.C. Retrieved from November 23 2019 http://www.doingbusiness.org/content/dam/doingBusiness/media/Annual-Reports/English/DB2019-report_web-version.pdf.

  68. World Bank. (2019). Inclusion of minorities index. Indices of Social Development. Retrieved from September 24 2019 http://www.IndSocDev.org/.

  69. World Bank. (2019). Daily Newspapers per 1000 People. World Development Indicators, WDI Database Archives, Version July 2010. Retrieved from September 23 2019 https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=wdi-database-archives-(beta).

  70. Zanakis, S. H., Newburry, W., & Taras, V. (2016). Global Social tolerance index and multi-method country rankings sensitivity. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 480–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2015). Interculturalism in Cities: Concept, policy and implementation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2017). The intercultural turn in Europe: process of policy paradigm change and formation. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Interculturalism at the crossroads: Comparative perspectives on concepts, policies and practices (pp. 169–192). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2019). Intercultural citizenship in the Post-multicultural Era. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Zhang X, Zhou M (2019) Interventions to promote learners’ intercultural competence: A meta-analysis. Int J Intercultural Relat 71:31–47

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Jenny Lucy for proofreading the manuscript for this paper and to Dr Jerry Lai for creating the map reported in the paper. We are also grateful to Dr Matteo Vergani, Prof Yin Paradies, Prof Mehmet Ulubasoglu, and Dr Cahit Guven for their comments to earlier versions of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

FM: coordinated the research, contributed to the conception and design, and wrote the manuscript. AE: contributed to research design, compiled the data, conducted the analysis, and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanuel Elias.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 The Intercultural Dialogue Index (ICDI): Index structure and data sources
Table 8 Indicator Weights from Principal Component Analysis
Table 9 Best and worst cases of indicator values
Table 10 Robustness check: difference in ICDI scores, PCA weighting vs. equal weighting
Fig. 8
figure8

The Intercultural Dialogue Index (ICDI): Dimensions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mansouri, F., Elias, A. The Intercultural Dialogue Index (ICDI): An Index for Assessing Intercultural Relations. Soc Indic Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02616-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intercultural dialogue
  • Interculturalism
  • Multiculturalism
  • Super-diversity
  • Index