Cargando…

Interculturality and cultural intelligence in an academic context: A report from university staff interacting with nursing students

INTRODUCTION: The cultural diversity of ethnic groups in Iranian academic contexts highlights the importance of enhancing cultural awareness and minimizing cultural conflicts. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the intercultural intelligence of the university personnel in interacting...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shomoossi, Nematullah, Asor, Akbar Ahmadi, Kooshan, Mohsen, Rad, Mostafa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6512398/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31143795
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_120_18
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: The cultural diversity of ethnic groups in Iranian academic contexts highlights the importance of enhancing cultural awareness and minimizing cultural conflicts. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the intercultural intelligence of the university personnel in interacting with students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was a correlational research conducted on 136 employees in Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Iran. The participants were selected by randomized clustered sampling. The data on intercultural intelligence were collected using Earley and Ang's Questionnaire and were analyzed in SPSS using descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: Mean score of intercultural intelligence in the education-research staff, secretarial staff, and student-cultural staff was 41 ± 9, 35.6 ± 8.3, and 44.2 ± 7.7, respectively. ANOVA showed a significant difference in the overall scores of intercultural intelligence across the three groups (P = 0.001); the scores of subsections were also statistically different, the student-cultural staff showing higher intelligence scores than the other groups. Furthermore, the overall intercultural intelligence scores varied significantly across the participants’ educational levels so that the score of the staff with bachelor's degree was 37.8 ± 8.7 and those with master's degree was 45 ± 7.8 (P = 001), especially in their metacognitive and cognitive subsection scores. CONCLUSION: The scores of intercultural intelligence were moderate to low in the staff of different working sections of the university. Moreover, the level of education shows impacts on intercultural encounters in this academic setting. The results highlight the need to develop programs in order to raise intercultural understanding in staff.