30

Defining, Developing and

Assessing Intercultural
Competence
Darla K. Deardorff

30.1 Introduction and Overview

Given the turbulent times of the twenty-first century, intercultural compe-

tence is arguably crucial to human survival. With more human mobility
(both physical and virtual) than ever before, there is a great need and
potential for humans to address collectively the local and global challenges
that exist today. Intercultural competence has emerged as a vital construct
in human relations as diversity intensifies in societies, whether geographic,
religious, socio-economic, ethnic, racial, gender or generational differences.
This chapter explores this bridging construct further through an overview
of terms and definitions, as well as ways to develop and assess this
construct.

30.2 Terms and Definitions

There are many terms used to describe the concept of intercultural compe-
tence: cross-cultural competence, international competence, global citizen-
ship, intercultural effectiveness, cultural intelligence, cultural competence,
transcultural competence (Glover & Friedman, 2015), and intercultural
sensitivity (Bennett, 1986) to name just a few. Many terms are specific to
academic disciplines; for example, in the United States, engineering often
uses ‘global competence’ (Caspersen, 2002; Downey et. al. 2006, Grandin &
Hedderich, 2009; Jesiek et. al 2014) while the healthcare professions and
social work may use ‘cultural competence’, referring more to domestic
diversity (Anand & Lahiri, 2009; Campinha-Bacote, 2002; Fong, 2009;
Weaver, 2004). Business may predominantly use a term such as ‘cultural
intelligence’ or ‘intercultural effectiveness’ (Earley & Ang, 2003; Moran,

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 494 DAR L A K. DEAR DOR FF

Youngdahl & Moran, 2009). Education uses a wide variety of terms includ-
ing both ‘global competence’ and ‘intercultural competence’, as well as
‘global citizenship’ and ‘global learning’. These terms often have very
similar definitions, with slightly different emphases or variations. Each
discipline has its own main researchers and scholars whose work is utilized
in regard to this concept within the discipline. Given that there is often
little interaction between intercultural researchers in different disciplines,
Deardorff (2017) has developed a network that connects researchers in
different disciplines.
Outside of academia, there is also a wide variety of terms used to
describe this concept of intercultural competence. For example, the
Council of Europe and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization use the term ‘intercultural competence’ (Council
of Europe, 2011; UNESCO, 2013); while the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, Asia Society, and the United States
Department of Education use ‘global competence’ (Asia Society, 2017;
OECD, 2017). The US Department of Defense uses ‘cross-cultural compe-
tence’ and the World Bank uses ‘intercultural competence’. Even though
there may not need to be consensus on terminology, it is important to
understand how terms are defined, which frameworks are being used,
and how these terms are translated into practice in the respective discip-
lines and contexts.
Scholars, primarily in the United States and in Europe, have been
attempting to define intercultural competence since the late 1950s and
1960s. Much of the early literature consisted of published lists of atti-
tudes, knowledge and skills that comprise intercultural competence (e.g.
see Ezekiel, 1968; Gardner, 1962, Hall, 1959; Ruben, Askling & Kealey,
1977), with little of the scholarly work actually derived from research on
the holistic concept of intercultural competence. In more recent years,
visual frameworks have been developed, some of which attempt to
establish the relationship between various aspects of intercultural com-
petence. Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) categorize more than twenty
definitions into five categories (which are not mutually exclusive): com-
positional, co-orientational, developmental, adaptational and causal.
One of the first research-based definitions and frameworks of intercul-
tural competence came from Deardorff (2006) as the Process Model of
Intercultural Competence; other frequently used definitions (as demon-
strated through study by Deardorff & Arasaratnam-Smith, 2017) include
the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, 1986),
Model of Intercultural Communicative Competence (Byram, 1997), Inte-
grated Model of Intercultural Communicative Competence (Arasarat-
nam, 2006), and the Intercultural Competencies Dimensions Model
(Fantini, 2009).

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Defining, Developing and Assessing Intercultural Competence 495

30.3 Major Dimensions of Intercultural Competence

The basic definition of competence is the attitudes, knowledge and skills of

an individual. Some intercultural competence definitions also include
awareness, motivation and personality traits as separate dimensions, and
more recent definitions also include emotional intelligence and mindful-
ness. One of the research-based definitions also adds internal and external
outcomes. Many of the existing definitions assume sojourning in an envir-
onment different from one’s own and often include adaptability as a
common element in many of the definitions of intercultural competence.
Numerous definitions conclude that a desired outcome of intercultural
competence is communication and behaviour that are both effective and
appropriate, with effectiveness being determined by the individual and
appropriateness being determined by the other person(s) in the interaction.
Effectiveness (the degree to which one achieves one’s goals) is only half the
intercultural equation, with appropriateness being the other half. Intercul-
tural competence requires both.
Attitudes refer to feelings, positions or ways of thinking, predicated on
assumptions and values, that impact on one’s behaviour. Three key atti-
tudes emerged as part of the consensus documented in the Deardorff
(2006) study: respect, openness and curiosity/discovery. Respect for others
involves demonstrating that they are valued, including through showing
interest in them and listening attentively to them. It is especially import-
ant to extend respect to those whose beliefs and values may differ from
one’s own. Openness and curiosity both imply a willingness to risk and to
move beyond one’s comfort zone. These three attitudes are foundational
to the further development of the knowledge and skills needed for
intercultural competence. Other attitudes found in intercultural compe-
tence definitions include patience, tolerance, acceptance, politeness and
friendliness.
Knowledge refers to specific information gained through education and/
or experience. Intercultural competence definitions and models often
include long lists of specific knowledge areas necessary for developing
competence. Much of the knowledge involves culture-specific information,
communication knowledge, cultural self-awareness (meaning awareness of
the ways in which one’s culture has influenced one’s identity and world
view), and information about the world (history, sociopolitics, etc.) and
particular contexts. Skills refer to the abilities one possesses, both general
and specific. Intercultural competence definitions and models include
numerous skills, both macro-level and micro-level skills. Some of the key
skills often mentioned (this is not exhaustive) include perspective-taking,
observation, flexibility, interacting, trust-building, empathizing, helping,
mindfulness, reflection and self-efficacy. In summarizing key themes from

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 496 DAR L A K. DEAR DOR FF

regional studies on intercultural competence, the following emerged as

core dimensions (as cited in UNESCO, 2013: 24):

• respect (‘valuing of others’);

• self-awareness/identity (‘understanding the lens through which we each
view the world’);
• seeing from other perspectives/worldviews (‘both how these perspectives
are similar and different’);
• listening (‘engaging in authentic intercultural dialogue‘);
• adaptation (‘being able to shift temporarily into another perspective’);
• relationship-building (forging lasting cross-cultural personal bonds);
• cultural humility (‘combines respect with self-awareness’).

Much of the literature on intercultural competence focuses on the individ-

ual, and the attitudes, knowledge and skills they need to have. Literature is
beginning to emerge, though, from the Global South and from non-
Western backgrounds that indicate other perspectives on intercultural
competence, related to identity, context and relationship. For example,
from the South African context, the philosophical concept of ubuntu
emerges (Steyn & Reygan, 2017). Much has been written about ubuntu,
found in the Zulu proverb ‘Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu’ – meaning that
a person is a person because of others. Ubuntu stresses the importance of
collective action and interconnectedness while de-emphasizing the solitary
individual. A related philosophical concept to ubuntu comes from the
Andes: alli kawsay, loosely translated as ‘good living’, which focuses on
cooperative relationships (UNESCO, 2018). Similarly, another Andean con-
cept, nande reko, stresses harmonious living. In Maori culture can be found
whanau, which refers to sharing and living life together as a community.
Other cultures have similar concepts such as kizuna (Japanese) and siratulra-
him (Malay/Indonesian). These concepts also highlight the importance of
seeing from other cultural perspectives, so there is not a reliance solely on
concepts within one culture to define values in human interactions. Rela-
tional aspects and interconnectedness, then, become key themes when
exploring intercultural competence from different viewpoints.
In addition to interconnectedness, other perspectives on intercultural
competence emphasize sincerity, such as the Chinese zhong dao and xintai
(‘heart attitude’) (Chen & An, 2009; Wang, Deardorff & Kulick, 2017), while
from an Indian perspective comes the Hindu concept of vishwa roopa dar-
shanam, or ‘oneness’, defined as unity within diversity (Manian & Naidu,
2009). Other concepts such the Japanese uchi-soto refer to situational com-
petence (UNESCO, 2013), while courage emerges as a common element
from South African perspectives.
Context plays a key role in intercultural competence in some cultures,
whereas the dominant discourse on intercultural competence often

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Defining, Developing and Assessing Intercultural Competence 497

discusses this concept as devoid of context. Increasingly, the role of power

and equality emerges as critical to understandings of intercultural compe-
tence, as does situating the concept within the historical, economic, polit-
ical, social, and religious realities of an interaction (Deardorff, 2009).
These are but a few of the themes found in other perspectives on inter-
cultural competence. Other emerging concepts include cultural humility
(Murray-Garcia & Tervalon, 2017), which has to do with the way in which
others are approached initially, and cultural empathy (Calloway-Thomas,
Arasaratnam-Smith & Deardorff, 2017). Important questions to continue to
ask in any context include intercultural competence according to whom,
influenced by what and to what degree.

30.4 Developing Intercultural Competence

As some of the more recent research notes, intercultural competence is a

lifelong process. This means one workshop or experience (such as studying
abroad) is insufficient in developing such a vital competence, although it
can certainly be part of the process. Within an educational context, service
learning has been shown to be a high-impact practice (Association of
American Colleges and Universities, n.d.) that can impact the process of
developing intercultural competence. Likewise, internationalization of the
curriculum, which is the inclusion of intercultural, international and
global dimensions in the content and delivery of a course, often addresses
intercultural learning (Beelen & Jones, 2015; Leask, 2015; Gregersen-
Hermans, 2017). Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017) found that in
higher education, intercultural competence development took place both in
and out of the classroom and involved the use of active engagement,
intentionality, customization, a focus on process (instead of results) and
an emphasis on the learner, as well as skills and attitudes, given that
knowledge alone is not sufficient for intercultural competence
development.
In other contexts, such as healthcare or engineering, the developmental
process takes places through engagement with clients or in teams, often
within the community. Intentional, guided engagement in real-world con-
texts with feedback and coaching are a key way for developing such com-
petence. Gregersen-Hermans (2017) found that the quality of such
engagement was mediated by five elements: diverse opportunities, condi-
tions for the contact (per Allport, 1954), social aspects (including time),
inclusive environment and intentional pedagogy (which includes reflection
and practice of reconciliation).
One example within an international organization for developing inter-
cultural competence is a methodology developed and piloted by UNESCO in

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 498 DAR L A K. DEAR DOR FF

all five UNESCO regions. This methodology involves using the ancient
tradition of storytelling repurposed for developing specific aspects of inter-
cultural competence such as listening for understanding (instead of reply or
judgment). This methodology has been used successfully in both formal and
non-formal contexts in numerous cultures around the world (Deardorff,
2019).
Regardless of how and where intercultural competence is developed,
intentionality and reflection both play key roles. Such a competence does
not typically evolve naturally but rather must be intentionally addressed.
Self-reflection, particularly in stepping back and considering what was
learned through engagement and what can be done differently in the
future, becomes vital for further intercultural development.

30.5 Assessing Intercultural Competence

(Principles, Changing Assessment Paradigm)

Assessment of intercultural competence remains a crucial issue (OECD,

2017) and one in which many misconceptions abound. There is a natural
tendency to focus first on assessment tools when in reality the first step is
to determine the purpose for assessing intercultural competence, which
should ultimately be for providing feedback to the learner for continued
intercultural development. There are more than 140 assessment tools for
measuring various aspects of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2017).
Given the complex, lifelong and holistic nature of intercultural compe-
tence, there is no one tool that can measure this construct in its entirety.
Rather, research has shown that there needs to be a multi-measure, multi-
perspective approach employed in assessing intercultural competence in
others (Deardorff, 2015). Therefore, assessment principles become founda-
tional on shaping approaches to assessing this construct.
Some key principles for assessing intercultural competence include the
following:

1) Define the construct of intercultural competence within its context,

based on existing literature. It is important to first define what is being
measured. Defining this construct may involve more than one defin-
ition or framework, since many can be complementary. Adapting mul-
tiple definitions can often result in a more holistic and comprehensive
definition of intercultural competence.
2) Prioritise: given the complexity of this construct, which is often delin-
eated through specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes, it becomes
important to determine which elements are most important to assess.
These elements can then be developed into specific, measurable out-
comes statements (see Deardorff, 2015 for a detailed discussion).

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Defining, Developing and Assessing Intercultural Competence 499

3) Align: alignment is one of the most critical principles in ensuring the

validity of assessment efforts. This means activities/experiences are
aligned to learning outcomes which are aligned to goals. This also
means collected evidence closely fits with the learning outcomes to
indicate the degree of achievement of the stated outcomes. Any assess-
ment tools used to collect the evidence must also be as closely aligned
with the outcomes as possible.
4) Identify evidence: one of the first assessment steps is in identifying
both direct and indirect evidence of desired intercultural changes in
the learner and of achievement of stated learning outcomes. Direct
evidence is often defined as evidence of actual student learning col-
lected during the learning experience (such as reflections, observations,
peer assessment, etc.) while indirect evidence is defined as perceptions
of student learning which are collected outside of the learning experi-
ence, usually before and after (through questionnaires, interviews and
focus groups) (Deardorff, 2015).
5) Use: the use of assessment data and collected evidence is crucial since it
relates back to the overall purpose of conducting the assessment. This
would include using the information to provide continued guidance and
feedback to learners as they continue to develop intercultural competence.
It can also mean viewing the evidence in aggregate to report percentages of
students who achieve specific learning outcomes in order to identify areas
which need improvement in terms of learning interventions.

In applying these five principles, there are some key considerations to

remember. First, it is helpful to map goals, outcomes, content, learning
activities, evidence and use to ensure alignment noted above. Second,
relevancy of assessment becomes important in addressing a number of
issues that arise such as resistance or assessment fatigue. Considering a
holistic approach to intercultural competence assessment means integra-
tion into a learner’s overall development as a human being, including
developmental, cognitive, emotional and spiritual aspects.
These considerations are indicative of a changing paradigm of assessing
intercultural outcomes. In this changing assessment paradigm (Deardorff,
2015; 2017), there is a shift from the traditional evidence collected through
pre-and post-measures to more authentic evidence collected through actual
teamwork and interactions, even beyond a classroom. The focus becomes
much more process-oriented as opposed to results-oriented (given the
lifelong nature of intercultural competence development). There is a recog-
nition that a standardized, one-size-fits-all approach (i.e. using one assess-
ment tool) is no longer meeting individuals where they are, so a more
customized and tailored approach is needed. And finally, depending on
the definition of intercultural competence, the focus may not even be as
much on the individual but rather on relationships.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 500 DAR L A K. DEAR DOR FF

30.6 Conclusion

This chapter has highlighted the terminology and definitional themes

related to intercultural competence, as well as provided a general overview
of the development of this construct in individuals. Intercultural assess-
ment principles become key in guiding approaches to measuring this con-
struct. There is much more that needs to be investigated in regard to
intercultural competence, despite the great strides made since the turn of
the century. In particular, cross-disciplinary researchers need to engage
with one another, to build on cumulative knowledge in this area. Much
more is needed on effective interventions for developing intercultural com-
petence as well as the implications of the changing paradigm of intercul-
tural competence assessment. Other research questions note the role of
cognitive complexity, the role of language, holistic development, and the
inclusivity of multiple perspectives and in languages other than English (for
a more in-depth discussion of these research questions, see Deardorff &
Arasaratnam-Smith, 2017: 298–301).
Continued conversations and explorations around the necessity of inter-
cultural competence must go on. Much more work remains to be done,
particularly in fulfilling the broader vision of intercultural competence
helping to build a more peaceful world as humans continue to understand
what it means to learn to live together.

References

Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Anand, R. and Lahiri, I. (2009). Intercultural competence in health care –
developing skills for interculturally competent care. In D. K. Deardorff,
ed., The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, pp. 387–402.
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2006). Further testing of a new model of intercultural
communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 23(2), 93–9.
Asia Society. (2018). Teaching for Global Competence in a Rapidly Changing
World. New York: Asia Society. [Link]
inline-files/teaching-for-global-competence-in-a-rapidly-changing-world-
[Link] (last accessed 14 September 2019).
Association of American Colleges and Universities (n.d.). High-impact practices.
[Link]. [Link]/resources/high-impact-practices (last accessed
20 March 2019).
Beelen, J. and Jones, E. (2015) Redefining internationalization at home. In
A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi and P. Scott, eds., The European
Higher Education Area. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 59–72.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Defining, Developing and Assessing Intercultural Competence 501

Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural

sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–96.
Byram, M. (1997). Developing and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Compe-
tence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Calloway-Thomas, C., Arasaratnam-Smith, L. and Deardorff, D. K. (2017).
The role of empathy in fostering intercultural competence. In
D. K. Deardorff and L. A. Arasaratnam-Smith, eds., Intercultural Competence
in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application.
London: Routledge, pp. 32–42.
Campinha-Bacote, J. (2002). The process of cultural competence in the deliv-
ery of healthcare services: a model of care. Journal of Transcultural Nursing,
13(3), 181–4.
Caspersen, R. (2002). Encouraging engineers to learn cross-cultural skills.
Global Journal of Engineering Education, 6(2), 135–7.
Chen, G. and An, R. (2009). A Chinese model of intercultural leadership
competence. In D. K. Deardorff, ed., The Sage Handbook of Intercultural
Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 196–208.
Council of Europe. (2011). Developing Intercultural Competence through Educa-
tion. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). The identification and assessment of intercultural
competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions
of higher education in the United States. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10(3), 241–66.
Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Synthesizing conceptualisations of intercultural
competence: a summary of emerging themes. In D. K. Deardorff, ed.,
The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
pp. 264–9.
Deardorff, D. K. (2015). Demystifying Outcomes Assessment for International
Educators: A Practical Approach. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Deardorff, D. K. (2017). The big picture of intercultural competence assess-
ment. In D. K. Deardorff and L. A. Arasaratnam-Smith, eds., Intercultural
Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and
Application. London: Routledge, pp. 124–34.
Deardorff, D. K. (2019). The UNESCO Guide to Developing Intercultural Compe-
tence. London: Routledge/UNESCO.
Deardorff, D. K. and Arasaratnam-Smith, L. A. (2017). Intercultural Compe-
tence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application.
London: Routledge.
Downey, G., Lucena, J., Moskal, B., Parkhurst, R., Bigley, T., Hays, C., Jesiek,
B. K., Kelly, L., Miller, J., Ruff, S. and Lehr, J. L. (2006). The globally
competent engineer: working effectively with people who define prob-
lems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 107–22.
Earley, P. C. and Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions
Across Cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 502 DAR L A K. DEAR DOR FF

Ezekiel, R. S. (1968). The personal future and Peace Corps competence.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(2), 1–26.
Fantini, A. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: issues and tools. In
D. K. Deardorff, ed., The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 456–76.
Fong, R. (2009). Intercultural competence in social work: culturally compe-
tent practice in social work. In D. K. Deardorff, ed., The Sage Handbook of
Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 350–61.
Gardner, G. H. (1962). Cross-cultural communication. Journal of Social Psych-
ology, 58(2), 241–56.
Glover, J. and Friedman, H. (2015). Transcultural Competence: Navigating Cul-
tural Differences in the Global Community. Washington DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Grandin, J. and Hedderich, N. (2009). Intercultural competence in engineer-
ing: global competence for engineers. In D. K. Deardorff, ed., The Sage
Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 362–73.
Gregersen-Hermans, J. (2017). Intercultural competence development in
higher education. In D. K. Deardorff and L. A. Arasaratnam-Smith, eds.,
Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assess-
ment and Application. London: Routledge, pp. 67–82.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Anchor Books.
Jesiek, B. K., Zhu, Q., Woo, S. E., Thompson, J. and Mazzurco, A. (2014).
Global engineering competency in context: situations and behaviors.
Online Journal for Global Engineering Education, 8(1), 1–14.
Leask, B. (2015). Internationalization of the Curriculum. London: Routledge.
Manian, R., and Naidu, S. (2009). India: a cross-cultural overview of inter-
cultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff, ed., The Sage Handbook of Inter-
cultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 233–48.
Moran, R., Youngdahl, W. and Moran, S. (2009). Intercultural competence
in business-leading global projects: bridging the cultural and functional
divide. In D. K. Deardorff, ed., The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 287–303.
Murray-Garcia, J. and Tervalon, M. (2017). Rethinking intercultural compe-
tence: cultural humility in internationalizing higher education. In
D. K. Deardorff and L. A. Arasaratnam-Smith, eds., Intercultural Competence
in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application.
London: Routledge, pp. 19–31.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2017). Preparing
our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World: The OECD PISA Global
Competence Framework. Paris: OECD.
Ruben, B. D., Askling, L. R., and Kealey, D. J. (1977). Cross-cultural effective-
ness. In D. S. Hoopes, P. B. Pedersen and G. Renwick, eds., Overview of
Intercultural Education, Training, and Research: Theory. Washington, DC:
Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research, pp. 92–105.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Defining, Developing and Assessing Intercultural Competence 503

Spitzberg, B. and Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural com-

petence. In D. K. Deardorff, ed., The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Compe-
tence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 2–52.
Steyn, M. and Reygan, F. (2017). New competencies for intercultural com-
munication: power, privilege, and the decolonisation of higher education
in South Africa. In D. K. Deardorff and L. A. Arasaratnam-Smith, eds.,
Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assess-
ment and Application. London: Routledge, pp. 83–94.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).
(2013). Intercultural Competences. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).
(2018). Global Citizenship Education: Taking It Local. Paris: UNESCO.
Wang, Y., Deardorff, D. K. and Kulich, S. (2017). Chinese perspectives
on intercultural competence in international higher education. In
D. K. Deardorff and L. A. Arasaratnam-Smith, eds., Intercultural Competence
in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application.
London: Routledge, pp. 95–109.
Weaver, H. (2004). The elements of cultural competence. Journal of Ethnic
and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 13(1), 19–35.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press