INTERCULTURAL INSIGHTS: Criteria

What Criteria Did You Use in Making Your Editorial Decisions?

When we asked this question during a debrief, this is what some of the players told us:

Barbara Pirie

My criteria for editing - pretty conscious but from my background and work focus.

My basic criteria was 'is this guideline effective across all/most cultures. Many of the tips - no matter how good - seemed to me to be written from an individual, verbal perspective and would be helpful to individuals that fit that pattern. However, they would not be effective within other cultural patterns. If it was a good tip with this limited application and well written, I gave it the 'average' (C) with the 'not so good ones' below that. Those I rated higher reflected more than one cultural pattern and would be effective in a diverse group.

I looked at each guideline in 2 or 3 realms:

effective as a cross-cultural effectiveness guideline given all potential cultural options and global experiences
effective as a training tip given maximum diversity of cultural and learning patterns in learning cohort (individual/group, verbal/silent, linear/wholistic thinking, etc.)
well-written - the guideline was effectively communicated - I found some interesting tips where the writing didn't clearly communicate it - I was guessing at what they intended to say - if good, but poorly written I gave a 'C' - others below that)

David R. Piltz

The criteria for the activity were simple but subjective:

If the idea seemed to be generalizable to many different applications and was novel it was to be published immediately or as soon as possible
If the idea was a good idea that all trainers should keep in mind was generalizable to many different applications then it was publish when have space
If the idea was like #2 and also was a very important thing for trainers to always keep in mind, it was to be published immediately or as soon as possible
If the idea had any type of line or sentence that was a bias statement it was to be not published or rejected.

Cindy Cominski:

The criteria I used were based on

impact
relation to the topic
writing level
ease of understanding.

Jerry Kail:

Primary criteria were

novelty - something people might not have thought of before
wide range of application
a "gut level" connection with a value I hold or an observation I might have made myself in the past.

Kris DiGiovanni

Main criteria used:

Does the suggestion seem logical and is it widely applicable?
Is it good for all it might affect?
Is it easy to implement and/or will it be understood by those affected?
Is it 'common sense'?
What is the bang for the buck - how much impact will it have?

I based my conclusions on the following:

Previous experience working with diverse groups
Information learned in previous training received on diversity and multiculturalism
Gut feel ( how would "I" react if I were on the receiving end of the suggestion)
My own cultural background
My personal exposure to other cultures, races, social strata, etc and impressions received from those encounters

Diane Hofner Saphiere

Is the tip theoretically sound?
Does the tip get to the "core" of what is really important for intercultural effectiveness?
Is the tip practical and immediately useful?
Is the tip creative/a new and useful take on something, or is it just a regurgitation of a tried-and-true but well-known tip?
Does the tip use a method that is wise and usable by most, or is it highly risky and dangerous for the average person to employ?

Beth Tang

As "filler editor," I was looking for articles that would be short, succinct, and easily covered in up to one column.
I was also looking for something that could be considered tips that should be immediately applicable to trainers.
Is the tip theoretically sound?

Eleanor Reali

I only gave the highest ratings to what I perceived as key concepts - "do this or fail."
My ratings were based on how useful an idea seemed to be, and how practical. General/universally applicable items rated higher than activity-specific items.
Items that were clear and concise rated higher than longer explanations (in most cases).
Items with specific insight to cross-culturalism rated higher (and this criteria was easy for me, as my cross-cultural exposure has been relatively limited). In other words, if I learned something, I figured others would, too, and rated the item higher.

Kathleen A. Curran

How did I decide on my ratings? Following is my process:

I kept reminding myself of the purpose of the publication: information for consultants working with intercultural groups. 'Working with' were operational words to me. I did not feel the purpose was just to provide information about intercultural communication. This led me then to rank the contributions in terms of

Immediate usefulness - more action oriented suggestions
Vital conceptual information which I felt was more attitudinal; ideas that one should resonate with when working with IC groups
Background concepts that are more cognitive, foundational, for more understanding

I then intuitively ranked the items in terms of quality, in a way.

Items that fit my category #1 were usually ranked "Publish Immediately", as they were usually very sound, workable and important, based on my own professional experience in working with intercultural groups.
Items that I considered #2 or #3 were ranked as "Publish as soon as possible" or "Publish when space available" in a sort of 'need to know' or 'nice to know' manner. These are still good ideas and of importance.
Items that I considered of some relevance to the field and purpose of the publication, but less "right on", I ranked as "Publish when desperate".
Those items that I found completely un-useful for the intended audience and purpose or even wrong, according to my knowledge and experience, I ranked "Reject".

What criteria did I use?

Personal, professional experience as an intercultural trainer and consultant - What has worked for me?
Personal experience living and learning overseas - What have been for me the best ways to communicate with and learn about other cultures?
Literature/Lecture/Workshop advice - What does the literature in the field of intercultural communication suggest is effective? I believe I did not consciously attend to the 3rd point; I only thought of it now as I write this, but I am sure that such academic foundation was of course used. Perhaps through my work and experience, #1 and #2, I have sifted through all the more theoretical material and found what worked for me!

In summary, my criteria were basically subjective!

Michele Ehlers

Overall added value to someone working across cultures. That is, it felt *right* to me, based on my learning and experience.
Generally applicable (rather than only in specific situations).
Clear and comprehensible to someone without extensive experience in the field.
Simple - short bites rather than detailed instructions.
Well written.
Matching the general structure of the other tips.

Frank McDonnell

I looked for clear, brief guidelines that were written in a professional manner.
A few conveyed the very prejudices that we hope this training is meant to address; those were rejected immediately.
Those that were clear and represented good advice under varied situations, I rated highly.
Those that dealt with very subjective topics: observation, sense of humor, I treated cautiously or rejected.

Gregory Webb

In determining my editorial ratings,

I first put myself in the role of the reader and asked myself if the idea made sense.
I then determined if it was a complete thought, or if additional work was required.
Additionally, I made sure that the idea qualified under the guidelines established for the game(s).
Complete understandable and applicable points received the highest ratings.
I also used my own good judgment--if I didn't think the idea was a good one, or thought it would do more harm than good than it didn't get published. After all, I am the EDITOR.

Doug Smith

I didn't have a formalized set of criteria from start to finish, but I believe the following to be my guidelines:

Content appears to be relevant
Content appears to be on target (not misdirecting people)
Ideas were interesting, compelling, important
Sufficient substance for an article
Thought provoking but not antagonistic

Susan Robinson

Primarily, I arrived at my decision based on potential impact. However, I probably am biased on using that criteria because the environment I work in demands that everything have quick, hard-hitting results.
A second criteria was logical appeal. If it made sense and I could back my intuition up with my experience as a training professional, then I gave it a high rating.

Back to the list of guidelines

Some caveats about the Top 20 list