Cultivating Unity: Theoretical and Practical Foundations for Interethnic Communication in Higher Education

Authors

  • Mr. Shami Ahaw Mohammed PhD in Mass communication and journalism, Gujarat University
  • Dr. Sonal Pandya Gujarat University image/svg+xml

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55829/drez2b06

Keywords:

Interethnic communication, higher education, intercultural competence, contact hypothesis, intergroup dialogue, inclusive pedagogy

Abstract

Higher education institutions globally have undergone profound demographic transformations, with increasing numbers of international and ethnic minority students enrolled across university campuses (Deardorff & Iuliano, 2026). Despite this growing diversity, research indicates that meaningful interethnic communication remains elusive, as diverse campuses often experience segregated social networks, lower feelings of inclusion among minority students, and persistent gaps between institutional diversity rhetoric and lived experiences (Celeste et al., 2019; Ford, 2024). This study addresses the central problem of the absence of a coherent, empirically grounded framework for intentionally cultivating a culture of interethnic communication in university settings. Grounded in Allport's (1954) contact hypothesis, social identity theory, and contemporary intercultural competence models (Stonier, 2024), this qualitative phenomenological case study explored barriers to interethnic communication, the role of institutional leadership, and the relationship between interethnic dialogue and broader institutional goals. Three diverse institutions a research university, a teaching-focused university, and a community college served as case sites, with 30-35 participants recruited through purposive sampling, including students from diverse ethnic backgrounds, faculty members, and diversity administrators. Data collection employed semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and document analysis of institutional policies, analysed using Braun and Clarke's (2021) six-phase thematic approach. Findings revealed three categories of barriers: institutional fragmentation and the "contact gap" (Deardorff & Iuliano, 2026), pedagogical unpreparedness and reliance on color-blind approaches (Celeste et al., 2019), and interpersonal obstacles including fear of causing offense and limited vocabulary for discussing difference (Ford, 2024; Stonier, 2024). Leadership emerged as decisive through strategic vision, resource allocation, and cultural modelling, with visible commitment enabling sustained intercultural initiatives. Interethnic communication correlated positively with equity, inclusion, and student success, as students reporting meaningful cross-group interactions described greater belonging, enriched academic experiences, and developed perspective-taking skills essential for diverse workplaces. The study concludes that cultivating interethnic communication requires intentional, multi-level intervention addressing institutional, pedagogical, and interpersonal dimensions simultaneously. Recommendations include articulating interethnic communication as a strategic priority, integrating pluralist pedagogical approaches across curricula, sustaining intergroup dialogue programs, and conducting longitudinal research on intercultural development in both physical and virtual learning environments.

References

[1] Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

[2] Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.

[3] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.

[4] Celeste, L., Baysu, G., Phalet, K., Meeussen, L., & Kende, J. (2019). Can school diversity policies reduce belonging and achievement gaps between minority and majority youth? Multiculturalism, colorblindness, and assimilationism assessed. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, *45*(11), 1603–1618.

[5] Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

[6] Deardorff, D. K., & Iuliano, R. (2026). More than welcome: Intercultural integration of migrants in and through higher education. UNESCO.

[7] Ford, K. (2024). Addressing challenging campus climates through intergroup dialogue. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, *17*(2), 145–158.

[8] Jacobson, W. E., Johnson, P. R., & Kim, S. (2024). Ideology and power in online intercultural exchange: A critical examination of virtual exchange programs. In M. R. Thompson & L. Chen (Eds.), Interculturality online: Ideological constructions and contestations (pp. 45–68). Routledge.

[9] Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

[10] Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

[11] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.

[12] Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

[13] Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

[14] Stonier, F. W. (2024). Artificial intelligence in intercultural competence assessment: A fuzzy logic approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, *98*, Article 101921.

Downloads

Published

31-03-2026

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Cultivating Unity: Theoretical and Practical Foundations for Interethnic Communication in Higher Education. (2026). International Journal of Management, Public Policy and Research, 5(1), 155-158. https://doi.org/10.55829/drez2b06

Most read articles by the same author(s)