28 Globalization, Networking and Intercultural Communication Maria

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

Globalization, Networking and Intercultural Communication

Maria G.

Lebedko

Far Eastern Federal University, Russia

Abstract: This paper attempts to address the impact of globalization and networking

on intercultural communication. Since the last century, social networking has been

dramatically changing the “standard norms” of communication. For example, face

to face communication is most often replaced with writing that, in its turn, has

undergone great changes. To save time, netters use abbreviations (idk “I don’t know,”

brb “be right back,” etc.). The processes of globalization and networking are tightly

connected. They interact and inuence intercultural communication, the vector of

which is presently directed towards the global level. In this study, fty nine students

were asked to answer four questions concerning their communication with peers in

other countries with the purpose of eliciting students’ understanding of the impact of

social networks on intercultural communication. As the analysis of students’ survey

of the issues central to global networking showed, for the digital generation (a.k.a,

N Gen) communication through social networks is more preferable than speech. The

survey on global networking uncovered signicant differences in the attitudes towards

intercultural constituents and categories; e.g., the attitude towards the notion of friends

is conceptualized quite differently nowadays. The results show that most categories

of intercultural communication are impacted by networking. Since globalization,

social networking and intercultural communication are interconnected I start from the

processes of globalization and networking and proceed to intercultural communication.

Then I give a short questionnaire for students to hear their voices.

Keywords: Globalization, intercultural communication, Internet, social networking,

social media, social change.

1. Introduction

Since the introduction of the Internet initially into the sciences (1980s), it gradually embraced

all spheres of life. According to Veltman (2002), “[t]he advent of new technologies and the

Internet led in a rst instance to a networking of the great international libraries and research

institutions.” (para 24). Thus, a relatively new phenomenon of social networking spread

worldwide and became signicantly prominent for many people belonging to various nations

and countries. According to Computer Desktop Encyclopedia, the term varies: sometimes it

is called just a ‘net’ or ‘network’ and denotes either a network or the Internet (written with

the capital letter). Networking is highly popular, especially among millennials, the Digital

generation (N Gen, network generation), this is the generation born in the ‘computer epoch’

http://www.wordspy.com/categories/demographics.asp, retrieved 19

January 2012.

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

Most of them are addicted to it, such netters are called net-o-holics / net-a-holics, or computer

junkies

on the other hand there is a phenomenon of social network fatigue; the reason is that

some ‘friends,’ as the netters call each other, create too many accounts on social networking sites

(some of which are just useless or unsolicited), so that it becomes impossible to maintain their

sites and to live an active social life on the Web. Many of them feel frustrated and experience

mental exhaustion, which entails that some netters just stop communicating.

With the unprecedented range of globalization processes, the number of contacts across

cultures has dramatically increased, resulting in an unusual phenomenal spread of new

social media embracing the whole world. Shuter (2012, p. 220). The present day situation is

characterized by great changes in many aspects of reality. Globalization has induced mobility

which has led to substantial growth of various cultural contacts, resulting in a great variety of

Englishes. Social media and networking have induced a new kind of communication.

These changes entail an exuberant growth of scholars’ involvement into the issues of

intercultural communication. Researchers offer new approaches and methodologies. And still

these three interrelated phenomena (globalization, networking and intercultural communication)

require more scholarly attention in order to deeply understand how and in what direction

intercultural communication is changing. With the purpose to study the interaction of these

three phenomena and the way students perceive them and how they regard these changes a

survey was conducted at a large university in Russia. The present study presents the results of

the research data received from 59 students’ responses.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Globalization

In their introduction to the book ‘Globalization and Language Teaching,’ the editors David

Block and Deborah Cameron (2002) say that “globalization is nothing if not a fashionable

term – it pervades contemporary political rhetoric and is a keyword of both academic and

popular discourse on economy, society, technology and culture” (p. 1). The scholars argue over

when exactly this term rst appeared; Block and Cameron enumerate several scholars who

introduced some possible dates: 1) fteenth century Europe; 2) seventeenth century; 3) 1961

(according to Webster’s Dictionary).

Steger (2009, p. 15; cited in Chen, 2012, p. 3), dened the process of globalization in the

following way: globalization “refers to the expansion and intensication of social relations and

consciousness across world-time and world-space.” In other words, globalization is “a social

process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede, and

people become increasingly aware that they are receding” (Waters, 1995, p, 3. as cited by Chen,

2012, p. 3.).

But most typically, as Kluver (2000) writes, globalization is dened with reference to

the different forms of interconnectedness including networks. In the author’s opinion, while

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-denition-of/net-a-holic, retrieved 19

January 2012.

http://www.wordspy.com/words/socialnetworkingfatigue.asp, retrieved 19

January 2014.

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

globalization refers to integrated economic institutions, the channels of technology help this

integration. The development of communications technologies enrich the scope of trade and

with electronic media any novel ideas will reach the destination within an instant.

Cowen (2002) draws attention to the fact that globalization has two sides: while it has

brought effective commercial inuences (for example spread of Toyotas in 151 countries;

Coca-Cola in 185 countries; McDonald’s all over the world, etc.), at the same time it tends

to ruin cultures and their ethos. The author understands the word ethos as “a shared cultural

matrix for interpretation, rather than a narrow conformity of opinion.” (p. 48). On the one hand,

globalization and social media promote ethnic and cultural diversity, but on the other hand we

witness cultural losses. We see that “Destruction of ethos can cause non-Western cultures to

lose their uniqueness, thereby faltering in their artistic creativity.” (p. 47).

Thus, globalization has attracted many scholars’ attention and presently it has grown into a

key research area, which includes the study of changes in communicative behavior. As argued

by Twombly by Wooly (2013), those students who travel abroad are more aware of global

issues; they also are more academically driven. New technologies have transformed media

formats into a mobile phenomenon made possible by devices such as personal computers,

cellular phones, tablets, and Smartphones, (iPhones, BlackBerrys, Androids, etc.). Easy access

to mobile telephones and Internet allow people, especially the young generation to use roam-

calling, texting, IMing all over the world, visiting countries they would like to see while staying

connected with their homes and friends. This is a new phenomenon and a debatable theme for

research with no unanimous denition recognized by scholars.

The global phenomenon of social media, is tightly connected with new technologies and

both in turn impact intercultural communication. There are voices warning about the great

serious impact of new media inducing changes to life experience, and transformations in the

eld of economics, cultural patterns, communication styles, etc. (Chen, 2012). Furthermore,

the cyberspace formed by new media allows people to generate virtual experience and reality,

which effectuates the free alternation of one’s gender, personality, appearance, and occupation

(Chen, 2012). “The invisible cyberspace not only induces a gap between reality and virtuality,

also effectuates the free alternation of one’s gender, personality, appearance, and occupation.”

(p. 3) .

Summing up, Chen (2012) constructs ve important features of globalization:

First, globalization is a dialectically dynamic process, which is caused by the pushing

and pulling between the two forces of cultural identity and cultural diversity, or between

localization and universalization. Second, globalization is universally pervasive.

It moves like air penetrating into every aspect of human society and inuences the

way we live, think, and behave. Third, globalization is holistically interconnected.

It builds a huge matrix in which all components are interconnected with networks.

Fourth, globalization represents a culturally hybridized state, which allows cultural

transmission via new media to take place at a very rapid rate by permeating and

dissolving human boundaries. Finally, globalization increases individual power in

the new media society, which pluralizes the world by recognizing the ability and

importance of individual components. (p. 3).

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

“With these distinct features new media pushes the trend of globalization to its highest level in

human history” (Chen, 2012, p. 3). Movius (2010) highlights the fact that media have a central

place in globalisation and gives three reasons for this: 1) media corporations globalize their

products; 2) global infrastructure of communication eases and promotes global information

ows; 3) and global media play a key role in how we presently communicate.

2.2. Networking

Social networking as a special phenomenon has signicantly impacted networked societies

all over the world. A new generation has recently appeared, variously called N Gen (network

generation), generation D (digital generation), millennials or generation Y;

; these are all those

who were born in “computer epoch”.

. It could be said that the global level of networking

has led to signicant differences in the attitudes towards many intercultural constituents; for

example, for the digital generation communication through social networks is preferable to

speech, and also, the attitude towards the notion of friends is conceptualized quite differently

nowadays.

The process of medialization of everyday life, as Hess-Lüttich (2006) pointed out, has

become domesticated. Scholars of media semiotics observe the change of habits of the young

generation. The media are regarded as social processes that construct some meanings and they

do this via discourse (Ibroscheva & Jyotika, 2008). According to Cheese (2008), Generation

Y are “top young performers,” “highly technological savvy,” “relationship-oriented,” “use a

wide range of media and technology to connect with others,” “[j]ob-[h]opping,” “hungry … for

knowledge,” and “have fun at work” (para 3, 10, 11, 13).

The impact of social networks on various constituents of intercultural communication

is underscored by many scholars. According to Shuter (2012, p. 219), “new media…are

transforming communication across cultures”; electronic media have altered contemporary

methods of communication (Movius, 2010). Chen (2012, p. 3) argues that “[w]ith its distinctive

features new media has brought human society to a highly interconnected and complex level,

but at the same time, it challenges the very existence of human communication in the traditional

sense.” “[n]ew media not only inuences the form and content of information/messages, but it

also affects how people understand each other in the process of human communication” (Chen,

2012, p. 3). After studying a wide range of literature Chen (2012, p. 4) identied three main

areas of impact:

(1) the impact of national/ethnic culture on the development of new media,

(2) the impact of new media on cultural/social identity, and

(3) the impact of new media (especially social media) on different aspects of intercultural

interaction (e.g., intercultural relationship, intercultural dialogue, and intercultural conict)

Summing up, we can compare the new media with the mythological two-faced Janus.

One face gives the opportunity to talk on-line with a multitude of ‘friends,’ which the digital

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials, retrieved 18

March 2014.

http://www.wordspy.com/categories/demographics.asp, retrieved 19

January 2014.

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

generation is happy to see. Social networking, by incessantly generating information due to

new technologies, helps ‘friends’ to maintain connections. But the other face of Janus threatens

existence of unique minority cultures, their cultural patterns, and life experience, through

the pervading globalization. Thus, the networks transform communication styles and other

intercultural communication categories.

In the present research, intercultural communication is understood as integrating

pragmatic, cognitive, affective, axiological, cultural, and behavioral patterns in communication

acts between two individuals belonging to different cultures (interpersonal communication)

or communicative acts between groups belonging to diverse cultural contexts (intercultural

communication).

2.4. Changes in Intercultural Communication: Theoretical Framework

The processes of globalization and networking are tightly connected, and in turn inuence

intercultural communication, the vector of which is presently directed towards the global level.

The new generation that has grown up on Internet technologies has transformed the attitude

to communication. Many researchers reconsider intercultural communication in light of new

social media and recognize great changes (Cheese, 2008; Chen, 2012; Cowen, 2002; Movius,

2010; Pster &Soliz, 2011; Shuter, 2012.). Pster and Soliz (2011) illustrate their idea of

changes with four interconnected arguments in the following way: “(1) producing new public

fora capable of (2) hosting rich, multimodal “spaces” of contact on (3) a scale of many-to-many

communication that (4) challenges traditional modes of representation” (p. 246).

To succinctly outline the present day cause of intercultural transformations all over the

world we have to address new media which have triggered contacts of people from different

cultures and caused changes from “face-to-face encounters” to instantaneous “communication

with others regardless of geo-political boundaries, time, or space” (Shuter, 2012, p. 219).

The impact of networking on intercultural communication has dramatically changed the

‘standard norms’ of communication, compared to the last century. Netters have acquired the so-

called ‘digital culture’ introducing changes to linguistics, speech, the way of spending time, etc.

Instead of words, netters often use abbreviations, for example, idk (“I don’t know”); bff (“best

friend forever”); brb (“be right back”); nvm (“never mind”); sup (“what’s up?”); cya (“see ya

[you] later”); lol (“laugh out loud”); omg (“oh my gosh!”) w8 (“wait”), rolf (“rolling on oor

laughing”); yolo (“you only live once”), to mention just a few.

The changes in communication before social networks and presently are compared in Table

1 below.

Table 1. Comparing Intercultural Communication Before and Now

Before Now

Face to Face

(f2f)

Mediated

(Networking)

Telephone (standard) I-phone, cell phone

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

Books E-books

Teaching Learning

Writing Texting / IMing

Words, collocations Abbreviations (often)

Collaborative work (f2f)

Distant collaboration

Working in ofces Working at home (often)

Identity Identity (disguised by niks)

Control of information Information can freely move around

(Chen, 2012)

Reality Virtual experience and reality

(Chen, 2012)

Long way of connection Spontaneous interconnection

(Chen, 2012)

Limited circle of social relations

(compared to to-day’s situation)

Big on-line social relations

(Movius, 2010

Categories: Values (shared by many in a

society)

New values (acquired through virtual

societies, from friends living in a great

variety of countries)

Standardization (Reigeluth, 1996) Customization (Reigeluth, 1996)

Centralized control (Reigeluth, 1996) Autonomy with accountability

(Reigeluth, 1996)

Autocratic decision making (Reigeluth,

1996)

Shared decision making (Reigeluth,

1996)

Compliance (Reigeluth, 1996) Initiative (Reigeluth, 1996)

Conformity (Reigeluth, 1996) Diversity (Reigeluth, 1996)

One-way communications (Reigeluth,

1996)

Networking (Reigeluth, 1996)

The data and studies summarized in the table conrm great changes concerning intercultural

communication categories. A previous study by Lebedko (2014) found that students (Chinese

and Japanese) from abroad who came to Russia to study Russian language and culture used

social media less during the honeymoon stage (of culture shock and/or acculturation. They

gradually began using Facebook and Renren social media at the recovery stage and later they

pointed out that ‘speaking’ with friends on the nets was supporting them if students experienced

cultural bumps or communication failures at the acculturation stage. Some students accepted

various values (not so many) and rejected others. The study showed the impact of social media:

values now are more dynamic than ever before. Shuter (2012) pronounced these tremendous

changes as ‘the revolution.’ One can also see that the process of teaching has been transformed

to learning, that gives initiative to students; e-books are preferred to books; writing has turned

into Texting and IMing; abbreviations are often preferred to words and collocations; F2F (face-

to-face) collaborative work has presently changed to distant collaboration when authors who

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

do not know personally each other, know the projects they are working on and discuss them

without getting acquainted. In regard to internet ‘friendship’, identity can be disguised when

‘friends’ are reluctant to know their ‘friends’ and use nicknames. The notion of intercultural

communication has also changed from one way communication to networking with multiple

friends. Another impact of the digital age is that previous control of information has been

converted to information that can freely move around (Chen, 2012).

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

Fifty nine students ranging in age from 20 to 23 at a large university in Russia expressed

informed consent to be involved in the experiment focusing on digital social networking and

its inuence on intercultural communication. There were 56 females vs. three males. All of the

respondents were students majoring in linguistics and also studied intercultural communication.

The languages of their studies (English, German, Spanish, and French) depended on their

choice. English was the second language for those who majored in German, Spanish, and

French. Students majoring in English studied other languages German, Spanish, or French as

their second foreign language. Their names were numerically codied to ensure the privacy and

condentiality of the identity of the participants.

3.2. Procedure

The students were asked to name their favorite nets, to share their experience of using social

networks, their communication with other students from different countries, and what they

consider useful for them or what they did not like. The sources of the data collection were

exclusively students’ answers and reactions to the short questionnaire. This material collection

generated a body of 57 respondents, in addition to two students out of 59 who wrote: “I don’t

use social networks.” The responses varied from one question to another.

3.3. Questionnaire

For the purpose of soliciting students’ attitude towards networks and nding out how important

the networks were to them, the students were asked to answer questions concerning their goals

in using networks and its signicance to them. All of the participants studied English as an

obligatory language, therefore, the questionnaire was in English. Since the research is tentative,

the questionnaire was short including four open-ended questions:

1) What is / are your favorite new media / networks?

2) How often do you use social media?

3) Who are your ‘friends’ and where do they live?

4) What languages do you use and how signicant / insignicant is the networking for you?

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

3.4. Students’ Voices: Attitudes to Networking

The results are tabulated below according to the questions in the questionnaire.

Question 1. What is / are your favorite new media / networks?

Table 2 shows the specic networks preferred by the students.

Table 2. Networks

Question # 1: What is / are your favorite new media / networks? Number of

networks

Facebook (FB) was the most popular

Vkontakte (VK)

Mail agent

Skype

Twitter

Odnoklassniki

You tube

Tumbler

Istagram

Forum

Google

Two students did not like to communicate using networks

Total:

Out of 59 students we have received 84 answers, which is explained by the fact that some

students have several accounts. Two students wrote that they actually do not use social networks

because they do not like it at all. Judging from the results obtained from the rst question

the most favorite network is Facebook (FB) followed by Vkontakte (VK) (a Russian network

meaning “Being in contact”), then Mail agent, Skype, Twitter, Odnoklassniki (“School mates”,

also a Russian network) and other networks.

Question 2. How often do you use the networks?

The following table shows the overall frequency of usage and a selection of the students’

responses.

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

Table 3. How Often do Students Use the Networks?

How often I

speak with

friends

Number

students

Responses

Each day 13

I use social nets each day (01); I added a page on FB 3 years ago

in Spain. I keep on speaking with most friends practically every

day and with others I communicate on FB or Skype less often

(027); I am 20 years old student, I use social networks every day

(012); I communicate with friends in Facebook with those who live

far away and those who live within 5 minutes walk from me (08).

6 times a

week

After living in Spain, I have many friends with whom I like not only

to ‘speak’, but also seriously discuss some political situations in

the world, it takes time (6 times a week) (010).

5 times a

week

I speak with my friends from all over the world at least ve times

a week (03); I spent a year in Germany and got acquainted with

many friends, I speak with them very often (about 5 times a week)

(013).

4 – 5 times

per week

I am interested in speaking with students from other countries. At

least I talked 4 – 5 times per week (04).

4 times a

week

I speak 4 times a week, I wish I have more time to speak each day

(028).

Once or

twice a week

I ‘speak’ once or twice a week (05).

Once a week 5

Once a week is enough for me because I am very busy with my

homework assignment. (054).

Seldom /

rarely / from

time to time

I seldom use facebook, I have an account, but I rarely check it once

or twice a week, just to check how my friends are doing. I don’t

have any other social network. I use them (social nets) from time

to time. (06).

Don’t use

at all

Don’t use social networks at all (058) / (059)

As can be seen from the students’ responses in Table 3, their frequency preferences of using

networks considerably varied from ‘each day’ to ‘seldom’/’rarely’ and to absolute rejection. In

terms of percentage, those who used networks each day comprised 22%, followed by 5 times

a week – 15.25%, and 4 times a week – 13.5%. Both 6 times a week and 3 – 4 times a week

‘speaking’ with netters coincided in percentage (10. – 16% and 10. – 16%). Those who ‘spoke’

once a week comprises 8.47% followed by those who used networks 4-5 times a week (6.7%),

coinciding with those who used networks once or twice a week (6.7%). Those who used the

network seldom comprise 3.38%, coinciding with those who did not use any network at all

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

(3.38%). It is noteworthy that the latter expressed their opinion towards social networking

by refusing to communicate through the nets. However, overall, the majority (40 out of 59

students) used social networks at least 4 times per week.

Question 3. Who are your ‘friends’ and where do they live?

The following selected responses represent the global range of students’ social networks.

(027) My friends are exclusively students from Latin America, Italy, France, America, Iran and

other countries. We all are tied by the Spanish Language.

(028) I learned Spanish in Spain and know many students there, we became friends, I love

speaking with them all. My friends live in Spain.

(08) I have a lot of friends from abroad. All my friends I know personally. My friends are

from all over the world and it’s hard to list all the countries: Spain, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, Ecuador, Australia, New

Zealand. Also I have many friends from different Russian cities: Moscow, Saint Petersburg,

Khabarovsk, Vladivostok.

(054) Most of my friends are students who live in Russia, Ukraine, and Canada.

(029) My friends live all over the world. Even in neighbor room.

(050) My friends live in Utah, USA; Oakland, New Zealand; Madrid, Spain; St. Petersburg,

Irkutsk, Vladivostok (Russia).

(045) My friends live in America (New York), Spain (Madrid, Alicante, Valencia), England

(London).

(05) My friends live in Russia and Spain.

(025) My friend is from New Zealand, but he lives in Bogota, Columbia. Another friend of mine

lives in California, USA.

(03) My friends are from China, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Latin America.

(011) I know friends from Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Poland.

(06) My friends live in Asia and North America, and I don’t use Facebook, but I use WhatsApp

on my phone, this is how I stay in touch with the rest of my friends.

Most of the students enjoyed having friends and communicating with them any time

they are free. The range of countries in which the students got acquainted with ‘friends’ are

enormous and their friends live all over the world. Only two students out of 59 did not use

social networks. Most responses indicated that the students actually saw that the world had

become more global.

Question 4. What languages do you use and how signicant / insignicant is the networking

for you?

The following selected responses represent the students’ language usage (various responses

were selected to show the most indicative varieties and signicance/or insignicance of the

networking).

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

(015) In some way through the communication in English I improve my vocabulary. There

are a lot of new words in the Internet. Yes, it does help, especially when we discuss something

academic. I broaden my vocabulary receiving response from my English speaking friends.

(044) While networking, I use Russian and occasionally English. Social networking is very

important in contemporary world. They are inalienable part of both communication with

friends, relatives and business partners, to have business relations. Facebook help me support

the connection with acquaintances living abroad. Rather rarely I communicate with friends

from USA, Canada and México.

(052) I use English, Russian and Spanish. It helps me to learn languages because I have

possibility to communicate with native speakers of English or Spanish, I widen my vocabulary.

(027) I use English, Spanish, Russian and it helps me to learn languages when I communicate

with my friends in the net. I know new word combinations, new phrases. And so I remember it

better in this way. I use English, Spanish and Russian when communicating in social networks,

which helps me master my English and not to forget my good Spanish. It helps me develop my

informal English, especially. I also learn vocabulary from native speakers.

(021) This form of communication helps me sometimes, for instance, when I speak Spanish with

foreign students, I usually try to learn more things of the spoken language, slang and various

colloquial phrases.

(014) Themes of communication usually are customs of different countries, mode of life,

cookery, photography, dances, natural phenomena, sometimes learning (very rarely); we use

Spanish and English.

(047) This communication is very important. It develops myself and my friends, we share our

experiences and impressions.

(037) For me, Facebook is a chance to communicate with people that I like but who live far

from me, it’s very convenient because in most cases it’s almost impossible to meet in reality.

(018) Due to Internet I can communicate both with foreigners and with people whom I do not

have time to see. Some of my friends live aboard. I use English or German. My friends are

from various countries: Germany, USA, and Great Britain. Since there is lack of time, it is very

convenient to communicate through social network. By the way, communication with foreigners

serves a good practice with languages.

(040) It is through social network that the opportunity of communicating with people from

neighboring countries appears. We also use other programs to communicate through Internet.

There appears the acquisition of experience with these people. I mainly communicated with

Ukraine and Belorussia. With time the necessity disappeared because of the difference in

common interest.

(036) The themes we discuss are world news, joint discussion; videobloging (vlog); dialogs

about personal life, etc.

(030) Signicance of such connections help, at least supercially, get acquainted with unknown

mentality, and as maximum, acquire new friends.

(034) Of all the social media, I like facebook because it’s very comfortable for communicating,

especially when your friend and you are in different countries.

Summing up the students’ responses one can notice that only two students out of 59 did not

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

like to ‘speak’ on the net. Most of the other students liked to communicate with their peers.

One more theme is prominent in the students’ responses: this is education. Their goal is to

‘improve the vocabulary’; the respondents underscore that social networking ‘does help,

especially when we discuss something academic.’ (015). Respondent (044) turned her attention

to the importance of ‘social networking … in the contemporary world.’ There were only a few

responses of a somewhat negative nature; for example, (040) said that due to different interests

their communication stopped. Another respondent (030) mentioned communicating with an

acquaintance ‘with unknown mentality’. Generally, most students in the digital generation like

‘speaking’ on the net and see primarily positive things; they did not pay any attention to great

changes in intercultural communication relative to the experience of previous generations.

4. Conclusion

The main objective of the present paper was to address the two processes of globalization and

networking and their impact on intercultural communication. It is argued that the paradigm of

communication is presently changing, for example, face to face communication is more and

more often replaced with writing in social networks; and for the new generation, born in the

digital era, communication through social networks is more preferable than speech. A tentative

study survey was conducted with the purpose of eliciting students’ attitudes to new social

media. Fifty nine students at a large Russian university were asked to answer four questions

concerning their communication with peers in various countries. The ndings in this research

include the following: 1) most students highly valued their virtual societies underscoring the

help from friends in networks (Social networking is very important in contemporary world.

They are inalienable part of communication with friends – respondent 044). 2) Social networks

are applied as an instrument in education. Students’ responses showed that education is also

highly valued (It helps me to learn languages, I widen my vocabulary – 052; I have possibility

to communicate with native speakers of English or Spanish – 052); it helps me master my

English and not to forget my good Spanish – 027). 3) Communication for business to acquire

(business partners, to have business relations – 044). 4) General communication (Facebook

help me support the connection with acquaintances living abroad. 044).

Overall, respondents reported rather strong emotions concerning their wide horizons

opened to them thanks to social networking (virtual societies, education, business, general

communication).

This tentative study is limited in some respects, which will require future research. One

of the limitations of this research was the small number of respondents participating in this

survey (fty nine). A larger group could generate broader results. The absence of students’

knowledge about new changes in intercultural communication are due to their generation (the

millennials, or N Gen) and they should get acquainted with what kind of changes intercultural

communication is experiencing in the world, relative to previous generations. In the future,

this would help them understand such serious problems as, for example, the threat to the

preservation of minority languages and cultures. A larger research scope could produce more

reliable generalizable results. In further research, interview and self-reective methodology

will be applied, in order to triangulate the results of the survey.

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

References

Block, David & Cameron, Deborah (Eds). (2002). Globalization and language teaching.

London & New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Goup.

Cheese, Peter. (2008). Netting the net generation. Businessweek.com. Retrieved 18

March 2014 from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-03-13/netting-the-net-

generationbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-nancial-advice

Chen, Guo-Ming. (2012). Impact of new media on intercultural communication. China Media

Research, 8(2, April).

Inc.

Cowen, Tyler. (2002). Creative destruction: How globalization is changing the world’s cultures.

Princeton &Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Ibroscheva, Elza & Ramaprasad, Jyotika. (2008). Do media matter? A social construction

model of stereotypes of foreigners. Journal of Intercultural Communication, issue 16

(April 2008). Retrieved18th March 2014 from: http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr16/

ibroscheva.htm

Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W.B. (2006). Media systems: Their evolution and innovation. Internet-

Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften 16 Nr. February 2006.

Kim H. Veltman. (2002). Media, languages and the integration of the processes of

communication. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften #13.

Kluver, Randy. (2000). Globalization, informatization, and intercultural communication.

American Journal of Communication. (June, 2000). Retrieved 18

March 2014 from http://

unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan002006.htm

Lebedko, Maria. (2014). Communication experience of Chinese and Japanese students. A pilot

study of social media and intercultural communication experience of Chinese and Japanese

students in Russia. (Chapter 5). In Cui Litang & Michael H. Prosser. Social Media in Asia.

(Chapter 5). Dignity Press. World Dignity University Press.

Movius, Lauren. (2010) ‘Cultural Globalisation and Challenges to Traditional Communication

Theories’. PLATFORM: Journal of Media and Communication, 2(1, January), 6-18.

Retrieved 18

March 2014 from http://journals.culture-communication.unimelb.edu.au/

platform/v2i1_movius.html .

Pster, Damien Smith & Soliz, Jordan. (2011). (Re)Conceptualizing intercultural communication

in a networked society. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 4(4).

246–251. doi: 10.1080/17513057.2011.598043.

Reigeluth, Charles M. (1996). What is the new paradigm of instructional theory. ITForum

Paper #17. Retrieved 18

March 2014 http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/AECT_ITF/paper17.pdf

Shuter, Robert. (2012). Intercultural new media studies: The next frontier in intercultural

communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41, (3, November)

219-237.

Wooley, Sarah. (2013). Constantly connected: The impact of social media and the advancement

in technology on the study abroad experience. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research

in Communications, 4(2), 40-50.

Intercultural Communication Studies XXIII: 1 (2014)

Lebedko

Author Note

Maria G. Lebedko is a Doctor of Philology, Full Professor at Far Eastern Federal University,

and Honorary researcher of the Russian Federation. She teaches intercultural communication

to international program students, bachelors’ degree students and specialists. She serves as

an editorial board member of three professional journals, is one of the four authors of the

“Dictionary of Intercultural Terms,” (2013). Editors: Maria Lebedko and Zoya Proshina. M. :

Flinta : Nauka. She is one of the co-editors and authors in the collective monograph “Critical

Cultural Awareness: Managing Stereotypes through Intercultural (Language) Education.

(2013). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. She is an Advisory Board member of IAICS and

reviewer of ICS journal. Her publications include monographs, articles, chapters, databases

and dictionaries.

This study was supported by the Scientic Fund of Far Eastern Federal University. This

research was supported by State Assignment [Goszadanie] #2014/36.