Relational dimensions of intercultural communication for public dialogue and decision-making: A case study of modern day treaty negotiation in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural diversity in the United States and Canada presents communication scholars with a challenge for increasing the representation of marginalized groups in public decision-making in North American. While differences in values, norms, and language make the process problematic; power inequalities and negative historical relationships are dimensions that are far more difficult to overcome. The ability to build long-term relationships across cultural barriers is an area that appears promising for increasing the engagement of marginalized groups in the public dialogue required for community planning. The purpose of this study was to develop theory to describe how First Nations and the governments of Canada and British Columbia engage in communication for relationship building, a stated goal of the treaty process. This study used a grounded theory methodology to examine dialogue between treaty process participants; artifacts of the treaty process; and observations of Main Table treaty negotiation sessions. The purpose of this examination was to determine what communication structures, communication attitudes, and communication behaviors either inhibited or enhanced the process of relationship building during treaty negotiation. Based on these results a theoretical model was developed that explains relationships in the treaty process. Additionally, a set of theoretical positions were generated and are summarized as follows: (a) planners can incorporate the use of new intercultural communication theory to increase community participation; (b) multiple relationships exist; (c) overall context effects each relationship separately; (d) racism and the nature of negative historical relationships must be openly and publicly dealt with at the beginning of the process; (e) the internal communication needs of the marginalized community must be considered first; (f) communication structures must focus on overcoming power inequalities; (g) communication attitudes must be supportive of collaborative approaches, non-hierarchical participation, and long-term commitments to relationship building; (h) communication behaviors must provide tangible demonstrations of sincerity. While this study utilized only treaty negotiations as a research site, the findings can be translated into a format that can be utilized for relationship building with First Nations in other contexts, as well as with other marginalized communities. Further practical implications, as well as research and policy implications were discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".