Introduction

　The world is shrinking.  People of different cultural backgrounds are more interdependent than ever. The 21st century will confront the evershifting social, cultural, and technological challenges. The rapid development in every aspect of the 21st century demands us to see things through the others' eyes and to develop a new way of living together. Five trends have combined to promote a more interdependent future that shapes our differences into a set of shared concerns and a common agenda. These trends have transformed the 21st century into the age of global village in which people must develop a global mindset in order to live meaningfully and productively. They include: (1) technology development, (2) globalization of the economy, (3) widespread population migrations, (4) development of the multiculturalism, and (5) the demise of the nation state (Chen & Starosta, 1996, 1998). These dynamics argue strongly for the development of more proficient intercultural communicators in this globalizing society.

　 The coming of new transportation and information technologies connects all nations in ways that were possible only in the imagination before this century. Communication technologies including the Internet computer network, facsimiles, the cellular telephone, interactive cable TV systems, and the anticipated information superhighway permit us instantaneous oral and written interchange at any hour to most locations in our country and the world. Porter and Samovar (1994) indicated that the improvement of information technology has greatly reshaped intercultural communication.  It has created common meanings and a reliance on persons we may or may not meet facetoface at some future date in our lives.  Government is no longer the only source to disseminate information across cultural boundaries; indeed, common people daily talk and type their way into a web of mediated intercultural interactions.  The immediacy of our new technology involves us with persons different regions and ethnicity within our own nation and the world, and builds in us a new sense of national and global commonality. We find ourselves moving from unconcern, to curiosity, to an active need to improve our understanding of persons and groups from outside our immediate circle.

　The progress of communication and transportation technology has made markets more accessible and the world of business more globally interreliant in past decades. The trend toward a global economy brings people and products together from around the world. It requires nations to decide how to remain competitive in the presence of new trade communities, and to try to find ways to promote products and services that were created in one setting in other places where they have not historically existed. Such interdependence among national economies hinges on effective global communication, and calls for ever more skillful interaction in the future across linguistic and national boundaries. Learning for greater cultural and ethnic understanding becomes necessary both to carry out world business and to preserve threatened cultural diversity.

　Added to the cultural interconnectedness that accompanies the technological development comes the influence of cultural migration between nations. Conditions at home and abroad push or pull persons to leave their country to find peace, employment, learning, or a new start.  The trend leads to a multiethnic composition of a society in which the contact among cocultures becomes inevitable. Children in multicultural classrooms and workers in multinational corporations look for ways to learn and work efficiently in settings that are no longer defined exclusively by mainstream norms and rules.  The quest for more productive interaction in international and domestic settings calls for the detailed understanding of the dynamics of communication among persons of diverse national and ethnic origin. Intercultural or global communication as a field of study investigates the dynamics of interaction among persons of differing ethnic or national origin.

　The development of multiculturalism has changed demographics of modern societies that affects every aspect of life (Adler, 1997). These demographic changes will produce classrooms and work places that are defined by no predominant ethnic culture or gender.  The tributaries of different ethnicities, nations, genders, ages, tribes, and languages will flow into the mainstream of the classroom and workplace. Cultural diversity or multiculturalism will become the norm, not the exception. Global communication scholars will be needed to smooth the transition to bicultural, bidialectal classrooms, to multinational boardrooms, to multiethnic neighborhoods, and to gender and ethnic sensitivity on the part of professionals and service providers.

　While new immigrants are arriving and cocultures are making headway in achieving fuller participation, our very idea of our identity will be sure to change.  Increasingly, the deemphasis of the nation state pulls us into regional alliances, such as NATO or NAFTA, that are larger than the nation.  In addition, we see the reassertion of ethnic and gender differences within the nation. To be able to negotiate meanings and priorities of diverse identities becomes a prerequisite of being competent in modern society (Collier & Thomas, 1988).

　These trends have combined to provide a foundation for the indispensability of  communication competence in the upcoming global society in which we are required to demonstrate "tolerance for differences and mutual respect among cultures as a mark of enlightened national and global citizenship" in individual, social, business, educational, and political institutions levels (Belay, 1993). Thus, the need for intercultural communication enhancement, especially intercultural sensitivity, across disciplines becomes critical for the success in future world.

　These trends as well bring about a great challenge to American higher education: the challenge of globalization. College and universities, as the higher educational institutes, must provide an environment in which students can learn the nature of global society and learn skills for effectively communicating with people of diverse cultures. The key to the success of facing the challenge academically is to internationalize the curriculum by helping students (1) understand the goal of globalization in order to make their choices, (2) understand sensitizing cultural concepts that will assist them in their interaction with people from other cultures, (3) change aspects of their performance such as cultural selfperception and emotional and cognitive acquisitions in order to reach a higher level of empathy, (4) govern their performance and emotions in working and in living with people from other cultures by increasing their adaptability, and (5) adopt a changed way of perceiving and behaving so that they can improve their social performance in other cultures (Stewart, 1979).  All these can only be reached through the enhancement of global communication by sensitizing students to understand, acknowledge, and respect cultural differences of people from diverse backgrounds.  With the development of communication technology the global Internet exchange provides us a great opportunity to help our students better equip themselves knowledge and skills for survival in the 21st century.

　Internationalizing Curriculum via email Debate

　Electronic mail (email) is one of the most common forms of computermediated communication (CMC) system today (December, 1996; Harasim, 1993; Metes, Gundry, & Bradish, 1998).  Through a telephone line, computer, and satellite, email messages can reach every corner of the world within several seconds.  The email system allows people to communicate in a onetoone, onetomany, and manytomany formats.  The system not only provides a powerful and nontraditional tool for students to learn through dialogue and collaboration, but also encourages "students to resist, dissent, and explore the role that controversy and intellectual divergence play in learning and thinking" (Cooper & Selfe, 1990, p. 849).

　The email system has been extensively applied at educational institutions through international networks (Internet) all over the world (Ma, 1994, 1998). Dern (1992) reported that over three million users with 500,000 computers in 33 countries are using email linked through Internet. According to Nua Internet Surveys (1998), the number has increased to 147 million users. Among them, about 87 million users coming from North America with about 53 million adults in the United State (Mediamark Research, 1998). Using the Internet email system helps people overcome the constraints of time and space on geographically dispersed institutions (Garnsey & Garton, 1992). 

　Academically, the email system connects campuses in different nations that provides students with an opportunity to communicate with their culturally dissimilar counterparts. According Ma (1993, 1994), exposing students in the international email communication leads to three effects: (1) Participants become betterinformed about each other's culture, (2) participants disclose more than they do in facetoface situation, and (3) the email communication situation is perceived to be more informational. The three effects indicate that students participate in the international email communication tend to be more open in sharing information which provides them with subject and cultural knowledge. These effects were supported by Cohen and Miyake's (1986) study that shows joint participation in the email interaction across cultures can encourage multilingualism and awareness to other cultures.  The educational potential of the intercultural email communication is enormous (Chen, 1994).

　Thompson (1987), Chen and Kim (1994), and Shamoon (1998) pointed out that the email network could help students work collaboratively, solve problems, and experience writing as communication in the real situation.  Hawisher and Selfe (1991) indicated that by thinking critically and carefully about the technology, instructors can successfully use the email system to improve the modern education, especially student's writing ability. Chen and Wood (1994) further suggested that using email as a learning tool can help students learn the subject matter, improve writing skills, cultivate critical thinking, and reduce the computer anxiety. 

　Based on this literature review, we launched a highly structured project by using email as a debate tool in order to internationalize the college curriculum.  We rationalized that with the globalization of the economy preparation for careers in business is becoming increasingly complex. Technical competence for a selfcontained American market is no longer adequate. Students are required to have a broader, more liberal education, stronger writing and speaking skills, and knowledge and skills sufficient for effective interaction with their counterparts abroad. The trend demands that educators must explore more creative ways to challenge the traditions of compartmentalized and monocultural learning in order to accelerate the internationalization of the curriculum affecting all students. The educators must find ways to help students think critically, understand the world beyond borders, and communicate effectively across cultures.

　Our project was proposed to internationalize (1) each of the key undergraduate courses encountered by most business students in their undergraduate years, and (2) the manner in which each of its undergraduate students learns through the use of email system linking every major research and teaching institution worldwide. 

　Ten key business courses, at a midsize public university in New England area, encountered by most undergraduates either majoring or minoring in business programs were selected to be the experimenting courses for this email debate project. Teams of course instructors in the experimenting courses were required to cooperatively revise their course to appreciate each other's cultural differences. Subsequently, students were expected to communicate with each other throughout their student years by means of email debates on pertinent professional issues affecting each society.

　Two longterm objectives of this project were (1) to better prepare students to function effectively as citizens of the global society and enjoy expanded career opportunities in the global workplace, and (2) to help students develop a network of international contacts. From these objectives, four specific shortterm objectives were derived. They were to help students (1) acquire intercultural sensitivity by developing a working knowledge of international dimensions of business, and an ability to deal with various types of situations they will encounter in doing business with people from other cultures; (2) improve writing ability by reducing writing apprehension and developing an effective writing style; (3) increase computer competency by developing ability in using international computer networks and (4) improve critical thinking by developing organizational and reasoning skills.  In order to examine the impact of email debate on global communication, this chapter only reports the results of the project regarding the acquiring of intercultural sensitivity. 

Method

Participants

　With their counterparts in Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, and Turkey, 430 American students in the college of business participated in this global email debate project. The American students were asked to take the pre and posttest on the measurement of intercultural sensitivity, both in Likertscale test and openended questions.

Procedures

This international email debate project took the whole semester to implement. A total of six semesters were used to complete the experiments.  Prior to the project, all students in the class were required to learn how to send and receive a message in the email system. On the first week of the semester students were organized into groups of three and a debate topic was assigned to each pair of teams  affirmative and negative terms. The class instructor served as the debate evaluator and judge. Examples of debate resolutions include:

　(1) Japanese are soon going to achieve supremacy in computer technology that the U.S. currently enjoys. 

　(2) Individual rights and privacy are likely to be invaded in a society that is driven by information technology.

　(3) Globalization process is accelerated by developments in information technology.

　(4) The nature of marketing research needs to change little across Western cultures in order to be successful.

　(5) Marketing research is more important to companies that compete in international markets.

　The debate format was designed by a debate coach at the Department of Communication Studies. The debate was comprised of four arguments. The constructive argument was the first submission in the debate. In the constructive argument students advanced all the arguments that they want to make complete with reasoning and evidence. The refutation argument was the second submission in the debate that refers to clashing directly with an opponent's arguments. The rebuttal argument was the third submission in the debate in which group members defended and extended their constructive arguments, in light of the refutation made against their case. No new arguments were allowed in this stage. The executive summary was the last submission in the debate in which group members organized all the major arguments in the previous three submission files.

　Each debate was given a twoweek period of time to each of the first three arguments to prepare, organize, and send the file to their opponents.  A week was given to the executive summary. The length of each of the first three arguments was 3,000 words, and 1,000 words for the executive summary.  Each group was required to submit their arguments via email to the opposing group by the due date. 

　During the first week of the semester, the instructor in each debate class explained the purpose of the debate project and distributed questionnaires to students.  The data collected at this stage were counted as the pretest results.  During the last week of the semester, the instructor again asked students to fill out the questionnaires. The data collected at this stage were counted as posttest results.

Measurement

In order to answer the research question about intercultural sensitivity, students were asked to complete Chen's (1993) Intercultural Sensitivity Scale at the pretest stage. The alpha coefficients for Intercultural Sensitivity Scale is .77 in this study.  In the posttest stage, in addition to the instrument used in the pretest stage, students were asked to complete six questions on a 5point scale regarding satisfaction, critical thinking skills, computer skills, writing skills, and intercultural sensitivity. An example of the question is "email debate made me feel more sensitive to the other person's point view." Moreover, four freeresponse questions were also used to solicit information about students' feelings on the email debate project. Two of the questions relating intercultural communication are "What aspect(s) of email across borders did you like the most?  Why?" and "Do you think this technique will help increase intercultural sensitivity among students?  Please explain."

Results     

Ttests were computed to examine differences between pretest and posttest in terms of intercultural sensitivity. The results do not show significant differences on the measure. Nevertheless, most of the responses to the question on whether they thought email debate increased their cultural sensitivity were positive.  

　After content analyzing the four freeresponse questions, the participants' answers were classified into different categories and representative answers were included to illustrate the categories. Answers for the two intercultural communication related are reported here.

　For the first question "Which aspects of the email debate did I like the most? Why?" answers were categorized into three dimensions: communication, culture, and debate format.  The following are sample answers:

　1. On communication:

　(1) Communicating with the students who live very far away makes me feel like I now have friends all over the world.  

　2. On culture:

　(1) Seeing how individuals from a different culture and country view things.

　(2) Learning about how people from different cultures have different values and ideas.

　3. On the debate format:

　(1) The topic of the debate which allowed for friendly competition.

　(2) The group work involved in the debate. Learning the mechanics of using email.

　Sample answers for the question "In what way can the email debate promote intercultural sensitivity" include:

　(1) Should allow students from different cultures communicate on a regular basis over a longer period of time. One semester is too short.

　(2) The debate on cultural or social issues with an international focus will enhance students' understanding of the importance of these issues to citizens of other nations. For example, debate on the topics such as interracial marriage or immigration will enhance intercultural awareness and sensitivity.

　(3) By providing opportunities for students to learn about the culture of their counterparts before the debate. For example, reading assignments or videotape will be helpful.

　(4) Expand the "electronic handshake" to promote additional, informal communication between students.

　(5) Form mixed teams for debate.  That is, one can form a debate team by drawing students from several countries.  The debate between such teams will certainly be more effective in promoting intercultural sensitivity than otherwise.

Discussion  

Through a highly structured format of computer interaction, part of this project was to examine the impact of an global email debate on intercultural communication. Both Likert scales and openended questions were used in this study. Although the attempt for measuring intercultural sensitivity by using Likert scales before and after the project proved much more difficult than we expected, the positive feedback based on the openended questions reveals that the email debate showed a positive impact on improving intercultural sensitivity. 

　In addition to that a 12week project may be not long enough to enable participants to project and receive positive emotional responses regarding intercultural sensitivity, the most plausible explanation for the difficulty is that the differences of thinking patterns and expression styles among participants may affect their perception on email debate and the improvement of intercultural sensitivity. Thinking patterns refer to forms of reasoning and approaches we use to resolve a problem. Thinking patterns vary from culture to culture and affect the way we communicate with each other. For example, Porter and Samovar (1982) indicated that Western people tend to emphasize logic and rationality by believing that the process of discovering truth follows a logical sequence. In contrast, people in the East believe that the truth will make itself apparent without using any logical consideration or rationality. Kaplan (1966) argued that differences of thinking patterns are reflected in five different language systems: English, Semitic, Oriental, Romance, and Russian. He indicated that the thinking patterns of English speakers are dominantly linear in the language sequence; the Semitic languages (like Arabic) are characterized by a more intuitive and affective reasoning; the Oriental thinking patterns (especially refer to Chinese and Korean) are marked by the writing approach of "indirection"; the Romance languages (e.g., French and Spanish) is the same as English by predominantly following the subjectverbobject order in the sentence arrangement, but they allow a great freedom to digress or to introduce extraneous materials in the conversation; and the structure of Russian language is "made up of a series of presumably parallel constructions and a number of subordinate structures" that are often irrelevant to the central statement (p. 13).  The reasoning pattern behind the Russian language is similar to the method of deduction, but it is a time consuming process to reach a result of conversation.  

　In addition, Ishii (1982) also pointed out that a different reasoning process exists between Westerners and nonWesterners. The former has a liner thinking pattern that leads people to shift from information already stated to information about to be given in order to let the listener understand the speaker, while the latter tend to jump from idea to idea on the important points without paying attention to the details. The differences of thinking patterns often cause misunderstanding in the process of intercultural communication, especially in the international email exchanges where facetoface interaction is lacking. 

　The way we express ourselves is one of the major barriers in intercultural communication (Chen & Starosta, 1998). Expression styles are the spoken performance in the process of expressing ourselves. Our expression styles not only reflect but also embody our beliefs and worldview. Thus, people from different cultures will show different expression styles that can be separated into direct and indirect patterns. Gudykunst and TingToomey (1988) indicated that the direct expression style refers to the use of messages to show ones intentions in interactions and the indirect verbal expression style refers to the use of messages to camouflage and conceal ones true intentions.  Hall (1976) pointed out that people in lowcontext cultures tend to use direct verbal expression style that emphasizes the situational context, carries important information in explicit verbal messages, values selfexpression, verbal fluency, and eloquent speech, and leads people to express their opinions directly and intend to persuade others to accept their viewpoints. In contrast, people in highcontext cultures tend to use indirect verbal expression style that deemphasizes verbal messages, carries important information in contextual cues (e.g., place, time, situation, and relationship), values harmony with the tendency of using ambiguous language and keeping silent in interactions, and leads people to talk around the point and avoid saying "no" directly to others. 

　The differences of thinking patterns and expression styles between highcontext and lowcontext cultures may also affect the way people communicate via the use of technology. Chung (1992) proposed some potential influences of these differences on email communication between the two groups of people. For example, people from highcontext cultures will feel less satisfied with emails function in transmitting relationship building or maintenance information at the initial stage of relationship development but will turn to be more satisfied at the latter stage. Moreover, people from highcontext cultures will also feel less satisfied with emails function in expressing feelings towards their partners. Nevertheless, people from lowcontext cultures will feel more satisfied with emails function in describing details and communicating with logic. 

　The discussions clearly indicate that culture plays an important role in international email project. The differences of thinking patterns and expression styles dictate the way participants perceive and utilize email communication.  Applied to our project, because it was designed as a highly structured debate form for email communication, the format immediately causes orientation problems for some of the participants. "Debate" itself is a product of lowcontext culture that requires a direct expression of one's argument by using logical reasoning. American, Danish, and German students participated in the project did not show any difficulty to conduct the email debate, while students at France, Hong Kong, and Turkey were confused by the format.  The confusion led to two outcomes. First, they resisted or were reluctant to conduct the communication.  Second, when they were required to conduct the email debate, they tried to match up the American counterparts by abandoning their own expression styles. These problems were demonstrated by those representatives from France and Hong Kong in the first conference supported by the grant of this email debate project.

　To improve the format problem of the global email communication, a format suitable for both high and lowcontext cultures should be designed.  We suggest that a regular exchange of information regarding one or several course related topics could be used to replace the debate format.  Students in the project are encouraged to freely share their ideas and opinions from their cultural perspective without being confined by the rigid debate form. Before exchanging information about the specific topic, students should be allowed to use the first two weeks to informally introduce themselves to their counterparts via email. The expressions of feelings and logic can be integrated in this way.  In addition, in the process of exchanging information about the specific topic, the instructor can ask students to keep a weekly or biweekly journal recording their feelings and opinions toward the project. This process will yield more valid data that are free from the limitation of the format.  

　As to the improvement of intercultural sensitivity, in addition to the influence of cultural differences, a plausible explanation, as indicated above, is that the onesemester treatment of international email exchange was difficult to improve participants' intercultural sensitivity that refers to a positive emotional response toward intercultural email communication. A longterm email interaction may resolve this problem, but it seems not realistic due to the structure of academic time length. Thus, we suggest that for future international email projects it will be more reasonable to assess intercultural awareness rather than intercultural sensitivity, because the cognitive understanding of each other's cultural differences and similarities (i.e., intercultural awareness) tend to be more attainable with a limit of time span of the project. 

　According Triandis (1977), intercultural awareness refers to the understanding of cultural conventions that affect how people think and behave. It requires individuals to understand that, from their own cultural perspective, they are a cultural being and use this understanding as a foundation to further figure out the distinct characteristics of other cultures in order to effectively interpret the behavior of others in intercultural interaction. Because cultures possess different thinking and expression patterns, misunderstanding these differences often causes problems in intercultural communication (Glenn & Glenn, 1981; Oliver, 1962). Thus, to be competent in intercultural interaction we must first show the ability of intercultural awareness by learning the similarities and differences of each other's culture (Chen & Starosta, 1996). In other words, intercultural awareness is the prerequisite of intercultural sensitivity, and both abilities will in turn lead to intercultural competence. (Chen & Starosta, 1997, 1999).

Conclusion

The email communication system has become a powerful learning tool for students in the classroom. To apply the email system to a global perspective, a series of assessments and effects deserve further examination. This chapter reports the impact of email exchange on intercultural communication. Problems encountered in this project and suggestions for future experiments in global email exchanges are discussed. Because the trend of global interdependence has created an evershifting cultural, economic, ecological, and technological reality that defines the shrinking world of the 21st century, in order to survive in this evershrinking global world we must learn to see through the eyes and minds of people from different cultures, and further develop a global mindset to live meaningfully and productively in the 21st century. In other words, intercultural communication ability has become an indispensable element for reaching the goal of global mindset.  To use the new technology system like email system as a tool of improving students' ability of intercultural communication will prove to be a promising method to achieve this goal.

References

Adler, N. J. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behavior.  Cincinnati, OH: South Western. 

Belay, G. (1993). Toward a paradigm shift for intercultural and international communication: New research directions. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16 (pp. 437457).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chen, G. M. (1993). Intercultural communication education: A classroom case.  Speech Communication Annual, 7, 3346.

Chen, G. M. (1994, November). email debate as a learning tool: A classroom case. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.  

Chen, G. M., & Kim, C.  (1993a, May).  Global classroom: Internationalizing the business curriculum via email.  Paper presented at the Global Classroom Assessment Conference.  Braunschweig, Germany.  

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis.  Communication Yearbook 19 (pp. 353383).  Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1997). A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity.  Human Communication, 1, 116.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication.  Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1999, in press). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness. Human Communication, 3.

Chen, G. M., & Wood, S. (1994).  email debate as a tool of learning.  Speech Communication Teacher, 9, 1516. 

Chung, J. (1992, November).  Electronic mail usage in lowcontext and highcontext cultures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Speech Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Cohen, M., & Miyake, N. (1986). A worldwide intercultural network: Exploring electronic messaging for instruction.  Instructional Science, 13, 257273.

Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 99120).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cooper, M. M., & Selfe, C. L. (1990).  Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse.  College English, 52, 847869.

December, J. (1996).  Units of analysis for internet communication. Journal of communication, 46, 1438.

Dern, D. P. (1992).  Applying the Internet.  Byte, 17, 111118.

Garnsey, R., & Garton, A. (1992, September).  Pactok: Asia Pacific electromedia gets earthed. Paper presented via the Adult Open Learning Information Network Conference, Australia.

Glenn, E. S., & Glenn, C. G. (1981). Man and mankind: Conflict and communication between cultures.  New Jersey: Norwood.

Gudykunst, W. B., & TingToomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication.  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hall, E. T. (1976).  Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY:  Anchor. 

Harasim, L. M. (1993).  Global networks: An introduction.  In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Global networks: Computers and international communication (pp. 143151). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (1991). The rhetoric of technology and electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication, 42, 5565.

Ishii, S. (1982). Thought patterns as modes of rhetoric: The United States and Japan. Communication, 11.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought pattern in intercultural education.  Language Learning, 16, 120.

Ma, R. (1993, June). Computermediated conversations as a new dimension of intercultural communication between college students in Taiwan and USA. Paper presented at the International Conference of Chinese Communication Research and Education, Taipei, Taiwan. 

Ma, R. (1994). Computermediated conversations as a new dimension of intercultural communication between East Asian and North American college students.  In S. Herring (Ed.), Computermediated communication.  Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Ma, R. (1998, June).  Internet as a global town square.  Paper presented at the 1998 convention of the Chinese Communication Society, Taipei, Taiwan.

Mediamark Research, Inc. (1998). Cyber States. \[Online\]. Available at HTTP://www.mediamark.com.

Metes, G., Gundry, J., & Bradish, P. (1998). Agile networking: Competing through the internet and intranets.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Nua Internet Surveys (1998). Recent Internet Statistics. \[On line\]. Available at HTTP://www.nua.ie.

Oliver, R. T. (1962). Culture and communication: The problem of penetrating national and cultural boundaries.  Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Porter, R. E., & Samovar, L. (1982). Approaching intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 2642).  Belmont, CA:  Wadsworth.

Porter, R. E., & Samovar, L. A. (1994). An introduction to intercultural communication.  In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 425).  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Shamoon, L. K. (1998). International email debate. In D. Reiss, d. Selfe, & A. Young (Eds.), Electronic communication across the curriculum (pp. 151161).  Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Stewart, E. C. (1979). Outline of intercultural communication. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Intercultural and international communication (pp. 265344).  University Press of America.

Thompson, D. P. (1987). Teaching writing on a local area network. T.H.E. Journal, 15, 9297. TingToomey, S. (1989). Identity and interpersonal bond. In M. K Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 351173). Newbury Park: Sage.

TingToomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict style: A facenegotiation theory.  In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication(pp. 213235).  Newsbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Triandis, H. C. (1977). Subjective culture and interpersonal relations across cultures. In L. LoebAdler (Ed.), Issues in crosscultural research.  Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 285, 418434.