Universities as spaces for engaging the other: A pedagogy of encounter for intercultural and interreligious education Scherto Gill

1. ORIGINAL PAPER
Universities as spaces for engaging the other:
A pedagogy of encounter for intercultural
and interreligious education
Scherto Gill1,2
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2016
Abstract Internationalisation of Higher Education coupled with students’ mobility
across the globe in the 21st century has led to universities in many countries having
to deal with an unprecedented flow of human diversity. Such diversity can become a
potential source of conflict due to increased ‘‘otherness’’, but at the same time, it
also presents an ideal lifelong learning opportunity for engaging the other through
intercultural and interreligious education. This paper begins with a literature review,
exploring the challenges of international higher education and the opportunities it
offers in fostering intercultural and interreligious dialogue and deeper engagement
across values, beliefs, world views, habits of mind and ways of being. The review
highlights that on the one hand, rich diversity and otherness within universities can
easily be built up in so-called educated individuals as givens and therefore be
treated with insensitivity or indifference. On the other hand, diversity can evoke the
possibility for the exchange of thoughts, values and world views, sharing experi-
ences, engaging with each other’s foreignness, and making the encounter a real
enrichment and transformation. Next, using the narrative of a case study about
conflicts within an international students’ residence, the author illustrates the
necessity of encounter and engagement with otherness as decisive avenues for
intercultural learning and interreligious understanding. Through a further analysis of
the case study, she establishes that pedagogical strategies formulated around
encounter, dialogue and engagement should be integrated into the students’ life at
international universities so that they serve to bridge religions, cultures, world views
and other differences, thus creating a sustainable culture of dialogue and peace. The
paper concludes by suggesting a few key elements which seem useful for
& Scherto Gill
scherto.gill@ghfp.org
1
Guerrand-Herme`s Foundation for Peace, Brighton, UK
2
University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
123
Int Rev Educ
DOI 10.1007/s11159-016-9572-7

2. implementing a pedagogy of encounter in both formal and informal lifelong
learning settings.
Keywords cultural diversity Á intercultural education Á interreligious education Á
internationalisation
Re´sume´ L’universite´, espace de de´couverte de l’autre : pe´dagogie de la rencontre
pour l’enseignement interculturel et interreligieux – L’internationalisation de l’en-
seignement supe´rieur double´e d’une mobilite´ mondiale des e´tudiants au 21e
sie`cle
conduit les universite´s de nombreux pays a` se pre´occuper d’un flux sans pre´ce´dent
de la diversite´ humaine. Cette diversite´ peut devenir une source potentielle de conflit
en raison de l’accroissement de « l’alte´rite´ » mais elle pre´sente tout autant une
opportunite´ ide´ale d’apprentissage tout au long de la vie pour de´couvrir l’autre a`
travers un apprentissage interculturel et interreligieux. L’article de´bute par une
analyse documentaire qui explore les de´fis de l’enseignement supe´rieur international
ainsi que les opportunite´s qu’il renferme en favorisant le dialogue interculturel et
interreligieux ainsi qu’une de´couverte plus pousse´e des valeurs, croyances, con-
ceptions du monde, modes de pense´e et fac¸ons d’eˆtre. Cette analyse re´ve`le d’une
part que selon une e´vidence pre´sume´e, la diversite´ et l’alte´rite´ importantes dans les
universite´s seraient facilement assimile´es par des individus soi-disant instruits, et
peuvent par conse´quent eˆtre traite´es avec insensibilite´ ou indiffe´rence. La diversite´
peut d’autre part e´voquer la possibilite´ d’e´changer pense´es, valeurs et conceptions
du monde, de partager des expe´riences, de de´couvrir l’extrane´ite´ de l’autre et de
faire de la rencontre un enrichissement et une transformation ve´ritables. Puis, en
exploitant une e´tude de cas sur les conflits survenus dans un foyer international
d’e´tudiants, l’auteure illustre la ne´cessite´ de la rencontre et de la de´couverte de
l’alte´rite´ comme des voies de´cisives pour un apprentissage interculturel et une
entente interreligieuse. Lors d’une analyse comple´mentaire de l’e´tude de cas, elle
e´tablit que les strate´gies pe´dagogiques conc¸ues autour de la rencontre, du dialogue
et de la de´couverte devraient eˆtre inte´gre´es dans la vie quotidienne des e´tudiants des
universite´s internationales, de sorte a` servir de lien entre religions, cultures, con-
ceptions du monde et autres diffe´rences, et a` cre´er ainsi une culture durable du
dialogue et de la paix. L’auteure conclut en proposant quelques e´le´ments cle´s
susceptibles d’eˆtre utiles pour appliquer une pe´dagogie de la rencontre dans les
contextes a` la fois formels et informels de l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie.
Introduction and overview of literature
Internationalisation of Higher Education coupled with students’ mobility across the
globe in the 21st century has in many countries led to universities having to deal
with an unprecedented flow of human diversity – diversity in terms of world view,
religion, culture, social status, values, ethnicity, race, gender-orientation, physical
ability and so forth. It has been well observed that such rich diversity can become a
potential source of conflict due to the increase in otherness, but at the same time, it
S. Gill
123

3. also presents an ideal lifelong learning opportunity for engaging with the ‘‘other’’
through intercultural and interreligious education (Banks 2011; Gill 2014).
Beginning this paper with a brief literature review, I seek to understand the nature
of internationalisation in higher education, explore the opportunities it offers for
intercultural and interreligious education, map out some of the recognised
pedagogical strategies towards these ends and identify any gaps which might
warrant further investigation.
Internationalisation of Higher Education (HE) has been defined as a ‘‘process of
integrating international or inter-cultural dimensions into the teaching, research and
service functions of HE institutions’’ (Knight 1999, p. 120). According to Allan
Bernardo (2003), the two underlying motivations for internationalisation are
‘‘internationalism’’ and ‘‘open market transnational education’’. Internationalism is
closer to Jane Knight’s (2004) idea of integration, with ‘‘international cooperation for
the common good and the appreciation of international character or quality in
education’’ as the goal (Bernardo 2003, p. 6), whereas ‘‘open market transnational
education’’ is ‘‘designed to capitalize on the opportunities afforded by the changing
demands of a globalized world economy’’ (ibid.). Reconciling the tension between the
purposes of intercultural learning and international outlook of education on the one
hand and the economic benefits of students’ international mobility on the other seems
prevalent to the ongoing discourse in this domain (Gallagher 2002). Therefore,
Yvonne Turner (2009) expands on the role of HE institutions and makes the mission of
internationalisation more inclusive, allowing it to integrate universities’ commercial
interests within the cultural, educational, intellectual and social dimensions of its aims.
In these conceptions, internationalisation is not treated from a purely instrumen-
tal point of view, and is thus no longer perceived as merely window dressing and/or
a symbolic gesture when the real purpose is competing for revenue from overseas
students (cf. Kelly 2000; Chen 2002). Thus when perceived in such a positive light,
internationalisation promises transformation through new and emerging ways in
which universities can engage with students coming from diverse cultures, religions
and ethnicities etc.
Indeed, such transformative potential has already been increasingly documented
by researchers. For instance, evidence has suggested that HE students/graduates/
border-crossers often serve as cultural ambassadors and international collaborators
to connect cultures and peoples (McGrath et al. 2007; Gill 2010). This further places
internationalisation of HE in the realm of bridging divides between cultures and
religions and contributing to an overall global culture of peace. In this vision, the
emphasis is on cultural and religious diversity, intercultural and interreligious
understanding, mutual respect, willingness to embrace otherness, commitment to
solidarity and human security, all working towards a climate of peace.
However, this intention to integrate intercultural and interreligious learning in
international HE poses serious challenges to HE pedagogy. Christa Olson and Kent
Kroeger (2001) argue that this integration does not come readily and easily and hold
that despite international students bringing in richness and diversity in terms of
cultural practices and world views, students are more likely to ‘‘ignore, copy or
destroy the difference’’ without a focused effort within the universities’ approaches
to teaching and learning (ibid., p. 116).
Universities as spaces for engaging the other: A pedagogy…
123

4. Nevertheless, some existing research efforts have identified significant pedagog-
ical strategies, such as: (1) inclusive course content and curriculum design (Haigh
2002; Callan 2000; Welikala and Watkins 2008); (2) practices which accommodate
divergent learning habits and dispositions (Biggs 2001; Doherty and Singh 2005a);
(3) interaction-based approaches (Kramsch 2002; Ward 2001); (4) a focus on
developing intercultural (and interreligious) capacities (Murphy-LeJeune 2003;
Knight 2003, 2004; Turner 2009); and (5) an enhanced intercultural engagement
amongst students and between students and teaching staff (Ballard and Clanchy
1997). In addition, Jonathan Crichton et al. (2004) have distilled a set of principles
from a diverse body of literature on pedagogy towards intercultural teaching and
learning, including: (a) connecting the intracultural with the intercultural; (b) con-
structing intercultural ‘‘knowing’’ as social action; (c) interacting and communi-
cating; (d) reflecting and introspecting; and (e) assuming responsibility for
intercultural and interreligious education.
At the same time, investigations into the field also highlight inevitable pedagogical
tensions. One example is promoting enhanced intercultural interaction in the seminar
room. There are conflicting research findings regarding this endeavour. For instance,
Turner’s (2009) UK-based review of current literature, albeit underlining the potential
for intercultural interaction in group settings (e.g. in HE seminar rooms, which
integrate cognitive, affective and social aspects of learning and intercultural capacity-
building) also cautions about possible inequalities between insiders (home country
students) and outsiders (overseas students), as well as possible privileging of dominant
host ideas about intellectual norms and group dynamics. By contrast, research from
New Zealand suggests that most Asian students highly value the advantages of
classroom group discussions where they can interact with students from other cultures
and backgrounds. Through these opportunities, international students can improve
their English language skills, enhance their cultural understanding through intercul-
tural encounters, broaden their understanding of the course or of assessment-related
issues, develop their negotiating, teamwork and interpersonal communication skills,
and possibly make friends with students from other countries (Campbell and Li 2008).
In addition to these incongruent research findings, the literature also suggests the
huge challenges confronting international HE, in particular with regard to pedagogy.
Therefore, Meeri Hellsten and Anna Reid (2009) stress the importance of systematic
re-contextualisation and re-conceptualisation of HE pedagogy. Similarly, Victor
Kazanjian and Peter Laurence (2006) propose more debates about the nature of
teaching and learning within HE in order for education to be a truly transformational
process in which students are educated to be global citizens with an understanding
of the diversity of religious traditions and with strategies of pluralism which engage
diversity in creative and productive ways.
It is equally worth noting that within a wider context where the logic of
stable and fixed cultural and religious identity is no longer tenable (Giddens
1991, 1999; Gergen 2009, international students and their needs are also perceived
fluidly (Doherty and Singh 2005b). Hence, Thushari Welikala and Chris Watkins
(2008) refer to multiple proposals for pedagogical shift, including: intercultural
group work, cohort interaction and participation, making teaching an inclusive
process so as to educate from, with, and for a multitude of cultural perspectives.
S. Gill
123

5. They also call for more attention to relationships and ‘‘relational’’ participation, for
providing a discursive space for students to unpack culturally loaded language, and
for tutors to incorporate caring in their work with international students (ibid.).
Together these authors point out that the focus of international HE ‘‘relates
ultimately to learning that contributes towards a better understanding of our human
world and ‘knowing’ in its multiple and diverse linguistic and cultural contexts’’
(Crichton et al. 2004, p. 4). Thus the emphasis on the ‘‘intercultural’’ (and the
interreligious) has been identified as the goal of internationalisation (ibid.). This
requires an appreciation of the interdependence of language, culture, religion and
learning in the understanding of values, beliefs, meaning and identities. Interna-
tionalisation of HE is therefore a response to the shifting boundaries between
cultures, religions and nations, and the ever-increasing opportunities to encounter
differences and otherness, in particular amongst students who are border-crossers.
So far, this review concludes that in a global era, universities are indeed meeting
places which can orient the aims of HE more towards developing deeper
understanding and knowledge between cultures and religions through dialogue,
exchange, relationship building, and other forms of encounter through teaching and
learning in both formal and informal settings.
The question remains: what opportunities are there for students (and academic
staff) to be empowered to develop capacities for co-creating learning communities
where they can learn from each other at vernacular, cultural, religious and
intellectual levels?
It is with this question in mind that I turn to a case study of lived experience
where international students sharing accommodation on a HE campus actively co-
created such opportunities for themselves in terms of encounter, dialogue and
intercultural and interreligious learning.
Intercultural and interreligious learning: a case study
This case study is drawn from a recent research investigation into students’
experiences of intercultural encounter while they were studying abroad. When
overseas students first arrive in the UK to study, many deliberately choose to stay on
campus in a shared residential house with students from other countries. This group
of six students were particularly drawn to an international university in England
because of its diversity. They were:
• Ilja, a male Polish undergraduate student of theology;
• Noor, a female Malaysian undergraduate student of media studies;
• Jean-Christophe (JC), a male French BA student studying art history;
• Salihu, a male Nigerian postgraduate student of informatics;
• Niamh, a female student of political sciences from Northern Ireland; and
• Lina, a female MA student from the Northeast of China, studying education.1
1
All participants’ names have been anonymised.
Universities as spaces for engaging the other: A pedagogy…
123

6. Their sharing their accommodation did not result from any kind of special
arrangement, but was mere co-incidence, and needless to say, they were pleased
about how diverse their residential group was. For the first few months, these
students ‘‘got along’’ well with each other – they knew the subject each person was
studying, country and city or town of origin, preferences of food, sleeping habits,
close friends and other attachments. Their meeting place was mostly in the shared
kitchen where they interacted. During these hours, they exchanged news, or
grumbled about things which didn’t work well on campus, or just chatted light-
heartedly.
They loved to listen to each other’s languages – Polish/Hebrew, Malay, French,
African languages, Irish and Mandarin. As far as culture was concerned, it was
discussed within the confines of safe topics such as cooking, tastes of food, arts and
music, places of interest in different locations where each of them had grown up or
visited, and some history. Everyone was cheerful and polite with each other.
Occasionally, Niamh, who was interested in politics and development, ventured to
discuss more sensitive issues, such as the peace process in Northern Ireland, human
rights problems in China, corruption in Nigeria, etc. On these occasions, it seemed
that they knew what questions to ask and what questions to avoid. So overall, they
felt close to each other and were proud that their house was truly ‘‘intercultural’’.
How could it appear otherwise?
The residence was an old house and like all old houses, repairs were in constant
need. This time, the heavy bathroom door was slightly off the hinge and rendered
unlockable. While waiting for several days for the carpenter to arrive, the residents
set a simple rule – if the bathroom was occupied, the person using it would leave
his/her shoes outside the door. It all sounded straightforward until … one day, there
was an incident – Niamh saw JC ‘‘peep at Noor who was about to take a bath’’.
‘‘It wasn’t like that at all’’, JC retorted with his heavy French accent and
anxiously added: ‘‘She forgot to leave her shoes out, and I walked in, and saw
her without the hijab for the first time. She wasn’t undressed, and I was just
admiring her beautiful figure and long beautiful hair down to her waist. So it
wasn’t what you think.’’ He said it so fast that it sounded defensive.
‘‘Don’t tell me what I should think. Men treat women as sex objects. What else
should I think? This has become a part of the social construction.’’ Niamh
expanded her accusation.
Salihu was the only other witness of this debate. He joined in at this point: ‘‘I
respect feminist views of gender, but to say that all men are sexists and are
oppressive is just not true.’’
‘‘Muslim women are oppressed in Islam. The hijab is a clear sign.’’ Niamh
was getting more agitated.
‘‘I don’t agree. In Islam, men and women are equal according to the Koran.
Your view about Muslim women being oppressed is stereotypical. Again it
does not ring true on all occasions.’’ Salihu still remained calm.
‘‘What do you know about Islam?’’ Niamh changed her strategy. And they all
looked at Salihu inquiringly.
S. Gill
123

7. ‘‘Because I am a Muslim.’’ Salihu held the others’ surprised gaze firmly:
‘‘There is no need to be alarmed, and I wasn’t hiding it. There wasn’t an
opportunity to tell you.’’
Ilja and Lina, hearing the noisy argument, also came to find out what was going on.
Ilja could sense that the atmosphere was tense, even though he had only caught what
Salihu had said. Making an effort to ease the tension, he put a hand on his chest and
offered an exaggerated sincere look: ‘‘OK, is this the moment of confession? I am
Jewish, although I am not really practising as I should.’’ Seeing that everyone
looked confused now, Ilja became even more determined to change the awkward
mood: ‘‘Ah, we finally get to know each other’s secret identity. What is yours, Lina,
a communist?’’
Ilja’s fantastic sense of humour did not dissolve the tension, not even
temporarily. The residents went away feeling disturbed by the friction and by the
different views they held against each other. JC was very hurt by Niamh’s piling up
all sorts of accusations about gender discrimination which he didn’t own, and at the
same time he could not stand up against these accusations on behalf of the rest of
men. They all became aware that each of them held a certain belief about values and
gender roles in society, and each seemed to be critical about the other person’s view,
whether it was from a feminist, religious, social, cultural or other perspective.
Above all, these students were disturbed by the fact that they really did not know
much about each other at all.
In the following days, the atmosphere in the house changed from light-
heartedness and friendliness to a state of aloofness – as each person tried to keep
their distance. They were disturbed not only by the friction/debate itself and the
different views they had expressed, but above all, they felt let down by observing
that they hardly knew each other – to the extent that the otherness had become
pronounced and sounded like a major note of dissonance.
A few days after the bathroom incident, Noor invited everyone to have tea
together. She explained that during the debate about the incident, her views hadn’t
been heard because she was so embarrassed about being the centre of the argument.
So Noor told her story: a Muslim upbringing, early rebellion against the hijab, her
later choice to cover herself. She spoke earnestly about why she had made such a
choice and how the hijab was an expression of her identity and what Islam meant to
her.
The others listened with great interest and asked questions. The amount of
questions posed reflected their eagerness to know about the other and their
fascination with the otherness and how it prompted them to think more deeply about
their own assumptions and perceptions of the self, the other, gender issues and the
world.
It was a long evening and they found themselves immersed in Noor’s life story
and the evolving questions about her life, gender roles in different traditions, and
other topics.
At the end of that evening, the residents decided to have such soire´es on a regular
basis – one of them would prepare the living room to the ‘‘flavour’’ of his/her choice
and then they would devote the evening to storytelling about themselves, their
Universities as spaces for engaging the other: A pedagogy…
123

8. family, their traditions and how they had come to be who and what they were.
Sometimes they would invite a friend or two to be guests at these evenings and thus
the circle of storytellers grew larger. What stayed the same was the essence of these
evenings, which was to have dialogue and conversation with the intention to listen,
to reflect and to understand each other and oneself. They particularly sought what
was ‘‘the other’’ in these stories which in turn formed the basis of their questioning.
These students realised that the more they listened, the more questions they had,
the more they began to understand how their own traditions, religion, cultural values
and habits of mind had shaped the way they thought, connected with each other and
acted in certain ways, and above all, how they were able to also shift and even
transform their perceptions of each other and their sense of themselves. As a group,
almost instinctively, they recognised the significance of intercultural and interre-
ligious encounter and the considerable impact such encounters could have on their
experiences as human beings in all their dimensions. This was the most profound
learning outcome for all of the residents in the house.
Intercultural and interreligious encounter and its necessary conditions
This case study illustrates that the opportunities offered by the increased diversity in
international HE are not self-evident nor self-fulfilling in terms of intercultural and
interreligious learning. Broadly, as we have seen, students may choose to respond in
a number of ways when being exposed to rich diversity and confronted with
different kinds of otherness: (a) intolerance – being suspicious, dismissive and
confrontational towards anything which is different. We saw this in Niamh’s critical
attitude towards men’s gendered attitude towards women; (b) ignorance –
dismissing any differences and superficially believing that we are all the ‘‘same’’.
To a certain extent, everyone in this house showed a lack in sensitivity and
appreciation of their diversity; (c) isolation – building a wall or drawing a circle
around oneself so that one alienates oneself from the possibility of encountering the
other and all its foreignness. This was exactly what the group did after the initial
incident for the sake of self-protection and avoiding any confrontation; (d) naivety/
absolute tolerance – believing that all things different are good. This was reflected in
the attitude that Noor and Lina had adopted when arriving in the UK.
However, as the case study has illustrated, the students’ instinctive approach to
intercultural and interreligious dialogue suggested that for transformative encoun-
ters to take place, there are necessary conditions. Essentially, there are four of them,
each of which are explored below: (1) the presence of diversity within HE
institutions; (2) the experience and engagement with otherness; (3) the sharing of
personal narratives and (4) the space for listening.
The presence of diversity within HE institutions
The first condition of intercultural and interreligious encounter in HE is the presence
and necessity of diversity on university campuses and within HE institutions. This
aspect was prominent in the case of the shared house on campus. The fact that the
S. Gill
123

9. six students in the case study came from very different cultural, ethnic and religious
backgrounds formed the basis for a rich encounter among each other. The existence
of diversity and the students’ sensitivity to diversity were the prerequisites for their
positive engagement with each other’s otherness.
As we have seen, these differences prompted the students to question their own
attitude towards otherness, hence this questioning itself created opportunities for
encounter, dialogue and narrative. As they further reflected on what each person
brought to the conversation and as they engaged with each person’s otherness, they
began to understand each other and themselves differently. The presence of
diversity in this setting seemed to give rise to the possibility of plurality, which
suggests ‘‘an attitude of openness, an un-self-consciousness that recognizes what is
potentially valuable and fruitful in the other’s tradition and experience and which
may deepen one’s understanding of the possible richness of human experience’’
(Deutsch 2004, p. 111).
This kind of encounter brings our attention to something alien which, in turn,
makes us become acutely aware of our own finitude, or the situatedness of our
understanding, knowing and being. An encounter requires our sensitivity to
otherness by questioning our prejudice. For Hans-Georg Gadamer (1975, 1977),
prejudice here refers to pre-judgement, or those concerns and interests which allow
us to enter into dialogue with the matter in hand. We saw this in Niamh’s attitude
towards or prejudice about JC. An encounter with the other calls forth our own
prejudice, and can make interlocutors feel disoriented because we realise that we are
each doubted by the other and that their otherness questions our own prejudices/
prejudgement. Here is the potential of the other – by unveiling our prejudice in this
way, an encounter opens up the opportunity for us to revise and expand our ideas
and understanding in a progressive circle of growth. Gadamer calls this the fusion of
horizons. We will visit Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics in the next section in
order to fully explore the intricacies involved in the encounter of otherness.
The case study also showed that the presence of diversity must be accompanied
by pedagogical endeavour so that there are proactive processes (curriculum,
teaching and learning, informal settings, and so on) to engage with diversity (see
also Smith 1997). I will address this in the last section of the paper.
The experience and engagement with otherness
With the presence of diversity, it is necessary to have an experience and engagement
with otherness; without these, the students could be left with intolerance, ignorance,
isolation and naivety about otherness which would impede on the possibility of a
meaningful discussion about intercultural and interreligious understanding. Equally,
the absence of an experience of cultures and religions will not necessarily lead to an
appreciation and engagement with diversity.
It has been argued that intercultural and interreligious encounter has dialogue at
its core (Ghiloni 2011). However, dialogue requires some degree of experiential
knowledge or understanding of the other, including culture, religion, world views,
and so forth. This experience and/or engagement is the basis for entering into
dialogue and for encountering with the cultural and the religious other. Through
Universities as spaces for engaging the other: A pedagogy…
123

10. contact and experience with otherness, students can engage in a process of sense-
making, without which it would be impossible to unfold and unravel the tensions
embedded in one’s own subjectivity.
In the case study, tension and conflict seemed to have served as ‘‘a call’’ to attend
to otherness, and this helped to provide a mirror for the students to look more
closely at how they perceived the other and realised how their perceptions would
change as they opened up to other’s lived realities. Thus through experiencing
otherness, cultural and religious differences evoked opportunities for learning.
The sharing of personal narratives
The students’ lived realities were explored in the sharing of personal narrative
initiated by Noor. This was pivotal to starting the process of unfolding the students’
respective experiences of cultures and religions. In the case study, each individual’s
narrative was simultaneously a social process of inquiry and a form of encounter. It
served to mediate between the persistent aspects of who we are and the shifts in the
way we understand ourselves (Ricœur 1992).
Narrative also helped the students to unravel the diverse social, cultural and
religious issues embedded in the complexity of individual human experiences,
events and actions (Bruner 1990). Language and stories are often intertwined with
the social contexts in which they arise and occur, and are always in part constitutive
of those contexts. Thus individuals’ narratives convey not only their particular
cultural religious world views, but also explain the sources of who they are (Taylor
1989). In other words, in order to engage in intercultural and interreligious dialogue
and learning, there has to be a condition of narrative which leads to understanding
the lifeworld of the dialogue partner.
By sharing narrative, the other becomes more than a label (cultural, ethnic,
gender-related, religious, etc.) or merely someone different. Instead, the other’s
otherness becomes more vivid and more pronounced. At the heart of the narrative
exchange is an experience of reciprocity which can open doors so that the dialogue
partners might move away from entrenched views and ideologies to embracing the
other and their otherness and towards learning and growth. In the case study, this
was achieved through listening.
The space for listening
As already illustrated, the students in the residence listened intently and actively to
the stories Noor shared initially, and later other stories. Listening is associated with
respect and openness. It is a humanising approach to learning and transformation.
Listening is a compassionate act, and fundamental to relations between people and
to mutual understanding.
Listening, according to the students in the residence, was a form of love and
acceptance. Thus we listen in ways which both hold our perceptions about the other
(in order to engage in the dialogue) and lay aside our assumptions about the other
(in order for the other to speak to us). It is almost as if we ourselves need to step
aside to create space for engaging with the other. Those students told me that they
S. Gill
123

11. experienced it as radical unlearning. When the space was safe in the residence, they
were able to venture beyond rhetorical harmony and listen for the dissonance which
had built the impetus and invited the urge towards resolution, reconciliation and
understanding.
Within the space of listening, there were silence, inner listening and dwelling in/
inhabiting of the students’ own horizon and self-transformation. Good listening thus
requires the receptiveness from our interlocutor to the open and loving attentive-
ness, and empowers the narrator to engender a different understanding of him/
herself.
In summary, the case study highlighted the conditions for intercultural and
interreligious learning within an HE setting. These four conditions were identified as
prerequisites for intercultural and interreligious encounter and dialogue. In the next
part of this paper, I explore the pedagogical insights embedded in this case study,
using Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics as a framework.
Exploring a pedagogy of encounter – Gadamer’s philosophical
hermeneutics
The question to consider now is why encounter is a key to intercultural and
interreligious learning. Gadamer’s work in this arena is useful for shedding some
light on my investigation of the nature of this dialogic encounter, and how it may
lead to intercultural and interreligious learning through what I call a pedagogy of
encounter.
Hermeneutics is applied in situations in which we encounter meanings which are
not immediately accessible to us and which require interpretive effort. Gadamer
asserts that humans are finite beings, since our knowledge and our language are
always framed within, and conditioned by, our historicity and traditions. It requires
human effort to overcome such finitude through hermeneutical endeavours (Gill
2015). Gadamer holds that education is essentially self-formation and self-
cultivation, and that the aim is to become a more universal being through dialogue
and understanding. He writes:
the world is remote and alien enough to effect the necessary separation of
ourselves from ourselves, but it contains at the same time all the exit points
and threads of the return to oneself, for becoming acquainted with it and for
finding oneself again, but oneself according to the truly universal essence of
spirit (Gadamer 1975, p. 12).
The universal essence of our spirit which can characterise the fruit of
intercultural and interreligious education is achieved through hermeneutical
understanding. In the next few sections below, I draw on four aspects of Gadamer’s
thinking to further explore the envisaged pedagogy of encounter.
Universities as spaces for engaging the other: A pedagogy…
123

12. Attentiveness to otherness and the importance of questioning
International HE is a site for encountering diverse otherness and hence is a
pedagogical site for learning and transformation. Gadamer sees the presence of
otherness as key to encounter. As Gadamer maintains, understanding starts from
projecting – projecting meaning onto one’s experience. This pre-figuration is
constantly revised or re-configured as individuals, through encountering each other,
continue to penetrate into the meanings which are unfolding. As our case study
shows, in attempting to understand, there is often a tension between the individual’s
existing assumptions and the emergent meanings, which is also the difference
between what we are accustomed to and what we are confronted with by the other.
The real thrust of encounter is thus that all understanding involves some prejudice.
Prejudice, as defined by Gadamer, is ‘‘a judgement that is rendered before all the
elements that determine a situation have been finally examined’’ (Gadamer 1975,
p. 273). Instead of placing prejudice under a negative light, Gadamer suggests that it
is ‘‘where we can start’’ to engage with otherness.
In the light of pedagogy, when we listen or engage with the meaning in others’
stories, cultural and religious practices and norms, it is impossible to ‘‘stick blindly’’
to our own preconception or pre-figured ideas of the meaning of the thing which we
want to understand. It is necessary that ‘‘we remain open to the meaning of the other
person’’, but this openness ‘‘always includes our situating the other meaning in
relation to the whole of our own meanings or ourselves in relation to it’’ (Gadamer
1975, p. 271). Hence in order to attend to the meaning implicit in the person’s
narrative, or in another culture, and achieve understanding (rather than misunder-
standing), the criterion of questioning is very important. In this way, the
hermeneutical task ‘‘becomes of itself a questioning of things and is always in
part so defined’’ (ibid., italics in the original).
Understanding through ‘‘fusion of horizons’’
In identifying the finite determinacy of human thought, Gadamer (1975) suggests
that the way one’s perspectives can be expanded could be through a ‘‘fusion of
horizons’’. Horizon is ‘‘the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen
from a particular vantage point’’ (ibid., p. 301). Thus, the horizon is not closed, it is,
rather, ‘‘something into which we move and that moves with us’’ (ibid., p. 303). In
our case study, horizon could refer to the context of the student’s position, his/her
own past, and the history and tradition within which he/she lives and from where
his/her horizon stems. Gadamer summarises: ‘‘Hence the horizon of the present
cannot be formed without the past … understanding is always the fusion of these
horizons supposedly existing by themselves’’ (ibid., p. 305, italics in the original).
Accordingly, in intercultural and interreligious encounter, discovering the other’s
horizon is through ‘‘transposing ourselves’’ to the other’s position, which is not
mere empathy, or ‘‘subordinating’’ the other to our own position, but both
acknowledging and respecting the other. In this way, the fusion of horizons goes on
as one continues to encounter the other, into ‘‘something of living value’’ (ibid.).
S. Gill
123

13. However, as a pedagogical strategy, the ‘‘fusion’’ is not a fusion in which all
tensions are laid to rest, but an attentive to-and-fro between oneself and the other,
where tensions are uncovered and brought to the fore rather than glossed or passed
over. The ‘‘fusion’’ is itself an active quest for a more inclusive and self-critical
understanding. Intercultural and interreligious encounter is therefore a confrontation
with one’s own past, lived experience, assumptions, values and meaning, culture,
religion and community of a ‘‘web of interlocutors’’, all of which have contributed
to one’s identity (Taylor 1989), and the beliefs and rationales which underpin the
decisions we have made in terms of how to live our life.
Equality and active reciprocity in encounter and dialogue
From a pedagogical perspective, intercultural and interreligious encounter and
dialogue encompass equality and active reciprocity. This presupposes that both
dialogue partners are concerned with a common topic or a common question, hence
the equality. Gadamer maintains that dialogue is always about something – in this
case, the meaning of a story, an experience, or the subject of the conversation/di-
alogue itself. Accordingly, the dialogic character of interpretation is a mutualising
and reciprocal act. It would be undermined if the interpreter concentrated on the
other person rather than on the subject matter. It is not a matter of looking at the
other person, but looking with the other at the thing the dialogue partners are
communicating about. This active reciprocity in a hermeneutical dialogue suggests
that genuine understanding is not only inter-subjective, but also dialectical – a new
meaning born out of the interplay which goes on continuously between the past and
present, between different horizons.
Thus understanding always constitutes coming to an understanding with
someone, and when two people understand each other, they always do so with
respect to something – meaning, perspectives and so on. This reciprocity united by a
higher determining factor allows the real event of understanding to go beyond the
understanding of the other person’s words in dialogue through mere methodical
effort and critical self-control. Indeed it goes far beyond what we ourselves can
become aware of. ‘‘Through every dialogue something different comes to be’’
(Gadamer 1977, p. 58).
The convergence of language and understanding
Gadamer argues that understanding as fusion of horizons is essentially a linguistic
process, and language and understanding are not two separate processes but one and
the same. In this way, language constitutes our prejudices (which constitute our
being), and language and understanding are inseparable structural aspects of
humans’ being-in-the-world. In a later article on education, Gadamer insists on the
importance of a first language (mother tongue) as a person’s education from the very
beginning of his/her life, and later a second language as it provides an ideal
opportunity for us to experience otherness, because ‘‘in all our knowledge of
ourselves and in all knowledge of the world, we are always already encompassed by
the language which is our own’’ (Gadamer 1977, p. 62).
Universities as spaces for engaging the other: A pedagogy…
123

14. According to Gadamer, understanding is language-bound. Each person is
therefore at first a linguistic circle, which through encounter – contact with others
– becomes expansive. Language provides the inner infinity of the dialogue which is
in progress between partners in a conversation. For every round of interpretation,
the dialogue partner is exposed to a new ‘‘circle of the unexpressed or unsaid’’,
which continues to pose new questions and seek new answers by the dialogue
partners. It is an ongoing game of give-and-take, where language serves as a bridge,
so that a universal human task becomes to reach out to each other through language.
In international HE, when the student encounters an entire new system of
thinking and the history behind it which is different from his/her own, a new
opportunity for learning is created. Language further conditions human experience
and shapes whole inheritances of learning. The language each student uses is also a
script for learning. It conditions our thoughts and articulation and at the same time
imprisons us. Encountering a different language can open up channels for
broadening a student’s horizon.
In summary, embracing otherness, encountering, listening, questioning, fusion of
horizons, reciprocating and engaging in languages can serve as the bedrock of
intercultural and interreligious education. The envisaged pedagogy of encounter,
perceived through the lens of philosophical hermeneutics, is an important avenue
for nurturing individuals who share values with deeper understanding of themselves
and others. It is these individuals who are best prepared to form part of a global
network for international collaboration.
Implications for interreligious and intercultural education
As I have argued, the envisaged pedagogy of encounter is more a matter of
embracing otherness in order to be transformed by the encounter rather than being a
mere transmission of cognitive content and ‘‘values’’. How, then, do we practise the
envisaged pedagogy of encounter within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs),
being aware of the importance of intercultural and interreligious education within
modern universities? Stories such as the case study reported in this article can
happen naturally, but are there ways in which such a pedagogy of encounter can be
embedded in a contemporary vision of higher education? At this point, I would like
to draw out five aspects from the above which represent key elements in the
envisaged pedagogy of encounter.
The first element is a designated space. The task of the HE educator is to ensure
that spaces are available during lectures, seminars, research investigations as well as
informal contexts to ensure continued presence of the other and otherness. The
safeness of the space lies in many factors, including physical environment, seating
arrangement, openness, impartiality, power dynamics, tone of language and so on.
By creating a safe space, students are more likely to engage in the encounter and
dialogue as a critically alert participant rather than a critically detached observer or
objective analyst (Hogan 2000).
The second element is attentiveness to otherness. As we have seen, in attending
to otherness, dialogue partners, students, educators, research participants etc. will
S. Gill
123

15. not be talking past each other. As educators, we must remember that otherness
comes from all sources, in the texts, lectures, seminar room conversations, dialogue,
reading groups, research interviews, field experiences, and so forth. To facilitate
genuine encounter is to encourage interlocutors to be prepared for the other to help
bring to the fore one’s own prejudice and go beyond the boundedness of our
horizon.
The third element is mutual learning. In genuine encounter, the dialogue partners
must be treated as equally critical and reciprocally engaged participants in an
unfolding inquiry. Irrespective of whether the context is research-related or a class
setting, dialogue partners engage as co-inquirers. This mutuality requires that the
teaching and learning includes cultivation of the participants’ (the students’ and the
lecturers’) self-knowledge. The encounter is therefore not limited to the strangeness
of the other, but also extends to unfamiliar aspects of oneself.
The fourth element is biographical learning. Including students’ and lectures’
biographies can support a shared quest for meaning. Stories can bridge temporal and
spatial distance and place the otherness (of individuals’ experiences) within a socio-
cultural and political context. Biographical learning transcends the situatedness of
individual horizon and experience, and embraces future intention and action.
Listening and dealing with emotion are two crucial pedagogical companions in
biographical learning. When the space facilitates encounter, deep listening can
enable us, in the words of Parker Palmer, to ‘‘hear each other into speech’’ (Palmer
2004, p. 120). That is to say that when we listen attentively enough, we can hear the
other into words, into relationships, and into action.
Emotion prompts our sense-making during narrative sharing, where our
interpretation of stories is not limited to rational and analytical reflection because
our understanding and learning is also framed by emotion. Holding emotions in
creative tension along with reason in communal discourse calls all perspectives into
play.
The last element is dialogue. As we have seen, understanding is dialogic, and
thus intersubjective, including the relationship between oneself and the other, and
the relationship between the agent and the world. In encounter and dialogue, groups
are formed and communities can come together for all kinds of social and civic
engagement. It is simply because dialogue is formed through such engagement that
dialogue is practised. Donald Marshall says:
We do not enter into dialogue, we find ourselves already in it – but only if we
are already listening with the most intense attention, all ears to the discreet, the
whispered word. … [I]f – a large if – anyone is left in this world who wants to
understand, dialogue has already begun (Marshall 2004, p. 143).
The pedagogy of encounter, when recognised and applied in HE, can enable us to
develop a sense of we-ness both in and with the world. This is the basis on which
communities come together. This we-ness calls for joint action to address power-
imbalance, oppression/exploitation and other forms of social malaise. So this life of
learning through encounter and dialogue emerges in the participation, or, in the
words of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1973), in ‘‘a community of doing’’. We
participate in each other’s doing, including our memories, narratives, concerns,
Universities as spaces for engaging the other: A pedagogy…
123

16. aspirations and hopes, a participation ‘‘proceeding in the direction of ethical well-
being and a shared concern with the good life’’. Such community can only be
dialogically cultivated.
To conclude, I turn to John Dewey (1916), who postulates that instead of fear of
the other, dialogic encounter aims to shape a common possession, and in
overcoming isolation and creating experiences of emotional closeness and group
consensus, it achieves the most satisfying of human pleasures. Encounter allows us
to form intense friendship, and through intercultural and interreligious encounter, a
community can take shape. This way of being together is a most radical response to
the myriad challenges confronting us today. What can be more fundamental than
this as a task of HE and lifelong learning!
References
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1997). Teaching international students: A brief guide for lecturers and
supervisors. Deakin, ACT: Education Australia.
Banks, J. A. (2011). Educating citizens in diverse societies. Intercultural Education, 22(4), 243–251.
Bernardo, A. (2003). International higher education: Models, conditions and issues. In T. S. Tullao Jr.
(Ed.), Education and globalization (pp. 213–272). Manila: Philippine Institute of Development
Studies.
Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang
(Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Callan, H. (2000). The international vision in practice: A decade of evolution. Higher Education in
Europe, 25(1), 15–23.
Campbell, J. A., & Li, M. (2008). Asian students’ voices: An empirical study of Asian students’ learning
experiences at a New Zealand university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(4),
375–396.
Chen, Q. (2002). Can international students become international citizens? Gaps in current policies and
practices of Australian international education. Paper presented at the 16th Australian International
Education Conference, Hobart.
Crichton, J. A., Paige, M., Papademetre, L., & Scarino, A. (2004). Integrated resources for intercultural
teaching and learning in the context of internationalisation in higher education. University of South
Australia: Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education.
Deutsch, E. (2004). Holy otherness: Religious difference revisited. In A. La¨nnstro¨m (Ed.), The stranger’s
religion: Fascination and fear (pp. 99–112). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York:
Free Press.
Doherty, C., & Singh, P. (2005a). How the west is done: Simulating western pedagogy in a curriculum for
Asian international students. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education:
Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 53–73). Hong Kong: Comparative Education
Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Doherty, C., & Singh, P. (2005b). International student subjectivities: Biographical investments for liquid
times. Paper presented at the 2005 Conference of the Australian Association for Research in
Education (AARE), ‘‘Creative Dissent: Constructive Solutions’’, 27 Nov–1 Dec, University of
Western Sydney, Parramatta Campus, Australia.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall). London/New York:
Continuum.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1977). Philosophical Hermeneutics (D. E. Linge, Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
S. Gill
123

17. Gallagher, M. (2002). Internationalising education: Address to the sixth annual national teaching forum
of the Australian universities teaching committee. Retrieved 17 September, 2003, from http://www.
autc.gov.au/forum/mgspeech.htm.
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. Oxford & New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ghiloni, A. J. (2011). Interreligious education: What would Dewey do? Journal of Religious Education,
106(5), 476–493.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. New York: Routledge.
Gill, S. (2010). Learning across cultures. Berlin: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Gill, S. (2014). An interreligious approach to religious education. In S. Gill & G. Thomson (Eds.),
Redefining religious education: Spirituality for human flourishing (pp. 145–156). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gill, S. (2015). Holding oneself open in a conversation—Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics and the
ethics of dialogue. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 3(1), 9–28.
Haigh, M. J. (2002). Internationalization of the curriculum: Designing inclusive education for a small
world. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26(1), 49–66.
Hellsten, M., & Reid, A. (Eds.). (2009). International pedagogies for teaching and learning. London:
Routledge.
Hogan, P. (2000). Gadamer and the philosophy of education. In Encyclopaedia of educational philosophy
and theory [online resource]. Retrieved 9 May, 2016, from http://eepat.net/doku.php?id=gadamer_
and_philosophy_of_education.
Kazanjian, V. H., & Laurence, P. L. (Eds.). (2006). Education as transformation: Religious pluralism,
spirituality, and a new vision for higher education in America. New York: Peter Lang.
Kelly, P. (2000). Internationalising the curriculum: For profit or planet? In J. Gidley (Ed.), The university
in transformation: Global perspectives on the futures of the university (pp. 162–172). Westport, CT:
Bergin & Garvey.
Knight, J. (1999). Internationalization of higher education. Quality and internationalisation in higher
education (pp. 13–28). Paris: OECD.
Knight, J. (2003). Needed: Updated internationalisation definition. International Higher Education, 33,
2–3.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodelled: Definitions, approaches and rationales. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.
Kramsch, C. (2002). In search of the intercultural. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 275–285.
Marshall, D. G. (2004). On dialogue: To its cultured despisers. In B. Krajewski (Ed.), Gadamer’s
repercussions: Reconsidering philosophical hermeneutics (pp. 123–144). Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
McGrath, T., Stock, P., & Butcher, A. (2007). Friends and allies: The impacts of returning Asian students
on New Zealand–Asia relationships. Outlook Paper 05, Wellington: Asia New Zealand Foundation.
Retrieved 9 May, 2016, from http://asianz.org.nz/reports/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AsiaNZ-
Outlook-5.pdf.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1973). Dialogue and the perception of the other. In C. Lefort (Ed.), The prose of the
world (pp. 131–146) (J. O’Neill, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Murphy-LeJeune, E. (2003). An experience of interculturality: Student travellers abroad. In G. Alred, M.
Byram, & M. Fleming (Eds.), Intercultural experience and education (pp. 101–113). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Olson, C., & Kroeger, K. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 5(2), 116–137.
Palmer, P. (2004). A hidden wholeness: The journey toward an undivided life. Welcoming the soul and
weaving community in a wounded world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ricœur, P. (1992). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, D. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students benefit. Washington, DC:
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U).
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Turner, Y. (2009). ‘‘Knowing me, knowing you’’—Is there nothing we can do? Pedagogic challenges in
using group work to create an intercultural learning space. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 13(2), 240–255.
Universities as spaces for engaging the other: A pedagogy…
123

18. Ward, C. (2001). The ABCs of acculturation. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and
psychology (pp. 411–441). New York: Oxford University Press.
Welikala, T., & Watkins, C. (2008). Improving intercultural learning experiences in higher education:
Responding to cultural scripts for learning. London: University of London Publishers.
The author
Scherto Gill is a Visiting Research Fellow and Associate Tutor at the University of Sussex’s Department
of Education. She convenes, teaches and tutors the Person-Centred Education programme as part of the
MA in Education Studies. Her teaching is about supporting students in exploring their own journeys of
learning and research inquiry and helping them to become confident educational researchers and
practitioners. She is also a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Research in Human Development,
Guerrand-Herme`s Foundation for Peace, an international research institute based in the Southeast of
England. Scherto’s research interests centre on understanding the dynamic processes of human learning
and the learner’s development as a whole person. The key concepts she is developing include human-
centred education, narrative pedagogy and internationalisation. She is keen to explore how to apply these
concepts in the teaching and learning at all levels towards human flourishing and social transformation.
S. Gill
123