Course Syllabus

CIEE Amsterdam, Netherlands

Course title: 

Intercultural Communication and Leadership

Course code:

(GI) COMM 3301 NETH

Location: 

CIEE Amsterdam, Netherlands

Programs offering course:

• Arizona State University Global Flex –
  3 Credits
• Arizona State University Global Flex –
  6 Course Credits
• CIEE Open Campus Block

Language of instruction: 

English

U.S. semester credits: 

3.00

Contact hours: 

45.00

Term: 

Spring Block I 2026

Course Description 

This course explores the contemporary host culture through the lenses of intercultural studies. Students will learn about current cultural, societal and political themes in the host city, compare ethnic and racial identities in the host country and the U.S., and explore the experiences of diverse populations within the host country. We will examine the complexity of host culture values, beliefs, and practices and learn to identify the cultural differences and similarities between the host culture and U.S. American cultures. Students will also learn about key intercultural communication theories, frameworks and leadership practices in order to deepen their cultural self-awareness, acquire new perspectives and effectively communicate and interact with culturally different others.

Learning Objectives

By completing this course, students will:

1. Understand and competently discuss societal, political and cultural themes as they relate to racial and ethnic identity configurations in the host country.
2. Increase self-awareness, particularly cultural self-awareness.
3. Acquire a deeper understanding of the field of intercultural communication and intercultural concepts/theories and their relevance to their own experience in the host culture(s).
4. Recognize cultural differences and similarities between U.S. American and the local culture and develop effective strategies to bridge differences.
5. Develop an intercultural leadership practice that helps students translate their culture-specific and culture-general knowledge into moment-to-moment competence.

These objectives are assessed through field-based work in Amsterdam, reflective writing, group projects, verbal analyses and in-class leadership demonstrations.

Methods of Instruction

This course combines classroom learning, online activities, and field-based experiences in Amsterdam.

Classroom

• Short lectures introduce core intercultural communication and leadership frameworks, followed by guided application to examples and Amsterdam-based situations.
• Instructor-facilitated analysis of cases and communication encounters, with attention to context, interpretation, and consequences.
• Structured small-group work and discussion formats that support critical thinking, perspective-taking, and evidence-based argumentation.
• Skills practice activities that develop listening, questioning, and response strategies in intercultural situations.

Online / Canvas

• Central course hub for weekly materials, schedules, and clear instructions.
• Continuity tool for prep and follow-up (prompts, debrief threads, and feedback).
• Community space for sharing questions, testing interpretations, and peer response under clear participation norms.

Co-Curricular Activities & Fieldwork in Amsterdam

Students participate in approximately 7–9 hours of guided co-curricular work, including three major field visits (“Field Slots”) and shorter observation labs near the centre of Amsterdam.

• Field Slot 1 – Amsterdam in Motion (AiM)
  A guided immersive experience that uses performance and interactive exhibits to explore how Amsterdam’s systems and social norms are produced and maintained in everyday life. Students collect concrete evidence from both the show and at least one interactive exhibit moment and use course concepts to explain what they observed.
• Field Slot 2 – Race, Memory & Identity in Amsterdam
  A visit to a site that addresses racial/ethnic histories and power relations in the Netherlands (for example, a community archive, heritage walk, neighbourhood or park route, or a museum exhibit focused on slavery, colonialism and postcolonial communities). Students examine how racial and ethnic identities are represented and how historical injustices are remembered, contested or silenced.
• Field Slot 3 – Organisations, Work & Advocacy
  A visit to a company or organisation in Amsterdam selected with the class, focused on how leadership and communication operate in real institutional settings (for example, a refugee entrepreneurship incubator, a social enterprise, a creative-industry venue, an upcycling initiative, or a youth/community organisation). Students explore how leaders and advocates communicate across differences, make trade-offs, and act within constraints.

For Field Slots 2–3:

• the instructor presents a small list of feasible options aligned with that week’s themes and CIEE’s logistical constraints;
• students indicate preferences; and
• the final venue is selected based on student interest, accessibility and program resources.

Each field activity includes theory-guided observation tasks that feed into the Engagement tasks, the Portfolio, the Group Case and the Digital Cultural Analysis.

In addition, some classroom sessions include short observation labs in the immediate surroundings of CIEE’s central location (for example, directed 30–40-minute exercises in nearby streets or squares), where students collect specific communication or leadership observations to analyse with course tools.

Guest Speakers

The course includes two guest sessions integrated into the weekly themes:

• A criminologist (e.g. Dr. Kostas Skliamis) who explains Dutch drug legislation in comparison with U.S. policy, with attention to race, power and public discourse.
• An advocacy leader in Amsterdam (for example, an LGBTQ+ advocate or a Surinamese community leader) who discusses leadership, identity and creating safe / inclusive spaces in their field (e.g. club/event culture, community organisation).

Assessment and Final Grade

Total: 100%

1. Engagement Tasks (E1–E4) – 15%
2. Amsterdam Field & Reflection Portfolio – 25%
3. Group “Amsterdam Case” Project – 20%
4. Digital Cultural Analysis – 20%
5. Leadership-in-Action (Leadership Studio) – 20%

Course Requirements 

I. Engagement & In-Class/Online Activities – 15%

Students complete four Engagement tasks (E1–E4) that connect course concepts to concrete Amsterdam evidence. Across the term, Engagement tasks use one shared reasoning standard: students work from evidence, form a defensible norm/hypothesis, explain the mechanism using a course lens, consider an alternative interpretation and what information would clarify it, and end with a realistic “next move” for communication or leadership practice. 

Tasks include:

• E1 (180–250 words): a short mechanism-practice analysis of one concrete Amsterdam moment using the course reasoning standard.
• E2 (450–650 words): an expanded mechanism-based analysis anchored in a specific Amsterdam interaction or observation, including an alternative interpretation and what information would clarify it.
• E3 (450–650 words): an Amsterdam in Motion (AiM) analysis using evidence from the immersive show and one interactive exhibit moment chosen by the student, supported by lens-based prompts developed in class.
• E4 (450–650 words): a later-term task applying the same reasoning standard to a more complex leadership/bridging situation under real constraints.

All Engagement tasks include an evidence component that students may submit in an equivalent format: 40–70 words of evidence notes OR a ≤45-second voice note OR one non-identifying image/video with caption. Ethical rule: no identifiable people (faces/names) without explicit consent.

• Weight: 15%
• Type: short analytic submissions (online; some evidence collected on-site)
• Rubric: evidence specificity; mechanism-level use of course tools; interpretive discipline (including alternative interpretations and information needed); feasibility and relevance of the “next move.”

II. Amsterdam Field & Reflection Portfolio – 25%

A multi-entry portfolio that documents intercultural communication and leadership learning through Amsterdam-based evidence and course frameworks. The portfolio requires 10 entries, including one synthesis essay (up to 1,200 words). Students may submit the portfolio in any medium (digital or physical), provided each entry includes a short analysis capsule (written or recorded) that makes the analytical reasoning explicit.

Students submit:

• 10 portfolio entries, including:
  
  
• Three major entries anchored in guided course experiences:
  
  
1. Amsterdam in Motion (AiM) (Field Slot 1)
2. Race, Memory & Identity site selected with the class (Field Slot 2)
3. Organisation / Work / Advocacy visit selected with the class (Field Slot 3), or an approved leadership incident where necessary
   
   
• Six additional entries:
  
  
1. Amsterdam Rulebook (v1 → v2)
2. Critical Moment Archive
3. The “Two Amsterdams” Artefact Essay
4. Policy as Practice: Three Street-Level Encounters
5. Role Shifts in Amsterdam: Same Person, Different Codes
6. Leadership in the Wild: Observation Study
   
   
• One synthesis essay (up to 1,200 words) that advances a coherent argument about learning across the term, supported by specific portfolio evidence.

Evidence formats are flexible across the portfolio (brief evidence notes, a short audio note, or one non-identifying image/video with caption).
Ethical rule: no identifiable people (faces/names) without explicit consent.

• Weight: 25%
• Type: portfolio submission (student-selected medium) with analysis capsules + synthesis essay
• Rubric: clarity and organisation; quality of Amsterdam-based evidence; integration of course frameworks as analytic mechanisms; interpretive discipline; depth of self-awareness; strength of transfer/bridging moves; coherence of the synthesis argument.

III. Group “Amsterdam Case” Project – 20%

In small groups, students research and present a case study on an intercultural and leadership issue in Amsterdam. The case must be grounded in concrete local evidence and analysed using course frameworks as explanatory mechanisms.

Examples include:

• housing, public space, and belonging;
• identity, representation, and public memory;
• policy, enforcement, and everyday experience;
• work, organisations, and inclusion;
• cultural scenes, norms, and safety;
• sustainability claims and public narratives.

Each case must include:

• a clear case question (one sentence) that frames the issue as a real decision/problem;
• two Amsterdam evidence points, with at least one drawn from a course-based experience (field slot, guest session, or observation lab);
• one Dutch media artefact used as evidence (article, clip, campaign item, post, or broadcast segment);
• a stakeholder map plus a clearly stated trade-off/tension shaping the situation;
• two course frameworks applied as mechanisms (showing how meaning, norms, identity, or power are produced in this case);
• one realistic leadership leverage point: a specific actor, a plausible action, the reasoning behind it, and an associated trade-off/risk.

Checkpoints:

• Case plan due Class 9.0, including the case question, initial evidence list, and proposed lenses.
• Slide outline checkpoint later in the term (date announced in class), confirming structure and argument flow before final delivery.

Deliverables:

• Group presentation (≈8–10 minutes) + 5 minutes Q&A.
• Individual reflection (≈400–500 words) on contribution and learning.
• Weight: 20%
• Type: group oral presentation + individual written reflection
• Rubric:  evidence quality and relevance; mechanism-level use of course frameworks; stakeholder/trade-off clarity; feasibility of the leverage point; clarity and coherence of argument; collaborative execution; ability to defend reasoning in Q&A.

IV. Digital Cultural Analysis – 20%

Each student produces a Digital Cultural Analysis of a contemporary Dutch media artefact. The artefact must be digital (for example: a news item, campaign material, public-information messaging, platform-native content, or a comparable media object) and should be suitable for close analysis through evidence, concepts, and interpretation. Students are expected to treat the artefact as a cultural intervention: something that communicates values, positions audiences, and shapes how events and identities become legible.

The analysis should:

• identify relevant cultural values, power relations or critical concepts;
• examine how the artefact frames events, identities and audiences;
• compare local and outsider perspectives;
• explicitly connect to at least one course reading and at least one field/city experience.
• Weight: 20%
• Type: digital analysis (format options and detailed instructions provided in Canvas)
• Rubric: quality and relevance of evidence; framing/interpretive depth; integration of course concepts and reading(s); connection to Amsterdam-based experience; clarity, structure, and academic integrity.

V. Leadership-in-Action Assessment – 20%

In the final class session, students demonstrate intercultural leadership practice through a Leadership Studio: a live, team-based assessment focused on reasoning under real constraints. Students work in teams and respond to three short, real-world Amsterdam leadership prompts (provided by local leaders and revealed on the day). Each prompt requires teams to move from evidence to interpretation to action, using course frameworks as mechanisms rather than as labels.

Students rotate roles across team response rounds (e.g., facilitator, evidence anchor, mechanism lead, trade-off lead, bridging lead, spokesperson). The studio is structured so that performance is assessed through the quality of reasoning, clarity of trade-offs, and feasibility of proposed actions, not through acting or personal disclosure.

• Weight: 20%
• Type: Leadership Studio (team performance + individual role execution + brief individual reflection)
• Rubric: emotional awareness, reflective judgement, listening & questioning, explicit use of tools, realistic/ethical bridging strategies); evidence discipline; stakeholder and trade-off clarity; feasibility and ethics of action planning; quality of bridging strategies; collaboration and role execution.

Academic Commitments & Expectations

Attendance

CIEE promotes experiential learning that requires regular attendance and active participation. Students are expected to attend all class sessions, field visits and guest lectures, and to arrive on time. Absences (including late arrival or early departure) may lower grades on Engagement and other in-class assessments. Extended or repeated absences may result in academic penalties in line with CIEE Academic Policies.

Engagement

Engagement is defined as meaningful contribution through demonstrated engagement with the course materials and resources. Engagement will be measured throughout the course with a series of formative assessments. Students will be assessed on preparedness in advance of each class, regular engagement with course resources, discussions, reflective assignments, and all other learning activities. 

Academic Integrity

Students must adhere to CIEE’s Academic Integrity Policy. Cheating, plagiarism, fabrication of data (including fabrication of field observations), or use of unauthorized assistance is prohibited and may result in a failing grade for the assignment or the course, and additional disciplinary action.

Use of AI Tools

This course follows CIEE’s policy on the use of generative AI tools. Students may use AI tools for idea generation, clarification and language support, but may not use AI to:

• generate entire assignments or large segments of them;
• invent field experiences or observations;
• misrepresent AI-generated text as their own work.

Any substantial AI assistance must be acknowledged. Violations will be treated as academic integrity violations under CIEE policy.

Weekly Schedule 

Class meeting time: Unless otherwise noted, classes meet on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 13:00–15:30.

N.B.: The schedule and co-curricular activities are subject to change. The specific timing and venues of field visits and guest sessions may be adjusted based on site availability, local conditions, and learning needs. Any changes will be communicated in advance.

*Note: Week 1 has only one class meeting. Monday and Tuesday are orientation days in that week.

Week 1 – Foundations: Culture, Perception & Identity 

Class 1.0 

Introduction – Culture, Brave Spaces, Amsterdam

Date/Time: 

Thursday 8 January 2026, 13:00–15:30

During this class, students are introduced to the course, the syllabus, and the learning objectives. We define “culture,” discuss the difference between safe and brave spaces, and agree on class norms for dialogue. Students share their initial images and expectations of Amsterdam and form cultural partner pairs for ongoing activities.

Required readings:

• Ali, D. (2017). Safe spaces and brave spaces. NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.
• Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz, The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). Basic Books.

Week 2 – Perception, Names & Identity

Class 2.0 

Perception and Suspending Judgment

Date/Time: 

Monday 12 January 2026, 13:00–15:30

Students examine perception and ethnocentrism through Bennett’s framework for intercultural communication. Working with early Amsterdam observations, they practice separating description, interpretation, and evaluation, and build the habit of suspending judgement long enough to collect better evidence for later fieldwork.

Engagement / Assignments:

Engagement Task E1 – Amsterdam snapshot 

Due before Class 2.0 (submit in Canvas). 180–250 words, using the Scene → Norm → Mechanism → Next Move structure. Students may include an evidence add-on in an equivalent format (brief evidence notes, a short voice note, or one non-identifying image/video with caption). No identifiable people without explicit consent.

Required readings:

• Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings (pp. 1–34). Intercultural Press.
• Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz, The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). Basic Books. (Review from Week 1.)

Class 3.0 

What Is in a Name?

Date/Time: 

Tuesday 13 January 2026, 13:00–15:30

Students examine how names and naming practices carry social meaning and how these meanings travel across cultures. Through the Name Game interview with a cultural partner, students analyse how names can signal identity categories and social positioning, and they consider how interpretation shifts in the Dutch context when knowledge, pronunciation, and assumptions change.

Engagement / Assignments:

Engagement Task E2 – Name reflection assigned
Due before Class 4.0 (Thu 2026-01-15) (submit in Canvas). 450–650 words (extended option available in Canvas). Students apply the course reasoning standard (evidence → norm/hypothesis → mechanism lens → alternative interpretation + information needed → next move) using evidence from the Name Game interview.

Required readings / Media:

• Agyekum, K. (2006). The sociolinguistics of Akan personal names. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 15(2), 206–235.
• Dweck, C. S. (2014, December). The power of believing that you can improve [Video]. TEDxNorrköping. https://www.ted.com/talks/carol_dweck_the_power_of_believing_that_you_can_improve
• Duckworth, A. L. (2013, April). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance [Video]. TED Talks. https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_grit_the_power_of_passion_and_perseverance

(TED talks are optional enrichment media and are not required for discussion or assessment; the required reading is Agyekum.)

Class 4.0 

Identity & “Who I Am” Here

Date/Time: 

Thursday 15 January 2026, 13:00–15:30

This class supports critical reflection on how identity configurations shape, and are shaped by, students’ experience in Amsterdam. Through debriefing the Name Game interview and a structured in-class reflection activity, students examine which aspects of identity become more or less visible in the host context and connect these shifts to communication choices and leadership challenges.

Engagement / Assignments:

Engagement Task E2 – Name reflection due (Canvas submission due before Class 4.0).

Students also indicate broad areas of interest for later course-based fieldwork (e.g., identity and public memory, policy and everyday practice, organisations and work, public space and belonging), to support selection of Field Slots 2–3 within CIEE logistical constraints.

Required readings / Media:

• Hall, S. (1997). The spectacle of the “Other.” In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 225–255). Sage.

Week 3 – Leadership Lenses and City Narratives

Class 5.0 

Leadership Contexts: Leadership Theories

Date/Time: 

Monday 19 January 2026, 13:00–15:30

Students review and compare key approaches to leadership, including transformational, transactional, charismatic, community and humane leadership, and followership. They consider which leadership styles they recognise from their own contexts and reflect on who is commonly read as a “leader” in Amsterdam, using anonymised, instructor-provided profiles to surface assumptions.

Engagement / Assignments:

• No new Engagement task due.
• Students begin forming groups and identifying potential case directions for the Group “Amsterdam Case” Project (topics, initial evidence leads, and possible Dutch media artefacts), in preparation for the case plan checkpoint.

Required readings:

• Evans, S. D. (2012). Community leadership.
• Gerring, J., Sood, G., & Aitken, A. (2019). Who rules the world? A portrait of the global leadership class. Perspectives on Politics, 17(4), 1079–1097.
• Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2019). Revitalising leadership for a humane world. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(3), 374–377.

Class 6.0 

Field Slot 1: City Development & Leadership Context

Date/Time: 

Tuesday 20 January 2026, 13:00–15:30 (co-curricular session)

This co-curricular session is Amsterdam in Motion (AiM), an immersive experience that explores how Amsterdam’s systems, norms, and power relations are produced and maintained in everyday life. Students collect concrete evidence from both the show and at least one interactive exhibit moment and use course frameworks to analyse how meaning, identity, and leadership practice are shaped in context.

Engagement / Assignments:

• Engagement Task E3 – Amsterdam in Motion (AiM) Analysis assigned (submitted in Canvas; requirements and format options provided in Canvas).
• Portfolio Entry 1 (reflection on Field Slot 1) assigned for the following week

Required readings:

• Site-specific information and observation prompts provided by the instructor.

Class 7.0 

Cultural Dimensions & Critique - Applied to NL vs Home

Date/Time: 

Thursday 22 January 2026, 13:00–15:30

Students explore cultural dimensions as a framework for conceptualising patterns of similarity and difference between cultures, with an emphasis on their limitations. Using examples from Amsterdam in Motion (AiM) and early experiences in Amsterdam, they apply selected dimensions to the Netherlands and their home contexts. Internal diversity within Dutch society is highlighted and non-essentialist use of the framework is emphasised.

Engagement / Assignments:

• No Engagement task due in this class.
• Students are reminded that Portfolio Entry 1 (AiM) is due in Class 8.0.
• Group Case teams decide which dimensions they may use (and critique) in their case plans.

Required readings:

• Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). The rules of the social game. In Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed., pp. 3–26). McGraw–Hill.
• Rivas, J., Hale, K., & Burke, M. G. (2019). Seeking a sense of belonging: Social and cultural integration of international students with American college students. Journal of International Students, 9(2), 682–704.

Week 4 – Academic Cultures, Communication, and Stereotypes

Class 8.0 

Culture & Academic National Identity: US–NL Academic Cultures

Date/Time: 

Monday 26 January 2026, 13:00–15:30

This class explores academic culture as part of national identity. Using Nathan’s account of U.S. academic life and a short overview of Dutch higher-education norms, students compare classroom interaction, feedback, participation and authority in the U.S., the Netherlands and their home contexts. They reflect on how these expectations shape their experience as visiting students in Amsterdam.

Engagement / Assignments:

• Portfolio Entry 1 (AiM reflection) due at the start of class or via Canvas.
• Students indicate sectors or types of organisations they are interested in for the later organisation/company visit, to support selection within CIEE logistical constraints.

Required readings:

• Nathan, R. (2005). My freshman year: What a professor learned by becoming a student (Ch. 4: “As others see us: The classroom experience,” pp. 77–85). Cornell University Press.
• Dutch academic culture handout prepared by the instructor.

Class 9.0 

Communication & Community Leadership: Observation & Protocol Lab

Date/Time: 

Tuesday 27 January 2026, 13:00–15:30

Students conduct a short observation lab in central Amsterdam, noting real communication patterns and leadership behaviours around CIEE. Back in class, they examine readings on language, communication, and personal leadership and apply a protocol-case example (Japanese Protocol Association excerpt and video) to analyse verbal and nonverbal cues, face, and power. They connect these insights to community leadership in Amsterdam and to their emerging Group Case topics.

Engagement / Assignments:

• Group “Amsterdam Case” Plan due (short outline including case question, initial Amsterdam evidence leads, one potential Dutch media artefact, and proposed course lenses/frameworks).
• Students confirm a Dutch media artefact for the Digital Cultural Analysis by the end of the week (submission process provided in Canvas).
• Mid-term course evaluation (ungraded) completed in class or online.

Required readings:

• Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2012). What is the connection between verbal communication and culture? In Understanding intercultural communication (pp. 110–129). Oxford University Press.
• Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2012). What are the different ways to communicate nonverbally across cultures? In Understanding intercultural communication (pp. 130–153). Oxford University Press.

In-class:

• Japanese Protocol Association excerpt and video (provided in class).

Recommended readings:

• Deutscher, G. (2010, August 26). Does language shape how you think? The New York Times Magazine.
• Dooly, M., & Vallejo Rubinstein, C. (2018). Bridging across languages and cultures in everyday lives: An expanding role for critical intercultural communication. Language and Intercultural Communication, 18(1), 1–8.
• Fang, X., Sauter, D. A., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2018). Seeing mixed emotions: The specificity of emotion perception from static and dynamic facial expressions across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(1), 130–148.
• Schaetti, B. F., Ramsey, S. J., & Watanabe, G. C. (2008). Personal leadership: Making a world of difference (selected excerpt). FlyingKite Publications.

Class 10.0 

Stereotypes, Single Stories & Whiteness

Date/Time: 

Thursday 29 January 2026, 13:00–15:30

Students examine stereotypes, cultural generalisations, and discrimination through Adichie’s “danger of a single story” and academic work on prejudice and racial hierarchy. They analyse Dutch and home-country media artefacts as “single story” examples and use course concepts to discuss how representation and power operate in everyday narratives in Amsterdam. The class also begins the selection process for the Race/Memory/Identity field visit (Field Slot 2) by discussing feasible options and shortlisting them for a class vote.

Engagement / Assignments:

• Students bring one Dutch and one home-country advertisement, post, or campaign item they consider a “single story” example for in-class analysis.
• Students vote on preferred options for the Race/Memory/Identity field visit (Field Slot 2).

Required readings:

• Adichie, C. N. (2009, July). The danger of a single story [Video]. TEDGlobal.
• Liu, W. M. (2017). White male power and privilege: The relationship between White supremacy and social class. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(4), 349–358.
• Plous, S. (2003). The psychology of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination: An overview. In S. Plous (Ed.), Understanding prejudice and discrimination (pp. 3–48). McGraw–Hill.

Recommended readings:

• Kalmar, I. (2022). White but not quite: Central Europe’s illiberal revolt (selected excerpt). Bristol University Press.

Week 5 – Race, Power & Law 

Class 11.0 

Field Slot 2: Race, Memory & Identity in Amsterdam

Date/Time: 

Monday 2 February 2026, 13:00–15:30 (co-curricular session)

Students participate in a guided field visit to one race/identity site in Amsterdam (for example, a community archive, heritage walk, neighbourhood/park memorial route, or museum exhibit on slavery/colonialism), chosen with the class. They use structured prompts to analyse how racial and ethnic histories and identities are represented, and how historical injustices are remembered, contested or silenced.

Engagement / Assignments:

• Portfolio Entry 2 assigned (Race, Memory & Identity field reflection; submission details in Canvas).
• Guest question submission (Dr. Skliamis): By 17:00 on Monday 2 February 2026, each student submits one question in Canvas to be asked during Class 12.0. Questions must connect the session theme (law, power, and implementation in everyday life) to course concepts (e.g., identity, public discourse, leadership, institutions).

Required lens readings:

• Site-specific information and contextual materials provided by the instructor/host.
• Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. (Selected excerpt: Preface + Chapter 1, pp. 3–12; provided as PDF.)
• Students review the Week 4 materials on representation, stereotyping, and power prior to the visit.

Class 12.0 

Guest Lecture: Dutch Drug Policy vs US (Law & Power)

Date/Time: 

Tuesday 3 February 2026, 13:00–15:30

A guest criminologist (Dr. Kostas Skliamis) examines Dutch drug policy as a case for understanding law, power, and implementation in practice. The session focuses on how authority is exercised, how discretion and enforcement shape outcomes, and how public narratives (e.g., “tolerance,” risk, order) interact with lived experience.

Engagement / Assignments:

• Students arrive having submitted their question by 17:00 on 2026-02-02.
• Students and groups may draw on insights from the session as evidence for relevant course work (Group Case, Portfolio, and/or Digital Cultural Analysis), where appropriate.

Required readings:

• Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A., & MacCoun, R. J. (2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(3), 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615617791 
• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (Rev. ed.). Princeton University Press. Chapters 1–2 (pp. 3–16).

Class 13.0 

Culture Shock & Intercultural Adjustment

Date/Time: 

Thursday 5 February 2026, 13:00–15:30

Students explore culture shock and intercultural adjustment using Ting-Toomey & Chung and the DMIS/IDI framework. They map “shock timelines” across their Amsterdam experience, complete a short self-check activity, and discuss adjustment strategies. The class also gathers student preferences for the organisation/company visit by identifying broad sectors and themes of interest, within CIEE logistical constraints.

Engagement / Assignments:

• Portfolio Major Entry 2 due (Race, Memory & Identity field reflection).
• Portfolio Major Entry 3 assigned (Organisation / Work / Advocacy visit reflection; submission details in Canvas).
• Students indicate preferred sectors or types of organisations for the organisation/company visit and vote on feasible shortlist options.
• Students vote on shortlists for Field Slot 3 sector options and Guest 2 options.

Readings:

• Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2012). What is culture shock? In Understanding intercultural communication (pp. 91–109). Oxford University Press.
• Hammer, M. R. (2012). Selected DMIS/IDI summary (provided by instructor).

Week 6 – Applied Intercultural Leadership: Evidence and Analysis

Class 14.0 

Field Slot 3: Organisations, Work & Advocacy in Amsterdam

Date/Time: 

Monday 9 February 2026, 13:00–15:30 (co-curricular session)

Students visit one organisation or company in Amsterdam, selected with the class. Students examine how leaders and advocates communicate across differences, navigate constraints, and address social issues in practice. Students collect field evidence relevant to their Portfolio Major Entry 3 and, where appropriate, their Group Case.

Engagement / Assignments:

• Pre-visit prompt (submitted before the visit): students identify what they will attend during the visit and set a personal focus for intercultural leadership practice.
• On-site evidence collection: structured observation notes and, where permitted, short conversations with staff/participants (with consent). Evidence feeds into Portfolio Major Entry 3 and may inform the Group Case.

Required readings /Preparatory Materials: 

• Short organisational profile and practical briefing for the selected organisation/company (provided by instructor/host).
• Inclusive leadership lens (short excerpt provided by instructor): Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203. (Selected excerpt provided.)

Class 15.0 

Intercultural Competence & Digital Storytelling Integration

Date/Time: 

Tuesday 10 February 2026, 13:00–15:30

Students revisit intercultural competence frameworks (DMIS/IDI) and reflect on how their perspectives have shifted through fieldwork and coursework. They workshop how to weave theory, field experiences, and personal voice into their Digital Cultural Analysis and final portfolio synthesis. Groups deliver their “Amsterdam Case” presentations, demonstrating how a specific local issue can be analysed through course frameworks and Amsterdam-based evidence. 

Engagement / Assignments:

• Digital Cultural Analysis (DCA) due (submission format options and requirements provided in Canvas).
• Group “Amsterdam Case” Project due (live presentation and individual reflection submitted via Canvas).
• Students complete a short intercultural competence self-check and identify one concrete competence goal for the final session.

Required readings:

• Self-evaluation lens (short excerpt, provided by instructor): Hammer, M. R. (2012). The Intercultural Development Inventory: A new frontier in assessment and development of intercultural competence. In Student learning abroad (pp. 115–136). 
• Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. (Provided by instructor as a PDF in Canvas.) 

Recommended  readings:

• Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153916 desarrollodocente.uc.cl
• Hobbs, R. (2010). News literacy: What works and what doesn’t (pp. 1–9). (PDF provided by instructor in Canvas.)

Class 16.0 

Integration & Preparation for Final Leadership Assessment

Date/Time: 

Thursday 12 February 2026, 13:00–15:30

This final session consolidates learning from across the block. The class then completes the Leadership Studio (Leadership-in-Action Assessment): a live, team-based assessment in which students respond to three real-world Amsterdam leadership prompts, rotating roles and producing structured responses grounded in evidence, mechanism reasoning, stakeholder trade-offs, and feasible action planning. The course concludes with a brief synthesis and an end-of-course evaluation.

Engagement / Assignments:

• Leadership-in-Action: Leadership Studio carried out in class 
• Portfolio due (complete portfolio submission, including synthesis essay and LO Evidence Map appendix; submission via Canvas or agreed format).
• End-of-course evaluation completed.

Course Materials / Reference List

Core Readings:

• Agyekum, K. (2006). The sociolinguistics of Akan personal names. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 15(2), 206–235.
• Ali, D. (2017). Safe spaces and brave spaces. NASPA Research and Policy Institute, 2, 1–13.
• Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Readings (pp. 1–34). Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.
• Charlotte Fofo Lomotey & Kofi Agyekum. (2011). The semiotics of hand gestures in Akan. Issues in Intercultural Communication, 4(2), 119–139.
• Deutscher, G. (2010). Does language shape how you think? The New York Times Magazine (Aug 26).
• Dooly, M., & Vallejo Rubinstein, C. (2018). Bridging across languages and cultures in everyday lives: An expanding role for critical intercultural communication. Language and Intercultural Communication, 18(1), 1–8.
• Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine.
• Fang, X., Sauter, D. A., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2018). Seeing mixed emotions: The specificity of emotion perception from static and dynamic facial expressions across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(1), 130–148.
• Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.
• Gerring, J. et al. (2019). Who rules the world? A portrait of the global leadership class. Perspectives on Politics, 17(4), 1079–1097.
• Hall, S. (1997). The spectacle of the ‘Other’. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (pp. 225–256; 257–277). London: Sage.
• Hammer, M. R. (2012). The Intercultural Development Inventory: A new frontier in assessment and development of intercultural competence. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student Learning Abroad (Ch. 5, pp. 115–136). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). The rules of the social game. In Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed., pp. 3–26). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Liu, W. M. (2017). White male power and privilege: The relationship between White supremacy and social class. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(4), 349–358.
• Maraj, L. M., Prasad, P., & Roundtree, S. V. (2019). #BlackLivesMatter: pasts, presents, and futures. Prose Studies, 40(1–2), 1–14.
• Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2010). Culture, communication, context and power. In Intercultural Communication in Contexts (5th ed., pp. 83–115). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Minkov, M. (2013). Cross-Cultural Analysis: The Science and Art of Comparing the World’s Modern Societies and their Cultures. London: Sage. (selected pages).
• Nathan, R. (2005). My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by Becoming a Student. Ch. 4, “As Others See Us: The Classroom Experience” (pp. 77–85).
• Plous, S. (2003). The psychology of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination: An overview. In S. Plous (Ed.), Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 3–48). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2019). Revitalising leadership for a humane world. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(3), 374–377.
• Schaetti, B. F., Ramsey, S. J., & Watanabe, G. C. (2008). Personal Leadership: Making a World of Difference: A Methodology of Two Principles and Six Practices. Seattle, WA: FlyingKite Publications. (Part III, selected pages).
• Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2012). What is culture shock? In Understanding Intercultural Communication (pp. 91–109). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2012). What is the connection between verbal communication and culture? In Understanding Intercultural Communication (pp. 110–129). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2012). What are the different ways to communicate nonverbally across cultures? In Understanding Intercultural Communication (pp. 130–153). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2019). Sojourners’ culture shock and intercultural adjustment patterns. In Communicating Across Cultures (pp. 72–100). New York: Guilford.
• Zemach-Bersin, T. (2007). Global citizenship & study abroad: It’s all about U.S. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 1(2), 16–28.

New / additional readings

• Kalmar, I. (2022). White But Not Quite: Central Europe’s Illiberal Revolt. (Short excerpt on Eastern Europeanism / “white but not quite”).
• Japanese Protocol Association article on the Emperor of Japan–Trump meeting (short excerpt used for protocol lab).

Media / Online Resources

• Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. (2009). The danger of a single story. TED Talk.
• “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?” (NYT interactive / online version of Deutscher article).
• Selected Dutch policy and information pages (e.g. Dutch government / Trimbos Institute summaries of drugs policy).
• Selected Dutch media artefacts chosen by students for the Digital Cultural Analysis (news articles, campaigns, clips).