CIICPD 2023

In this context, Gaisch et al. (2021) state that Cultural Critical Incidents involve individuals of different heterogeneous groups. They draw on the definitions of Fiedler et al. (1970) and Thomas (1993) as situations in which the interacting persons encounter barriers and misunderstandings or experience conflictual, irritating or puzzling situations that need to be interpreted differently from their internalised way of thinking. With this knowledge in mind, it may be interesting to look at different cultural situations and relevant tools that allow for an assessment of behavioural patterns within a diversity-specific setting. For these purposes, models, tools and frameworks conceived in the context of diversity management are outlined in detail. More specifically, the authors are interested in higher education settings and will introduce in the following section the HEAD Wheel which was specifically designed for the tertiary level. 2.2 Diversity Management – Tools and Frameworks On a general note, diversity is outlined by introducing various authors highlighting the types of differentiations and categories that can be distinguished. The Loden and Rosener model (1991) distinguishes between ascribed or primary differences and those that are acquired or secondary. Ascribed differences are inherited by the person, so they cannot be changed; acquired differences depend on the individual’s choices in relation to the contexts s/he experiences. The Lee Gardenswartz and Anita Rowe model (1994) defines the various components of individual diversity, placing them on different levels of a circle or rather wheel. At the centre of the diversity wheel are personalities, the most stable part of the psychological characteristics of a person. They are thus difficult to modify. Although numerous models were conceived that help to explain diversity management (Loden, 1996; Loden and Rosener, 1991; Gardenswarts and Rowe, 1998; Johnson, 2001), there has been no framework so far that explicitly addressed the context of higher education and its specific requirements. Despite their usefulness and proven effectiveness, these models were put forward either for professional or transversal settings and do not take account of university-specific requirements. Therefore, it may be interesting to introduce a university-sensitive framework that allows for the assessment of critical incidents in line with a higher education context. As previously outlined, the ECIA also integrates situational and procedural elements of analysis. For this reason, the framework at hand – the HEAD Wheel – may be a useful tool. When looking at persons studying or working at an institution of higher learning, it needs to be outlined that they draw on a variety of demographic, cognitive, disciplinary, functional and institutional backgrounds that flow into one another, mostly with no defined borders (Gaisch et al, 2019; Gaisch et al, 2017). In this sense, the HEAD Wheel (Gaisch and Aichinger, 2016; Gaisch et al, 2019), short for H igher E ducation A wareness for D iversity, serves as a comprehensive frame of reference for a holistic diversity management that embraces five interconnected segments (Figure 1). It may be understood as an all-encompassing lens that takes account of the reality that people “have both multiple differences and similarities”

114