Abstract:

Intercultural concerns (Ouellet, 2002, Perrotti, 1989) and intercultural dialogue and living together (Abdallah-Pretceille, 1999) are a constant presence in the democratic educational discourses and are recognized as necessary conditions for individuals to be able to act with intercultural competence (Carneiro, 2003; Delors, 2001; Diaz-Águado, 2006; Jimenez, 2010, 2012). This capacity to recognize that the encounter with cultural diversity promotes and supports a kind of personal and societal heritage of citizenship is also a capacity to promote intercultural communication and dialogue, and is understood as a practice that allows the valorization and promotion of opportunities for hospitality, sharing culture diversity and intercultural dialogue (Abdallah-Pretceille, 1999).

This study aims:
(i) to describe the nine vectors of citizenship and interculturalism (thoughts, attitudes and experiences), measured by the Inventory of Intercultural Concerns (IPI; Pinheiro & Reis, 2013; Pinheiro & Reis 2016),
(ii) to explore the relations between those concerns vectors and motivations for social contact and social competencies, measured through the Interpersonal Orientation Scale (portuguese version by Pinheiro & Ferreira, 2003; Hill, 1987),
(iii) and to reflect about applications and implications of the results in the university as a context of Social Education.

The results obtained in a sample of 189 Portuguese university students showed that the top five most relevant and consistent vectors scores of intercultural concerns are intercultural dialogue, hospitality, preservation of life on the planet and sustainable development, intercultural education and critical participation in life and in democratic deliberation. In general, those intercultural concerns are positively associated [correlations varied between .217 (p<.01) and .657 (p<.001)] and all of them are related with the measure of motivation for social contact, especially with the dimensions of social competencies, motivation to achieve positive stimulation, obtain emotional support and perform social comparison from interpersonal relationships.

Overall, and as expected concerning the literature, IPI seems to reflect and assess participants' intercultural concerns, experiences and beliefs in the categories of: democratic dialogue and living together (Abdallah-Pretceille, 1999) (composed by intercultural dialogue and hospitality); intercultural citizenship (Ouellet, 2002) (composed by preservation of life on the planet and sustainable development); critical participation in life and in democratic deliberation (Ouellet, 2002, Perrotti, 1989) (composed by equity and equal opportunities, and social cohesion); and intercultural education (Carneiro, 2003; Delors, 2001; Diaz-Águado, 2006; Jimenez, 2010, 2012) (composed by intercultural education; interculturality and Human Rights, and cultural diversity).

In the scope of Social Education, the Intercultural Education is seen as the practice of seeking integration between people without neglecting their diversity and without fostering the creative and vital potential resulting from the relations between different agents and their respective contexts (Fleuri, 2005). Therefore, this paper presents a set of formal, non formal and informal proposals for democratic dialogue and living together at the university as a context of Social Education.

Keywords:

Social Education, Intercultural Education, Intercultural concerns, Integration, Intercultural Dialogue and Living Together.