Last Updated (Monday, 23 May 2011 10:53)

SIETAR ITALIA

MANIFESTO

Where SIETAR Began
Albert R. Wight, Ph.D.

Prepared for the SIETAR Global Conference, October 2008

The idea of SIETAR developed in a cross-cultural training conference sponsored by the US Peace Corps in October 1968, forty years ago, high in the mountains of Colorado. The 1960s was a time of social unrest and turmoil, a time of rebellion against “the establishment,” against traditional values, mores, and institutions, perhaps best known, at least in the U.S., for the hippie movement, drug culture, and experiments in communal living. But it was also a period of idealism, soul-searching, and social responsibility, concern about racial discrimination, injustice, inequity, and prejudice—punctuated by student protests, marches, sit-ins, and other demonstrations against racism and discrimination in the U.S. and against the war in Vietnam.

Many social programs evolved in the 1960s: the US Peace Corps, sending volunteers to developing countries throughout the world; domestic programs in the U.S. (Vista, Teacher Corps, Job Corps, New Careers), and, in Canada, New Start. These programs were mainly concerned with poverty and lack of opportunity, working with the poor and underprivileged to help improve their lot in life, and to reduce inequity and discrimination. I was fortunate to work with all of these programs at one time or another.
The Peace Corps, started by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, contracted with universities to do most of the training.ⁱ Most Peace Corps volunteers were recent university graduates, however, caught up in the idealism and revolutionary ideas of the time, looking forward to doing something active and meaningful in their life, and with little patience for sitting through more lectures from university professors. As a result, the Peace Corps soon became disenchanted with the traditional, lecture-oriented training in the universities and encouraged trainers and training institutions to experiment with non-traditional training methods.
I became involved in research for the Peace Corps in 1964, as a graduate student at the University of Utah. The research initially was to identify the characteristics of creative Peace Corps volunteers, based on the assumption that creative persons would be the most effective volunteers. But at my urging, and with the concurrence of the Peace Corps, the research soon evolved into identification of differences between effective and ineffective volunteers, to the consternation of the lead psychologist on the project and chairman of my doctoral committee, Dr. Calvin Taylor, who was known for his research in the area of creativity. Rather than creativity, we found the main difference in volunteers to be a “project orientation” as opposed to what I called a “human development orientation.” Project-oriented volunteers were those who felt it was their responsibility to identify projects for the commu nity and bring together the resources needed. The people of the community too often saw these as Peace Corps projects, not their own, and had little commitment to them. Human development-oriented volunteers, on the other hand, were those who worked with the community to help identify projects the people themselves felt they needed and to help them find the resources required to carry out the projects. These were the projects that were more likely to be sustainable.
Beginning with a demonstration program at Utah State University, I soon became involved with Peace Corps training as a consultant and trainer throughout the United States and at the Peace Corps training centers in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Escondido, California, and was contracted to write a training manual for Peace Corps Community Development. In 1968, I was asked by the Peace Corps to pull together the best of what had been developed in cross-cultural training up to that time and prepare the Guidelines for Cross-Cultural Training.
It was agreed that the training should be based on the instrumented methodology developed by Dr. Robert Blake at the University of Texas and the National Training Laboratories. I had trained with Bob Blake and had extensive experience using the methodology with a wide variety of training populations, from institutionalized delinquents to managers in major corporations.ⁱⁱ The instrumented approach was to serve as a central, unifying methodology within which to incorporate the entire training program, as opposed to a collection of exercises, lectures, etc. Too many trainers to this day see training simply as a collection of training activities.
The lecture and instrumented, participatory methodologies represent two fundamentally different and diametrically opposed orientations, which we see in people in all walks of life—basically an authoritarian, directive, controlling, take charge approach versus a democratic, participatory, facilitative, exploratory approach. The training was to be experiential—active, not passive; participatory, not authoritarian; trainee-centered, not trainer-centered; and problem-oriented, not information transmission/rote learning-oriented.
Some trainers, particularly university professors, could not accept the assumption that the lecture approach was not effective in attitude change and development of effective, constructive attitudes and behavior, and particularly in learning. Many people, particularly those who are control-oriented by nature, dismiss such activities as “unstructured, laissez-faire, ineffective, and irresponsible.” Participatory activities can be all these if not managed properly. Effectiveness of such activities requires an understanding of the methodology and skill in its application. Instrumented participatory activities, when properly conducted, are highly structured, not unstructured, but the structure is very different from that found in the traditional classroom.ⁱⁱⁱ
The underlying assumption is that you don’t change attitudes and behavior, particularly long-standing, deep-seated, strongly-held attitudes and behavior, by telling people what they should do. You don’t treat such things as acceptance of and effective relations with other cultural, racial or ethnic groups as subject matter, to be taught through traditional information transmission methods. Instead, you treat these as issues to be confronted and problems to be solved, and engage the participants in the process. You achieve change by helping people assess the problems and issues and decide for themselves what they need and want to do, often challenging some of their basic beliefs and assumptions, then guiding and supporting them in exploring alternatives, examining probable effectiveness and consequences, finding their own solutions, and identifying and practicing the new skills required. People see the relevance of solutions they find to problems they want to solve, of answers to questions they ask, and are then committed to implementation of decisions they take. The individuals, and group, need to feel that they themselves have assessed the issues and problems and arrived at responsible decisions, that they know what must be done, and that they have the obligation and commitment to take action.^iv
In October of 1968, as a part of the project to develop the Cross-Cultural Training Guidelines, we held a conference in Estes Park, Colorado, at the Center for Research and Education (CRE), a major contractor for Peace Corps training. The Peace Corps invited a number of persons considered to be doing the most significant work in the intercultural field to the conference—an interesting and talented group of persons representing many different professions and institutions. Many of these names will be recognized as persons who have remained active in the intercultural field.^v
This, to our knowledge, was the first major conference of intercultural or cross-cultural specialists. It was a heady experience. The discussions were lively and stimulating, not so much because of the beautiful setting, the high altitude, and the cool, crisp air, but because of the ideas exchanged, and their potential significance for communication and understanding among peoples of the world. Midway through the conference, we paused to reflect on the process and experience, and observed that none of us had ever before had an opportunity to exchange ideas and experiences related to cross-cultural communication, adaptation, and training with such a diverse group with similar interests and concerns. Reg Batten commented that he had found no one in all of England with whom he could talk about such things. Steve Rhinesmith^vi then suggested that we form a society which would allow us to continue this association, not only with this group but with an ever-expanding group of persons with similar interests. The group was unanimous in its agreement.
Since the purpose of the conference was to share ideas for the Peace Corps Cross-Cultural Training Guidelines, we were not able to spend much time pursuing Steve’s suggestion, but during our breaks and spare time, we discussed the purpose of the society, the form it might take, and brainstormed possible names. We settled on the Society for Intercultural Training and Research, SITAR (the Indian musical instrument), because we liked the acronym. (This was later changed to SIETAR, to accommodate members from education.) I was asked by the group to serve as the interim executive director, and CRE agreed to serve temporarily as sponsoring organization. We formed a steering committee and agreed to continue the work we had started at the conference.
Then came the work. Through correspondence and phone calls with the participants and others, we began formulating a more definitive statement of purpose and objectives, developing criteria for membership, exploring possibilities for funding, identifying potential members, and expanding the mailing list. All of this had to be done while carrying out the monumental task of writing the draft Peace Corps Cross-Cultural Training Guidelines and a Peace Corps Training and Assessment Manual. The draft Guidelines were reviewed in a spring conference with Peace Corps personnel and tested in 1969 summer training programs.
We had planned to hold an official organizing meeting in conjunction with a November 1969 conference to review a second draft of the Guidelines, but Peace Corps fell victim to the upheaval in Washington as the Nixon administration took power. A pall fell over the Peace Corps office in Washington. Whereas previously the lights would be on and people would be working until late into the night, now you could seldom find anyone in the building after 5 PM. Nixon and his people rejected the idea of generalists as Peace Corps volunteers, and focused on recruiting of technically qualified persons to bring their expertise to developing countries. A new Director of Training Support took control of the Guidelines project, with the assumption that anything done by his predecessors in Peace Corps was suspect. Countless hours, days, and weeks were wasted explaining what we were doing and why, dealing with arguments over insignificant details, and meeting his and his staff’s needs to assure themselves that they were firmly in control. The November conference was limited to Peace Corps participants, with only a couple outside consultants. Although we had planned to continue with the original group as a steering committee for the Guidelines, only one person, Reg Batten, was allowed to participate. We were able to bring in one new person, Dr. Bernard Bass,^vii because of his significant experience and contributions in the field of international management training. Needless to say, any mention of SITAR at the conference was out of the question, and the plans for an official organizing meeting had to be postponed.
In 1970, efforts continued to expand the SITAR mailing list and obtain funding for an organizing conference (while completing the final rewriting of the Guidelines andTraining and Assessment Manual, conducting a three month Peace Corps training program in Micronesia, and making trips to Brazil and Costa Rica). In the spring of 1971, we decided that funding or no funding, we would hold another SITAR meeting, sandwiched in between two training programs, one for Peace Corps trainers and the other for persons not involved with Peace Corps. This would allow persons from either program to take part. We did not have the funds to bring the original group to the meeting, but the new group of participants was an excellent addition, and represented expanded interests beyond the Peace Corps. Most became active in SIETAR International, and some served on the governing council.^viii
This was a working conference, held in May of 1971, to review the objectives, proposed organizational structure and charter, membership criteria and categories, name, funding, location, etc. Much of the work had already been done by the earlier group and others who contributed along the way, but it was polished and ratified by the new group. The primary purpose of SITAR, we agreed, was to promote intercultural, interracial, and international understanding, communication, and cooperation. It was agreed that SITAR should not be the purview of any one professional group but should be interdisciplinary, that it should be an international organization, and that its focus should be more practical than academic, but providing opportunities for practitioners and researchers to dialog and to collaborate. It was agreed also that it should not be an elitist organization, but one that would welcome neophytes and give them an opportunity to learn from the veterans.
It was suggested that initially the central office might rotate among cooperating universities. The East-West Center of the University of Hawaii was suggested as a possible sponsor, but this was rejected by the group because of its focus on one part of the world, East Asia and the Pacific. The University of Utah and University of Pittsburgh were also considered, because of the interests of persons at those institutions.
A new steering committee, taken from the original group and the participants of the 1971 conference, and including Irene Pinkau of the International Secretariat for Volunteer Services, was selected to assist and advise the executive director (myself). But after a summer in Brazil, I transferred to Utah, to head up a project for the Office of Education, and no longer had the base of CRE support. Drs. Phil Hammond and Seymour Parker, professor and chairman of the Anthropology Department of the University of Utah, were interested in assuming the sponsorship of SITAR, but the academic vice president refused to give his approval because he said he would have to be assured of the professionalism of the society before he would allow the university to be associated with it. He was not convinced by the impressive list of names and affiliations we provided.
Steve Rhinesmith and I then approached the University of Pittsburgh, which had an Intercultural Communication Project funded by the US Department of State. After consulting with the State Department, they agreed to become the sponsors of SITAR. There was no conflict of interest with their project. The project’s newsletter,Communique, would also serve as the newsletter for SITAR. I passed the reins, the records, and the mailing list to David Hoopes, director of the project, who then carried on with the work we had started, and ultimately succeeded in holding a very successful official SIETAR organizing conference in Washington, D.C., in 1974.
For those of us who attended the workshop in 1968 in Estes Park, Colorado, however, this was where it all began.
i
^ Most cross-cultural training in the 1960s, to our knowledge, was with the U.S. Peace Corps. In 1969, Mike Tucker and I conducted a survey of international corporations in the U.S. to determine whether any might be interested in cross-cultural training for the people they were sending overseas. In spite of the research showing the high incidence and cost of failure overseas, the typical response was: “If the other countries want our knowledge and expertise they will take us the way we are, and if our people want to stay with the company they will go where we send them.” In the 1970s, however, the U.S. companies began to feel the competition, primarily from Japan, and became interested in training for overseas assignment. CRE became heavily involved in such training. The training we developed there is being continued up to the present time by Mike Tucker through Tucker International in Boulder, Colorado.
ii Dr. Robert Morton, another disciple of Bob Blake, had developed the very successful Patient Training Laboratory for institutionalized psychiatric patients at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Houston, Texas, based on the instrumented methodology. He and I had then developed the Organizational Training Laboratory for Aerojet-General Corporation, which he continued to conduct as a private consultant until he retired.
iii Some persons criticized the training as being appropriate only for the American culture. It has been used and shown to be effective with many different cultural groups around the world, however, including American Indians, whose culture is very different from that of the dominant White American culture.
iv The hope and intent was that the Peace Corps volunteers would incorporate and use the orientation in their work in community development. A good example of this was James Doxsey, a trainee in the second demonstration project which I conducted for the Peace Corps in Texas. He very successfully used the methodology as a volunteer in community development work in Costa Rica. Later he worked as a trainer in a number of Peace Corps programs, worked with me to develop training for public school teachers and administrators, married a Brazilian, became a Brazilian citizen and sociology professor at a university in Brazil, and, now retired, is still very active as a consultant in social programs in Brazil.
v Participants attending the conference, besides myself, were:
Harry Triandis, professor of psychology at the University of Illinois;
Edward C. Stewart, intercultural training specialist, University of Pittsburgh;
David Kolb, assistant professor of organizational psychology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Art Niehoff, professor of anthropology at California State College in Los Angeles;
Glendon Casto, educational psychologist at Utah State University;
T. R. Batten, reader in community development studies, University of London;
Stephen Rhinesmith, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh;
Richard L. Hopkins, Westinghouse Learning Corporation;
Stephen E. Guild, Center for International Education, University of Massachusetts;
Bryant Wedge, social psychiatrist with the Edward R. Murrow Center of Public Diplomacy, Tufts University;
Jeremy B. Taylor (representing Jack Donoghue), Community Development specialist, Peace Corps Training Center, Escondido, California; and
Phillips Ruopp, representing the Office of Program Planning and Review, US Peace Corps, Washington.
vi Steve Rhinesmith later served as President of SIETAR, and remained active in the intercultural field.
vii Bernie Bass (now deceased) and I had worked together in management training. While having a beer together one evening we discovered that we were born exactly the same day and year.
viii
^ Participants, besides myself, were:
Philip C. Hammond, anthropologist from the University of Utah;
Agnes M. Niyekawa-Howard, East-West Center, University of Hawaii;
Henry Holmes, University of Massachussets;
Ragu Nath and Melvin Schnapper, University of Pittsburgh;
Roger Baty, Johnston College, University of Redlands, California;
Reverend Ronald L. DuBois, Maryknoll College, Illinois;
Reverend George McShea, Maryknoll Fathers, Colorado;
Paul Yount, Missionary Orientation Center, Stony Point, New York;
James Doxsey, Institute for InterAmerican Studies, University of Miami (recently retired sociologist with the University of Espirito Santo in Brazil); and
Michael Tucker, then with CRE but formerly with the Peace Corps Training Center in Puerto Rico (and before that, beginning in 1964, with me on the Peace Corps research project at the University of Utah and Peace Corps training at Utah State University and Thiokol Chemical Corporation).

Last Updated (Monday, 23 May 2011 10:54) Written by Patrick Boylan Monday, 10 March 2008 00:00

The birth of SIETAR-ITALIA and the growth of the concept of intercultural communication in Italy

originally published for the SIETAR-Europa Newsletter

It has taken a while but, at last, the Italian branch of SIETAR-Europa is about to be born. The official event is scheduled for June 22^ndand 23^rd in Milan after a year of groundwork undertaken first by a Promoting Committee made up of Elio Vera, Patrick Boylan and David Trickey, and then by a pro-tem Executive composed of the same people plus Milton Bennett, Ida Castiglioni, Ariella Cuk, Marco Muzzana, and Roberto Ruffino. Elio Vera is acting President.
Italy is by no means new to SIETAR initiatives. The very first SIETAR-Europa congress (after an organizational meeting held in Haarlem, The Netherlands, in 1991) was held at Colle Val d'Elsa in 1992 with Roberto Ruffino as coordinator; and the 8^th SIETAR-Europa congress, coordinated by Ariella Cuk with the help of Ruffino and Boylan, was held in Trieste in 1999. In addition, Italians have served for years on the SIETAR-Europa board as “representatives at-large” (currently Elio Vera is filling the role) and have participated actively in various on-line communities of intercultural specialists, such as dialogin.com.
But somehow the pieces have, up to now, never come together. One reason is that there have been too few Italian intercultural specialists to reach a critical mass.
This lack is partially due to the relatively small demand for intercultural trainers in Italy. Most Italian companies are small-to-medium family-run affairs; owners believe that the family atmosphere in their enterprises will guarantee sufficient cohesion among their multicultural workforce (itself a novelty for Italy, which had the smallest non-national workforce in Europe up to 5 years ago). As for the need to learn intercultural communication (IC) for business dealings abroad or when launching joint ventures, a few large Italian enterprises, such as ENI and FIAT, do have a long-standing tradition in IC training. But the overwhelming majority of Italian top managers continue to be convinced that the typically Italian (read: “friendly and likeable”) personality of their representatives is all that it takes to smooth over any relationship. Of course, it was not enough to smooth over relations between Alitalia and KLM: these two companies divorced after a brief marriage in 2000 because of “incompatibility” (and the subsequent happy marriage between KLM and Air France suggests that the lack of adaptability was not on the part of the Dutch). After that disaster, the more perceptive Italian managers began to take interest in IC training for their staff.
Thus, given that most members of any SIETAR are trainers and given that trainers have been scarce in Italy up to now, interest in founding a SIETAR-Italia has therefore been scarce as well.
This is not to forget the small but important categories of academics and social workers present in SIETARs everywhere. Both categories are quite plentiful in Italy but until late have been interested almost exclusively in intercultural practices for managing the influx of immigrants, not in studying intercultural communicative competence, the dynamics of asymmetrical communication or the other linguistic and discoursal aspects of IC. The first chair of Intercultural Education(Francesco Susi's at the University of Rome I, “La Sapienza”) was in fact created to provide schoolteachers with the concepts needed to handle multicultural classes. SIETARian Ida Castiglioni teaches IC at the University of Milan “Bicocca” in a post-graduate program that deals with the Management of social services. Interculturando, one of the larger cooperatives working in the social services sector, gets most of its contracts from local school boards and local government agencies to help teachers and administrators cope with the special needs of a multicultural population. Of course, linguistic and discoursal phenomena are also discussed during lessons and training sessions; nonetheless, the focus remains on describing cultures and on developing “right attitudes” towards diversity.
Thus the work of academics in Italy like Patrick Boylan – who teach IC essentially as interpreting and reproducing another speaker's language – is a novelty, although by no means a recent one. Boylan has taught “English for Intercultural Communication”, first at Rome I and then at Rome III, since 1980; his Italian students learn to accommodate in English to speakers from any culture, guessing their interlocutor's mind set from linguistic and behavioral clues. But although Rome III now has an official curriculum in Languages for “Operators in Intercultural Communication”, the program still lacks specific courses on IC as such, and thus remains basically a degree course in linguistics. A wider range of subjects can be found in the “languages and IC” programs at the universities of Chieti (Pescara), Genova, L'Aquila, Siena (Arezzo) and Torino. Last month SIETARian David Katan of the University of Lecce, who also teaches English as IC, launched an academic journal to promote applied IC research, with particular emphasis on language-related issues such as communicative competence (Cultus, www.cultusjournal.com – published in English).

In a word, the view of interculturality as primarily a phenomenon of communication (in which verbal/non-verbal language is used not only to represent something or to do something, but above all to be something in a certain way) has begun to circulate in Italian academia. Nonetheless, most university teaching and research done in Italy today treats “interculturality” simply as a question of how to organize multicultural societies faced with the challenges of large-scale immigration.
An analogous situation reigns among social workers in Italy. These professionals are generally called in to mediate between institutions (schools, hospitals, government agencies...) and the immigrant population when culture clashes occur, or seem likely to. Their IC expertise is therefore seen as an ability to grasp the causes of such clashes and propose quick fixes that work. This is its “fire brigade function”. Their IC expertise is also seen as having a “preventive function”, aimed at defusing culture clashes before they arise: this involves, for example, using consciousness-raising techniques to get subjects at risk to relativise such constructs as “normality” and “diversity” and to unmask the underlying phobias and power-ploys at work. Not always, however, do Italian social workers use their IC expertise to bring about volitional (and not merely cognitive) change inthemselves, as well as in the subjects they are working with. And even less frequently do they do so by acquiring and using the loaded languages of their culturally-diverse subjects – and then getting the latter to do the same among each other. (NOTE: In acquiring another person's way of saying and seeing things, onedisplaces oneself into her/his linguistic and cultural world, therebyproducing a structural change in the relationship and eventually a “third space” permitting entente.)

Thus the non-business-related talks and workshops at SIETAR-Europa congresses, especially those that deal with such abstract constructs as volitional change,displacement and third spaces, do not seem sufficiently relevant to many social workers in Italy.  Besides, in-depth training of the kind that these words suggest takes considerable time, which few schools or agencies are willing to finance. Many social workers attempt it anyway, as much as possible; but they still need a number of quick fixes and recipes to hand out, so that subjects get something tangible to take home. And since SIETAR-Europa congresses offer few talks and workshops dedicated specifically to “immigrant problems” and their solutions (Jonathan Levy and SIETAR-France's recent initiatives are a happy exception), attendance from the social sector in Italy has been low.
So in this quasi void, how did SIETAR-Italia manage to start up? What got it going?
Late in 2006 SIETAR-Europa board member George Simons convinced Elio Vera to do an exploratory study of interest in Italy; Vera enlisted Patrick Boylan to send out a general call and at the first preliminary meeting in Milan on April 4^th, 2007, in the offices of Massimiliano Santoro's Prospecta, eleven people showed up. No one had expected that many. By the fourth preliminary meeting in Rome on December 7^th and 8^th in the offices of Bob Ratto's Byron Language Development, attendance had doubled.
To stimulate interest in creating an association dedicated to raising professional standards, and not simply for networking, Boylan launched the idea of joint research projects and David Trickey supplied the theme: “Building trust in intercultural contexts (with specific reference to Italy)”. Trickey also accepted to demonstrate, during the following preliminary meetings, some of the TCO methods he uses to awaken trainees to issues of trust in multicultural contexts. (Given how jealous some trainers are of their techniques, this was in itself a lesson in trust).
As for the first research project, Boylan elaborated a series of parameters to be used in describing “intercultural incidents” involving trust that the members of SIETAR-Italia had witnessed or had been involved in. These would constitute a data base for use in handling future similar circumstances. For the second project, Trickey, aided by Mariana Crestani, elaborated a questionnaire to get the opinion of trainers in Italy and throughout the world as to the importance, in building trust, of certain parameters in particular. Boylan created a simple web page (at www.sietar-italia.org) where anyone can participate in these two research projects or, in any case, see the results as they develop.
Meanwhile Vera collected copies of Statues from various SIETARs and appointed a committee (Goffredo Diana, Peter Anderson, Paolo Viel) to draft a version for SIETAR-Italia. The statues should be ready for voting at the forthcoming meeting on April 5^th and 6^th at the headquarters of Ruffino's Intercultura in Colle Val D'Elsa. Dues will be collected to finance the legal constitution of SIETAR-Italia and a temporary treasurer will be appointed at the meeting.
Vera also embarked on a one-man PR campaign throughout Italy and abroad, to “put SIETAR-Italia on the map”; he also maintained an intense correspondence with his contacts. He investigated notary costs, procured the web site, arranged for meetings and got minutes made afterwards.
Finally Vera promoted interest in the SIETAR-Global congress (of which he is also an organizer) in Granada next October. He nominated a “Granada committee” (Patrizia Amenta, Mariana Crestani, Daniela De Gregorio, Giovanni Intilla) to write a paper as a contribution from SIETAR-Italia, using the preliminary findings of the research projects on trust. The initial draft of the paper will be presented at the Milan meeting of SIETAR-Italia in June, as part of the “official launch” ceremonies.
If all goes well, then, June 22^nd in Milan marks the date! The gestation of SIETAR-Italia will have taken 444 days (which, according to Wikipedia, is exactly the gestation period for baby giraffes!). A long wait, indeed, but at least by then the infant will be strong and healthy. A festive christening is being planned and Vera has invited all the SIETAR-Europa board members to it. Some, however, have a problem about coming. If the christening were for a human baby, they could always show up with a bottle warmer or rattle. But what does one bring a giraffe?

SIETAR ITALIA

STATUTO DELL’ASSOCIAZIONE

CAPITOLO I
Nome, scopo, e domicilio dell’associazione

1. Nome ed affiliazioni
1.1 L’Associazione SIETAR Italia (associazione culturale per l’educazione, formazione e ricerca interculturali), a seguire “SIETAR Italia” o l’”Associazione” è un associazione di professionisti interculturalisti che si costituisce come organizzazione internazionale non profit e non governativa.
1.2 SIETAR Italia è per sua natura un’associazione indipendente ed affiliata con l’associazione europea SIETAR (Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research) Europa che è a sua  volta associata alla rete mondiale delle organizzazioni SIETAR.

2. Scopo
2.1 SIETAR Italia aderisce alla missione generale delle organizzazioni SIETAR del mondo per la promozione dello scambio interculturale ed, in particolare, si pone i seguenti scopi istituzionali e senza fini di lucro:
a. creare e sostenere una rete italiana di interculturalisti;
b. promuovere l’educazione, la formazione e la ricerca alla e nella interculturalità ed offrire competenze specializzate in tali settori;
c. facilitare la consapevolezza di questioni interculturali nei processi decisionali, nelle attività produttive e nell’area formativa;
d. fornire il proprio contributo per risolvere questioni di criticità sociale facilitando la comunicazione tra persone di culture differenti;
e. contribuire allo sviluppo di standard professionali per l’attività di interculturalista, ivi compresa la creazione di un codice etico e deontologico;
f. promuovere sussidiarietà tra i soci e le strutture che, pur possedendo energie e risorse in misura differente, operano in comunione d’intenti per il perseguimento dell’attività sociale;
g. stipulare convenzioni con istituzioni pubbliche o private a favore dei propri associati;
h. realizzare marchi, loghi o denominazioni particolari in occasione di eventi propri o in collaborazione con associati e o con terzi;
i. effettuare servizi a favore degli associati in relazione alle competenze specifiche proprie dell’Associazione
j. adottare e gestire servizi diversi richiesti anche su incarico di amministrazioni pubbliche coerenti con le finalità statutarie;
k. gestire attività editoriali anche in collaborazione con organismi terzi o enti pubblici;
l. svolgere attività commerciali coerenti con le vigenti normative che regolano la gestione delle organizzazioni non lucrative di utilità sociale ONLUS.
Delle suddette attività è ammessa l’organizzazione di manifestazioni e lo svolgimento di attività marginali di carattere commerciale nel rispetto delle vigenti normative che regolano la gestione delle associazioni.
L’Associazione, nel rispetto dei limiti previsti dalla legislazione ed in via del tutto occasionale nonché strumentale al conseguimento del fine di solidarietà sociale, può compiere operazioni mobiliari, immobiliari, finanziarie ed assumere interessenze, quote, partecipazioni anche azionarie affini alle proprie finalità.

3. Sede
3.1 SIETAR Italia ha sede legale in Bergamo.
3.2 L’Associazione potrà istituire sedi secondarie, filiali o succursali qualora lo ritenga opportuno ai fini di una migliore organizzazione dell’attività sul territorio.

CAPITOLO II.
Iscrizione, tipologia di soci, diritti e doveri, esclusione

4. Associati
4.1 SIETAR Italia accoglie come associati (a seguire gli “Associati” o i “Soci”) soggetti che siano impegnati verso gli obiettivi e gli standard etici dell’Associazione e che sostengano e partecipino alle iniziative della stessa.
4.2 SIETAR Italia accoglie:
- persone fisiche con autonomia di decidere ed agire giuridicamente.
- persone giuridiche
secondo quanto stabilito dal presente Statuto.
4.3 Il Consiglio Direttivo (a seguire “Consiglio Direttivo” o “Consiglio”) si riserva il diritto di accettare, rifiutare o revocare l’iscrizione all’Associazione nel rispetto del Regolamento Interno qualora predisposto, ai fini esclusivi del miglior interesse per l’Associazione. Le decisioni di rifiuto o revoca dell’iscrizione di un associato dovranno essere poi ratificate dall’ Assemblea dei soci.

5. Categorie di Associati
Le categorie di Soci sono le seguenti:
- SOCI ORDINARI: persone o rappresentanti di istituzioni attive nel campo dell’intercultura che abbiano dimostrato interesse e capacità particolari nel campo dell'educazione, formazione e riceerca in ambito interculturale;
- SOCI SOSTENITORI: aziende, organizzazioni, enti pubblici o privati che offrano risorse proprie a sostegno dell'Associazione
- SOCI ONORARI: persone che abbiano contribuito  in maniera significativa all'avanzamento dell'educazione, formazione e ricerca sull'intercultura

6. Termini di iscrizione
6.1 Per l’iscrizione all’Associazione sono necessari:
- domanda d’iscrizione del candidato;
- approvazione da parte del Consiglio Direttivo;
- pagamento della quota d’iscrizione prevista.

7. Diritti dei Soci
7.1 Tutti i Soci hanno diritto a:
- partecipare alle attività dell’Associazione;
- presenziare alle riunioni dell’Assemblea dei Soci;
- ricevere informazioni riguardanti la composizione delle strutture di gestione e di rappresentanza dell’Associazione, lo stato del bilancio e gli sviluppi delle attività;
- ricevere un avvertimento di preavviso in caso di condotta che venga considerata non coerente con gli standard etici dell’Associazione ed essere ascoltati dagli organi competenti, compresa l’Assemblea dei Soci;
- ricevere eventuali pubblicazioni ordinarie dell’Associazione ed accedere alle adeguate risorse informatiche dell’Associazione;
- ricevere informazioni su corsi, seminari, incontri, conferenze, riunioni che vengano specificatamente organizzati dall’Associazione e godere di sconti particolari per tutte le attività co-gestite da SIETAR Italia o SIETAR Europa;
- ricevere gli elenchi dei Soci aggiornati con i nominativi, i recapiti ed i Gruppi di Lavoro di appartenenza.

8. Doveri dei Soci
8.1 I Soci sono responsabili:
- di accettare e rispettare i dettami previsti dallo Statuto e dal regolamento interno, qualora predisposto;
- del pagamento della loro quota associativa;
- dello svolgimento di ruoli elettivi secondo quanto definito nel presente Statuto e nel Regolamento Interno o, ove applicabile, su delega degli organi decisionali dell’Associazione;
- del rispetto delle decisioni regolarmente adottate dagli organi decisionali e rappresentativi dell’Associazione.
8.2 Gli importi delle quote associative e le quote richieste per lo svolgimento di attività promosse dall’Associazione vengono stabiliti dal Consiglio Direttivo.
8.3 L’iscrizione è valida per l’intero anno fiscale in corso e non verrà ripartita pro rata.
8.4 In alcuni casi eccezionali, il Consiglio Direttivo si può riservare il diritto di annullare o ridurre la quota associativa da applicare.

9. Cause di esclusione dall’Associazione
Le seguenti sono causa di rimozione definitiva dall’Associazione:
- separazione volontaria;
- mancato pagamento della quota associativa per oltre un anno;
- condotta non coerente con gli scopi e gli standard etici dell’Associazione secondo quanto rilevato dal Consiglio Direttivo o da chi esso delega a questo scopo. Sulla base di questa rilevazione, l’Assemblea dei Soci raccoglierà la proposta del Consiglio  Direttivo e deciderà in merito.

CAPITOLO III.
Organi

10. Organi decisionali
10.1 L’Assemblea dei Soci è la massima autorità decisionale dell’Associazione ed è composta da tutti i Soci. In seno all’Assemblea, i Soci Ordinari vi hanno potere di voto e la loro presenza ne stabilisce il quorum.
10.2 Il Consiglio Direttivo è la massima autorità gestionale dell’Associazione. Rappresenta e gestisce le attività e gli interessi dell’Associazione nel rispetto del presente Statuto e delle indicazioni dell’Assemblea dei Soci.

11. Assemblea dei Soci
11.1 L’Assemblea dei Soci viene convocata dal Consiglio Direttivo almeno una volta l’anno per l’approvazione dei bilanci e della relazione sulle attività svolte presentata dal Consiglio Direttivo. L’Assemblea può essere convocata anche da un terzo dei Soci Ordinari.
11.2 La convocazione all’Assemblea verrà inviata in forma scritta (fax, email, lettera, secondo la preferenza espressa dal Socio nella sua Scheda di Iscrizione) almeno 20 giorni solari prima del giorno dell’incontro.
11.3 Tutti i Soci possono prendere parte all’Assemblea; il quorum viene raggiunto quando la maggior parte dei Soci (metà più uno del totale) è presente alla prima convocazione. Qualora non si dovesse raggiungere tale maggioranza semplice dei Soci, ne sarà convocata una seconda per la quale non è necessario un quorum minimo di partecipazione. Le decisioni vengono prese con il voto favorevole della maggioranza (metà più uno) dei Soci presenti.
11.4 I Soci possono dar delega scritta di voto ad altri Soci in caso di impossibilità a partecipare alla riunione. Ogni Socio non può rappresentare più di due deleghe. L’Assemblea dei Soci è presieduta dal Presidente dell’Associazione o da un suo delegato. Il Presidente, di volta in volta, nominerà un segretario verbalizzante e, laddove opportuno per facilitare e controllare i processi di voto, un Comitato di Scrutatori che verrà riconosciuto e ratificato dall’Assemblea stessa. L'assemblea può svolgersi anche in più luoghi audio e/o video; le riunioni in audio o video conferenza sono ammesse purchè siano presenti nello stesso luogo il Presidente ed il segretario verbalizzante che provvederanno alla formazione e sottoscrizione del verbale e purché sia consentito al Presidente della riunione di accertare l'identità e la legittimazione degli intervenuti, regolare lo svolgimento dell'adunanza, constatare e proclamare i risultati della votazione. Gli intervenuti avranno diritto di partecipare alla discussione e alla votazione simultanea sugli argomenti all'ordine del giorno, nonchè di visionare, ricevere o trasmettere documenti.
11.5 L’Assemblea dei Soci delibera su:
- bilanci preventivi e consuntivi presentati dal Consiglio Direttivo;
- direttive generali per indirizzare l’attività esecutiva del Consiglio;
- nomina e revoca dei membri del Consiglio Direttivo;
- linee guida generali per le attività dei Gruppi di Lavoro;
- nomina e revoca dei membri del Comitato dei Saggi dietro proposta del Consiglio Direttivo;
- emendamenti allo Statuto (possibili solo se in presenza di almeno la metà più uno dei Soci Ordinari);
- scioglimento dell’Associazione ed eventuale ridistribuzione del patrimonio dell’Associazione (solo se sono presenti i due terzi del totale dei Soci Ordinari);
- qualsiasi altra materia di sua competenza nel rispetto della vigente normativa.

12. Consiglio Direttivo
12.1 Il Consiglio Direttivo è composto da un minimo di sette ad un massimo di dodici Consiglieri eletti dall’Assemblea dei Soci a maggioranza semplice (metà più uno dei presenti). Il Presidente del Consiglio Direttivo è anche Presidente dell’Associazione ne è il legale rappresentante e risponde per le obbligazioni verso i terzi. I Consiglieri operano con un mandato triennale, rinnovabile, ed ogni anno vengono indette nuove elezioni per il rinnovo scaglionato di un terzo dei Consiglieri.
12.2 In caso di dimissioni o decadenza di sino ad un terzo dei Consiglieri, il Consiglio resterà in carica sino alla successiva Assemblea dei Soci. Nell’evenienza in cui venisse a mancare più di un terzo dei Consiglieri, i restanti convocheranno immediatamente un’Assemblea Straordinaria per eleggere i sostituti.
12.3 ll Consiglio Direttivo si riunisce almeno due volte l’anno e viene convocato dal Presidente o su richiesta di almeno un terzo dei Consiglieri. La convocazione scritta verrà trasmessa e consegnata almeno dieci giorni di calendario prima della data prevista per la riunione. In casi eccezionali (es. particolari urgenze), le convocazioni verranno consegnate con un minimo di ventiquattro ore di anticipo. Le riunioni del Consiglio Direttivo possono svolgersi anche in più luoghi audio e/o video; le riunioni in audio o video conferenza sono ammesse purchè siano presenti nello stesso luogo il Presidente ed il segretario verbalizzante che provvederanno alla formazione e sottoscrizione del verbale e purché sia consentito al Presidente della riunione di accertare l'identità e la legittimazione degli intervenuti, regolare lo svolgimento dell'adunanza, constatare e proclamare i risultati della votazione. Gli intervenuti avranno diritto di partecipare alla discussione e alla votazione simultanea sugli argomenti all'ordine del giorno, nonchè di visionare, ricevere o trasmettere documenti.
12.4 Le delibere del Consiglio verranno prese da almeno una maggioranza semplice dei membri. Solo in caso di parità il voto del Presidente conterà doppio.
12.5 Il Consiglio Direttivo delibera riguardo a tutte le aree di attività ordinaria e straordinaria dell’Associazione come richiesto dagli scopi societari e dalla vigente normativa italiana ed europea.
12.6 Il Consiglio:
- elegge annualmente un Presidente, un Vicepresidente, un Segretario Generale tra i suoi membri e nomina un Tesoriere che può essere anche un socio non consigliere;
- nomina Comitati ad hoc con compiti specifici (es. Comitato Etico, Comitato di Bilancio, ecc);
- delibera in merito al Regolamento Interno e al Codice Deontologico;
- coordina la supervisione delle attività dei Gruppi di Lavoro e ne raccoglie i report di attività annuali;
- gestisce i rapporti con i Soci direttamente o tramite Comitati ad hoc;
- esamina le domande di iscrizione di nuovi candidati
- redige e presenta all’Assemblea un report annuale sulle proprie attività;
- delega al Presidente o, in sua assenza, al Vice Presidente o al Segretario Generale, i poteri di firma e rappresentanza dell’Associazione;
- sottopone all’Assemblea una lista di candidati per l’elezione del Comitato dei Saggi.
12.7 Il Segretario Generale ha la responsabilità operativa sulle attività dell’Associazione, partecipa alle riunioni del Consiglio, redige gli ordini del giorno ed i verbali delle stesse e ha potere di firma su ordini o altre forme di impegno finanziario previa autorizzazione del Presidente.
12.8 Presidente, Vice Presidente e Segretario Generale hanno facoltà di delegare parte delle suddette responsabilità previa comunicazione al Consiglio e sua approvazione.

13. Gruppi di Lavoro
13.1 I Gruppi di Lavoro sono gruppi di Soci autoformati o nominati dall’Assemblea o dal Consiglio per operare su compiti relativi alla vita associativa. Per essere riconosciuto come tale, un Gruppo di Lavoro di nuova costituzione presenterà il proprio progetto al Consiglio il quale potrà, qualora lo ritenga opportuno, portare all’attenzione dell’Assemblea la possibile creazione di tale Gruppo.
13.2 I Gruppi di Lavoro fanno capo al Consiglio che ne supervisiona le attività coerentemente con il mandato riconosciuto o assegnato al Gruppo stesso.
13.3 Né i Gruppi di Lavoro né i suoi membri possono in nessun modo impegnarsi per nome e conto dell’Associazione né rappresentarla nella sua totalità se non su specifica delega del Consiglio o dell’Assemblea.

14. Comitato dei Saggi
14.1 I membri del Comitato dei Saggi (minimo 3) sono professionisti di riconosciuta esperienza nel campo interculturale che offriranno guida e supervisione alle attività dell’Associazione tramite il loro ruolo consultivo.
14.2 Il Comitato dei Saggi potrà intervenire in caso di controversie tra i Soci con lo scopo di mediare senza la necessità di arbitraggio da parte di terzi.

CAPITOLO IV.
Varie

15. Finanze
15.1 SIETAR Italia è una organizzazione senza scopo di lucro le cui attività vengono finanziate principalmente tramite le seguenti fonti di entrata:
- quote associative;
- eredità, donazioni volontarie e legati da parte di terzi o associati;
- erogazioni liberali degli associati e di terzi;
- contributi dello Stato, delle Regioni, di Enti locali, di Enti o di Istituzioni pubbliche, anche finalizzati al sostegno di specifici e documentati programmi realizzati nell’ambito dei fini statutari;
- proventi delle cessioni di beni e servizi agli associati e terzi, anche attraverso lo svolgimento di attività economiche di natura commerciale, svolte in maniera ausiliaria e sussidiaria, e comunque finalizzate al raggiungimento degli obiettivi istituzionali.
Le quote associative non sono trasmissibili e neppure rivalutabili.
15.2 La conclusione dell’anno civile e fiscale per SIETAR Italia viene stabilita al 31 dicembre di ogni anno.
15.3 Il Consiglio Direttivo redige il bilancio della gestione dell’Associazione, da sottoporre all’approvazione assembleare; tale rendiconto deve informare circa la complessiva situazione economico-finanziaria dell’Associazione, deve essere redatto con chiarezza e deve rappresentare in modo veritiero e corretto la situazione patrimoniale, economico e finanziaria dell’Associazione nel rispetto del principio della trasparenza nei confronti degli associati.
15.4 Il bilancio della gestione è approvato dall’Assemblea entro il 30 aprile successivo alla chiusura dell’esercizio civile.
15.5 Gli eventuali utili, avanzi di gestione o riserve di capitale devono essere utilizzati per lo svolgimento delle attività sociali e non possono essere distribuiti, neppure in modo indiretto, ai soci.

16. Compensi, emendamenti e scioglimento
16.1 I Soci non ricevono compenso alcuno per l’espletamento delle attività dell’Associazione. In casi particolari, l’Associazione può contribuire alle spese di viaggio ed alloggio o ad altre spese sostenute dai membri del Consiglio o da altri Soci impegnati in progetti specifici approvati dal Consiglio secondo l’eventuale Regolamento Interno dell’Associazione.
16.2 Eventuali mozioni di emendamento allo Statuto o di scioglimento dell’Associazione devono essere presentate all’Assemblea dal Consiglio Direttivo o da almeno un quarto del totale dei Soci.
16.3 Per apportare modifiche allo Statuto o per procedere allo scioglimento dell’Associazione, verrà convocata un’Assemblea Straordinaria dei Soci secondo quanto eventualmente stabilito nel Regolamento Interno.
16.4 In caso di scioglimento, eventuali beni o disponibilità finanziarie restanti verranno destinati con priorità a SIETAR Europa o ad altro ente secondo il giudizio dell’Assemblea ovvero secondo quando previsto dalle vigenti norme di legge.
16.5 Per quanto qui non espressamente regolato si fa integrale rinvio alle norme del codice civile in materia.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *