Last week, I was an interested observer in a debate that rumbled on over three days - about the definition of a term being used by three different organisations working together. On this occasion, the term was "Strategic Communications" or "StratCom". (As an aside, it recalled the days, 20 years ago at PA Consulting, when I was part of the CommsStrat consulting team - there was a fabulous little booklet and models talking about what it meant, but I never understood it then...)
The challenges of working together around abstract issues like "StratCom" is difficult enough, but it becomes exacerbated when you have different nationalities involved. Coming from different cultures brings different interpretations of the core concepts and values, let alone the problems that ensue when the phrase is used in English which is a second language for most of those involved.
The temptation is always to try and define what is meant by the phrase, but the compounding difficulty is that it usually descends into a self-referential spiral of related abstract concepts. Akin to those meetings with managers that I recall from my PR consultancy days where I'm given feedback on a piece of work that made sense while I was in the room, but once I'd left the room any meaning evaporated and I was left grasping for "what do I actually do now?" (There were some notable exceptions who gave real, helpful feedback, but they were the exception not the rule.)
I'd suggest overcoming this barrier through two parallel approaches:
If you can't agree what something does mean, start by agreeing what it doesn't mean and then encourage everyone to share examples that you can then define as "in meaning" or not - organically setting the limits and contexts that apply.