Underrepresented Populations in Study Abroad
Research Design by:
Allison Jackson, Jonathan Martinez, Alexandra Menzel, Kristina Neuhaus, Edwin Raagas
Purpose
Globalization, defined as “the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, and ideas across borders” (Knight, 2003), has changed the way we understand and access the world. Having an international educational experience is becoming essential in the job market today, yet many universities fall short of generating sufficient awareness of international opportunities. From the deficit of global-minded courses offered in college curriculums (Hudzik, 2011) to the lack of promotion of global experience resources available on campus (Hudzik, 2011), university leadership is responsible for closing this gap.
In a survey conducted by the American Council on Education, Gore (2009) found that “only two out of five institutions required undergraduates to take courses focused on perspectives, issues, or events outside the United States.” In addition, while 50% of surveyed incoming college freshman indicated initial interest in studying abroad, only 2% of students actually participated (Nolan, 2009). Research has consistently shown that the lack of emphasis on global opportunities on campus and in the curriculum is not a priority for academic heads. According to Nelly P. Stromquist (2007), “schools tend to be undemocratic spaces because, among several other traits, they focus on passive learning, emphasize compliance and obedience, and lack attention to global issues”. This has a trickle down effect resulting in students’ decreased levels of interest or awareness of international education programs.
While the level of participation in study abroad programs is low in general, universities also struggle with attracting a diverse body of study abroad participants (Goodman & Gutierrez, 2011). The overall campus climate regarding global education, facilitated by the university, may challenge the interest of certain student populations to participate in study abroad programs; this directs our attention to the accountability of institutions to remedy this shortfall. Our research team postulates that institutions can adapt the perceptions of study abroad programs to increase the participation of historically underrepresented college students.
Through surveys and focus groups administered to college freshmen and sophomores from one private and one public four-year institution in a large city, perceptions of global education will be gathered and analyzed alongside existing data and samples from previous studies. From these evaluations, we aim to capture how students from underrepresented populations perceive study abroad programs, how the current global education marketing and communication models at their university affect student perception of studying abroad opportunities, and what the intentions or motivations are for students who are interested in studying abroad.
Literature Review
Student demographics within study abroad programs do not reflect the diversity within the overall college student population in the United States. The literature reveals an array of disparities within study abroad participation by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first generation status, gender, disability, choice of major, and other factors. In the U.S. higher education system, study abroad participants are predominantly white, female, and from middle- or upper-class backgrounds (Salisbury, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2010; Stroud, 2010).
Study abroad programs confer many benefits to participants. Students who study abroad in non-English speaking countries have the opportunity to greatly improve their foreign language skills, as well as a chance to improve their “communicative competence, such as strategic or discourse abilities” (Dwyer, 2004; Kinginger, 2013, p. 341). Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott, and Brown (2012) found that studying abroad is correlated with improved self-esteem, confidence, and personal development. Benson et al. (2012) also found that studying abroad improves students’ abilities to navigate difficult situations. Simon and Ainsworth (2012) cited a reduced tendency towards prejudicial and ethnocentric behaviors and increased maturity as benefits to studying abroad.
Some students may be more concerned with career preparation and future employability than benefits like self-esteem, cross-cultural sensitivity, and increased maturity. Simon and Ainsworth (2012) and Dwyer (2004) note that study abroad programs provide a global experience that is highly advantageous in the job market, whether a student is seeking domestic or international employment. For all of these reasons, it is important that access to study abroad opportunities be expanded to underrepresented students.
The number of U.S. students who have studied abroad has increased substantially in recent years, with a total of 313,415 U.S. students studying abroad for academic credit during the 2014-15 academic year (Salisbury et al. 2010; Institute of International Education, 2016a). During the 2014-15 academic year, 33.4 percent of students studying abroad were men and 66.6 percent were women (Institute of International Education, 2016b). The percentages of male and female students who participated in study abroad programs have been roughly constant over the period from 2004-05 to 2014-15 (Institute of International Education, 2016b).
While the gender gap in study abroad participation has remained nearly constant over the past decade, study abroad program participation is diversifying in other ways. Although white students still account for 72.9 percent of study abroad participation, the racial/ethnic disparities in study abroad participation have declined over the last several years (Institute of International Education, 2016a). During the 2009-10 academic year, white students made up 78.7 percent of study abroad participants, and looking further back to the 2004-05 academic year, 83.0 percent of study abroad participants were white (Institute of International Education, 2016a).
Brux and Fry (2009) identify several challenges that prevent many students with minority racial/ethnic backgrounds from studying abroad: finances, family concerns and attitudes, fear of racism and discrimination, historical patterns, institutional factors, and a lack of relevant study abroad programs. In their focus groups, many students indicated that they felt studying abroad was an experience for students from middle or upper class white families (Brux & Fry, 2009). Research by Sweeney (2013) showed that students of color tended to feel study abroad was “not for people like me.” Focus groups held by Brux and Fry (2009) also revealed that there was inadequate information provided about study abroad offerings and a lack of awareness of the resources available to assist students in the process. Sweeney (2013) concluded that institutions must conduct self-assessments and utilize student surveys to increase access to study abroad for students of color.
The causes for class disparities in study abroad participation include financial mechanisms, habitus, social networks, cultural capital, and institutional factors (Simon & Ainsworth, 2012). Students from low-income backgrounds who most likely already rely on financial aid have to cover additional costs associated with a study abroad program. Additionally, these low-participating students tend to misconstrue study abroad programs as an unnecessary luxury, and their social networks may not include people who can provide first-hand information and inside knowledge about these experiences (Simon & Ainsworth, 2012).
Students with disabilities are also underrepresented in study abroad programs. In 2011-12, only 5% of the students who studied abroad reported having a disability (Link, 2016). Of those students, 43.4% had a learning disability, 28% reported having a mental disability, 7.6% a physical disability, 3.8% a sensory disability, and 17.2% fell into an “other disability” category (Link, 2016). Although the representation of students with disabilities in study abroad programs is slowly increasing, there is still much room for improvement in breaking the barriers faced by students with disabilities. These include is the lack of knowledge of available resources, lack of available assistive devices and services, and financial constraints (Link, 2016).
Someson and Fisher (2011) explored strategies that higher education institutions can incorporate to increase the representation of students with disabilities in study abroad programs. Their study suggests that study abroad offices are often not equipped to provide adequate information on the range of disability accommodations, information regarding financial aid often resides in multiple offices, and academic accommodations for students with disabilities requires the help of multiple advisors from multiple offices (Someson & Fisher, 2011). In order to make study abroad programs more accessible to students with disabilities, a comprehensive advising approach that involves multiple offices is necessary. Displaying images of students with disabilities studying abroad in web and other outreach materials is also important: if students can see students like them in these forms of outreach, they are more likely to feel supported and welcomed (Someson & Fisher, 2011).
Another group that is underrepresented in study abroad is male students, and the gender gap in study abroad participation is preceded by a gap in intention to study abroad. Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen, and Pascarella (2009) found that male students were approximately 8 percentage points less likely to intend to study abroad than female students. They theorize that men and women are socialized differently before college in ways that affect their likelihood of being interested in studying abroad during college (Salisbury et al., 2009).
Thirolf (2014) utilized focus groups with male college students who expressed interest in a study abroad program but then decided not to apply. Thirolf (2014) found that “focus group participants wanted to invest in experiences over the summer that they perceived as leading to concrete outcomes… doing something that ‘looks good on a résumé’” (p. 251). When asked why more women study abroad than men, study participants indicated that male students are more interested in “getting internships and making money,” while their female counterparts care more about “doing things ‘for the experience’ than for the outcomes” (Thirolf, 2014, p. 254).
Luo and Jamieson-Drake (2015) identified other factors that impact study abroad participation, such as students’ choice of major. STEM majors and in particular, engineering majors, are less likely to intend to study abroad as well as participate (Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2015). Even mathematics ability alone, regardless of major, makes a student less likely to study abroad (Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2015). Conversely, artistic ability is an indicator of high intent and actual participation in study abroad (Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2015). Luo and Jamieson-Drake (2015) also found that formal involvement in student clubs, athletics, fraternities and sororities, and other campus activities made students less likely to study abroad (Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2015). Students find it difficult to leave these commitments behind, and so choose to not study abroad, regardless of original intent (Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2015).
The literature revealed many common misperceptions about study abroad and its benefits. Since some students view studying abroad as unnecessary and frivolous, international programs offices should work towards challenging that perception. Given all the benefits of studying abroad for student development, learning, self-improvement, and career preparation, it is important that the opportunity be extended to a more diverse population of students.
To summarize, the research and literature have identified the following groups as being underrepresented in study abroad programs: males, racial/ethnic minorities, first generation college students, students from lower socioeconomic statuses, STEM majors (especially Engineering majors), LGBT students, and students with disabilities. Since we postulate that universities are responsible for adapting their study abroad programs in order to attract more of these underrepresented students, our next step is to identify students from these groups with whom we can test how these adaptations might work. We must also clearly identify the misconceptions about study abroad that the adaptations might help improve. We next propose conducting a survey in order to identify those students and misconceptions.
Quantitative Method - Survey
To begin identifying students and collecting data, we have decided to use a survey because it is the most efficient tool to gather the data we need from a large group of students. These data are the misconceptions and concerns, as well as the students with whom to work further. The survey will be administered electronically (via email) to all students from one private (8,712 students) and one public university (18,494 students) from a large city. A public and private university were each chosen because this would facilitate gathering a wider range of students from the various underrepresented groups. Using data from each university’s Institutional Research Office, we estimate that about 14,000 students will fit in at least one of the target groups mentioned above. The institutional research data include information about all of the underrepresented groups except LGBT or disability status, which is why we are sending the survey to all students; LGBT and disability status will be asked about in the survey. Assuming a modest 30% response rate, we will have data from approximately 4,200 students, which is a satisfactory sample size. The survey questions can be found in Appendix A.
The survey will be designed in Qualtrics and will have a minimalistic design that is compatible with mobile devices in order to maximize the number of respondents. Another design aspect aimed at maximizing responses is the length; there will be a maximum number of 14 questions. Some students will see even less depending on their responses; certain answers will trigger certain questions. There are two main themes for the questions, which highlight our purposes for the survey. The first theme is Identity. Our group believes that students who identify with one of our target groups believe that study abroad is incompatible with them for one or more of the reasons highlighted in the second theme – Misconceptions. In this second theme, we hope to identify some of those misconceptions that affect students’ intent to study abroad. Though we may find some surprises in the survey data, we expect certain misconceptions and have therefore designed focus groups as the next step to address the misconceptions.
Qualitative Method – Focus Groups
The focus groups will be conducted to serve as the qualitative method in this study. Participants will be recruited from the survey previously administered to the larger pool of respondents. Whereas the survey is meant to focus more on identifying student perceptions about study-abroad programs and their likelihood to participate in them, the focus groups will be used to provide more knowledge around the formation of these perceptions and to test whether or not student attitudes towards participation in study-abroad programs can change based on differences in marketing and communication methods.
There will be approximately 15 focus groups conducted, with 6 students in each group and session. The numbers are approximate as they are reliant on the number of respondents to the survey. The focus groups will last no more than 1.5 hours and will be conducted in a classroom with students sitting in a circle facing inward in chairs that they randomly select. This round seating format is meant to establish a sense of equality amongst all participants and eliminate any sense of prioritizing or favoring of some participants based on their seating location in relation to others. Facilitators will be one male and one female, with one identifying as Caucasian and the other identifying as a person of color. Several other studies have shown that respondents are more likely to feel more comfortable and provide more honest answers to questions regarding sensitive themes, in this case - marginalization, if facilitators are a reflection of themselves. The focus groups will not be intentionally grouped according to student identity; for instance, there will not be a focus group comprised only of students with disabilities nor only of students who are first-generation. The reason behind this is to avoid groupthink, potentially skewing the qualitative feedback collected in the focus groups. Groups will be formed based solely on time availability of the participants.
Through a coding system, each participant will be assigned to an identity, based on one of the identities being explored in the study based on their responses to the survey: male student, STEM major, student with disability, etc. Intersectionality is acknowledged by the researchers in this study, and accounted for within the coding system. While it is possible for a participant to show characteristics of more than one of these identities (i.e. a Latino male from a low socioeconomic background studying engineering), each student will be assigned to only one identity within the coding system, with their survey answers being the determinant of their assigned identity for the focus group. Referring back to the survey, respondents are asked to denote the listed identities with which they identify, and are given the option to select more than one choice. Additionally, they are asked to identify the identity that is most salient to them, whether it be one of the choices provided or another that they wish to disclose. It is this most salient identity identified that will be used as the main perspective assigned to each participant. Upon arrival and check-in for the focus group, one facilitator will keep a record of the seat occupied by each participant, which will aid in post-focus group assessment of the feedback shared.
We have identified an anticipated limitation with the coding process of assigning identities to participants. When asked in the survey to identify their most salient identity, participants may possibly disclose an identity not listed as one of the options. Should there be an instance of this discrepancy, the research team will still be obligated to record this participant’s answers and ascribe it to this additional identity, noting it as such within the final report.
There will be three themes of questions: (1) assessment of what informs students’ perceptions of study-abroad programs; (2) assessment of existing marketing materials; and (3) assessment of targeted marketing materials. Each theme will have a series of three questions. The first theme of questions aims to demonstrate the contributors to student misperceptions of study-abroad programs. The second theme of questions will measure the effectiveness of current marketing materials (posters, video commercial, email verbiage) in influencing students to study abroad. The third theme of questions will use unreleased marketing materials and will determine whether or not students’ perceptions about study-abroad programs are altered as a result of customization according to target audience.
Conclusion & Expected Findings
Past research suggests that underrepresented populations in study abroad programs do not participate because they cannot picture themselves doing so. Based on these findings, we expect our research to reflect a similar outcome. This idea is reflected in the “not for people like me” syndrome as described in a study by researcher Karyn Sweeney (2013). The “not for people like me” syndrome, frequently seen among students of color and other underrepresented student populations, describes the idea that media influences and historical exclusion from study abroad do not represent studying abroad as an option or idea for underrepresented students. This ultimately results in little interest in studying abroad (Sweeney, 2013). We believe that the participants in our study will note similar feelings when asked about their intentions to participate in an experience overseas.
Researchers Simon and Ainsworth (2012) connected the observation that study abroad participants are usually White, affluent female students to the idea of habitus, defined as “internalized dispositions that generate action,” rooted in attitudes, beliefs, experiences, and perceptions of one’s social world (Pp. 3). Similar to the “not for people like me” syndrome in which study abroad perception is linked to external influences, (Sweeney, 2013), habitus emphasizes the connection between ideas and one’s own social world (Simon & Ainsworth, 2012). Although students ultimately make the decision to study abroad, this decision can be largely influenced by one’s habitus. If a student is not able to connect the idea of studying abroad to their own social world, they frequently cannot picture themselves doing it. Underrepresented populations are usually excluded from social networks that provide information about study abroad (Simon & Ainsworth, 2012) and are therefore unable to picture themselves participating and unaware of the resources available.
Because of this cycle of students being unaware that study abroad can be for them, and therefore not learning about resources, resulting in them not participating, we believe our study will produce similar findings. We propose that modified marketing materials that allow underrepresented populations to visualize themselves studying abroad will help to combat this issue. We expect that the modified marketing materials, including all outgoing communications, flyers, and website images, will attract students of underrepresented populations and allow them to seek out resources and learn more.
We also expect that students will highlight the importance of faculty members and advisors discussing study abroad with them as a form of information and encouragement. Because students of underrepresented populations may not be able to see themselves participating, they may not seek out information to learn about the resources available. This prompts us to emphasize the importance of having offices campus-wide promote study abroad programs to their students. Because study abroad involves so many offices, such as the Office of Financial Aid, the Office of Disability Services, and Academic Advisors, it is necessary for each sector to be up to date on study abroad information and promote study abroad, with the goal of presenting accurate and interesting information to every student population. Office can also begin to develop curricular approaches the consider study abroad as an integral part of education. This is especially true for STEM fields that are underrepresented. We expect that a stronger institutional commitment to encouraging study abroad will allow students of all underrepresented populations to learn of opportunities and be more inclined to participate.
Although we expect that modified marketing materials reflecting various student populations may encourage underrepresented groups to seek out study abroad opportunities, an idea for future research is to measure the effects of these modified marketing materials. It would be of interest to gather data in the years following the launch of modified marketing materials and communications to note any trends or increases among underrepresented populations in study abroad. Because of the benefits gained by those who study abroad, we hope to see that modified communications in combination with a stronger institutional commitment have a positive impact in the years following our study.
-----------------------------
References
Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P. & Brown, J. (2012). Study abroad and the development of second language identities. Applied Linguistics Review, 3, 173-193. doi: 10.1515/applirev-2012-0008
Brux, J. M., & Fry, B. (2009). Multicultural students in study abroad: Their interests, their issues, and their constraints. Journal of Studies in International Education.
Dwyer, M. M. (2004). Charting the impact of studying abroad. International Educator, 13(1), 14-20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200690331?accountid=13793
Gore, J. E. (2009). Faculty beliefs and institutional values: Identifying and overcoming
these obstacles to education abroad growth.” In The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship (pp. 282-299). New York: Routledge.
Goodman, A. E., & Gutierrez, R. (2011). The international dimension of US higher education:
Trends and new perspectives. In International Students and Global Mobility in Higher
Education (pp. 83-106). Palgrave Macmillan US.
Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action.
[Executive Summary]. NAFSA Association of International Educators. Institute of International Education. (2016a). Fast facts: Open doors 2016. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/research-and-
publications/open-doors/data/fast- facts#.WHVQivkrJEY
Institute of International Education. (2016b). Profile of U.S. study abroad students, 2004/05- 2014/15. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from: http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/US-Study-Abroad/
Student-Profile/2004-15
Kinginger, C. (2013). Identity and language learning in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46(3), 339-358. doi: 10.1111/flan.12037
Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, 33(6), 2-3.
Link, T. T. (2016). Strategies and Challenges for Creating an Inclusive Study Abroad Program. Journal Of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(3), 293-298.
Luo, J., & Jamieson-Drake, D. (2015). Predictors of study abroad intent, participation, and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 56(1), 29-56.
Nolan, R. W. (2009). Turning our back on the world: Study abroad and the purpose of U.S. Higher Education. In The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship (pp. 266-281). New York: Routledge.
Salisbury, M., Paulsen, M., Pascarella, E. (2010). To see the world or stay at home: applying an integrated student choice model to explore the gender gap in the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 51(7), 615-640. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010- 9171-6
Salisbury, M., Umbach, P., Paulsen, M., & Pascarella, E. (2009). Going global: understanding the choice process of the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 119-143. doi: 10.1007/s11162-008- 9111-x
Simon, J., & Ainsworth, J. A. (2012). Race and Socioeconomic Status Differences in Study Abroad Participation: The Role of Habitus, Social Networks, and Cultural Capital. ISRN Education, 1-21. doi:10.5402/2012/413896
Soneson, H. M., & Fisher, S. (2011). Education abroad for students with disabilities: Expanding access. New Directions for Student Services, (134), 59-72.
Stromquist, N. P. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in
university environments. Higher Education, 53(1), 81-105.
Stroud, A. H. (2010). Who plans (Not) to study abroad? An examination of U.S. student intent. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5). doi: 10.1177/1028315309357942
Sweeney, K. (2013). Inclusive excellence and underrepresentation of students of color in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 23, 1-21.
Thirolf, K. Q. (2014). Male college student perceptions of intercultural and study abroad programs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(3), 246-258.
-----------------------
Appendix A.
SURVEY
Identity
Do you identify with any of following? Please check all that apply.
Male
Mentally or physically disabled
LGBT
First Generation College Student
Engineering major
Lower Socioeconomic Status
Racial/Ethnic Minority
My identity as _________ is most important to me.
Do you plan to study abroad? Yes No
Study Abroad Concerns – Please check all that apply to you.
My major makes it difficult for me to study abroad.
My family makes it difficult for me to study abroad.
My finances make it difficult for me to study abroad.
My student involvement makes it difficult for me to study abroad.
I am worried my disability will be a problem (for me or others) if I study abroad.
I am worried there won’t be other people like me where I study abroad.
Study abroad is irrelevant to my career and life aspirations.
I know people like me who have studied abroad.
I have seen advertisements for study abroad. (if checked, the following questions appear)
Study abroad advertisements have delivered information relevant to me.
Study abroad advertisements reflect me and who I am.
Someone from my academic department sent me a study abroad advertisement.
The single most important factor preventing me from studying abroad is:
____________________________________________________________
Further Participation
If you wish to participate in further studies about identity and studying abroad, please enter you name, student ID and email address below. You will be compensated for your time if you are chosen.
Appendix B.
FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
Theme I: Assessment of What Informs Students’ Perceptions of Study-Abroad Programs
How do you receive information about study-abroad programs?
What resources are available to you to assist in your decision to participate in study-abroad?
What information do you need to help you decide whether or not you would participate?
Theme II: Assessment of Existing Marketing Materials (poster, video commercial, email verbiage)
What message does this piece of marketing say to you about study-abroad programs?
Do you see yourself reflected in this piece of marketing?
Does this piece of marketing compel you to intend to participate in a study-abroad program?
Theme III: Assessment of Targeted Marketing Materials (poster, video commercial, email verbiage)
How does this piece of marketing differ from the previous example(s)?
Do you see yourself reflected in this piece of marketing?
Does this piece of marketing compel you to intend to participate in a study-abroad program?