By Na’im Madyun
This is Part II of commentary on the gap in underrepresented students studying abroad. Read Part I here.
In a recent interview by the Association of International Education Administrators, Provost Mark Greenberg of Drexel University was asked why his institution decided to internationalize given the many current challenges in higher education. His response: “This was an easy decision for us….careers in the 21st century are global”
In Part 1 of this two-part series on the Global Gap, I reflected on my recent visit to my hometown of Helena, Arkansas, and expressed my concern about a disappointingly large delay in providing opportunities for all students to successfully engage in U.S. citizenhood. In short, we are behind.
Historical and traditional achievement gaps suggest the broad learning contexts for marginalized students are insufficient. Aspirations, beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and values of marginalized students are colored by very real interactions with those same insufficient contexts. While there is a delay in getting everyone on board to sufficiently equip a 50 year old bus, its logical connecting train (or plane) is already leaving the station.
In a recent conversation I had with Christopher Johnstone , he expressed interest in the necessity of aligning Senior International Officers and Chief Diversity Officers, to elevate the discourse around the global gap and its connection to citizenry. He shared with me a reference to the Institute of International Education where it identifies a demographically disproportional composition of the study abroad population.
According to their data tables consisting of reports from over 280,000 college students in the US, only 5% were students with a disability status. Interestingly, student of color representation in these study abroad experiences only increased by 6% over a recent 10-year span. This is partly due to the influence of negative expectations on interest and participation given the unknown and the known ( reports of unrest, rape and murder due to ethnic differences or LGBTQ status). However, this poses an opportunity to promote the existence of transformative and/or third spaces where students of color can develop a composite identity of attitudes, perceptions, and values informed by a more global context.
This becomes a sort of chicken and egg dilemma: although the attitudes, perceptions and values informed by a more global context can lead to a more complex identity equipped to engage successfully as a 21st century citizen, the decision of whether or not to study abroad is informed by the attitudes, perceptions and values (or habitus) of students before studying abroad. The habitus (beliefs, attitudes, aspirations, perceptions and values that frame and constrain choices) also differs between students of color and non-students of color. So what do we do?
I suggest two steps are important. Firstly, we must educate to re-interpret international opportunities as welcoming spaces for diverse and low income students . Secondly, we must demystify the process and experience of studying abroad for our students as we cross their paths and make a part of our discourse. If we fail to do so or lag in our efforts, we help develop another generation of a marginalized population underprepared to engage as full citizens.
Na’im Madyun is CEHD associate dean for undergraduate, diversity, and international programs.
