The Public Diplomacy of Study Abroad and the Case for Kerala, Thesis, 2007

Lakshmi Saracino Eassey 1

Senior ThesisSubmitted to Carol Brandt and Thomas Ilgen for Honors consideration

Bachelor of Arts in Global Communication StudiesPitzer College, CA

April 27, 2007


To Ammachi and Appachan:

“Never forget your mother, your motherland or your mother tongue”— A Kerala Proverb


Contents

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..4

Introduction: Locating the Self in the International Education Debate…………………5-8

Chapter 1: The History and Development of Study Abroad in the United States1.1 In the Beginning, Students Traveled to Learn……………………………..9-121.2 What is Public Diplomacy and how did it develop? …………………….13-171.3 Important Milestones for Public Diplomacy in the US…………………..18-191.4 The Development of CIEE……………………………………………….20-221.5 Kennedy’s Peace Corps Takes Flight…………………………………….22-231.6 Development of the Rationale for Study Abroad………………………...24-26

Chapter 2: In an Ideal World, Everyone Would Study Abroad2.1 Beyond the Oceans — the Year of Study Abroad………………………..27-312.2President Trombley Sets the Bar High for Pitzer…………………………32-332.3 Where and how did we Begin? The WASC Report of 1998……………..33-362.4 Intercultural Understanding and the Educational Objectives.......………..37-382.5 Pitzer vs. the Nation: Comparing Pitzer to National Statistics…………...38-40

Chapter 3: The Pitzer Model for the Pitzer Program3.1 Evidence of the Impact of Studying Abroad …………………………….42-443.2 The Development of the Pitzer Rationale………………………………...45-473.3 The Last Two Phases of Development……………………………….......48-503.3 The Development of the Exchange Model……………………………….50-533.4 The Theoretical Aspect of Intercultural Education…...………………….54-58

Chapter Four: Developing a Responsible Exchange — Kerala4.1 The Importance of Pre-Departure Planning………………………………59-614.2 Kerala Overview: The Land of Coconuts…………....…………………...62-644.3 Implementation of an enhanced exchange program in Kerala..………….64-68

Afterward: Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Development………….69-70

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………….71-74Appendix A: History of Pitzer College External Studies Programs …………………75-77Appendix B: Senate Resolution 308 …………………………………………………78-80Appendix C: Senior Survey 2002-2006………………………………………………….81


Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge those who have helped me through my variousacademic pursuits, co-curricular activities, and work on and off-campus. There have beenmany people who helped guide me to where I am today, and I thank you for yourguidance however small it may have been.

First and foremost, I would like to thank those who have helped lead me to PitzerCollege and have supported me through both the transition from Peninsula School to PaloAlto High School as well as the greater leap from Paly to Pitzer College: Jerry Hearn, myeighth grade teacher and unfailing editor; Paul Kandell, my journalism teacher; JaneBenson, another editor but also a second mother; Kathleen Flynn an amazing woman whonever makes me feel I am doing too much (because I do little compared to her) and CareAuntie for asking the flower essences for guidance and keeping me balanced.

A sincere thank you goes to those who have helped me over the last four years,not only with my thesis but with coming to a better understanding of what life andacademia is, and what it should be about: Carol Brandt, for reading and rereadingFulbright's Watson's and my thesis, not to mention all those committees that would belost without her; Kebokile Dengvu-Zvobgo, my on-campus mother and friend withoutyour input and unfailing smile I may not have made it through; Carmen Fought, forbringing linguistics to life – literally – and encouraging me while also listening to megripe; Tom Ilgen, for taking us to Model UN in Boston every year and for sharing adviceand care all along the way; Joe Parker, for helping me to see the world for what it reallyis (a matrix of domination) even at glorious Pitzer, while challenging me to do what Ican, ever so slightly, to change it; and Rachel Vandervorst without your love and supportI would be left hungry.

A special thanks also goes to my friends and extended family as well, through allwalks of life (Peninsula, Paly and Pitzer to NSLC, Bristol and Botswana), who havesupported me through good times and bad, while challenging me all along the way. Myhost-families, flat-mates and language teachers have inspired me to take on this topic asmy thesis – for better or worse.

Additionally, The David Bloom ’85 Memorial Scholarship, The President’sCouncil Scholarship, and The University Club of Palo Alto scholarship have all helpedmake my Pitzer education possible.

Finally, I would like to thank my sister and my mother for keeping their cellphones on, and answering them almost whenever I call – night and day. Thank you forraising me, loving me, sustaining me, guiding me and always being there for me, wordsdon’t do justice to express my gratitude to either one of you.


Introduction: Locating the Self in the International Education Debate

Politicians and teachers alike have emphasized the importance of understanding

our increasingly interconnected world by acknowledging the effects of globalization and

interdependence. This may be done by encouraging higher education to take a more

proactive role in teaching students to develop international competencies. Universities

around the world see the educational system as one that “prepares students to live and

work in an international and multicultural society” as essential to the future.1

Study abroad programs have the potential to be instruments for the creation of a

more peaceful world and tools for governments do carry out public diplomacy, but for

programs to be successful they must be able to facilitate intercultural understanding.

Based on my research and experience, the Pitzer model is an effective method that should

be replicated to create new programs in different parts of the world. However, this model

must also change and adapt to the present circumstances Pitzer College faces with respect

to institutional need, finances, and the changing nature of our times. With this in mind I

propose the foundation for an enhanced Pitzer Exchange Program in Southern India

combining the concept of an exchange with the basic principles intercultural

understanding based on the traditional Pitzer program.

One of the continual problems of study abroad programs is the difficulty in

evaluation. How do we know whether or not a student has increased his/her intercultural

understanding? How can we know if a student leaves a country with more prejudices than

when he/she entered? I argue that programs based on a model of immersion such as the

School for International Training (SIT) and Pitzer College promote a deeper intercultural

1British Columbia Center for International Education. Accessed February 7, 2007.<http://www.bccie.bc.ca/bccie/aboutBCCIE/index.asp>.


understanding compared to many other program models in which exchanges create an

‘American island’ simulating a typical American university campus abroad with classes

taught in English and students living with other English speakers.

Pitzer carries out programs based on a model including language, homestays,

intensive writing and an independent project, which I will look at further in the body of

this thesis. This study is not an evaluation of all intercultural programs, nor is it a

complete historical study of US student’s abroad and international students coming to the

US. I avoid taking on a comprehensive critique of study abroad programs as a whole, and

focus instead on Pitzer College and the development of study abroad programs over time,

and how they have evolved into what they are today.

Some of the current debates, or issues within the international education field

touch on the concept of exchanges versus immersion as well as experiential learning

versus university based programs. The words “immersion” and “exchange” may be

viewed differently depending on the context. For the purpose of this thesis, immersion is

seen as a program which contains the components of a Pitzer program abroad (homestay,

language, fieldbook and an independent study), whereas exchanges refer to a trading

places of bodies from one school to another.

Before delving into the body of this work, it is important to problematize some of

the words included and acknowledge that “understanding,” “mutual understanding” and

references to “communication” must take into account the fact that, in many cases,

difficult power dynamics come into play. As a result, the idealized view of understanding

may come through conflict, or may not be reached at all because of the varying locations

of power within the structures of studying abroad.


Within the overall debate on international education, it is important to understand

where I am coming from, as the author, in both a political sense as well as culturally,

socially and with regard to my experience in intercultural education. I write as a student

who has been abroad on both a Pitzer program and an exchange. I went to Botswana in

the spring of 2005, and to Bristol England on the Mellon Exchange in its inaugural year

of existence (fall 2004). I have served in the governance of Pitzer through the External

Studies Committee for two and a half years (2003-2004, 2005-2006 and fall 2006),

worked in the Office of Study Abroad (fall 2005) and served on the Ad-hoc Global/Local

WASC committee in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.

To locate myself further, my father is from India and my mother is American

(ethnically half Italian and half Polish/Russian/French). I identify as a multiracial woman

of color. Although I am not fluent in Malayalam (the local language of Kerala, India) and

have only been there twice in my life, I have a large extended family on my father’s side

and feel a strong connection to my relatives. Although my personal location provides me

with more than enough experiences to draw upon in the creation of this program, the aim

of this thesis is to make a contribution to the field of intercultural understanding and

study abroad literature by gathering materials and viewpoints from a variety of sources

and people in a comprehensive summary of where Pitzer College is today and where it

should be going.

In the first chapter, the history of students traveling to learn is briefly highlighted,

followed by a discussion of public diplomacy, and how it developed. This chapter also

looks at the important milestones for public diplomacy in the US as well as the

development of consortia exchange programs and the Peace Corps while also including


how the rationale for study abroad has changed over time.

Chapter two highlights the naming of 2006 as the “Year of Study Abroad” by the

United States Congress, and why the US and others argue for the importance of studying

abroad. It goes over a brief history of Pitzer students studying abroad, including the

establishment of Pitzer’s own programs abroad and the self-study reports from 1988 and

1998 which outline the importance of study abroad as an integral aspect of the

curriculum. The Pitzer Catalogue and educational objectives are used in order to show

how Pitzer has incorporated study abroad into the college on a broad basis. This section

also incorporates data from the study abroad office in order to compare national averages

from Open Doors statistics to where students go abroad.

Focusing on the model of international understanding that Pitzer aims to achieve,

Chapter three looks at the evidence of the impact of studying abroad and the development

of Pitzer’s own rationale. It looks at the last two phases of development of Pitzer study

abroad from 1999 to the present and also includes a brief look at theory behind

intercultural education.

Chapter Four serves as a model for a proposal for an exchange program in Kerala,

including a statement of rationale. Stressing the importance of pre-departure preparation

this chapter looks at how an enhanced exchange would be implemented in Kerala.

The conclusion places the reader where we are today and contains suggestions for

Pitzer to maintain its role as a progressive college in the field of international education

for decades to come. This final section illustrates how this model may be replicated by

other colleges and universities alike to create a path for face-to-face diplomacy promoting

sustained international education, in hopes of a more peaceful world to come.


Chapter 1: The History and Development of Study Abroad in the United States

In the Beginning, Students Traveled to Learn

Study abroad and the migration of scholars and professionals has been called a

“pervasive phenomenon,” dating back to 500-300 B.C., when intellectuals migrated to

Athens. In later centuries there were similar migrations to major intellectual centers such

as Alexandria, Rome, and Gundi Sapur in East Persia.2

In Charles Frankel’s The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs: American

Educational and Cultural Policy Abroad, he argues that there is a longstanding

precedence of students traveling beyond their own countries to learn. As he says: “the

tradition of cultural exchange across political boundaries is as old as the history of

civilization.”3 Frankel sees the movement of students, scholars, information, and ideas as

one of the ancient features of civilized life dating back to Athens, “we Athenians throw

open our city to the world,” said Perciles.4 The ancient concepts of travel, as a medium of

learning and promoting understanding between varying cultures and societies provides

the foundation for today’s student ambassadors abroad.

De Wit (1996) explored the history of international education going back to the

middle Ages and Renaissance periods when “the use of Latin as a common language, of a

uniform program of study and system of examinations, enabled itinerant students to

continue their studies in ones ‘studium’ after another, and ensured recognition of their

2 Fry, Gerald W. The Economic and Political Impact of Study Abroad. ComparativeEducation Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, Foreign Students in Comparative Perspective. (May,1984), 203.3 Frankel, Charles. The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs: American Educational andCultural Policy Abroad. The Brookings Institution: Washington D.C., 1965.4 Ibid, 2.


degrees throughout Christendom.”5 Gutek (1997) also discusses a broad picture of

international education throughout the middle ages. He studies the theory of Erasmus

(1466-1536), a Roman Catholic priest, who believed that “educators were colleagues in

an international and cosmopolitan collegiums rather than servants of particular

denominational or nationalistic masters.”6 Other philosophers, such as Johann Amos

Comenius (1592-1670), a Czech educator, based his philosophy on a strong argument for

international education.7

The US has a long history of international education, tracing back to 1919, just

after WWI, when the Institute of International Education was created. In the early 1920s,

the first documented student, teacher and faculty exchanges were facilitated with several

European countries.8 The development of international education after WWI in the US

mainly focused on international studies and foreign languages, but the major shift toward

international education development and exchanges came after WWII. As mentioned in a

CIEE document on Higher Education Programs (1996), “study abroad, as various studies

have shown, has been something of an elite experience… the population has tended to be

female, white, upper class and able to afford the associated costs.”9 Generally speaking,

although this demographic may still comprise the majority of students going abroad to

study, this is also changing.

5 De Wit, 1995; Mikhailova, Liudmila K. “The History of CIEE: Council of InternationalEducational Exchange and its Role in International Education Development: 1947-2002.”October 2003, 32.6 Ibid, 32.7 Ibid, 35.8 Ibid, 20.9 Ibid, 94.


Since the end of World War II, the tradition of studying abroad has significantly

grown, “the postwar growth of both public and private exchange programs has reached a

scale and significance undreamed of a few decades ago,” Frankel says. He highlights the

importance of educational exchange for more than individual growth and illustrates how

international relations and international education are interrelated. “This crossing of

national frontiers via numerous cultural bridges is increasingly important, not only as an

end in itself but as a major force in government relations.”10 This concept is further

highlighted by US President Johnson at the Smithsonian Institution Bicentennial

Celebration in September 1965: “We know today that… ideas, not armaments will shape

our lasting prospects for peace; that the conduct of our foreign policy will advance no

faster than the curriculum of our classrooms; that the knowledge of our citizens is one

treasure which grows only when it is shared.”11

In 1965, the main objectives of Frankel’s book were to “reexamine purposes that

govern US government exchange programs, describe present institutional arrangements

for achieving objectives, appraise these practices and suggest possible improvements.”12

While there is still the idea of scholarly inquiry and expanding individual horizons there

are more reasons for broadening connections across cultures: “Educational and cultural

exchange is presented as a means to the construction of a peaceful world order. It is held

to be indispensable to the economic and social modernization of traditional societies.”13

10 Frankel, vii.11 Ibid.12 Ibid, viii.13 Ibid, 3.


In this way intercultural understanding is said to be a tool of foreign policy, “to promote

the strategic interests of the nation.”14

Although not explicitly stated and perhaps dated since Frankel’s time, the “long-

range objective of United States foreign policy…is the creation of a peaceful world,

respectful of diversity.”15 Frankel believes that one of the breakdowns of foreign policy

has been the lack of personal interaction, “it is reasonably clear that the breakdown of

relations with Germany or China began with the breakdown of communication with

people in those countries who had never had close relations with Americans or close

knowledge of America.”16 He sees misunderstanding as a product of impersonal

relationships leading to negative essentializing of the other, showing “the simple fact that

relations between the members of different nations are not immediate and personal, but

vicarious and impersonal. In such circumstances, powerful stereotypes take over,” he

says, arguing for more personal relationships.17

Frankel advocates that educational and cultural exchanges “help them [individuals

and governments] not madden themselves with words.” In this respect, there is solid

warrant for the belief that such exchanges are important instruments for the promotion of

“international good will and understanding.”18 He also argues the United States is a

nation within the global community with an interest in educational and cultural programs

14 Frankel, 3.15 Ibid, 81.16 Ibid, 82.17 Ibid.18 Ibid.


abroad because of the positive image that programs contribute to the US, and make it

more likely that United States political policies will succeed.19

What is Public Diplomacy and how did it Develop?

As a more recent field of study, public diplomacy is defined in several different

ways, many of which the USC Center on Public Diplomacy has gathered together. In the

US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy 1991 Report it is seen as “the open

exchange of ideas and information… an inherent characteristic of democratic societies.

Its global mission is central to foreign policy. And it remains indispensable to [national]

interests, ideals and leadership roles in the world."20 In a report of the US Advisory

Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World it is defined as "the

promotion of the national interest by informing, engaging, and influencing people around

the world.”21 According to the report, public diplomacy helped win the Cold War, and

now has the “potential to help win the war on terror." Also within the government, from

the United States General Accounting Office report to the Committee on International

Relations in the House of Representatives, public diplomacy is a means to "inform,

engage, and influence global audiences.” It is able to reach beyond foreign governments

to “promote better appreciation of the United States abroad, greater receptivity to U.S.

policies among foreign publics,” as well as access and influence in important sectors of

19 Ibid, 88.20 “What is Public Diplomacy?” USC Center on Public Diplomacy< http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/about/whatis_pd> (February 12, 2007).21 "Changing Minds Winning Peace: A New Strategic Direction for U.S. PublicDiplomacy in the Arab & Muslim World," (October 1, 2003), USC Center on PublicDiplomacy, 13. <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf> (February 8,2007).


foreign societies.22

University of Southern California’s, Nicholas J. Cull wrote that the earliest use of

the phrase ‘public diplomacy’ came from The Times in January 1856, “used merely as a

synonym for civility” in a piece criticizing President Franklin Pierce.23 Some scholars

argue Woodrow Wilson’s notion of “open diplomacy” provided the rationale for cultural

and educational endeavors that would later become known as cultural diplomacy,

according to Lindsay Beverly in “Integrating International Education and Public

Diplomacy” in the 1989 Comparative Education Review.24

According to publicdiplomacy.org, a website sponsored by the United States

Information Agency Alumni Association, public diplomacy was first coined by Edmund

Gullion in 1965 discussing the Edward R. Murrow Center at Tufts University's Fletcher

School of Law and Diplomacy. The Murrow Center brochure described public diplomacy

as: “The influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies.

It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy” it

also includes “cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the

interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another . . . (and)

the transnational flow of information and ideas.”25 With varying definitions by both

22 "U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces SignificantChallenges," (September 2003), USC Center on Public Diplomacy<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03951.pdf> (February 3, 2007).23 Nicholas J. Cull. "'Public Diplomacy' Before Gull ion: The Evolution of a Phrase”.USC Center on Public Diplomacy<http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/pdblog_detail/060418_public_diplomacy_before_gullion_the_evolution_of_a_phrase/> (January 22, 2007).24 Beverly, Lindsay. “Integrating International Education and Public Diplomacy,”Comparative Education Review (1989): 426.25 United States Information Agency Association. “USIA Alumni Association,”<www.publicdiplomacy.org> (February, 7, 2007).


scholars and politicians alike, it is easy to see that the definition of public diplomacy is in

constant flux.

Beverly acknowledges that the term ‘public diplomacy’ appeared in the mid-

1960s, but did not become institutionalized until the 1970s, as a result of the Stanton

Commission Report. During the Reagan administration, policymakers gathered together

for the purpose of understanding various perspectives on public diplomacy, which

changed depending on the person supplying the definition.26 Former Congresswoman

Millicent Fenwick argued, “public diplomacy must not involve selling America as much

as telling the truth.” A former American Ambassador to Italy declared that “public

diplomacy should be envisioned as countries’ efforts to explain and understand each

other’s values, purposes, and policies.” In his view, this included an effective

“intellectual connection between one’s own and foreign countries.”27 Educational and

cultural programs evolved and became integrated into public diplomacy, in order to

“promote mutual understanding through autonomous educational and cultural contacts.”28

In “Diplomacy by Other Means,” Mark Leonard, the director of the Foreign

Policy Centre, an independent London-based think tank, argues that the end of the Cold

War has made the task of communicating with overseas publics more important than ever

before.29 For Leonard, public diplomacy is about relationship building, “starting from

understanding other countries’ needs, cultures, and peoples and then looking for areas to

make common cause.”30 He also believes one dimension of public diplomacy is

26 Beverly, 426.27 Ibid, 427.28 Ibid, 428.29 Leonard, Mark. “Diplomacy by Other Means,” Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct 2002, 48.30 Leonard, 48.


developing long-term relationships with people through activities such as scholarships,

exchanges, trainings, and conferences.31 He stresses the need to move beyond intellectual

communication to relationships. “It is a paradox that, as interdependence has increased,

the effort invested in nurturing relationships with the rest of the world has steadily

declined.”32

In an Op-Ed piece for the International Herald Tribune, Harvard Professor Joseph

Nye sees public diplomacy as a soft power tool,

Soft power is the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuadingothers to adopt your goals. It differs from hard power, the ability to use thecarrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others followyour will. Both hard and soft powers are important in the war on terrorism,but attraction is much cheaper than coercion, and an asset that needs to benourished.33

He argues for the development of soft power as opposed to coercion tactics. In an address

on May 10, 2005 he pointed out that countries such as France and Britain spend equal

amounts on public diplomacy, compared to the US, despite the fact the US is five times

larger. Nye reported that the billion dollars spent on public diplomacy is merely one-

quarter of 1 percent of what is spent on defense and argues for Congressional support,

like Representative Henry Hyde's proposal to “bolster” 34 the State Department's public

diplomacy and international broadcasting efforts. Mikhailova further echoes Nye’s

statements when she says public diplomacy “sees exchanges of persons as effective

vehicles for building understanding and trust between nations” as well as “creating

31 Ibid, 49.32 Ibid, 56.33 Nye, Joseph. “Propaganda isn’t the Way: Soft Power,” The International HeraldTribune, January 10, 2003. Accessed February 24, 2007<http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/nye_soft_power_iht_011003.htm>.34 Nye.


opportunities for accomplishment in the areas where official means cannot achieve it

alone. Every person can contribute to maintaining peace.”35 Both Mikhailova and Nye

argue for public diplomacy as a means to achieve a more peaceful world.

Nye was concerned about the US image before the exposure of the Abu Graib

torture scandals. He describes the way the US goes about its foreign relations as akin to

“a child with a hammer seeing everything as a nail.” As he argues, “we have such

capacity in our military that we forget that we need to have other capacities to

supplement the military.” He emphasizes the importance of learning from the lessons in

the Cold War: “to be a smart power you need to be able to combine hard and soft power.”

Nye does not believe the US government should control popular culture abroad, but

argues instead that the State Department cultural and exchange programs remind people

of “noncommercial aspects of American values and culture.”36

While a purely traditional view of public diplomacy might limit the definition to

government-sponsored cultural, educational and citizen exchanges solely for the

promotion of national interest and influencing foreign policy, the USC Center on Public

Diplomacy, as well as this thesis, defines public diplomacy in broader terms. Along with

government sponsored programs, private programs of international study also impact

countries relations between one another. Whether or not explicitly stated, pop culture,

media, sports and private institutional programs inevitably influence foreign policy. More

specific than diplomacy at the governmental levels, public diplomacy focuses on the

ways in which a country (or multi-lateral organization such as the United Nations),

35 Mikhailova, 207.36 Nye.


“through both official and private individuals and institutions, communicates with

citizens in other societies.”37

A New York Times article from early April detailed the strategy of Dutch troops

in Afghanistan taking on a more soft-power approach. Dutch forces have “mostly

shunned combat” opting instead for efforts to improve living conditions and self-

governance.38 The Dutch force of 2,000 has taken on an approach deemed by

counterinsurgency theorists as the “oil spot” in hopes of expanding slowly and surely like

an oil stain. So far the Dutch forces have built schools, mosques, courtrooms and

hospitals and have plans to open a trade school as well as other projects to rebuild

Afghanistan’s infrastructure. Not only have the Dutch attempted to avoid violence and

harm to citizens, but they have also taken responsibility for destructed property. After one

armored vehicle damaged mulberry trees, the captain negotiated a payment to the farmers

as a means of compensation. Although the estimated time for this approach to be a

success was 10 years, the Dutch still believe that “too much fighting is

counterproductive.”39

Important Milestones for Public Diplomacy in the United States

To understand how study abroad may be used as a tool for public diplomacy, it is

important to trace the history of studying abroad through the structure of diplomacy

within the US government. In 1938 the Interdepartmental Committee for Scientific

Cooperation and the Division of Cultural Cooperation were created in the US Department

37 USC Center on Public Diplomacy.38 Chivers, C.J. “Dutch Soldiers Stress Restraint In Afghanistan.” New York Times,Friday April 6, 2007, A-1.39 Ibid, A-12.


of State, “ushering in official educational and cultural exchanges with other nations.”40

After World War II, within the Department of State, the Office of Information and

Cultural Affairs was established.41 In 1946 Senator J. William Fulbright furthered this

idea of diplomacy by establishing a program for academic exchanges emphasizing

“mutual understanding,” among the people of the world. Other legislation has created

strong support for international education such as the Fulbright-Hayes Act in 1961 and

the 1979 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, stressing the importance of “interactive

aspects of diplomacy at people-to-people levels—a key characteristic of public

diplomacy”.42 Beverly characterizes the purpose of public diplomacy in terms of

propaganda, without intending to propogate:

The atmosphere for mutual understanding, desired by all audiences, can becreated through open and probing discussions of common educational andcultural problems in the United States and other nations. Creating andmaintaining this atmosphere is ingenious propaganda since, to paraphraseformer Secretary of State Rusk, the best propaganda has no propagandisticpurpose.43

She illustrates how students are integral actors in discussing commonalities and

differences with people abroad. Senator J. William Fulbright further articulates the

importance of educating students in order to “humanize” international relations, arguing

for education as a “basic factors of international relations—quite as important as

diplomacy and military power in its implication of war and peace. Educational exchange

40 Beverly, 425.41 Ibid, 426.42 Ibid, 429.43 Ibid, 436.


can turn nations into people, contributing as no other form of communication can to the

humanizing of international relations.”44

The Development of CIEE: The Beginning of Exchanges

The Council on International Education Exchange provided means for

humanizing international relations beginning in 1947. It grew from just a few individuals

to a leading US non-profit in international education and study abroad organization and is

now one of the largest non-profit organizations in the international education field, with

nearly 500 staff in 30 countries, 274 member institutions and 183 Academic Consortium

members.45 In a doctoral thesis on the history of CIEE, Ludmila K. Mikhailova

“continues a discourse around public diplomacy and the role of exchanges in enhancing

US foreign policy and complimenting traditional diplomacy.”46 She sees international

educational providers as one of the main actors for carrying out US foreign policy in the

field of public diplomacy.47

Educational agencies and the US Department of State negotiated the possibility of

using troop transports to establish educational travel and exchange programs.48 In the

spring of 1947, at the request of the Department of State, the Maritime Commission,

agreed to allow troop ships to be used for sending US American students on exchange

programs to Europe.49 As director of CIEE, John Bowman noted, the epitome of the

44 William Fulbright (1994).45 Mikhailova, 24.46 Ibid, vi.47 Ibid, 2.48 Ibid, 84.49 Ibid, 85.


council’s program was illustrated in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.50 He describes his

experience saying:

T/N Irpinia steams eastward with 1170 passengers… In a small barforward on port side, 40 persons crowd into an elementary French lesson.Just across the starboard side a similar room is filled with students sittingon benches, tables and the floor for travel tips to Italy. On an upper deck atour group meets to discuss its itinerary, an experiment group discusseshow an American should behave in an Italian family, a committee writes aparody for the skit night three days hence. In the main lounge 80 personsgather for a discussion of European educational system…51

He highlights the role of the ship for preparation and orientation, and discusses some of

the many reasons students use the ship/ According to a 1955 New York Times article,

50,000 US students and 45,000 foreign students used The Council for international

educational travel.

The Council did not want to be merely a facilitator of exchanges, but they also

saw the importance of educating students going abroad about the country they traveled to,

while also maintaining an understanding of the their own US culture.

It is not enough to send thousands of students abroad and believe, that,because they are nice young boys and girls who ‘mix,’ this will besufficient. If they go to Germany and don’t know anything about theBerlin Wall; if they go to Indonesia and don’t know about the West NewGuinea problem… If they are good-looking, pleasant, eager anduninformed, we are just not going to get the job done… If our youngpeople are to accomplish good abroad they must know something aboutthe United States… a little bit more than that George Washington wasfounder of our country and its first President.52

CIEE clearly acknowledged the importance of pre-departure education on the host

country, while not leaving out the importance of US students having a basic

understanding of US society and culture. The importance of this concept is further

50 Ibid, 98.51 Ibid, 98-99, Council Annual Report 1959, 2-3.52 Ibid, 119.


illustrated when discussing new opportunities to expand exchange programs after the fall

of the Soviet Union in 1991. The US-USSR exchange programs proved to be “vivid

example of CIEE’s devotion to building international understanding among nations.” The

Cold War period allowed approximately 3,000 students and scholars to visit the USSR

during 1979-1993,53 showing how exchange programs could be used as a tool for public

diplomacy.

Currently, CIEE’s mission is "to help people gain understanding, acquire

knowledge, and develop skills for living in a globally interdependent and culturally

diverse world."54 As director of CIEE, John Bowman, said in the 1977 Annual Report,

“student exchanges did not solve the world’s problems” but they did play a role in the

creation of a more “world-minded” outlook in the post-war generation. This reduction of

national bias also allowed this generation to focus on certain critical problems which cut

across national boundaries.”55 Although the critical problems of the 1970s have changed,

the United States continues to face issues beyond its borders. CIEE’s programs show that

students may be important conduits for social change across borders.

Kennedy’s Peace Corps Takes Flight

During the creation and evolution of CIEE, Senator John F. Kennedy began the

Peace Corps, with similar wide-reaching goals. On October 14, 1960, Kennedy addressed

students at the University of Michigan Union, challenging them to give two years to

assist people in countries of the developing world. Kennedy argued the Peace Corps was

53 Mikhailova, 155.54 “Mission + Offerings,” Council on International Educational Exchange<http://www.ciee.org/about/mission_offerings.aspx> (February 26, 2007).55 Mikhailova, 142.


the most important campaign since 1933, “because of the problems which press upon the

United States, and the opportunities which will be presented to us in the 1960s.”56 He

said opportunities must be acted upon through the President and the cooperation of the

Congress to “make the greatest possible difference.” The Peace Corps was established in

March, 1961 and grew into an agency of the federal government “devoted to world peace

and friendship.”57 Since then, 187,000 Peace Corps Volunteers have served 139 countries

in a myriad of ways, from AIDS education and information technology to environmental

preservation. The Peace Corps has also been at the forefront of intercultural education

and has changed and altered its training programs with the times.58 The goals of the Peace

Corps are: “Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained

men and women; helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the

peoples served and helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of

Americans.” As the website notes, the “Peace Corps is more vital than ever” because of

its programs working in newly important areas, such as information technology and

business development. Changed with the times, in May 2003, the Peace Corps committed

1,000 new Volunteers to work on HIV/AIDS-related activities as part of President Bush's

Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. With a budget $318.8 million (in fiscal year 2006) the

56 “What is the Peace Corps?” Peace Corps<http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whatispc> (March 1, 2007).57 Ibid.58 Bennhold-Samaan, Laurette discussed this further in “The Evolution of Cross-CulturalTraining in the Peace Corps.” Handbook of Intercultural Training, Third Edition. DanLandis, Janet M. Bennett, and Milton J. Bennett eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage PublicationsInc., 2004, 363-394.


Peace Corps has included new initiatives focusing on HIV/AIDS in Africa and the

Caribbean, information technology, and expanding programs into new countries.59

Development of the rationale for Study Abroad

During the course of the evolution of study abroad programs there have been

different goals and rationale as to why study abroad is important. Schlechter (1993)

identifies three levels of educational rationales: “the pragmatic (aimed at the acquisition

of knowledge and skills for effective functioning in a global environment), the liberal

(aimed at the education of students with intercultural competence and tolerant perception

of differences), and the civic (aimed at developing student’s ability to act as global

citizens in the pursuit of global democracy).”60 De Wit (2000) stresses a political

rationale for internationalization and the promotion of international education as

“connected with the expansion of American influence in the world, which increases a

need for internationalization of knowledge and learning of other cultures, languages, and

systems.”61 Allan sees the desired outcome of study abroad through the intercultural

learning process as a person who has learned personal interaction skills and is able to

communicate with people from other cultures, “not only one with which s/he has had

concrete experience.” Allan also stresses the importance of achieving personal growth as

a result of encountering cultural diversity,” which enhances and extends cultural

identity.62

59 Ibid.60 Mikhailova, 43.61 Ibid.62 Allan, Michael. “Frontier Crossings: Cultural dissonance, intercultural learning and themulticultural personality.” Journal of Research in International Education. 2003, 84.


Many authors agree there has been a shift from political to economic: The

“National Policies for the Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe” designed

by the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (1997) says that recent shift from

political to economic rationale occurred in all Northern European countries. The

Scandinavian countries, Austria, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, as

well as those of Central and Eastern Europe illustrated a shift from cultural and political

rationale to economic, with the exception of Greece.63

In an analysis of the economic and political impacts of studying abroad, Gerald

Fry looks at the impact of study abroad in developing nations and concludes, “study

abroad is a basic building block in the development of a peaceful cooperative global

community.”64 He argues that the global empirical data analyzed in his study indicates

“positive economic effects of study abroad over the long term.”65

According to the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship

Program “recent federal reports cite a language and cultural skill shortage in more than

70 agencies critical to public diplomacy, and economic competitiveness, among other

reasons for studying abroad. Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State, argues that

“International Education prepares our citizens to live, work and compete in the global

economy and promotes tolerance and the reduction of conflict,”66 highlighting the

importance of both politics and economics.

63 Mikhailova 44-46.64 Fry, 220.65 Ibid.66 The Lincoln Commission. “Global Competence and National Need: One MillionAmericans Studying Abroad,” Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study AbroadFellowship Program <http://www.lincolncommission.org/> (January 29, 2007).


Conclusion

By understanding some of the history behind the development of programs for US

students, as well as what public diplomacy is and how it developed, the various rationales

for studying abroad may be seen. Over the year’s, in the US, public diplomacy has

changed from being an abstract concept to an important soft power tool of the future.

This has been established with the creation of programs such as the Fulbright, the Peace

Corps and NGO’s facilitating and training students for programs abroad such as CIEE.

Alongside the changing nature of public diplomacy have been increased opportunities for

students to go abroad.


Chapter 2: In an Ideal World, Everyone Would Study Abroad

Beyond the Oceans — The Year of Study Abroad

In 2005, the U.S. Senate declared 2006 the "Year of Study Abroad" in order to

boost the visibility of study abroad, set the stage for further action, and expand study

abroad opportunities.67 The Senate resolution 308 includes clauses supporting the premise

of studying abroad as essential for ‘global literacy’ and states the importance of educating

students internationally is a means to “share the values of the United States, to create

goodwill for the United States around the world, to work toward a peaceful global

society, and to increase international trade.” Sighting recent statistics such as the fact that,

according to the American Council on Education poll from 2002, “79 percent of people

in the United States agree that students should have a study abroad experience sometime

during college, but only 1 percent of students from the United States currently study

abroad each year.”68

As sad as these statistics may be, another rationale behind the importance of

global education, or just simply traveling abroad, is the knowledge of the world that is

gained. The Senate resolution included reference to the National Geographic global

literacy survey which found that 87 percent of students in the United States between the

ages of 18 and 24 cannot locate Iraq on a world map, 83 percent cannot find Afghanistan,

58 percent cannot find Japan, and 11 percent cannot even find the United States.69

67 “2006, The Year of Study Abroad,” Commission on the Abraham Lincoln StudyAbroad Fellowship Program <http://www.yearofstudyabroad.org/studyabroad.asp>(February, 4, 2007).68 Congressional Record. November 10, 2005<http://www.yearofstudyabroad.org/pdf/CongressionalRecord.pdf> (January 29, 2007).69 “109th Congress, 1st Session Designating 2006 as the `Year of Study Abroad,'”November 10, 2005. Senate Resolution 308


Other statements uphold the importance of having a citizenry with an

understanding of foreign languages, supported by the Coalition for International

Education, an ad-hoc group of higher education organizations of the Department of

Education. Their reports have found that Federal agencies, educational institutions, and

corporations in the United States are “suffering from a shortage of professionals with

international knowledge and foreign language skills.” The Senate resolution used as

evidence a survey done by the Institute for the International Education showing that

studying abroad influences later educational experiences and decisions to expand or

change academic majors as well as decisions to attend graduate school.70

Senate Resolution 308 argues that the substantive research literature shows core

values and skills of higher education are enhanced by participation in study abroad

programs. It also argues that programs not only open doors to foreign language learning,

but empower students to better understand themselves and others through a comparison

of cultural values and ways of life. It referenced the bipartisan Commission on the

Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, which was charged with

recommending ways of expanding and enhancing US undergraduate study abroad

options. The Report, issued in November 2005: “Global Competence & National Needs:

One Million Americans Studying Abroad” aimed at emphasizing a variety of

destinations, institutions and students. The Resolution further extended the

Commission.71 In the final active sentences of the bill, the senate encouraged secondary

schools, institutions of higher learning, businesses, and government programs to

<http://www.yearofstudyabroad.org/senate_resolution.asp> (January 29, 2007).70 Senate Resolution 308.71 “Year of Study Abroad.”


“promote and expand” study abroad opportunities.

According to the Lincoln Report, about 191,321 college students,

making up just over 1 percent of total enrolled undergraduates, studied abroad in 2004-

05. However, 50 percent of college-bound high school students said they were interested

and 75 percent think it is important to study or participate in an internship abroad during

their academic career.72 Just over 60 percent of study-abroad participants study in Europe,

with much fewer studying in Latin America (15 percent), Africa (3 percent), the Middle

East (.5 percent) and Asia (7 percent). Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of those who study

abroad are female and one-third (34 percent) is male, while the total undergraduate

population is 56 percent female and 44 percent male. In addition, only 5 percent are

Hispanic and 3 percent are black, despite the fact that each group makes up about 12

percent of the U.S. undergraduate population. There are disparities as well in terms of

which majors go abroad. A high number of humanities majors (14 percent of total

undergraduates) comprise 30 percent of all students who study abroad, while

engineering/computer science majors, who represent 14 percent of total undergraduates,

enroll only 5 percent in programs abroad.73

The British Columbia Center for International Education (BCCIE)

recognized the need for using educational strategies to help students achieve desired

outcomes, identifying the need to use participatory techniques and exchange programs as

it is recognized that “direct experience is a powerful and effective method for developing

72 Lincoln Report.73 Ibid.


international skills and understanding.”74

In a statement on International Education Week 2002, US Secretary of Education,

Rod Paige emphasized the importance of “increasing student knowledge and awareness

of the world's cultures, peoples, and languages” along with a recognition of “the necessity

of bringing an international perspective into American classrooms.”75 He also saw

diplomacy as not just among public officials, but also citizens. “We realize that the task

of diplomacy belongs not only to governments, but to individuals as well. Each of us is

an ambassador when we interact with our global neighbors,” said Paige. He further

emphasized that international education can promote both mutual understanding and

cooperation as well as strengthen national security, foreign policy, and economic

competitiveness.”76

On the same occasion, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s speech,

Intolerance Is Taught and Can Be Untaught, argued for a need “to use education to

advance tolerance and understanding.” Annan sees understanding as essential to world

peace, “we know that just as no nation is immune to conflict or suffering, no nation can

defend itself alone. We need each other — as friends, as allies, as partners — in a

struggle for common values and common needs.” He believes that no one is born

intolerant and that intolerance is learned and can be unlearned, even if it is done with

great difficulty. Annan cites the founding of the United Nations as evidence in the belief

74 “Internationalizing Teaching/Learning,” British Columbia Center for InternationalEducation <http://www.bccie.bc.ca/bccie/FSA/internationalizing_curriculum.asp>(January 20, 2007).75 International Education Week, 2001 < http://exchanges.state.gov/iew2001/> (January10, 2007).76 Paige, Rod. “Statement on International Education Week 2002, Washington D.C.,August 2002” <http://www.globaled.us/now/fullstatementpaige2.html> (January 10,2007).


that “dialogue can triumph over discord, that diversity is a gift to be celebrated, and the

world's peoples are united by their common humanity far more than they are divided by

their separate identities.”77

Neighboring Claremont McKenna College also highlights the importance of

studying abroad, arguing “The future of the United States and other countries is in their

global connectedness.” Anyone with an understanding of these connections based on

experience, “including a direct familiarity with another culture and knowledge of a

second language, will be much better prepared personally and professionally for the 21st

century.”78 Claremont McKenna College’s study abroad website highlights the

importance of students going abroad, arguing that going abroad gives students an

opportunity to enhance their education and “acquire an international perspective needed

to function in a global society” and alumni who have studied abroad “report a greater

sensitivity to global issues and a deeper understanding of the challenges facing us in the

Twenty-First century.”79

A proponent of Senate Resolution 308, Congressman Durbin said on the Senate

floor, “nearly 600,000 international students from more than 200 countries study in the

United States each year. The future of our nation depends on our ability to prepare the

next generation of leaders for an increasingly complex global society.” If done correctly,

study abroad “not only opens doors to careers, it opens minds and worlds of possibilities”

and is a way of creating a peaceful global community. “The future challenges that face all

77 Ibid.78 Camp, Roderic. Philip M. McKenna Professor of the Pacific Rim, Claremont McKennaCollege Study Abroad Brochure, 2007.79 “Study Abroad,” Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA.<http://offcampus.claremontmckenna.edu/studyabroad/> (January 10, 2007).


nations will require an unprecedented degree of understanding and cooperation among

countries and their leaders.”80 Congressman Durbin’s statements are in line with Pitzer

College President Laura Trombley’s inaugural address.

President Trombley Sets the Bar High for Pitzer

Colleges have taken on the concept of studying abroad as instrumental to

learning. Even before 2006 was declared the “Year of Study Abroad,” Pitzer College

President Laura Trombley addressed the need in her inaugural speech in February, 2003,

forty years after Pitzer was founded.

Trombley highlighted Pitzer’s past, built on the foundation of the Claremont

village dump, in the words of the first Pitzer president John Atherton, “The big yellow

bulldozers leveling the mounds for Scott and Sanborn Halls turned up bedsprings and

baby buggies — all the effluvia of the early pioneers underlay the educational hopes of

the wonder child who came to transform the world.” Atherton showed the importance of

being different, and proud of it, while also respecting difference and independence of

thought. As Trombley said, "a continuing discussion and debate of current social and

political issues" is still solidly in place at Pitzer. She also argued that Pitzer stands at “the

forefront of educating for and effecting social change. We stand as a model for other

liberal arts colleges of how they could and should be educating.”

Trombley argued for the need to continue to provide students with tools to

“understand and to be agents for change in local and global communities.” In 2003, sixty

percent of students studied abroad in over thirty countries, but Trombley would like to

80 Congressional Record, November 10, 2005.


increase this number to one hundred percent. “Pitzer students should have the experience

of immersing themselves in cultures that are not their own so that they may gain deeper

understanding of themselves and their native communities,” Trombley said, stressing the

importance of serving the community as a reciprocal providing equal benefit. “What our

students learn in their studies around the world … is one of the College's most distinctive

educational objectives: concern with social responsibility and the ethical implications of

knowledge and action.”81 Trombley’s words are further emphasized in the Pitzer College

Catalogue, 2006-2007.

Where and how did we begin? The WASC Reports of 1988 and 1998

In order to understand where we are at present with regard to Pitzer’s study

abroad programs, it is necessary to go back to the beginning. While Pitzer has sent

students to many sites in the U.S. and abroad for study throughout its history, it was not

until the 1980s that it became seen as “integral to the College’s curriculum and

educational mission.”82 In the beginning students who studied abroad were handled out of

the Dean of Faculty's office and administratively, students took a leave of absence to

study abroad transferring credit after the fact, if approved by the Registrar's Office and a

faculty member in the field of study. Prior to the establishment of the External Studies

Committee, students on financial aid were not able to study abroad because no aid was

81 Trombley, Laura. “We Have Come of Age,” Inaugural Speech, February 15, 2003.<http://www.pitzer.edu/offices/president/speeches/20030115_inauguration.asp>(February 1, 2007).82 Pitzer College Self –Study Report for Reaffirmation of Accreditation. Prepared forAccrediting Commission for Senior Colleges & Universities, The Western Association ofSchools and Colleges, Fall 1998.


possible for a student on a leave of absence.83

In the fall of 1987 a formal External Studies Committee was established, with the

first task of the committee aimed at putting “the entire external studies operation on

sound financial footing.”84 Under the system, students on financial aid were only allowed

to attend certain programs. The new financial plan used the tuition fees for all students

participating on external studies in a given year to pay for external studies,

administration, and financial aid. The college also committed to subsidizing the budget,

to a certain extent, and chose to admit twenty additional students to make up for the

tuition revenues lost.85

The new plan allowed for greater flexibility and developed five basic criteria for

program selection: 1) “immersion” was favored over “island,” 2) homestays were

preferred to dorm-style living, 3) programs with independent study versus class-based

learning were also favored, 4) prior language training was not seen as integral for all

locations, especially for programs where language training was not easily accessible in

Claremont, and finally 5) the committee favored programs which had faculty interest in

order to have sustained academic support.86 Based on these criteria some previous

programs were eliminated. Also during this time Pitzer joined cooperative programs

through CIEE and IES (Institute for European Studies) and operated its own program in

Nepal. Mike Donahue, Director of Pitzer Programs in Intercultural Education, elaborated

on how the Nepal program was developed, discussing how it came out of a collaboration

83 Barker, Neva. Interviewed on April 11, 2007. Claremont, CA.84 Ellsworth, Frank L. Pitzer College Application for Re-Accreditation to the WesternAssociation of Schools and Colleges, June 1989, 74.85 Ibid.86 Ellsworth, 75.


with Don Brennis, an Anthropology professor who had previously done the Peace Corps

in Nepal, Jan Cory (Pitzer class of 1975) and then Vice President of the College Jim

Jamison. Donahue was hired in 1978 and ostensibly found homestays, language teachers,

scholars and experts to create the foundation of the Pitzer’s oldest program. After

students came back transformed, faculty began to question the components of the “ideal

transformative experience.”87 Over the course of subsequent years, the college “made a

firmer commitment to this program to ensure its quality, by providing long-run contracts

for language instructors in Nepal,”88 and establishing formal ties with a local university in

Kathmandu. The section on External Studies in the WASC report ends by declaring a

“financially sound, fairer and reinvigorated External Studies Program is now in place,

constituting a further important ingredient of Pitzer’s renewed commitment to

intercultural education.”89

The development of the External Studies program was central to the College’s

Educational Objectives and curriculum in the Western Association of Schools and

College’s self-study report from 1998. It was characterized by four overlapping phases:

from 1987-1992, when a new set of offerings, policies and procedures were designed and

implemented; from 1990-1997, during the creation of a series of Pitzer College External

Studies sites; the third, began in 1992 and was expected to conclude in 1999, involving

faculty involvement and quality control; and finally beginning in 1996 and expected to

87 Donahue, Mike. Interview on April 11, 2007. Claremont, CA88 Ellsworth, 77.89 Ellsworth, 79.


run through 2002, a period of deepening community ties, growing reciprocity, and greater

curricular integration.90

Phase one, ‘Setting the Philosophy and Foundations,’ describes the early period of

reorganizing of the college, (as aforementioned) noting 1987 as a time of change. After a

study of Pitzer programs in Italy and Nepal, comparing other programs, four elements

were designated as important for students to have as components to study abroad

programs forming the basis for Pitzer programs. These four elements are synthesized

from the five criteria from the 1988 report. They are: 1) host-family, living with people of

the host culture; 2) language, studying the local language intensively in non-English

speaking countries; 3) independent study, a directed study or internship specific to the

student’s concentration; 4) interaction, engagement with the people of the host culture in

such a way as to “demonstrate appropriate and tangible appreciation for the culture.”91

At this point the college recognized the fact that not all programs would offer

each of these components and that not all Pitzer students would seek out immersion

experiences with these criteria. Thus the college incorporated flexibility into the new

model. Overall, the aforementioned criteria were the foundation upon which an

‘approved’ program list was built. In phase two, “these criteria would become the

foundational keys to the development of a series of Pitzer-run programs.”

Just after the financial changes in 1987, fewer than 40 students took advantage of

the educational opportunity to go abroad. But, levels of participation continually

increased to 79 students in 1988-89 and 110 by 1990-91. At the time of the WASC report

in 1998, according to the Institute of International Education (IIE), Pitzer College ranked

90 WASC 1998, 59.91 Ibid, 60.


among the top fifteen colleges and universities of any size in percentage of students

participating in study abroad.92 In the period after 1998 numbers increased; and the last

two phases will be discussed in Chapter 3.

Incorporation of Intercultural Understanding into the Educational Objectives

To show how highly Pitzer regards intercultural understanding, it has been

incorporated into an objective for all students. Pitzer’s fifth Educational Objective,

Intercultural Understanding, asks students to learn “about their own culture” by placing it

in “comparative perspective, students appreciate their own and other cultures, and

recognize how their own thoughts and actions are influenced by their culture and

history.”93

The International and Intercultural Studies field group has also incorporated

external study into their Mission Statement (passed in 2003). Looking at the methods and

requirements for students, they must combine “interdisciplinary coursework with

disciplinary classroom study, experiential learning at an external studies site and through

community based involvement, linguistic training, in-depth regional or global study, and

advanced coursework using interdisciplinary methods and epistemologies, such as

postcolonial studies… and environmental studies.”94

Pitzer encourages students from all majors, not just IIS, to think globally in hopes

of expanding their “understanding of other cultures while working to translate that

knowledge into action that will benefit the communities they become a part of whether

92 WASC 1998, 61.93 Pitzer College Catalogue, 2006-07, 9.94 Emphasis added, IIS Mission Statement, 2003.


here or abroad,”95 thus combining Intercultural Understanding with the Ethical

Implications of Knowledge. As the catalogue argues, this type of learning is fostered by

the Pitzer curriculum in Claremont and at study abroad sites around the world.96

Pitzer does not see study abroad as an experience separate from the rest of a

student’s education and students are expected to do coursework prior to their experience

abroad in order to “facilitate a sustained engagement with another culture.”97 Integrating

study abroad into the Pitzer education is argued as a key factor contributing to the record-

breaking number of post-graduate grants and fellowships and study abroad participants

are said to make up 85% of those winning such awards.98

Pitzer vs. the Nation: Comparing Pitzer to National Statistics

According to a Pitzer Student Fact sheet (2006-2007), 151 Pitzer students are

studying abroad in 26 different countries on 37 different programs, of those, 87 percent

are studying sixteen different languages, 81 percent are living with host families, and 77

percent are pursuing independent study projects.

From 1988-1998, out of the total number of students studying outside the Pitzer

campus, 1116, 10 percent went to Africa, 17 percent went to Asia, 2 percent went to

Eastern Europe, 11 percent went to Latin America and the Caribbean, 4 percent went to

the Middle East, 4 percent went to Oceana and 44 percent went to Oceania with the

remaining 8 percent studying within the US or Canada.99

95 Pitzer College Catalogue. 2006-07, 19.96 Ibid.97 Ibid.98 Ibid.99 WASC 1998, 62.


Out of the Pitzer students studying abroad, “nearly 90 percent are on full semester

or year-long programs” and the remaining student’s are part of Pitzer’s own six-week

summer programs that are said to be “particularly demanding due to the intensive

program structure.” As the catalogue says, destinations chosen by Pitzer students “are

more diverse and widely distributed around the globe than the national averages with the

majority of Pitzer students choosing programs outside of Western Europe and the

English-speaking world.” Pitzer further “encourages students to stretch beyond their

comfort zone to become engaged, thoughtful and critically reflective citizens both of their

own country and the contemporary world.”100

According to Open Doors, the annual report on international education published

by the Institute of International Education, 205,983 students studied abroad in 2006 (an

8% increase over the prior year's report). Open Doors have documented a growing

interest in destinations in Asia and South America. Nationwide, students are increasingly

studying in “non-traditional” destinations, and increasingly to non English-speaking

countries. U.S. study abroad has been rising steadily in recent years, with an increase of

144% in the last decade, up from only 84,403 in 1994/95.101

President and CEO of the Institute of International Education, Allan E. Goodman,

highlights the recent trend of U.S. students studying in countries such as China and India

that “will provide useful language and cultural skills for their future careers" and he

argues, as President Trombley did, that “International study should be a part of every

student's education." As Goodman said: "American colleges are providing more

100 Ibid.101 Open Doors Report: Information and Data Tables released November 13, 2006<http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/> (January 30, 2007).


opportunities for students to have an international experience and are beginning to

address some of the barriers to participation in study abroad, in order to prepare their

students to be global citizens."102 The 20 most popular destinations for study abroad in

Open Doors 2006 were: United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, France, Australia, Mexico,

Germany, China, Ireland, Costa Rica, Japan, Austria, New Zealand, Czech Republic,

Greece, Chile, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, and India. While 45 percent of all U.S.

students abroad study in Western European destinations (#1 United Kingdom, #2 Italy,

#3 Spain, and #4 France), the number of students going to other countries increased,

including a 35 percent increase (to 6,389, up from 4,737 the previous year) in students

going to China, now the 8th-leading host destination. The report also highlighted the

increase in the number of students going to other non-traditional destinations throughout

the world, noting specifically the large increases in three countries in the top 20 list for

the first time: Argentina, Brazil, and India. India is now the 20th leading destination, up

53 percent to 1,767.103

In contrast to the majority of Pitzer students studying abroad for a semester, the

Open Doors 2006 data showed the largest growth area as short-term study. Over 50

percent of US students studied abroad over the summer, January term, or other programs

of less than one semester. According to Open Doors, “These short-term programs have

played an important role in increasing the popularity of study abroad, offering flexible

international study opportunities to students who might otherwise be unable to participate

102 Ibid.103 Ibid.


in traditional programs.” The "semester abroad" model now attracts 38 percent of

students and only 6 percent of students studied abroad for a full academic year.104

Conclusion

Prior to the US Congress’s naming of 2006 as the year of study abroad, President

Trombley’s assertion that all students should study abroad marked a turning point in the

College’s goals and operations. By looking at the WASC reports from 1988 and 1998, the

evolution of Pitzer’s programs may be seen up to 1998. The establishment of Intercultural

Understanding as an educational objective is an important point as well. Where Pitzer

was in the 1990s, compared to the nation as a whole, is also telling of the importance

Pitzer places on studying abroad. Finally, the history of where we are today and how we

can adapt to give all students opportunities to study abroad that are meaningful and

transformative while also maintaining social responsibility and ethical implications of

knowledge and action is a challenge. The following chapter looks specifically at the

periods of development after 1998, to understand where we are now.

104 Ibid.


Chapter 3: The Pitzer Model for the Pitzer Program

Evidence of the Impact of Studying Abroad

While the impact of studying abroad is difficult to measure quantitatively,

questionnaires in the 1998 WASC report attempted to evaluate the experience. From an

alumni questionnaire asking: “Did Pitzer’s emphasis on interdisciplinary learning,

intercultural understanding and social responsibility play a part in your college

experience in developing connections across disciplines?” 87.6 percent of the

respondents selected a rating of 5, 6, or 7 while 41.3 percent selected the very highest

rating.105 The survey also asked questions with a specific focus on intercultural

understanding: “Did Pitzer’s emphasis on interdisciplinary learning, intercultural

understanding, and social responsibility play a part in your college experience of

developing a sense of understanding and sensitivity to other cultures?” To this, 88.6

percent of Alumni/ae selected ratings of 5-7 with a majority choosing the highest ranking

of seven.106 Finally, the last question asked about Pitzer’s own programs: If you

participated in an external studies program while at Pitzer, how valuable was the

experience?” Showing the strength of the programs, 87 percent rated their experience as

high as possible.107

More recently, annual graduate senior surveys have asked if students studied

abroad and attempt to show the differences in attitudes between those who studied abroad

and those who didn't, focused on several key questions. In addition, Appendix C includes

an alumni survey; however, this is problematic because only 8 percent of alumni

105 WASC 1998.106 Ibid.107 Ibid, 163-5.


complete it and the survey includes people graduating in different eras, most from before

Pitzer’s current study abroad programs.108

Such data is further supported by personal reports, such as the 1996 Hewlett-

funded faculty seminar in Nepal and South Asia with a set of alumni/ae who had attended

Pitzer’s program in Nepal in it’s inaugural year in 1974 until 1995. “Without exception,

these alumni/ae attested to the transformative effect their semester in Nepal had had on

them. While each of them has taken a different course in life, all of them spoke

powerfully and eloquently to the significant impact of their cultural immersion

experience in a non-Western society.”109 Although not supported with clear quantitative

data, first-hand accounts contribute to qualitative analysis of the programs.

According to statistics from IIE, study abroad changes student’s perceptions of

the world in several different ways: 98 percent of those returning state that studying

abroad helped them understand their own culture, 94 percent of students said the

experience continues to influence interactions with people from different cultures, and 86

percent of returning students felt a reinforced commitment to language study. Study

abroad also impacts students in a positive manner in many ways: 97 percent felt study

abroad made them more mature, 96 percent felt study abroad increased their self-

confidence and 89 percent felt they were better able to tolerate ambiguity. In addition,

students reflected on the impact study abroad had on career paths with 76 percent of

returnees saying the skills learned while abroad influenced their career path and 62

108 Appendix C.109 WASC 1998, 165


percent saying that study abroad “ignited a new career interest that they pursued after

graduation.”110

In a report prepared for IIE, employers advocated that individuals with

international study experience are likely “to possess cross-cultural communication skills,

flexibility, autonomy, leadership skills, innovation, maturity, presentation skills,

ambition, independence and cultural awareness.”111 To further illustrate the evidence

such an experience abroad may have, Carol Brandt, Pitzer College Vice President for

International Programs notes that “of Pitzer’s record-breaking number of Fulbright

winners in 2006, 87 percent participated in Study Abroad. All of our Watson, Coro, and

Rotary Award winners studied abroad,” of the 16 awardees, 11 had immersion or

homestays, 13 studied a foreign language abroad and 11 did an independent study or

internship for credit.112 Further study into the correlation between Pitzer’s immersive

model as a means of preparing students for awards such as the Fulbright may lead to

interesting results.

There have been several different studies attempting to show the impact of study

abroad in “cognitive, affective, and behavioral development.”113 In studies from 1985

(Koester), 1999 (Lathrop) and 2000 (Pettigrew & Tropp) research has found that while

both short and long-term programs have an impact, “the longer and more fully integrated

110 Statistics from the Institute for the International Education of Students. The 50-YearIES Alumni Survey, 2004.111 An Exploration of the Demand for Study Overseas From American Students andEmployers, 2004. IIE.112 Brandt, Carol. “Studying Abroad Delivers Results.” Pitzer College Participant, Spring2006, 15.113 A review of these studies from 1975-2002 may be found in Cushner, Kenneth and AtaU. Karim. “Study Abroad at the University Level.” Handbook of Intercultural Training,Third Edition. Dan Landis Janet M. Bennett, and Milton J. Bennett eds. Thousand Oaks:Sage Publications Inc., 2004, 295.


the program, the greater potential for impact.”114 Short-term programs may lack the time

it takes to cross fully into a culture and the impact may not remain over a period of time.

However, even among these various studies there have been conflicting results between

quantitative and qualitative analysis and what these tell about the impact of a program.115

The Development of the Pitzer Rationale

During the beginning of the External Study reorganization (1987-1990), most of

the attention focused on the “development of an explicit rationale for expanding

participation and a means to pay for it.”116 After the process began, many students and

faculty members became interested in improving upon the offerings, many times, in

places where no programs existed or alternatively, where programs existed that were far

from the ‘Pitzer Model’ and thus did not meet the College’s needs. According to the

WASC self-study report, in the late 1980s, there were not many options for studying

abroad in Africa, and perhaps not surprisingly (during Apartheid) none in the Southern

Africa region. Both for the purpose of encouraging study to this region and meeting

demand, Pitzer College joined Scripps College in the development of a site in Zimbabwe,

which opened in March 1990. Subsequently, in 1997, when Scripps College decided not

to operate its own off-campus programs, Pitzer became responsible for the Zimbabwe

program, which then moved to Botswana in 2000, as a result of political instability in

Zimbabwe.117

114 Ibid, 300.115 Ibid.116 WASC, 1998.117 Ibid, 63.


The Pitzer program in Parma, Italy, with its inaugural Spring 1992 semester, is

“an example of the type of educational experience that the college wanted for its

students.”118 Despite the plethora of study abroad programs in Italy, there were none

which successfully used the field-study and immersion criteria Pitzer College advocated,

demonstrated in the Nepal program. Pitzer in Nepal, which started in 1974 as an every-

other-year offering “became emblematic of Pitzer College’s External Study Program at

its best, giving self-motivated learners the linguistic and cultural knowledge to become

meaningfully engaged in a field study environment.”119 According to the WASC report,

students “returned from Nepal transformed by an experience that helped … to put their

own cultures and privileges in perspective.” The program, composed of a community-

development project and an outreach service, “brought substance and agency to the

students desire to ‘give back.’” In 1988 the Nepal program began operating every

semester until it was moved to Darjeeling India in 2004 for political reasons and currently

awaits its return to Nepal.

After several years of increasing costs for External Studies programs, in 1992, the

college engineered a plan for the purpose of increasing “financial and academic control

of Pitzer programs.” Over a period of five-years the goal was to increase the number of

Pitzer students participating in Pitzer-run programs (From 1988-90 until 1993-94 that

proportion ranged between 10-15 percent, after which it has grown steadily, exceeding 30

percent in 1994-95 and nearing 50 percent in 1996-97).120

118 Ibid, 64.119 Ibid.120 Ibid.


In 1998, 11 semester programs were operated by the College: Nepal (1974), Japan

(Summer, 1987), Zimbabwe (1990), Italy (1992), Turkey (1994), China (1995), Wales

(1995), Ontario, CA (1996), and Venezuela (1996), Guatemala (Summer 1997), Costa

Rica (Summer 1998), and Ecuador (1997).121 The opportunities have ballooned and

currently there are at least seven Pitzer programs to choose from and a myriad of

exchanges.122 As the WASC report says, “We now have a 25-year record of watching

students return literally transformed by their experiences in Nepal. Nonetheless, we are

aware that we need techniques for better understanding how such transformation can

occur and how to increase the probability that it will occur for students attending our

External Studies programs.”123 As one faculty member said in the WASC report: “I

suspect that the vast majority of students who study abroad will find something good to

say about their experiences. But some of them are aglow when they return. There is a

light in their eyes, and I would like to know why.”124

Pitzer realized that programs involving students in the local culture through basic

interaction such as language, family stays, community projects, and independent study

“were for Pitzer College students more likely to result in meaningful learning than those

that dichotomized ‘experiential’ and ‘academic’ learning, viewing the former as personal

and/or social and the latter as intellectual.”125 In addition, for students participating in

programs without the structure to promote cultural engagement, the greatest educational

benefit was attributed to the “‘non-intellectual’ dimensions of the study abroad

121 Listed with the date the program began.122 All the programs as of spring 2007 can be seen in Appendix A.123 WASC, 1998, 136124 Ibid.125 Ibid.


experience.”126 At this point, it was clear to the College that it needed to “structure its

own programs in ways that would enable students to integrate their affective and

cognitive learning.”127 While each program was different and tailored to its specific

location, homestays, language study, internships/independent study, and an element of

community service were components of all the programs. In addition, the programs

included intensive writing, using a Pitzer innovation called the fieldbook, promoting

critical reflection, observation, and expression through a series of writing assignments.128

During phase three, “Faculty Involvement and Quality Control,” faculty seminars

and visits to the program sites were carried out and in phase four, known as “Reciprocity,

Community Partnerships and Reentry” the Political Studies 30: Intro to Comparative

Politics course was revamped to focus on six countries with Pitzer programs. This period

also marked the development of the External Studies Colloquium Course to help students

re-enter after going abroad.

The Last Two Phases of Development

After 1998, the development of external studies can be broken into two additional

phase outside the purview of the WASC review. These may be categorized as

“Responding to Political and Economic Changes” from 1999-2003 and the “Creating

New Opportunities and Models for Studying Abroad” from 2004 to the present. A report

in 2004 prepared for the External Studies Committee highlighted five major changes in

structure, funding and external conditions from 1999-2003: A concentration on

126 Ibid, 137.127 Ibid128 WASC, 1998, 64.


deepening rather than expanding Pitzer programs, unprecedented support from

foundations and grants, increasing recognition across the nation of Pitzer’s model of

intercultural and language education through publications and presentations, global

changes affecting both outbound and inbound programs and the shift to a “net revenue”

model for external studies.129

In looking at depth versus breadth, the report focused on then President Massey’s

request to deepen existing programs using Pitzer’s model of intercultural education and

strengthen efforts to show the success of programs to audience’s outside the college in

conjunction with advancement and public relations goals. During this period, the college

received foundational support totaling almost 2.5 million dollars from various grants such

as Andrew W. Mellon, The European Union, The Freeman Foundation, and Atlantic

Philanthropies. Presentations were made at national conferences such as CIEE, The

International Educators Association (NAFSA), Teachers of English to Speakers of Other

Languages (TESOL) and the Association of Academic Deans (AAD), among others.

The period of 1999-2003 was also a time of global economic and political change.

During the 1990’s, Pitzer’s programs had enjoyed generally stable conditions aside from

the Gulf War, unrest in Los Angeles, and the Asian economic crisis. Some of the changes

included a coup d’etat in Ecuador in 1999, violent land distribution in Zimbabwe (2000

to present), conflict between the Nepali government and Maoists (2001-present),

September 11, 2001 and “its subsequent effect on perceptions of safety and travel and

destination, the SARS crisis in China (2003) among other State Department warnings

129 “Report on External Studies and the Center for Intercultural and Language Education1999-2003.” Prepared for the External Studies Committee, Pitzer College, January 2004.


against Nepal, Venezuela, China and Turkey.130 During this time, programs were

relocated and as a result of the economic and political situation around the world and

there was a decline in Pitzer and non-Pitzer student enrollment in Pitzer programs.

The final change during the report highlights the shift to a net revenue model for

external studies. In 1999, after years of increasing revenues by external studies, the

college built in an expectation for increased revenue into the general budget for the

college. This change marked a shift from External Studies expected to break even. The

timing of the shift also happened to be at the same time as problems at program locations

abroad and unforeseen circumstances both in the US and abroad. At this time, the college

reduced fixed and variable costs to the programs and initiated a program of low cost/no

cost exchanges funded through the Mellon Foundation. However, as the report notes

“these measures have been helpful” but cannot address the “larger problems of our

current financial model.”131 As a result, in a Board of Trustees meeting in February 2004

the model was changed to enroll more Pitzer students in Pitzer programs, reduce reliance

on non-Pitzer enrollment, allow students to study abroad for more than one semester and

meet budget conditions. Thus exchange programs began.

The Development of the Exchange Model

To respond to the changes in the development of External Studies in the last two

phases, from 1999 to now, Pitzer expanded opportunities to create a financially feasible

means for more students to go abroad and allow for a second experience abroad. In 2003,

Pitzer requested 300,000 dollars from the Mellon Foundation to implement a three-year

130 Ibid, 12.131 Ibid, 14.


project focusing on intercultural faculty and student exchanges with partner institutions

abroad.132 The rationale articulated Pitzer’s desire for ethnic and racial diversity on

campus, believing that, “daily interactions among people from diverse backgrounds in

both formal and informal educational settings encourage intercultural understanding.”

The report also cited that despite politics around the world, study abroad continues and

participation has nearly tripled in the last decade illustrating its importance today. The

proposal envisioned a three-year project with four basic components: “faculty exchanges,

student exchanges, shared syllabi, and collaboration through technology.” The proposal

contained five main goals: 1) to achieve the presidential vision of 100 percent student

participation in study abroad programs; 2) to increase the number of international

students on the Pitzer campus; 3) to provide a different kind of immersion experience

having a more tightly focused intellectual content based on a variety of academic

disciplinary areas, not solely on language learning; 4) to further collaboration with other

Claremont College faculty, and; 5) to generally enhance the diversity of viewpoints to

which Claremont students and faculty are exposed.133

In discussing exchanges it is important to note that Pitzer has operated exchanges

with a number of colleges in the US, such as Colby, Haverford, and Spellman. The 2003

proposal aimed to go a step further and result in a more “internationalized campus with

multiple perspectives and worldviews cutting across race, ethnicity, class, gender, and

religion.”134 To do so, partnering institutions were (and still are) encouraged to “broaden

132 Dengu-Zvobgo, Kebokile. “International Faculty and Student Exchanges.” To TheAndrew W. Mellon Foundation, from Pitzer College in association with Harvey MuddCollege and Claremont McKenna College, July 2003.133 Dengu-Zvobgo, 4.134 Ibid.


their selection beyond the affluent elite.”135 In addition to the shared course, students in

both sites were able to determine their own courses so that each student had a program

suiting his/her needs determined with a faculty advisor. It was hoped that exchanges

would “further diversity by bringing new perspectives to classrooms as well as general

campus intellectual life.” Some of the anticipated benefits from carrying out this project

were: a chance to bring additional multicultural influences to all the involved campuses’

intellectual communities; an intellectually focused alternate immersion experience for

students; and the broadening of the number of sites beyond the eight current external

study sites.136

In the First Interim Report to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, covering the

period December 2003 to November 2004, five Pitzer faculty created partnerships with

professors abroad to teach courses taught at both Pitzer and abroad. Under the section

titled, “Extension of Model to Other Types of Exchanges” the report discusses five other

exchange projects which evolved as a result of other funding sources (Australia, Spain,

Thailand, Turkey and the UK). These have been instituted administratively, with a hope

to involve faculty in the later stages. In 2004, exchanges took many forms, but the hope

was, and still is to harmonize them with the rest of the External Studies programs and the

overall educational objective of intercultural understanding and immersion.” This is an

important concept in determining the next step of the evolution of Pitzer programs.137

Based on the differences between sites, course structure and semester timing the

expectation was aimed at maintaining equivalency over a 3 year period. These exchanges

135 Ibid.136 Ibid, 7-8.137 Dengu-Zvobgo, Kebokile. “International Faculty and Student Exchanges.” FirstInterim Report to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, December 31, 2004.


are also different, because not only are they exchanges, but they are also intended as

socially responsible exchanges aimed at increasing Pitzer’s own presence of

internationally diverse students on campus. The report also mentions that “what is

particularly exciting is that for the first time we can tell students that anyone who wants a

study abroad experience can have one,” a feat not every college is able to offer. Since

2003 (to spring 2007), a total of 74 students from Pitzer participated in exchanges and for

2007-2008 this number is expected to total roughly 67.138 This is in part a result of

collaborating with International Student Exchange Program (ISEP), in which Pitzer was

able to offer seven more locations for study abroad.

Adapting Exchanges and New Programs and Opportunities for Studying Abroad

One of the challenges for the exchange programs is to bring them in line with the

facilitation of intercultural understanding by integrating components of Pitzer programs

that are more likely to result in deeper understanding. Under the basic structure of

university-based exchanges the type of intercultural sensitivity Pitzer strives for is not

necessarily produced, without intentionally aiming to have this experience. Accordingly,

by acknowledging and altering university-based exchanges to contain the components of

language study, homestays and independent study Pitzer is able to realize these goals.

Along with the integration of the components for facilitating intercultural

understanding, as a general educational objective for the upcoming review by WASC,

Pitzer has chosen "Connecting the Global and Local: deepening knowledge and

understanding about, developing skills and competencies related to, and fostering

138 Barker, Neva. Interviewed on April 11, 2007. Claremont, CA.


engagement with and action on global/local issues." As Peter Nardi writes in the Pitzer

Participant, for nearly 20 years the College has required students to “acquire a somewhat

vaguely specified level of international and intercultural understanding.”139 The intention

of choosing Global/Local as a subject is to further develop the college’s approach to

attain “international and intercultural understanding informed by increasing

understanding of the connections between global processes and local communities.”140

This summer (2007), will be the first set of linked courses on global/local issues for first-

year students. Professor of Psychology Mita Banerjee is offering Children at Risk to be

followed by Community-Based Interventions: HIV/AIDS and Vulnerable Children in

Botswana at the Pitzer program site in Gabarone, Botswana and Associate Professor of

Sociology and Black Studies Dipa Basu is teaching Framing Urban Life to be paired with

Framing Rural/Urban Life in South Asia at Pitzer's Nepali Studies program site in

Darjeeling, India.141 With new opportunities, come new questions such as: Will one

month be long enough to facilitate a transformative model of intercultural understanding?

What kind of reciprocity or opportunities will there be for giving back to the host

community in such a short length of time?

Theoretical Aspects of Intercultural Education

To critically analyze the rationale behind studying abroad, Georgina Tsolidis,

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Milton Bennett’s approaches and theories of

139 Nardi, Peter. “Pitzer’s Accreditation Process, A Commitment to Excellence.” PitzerCollege Participant, Spring 2006, 14.140 Ibid.141 Dengu-Zvobgo, Kebokile. Third Interim Report to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation,from Pitzer College. December 31, 2006.


intercultural education and understanding will be discussed. These authors are used to

show the importance of pre-departure knowledge on cross-cultural communication as

well as country-specific information.

Georgina Tsolidis, professor of Education at Monash University in Australia,

quotes Dutch Feminist Rosi Braidotti posing a series of questions important for

educators, “What sort of agents of international exchange are the young students of today

planning to be? What values will they defend? What is our vision? What is the ‘pursuit of

excellence’ worth for us?”142 Curriculum and pedagogy, are themselves culturally

situated knowledges, “students with cross-cultural expertise are likely to be more

successful global citizens than those who are staunchly monocultural.” 143 She argues that

if the context of teaching is seen as global rather than local, “this inverts traditional

conceptions of ethnic disadvantage”144 and cultural fluidity is then the currency of

globalization, “all students need to know how to function between cultures, not just

within one, albeit one associated with dominance.”145

In an article by Spivak titled, “Righting Wrongs,” she uses her own experience to

show the importance of seeing the self in the eyes of the global South. Looking at the

lack of communication between and among the subaltern cultures of the world, Spivak

argues that, while cultural borders are “easily crossed from the superficial cultural

relativism of metropolitan countries” going the other way is much more difficult. So-

called peripheral countries (or those in the global South), “encounter bureaucratic and

142 Braidotti, 1994 quoted in Tsolidis, 218.143 Tsolidis, Rosi. “When global citizenship sounds like a cliché.” Journal of Research inInternational Education. 2002, 219.144 Ibid, 221.145 Ibid, 225.


policed frontiers,” especially for those outside of the elite.146 This speaks to the

importance of a reciprocal exchange bringing students from peripheral sub-cultures

within the dominant culture.

Spivak also argues for reframing privilege to recognize limitations and to increase

knowledge. This may be done by working critically through one's “beliefs, prejudices and

assumptions and understanding how they arose and became naturalized.” Spivak asks

those who are in power within the discourse to “de-hegemonize their position and

themselves” and learn how to occupy the subject position of the other.147 Spivak’s

discussion begs the question: how can we dehegemonize our positions within a study

abroad program with concrete and specific practices? While, she doesn’t provide an

explicit answer, she argues those in the dominant culture must not speak for the other. In

this case, examining Spivak takes steps towards educating students concerning some of

the critiques of study abroad programs and how to remedy these problems (if at all).

Milton Bennett outlines two major schools of intercultural communication:

theory-and-research and theory-into-practice.148 He sees studying intercultural

communication as an attempt to answer the question: “How do people understand one

another when they do not share a common cultural experience?”149 Intercultural

communication further interrogates the concept of a “global village” by asking “Will its

146 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Righting Wrongs.” Nicholas Owen ed. Human Rights,Human Wrongs: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures, Oxford University Press, 2001, 119.147 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "The Intervention Interview." Southern HumanitiesReview 22:4 (Fall 1988): 323-342. Accessed April 18, 2007<http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Spivak.html>148 Bennett, Milton J. ed. Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selectedreadings. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, Inc., 1998, ix.149 Ibid, 1.


residents be neighbors capable of respecting and utilizing their differences or clusters of

strangers living in ghettos and united only in their antipathies for others?”150

Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)

provides the “theoretical framework to understand and assess the cognitive growth

process that occurs as students encounter cultural differences” (Bennett, 1993). Bennett’s

underlying assumption is that “difference must be experiences and then cognitively

processed to effect change in levels of intercultural sensitivity. The DMIS model brings

one through ethnocentric stages to ethnorelative stages. The stages work through

minimization, in which similarities between cultures are stressed and “differences are

almost ignored or trivialized in favor of universal characteristics.” Going from

minimization to the ethnorelative phase, difference is no longer seen as threatening, but

rather “just different.” This stage is one of “Acceptance, Adaptation and Integration”

accepting the view that though there are different cultures, “each culture has a valid and

viable construction of the world.”151 Acceptance recognizes culture as a variety of

worldviews, with respect to each one. Adaptation brings aspects and constructs from

other cultures into one’s own worldview and finally, the integration stage is in the

“margins” between cultures. This last stage is when people are outside the cultural frames

of reference and there “are no unquestioned assumptions, no intrinsically absolute right

behaviors, nor reference group.”152

Bennett describes three basic assumptions within intercultural sensitivity: 1) “The

phenomenology of difference is the key to intercultural sensitivity”; 2) using difference

150 Ibid, 1.151 Ibid.152 Bennett, 1993: 63 quoted on page 281.


as a means to reach intercultural sensitivity is done by ethnorelativism, such that cultures

are seen as “variable and viable constructions of reality”153; 3) While ethical choices must

be made for intercultural sensitivity to develop these choices should not be based on

“absolute or universal principles.” Therefore the end goals of ethical behavior must be

selected with an understanding that different actions are possible.154 In the Handbook of

Intercultural Training, the authors categorize intercultural training within intercultural

relations, as a new field with an interdisciplinary focus on cultural anthropology,

sociolinguistics, multicultural education and international business management.155

Exchange programs are as diverse as definitions of public diplomacy. As

Mikhailova says, they “embrace the whole spectrum of attributes and represent

differences from program to program and from country to country” depending to a

certain degree on the level of cultural adjustment, thus their impact has to be considered

within the context of theories on intercultural education and adjustment and how best to

facilitate these competencies.

Conclusion

The Pitzer model and rationale has informed the ethos of the external studies

committee since its inception in the 1980s. Jumping forward to the most recent phases of

development: “Responding to Political and Economic Changes” from 1999-2003 and the

“Creating New Opportunities and Models for Studying Abroad” from 2004 to the

present, exchanges have come into the discussion. As a low-to-no-cost endeavor that has

153 Ibid.154 Bennett, 1993.155 Landis, Dan. Bennett, Janet M and Bennett, Milton J. eds. Handbook of InterculturalTraining, Third Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 2004, 1.


the potential to be socially responsible in that they allow for a student from another

country to come to Pitzer, this is a viable solution. Exchanges, when done in a socially

responsible manner would allow students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to

exchange with Pitzer students. Exchanges may also allow students to have additional

experiences abroad, for longer than a semester; however, exchange programs do not

facilitate intercultural understanding in the same manner as Pitzer programs do. As a

result, looking to the theories of Tsolidis, Spivak and Bennet, there is a need to enhance

exchanges keeping in mind these authors to ensure students have the opportunity for

transformative learning to take place, at a low cost for the college. One opportunity to

create an enhanced low-cost exchange would be in the region of South Asia and more

specifically, Kerala, India.


Chapter Four: Developing a Responsible Exchange — Kerala

The Importance of Pre-Departure Planning

Pitzer is caught in a challenging and potentially problematic situation. With the

focus on volume and making sure that as many students can study abroad as possible

Pitzer may be placing too much confidence in the idea of improving “merely by

expanding the volume of exchanges,” without regard for who/where/what/why a student

goes, creating a paradox under which cultural exchanges are promoted.156 Is it better to

ensure students go abroad in some capacity, even if they may not deepen their

intercultural understanding, or to insist upon a specific type of study and immersion?

Given the institutional priorities for studying abroad as an integral aspect to a

Pitzer education as well as the financial limitations combined with the desire for more

study abroad options, the following model is one that, if done correctly, is both socially

responsible and financially viable while maintaining the essential components of Pitzer

programs.

In planning programs, Frankel outlines some basic safeguards and guiding

principles; beginning with a cautionary note that the people involved in exchange

programs should be carefully selected and appropriately prepared.157 As Frankel notes,

experience suggests that “Americans abroad or foreigners in this country have the best

time, and contribute most effectively to the cause of good will and understanding, when

they are required by their work and their environment to immerse themselves thoroughly

in the local scene.”158

156 Ibid.157 Ibid.158 Emphasis added. Frankel, 85.


The following model is based on the premise that it is important to maintain our

current programs and external study sites around the world and in the creation of new

programs, there is a moratorium on the creation of new Pitzer programs. It is also based

on the understanding of the importance of reflection and processing, and the possibilities

open for this reflection by taking advantage of technology in our current age of

globalization through Sakai, an interactive learning tool for online communication and

other technologies. Recognizing that crossing cultures is a stressful experience, further

complicated by academic expectations, “preparing sojourners for dealing with the

inevitable cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of intercultural adjustment may

allow them to deal more effectively with this experience and facilitate their cross-cultural

adjustment”(Brislin & Yoshida, 1994; Cushner and Brislin, 1996; Landis & Bhagat,

1996; Martin & Harrell, 1996; Paige, 1993).159 While preparation and training programs

should not be seen as a panacea, well-designed programs may provide a “frame of

reference for interpreting and effectively managing cognitive, emotional and behavioral

reactions” while also providing ways to adjust and adapt to cross-cultural situations.160

In the Journal of Research in International Education, John Scott Lucas provides

a teaching model for an introductory intercultural communication course, for the needs of

US students studying abroad. As he argues “what is missing is a course designed to take

students beyond basic orientation towards a full introductory communications course

159 Emphasis added. Cushner, Kenneth and Ata U. Karim. “Study Abroad at theUniversity Level.” Handbook of Intercultural Training, Third Edition. Dan Landis, JanetM. Bennett, and Milton J. Bennett eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 2004,295.160 Ibid, 295 (also in Brislin, 1993; Cushner & Brislin, 1996, 1997).


specifically geared to their experience on international study programs.”161 According to

Lucas, research has shown that greater knowledge about the host culture “leads to more

accurate expectations and decreased anxiety.”162

This model would begin with a preparatory class for students to gain the tools

necessary to engage with the host culture. Azusa Pacific has preparatory “Global

Learning Term” in which students take a group of 4 courses: Global Study Project,

International Internship, and Family Organization; and either Community Life or Self-

Directed Language Learning.163 While I am not arguing it is essential to have a full

semester load of preparatory study, a course combining aspects of these courses would be

beneficial for students nearing their study abroad experience, “The aim is to provide each

student with the necessary contrasts during their study and research to critically examine

their faith, politics, culture, and identity.”164 According to Azusa Pacific and affirmed by

other authors, “students typically find that the impact of their experience is in direct

proportion to the quality of the preparation that precedes the sojourn abroad, and the

degree to which students interact directly and intensively with the host people and

culture.”165 During this time a student would be able to research organizations they would

be interested in working with (and/or volunteering for). This course would also help to

organize and connect the experience to the student’s academic course of study, and would

161 Lucas, John Scott. “Intercultural Communication for International Programs: AnExperientially-based Course Design.” Journal of Research in International Education,2003, 302.162 Gudykunst, 1995, quoted in Lucas, John Scott. Intercultural Communication forInternational Programs: An Experientially-based Course Design. Journal of Research inInternational Education, 2003, 308.163 “Department of Global Studies and Sociology,” Azusa Pacific University, 2006-07<http://www.apu.edu/clas/globalstudies/global/curriculum/> (February 1, 2007).164 Ibid.165 Ibid.


compliment the External Studies Colloquium class which facilitates a re-entry after being

abroad. “Long after students return to their home institutions, coursework and faculty

should continue to challenge them to think critically and contextually about their

experiences abroad.”166

Kerala overview: The Land of Coconuts

Population: 31.6 millionCapital: TrivandrumMain Language: Malayalam

A state in southwestern India, Kerala

borders Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to the east

and the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean on its

west and south. Although the etymology is

disputed, many believe Kerala is a combination

of “kera,” meaning coconut palm and “alam”

meaning land, translated to mean land of the

coconuts. During the course of Kerala’s history,

the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the British have all contributed in different ways to the

economic development of the state.167 Along the country’s long coastline are many

reminders of its colonial past in the form of Syrian Churches, mosques, Dutch and

Portuguese heritage homes and a 16th century synagogue.168 As the government of Kerala

website states, “Its history unfolds the romantic and fascinating story of a unique process

166 Coffman, Jennifer E. “Study Abroad in Africa Considered within the New WorldEconomy.” African Issues, 50.167 Harding, Paul. Janine Eberle, Patrick Horton, Amy Karafin and Simon Richard. SouthIndia, 3rd Edition. Lonely Planet: 2005, 258.168 Harding, 258.


of cultural synthesis and social assimilation. In response to every challenge Kerala has

demonstrated through the ages its genius for adaptation and fusion of old traditions and

new values in every sphere of human thought and endeavor.”169 Described by tourist

guides as a “sliver of dense greenery sandwiched between the Arabian Sea and the

forested Western Ghats,”170 Kerala would be an

intriguing place for further study.

Kerala has many unique geographical and

socioeconomic features. Few of Kerala’s buildings

extend higher than the coconut palms, but the

occasional cell phone tower alerts the visitor to

continually modernizing scenery. In 1957 Kerala

was the first state in the world to democratically

elect a communist government. Despite low per

capita income it has been argued to have “the most

Kerala, India 2007 equitable land distribution” as a result of land

reform policies in the 1960s, 1970s. Kerala is proud of its healthcare and education,

boasting a literacy rate of officially 100 percent.171 In addition, UNICEF and the World

Health Organization (WHO) designated Kerala the world's first "baby-friendly state.” In

South India, women have traditionally had more freedom than in the North. This is seen

as especially true for Kerala, which was the first state to recruit female police officers in

1938 and has a history of matrilineal kinship system dating back to the 14th century when

169 “History and Culture.” Accessed March 8, 2007, <http://www.kerala.gov.in/>.170 Abram, David. et. al. The Rough Guide to India, 6th Edition. Rough Guides: New York,2006, 1207.171 Ibid, 1209.


certain Hindu communities used to follow a traditional matrilineal system known as

marumakkathayam.172

Southern India and Kerala specifically serves as an ideal location for a Pitzer

exchange, following the model of immersion based on Pitzer programs. It is a stable

experiential platform on which to base a model for future exchanges. Kerala is well

known as progressive in the realm of women’s education and literacy for girls and has a

great deal to teach students, particularly students from the US, about sustainability and

what it is like to harvest and produce one’s own food from the land surrounding one’s

home as well as economic development and parliamentary elected communism. With the

emergence of technology, call centers and the internet there is potential for sustained

exchange through technology. Kerala would be an interesting place to study a variety of

fields: Gender/Feminist Studies, Queer Studies, Environmental Studies, Religious Studies

among other subject areas.

Implementation of an enhanced exchange program in Kerala

Beyond the homestays, intensive language and an independent project should be

background study of the host country prior and during the time of studying abroad as well

as an exploration of the country through independent trips within the country. The

flexibility of exchange programs should also be seen as a feature adapting to current

conditions, as the CIEE President stressed, “students in the next decades will become

more proactive; they will need less traditional and more flexible study options.”173

172 Harding, 54.173 Mikhailova, 203; CIEE higher Education Programs, 1996, 3.


Using Marian College as a model to show what an enhanced exchange would

look like it is also important to note the importance of adapting to the conditions of the

host country. Looking at Marian College, it is a fully residential campus located in the

Sahyadri mountain range. In the on-campus housing, known as hostels, buildings are run

by priests and nuns, providing “a homely and secure environment for the students.”

Established in 1995, Marian College prides itself as being an eco-friendly campus and

students and faculty do not use plastic or other non-biodegradable materials on the

campus, according to their website, “students are made aware of the modern-day

environmental hazards and the social out-reach programs conducted by the college

awakens the local people to their responsibility for a greener earth.” Classrooms are also

equipped with modern teaching learning equipment and wired and wireless internet

access.174

Marion College’s vision is "to be a centre where knowledge enlightens through

incessant 'sadhana' and empowers its constituents to bring about life in abundance in the

universe.” Their mission incorporates concepts of globalization, networked economy and

e-learning, and the college claims to have:

A paradigm shift in education through Management and Information Technologybased courses to evolve into a dynamic centre grounded on Indian ethos, destinedto achieve the 'magis' (excellence in everything) by producing a pool of skilledand innovative minds with personal integrity, professional ingenuity and socialcommitment achieved through our motto: 'Information, Formation,Transformation.’175

174 Marion College Kuttikkanam: Kuttikkanam P.O., Peermade 685 531, Office :+91.4869.232203/232654. Fax : +91.4869.232438, [email protected],[email protected] Emphasis added. “The College with a Difference.” Accessed March 2, 2007<http://www.mariancollege.org/>.


The college has an emphasis on English, but they also provide remedial classes, which

may be a point of partnership, if a Pitzer student were to assist with conversational

classes. The college also boasts it has a “Zero strike campus: From the moment of its

inception no classes have been disrupted due to strikes or demonstrations.” Marian

College is also affiliated with Mahatma Gandhi University which was established on

October 2, 1983 by the Government of Kerala and is the largest of the seven Universities

in Kerala.176

Using Marion College as a model in Kerala India, prior to attending Marian

College it would be important for a student to have a basic understanding of Malayalam.

Enrolling students in a one-month intensive Malayalam course through the Vijana Kala

Vedi Cultural Centre, or contracting out a Malayalam tutor in coordination with the

Centre while a student did a homestay could satisfy the language component.177

The bulk of the time would be spent as an exchange student at Marian College.

Ideally, the school would be able to assist with finding and placing a student in a

homestay for at least part, if not all of their time in Kerala. At the University, students

could also have the opportunity to share hostel facilities with Malayalee students, helping

to teach English while continuing conversational Malayalam and taking courses at the

university. In order to facilitate interaction with various sectors of society the student

would enroll in 2-3 courses through the University with one focusing on some aspect of

culture and society, and do the equivalent of 1-2 independent projects facilitated either

through Marian College or a professor at Pitzer. One option for study may be with the

local community by working in a school, orphanage or NGO. Students could also do a

176 Ibid.177 Harding, 284.


research project or apprenticeship culminating in a Directed Independent Study Project.

For an exchange of this nature to be successful, it would need dedicated planning ahead

of time and a student prepared to face the many challenges of intercultural learning.

Conclusion

Kerala provides a location in which an enhanced socially responsible exchange is

both feasible and desirable. As the section on pre-departure planning notes, for this to be

successful students must be prepared and equipped with the tools and an understanding of

the basics of intercultural training to embark on a journey abroad in which they will be

both students and diplomats.

Pitzer students have had the opportunity to meet Nelson Mandela, Robert Mugabe

and Ian Smith as well as lesser-known individuals possessing indigenous knowledge.

Former host-mother, program director and current visiting assistant professor Kebokile

Dengu-Zvobgo described perhaps the most important feature of Pitzer programs as more

than meeting high profile people such as Mandela, Mugabe and Smith, but rather, face-

to-face diplomacy. “It is easy when we are in this kind of business to think everyone

knows that there’s a whole world out there,” Dengu-Zvobgo said. She sees the

importance on a more personal level, “When you walk into a woman’s house that’s from

Ranaka [a rural village in Botswana] and live with her for four weeks – that is

diplomacy,” she says. “When she hears on the radio that Americans are bad and want to

kill everyone and then she sees your photos of your family and meets you — that is

diplomacy. That is what is unique about a Pitzer education: it makes you all diplomats.”

Students learn about the people gaining citizenship of another place, “I dare even think


what you are doing is more important than political ambassadors,” Dengu-Zvobgo said.

In the most basic terms, she argued studying abroad takes steps toward making the world

a better place by “making the world a more peaceful space.” As she said, “If you really

know people in Gaborone, that impacts your mindset when you decide to throw a bomb.

If George Bush had a buddy in Baghdad who he had gone to college with — if there was

a home-stay mom there — there is no way he would have bombed Iraq.”178 Pitzer

students are carrying out public diplomacy on a face-to-face level every time they go

abroad.

Charles Frankel looks at the premise behind cultural exchanges and intercultural

understanding and critiques them by positing that it is “possible to understand another

man without liking him.”179 He debunks the natural assumption that the promotion of

international understanding will automatically lead to international good will. Frankel

also points out the importance of having substance behind phrases such as “good will and

“international understanding” standing alone, these are insufficient guides to well-

constructed programs of educational and cultural exchange: “The words are too vague to

indicate what a reasoned program of action should be, and they do not provide criteria by

which the success of educational and cultural programs can be adequately measure.”180

But, by providing a model of intercultural education for a socially responsible enhanced

exchange in Kerala, these are not just empty phrases but instead loaded with potential for

the creation of a more peaceful world, one student at a time.

178 Based on interviews and discussion, February 20, 2007.179 Frankel, 83.180 Ibid, 85.


Afterword: Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Development

As already mentioned, Pitzer faces what may be seen as a moral dilemmna: Do

we allow 100 percent of student to go abroad without ensuring that their experience is

meaningful to the fullest extent? The challenge is harmonizing the two models to create a

reputable hybrid program that meets the needs of the college, while not sacrificing the

colleges integrity. It is important to maintain a commitment to the ethical implications of

knowledge through action by ensureing our exchanges are socially responsible to allow

students from a variety of difference socioeconomic backgrounds on exchanges. The aim

of this thesis is to show that students have the capacity to bring about change in

themselves and others with the facilitation of a study abroad experience that is not only

positive but transformative. Furthermore, it is hoped that by looking at where Pitzer is

today and establishing a model for an inexpensive way of studying abroad in a way that

facilitates intercultural understanding, this model may be duplicated and applied not only

to colleges and universities, but also smaller independent programs through NGOs. In the

future, further research would be necessary for evaluation of the model, to see if this is an

effective alternative to the already established model of Pitzer programs.

Importance of preparation:

It is important to help students develop intercultural competence and intercultural

sensitivity. A course to prepare students for communication and one that would facilitate

a deeper understanding of diversity is important for students to recognize their own

privilege and power, and how these intersect with gender, race, sex and class. The college

must also stress the importance of students having a basic understanding of the country


they are going to, and support this by allowing independent research within a classroom

structure.

Development of exchange programs in line with needs and desires:

While it is important to understand the importance of providing exchanges in

locations such as Morocco and France, in which there has been a demonstrated need over

the years, for a French and Arabic speaking location. The college must also think about

where there should be programs in the future. An exchange in Southern India would

complement the the already established offerings with a new geographic location. It may

also allow students the opportunity to study in two completely separate areas of the same

broader regions, illustrating the heterogenous nature of nation-states and regions in the

global South that may be initially perceived as homogenous.

Student support in addition to faculty support:

The importance of faculty support is unquestionable for the sustainability of any

program abroad. In addition, the college should consider students as an important

resource of knowledge. In the same way Pitzer formerly had a faculty member as the

point person for each international program, the appointment of students who have

attended a given program as an accessible person to help with country-specific

informational sessions, as well as basic knowledge and understanding of the program

may be beneficial. Given the important role of students at Pitzer, the development of

future programs and exchanges should incorporate student feedback, input and

suggestions to the greatest degree possible.


Bibliography

Abram, David. et. al. The Rough Guide to India, 6th Edition. Rough Guides: New York,2006.

Allan, Michael. Frontier Crossings: Cultural dissonance, intercultural learning and themulticultural personality. Journal of Research in International Education 2003.

Barker, Neva. Interviewed on April 11, 2007. Claremont, CA.

Bennett, Milton J. ed. Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings.Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, Inc., 1998.

Beverly, Lindsay. “Integrating International Education and Public Diplomacy,”Comparative Education Review (1989): 426.

Brandt, Carol. “Studying Abroad Delivers Results.” Pitzer College Participant, Spring2006. Page 15.

British Columbia Center for International Education. Accessed February 7, 2007.<http://www.bccie.bc.ca/bccie/aboutBCCIE/index.asp>.

Camp, Roderic. Philip M. McKenna Professor of the Pacific Rim, Claremont McKennaCollege Study Abroad Brochure, 2006.

"Changing Minds Winning Peace: A New Strategic Direction for U.S. Public Diplomacyin the Arab & Muslim World," (October 1, 2003), USC Center on PublicDiplomacy, 13.<http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf> (February 8, 2007).

Chivers, C.J. “Dutch Soldiers Stress Restraint in Afghanistan.” New York Times, FridayApril 6, 2007, A1, A12.

Coffman, Jennifer E. Study Abroad in Africa Considered within the New World Economy.African Issues, Vol. 28, No.1/2, Study Abroad in Africa. (2000), pp. 49-53.

Congressional Record. Senate S12708. November 10, 2005.<http://www.yearofstudyabroad.org/pdf/CongressionalRecord.pdf> (January 29,2007).

Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program (Statistics fromthe Institute for the International Education of Students. The 50-Year IES AlumniSurvey, 2004)

Cull, Nicholas J. "'Public Diplomacy' Before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase”. USCCenter on Public Diplomacy


<http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/pdblog_detail/060418_public_diplomacy_before_gullion_the_evolution_of_a_phrase/> (January 22, 2007).

Cushner, Kenneth and Ata U. Karim. “Study Abroad at the University Level.” Handbookof Intercultural Training, Third Edition. Dan LandisJanet M. Bennett, and MiltonJ. Bennett eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 2004, 295.

Dengu-Zvobgo, Kebokile. “International Faculty and Student Exchanges.” First InterimReport to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, December 31, 2004.

Dengu-Zvobgo, Kebokile. “International Faculty and Student Exchanges.” Third InterimReport to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, from Pitzer College. December 31,2006.

“Department of Global Studies and Sociology,” Azusa Pacific University, 2006-07<http://www.apu.edu/clas/globalstudies/global/curriculum/> (February 1, 2007).

Donahue, Mike. Interviewed on April 11, 2007. Claremont, CA

Ellsworth, Frank L. Pitzer College Application for Re-Accreditation to the WesternAssociation of Schools and Colleges, June 1989.

Frankel, Charles. The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs: American Educational andCultural Policy Abroad. The Brookings Institution: Washington D.C., 1965.

Fry, Gerald W. The Economic and Political Impact of Study Abroad. ComparativeEducation Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, Foreign Students in Comparative Perspective.(May, 1984), pp. 203-220.

“Global Competence and National Need: One Million Americans Studying Abroad,”Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program<http://www.lincolncommission.org/> (January 29, 2007).

Harding, Paul. Janine Eberle, Patrick Horton, Amy Karafin and Simon Richard. SouthIndia, 3rd Edition. Lonely Planet, 2005

“International Faculty and Student Exchanges.” A proposal to The Andrew W. MellonFoundation from Pitzer College in association with Harvey Mudd College andClaremont McKenna College, July 2003.

‘Internationalizing Teaching/Learning.’ British Columbia Center for InternationalEducation. International Education Week, 2001 <http://exchanges.state.gov/iew2001/> (January 10, 2007).

International Education Week, 2001 < http://exchanges.state.gov/iew2001/> (January 10,2007).


Landis, Dan. Bennett, Janet M and Bennett, Milton J. eds. Handbook of InterculturalTraining, Third Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 2004.

Leonard, Mark. “Diplomacy by Other Means” (Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct 2002 48).

Lindsay, Beverly. Integrating International Education and Public Diplomacy: CreativePartnerships or Ingenious Propaganda. Comparative Education Review, Vol. 33,No. 4. (Nov., 1989), pp.423-436.

Lucas, John Scott. Intercultural Communication for International Programs: AnExperientially-based Course Design. Journal of Research in InternationalEducation, 2003.

Mikhailova, Liudmila K. The History of CIEE: Council of International EducationalExchange and its Role in International Education Development: 1947-2002A thesis submitted to the faculty of the graduate school of the University ofMinnesota by. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor ofphilosophy. October 2003.

“Mission + Offerings,” Council on International Educational Exchange<http://www.ciee.org/about/mission_offerings.aspx> (February 26, 2007).

Nye, Joseph. “Propaganda isn’t the Way: Soft Power,” The International Herald Tribune,January 10, 2003.<http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/nye_soft_power_iht_011003.htm> (February 24, 2007).

Nye, Joseph. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. FPA Event Transcript.May 10th, 2005.http://www.fpa.org/topics_info2414/topics_info_show.htm?doc_id=225504

Nardi, Peter. “Pitzer’s Accreditation Process, A Commitment to Excellence.” PitzerCollege Participant, Spring 2006. page 14.

Open Doors Report: Information and Data Tables released November 13, 2006<http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/> (January 30, 2007).

Paige, Rod. “Statement on International Education Week 2002, Washington D.C., August2002” <http://www.globaled.us/now/fullstatementpaige2.html> (January 10,2007).

Pitzer College Self –Study Report for Reaffirmation of Accreditation. Prepared forAccrediting Commission for Senior Colleges & Universities, The WesternAssociation of Schools and Colleges, Fall 1998.


Pitzer College Catalogue, 2006-07. p.9

Trombley, Laura. “We Have Come of Age,” Inaugural Speech, February 15, 2003.<http://www.pitzer.edu/offices/president/speeches/20030115_inauguration.asp>(February 1, 2007).

Tsolidis, Rosi. When global citizenship sounds like a cliché. Journal of Research inInternational Education 2002, 219.

United States Information Agency Association. “USIA Alumni Association,”<www.publicdiplomacy.org> (February, 7, 2007).

"U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces SignificantChallenges," (September 2003), USC Center on Public Diplomacy<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03951.pdf> (February 3, 2007).

“What is Public Diplomacy?” USC Center on Public Diplomacy< http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/about/whatis_pd> (February 12,2007).

“What is the Peace Corps?” Peace Corps<http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whatispc> (March 1, 2007).

“109th Congress, 1st Session Designating 2006 as the `Year of Study Abroad,'”November 10, 2005. Senate Resolution 308<http://www.yearofstudyabroad.org/senate_resolution.asp> (January 29, 2007).

“2006, The Year of Study Abroad,” Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study AbroadFellowship Program <http://www.yearofstudyabroad.org/studyabroad.asp>(February, 4, 2007).


Appendix A: History of Pitzer College External Studies/Study Abroad Programs

Bold = Currently running programs and exchanges May, 2007

1963 - 1964 Pitzer College opens to students

1965-1966 Pitzer's first two students participate in study abroadin Italy and France

1968 - 1969 Semester in Appalachia program (ended 1974)

1969 - 1970 Semester in France (ended 1985)

1971 - 1972 Pitzer History Project in England (ended 1972)

Semester in Marin, California (ended 1972)

1973-1974 Semester in Nepal (renamed Pitzer in Nepal. In Spring 2004,relocated to Darjeeling, India )

Semester in Africa (offered in Kenya until 1975)

1974 - 1975 Semester in Rome (ended in 1987)

Semester in Tuscarora, Nevada (ended 1978)

Semester in Argentina (ended 1975)

1976 - 1977 Semester in London (ended 1983)

1977 - 1978 Semester in Washington, DC (ended 1983)

1982 - 1983 Earth Sky and Water Project in New Mexico (ended 1984) withCarl Hertel

1987 – 1991 Summer Study at London School of Economics with Harvey Botwin

Summer 1988 Summer Study in Japan (continues through present)

1989 - 1990 Pitzer-Scripps in Zimbabwe (continued as Pitzer in Zimbabwe –then relocated to Botswana in Fall 2000)

1991 - 1992 Pitzer College in Parma (continues through present). Nowknown as Pitzer College in Italy

1993 - 1994 Pitzer College in Turkey (converted to an exchange for Fall 2004)

1994 - 1995 Pitzer College in China (relocated from Shanghai to Beijing inFall 2000, continues through present)

1996 – 1997 Pitzer College in Venezuela (relocated to Ecuador in Spring 2003due to economic situation in Venezuela)


1995 – 1996 Pitzer College in Wales (ended Fall 2001)

1996 – 1997 Pitzer College in Ontario, California (CCCSI took overadministration in Fall 2004, continues through present)

Pitzer College in Guatemala – Summer Health Program(relocated to Costa Rica in 1997) with Ann Stromberg

1997 – 1998 Pitzer College in Ecuador – University Based Studies (continuesthrough present – took over the Scripps program, which wasstarted in the late 1980’s)

Pitzer College in Costa Rica – Summer Health Program(continues through present) with Ann Stromberg

1998 – 1999 Route 66 Program with Michael Woodcock (one time program)

2000-2001 Pitzer College in Botswana (continues through present)

Spring 2003 Pitzer in Ecuador – Intensive Language and Culture (relocatedfrom Venezuela)

Spring 2004 Pitzer in Darjeeling – (relocated from Nepal)

Spring 2004 Mellon Exchange – Flinders University in Australia (ended Fall2004)

2004 - 2005 Mellon Exchange – Bristol University in England

2004 - 2005 Mellon Exchange - University of Koblenz-Landau in Germany

2004 - 2005 Mellon Exchange –University of KwaZulu Natal in SouthAfrica

2004 - 2005 Exchange – Middle East Technical University (Pitzer inTurkey converted to an exchange program)

2004 - 2005 Exchange – University of Birmingham in England

2004 - 2005 Mellon Exchange – Autonoma Universidad de Yucatan inMexico

2004 - 2005 Exchange – Payap University in Thailand

2004 - 2005 Exchange – University of Adelaide in Australia


2005 - 2006 Pitzer in Costa Rica – Firestone Center for RestorationEcology founded.

2005 - 2006 Exchange – Geranios Institute and University of Seville inSpain

2005 - 2006 Exchange – Biotechnology in Healthcare in Germany, Irelandor Finland

2006 - 2007 Exchange – Kwansei Gakuin University in Japan

2006 - 2007 Exchange – University of Leon in Spain

Summer 2007 Global Local Program to Botswana with Mita Banerjee

Summer 2007 Global Local Program to Darjeeling with Dipa Basu

2007 - 2008 Exchange – Al Akhawayn University in Morocco

Summer 2008 Global Local Program to Nepal with Emily Chao


Appendix B:Senate Resolution 308

Designating 2006 as the "Year of Study Abroad".Whereas ensuring that the citizens of the United States are globally literate is theresponsibility of the educational system of the United States;

Whereas educating students internationally is an important way to share the values of theUnited States , to create goodwill for the United States around the world, to work towarda peaceful global society, and to increase international trade;

Whereas, according to a 2002 American Council on Education poll, 79 percent of peoplein the United States agree that students should have a study abroad experience sometimeduring college, but only 1 percent of students from the United States currently studyabroad each year;

Whereas study abroad programs help people from the United States to be more informedabout the world and to develop the cultural awareness necessary to avoid offendingindividuals from other countries;

Whereas a National Geographic global literacy survey found that 87 percent of studentsin the United States between the ages of 18 and 24 cannot locate Iraq on a world map, 83percent cannot find Afghanistan , 58 percent cannot find Japan , and 11 percent cannoteven find the United States ;

Whereas studying abroad exposes students from the United States to valuable globalknowledge and cultural understanding and forms an integral part of their education;

Whereas Congress recognized through the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.1001 et seq.) that the security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States in anincreasingly complex global age depend largely upon having a globally competentcitizenry and the availability of experts specializing in world regions, foreign languages,and international affairs;

Whereas the Coalition for International Education, an ad hoc group of higher educationorganizations with interests in the international education programs of the Department ofEducation, and Government Accountability Office reports have found that Federalagencies, educational institutions, and corporations in the United States are sufferingfrom a shortage of professionals with international knowledge and foreign languageskills;

Whereas, according to the Coalition for International Education, institutions of highereducation in the United States are struggling to graduate enough students with thelanguage skills and cultural competence necessary to meet the current demands ofbusiness, government, and educational institutions;


Whereas a survey done by the Institute for the International Education of Students showsthat studying abroad influences subsequent educational experiences, decisions to expandor change academic majors, and decisions to attend graduate school;

Whereas substantive research literature demonstrates that some of the core values andskills of higher education are enhanced by participation in study abroad programs;

Whereas study abroad programs not only open doors to foreign language learning, butalso empower students to better understand themselves and others through a comparisonof cultural values and ways of life;Whereas study abroad programs for students from the United States can providespecialized training and practical experiences not available at institutions in the UnitedStates;

Whereas a blue ribbon task force of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, aglobal association of individuals dedicated to advancing international education andexchange, found that a national effort to promote study abroad programs is needed toaddress a serious deficit in global competence in the United States;

Whereas the bipartisan, federally-appointed Commission on the Abraham Lincoln StudyAbroad Fellowship Program, established pursuant to section 104 of the MiscellaneousAppropriations and Offsets Act, 2004 (division H of the Consolidated AppropriationsAct, 2004 (Public Law 108-199; 118 Stat. 435), is scheduled to make recommendationsby December 1, 2005, for a national study abroad program to meet this need: Now,therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) designates 2006 as the `Year of Study Abroad';

(2) encourages secondary schools, institutions of higher learning, businesses, andgovernment programs to promote and expand study abroad opportunities; and

(3) encourages the people of the United States to—(A) support initiatives to promote and expand study abroad opportunities; and(B) observe the `Year of Study Abroad' with appropriate ceremonies, programs,and other activities.181

181 Accessed February 2, 2007.<http://worldlearning.org/news/2005/senate_2006_studyabroad_resolution.html>


Appendix C: Senior Survey 2002-2006Statistics from Peter Nardi, Director of Institutional ResearchApril 23, 2007

N = 157 187 193 182 1882002 2003 2004 2005 2006

studied abroad 56.7% 58.3% 53.9% 52.2% 52.1%

All graduating seniors combined from 2002-2006

Did not Study Abroad Studied AbroadGenerally or Very Satisfied with theirPitzer education

92% 95.5%

Pitzer greatly enhanced ability to read orspeak a foreign language

9% 38%

Agree or Strongly Agree that “I aminformed enough to talk intelligently abouta culture other than my own”

76% 87.5%

Pitzer greatly enhanced ability to relate topeople of different races, nations, religions

45% 54%

Pitzer greatly enhanced ability to developan awareness of social problems

56% 68%

Pitzer greatly enhanced ability tounderstand myself

53% 65%

Pitzer greatly enhanced ability to placeproblems in an historical perspective

47% 59%

Definitely would or probably would reliveexperience at Pitzer

72.5% 80%

Applied for a fellowship or grant 19% 38.5%

Percentage differences between the two groups are statistically significant.

Alumni survey

2004 (n=82) 2005 (n=107)Satisfaction with Very Somewhat Total

SatisfiedVery Somewhat Total

Satisfiedexternal studies (studyabroad)

57 21 78 49 28 77

The Public Diplomacy of Study Abroad and the Case for Kerala, Thesis, 2007

Documents

lakshmi saracino eassey

international herald tribune

global citizenship sounds

harvey mudd college

british columbia center

mission offerings

international education week

net revenue model