The empirical basis for adopting a civic rationale for internationalization

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175 DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9485-0

The empirical basis for adopting a civic rationale for internationalization Aaron S. Horn • Darwin D. Hendel • Gerald W. Fry

Published online: 1 November 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract While considerable consensus exists regarding the importance of internationalizing postsecondary education, little is known about whether distinct forms of internationalization influence civic engagement. This study estimates the degree to which study abroad and internationalization at home (IaH) are associated with international volunteerism among undergraduate alumni at research universities in the United States (n = 93).

Results from a multiple regression analysis revealed that extensive IaH—reflected by both the presence of internationalized general education and a high concentration of international students—and the institutional study abroad rate were both positively associated with international volunteerism, operationalized as participation in the Peace Corps.

Limited forms of IaH were not predictive of international volunteerism. Regression models explained between 29 and 38% of the variance in international volunteerism. The findings suggest that institutions can better prepare students for the challenges of global civic engagement by increasing participation in study abroad and implementing an extensive and systematic IaH strategy.

Keywords Internationalization Civic engagement Study abroad International volunteerism

Over the past few decades, various rationales have been articulated to support the efforts of colleges and universities to incorporate a global, international, and intercultural dimension within the student learning experience (de Wit 2002; Knight 2004; Meiras 2004; Hudzik 2011). Many view internationalization primarily as an instrumental means of ensuring individual, institutional, and national economic competitiveness (Bolen 2001; American Council on Education 2002; Duckett 2004; Frolich 2006), but others have oriented An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2006 ASHE International Forum, Anaheim, California, November 2, 2006.

A. S. Horn (&) D. D. Hendel G. W. Fry Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455-0221, USA e-mail: horn0178@umn.edu

123

162

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

international education more towards the development of global citizens (Adams and Carfagna 2006; Bourn et al. 2006; Brown and Jones 2007; Lewin 2009; Hovland 2010).

Near the end of the last century, for instance, Mestenhauser (1998, p. 68) asserted that the civic rationale for internationalization arguably reflects ‘‘the more important goals of international education, namely improving quality of life and creating a more peaceful and understanding world.’’ More recently, Hovey and Weinberg (2009, p. 35) argued that ‘‘learning intercultural awareness and understanding of the global community is critical for the mission of higher education to prepare capable and engaged citizens.’’ The potential for a civic role in international education is also evident in the mission statements of postsecondary institutions that directly express a commitment to cultivate ‘‘responsible global citizenship’’ (Southern Oregon University 2009), ‘‘world citizens’’ (Fairleigh Dickinson University 2009), and ‘‘active roles in a multiracial and multicultural world’’ (University of Minnesota 2009). To be sure, a strong emphasis placed upon a civic rationale for internationalization is not without warrant. For Parker et al.’s (1999) panel of over 150 experts from four geopolitical regions concurred that the most important characteristic of citizenship for the twentyfirst century will be ‘‘the ability to deal with serious worldwide problems as a member of a worldwide society’’ (p. 125).

Whether current internationalization strategies ultimately yield civic outcomes, however, is not well established in the nascent empirical literature. The civic rationale for internationalization is consequently susceptible to being regarded as mere rhetoric or ‘‘image-polishing,’’ which fails to guide programmatic change (Presley and Leslie 1999).

Moreover, the absence of outcomes-based evidence precludes the optimization of institutional planning and resource allocation (Hudzik and Stohl 2010; see Lewis and Smith 1997). The purpose of the present study is thus to estimate the relative effectiveness of institutional strategies for internationalization in promoting one type of international civic engagement, namely international volunteerism.

The importance of international volunteerism A central feature of active global citizenship is a sense of personal accountability for the welfare of all humans that guides attempts to address social and environmental problems (e.g., Parker et al. 1999; Dower 2003; Adams and Carfagna 2006; Appiah 2006). At the international level, formal opportunities for civic engagement have proliferated with the extraordinary growth of international non-governmental organizations (Boli and Thomas 1997), such as CARE International, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Greenpeace, to name just a few. International civic engagement can thus be effectively pursued in diverse ways, including volunteering, donating, voting, protesting, boycotting or buycotting, and signing petitions. Of central concern here is international volunteerism, which refers to civic service that typically takes place outside of the participant’s country of origin and is intended to promote intercultural understanding and/or to provide humanitarian/development assistance (Sherraden et al. 2006). Volunteering in another country is a powerful indicator of international civic engagement since it presents multiple challenges that are largely absent from other forms of engagement: economically, one may assume substantial direct and indirect economic costs; socially, intimate relations at home can be strained; physically, one can be exposed to health risks involved in international travel and serving in less developed countries; and psychologically, overcoming ethnocentrism and adapting to another culture can constitute a significant source of stress (Paige 1993).

123

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

163

The social value of international volunteerism has been increasingly framed in terms of a relatively untapped soft power that can be used to improve international relations (Nye 2005; Rieffel and Zalud 2006). The engagement of international volunteers in meaningful interactions with people of the host country arguably fosters international cooperation by generating intercultural understanding (Lewis 2005) and global social capital (Randel et al.

2004). Furthermore, the significance of international volunteerism for development efforts continues to be reiterated, particularly in terms of providing expertise, transferring skills, and humanizing an otherwise impersonal bureaucratic system (Leigh 2005; Lewis 2005; Rockliffe 2005). Policymakers in several countries have thus begun introducing initiatives for augmenting their stock of international volunteers (Stringham 2005). Congressional proceedings in the United States, for instance, have garnered bipartisan support for the Global Service Fellowship Program Act, which would have appropriated $50 million annually for sending U.S. volunteers abroad (Senate Bill 2609 2008).

The potential role of study abroad and internationalization at home Internationalization is generally viewed as a multidimensional process permeating the instruction, research, service, and administrative activities of an institution in response to the complex challenges of globalization and an increasingly multicultural world (Mestenhauser 2002; Siaya and Hayward 2003; Knight 2004; Paige 2005; Horn et al. 2007; Hudzik 2011). In a comprehensive synthesis of internationalization frameworks, Paige (2005) identified 10 key performance dimensions, comprising scholars and students, curriculum, study abroad, faculty involvement, campus life, support infrastructure, leadership, strategic planning, institutionalization, and monitoring. In the present study, only the predominant strategies of internationalization are examined: increasing study abroad rates, recruiting international students, and infusing international content into the curriculum.

Following Nilsson (1999), these latter two strategies can be collectively termed Internationalization at Home (IaH).

The potential impact of study abroad and IaH on students’ international civic engagement can be conceptualized in terms of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that embody the ideal of global citizenship. Parker et al. (1999), for instance, delineated four domains of ‘‘multidimensional’’ citizenship: (1) the personal dimension encompasses one’s commitment to a global civic ethic and a capacity for socially responsible acts; (2) the social dimension includes the skills necessary for effective social interaction in a multicultural world; (3) the spatial dimension refers to a sense of interconnectedness and identity across local, regional, national, and multinational levels; and (4) the temporal dimension entails both a strong grounding in historical knowledge and an ability to think creatively about solutions for present and future global problems. A review of past research indicates that study abroad and IaH may promote development within the dimensions of global citizenship, thereby increasing the propensity for international civic engagement.

Study abroad The experience of studying abroad appears to foster development in multiple domains of global citizenship (Lewin 2009). In the personal dimension, study abroad may stimulate or accentuate an incipient interest in international affairs and global welfare. Hadis’s (2005) retrospective pre/post-test design demonstrated gains among study abroad participants in their interest in international news, issues debated in the United Nations, and international

123

164

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

economic inequalities. More recently, researchers using a retrospective tracer design found that participation in study abroad positively influenced environmental consciousness and the practice of voluntary simplicity (Fry et al. 2009; Paige et al. 2009). In the social dimension, study abroad participants have attained higher scores than control group participants on scales of the Intercultural Development Inventory (Paige et al. 2004) and measures of other language fluency (Segalowitz et al. 2004; Vande Berg and Paige 2009).

In the spatial dimension, study abroad participants have reported greater knowledge of global interdependence and world geography than students who have not studied abroad (Sutton and Rubin 2004). Finally, recent research suggests that growth can also be promoted in the temporal dimension of global citizenship, since study abroad has been found to exert a positive influence on intellectual development (McKeown 2009), creativity (Maddux and Galinsky 2009; see also Marsh and Hill 2009), and academic achievement (Overmann 2010; Sutton and Rubin 2010).

Indeed, descriptive results of surveys have revealed a much higher rate of international volunteerism among study abroad alumni than in the general population of U.S. volunteers.

International volunteerism programs in the United States sent 46,300 volunteers abroad in 2005 (Rieffel and Zalud 2006), which constituted less than 1% of all U.S. volunteers (U.S. Department of Labor 2006). In contrast, Akande and Slawson’s (2000) survey of alumni from the Institute for the International Education of Students (IES) revealed that 16% of respondents reported past engagement in international volunteerism. Dwyer (2004) also surveyed IES study abroad alumni and found that even among respondents who had studied abroad for only a summer term, the rate of international volunteerism or work was an impressive 38%.

Internationalization at home (IaH) International educators and scholars have long advocated for the use of international students as a crucial learning resource for promoting domestic students’ development within the social and temporal dimensions of global citizenship. Specifically, intercultural interactions both inside and outside the classroom ideally enhance interdisciplinary thinking, sensitivity to intercultural difference, cross-cultural communication skills, and perspectives on global issues (Paige 1990; Mestenhauser 2002; Brown and Jones 2007; Leask 2009). Research on the internationalization of the student body, however, has focused more on the barriers to social integration than the impact on developmental and behavioral outcomes of domestic students. For instance, extensive research has indicated that international students tend to develop more friendships with co-nationals and other international students than with host nationals (Al-Sharideh and Goe 1998; Chapdelaine and Alexitch 2004; Kashima and Loh 2006), a tendency that can be attributed to suboptimal English language proficiency (Galloway and Jenkins 2005), prejudicial attitudes among domestic students (Spencer-Rodgers 2001; Hanassab 2006), the absence of proactive social integration programs (Volet and Ang 1998; Leask 2009), and a need to affirm one’s native culture (Bochner et al. 1977). Accordingly, many have questioned whether the mere presence of international students on campus ultimately results in meaningful intercultural interactions and associated student development (e.g., De Vita 2007; Leask 2009).

The internationalization of general education is also intended to promote skills and knowledge integral to global citizenship (Cornwell and Stoddard 1999; Nussbaum 2002; Hovland 2006). Coursework relevant to the development of intercultural skills and global civic knowledge presumably promotes learning in such areas as non-English languages,

123

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

165

non-Western cultures, world geography, and interdisciplinary global studies (National Leadership Council 2007). While the infusion of international content within the curriculum has been a critical element of institutional reform (Paige 2003; Nilsson 2003; de Jong and Teekens 2003; Huang 2006), it has been far from universal. For example, only 20% of research institutions require the study of another language for all undergraduate students, and not more than half of research universities have university-wide international or global perspective course requirements (Siaya and Hayward 2003). Moreover, Adelman (2004) found that less than 30% of U.S. postsecondary students complete a non-Western culture course, and only half of students are ever exposed to formal non-English language instruction. It is less clear whether the completion of internationalized courses on campus fosters civic outcomes.

Although the link between IaH and international civic engagement has not been empirically confirmed, research on the relationship between domestic diversity and active citizenship supports the possibility of such a nexus. Similar to the hypotheses propounded by scholars of international education, Gurin et al. (2002) argued that the integration of ethnic diversity within the student learning experience promotes the ‘‘orientations’’ necessary for participation in a pluralistic democracy, including ‘‘perspective-taking, mutuality and reciprocity, acceptance of conflict as a normal part of life, capacity to perceive differences and commonalities both within and between social groups, interest in the wider social world, and citizen participation’’ (p. 341). Indeed, a robust corpus of research has indicated that the propensity for active citizenship can be cultivated through the completion of diversity-related courses (Nelson Laird 2005; Nelson Laird et al. 2005; Zuniga et al.

2005) as well as constructive cross-racial social interactions (Gurin et al. 2002; Chang et al.

2004; Nelson Laird 2005; Zuniga et al. 2005), which are in turn positively correlated with the ethnic heterogeneity of the student body (Chang 1999; Pike and Kuh 2006).

The current study The preponderance of past research, then, provides some support for a civic rationale for internationalization, though the evidence is limited for IaH relative to study abroad. And yet, most inquiries into the impact of study abroad have neglected behavioral indicators of international civic engagement or have failed to account for confounding influences.

Furthermore, the relative effectiveness and potential interaction of study abroad and IaH have not been investigated. This study begins to bridge these gaps by addressing two research questions. First, to what extent are a postsecondary institution’s rate of study abroad and level of IaH predictive of international volunteerism among alumni? Second, does IaH moderate the relationship between study abroad and international volunteerism, or is the postulated effect of study abroad sustained regardless of the degree of campus internationalization? These questions are examined in the context of research universities in the United States. Research universities were of primary interest in this study because they host a very large percentage of undergraduate students (28%) relative to other institutional types (Carnegie Foundation 2010), and thus, as a group of institutions, hold a strong potential for shaping the future citizenry. Data collection was restricted to the United States since higher education systems and opportunities for international volunteerism vary significantly from country to country.

Accordingly, institutional data were collected from 120 research universities in the United States indicating the percentage of students studying abroad, the percentage of international students on campus, and the presence (or absence) of international education

123

166

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

requirements. Since IaH is intended to be a holistic strategy involving both internationalized curriculum and international students, multiple indicators are constructed that reflect both limited and extensive IaH (see Fry 1987). Data were collected not only for the independent variables of interest, but also for other variables that are commonly used to control for extraneous influences, including institutional control, institutional size, and institutional selectivity. Given the positive association between domestic diversity and civic outcomes noted above, the ethnic heterogeneity of the student body and the presence of core U.S. diversity education requirements are controlled. Finally, the analysis accounts for the confounding effect of students with international majors, since career interests can influence the decision to volunteer (e.g., Clary et al. 1998).

The indicator of international volunteerism is participation in the Peace Corps among undergraduate alumni. While there are over 50 international volunteerism programs in the United States (Rieffel and Zalud 2006), the present study focuses solely on the Peace Corps, which is the most prominent and well-funded organization. The Peace Corps, with an operating budget of $400 million in 2011, has few restrictions for participation (e.g., minimum age of 18, U.S. citizen, high school diploma), though 90% of volunteers have at least a college degree. In 2011, 76 countries were hosting a total of 8,655 Peace Corps volunteers, the majority of whom are serving in the areas of education, health, and HIV/ AIDS prevention/care for a period of 2 years (Peace Corps 2011). The selection of Peace Corps participation rates as an indicator of international volunteerism is consistent with past evaluations of institutional performance in the United States (The Washington Monthly 2006; Horn et al. 2007).

Method Sample The units of analysis in this study comprise postsecondary institutions in the United States.

A sample of research universities was selected in two stages. First, a pool of institutions was identified with the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) according to the following criteria: (a) the institution grants degrees mainly at the baccalaureate level and above; (b) the institution is public or private non-profit; (c) the institution participates in federal student financial aid programs; (d) the total student enrollment is at least 10,000; and (e) the institution is classified as a research university.

Regarding the latter criterion, research universities were defined as institutions that awarded at least 20 research doctoral degrees (see The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2005). The first stage yielded a pool of 197 institutions. The second stage involved a random sample of 120 institutions, which exhibited the following attributes: institutional control (74% public), undergraduate full-time enrollment (M = 12,016; 82% of undergraduate student body), full-time female students (53%), fulltime students under age 25 (90%), and full-time students of non-White ethnicity (33%).

Data sources Data sources were identified for international volunteerism, on-campus internationalization, study abroad, and several key control variables. Specific data collection years are noted below, which were selected according to the institutional time frame of interest, between 1999–2000 and 2003–2004.

123

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

167

International volunteerism International volunteerism, the dependent variable, is operationalized as the percent of undergraduate alumni who joined the Peace Corps. The number of Peace Corps participants that were awarded a Bachelor’s degree between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004 from each institution was obtained from the Peace Corps. The percentage of Peace Corps volunteers at each institution was then derived in conjunction with IPEDS data of total US citizen 2003–2004 undergraduate degree completions (M = .26, SD = .23). A missing value for one institution was imputed with 2002 data.

Internationalization at home Data were collected from the IPEDS database to calculate the average percentage of fulltime undergraduate international students over Fall 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 (M = 4.17, SD = 3.23). The internationalization of general education was measured as the total credits required for the bachelor’s degree in three areas: non-English language, non-Western culture, and global/international perspectives. Information pertaining to curricular requirements was derived from the institution’s 1999–2000 undergraduate catalog. Four levels of IaH were then constructed according to the presence of international education requirements and a high concentration of international students (1 SD above mean): (a) limited IaH 1: international education requirement, low concentration of international students (49%), (b) limited IaH 2: no international education requirement, high concentration of international students (7%), (c) extensive IaH: international education requirement, high concentration of international students (10%), and (d) the reference category: no international education requirement, low concentration of international students (34%).

Study abroad rate The number of 2003–2004 study abroad participants at each institution was obtained from a database maintained by the Institute of International Education. The 2003–2004 IPEDS degree completion data were then used to derive institutional percentages (M = 15.44, SD = 11.28). Missing values for six institutions were imputed with 2002 data.

Control variables Data for several control variables were obtained, including institutional control, institutional size, institutional selectivity, the percentage of students obtaining international majors, the percent of non-White students on campus, and U.S. diversity course requirements. Institutional control was identified through IPEDS and is coded as a dichotomous dummy variable (0 = private, 1 = public, 74%). Institutional size was reflected by the number of undergraduate students enrolled during 2000 (M = 12,016, SD = 6,517).

Institutional selectivity was measured via 75th percentile ACT scores (M = 27.77, SD = 3.29). SAT scores were converted to ACT scores for 15 institutions that did not have ACT scores. Missing values for six institutions were imputed with 2002 data. The IPEDS database was used to calculate an aggregate percentage of 2003–2004 undergraduate degree completions with internationally-oriented majors, comprising non-English languages, area studies, peace studies, and international/global studies (M = 2.37, SD = 1.79). The percent of non-White students was also attained through the IPEDS

123

168

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

database (M = 32.99; SD = 20.44). The number of course credits required in the area of U.S. diversity was obtained from the institution’s 1999–2000 catalog (0 = no requirement, 1 = at least one credit, 41%).

Results Multiple regression analysis was employed to examine the relationship between distinct indicators of internationalization and participation in international volunteerism. Given the exploratory nature of this study and a primary interest in direct effects, standard regression is performed rather than path analysis. Assumptions underlying regression were first evaluated. The assumption of normality was violated for several variables and initial transformations were not uniformly successful. The three most extreme scores were thus imputed with less extreme scores for six variables, which were then transformed with either a logarithmic or square root function. Data were missing on at least one variable for 27 institutions. Separate variance t-tests indicated that the incidence of missing data for the study abroad variable was associated with lower rates of Peace Corps participation, t(25) = 5.3, p \ .001. However, cases with missing data were still deleted listwise, since a sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation did not generate a divergent pattern of results. Moreover, no outliers were identified through Mahalanobis distance diagnostics (see Chatterjee and Hadi 1988). The final sample thus consisted of 93 institutions. Before running the analysis, the study abroad variable was mean centered to reduce multicollinearity due to the interaction terms.

It will be recalled that the research questions regarded the potential influence of campus internationalization and study abroad on the rate of international volunteerism. Variables were entered in three blocks: (1) control variables, (2) internationalization variables, and (3) the interaction terms. As indicated in Table 1, the set of variables at Step 2 has reasonable explanatory power in predicting Peace Corps participation, F(10, 82) = 6.25, p \ .001, adjusted R-square = .36. Specifically, the institution’s rate of study abroad predicted the percentage of alumni who participated in the Peace Corps, b = .32, t(91) = 2.84, p \ .01. While the limited IaH variables were not significant predictors, extensive IaH reflecting internationalization of both the student body and general education was positively associated with international volunteerism, b = .21, t(91) = 2.07, p \ .05.

Table 1 also indicates that the predictive power of the model was not enhanced by the addition of interaction terms at Step 3 (p [ .05), even though one interaction term reached statistical significance (Limited IaH 2 9 study abroad).

Discussion The purpose of the present study is to provide an empirical analysis of the relationship between institutional strategies for internationalization and international volunteerism, an indicator of international civic engagement. Study abroad and various forms of IaH were identified as potential predictors of participation in the Peace Corps among undergraduate alumni of research universities in the United States. The findings highlight the significance of study abroad and extensive IaH in promoting international civic outcomes.

In line with past survey findings of study abroad alumni (Akande and Slawson 2000; Dwyer 2004), an institution’s study abroad rate significantly predicts its rate of international volunteerism. Moreover, this study demonstrates that the relationship between study

123

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

169

Table 1 Multiple regression: associations among study abroad, IaH, and participation in the Peace Corps (n = 93) Variable

Participation in Peace Corps (log) Step 1 b (b)

Step 2 b (b)

Step 3 b (b)

Control variables Institutional control (public) Institutional size (log)

.02

.04

.04

-.10*

-.10**

-.10*

(-.30) Institutional selectivity (log)

.64**

(-.31)

(-.29)

.41

.41 -.02

(.41) Domestic diversity of student body (log)

-.02

-.03

Diversity education requirement

.02

.02

.02

Students majoring in international studies (log)

.06*

.05*

.04

(.25)

(.22)

Internationalization variables Limited IaH 1: internationalization of general education, not student body

–

.01

.01

Limited IaH 2: internationalization of student body, not general education

–

.01

-.03

Extensive IaH: internationalization of general education and student body

–

.05*

.05a

(.21)

(.20)

Study abroad (square root)

–

.02** (.32)

.02* (.37)

Interaction terms Limited IaH 1 9 study abroad

–

–

-.0

Limited IaH 2 9 study abroad

–

–

-.05*

Extensive IaH 9 study abroad

–

–

-.00

Constant

-.34

-.04

-.08

R-square change Adjusted R square F

.10* .29 7.23***

.36 6.25***

.03 .38 5.31***

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001 a

p \ .07

abroad and international volunteerism holds when controlling not only for IaH, but also for such potentially confounding influences as the vocational interests of students and institutional size and selectivity. This suggests that study abroad is an effective intervention for fostering development within the domains of global citizenship (Parker et al. 1999), including intercultural competence (Paige et al. 2004), other language fluency (Segalowitz et al. 2004), and interest in international affairs (Hadis 2005). Interestingly, these postulated effects of study abroad do not appear to be contingent upon IaH. A test of the interaction between study abroad and IaH variables revealed an insignificant improvement in the model’s explanatory power, which suggests that the magnitude of the positive association between study abroad and international volunteerism is similar across institutions with differing levels of IaH. Further research is needed to identify particular study

123

170

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

abroad program features that are most essential for promoting international civic engagement, including variations in duration, program type, and destination (see Paige et al. 2009).

A linkage between IaH and international civic engagement was also substantiated.

Extensive IaH reflected by a high concentration of international students on campus (at least 7% of the student body) and the infusion of international content into the general education curriculum was positively associated with the rate of international volunteerism, relative to no IaH. This is consistent with past research demonstrating a positive impact of domestic student and curricular diversity on civic development during college (Zuniga et al. 2005). However, after controlling for the potential influence of domestic diversity, this study indicates that extensive IaH exerts a unique effect on international civic engagement. This finding supports both the contention that international students can be a valuable asset for the intercultural learning of domestic students (Brown and Jones 2007) and the assertion that an international dimension must be integrated within general education in order to promote global civic knowledge and engagement (Hovland 2006; National Leadership Council 2007). Single-strategy approaches, though, appear to be ineffectual. Limited IaH defined solely by either a high concentration of international students or internationalized general education was unassociated with international volunteerism. The distinct facets of IaH thus appear to work synergistically. For instance, the internationalization of general education can be conceived as one way of creating sites for critical dialogue between domestic and international students on issues of global significance. Alternatively, intercultural contact and formal coursework in international education may independently promote development within affective and cognitive domains of global citizenship (see Pettigrew and Tropp 2008).

This is not to suggest that increasing study abroad, the internationalization of general education, and the recruitment of international students alone will be sufficient to ensure adequate growth in the dimensions of global citizenship. The average effect of study abroad may be positive, but an examination of the many variants of study abroad programs will likely demonstrate that students can minimize intercultural learning by, for instance, isolating themselves in a ‘‘third culture’’ (Citron 2002) or selecting short-term sojourns that serve more for entertainment than reflection. Moreover, the civic goals of international education may fail to be fully realized without employing a global problem-based curriculum that is holistically linked with key global competencies (see Parker et al. 1999; Mestenhauser 2003; National Leadership Council 2007; Hovland 2010). Finally, while research has substantiated a positive correlation between structural diversity and intercultural interactions (Pike and Kuh 2006), scholars of international education have argued that social integration programs are ultimately necessary to ensure fruitful relationships among domestic and international students (Volet and Ang 1998; Otten 2003; Leask 2009).

In sum, the best route to promoting global civic outcomes is likely through what has been termed comprehensive internationalization (Hudzik 2011).

Several limitations of this study should be addressed in future research. First, this study did not account for the full range of determinants of international volunteerism and the design only permits an analysis of correlations. Additional variables of interest might include international students’ countries of origin, actual completion rates of international courses, the number of disciplines represented in the general education curriculum, and the frequency of and perceived satisfaction with intercultural interactions, among others. Strict causal inferences are precluded, and neither study abroad nor IaH should be understood as necessary or sufficient conditions for fostering global citizenship. Second, the analyses relied on only one type of international volunteerism. A more valid and reliable measure

123

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

171

should be developed to reflect international volunteerism across various issue domains, organizations, and program types. Third, a more complete understanding of the relationship between international education and global citizenship must take into account postulated mediating variables and other types of international civic engagement. It is possible, for instance, that shallow or limited forms of IaH can stimulate less intensive types of engagement, such as signing a petition to support an international cause. Finally, further research is needed to determine whether the findings of this study can be generalized to other types of institutions, such as comprehensive master’s universities and liberal arts colleges.

In conclusion, if internationalization is to be linked with the civic aims of higher education, then the effectiveness of specific strategies must be established. Both extensive IaH and study abroad appear to exert unique effects on an institution’s production of global citizens who are willing and able to volunteer in another country. It can be further inferred that the observed impact of study abroad and IaH is partially due to student development within the personal, social, spatial, and temporal dimensions of global citizenship. The findings presented here thus support a civic rationale for internationalization, but the low percentage of students who participate in study abroad and the small number of institutions that achieve extensive IaH raise concerns about the potential widening of a civic divide, wherein only a minority of students graduate with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes conducive to international civic engagement. A central challenge for many colleges and universities in the next decade will thus be to increase the proportion of students who study abroad relative to those who are merely exposed to shallow internationalization at home.

However, since many students will not be able to study abroad, it is also important to enhance the quality of internationalization at home through extensive and systematic efforts. Only through pursuing comprehensive internationalization, then, will the civic benefits of higher education be more evenly distributed and global civil society more inclusive.

References Adams, J. M., & Carfagna, A. (2006). Coming of age in a globalized world: The next generation.

Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

Adelman, C. (2004). Principal indicators of student academic histories in postsecondary education, 1972–2000. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Akande, Y., & Slawson, C. (2000). Exploring the long-term impact of study abroad: A case study of 50 years of study abroad alumni. Washington DC: NAFSA. Al-Sharideh, K. A., & Goe, W. R. (1998). Ethnic communities within the university: An exanimation of factors influencing the personal adjustment of international students. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 699–725.

American Council on Education. (2002). Beyond September 11: A comprehensive national policy on international education. Washington DC: Author.

Appiah, A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co. Bochner, S., McLeod, B. M., & Lin, A. (1977). Friendship patterns of overseas students: A functional model. International Journal of Psychology, 12(4), 277–294.

Bolen, M. (2001). Consumerism and U.S. study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5, 182–200.

Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1997). World culture in the world polity: A century of international nongovernmental organization. American Sociological Review, 62(2), 171–190.

Bourn, D., McKenzie, A., & Shiel, C. (2006). The global university: The role of the curriculum. London: DEA.

123

172

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

Brown, S., & Jones, E. (2007). Introduction: Values, valuing, and value in an internationalized higher education context. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp. 1–6).

London: Routledge.

Chang, M. J. (1999). Does racial diversity matter?: The educational impact of a racially diverse undergraduate population. Journal of College Student Development, 40(4), 377–395.

Chang, M. J., Astin, A. W., & Kim, D. (2004). Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates: Some consequences, causes, and patterns. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 529–553.

Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 167–183.

Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. S. (1988). Sensitivity analysis in linear regression. Toronto: Wiley.

Citron, J. L. (2002). U.S. students abroad: Host culture integration or third culture formation. In W. Gru¨nzweig & N. Rinehart (Eds.), Rockin’ in red square: Critical approaches to international education in the age of cyberculture (pp. 41–56). Mu¨nster, Germany: Lit Verlag.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A., Haugen, J., et al. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516–1530.

Cornwell, G. H., & Stoddard, E. W. (1999). Globalizing knowledge: Connecting international and intercultural studies. Washington DC: AACU. de Jong, H., & Teekens, H. (2003). The case of the University of Twente: Internationalisation as education policy. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 41–51.

De Vita, G. (2007). Taking stock: An appraisal of the literature on internationalising HE learning. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp. 154–167). London: Routledge. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe.

Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Duckett, S. J. (2004). Turning right at the crossroads: The Nelson Report’s proposals to transform Australia’s universities. Higher Education, 47, 211–240.

Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 151–163.

Fairleigh Dickinson University. (2009). FDU’s global mission. Retrieved May 27, 2009 from http://view.fdu.edu/default.aspx?id=261.

Frolich, N. (2006). Still academic and national: Internationalisation in Norwegian research and higher education. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 52, 405–420.

Fry, G. W. (1987). Shallow versus deep internationalism. Paper presented at the conference of ASEAN at the Crossroads. Lewis and Clark State College, Lewiston, Idaho.

Fry, G. W., Paige, R. M., Jon, J., Dillow, J., & Nam, K. (2009). Study abroad and its transformative power.

Portland, Maine: CIEE (Council on International Educational Exchange).

Galloway, F. J., & Jenkins, J. R. (2005). The adjustment problems faced by international students in the United States: A comparison of international students and administrative perceptions at two private, religiously affiliated universities. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 175–187.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366.

Hadis, B. J. (2005). Gauging the impact of study abroad: How to overcome the limitations of a single-cell design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 3–19.

Hanassab, S. (2006). Diversity, international students, and perceived discrimination: Implications for educators and counselors. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 157–172.

Horn, A. S., Hendel, D. D., & Fry, G. W. (2007). Ranking the international dimension of top research universities in the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 330–358.

Hovey, R., & Weinberg, A. (2009). Global learning and the making of citizen diplomats. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 33–48). New York: Routledge.

Hovland, K. (2006). Shared futures: Global learning and liberal education. Washington DC: AACU. Hovland, K. (2010). Global learning: Aligning student learning outcomes and study abroad. Retrieved August 1, 2011 from http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/Resource_Library_Assets/ Networks/CCB/AligningLearningOutcomes.pdf.

Huang, F. (2006). Internationalization of curricula in higher education institutions in comparative perspective: Case studies of China, Japan, and the Netherlands. The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 51, 521–539.

123

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

173

Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concepts to action. Washington DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Hudzik, J. K., & Stohl, M. (2010). Modelling assessment of the outcomes and impact of internationalisation.

In H. de Wit (Ed.), Measuring success in the internationalisation of higher education (pp. 9–21).

Retrieved August 1, 2011 from http://www.che.de/downloads/measuring_internationalisation___ EAIE_Occasional_Papers_22v6.pdf.

Kashima, E. S., & Loh, E. (2006). International students’ acculturation: Effects of international, conational, and local ties and need for closure. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 471–485.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.

Leask, B. (2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221.

Leigh, R. (2005). The evolving nature of international service through the United Nations Volunteers.

Voluntary Action, 7(2), 27–33.

Lewin, R. (2009). The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship. New York: Routledge.

Lewis, D. (2005). Globalisation and international service: A development perspective. Voluntary Action, 7(2), 13–25.

Lewis, R. G., & Smith, D. H. (1997). Total quality in higher education. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1047–1061.

Marsh, D. & Hill, R. (2009). Study on the contribution of multilingualism to creativity. Retrieved August 1, 2011 from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/studies/documents/study_on_the_contribution_of_multilingualism_ to_creativity/final_report_en.pdalism_to_creativity/final_report_en.pdf .

McKeown, J. S. (2009). The first time effect: The impact of study abroad on college student intellectual development. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Meiras, S. (2004). International education in Australian universities: Understanding, dimensions, and problems. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26, 371–380.

Mestenhauser, J. A. (1998). International education on the Verge: In search of new paradigm. International Educator, 7(2–3), 68–76.

Mestenhauser, J. A. (2002). In search of a comprehensive approach to international education: A systems perspective. In W. Gru¨nzweig & N. Rinehart (Eds.), Rockin’ in red square: Critical approaches to international education in the age of cyberculture (pp. 165–213). Mu¨nster, Germany: Lit Verlag.

Mestenhauser, J. A. (2003). Building bridges. International Educator, 12(3), 6–11.

National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/ documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf.

Nelson Laird, T. F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on academic selfconfidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 365–387.

Nelson Laird, T. F., Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Modeling accentuation effects: Enrolling in a diversity course and the importance of social action engagement. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 448–476.

Nilsson, B. (1999). Internationalization at home—Theory and praxis. Retrieved October 30, 2006 from http://www.eaie.org/pdf/intathome.asp.

Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalisation at home from a Swedish perspective: The case of Malmo¨. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 27–40.

Nussbaum, M. (2002). Education for citizenship in an era of global connection. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21, 289–303.

Nye, J. S. (2005). Soft power: The means to succeed in world politics. Public Affairs: NY. Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and diversity in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 12–26.

Overmann, M. (2010). Study abroad creates better students Georgia University System research finds.

Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange. Retrieved August 5, 2010 from http://www.alliance-exchange.org.

Paige, R. M. (1990). International students: Cross-cultural psychological perspectives. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 161–185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Paige, R. M. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences and intercultural education. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 1–19). Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.

123

174

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

Paige, R. M. (2003). The American case: The University of Minnesota. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 52–63.

Paige, R. M. (2005). Internationalization of higher education: Performance assessment and indicators.

Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 5, 99–122.

Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of a strategies-based curriculum on language and culture learning abroad. Frontiers, 10, 253–276.

Paige, R. M., Fry, G. W., Stallman, E. M., Josic, J., & Jon, J. (2009). Study abroad for global engagement: The long-term impact of mobility experiences. Intercultural Education, 20, S1–S2, S29–S44.

Parker, W. C., Ninomiya, A., & Cogan, J. (1999). Educating world citizens: Toward multinational curriculum development. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 117–145.

Peace Corps (2011). Fact Sheet 2009. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://multimedia.peacecorps. gov/multimedia/pdf/about/pc_facts.pdf.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.

Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Relationships among structural diversity, informal peer interactions, and perceptions of the campus environment. The Review of Higher Education, 29(4), 425–450.

Presley, J. B., & Leslie, D. W. (1999). Understanding strategy: An assessment of theory and practice. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education (pp. 201–239). New York: Agathon Press.

Randel, J., German, T., Cordiero, M., & Baker, J. (2004). International volunteering: Trends, added value, and social capital. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://www.forum-ids.org/resources/reports/ FORUM-2004-Trends-Added-Value-and-Social-Capital-Development-Initiative.pdf.

Rieffel, L., & Zalud, S. (2006). International volunteering: Smart power. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from https://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb155.pdf.

Rockliffe, B. (2005). International volunteering: An evolving paradigm. Voluntary Action, 7(2), 35–46.

Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., Collentine, J., Lafford, B., Lazar, N., & Diaz-Campos, M. (2004). A comparison of Spanish second language acquisition in two different learning contexts: Study abroad and the domestic classroom. Frontiers, 10, 1–18.

Senate Bill 2609. (2008). Global service fellowship program act of 2008. 110th Session of Congress.

Retrieved March 18, 2009 from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2609/show.

Sherraden, M. S., Stringham, J., Sow, S. C., & McBride, A. M. (2006). The forms and structure of international voluntary service. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(2), 156–173.

Siaya, L., & Hayward, F. M. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses. Washington DC: American Council on Education.

Southern Oregon University. (2009). Mission. Retrieved May 27, 2009 from http://www.sou.edu/ mission/global.html.

Spencer-Rodgers, J. (2001). Consensual and individual stereotypic beliefs about international students among American host nationals. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 639–657.

Stringham, J. (2005). The legislative framework for national and international service: Examples form Europe. Voluntary Action, 7(2), 45–56.

Sutton, R. C., & Rubin, D. L. (2004). The GLOSSARI project: Initial findings from a system-wide research initiative on study abroad learning outcomes. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 65–82.

Sutton, R. C., & Rubin, D. L. (2010). Documenting the academic impact of study abroad: Final report of the GLOSSARI project. Paper presented at the annual conference of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Kansas City, MO. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2005). Basic Classification. Retrieved October 30, 2006 from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=791.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2010). Distribution of institutions and enrollments by classification category. Retrieved August 1, 2011 from http://classifications. carnegiefoundation.org/summary/basic.php.

The Washington Monthly. (2006). The Washington Monthly college rankings. Retrieved May 27, 2009 from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegechart.html.

University of Minnesota. (2009). History and mission. Retrieved May 27, 2009 from http://www1.umn. edu/twincities/hist.php.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Volunteering in the United States, 2005. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/volun_12092005.pdf.

Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, & Paige, R. M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium Project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 18, 1–75.

123

High Educ (2012) 64:161–175

175

Volet, S., & Ang, G. (1998). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An opportunity for intercultural learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 17, 5–23.

Zuniga, X., Williams, E. A., & Berger, J. B. (2005). Action-oriented democratic outcomes: The impact of student involvement with campus diversity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 660–678.

123

Copyright of Higher Education is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.