donoharm-shorttermstudyabroad

7/31/2019 DoNoHarm-ShortTermStudyAbroad

1/8

This article was downloaded by: [Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University]On: 20 December 2011, At: 07:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ rj og20

First, Do No Harm: Ideas for Mitigating NegativeCommunity Impacts of Short-Term Study AbroadKathleen Schroeder a , Cynthia Wood b , Shari Galiardi c & Jenny Koehn ca Depart ment of Geography and Planning, Appalachian St ate Universit y, Boone, NorthCarol ina, USAb Sustainable development , Appalachian St ate Universit y, Boone, North Carolina, USAc Appalachian St ate Universit y, Boone, Nort h Carolina, USA

Available onl ine: 10 Aug 2009

To cit e t his art icle: Kathleen Schroeder, Cynthia Wood, Shari Gali ardi & Jenny Koehn (2009): Fir st , Do No Harm: Ideas forMit igat ing Negative Communit y Impacts of Short -Term Study Abroad, Journal of Geography, 108:3, 141-147

To link to t his art icle: ht tp:/ / dx.doi. org/ 10.1080/ 00221340903120866

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used f or research, teaching, and private study p urposes. Any substantial or systematic

reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221340903120866http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221340903120866http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjog20


2/8

First, Do No Harm: Ideas for Mitigating Negative Community Impacts ofShort-Term Study Abroad

Kathleen Schroeder, Cynthia Wood, Shari Galiardi, and Jenny Koehn

ABSTRACTThis article presents the results from aresearch project on the host communityimpact of college students participatingin university-sponsored internationalexperiences. It nds that little reliabledata is available on the impact thatour students have on host communities.The article concludes that nondamaginginternational experiences require a sub-stantial amount of planning, experiencedgroup facilitation, and solid debriengof students and community members.We recommend that geographers witha critical perspective and extensiveforeign expertise should help guidethe development of these experiencesand urge their universities to screenstudy abroad for unintended negativeoutcomes on local communities.

Key Words: short-term study abroad,impact on host communities

Kathleen Schroederis an associateprofessorat Appalachian State University, Boone, NorthCarolina, USA, in the Department of Geog-raphy and Planning.

Cynthia Wood is an associate professor at

Appalachian State University, Boone, NorthCarolina, USA, in sustainable development.

Shari Galiardi is the Director of Service-Learning at Appalachian State University,Boone, North Carolina, USA.

Jenny Koehn is the Associate Directorof Student Programs at Appalachian StateUniversity, Boone, North Carolina, USA.

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, internationalization is an important component of themission statements of many colleges and universities, and the numbers reectthis commitment as student participation in study abroad has grown 150 percentover the past decade (Institute of International Education 2007). In the PresidentsColumn of the Association of American Geographers (AAG) newsletter, VictoriaLawson (2005) comments on this trend and the contributions that geographersare well positioned to make to an internationalized research and teaching agendaacross campuses.

With an increased emphasis on internationalization, U.S. institutions arelooking to expand their offerings beyond the typical model where languagestudents spend a semester in a European country. Students across campusesare encouraged to go abroad in a growing variety of models that can range fromone-week alternative spring break service projects to year-long exchanges. De-

mand for study-abroad opportunities is increasing and the Lincoln Commissionrecently proposed sending one million Americans abroad by 2016 (Commissionon the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program 2005).

Where are all these students going? Presently, the United Kingdom re-mains the number-one-ranked destination for U.S. students, but China is nowa top-ten destination as are Mexico and Costa Rica. Countries on the list ofthe top-twenty destinations include South Africa, Brazil, and Ecuador (Instituteof International Education 2007). International offerings at a typical mid-sizedpublic institution in the United States include programs to locations as diverse asEcuador, India, New Zealand, and Ghana. The Lincoln Commission recommendsthat these nontraditional locations become an increasing percentage of study-abroad destinations. Following the recommendations of the Lincoln Commission,the Simon Act currently awaiting approval in Congress mandates diversifyinglocations of study abroad, particularly in developing countries (NAFSA2008).

What has been virtually ignored as short-term study abroad has grown oncollege campuses is a critical examination of the impact of these programs on thecommunities that students visit. 1 The most recent edition of the Forum on Educa-tionAbroads Standardsof GoodPracticeforEducationAbroad(2008,19), forexample,makesnorecommendations onmitigating theeffects of studyabroadon localcom-munities, suggesting only that theorganization sending students respect thecul-tures andvalues of thecountries in which it operates. Theimplications of a groupgoing to Londonaresignicantly different than going to a remote village in China, but increasinglyuniversities are offeringand students are choosing programs thattake them faroff thebeaten track,with unexamined andunintendedconsequencesfor host communities. Given the drive to increase the number of students goingabroad, it is urgent that these consequences be considered by both institutionsand faculty in the design and implementation of short-term study-abroadprograms. 2

In this article, we draw attention to the numerous and often unforeseen waysthat students might impact local communities. We have developed this inquirythrough an examination of the relevant bodies of literature and from ongoingresearch and discussions with a wide variety of stakeholders involved in short-term study abroadon andoff ourcampus. We concludewith sixrecommendationsthat we encourage faculty to take to their home institutions.

Journal of Geography108: 141147C 2009 National Council for Geographic Education 141


3/8

Schroeder et al.

WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES ?Considering how difcult it is to collect information on

the topic, it should not be surprising that we have virtuallyno idea of how students impact placesparticularly thesmall, rural, research sites that many geographers arelikely to take our students. David Zurick (1992) and othergeographers have examined sustainable tourism, but notwith a specic eye towards the impact that our own

students are having.Many of thepotentialnegative impacts of foreign visitorsare highlighted by the literature on tourism, especiallyits economic, social, and cultural effects (Archer, Cooper,and Ruhanen 2005; McLaren 2006). Shaw and Williams(2002) and Lew, Hall, and A. Williams (2004) providecomprehensive examinations of tourism from a geographicperspective. While we believe that there are signicant dif-ferences between study abroad and tourism, in consideringthe potential negative impacts on host communities thereare many similarities. Like tourism, study abroad createsimpacts and consequences; we cannot prevent these, butneed to plan and manage to minimize the negative impacts

and emphasize the positive impacts (Archer, Cooper, andRuhanen 2005, 79). And as with tourism, these impactsoccur because study abroad brings about an interminglingof people from diverse social and cultural backgrounds,and also a considerable spatial redistribution of spendingpower, which has a signicant impact on the economy ofthe destination (Archer, Cooper, and Ruhanen 2005, 79).It is possible that even more than most tourism, studyabroad is by its very nature. . . attracted to unique andfragile environments and societies and. . . in some cases theeconomic benets [to host communities] may be offset byadverse and previously unmeasured environmental andsocial consequences (Archer, Cooper, and Ruhanen 2005,79).

The tourism literature suggests that short-term study-abroad programs may do damage to their host communi-ties, and points to an array of questions that we should askin order to evaluate the potential for such negative impacts,including the following:

r Where does the food/water/housing for our stu-dents come from? Do we impose any hardship onlocal people, such as water shortages? What aboutgarbage disposal andpollution? Is land being usedfor visitors rather than local needs?

r Does the economic impact of study abroad pro-mote economic inequality in the community? Doforeigners or local elites own or manage thehotels that students occupy during their visit? Ifhome stays are part of the study abroad, dostudents live in middle-class homes, so that poorerpeople do not receive any economic benet andincome inequality is worsened? Are guides anddrivers outsiders or wealthier members of thecommunity? Do local prices go up as a result of thestudent visit? The giving of gifts can contribute to

similar inequalities, however well-intentionedcan nonmaterial gifts be given instead, or gifts tothe community as a whole?

r Do student visits contribute to economies of de-pendency on outsiders, orienting those economiesto pleasing or providing pleasure for wealthyforeigners rather than to local needs?

r Is there a season for foreign visitors to come tothe area, such that student visits contribute to aboom and bust cycle in the local economy? Isthere any way to mitigate this effect?

r Do studentspatternsof consumption(both duringand before the visit) contribute to problems inthe community? The demonstration effect ofstudents bringing high-end travel gear, lots ofclothes,spendingmoneyeasilyon restaurants,giv-inggifts, etc.maycreateresentment, theperceptionof American students as wealthy consumers withno responsibilities at home (McLaren 2006), or thedesire in local people (especially youth) to leave

the community so that they can make money to buy similar goods and services. Even traveling onan airplane or simply traveling away from homecan create these problems among people who donot have that option.

r Are local people excluded from any of the areaswhere students are encouraged or allowed to go?

r Are students well-behaved andrespectful in termsof the local culture? Do they dress inappropriately,or otherwise commit cultural offenses that willanger, distress, or shock people in the local com-munity? Do students see culture, indigeneity, and

the authenticity of local people as commoditiesto be consumed? What other cultural impactsresult from student visits? Cultural differences inthemselves are likely sources of confusion andconict if unanticipated.

r Do students smoke,drink, or do drugs duringtheirvisit? The effect of these behaviors can range from being poor role models for local youth to bringingnew addictions to the community.

r Are other expressions of privilege demonstrated by students during their visit, such as doingthings our way, eating our food, playing

our music, requiring things to be done on ourschedule? r How well are students prepared to understand

the community they are visiting? Do they bringdamaging stereotypes with them that can be coun-tered before, during, and after the program? Thesestereotypes might be as narrowas Bolivians, butfor most students are more likely to be broader,such as poor people, indigenous people, orpeople in developing countries, as well as racist

142


4/8

Ideas for Mitigating Negative Community Impacts of Short-Term Study Abroa

and exoticizing images of people in out-of-the-wayplaces.

r Are there human rights issues already present thatareexacerbatedby thepresence of foreign visitors?

r Does anything about the students presence oractivities reinforce a negative self-image for localpeople, for example that Americans are smarter,more competent, more attractive? Is there any waytheir presence could promote a positive self-imageinstead?

There are many other questions that can and should beasked when considering the effects of short-term studyabroad on local communities. Many of these are place-specic and evaluation requires local knowledge. Consult-ing local people on these questions may be helpful, but isunlikely to give a complete picture. The economic stake ofhavingvisitorsreturn maybe very high, so thereis incentiveto give positive reviews of the local experience of studentsand the impacts of their presence. Politeness compels most

people to respond favorably when asked if student visitshave hada positive effect on thecommunity. Andof course,most people are not trained to detect or analyze the effectof visitors on local communities. Direct observation canalso be helpful, but must be considered from a criticalperspective as well. Local people may be observed to smileand appear happy when they are genuinely happy, but alsowhen they have little choice about it, as being happy isrequired for visitors to spend money, give gifts, or come back.

RESEARCH D ESIGN AND METHODSThese issues prompted the development of a research

team (composed of faculty members, student developmentstaff, and a student) at Appalachian State University tolook at the impact of our students on the places that theyvisited. In the course of our research, we have examinedone-week alternative spring break service projects, as wellas othershort-termstudy-abroad programs, especially non-traditional ones, through a review of data on programdestination and continuity, surveys of students, interviewswith host community partners, and focus groups withfaculty and staff leading study-abroad programs.

The one-week international alternative spring breakservice study-abroad programs offer one hour of academiccredit, but are not faculty-led. With the guidance of thecampus-based volunteer and service-learning program,students develop the programs, recruit other students toparticipate and nd a faculty partner to accompany thegroup. Unlike many alternative spring break programsacross the country, there is academic coursework andsubstantial preparation and reection required of students before and during the program abroad. From 2006 to 2008ten alternative spring break programs were implementedin the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Panama, Jamaica,and Belize. A total of 125 students participated over that

time period; some have returned for more than one year. Ofthese 125, twentyhave subsequently enrolled in a semester-long international program. This enrollment is signicantlyhigher than for the population of students at large and maysupport the argument that international alternative spring breaks and other short-term study-abroad programs canserve as gateways to longer study-abroad experiences.

In addition to alternative spring breaks, there are a sig-

nicantnumber of other short-termstudy-abroadprogramsat our university, which are designed and implemented byfaculty andprofessional staff. These programs all carry aca-demic credit, with coursework completed before, during,and after the program abroad. The abroad componentsof such programs occur at various times depending onthe program, including winter and spring break, but mostcommonly are completed during the summer.

The research team collected data from four sourceshoping to catch a glimpse of how students impact thecommunities that they visited:

1. In 2007 we conducted semistructured interviews

with the faculty and professional staff partners whoparticipated on alternative spring break programs.

2. That same year we conducted semistructured inter-views withhost agency personnel. Theseinterviewswere conducted by the faculty and staff partners oneach program.

3. We also analyzed data from a required studentsurvey from the international alternative spring breaks.

4. In 2008 we conducted a series of focus groups witha wider range of faculty and professional staff whohave led study-abroad courses (not all of whichincluded a service-learning component).

In thesegroupdiscussions, wehopedto seeif participantswere concerned about the impacts that their studentsare having on host communities and, if so, what theydid to mitigate potential damage. In this research wewere especially concerned about issues of equity and,in particular, who beneted locally from the studentspresence in the community.

RESULTS

Faculty and Professional Staff InterviewsThe faculty and professional staff who served as partners

for the alternative spring break programs in 2007 includedthree people whohadconsiderable internationalexperienceand one who had no previous international travel experi-ence. One faculty member was a geography professor. Twoof the four participants expressed some skepticism aboutthepositiveimpact on communities that they expected fromthe program before they departed.

After they returned, all four faculty and professionalstaff partners were interviewed. All reported favorable

143


5/8

Schroeder et al.

impressions of the student impact on the communities theyserved. When asked why they thought that students werewell received in their host communities, their responsesvaried. One explained that they had worked closely with asuccessful U.S. Peace Corps volunteer that was living in thehost community as they were setting up their program.The volunteer had done an excellent job of preparing both the students and the host community for the visit.

Others commented that the agencies that they were vol-unteering with played similar roles in preparing bothstudents and the communities for the exchanges. Onefaculty member commented that the host community wasso inundated with volunteers that he doubted that hisparticular group could have any negative impact.

With regard to issues of how equitably the benets of theexchange were shared within the communities, two facultyand professional staff partners noticed signicant effort bythe host agency tomakesurethatthe tangiblebenets of thestudents presence were shared within thecommunity. Onecommented about the particular effort of the family thatwas hosting them to make sure that the students stopped

by the stores that were owned and run by other families.However, another noticed that the project that they wereworking with seemed to be exacerbating inequality.

Host Agency InterviewsIn 2007 faculty and professional staff partners on the

alternative spring break programs were asked to interviewrepresentatives of their host agency to try to determinethe possible negative impacts that student groups couldhave, phrased in terms of how the programs might be im-proved. These interviews were shared with members of theresearch team when the groups returned to campus. In all

cases, the representatives of the host agencies said thatstudent groups provided needed assistance and, in somecases, a signicant revenue stream for their projects. Thisresult was expected and not terribly helpful. Several ofthe faculty and professional staff partners pushed theirinterview subjects a bit more by asking about the negativeimpacts ofother student groups in thepast.Onehostagencyrepresentative complained about the late night drinkingactivities of other student groups.

Student Participant SurveysCompletion of a post-experience survey is a requirement

for alternative spring break participants. The researchgroup collected fty-four completed surveys from the2007 international alternative spring break participants.Students were asked if they believed that their group hadan impact in the community in which they worked. Allstudents responded either strongly agree or agree on ave-point Likert scale. When prompted to provide detailsof the intangible impacts of their programs (impacts otherthan money and physical labor), some students felt thatthey reduced local peoples negative stereotypes aboutAmericans and that they helped local people feel more

pride in their communities. Student surveys were notparticularly good instruments for prompting reection onthepossiblenegativeimpact that their presencemight cause(for example, demonstration effects and exacerbation of ex-isting inequality). However, one professional staff partnercommented that serious discussion of these concerns wasshared during time set aside for reection while they werein the host community.

Focus Groups with Faculty and Staff In order to expand our research beyond the experiences

of alternative spring break programs, four one-time focusgroups were completed in 2008 with faculty and staffwho had led or accompanied short-term study-abroadprograms through the universitys Ofce of InternationalEducation and Development in the previous ve years. Allprograms areorganizedby the groups facilitatorvendorsare not used on our campus. Of the forty-one faculty andstaff invited to participate, twenty-six participated. Staffparticipants were student development professionals froma variety of ofces acrosscampus andfaculty were from nu-

merous departments, with representatives from all collegesat the university. The research team intentionally soughtout participants who had led programs to vulnerableplaces: all who had led or facilitated programs in LatinAmerica, Africa, andAsia were asked to participate, as wellas one that visited the Maori in New Zealand. However,many who had been to less vulnerable places in Europeand Australia were also asked. When there was a choice,faculty and staff who had led multiple programs withlarger numbers of students were asked to participate overthose with fewer numbers and less experience. Participantsranged in experience from second-year assistant professorswho had led one program to full professors who have beenleading programs for over twenty years.

One striking nding was that most participants hadnot seriously considered the negative impacts that theirstudents might have abroad when they were planningtheir program, even those who were able to articulatepotentialnegative effects during the focus groups. This wasattributed to the real needs of pressing program logistics,including planning the syllabus. Of those who did planfor potentially negative impacts of their program, the mostcommon measure was developing group guidelines orsetting up penalties (including sending students home)for destructive behavior related to alcohol consumption.Participants were nearly unanimous in their view thatalcohol abuse contributed substantially to poor student behavior and increased the likelihood that the studentswould have a negative impact on the community theyvisited.

However, few participants went beyond thinking aboutthe negative impact that alcohol can have to consider otherunintended negativeconsequences. Few expressed concernover exacerbating income inequality, though some com-mented on the demonstration effects of bringing wealthystudents into poor communities. In general, virtually all

144


6/8


participants assumed or asserted that economic reper-cussions were positive, and had considered few or nocultural or social effects of the study-abroad programthey led. Even senior faculty members with extensiveinternational experience and doctorates in a social sciencediscipline had not thought through the implications forhost communities of their visits. However, there were afew faculty and staff (not always the most experienced)

who did discuss negative effects, some they had actuallyseen, others that they feared. Once these were mentionedin the focus groups, most participants were interested inhearing about issues they had not considered, and all wereactively concerned about theeffects of student visitson hostcommunities.

The few who mentioned negative impacts were con-cerned primarily with economic issues that result ininequity or dependency in host communities, though therewere also concerns about cultural impacts. Home staysin middle-class housing, unequal distribution of gifts, thedemonstration effect of student consumption, and relianceupon relatively wealthy visitors to solve local problems

were all discussed. One participant had put a hold ontaking students to an area he had visited for decades, because he saw major signs of dependency, on him andthe relationships his programs had established in thecommunity, for addressing local concerns, especially inprovidingmoney. Onehad stopped going to areas that weregeographically and culturally isolated because he fearedthe effect of his programs on those communities, which heperceived as particularly vulnerable. On the other hand,one faculty member commented that ten more studentsfrom our university going to Madrid were not going tohave much of an impact on local inhabitants.

These focus groups indicate that faculty and staff wholead short-term study-abroad programs are generally un-aware of possible negative impacts on host communitiesand do not consider the effects of their programs, with theexception of bad behavior resulting from student abuse ofalcohol. However, once potential negative impacts cameup in discussion, virtually all were receptive to consid-ering these impacts and thinking about how to mitigatethem.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONSAlthough this research project is still in its early stages,

we feel comfortable drawing some basic conclusions andmaking some general recommendations. As researchers,we have been pleased with how receptive stakeholdersare to making improvements to study abroad in terms ofits effects on host communities. We are hopeful, therefore,that with time and effort many of these recommendationswill become standard practice at universities and collegesengaged in such programs.

Institutional Commitment Colleges and universities must make institutional com-

mitments to evaluating and mitigating the negative im-

pacts of short-term study abroad on host communities.The commitment of individual leaders of such programsis necessary, but not sufcient to achieve this goal, asinstitutions must provide training, support, and review ofprograms to ensure that host communities are not harmed by our students education abroad. As research in thispreviously unexplored aspect of study abroad develops,institutions can help program leaders learn about potential

negative impacts of study abroad. In those institutions thatuse vendors to provide short-term study abroad, thiscommitment must be transmitted to vendors, andcontracts issued only to those that meet this newcriteria.

Knowledgeable Program LeadersProgram leaders and administrators must become as

knowledgeable as possible about host communities and theways they may be harmed by short-term study abroad, inorder to predict and evaluate potential negative impacts.This process is likely to be helped tremendously bythe involvement of experienced faculty. This does not

necessarilymean that such faculty must leadevery programsince they are not necessarily sensitiveor trained to observethe impacts on communities. A committed program leadermay be able to reduce such effects through serious studyand consultation with faculty as well as members of thecommunity. Whenever possible, however, the expertise offaculty knowledgeable about the community or the areato which students are traveling should be involved inthe planning of the program, and in evaluating poten-tial impacts. Supercial observation is no substitute forknowledge and analysis resulting from training in theeld.

Student and Community PreparationStudents must be prepared and guided during the pro-

gram so that they become active participants in evaluatingand preventing negative impacts on host communities.Preparation and work during the program has threecomponents.

First, knowledge of the community must be built sothat students will understand, insofar as possible, how andwhy things work the way they do in that area, includingthe likely reaction to Americans and effects of studentspresence there. Through guest lectures, readings, lms,and pre-program group presentations, much of this can beaccomplished and will allow service to be well-integratedwith cultural learning.

Second, the group must engage in systematic analyses ofthe many ways outsiders can affect any community, howpower dynamics are likely to come into play within and between the host community and the student group, thespecial vulnerabilities of the community being visited, andways to minimize negative impacts. This analysis mustinclude the (gentle!) lesson that good intentions do notnecessarily prevent harmthose intentions must be armedwith knowledge, sensitivity, humility, and commitment.

145


7/8

Schroeder et al.

Facilitatingpower/privilege simulationactivities, conduct-ing panel discussions with previous participants, engag-ing in frank group discussions, and requiring reec-tion/reaction papers from the students before departurecan all assist with teaching these important lessons beforeengaging with the host community.

Third, group cohesion and a shared commitment torespect and share with the host community in a spirit

of mutual learning, and an exchange of equals must bedeveloped. This kind of cohesion and commitment must be created through activities, sharing and reection both before and during the program. Before the program,students might engage in group projects about the culture,meet with students who have been on the program before,and discuss their likely reactions to the culture(s) they will be experiencing. Building a group contract about behaviorson theprogramthatwillmitigatepotential negativeimpactswill also make for a more successful program generally.Once abroad, home stays to encourage cultural immersion,making time in the program to be with local people incontexts that allow for sharing, using local languages when

possible, structuring evening reection time that allowsfor open discussion, and encouraging a group journaland/or individual journals are among the practices thatare fundamental to creating groups that will be sensitiveto and work to prevent negative impacts on the commu-nity being visited, as well as encouraging good culturalexchange.

Teaching students how to journal prior to departureis both an important academic and life skill. Instruc-tors should develop structured journal questions thatallow reection to take a deeper, more critical per-spective, rather than just reporting on the experience.Varying the reection processes throughout the expe-rience will accommodate various learning styles andencourage deeper, more powerful learning. Many ideasfor reection can be found on the Campus Compact(http://www.compact.org ) and the National Service-LearningClearinghouse ( http://www.servicelearning.org ) Web sites.

Finally, consult with and prepare the community, inadvance of the visit. Members of the host community mayhave good suggestions for minimizing negative effects, but not necessarily. They are as unlikely as students tohave an understanding of foreigners, however interestedthey may be. If members of the community have someunderstanding of the students culture, some potentialconicts and distress may be reduced. If a local universityor agency is part of the study-abroad program, they shouldalso bebrought into discussionsof theeffects of theprogramon local people, something that they may not have thoughtabout any more than our institutions have. Ultimately, hostcommunities should have control over if and how studentgroups should visit and study.

Consider Not Going Consider notgoing on certain programs andreducingthe

numbers of students going overseas. Given the potential

environmental, social, and cultural costs of study abroad,there are some places there is just no responsible way tovisit. Programs with the highest probability of harm tothe host communities should simply not be developed,despite the recommendation of the Lincoln Commissionand student demand. These locations may not always be obvious. The environmental impact of visiting somelocations may be profound even when the cultural effect

might be minimal. Some places may be visited so much thatit seems they cannotbe harmedbut thecumulative impactof many visitors to a small place may be cause to hold backfrom going there. Attention to the cumulative impact aswell as the higher investment in time of responsible studyabroadalso suggests that thenumber of programs as well asthenumberof studentson eachprogram should bereduced.With greater understanding of student learning outcomesand how they can be applied, this reduction in numbersmight be used to improve the quality of short-term studyabroad.

Long-Term Relationships

Establish long-term commitments to specic communi-ties. Most of the recommendations above are ultimatelydependent on this; while many of the negative effects ofstudyabroad can be anticipated withsufcient preparation,others cannot. Only by knowing people and learning abouta community over time can these unanticipated impacts be detected and mutual trust created such that problemscan be discussed and addressed. This is not a panaceaa long-term relationship may in itself become a problemif it becomes a dependent one. But the dangers of drive by study-abroad programs are too clear to be continued,once the effects on host communities are acknowledged.We should be clear that drive by is not the same as aprogram with a short duration.Programsthat last as littleasa week can be long-term provided the institution maintainsa relationship with the host community. Conversely, simply because a group stays in a particular place for an extendedperiod of time does not ensure an equitable long-termrelationship.

Institutional Review of Study AbroadU.S. colleges and universities should develop institu-

tional review boards (IRBs) to screen international ex-periences for unintended negative impacts that short-term study abroad might have. IRBs already exist acrosscampuses to ensure that faculty research does not en-danger the health or safety of our research subjects.The same consideration should be given to communitiesthat host our students abroad. These IRBs should becomposed of faculty with academic expertise in vulnerableareas as well as those with experience in study-abroadprograms.

Though the effects of short-term study abroad pale incomparison to the overall impact of other forms of travelfrom the U.S., academic institutions bear a special respon-sibility to engage in ethical relationships with communities

146


8/8


hosting our students during study abroad. Understandingand working to mitigate the negative impacts of studyabroad on host communities must become part of how weunderstand what we do when our colleges and universitiessponsor such programs.

We are all too aware that this research raises as manyquestions as it answers. How exactly does one preventdependency from developing in a long-term study-abroad

relationship? How do we determine the cultural impactover time of students study abroad? How do we spendmoney to feed and house students without increasingincome inequalities? These are difcult questions, andthe answers to some of them may not even be possible.But we believe that if these questions are not asked, if theimpacts on local communities of study abroad continue to be ignored, that we will without a doubt be engaged in thepursuit of academic goals at the expense of people whohave no choice about the matter. Many of the answers tothese questions are held within our collective knowledgeof the places with which we have deep relationships. Ourlong-term commitments to the places we have studied

provide the starting point for what we hope will be longand fruitful conversation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors are indebted to our student researcher Kara

Brown who did much to get this research project startedand provided thoughtful critiques in its early stages. Dr.Sarah Banks, a sustainable tourism expert, also contributedsubstantially to this project in its formative stages.

N OTES1. Research on the effects of study abroad on students

remains underdeveloped. How long do studentsneed to be abroad before they start to gain cross-cultural skills? What experiences and assignmentsare necessary to meet learning objectives? Of thefew studies that examine the impact on students,some are very disturbing. Gmelch (2004) studied the journals of students enrolled in anthropology classesat the University of Innsbruck. Students attendedclasses Monday through Thursday and traveled onthe weekends. Analysis of student journals foundthat they were surprisingly shallow, na ve, andsimplistic; students gained very little from simplytraveling.

2. Short-term study abroad is the largest growingproportion of international programs at this time,and, in our view, much more likely to have negativeimpacts on host communities than individual orsmallgroupsof students whogo on semesteror year-long study abroad at a foreign university.

REFERENCESArcher, B., C. Cooper, and L. Ruhanen. 2005. The positive

and negative impacts of tourism. In Global Tourism, ed.W. F. Theobold, pp. 79102. New York: Elsevier.

Campus Compact. 2008. Resources. http://www.compact.org/syllabi/syllabus.php?viewsyllabus = 691 (accessedSeptember 23, 2008).

Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study AbroadFellowship Program. 2005. Global competence and na-tional needs: One million Americans studying abroad.http://www.nafsa.org/public policy.sec/public policydocument/study abroad 1/lincoln commission report(accessed May 14, 2008).

Forum on Education Abroad. 2008. Standards of good prac-tice for education abroad. http://www.forumea.org/standards-standards.cfm (accessed October 3, 2008).

Gmelch, G. 2004. Lets go Europe: What student tourists

really learn. In Tourists and Tourism: A Reader, ed. S. BGmelch, pp. 419432. Long Grove, Illinois: WavelandPress.

Institute of International Education. 2007. Opendoors 2007fast facts. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/ (accessedFebruary 19, 2008).

Lawson, V. A. 2005. Internationalizing geography at thedawn of the twenty-rst century. AAG Newsletter 40:2,3.

Lew, A., C. Hall, and A. Williams, eds. 2004. A Companion toTourism. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.

McLaren, D. 2006. Rethinking Tourism and Ecotravel.Bloom-eld, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

NAFSA: Association of International Educators. 2008.Public policy: Senator Paul Simon StudyAbroad Foundation Act. http://www.nafsa.org/public policy.sec/commission on the abraham (acce-ssed October 3, 2008).

National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. 2008. Libraryservices. http://servicelearning.org/library/lib cat/index.php?action = detailed&item = 4272 (accessed Sep-tember 23, 2008).

Shaw, G., and A. Williams. 2002. Critical Issues in Tourism: AGeographical Perspective. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: BlackwellPublishers.

Zurick, D. 1992. Adventure travel and sustainable tourismin the peripheral economy of Nepal. Annals ofthe Association of American Geographers82 (4): 608628.

147

donoharm-shorttermstudyabroad

Documents