CC BY-NC-ND
30
E. Akimova, Z. Dzhafarova, D. Kurkovskiy, E. Rodina, K. Schroeder
Why study abroad? A mixed-methods evaluation of the effectiveness of US-Russia academic exchange programs
This article focuses on the results of the research project that has been realized within The Stanford US - Russia Forum (SURF), which is a platform for Russian and American university students to work together on some of the most important issues two nations face today. Participants of the working group on Education & Foreign Area Studies sought in their research to explore whether bilateral exchanges do in fact serve as an effective tool for producing area studies knowledge in the situation when both the US and Russia have undergone a sharp decline in skilled expertise. The results of the project provide strong evidence for positive program outcomes, especially regarding language acquisition and cultural competence. However, the participants of the project also find that the reviewed orientation pre-exchange materials often contained non-neutral language that may reinforce pre-existing stereotypes.
Keywords: US-Russia relations, area studies, exchange programs.
Only twelve American students studied abroad in the Soviet Union in the late 1950s. Today, the number of American students in Russia is in the thousands2. Given the relaxing of borders after the fall of the Soviet Union, and higher rates of academic and professional student contact through bidirectional exchanges, we would expect the number of area studies experts and knowledge formation in both countries to increase, as well as the ubiquity of Cold War-reminiscent rhetoric to decrease3. However, the field of Russian studies has suffered from a sharp decline in skilled area studies knowledge, as well as the perpetuation of stereotype-dominated discourse4.
With the Ukrainian crisis and the subsequent escalation of tensions between the US and Russia, the lack of area studies expertise has
© Акимова Э., Джафарова З., Курковский Д., Родина Е., Шрёдер К., 2017
become even more apparent. Tsygankov argues that the US was not able "to appreciate and draw relevant conclusions from Russia's modernization of its military and Special Forces, which were deployed to take control of Crimea in February 2014"5. However, it takes even more specialized skills and experience to grasp another country's intentions, and a successful foreign policy cannot be based merely on stereotypes or intuition. Unfortunately, "the current crisis in US-Russian relations is leading to the destruction of meaningful expert dialogue at all levels"6. One way to keep this dialogue alive is through bilateral exchanges, specifically academic exchanges between Russian and American universities.
Much of the literature on study abroad programs focuses on both the long and short-term benefits for individual participants7. This view is generally supported only by qualitative approaches and anecdotal evidence, while few large-scale studies have been conducted8. Nevertheless, we can divide the scholarship on exchange benefits into two main categories: the accumulation of language skills and the accumulation of cultural knowledge.
Scholarship focused on language skills argues that the main benefit of study abroad is language acquisition in a classroom setting9. Barbara Freed writes that it is "often the case that the experience of residing in a country where the language spoken is other than one's own results in the learning of many aspects of the language of that country"10. The 20-year longitudinal study determined that exchange programs abroad was an effective way to learn Russian regardless of living environment, particularly when students were assessed alongside peers that had taken Russian at their home colleges11. While few further studies have examined the question of language acquisition, in particular, Mary Dwyer examines the impact of time spent abroad on language outcomes in a 2004 study. She posits that an academic year on exchange is more effective than shorter periods, resulting in foreign language knowledge extending up to 50 years after the end of a program12.
Beyond language acquisition, other cultural and personal benefits are observed as exchange program outcomes, such as student's increased situational awareness after studying abroad, as well as the formation of globally-minded perspectives13. Delong argues that "survival in today's knowledge economy requires the acquisition, development, and regular updating of knowledge, skills, competence, and the ability to work cross-culturally," viewing academic exchange as one possible approach to achieve such a goal14. Paige further argues for this transformative cultural power of academic exchanges, documenting this role in increasing civic awareness, philanthropic involvement, and international knowledge15.
Academic exchange presupposes a close connection between the acquisition of so-called academic skills, such as language and subject-specific training, and cultural knowledge. Today, the sociolinguistic acquisition approach to foreign language pedagogy is considered the most effective way to master patterns of native speech16. Thus, it is vital to balance in-class and peripheral learning for exchange students seeking sociolinguistic competence, or the ability to use language in a range of social and cultural settings.
Apart from acquiring language proficiency, academic exchange offers students intercultural competence, otherwise referred to in our study as non-academic knowledge. Intercultural competence implies an ability to engage, effectively communicate, relate, and work cooperatively with people and communities of distinct backgrounds17. They argue that such competence cannot be acquired by mere exposure to a foreign culture, but requires active involvement on the part of the student18. Scholarly attention has focused on intercultural competence throughout the last decade, partially as a reflection of an increasingly globalizing world economy19. But while the positive outcomes of studying abroad for language acquisition have been effectively measured and documented, intercultural competence is far more subjective, and thus significantly harder to define and to adequately evaluate20.
Scholars point to a range of general problems encountered by exchange students. One is the issue of isolation among exchange students in host countries. In 1955, Schloss described that exchange students were "to a large extent confined to other foreign students frequently from his own country"21. His contemporaries mirrored this statement, many of whom detail the problematic nature of cultural assimilation during study abroad experiences22
The number of such student exchanges between both countries shifted in 2013 when the US State Department discontinued funding for Title VIII. Title VIII had been a means for American scholars to both develop research projects in Russia and obtain language training domestically. The fund also provided resources to universities with Russia-focused centers as a means to train future experts in Russian studies. Beyond individuals, Title VIII provided organizational grants for exchange programs run by institutions including American Councils for International Education, Indiana University, and the University of Arizona. As the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) reported in 2014, "this means a significant reduction in the number of fellowships and grants available for language training and advanced research in 2013-14," although funding was recently reopened23.
Despite such budgetary concerns, educational exchanges remain a crucial tool for public diplomacy in both countries. Alexey Dolinsky notes that Russia has begun to utilize this as a foreign policy instrument in recent years, a concept further explored by Joseph Nye in his analysis of soft power24. However, there is a great need for more clearly defined program goals, as well as for a better assessment of the effectiveness of exchange programs. One logistical barrier to measuring program outcomes is the difficulty of decentralized contact with program alumni. While there are several US government-sponsored platforms that maintain alumni networks and communications, Russia lacks such infrastructure25.
Research questions and hypotheses
In this study, we explore the main differences between student exchange programs in Russia and the US by measuring two main types of exchange results: academic and non-academic knowledge acquisition. We predict more positive traditional academic outcomes for American students on exchange programs in Russia. This is due to the fact that American institutions offer more academic area studies opportunities. Furthermore, Americans are more likely to set forth on a track to become 'Russia experts' after program completion26. At the same time, we expect that successful non-academic outcomes, such as cultural assimilation and resistance against stereotype formation are more prevalent among Russian students, because of the looser structure of the most popular academic programs for Russians. This assumption is based on many American programs in Russia perpetuating a certain self-segregation of American students who travel to Russia, only confirming their initial perceptions of the country27. Underlying causes for such perceptions may be supported by the alarmist nature of program handbooks and orientations, as well as previous studies on the general non-assimilationist nature of international students' social lives at foreign universities28.
Methodology
Our research methodology involves a range of qualitative and quantitative methods including survey data, statistical modeling, and discourse analysis.
Our chief quantitative method included a survey of past exchange program participants. Responses were collected from November 2016
to February 2017. The survey was conducted through a Google-powered form and was distributed on social networks, in addition to program alumni networks and university contacts. Unfortunately, our final results consisted of 54 American and 10 Russian responses, posing a risk to the strength and conclusive viability of the statistical analysis. The statistical tools used allowed us to investigate the data even at this scope; however, conclusions of the quantitative analysis are suggestive and exploratory, rather than prescriptive.
The survey contained both closed- and open-ended questions, which allowed us to analyze the results both qualitatively and quantitatively.
The second method we use is a discourse analysis of guidelines, booklets, instructions, and other texts that program participants are provided with before participating in an academic exchange. We hypothesized that both content and style of written guidelines accompanying or comprising exchange program orientations contribute to the perpetuation of stereotype formation and detrimental clichés about the host country.
We analyze guidelines provided by American programs for US students who go to Russia, as well as those utilized by Russian programs on exchange to the US. We identify a list of themes in these texts that are anomalous or do not coincide with an assumed goal of encouraging and facilitating program participation (and the broad goal of intercultural exchange). Texts may instead prove discouraging for potential participants and rely either explicitly or implicitly on negative terms instead of neutral-positive ones. We discuss which interpretive repertoires are utilized by the authors of the chosen guidelines, and how they contribute to the formation of the foreboding themes that we find in the texts. Finally, we make practical suggestions on potential linguistic and content changes that could effectively improve the tone of program handbooks and produce a more encouraging perspective.
Results
We begin with a descriptive analysis of the background and socio-economic composition of our sample (Table 1):
Both Russia- and US- based survey respondents participated in various exchange programs, and more than 21% had more than one study abroad experience. Overall, most exchanges in our specific sample took place between the years 2014 and 2016. In our sample, the most popular study abroad destinations were Saint Petersburg State University (SPBU) and Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH).
Table 1. Summary Statistics: Exchange Students, by home country
All American students Russian students
Gender (males, %) 42,1 44,6 31,9
Age (mean, st.dev.) 23,3 (2,7) 23,4 (2.4) 23,1 (4,1)
Educational attainment (%)
Associate's degree 1,8 2,1 -
Doctorate 7,1 2,1 33,3
Bachelor's degree 62,5 63,8 55,6
Master's degree 10,7 12,8 -
High school 17,9 19,2 11,1
Research field/specialisation (%)
Exact & Medical Sciences 9,1 8,7 11,1
Economics & Sociology 9,1 4,4 33,3
Political Science 49,1 50,0 44,4
Russian studies 23,6 28,3 -
Linguistics & Philology 9,1 8,7 11,1
Income groups* (%)
1 12,5 8,5 30,0
2 19,6 19,2 30,0
3 19,6 19,2 20,0
4 28,6 31,9 10,0
5 8,9 8,5 10,0
6 10,7 12,8 -
Number of exchanges (% for 2>)
Funding (%) 21,0 29,2 10,0
No funding 23,2 27,7 -
Partial 41,1 40,4 44,4
Full funding 35,7 31,9 55,6
Source: original survey conducted as a part of the SURF program
* Income groups:
1 Less than S30.000 Less than P40,000
2 S30,000-S50,000 P40,000-P50,000
3 S50,000-S85,000 P70,000-P120,000
4 S85,000-S200,000 P120,000-P275,000
5 S200,000-S330,000 P275,000-P450,000
6 More than S330,000 More than P450,000
Almost all respondents indicated "Language and Culture Studies" as a primary goal. On average, programs lasted for six months, with one month as the minimum amount of time and 15 months the maximum.
Next, we present the results obtained from separate ordered logistic regressions (Table 2). For all variables of interest, we see no statistically significant differences in kinds of program outcomes between American
Table 2. Ordered Logistic Regression Estimates of Academic and Non-Academic Exchange Program Outcomes*
Non-academic: Non-academic: Academic communicational transformation closure of stereotypes
OR SE OR SE OR SE
Home country .53 .35 1.96 1.29 .96 .66
Length of exchange (in months) 1.19* .08 1.13* .05 .92 .08
Language proficiency (before exchange) .52** .11 1.27 .25 - -
Program's academic difficulty .91 .24 - - - -
Pre-existed stereotypes - - - - 3.05* 1.68
N 64 64 64
Source: original survey conducted as a part of the SURF program. Note. ***p < 0,001; **p < 0,01; *p < 0,05; +p < 0,1 two-tailed. * Coefficients are obtained from separate regressions. Intercepts and controls for gender are included in the model, but only the estimates of interest are presented. OR - odds ratios; SE - standard errors.
and Russian exchange programs. This further suggests that participants from both countries weight academic and non-academic exchange progress equally. Not surprisingly, the length of exchange played a role in determining both academic and communicational closure outcomes. In both cases, an extra month in the host country slightly increased the chances of having higher benefits from programs. Our findings suggest that longer exchanges provide a better platform to eliminate commu-nicational isolations, a conclusion corroborated by scholarship on program length29.
Another observation relates to academic outcomes. Students with high levels of language proficiency prior to their exchange tended to reported fewer academic benefits. For students with weaker language skills, the probability of experiencing academic success on a program was 2.5 times greater than students with high initial levels of proficiency. However, we also see that language proficiency before the exchange is not correlated with non-academic outcomes, i.e. communicational closure. This leads to the notion that other mechanisms apart from language level are responsible for socialization among exchange participants.
The findings also demonstrate the importance of pre-existing stereotypes and their transformation. As shown in Table 2, students who shared common and widespread perceptions of each host country will reanalyze stereotypes at a rate three times greater than students who had more accurate knowledge about the host country. This complements Deardorff's studies in that it suggests the necessity of taking pre-existing stereotypes in account when evaluating exchange programs30.
We also include a qualitative analysis of open-ended questions from the same questionnaire. We find that exchange programs contribute to a more profound mutual understanding between the two countries and respective cultures. Students from both sides noted that their study abroad experiences allowed them to take a firsthand look into life in the host country, resulting in stereotype reduction. Responses identified two chief ways that exchange allowed them to debunk false stereotypes: on the one hand, students had an opportunity to test their own misconceptions about the host culture through lived experience; on the other hand, they were able to provide more accurate information about their home culture to people in the host country.
For our second method, we analyze five handbooks designed for the American students participating in academic programs in Russia, one set of guidelines for the Russians who intend on going to the US, and one set of guidelines provided by a Russian university (Higher School of Economics) for the US and other international students who come to Russia to study.
One complication in our analysis was the scarcity of handbooks generated by the Russian universities and exchange programs. This, however, falls within our line of expectations regarding the initial lack of balance between Russian and US exchange programs: in the US, programs are plenty in number, well-funded, and well-structured, while in Russia there is a lack of academic exchange programs aimed at sending Russian students to study in the US, and the existing ones are not as elaborately structured as their American counterparts. However, having two sets of guidelines produced by in Russia allowed us to have a certain point of comparison, enriched our discourse analysis and broadened its scope.
The results of the analysis of handbooks confirm our hypothesis regarding certain stereotypes being perpetuated in the very first stage of academic exchanges: the (pre-)orientation process. While the major part of the analyzed handbooks contained neutral and/or positive information about the host country, the chapters dedicated to safety issues and cultural differences demonstrated non-neutral (negative) language and strong negative stereotypes, as well as unproven facts and simply factual mistakes in the description of the host country with alarming frequency.
The description of American culture in Russian guidelines implied that Russian people might have too of an idealistic perception of the US, and utilized the tone of "bringing them down to earth," i.e. stating that the US is not better (or worse) than other countries, and has all the negative features of developed capitalist societies. At the same time, the description of Russian culture in American handbooks implied the lack or absence of prior knowledge of Russia on the part of students. While these handbooks do include extensive paragraphs on the importance of avoiding stereotypes and being open to the different cultures and ways of life, most chapters on cultural differences could not avoid treating
Russian culture with anything but an "othering" tone.
* * *
Considering the overall findings, we conclude that amid the crisis in US-Russia relations academic exchange programs still prove to be a valuable source of knowledge and experience for students both from Russia and the US. While more research is required in this field, our study represents a first step towards seeking a remedy for the range of bilateral stereotypes and segregation that occur. Our analysis demonstrates that it would be beneficial for the exchange programs to carefully monitor their content for the rhetorical elements of the narrative to eliminate the effect of the pre-existing stereotypes that are important for the programs outcomes. We have singled out the following 'anomalous' elements of the handbook narratives which we would recommend paying attention to and avoid: 1) usage of non-neutral, emotional language, adjectives of exaggeration; 2) gender-based stereotyping (describing Russian men and women in specific terms); 3) providing false or unproven facts to prove the point, often regarding the 'otherness' of Russian or American culture or the dangers of being in the country; (4) relying on anecdotal evidence to prove certain points (regarding safety and cultural differences); (5) utilizing pre-set negative stereotypes about Soviet regime; (6) applying the dichotomy of 'West' and 'non-West,' with 'West' serving as the equivalent of high quality, progress, civilization (and vice versa); 7) relying on facts which appear to be dated (such as recommending to bring chewing gum or pocket calculators as presents).
References
1 The authors would like to express their gratitude to Victoria Zhuravleva and the SURF leadership team for their invaluable help with the paper.
2 Aref'ev A, Sukholutskaya M. American Students in Russia: Research and Data Analysis of Exchange Programs // American Journal of Applied Sciences. 2015. Vol. 12. № 10. P. 723-733.
3 Legvold R. Return to Cold War. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2016; Monaghan A.A. "New Cold War"? Abusing History, Misunderstanding Russia. L.: Chatham House, 2015.
4 HorowitzJ. Russia Experts See Thinning Ranks' Effect on US Policy [Online resource] // The New York Times. 2014. March 6. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/ world/europe/american-experts-on-russiahtml?_r=0 (accessed 18.09.2016).
5 Tsygankov A. Why Russia Expertise in the US Still Has a Long Way to Go // Russia Direct. 2016. Vol 4. № 3. P. 11.
6 Zhuravleva V. The Role of Academia in Fostering Better US-Russia Relations // Russia Direct. 2016. Vol. 4. № 3. P. 16.
7 DeLong M. et al. Cultural Exchange: Evaluating an Alternative Model in Higher Education // Journal of Studies in International Education. 2009. Vol. 15. № 1. P. 41-56.
8 Freed B.F. An Overview of Issues and Research in Language Learning in a Study Abroad Setting // The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad. 1998. Vol. 4. № 2. P. 31-60.
9 Freed B.F. Op. cit.; Paige M. et al. Study Abroad for Global Engagement: The Long-term Impact of Mobility Experiences // Intercultural Education. 2009. № 20. P. 29-44.
10 Freed B.F. Op. cit. P. 32.
11 Brecht R. Qualitative Analysis of Second Language Acquisition in Study Abroad: The ACTR/NFLC Project // Washington DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1993.
12 DwyerM.M. More is better: The Impact of Study Abroad Program Duration // Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad. 2004. Vol. 10. P. 151-163.
13 Atkinson C. Does Soft Power Matter? A Comparative Analysis of Student Exchange Programs 1980-2006 // Foreign Policy Analysis. 2010. Vol. 6. № 1. P. 1-22; DeLong M. et al. Op. cit.
14 Ibid. P. 41.
15 Paige M. et al. Op. cit.
16 Regan V., Howard M., Lemée I. The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Study Abroad Context. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters, 2009; McKay S., Hornberger N. (eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series. N. Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996.
17 Kumagai A., Lypson M. Beyond Cultural Competence: Critical Consciousness, Social Justice, and Multicultural Education // Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2009. Vol. 84. № 6. P. 782-787.
18 Lee A. et al. Special Issue: Engaging Diversity in Undergraduate Classrooms - A Pedagogy for Developing Intercultural Competence // ASHE Higher Education Report. 2012. Vol. 38. № 2. P. 1-132.
19 Salisbury M.H. The effect of study abroad on intercultural competence among undergraduate college students: PhD thesis. Univ. of Iowa, 2011. http://ir.uiowa.edu/ etd/1073
20 Regan V., Howard M, Lemée I. Op. cit.; Salisbury M.H. Op. cit.
21 Schloss H. Three Problems of International Student Exchange Programs // Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. 1955. Vol. 41. № 3. P. 573.
22 Rose-Redwood C.R., Rose-Redwood R.S. Self-Segregation or Global Mixing? Social Interactions and the International Student Experience // Journal of College Student Development. 2013. Vol. 54. № 4. P. 413-429.
23 Title VIII Funding Cut [Online Resource] // Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. URL: http://www.aseees.org/advocacy/title-viii-funding-cut (accessed 20.11.2016).
24 Nye J.S. Soft Power // Foreign Policy. 1990. № 80. P. 153-171.
25 Dolinsky A. Educational Exchanges in Public Diplomacy: Russian and International Experience // Vestnik MGIMO University. 2014. Vol. 35. № 2. P. 56-62.
26 Sergeev S. Academic Mobility as a Tool of Soft Power of Science // Humanities, Social-Economics and Social Sciences. 2015. Vol. 6. № 1. P. 198-201.
27 Coclanis P. Study Abroad's Seven Deadly Sins [Online resource] // The New York Times. 2016. April 8. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/education/edlife/ study-abroads-seven-deadly-sins.html (accessed 23.10.2016).
28 Rose-Redwood C.R., Rose-Redwood R.S. Op. cit.; Shannon-Baker P.A. Microaggres-sions, Self-Segregation, and Performing Gender: Exploring Undergraduate Students' Culture Shock in a Study Abroad Program. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2015 http://rave. ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1447690476; Ward C, Kennedy A. The Measurement of Sociocultural Adaptation // International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 1999. Vol. 23. № 4. P. 659-677.
29 Kumagai A., Lypson M. Op. cit.; Lee A. et al. Op. cit.; Schloss H. Op. cit.
30 DeardorffD.K. Internationalization: In Search of Intercultural Competence // International Educator. 2004. Vol. 13. № 2. P. 13-15.
