Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) series on Smart Power

Continuing on the topic of Soft/Smart Power that has been an on going
discussion theme on the NAFSA Teaching, Learning & Scholarship Research/Scholarship network (www.nafsa.org/RSnetwork) I am posting a link to a video from a December 3, 2007 panel discussion which is part of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) series on Smart Power. This panel consisting of World Learning President and CEO, Carol Bellamy, H. Patrick Swygert, President of Howard University, and Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, President Emeritus of George Washington University discussed the role of international education and the influence it can have on restoring the United States' standing in the world. You can link to the panel discussion here:
http://media.csis.org/csistv/?071203_smartpower.

Related to this issues is the new poll: Americans Concerned About Long-Term Impact of Damaged US Reputation Abroad from the January 28, 2008 PRNewswire-USNewswire:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-28-2008/0004744241&EDATE=

A Theory on Students Compatibility with a Host Family While Studying Abroad

Propositions of the Theory

1. The greater one’s proficiency in a foreign language (same as host family), the greater one’s compatibility with a host family. This foreign language proficiency will facilitate easier communication between the student and the host family, which in turn will increase compatibility. This is a positive, linear relationship.

2. The greater the number of prior international/intercultural travel experiences one has experienced, the greater one’s compatibility with a host family. Increased number of international/intercultural travel experiences a student has experienced will increase the compatibility with a host family because they enjoy such experiences. This is a positive, linear relationship.

3. The greater one’s age, the greater one’s level of maturity. The older a student is the more mature behaviors they will display in the host family living environment. This is a positive, linear relationship.

3. The greater one’s age, the greater their ability to adapt to an intercultural experience. Students will be able to adapt much easier to an intercultural experience the older they are. This is a positive, linear relationship.

4. The greater one’s maturity level, the greater one’s compatibility with a host family. Students who display mature behaviors will be much more compatible with a host family than students who demonstrate immature behaviors. This is a positive linear relationship.

5. The greater one’s ability to adapt to an intercultural experience, the greater one’s compatibility with a host family. The ability to adapt to an intercultural experience will have a direct impact on a student’s compatibility with the host family. This is a positive, linear relationship.

Contingency factor for proposition 5
5a. The higher one’s interest in an intercultural experience, the stronger the relationship between adaptability and compatibility.

6. The more one experiences home sickness, the less one’s compatibility with a host family. As students become more homesick they will not be as compatible with their host family because they want to be back home and not on their study abroad experience. This is a negative, linear relationship.

Contingency factor for proposition 6
6a. As the amount of contact from friends and family back home decreases, the stronger the relationship between homesickness and compatibility.

7. The length of stay of a study abroad experience is related to one’s compatibility with a host family. From a short length of stay to a moderate length of stay the relationship is positive. However, from a moderate length of stay to an extended length of stay there is no relationship. This is a curvilinear relationship.

To view a diagram of this theory follow this link: http://international.ed.consulting.googlepages.com/StudyAbroadCompatibilityTheory.doc

Research on International Education as a Vehicle of U.S. Soft Power, 1945-2000

Recently, I finished some research on international education as a vehicle of soft power in the United States. The first aim of my research was to determine the intended outcome of the international education legislation and funding in the United States between 1945 and 2000.

Throughout the United States’ history of international education legislation and funding it is clear that soft power is an underlying objective of the federal government. The term “cultural exchange” is used frequently throughout the related literature and legislative language. Often times the term “cultural exchange” is used interchangeably with the term “international educational exchanges.” The interchangeability of these two terms, however, was more prevalent in the literature and legislation of the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s. These two terms were used more separately in the 1970’s through the year 2000.

Another finding is, that for the most part, the language used during the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s focused more on “mutual understanding between cultures” while the language used during the 1990’s and into 2000 had a much stronger tone and emphasized the benefit to the “national security” of the United States. An exception to this is the National Defense Education Act of 1958 which encouraged and supported international education exchanges but the focus was more on U.S. national security and competition with the Soviet Union during this challenging period of the Cold War.

Interestingly, the language used in The International Academic Opportunity Act not only focused on the benefit that these study abroad scholarships would give to the United States in terms of soft power and national security but it also focused on the personal benefits that scholarship recipients gain and that the purpose of the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship was to better prepare students to assume significant roles in an increasingly global economy. It took until the year 2000 for the federal government to fully understand the economic benefits of international education exchanges and that the economic dimension is just as important to the United States as soft power and national security objectives.

I was also interested in investigating the importance that the international education legislation and literature place on the inflow of international students and scholars into the United States and on the outflow of American students and scholars who are studying and/or conducting research abroad? It’s not surprising that in the years immediately following World War II and into the 1960’s the federal government and the greater higher education community placed significant importance on the inflow of international students and scholars into the United States. Certainly, the federal government saw value in funding and supporting U.S. students and scholars going abroad for academic purposes but their main focus was on the academic inflow into the United States. While support for international education exchanges increased through the last half of the twentieth century, the international education legislative focus of the 1990’s and into 2000 tended to favor the outflow of U.S. students and scholars than on the inflow of academics from abroad. What changed, however, was that major federal legislation focusing on international students and scholars in the United States was found more in the immigration arena.

Study Abroad Resources for Serving Students with Disabilities

I just returned from the CIEE conference in Toronto and several people in attendance had questions and were looking for resources to better serve students with disabilities. This summer I compiled a brief list of resources available on the web so I thought I'd share. The resource list follows:

Mobility International USA (MIUSA)
Excellent Site with Many Resources for Administrators and Students
http://miusa.org/publications

University of Minnesota Learning Abroad Center ~ Access Abroad
Excellent Site with Many Resources for Administrators and Students
http://www.umabroad.umn.edu/access/index.html

Mental Health and Crisis Management: Assisting University of Notre Dame Study Abroad Students (2002)
http://www.nd.edu/~ucc/International_Eds_Hdbk_I.html

Study and Work Abroad for People with Disabilities
http://www.independentliving.org/studyworkabroad/
A website which lists the programs available in a multitude of countries worldwide including information about local conditions as well as the organizations which are looking for new contacts.

Higher Education Accessibility Guide
http://www.european-agency.org/heag/
This website is a guide to the accessibility services which are available in Higher Education Institutions across Europe. The information includes contact information to a large number of European institutes and programs which specialize in providing resources for those with disabilities who would like to travel abroad.

Student Disability Travel Resources for Europe
http://www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/magazine/0103/students_with_disabilities_in_europe.shtml A resourceful website with contact information for various institutions and programs specializing in those with disabilities.

No Barriers to Study (NBTS)
http://www3.vjc.edu/nobarrierstostudy/index.html The NBTS is a consortium of college and university professionals from the areas of disability services, international programs, study abroad, diversity and other interested groups. The NBTS group meets twice a year to discuss issues and concerns regarding students with disabilities studying abroad.

A Brief Summary of China’s Astounding Economic Growth

In 1950, China’s foreign trade was a meager $1.14 billion. (Chang 1995, 956). According to Cable and Ferdinand (1994) “the most tangible economic manifestation of China’s ‘open door’ policy is its trade performance. Its trade turnover grew from $15 billion in 1977 to $165 billion in 1992.” (245) Avery Goldstein (1997-1998) provides additional data which shows a more complete picture of China’s trade volume when combined with the data from Cable and Ferdinand (1994). Goldstein states that “over the same time period [the 1980’s to the mid-1990’s], China’s trade volume ballooned from $38.2 billion to more than $250 billion.” (41). During the first ten months of 2006, according to the Chinese Government (2006), China’s foreign trade volume increased 24.1 percent “year-on-year” and reached $1.425 trillion. The increase in China’s trade volume from $15 billion dollars in 1977 to $1.425 trillion during the first ten months of 2006 equates to an astounding 9,400% total increase in a little less thirty years.

The present and projected growth of China’s economic growth continues to be on the rise. Prior to the February 27, 2007 drop in the Chinese market, the Shanghai Index had gained 12% year-to-date and, if it continues at this pace, China will see its fifth straight year of double-digit growth. In 2006, the Chinese economy grew 10.7% and projected growth for 2007 is at 10.8% according to Goldman Sachs (Cheok, 2007). Further, the 2008 Olympics in Beijing are bound to bring in substantial revenues from tourist and media dollars related to the event which will likely continue the double-digit growth for a sixth year.

China’s middle class continues to rise and current estimates place the number of Chinese middle-class citizens at 400 million and it is this population within China that will provide a domestic market for goods that would normally be sold to other countries. Also, according to Vogel (2004), in addition to China’s rising middle-class she has roughly 150 underemployed rural laborers which provides a “virtually unlimited supply of future workers, low wages can continue for a long time to come. Wages can therefore remain low and China can continue to compete in labor-intensive production.” (46)

References

Cable, Vincent., and Ferdinand, Peter. 1994. “China as an Economic Giant: Threat or
Opportunity?” International Affairs 70: 243-261.

Chang, Maria Hsia. 1995. “Greater China and the Chinese ‘Global Tribe.’” Asian
Survey 35: 955-967.

Cheok, Dora. 2007. “A China Affair” CNBC.com,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17806732/for/cnbc (March 30, 2007).

Chinese Government. (2006). “China’s Foreign Trade Volume Hits New High.”
http://english.gov.cn/2006-11/13/content_441227.htm (November 13, 2006).

Goldstein, Avery. 1997-1998. “Great Expectations: Interpreting China’s Arrival.” International Security 22: 36-73.

Vogel, Ezra F. 2004. The Rise of China and the Changing Face of East Asia.” Asia
Pacific Review 11: 46-57.

The Development of Federal Aid for U.S. Students at Home and Abroad from 1945 to 1961

In 1945, as a direct response to the tragedy of World War II, Senator J. William Fulbright introduced legislation sponsoring exchange programs for students and faculty between the United States and foreign countries that was eventually signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on August 1, 1946. Fulbright (1976) stated that “it is…fair to say that the Exchange Program is an instrument of foreign policy, not just for the Untied States, for all participating nations – as well as a memorable educational experience for the individual participants” (p. 2). The Fulbright Act set in motion a great history of international exchange between the United States and the rest of the world. The international educational exchange and foreign language components from additional legislation such as The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (also known as The Smith-Mundt Act), amendments to The Mutual Security Act of 1951, and The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 were consolidated into The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (better known as The Fulbright-Hays Act). In addition to the international educational exchange legislation and related funding that came during this time period (1945 to 1961) the federal government also focused significant attention and energy on increasing and funding scientific research. During these early years of the Cold War the federal government understood that international educational exchange and foreign language study were both essential to the U.S. national security efforts and were just as important as the major scientific research of the time.

One afternoon in late September, 1945 during a routine session of the United States Senate, then freshman Senator J. William Fulbright took the floor and made the following statement:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill for reference to the
Committee on Military Affairs, authorizing the use of credits established abroad for the promotion of international good will through the exchange of students in fields of education, culture, and science (Johnson and Colligan, 1967).

Senator Fulbright’s proposed to fund these exchanges through the sale of surplus United States Senator Fulbright proposed a Bill to amend the Surplus Property Act of 1944 to designate the Department of State as the disposal agency for surplus property outside the United States, its territories and possessions, and for other purposes (Johnson and Colligan, 1967). The Fulbright Act was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on August 1, 1946. The first participants in the program from the United States received funding to study in the 38 countries that received money and/or equipment as a result of the Lend-Lease Act of 1941. Additionally, students from these 38 Lend-Lease countries received Fulbright Program funding to study in the United States. Since the initial funding of the program from sales of surplus property the primary source of funding is appropriated annually by the United States Congress to the United States Department of State (Fulbright.org). Additionally, participating countries are expected to contribute finances to the program but these resources are dwarfed by the funds allocated by the United States. The Fulbright Program was (and remains) a competitive scholarship process. The review and selection of Fulbright fellows focused primarily on academic merit rather than on financial need. During the selection process, weight was not to be given with respect to financial need (it was a secondary consideration), the educational level of the application, or to the geographical distribution of applicants (Board of Foreign Scholarships, 1986). This remains true today except that specific quotas are set for individual countries or specific regions of the world. property (primarily from the military) to allies and other countries at the conclusion of World War II.

In 1948 the United States Congress passed The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act (also known as The Smith-Mundt Act). In addition to bringing the Voice of America and other operations under the Office of International Information of the U.S. Department of State, The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act was established to promote better understanding of the United States among the peoples of the world and to strengthen cooperative international relations. The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act also expanded the Fulbright program to include countries other than those Lend-Lease countries originally specified in the original Fulbright Act of 1946 and facilitated the establishment of bi-national centers around the world to coordinate the exchanges between countries. Although the impact of The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act on U.S higher education was quite minimal; expanding the number of participating countries in the Fulbright Program beyond the Lend-Lease countries only two years later was an important development of the program.

In 1957, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) launched the tiny Sputnik I satellite thus beating the Untied States in innovation and exploration of the new and unexplored frontier of outer space. As a result, the United States Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (often referred to as NDEA). The National Defense Education Act highlighted the critical importance of education to national defense and was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on September 2, 1958. Scarfo states, that “by passing this legislation, the United States Congress understood that the defense and security of the United States were bound with education” (1998, p. 23). Vestal (1994) also highlights the importance of the National Defense Education Act by describing it as the most important federal legislation in international studies (p. 5). The National Defense and Education Act provided federal funding to colleges and universities in order to develop graduate programs focusing on mathematics, the sciences, foreign languages and area studies. According to Brown (1988) “Sputnik dramatized the effort but it was fought in the basements, classrooms, and auditoriums, as educators adapted schools to the national security threat of atomic warfare and claimed a proportionate federal reward for their trouble” (p. 68). In addition, The National Defense Education Act created the Graduate Fellowship Program and the National Defense Student Loan Program, the precursor to the Perkins Loan Program, which was the first federal student aid program for low-income students.

The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (commonly known as the Fulbright-Hays Act), which was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy, is linked to much of the post-World War II legislation that provided funding to higher education in the United States. As previously mentioned, the international educational exchange and foreign language components from the original Fulbright Act of 1946 and additional legislation such as The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (Smith-Mundt Act), amendments to The Mutual Security Act of 1951, and The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 were consolidated into The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (better known as The Fulbright-Hays Act). The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act is quite extensive and it includes a variety of programs that provide funding for and have an impact on higher education in the United States.

Scarfo (1998) notes that section 102 of the Fulbright-Hays Act authorized a range of cultural, technical and educational exchange activities but section 102(b)(6) focused entirely on education in foreign languages and area studies across American higher education (p. 24). According to the International Education Programs Service in the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) of the United States Department of Education the “Fulbright-Hays is viewed as the overseas counterpart to the domestic capacity-building Title VI programs” (of the National Security Education Act of 1958). The Fulbright-Hays Act originally provided financial support for the following four initiatives: Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA), Faculty Research Abroad (FRA), Group Projects Abroad (GPA), and Foreign Curriculum Consultants (FCC) (OPE and Scarfo, 1998). The Fulbright-Hays Act remains law today and represents the world’s flagship international educational exchange policy and program. The Fulbright Program is the largest U.S. international exchange program offering opportunities for students, scholars, and professionals to undertake international graduate study, advanced research, university teaching, and teaching in elementary and secondary schools worldwide.

The history of the federal government’s involvement of providing both institutional funding and individual student financial aid and scholarships packages has been both long and interesting. This cannot be more true than the federal function of financing higher education during the period of 1945 to 1961. From Senator’s proposal in 1945 to the signing of The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act by President Kennedy in 1961, this time period saw the development of a new vision and purpose of education in the United States and the federal government’s responsibility in funding these new visions and purposes.

References

Board of Foreign Scholarships. (1986, December). Forty years: The Fulbright program 1946-1986, Twenty-third annual report of the Board of Foreign Scholarships. Washington, DC: U.S. Information Agency.

Brown, J. (1988). “A is for atom, B is for bomb”: Civil defense in American public education, 1948-1963. The Journal of American History, 75 (1), 68-90.

Flemming, A.S. (1960, January). The philosophy and objectives of The National Defense Education Act. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Scienc, (327), 132-138.

The Fulbright Act of 1946 (Public Law 584; 79th Congress).

Fulbright, J.W. (1976). The most significant and important activity I have been privileged to engage in during my years in the senate. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Scienc, 424, 1-5.

Fulbright.org (date unknown). About Fulbright. Cyprus: Fulbright.org. URL retrieved November 27, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.fulbright.org.cy/fulworld.htm.

Johnson, W., & Colligan, F.J. (1967). The Fulbright program: A history. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, 22 U.S.C. § 2458a.

National Science Foundation. (2000). Science and engineering indicators. National Science Foundation. URL retrieved November 20, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/access/intro.htm.

Office of Postsecondary Education (date unknown). The history of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays: An impressive international timeline. Washington, DC” International Education Programs Service, Office of Postsecondary Education, United States Department of Education. URL retrieved November 27, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/history.html.

Rosenzweig, R.M. (1963). NDEA Title IV after four years: A record of substantial Achievement. The Journal of Higher Education, 34 (1), 1-9.

Scarfo, R.D. (1998). The history of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays. In J.N. Hawkins, C.M. Haro, M.A. Kazanjian, G.W. Merkx and D. Wiley (Eds.), International education in the new global era: Proceedings of a national policy conference on The Higher Education Act, Title VI, and Fulbright-Hays Programs (pp. 23-25). Los Angeles: International Studies and Overseas Programs, University of California Los Angeles.

Teeter, J.H. (1945, December). Federal aid to research. The Journal of Higher Education, 16 (9), 455-459.

The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act (Public Law 402; 80^th Congress).

Vestal, T.M. (1994). International education: Its history and promise for today. Westport, CT: Praeger.

The Chinese “Global Tribe”

An important variable in the analysis of China’s significant economic growth has been the connection to and the recruitment of Chinese diaspora/expatriates around the globe. According to Cable and Ferdinand (1994), “50,000 expatriates a year are being recruited and over 100,000 Chinese work overseas on contracts and growing numbers of the Chinese elite are educated abroad. (p. 245) The value of such a huge network of Chinese residing and working around the globe is also echoed by Walder (1995) who states that “the Chinese Diaspora in South-East Asia and North America are filled with ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs who have proved to be valuable sources of knowledge and investment and who have served as important bridges to the world economy.” (p. 971) Maria Chang (1995) refers to this phenomenon as the Chinese ‘global tribe.’ She describes five major ‘global tribes’ of the world as being the Jewish diaspora, the Japanese, Asian Indians, the British and the English-speaking progeny (which includes Americans), and the Chinese. Chang further supports the claims of Cable and Ferdinand and Walder and concludes that “China stands on the cusp of a transformation in which the overseas Chinese ‘global tribe’ plays a pivotal role. Driven by the traditional motives of market-governed enterprise, the overseas Chinese have fueled the furious pace of China’s economic growth and development.” (p. 967)

The Chinese are one of the most academically mobile student populations on the planet and it is this population that is helping fuel the Chinese economy. According to the Institute of International Education, during the 2005-2006 academic year there were 62,582 students from China studying in the United States. This represents approximately 11% of the total international student population studying in the United States. Further evidence of the large numbers of Chinese students studying abroad can be found in the Institute of International Education’s Atlas of Student Mobility where 15.4% of the 344,335 international student population (the largest percentage) in the United Kingdom hails from China and in Germany students from China represent the largest percentage at 10.5% of the 246,334 total international students.

Resources

Cable, Vincent., and Ferdinand, Peter. 1994. “China as an Economic Giant: Threat or
Opportunity?” International Affairs 70: 243-261.

Chang, Maria Hsia. 1995. “Greater China and the Chinese ‘Global Tribe.’” Asian Survey 35: 955-967.

Institute of International Education. (2006). “Atlas of International Student Mobility.” http://www.atlas.iienetwork.org/

Institute of International Education. (2006). “Opendoors Online: Report on International Educational Exchange.” http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/

Walder, Andrew G. 1995. “China’s Transitional Economy: Interpreting Its Significance.” The China Quarterly 144: 963-979.