International Higher Education in Citizen Diplomacy: Examining Student Learning Outcomes from Mobility Programs (International and Development Education) 3030953076, 9783030953072

Citation preview

INTERNATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

International Higher Education in Citizen Diplomacy Examining Student Learning Outcomes from Mobility Programs Shingo Hanada

International and Development Education Series Editors

W. James Jacob Collaborative Brain Trust American Fork, UT, USA Deane E. Neubauer East-West Center Honolulu, HI, USA

The International and Development Education Series focuses on the complementary areas of comparative, international, and development education. Books emphasize a number of topics ranging from key higher education issues, trends, and reforms to examinations of national education systems, social theories, and development education initiatives. Local, national, regional, and global volumes (single authored and edited collections) constitute the breadth of the series and offer potential contributors a great deal of latitude based on interests and cutting-edge research. The series is supported by a strong network of international scholars and development professionals who serve on the International and Development Education Advisory Board and participate in the selection and review process for manuscript development. SERIES EDITORS W. James Jacob, Family Search International Deane E. Neubauer, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa and East-West Center INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Clementina Acedo, Webster University, Switzerland Philip G. Altbach, Boston University, USA N’Dri Thérèse Assié-Lumumba, Cornell University, USA Carlos E. Blanco, Universidad Central de Venezuela Sheng Yao Cheng, National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan Evelyn Coxon, University of Auckland, New Zealand Edith Gnanadass, University of Memphis, USA Wendy Griswold, University of Memphis, USA Ruth Hayhoe, University of Toronto, Canada Yuto Kitamura, University of Tokyo, Japan Jing Liu, Tohoku University, Japan Wanhua Ma, Peking University, China Ka Ho Mok, Lingnan University, China Christine Musselin, Sciences Po, France Yusuf K. Nsubuga, Ministry of Education and Sports, Uganda Namgi Park, Gwangju National University of Education, Republic of Korea Val D. Rust, University of California, Los Angeles, USA Suparno, State University of Malang, Indonesia Xi Wang, University of Pittsburgh, USA John C. Weidman, University of Pittsburgh, USA Weiyan Xiong, Lingnan University, China Sung-Sang Yoo, Seoul NationalUniversity, Republic of Korea Husam Zaman, UNESCO/Regional Center for Quality and Excellence in Education, Saudi Arabia Collaborative Brain Trust 45 W South Temple, #307, Salt Lake City, UT 84010, USA Asian Pacific Higher Education Research Partnership East-West Center 1601 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96848, USA

Shingo Hanada

International Higher Education in Citizen Diplomacy Examining Student Learning Outcomes from Mobility Programs

Shingo Hanada Global and Regional Studies Toyo University Tokyo, Japan

ISSN 2731-6424     ISSN 2731-6432 (electronic) International and Development Education ISBN 978-3-030-95307-2    ISBN 978-3-030-95308-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95308-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © MirageC / Moment / gettyimages This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Deane Neubauer and Dr. James Jacob for their enthusiastic support for this book project. I also would like to thank Ms. Milana Vernikova, Ms. Linda Braus, Ms. Anisha Rajavikraman, Ms. Chandralekha Mahamel Raja, Ms. Divya Anish and all the other editorial team members at Springer Nature/Palgrave Macmillan. In addition, I am grateful to Professor Jane Knight, Professor Kazuo Takahashi, Professor Shingo Ashizawa, Professor Takashi Sekiyama, Ms. Emma Parker, and Mr. Joel Dechant for their valuable comments and support. Furthermore, this project could not have been achieved without the participation of anonymous students and the cooperation of international education educators and administrators. This project was also supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP 19K14133. The theme of this book came initially from my empirical study examining the impact of study abroad programs on intercultural competence. In the context of globalization, international higher education, especially in the form of student mobility programs, has become a major feature of higher education throughout the world. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, international higher education is facing a new challenge, and it seems certain that students will continue to face higher barriers to participating in mobility programs than ever before. At the individual level, more students will take a stronger interest in understanding what they can expect to learn through mobility programs because many of them will consider both the benefits and the risks from various perspectives, including the learning experience gained through the programs, career v

vi 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

development, finances, health, safety of the destination for foreigners, etc. At the social level, the increasing fragmentation of the world and widening disparity led me to assume that looking for clues about how to improve people-­to-­people relationships is precisely what is needed for the sustainability of global society. I was therefore inspired to examine whether international higher education contributes to sustaining and promoting people-to-­people relationships aimed at citizen diplomacy. It is important to note that international higher education includes various modes and programs, and this study does not cover all of them. This study focuses on five types of mobility programs: outbound study abroad, inbound study abroad, international service-learning, international internship, and online study abroad programs. Although this is just one contribution to a broader debate, I sincerely hope it will provide some insights which prove useful in subsequent international higher education research. Last but not least, I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to my wife for her continuous support and understanding to complete this work, and my little son and daughter for giving me the inspiration to pursue this undertaking.

Contents

1 Introduction  1 2 A Review of International Higher Education in Diplomacy 15 3 A Review of International Higher Education 39 4 Research Methodology and Method 67 5 Outbound Study Abroad Programs 83 6 Inbound Study Abroad Programs113 7 International Service-Learning Programs131 8 International Internship Programs157 9 Online Study Abroad Program177

vii

viii 

Contents

10 Discussion and Conclusion189 Appendix201 Index207

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2 Fig. 8.3 Fig. 9.1 Fig. 9.2

The scope of this study 4 Comparison of reflections based on pre-departure session participation100 Comparison of reflections based on program type 101 Comparison of reflections based on local language proficiency 102 Reflections on learning and living experiences in Japan 120 Comparison of reflections between ETP and JMI students 125 The balance beam. Source: Furco (1996) 133 Box plot (international service-learning programs) 144 Reflection on international service-learning engagement 145 Framework describing link between academics and internship. (Source: Moore and Baird (2018)) 164 Box plot (international internship programs) 166 Reflections on international internship engagement 167 Box plot (online and onsite SAPs) 180 Reflections on online SAP learning 181

ix

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Participant numbers 77 Table 5.1 Number of Japanese study abroad students on study abroad programs arranged by home universities (JASSO, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020) 85 Table 5.2 Student profiles and program profiles 87 Table 5.3 Descriptive statistics 91 Table 5.4 Regression model coefficients 92 Table 5.5 Change in IDI orientations 93 Table 5.6 Average change scores in orientations, program types, and pre-­departure session 95 Table 5.7 Average change scores in prior local language proficiency, program types, and pre-departure session 98 Table 7.1 Intercultural learning of international service-learning programs 144 Table 8.1 Intercultural learning of international internship programs 165 Table 9.1 Intercultural learning of Online and Onsite SAPs 179

xi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to examine the impacts of international higher education on citizen diplomacy through empirical studies. Citizen diplomacy is the concept that “every global citizen has the right, even the responsibility, to engage across cultures and create shared understanding through meaningful person-to-person interactions” (The Center for Citizen Diplomacy, 2019). It not only aims  to build person-to-person relationships, but also has the potential benefit of sustaining goodwill between foreign peoples when formal diplomacy suffers disruptions (Lawton & Sharnak, 2010). Thus, citizen diplomacy is not an alternative but a complementary diplomacy, which has advantages and opportunities unavailable to formal diplomacy (Davies & Kaufman, 2002). Citizen diplomats encompass students, teachers, athletes, artists, business people, humanitarians, adventurers, and tourists (Lawton & Sharnak, 2010). Since entering the era of globalization and digitalization, the role of citizen diplomacy is increasing, in that more and more  citizens  can exert influence on an international stage  through  both face-to-face and online modes (Lawton & Sharnak, 2010). In the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, diplomacy is defined as “the activity of managing relations between different countries.” It is a practice that a country uses in building and maintaining favorable relationships with other countries without offending them in order to achieve its own interests (Hosoya,  2007). It includes the use of negotiation, mediation, conflict © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 S. Hanada, International Higher Education in Citizen Diplomacy, International and Development Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95308-9_1

1

2 

S. HANADA

resolution, and cooperation to achieve consensus between countries (Copper et al., 2013). In classic studies of diplomacy (e.g., Nicolson, 1954; Satow, 1917/2011), it is recognized as a peaceful and intelligent method employed only by official diplomats in government. Since the 1990s, however, information has spread rapidly throughout the world as the Internet has become mainstream. This has enabled not only governments and official diplomats but also citizens and non-governmental organizations to obtain a wide variety of information and communicate with foreign citizens across borders. It is one of the factors that has promoted information transfer and dialogue between people in public diplomacy. With this in mind, the influence of information technology on diplomacy is something that cannot be ignored, and diplomacy has entered a period of diversity which includes non-governmental people-to-­people contact, called citizen diplomacy or people’s diplomacy (Bhandari & Belyavina, 2011; McDonald, 2007; Mueller, 2020; Yu, 2015). This study assumes that international higher education has its role in citizen diplomacy. The following four points regarding the impact of international higher education on citizen diplomacy are worth bearing in mind. Firstly, previous studies have anticipated certain impacts of international higher education programs on citizen diplomacy. For example, Bhandari and Belyavina (2011), in a study by the Institute of International Education, state that postsecondary exchange and study abroad programs are expected to contribute to citizen diplomacy. Yu (2015) indicates that educational and cultural communication is one of 225 American citizen diplomacy programs, and that its function is to enhance mutual understanding between ordinary citizens. Secondly, many of the previous studies in citizen diplomacy have been based on Western contexts. For example, Wilson (2014) examines the impact of intra-European mobility programs and concludes that there is little evidence of a positive change in students’ attitudes toward the host country. On the other hand, Wilson (2017) mentions that mobility across greater cultural differences could have a much greater impact on attitudes. Similarly, Bhandari and Belyavina (2011) introduce the case studies of postsecondary exchange and study abroad programs, and professional and leadership exchange programs in citizen diplomacy, but these are based on American contexts. Thirdly, there are many studies which rely on participants’ self-reporting and perceptions as evaluation methods. While it is important to examine such qualitative self-assessment by participants as one aspect of the question, a more systematic assessment is also desirable when an empirical study is conducted. Fourthly, the number of

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

people participating in international education in general is large. Although there are no official statistics provided by international organizations on the number of participants in all types of international education program, the number of participants in study abroad programs was said to be about 5.3 million in 2017 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2020). Given the scale of involvement in international education programs, it is sizeable enough to play a significant role if it is proven that international education in higher education impacts citizen diplomacy. In light of this background, this study intends to provide some insights into the impacts of international higher education on citizen diplomacy in the Japanese context through both quantitative and qualitative empirical research. As there are many different modes of international higher education, this study does not seek to cover them all. A typical classification of international higher education is mobility programs and international education programs on the home university campus. The former refers to programs in which learners travel abroad to study, such as study abroad, international service-learning, and international internship. In contrast, the latter refers to programs provided mainly on a student’s own university campus, such as intercultural education and global citizenship education. Among the different types of international higher education program, this study aims to examine the impacts of five types of mobility program on citizen diplomacy: outbound study abroad, inbound study abroad, international service-learning, international internship, and online study abroad programs.

Scope There are various qualities that contribute to building and maintaining citizen diplomacy. Figure 1.1. indicates three qualities: awareness of the partner country (i.e., the awareness of country B among people in country A), intercultural competence, and others. These other qualities may include proficiency in the language(s) spoken in the partner country, knowledge of the partner county, or familiarity of values such as political ideology, economic system, religion, etc. Among these, this study focuses on two qualities: awareness of the partner country which the participants of international higher education programs visit and intercultural competence on the Japanese side. The reason for choosing these two qualities is that this study assumes that they encompass goodwill toward and cultural understanding of foreign

4 

S. HANADA

Fig. 1.1  The scope of this study

countries, both of which are indicated as components of citizen diplomacy. Awareness, which is exemplified by interest, empathy, and goodwill toward foreign countries, is an indispensable attitude. However, it is not sufficient. Even if people have awareness, they need to be equipped with intercultural competence (i.e., intercultural mindset and skillset) in order for them to be able to adjust to the cultural differences that exist between countries and build and maintain the relationship in the real world. Communication and intercultural understanding are required in the spheres of skill and mind, respectively, to adjust to cultural differences. Thus, intercultural competence is different from knowledge of the specialist areas of politics, economics, or the environment. On the other hand, even if one has intercultural competence, it does not necessarily mean that one has such

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

awareness of a specific foreign country. Therefore, these two qualities are closely related but not necessarily identical. This study believes that one of the raisons d’être of international higher education is to foster people who are equipped with both qualities, based on the following extensive  contexts for international higher education. The basic purpose of international higher education is to foster people who can play an active role in various situations, globally and domestically. Needless to say, this student development (or human development in a broader sense) is not itself a diplomatic practice. On the other hand, ever since the Middle Ages, when the university system was first established, a mission of universities has been to nurture people who can contribute to the realization of international peace, the state in which people in the world respect and trust each other. Today, governments sometimes expect universities to foster people who can contribute to people-to-people relationships between their country and foreign countries. This might include increasing the number of citizens who are familiar with the other country, citizens who have friendly feelings toward the other country, and foreigners who have friendly feelings toward their own country. Furthermore, in the contemporary era, there is a call from the international community to foster such people, which can be confirmed by the UNESCO’s statement: “education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace” (UNESCO, 1974, p. 2). It also lays out the different components required of education for building and maintaining peace, which are “sometimes gathered together in a concise expression, international education” (UNESCO, 1974, p. 1). In this respect, UNESCO refers to the role of international education in building and maintaining international peace. In order for countries which are culturally distinct groups to aim to build trust, it is necessary to dispel ignorance and distrust of the other group, and seek to build a relationship for coexistence and co-prosperity by communicating with each other. However, it is not easy for people with different cultural, social, and economic backgrounds to build such relationships. Today, about half a century after UNESCO set out the above clause, for example, the increasing fragmentation of the world due to economic disparity is often discussed. Based on the concept of realism at a national level, a nation cooperates with other nations because it is in its interests to do so, and

6 

S. HANADA

when there are no such interests, the cooperation will not function effectively. Therefore, the existence of interests becomes a condition for cooperation. It is precisely because of this aspect of international relations that citizen diplomacy is required in order to build a relationship between people in different countries at the individual level. If it can be demonstrated that international higher education has the effect of fostering students’ awareness and intercultural competence, it could be said that international higher education has certain impacts on citizen diplomacy.

Awareness of Host Country This study considers awareness of the host country to have two elements: empathy and goodwill. According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, empathy is defined as “the ability to understand another person’s feelings, experience, etc.” This element involves trying to put oneself in the other person’s place, such as standing in their shoes, understanding their values and customs, and empathizing with them. In comparison, interest is defined as “the feeling that you have when you want to know or learn more about somebody/something.” Compared to empathy, interest is a motivation to understand the host country from the standpoint of one’s own cultural perspectives. Interest is an important element of citizen diplomacy as the foundation of awareness of foreign countries, but this study does not include it in the analysis because the participants of mobility programs are generally more or less interested in the countries which they visit. The other element, goodwill, is defined as “friendly or helpful feelings toward other people or countries.” In addition to understanding things from the other person’s point of view, as seen in empathy, this element shows that one has a favorable feeling toward others. This study examines whether international higher education brings about empathy and goodwill toward the host country among the students who participate in it.

Intercultural Competence Generally speaking, intercultural competence is recognized as the ability to function effectively across cultures, to think and act appropriately, and to communicate and work with people from different cultural backgrounds. (Monash Intercultural Lab, 2021). There is extensive previous literature related to intercultural competence. This literature seems to show that

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

different researchers have focused on various components of intercultural competence, although it is broadly recognized as a capability that supports effective and appropriate interactions with people in different cultural contexts. Scholars have used varying perspectives to explore the specific components that comprise intercultural competence. For example, Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) indicated that scholarly works have advocated for many  different components of intercultural competence. These components were generally perceived as intercultural competence in one context but not in another. Jackson (2018) mentioned that easy formulae and ready-made clichés should be avoided when examining intercultural encounters and diversity. This assertion implies that no particular component of intercultural competence could ever be universally applicable. One approach which could help us to grasp the nature of intercultural competence is to review the terminology of the two terms involved, “intercultural” and “competence.” The word “intercultural” refers to individuals or people in a culture interacting with individuals or people who have different cultural backgrounds. The word culture has roots in the terms “cultivate” and “agriculture,” and has been used since the seventeenth century (Shaules, 2007). Many sociologists and anthropologists have  defined culture from their own perspectives. In a classic scholarly definition, for example, Tylor (1871, p. 1) regarded culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” Storti (1999, p. 5) defined culture as “the shared assumptions, values and beliefs of a group of people, which result in characteristic behaviors” and “cultural differences, or the ways in which a person from one culture thinks and behaves differently from a person from another.” As an example of the views of international organization, in UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001, p. 1), culture is regarded as “the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and [that] it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs.” Reviewing these definitions makes clear that culture has at least four characteristics. First, culture is the synthesis of knowledge, values, beliefs, and habits shared by members of a society. Second, culture influences behaviors which are endorsed by the synthesis of knowledge, values, beliefs, and habits shared by members of a society. Third, culture has both visible and invisible properties. Fourth, culture is neither innate nor static, but is inherited by later generations learning from previous generations.

8 

S. HANADA

In contrast, the term “competence” is often employed imprecisely with insufficient attention paid to the complexity of its meaning. The criteria to describe the concept have also been debated in the literature (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2002). Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) compared the definitions of competence proposed in ten studies which were published from the 1950s to the 1970s. Their conclusion was that the fundamental competence is “an individual’s ability to adapt effectively to the surrounding environment over time to achieve goals” and that “no other aspect of competence and effective social functioning seems so universally accepted as the ability to adapt to changing environmental and social conditions” (p. 35). With this in mind, this study defined competence as “specific abilities underlying or manifested in the performance of competent behavior” (p.  41). As another example, the OECD’s Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCo) Project sees competence (this study uses the term competencies) as being more than knowledge and skills: it involves “the ability to successfully meet complex demands in particular context through the mobilization of knowledge, skills, attitude, and values” (OECD, 2005, p. 4). Although competence is likely to be understood as similar in meaning to performance, Boys (1995) proposed a distinction between the two terms, defining competence as comprised of a mixture of unconscious and conscious components. Observing only performance as a visible component is not necessarily an appropriate way to evaluate competence. As examples of unconscious components, it was noted that individual competence is affected by one’s experiences, opportunities, and motivation. Despite the fact that no authoritative definition of intercultural competence prevails in the relevant literature, intercultural competence can be said to include, at the least, cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements, as some scholars have indicated (e.g., Bennett, 2011; Deardorff, 2006; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). According to Bennett (2011), the cognitive element deals with cultural general and specific knowledge, cultural self-awareness, and interaction analysis. The emotional element relates to how one sees different cultural qualities, such as curiosity, motivation, and open-mindedness to adjust to varying circumstances. The behavioral element relates to one’s behavior and the skills adopted in intercultural environments. Another example is Spitzberg and Changnon (2009), who propose their definition of intercultural competence as “the appropriate and effective management of interaction between people who, to some degree or another, represent different or divergent affective, cognitive and

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

behavioral orientations to the world” (p.  7). Deardorff (2006) offers another empirical study that conceptualizes intercultural competence. In this research, she argued that the major components of intercultural competence are shared by intercultural scholars and higher education administrators. She surveyed both intercultural scholars from a variety of disciplines and higher education administrators from across the United States, from community colleges to research universities, administering questionnaires to them in order to measure the desired components of intercultural competence. The results show that knowledge of others and knowledge of self, and the skills of interpreting others’ values, beliefs, and behaviors, and relativizing oneself were the most commonly shared competences among the group. Based on these understandings of intercultural competence examined through the terminologies and previous studies, this study sees intercultural competence as composed of an intercultural mindset (cognition and affection, as the invisible elements) and intercultural skillset (behavior, as the visible element), which support understanding and effective interaction with people in different cultural contexts.

Objective This study seeks to ascertain the impacts of the five different mobility programs of international higher education on citizen diplomacy by empirically verifying these impacts on cultivating awareness of the host country and on intercultural competence. The five empirical studies examine outbound study abroad for Japanese students going overseas, inbound study abroad for foreign students coming to Japan, international service-­ learning, international internship, and online study abroad programs. The two qualities of awareness and intercultural competence are examined by the empirical research based on three hypotheses: (1) international higher education is effective in cultivating both intercultural competence and awareness of the host country, (2) international higher education is effective in cultivating either intercultural competence or awareness of the host country, and (3) international higher education is not effective in cultivating either of the two qualities. These empirical studies are expected not only to contribute to research, but also to help students and international higher education practitioners who are considering participating in international higher education programs. This study presumes that COVID-19 will encourage students to

10 

S. HANADA

take a stronger interest in understanding what they can expect to learn through physical mobility programs because many of them will consider both the benefits and the risks from various perspectives, including the learning experience gained through the programs, career development, finances, health, safety of the host country for foreigners, etc. There is no doubt that we currently live in turbulent times for international higher education and a deeper focus on the learning outcomes will be required of both academics and practices undertaken  in the field. The studies also provide empirical data on learning outcomes to educators and coordinators at universities to enable the arrangement of more systematic international higher education programs.

Overview of the Chapters This book is organized into ten chapters. The subsequent chapters cover the following content. Chapter 2, A Review of International Higher Education in Diplomacy, reviews the literature to understand the relationship between citizen diplomacy and international higher education. This chapter also looks at the background as to why international higher education is sometimes understood as a resource for promoting cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy as well as citizen diplomacy. Chapter 3, A Review of International Higher Education, provides a concise but nonetheless comprehensive examination of the existing literature on international higher education. This literature review shows how it has transformed over time and outlines what debates have developed in international education as an academic field. International higher education, as the international education in higher education, has developed and transformed along with the changing eras. Still, one challenge is to develop its position as a well-established discipline. The author believes that clarifying the diplomatic impacts of international higher education would make a contribution to this situation by helping to demonstrate one of its missions, to contribute to international peace. Chapter 4, Research Methodology and Method, lays out the research methodology and method used in this study. Based on a review of major research approaches used in previous empirical studies in the international higher education field, this chapter clarifies the approaches used to answer the research question, including instrumental tools, sample size, data collection procedures, and limitations. The following chapters empirically

1 INTRODUCTION 

11

explore the efficiency of different types of international higher education program. Chapter 5, Outbound Study Abroad Programs, examines the factors and contexts of study abroad programs from Japan to foreign countries that contribute to cultivating intercultural competence and awareness of the host country. Through an empirically based both quantitative and qualitative examination of 492 study abroad students, it attempts to gain an understanding of these factors and the reasons why specific factors have statistical significance. There are a large number of previous studies empirically examining study abroad programs. Considering that many of these worked with students in English-speaking countries, as seen in the literature review, this chapter will contribute to investigating what results will be obtained in the case of Japanese students. Chapter 6, Inbound Study Abroad Programs, looks at study abroad programs for international students at Japanese universities. Unlike the other empirical study chapters, this chapter focuses on the question of whether awareness of Japan is fostered among foreign international students by studying here. According to a 2017 survey by the Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) (2019), 60.8% of international students chose Japan as their study destination because they were interested in Japanese society and living in Japan. In the same survey, 41.2% and 92.0% responded that their impressions of Japanese people and of Japanese society respectively had improved during study abroad. The results show that the majority of international students had a more favorable perception of Japanese society, but almost half of them did not have a more favorable perception of Japanese people. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the context through a case study of 33 students. Chapter 7, International Service-Learning Programs, looks at these programs through the basic concept of service-learning and its relationship with university education. It goes on to examine the characteristics and expected learning outcomes of international service-learning compared to domestic service-learning based on a literature review. This chapter empirically analyzes and discusses the diplomatic impacts of international service-learning programs based on a sample of 121 students. Chapter 8, International Internship Programs, looks at the basic concept of internships and the characteristics and expected learning outcomes of international internship programs compared to domestic internship programs through a literature review. This chapter empirically analyzes

12 

S. HANADA

and discusses the diplomatic impacts of international internship programs based on a sample of 52 students. Chapter 9, Online Study Abroad Program, looks at its impact on intercultural learning in the comparison with the onsite study abroad program. Unlike other chapters, this chapter covers program mobility in that the moving entity is not students but an education program. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing demand in higher education to develop online study abroad programs, as potential alternatives to onsite programs. This chapter empirically analyzes and discusses the diplomatic impacts of an online study abroad program based on a sample of 18 students. Chapter 10, Conclusion, will answer the research question and hypotheses addressed in Chap. 1. Furthermore, this chapter synthesizes the characteristics of the learning outcomes of students in each of the five mobility programs of international higher education and sets out the implications for international educators and coordinators to enhance the impacts of these mobility programs on citizen diplomacy.

References Bennett, J.M. (2011, February 22). Developing Intercultural Competence for International Education Faculty and Staff. 2011 AIEA Conference Workshop. The Association of International Education Administrators (AIEA). https:// www.messiah.edu/download/downloads/id/923/Developing_Intercultural_ Competence_for_International_Education_Faculty_and_Staff.pdf Bhandari, R., & Belyavina, R. (2011). Evaluating and Measuring the Impact of Citizen Diplomacy: Current Status and Future Directions. Institute of International Education. Boys, C. (1995). National Vocational Qualifications: The Outcomes-Plus Model of Assessment. In A.  Edwards & P.  Knight (Eds.), Assessing Competence in Higher Education. Kogan Page. Copper, A. F., Heine, J., & Thakur, R. (Eds.). (2013). Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford University Press. Davies, J., & Kaufman, E. (2002). Second Track/Citizen’s Diplomacy: Concepts and Techniques for Conflict Transformation. Rowman & Littlefield. Deardorff, D.  K. (2006). Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. Hosoya, Y. (2007). Diplomacy: The Dialogue and Negotiations across Civilizations. Yuhikaku Publishing.

1 INTRODUCTION 

13

Jackson, J. (2018). Interculturality in International Education. Routledge. Japan Student Service Organization (JASSO). (2019). Overview of a Survey of the Lives of Privately Funded Foreign Students (Heisei 29 nendo shihi gaikokujin ryuugakusei seikatsu jittai chousa gaiyou). https://www.studyinjapan.go.jp/ ja/_mt/2020/10/seikatsu2017.pdf Lawton, B., & Sharnak, D. (2010). The Role of States in Global Citizen Diplomacy Roundtable. U.S. Summit & Initiative for Global Citizen Diplomacy (November 16–19, 2010, Washington, DC). U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy. McDonald, J.  W. (2007). Citizen Diplomacy in a Changing World. Exopolitics Journal, 2(1), 1–19. Monash Intercultural Lab. (2021). What is Intercultural Competence, and Why Is It Important? https://www.monash.edu/arts/monash-­intercultural-­lab/ about-­the-­monash-­intercultural-­lab/what-­is-­intercultural-­competence. Mueller, S. L. (2020). The Nexus of US Public Diplomacy and Citizen Diplomacy. In N. Snow & N. J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 112–119). Routledge. Nicolson, H. (1954). The Evolution of Diplomatic Method. Constable & Co. OECD. (2005). Definition and Selection of Key Competencies Executive Summary. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf Satow, E. (2011). A Guide to Diplomatic Practice. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1917). Shaules, J. (2007). Deep Culture. The Hidden Challenges of Global Living. Multilingual Matters. Spitzberg, B.  H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing Intercultural Competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence (pp. 2–52). SAGE Publications. Spitzberg, B.  H., & Cupach, W.  R. (1984). Interpersonal Communication Competence. SAGE Publication. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2002). Interpersonal Skills. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 564–611). SAGE Publication. Storti, C. (1999). Figuring Foreigners Out. A Practical Guide. Intercultural Press. The Center for Citizen Diplomacy. (2019). Understanding Citizen Diplomacy. https://www.centerforcitizendiplomacy.org/ Tyler, E.  B. (1871). Primitive Culture: Researchers into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Custom. John Murray. UNESCO. (1974). Recommendation Concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. http://educacionglobalresearch.net/wp-­ content/uploads/UNESCO01ENG.pdf UNESCO. (2001). Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. https://www. refworld.org/pdfid/435cbcd64.pdf

14 

S. HANADA

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2020). Total Outbound Internationally Mobile Tertiary Students Studying Abroad, All Countries, Both Sexes (Number). http:// data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=172 Wilson, I. (2014). International Education Programs and Political Influence? Manufacturing Sympathy? Palgrave Macmillan. Wilson, I. (2017). Exchanges and Peacemaking: Counterfactuals and Unexplored Possibilities. In J. Mathews-Aydinli (Ed.). International Education Exchanges and Intercultural Understanding: Promoting Peace and Global Relations (pp. 21–39). Palgrave Macmillan. Yu, Z. (2015). Citizen Diplomacy-New US Public Diplomacy Strategy in the Middle East under the Obama Administration. Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (in Asia), 9(4), 36–58.

CHAPTER 2

A Review of International Higher Education in Diplomacy

This study explores the impacts of international higher education on citizen diplomacy. If we look at previous studies, however, there are discussions about international higher education as an element of public diplomacy or of cultural diplomacy. Given this,  this chapter reviews the literature profiling each of the three diplomacies, citizen diplomacy, public diplomacy, and cultural diplomacy, to understand the relationship between international higher education and these diplomacies.  Based on this review, it examines the characteristics of international higher education to see how these are distinct from other components of the three diplomacies. There are scholarly works that perceive international higher education within the frameworks of public diplomacy or of cultural diplomacy. Byrne (2014) provides an example of the former, addressing the role of international higher education as a model of public diplomacy. In this study, international higher education is seen as an effective and enduring model of public diplomacy which contributes to the priorities and interests of Australian foreign policies. By contrast, Akli (2012) provides an example of international higher education viewed within the framework of cultural diplomacy. This study argues that study abroad students are strongly expected to play a cultural diplomacy role, and that students who cross national borders could be considered as unofficial cultural diplomats. A reason why international higher education is perceived as an element of

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 S. Hanada, International Higher Education in Citizen Diplomacy, International and Development Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95308-9_2

15

16 

S. HANADA

different forms of diplomacy is that these three diplomacies have become intractably intertwined. For instance, Mueller (2020) mentioned that citizen diplomacy and public diplomacy have come to overlap in remarkably reinforcing ways. Likewise, Kim (2017) pointed out that the two  frequently coincide, as the activities of cultural diplomacy are diversifying beyond the realm of mere cultural exchange. Knowledge diplomacy and education diplomacy are two additional types of diplomacy. However, these two diplomacies approach the role of international higher education from different perspectives than that of this study, which is the impact of international higher education on building and maintaining people-to-people relationships. For example, knowledge diplomacy refers to the role of international higher education, as well as research and innovation, in building and strengthening relations between and among countries (Knight, 2019). It focuses on addressing and solving common societal issues which face countries in all regions of the world; thus, it is a more comprehensive process than people-to-people change at an individual level (Knight, 2019). On the other hand, Bartram et  al. (2015, p.  156) define education diplomacy as “any effort at the local, state, national, or international level to foster cooperation or implement change in policies, standards, or structures within any segment of the education system.” Hone (2016) sees education diplomacy as offering a useful lens for capturing the articulation and negotiation of a variety of interests related to education when aiming to achieve Sustainable Development Goals. These two definitions illustrate education diplomacy seen as encompassing more than just the individual level.

Citizen Diplomacy As outlined in Chap. 1, citizen diplomacy is the concept that “every global citizen has the right, even the responsibility, to engage across cultures and create shared understanding through meaningful person-to-person interactions” (The Center for Citizen Diplomacy, 2019). It not only aims to build person-to-person relationships, but also has the potential benefit of sustaining goodwill, communication, and cultural understanding with foreign peoples when formal diplomacy suffers disruptions (Lawton & Sharnak, 2010). Thus, citizen diplomacy is not an alternative but a complementary diplomacy, which has advantages and opportunities unavailable to formal diplomacy (Davies & Kaufman, 2002). According to Lawton and Sharnak (2010), unofficial ambassadors encompass students,

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

17

teachers, athletes, artists, business people, humanitarians, adventurers, and tourists. Since entering the era of globalization and digitalization, the role of citizen diplomacy is increasing in that more ordinary people encounter foreigners both face-to-face and online (Lawton & Sharnak, 2010). Historically speaking, citizen diplomacy was proposed and has attracted attention mainly in the United States. Marshall (1949) cites the Chapultepec Conference held in Mexico City by the United States and 19 Latin American countries in 1945 as the first time the concept of citizen diplomacy was introduced in diplomacy in an experimental form. It is recorded that the U.S. State Department invited three or four voluntary organizations to the conference, which discussed the postwar relationships between the countries of the Americas (Marshall, 1949). Further attention was paid to citizen diplomacies in the 1950s, with U.S.  President Dwight D. Eisenhower convening the White House Summit on Citizen Diplomacy in 1956. Mueller (2020, p.  113) explains how Eisenhower evoked the importance of citizen diplomacy in American foreign policy by quoting the president’s comments at the time: “Clearly, there will never be enough diplomats and information officers at work in the world to get the job done without the help of the rest of us…it must have the support of thousands of independent private groups and institutions and of millions of individual Americans acting through person-to-person communications in foreign lands.” In order for the U.S. to gain the upper hand in the post-World War II bipolar competition with the former Soviet Union, the United States needed not only official diplomats but also citizen diplomats as unofficial ambassadors to build people-to-people relationships. Mueller (2020) indicated that deepening citizen-level relationships with foreign countries contributed to subsequent official dialogues and negotiations. Citizen diplomacy has generally been perceived as separate from formal diplomacy, and its impacts have been perceived as complementary to those of official diplomacy. However, in recent years, especially since September 11, 2001, there has been a growing awareness of the need to more effectively engage in dialogues with foreign citizens. As a result, citizen diplomacy and public diplomacy have become intractably intertwined and overlap in remarkably reinforcing ways (Mueller, 2020). Although there are relatively few studies on citizen diplomacy compared to those on public diplomacy, reviewing the literature yields two major discussions of the relationship between citizen diplomacy and public diplomacy.

18 

S. HANADA

Firstly, citizen diplomacy can be seen as a subset of public diplomacy. Bhandari and Belyavina (2011, p.  3), in a study by the Institute of International Education, see citizen diplomacy as “an array of actions and activities that individuals can partake in that contribute to deepening ties between individuals and communities and to advancing the goals of public diplomacy.” The two elements of citizen diplomacy are mentioned in this study: “private citizens engaging in individual endeavors that serve their own interests, and diplomacy, which includes a framework for cooperation between countries.” Mueller (2020) also sees citizen diplomacy as a form of public diplomacy. Secondly, there is the view that the two types of diplomacy include different elements. Yu (2015, p. 50) introduces the concept of citizen diplomacy in comparison with public diplomacy by citing the distinction addressed by the Center for Citizen Diplomacy. According to this distinction, citizen diplomacy is “the engagement of individual American citizens in primarily voluntary, private sector programs and activities that increase cross-cultural understanding and knowledge between Americans and people from other countries, leading to greater mutual understanding and respect.” By contrast, public diplomacy is seen as “activities and programs carried out under the auspices of the federal government that promote positive and credible perceptions of the US generally, and of U.S. foreign policy specifically.” Lawton and Sharnak (2010) also mention that public diplomacy includes government-led activities which aim to influence foreign publics and to make public opinion favorable toward one’s own country. In contrast, citizen diplomacy is not coordinated centrally by government, but rather is based on people-to-people interaction and dialogues. We can identify the following three major types of citizen diplomacy activities that facilitate dialogue among groups of individual people in order to build people-to-people relationships. The first type is international education programs including higher education, exemplified by the Fulbright Program. International higher education programs conducted by individual universities are also recognized as citizen diplomacy activities (Bhandari & Belyavina, 2011). The second type is international volunteer programs. These are expected to build people-to-people relationships with people in the local communities where participants engage in volunteer activities. An example of this is the Peace Corps, a volunteer program in developing countries supported by the U.S. federal government. The volunteer participants work for

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

19

24 months to provide technical assistance in the areas of education, health, economic development, agriculture, environment, etc., to help foreign people understand American culture, and to help American participants understand foreign culture (Congressional Research Service, 2021). In contrast, the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) is an inbound program that accepts foreign experts. This program is a professional exchange program supported by the U.S.  Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. It aims to promote understanding between the people of the United States and other countries through international professional exchange. Over 70 years, this program has hosted about 200,000 professionals from around the world and provided opportunities to work with American counterparts in a variety of fields. (U.S. Department of State, 2021). The third type is programs operated by non-profit organizations such as People to People International, Friendship Force International, Rotary International, or Sister Cities International. People to People International aims to enhance international understanding and friendship between American and foreign people through educational, cultural, and humanitarian activities involving the exchange of ideas and experiences directly among peoples of different countries and diverse cultures (People to People International Travel Programs, 2020a). In concrete terms, its student ambassador program and adult cultural exchange program send participants overseas to discover different cultures through unique and immersive experiences that truly connect people, places, and cities (People to People International Travel Programs, 2020b). Friendship Force International provides home-stay programs to promote understanding, cultural education, and citizen diplomacy between American and foreign people (Friendship Force International, 2018). Rotary International has a network of leaders in a variety of professions who have used their experience and knowledge to engage in community service and humanitarian efforts. Through this network, the organization seeks to serve others, encourage integrity, and promote world understanding, goodwill, and peace (Rotary International, 2021). Finally, Sister Cities International serves as the national membership organization for individual sister cities, counties, and states across the United States. This network unites tens of thousands of citizen diplomats and volunteers in about 500 member communities with over 2000 partnerships in more than 140 countries under the mission of promoting peace through mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation (Sister Cities International, 2020).

20 

S. HANADA

Looking at these programs, we can see that citizen diplomacy includes both privately-funded and government-sponsored programs. Although there are studies that differentiate citizen diplomacy from public diplomacy according to whether or not it is a purely non-governmental activity, it is better to understand citizen diplomacy from the perspective of diplomacy that aims to deepen people-to-people relationships through various types of program, regardless of the involvement of government.

Public Diplomacy Public diplomacy is not a new term. The first use of this term was by the British newspaper The Times in 1856, as a synonym for civility in a piece criticizing the posturing of the American President Franklin Pierce: “the statesmen of America must recollect,” the Times opined, “that, if they have to make, as they conceive, a certain impression upon us, they have also to set an example for their own people, and there are few examples so catching as those of public diplomacy” (Cull, 2020, p. 13). Later, the term “public diplomacy” was coined by Edmund Gullion, a former dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (Ang et  al., 2015; Cull, 2020; Lima, 2007; Snow, 2006). A summary of the concept of public diplomacy held by Edmund Gullion is “Public diplomacy … deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the process of intercultural communications” (Cull, 2020, p. 13). In this way, public diplomacy was first developed in the United States. In recent years, however, public diplomacy has also been developed in many other countries. Especially since the incidents of September 11, 2001, there have been renewed, extensive discussions of the role of public diplomacy. While many of the forms of public diplomacy have emphasized the presentation of national image and brand, the value of exchange which involves human factors reaching beyond information dissemination has also received attention (Scott-Smith, 2020). International higher education is expected to be one of these modes of exchange. This section looks

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

21

at the evolution of public diplomacy to understand how international higher education came to be a focus of attention. An early form of the modern meaning of public diplomacy appeared in World War II and was much developed in the Cold War period. As for its relationship to international higher education, the Smith-Mundt Act, known as the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, was enacted as the legal basis for conducting public relations activities by integrating these two functions. It is one of the linchpins of U.S. public diplomacy, as “the objectives of this Act are to enable the Government of the United States to correct the misunderstandings about the United States in other countries, which constitute obstacles to peace, and to promote mutual understanding between the peoples of the United States and other countries” (Snow, 2006, p.  227). To counter the former Soviet Union’s penetration of communist ideology, the United States designed public diplomacy to spread the values of democracy and freedom as elements of American identity. As a means to achieve this objective, the Fulbright Program started in 1946 as a two-way communication program to promote people-to-people exchange between Americans and foreign citizens. Due to an amendment of the Fulbright Hay Act of 1961, the emphasis of this program is not to manufacture an image of the United States and sell it to foreign people, but to improve intercultural relations and mutual understanding between scholars, educators, students, and other various experts in a given field in the United States and foreign countries through the exchange of people, values, knowledge, and skills (Lima, 2007; Ogawa, 2007). Therefore, Fulbrighters were expected to act as evangelists or unofficial American ambassadors. In this sense, this program is a good example of emphasizing the diplomatic contribution by unofficial diplomats to improving the understanding of America by foreign people. Since its establishment in 1946, more than 400,000 people have participated in the Fulbright Program (ECA, 2022). However, public diplomacy has not always been seen as essential in the United States. With the end of the Cold War, in particular, the position of public diplomacy in the U.S. government declined as the ideological struggle with the communist bloc disappeared. This led to a significant decrease in funding for the Fulbright Program over this period: approximately onethird between 1993 and 2000 (Snow, 2006). A major reason for this is that the 1990s ushered in the global economy, and while the importance of security declined with the end of the Cold War, the importance of the spread of the market economy and liberalism to the former Soviet Union

22 

S. HANADA

and Eastern European countries increased. As a result, the position of public diplomacy changed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The incidents of September 11, 2011 made public diplomacy important once more, and its role in security was reconsidered. The United States became aware of how far the image of the country had become degraded in many regions of the world. Confronted with these difficult issues attention to public diplomacy increased again. First, the “Shared Values Initiatives,” which aimed to promote dialogue between American and Muslim societies, was launched in 2002. The emphasis here was on utilization of the mass media, exemplified by launching new international broadcasting TV programs, radio programs, internet websites, and booklets and magazines aimed mainly at Muslim countries to change their image of American people and society (Yokoe, 2007). In international higher education, furthermore, Lima (2007) showed that the budget for the Fulbright Program increased from $216 million in 2001 to $255 million in 2003. The U.K. is another country actively pursuing public diplomacy for security reasons. Like the United States, the BBC World Service announced its intention to launch a new channel for the Middle East (House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, 2006), but another characteristics of the U.K’s approach is to emphasize international dialogues. In order to tackle the growing anti-British sentiment in Muslim countries from a security perspective, it established the Islamic Media Unit (IMU) in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in October 2001 (Ogawa, 2007). On the basis of this FCO initiative, the British Council has implemented programs in Muslim countries, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. An example is the Connecting Futures program, which aims to deepen exchanges between young people in the U.K. and abroad through face-to-­ face dialogues. In this respect, the incidents of September 11 were a turning point in public diplomacy, in that two-way communication exemplified by dialogue came to be given greater emphasis, while information dissemination through one-way mass media was also developed further. Although the format of public diplomacy has evolved in this way, the core point is that public diplomacy still tries to influence foreign public opinion in a direction favorable to a particular country. Therefore, public diplomacy is, after all, inevitably linked to soft power (Snow, 2020). Another feature of contemporary public diplomacy is that it emphasizes the commercial element. Although the security element is an urgent issue

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

23

for the United States and some European countries due to the incidents of September 11, 2011, the commercial element, including expanding the national brand and financial revenues, attracts many other countries. International higher education is sometimes also used for commercial reasons. For example, Australia’s public diplomacy utilizes student mobility and academic mobility as an instrument to deepen friendships, mutual respect, and understanding with other countries (Byrne & Hall, 2013). International higher education is perceived to be effective not only in enhancing Australia’s national image and brand as a safe and high-quality study abroad destination, but also in deepening mutual understanding with other foreign citizens as well as increasing financial revenue from international students who study at Australian universities in the homeland and abroad. China is another example, and they have implemented two major approaches (Metzgar, 2015). The first approach is to develop programs to teach Chinese culture and language overseas through the Confucius Institute. The second approach is to launch specialized programs at Chinese universities to attract future foreign leaders who are expected to contribute to strengthening the relations between China and the rest of the world. The Schwarzman Scholars at Tsinghua University and the Yenching Academy of Beijing University are major examples. In Russia, also, domestic universities are positioned as public diplomacy agencies (Fominykh, 2020). To enhance the national educational brand, Russian universities have accepted international students to foster a new generation of partnerships with foreign countries, especially countries of the former Soviet Union (Semedov & Kurbatova, 2020). The relationship with these countries is important to Russia for political and economic reasons, since the government attempts to maintain its influence with people who share similar political and cultural habits and values (Fominykh, 2020). Because of the evolution and diversification of public diplomacy, there are various  scholarly works which explore the concept. These include a study by Nye (2008, p. 95), which defines public diplomacy as “an instrument that governments use to mobilize these resources (that produce soft power) to communicate with and attract the publics of other countries, rather than merely their governments.” Also, Melissen (2005) compared public diplomacy with traditional diplomacy and propaganda, respectively. In comparison to traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy targets “the general public in foreign societies and more specific non-official groups, organization and individuals,” while traditional diplomacy is “about relationship between the representatives of states, or other international

24 

S. HANADA

actors” (Melissen, 2005, p.  5). This study emphasizes the role of non-­ state, supranational, and subnational actors in public diplomacy in action. In the comparison with propaganda, Melissen (2005, p. 16) cited David Welch’s definition of propaganda as “the deliberate attempt to influence the opinions of an audience through the transmission of ideas and values for the specific purpose, consciously designed to serve the interest of the propagandists and their political masters, either directly and indirectly.” Although public diplomacy and propaganda are similar in that both of them try to persuade people in foreign countries, for this study, they are fundamentally different because public diplomacy emphasizes two-way communication through dialogue rather than one-way message dissemination to try to persuade people what to think. Still, public diplomacy is based on “the premise that image and reputation of a country is a public good which can create either an enabling or a disabling environment for individual transactions” (Leonard, 2002, p. 9), thus national branding is seen as an important aspect. Another approach is to distinguish between public diplomacy before and after September 11, 2001 as old and new public diplomacy. Kim (2017) points out that old public diplomacy mainly focused on public information and cultural relations in the formation and execution of foreign policy, while new public diplomacy emphasizes strategies for effectiveness through two-way communications to shape public opinion and reputation. In the period of old diplomacy, the United States Information Agency (USIA) defined it as “a two-track process, both one-way informational and declaratory in purpose and two-way educational and mutual in outcome: promoting the national interest and the national security of the United States through understanding, informing, and influencing foreign publics and broadening the dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad” (Snow, 2006, p. 228). Likewise, Tuch (1990, p. 3) defines it as “a government’s process of communicating with foreign publics in an attempt to bring about understanding for its nation’s ideas and ideals, its institutions and culture, as well as its national goals and current policies.” Although the need for two-way communication was acknowledged in some cases during the era of old public diplomacy, it was positioned as a means of guiding foreign public opinion toward the nation’s intended goals. On the other hand, after the September 11 attacks, new public diplomacy has emphasized the alleviation of foreign people’s sense of dislike toward one’s own country and the cultivation of a sense of greater closeness between both countries through two-way

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

25

communication. For example, the U.K.’s Public Diplomacy Strategic Board defines public diplomacy after the September 11 attacks as “the work which aims at influencing in a positive way, including through the creation of relationships and partnerships, the perceptions of individuals and organisations overseas about the UK and their engagement with the UK, in support of HMG (Her Majesty’s Government)’s overseas objectives.” (House of Commons, 2006, p.  12). Similarly, Melissen (2005) mentions that new public diplomacy is not just a one-way communication process but an idea of dialogue. From these definitions, it can be understood that two-way communication is emphasized even more strongly in new public diplomacy.

Cultural Diplomacy Cultural diplomacy has a longer history than public diplomacy. When this history begins depends on one’s point of view. Haigh (1974) mentions that the history of cultural diplomacy can be traced back to the Age of Discovery, when its scope included not only cultural diplomacy as a systemized national policy, but also international cultural relations activities at the individual level. On the other hand, if looking only at the national policy level, Kaiser (2003) considers the nineteenth century world exhibitions in Paris to be the birth of contemporary cultural diplomacy, as the exhibitions were used as a tool of national image promotion. Conze (2003) also indicates that the functional role of culture in the world exhibitions became instrumentalized for the purpose of achieving foreign policy goals by enhancing and disseminating national images. Kim (2017) states that cultural diplomacy is divided into two categories: policy-based cultural diplomacy led by governments, governmental agencies, and quasi-­ governmental institutions, and non-policy-based cultural diplomacy led by private individual artists and personnel, commercial companies in art and culture, non-profit organizations, and non-governmental organizations. The latter type can be traced back to the eighteenth century. Pajtinka (2014) argues that although cultural diplomacy as a specific instrument of foreign policy can be traced back to Byzantine missionaries, the origin of modern cultural diplomacy with the establishment of cultural diplomatic institutions can be seen in the late nineteenth century. Among the many studies reviewing the roots of cultural diplomacy, Paschalidis (2009) is one that chronologically illustrates its historical evolution. Paschalidis (2009) categorizes the historical evolution of cultural diplomacy into four phases:

26 

S. HANADA

cultural nationalism (1870–1914), cultural propaganda (1914–1945), cultural diplomacy (1945–1989), and cultural capitalism (1989–the present). The characteristics of each stage will be outlined from international education perspectives including higher education. The position of international education in cultural diplomacy has been changing over time. In the first stage, from 1870 to 1914, cultural diplomacy targeted mainly nationals living in foreign countries and local people in colonized countries with cultural and language education. In this sense, it was more closely related to national education than to international education. For example, in France, the Alliance Française was founded in 1883 with the aim of regaining the influence France lost in the Franco-­ Prussian War of 1870 through cultural enlightenment. Similarly, in Germany, the Allgemeiner Deutscher Schulverein was established in 1881 to protect and promote German language and culture in the German-­ speaking communities of Eastern and Southern Europe. Furthermore, in Italy, the Società Dante Alighieri was established in 1889 to promote and preserve the Italian language and culture through foreign branches in the Mediterranean trading cities of Salonica, Smyrna, Istanbul, Cairo, and Alexandria (Paschalidis, 2009). These branches had the character of governmental agencies in that their budgets and activities were supported by the government as a political nation-building project (Paschalidis, 2009). On the other hand, there was another feature of cultural nationalism at that time. France was in competition with Great Britain over the territories of the collapsing Ottoman Empire for political and economic supremacy in the Middle East. As a means of winning the competition, France developed cultural policy as one of its diplomatic tools. For France, following the military conquest of the colonies, cultural policy had the objective of stabilizing them under French rule by increasing the affinity of the colonized for French language and culture. In other words, this early period can be positioned as the one in which culture was developed as a means of foreign policy. The focus of cultural diplomacy from 1914  to  1945 shifted from national education to international education. A characteristic of international education is that it was used as an instrumental tool of enhancing the national influence in foreign countries against that of competitors. For example, the Association Française d’Action Artistique (AFAA) was established in 1922 to promote French art abroad. Later, with the rise of the German presence at the 1936 Berlin Olympics and Soviet propaganda

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

27

at the 1937 Paris World Expo, the AFAA’s mission changed from promoting French art abroad to winning friends over to the French cause (Paschalidis, 2009). Germany began to develop cultural diplomacy after World War I. The Department of Germans Abroad and Cultural Affairs was established as a department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and later the Deutsche Akademie, the precursor of the Goethe Institute, was established in 1925 to focus more on educational and cultural exchange. In Italy, the state-controlled Istituti Italiani di Cultura, which subsequently took over the functions of the Dante Alighieri Societies, was established in 1926 (Paschalidis, 2009). In response to German and Italian cultural diplomacy in eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Latin American countries, the United States established the Division of Cultural Relations at the Department of State in 1938. Under President Franklin Roosevelt’s good neighbor policy, this division played the key role in developing an extensive educational exchange program with Latin American countries to promote pan-Americanism. This was the first time that the formal policy of the US government incorporated a cultural dimension (Arndt, 2006). In the third stage, from  1945  to  1989, international educational exchange became emphasized in political competition. It aimed to influence foreign people in order  to deepen their familiarity and goodwill toward the host country. As Bu (1999) mentioned, however, it was unilateral, from a foreign country to the host country, rather than mutual exchange. To put it another way, mutual educational exchanges for educational purposes were less likely to get government support, and the government emphasized educational exchanges for political objectives (Bu, 1999). The ideological competition could be explained in the context of a confrontation between the capitalist and liberal camp of the West, with the United States as its ally, and the communist and socialist camp of the East, with the Soviet Union as its ally. The two camps developed cultural diplomacy mainly to increase the sense of familiarity with their own camp in the so-called Third World countries. In fact, the United States promoted inbound international higher education programs such as the Fulbright Program and International Visitor Leadership Program, while the former Soviet Union promoted similar inbound programs (Fominykh, 2020). In the fourth stage, which began after the Cold War, instead of the political ideology of the past, more emphasis is being placed on commercial aspects such as the promotion of art, movies, and other cultural

28 

S. HANADA

activities to overseas markets and the promotion of tourism. The activities of cultural diplomacy among countries have become more diverse. Alongside this transition, recent years have seen various scholarly works about the relationship between cultural diplomacy and international higher education. Pan (2013) sees the Confucius Institute as state-sponsored and university-­piloted cultural diplomacy because the government plays a role in designing and funding the activities of the Confucius Institute while the implementation is conducted by higher education institutions under the direction of the headquarters of the Confucius Institute named Hanban. This study states that the Confucius Institute is an agent of soft power to exert China’s influence abroad, and that universities and individual students are expected to act as unofficial cultural diplomats to help foreign audiences understand Chinese cultural traditions, way of life, and foreign policy through cultural events. As of October 2017, more than 500 Institutes have been established in 142 countries around the world (Rawnsley, 2020). Jones (2010) looked at the European Union’s cultural diplomacy to foreign countries. While the EU countries implement cultural diplomacy through their separate cultural agencies for their own interests, the EU as a union is also involved in cultural diplomacy through international higher education. A major example is the Erasmus Mundus program, which encourages student mobility from Southeast Asian countries to European universities. This falls under the aim of the EU commission to strengthen the ties between the EU and foreign countries through international higher education cooperation. Finally, Akli (2012) stated that students who join international educational exchanges play a cultural ambassador role in people-to-people relationships by improving communication and building relationships among individuals through intercultural cultural dialogues. The cultural ambassadors in this study have three major competences: listening in order to respect and know others, deconstructing stereotypes, and speaking local languages. Given this transition and the variety which the  term “cultural diplomacy” encompasses, it  has different definitions in previous literature, depending on the perspective and the issues examined. To illustrate this complexity, Goff (2020) states that the definition of cultural diplomacy is elusive. A primary reason for the diversity of definitions is that there are three major views which each recognizes different key actors and key rationales for cultural diplomacy.

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

29

The first view sees the state government as the key actor and the key rationale as being state-led, meaning that cultural diplomacy is a governmental activity. For example, Haigh (1974, p.  28), who examined European cultural diplomacy, defines it as “the activities of governments in the sphere—traditionally left to private enterprise—of international cultural relations” and, therefore, it is “a technique which can be used for good purposes or bad.” Arndt (2006, p. XVIII) mentions that “cultural diplomacy can only be said to take place when formal diplomats, serving national governments, try to shape and channel this natural flow to advance national interests.” Ang et al. (2015, p. 372) sees government-­ driven cultural diplomacy as “only one strand of cultural flow in the web of intersecting cultural relations being spun incessantly by myriad small and large players between nation-states and across the globe.” Likewise, there are other definitions based on the first view, such as “the deployment of aspects of a state’s culture in support of its foreign policy goals or diplomacy” (Mark, 2010, p. 64) or “the promotion abroad of a state’s cultural achievements” (Berridge & Lloyd, 2012, p. 87). The second view sees cultural diplomacy as going beyond government activities. Cummings (2009, p.  1) stated that “cultural diplomacy is the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding.” This definition does not deny the role of states and their interventions, but holds that cultural diplomacy is not an activity which is limited to governmental activities. Some previous studies based on this classification distinguish between the government-led type as cultural diplomacy and the other types as international cultural relations. For example, Pajtinka (2014, p.  101–102) argues that “cultural diplomacy regulates—in accordance with the foreign policy objectives of state undertaking cultural diplomatic activities—a certain (usually very small) part of cultural relations among the states.” By contrast, international cultural relations are seen as “the whole complex of cross-border cultural interactions (or cultural exchange) among states…not just those that are regulated or managed by the state, but also those arising spontaneously (i.e. independently from the state and its foreign policy achievements).” Similarly, the British Council (2019) states that cultural relations generally mean “interaction between different cultures with a focus on intercultural dialogue and the aim of bringing about mutual understanding and benefit (i.e. two-way conversation),” while cultural diplomacy is “perhaps more one-way—for example, showcasing

30 

S. HANADA

a country’s culture through concerts or exhibitions, but with a focus on states getting their policies and messages understood by the people of other countries, not just by the governments.” From this distinction, it can be understood that international cultural relations cover more comprehensive cultural exchange, including international education led by universities, while cultural diplomacy is specifically about state-led activities. The third view emphasizes cultural diplomacy as a component of public diplomacy. For example, Cull (2019) indicates that there are five distinctive ways for public diplomacy  to function: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy, and international broadcasting. Mark (2010, p. 63) also describes it as “just a small part of the more fashionable ‘public diplomacy’” and Kim (2017, p. 314) mentions that it is “a subset of new public diplomacy.” On the other hand, the boundaries between cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy could be understood to have become lower. Looking at Cool Japan, for example, its Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters is  within the Cabinet Office, and this administrates the Cool Japan  strategy. Along with that,  the Ministry of Economics, Trade and Industry established the Cool Japan Fund as a public-private fund in 2013 with the aim of commercializing and promoting the export of cultural contents such as Japanese animation and Japanese foods (Ogawa, 2020). In this respect, Cool Japan can be said to be a government-­led initiative, but the actual activities are being promoted by maximizing the vitality of the private sector, including travel agencies and advertising and entertainment companies. Based on this context, Cool Japan is sometimes categorized as cultural diplomacy (e.g., Sasaki, 2010), but it is sometimes also seen to fall under the activities of public diplomacy (e.g., Kaneko, 2014). Public-private partnerships are also seen in Cool Britannia and the GREAT Britain Campaign and in the Korean Wave (Dinnie & Sevin, 2020; GREAT Britain Campaign, 2020).

Conclusion This chapter intended to elucidate the ways in which the three diplomacies are both intertwined and yet different in some aspects and the background to this, in order to understand why international higher education is seen as being part of the three different types. Through the literature review, it can be understood that while they are interrelated, each diplomacy also has distinctive characteristics.

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

31

First, international higher education is seen as a means of two-way communication, especially in contemporary public diplomacy. Contemporary public diplomacy emphasizes two-way communication, and people-topeople exchange is one of the facets of promoting dialogues with people in foreign countries. If we look at the role of international higher education in two-way communication in both contemporary public diplomacy and citizen diplomacy, its function in each does overlap: it is specifically about building people-to-people relationships through international higher education programs. Given this, international higher education can be seen as an element of contemporary public diplomacy in a broad sense, while it is an element of citizen diplomacy in a specific or narrow sense, because building people-to-people relationships is one method of contemporary public diplomacy, but the fundamental mission of citizen diplomacy. It is important to note that citizen diplomacy does not equal public diplomacy, in that public diplomacy encompasses a broader range of resources beyond people-to-people relationships. In cultural diplomacy, there is a discussion about whether it should be understood as separate from international cultural relations. The British Council, a key player in international higher education exchange in the U.K., mentions that it is an organization for cultural relations (British Council, 2019), since international higher education, in particular, is seen as a method of international cultural relations in that it emphasizes two-way communication. This chapter showed that the Fulbright Program, for instance, is variously seen through the frameworks of citizen diplomacy (Bhandari & Belyavina, 2011), public diplomacy (Snow, 2020), and cultural diplomacy (Akli, 2012). Likewise, the Confucius Institute is also seen through the frameworks of public diplomacy (Metzgar, 2015) and cultural diplomacy (Pan, 2013). Given these points, this study considers that different authors have perceived international higher education as being an element of the three different forms of diplomacy because these have become intractably intertwined, rather than because international higher education plays a distinct role in each of them. The differences between the three diplomacies can be summarized by the following two points. The first is the difference between approaches. The fundamental purpose of diplomacy is to build a favorable relationship with foreign countries. However, the approach which each type of diplomacy takes in order to achieve this goal is different. Irrespective of whether they pursue one-way or two-way communication, the key

32 

S. HANADA

objective of both cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy is to influence foreign public audiences to become more favorable toward the country carrying out the diplomacy. The resource employed by these two diplomacies is the attractiveness of their own country—more specifically, the cultural attractiveness in the case of cultural diplomacy and the wider range of attractive features of the nation, including its culture, political ideology, social and economic system, and education, in the case of public diplomacy. A criterion of the success of these diplomacies is how effectively they communicate this attractiveness to foreign citizens, gain their understanding, and create a positive image of their own country. By contrast, the key approach of citizen diplomacy is to deepen understanding through people-to-­people relationships between foreign and domestic citizens. For this reason, the target is not the public in general, but actual individual people. Whether via face-to-face or online communication, the emphasis is on interactive communication, not on the transmission of information or attractive features. In this respect, citizen diplomacy has a weakness in terms of scale merit because it is not an efficient way to approach the public as a whole. On the other hand, the strength of citizen diplomacy lies in its ability to create deeper people-topeople relationships. Second, there is a difference in subject matter. Public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy are primarily aimed at foreigners. In recent years, two-­ way communication between domestic and foreign people has been emphasized, especially in contemporary public diplomacy. Still, the main purpose of two-way communication is to improve the image of foreign citizens toward one’s own citizens and one’s own country. On the other hand, citizen diplomacy targets not only foreigners but also the country’s own citizens. An example of this among the mobility programs of international higher education discussed in this book is outbound study abroad programs run by individual universities mainly for Japanese students (i.e. domestic citizens). Finally, one contribution of international higher education is that it provides a learning experience. In concrete terms, this learning experience is the opportunity to deepen participating students’ awareness of the host country and develop intercultural competence. Learning experience in this context is different from one-time experience. A learning experience includes the knowledge and skills gained through the actions of the

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

33

person involved—study abroad is one such learning experience. A onetime experience, on the other hand, focuses on what a person feels through trying something new, such as an experience of nature or of making something by hand, and is often used to describe things that make more of an impression on the person concerned than the content of learning. For example, a national cultural agency sometimes holds cultural, artistic, and sporting events in foreign countries to enable foreign people to experience their own culture for themselves, but this experience is just one-time or  temporary, and does not become a learning experience. It can be argued that public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy are unlikely to be able to provide the deep level of learning experience which such foreign people would be able to gain through international higher education. A learning experience includes not simply obtaining information about visible aspects of culture, such as clothes and foods, but goes on to involve learning about underlying, invisible cultural aspects such as values and beliefs. Deepening one’s awareness of a foreign country entails becoming familiar with both visible and invisible elements of culture, and international higher education provides the opportunity to do this. Providing such a learning experience is one of the valuable aspects of international higher education, no matter which of the three diplomacies one views it as belonging to.

References Akli, M. (2012). The Role of Study-Abroad Students in Cultural Diplomacy: Toward an International Education as Soft Action. International Research and Review: Journal of Phi Beta Delta, 2(1), 32–48. Ang, I., Isar, Y. R., & Mar, P. (2015). Cultural Diplomacy: Beyond the National Interest? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(4), 365–381. Arndt, R. T. (2006). The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the 20th Century. Potomac Books. Bartram, L., Malhoyt-Lee, J., Sheen-Diaz, C., & Sullivan, J. (2015). Education Diplomacy in Action: Touching Lives: Education Diplomacy in Service to Others. Childhood Education, 91(2), 156–159. Berridge, G.  R., & Lloyd, L. (2012). The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Diplomacy (Third Edition). Palgrave Macmillan. Bhandari, R., & Belyavina, R. (2011). Evaluating and Measuring the Impact of Citizen Diplomacy: Current Status and Future Directions. Institute of International Education.

34 

S. HANADA

British Council. (2019, May 1). Introduction to Cultural Relations and Cultural Diplomacy. https://www.culturepartnership.eu/en/publishing/cultural-­ diplomacy/lecture-­18-­1 Bu, L. (1999). Educational Exchange and Cultural Diplomacy in the Cold War. Journal of American Studies, 33(3), 393–415. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). (2022). About Fulbright. https://eca.state.gov/fulbright/about-fulbright Byrne, C. (2014). International Education as Public Diplomacy. Research Digest 3, International Education Association of Australia. Byrne, C., & Hall, R. (2013). Australia’s International Education as Public Diplomacy. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(4), 419–438. Congressional Research Service (2021). The Peace Corps: Overview and Issues. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21168.pdf Conze, E. (2003). States, International Systems, and Intercultural Transfer: A Commentary. In J.  Gienow-Hecht & F.  Schumacher (Eds.), Culture and International History (pp. 198–205). Berghahn Books. Cull, N. J. (2019). Public Diplomacy: Foundations for Global Engagement in the Digital Age. Polity Press. Cull, N. J. (2020). Public Diplomacy Before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase. In N. Snow & N. J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 13–17). Routledge. Cummings, M. (2009). Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey. Cultural Diplomacy Research Series. Americans for the Arts. Davies, J., & Kaufman, E. (2002). Second Track/Citizen’s Diplomacy: Concepts and Techniques for Conflict Transformation. Rowman & Littlefield. Dinnie, K., & Sevin, E. (2020). The Changing Nature of Nation Branding: Implications for Public Diplomacy. In N. Snow & N. J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 129–136). Routledge. Fominykh, A. (2020). Russian Public Diplomacy Through Higher Education. In A.  A. Velikaya & G.  Simons (Eds.), Russia’s Public Diplomacy, Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations (pp. 119–132). Palgrave Macmillan. Friendship Force International. (2018). Who We Are. https://www.thefriendshipforce.org/who-­we-­are/ Goff, P. M. (2020). Cultural Diplomacy. In N. Snow & N. J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 30–37). Routledge. GREAT Britain Campaign. (2020). Welcome to GREAT. https://www.greatbritaincampaign.com/ Haigh, A. (1974). Cultural Diplomacy in Europe. Council for Cultural Cooperation. Manhattan Publishing Company. Hone, K. E. (2016). Education Diplomacy: Negotiating and Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals - Looking Back and Looking Ahead. Education Diplomacy Brief, 2016, 1–6.

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

35

House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. (2006). Public Diplomacy: Third Report of Session 2005–06. The House of Commons. The Stationery Office Limited. Jones, W. J. (2010). European Union Soft Power: Cultural Diplomacy & Higher Education in Southeast Asia. Silpakorn University International Journal, 9–10, 41–70. Kaiser, W. (2003). The Great Derby Race: Strategies of Cultural Representation at Nineteenth-Century World Exhibitions. In J. Gienow-Hecht & F. Schumacher (Eds.), Culture and International History (pp. 45–59). Berghahn Books. Kaneko, M. (2014). Japan’s Public Diplomacy at a Turning Point (Tenkanki wo mukaeru nihonn no paburikku dipuromashii). International Affairs, 635, 38–48. Kim, H. (2017). Bridging the Theoretical Gap between Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 15(2), 293–326. Knight, J. (2019). Knowledge Diplomacy in Action. International Higher Education. British Council. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/ files/research-­knowledge-­diplomacy-­in-­action.pdf Lawton, B., & Sharnak, D. (2010). The Role of States in Global Citizen Diplomacy Roundtable. U.S. Summit & Initiative for Global Citizen Diplomacy (November 16–19, 2010, Washington, DC). U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy. Leonard, M. (2002). Public Diplomacy. Foreign Policy Center. Lima, A. F., Jr. (2007). The Role of International Educational Exchanges in Public Diplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(3), 234–251. Mark, S. (2010). Rethinking Cultural Diplomacy: The Cultural Diplomacy of New Zealand, the Canadian Federation and Quebec. Political Science, 62(1), 62–83. Marshall, J. (1949). International Affairs Citizen Diplomacy. The American Political Science Review, 43(1), 83–90. Melissen, J. (2005). The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice. In J.  Melissen (Ed.), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (pp. 3–27). Palgrave Macmillan. Metzgar, E.  T. (2015). Institutions of Higher Education as Public Diplomacy Tools: China-Based University Programs for the 21st Century. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(3), 223–241. Mueller, S. L. (2020). The Nexus of US Public Diplomacy and Citizen Diplomacy. In N. Snow & N. J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 112–119). Routledge. Nye, J. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 94–109. Ogawa, T. (2007). Public Diplomacy in Major Countries (shuyoukoku ni yoru paburikku dipuromashii). In M. Kaneko & M. Kitano (Eds.), Public Diplomacy (pp. 45–101). PHP Interface.

36 

S. HANADA

Ogawa, T. (2020). Japan’s Public Diplomacy at the Crossroads. In N. Snow & N.  J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 273–283). Routledge. Pajtinka, E. (2014). Cultural Diplomacy in Theory and Practice of Contemporary International Relations. Politické Vedy, 17(4), 95–108. Pan, S. Y. (2013). Confucius Institute Project: China’s Cultural Diplomacy and Soft Power Projection. Asian Educational and Development Studies, 2(1), 22–33. Paschalidis, G. (2009). Exporting National Culture: Histories of Cultural Institutes Abroad. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15(3), 275–289. People to People International Travel Programs. (2020a). About. https://www. peopletopeople.com/about/ People to People International Travel Programs. (2020b). Why Us. https://www. peopletopeople.com/why-­us/ Rawnsley, G. D. (2020). Communicating Confidence: China’s Public Diplomacy. In N. Snow & N. J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 284–300). Routledge. Rotary International. (2021). About Rotary (routalii to ha). https://www.rotary. org/ja/about-­rotary Sasaki, T. (2010). The Role of Media Arts in Cultural Diplomacy (Bunka gaikou ni okeru media geijujutsu no yakuwari ni tsuite). Researches of Comparative Cultural History, 12, 1–14. Scott-Smith, G. (2020). Exchange Programs and Public Diplomacy. In N. Snow & N.  J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 38–49). Routledge. Semedov, S. A., & Kurbatova, A. G. (2020). Russian Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding. In A.  A. Velikaya & G.  Simons (Eds.), Russia’s Public Diplomacy, Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations (pp.  45–59). Palgrave Macmillan. Sister Cities International. (2020). About Sister Cities International. https:// sistercities.org/about-­us/ Snow, N. (2006). U.S. Public Diplomacy: Its History, Problems, and Promise. In G. S. Jowett & V. O’Donnell (Eds.), Readings in Propaganda and Persuasion: New and Classic Essays. SAGE Publication. Snow, N. (2020). Rethinking Public Diplomacy in the 2020s. In N.  Snow & N. J. Cull (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (2nd ed., pp. 3–12). Routledge. The Center for Citizen Diplomacy (2019). About Us. https://www.centerforcitizendiplomacy.org/about-­us/ Tuch, H.  N. (1990). Communicating with the World: U.S.  Public Diplomacy Overseas. St. Martin’s Press.

2  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION IN DIPLOMACY 

37

U.S.  Department of State. (2021). International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP). https://exchanges.state.gov/non-­us/program/international-­visitor-­ leadership-­program-­ivlp Yokoe, K. (2007). U.S.  Public Diplomacy to the Middle East (Amerika no tai chutou paburikku dipuromashii). In M.  Kaneko & M.  Kitano (Eds.), Public Diplomacy (pp. 130–101). PHP Interface. Yu, Z. (2015). Citizen Diplomacy – New US Public Diplomacy Strategy in the Middle East under the Obama Administration. Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (in Asia), 9(4), 36–58.

CHAPTER 3

A Review of International Higher Education

There is a fundamental discussion about the position of international higher education as a discipline. It is difficult to say that there is any answer which is universally agreed upon by researchers. As mentioned in Chap. 1, international higher education is sometimes seen as an academic field that explores a contribution to international peace beyond national contexts for higher education. From a broader perspective, it is sometimes perceived as a field of education studies that covers the international dimension of higher education in general. However, its position as a discipline remains to be established. This is something that has been consistently discussed among researchers in international education, and specifically international higher education, over the years (e.g., Arum & Vande Water, 1992; Brey, 2010; Brickman, 1950; Mestenhauser, 1998; Spaulding et al., 1982). It is important to explore its position as a discipline. However, given the following two major characteristics of international higher education, the fact that it has not yet become established as a discipline is not necessarily a negative situation. Firstly, as international education at higher education level, international higher education has as its basic philosophy contributing to building and maintaining international peace, and is thus dynamic, responding to changing circumstances over time. Secondly, there are two types of international higher education: international higher education as a pedagogy and international higher education research as a research field. The former refers mainly to educational activities that teach students © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 S. Hanada, International Higher Education in Citizen Diplomacy, International and Development Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95308-9_3

39

40 

S. HANADA

knowledge and skills related to international understanding and peace, while the latter refers mainly to research activities that explore the theories, research methodologies, and values of international higher education. The fact that international higher education encompasses both aspects is considered to make it difficult to establish a definition and field of study. Based on these overarching characteristics of international higher education, this chapter reviews how it has transformed over time by looking at previous research and outlining what debates have developed in international higher education as an academic field that has explored a contribution to international peace as one of its missions.

The Origins of International Higher Education The premise of this overview of the origins of international higher education is to define the institutions that provide it. If one defines a university as an institution of higher learning, the University of Taxila (also known as Takshashila), located in the province of Punjab, Pakistan in the B.C. era, is considered to be one of the oldest universities. Other academies for higher learning have existed since the B.C. era, such as the Academia founded by Plato, the Museion founded by Ptolemy I, and the Taixue founded by Emperor Wu of the Western Han Dynasty in China. However, if we consider the university to be “an institutionalized community composed of teachers and students,” its origin is generally said to be the medieval universities of Europe, specifically the University of Bologna and the University of Paris founded in the late eleventh century and the middle of the twelfth century, respectively (Charle & Verger, 2009; Haskins, 1923; Verger, 1979; Zaccagnini, 1990). There were four main features of the institutionalization of the European medieval university. The first was the institutionalization of university administration. Students and faculty formed guilds (universitas scholarium and universitas magistrorum, respectively) and collectivized. From these two organizations, the lector was elected as the student representative and the doyen as the dean, and the university administration was institutionalized. The second feature was the institutionalization of the legal status of universities. In Italy, King Friedrich I issued the Authentica Habita, the basic law of the medieval university, to the University of Bologna in 1158, granting the university its own jurisdiction at the request of students and teachers and bringing them under its protection. In

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

41

France, Pope Gregory IX issued a statute to the University of Paris in 1231, placing the university under his protection. In other words, the relevant authorities legally approved the two universities. Thirdly, the curriculum was institutionalized. Although the seven liberal arts subjects (grammar, rhetoric, and logic, the trivium, and arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, the quadrivium) had existed since the time of the Fathers, these seven subjects were institutionalized into a curriculum system as the basic subject groups, with theology, law, and medicine as the upper subject groups. The fourth feature was the institutionalization of the university faculty, which was carried out using not merely the abstract standard of possessing a high degree of expertise in a particular field, but the concrete requirement of holding a teaching license (e.g., licentia docendi). The origins of international higher education can be traced back to these institutionalized European medieval universities, which used Latin as the instruction of language and accepted a wide range of people from the European continent, both nationals (the unit of measurement in those days was the city-state) and foreigners, becoming a prototype of a high degree of internationality and international student mobility. The reason for calling them a “prototype” is that, as will be explained in detail later, the concept and term of international higher education, which is “higher education” in the relationship between “nations” (i.e., “international”), did not appear clearly until the nineteenth century, when nation-states rose. However, the high degree of internationality for which international higher education strives greatly influenced the founding process of the University of Bologna. Bologna had prominent jurists such as Irnerius and Hepo in the late eleventh century, and students who wanted to learn from them were attracted to their private law schools from right across Europe. After the University of Bologna was established, most of the international students came from north of the Alps, but the city-state at that time did not provide protection for foreign international students under customary law, so the students needed to secure their own protection. This led to the formation of the “natio,” an organization for mutual aid among people from the same hometown. The grouping of these nationes can show the countries of origin of the foreign international students at that time. According to Yokoo (1992), there was a total of 13 nationes for international students in Bologna in 1265: France, Spain, Provence, England, Picardy, Burgundy, Poitou, Tours,

42 

S. HANADA

Normandy, Catalonia, Hungary, Poland, and Germany. In addition to this, there were three to four domestic natio groups for Italians. On the other hand, the University of Paris had three groups for foreigners (Norman, Picard, Anglo-German) and one domestic natio for French, a total of four groups. Of these, the Anglo and German group included people from a wide range of backgrounds, including England, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Hungary, and other Slavic countries. The natio was an important stronghold for international students to protect themselves through the power of the group. According to Haskins (1923), at the University of Bologna at that time, faculty members were contracted by the natio to teach classes, so it is likely that students paid tuition fees to faculty members through the natio. In addition, the natio functioned as a mutual aid organization protecting students from the troubles that occurred in daily life. Furthermore, as a group that was responsible for organizing religious events, providing relief to members in need of money, and resolving disputes among members, the natio became an indispensable part of study abroad life. What differed between the University of Bologna and the University of Paris was the power balance between the student group and the teacher group. While the student group was dominant at the University of Bologna, the teacher group was dominant at the University of Paris. This can be seen from the fact that the right to elect representatives of the university from the four nationes was limited to the faculty group at the University of Paris. One of the characteristics of student groups at the University of Paris was the college. For example, the Collège de La Sorbonne, founded in 1253, was a dormitory for theology students. The colleges gradually took on educational functions, but at first, they had little political power. On the other hand, student groups were dominant at the University of Bologna. The different nationes were eventually consolidated into two groups: the international students’ group from north of the Alps and the Italian students’ group from south of the Alps, which came together as the student group, universitas. The two university representatives were elected from each of the two groups. This indicates that the status of student groups was higher at the University of Bologna than at the University of Paris. In those days, the term “universitas” did not mean university in today’s term, but a general union. Although each university had its own particular situation, such as the University of Bologna, where the universitas was led by students, and the University of Paris, where the universitas was led by faculty, universities came to be understood

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

43

externally as people’s groups consisting of a universitas of students and faculty (Prahl, 1988). Universities at that time did not have the concept of a campus, nor did they have educational facilities such as libraries or classrooms, so classes were held in the teachers’ homes or in rented rooms in public facilities (Kodama, 1993). Therefore, when it became inconvenient to stay in a place due to poor relationships between student groups and faculty groups, or between student groups or teacher groups and local residents, the university as a people’s group without a physical campus could move flexibly. According to Kodama (1993), the students, including foreign international students, of the University of Bologna underwent five such migrations in the thirteenth century. For example, student migrations took place to Vicenza in 1204, Padua in 1222, and Vercelli in 1228, and a new university was founded in each of the destination cities. These migrating students were called “goliards,” meaning wandering students. Some faculty and students from the University of Paris moved to the University of Oxford in 1167, and then the University of Cambridge originated in 1208 with the migration from Oxford (Prahl, 1988; Rubenstein, 2004; Verger, 1979). While universitas meant a union, the term closer to the modern meaning of university was studium. The term “studium” was used for a university recognized by the Holy Roman Empire as a higher education institution, and was classified as either “studium generale” or “studium partikler.” The former mainly referred to an international comprehensive university, which means that it accepted students from various parts of Europe; at least one of the three faculties of law, theology, or medicine was taught in addition to the liberal arts; studies were conducted for the universal benefit of Europe rather than for regional benefit; the doctorate degree was recognized as a universal professorship across Europe; and scholarships (a benefice obtained that can be earned while studying away from home) were offered to students (Rashdall, 2010). In contrast, a regional-based studium that did not have the above characteristics was called a studium partikler. It can be understood that there was a certain presence of international students in medieval universities. In concrete terms, Charle and Verger (2009) state that the total number of students at the University of Bologna around 1400 was about 2000, of which the proportion of international students was no more than about 25%. Among the universities of the time, the University of Bologna and the University of Paris attracted the largest number of international students, many of whom were from the

44 

S. HANADA

Holy Roman Empire and Central Europe. The figure of 25% is considered outstanding even compared to today, when globalization and the internationalization of higher education are considered to be taking place. Also, taking into consideration the travel conditions at the time, we can see how important it was to students to study abroad. For example, it was not uncommon for students to travel 500 or 1000 kilometers over the Alps to study at the University of Bologna or the University of Paris (Yokoo, 1985). These journeys involved a wide range of expenses such as tolls, carriage taxes, and bridge taxes, and thus a one-way trip from Italy to Paris cost as much as four months of living expenses in Paris (Yokoo, 1985). There was also the risk of theft or robbery during the journey. One of the reasons why people went to such trouble to study abroad was that it was an important way to get ahead in life. The majority of students at that time were middle-class. It is said that 5% to 15% at most of the students were from the aristocracy, in part because what they learned at university was not necessary for the aristocratic culture of the time (Charle & Verger, 2009). For middle-class students, by contrast, studying at university meant getting a job that was considered more prestigious in the society of the time, such as a clergyman, a self-employed professional such as a doctor, or a civil servant in the government or judiciary. It also provided the possibility of advancing to the aristocracy in the future by working hard in these professions (Charle & Verger, 2009). It can be seen that the push factor for studying abroad was to achieve success in life. On the other hand, a pull factor attracting many students to study at major universities, mainly the University of Bologna and the University of Paris, was the desire to learn from prominent teachers. Although there were some differences between the prestige of various academic disciplines in university education at that time, such as the superiority of law at the University of Bologna and the superiority of theology at the University of Paris, the curricula, textbooks, and teaching methods were based on scholastic philosophy and were generally uniform across many universities. For example, Justinian’s “Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law)” and the “Pandects (Digest),” which summarized the results of Roman law, were used in legal education. In medical education, Ibn Sina or Avicenna’s “Canon of Medicine” and translations of Galen and Hippocrates were widely used. In addition, Aristotle was used for logic and rhetoric in philosophy, and the works of Priscian for grammar (Charle & Verger, 2009; Haskins, 1923; Verger, 1979). The teaching method was based on these original texts and widely adopted scholasticism, which consisted of subscription (lectio)

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

45

and discussion (disputatio). Subscriptions were divided into two types of classes: those that went over the prescribed texts and those that read them in more depth. In these classes, students read and annotated the texts carefully. In the discussion classes, students debated in front of an audience under the guidance of the instructor. Students were required to memorize and cite the contents, thus emphasizing the importance of the original texts. The above is an overview of medieval European universities. The following points related to international higher education can be made. Firstly, the diversity and mobility of students and faculty was extremely high, and the university was characterized by an international environment that was not inferior to that of modern universities. Secondly, the diversity of educational content in terms of curriculum, textbooks, and teaching methods was not high. However, since national education was not developed on a country-by-country basis as it is today, the mission of academia was to seek universality beyond national borders. For this reason, it can be imagined that there were no cross-cultural understanding studies or foreign area studies, which are the mainstream fields in international higher education today. Thirdly, a doctoral degree from a studium generale enjoyed international acceptance as a universal professorship. The fact that education at that time was based on international standards is interesting in light of the fact that international education today is often discussed in terms of the international compatibility of degrees and certificates. From these points, it can be understood that, in a sense, universities of that time possessed a universal internationality that international higher education aims to realize today.

The Emergence of the Nation-State University Following the birth of European medieval universities, further universities were established throughout Europe from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, including the University of Uppsala in Sweden in the north, the University of Krakow in Poland in the east, the University of Lisbon in Portugal in the west, and the University of Catalonia in Italy in the south (Haskins, 1923). As a result of this expansion, the number of universities grew to about 60 by 1500 (Charle & Verger, 2009). During this period, the university was still a pan-European institution. Gradually, however, the nature of the university began to vary depending on the territorial state to which it belonged. For example, teachers who

46 

S. HANADA

previously collected tuition fees from student nationes began to be paid by lords and cities, which strengthened the significance of the teacher’s affiliation with the university and restricted the former freedom of migration. Students also began to study at universities closer to their hometowns rather than studying abroad under prominent teachers as they had done formerly. Furthermore, in the sixteenth century, university reform took place, and universities lost their autonomy as universitates of students and teachers; the will of the territorial monarchs began to influence the organization of universities. For instance, the University of Göttingen in Germany was founded in 1737 by Georg II of Hanover, who had four aims in mind (Charle & Verger, 2009). The first was to place the university under the control of the territorial state. The second was to teach new subjects for the upper classes that were not available in medieval universities (e.g., dancing, riding, drawing, modern languages). The third was to teach modern subjects (e.g., history, geography, physics, applied mathematics, natural law, public administration). The fourth was to introduce the seminar method (a method of education in which a small group of students under the supervision of a teacher studied, researched, reported on, and discussed a specific topic) in place of the subscription and discussion method that had been emphasized in scholasticism. In addition, the scope of higher education expanded during this period, with the establishment of institutions of higher education other than universities, including private academies for researchers in specific fields to conduct specialized research and vocational schools to provide vocational education. From an international perspective, the European university model was propagated to overseas colonies from the sixteenth century. For example, the University of Santo Domingo, considered the oldest university in Latin America, was founded in 1538, followed by the University of Lima (1551) and the University of Mexico (1551) (Charle & Verger, 2009). The tendency to strengthen state control of universities became even stronger during the era of absolute monarchy in the seventeenth century, and universities were transformed into state institutions that trained future state bureaucrats (Yoshimi, 2011). Some lords even forbade their subjects to study at universities in other countries (Yokoo, 1985). In other cases, faculty members were required to take an oath to the sect to which the territorial monarch adhered, as a result of the sectarian conflicts brought about by the Reformation of the time (Prahl, 1988).

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

47

In the nineteenth century, the establishment of Humboldt-type universities, such as the University of Berlin founded in 1810 in Germany, led to a further shift in some countries toward education that emphasized seminars and experiments. In France, the establishment of grandes écoles was promoted, starting with the École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, established in 1747 to train specialists and professionals, while universities were once abolished in 1793. Napoleon later revived them as Imperial Universities which, as the name implies, became controlled by the state. In England, the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge were strongly influenced by the Church of England, and were transformed into universities mainly for the children of the upper class (Shimada, 1990). On the other hand, University College London and King’s College London were established in 1826 and 1828, respectively, in response to the need to offer modern studies for a more diverse student body. Later, the University of London was established as a degree-awarding examination board for students holding certificates from University College London and King’s College London, and was reorganized as a teaching university in 1900. In the United States, Harvard College and Yale College were established in 1636 and 1701, respectively, and Johns Hopkins University established the first graduate school for more advanced research-based education in 1876. Due to the promotion of the first massification of higher education in the early twentieth century, the number of students jumped from 2.5 million to 4.8 million in the 1920s (Charle & Verger, 2009). Looking at universities from the sixteenth to the early nineteenth centuries from the perspective of international higher education, universities lost their previous pan-Europeanism and transformed into nation-state universities. Study abroad changed from the era of free movement of students seen in medieval universities to a selective educational opportunity open only to mainly elite and rich students, becoming a so-called highvalue added educational opportunity. The content of education also changed from the scholastic curriculum, textbooks, and teaching methods that were central in the Middle Ages to each university’s own unique style according to the nation’s rationale, purpose, and views. In a development relevant to international higher education, during the Franco-Prussian War and other wartime events, there was a movement to examine the state of education in one’s own country through research on foreign countries, such as the work by Marc-Antoine Jullien (known as the father of comparative education) entitled Esquisse et vues préliminaires d’un ouvrage sur

48 

S. HANADA

l’éducation comparée (Outline and preliminary views of a work on comparative education) in 1817 (Gautherin, 1993). However, these were more like area studies and comparative education, and international education did not emerge as an academic field until the early nineteenth century.

International Higher Education as a Research Field International higher education as an academic field appeared as the higher education level of international education after the rise of modern nationstates. International education usually refers to the educational relations among nation-states (Butts, 1971, p. 165). This section provides an overview of the challenges of research in international education and the evolution of international education as a research field in terms of research approaches to these challenges. One of the first significant appearances of the mapping of international education as a domain was at the World Congress of Education of the Columbian Exposition held in 1893 (Sylvester, 2002). Although international education was not the main theme of the congress, the ideas were put forward that international fraternity and cooperation were called for by the spirit of the new age and that an international perspective on educational issues was needed, even if education was driven by national considerations (Sylvester, 2002). In this sense, it can be interpreted as an occasion which brought together “international” and “education.” The first formal preliminary conceptual model of international education appeared later, in the early twentieth century. Early research on international education was marked by studies that explored the areas it covered. For example, Sylvester (2002) laid out the six aspect of international education addressed by Kemeny in 1914 as part of his plan for an international institute of education: (1) state of education in foreign countries; (2) organization by which several countries benefit; (3) efforts and measures aimed at drawing together, or even unifying, education on certain points; (4) international or world education based on universal rights of man and on the knowledge of modern languages; (5) education for peace to counteract chauvinism; and (6) inter-racial education to counteract race prejudice. Smith and Crayton (1929), in a study supported by the World Federation of Education Associations (WFEA), aimed at developing a statement of the principles of education for world friendship,

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

49

listing its elements as world-mindedness, internationalism, international understanding, and a state of mind transcending national boundaries (Sylvester, 2015). In contrast, Harley (1931) and Kandel (1937) authored two major studies looking at international education from two perspectives: national and international. Harley (1931), in collaboration with the Political Section of the League of Nations, argued that the world would become more interdependent among nations and that there was a need for world order and harmony. Based on this, the study advocated the need for international education as a means to contribute to this development from a realistic perspective rather than merely from a fraternal perspective. Kandel (1937) also addressed the necessity of international education from a realistic perspective. In concrete terms, the mission of international education, which aims to contribute to international understanding and internationalism, was not meant to negate or replace nationalistic education and nationalism. This argument was important to the international community at the time. Citing Scanlon (1960)’s International Education: A Documentary History regarding the original statement on the formation of the Committee on Intellectual Cooperation of the League of Nations in 1921, Sylvester (2002) mentioned that there was fear expressed by member countries about the intervention of internationalism within education in domestic education. All nations were anxious to develop education along the lines of their national traditions, although the League of Nations attempted to produce history books which encouraged an understanding of other peoples and a less jingoistic spirit. Concerning this point, Harley (1931) and Kandel (1937) pointed out the danger that the value of international education might be limited if it were viewed in terms of sentimentally based utopia, rather than realistic perspectives. After World War II, while the exploration of the domain of international education continued (e.g., Kenworthy, 1951; NEA, 1948; Tewksbury, 1945), a major new characteristic of international education emerged: consideration from broader comparative perspectives. For example, Brickman (1962) argued that international student exchange, as a component of international education, needs to be examined not only for its benefits but also for the risks or conflicts for students and receiving countries. Also, Kandel (1955) further developed his 1937 call for a more pragmatic perspective on international education in view of its tendency to

50 

S. HANADA

fall into sentimental idealism, and proposed separate positions for international and national education. According to this view, national education has as its primary objective to train national citizens, while international education has as its primary objective to train world citizens; thus, the two are in a compatible and complementary relationship. This study therefore suggested that international education must be considered as developing out of the national educational system. Furthermore, Leach (1969) compared national/public education and international education and indicated the key elements of the field of international education, such as the understanding of interdependence of ethnic groups, ecumenicity, and multilateral educational identity. Another trend emerged from the latter half to the end of the twentieth century to view international education through a comparison with comparative education. The reason for this is that in the latter half of the twentieth century, academic societies related to international education were established, and in some cases both international education and comparative education made up one academic society. This led to active discussions on the perspectives and roles of international education, focusing on its differences from comparative education. A major example of this type of academic society was the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES). CIES was originally established as the Comparative Education Society (CES) in 1956, and given its current name of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) by adding “international” to the original name in 1967 to reflect the broadened scope of interest held by its expanding membership (Swing, 2007). Another major example was the British Association for International and Comparative Education (BAICE), originally established as the British Section of the Comparative Education Society in Europe (CESE) in 1966, and renamed with the current name in 1997 (Sutherland et  al., 2007). Through discussions at these academic societies, it has been pointed out that there are certain differences between the two fields. Citing Fraser (1967), Trethewey (1976, p. 34) mentioned that international education has to do with “intellectual, cultural and educational relations between individuals and groups in two or more societies, and includes such matters as international visits and exchanges for mutual benefit and understanding.” Comparative education, on the other hand, has to do with “the analysis of educational systems and problems in two or more national environments in terms of socio-political, economic, cultural and ideological contests… in order to understand the factors underlying similarities and

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

51

differences in education in various countries.” Almost 20  years later, Epstein (1994) noted that international education places a greater emphasis on practical policies and educational programs in the international dimension of higher education, while comparative education focuses more on historical, philosophical, and social theories related to education. Likewise, Wilson (1994) stated that international education is related to practical policies and programs, while comparative education is composed of more scholarly work about the international dimension of education. As an example, much of international education seems to be practical work conducted in international educators’ organization such as the Association of International Educators (NAFSA) and Institute of International Education (IIE) in the United States and the European Association for International Educators (EAIE) in Europe, while comparative education is more the realm of scholarly organizations such as CIES and BAICE. Theisen and Adams (1990) provided another perspective differentiating the two fields of study according to whether they carry out basic or applied research. Under their conception of knowledge-driven basic research and solution-driven applied research, comparative education more often involves basic research, while international education more often involves applied research. From these insights, it can be understood that international education is responsible for more practical research to solve educational problems, while comparative education is primarily responsible for theoretical research; at any rate, the two are interrelated. In the latter half of the twentieth century, the advent of mass transportation ushered in an age of internationalization represented by the progress of the international movement of people, goods, and money. With the arrival of this era, international education became more focused on its relationship with the international community. Becker (1969) pointed out that international education should be sensitive to the trends of the international community and, in particular, is required to develop in a way that responds to the evolving interdependence of the world. In this period, international education became more subdivided and specialization deepened as research was conducted in each sub-area. For instance, Butts (1971) showed that there are three sub-areas of international education: the study of other societies to obtain accurate knowledge; the study of study abroad for students, teachers and scholars; and the study of educational foreign assistance. On the other hand, Leestma (1969) cited the study of other lands; the interdisciplinary study of world affairs; comparative and cross-cultural studies; educational exchange and study

52 

S. HANADA

abroad; technical assistance to educational development in other countries; and international intellectual cooperation as the six sub-fields. Griffin and Spence (1970) also indicated six sub-areas: education dealing with other countries and societies; international relations among countries; exchange of students between countries; assistance to other countries for educational development; training of specialists for diplomatic and other international work; cultural relations programs between nations; and the general informing of the public on world affairs. The three areas of study commonly cited—international education at home, international education abroad, and international education for international cooperation—can be understood as the sub-areas of international education. This subdivision of the research area has led to the development of separate specializations. In the area of international education abroad, which is the main focus of this study, a wide range of research has been conducted, from macro, policy-level research on trends in international education, such as push and pull factors for studying abroad (e.g., Altbach & Lulat, 1985), to micro, individual-level research, such as research focusing on internal changes that occur when people come into contact with other cultures (e.g., Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963). In the midst of these developments, UNESCO made an important recommendation about the definition of international education in 1974, as follows: “education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace” (UNESCO, 1974, p.  2). To achieve this mission, educational activities will require people’s understanding and engagement in international understanding, co-operation, and peace. The educational activities necessary to cultivate these elements were sometimes summed up by a concise expression, “international education” (UNESCO, 1974, p. 1). Although there were various perspectives and approaches to international education, and these sometimes changed along with the times, it is noteworthy that UNESCO, as an international organization, indicated the universal philosophy and mission of international education. From the 1990s onwards, we have entered a new era in terms of globalization, and the progress of the internationalization of higher education to cope with globalization. In response to these changes, research on international education has begun to specifically focus on its role at

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

53

higher education level. First, since globalization is a global phenomenon that includes not only countries of the Global North but also those of the Global South, research on international education has been focusing not only on the former, especially the countries of Europe and the United States, but also on the latter. In particular, the influence of the internationalization of higher education on the local educational culture of a country/region in the era of globalization has become a more popular research topic (e.g., Hanada, 2021). Second, studies examining various aspects of the internationalization of higher education have also become central to international education research. These include studies on the benefits and risks of the internationalization of higher education (e.g., Knight, 2007), on the effects of transnational education (e.g., Hanada et  al., 2022), on quality assurance (e.g., De Wit & Knight, 1999), on the commercialization of higher education (e.g., Hodson & Thomas, 2001), on world-class universities (e.g., Salmi, 2009), and on world university rankings (e.g., Altbach, 2012). Third, research based on regional units such as the European Union, ASEAN, or East Asia has become common. For example, in the field of study abroad, research has been conducted not only on inter-regional mobility from Asian and African countries to Western countries, but also on intra-regional mobility within the EU, ASEAN or East Asia (e.g., Hanada & Horie, 2021). Research has also been conducted on the regionalization of higher education created by the harmonization and cooperation of higher education systems within regions (e.g., Knight et  al., 2017). Fourth, international education programs can be broadly divided into two types: education abroad programs, where students physically travel to a foreign country, and educational programs at home, where students learn while in their home country. The former includes study abroad programs (e.g., Hanada, 2019; Vande Berg et al., 2009), international internships (e.g., Berquist, 2018), and international service-­ learning (e.g., Bringle & Hatcher, 2012), while the latter includes intercultural education (e.g., Deardorff & Jones, 2012), global citizenship education (e.g., Horey et al., 2018), online intercultural education (e.g., Jackson, 2018), and other studies on the various types of educational program developed. Looking at these trends, it can be seen that recent research is becoming more pragmatic and phenomenological. In line with this trend, research on the effects and evaluation of international education has become more active than ever before, based on interest in what diversified international education is bringing about.

54 

S. HANADA

International Higher Education as a Pedagogical Field In the same way as with international higher education as an academic field, international higher education as a pedagogical field appeared inclusively as a part of international education. While it is important to look at the research side of international education when reviewing its evolution, the pedagogical education side also cannot be ignored. It was in the nineteenth century that international education emerged as a unique field of practical education (Sylvester, 2002). While education for nationalism was expected to advance following the massification of national education in the nineteenth century, there was also a need to cultivate a mindset of international understanding through education in order to transcend national borders (Scanlon, 1960). In response to this, the first schools to teach international education as a school curriculum were not higher education institutions but international schools offering primary and secondary education (Sylvester, 2002). Hill (2006) proposes that there are two types of international school. The first type is a school where there is diversity in the countries of origin and cultural backgrounds of the students enrolled, thus there are no dominant cultural groups. On the other hand, the second type is a school for students from a specific country living in a foreign country, and the curriculum is based on the public education of that country. Of the two types, the former type emerged first, and the international college at Spring Grove in London established in 1866 is recognized as the first international school (Brickman, 1962). The school was attended by French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Indian, North American, Brazilian, Chilean, Nicaraguan, and Bermudian boys (Brickman, 1962). Richard Cobden, who led to set up the school, believed that international education would help alleviate war and interstate conflict, and also promote free trade, international arbitration, and disarmament. Its curriculum included language education and natural and social science education including physics, chemistry, biology, advanced social science, and the natural history of man (Sylvester, 2002). A characteristic of the curriculum was that while national education was taught based on the perspectives of that country, the Spring Grove school offered subjects with a focus on the universality of humankind, as exemplified by the natural history of man. Another example of a major international school is the International School of Geneva, established in 1912. The school addressed its principles

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

55

of living and growing with an earnest belief in internationalism and functioned under the aegis of the League of Nations, a school for the children of international civil servants, mainly diplomats, living in Geneva (Hill, 2002). Additionally, the Collège Cévenol was established in 1932, and advocated the cultivation of a sense of idealism for world peace (Hill, 2002). In the early twentieth century, international schools expanded beyond Europe. Some major schools were the International School of Peace founded in Boston, US in 1910, Odenwald School founded in Heppenheim, Germany in 1910, Visva-Bharati founded in Shantiniketan, India in 1921, the International Folk High School founded in Helsingør, Denmark in 1921, and the International School of Yokohama founded in Yokohama, Japan in 1924 (Hill, 2001; Sylvester, 2015). The Herman-Jordan plan brought in by the WFEA in 1932 functioned as a sort of guideline for international school curricula in different countries (Sylvester, 2002). It was the first attempt at a world-based curriculum framework for international education (Sylvester, 2015). The key points addressed in this plan were the training of teachers for the new international point of view, which avoids emotionalism; the development of the spirit of justice and broad-mindedness; the examination of textbooks used in member countries; and the appreciation of fine patriotism based upon a love of country rather than upon revenge and hatred of others (Sylvester, 2002). At the 1939 WFEA conference, the plan was extended to become the WFEA committee on international education and proposed the outlines of international education activities such as teaching international relations, foreign languages and cultures, review of textbooks, and peace education (Sylvester, 2015). After World War II, the development of international schools continued in both quantitative and qualitative aspects. As an example of qualitative development, the International Baccalaureate (IB) was developed at the International Schools Association (ISA) conference held in Geneva in 1962. The ISA aimed to create close cooperative networking, carry out research into educational or administrative questions, promote the establishment of new international schools, and publicize the aims and principles of international schools (ISA, 1957 cited by Hill (2002)). The IB was initiated through this conference when the International School of Geneva developed a common standard of grading and marking for contemporary history courses taught in international schools (Hill, 2002). This system led to the development of the IB, which uses uniform external examinations with common standards for grading, rather than the

56 

S. HANADA

conventional method of conducting subject examinations at each school. With the introduction of this system, it became possible to interpret history from a more universal perspective, breaking away from the traditional interpretations that include national biases and the stereotypes and prejudices that exist in each culture. This seemed a major step forward in the systematization of the curriculum for the exploration of international understanding as humankind, which is the goal of international education. A few years later, in 1965, an IB curriculum conference decided that the examination subjects for the IB Diploma would be the first and a second language, mathematics, a subject chosen from each of the groups of humanities and experimental sciences, and a further subject chosen from the arts, Latin, and Ancient Greek as electives (Hill, 2002). IB programs have been provided to more than 1.95 million students in over 5500 schools across 159 countries over the past 50 years (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2021). Hill (2002) indicated a reason why the IB was developed at the International School of Geneva. Geneva is home to the children of international civil servants from all over the world, so when they study in secondary education, they need to study for different university entrance examinations in each country, such as English A levels or American College Board Advanced Placement examinations. This led them to prepare for their university entrance exams in separate classes depending on the test types, resulting in cultural isolation, rather than the multicultural learning environment that is the nature of an international school. The introduction of the IB course in secondary education was recognized as a means of overcoming this situation. The need for an international school for the children of those working for international organizations was also seen in New  York, where the United Nations Headquarters is located. The United Nations International School (UNIS) was established there in 1947. UNIS set forth as its aim to foster students who were good citizens of the world as well as good citizens of their mother countries (Malinowski & Zorn, 1973). The school used geography and history for international understanding developed by UNESCO as educational materials (Hill, 2002). UNESCO (1952) issued a text on education for international understanding titled “Some definitions of education for international understanding” and addressed the aims of education programs for international understanding: “explain the reasons for human cultural diversity, note that civilizations depend upon contributions of many nations, note that

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

57

human progress is a heritage for all mankind, note that nations have an obligation to cooperate, note that international treaties require mutual will for success, note that an international society requires education toward a world community, arouse in the youth a culture of peace, and encourage in children attitudes needed for international understanding and cooperation” (Sylvester, 2003, p. 195). Another major international diploma system established in the post-­ World War period is the European Baccalaureate. It was established in 1958 as a qualification of the completion of study in European schools (Marshall, 2019). European schools were originally founded to educate children of employees of European institutions or agencies, which they did until 2005. However, the European Parliament changed this policy and opened the schools to students studying at national schools. There are 13 European schools in six countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and Spain, as of 2018 (Marshall, 2019). International schools were the mainstay of international education, but a new feature of the postwar period was the emphasis on the need for international education in public schools as well. This led to the harmonization of national education and international education, with elements of international education being incorporated into some of the public education programs in each country. For example, the concept of internationalmindedness was presented at the UNESCO Review of International Education in 1951 (Hill, 2013). It does not reject national-mindedness, but emphasizes that people are not only citizens of a particular nation, but also citizens of world society who seek to bring about international peace (Kandel, 1952). Wilson (1947) also describes the specific competencies required of a citizen of world society as (1) knowledge, ideas, concepts, namely intellectual awareness, (2) attitudes, sensitivities, feelings, namely emotional awareness, (3) thinking, the technique of using knowledge and applying it to new problems and experiences, (4) skills, or the techniques with which to put what one knows, what one believes, and what one can reason out into practical operation. (Wilson, 1947, p.  27–28 cited by Sylvester, 2003). It does not emphasize the international dimension nor disregard the national dimension. In the 1950s and 1960s, not only the limited number of people represented by international civil servants but also an increasing number of ordinary citizens traveled abroad (Gellor, 2002). The 1970s ushered in the era of mass transportation and internationalization. A growth in the number of expatriates, immigrants, and travelers expanded the social need

58 

S. HANADA

for understanding foreign countries and different cultures. Intercultural communications conflicts came to be a social problem, especially in areas which accepted many immigrants. This led to an interest in intercultural adaptation, in terms of pursuing harmonization with people or groups who have different values. The 1980s was a burgeoning period for the development of intercultural competence research. In addition to research into the mechanisms and phenomena of intercultural conflict, a new focus was the specific skillset to cope with intercultural situations, called intercultural competence. The distinction between intercultural communication competence and intercultural competence is that intercultural communication competence stresses the importance of language or linguistic competence (Byram, 1997), while intercultural competence often emphasizes other factors in the adaptation to different cultures. Over this period, then, the pedagogical field of international education has become more diverse as the main target of international education has expanded from a specific population, such as the children of international civil servants, to the general population. In the 1990s, globalization arrived. From the perspective of human resource development to cope with globalization, international education has played a growing role in activities within higher education. This has led to the conceptualization of international education as an activity within higher education. It is important here to differentiate between internationalization abroad and internationalization at home (IaH). The former refers to international education programs in which learners physically travel abroad to study, sometimes called education abroad programs. On the other hand, the latter category includes international education activities such as intercultural education or global citizenship education carried out on home university campuses. IaH is a relatively new concept that was conceptualized in Europe in the 1990s (Beelen & Jones, 2018). The background to the emergence of this concept is that although study abroad programs are a symbol of the internationalization of higher education, only a small percentage of all students in higher education have the opportunity to participate in them. On the other hand, international education programs within a university can be offered to a larger number of students because they do not require overseas travel. IaH was defined as “any internationally related activity with the exception of outbound student and staff mobility” (Crowther et al., 2001, p. 8). According to Beelen and Jones (2018), this was the first definition of IaH. In 2015, Beelen and Jones (2015, p. 69) proposed a new definition of IaH as “the purposeful integration of international and

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

59

intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments.” The internationalization of the curriculum is sometimes seen as a similar concept to IaH.  However, the two are not synonymous (Beelen & Jones, 2015). According to Leask (2015, p. 9), the internationalization of the curriculum is defined as “the incorporation of international, intercultural and/or global dimensions into the content of the curriculum as well as learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods and support service of a program of study.” This definition includes educational programs which have physical mobility, so it is a different concept from IaH, which covers only domestic educational learning. With the expansion of globalization, IaH is attracting more and more attention due to the growing social demand for more students to receive an international education, not just those who are studying abroad.

Conclusion It was in the nineteenth century, with the rise of national education, that international education began to gain attention as a field of research and pedagogy. International higher education was likely to be discussed within international education as a whole and its role in higher education has been mainly emphasized since the twentieth century. However, its essence can be traced back to the European universities of the Middle Ages, which appeared in the twelfth century, even though it had not yet been named international education or international higher education. Universities at that time had a pan-European international character, and there was no distinction between national and international. Therefore, the term “international higher education” was not used in this era as it is today, nor was there a research or pedagogical field called international education or international higher education. Nevertheless, in terms of the international mobility of students and faculty, and the international compatibility of university education and degrees, the subject of research in modern international higher education, international education and research can be considered to have been taking place in practice at the universities of this  era. With the subsequent rise of territorial states and nation-­states, however, the pan-Europeanism of universities faded away as they became educational institutions for the development of each state’s own human resources to a greater and greater extent. In addition, with the advent of an era in which the world order was determined by the relationships among nations, international interest in building such relationships

60 

S. HANADA

increased. Against this backdrop, the field of international education, which combines “international” and “education,” began to attract attention in the nineteenth century. One of the characteristics of research in the early days of international education was the research carried out into the domain of international education itself. One of the most noteworthy aspects of this discussion was the view that international education was expected to contribute to education for international understanding and international peace, but not to confront nationalism and national education. Researchers also warned against the risk of falling into extreme sentimentalism toward peace and mutual understanding. The call to make more practical contributions in the international context of deepening interrelationships among nations provided an important opportunity to clarify the position of international education as an academic discipline. Meanwhile, international schools emerged as central players on the pedagogical side in the development of human resources educated for international understanding. Later, in the post-World War period, research seeking a more systematic perspective on international education began to be conducted. In this context, the approach of exploring the domain of international education through comparison with other fields, such as national education and comparative education, became common. In the latter half of the twentieth century, as the international movement of people, goods, and money increased due to the progress of economic and social internationalization, the diversity of international education became even richer. From the definition given by UNESCO in 1974, it could be understood that international education is education which contributes to international understanding, co-operation, and peace, and the practical question of what kind of educational and research value should be provided at that time became the central theme. In the field of pedagogy, international education spread from international schools to public schools. Furthermore, the International Baccalaureate (IB) was introduced as the result of a search for an international standard curriculum transcending the boundaries of national education. Since the 1990s, the internationalization of higher education has extensively progressed in order to cope with the globalization of the world. As a result, international higher education has become even more diverse. The phenomenological approach to researching each mode of cross-­ border education and transnational education that emerged from such international higher education became the mainstream.

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

61

In short, international higher education has developed and transformed along with the changing eras, while it has continued to explore a contribution to international peace as its one of the missions. Still, one challenge is to develop its position as a well-­established discipline. The author believes that clarifying the diplomatic impacts of international higher education would make a contribution to this situation by helping to demonstrate one of its missions, to contribute to international peace.

References Altbach, P. (2012). The Globalization of College and University Rankings. Change, January/February 2012. Altbach, P., & Lulat, Y. (1985). Research on Foreign Student and International Study: An Overview and Bibliography. Praeger. Arum, S., & Vande Water, J. (1992). The Need for Definition of International Education in U.S.  Universities. In C.  B. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the Future: Strategies for Internationalizing Higher Education (pp. 191–203). Association of International Education Administrators. Becker, J.  M. (1969). An Examination of Objectives, Needs and Priorities in International Education in US Secondary and Elementary Schools. Foreign Policy Association. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining Internationalization at Home. In A. Curaj, D. Ligia, & P. Remus (Eds.), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies (pp. 59–72). Springer. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2018). Internationalisation at Home. In P. N. Teixeira & J. C. Shin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions (pp. 1864–1867). Springer. Berquist, B. (2018). Development of the International Internship Industry. In B. Berquist, K. Moore, & J. Milano (Eds.), International Internships: Mission, Methods & Models: A Collection from the Global Internship Conference (pp. 14–40). Academic Internship Council. Brey, M. (2010). Comparative Education and International Education in the History of Compare: Boundaries, Overlaps and Ambiguities. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(6), 711–725. Brickman, W.  W. (1950). International Education. In W.  S. Monroe (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (pp. 617–627). Macmillan. Brickman, W. W. (1962). International Relations in Higher Education, 1862-1962. In W.  W. Brickman & S.  Lehrer (Eds.), A Century of Higher Education: Classical Citadel to Collegiate Colossus (pp.  208–239). Society for the Advancement of Education.

62 

S. HANADA

Bringle, R.  G., & Hatcher, J.  A. (2012). International Service Learning. In R.  G. Bringle, J.  A. Hatcher, & S.  G. Jones (Eds.), International Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Research (IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research) (Kindle Version). Stylus Publishing. Butts, R. F. (1971). International Education, Overview. In L. C. Deighton (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 164–171). Free Press. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Multilingual Matters. Charle, C., & Verger, J. (2009). Histoire des Universités (S.  Okayama & K. Taniguchi, Trans.) Hakusuisha (Original work published in 1994). Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., & Wächter, B. (2001). Internationalisation at Home: A Position Paper. The European Association for International Education (EAIE). De Wit, H., & Knight, J. (1999). Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education. OECD. Deardorff, D.  K., & Jones, E. (2012). Intercultural Competence. In D.  K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J.  D. Heyl, & T.  Adams (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 283–303). SAGE Publication. Epstein, E. H. (1994). Comparative and International Education: Overview and Historical Development. In T.  Husén & T.  N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 918–923). Pergamon Press. Fraser, S. (1967). International and Comparative Education. Review of Educational Research, 37(1), 57–73. Gautherin, J. (1993). Marc-Antoine Jullien (‘Jullien de Paris’) (1775–1848). Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, XXIII(3/4), 757–773. Gellor, C.  A. (2002). International Education: A Commitment to Universal Values. In M.  Hayden, J.  Thompson, & G.  Walker (Eds.), International Education in Practice (pp. 30–35). Routledge. Griffin, W.  H. & Spence, R.  B. (1970). Cooperative International Education. Paper Prepared for the World Conference on Education, Asilomar, USA. Gullahorn, J., & Gullahorn, J. (1963). An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 33–47. Hanada, S. (2019). A Quantitative Assessment of Japanese Students’ Intercultural Competence Developed Through Study Abroad Programs. Journal of International Students, 9(4), 1015–1037. Hanada, S. (2021). Higher Education Partnerships between the Global North and Global South. Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education, 13(5), 135–144. Hanada, S., & Horie, M. (2021). Impact of the CAMPUS Asia Initiative for Developing Japanese Students’ Attitude Toward Mutual Understanding: A Case Study of the Japan–China–Korea Trilateral Exchange Program. Research in Comparative and International Education, 16(3), 276–294.

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

63

Hanada, S., Knight, J., & Ota, H. (2022). International Program and Provider Mobility in Japan: Policies, Activities and Challenges. Japan Forum, 34(2), 221–247. Harley, J. E. (1931). International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World. Stanford University Press. Haskins, C. H. (1923). The Rise of Universities. Cornell University Press. Hill, I. (2001). Early Stirrings: The Beginnings of the International Education Movement. International Schools Journal, 20(2), 11–22. Hill, I. (2002). The History of International Education: An International Baccalaureate Perspective. In M. C. Hayden, J. J. Thompson, & G. R. Walker (Eds.), International Education in Practice: Dimensions for Schools and International Schools (pp. 10–24). Kogan Page. Hill, I. (2006). Student Types, School Types and Their Combined Influence on the Development of Intercultural Understanding. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(1), 5–33. Hill, I. (2013). International Mindedness. International School (IS), 15(2), 10–11. Hodson, P. J., & Thomas, H. G. (2001). Higher Education as an International Commodity: Ensuring Quality in Partnerships. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(2), 101–112. Horey, D., Fortune, T., Nicolacopoulos, T., Kashima, E., & Mathisen, B. (2018). Global Citizenship and Higher Education: A Scoping Review of the Empirical Evidence. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(5), 472–492. International Baccalaureate Organization. (2021). About the IB. https://www. ibo.org/about-­the-­ib/ International Schools Association (ISA). (1957). Sixth Assembly Minutes. IB Organization Archives. Jackson, J. (2018). Online Intercultural Education and Study Abroad: Theory into Practice. Routledge. Kandel, I.  L. (1937). Intelligent Nationalism in the School Curriculum. In I.  L. Kandel & G.  M. Whipple (Eds.), Thirty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Committee on International Understanding, Part II, International Understanding through the Public School Curriculum (pp. 35–42). Public School Publishing. Kandel, I.  L. (1952). Education, National and International. The Educational Forum, 16, 397–407. Kandel, I.  L. (1955). National and International Aspects of Education. International Review of Education, 1, 5–15. Kenworthy, L. S. (1951). The Schools of the World and Education for a World Society. In C.  O. Arndt & S.  Everett (Eds.), Education for a World Society (pp. 199–230). Harper & Brothers. Knight, J. (2007). Internationalization Brings Important Benefits as Well as Risks. International Higher Education, 46, 8–10.

64 

S. HANADA

Knight, J., Woldegiorgis, J., & Tadesse, E. (Eds.). (2017). Regionalization of African Higher Education: Progress and Prospects. Sense Publishers. Kodama, Y. (1993). Wandering Teachers in Venezia. Heibonsya. Leach, R. J. (1969). International Schools and Their Role in the Field of International Education. Pergamon Press. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the Curriculum. Routledge. Leestma, R. (1969). OE’s Institute of International Studies. American Education, 5(5), 5–8. Malinowski, H., & Zorn, V. (1973). The United Nations International School: Its History and Development. United Nations International School New York. Marshall, J. (2019). Introduction to Comparative and International Education. SAGE Publication. Mestenhauser, J. A. (1998). International Education on the Verge: In Search of a New Paradigm. International Educator, VII(2–3), 70. National Education Association (NEA). (1948). Education for International Understanding in American Schools: Suggestions and Recommendations. National Education Association. Prahl, H. W. (1988). Sozialgeshichte des Hochschulwesens (Y. Yamamoto, Trans.). (Original work published in 1978). Rashdall, H. (2010). The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press. Rubenstein, R. E. (2004). Aristotle’s children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages. Mariner Books. Salmi, J. (2009). The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities. World Bank. Scanlon, D.  G. (1960). International Education: A Documentary History. Columbia University, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College. Shimada, Y. (1990). European Universities [youroppa no daigaku]. Tamagawa University Press. Smith, H. L., & Crayton, S. G. (1929). Tentative Program for Teaching World Friendship and Understanding in Teacher Training Institutions and in Public Schools for Children Who Range in Age from Six to Fourteen Years of Age. Bulletin of the School of Education, 5(5), 7–40. Spaulding, S., Colucco, J., & Flint, J. (1982). International Education. In H.  E. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (pp.  945–953). Macmillan. Sutherland, M. B., Watson, J. K., & Crossley, M. (2007). The British Association for International and Comparative Education (BAICE). In V.  Masemann, M. Bray, & M. Manzon (Eds.), Common Interests, Uncommon Goals: Histories of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (pp. 155–169). Springer and Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.

3  A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION 

65

Swing, E.  S. (2007). The Comparative and International Education Society (CIES). In V. Masemann, M. Bray, & M. Manzon (Eds.), Common Interests, Uncommon Goals: Histories of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (pp. 94–115). Springer and Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Sylvester, R. (2002). Mapping International Education: A Historical Survey 1893-1944. Journal of Research in International Education, 1(1), 90–125. Sylvester, R. (2003). Further Mapping of the Territory of International Education in the 20th Century (1944-1969). Journal of Research in International Education, 2(2), 185–204. Sylvester, R. (2005). Framing the Map of International Education (1969-1998). Journal of Research in International Education, 4(3), 123–151. Sylvester, R. (2015). Historical Resources for Research in International Education (1851-1950). In M.  Hayden, J.  Levy, & J.  J. Thompson (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education (Second Edition). SAGE Publication. Tewksbury, D.  G. (1945). New Directions in International Education. Teachers College Record, 46(5), 293–301. Theisen, G., & Adams, D. (1990). Comparative Education Research: What are the Methods and Uses of Comparative Education? In R.  Murray Thomas (Ed.), International Comparative Education: Practices, Issues and Prospects (pp. 277–300). Pergamon. Trethewey, A. R. (1976). Introducing Comparative Education. Pergamon. UNESCO. (1952). Some Definitions of Education for International Understanding. Document 17C/19, Annex II, 22, Appendix 2. UNESCO. UNESCO. (1974). Recommendation Concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. http://educacionglobalresearch.net/wp-­ content/uploads/UNESCO01ENG.pdf Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R.  M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium Project: Interventions for Study Abroad Learning. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1–75. Verger, J. (1979). Les universités au Moyen Âge (Y. Ohtara, Trans.). Misuzu Shobo (Original work published in 1973). Wilson, H.  E. (Ed.). (1947). Working Papers on the Education of Adolescents in International Understanding and Good Will, Seminar on Education for International Understanding at SeÁvres. UNESCO Archives. Wilson, D.  N. (1994). Comparative and International Education: Fraternal or Siamese Twins? A Preliminary Genealogy of Our Twin Fields. Comparative Education Review, 38(4), 449–486.

66 

S. HANADA

Yokoo, T. (1985). Journey to European University Towns: Dawn of Educational Civilization [Youroppa daigaku toshi heno tabi: gakureki bunmei no yoake]. Recruit Publishing. Yokoo, T. (1992). Journey to the Medieval University City [chuusei daigakutoshi heno tabi]. Asashi Sensho. Yoshimi, S. (2011). What are Universities? [Daigaku to ha nanika]. Iwanami Shoten. Zaccagnini, G. (1990). La vita dei maestri e degli Scolari nello Studio di Bologna nei secoli XIII e XIV. (Y.  Kodama, Trans.). Heibonsya (Original work published in 1926).

CHAPTER 4

Research Methodology and Method

Among the various types of international higher education program, this study examines the impacts of five types of mobility program on citizen diplomacy by empirically verifying their impacts on cultivating intercultural competence and  awareness of  the  host country. The five empirical studies look at outbound study abroad, inbound study abroad, international service-learning, international internship, and online study abroad programs. In order to answer the question, Chap. 5 through Chap. 9 will empirically examine the five types of mobility program. This chapter will introduce the research methodology and method used in this study, including the instrumental tools, sample size, data collection procedures and limitation of this study.

Major Research Approaches The literature review identified four major research approaches for examining the impacts of mobility programs on participants’ intercultural competence and awareness of the host country on the basis of Hanada (2015).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 S. Hanada, International Higher Education in Citizen Diplomacy, International and Development Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95308-9_4

67

68 

S. HANADA

The Psychological Approach The psychological approach has been one of the major research approaches used since the burgeoning period of international and intercultural education in the 1950s. It mainly focuses on the psychological state of students who are immersed in intercultural situations. A major example is the culture shock study. The term “culture shock” was first coined by the anthropologist Kalervo Oberg to describe the psychological stress he experienced when he stayed in foreign countries (Oberg, 1960). This study stated that people are usually excited about the novelty of the situation when they visit a foreign culture. However, the degree of excitement depends on the individual, and many of them might start to feel stress in coping with cultural differences. The degree of culture shock is subjective and is determined by the balance between excitement and stress, because people feel culture shock when they feel more stress than excitement. Other examples are the U-Curve model and the W-Curve model advocated by Lysgaard (1955) and Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963), respectively. These two models demonstrate how one’s psychological state varies over the course of time. Based on data from interviews with 200 Fulbright scholars from Norway about their psychological state while living in the United States, Lysgaard (1955) indicated that intercultural adaptation could be divided into three periods: honeymoon, crisis, and adjustment. In the honeymoon period, people are excited by the novelty of a different culture. In the crisis period, however, they come to feel uncomfortable and face the need to survive this period to adjust. In the adjustment period, they understand how to cope with cultural differences effectively, finally managing to adjust to a new culture. Lysgaard (1955) named this process the U-Curve model, as the degree of adjustment and psychological stress moved in a pattern like the letter U.  Based on this model, the W-Curve model added two additional periods after the adjustment period: re-entry culture shock, where people feel psychological stress adjusting to their own culture immediately after they return home, and the re-adjustment period where they come to adjust to their home culture again. Martin & Nakayama (2009, p. 327) defined the U-curve theory as: “a theory of cultural adaptation positing that migrants go through fairly predictable phases - excitement/anticipation, shock/disorientation, adjustment in adapting to a new cultural situation” and the W-Curve Theory as “a theory of cultural adaptation that suggests that sojourners experience another U curve upon returning home (p. 331).”

4  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHOD 

69

Another example is the Stress-Adaptation-Growth Model developed by Kim (2001). This study proposed a spiral adaptation process where every new experience in the host culture adds to personal growth. Until people adapt to the different culture, they experience a back-and-forth and up-­ and-­down process between stress and adaptation, with gradual development of adaptation depicted as an arc. Paige (1993) authored a study that identified the factors that create stress rather than the process of change in psychological status. This study posited ten factors that can cause physiological stress: cultural differences, ethnocentrism, cultural immersion, cultural isolation, language, prior intercultural experience, expectations, visibility and invisibility, status and power, and control. The Communication Approach The communication approach focuses on the conflicts and adjustments that occur in intercultural communication. A major framework is the high and low cultural context theory developed by Hall (1976). This study clarified the relationship between communication style and cultural context and the importance of understanding cultural context in communication with people from different cultures. In a high-context culture, communication between a speaker and a listener is likely to be smooth, unless the speaker provides detailed oral information. People in a high-­context culture place emphasis on the intent of the speaker and depend less on the details of verbal information. This communication style works well when both the speaker and the listener have a lot of cultural context in common, such as shared customs. In a low-context culture, on the other hand, the speaker and listener depend more on verbal information as the shared cultural context between them is limited. For example, Japan is considered to be an example of a high-context culture. Japanese people are likely to “read the atmosphere” in communication to get the implicit message. On the other hand, the United States is considered to be an example of a low-context culture. American people are likely to emphasize explicit conversation to communicate their ideas and thoughts very clearly. Hall’s theory implies that there is a possibility that communication between Japanese and Americans may not work very well unless both of them do not mind the different cultural contexts of the countries.

70 

S. HANADA

Gudykunst (1995) proposed the Anxiety/Uncertainly Management Theory (AUMT). AUMT hypothesizes that the speaker’s anxiety and uncertainty increase when the speaker does not have much information about the listener. In this case, the speaker is motivated to collect information about the listener in conversation to decrease his/her anxiety. However, if the speaker and listener come from different cultures, it is sometimes difficult for the speaker to collect such information because the two people try to communicate in different styles. This study proposed that an effective way to decrease people’s anxiety is to reduce uncertainty, and uncertainty can be reduced by knowing the partner’s cultural context. The Compositional Approach The compositional approach posits categories of intercultural skills. One of the major early works taking this approach is Ruben (1976), which outlined seven dimensions of intercultural competence. The seven elements are “display of respect, interaction posture, orientation to knowledge, empathy, role behaviors, interaction management, and tolerance of ambiguity” (p. 339–341). This study identified a gap between knowing and doing in intercultural situations and addressed the importance of employing measures of competency that reflect an individual’s ability to display concepts in his/her behavior rather than in intentions, understanding, knowledge, attitudes, or desires. On the other hand, Byram (1997) argued that intercultural communication competence consists of linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and intercultural competence. Based on this compositional framework, this study identified five savoirs of intercultural competence and communication, such as attitudes, knowledge, skills, and critical cultural awareness. Another study by Deardorff (2006) proposed a pyramid model of intercultural competence. According to this model, there are grounded invisible layers underneath visible behaving and communicating capabilities. The most basic layer is attitudes, which includes respect, openness, and curiosity about different cultures. The next layer is knowledge, comprehension, and skills, which include cultural self-awareness and deep understanding and knowledge of cultures as well as skills such as listening, observing, analyzing, and interpreting cultural difference. The upper layer is internal learning outcomes, such as self-reflection, which include adaptability, flexibility, an ethnorelative viewpoint, and empathy toward cultural differences.

4  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHOD 

71

The Developmental Approach The developmental approach focuses on the cognitive and non-cognitive developmental process of one’s intercultural competence. A major theoretical framework is Bennett (1993)’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). The DMIS proposed a developmental process of intercultural sensitivity which comprises three ethnocentric orientations (Denial, Defense, and Minimization) followed by three ethnorelative orientations (Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration). Bennett (1993, p.  30) defined ethnocentrism as “assuming that the worldview of one’s culture is central to all reality” and ethnorelativism as the idea that “cultures can only be understood relative to one another and that particular behavior can only be understood within a cultural context” (p. 46). According to this study, individuals in each of the six orientations have the following characteristics. In the Denial orientation, individuals do not recognize cultural differences. This does not mean that they negate cultural differences; rather, individuals in this stage maintain a distance from other cultures and see the world completely from their own cultural background. In the Defense orientation, individuals acknowledge the existence of cultural differences, but they see these differences from two polarized perspectives: either belief in the superiority of their own culture, or denigration of their own culture and belief in the superiority of a different culture. In the Minimization orientation, individuals acknowledge cultural differences but trivialize them, emphasizing the commonalities and similarities of humanity regardless of cultural differences  and believing that these far outweigh any differences. In the Acceptance orientation, individuals appreciate cultural differences without evaluating those differences positively or negatively. In this stage, the individual moves from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. People come to respect cultural differences mentally and also gradually learn skills to cope with the differences they encounter. In the Adaptation orientation, individuals demonstrate behavioral skills, such as how to communicate with people from other cultures. A key skill in this stage is perspective-shifting: the ability to look at the world through different eyes. In this sense, people in this stage have developed the ability to recognize things from the viewpoint of people from other cultures. Finally, in the Integration stage, individuals not only value a variety of cultures, they also constantly define their own identity and evaluate behaviors and values in contrast to and in concert with a multitude of

72 

S. HANADA

cultures. People integrate aspects of their original cultural perspectives with those of other cultures and establish their own behaviors, values, and beliefs without risking a collapse of their own identity. Another model based on the developmental approach is the Developmental Model of Intercultural Maturity developed by King and Baxter Magolda (2005). This model posited three developmental levels of individual intercultural maturity: initial, intermediate, and mature. King & Baxter Magolda (2005, p. 574) defined intercultural maturity as “multi-­ dimensional, consisting of a range of attributes, including understanding (cognitive dimension), sensitivity to others (interpersonal dimension), and a sense of oneself that enables one to listen to and learn from others (intrapersonal dimension).” A difference between the two models is that the DMIS emphasizes the objective evaluation by others of one’s development while the Developmental Model of Intercultural Maturity model stresses how individuals define their own experiences and interpret those experiences in intercultural situations.

The Approach of This Study What these four approaches have in common is the fact that they look at an individual’s adaptation to intercultural environments, but each of them specifically focuses on different elements. The psychological approach looks at an individual’s psychological tendencies, such as excitement and stress in intercultural situations. The communication approach emphasizes communication style in interactions with people from different cultures. The compositional approach specifically focuses on the components of one’s abilities that enable them to adapt to intercultural situations. The developmental approach focuses on one’s cognitive and non-cognitive developmental processes in adapting to different cultures. Based on the interpretivism perspective, this study mainly employs the developmental and psychological approaches for two reasons. Firstly, this study aims to understand the extent to which students’ intercultural competence changes by participating in mobility programs. This examination was conducted using a developmental approach, which looks at the changes in students’ intercultural competence before and after joining mobility programs. Secondly, this study looks at whether or not students develop awareness of their host country by exploring participants’ psychological tendencies, confirming whether they cultivate such awareness. It provides the context behind whether or not they embrace empathy with

4  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHOD 

73

and/or goodwill toward their host country by analyzing their reflections on learning experiences gained through mobility programs. It has been pointed out by researchers in other fields as well as educational researchers that replicability is an issue in empirical research on education. One relevant point is that replicability of research results is low when the content of the survey is not about facts, such as year of birth, but about views on different cultures, where responses can vary depending on the time when the survey was conducted. In this regard, Otani (2019) cites as an example the “Academic Characteristics of the Humanities and Social Sciences” of the Council for Science, Technology, and Science of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology in Japan, noting that its academic character is the study of meaning making through interpretation, and replicability is not desired in the first place. Although statistical analysis was conducted in this study, it was not intended to be a randomized controlled trial with replicability and generalization in mind, and the text-mining analysis was intended to make sense of the statistical results through interpretation. In other words, the results are not intended to generalize the effects of five types of mobility program in this area. Rather than relying on a one-method assessment, which is often pointed out as a flaw in discussions of the learning outcomes of study abroad, this study aims to interpret the results more systematically through both quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Research Method This study sought to increase the validity of the results by analyzing both the objective assessment and the introspective assessment by way of students’ reflections on their learning experiences. The specific methods used were as follows. Firstly, intercultural competence developed through learning experiences in the host country was measured using the  Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). The IDI is “a theory-based instrumental tool to assess one’s mindset and skillset of intercultural competence” (Hammer, 2019, p. 3). It provides in-depth insights on how individuals make sense of and how they respond to cultural differences (Hammer, 2019). Based on the IDI results, this study conducted statistical analysis using SPSS. Secondly, the ways in  which learning experiences impact students’ awareness of the host country were examined using a text-mining analysis

74 

S. HANADA

based on their own reflections by KH Coder. Awareness of the host country is a subjective element, so it is understandable that some people would recommend analyzing it based on the students’ self-assessment alone. Because it is a subjective element, however, it is necessary to systematically analyze, rather than making a judgment based only on their own self-­ assessment.  To be specific, a text-mining analysis of students’ reflection papers was conducted to explore the reasons why particular mobility programs provided learning experiences that cultivated, or did not cultivate, awareness. Text-mining is a method which clarifies the major patterns in students’ reflections on their learning experiences based on an examination of the commonalities and differences in the characteristics of different reflection papers (Weiss et al., 2004). For this examination, the reflection paper asked students about the learning experiences they gained by participating in the programs. Asking this simple open-ended question (i.e., what did you learn from the program you joined?) avoids leading students to a particular bias toward awareness.

Adaptability of IDI According to Fantini (2009), there are 44 instruments that can be used to assess intercultural competence. Among these, it was determined that the IDI would be the best tool for this study because it has three major advantages (Hanada, 2019). The first advantage is that the IDI is a theory-based instrument which is used worldwide. The IDI is based on the Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC), which is grounded in the DMIS (Hammer, 2012). The IDC represents a transition of perceptions as mindset and a transition of behaviors as skillset from a less complex view of cultural commonalities and differences to a more complex view (Hammer, 2009). In concrete terms, there are four major differences between the DMIS and the IDC. Firstly, the IDC is a model of intercultural competence, while the DMIS is a model of intercultural sensitivity. The DMIS focuses on the process of developing intercultural sensitivity by identifying six orientations that individuals develop in their acquisition of intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 2004, 1993). This framework theorizes the development of mindset toward cultural differences. By contrast, the IDC covers the competence of shifting both mindset and skillset in relation to cultural differences. Secondly, while the DMIS has six orientation stages of intercultural development from Denial to Integration, the IDC has five orientation stages from Denial to Adaptation. The final stage labeled as

4  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHOD 

75

Integration in the DMIS is not covered as it is concerned with the construction of intercultural identity rather than the development of intercultural competence (Hammer, 2012). Thirdly, the IDC uses the Polarization orientation instead of the Defense orientation. Polarization can take the form of Defense or Reversal. Defense is the mindset of having an uncritical view toward one’s own cultural values and practices and an overly critical view toward other culture’s values and practices. By contrast, Reversal is the mindset of having an overly critical orientation toward one’s own cultural values and practices and an uncritical view toward the other culture’s values and practices (Hammer, 2012). As the mindsets of the two statuses are polar opposites, the IDC differentiates between the two. Finally, the DMIS views the Minimization orientation as an ethnocentric orientation, while the IDC identifies it as the transitional orientation between ethnocentric and ethnorelative orientations (Hammer, 2012). The IDI validity tests supported the view that Minimization is a more effective orientation than the two ethnocentric orientations (i.e., Denial and Polarization) in viewing cultural differences as mindsets. Unlike the two ethnorelative orientations (i.e., Acceptation and Adaptation), however, individuals at the Minimization demonstrate difficulty in adapting cultural differences as skillsets, which is an essential capability recognized as part of the ethnorelative orientation (Hammer, 2011). In fact, the validity test presented inter-correlations among the five orientations from Denial to Adaptation. According to Hammer (2011), there were very weak correlations of Minimization orientation with both ethnocentric (Denial [r = −0.33] and Defense [r  =  0.062]) and ethnorelative orientations (Acceptance [r = 0.014] and Adaptation [r = 0.144]). By contrast, there was a strong correlation between Defense and Denial [r = 0.83] and a positive correlation with Denial and with Defense vis-à-vis Polarization [r  =  0.37]. Furthermore, there was also a strong correlation between Acceptance and Adaptation ([r = 0.638]). Finally, no ethnocentric orientations had strong correlations with any ethnorelative orientations. Based on these results, Hammer (2011) concluded that Minimization is not ethnocentric but also not yet ethnorelative; thus it was conceptualized as a transitional orientation between the two orientations. The second advantage of using the IDI is that it is proven to have strong validity as a measuring instrument to assess intercultural mindsets and skillsets for the diverse cultural groups used in this study. To maintain its validity, the IDI has been continuously conducting pilot studies and has developed three revised versions since it was first developed in 1998

76 

S. HANADA

(Hammer, 2009, 2011). The validity test of the first version began with an initial 60-item set of questions. This test was used to assess whether the questions were able to assess intercultural competence based on the DMIS in a systematic way. Validity was verified by the test which was administered to a culturally diverse group of 226 respondents before the correlation between their IDI scores and how they construed their experience in an intercultural environment was examined through qualitative interviewing (Hammer, 2011). The second version was developed in 2003. The original 60 items verified in the first version were reviewed in the second validity test. Another 591 culturally diverse respondents were given the test and 50 items were finally chosen for the second version. The third version was developed in 2010. The 50 items used in the second version were reviewed by administrating them to 4763 respondents from 11 distinct cross-cultural groups including Japanese (Hammer, 2011). The respondents were deliberately chosen from high schools and universities, and both for-profit and non-profit sectors to give a diversity of respondents. In order to avoid problems arising from the influence of language proficiency in assessing intercultural competence, the IDI also developed a rigorously back-translated Japanese version. This enabled the participants in this study to complete the IDI in their native language or in English as a second language. This demonstrates that the IDI is a cross-­ culturally valid instrument. The third advantage is that the IDI is a scientific measuring instrument used in scholarly studies. Hammer et al. (2003, p. 441) stated that the IDI is “useful for assessing training needs, guiding interventions for the development of intercultural competence, contributing to personnel selection, and evaluating programs.” For example, the IDI was used in previous studies to assess the intercultural competence of university students who studied abroad mainly in Western countries (e.g., Anderson et al., 2005; Jackson, 2008; Pedersen, 2010; Vande Berg et al., 2009). It is an online 50-item instrument which uses a 5-point Likert-type scale: 1 = disagree, 2  =  disagree somewhat more than agree, 3  =  disagree some and agree some, 4 = agree somewhat more than disagree, and 5 = agree. In analyzing the IDI results, the extent to which participants answered questions honestly was a crucial factor in ensuring the credibility of this study. For example, it might be a risk for this study if some of the students intentionally chose answers because they wanted to get high scores. On this point, the IDI’s 50 questions are deliberately created to judge both respondents’ Perceived Orientation Score (PO score; “PO score represents where the

4  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHOD 

77

individual or group perceives themselves on this developmental continuum”) and the Developmental Orientation Score (DO score; “DO score represents where the IDI places the individual or group along the continuum” (i.e., the individual or group’s actual level of intercultural competence) (Hammer, 2013, p. 73).

Participants The participants in this study were both domestic and international students studying at different universities. To ensure as great a validity for this study as possible, diversity of location and types of university were carefully taken into account. Data was collected from 2013 to 2021. In total, 716 students participated in the five types of mobility program provided by home or host universities were included in this study. The number of participants in each type of program is shown in Table 4.1. Outbound study abroad programs cover students who joined a variety of programs, including those with different durations, program types, and accommodation types, and those with or without a pre-departure orientation. This study examined whether or not students gained different learning experiences, the impacts of such experiences on their intercultural competence, and awareness of the host country gained from the different types of study abroad program. By contrast, the  inbound study abroad programs cover full-time degree-seeking international students studying in Japan. International service-learning programs cover students who engaged in service-learning in local communities overseas. International internship programs cover students who gained work experience in foreign countries.  The online  study abroad program covers students who took an online study abroad program because of the cancellation of their onsite study abroad program due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 4.1  Participant numbers

Program type Outbound Study Abroad Programs Inbound Study Abroad Programs International Service-Learning International Internship Programs Online Study Abroad Program Total

Participant number 492 33 121 52 18 716

78 

S. HANADA

The imbalance between the number of participants in each group is a limitation of this study, but it is a realistic reflection of the relative numbers of students who join each type of program in Japan. For example, the number of Japanese students  studying abroad through university programs was 70,541 in 2018 (JASSO, 2020). By contrast, the number of students who joined international internship programs offered by Japanese universities was only 3884 in 2014 (MEXT, 2015). No government student data is available for international service-learning programs. Incoming study abroad programs cover foreign full-time degree-seeking international students studying at a Japanese university. Although there is no government data about the number of foreign international students studying in English-taught programs  (ETPs) in the social science and humanities fields, Horiuchi (2016) estimates that the enrollment capacity of ETPs/EMIs in the 13 universities selected for the Global 30 program, a Japanese governmental program to support the internationalization of higher education, was very minimal and mostly less than 30. The online study abroad program was a trial program prepared as an alternative  to an  onsite study abroad program due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, participants were deliberately limited to a small group.

Data Collection and Analysis To collect data from the students who joined mobility programs, the author sent invitations to potential participants by email or contacted international education educators and administrators at the students’ home and host universities and invited students to participate in the study. When carrying out data collection, three universities requested that the author submit an application to their ethical review board. After receiving approvals, the educators and administrators who accepted the invitation forwarded the students a URL or the students’ email address to the author so that they could take the IDI online. These students were also invited to submit reflection papers about their learning experiences. Based on informed consent, although two IDIs pre-and post-program cost 24 US dollars, students who requested their own IDI results were provided with their personal score report and advisory report, both of which can be utilized to develop their intercultural competence, at no cost to them. Out of ethical considerations, the author did not hold face-to-face or online live communication with the participants. Unlike the other chapters, the IDI was not conducted in  the study of the  inbound study abroad programs

4  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHOD 

79

because this study covers foreign international students who have spent time in Japan. Technically, it was impossible to ask foreign international students to participate in this study before they arrived in Japan. However, another reason was that they were assumed to have a certain level of experience which would allow them to give  thoughtful responses about Japanese society. The collected reflection papers were analyzed based on the following steps. First, the reflection papers mentioned in Chaps. 5, 7, 8, and 9 were collected in Japanese. The reason is that all students in these chapters were Japanese students who participated in mobility programs and not all of them have high English proficiency. The reflection papers in Chap. 6 were collected in either English or Japanese according to respondents’ language proficiency, as they  were on either  English-taught or Japanese-medium instruction programs.  Second, the author eliminated personal information, information that could be used to identify individuals, and information that was not related to the research themes from the original reflection papers. In other words, the author extracted units of data that were relevant to the topics from the scripts. Third, the text-mining analyses were conducted mostly using the original Japanese reflection papers, and these were translated into English to present the results in each chapter. This procedure is based on the assumption that analyzing the original Japanese scripts and presenting English-translated results would be more reliable than analyzing English-translated scripts and presenting those results. This is because translated scripts could include the author’s bias, even though all the scripts were checked by native English translators. The original text-mining analysis results in Japanese are presented in the Appendix.

Limitations There are three major limitations to this study. Firstly, this study conducted the IDI to examine changes in students’ intercultural competence before and after joining mobility programs. Considering its three advantages, the IDI is one of the most reliable instruments for this study among the aforementioned different instruments; however, the fact that the IDI was originally developed on the basis of Western perspectives cannot be ignored. It is also true that no specific measurement instrument has been developed to examine intercultural competence in Japanese and other Asian students. Still, the IDI has a Japanese version, and the pilot validity test included Japanese students.

80 

S. HANADA

Secondly, this study covers mainly Japanese students who joined mobility programs, so the demographic diversity is limited. It also cannot represent the overall context of Japanese international higher education due to the limited sample size. Given that many previous empirical studies looking at the impacts of mobility programs were conducted by sampling students in English-speaking or Western countries, however,  this study provides an Asian context regarding students studying in North America, Europe, Oceania, and Asian countries. Thirdly, the research method has a limitation in that the quantitative analysis is based on a point-to-point examination just before and after the mobility programs. This is insufficient to generalize the results because there is a possibility that the impact of the five mobility programs might be confirmed not from a short-term perspective, but from a long-term perspective. At the same time, the qualitative analysis based on text-mining analysis cannot eliminate the investigator’s bias completely  because the extraction of scripts for analysis from student reflection papers is at the discretion of the investigator. Also, although the statistical analysis conducted in this study is inferential, the number of participants answering the IDI and submitting reflection papers is not exactly the same. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that this study is a case study with limited generalizability.

References Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., Rexeisen, R. J., & Hubbard, A. C. (2005). Short-­ term Study Abroad and Intercultural Sensitivity: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(4), 457–469. Bennett, M.  J. (1993). Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (2nd ed., pp. 21–71). Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming Interculturally Competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Towards Multiculturalism: A Reader in Multicultural Education (pp. 62–77). Intercultural Resource Corporation. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Multilingual Matters. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. K. (2010). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications. Deardorff, D.  K. (2006). Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266.

4  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHOD 

81

Fantini, A.  E. (2009). Assessing Intercultural Competence. In D.  K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence (pp. 456–476). SAGE Publications. Gudykunst, W.  B. (1995). Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory: Current Status. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory (pp. 8–58). SAGE Publications. Gullahorn, J.  T., & Gullahorn, J.  E. (1963). An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 33–47. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor. Hammer, M. R. (2009). The Intercultural Development Inventory: An Approach for Assessing and Building Intercultural Competence. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence: Exploring the Cross-­ cultural Dynamics within Organizations (pp. 203–217). SAGE Publications. Hammer, M.  R. (2011). Additional Cross-cultural Validity Testing of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 474–487. Hammer, M.  R. (2012). The Intercultural Development Inventory: A New Frontier in Assessment and Development of Intercultural Competence. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student Learning Abroad (pp. 115–136). Stylus Publishing. Hammer, M. R. (2013). A Resource Guide for Effectively Using the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) (Revised). https://idiinventory.com/wp-­ content/uploads/2014/08/Intercultural%20Development%20Inventory%20 Resource%20Guide1.pdf Hammer, M. (2019). Why Consider Using the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)? https://idiinventory.com/wp-­content/uploads/2019/08/Why-­ Consider-­the-­IDI-­2019.pdf Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring Intercultural Sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443. Hanada, S. (2015). Assessing Intercultural Competence: A comparative Study of Japanese Students in Study Abroad Programs (Publication No. 10187437) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Hanada, S. (2019). A Quantitative Assessment of Japanese Students’ Intercultural Competence Developed Through Study Abroad Programs. Journal of International Students, 9(4), 1015–1037. https://doi.org/10.32674/ jis.v9i4.391 Horiuchi, K. (2016). The Development and Potential of English Language Degree Programs in Japan (nihon no gakushikatei ni okeru eigo ni yoru gakui puroguramu no hattenn to kanousei). Bulletins of the Japan International Education Society, 22, 35–54.

82 

S. HANADA

Jackson, J. (2008). Globalization, Internationalization, and Short-term Stays Abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 349–358. Japan Student Service Organization (JASSO). (2020). The Survey Result of Japanese Students Studying Abroad in 2018 (2018 nendo nihonjin gakusei ryuugaku jyoukyou chousa kekka). https://www.studyinjapan.go.jp/ja/_ mt/2020/08/date2018n.pdf Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational Research. Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. SAGE Publications. Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation. SAGE Publications. King, P.  M., & Baxter Magolda, M.  B. (2005). A Developmental Model of Intercultural Maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571–592. Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a Foreign Society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45–51. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. (2009). Intercultural Communication in Contexts. McGraw-Hill. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2015). Status of Internship Implementation at Universities and Other Higher Education Institutions (heisei 26 nendo daigakutou ni okeru intaanshippu jis-shijyoukyou nit suite). https://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/other/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2016/03/15/1368428_01.pdf Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural Shock: Adjustment to New Cultural Environments. Missiology: An International Review, os-7(4), 177–182. Otani, T. (2019). Paradigm and Design of Qualitative Study: From Research Methodology to SCAT. The University of Nagoya Press. Paige, R. M. (1993). On the Nature of Intercultural Experiences and Intercultural Education. In R.  M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 1–19). Intercultural Press. Pedersen, P. (2010). Assessing Intercultural Effectiveness Outcomes in a Yearlong Study Abroad Program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 70–80. Ruben, B.  D. (1976). Assessing Communication Competency for Intercultural Adaptation. Group and Organization Studies, 1(3), 334–354. Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R.  M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium Project: Interventions for Study Abroad Learning. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1–75. Weiss, S.  M., Indurkhya, N., Zhang, T., & Damerau, F. (2004). Text Mining: Predictive Methods for Analyzing Unstructured Information. Springer.

CHAPTER 5

Outbound Study Abroad Programs

This chapter explores the impacts and factors of outbound study abroad programs that contribute to cultivating intercultural competence and awareness of the host country through an empirically based quantitative and qualitative examination of 492 study abroad students. The number of participants in study abroad programs was said to be about 5.3 million in 2017 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2020) and was predicted to increase to 8.0 million in 2025 (Altbach & Bassett, 2004), although the COVID-19 pandemic may influence the realization  of this forecast. Since this large number of study abroad students has been seen as a symbol of the internationalization of higher education, different researchers have examined various components of the impact that study abroad programs have on students. These components are exemplified by interculturality (Jackson, 2008), cultural resistance (Lemmons, 2015), self-confidence (Walsh & Walsh, 2018), cultural competency (Hermond et  al., 2018), intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2009; Yarosha et  al., 2018), self-efficacy and cultural

This article includes reprinted material from a research article originally published in the Journal of International Students. Hanada, S. (2019). A quantitative assessment of Japanese students’ intercultural competence developed through study abroad programs. Journal of International Students, 9(4), 1015-1037. HYPERLINK “https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i4.391.22%.” © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 S. Hanada, International Higher Education in Citizen Diplomacy, International and Development Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95308-9_5

83

84 

S. HANADA

intelligence (Nguyen et  al., 2018), contact with the host-society/family (Matera et al., 2018; Rodriguez & Chornet-Roses, 2014), cultural adjustment (Basow & Gaugler, 2017), and cultural acculturation (Lee & Negrelli, 2018). This study differs from these existing studies in that it uses a different perspective to focus on the impact of study abroad programs on developing students’ intercultural competence and awareness of their host country. The previous literature has been largely comparative, analyzing and comparing two different kinds of study abroad programs such as short-­term and long-term programs. Moreover, the majority of the  existing research on study abroad programs looks at students who are from English-speaking countries. However, the nature of intercultural competence varies across cultural contexts; therefore, it is important to observe other local contexts. This study examines outbound study abroad programs in the Japanese context, taking the previous literature into account. Although there are some studies which looked at Japanese students (e.g., Yokota et al., 2018), many of these  previous studies were largely conducted with  either quantitative or  qualitative analyses that included students from a single  university or study abroad program. This study, on the other hand, uses both quantitative and qualitative analyses to examine the impacts of study abroad programs on changing intercultural competence and awareness of the host country.

Backgrounds of Japanese Study Abroad Students The term “international student,” when used in Japanese policy papers, generally refers to both full-time Japanese international students, who study at foreign higher education institutions, and Japanese students who participate in study abroad programs that have been mostly arranged by Japanese higher education institutions. Japan has been encouraging an increase in both types of these international students. For example, Japan’s Revitalization Strategy: Japan is Back was released by the Japanese government as a national policy to address the necessity of sending more Japanese students abroad. This policy tackles the drastic decrease in the number of Japanese study abroad students who studied at foreign higher education institutions in the 2000s (MEXT, 2017). As a possible countermeasure, the policy aims to offer more opportunities for Japanese university students to study abroad in order to increase the number of such students to 120,000 by 2020 (The Prime Minister’s Office of Japan, 2015). In this context, there is no clear distinction between full-time international students and study abroad students  who are full-time students at Japanese universities and studying abroad only for a certain period of time.

1 year

0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 –

Unknown

70,541 66,058 60,810 54,455 52,132 45,082 43,009 36,656 28,804 145%

Total

Table 5.1  Number of Japanese study abroad students on study abroad programs arranged by home universities (JASSO, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020)

5  OUTBOUND STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS 

85

86 

S. HANADA

There is a different outbound trend if one includes only the number of Japanese international students who are participating in study abroad programs that have been arranged by Japanese higher education institutions. For example, Table  5.1 indicates that the number of this type of student increased by 145% from 28,804 to 70,541 between 2010 and 2018. In particular, the number of students participating in Japanese short-term study abroad programs (hereafter referred to as “short-term programs,” which refers to programs that are shorter than one month in duration), increased by 217%, the highest increase recorded over the same period (Japan Student Services Organization [JASSO], 2012, 2020). By region, short-term programs in North America were the most popular among Japanese students. Based on the government’s policy regarding Japanese study abroad students, this study covers students who satisfy two points: program mode and duration. Program mode refers to the type of the study abroad programs, such as study tours, noncredit foreign language education, and major courses for academic credit. This chapter concerns programs in which undergraduate students physically travel abroad to participate in education at foreign institutions from Japanese universities for a certain period of time. For example, it includes academic credit programs provided under partnerships between students’ home and foreign host universities, in which students participate in regular, full-time curricular programs at a foreign host university. It also includes English language programs hosted during the summer or spring vacations. By contrast, this it does not include students who are enrolled full time in foreign universities. Furthermore, programs that are hosted at international branch campuses in home countries, which operate under the name of foreign universities, are not recognized as study abroad programs. Duration refers to the length of study abroad programs. This chapter includes study abroad programs that have been arranged by Japanese universities that are as long as one year in duration. As shown in Table 5.1, short-term programs are very popular among Japanese students. By contrast, long-term programs are defined as programs that last between one month and one year in duration.

Student and Program Profiles The assumption guiding this study is that the degree of development of intercultural competence and awareness of the host country through study abroad programs depends on both student profiles and program profiles as variables during study abroad. In order to examine the impact of different types of study abroad program on different types of student, this study uses four student profiles and four program profiles, as shown in Table 5.2.

5  OUTBOUND STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS 

87

Table 5.2  Student profiles and program profiles Variable classification Student profile  Intercultural competence before study abroad (Pre-DS)  Gender  Prior International Experience (PIE)  Prior Local Language Proficiency (PLP)

Program profile  Program Duration  Program Type  Housing Type  Pre-Departure Intercultural Learning Session (PDS)

Pre-study abroad developmental orientation score 0—Male 1—Female 0—No experience 1—Have experience 0—Beginner level 1—TOEIC 499 or lower 2—TOEIC 500 or higher 0—Long-term (1 month or more) 1—Short-term (less than 1 month) 0—Language & culture programs 1—Academic content programs 0—Homestay 1—Dormitory 0—Did not attend 1—Did attend

Note: TOEIC = Test of English for International Communication

Intercultural competence before study abroad is denoted by the pre-­ study abroad developmental orientation score (Pre-DS) on the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) taken by students before participating in study abroad programs. It shows the degree of their intercultural competence before they gain learning experiences through studying abroad. Prior Local Language Proficiency (PLP) refers to one’s proficiency in the official language(s) of the host country before studying abroad. It is English in this study because all students partook in English medium programs during their study abroad. Prior International Experience  (PIE) determines whether or not any previous international experience that occurred before studying abroad influences one’s degree of development. Program Type refers to whether students participated in academic credit programs or language and culture programs. Pre-Departure Intercultural Learning Session (hereafter Pre-Departure Session: PDS) encompasses lectures and workshops offered to students to teach basic theories and practices of intercultural understanding and peace as well as the cultures of host countries before they study abroad.

88 

S. HANADA

Independent Variables This study included eight independent variables in its empirical analysis. This section reviews the major previous studies that examined some of these variables to identify the impact of study abroad programs on cultivating intercultural competence and the related skills and mindsets. The first variable is Program Duration, which is maybe the most common variable in this field of empirical research. Perhaps one of the most comprehensive studies is the Georgetown Consortium Project, which was conducted by Vande Berg et al. (2009). This study made specific note of the importance of program duration for the development of intercultural competence based on 1159 students from 61 study abroad programs operated by universities in the United States. This study found that the students who participated in 13 to 18-week programs, equivalent to approximately one semester of study abroad, showed the greatest increase in their intercultural development in comparison to 4 to 7-week and 8 to 12-week programs. It also showed a negative impact for students in 4 to 7-week programs and very small intercultural development for those students in 8 to 12-week programs. Another study by Nguyen et al. (2018) looked at 79 study abroad participants to examine the impact of a 5-week program in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands regarding the development of self-efficacy and cultural intelligence. They found that participants’ self-efficacy and cultural intelligence were higher after studying abroad than before for monocultural individuals. This study showed that even relatively short-term programs led students to develop intercultural learning. However, the examination of the impact of duration remains controversial since some studies (e.g., Czerwionka et al., 2015; Gilin & Young, 2009; Pence & Macgillivray, 2007)  concluded that short-term programs are effective under certain conditions, while some other studies (e.g., Engle & Engle, 2004; Kehl & Morris, 2008; Medina-Lopez-­ Portillo, 2004) did not show the same result or found relatively weaker effectiveness compared to programs with longer durations. Gender might be another common variable identified by scholars and international educators. Nichols (2011) concluded that gender differences have an impact on the development of foreign language and intercultural learning in study abroad programs. This study found that female students were more likely to take intercultural and targeted language courses than male students. Furthermore, female students were more active than male students in meeting frequently with their mentors to

5  OUTBOUND STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS 

89

discuss cultural adjustment. Vande Berg et  al. (2009) also found that females experienced more changes relating to intercultural learning through studying abroad, while Pedersen (2010) and Williams (2005) did not find a significant difference between male and female students. Pre-Departure Session refers to intercultural education by intercultural educators through lectures, workshops, and mentoring at students’ home universities before they study abroad. Jackson and Oguro (2018) mentioned that international educators should refrain from being overly optimistic about study abroad students developing intercultural sensitivity and becoming more globally-minded people simply by joining a studying abroad program. Rather, they argue that a professional intercultural intervention is essential to bolster students’ intercultural learning. Pedersen (2010) authored another study that emphasized the importance of intercultural professional mentoring for the development of students’ intercultural competence. This study examined two groups of students who were studying abroad in a year-long program in England; one group received an intercultural intervention and the other did not. The students who received the intercultural intervention developed significantly more intercultural competence than those who did not. Those who did not receive the intervention showed no statistically significant difference from the control group who had enrolled in study abroad, but had not yet departed (Pedersen, 2010). This result implies that students who receive mentoring from intercultural professionals before leaving their home universities might have smoother entries into the local communities, and thereby might have more productive experiences in terms of the development of intercultural competence. Prior International Experience is an important factor in order to examine the impact of studying abroad between the pre- and post-study periods  with greater precision. Pedersen (2010) indicated that prior international experience had a significant impact on intercultural competence while gender, prior language studies, and housing type in the host country did not. Williams (2005) mentioned that exposure to different cultures, regardless of whether or not students traveled abroad, was an influential factor in the development of intercultural communication skills. Exposure to different cultures included having close friends from another culture, previous experiences with traveling or living abroad, attending religious services outside of one’s own religion, taking intercultural courses, learning a foreign language, or attending intercultural exhibitions. By contrast, Vande Berg et al. (2009) indicated that students who

90 

S. HANADA

had never lived in a different culture started out with the lowest level of intercultural competence but showed the greatest development. However, this study concluded that there was no statistically significant relationship between students who have lived in different cultures and those who have not. Housing Type in host country might be a factor for  Japanese students in particular. It is sometimes indicated by returning students from study abroad that they often spent time with Japanese friends in host countries. International educators are likely to identify this tendency as a negative aspect of study abroad programs. The impact of housing type could be viewed through the students’ type of accommodation in host countries, which could be homestays, dormitories, or others. Rodriguez and Chornet-Roses (2014) examined the construction of student and host family relationships among 42 American students who studied in Luxembourg. Their study found that the students expected to interact with their host families like a real family, but in reality, the students lacked opportunities for communication with their host families because the relationships instead functioned as friendships, guest and host relationships, or tenant and landlord relationships. In another study looking at the housing impact, Vande Berg et al. (2009) identified that students living with other American students or host-country students showed statistically significant gains in intercultural competence, while those living with a host family or with international students from other countries did not. Prior Local Language Proficiency can be used to look at the relationship between foreign language proficiency and intercultural competence. Vande Berg et al. (2009) concluded that prior language study is significantly associated with gains in intercultural competence. Based on this, it suggests the importance of target foreign language education on home university campus before departure for study abroad. These previous studies demonstrate that the impact of the above factors on students’ intercultural learning deserves ongoing research. In particular, however, previous research has yet to identify the impact of these variables on Japanese students, the majority of whom grew up in a monocultural environment. In addition, this study includes the Pre-Study Abroad Developmental Orientation Score and Program Type  as the seventh and eighth variables. On the other hand, the change of developmental orientation scores between pre-and post-study abroad periods and  the post-study abroad developmental orientation score  (Post-DS) are used as the dependent

5  OUTBOUND STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS 

91

variables. Therefore, this study aims to verify if any of these eight independent variables are predicted as statistically significant variables influencing each of the two dependent variables.

Quantitative Results This study conducted a multiple linear regression analysis based on eight independent  variables to predict statistically significant variables for the change of developmental orientation scores between pre-and post-study abroad periods and  the post-study abroad developmental orientation score  (Post-DS). The statistical analysis intends to understand the predicted significant variables for the growth rates and the students’ intercultural competence at the end of the study abroad programs. The descriptive statistics and regression model coefficient are displayed in Tables 5.3 and 5.4, respectively. In Table  5.4, the Pre-Study Abroad Developmental Orientation Score (Pre-DS), Pre-Departure Sessions (PDS), Prior Local Language Proficiency 2 (PLP 2), and Academic Content Programs are predicted to have a statistically significant impact, while Gender, Program Duration, Housing Type, and Prior International Experience were all predicted not to be significant. The results concerning the Pre-PDS shows the importance of understanding the students’ scores before they study abroad. Whether these are high or low provide a hint helping us to understand which arrangements would be most effective in increasing growth rates and  the Post-DS.  This study looks at the Pre-DS in detail when examining three other significant predictors. Table 5.3  Descriptive statistics

Post-DS Pre-DS Gender PIE 1 PLP1 PLP2 Academic Duration Housing PDS

Mean

SD

N

85.415 83.635 0.400 0.378 0.437 0.073 0.140 0.715 0.364 0.364

13.503 12.832 0.490 0.485 0.497 0.261 0.348 0.452 0.482 0.482

492 492 492 492 492 492 492 492 492 492

92 

S. HANADA

Table 5.4  Regression model coefficients Dependent variable Post-study abroad developmental orientation score Independent variable

B

Pre-DS 0.622** Gender (Male) −0.532 PIE (Have PIE) −0.539 PLP1 (Intermediate Level) 1.333 PLP2 (Advanced Level) 4.262* Academic 5.801** Duration (Long-term) 1.549 Housing (Dormitory) −1.676 PDS (Joined PDS) 3.714** R-square Adjusted R-square F VIF Durbin-Watson ratio

Change between pre- and post-developmental orientation score

SE B

β

B

SE B

β

0.037 0.991 1.028 0.980 1.868 1.869 1.425 1.194 1.179

0.591 −0.019 −0.019 0.049 0.082 0.149 0.052 −0.060 0.132

−0.378** −0.532 −0.539 1.333 4.262* 5.801** 1.549 −1.676 3.714**

0.037 0.991 1.028 0.980 1.868 1.869 1.425 1.194 1.179

−0.421 −0.023 −0.023 0.057 0.096 0.175 0.061 −0.070 0.155

0.431 0.421 40.622*** 1.055–1.962 2.022

0.220 0.206 15.130*** 1.055–1.962 2.022

p