This article was downloaded by: [Hogeschool Van Amsterdam] On: 24 February 2015, At: 06:45 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20 Do ‘global citizens’ need the parochial cultural other? Discourse of immersion in study abroad and learning-by-doing Neriko Musha Doerr a a Salameno School of American and International Studies , Ramapo College , Mahwah , USA Published online: 28 Jun 2012. To cite this article: Neriko Musha Doerr (2013) Do ‘global citizens’ need the parochial cultural other? Discourse of immersion in study abroad and learning-by-doing, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43:2, 224-243, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2012.701852 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2012.701852 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [Hogeschool Van Amsterdam]On: 24 February 2015, At: 06:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Compare: A Journal of Comparativeand International EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20
Do ‘global citizens’ need the parochialcultural other? Discourse of immersionin study abroad and learning-by-doingNeriko Musha Doerr aa Salameno School of American and International Studies ,Ramapo College , Mahwah , USAPublished online: 28 Jun 2012.
To cite this article: Neriko Musha Doerr (2013) Do ‘global citizens’ need the parochial culturalother? Discourse of immersion in study abroad and learning-by-doing, Compare: A Journal ofComparative and International Education, 43:2, 224-243, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2012.701852
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2012.701852
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Do ‘global citizens’ need the parochial cultural other? Discourseof immersion in study abroad and learning-by-doing
Neriko Musha Doerr*
Salameno School of American and International Studies, Ramapo College,Mahwah, USA
The discourse of immersion is prevalent but little analysed in the fieldof study abroad. Linked generally to learning-by-doing, this discoursehas significance for ‘intercultural education’. Based on text analyses ofthree guidebooks on study abroad, this article suggests four effects ofthe discourse of immersion: It justifies study abroad as different from, ifnot better than, classroom learning and tourism. It emphasises the differ-ence between students’ home and host cultures and constructs each soci-ety as internally homogeneous. It constructs study-abroad students’home societies as globalised and their host societies as immobile andparochial, creating a hierarchy when globalisation is valorized. Finally, itexoticises the learning-by-doing ‘teachers’ – the host people – by por-traying them as parochial ‘cultural others’. This article suggests anuneven process where the call for production of ‘global citizens’ throughstudy abroad constructs host societies as parochial and risks reproducinga colonialist hierarchy of exoticism through intercultural learning-by-doing.
Keywords: intercultural learning; study abroad; experiential learning;globalisation; text analysis
Introduction
Study abroad is widely considered an important opportunity to learn ‘inter-cultural competences’ through first-hand experience of another culture(Davies and Pike 2009; Skelly 2009). Learning outside the classroom viaimmersion is a key element making the study-abroad experience distinct.While researchers have extensively discussed how to make immersion aneffective learning experience (Bringle and Hatcher 2011; Chen 2002; Ogden2006; Roberts et al. 2001), few have critically analysed the notion of immer-sion itself as a discourse – ‘practices that systematically form the objects ofwhich they speak’ (Foucault 1972, 49). Based on text analyses of three US-based how-to books on study abroad (Loflin 2007; Oxford 2005;Williamson 2004), this article analyses how the discourse of immersion
� 2013 British Association for International and Comparative Education
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
constructs the study-abroad experience as well as the imagining of study-abroad students’ homes, host societies and their relationships. I subsequentlyconnect this analysis to discussions of globalisation, deterritorialisation andthe understanding of learning-by-doing, of which immersion constitutes oneexample.
Study abroad, as discussed in the guidebooks, mainly targets undergradu-ate university students, who attend programmes organised by hosting univer-sities or external providers, some designed specifically for internationalstudents to study the language, history and culture of the host society, othersdesigned for local students. Although it is difficult to ascertain the numberof study-abroad students in various programmes around the world, 3.7mil-lion tertiary students were said to be enrolled outside their country of citi-zenship as of 2009.1 However, little research has addressed the discoursesprevalent in study abroad and what they construct within as well as outsidethe USA.
In this article, I examine four effects of the discourse of immersion. First,I argue, it causes study abroad to be distinguished from other kinds of study(i.e., in the classroom) or travel abroad (i.e., tourism). Second, it emphasisesthe difference between students’ home and host cultures and homogenisesboth societies. Third, study-abroad guidebooks’ instructions on how study-abroad students should immerse themselves in the host society prompt themto construct their home society as globalised and the host society asimmobile and parochial. Fourth, by positioning the teachers – people in thehost society – as parochial, compared to the mobile students, the discourseof immersion reverses teacher-student hierarchy.
I relate these analyses to two wider fields of investigation. First, to thearguments that link globalisation to deterritorialisation (Appadurai 1990), thisarticle offers the counter-argument that processes aimed at producing globalcitizens deterritorialise some (study-abroad students) but territorialise others(people in the host society). Second, regarding the claim that learning-by-doing is liberating in that it eradicates teacher-student hierarchy, I argue thatthe discourse of immersion, especially in intercultural education, creates areverse student-teacher hierarchy that places mobile students in a position ofpower in relation to the teachers of the culture, that is, the immobile hostpeople among whom the students are immersed and ‘learn by doing’.
In what follows, I first situate my arguments in the research on globalisa-tion and learning-by-doing, then describe and analyse three study-abroadguidebooks and conclude with suggestions for alternative discourses forstudy abroad.
Nurturing ‘global citizens’ and globalism
The breakdown of the ideology of the nation state linking one nation, onepeople and one culture in a demarcated territory came to be analysed, along
Compare 225
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
with the changing contours of international relations in the late-twentiethcentury, as globalization, the outcome of the late capitalist developmentcharacterised by time-space compression (Harvey 1990). Researchers ana-lyse deterritorialised and disjunctive flows of people, media images, technol-ogy, finances and ideologies (Appadurai 1990); global connectivity thatallows individuals to feel that distant places are routinely accessible(Tomlinson 1999); and a globally shared frame of reference against whichcultural difference becomes accentuated (Hannerz 1996; Robertson 1992).
In the arena of education in particular, researchers examine the impact ofand response to globalisation at the level of economics (e.g. changing jobmarkets and the need for new skills), politics (e.g. international constraintson state policy-making, citizenship education) and culture (e.g. global massmedia, reactionary patriotism) (Burbules and Torres 2000). Some criticallyanalyse such effects of globalisation as the spread of an Anglo-centredmodel of ‘effective communication skills’ as the norm (Cameron 2002).Others call for preparing students for the globalising world, suggesting newpedagogies and institutional settings that nurture ‘global consciousness’(Mansilla and Gardner 2007, 56) and skills for working with people of dif-ferent cultural backgrounds (Suarez-Orozco and Qin-Hillard 2004).
In the field of study abroad, ways to effectively nurture students as ‘globalcitizens’ and to measure that effectiveness are frequent topics. Definitions of‘global citizens’ often include those who understand global issues and theinterconnectedness of the world, those who could relate to people from othercultures, and those who could engage in issues that impact humanity (Dear-dorff 2009). ‘Global citizenship’ often implies foreign language skills; ‘inter-cultural competence’, defined as culture-specific knowledge, tolerance andunderstanding toward other cultures; ‘global imagination’ with a plurality ofthe imagined world; and tolerance for ambiguity (Rizvi 2000; Skelly 2009;Streitwieser 2009).
However, other researchers are more sceptical, arguing that study abroaddoes not necessarily reinforce ‘global citizenship’. They suggest a need forspecifically designed activities to create such ‘global citizenship’, such aswell-planned pre-departure experiences (Bennett 1998; Brustein 2009);ethnographic projects (Ogden 2006; Roberts 1994; Roberts et al. 2001);reflective writing (Chen 2002); and volunteer work, internships and co-opprogrammes providing direct opportunity to engage with the host commu-nity (Bringle and Hatcher 2011; Lewin and Van Kirk 2009; Plater et al.2009).
In this context, much research focuses on measuring students’ ‘globalknowledge’, ‘global skills’, ‘global awareness’, ‘intercultural sensitivity’ and‘cross-cultural adaptability’ through performance-based evidence (observa-tion by supervisors, portfolios, research papers and examinations), self-assessment (surveys and interviews) and statistics (retention and jobplacement data) in hope of finding ways to improve students’ learning
226 N.M. Doerr
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
outcomes (Alred and Byram 2006; Carlson et al. 1990; Deardorff 2009;Jackson 2006; Laubscher 1994; Lewin and Van Kirk 2009; Plater et al.2009; Porfilio and Hickman 2011).
Other research critiques study abroad as (re)creating power relationsbetween study-abroad students and host societies. Talya Zemach-Bersin(2009) argues that advertisements for study-abroad programmes often cele-brate consumerism, thereby turning global citizenship into a commodity andportraying the destination as a passive and open ‘laboratory’ to fulfil Ameri-can students’ desire for adventure. She calls instead for an examination ofthe privilege of American students and clearer articulation of what globalcitizens are (also see Gillespie et al. 2009).
While agreeing with this critique, this article questions its and others’assumption that the ‘global’ is positive. Anna Tsing (2000) critiques therecent prevalence of ‘globalism’, which valorises global connections, linkageand circulation as breaking down various barriers and associates them withprogress. Anthropological and other discussions about globalisation consti-tute part of this globalism and thus prevent us from critically analyzing con-ditions that allow or hinder certain ‘global flows’. Tsing argues thatglobalism is a kind of scaling practice that suggests ‘the units of culture andpolitical economy through which we make sense of events and social pro-cesses’ (347), which itself should become an object of critical analysis.
The notion of ‘global citizenship’ is an example of globalism: it valorisesthe global, serving as an aim of study-abroad programmes and thus helpingincrease the global flow of students. Some study-abroad researchers are criti-cal of global citizenship. Michael Woolf (2010) argues that study-abroadprogrammes’ and researchers’ claim to transform students into global citi-zens is unachievable hyperbole that masks and distorts the tangible benefitsof study abroad and supports the idea of global citizens as a new privilegedclass. In this article, I point out another of its negative effects: insofar as‘global citizenship’ relies on the discourse of immersion, it parochialiseslocal people. That is, a global flow of students through study-abroad pro-grammes – deterritorialisation of people – relies on the territorialisation of adestination’s culture, in which students are to be immersed and to engage in‘learning-by-doing’.
It has been pointed out that globalisation occurs unevenly: some localphenomena become globalised (‘globalized localism’), while transnationalpractices impact local conditions unevenly (‘localized globalism’) (Santos2002). Also, globalisation masks vertical segregation between elites andthe working class within the same society (Friedman 2003). What Ipoint to in this article is a more direct, mutually dependent co-construc-tion of deterritorialised people (i.e. globalised students) and territorialisedpeople (i.e. parochial hosts), who are placed in a relation of power in acontext where the ‘global’ is valorised in the name of creating globalcitizens.
Compare 227
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
Learning-by-doing and the relations of power
The encouragement of immersion in study abroad is one example of the pro-motion of learning-by-doing. Since the time when John Dewey (1938)called for ‘education of, by, and for experience’ (29), learning-by-doing hasbeen encouraged as an alternative to more ‘oppressive’ styles of learning,often associated with lecture-based formats in which students passivelymemorise what the teacher tells them. By combining theories of JohnDewey, Kurt Lewin and Jean Piaget, David Kolb (1984) later theorisedlearning-by-doing (what he calls ‘experiential learning’), discussing the rela-tionship between experience and abstract conceptualisation. Wurdinger andCarlson (2010) categorise experiential learning into five types: project-basedlearning, problem-based learning, service learning, place-based education(focusing on the local community and environment) and active learning(interacting with peers and materials in the classroom).
While some focus on the effectiveness and engagement of students in thelearning process (Wong 2006), others focus on the power relations in thelearning process. Paulo Freire (1970), for example, urges abandonment ofbanking-style (one-way lecture style) education, which positions the teacheras the sole holder of knowledge, and adoption instead of problem-posingeducation, in which teacher and students teach each other in dialogue. JeanLave and Etienne Wenger (1991) encourage us to see learning not as aninternalisation of knowledge but an increase of participation in ‘communitiesof practice’. They offer a notion of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’,which allows a rethinking of the relationship between teacher and studentsas knowledge-giver and knowledge-receivers to instead view a learner as anovice participating in a community of practice. However, does learning-by-doing guarantee this relativisation of teacher-student relations? Might theteacher-student relation be reversed through learning-by-doing?
This article investigates such a reversal of power relations between stu-dents and unwitting teachers by focusing on the discourse of immersion inthree study-abroad guidebooks and asking: What is the effect of describingcertain activities as ‘immersion’? What kind of practices does the discourseof immersion encourage or discourage, and to what effect? What kind ofcultural politics and world views does the discourse of immersion support?How does the discourse of immersion relate to the notion of globalisation?Who gets empowered and who gets disempowered through the discourse ofimmersion? What kind of intervention can achieve more equal relationshipsamong individuals?
In other words, by positioning the pedagogy of ‘learning-by-doing’ in awider arena of power relations and the discourse of globalisation, this articledemonstrates that, while the pedagogy of learning-by-doing suggests the cre-ation of more democratic relations between teachers and students, the dis-course of immersion (learning-by-doing) in study-abroad guidebooks points
228 N.M. Doerr
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
to the opposite. This article then suggests a way to challenge the power rela-tions (re)produced by uncritical applications of ‘learning-by-doing.’
Analyzing the discourse of immersion in study-abroad guidebooks
Study abroad guidebooks share several common themes (such as adventure,see Doerr 2012b). This article provides a discourse analysis of what theymention most: the benefit of immersion. It focuses on the discourse ofimmersion, especially in light of the notions of difference, homogeneity,globalisation, (de)territorialisation and power relations between teachers andstudents.
The study-abroad guidebooks I analyse here are designed to recruitpotential study-abroad students, prepare prospective study-abroad studentsand support students in the midst of study-abroad programmes. I chose thesethree books because they address a similar audience and discuss the issue ofimmersion clearly from various angles. My aim is not to critique or discreditthese particular authors but to critically analyse the discourse of immersionthat circulates in the field.
The first book, Stephen Loflin’s Adventures abroad: The student’s guideto studying overseas, focuses on the attitudes and kinds of experiences stu-dents should seek before, during and after the study-abroad trip. It wasdeveloped by interviewing students who had studied abroad and its overalltone aims to excite prospective students about study abroad. Quotes fromformer study-abroad students serve as testimonials of how wonderful thestudy-abroad experience can be. As in online reviews of hotels and the like,the use of quotes lends an impression of authentic voices, thus legitimisingthe suggestions the book offers. The book is divided into 11 chapters: (1)Making the decision to study abroad, (2) Preparing logistically and logicallyto leave, (3) Gap year opportunities, (4) Adjusting to your new home, (5)Studying, (6) Exploring your new surroundings, (7) Gaining experience, (8)Safety, (9) Being a US ambassador (10) Returning home and (11) Morepostcards and letters from abroad.
The author of the second book, Study abroad: Travel vacation in college,is Stephanie M. Oxford, who studied abroad when she returned to collegeafter having a career. It consists of eight chapters: (1) Travel goals, (2)Research international programs, (3) How to find the money to travel, (4)Prepare your trip, (5) Pack your bags, (6) Fly away, (7) Your time there and(8) Returning home. It is full of detailed technical advice on topics rangingfrom how to find study-abroad programme providers to what items to packin a carry-on bag. It devotes less attention to emotional preparedness thanLoflin’s book does.
The third book, Wendy Williamson’s Study abroad 101, consists of 101questions followed by words of wisdom from philosophers and other think-ers, along with answers to the questions. These questions are divided into
Compare 229
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
nine sections: (1) Get a grip on the basics, (2) Narrow down the options, (3)Prepare for your trip, (4) Be healthy and safe, (5) Manage your money andlife, (6) Live in another country, (7) Get along with the locals, (8) Maximizeyour trip and (9) Top secrets and life after study abroad. The strength ofWilliamson’s book lies in the number of technical tips on choosing pro-grammes and countries (section 2) and getting ready to travel (section 3).The section on culture (section 6) is the weakest, as it defines the conceptof culture merely as communication and uses it in a homogenising and nor-malising manner: for example, being American is described as answering‘yes’ to questions such as ‘Do you have lots of different friends?’, ‘Are youfree to use both hands in the same way?’ (both based on arbitrary assump-tions), ‘Do you avoid same-sex touch?’ (based on heterosexual, or evenhomophobic, norms) and ‘Do you believe that everybody has the opportu-nity to succeed in life, regardless of background?’ (rendering as less Ameri-can those who believe white middle-class norms disadvantage the socialadvancement of those who lack them). However, this book includes advicefor those with ‘special circumstances’, such as strong religious rules, beinga member of a minority group or being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgen-dered, topics that are not addressed in the other two books.
Encouraging immersion
All three guidebooks encourage immersing oneself in the host society. Inthis section, I introduce how they emphasise its importance, suggested waysfor students to immerse themselves in the host society and what to avoid soas to better immerse themselves in the host society.
Importance of immersion
Immersion is said to be the best way to learn about the host society and lan-guage spoken there:
You have chosen to be an exchange student. As such, you will be a student,but one of life as well as the classroom. Your main focus should be toimmerse yourself in the new culture, living your life as a native while you arethere. (Loflin 2007, 119)
Make the most of every weekend and the free time you are given. This timeis just as, if not more, important to your experiential learning than the timeyou spend in the classroom. (Loflin 2007, 130)
Learning the language is much quicker and easier when you are with nativespeaking friends. (Oxford 2005, 117)
Homestay/Host family – room and board with a family. A great way to accli-mate to the culture. (Williamson 2004, 195)
230 N.M. Doerr
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
Immersion is also a way to have a good time in the host society:
The most exciting and interesting study-abroad experiences are created whenwe are interacting directly with the native citizens of a foreign country.(Oxford 2005, 114)
Meeting people who are accustomed to the culture that you have entered intoand who are willing to get out and do things with you is your ticket to a goodtime. They can assist you in having great travel adventures without stress.Best of all, they already know all the local hot spots and are usually happy totravel around with you. (Oxford 2005, 117)
This immersion is the quality that separates the study-abroad programmefrom tourist experiences:
A deeper level of immersion in any culture is the difference between being atourist and being a community member. (Loflin 2007, 131)
How to immerse oneself
These books suggest four main ways for students to immerse themselves inthe host culture. The first is through home stay or living as the locals do:
Those students who did participate in a home stay tended to be more vocalabout the rewards of their experience abroad than those who lived in dorms.They believed their immersion in the culture as beneficial. (Loflin 2007, 14)
If you have the good fortune of staying with a host family, then you will inev-itably learn about the culture and hopefully have an opportunity to practicethe language. You will get to eat what the locals eat, sleep like locals sleep,and interact with the locals on a daily basis, from the time you wake up tothe time you pass out in utter exhaustion. You can’t have a more authenticexperience than with a host family. There is absolutely no better way to learna culture and language than to live with a family and experience their day-to-day life. (Williamson 2004, 235)
As much as you can muster, live as the locals do. When I was abroad, I metmany missionaries from American [sic] and Europe that lived way above thestandard of the locals, with modern homes, SUVs, etc. If you can’t live atleast somewhat like the locals, then you’ll have a tough time relating to them,and subsequently, you’ll miss much of their culture. (Williamson 2004, 254)
The second is to make ‘native friends’:
Make a friend. If you can make even just one local friend, your social experi-ence will significantly open up. Any friend you make will have other friendsto whom he or she will introduce you. You may soon find yourself being
Compare 231
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
asked to join a large group of locals. All of these people can help you withyour immersion. (Loflin 2007, 134)
A speaking partner will speak their language with you in exchange for speak-ing English with them. The school usually has a list of students interested ina speaking partner exchange. (Oxford 2005, 115)
One assumption here is that local students would want to learn Englishby becoming the speaking partners of American study-abroad students.This reflects a positioning of English as the ‘global language’ thateveryone in the world would want to learn, which is not a neutral phe-nomenon but a result of strategically deployed foreign policies of GreatBritain and, to a lesser degree, the USA, which Robert Phillipson calls‘linguistic imperialism’ (Phillipson 1992; also see Doerr 2009; Penny-cook 2007). These guidebooks do not mention this or urge readers toconsider it.
The third strategy for immersion is to connect with strangers:
Talk to strangers. Don’t be afraid to communicate with strangers. … Withstudy abroad … interaction with locals is your key to growth and discovery.(Loflin 2007, 134)
The fourth is to float around in the environment itself:
Exploring can be as simple as sipping cappuccino in a new coffee shop ina neighborhood you don’t normally frequent. You might just find thesesimple explorations to be your most memorable moments overseas, ratherthan jam-packed days of seeing an array of historical locales. (Loflin 2007,119)
Be spontaneous … leave yourself time for unplanned events … if you are aplanner, you should plan some time to get lost! (Loflin 2007, 135)
If you hop on a tourist bus where you can stop at 20 different sites in only afew hours, then you miss the authentic and real experience of walking thestreets, looking in shops, dining in a local café, seeing the families communein the park, etc. because you’re too busy racing to conquer as many destina-tions as you can. I like to take at least one day per week to meander (safely)with a map and some money. I let destiny carry me that day. (Williamson2004, 253, emphasis in original)
It’s easy to get caught up in the pressures of tourism, at the expense of experi-encing everyday life. Don’t let it happen to you. … Focus on BEING ratherthan DOING. … When you experience the values in another culture, aboveand beyond just knowing they exist, you authenticate your understanding.You won’t remember all the places you see, but you will hold on to the valuesyou found through people who crossed your path along the way. (Williamson2004, 254, emphasis in original)
232 N.M. Doerr
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
Leaving comfort zones
To achieve this immersion, students are encouraged to stay away from threekinds of comfort zones: ‘True immersion happens when you leave the secu-rity of your family, friends, and all things familiar to see the world fromanother perspective’ (Loflin 2007, xi). The guidebooks elaborated on thesethree comfort zones.
First, there is a zero-sum game in which home and the host societyvie for time, interests and commitment. Here home is a source of comfort,but it also consumes time, drains mental energy and interrupts languagelearning:
Let go of daily interactions with home. … By cutting ties with home for theshort time you are overseas, you will free up more time to make nativefriends, giving yourself the mental energy to redirect your focus and priorities.(Loflin 2007, 134)
Williamson’s advice differs from the other two authors’ in that she does notdiscourage visits by students’ family and friends during the stay, as long asit does not interfere much with the students’ formal study:
It is ideal if parents and friends come to visit you during your vacation timeor after the program has ended. That way you don’t have to worry about youracademic workload and you can have fun traveling. (Williamson 2004, 176)
Avoiding the second kind of comfort zone amounts to keeping a distancefrom fellow American students in the host country:
Resist the strong temptation to stay within your comfort zone. This means notspending all your time with other Americans and not going to every partythat’s thrown. Get off the beaten path, and you will be rewarded with newfoods, friends, and vocabulary. (Loflin 2007, 131)
Connecting with other American students can be great fun, but there are prosand cons … it is comforting to know others who speak our native language.… It can help to ease culture shock and help us adjust. However, it can alsobe detrimental. Spending too much time with other Americans may keep usfrom leaving our comfort zone. Students may end up spending more timespeaking in English than practicing their foreign language skills. Studentswho spend most of their time socializing with other American students maymiss out on terrific foreign cultural events and meeting new internationalfriends. (Oxford 2005, 114)
If fostering friendship with locals is important to you, then you should becareful about how much time you spend with your American friends. Whenyou’re in close contact/proximity with Americans, all the time, you run therisk of becoming a ghetto that dissociates you from the locals. (Williamson2004, 238, emphasis in original)
Compare 233
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
Oxford does not discourage students from spending time with fellow study-abroad students as long as they are not American:
Most foreign exchange students are looking for new friends to go out and dothings with because they too are away from home. (Oxford 2005, 117)
Here, Oxford is looking at the learning in the study-abroad experience notonly as learning local culture but also as learning about people from othercountries. However, this contrast between American and international stu-dents is problematic. American students are viewed as homogeneous: why ismingling with other American students automatically comforting? Americanstudents are diverse, with diverse cultural practices and beliefs that may notnecessarily provide a ‘comfort zone’. Meanwhile, international students areperceived as culturally and linguistically different from American students.Language-wise, however, many international students from Australia, NewZealand, Canada, the UK and South Africa speak English. In short, thedichotomy of American versus international students is reminiscent of theold nation-people-culture-language homology of nation states.
The third kind of comfort zone is the world of computers and portablemedia players, which does not require face-to-face human interaction withlocal people in the host society:
… don’t lean too much on phone calls and emails – you might block yourselfoff from a full cultural immersion. (Loflin 2007, 41)
Don’t waste time doing things you can do at home (Internet, TV, etc.). (Loflin2007, 118)
You are overseas both to learn and to be an ambassador of your own country,and you can’t very well do either if you are in front of your computer or lis-tening to music on your headphones. Getting out into the community is thebest way to make the most of your short time abroad. (Loflin 2007, 131)
Successfully immersed students report that life was totally different overseas,with much less Internet, phone, or TV. By not doing as much of these things,their time was freed up to step out into their new world. (Loflin 2007, 131)
The discourse of immersion and its effects
Although the three guidebooks differ in their aims and outlooks, they allconsider immersion an important and valuable strategy of intercultural learn-ing during the study-abroad experience. In this section, I analyse four effectsof these authors’ privileging a certain way of learning (immersion, ratherthan the classroom) as well as certain ways of doing/being (spending timewith host family and ‘native’ friends or talking to strangers, rather than vis-
234 N.M. Doerr
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
iting tourist attractions, spending time with fellow Americans, using theInternet or watching TV).
Legitimising the study-abroad endeavour
Immersion, as differentiated from studying in the classroom, is aboutexposure to the target culture and assumed absorption as a result. This dif-ferentiation justifies the very need for study abroad: it has to be done in thatcountry. Some researchers argue that students can learn about ‘foreign’cultures by interacting with immigrants or visiting international students(Brustein 2009), or by crossing race, cultural and economic lines withoutleaving the USA (Hovland et al. 2009; also see Plater et al. 2009). Thenotion of immersion devalues such a domestic possibility as an option.
Experiencing immersion is considered ‘being a community member’(Loflin 2007, 131) and thus is differentiated from being a tourist – or a mis-sionary, as the immersed visitor lives ‘like the locals’ (Williamson 2004,254). James Clifford (1997) argues that, in an effort to establish culturalanthropology as a ‘scientific’ discipline as opposed to writings of touristsand missionaries, early anthropologists marked fieldwork as consisting of‘intensive, “deep” interaction’, which was somehow guaranteed by ‘spatialpractice of extended … dwelling in a community’ (59) away from home.The notion of immersion is reminiscent of this special status of fieldwork inanthropology.
This valorisation of immersion creates a hierarchical social divisionbetween students staying with host families and those staying in dormitories– even though it cannot readily be assumed that staying in a dormitory leadsto undesirable results. This is demonstrated in the comments of two studentswho stayed in Spain for one month in summer 2011 during my ethnographicstudy there (see Doerr 2012a). The student who stayed with a host familysaid: ‘Some people, especially people in the dorms, come here to party. But,if they tell the parents that, they won’t pay for it. So, they say they come hereto study and let the parents pay for it, then come and party’. The studentwho stayed in a dormitory said: ‘We [who live in dormitories and with hostfamilies] hang out differently: “they’re homestay people”, like. Nothing bad.People who stayed with host family were submerged in culture and foundtheir own niche in it. Dorm people hang out with Americans and took Span-ish culture as a group’. The latter students had much contact and learningexperience with Spanish people as a group, she reported, suggesting the dan-ger of automatically judging the former students as having ‘learned more’.
Even if it is a way to legitimise study abroad, living as local people do,rather than as a tourist or missionary, may be good advice for study-abroadstudents who wish to get involved in local life. However, the discourse ofimmersion that suggests how to do this is based on problematic assumptionsthat are then further perpetuated through the discourse, as we see below.
Compare 235
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
Construction of home and host societies as different and internallyhomogeneous
The three guidebooks’ arguments for immersion are based on and furtherconstruct clear distinctions between study-abroad students and people in thehost society, meanwhile constructing students’ home and host societies asinternally homogeneous. The emphasis on immersion’s importance in learn-ing constructs and perpetuates the difference between students’ home andhost societies by making daily life in the host society the object of learning.Immersion, the guidebooks maintain, is achieved through interaction withlocal people (the host family, ‘native friends’ and strangers) and exposure tothe atmosphere, for instance by sipping cappuccino at a coffee shop or get-ting lost. Why do such experiences count as learning experiences attainableonly abroad? I argue that the assumption here is that for the study-abroadstudent, host people and the way they live are ‘different’, which makeslearning about them worthwhile. After all, if the host people live as Ameri-cans do, the claim that exposure to their ways is a learning experience forAmerican students loses validity.
Notably, depending on the host society, the content of ‘learning’ has dif-ferent connotations: ‘You may see yourself visiting castles, cathedrals andmuseums in Europe, in addition to meeting cultured people in the metropoli-tan areas. … If viewing the African rainforest elephants and lowland gorillasin remote jungle camps of the Pygmies sounds exciting, that may be youradventure’ (Oxford 2005, 19). Here, in a European destination, it is ‘highculture’ that is to be learned, as on a Grand Tour, whereas in an Africandestination the learning focuses on the exoticised cultural other, oftenaccompanied by voyeurism and ‘a quasi-missionary zeal to engage withpoverty’ (Woolf 2006, 136). However, the three guidebooks rarely differenti-ated their advice depending on the destination, a fact whose effect is itselfworth investigating (Doerr work in progress).
The notion of immersion constructs the host people as homogeneous byuncritically viewing living with a host family as the quintessential immer-sion experience. Living with a host family allows a student to get a sense ofhow one family lives its daily life. But such an experience should not beportrayed as generalizable to ‘living like a local’. How dinner is eaten, howmuch TV is watched and how much socialising with friends there is wouldall differ from family to family. Meanwhile, the student’s presence affectsthe host family’s life in various ways (see Doerr forthcoming).
The advice to keep away from American students for the sake of immer-sion in the local culture also assumes homogeneity – this time of Americanstudents, who are regarded as sharing the same experience and thus havingnothing to learn from one another. But might American students withdifferent ethnic, class or gender backgrounds experience study abroad differ-ently? Discussing these differences could prove fruitful, for example by
236 N.M. Doerr
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
revealing the ways people in the host society treat various Americans differ-ently (Talburt and Stewart 1999; also, see Doerr work in progress). Astudent may have more in common with a native of the host country thanwith another American study-abroad student. The advice not to spend timewith fellow Americans disdains such a possibility and guides students toview the American-host difference as fundamental, rather than one of manyways one can differ from others.
It is important to note here that students do experience difference in hostfamilies and among fellow American students during a study-abroad stay.Some students in the aforementioned ethnographic study said one of thethings they learned about while abroad was the difference among Americanstudents from various states (Doerr work in progress). However, the dis-course in the guidebooks examined here constructs the image of a homoge-neous host society that differs fundamentally from homogeneous Americansas a way to articulate the ideal experience in the context of marketingstudy-abroad programmes.
Globalised students and immobilised locals
The discourse of immersion, I argue, constructs the host society as immo-bile, as opposed to mobile study-abroad students, in two ways. First, sug-gesting that visiting students stay away from electronics but failing toacknowledge that their ‘native friends’ may be spending a lot of time on theInternet and watching TV creates an impression that these things are not anintegral part of the host society and that the host society is less globallyconnected via the Internet. The advice not to do what one can do at homeseems valid, in that it will free up time to interact with locals – but localsthemselves may well spend a lot of time watching TV and communicatingvia FaceBook, email and text messaging. Also, the content of local TVshows and sport broadcasts is often the main topic of conversation withlocal people. The assumption behind advising against Internet and TV use isthat locals do not share in these activities. Given that using the Internet andother media is one way people become viewed as ‘globalised’, portrayingthe host people as not actively using these media renders them parochiallylocalised.
Second, the ways of immersing oneself in local culture, as suggested inthese guidebooks, rely on the connection between geographic space, peopleand culture. Four ways to immerse oneself in local culture are recom-mended: living with a host family, making native friends, talking to strang-ers and hanging out in local space. This advice implies that whoever livesin or occupies the local space is representative of the culture of the area.This indiscriminate view is egalitarian because it does not suggest someknow more than others about the local culture. However, ‘strangers’ on thestreet can be tourists from abroad – or American students, whom these
Compare 237
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
books do not advise their readers to befriend. The authors’ not seeing thispossibility suggests their assumption of the place-people-culture connection:everyone who is physically there represents the culture of the place.
Arjun Appadurai (1988) argues that anthropologists apply the notion of‘native’ to those who belong to places distant from the metropolitan West,but do not consider themselves – people from the metropolitan West –‘native’ to any particular place. In this view the ‘natives’ represent theirselves and their history authentically, whereas Western anthropologists havecomplex history, diversity and the ambiguities of collective conscience. The‘natives’ are physically immobile and ‘incarcerated’ in a place, whereasanthropologists, as the seers – the knowers – are quintessentially mobile.These perceptions are created by, and further perpetuate, the power relationsbetween the ‘natives’ and anthropologists (Appadurai 1988). Therelationship constructed here between the people in the host society andstudy-abroad students is strikingly similar to this relationship between the‘natives’ and anthropologists.
Moreover, just as anthropologists have constructed the image of immo-bile natives by failing to write about interactions they had with cosmopolitan‘natives’, study-abroad students have experienced people in the host societyas mobile. The son of a study-abroad student’s host mother in Spain frommy aforementioned fieldwork, for example, had himself studied abroad inGreat Britain. Yet the guidebook discourse of immersion erases such experi-ence in constructing the image of territorialised host people.
Thus, the global flow of students in study-abroad programmes – a deter-ritorialisation of people – depends on the territorialisation of their destina-tion’s culture, in which the students are to be immersed and thus learn bydoing. The discourse of immersion is instrumental to such territorialisation.This situation differs from indigenisation of things imported from abroad inthe ‘global flow’ of things, or re-embedding of what was uprooted throughglobalisation (Eriksen 2007). It also differs from ‘localized globalism’, inwhich transnational practices and imperatives impact local conditions (San-tos 2002). What this article shows, rather, is a situation where the host soci-ety must be constructed as immobile and rooted to the area in order tovalidate the logic of the benefit of study abroad – students ‘learn by doing’through immersion in the host culture.
Learning-by-doing and teacher-student hierarchy
While many have viewed learning-by-doing as emancipatory pedagogy, asmentioned, here I suggest aspects of learning-by-doing that could problemat-ically construct and perpetuate relations of power by reversing student-teacher relations. First, as I have discussed above, students and people inthe host society are hierarchically positioned in light of globalisingdiscourse, which is one variety of such a reversal.
238 N.M. Doerr
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
Second, emphasis on immersion can lead to voyeurism of life in the hostsociety, which positions the voyeurs (students) above the object of the gaze(people in the host society). This happens in various contexts of interculturallearning. Coco Fusco (1995) argues that cultural performances of ethnicminorities in ‘the West’ trace their origin to the display of people from the‘non-West’ in zoos, museums and circuses in the nineteenth century. Whileits contours have changed, exoticisation of the cultural Other continues toexist in museums and cultural performances that are considered ‘educa-tional’ (Doerr 2008; Maurer 2000).
Third, the valorisation of immersion can also create hierarchy betweenthe home and host societies in terms of their education systems. As I argueelsewhere (Doerr 2012b), the contrast between valuing immersion over in-class learning in study-abroad discourse on the one hand, and the relativelylower status of experiential learning compared to in-class learning in thehome country on the other, suggests a devaluing of the education system ofthe host country: what students learn in unstructured, un-assessed, unreflec-tive exploration is more meaningful than knowledge taught in the classroomin the host society. Educators need to be aware of this danger of learning-by-doing (re)producing relations of power, especially in the context of inter-cultural learning.
Conclusion and departure
This article has argued that the discourse of immersion in study abroad issimultaneously differentiating and homogenising. The value of study abroadrests on emphasising the difference between daily life in home and hostsocieties, because if the two do not differ, then learning-by-doing throughimmersion is not worthwhile. Meanwhile, the discourse of immersion createsa view of homogeneity within the host society as well as within the stu-dents’ home country. In the process of striving to make ‘global citizens’ andconnect the world, this discourse in study abroad perpetuates a view of theworld as a mosaic made up of fundamentally different groups that are inter-nally homogeneous.
This article has also argued that study-abroad programmes rely on simul-taneously deterritorialising students (because going abroad is considered anecessary condition) and territorialising the ‘cultural other’ (because immer-sion in that culture is premised on its geographic rootedness) through the dis-course of immersion, disempowering the latter in the context of valorisationof globalisation. This suggests that the notion of ‘learning-by-doing’ oftenassociated with empowering students can construct the unwitting ‘teachers’ –the hosts who ‘practice the culture’ – as immobile and powerless.
What then could be an alternative to the discourse of immersion in thestudy-abroad experience? In critiquing the portrayal of ‘natives’ versusanthropologists in cultural anthropology, James Clifford (1988) views the
Compare 239
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
ethnographic encounter ‘not as the experience and interpretation of acircumscribed “other” reality, but rather as a constructive negotiation involv-ing at least two … conscious, political significant subjects’ (41). Clifford(1997) argues that the important question is ‘What, from our similarities anddifferences, can we bend together, hook up, articulate?’ (87).
This question, when asked of the study-abroad project, points to a kindof activity that goes beyond ‘learning about another culture’, allowing stu-dents to connect with people they meet – not as representatives of anotherculture to learn about, but as fellow human beings with various subject posi-tions who may or may not share various ideas, sensibilities and materials.Instead of creating the binary of self versus other, or global versus local,implied in the notion of global citizens, educators can encourage students torelate with individuals through whom they can better understand thediversely intersecting social, economic, cultural and political situations thataffect them. Experiencing such human connections would indeed be learn-ing-by-doing, but not the kind implied by the discourse of immersion.
AcknowledgmentsThe earlier version of this article was presented as part of a session Doerrorganized on learning by doing at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanAnthropological Association in November 2010, in New Orleans, USA. I wouldlike to give thanks to other members of the session – Jennifer Creamer, DawnGrimes-MacLellan, Jacquetta Hill, Yuri Kumagai and Greg Poole—for constructivecomments on the earlier version of this article. I would also like to thankanonymous reviewers of Compare who provided helpful comments on themanuscript and Jaime Taber for copyediting the final manuscript. The text’sdeficiencies are wholly my responsibility.
Bringle, R.G., and J.A. Hatcher. 2011. International service learning. In Interna-tional service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research, ed. R.G. Bringle,J.A. Hatcher, and S.G. Jones, 3–28. Sterling, UK: Stylus.
Brustein, W. 2009. It takes an entire institution: A blueprint for the global univer-sity. In The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher educa-tion and the quest for global citizenship, ed. R. Lewin, 249–65. New York:Routledge.
Burbules, N., and C.A. Torres, eds. 2000. Globalization and education. New York:Routledge.
Burbules, N.C., and C.A. Torres. 2000. Globalization and education: An introduc-tion. In Globalization and education ed. N. Burbules and C.A. Torres, 1–26.New York: Routledge.
Cameron, D. 2002. Globalization and the teaching of ‘communication skills’. InGlobalization and language teaching, ed. D. Block and D. Cameron, 67–82.London: Routledge.
Carlson, J.S., B.B. Burn, J. Useem, and D. Yachimowicz. 1990. Study abroad: Theexperience of American undergraduates. New York: Greenwood Press.
Chen, L. 2002. Writing to host nationals as cross-cultural collaborative learning instudy abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 8. Fron-tiers. https://www.fronteirsjournal.com/issues/vol1/vol1-01_Twombly.htm
Clifford, James. 1988. The predicament of culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.
Clifford, J. 1997. Routes: Travel and translation in the late-twentieth century. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Davies, I., and G. Pike. 2009. Global citizenship education: Challenges and possi-bilities. In The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher edu-cation and the quest for global citizenship, ed. R. Lewin, 49–60. New York:Routledge.
Deardorff, D. 2009. Understanding the challenges of assessing global citizenship. InThe handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education andthe quest for global citizenship, ed. R. Lewin, 346–64. New York: Routledge.
Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.Doerr, N. 2008. Global structures of common difference, cultural objectification,
and their subversions: Cultural politics in an Aotearoa/New Zealand school.Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 15, no. 4: 413–36.
Doerr, N. 2009. Investigating ‘native speaker effects’: Toward a new model of ana-lyzing ‘native speaker’ ideologies. In The native speaker concept: Ethnographicinvestigations of ‘native speaker effects’, ed. Neriko Doerr, 15–46. Berlin: Mou-ton de Gruyter.
Doerr, N. 2012a. Hiding and construction of ‘true self’: Regime of truth and poli-tics of hiding in study abroad. Paper presented at the American EthnologicalSociety, April 19–21, in New York, USA.
Doerr, N. in press. Study abroad as ‘adventure’: Construction of imaginings ofsocial space and subjectivities. Critical Discourse Studies.
Doerr, N. forthcoming. Damp rooms and saying ‘please’: Mimesis and alterity inhost family space in study-abroad experience. Anthropological Forum.
Eriksen, T.H. 2007. Globalization. Oxford: Berg.Foucault, M. 1972. Archaeology of knowledge. London: Harper Colophon.Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Friedman, J. 2003. Globalizing languages: Ideologies and realities of the contempo-
rary global system. American Anthropologist 105, no. 4: 744–52.
Fusco, C. 1995. English is broken here: Notes on the cultural fusion in the Ameri-cas. New York City: The New Press.
Gillespie, S.H., J.A. Becker, B. Billings, S. Bogdanov, C. Davis, F. Haniff, A.Kajee, T. Keenan, N. Koposov, T. Kupe, and V. Monakhov. 2009. Creating deeppartnerships with institutions abroad. In The handbook of practice and researchin study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship, ed. R.Lewin, 506–26. New York: Routledge.
Hannerz, U. 1996. Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. London:Routledge.
Harvey, D. 1990. The condition of postmodernity. Cambridge: Blackwell.Hovland, K., C.M. Musil, E. Skilton-Sylvester, and A. Jamison. 2009. It takes a
curriculum: Bringing global mindedness home. In The handbook of practice andresearch in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship,ed. R. Lewin, 466–84. New York: Routledge.
Jackson, J. 2006. Ethnographic pedagogy and evaluation in short-term study abroad.In Living and studying abroad: Research and practice, ed. M. Byram and A.Feng, 134–56. Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters.
Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Laubscher, M.R. 1994. Encounters with difference. Student perceptions of the role ofout-of-class experiences in education abroad. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participa-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, R., and G. Van Kirk. 2009. It’s not about you: The UConn Social Entrepre-neur Corps Global Commonwealth Study Abroad model. In The handbook ofpractice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for glo-bal citizenship, ed. R. Lewin, 543–64. New York: Routledge.
Loflin, S.E. 2007. Adventures abroad: The student’s guide to studying overseas.New York: Kaplan.
Mansilla, V.B., and H. Gardner. 2007. From teaching globalization to nurturingglobal consciousness. In Learning in the global era, ed. M.M. Suarez-Orozco,47–66. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Maurer, E.M. 2000. Presenting the American Indian: From Europe to America. InThe changing presentation of the American Indian: Museums and native cul-tures, ed. R. West, 15–28. Washington DC: University of Washington Press.
Ogden, A.C. 2006. Ethnographic inquiry: Reframing the learning core of educationabroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 8: 87–112.
Oxford, S.M. 2005. Study abroad: Travel vacation in college. Friant, CA: Where Inthe World.
Pennycook, A. 2007. The myth of English as an international language. In Disin-venting and reconstituting languages, ed. S. Makoni and A. Pennycook, 90–115.Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Plater, W.M., S.G. Jones, R.G. Bringle, and P.H. Clayton. 2009. Educating globally
competent citizens through international service learning. In The handbook ofpractice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for glo-bal citizenship, ed. R. Lewin, 485–505. New York: Routledge.
Porfilio, B.J., and H. Hickman, eds. 2011. Critical service-learning as revolutionarypedagogy. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
242 N.M. Doerr
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Hog
esch
ool V
an A
mst
erda
m]
at 0
6:45
24
Febr
uary
201
5
Rizvi, F. 2000. International education and the production of global imagination. InGlobalization and education ed. N. Burbules and C.A. Torres, 205–26. NewYork: Routledge.
Roberts, C. 1994. Cultural studies and student exchange: Living the ethnographiclife. In Culture and language learning in higher education, ed. M. Byram, 11–7. Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters.
Roberts, C., M. Byram, A. Barro, S. Jordan, and B. Street. 2001. Language learn-ers as ethnographers. Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters.
Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage.Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2002. Toward a new legal common sense: Law, glob-
alization, and emancipation. London: Butterworths LexisNexis.Skelly, J.M. 2009. Fostering engagement: The role of international education in the
development of global civil society. In The handbook of practice and researchin study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship, ed. R.Lewin, 21–32. New York: Routledge.
Streitwieser, B.T. 2009. Undergraduate research during study abroad: Scope, mean-ing and potential. In The handbook of practice and research in study abroad:Higher education and the quest for global citizenship, ed. R. Lewin, 399–419.New York: Routledge.
Suarez-Orozco, M.M., and D.B. Qin-Hillard. 2004. Globalization: Culture and edu-cation in the new millenium. In Globalizaton: Culture and education in the newmillennium, ed. M.M. Suarez-Orozco and D.B. Qin-Hillard, 1–37. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Talburt, S., and M.A. Stewart. 1999. What’s the subject of study abroad? Race, gen-der and living culture. Modern Language Journal 82, no. 2: 163–75.
Tomlinson, J. 1999. Globalization and culture. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
Tsing, A. 2000. The global situation. Cultural Anthropology 15, no. 3: 327–60.Williamson, W. 2004. Study abroad 101. Charleston, IL: Agapy.Wong, S. 2006. Dialogic approaches to TESOL. New York: Routledge.Woolf, M. 2006. Come and see the poor people: The pursuit of exotica. Frontiers:
The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 13: 135–46.Woolf, M. 2010. Another mishegas: Global citizenship. Frontiers: The Interdisci-
plinary Journal of Study Abroad 19: 47–60.Wurdinger, S.D., and J.A. Carlson. 2010. Teaching for experiential learning: Five
approaches that work. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Zemach-Bersin, T. 2009. Selling the world: Study abroad marketing and the privati-
zation of global citizenship. In The handbook of practice and research in studyabroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship, ed. R. Lewin,303–20. New York: Routledge.
