Centering The Voices Of International Students In Family Studies And Family Therapy Graduate...

CENTERING THE VOICES OF INTERNATIONALSTUDENTS IN FAMILY STUDIES AND FAMILY

THERAPY GRADUATE PROGRAMS

Teresa McDowellLewis & Clark

Shi-Ruei FangNorthern Illinois University

Iva Kosutic and Julie GriggsUniversity of Connecticut

In this article, we report the results of a survey that accessed the perceptions of family stud-ies and family therapy international master’s and doctoral students across the United States.Our goals included giving collective voice to the experience of international students andgathering their suggestions for improving programs. Themes that emerged from responses toopen- and closed-ended questions included feeling (mis)understood and (de)valued; formingpersonal connections and experiencing marginalization; the importance of including interna-tional perspectives in curricula; considering the relevance ⁄ transferability of knowledge; andattending to barriers to learning. Based on the results, we share suggestions for improvingfamily studies and family therapy graduate programs relative to program planning, curricularevision, teaching strategies, and faculty development.

Family studies and family therapy programs in the United States (U.S.) have been chargedwith the responsibility of supporting diverse student bodies and ensuring that all studentsdevelop multicultural competence (c.f., McGoldrick, 1998; Marshall & Wieling, 2000).Although most programs welcome international students and educators agree on the impor-tance of preparing students to work in an increasingly interdependent world, inadequate atten-tion has been paid to international considerations and the experiences of international studentsas part of the multicultural agenda.

Through their active participation in program learning communities, international studentspromote global citizenry and multicultural competence. Not only can these students shareknowledge about family life where they are from, but the experience of traveling betweennations, navigating multiple cultures and languages, and continuously examining the fit of fieldknowledge with families in more than one country promotes a level of international competencethat exceeds that of most U.S. students and faculty. It is up to family studies and family therapyprograms to support international students’ inclusion, maximize their potential, and help themcritically consider how to adapt knowledge from their U.S. educations to their home countries.Listening to the perspectives and experiences of international students can help meet these goals.

Arguments have been made in favor of internationalizing U.S. educational programs infamily science (c.f., Fang, McDowell, & Holland, 2006), social work (c.f., Johnson, 2004), andcounseling psychology (c.f., Leong & Ponterotto, 2003; Marsella & Pedersen, 2004). Someresearch has been completed assessing international students’ personal needs, academic needs,adjustment, acculturation, expectations, satisfaction, and support seeking (c.f., Beykont &

Teresa McDowell, EdD, Marriage, Couple and Family Therapy, Department of Counseling Psychology,

Lewis & Clark, Graduate School of Education and Counseling; Shi-Ruei Fang, PhD, Family and Child studies,

Northern Illinois University; Iva Kosutic, PhD and Julie Griggs, MA, University of Connecticut.

We would like to express our appreciation to the University of Connecticut for providing support for this

project.

Address correspondence to Teresa McDowell, Marriage, Couple and Family Therapy Program, Counseling

Psychology, Lewis and Clark, 0615 S.W. Palantine Hill Road, Portland, OR 97219; E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Marital and Family Therapydoi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00310.x

JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 1

Daiute, 2002; Kao & Gansneder, 1995; Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992; Perrucci & Hu, 1995).The literature has suggested that international students often suffer significant loss and stress;have difficulty with social interactions (Hayes & Lin, 1994); struggle with adjusting to the hostculture and cultural differences; have trouble adjusting to U.S. educational systems (Jacob &Greggo, 2001); experience homesickness, anxiety, and depression (Leong & Chou, 1996); wrestlewith finding cultural relevancy in the curriculum; and grapple with language and translationissues.

Very little research has examined the experiences of international students in family studiesand family therapy graduate programs. An exception is Mittal and Wieling’s (2006) recentstudy of the experiences of international family therapy students relative to their educationalprograms. Their interviews of 13 doctoral students paid particular attention to how these stu-dents interpreted and integrated what they were learning into their work both in the UnitedStates and in their home countries. Participants reported feelings of inferiority, experiencing dis-crimination and marginalization, being minimized by faculty, seeing U.S. faculty and studentsas lacking in international awareness, and viewing faculty as unprepared to assist internationalstudents. They further reported feeling both supported by and disconnected from U.S.colleagues, and feeling cared for and supported when faculty showed interest in their homecountries and unique needs. They identified becoming more confident in their differences,learning to stand up for themselves, and perseverance as important coping strategies.

In this article, we report the results of our study in an attempt to add to the growingcollective voice of international students in general and family therapy and family studies inter-national students in particular. We share their suggestions and our own for improving U.S.family studies and family therapy programs.

Who We Are As ResearchersWe approached this study from different social locations relative to nation of origin,

linguistic fluency, and professional identities. First author is a mono-lingual European Ameri-can family therapy educator and program director. Second author is a bi-lingual family studiesscholar who migrated to the United States from Taiwan. Third author is a multi-lingual familytherapy doctoral student from Serbia ⁄ the former Yugoslavia. Fourth author is a mono-lingualEuropean American family studies doctoral student. These differences are bridged by a sharedcritical research agenda that supports international inclusion and equity. We also share thesocial location of being heterosexual, married women. First author and fourth author are cul-tural ‘‘outsiders’’ to the experience of being an international student or faculty. Second authorand third author are ‘‘insiders’’ who have both been international students. Second author isalso an international faculty. We agree with those who highlight the value of insider–outsiderresearch teams as providing multi-ocular perspectives (Twine, 2000). As a result, we approachthis study as researchers committed to examining our own international awareness, culturalworldviews, and unique perspectives relative to our social locations.

METHODOLOGY

We used a critical multicultural research approach in this study (McDowell & Fang, 2007).Critical multiculturalism is defined as a perspective that values cultural difference while includ-ing a critical analysis of power relations relative to intersecting identities and social locations.With its emphasis on exposing and interrogating power relations, critical multiculturalismenables researchers to design and implement projects that support social equity, amplify mar-ginalized voices, and benefit participants. We considered this approach fitting because our goalwas to explore and amplify the relatively untold experiences of international students. Weunderstand educational settings as political spaces that both challenge and reproduce existingpower dynamics within and across societies (Giroux, 1983) and, therefore, spaces that shouldbe interrogated relative to cultural democracy. We expected our research to contribute acorrective agenda—that bringing the collective thoughts, ideas, and experiences of internationalstudents to the forefront is a way to promote more inclusive and just family studies and familytherapy programs.

2 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

ParticipantsParticipants included international students who were enrolled in, or who had graduated

within 1 year from, a master’s or doctoral program in family studies and ⁄or family therapy inthe U. S. Of the forty respondents, 10 were from India, 18 were from other Asian countries,eight were from European countries, two were from Latin America, and two were from Africancountries. Nine participants had spent <1 year in the United States, nine had been in the Uni-ted States from 12 to 36 months; seven had been in the United States between 37 and60 months; fourteen had been in the United States between 5 and 10 years, and one had beenin the United States for over 10 years. Thirty-four women and six men responded to the survey.Twenty-seven of the participants were in MFT programs, ten were in family studies programs,and three were in both. Sixteen of the participants were pursuing a master’s degree, eighteenwere doctoral students, and six had graduated from an MFT or family studies program withinthe past year. Seven planned on returning to their countries of origin. Eleven planned on work-ing in the United States before returning home; 12 planned on staying in the United Statesafter graduation; three planned on working neither in their home country nor the UnitedStates; five planned on working in both (going between) their home countries and the UnitedStates; and two did not know.

Method For Gathering DataWe developed an online survey instrument to gather perceptions and suggestions of inter-

national students in U.S. family therapy and family studies programs across the United States.Closed-ended survey questions were based on an extensive review of the literature on interna-tional students in higher education (e.g., Beykont & Daiute, 2002; Hayes & Lin, 1994; Jacob &Greggo, 2001; Kao & Gansneder, 1995; Leong & Chou, 1996; Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992;Perrucci & Hu, 1995), in-depth conversations with international students, and our experience aseducators and students in family therapy and family studies programs. In addition to close-ended questions, we included open-ended questions to provide space for additional comments.These questions included asking participants to share additional input about their perspectivesrelative to their fellow students, faculty and supervisors, and academic programs. Twoadditional open-ended questions solicited suggestions for how programs could provide moresupport to international students and could facilitate greater cultural competency in all studentsand faculty at an international level. We chose to use an online survey because it allowed accessto students from many programs across all of the United States. While Mittal and Wieling’s(2006) study was not published at the time we completed our research and, therefore, could notinform our design or survey questions, the results of their study further affirm that what wechose to ask about in our survey was relevant to international students.

Initial surveys were tested by seven international students who offered input on the ques-tions’ relevance and ease of understanding as well as the survey’s length. As a result, severalquestions were dropped or rephrased and several questions were added to the survey instru-ment. After IRB approval, directors and faculty of family studies and family therapy programswere contacted by e-mail and asked to forward a letter requesting participation in the study toall international students currently in their programs as well as those who had graduated withinthe past year. The letter included a link to the internet-based survey. International studentswho wished to participate in the study accessed the survey webpage via the internet linkfeatured in the e-mail. The survey webpage detailed the purpose of the study, explained exten-sive steps taken to ensure participant confidentiality, and secured informed consent through thestatement: ‘‘If you have read and understand the above statements, please click on the‘Continue’ button below to indicate your consent to participate in the study.’’

A reminder was e-mailed to faculty and directors several weeks later, which included asecond request to forward the invitation to participate. We also used snowball sampling as away to identify and invite international students who might agree to participate. We did this bycontacting international students that we knew of directly via the same letter attached to ane-mail asking them to complete the study and to send the survey link on to other internationalstudents that they knew. Finally, we posted flyers to recruit participants at three nationalconferences (i.e., IFTA ⁄AFTA, AAMFT, and NCFR).


Data AnalysisData from numerically weighted, closed-ended questions were analyzed using SPSS by

tabulating means, standard deviations, and variance for all weighted items to provide a gen-eral description of participants’ subjective experience. t-tests were used to compare responsesof students in doctoral and master’s programs; students who had been in the United Statesfor under and over 36 months; and students who did or did not plan on returning to theirhome countries to work. Responses from open-ended questions were read and reread by tworesearchers to identify themes. Themes were then reviewed by all researchers to reach consen-sus. Anonymous quotes were then lifted from responses to provide thick description in thestudy results.

RESULTS

Themes that emerged from international student’s responses to open-ended questionsincluded the following: (a) feeling understood and valued, (b) forming personal connectionsand experiencing marginalization, (c) including international perspectives in curricula, (d) con-sidering the relevance ⁄ transferability of knowledge, and (e) attending to barriers to learning.Responses to weighted closed-ended questions contributed additional information aboutstudents’ experiences and perceptions of their programs. The areas we chose to ask about viaclosed-ended questions fit well within the themes from open-ended responses. We understoodthis as evidence that closed-ended survey questions were on target relative not only to the liter-ature, but to the lived experience of the participants. The results from closed-ended questionsare organized relative to each theme in Table 1. Participants’ suggestions for improving educa-tional programs are listed in Appendix A.

The data in Table 1 suggest considerable diversity in the experience of internationalstudents who completed the survey. For example, while as a group participants reported rarelyor sometimes feeling others saw their country as inferior or less fortunate, a variance of 2.17indicates that some students experienced those in the United States routinely devaluing theircountries of origin, while others rarely experienced this phenomenon. In fact, only four itemsyielded a standard deviation and variance at or below 1.0. These items indicate that interna-tional students may struggle more with discrimination outside of their programs, both with thebroader public and the families they work with, and less with their own colleagues, teachers,and supervisors. They also indicate that international students may find that their courseworkat least sometimes resonates with their life experience and can at least sometimes be applied toworking in their home countries.

Subgroup comparisons via t-tests revealed several significant differences. Doctoral studentsreported experiencing more often (a) their insights as not highly valued or seen as relevant, (b)others seeing their country as inferior or less fortunate, and (c) dealing with discriminationfrom the broader public. Doctoral students also reported less often than master’s students thattheir program curricula included a) descriptions of families from different countries, (b) inter-national journals ⁄authors, (c) information about the field within their home countries, and (d)content that resonated with their life experience. Those in the United States for 36 or fewermonths were more likely to report others as not seeing education in their home countries asequivalent to that in the United States. Finally, those who plan on working in their homecountries reported more difficulty communicating verbally in the United States because of lan-guage.

Many of these trends were reflected and expanded along with others via responses to open-ended questions. Twenty-seven participants responded to the open-ended questions at the endof the survey. The sections that follow reflect our analysis of these statements by theme andinclude verbatim responses.

Feeling Understood and ValuedParticipants stressed the importance of being culturally understood and valued. They

wanted colleagues and faculty to take an interest in their nations of origin and to be supportiveof their unique educational experiences. As one participant noted, ‘‘I mainly felt the need to be


Table

1Them

esfrom

Closed-E

nded

Questions

Them

e⁄Item

1=

Never,2=

Rarely,3=

Sometim

es,4=

Often,

5=

Most

ofthetime

NM

SD

Var

Master’s

Students

Doctoral

Students

nM

nM

FeelingUnderstoodandValued

Othersseewhatyouhaveto

offer

culturallyasanasset

40

3.75

1.19

1.42

19

3.63

18

3.72

Homecountryeducationseen

asequivalentto

United

States.

36

3.14

1.15

1.32

18

2.89

16

3.38

Othersunderestimate

yourabilities

40

2.73

1.20

1.43

19

2.47

18

3.06

Insights

nothighly

valued

orseen

asrelevant

40

2.30

1.18

1.40

19

1.95*

18

2.78*

Othersseeyourcountryasinferior

⁄less

fortunate

39

2.69

1.47

2.17

19

2.11*

18

3.22*

PersonalConnections

⁄FeelingMarginalized

Feelisolatedfrom

themajority

ofthestudentbody

40

2.88

1.27

1.60

19

2.79

18

2.78

Havediffi

cultyrelatingone-on-onewithU.S.students

40

2.48

1.20

1.44

19

2.58

18

2.22

Havediffi

cultyin

groupsofU.S.students

40

3.05

1.34

1.79

19

2.95

18

3.00

Havediffi

cultyrelatingto

U.S.faculty

40

2.25

1.01

1.01

19

2.11

18

2.28

Dealwithdiscrim

inationwithin

yourprogram

40

1.93

1.10

1.20

19

1.63

18

2.22

Dealwithdiscrim

inationfrom

thebroader

public

39

2.69

0.95

0.90

19

2.37*

18

3.00*

Dealwithdiscrim

inationfrom

familiesyouwork

with

29

2.28

1.00

0.99

13

1.92

14

2.64

IncludingInternationalPerspectives

inCurricula

Acculturation

⁄immigrationintegratedinto

coursew

ork

40

3.05

1.06

1.13

19

3.11

18

3.00

Non-W

estern

theories

⁄modelsincluded

incurriculum

40

2.30

1.02

1.04

17

2.71

18

2.17

Descriptionsoffamiliesin

differentnationsincluded

40

3.03

1.10

1.20

19

3.53*

18

2.56*

Eurocentric

theories,models,andpractices

critiqued

38

3.24

1.08

1.16

17

3.41

18

3.28

Internationaljournals

⁄authors

included

incurriculum

39

2.64

1.12

1.24

18

2.94*

18

2.17*


Table

1(Continued)

Them

e⁄Item

1=

Never,2=

Rarely,3=

Sometim

es,4=

Often,

5=

Most

ofthetime

NM

SD

Var

Master’s

Students

Doctoral

Students

nM

nM

Relevance

⁄TransferabilityofKnowledge

Offered

inform

ationaboutfieldin

yourhomecountry

40

1.63

1.01

1.01

19

2.00*

18

1.28*

Coursew

ork

resonateswithyourlife

experience

40

3.48

0.93

0.87

19

3.89*

18

3.22*

Supported

inapplyinglearninghomecountryfamilies

40

3.20

1.36

1.86

19

3.26

18

3.17

Canapply

theories

andtechniques

inhomecountry

40

3.68

0.86

0.74

19

3.84

18

3.56

Barriers

toLearning

Diffi

cultycommunicatingverballydueto

language

40

2.63

1.15

1.32

19

2.63

18

2.44

Diffi

cultywithwritten

communicationbecause

oflanguage

40

2.55

1.22

1.49

19

2.37

18

2.61

Diffi

cultyunderstandingculturalreferences

40

3.18

1.15

1.33

19

3.16

18

3.17

Needmore

timeto

process

inform

ationto

share

ideas

40

3.13

1.29

1.65

19

3.21

18

2.94

Item

1=

Never,2=

Rarely,3=

Sometim

es,4=

Often,

5=

Most

ofthetime

NM

SD

Var

Under

36months

inU.S.

Over

36months

inU.S.

nM

nM

Homecountryeducationseen

asequivalentto

United

States

36

3.14

1.15

1.32

17

2.65*

19

3.58*

Item

1=

Never,2=

Rarely,3=

Sometim

es,4=

Often,

5=

Most

ofthetime

NM

SD

Var

Planto

Work

inHomeCountry

Noplanto

Work

inHomeCountry

nM

nM

Diffi

cultycommunicatingverballydueto

language

40

2.63

1.15

1.32

23

2.96*

15

2.13*

*Statisticallysignificantdifference,p<

.05


understood by my cohort.’’ Another wrote ‘‘I personally always feel valued and appreciated ifthe host students show interest in knowing who I am and the culture I come from.’’ A numberof participants felt others did show genuine interest as reflected in comments such as: ‘‘Every-one seems interested in my life experiences, which makes me feel quite welcomed,’’ and ‘‘Ialways feel comfortable including my culture in my ideas. My culture has always been wel-comed to add information and knowledge in all the classes.’’

Other participants reported their dismay at feeling devalued. In the words of one partici-pant, ‘‘Others see you as inferior.’’ Participants noted that at times, others mistook culturallyinformed relational styles for personality shortcomings: ‘‘My humility was seen as lack of confi-dence. People assumed I was less confident because I wasn’t very loud or assertive (as theyunderstand it).’’ Feeling culturally misunderstood or that others were not truly interested intheir nations of origin was a related issue as reflected in comments such as: ‘‘Sometimes it ishard for teachers and American students to understand our points of view, because they do notunderstand where we are coming from,’’ ‘‘I would have liked to share more of my culturalbackground, my experiences and how I experienced the USA.’’ And ‘‘I feel ignored. I have alot of first hand experiences to contribute.’’

While it was important to be offered opportunities to talk about one’s home country, morethan one participant complained that she ⁄he was repeatedly asked to be the spokesperson foran entire nation of origin. Some participants also felt that U.S. students and faculty madeassumptions about them based on cultural stereotypes or limited knowledge of their homecountries:

When we meet people from other countries we tend to assume that whatever little weknow about their country holds true for their entire country. . ..it is wrong to makethat assumption.

Several participants reported the benefits of being asked about their experiences via thesurvey itself. Examples include: ‘‘It makes me feel heard and understood filling in this question-naire,’’ and ‘‘With this questionnaire I feel like someone cares about our issues and I am veryglad for it.’’

Forming Personal Connections And Feeling MarginalizedSimilar to wanting to feel valued and understood, participants wanted to form personal

connections and to be included in student cohorts. As noted by one student: ‘‘More than justattaining knowledge and a degree, many international students come overseas wanting friend-ships and mentoring relationships.’’ A number of participants revealed struggling to makepersonal connections because of cultural differences:

As the only international student in the program, I often feel disconnected as Ameri-can students are not very aware of my difficulties in relating to them. I have theimpression that they expect me to know the same things as they do, about movies,songs, jokes, peoples, places, history, etc.. . ...it’s hard to understand their culturesometimes. I also find it hard to know them. And,

I have no idea how to approach anyone and befriend anyone. Maybe it’s because ofthe large cultural differences. I never feel able to fit in. I don’t know what to talk tothem about and what not to. Besides things about the program or courses or home-work, I don’t know many topics which I can use as conversation starters.

Many participants reported feeling they were on the margins of their student cohorts. Afeeling of isolation and loneliness ran through many of their narratives:

I don’t feel that I can ever get to know them [U.S. students] or relate to them verywell. As they are getting closer and closer to each other, I get more anxious aboutbeing the outsider. And,


Sometimes I feel disappointed and disoriented since the majority students tend to beimpatient to listen to us internationals. The group experiences are stressful and embar-rassing to me, I must admit.

Participants reported relating well to other international students:

It is much easier to relate with other international students in the program than torelate with American students, probably because of the isolation and loneliness we feelas international students, being away from our families and friends.

They did not wish to be limited to relationships with other international students on cam-pus or in their programs, however, wanting to be included as full participants of studentcohorts: ‘‘I was not interested in becoming a member of a non-American community but ratherwanted to become a member of an American group, i.e. my cohort.’’

Participants clearly appreciated times when faculty and colleagues reached out to them andoffered support: ‘‘I immensely appreciate some of my American colleagues who are supportiveand caring as we go through the challenge of grad school. Their support and encouragementare priceless.’’ They encouraged faculty and students to be intentional in their inclusion andsupport: ‘‘Sometimes international and U.S. students have difficulties relating. The facultyshould address those issues and create ways and opportunities for them to come closer andshare their knowledge and culture.’’

Several participants described difficulty adjusting to the host culture and looking to thosein their programs for support:

International students not only have to deal with the language barrier and the adjust-ment to the new environment and culture, but they also have to adjust to their newacademic demands [as well as a] totally different evaluation system...

A number of participants reported feeling that others showed ‘‘little understanding of why[I] had such a hard time settling in; my longing for lifelong friends and so on.’’ Several partici-pants suggested that others were unaware of their struggles. In the word of one participant:‘‘The faculty was totally blind to my feelings of alienation, depression. . .and lack of support.’’Another felt cared about, but did not feel others could truly understand:

I felt left alone when I started this program. Not that people did not care about me,but they simply had no idea what it is like having to start a completely new life all bymyself in a very different culture.

Numerous participants noted that it would be helpful if host students and faculty made the‘‘first move and initiate interest in foreign students’’ and noted that ‘‘to get along requires somecuriosity from their side too.’’

Interest In And Inclusion Of International PerspectivesThe importance of showing interest and including international students’ perspectives was

clearly articulated in the following participant statement:

The faculties’ willingness and efforts to intentionally draw inputs or perspectives fromthe international students can be enriching to the whole cohort and depart-ment. . .many family studies and MFT programs in the country which claim to beinterested in student diversity..fail to maximize the assets of those diverse students dur-ing the program due to lack of initiation, sensitivity and recognition.

Participants repeatedly reported their experience of faculty and students not showing trueinterest in learning about international perspectives: ‘‘Faculty and supervisors in my programnot only appear to be uninterested in international perspectives, but when the topic does arise,it tends to be the students who end up educating [them].’’ They further noted that faculty and


students ‘‘had not interacted extensively with people from other cultures,’’ arguing that ‘‘thelack of international experiences on the faculty and student side’’ made it hard to relate.

Participants tended to see themselves as well versed or becoming well versed, in U.S. cul-ture, but found that U.S. students, faculty, and supervisors knew little or nothing about theirnations of origin. In fact, participants reported that others rarely asked about or ‘‘showed inter-est in knowing’’ their cultures, writing comments such as: ‘‘There is little interest from or in myperspective as an international student. It seems that my country is too far away for my facultymembers to take interest.’’ In the words of one participant: ‘‘I find that of those who areinterested, the majority are more interested in cultural than international perspectives, and thecultural perspectives that they are interested in are often U.S. centered, not international.’’

Along similar lines, many participants felt a ‘‘lack of interest in what is happening in othercountries’’ and a disinterest ‘‘in people from other countries’’ reflected an socio-centric andsuperior attitude on the part of those in the U.S., indicating that ‘‘the American ethnocentrismis hard to deal with.’’ In the words of one participant,

My impression is that U.S. students are not familiar with other cultures, they aremostly focused on their culture and what is happening in their country, and they areunprepared for being classmates with international students. This fact has made mesometimes uncomfortable and angry, since I felt that they were ignoring or underesti-mating me.

In the words of another: ‘‘They seem to think that their country is the best in the worldand that they are number one on everything.’’ One respondent added that superior attitudes onthe part of international students were also not helpful:

Amongst international students there is often a lot of bashing on the overall Americanculture, which I did not find helpful at all trying to assimilate. Of course there were thingsI did not like about the American culture, but I found it very shortsighted from otherinternational students to always see their culture as superior to the American one.

Relevance ⁄Transferability Of KnowledgeParticipants identified the challenge of learning to tailor what is taught in U.S. programs

to working in their countries of origin as an important one. While participants reported learn-ing how to work with U.S. families, they sought more opportunities to apply what they werelearning within home contexts, including finding out more about ‘‘institutions in [one’s] homecountry.’’ Several participants noted how much they appreciated when faculty and supervisorsactively ‘‘showed interest in the difference between cultures and how [international students]would take the models and theories’’ back to their nations of origin. One participant capturedthe struggle of cross-cultural learning in the following statement:

I think faculty and supervisors are trying hard to understand me and my different per-spectives, but I can’t stop feeling that they are unconsciously training me to be a Whitetherapist.

Barriers To LearningParticipants reported working very hard to meet program demands, as exemplified by

statements such as: ‘‘I often strive and work harder than other students and yet still produceless than the students of the host country,’’ and ‘‘I think it is important that the faculties areaware of the immense challenge that the international students must go through.’’ Languagewas frequently identified as ‘‘one of the biggest challenges to overcome despite how long onestays in the host country.’’ Working with families using one’s second or third language wasreported as difficult because of the need to ‘‘convey complex concepts.’’

Participants suggested that language and cultural identity be ‘‘acknowledged, embracedand accepted.’’ As one participant argued, ‘‘the measure of success of a program should not


solely be focused on the academic achievement, but more importantly on the affirmation ofone’s identity along with the impartation of wisdom and knowledge.’’ Another participantsuggested that programs ‘‘take into account that there is not only a language barrier but thatlanguage and culture are interwoven.’’

DISCUSSION

Our goals for this study included providing an avenue for international students in U.S.family therapy and family studies graduate programs to collectively voice their thoughts andexperiences. In particular, we were concerned about their educational needs getting met. Wewondered how ‘‘outsiders’’ studying in the United States experienced relationships with faculty,supervisors, student cohorts, and the broader culture. We also questioned the relevance and fitof U.S. curricula for international students and our global society. Finally, we believed interna-tional students would be a rich source for suggesting how U.S. programs might become moreinternationally inclusive. By revealing their experiences relative to feeling understood and val-ued; forming personal connections and experiencing marginalization; including internationalperspectives in curricula; considering the relevance ⁄ transferability of knowledge; exploringbarriers to learning; and providing a plethora of ideas for improving programs, participantsoffered rich insights into our inquiries.

As noted in the introduction, Mittal and Wieling’s (2006) research with international doc-toral students in family therapy programs produced a number of similar results. The fact thatour study which included both master’s and doctoral students in family studies and family ther-apy programs echoed many of Mittal and Wieling’s results further authenticates the reportedexperience of international students and suggests transferability to a broader group.

It was interesting that doctoral students reported greater discrimination than did master’sstudents along the lines of experiencing their insights as not highly valued or seen as relevant,others seeing their countries of origin as inferior or less fortunate, and suffering more discrimi-nation from the general public. They also experienced their programs as less inclusive of inter-national journals and authors, descriptions of internationally diverse families, informationabout the field in their home countries, and coursework that resonated with their life experi-ence. The only difference accounted for by time in the United States was the degree to whichparticipants felt others valued the education they received in their home countries. It is difficultto know why master’s programs tended to fair better along these dimensions than did doctoralprograms. Master’s programs may be more intentionally planning curricula to include emphasison diversity, and ⁄or master’s cohorts may promote inclusion. Doctoral students typicallydevelop individualized plans of study with the guidance of a doctoral advisor. They takecourses from a variety of professors, often act as assistants for research projects already under-way, and teach undergraduate courses using established syllabi. It may be that there is a signifi-cant variance among individual educators in institutions offering doctoral degrees relative toemphasizing international perspectives in their courses and ⁄or research. Doctoral students mayalso be more likely to be at the point in their careers where they are critically considering inter-national issues relative to what they are learning where master’s students may be expecting tolearn the basics of family therapy or family studies from a western perspective. These explana-tions fall short of addressing differences, and further study is necessary to carefully exploreboth master’s and doctoral programs. Future research might include in-depth interviews withmaster’s and doctoral students within and across programs relative to their experiences, goals,and expectations for studying in the United States and how these may have changed over time.Faculty interviews, reviews of program materials across institutions (e.g., syllabi from master’sand doctoral required curricula, faculty vitas), and studies of internationally diverse and nondi-verse cohorts might also be useful.

As researchers, we were struck by the collective difference in our experience reviewingmeans of responses to closed-ended statements (Table 1) and reading the narrative responses toopen-ended questions. There seemed to be a disconnect between these sets of data. Both the‘‘quantitative’’ and ‘‘qualitative’’ data in this study are based on a nonpositivist paradigmand should be understood as descriptive. However, we were cognizant of our sense that


international students seemed in less distress when we reviewed means on weighted items thanwhen we read their narrative responses. Means clustered around the middle of a Likert scaledid not particularly alarm us. We wondered about this and found ourselves asking ‘‘is it alrightthat international students rarely experience discrimination in their programs, or that they areonly sometimes offered information about families in their home countries?’’ And ‘‘shouldn’twe be deeply concerned if any international student experiences these things even some of thetime?’’ Futhermore, without a comparison group of U.S. study at home students, we wondered‘‘do all students feel like this at least some of the time or are these experiences truly unique tointernational students?’’

The considerable variance in response to closed-ended questions led us to question whysome international students are struggling more than others. Because our sample was not largeenough to draw comparisons or equally distributed by nation ⁄ continent, we were left speculat-ing about how place of origin might influence international students’ experiences. Cultural fit,phenotype, language ⁄ accent, and country of origin have been identified as salient in the experi-ence of family therapy graduate students in the United States (McDowell et al., 2006). Webelieve these are important considerations for further study. The variance in participantresponses lends support to Mittal and Wieling’s (2006) suggestion that each internationalstudent be considered individually because of significant diversity among members of this groupand that faculty should pay close attention to each international student’s experience.

While responses to closed-ended items signaled distress in at least some international stu-dents, the means were generally mid-scale. There may be a tendency when using a Likert scaleto gravitate toward mid-responses. It may also be that international students under weight theirexperiences for a number of reasons. First, when students come to this country, they may befulfilling a life goal. How likely are they to be critical of this experience? Second, internationalstudents are often dealing with discrimination for the first time in their lives. Do they recognizemarginalization and discrimination, particularly early in their programs when they first arrive?As ‘‘guests’’ in the United States, some may also tend to be very polite about their experiences.

In the end, we are left wondering if a survey is this the best way to gather information andgain insight into the experience of international students. Participants in this study provided animportant window into what some international students may be thinking, feeling, and experi-encing as they struggle to accommodate, fit in, and learn in U.S. contexts. Twenty-seven partic-ipants self-selected to give additional input—mostly about their struggles—while the remaining13 did not. To further explore these experiences, we need quantitative data that allow us tocompare across variables such as time in the United States, languages spoken, nation ⁄ continentof origin, gender, age, accent, phenotype, and particular program characteristics. We also needfurther access to descriptions of personal experiences. In fact, we are reminded through thisstudy and that of Mittal and Wieling (2006) of the importance of voice in critical multiculturalresearch to provide ‘‘near’’ experiences between participants, researchers, and readers ofresearch. We need to go out of our way to use methodologies that create space and trust overtime to more deeply understand international students’ experiences. International dialoguegroups exemplify this approach (McDowell et al., 2006) and could be used as a framework forparticipatory action research.

IMPLICATIONS: STRATEGIES FOR INTERNATIALIZING PROGRAMS

Participants in this study have provided educators, supervisors, student cohorts, andadministrators with important information about becoming more supportive and inclusive ofinternational students and global considerations. Participants offered direct suggestions for howprograms might be more helpful to them (see Appendix A). They also offered input throughboth their closed- and open-ended responses from which we inferred further suggestions. Sug-gestions for improving programs include considering the needs of international students andthe importance of international awareness for all students via program planning, curricula revi-sion, teaching strategies, and faculty development. Input for improving programs resonatedwith that of participants in Mittal and Wieling’s (2006) study, including arguing for moreemphasis on diversity and international concerns in coursework and research.


Program PlanningIt is important that faculty, program directors, and other administrators carefully consider

the implications of inviting and accepting international students into U.S. family studies andfamily therapy programs. The commitment we make to international learners must be equiva-lent to our commitment to study at home students. This includes preparing students to workwith diverse families in multiple contexts, including—if not particularly—one’s home country.This requires faculty and supervisors becoming at least familiar with international students’home contexts. It may also include expanding the borders for clinical practice by supportinginternships in countries where students are likely to practice. It may be necessary to work withuniversity services such as the library to ensure ample literature from outside the United Statesis readily available and the graduate school to secure an understanding of the unique needs ofinternational applicants (e.g., visa regulations, relevant financial issues). A single faculty mem-ber may be asked to advocate for international students within the broader university commu-nity. Faculty major advisors with particular interest or knowledge of students’ home countriesand ⁄or interest in international issues can be assigned as mentors to help international studentsadjust to the demands of starting a new life in a new country. This suggestion was also madeby Mittal and Wieling (2006). Faculty and supervisors should also be aware of the racism andnationalism that international students may face and be prepared to serve as allies.

All international students must be supported within the learning community. Supportiveefforts might include offering a mentoring group and including an international student pro-gram orientation that provides these students with specifics about program demands and theunique struggles they may face. Mittal and Wieling (2006) suggested talking with internationalstudents about expectations and building supportive international student communities. Effortsshould also be made to establish inclusive cohorts. For example, membership in study andlearning task groups might be assigned or negotiated in class rather than allowing self-selectionprocesses to marginalize international students. Activities that promote cross-cultural connec-tion in the cohort such as international dialogue groups might also be helpful in including,sometimes even centering, international students in the program (c.f., McDowell et al., 2006).Finally, faculty and student international learning and work should be encouraged andrewarded.

Curricula RevisionInfusing curricula in ways that raise the international awareness, knowledge, and skills of

all students not only provides more opportunities for international students to apply what theylearn to home contexts, but supports a goal of developing global citizenship (Banks, 2005;Noddings, 2005) for all students and faculty. Many of the traits associated with globalcitizenship are considered helpful if not essential to our work with all families. This includesrecognizing systemic interdependence, committing to social justice beyond group allegiance(Banks, 2005), observing ourselves and others within cultural contexts, entertaining multipleperspectives, understanding power relations systemically and relative to social location, wantingwhat is best for those we may feel at odds with, using our embodied selves to make a differencein the world (McIntosh, 2005), and challenging cultural encapsulation (Leung, 2003).

International concerns can be integrated throughout the curriculum as well as offered viaspecialized courses. All courses should include readings from authors outside the United Statesas well as diverse U.S. authors. Examples of indigenous approaches to family work and solvingfamily and community problems should be included. Analysis of cultural similarities and differ-ences can be encouraged in class discussions and assignments. Non-European American modelsand descriptions of family life need to included along with collectivist perspectives and chal-lenges to western assumptions of ‘‘self,’’ Brief historical sketches of individual countries and therelationships between countries can be offered as well as current affairs and the contemporary,evolving nature of cultures and societies. International professional associations, conferences,journals, and ethical guidelines (IAMFC Update, 2006) can be listed as recourses for studentsto explore. International students can be encouraged to make presentations about families intheir home countries and to use course assignments to apply what they are learning to theirhome contexts.


Along with integrating international content into existing courses, a specialty course mightbe offered that focuses on this area. For example, the first author recently offered a master’slevel family therapy course on global families that included exploring family life and helpingprofessions in various countries; identifying international human rights issues; understandingthe role of NGO’s in civil society and family life; interrogating U.S. privilege, superiority andsocio-centrism; considering the transferability of knowledge across nations; examining issues ofcolonization; learning about families and migration; and so on.

Teaching StrategiesParticipants made a number of suggestions for including teaching strategies that target

international learners. These included offering international students materials before class toallow them to overcome language barriers in class discussions; instructors including oral formsof knowledge dissemination; using captioned video clips; and including international learnersby slowing down dialogue, clearly articulating, and drawing them into class discussions.Instructors may need to work one-on-one with international students to ensure the curriculumand course assignments meet their learning needs, making space for tailoring expectations andlearning strategies. Instructors also need to be vigilant about avoiding cultural references thatleave some learners out and slowing conversations down to explain cultural references whenthey are used by others. It is crucial that educators use their privileged positions to create spacein and out of the classroom for students to take the lead in discussing their thoughts and expe-riences relative to international concerns.

Educators need to include international consideration in class discussions, routinely offerfamilies from around the globe as examples for role plays and application exercises, and assignreflective exercises and ⁄or journaling that encourage all students to explore cultural assump-tions and biases. Study at home students can be encouraged to be more aware of internationalexperience by reading a book about the U.S. culture written for foreigners to get a sense ofhow others perceive the United States (c.f., Wanning, 2005). Students can be offered opportuni-ties to work with families from countries outside the United States to increase their interna-tional exposure.

Teaching strategies that take us out of the classroom to learn through experience are alsoimportant. These include international immersion experiences as well as local immersion inimmigrant communities. Immersion experiences intentionally challenge ethnocentrism and raisecultural awareness leading to more effective practice through recognizing our own biases andassumptions, exploring new perspectives and ways of life, and expanding therapeutic interven-tions via exposure to professional practices in other cultures (Pederson & Leong, 1997). Spon-soring international scholars to teach short courses is another avenue for exposing students andfaculty to internationally diverse ideas and teaching methods.

Faculty DevelopmentMost U.S. faculties have limited international awareness and may be relatively unaware of

their own Euro- and socio-centric perspectives. We believe one of the most important stepsfaculties can take in supporting international students and international awareness for all is toraise their own international competence. This requires myriad efforts on the part of faculty.For example, faculty can engage in international travel to experience immersion in other cul-tures and develop opportunities to collaborate with those doing family work in other countries.They should also take time for in-depth conversations in which they listen carefully to interna-tional students’ experiences (Mittal & Wieling, 2006) and for reading literature on international-izing higher education (c.f., Banks, 2005; Noddings, 2005). Faculty need to understand theprocesses of colonization through intellectual imperialism and to interrogate power relative tonational identity in local educational contexts. The study we are reporting is an example ofattempting to increase international awareness, knowledge, and skill through collaborating withresearchers from diverse nations of origin to attempt to better understand the experiences ofinternational students.

As faculties become increasingly internationally competent, they are in better positions tosupport international students in increasingly sophisticated ways. Participant suggestions for


faculty supporting students included checking in often with international learners and carefullylistening to their concerns. This in turn is another way faculties can develop their own aware-ness, sensitivity, and openness to diversity (Mittal & Wieling, 2006).

CONCLUSION

Multicultural competence has been defined as awareness of our own cultures and culturalbiases, knowledge and willingness to learn from those who are culturally different, and the abil-ity to engage in culturally appropriate skills when working with diverse individuals, families,and communities (Sue, Arrendondo, & McDavis, 1992). The ability to work cross-culturallyrequires a personal stance of humility—the willingness to take personal risks, not know, andlearn from our mistakes. It also includes acknowledging the realities of inequality—how whowe are, where we are from, and our social positions influence how much we are valued, ourrelative influence, and our access to resources. All of this is relevant as we expand what wethink of in the United States as multicultural competence to our international relationshipsboth at home and abroad.

Expanding the multicultural agenda in family studies and family therapy to include aninternational focus need not, and in fact must not, detract from promoting cultural democracyin the United States. Rather, adding a global lens to our analysis of individuals, families, com-munities, and society promotes equity and inclusion by bringing our understanding of familylife full circle. We cannot reach the goal of cultural democracy and true understanding of indi-viduals and families without appreciating how global relations shape our daily interactions inall national and local contexts, including our educational programs.

Participants in this study expressed wanting what any of us might expect in an educationalsetting—a respectful and valuing environment free of discrimination, faculty and fellow stu-dents who are interested in our lives and experiences, learning materials and assignments thatare relevant to our work contexts, and equal opportunities to understand what is being pre-sented and enter into classroom discussions. To provide these ‘‘basic needs’’ to internationallearners and to promote international awareness for all, educators must find effective ways tochallenge and disrupt the socio-centrism that is reflected throughout our educational contexts.As social institutions, educational systems both reflect and reproduce existing societal struc-tures, cultural attitudes, and power dynamics (Giroux, 1983) including those relevant to inter-national relations. Offering advanced professional education to international students withoutadequate critique unwittingly encourages a form of intellectual imperialism. International stu-dents who ‘‘do well’’ in U.S. schools, in part by accepting without challenge what is beingtaught, may be at grave risk of returning home to contribute to Western colonization of theircountries through intimate work with families. Finally, to encourage international collaborationtoward bettering the lives of all families and to mentor global citizenship for students, we mustthink and act as global citizens beyond educational contexts by challenging U.S. socio-centricpolicies and political practices that create international havoc and maintain unjust global rela-tions.

REFERENCES

Banks, J. (Ed.) (2005). Diversity and citizenship in education: Global perspectives. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.

Beykont, Z., & Daiute, C. (2002). Inclusiveness in higher education courses: International student perspectives.

Equity and Excellence in Education, 35, 35–42.

Fang, S., McDowell, T., & Holland, C. (2006). Internationalizing family science programs: A spherical expansion

of inclusive perspectives. In R. Hamon (Ed.), International family studies: Developing curricula and teaching

tools (pp. 1–20). New York: Haworth Press.

Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis.

Harvard Educational Review, 53, 257–293.

Hayes, R., & Lin, H. (1994). Coming to America: Developing social support systems for international students.

Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 22(1), 7–16.

IAMFC Update (2006). Ethical code for the International Association of Marriage and Family Counseling. The

Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Family, 14(1), 92–98.


Jacob, E., & Greggo, W. (2001). Using counselor training and collaborative programming strategies in working

with international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 29(1), 73–88.

Johnson, A. (2004). Increasing internationalization in social work programs. International Social Work, 47(1),

7–23.

Kao, C., & Gansneder, B. (1995). An assessment of class participation by international graduate students. Journal

of College Student Development, 36(2), 132–140.

Leong, F., & Chou, E. (1996). Counseling international students. In P. Perdersen, J. Draguns, W. Lonner & J.

Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (4th ed., pp. 210–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leong, F., & Ponterotto, J. (2003). A proposal for internationalizing counseling psychology in the United States:

Rationale, recommendations, and challenges. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(4), 381–395.

Leung, A. (2003). A journey worth traveling: Globalization of counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist,

31(4), 412–419.

Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. (1992). International graduate students, stress, and social support. Journal of

College Student Development, 33(1), 71–78.

Marsella, A., & Pedersen, P. (2004). Internationalizing the counseling psychology curriculum: Toward new values,

competencies, and directions. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 17(4), 413–423.

Marshall, J., & Wieling, E. (2000). Promoting MFT diversity through ‘‘cultural plunges’’. Family Therapy, 27(2),

89–99.

McDowell, T., & Fang, S. (2007). Feminist informed critical multiculturalism: Considerations for family research.

Journal of Family Issues, 28(4), 549–566.

McDowell, T., Fang, S., Griggs, J., Speirs, K., Perumbilly, S., & Kublay, A. (2006). International dialogue: Our

experience in a family therapy program. Journal of Systemic Therapy, 25(1), 1–15.

McGoldrick, M. (Ed.). (1998). Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice.

New York: Guilford.

McIntosh, P. (2005). Gender perspectives on educating for global citizenship. In N. Noddings (ed.). Educating

citizens for global awareness (pp. 22–39). New York: Teachers College Press.

Mittal, M., & Wieling, E. (2006). Training experiences of international doctoral students in marriage and family

therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(3), 369–383.

Noddings, N. (Ed.) (2005). Educating citizens for global awareness. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pederson, P., & Leong, F. (1997). Counseling in an international context. Counseling Psychologist, 25(1), 117–122.

Perrucci, R., & Hu, H. (1995). Satisfaction with social and educational experiences among international graduate

students. Research in Higher Education, 36(4), 491–508.

Sue, D., Arrendondo, P., & McDavis, R. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to

the profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(4), 477–486.

Twine, F. (2000). Racial ideologies and racial methodologies. In F. Twine & J. Warren (Eds.), Racing research

and researching race (pp. 1–34). New York: New York University Press.

Wanning, E. (2005). Culture shock! USA: A survival guide to customs and etiquette. Portland, OR: Graphic Arts

Center Publishing Co.

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANTS’ SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING PROGRAMS

Participants offered concrete suggestions for how programs might be more helpful to them.These included additions to the curriculum, changes in teaching strategies, and attending morecarefully to the needs of international students. Most of the statements below are direct quotesfrom participants.

Program Planning• Carefully consider the commitment programs make to international students when

they are accepted into academic programs.• Include internships in students’ home countries.• Increase access to international journals and organizations.• Offer a mentoring group for international students led by an open-minded faculty.• Have an international student orientation at the program and ⁄or department level.• Offer information at the beginning of the program on the curriculum, faculty demand

and difficulties international students are going to face.• Reward student activities abroad.


Curricular Revision• Include more articles from international authors.• Include more emphasis on cultural similarities and differences.• Add non-Western ⁄non-American viewpoints in courses.• Include international issues in the curriculum.• Offer a graduate course on global families.• Encourage projects and papers that focus on home country contexts.• Include more information on what is happening in the field internationally.• Ask students to read a book about American culture written for foreigners to offer

insight on how a foreigner may perceive the American culture.

Teaching Strategies• Offer international students materials beforehand to help overcome language barriers.• Be willing to explore other sources of data such as oral histories and ethnographies.• Encourage international students to make presentations about families in their

countries.• Use DVDs or videotapes with captions.• Encourage and guide inquiry into practices and local contexts in home countries.• Address cultural issues arising in class rather than only focusing on the theoretical

aspects of cultural influences.• Be cautious when using references and examples from the U.S. culture.• Adjust the speed and volume when sharing information.• Include international students in class discussions—pull them into the conversation.• Work one-on-one with students to make the curriculum more salient to them.• Invite foreign visiting speakers to the university.• International clients should be paired with U.S. students so they can learn.• Encourage majority student to have cross-cultural experiences.• Help international students become familiar with colloquial conversation.

General Faculty Development and Support for Students• Three things. . .Embrace. . .Support. . .Challenge. . .• Show that you care not only for international students’ academic success but holisti-

cally.• Faculty should inform themselves about the country and the culture of each student.• Learn about legal (e.g., visa) and financial issues relevant to international students.• Assign a faculty member who is sensitive to international student issues to act as an

advocate with the broader faculty, department, and university.• Assign a faculty mentor to help each international student with problems adjusting to

a new life.• Just lend an ear to listen. It is not so much about what things are like at home com-

pared to here but is about making oneself heard and being listened to.• Check in often with your international students to see how they are doing. (Also a

suggestion in Mittal & Wieling, 2006)


Centering The Voices Of International Students In Family Studies And Family Therapy Graduate...

Documents

Transcript of Centering The Voices Of International Students In Family Studies And Family Therapy Graduate...