Introduction
As times change, so do the students we are sending abroad. As we work to increase access to study abroad for underserved students, we need to consider that how we reach out to them may also need to change.
As emphasized in a Diversity Abroad article from 2016, the significance of facilitating effective communication between students and their families, as well as their support networks, regarding study abroad remains prominent. In reading this article, an important question to note is do we also need to create and disseminate resources specifically for supporters of underserved students who want to study abroad? Recent research has shown how influential parents and support networks can be in students' decisions to study abroad. In fact, 83% of students surveyed have stated that their parents/supporters heavily influence their decisions when it comes to going abroad (Banov et al., 2017). The 2022 Diversity Abroad Global Education Experience Student Survey found that 84.3% of students reported their family as a source of support, Students whose parents/caregivers have higher levels of education are statistically shown to study abroad more often, while other families may see studying abroad as more ‘highbrow’ capital, and not worthwhile or attainable (Lingo, 2019). The fears and hesitation of families and support networks towards studying abroad are some considerations to be addressed, given how influential they can be in the decision-making process of their children. As practitioners, we may become aggravated when parents become a part of the process. We dismiss it and try to put the onus where we believe it belongs - on the students. But as much as we, as practitioners, want the decision to study abroad to be solely in the hands of the students, we may be doing a disservice to underserved student groups by ignoring the influence of family and supporters and not addressing their concerns about studying abroad.
Exploring Parent Communication
In the winter/spring of 2023, the Diversity Abroad DEI Professionals Community of Practice group decided to gather information for this article and survey the field to see how the idea of parent communication is addressed and perceived by practitioners. A number of questions were posed, including asking about more inclusive terminology that might be used. Considering the fact that parent/guardian can be seen as non-inclusive for many students who have different family structures at home, we wanted to make sure to provide our audience with some good suggestions established for practitioners when dealing with students who may have different or non-traditional support structures. Respondents were asked about how (if at all) study abroad offices might be connecting with families and supporters of underserved students, and how they came to the decision to connect or not connect with them. The survey explored what is working and what isn’t when it comes to connecting with families/supporters of underserved students. The results of this survey, as well as how we might move forward given this information, are discussed herein.
The survey received 12 total responses from various professionals, 11 of which were from universities, while one was undeclared, however, clearly from the higher education field. Of the 11 university respondents, five were private institutions, six did not specify whether private or public, two institutions were Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI), and four were Predominantly White Institutions (PWI).
Inclusive Language:
The first question asked surrounded the use of inclusive language. Respondents provided recommendations for employing more inclusive language when addressing students who are in their home environment. This acknowledges the diversity of family structures and recognizes that the term “parents” might not be inclusive for all students.
Additional suggestions were made to use language such as supporters, support network, family supporter, parent/guardian/other, family representative, other relative, friend, legal supporter, and emergency contact. The authors also recommend including “partner” or “spouse” to include students who have a family of creation and avoid the assumption that a student’s only family is the family of origin.
Student Support Structures and Influencers:
The survey went on to inquire about how, if at all, offices are reaching out to student support structures. Of the 12 respondents, five stated that they are currently connecting with student supporters. Reasons for this included understanding the influence that supporters can have on underserved students' decisions to study abroad, and knowing they are an important part of the decision-making process. The resources and information shared included information about how studying abroad works to allow for a greater understanding of the process. There was a general recognition that supporters are a big piece of a ‘puzzle’ for students as they navigate this arena.
In order to address this, offices were hosting information sessions, pre-departure sessions specifically for supporters, and participating in family weekend events. Flyers, videos, and panel sessions for supporters were also being used - some being offered in both English and Spanish. Partnering with other campus offices was also highlighted as a way to reach supporters. Websites were also used extensively as a way to communicate information with supporters. Everyone who responded stated they offer both in-person and virtual resources for supporters.
Challenges:
When asked about what is or isn’t working, respondents stated that it is difficult to reach everyone and it is hard to tell if the outreach is working or having any kind of positive impact on the student’s decision-making process. Some stated that they have gotten positive feedback on the resources they have available for supporters. It also seems to help to put faces with the staff that work in the international office, which in turn puts minds at ease and makes the office more familiar for supporters of underserved students.
Seven out of the 12 respondents stated they are not currently connecting with student supporters. Reasons for this varied, many citing FERPA violation concerns. This Community of Practice group feels it is important to address this concern, as our survey was not asking about sharing of educational records, such as specific details about a student's study abroad plans, which is what FERPA laws would disallow. Instead, our committee was exploring the sharing of general information about study abroad – how it works and why it is beneficial – so that supporters can become better informed about studying abroad and help support their students' pursuit of such an activity. We feel that this kind of outreach and information does not violate FERPA law.
A number of respondents mentioned that their offices are presently not receiving communication from supporters, leading them to believe that there is no necessity for conducting any form of outreach. On the other hand, some elaborated on their perspective that students should assume responsibility for both the information and the experience, thereby taking the initiative to share such details with their supporters. Moreover, some respondents revealed that this type of outreach would be channeled through a centralized parent/family office rather than the study abroad office.
Case Studies:
Two follow-up interviews were held from respondents working in private PWI’s who reported having some contact with students’ support networks, however not intentionally. The contact occurred when the partners sought out connection and advice. These interviews offered a deeper look into how and why institutions are and are not connecting with supporters of underserved students.
One shared a specific case that proved that having direct contact with a student’s support network provided a clear benefit to the study abroad process and resulted in the student successfully going abroad. In this case, the student had a vision impairment and required specific accommodations in order to safely live and study abroad on her own. The student's father took a proactive stance and became deeply engaged right from the beginning of the advising period, driven by the seriousness of the vision impairment. The accommodations available to the student on the home campus, courtesy of the U.S. Disability Act, might not be assured beyond the borders of the United States.The International Office at the student’s home campus worked closely with the father, the student, and the host university to determine whether or not the appropriate accommodations would be possible, such as front-row seating in all classes, as well as the use of a particular font in course material and presentations. Other accommodations were made throughout the program on excursions, activities and housing. This specific case illustrates how the cooperation between the student's and university's ecosystems enabled her to explore life independently beyond the U.S. While pondering over this case, our committee deliberated on how such collaborations might be smoother for institutions, particularly given that it involved a case of (dis)ability. The IIE Open Doors Report shows a steady increase of students with disabilities studying abroad from 2.6% in 2006/07 to 11.2% in 2020/21.
Are institutions prepared to engage with support networks when the identity-based concerns have to do with race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any intersection of identities? Might institutions not only consider discussing these topics with students, but also provide them with the material and tools for how to discuss these topics with their support networks. Additionally, finding better ways to track student profiles for better reporting may also help better understand their needs, increase outreach, and ultimately improve services and support. The better an institution understands their student population, the better equipped they will be to serve them.
Both interviewees affirmed their current lack of proactive outreach to support networks. However, one of the institutions is presently in the process of piloting family outreach, which includes a dedicated newsletter aimed specifically at families. Another suggestion they offered involves incorporating study abroad-related content into the existing family-oriented campus-wide newsletter. Both interviewees emphasized their recognition of the clear advantages in actively involving support networks and expressed a desire to enhance their endeavors and allocate more resources toward this goal. They also highlighted the significance of collaborative efforts across the campus, involving Admissions, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, the Women’s Center, and the Intercultural Center, to effectively engage with the support networks of the students who would benefit the most.
Conclusion:
This Community of Practice group underscores the significance of the survey and article in shedding light on the pivotal role families and supporters play in students' decision-making processes, particularly in the context of underserved students seeking study abroad opportunities. Supporters, encompassing parents, family members, and any other support network on which a student relies, wield considerable influence over numerous students. Based on our limited survey results, the current advising structures for study abroad predominantly cater to the "majority" students – those who are white, middle class, and have supporters at home familiar with the benefits of studying abroad, thus not likely to oppose the decision. This topic has also recently been explored in the FORUM on Education Abroad's Podcast series, Global Voices. The episode titled 'Space for Families,' recorded in late 2022, underscores the significance of allocating room for this stakeholder group, contributing to a more inclusive environment in terms of recruiting and promoting study abroad opportunities. The episode highlights the requirements of supporters in terms of alleviating fears and apprehensions related to studying abroad.
Moving ahead, it is imperative for staff within the International Education realm to acknowledge the disparities and challenges that underserved students' support networks present. In a subsequent interview, an education abroad staff member proposed the idea of furnishing information about the practices of other institutions when it comes to communicating with parents/families. According to them, having a benchmark with other universities' approaches would be beneficial. Furthermore, they expressed an interest in learning about novel concepts or guidance from universities and/or providers that excel in their communication with parents.
As professionals, we should consistently question ourselves, our student communities, and their support networks about how we can enhance our support for students (as well as their supporters) who aspire to pursue study abroad but lack the tools and/or resources to make well-informed decisions. How can we help them recognize that study abroad is feasible for any student? Additionally, how should our field adjust its perception of families/parents/support networks of underserved students and their dynamics with their students to help them be successful in study abroad programming?
References:
Banov, H., Kammerer, A., & Salciute, I. (2017). Mapping Generation Z: Attitudes toward international education programs mapping Generation Z. AFS Intercultural Programs.
Institute of International Education. (2022). “Profile of U.S. Study Abroad Students, 2006/07-2020/21.” Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from https://opendoorsdata.org/
Kasravi, J., Garcia, E., and Lopez-McGee, L. (August, 2022). 2022 Global Education Experience Student Survey. Retrieved from diversityabroad.org.
Lingo, M. D. (2019). Stratification in study abroad participation after accounting for student intent. Research in Higher Education, 60(8), 1142-1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-019-09545-z